Lack of space, essentially.Just reading through this and I'm curious, is there any reason why 4 through platforms wouldn't have worked with a junction at the north end of the station, as opposed to 2 bays 2 throughs?
I'm surprised the western most part of Blackfriars rail bridge was not strengthened and re-built to provide additional terminating platform(s). There used to be 4 terminating platforms on the eastern side. Once the through Thameslink platforms were rebuilt and the terminating platforms switched to the western side, the number of terminating platforms reduced to 2.
The 2 terminating platforms seem sufficient at the moment given that only 8-car units serve the platforms and they have a 30 minute interval service at present. But with rail traffic growing, one wonders whether a 3rd or 4th terminating platform would be welcomed in future given there is relatively little potential for growth at either Charing Cross or Cannon Street.
But the commuters of Sutton kicked up a stink at losing their direct trains to City, Farringdon and Kings Cross St Pancras. They did this far too late to change the design.
If everything pans out as published, Southern will be running round the loop into Blackfriars bays as well as the through trains, so at that stage we’ll definitely find out if “changing at Blackfriars” is a show stopper in practice. I’d have thought for a start that many peak commuters to the city will walk from the station rather than travel a few yards on towards City T/L station...Don’t think it was the residents of Sutton who objected to the doubling of the frequency on the loop, iirc it was MP for Wimbledon who did the moaning. As has been said on previous threads though, this is probably one of the easiest London-only service changes which delivers the most number of seats (for London) per buck, so is almost certain to come up sooner rather than later, and no amount of people moaning at having to change at Blackfriars will make a difference.
City Thameslink is itself a bit of a walk from most City destinations. I'd guess many people would head for the Circle Line instead.If everything pans out as published, Southern will be running round the loop into Blackfriars bays as well as the through trains, so at that stage we’ll definitely find out if “changing at Blackfriars” is a show stopper in practice. I’d have thought for a start that many peak commuters to the city will walk from the station rather than travel a few yards on towards City T/L station...
Fair point, so even with through trains many city bound people will prefer to get off there anyway?City Thameslink is itself a bit of a walk from most City destinations. I'd guess many people would head for the Circle Line instead.
I suppose for those near Barbican and Moorgate a through train to Farringdon and changing there might be quicker than getting the Circle the long way round (and probably having to wait for multiple District services to go through first). And those working around Farringdon and Kings Cross would have a change instead of a through train.Fair point, so even with through trains many city bound people will prefer to get off there anyway?
City Thameslink is itself a bit of a walk from most City destinations. I'd guess many people would head for the Circle Line instead.
But I'd guess if she lived somewhere on the Sutton loop and commuted in via Blackfriars (so no easy London Bridge option), she'd be just as likely to alight there as at City Thameslink.It all depends - daughter works at King William St , commutes in from SAC. The first option on her mind was to travel to London Bridge and cross the Thames on foot , - but this is slow due to very heavy pedestrian traffic - but alighting at City Thameslink has less crowded pavements , and takes a bit longer ( a couple of minutes) - therefore she mixes and matches. NOT using the tube is a major benefit. (and I can support that - though the sub - surface lines are clearly better than the crush and heat of the deep level tubes).
But I'd guess if she lived somewhere on the Sutton loop and commuted in via Blackfriars (so no easy London Bridge option), she'd be just as likely to alight there as at City Thameslink.
If everything pans out as published, Southern will be running round the loop into Blackfriars bays as well as the through trains, so at that stage we’ll definitely find out if “changing at Blackfriars” is a show stopper in practice. I’d have thought for a start that many peak commuters to the city will walk from the station rather than travel a few yards on towards City T/L station...
No, it was part of the intended 2018 Thameslink timetable, and some segments of the eventual Southern services already run through Wimbledon in the peaks, they just cannot go all the way to Blackfriars yet because the platforms are still in use by Southeastern.As someone whose closest station is on the loop, this would be great news.
Is it tied into the moving of the trams out of Wimbledon station though to provide platform capacity back to both faces?
As you are probably aware, after the bridge and tracks on the western side were demolished in the 1960s, a buillding appeared on the South bank in the space previously occupied by these tracks (and the old goods station).
This would have made it difficult to re-use the old bridge piers due to the alignment of the remaining tracks. However, I see that this building has now gone. It was demolished within the last 2 hears.
It makes me wonder whether they were aware of the pending demolition of this building when they redesigned Blackfriars. It definitely looks like they have missed an opportunity.
Hi,
The western bridge supports were from the first bridge and were deemed "weak" back in, I think, the 19080's.
They apparently would not be strong enough to support the weight of a train and are essentially abandoned. The new cross-river northbounf platform was bulit onto one of each of the pillars but just for the weight of the platform required encasing in concrete and stone. To have upgraded them to support the weight of perhaps two fully laden 12 car trains would have been incredibly challenging and expensive.
It may look like a wasted opportunity but I don't think there were any other options.
Cheers,
Jason
This was discussed elsewhere (i.e. here) I think, but the site is already being redeveloped I think....and basically the small amount of space required to have tracks able to reach those piers was rejected.
What is it that terminating Sutton Loop rather than Denmark Hill services at Blackfriars would do for capacity? I am not asking that in a passive aggressive way..I just don't understand the point yet.
Regarding the disused bridge piers, were the ones on the left where the investment banker Roberto Calvi's body was found hanging from back in 1982?
That is sort of what I am thinking, are those conflicts in reality reducing capacity that operators are wanting to/could use for other services.This needless conflict between Loughborough Junction and Blackfriars for Denmark Hill and Herne Hill trains is a theoretical issue.
In practice is there sufficient track capacity for it not to be a problem?
Yes, theoretical only and it’s been emphasised by insiders in many previous discussions that it doesn’t cause problems.This needless conflict between Loughborough Junction and Blackfriars for Denmark Hill and Herne Hill trains is a theoretical issue.
In practice is there sufficient track capacity for it not to be a problem?
This needless conflict between Loughborough Junction and Blackfriars for Denmark Hill and Herne Hