Great Northern and Thameslink May 18 service changes

[4-SUB 4732]

But are we talking a month or so rather than (say) until December's timetable change?

Yes; but Thameslink's sudden change of heart to a phased approach has come in the last few weeks. Southeastern's sudden need to cover is new and they weren't expecting it and will struggle massively. Therefore, it also means that Southeastern's passengers will now suffer as 12 car trains are 8 cars for a few weeks and some trains come from say Gillingham up to London that previously would have started at Dartford so more standees.

The entire new timetable is a shower anyway...

 

[NorthKent1989]

Yes; but Thameslink's sudden change of heart to a phased approach has come in the last few weeks. Southeastern's sudden need to cover is new and they weren't expecting it and will struggle massively. Therefore, it also means that Southeastern's passengers will now suffer as 12 car trains are 8 cars for a few weeks and some trains come from say Gillingham up to London that previously would have started at Dartford so more standees.

The entire new timetable is a shower anyway...

So does this mean that the new CX to Dartford service will extend to Gillingham for the meantime then?

This isn't a good start for this new service is it, it hasn't even begun yet and already there are issues, just wait until North Kent Junction is in full use for this service....

The whole thing has mislead commuters along this route, first Thameslink were going to offer 12 car trains, hence why trains are skipping Woolwich Dockyard, now we find out that this route will.only get 8 cars.

 

[bramling]

So does this mean that the new CX to Dartford service will extend to Gillingham for the meantime then?

This isn't a good start for this new service is it, it hasn't even begun yet and already there are issues, just wait until North Kent Junction is in full use for this service....

The whole thing has mislead commuters along this route, first Thameslink were going to offer 12 car trains, hence why trains are skipping Woolwich Dockyard, now we find out that this route will.only get 8 cars.

The trouble is that these services were originally intended to run to Caterham or Tattenham Corner. Rainham only arose because someone decided these destinations represented too much of a performance risk traversing the Croydon area, so somewhere else had to be found. So much for Thameslink being a self-contained railway from Croydon to the core!

I’m not sure from where the idea of 12-car trains arose though- as as I understand it Caterham and Tattenham Corner was always intended to be 8-cars, and it’s always worth remembering the proportion of 8-car Undesiros relative to the 12-car ones - they have to go somewhere.

So much for a project all finely planned and modelled. Let’s hope the timetable has been better worked through or we really will be looking at a disaster far worse than Operation Princess.

 

[Barn]

I’m not sure from where the idea of 12-car trains arose though

It was cited by Thameslink as the reason they were skipping Woolwich Dockyard in their timetable consultation, even though they must have known that they were planning an 8-car service.

(All a bit academic, though, as Belvedere or Erith are more important than Dockyard and they don't have the platform length issue).

 

[4-SUB 4732]

So does this mean that the new CX to Dartford service will extend to Gillingham for the meantime then?

This isn't a good start for this new service is it, it hasn't even begun yet and already there are issues, just wait until North Kent Junction is in full use for this service....

The whole thing has mislead commuters along this route, first Thameslink were going to offer 12 car trains, hence why trains are skipping Woolwich Dockyard, now we find out that this route will.only get 8 cars.

I'm not entirely sure. It could be that the services are just extensions of the new Charing Cross to Gravesend semi-fast trains; it could be that people have to muddle on with 395s stopping at Higham.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The trouble is that these services were originally intended to run to Caterham or Tattenham Corner. Rainham only arose because someone decided these destinations represented too much of a performance risk traversing the Croydon area, so somewhere else had to be found. So much for Thameslink being a self-contained railway from Croydon to the core!

I’m not sure from where the idea of 12-car trains arose though- as as I understand it Caterham and Tattenham Corner was always intended to be 8-cars, and it’s always worth remembering the proportion of 8-car Undesiros relative to the 12-car ones - they have to go somewhere.

So much for a project all finely planned and modelled. Let’s hope the timetable has been better worked through or we really will be looking at a disaster far worse than Operation Princess.

That's waffle. The reason they got rid of Caterham and Tattenham was that in the event that a Tory mayor were the victor, TfL would have got devolved rail in the Metro and therefore Caterham and Tattenham wouldn't have needed a Thameslink train. The glaring omission was the Gillingham semi-fast service that nobody wanted - and stupidly someone decided to make it a Thameslink train via Greenwich.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

It was cited by Thameslink as the reason they were skipping Woolwich Dockyard in their timetable consultation, even though they must have known that they were planning an 8-car service.

(All a bit academic, though, as Belvedere or Erith are more important than Dockyard and they don't have the platform length issue).

The whole thing is a nonsense. They should have, from the very start, just run a 7-8 minutely service from Cannon Street down via Greenwich calling all stops. Peak only on the Charlton - Blackheath section.

Another load of tosh in the new timetable is that trains will go down the slow line but come up the fast line on the Maidstone route which means you effectively lose two pairs of trains (one pair Charing Cross, one pair Cannon Street) and only get the one. A conflicting move is also added in further at Parks Bridge.

Goes to show they should have just directly replaced the Gillingham via Denmark Hill and Sole Street service as a Thameslink train; and directly replaced the Victoria to Ashford service with a Thameslink service via Herne Hill or the Catford Loop.

 

[JonathanH]

That's waffle. The reason they got rid of Caterham and Tattenham was that in the event that a Tory mayor were the victor, TfL would have got devolved rail in the Metro and therefore Caterham and Tattenham wouldn't have needed a Thameslink train. The glaring omission was the Gillingham semi-fast service that nobody wanted - and stupidly someone decided to make it a Thameslink train via Greenwich.

What? Tattenham and Caterham could never have worked without one of those locations suffering a worse service - there is only capacity on the slow lines from Purley to East Croydon for trains to serve both destinations to the level demanded by their customers if they split / combine at Purley. Fixed formation units don't offer that flexibility.

I'm sure the exclusion of those destinations is operational rather than a conspiracy about the views of a future mayor.

 

[tsr]

What? Tattenham and Caterham could never have worked without one of those locations suffering a worse service - there is only capacity on the slow lines from Purley to East Croydon for trains to serve both destinations to the level demanded by their customers if they split / combine at Purley. Fixed formation units don't offer that flexibility.

I'm sure the exclusion of those destinations is operational rather than a conspiracy about the views of a future mayor.

Caterham was most definitely an idea mooted up until the last year or so. Tattenham was proposed a bit further back, I think, and the idea never seemed to get going.

You raise good points about pathing and the level of demand, and Caterham also has genuine problems with platform lengths (which are a spurious argument almost everywhere else, given SDO). The platforms at Caterham cannot accommodate a 12 coach train if one was diverted instead of an 8 coach unit, so you’d have to terminate short at Purley, shunt or sit in the platform, and start back from there. In turn, if you can only run 8 coaches from Caterham, you’re fixed at that formation, and can’t attach more for the 9/10/12 coach platforms on the mainline routes, which doesn’t help in the peaks - when one tends to serve all the branches, some of which may have a peak-only service!

 

[NorthKent1989]

Caterham & Tattenham Corner were firm choices, it was more than just Windmill Junction that these routes were dropped however, both lines have very short platforms and the class 700's don't have selective door operation.

The Dartford routes (Greenwich, Woolwich, Bexleyheath and Sidcup lines) were dropped because of conflicting moves, though its noting that the Sidcup line was considered to be the best option as a peak service.

I agree that it would've been best to have the Rainham service replace the Victoria to Gillingham service, and leave the Greenwich/Woolwich line as it, all you've done is by avoiding issues at Windmill Junction, you've pure them upon North Kent Junction right near London Bridge, what was the point in ironing out the lines east of London Bridge if your going great new conflicts with this Greenwich Thameslink service.

I think the fact that Crossrail will interchange with the Woolwich line at Abbey Wood has a small thing to do with this last minute service.

As for Erith, Belvedere & Woolwich Dockyard, they're getting a kind of upgrade, currently they get 6tph to Cannon Street via Greenwich, from May these stations will get 4tph to Cannon Street via Greenwich and 2tph to Charing Cross via Lewisham, 2 terminals and two metro lines as an option isn't half bad.

 

[philjo]

Caterham & Tattenham Corner were firm choices, it was more than just Windmill Junction that these routes were dropped however, both lines have very short platforms and the class 700's don't have selective door operation.

The 700s do have selective door operation. On the GN route, Meldreth in both directions and southbound at Shepreth and Foxton have 4 coach platforms but the 8 coach units will call there using SDO. The 12 coach units operating the semi-fast services will call at Baldock which only has 8 coach platforms.

 

[NorthKent1989]

The 700s do have selective door operation. On the GN route, Meldreth in both directions and southbound at Shepreth and Foxton have 4 coach platforms but the 8 coach units will call there using SDO. The 12 coach units operating the semi-fast services will call at Baldock which only has 8 coach platforms.

Well in that case then, there is literally no reason as to why Thameslink cannot stop at Woolwich Dockyard, however as a Medway commuter who relies heavily on the Woolwich line for its vast and varied TfL connections I would prefer to keep the existing semi fast pattern rather than call at more stations.

Hopefully if the Maidstone West-Abbey Wood-London service commences in 2022, they will restore the semi fast pattern.

 

[Barn]

As for Erith, Belvedere & Woolwich Dockyard, they're getting a kind of upgrade, currently they get 6tph to Cannon Street via Greenwich, from May these stations will get 4tph to Cannon Street via Greenwich and 2tph to Charing Cross via Lewisham, 2 terminals and two metro lines as an option isn't half bad.

I could be wrong but isn't the clockface 10 minute service based on Cannon Street + Thameslink?

So by getting Cannon Street + Charing Cross, Erith and Belvedere end up with oddly spaced services?

They also have no guarantee of 6tph in 2022, at least not from the South Eastern franchisee.

Hopefully if the Maidstone West-Abbey Wood-London service commences in 2022, they will restore the semi fast pattern.

I think that'll feature stops at Deptford, Maze Hill, Westcombe Park and Plumstead on top of the usual semi-fast stations.

 

[Ianno87]

The 700s do have selective door operation. On the GN route, Meldreth in both directions and southbound at Shepreth and Foxton have 4 coach platforms but the 8 coach units will call there using SDO. The 12 coach units operating the semi-fast services will call at Baldock which only has 8 coach platforms.

Main issue at Caterhamand Tattenham Corner is the fact that both terminals are restricted to 8-car length, so you can't reverse a 12-car train there.

Oh, and one of the Whyteleafe stations has an adjacent level crossing too, I think?

 

[tsr]

Caterham & Tattenham Corner were firm choices, it was more than just Windmill Junction that these routes were dropped however, both lines have very short platforms and the class 700's don't have selective door operation.

Once again, Tattenham Corner was only a very sketchy project (it was in doubt years ago, when I was a lowly member of staff dispatched to provide promotional info to passengers affected by the TLP blockades!).

Also, I really don’t think any manufacturer would get away with providing an 8 or 12 coach fixed-formation unit to the UK rolling stock market if it didn’t have full SDO. 700s can do SDO not just per-coach but also per-door, or essentially half-coach - which has proved very useful on at least a couple of occasions!

I agree that it would've been best to have the Rainham service replace the Victoria to Gillingham service, and leave the Greenwich/Woolwich line as it, all you've done is by avoiding issues at Windmill Junction, you've pure them upon North Kent Junction right near London Bridge, what was the point in ironing out the lines east of London Bridge if your going great new conflicts with this Greenwich Thameslink service.

Windmill Bridge Junction (note correct name) is only a small part of the problem; in fact, Windmill Bridge itself is intensely busy but quite docile compared to the effects of conflicts at the surrounding junctions at Cottage Bridge, Norwood Fork, Norwood South/North, Selhurst, Gloucester Road etc.

The ripples of these spread far and wide. Once you’ve established enough breathing space, which will be provided in May perhaps for the first time in living memory, you’ve run out of room for sustainably holding that extra service group, which has to go somewhere, as it can’t exactly just stop at London Bridge or the Elephant! I also see room for some experimental stuff, as I understand the Kent side is the one with some redundancy in crossovers (perhaps perverse considering just how busy most of the rest is) which could allow the timetable to be chopped and changed onto a different route, if the current proposal proves unacceptable.

I believe the lack of stops at certain stations in outer South East London / North Kent is partly to do with trying to offer a reasonably decent service to as many people as possible, without getting hammered for deliberately eating into mandatory turnaround times and pathing requirements.

I think the fact that Crossrail will interchange with the Woolwich line at Abbey Wood has a small thing to do with this last minute service.

It will certainly have its uses as an interchange, but don’t forget the main planning has really gone into Farringdon, which will be a far more useful interchange for a lot more routes.

The 700s do have selective door operation. On the GN route, Meldreth in both directions and southbound at Shepreth and Foxton have 4 coach platforms but the 8 coach units will call there using SDO. The 12 coach units operating the semi-fast services will call at Baldock which only has 8 coach platforms.

Quite. And all trains over 5 coaches need SDO to serve the smaller stations to Horsham, plus anything over 8 needs SDO to provide a service both ways to Balcombe. Intermediate stops to East Grinstead and Littlehampton need SDO. Etc...

Main issue at Caterhamand Tattenham Corner is the fact that both terminals are restricted to 8-car length, so you can't reverse a 12-car train there.

That was exactly what I wrote above!

Tattenham Corner could actually possibly have a modest platform extension - where there’s a will, etc. - but good luck on the Caterham branch.

Oh, and one of the Whyteleafe stations has an adjacent level crossing too, I think?

Both. However, TL will be stopping long trains over level crossings here and there (Littlehaven, mainly) so that one is clearly not a deal-breaker.

 

[Bald Rick]

Both. However, TL will be stopping long trains over level crossings here and there (Littlehaven, mainly) so that one is clearly not a deal-breaker.

It is a deal breaker if the practice does not happen a that Level Crossing now.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I could be wrong but isn't the clockface 10 minute service based on Cannon Street + Thameslink?

So by getting Cannon Street + Charing Cross, Erith and Belvedere end up with oddly spaced services?

They also have no guarantee of 6tph in 2022, at least not from the South Eastern franchisee.



I think that'll feature stops at Deptford, Maze Hill, Westcombe Park and Plumstead on top of the usual semi-fast stations.

I doubt very much that any would be Maidstone service via Woolwich would call at Plumstead, Westcombe Park , Maze Hill and Deptford, Greenwich will be called at if its routed that way, other wise it'll most likely operate via Lewisham.

For May 2018 however, I was under the impression that the Charing Cross to.Dartford service would call at Erith and Belvedere, if not then its stupid to have 4tph, when 6tph is needed here at these stations and senseless to have some Dartford and Gravesend terminators as semi fasts while Gillingham, which is further out, has to have basically an all stations service

 

[Barn]

I doubt very much that any would be Maidstone service via Woolwich would call at Plumstead, Westcombe Park , Maze Hill and Deptford, Greenwich will be called at if its routed that way, other wise it'll most likely operate via Lewisham.

All South Eastern services on the North Kent Line call at Plumstead from 2022, and all those via Greenwich call at all stops on the Greenwich line.

The Maidstone service would need to call Dartford, Abbey Wood, Plumstead, Woolwich Arsenal, Woolwich Dockyard (!), Charlton, Westcombe Park, Maze Hill, Greenwich and Deptford. These are franchise requirements and the only way for the Maidstone service to avoid making these stops would be for it to be an additional service on top of the 6tph South Eastern requirements and (presumably) the Thameslink 2tph.

The Woolwich Dockyard stop is awkward, because I'd have thought the trains coming from Kent would need to be 12-car. The franchise spec has Woolwich Dockyard skipped on the rounder services but mandatory on the Dartford / Kent services.

For May 2018 however, I was under the impression that the Charing Cross to.Dartford service would call at Erith and Belvedere, if not then its stupid to have 4tph, when 6tph is needed here at these stations and senseless to have some Dartford and Gravesend terminators as semi fasts while Gillingham, which is further out, has to have basically an all stations service

From May 2018, the Charing Cross service will indeed call at Erith and Belvedere. But the Cannon Street and Thameslinks operate on an even 10 minute frequency. The Charing Cross service is the awkward one, meaning that the gaps at Erith will be 10mins-10mins-13mins-7mins-10mins-13mins-7mins. First world problem, I admit!

From 2022, the service requirement at Erith and Belvedere (and Woolwich Dockyard) is only 4tph. So unless the plan is to mandate stops there in the next Thameslink franchise, they could see a frequency drop.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

What? Tattenham and Caterham could never have worked without one of those locations suffering a worse service - there is only capacity on the slow lines from Purley to East Croydon for trains to serve both destinations to the level demanded by their customers if they split / combine at Purley. Fixed formation units don't offer that flexibility.

I'm sure the exclusion of those destinations is operational rather than a conspiracy about the views of a future mayor.

And yet conspiracy theory you call it but there is enough capacity for 4tph to Caterham (if you include the Tattenham portion) and an additional 2tph to Coulsdon Town. There is also capacity for six Thameslink services per hour where the Gatwick service is additional and not needed off-peak. In short, capacity would have existed below Windmill Bridge for the Cats and Tats separately; if the stopper from London Bridge were to run as portions south of Purley.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Caterham & Tattenham Corner were firm choices, it was more than just Windmill Junction that these routes were dropped however, both lines have very short platforms and the class 700's don't have selective door operation.

The Dartford routes (Greenwich, Woolwich, Bexleyheath and Sidcup lines) were dropped because of conflicting moves, though its noting that the Sidcup line was considered to be the best option as a peak service.

I agree that it would've been best to have the Rainham service replace the Victoria to Gillingham service, and leave the Greenwich/Woolwich line as it, all you've done is by avoiding issues at Windmill Junction, you've pure them upon North Kent Junction right near London Bridge, what was the point in ironing out the lines east of London Bridge if your going great new conflicts with this Greenwich Thameslink service.

I think the fact that Crossrail will interchange with the Woolwich line at Abbey Wood has a small thing to do with this last minute service.

As for Erith, Belvedere & Woolwich Dockyard, they're getting a kind of upgrade, currently they get 6tph to Cannon Street via Greenwich, from May these stations will get 4tph to Cannon Street via Greenwich and 2tph to Charing Cross via Lewisham, 2 terminals and two metro lines as an option isn't half bad.

The Charing Cross service running to Dartford is equally bloody stupid. Goes to show you how bad the DfT are - the ideal solution would have been for the Thameslink service (if they were genuinely, absolutely desperate to run it via Dartford) to go through Lewisham. That way, instead of creating 'mass conflict' at North Kent East, it would have enabled parallel moves with services to/from Greenwich to Cannon Street. At peak times, it could have stopped at New Cross (connections with the East London Line) then gone fast to Charlton to avoid overcrowding on the Lewisham/Blackheath sector. Off-peak, however, it could happily stop at all points.

 

[Ianno87]

The Charing Cross service running to Dartford is equally bloody stupid. Goes to show you how bad the DfT are - the ideal solution would have been for the Thameslink service (if they were genuinely, absolutely desperate to run it via Dartford) to go through Lewisham. That way, instead of creating 'mass conflict' at North Kent East, it would have enabled parallel moves with services to/from Greenwich to Cannon Street. At peak times, it could have stopped at New Cross (connections with the East London Line) then gone fast to Charlton to avoid overcrowding on the Lewisham/Blackheath sector. Off-peak, however, it could happily stop at all points.

IIRC, the layout at North Kent East (quite space constrained) doesn't *quite* allow what you suggest. Of the four movements you'd seek to in parallel (Cannon Street to Greenwich, Greenwich to Cannon Street, Thameslink to New Cross, New Cross to Thameslink), I think only 3 of the 4 can be done simultaneously. There may not have been space for the extra crossovers required for all 4. So some level of interaction between Thameslink and Greenwich is necessary whatever you do.

Crossing NKE conflicts with about 22 SouthEastern services per hour each way to/from Cannon Street in the peak, concentrated at this one junction.

Heading via Lewisham reduces this to about 16 Cannon Street services per hour each way, but then you also bring into play (at least) 6-8 further services per hour on the Bexleyheath Line that join from Charing Cross or Victoria. So you're interacting with about the same number of Southeastern services in either case; possibly slightly more. If anything, the Slow Lines through St. John's are a bit of a dog's breakfast, with a mix of stuff stopping and non-stopping at St. Johns, with the flat junctions at the end of it, with more through Lewisham itself.

 

[Verulamius]

There is a new Web page on railplan2020.com

https://www.railplan2020.com/frequently-asked-questions

It states that London Thameslink tickets will be available from the GN side but these will not be valid to Morgate. Alternatively London terminals will still be available but not valid beyond St Pancras.

 

[NorthKent1989]

All South Eastern services on the North Kent Line call at Plumstead from 2022, and all those via Greenwich call at all stops on the Greenwich line.

The Maidstone service would need to call Dartford, Abbey Wood, Plumstead, Woolwich Arsenal, Woolwich Dockyard (!), Charlton, Westcombe Park, Maze Hill, Greenwich and Deptford. These are franchise requirements and the only way for the Maidstone service to avoid making these stops would be for it to be an additional service on top of the 6tph South Eastern requirements and (presumably) the Thameslink 2tph.

The Woolwich Dockyard stop is awkward, because I'd have thought the trains coming from Kent would need to be 12-car. The franchise spec has Woolwich Dockyard skipped on the rounder services but mandatory on the Dartford / Kent services.



From May 2018, the Charing Cross service will indeed call at Erith and Belvedere. But the Cannon Street and Thameslinks operate on an even 10 minute frequency. The Charing Cross service is the awkward one, meaning that the gaps at Erith will be 10mins-10mins-13mins-7mins-10mins-13mins-7mins. First world problem, I admit!

From 2022, the service requirement at Erith and Belvedere (and Woolwich Dockyard) is only 4tph. So unless the plan is to mandate stops there in the next Thameslink franchise, they could see a frequency drop.

What a bizarre stopping pattern for the Maidstone West service, either via Lewisham or Greenwich, why on earth does it need to stop at a shack like St. John's?, New Cross I can kinda get and if the Maidstone West service does go via Lewisham and into Cannon Street then its no point skipping New Cross, plus it does interchange with London Overground and Goldsmiths college, but in truth this service should call at the major inner London stations only:
Abbey Wood, Woolwich Arsenal, Charlton, Blackheath, Lewisham, New Cross and/or Greenwich, I can see the North Kent going 10tph in the near future simply to.balance the needs of Medway/Maidstone commuters and inner SE London commuters.

However I am glad Maidstone will soon get an extra link to London and new links to various TfL interchanges along the Woolwich/Greenwich/Lewisham corridor/catchment area, as a county town its poorly treated by the railways.

The Charing Cross service running to Dartford is equally bloody stupid. Goes to show you how bad the DfT are - the ideal solution would have been for the Thameslink service (if they were genuinely, absolutely desperate to run it via Dartford) to go through Lewisham. That way, instead of creating 'mass conflict' at North Kent East, it would have enabled parallel moves with services to/from Greenwich to Cannon Street. At peak times, it could have stopped at New Cross (connections with the East London Line) then gone fast to Charlton to avoid overcrowding on the Lewisham/Blackheath sector. Off-peak, however, it could happily stop at all points.

I agree that Charing Cross trains being curtailed at Dartford is stupid, it should be kept at Gillingham, those in the Medway/Gravesend area are unhappy with the 2tph to Abbey Wood for Crossrail connectivity, it's pretty clear that's where most of us down there want to go, a half arsed fast service via Sidcup from Gravesend is no replacement, which by the way will skip the busy Mottingham, Lee & Hither Green stations.

In truth the Rainham Thameslink service route should've been routed via Sidcup, have this replace the current CX to Gravesend service, then add the CX to Dartford service as planned along with the Slade Green rounders, and that way every station on the Sidcup line has 6tph, and meanwhile the Gillingham service to CX can carry on running via Woolwich.

Once again, Tattenham Corner was only a very sketchy project (it was in doubt years ago, when I was a lowly member of staff dispatched to provide promotional info to passengers affected by the TLP blockades!).

Also, I really don’t think any manufacturer would get away with providing an 8 or 12 coach fixed-formation unit to the UK rolling stock market if it didn’t have full SDO. 700s can do SDO not just per-coach but also per-door, or essentially half-coach - which has proved very useful on at least a couple of occasions!



Windmill Bridge Junction (note correct name) is only a small part of the problem; in fact, Windmill Bridge itself is intensely busy but quite docile compared to the effects of conflicts at the surrounding junctions at Cottage Bridge, Norwood Fork, Norwood South/North, Selhurst, Gloucester Road etc.

The ripples of these spread far and wide. Once you’ve established enough breathing space, which will be provided in May perhaps for the first time in living memory, you’ve run out of room for sustainably holding that extra service group, which has to go somewhere, as it can’t exactly just stop at London Bridge or the Elephant! I also see room for some experimental stuff, as I understand the Kent side is the one with some redundancy in crossovers (perhaps perverse considering just how busy most of the rest is) which could allow the timetable to be chopped and changed onto a different route, if the current proposal proves unacceptable.

I believe the lack of stops at certain stations in outer South East London / North Kent is partly to do with trying to offer a reasonably decent service to as many people as possible, without getting hammered for deliberately eating into mandatory turnaround times and pathing requirements.



It will certainly have its uses as an interchange, but don’t forget the main planning has really gone into Farringdon, which will be a far more useful interchange for a lot more routes.



Quite. And all trains over 5 coaches need SDO to serve the smaller stations to Horsham, plus anything over 8 needs SDO to provide a service both ways to Balcombe. Intermediate stops to East Grinstead and Littlehampton need SDO. Etc...



That was exactly what I wrote above!

Tattenham Corner could actually possibly have a modest platform extension - where there’s a will, etc. - but good luck on the Caterham branch.



Both. However, TL will be stopping long trains over level crossings here and there (Littlehaven, mainly) so that one is clearly not a deal-breaker.

See in the consultation they said that the 700's never had SDO which I did think was strange.

My reasoning for the Crossrail/Thameslink thing at Abbey Wood was perhaps due an fares raid or something?

 

[class387]

Given that the promised Cambridge to Maidstone trains won't have first class, do the Cambridge to Kings Cross stoppers still have first from May onwards or is it declassified?

 

[swt_passenger]

There is a new Web page on railplan2020.com

https://www.railplan2020.com/frequently-asked-questions

It states that London Thameslink tickets will be available from the GN side but these will not be valid to Morgate. Alternatively London terminals will still be available but not valid beyond St Pancras.

Oh, and London Thameslink also available from the South, at long last.

Note at least one glaring inconsistency. Tickets marked Great Northern only are also valid on Thameslink, but meanwhile in the south validity is kept separate. Weird.

I think I might cross post this into the Fares sub forum if not already mentioned there, probably justifies a separate discussion...

 

[Barn]

What a bizarre stopping pattern for the Maidstone West service, either via Lewisham or Greenwich, why on earth does it need to stop at a shack like St. John's?, New Cross I can kinda get and if the Maidstone West service does go via Lewisham and into Cannon Street then its no point skipping New Cross, plus it does interchange with London Overground and Goldsmiths college, but in truth this service should call at the major inner London stations only:
Abbey Wood, Woolwich Arsenal, Charlton, Blackheath, Lewisham, New Cross and/or Greenwich, I can see the North Kent going 10tph in the near future simply to.balance the needs of Medway/Maidstone commuters and inner SE London commuters.

The point is that the franchise specification is based on short distance services to Dartford and then allows bidders to extend to Maidstone if they wish to. But it doesn't allow bidders to drop calls from services if they choose to extend.

Remember that Maidstone via Abbey Wood is optional for bidders and therefore not guaranteed. My query with it is whether there will be enough seating capacity on trains for longer-distance services given that trains will be short to accommodate a Dockyard call. I guess many Kent people will change at Abbey Wood for Crossrail.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The point is that the franchise specification is based on short distance services to Dartford and then allows bidders to extend to Maidstone if they wish to. But it doesn't allow bidders to drop calls from services if they choose to extend.

Remember that Maidstone via Abbey Wood is optional for bidders and therefore not guaranteed. My query with it is whether there will be enough seating capacity on trains for longer-distance services given that trains will be short to accommodate a Dockyard call. I guess many Kent people will change at Abbey Wood for Crossrail.

Indeed. The bidder EITHER offers the full 4tph High Speed that run via Gravesend from the Kent Coast and then have the 2tph from Maidstone West; or they continue to offer Maidstone to St Pancras in which case they need to have alternative services to satisfy Strood - Cannon Street direct in line with the minimum service spec.

 

[GoatSarah]

There is a new Web page on railplan2020.com

https://www.railplan2020.com/frequently-asked-questions

It states that London Thameslink tickets will be available from the GN side but these will not be valid to Morgate. Alternatively London terminals will still be available but not valid beyond St Pancras.

Wonder how much more expensive the "London Thameslink" ticket will be?

On the other hand, chances of getting gripped between St Pancras and Farringdon (where I'd expect to change to the Tube and touch in) are basically zero.

Are there oyster readers on the platform at St Pancras Thameslink? I seem to recall there aren't.

ETA: Should also report that a "London Terminals" to Cambridge ticket let me in at Blackfriars recently.

 

[Ianno87]

Wonder how much more expensive the "London Thameslink" ticket will be?

On the other hand, chances of getting gripped between St Pancras and Farringdon (where I'd expect to change to the Tube and touch in) are basically zero.

Are there oyster readers on the platform at St Pancras Thameslink? I seem to recall there aren't.

No, there aren't. You'd have to exit the barrier line and re-enter.

The Cambridge-London Thameslink for is only about £1.50 or so more than London Terminals at the moment.

 

[GoatSarah]

The Cambridge-London Thameslink for is only about £1.50 or so more than London Terminals at the moment.

In that case, I revert to my comment about the chances of getting gripped between St Pancras and Farringdon.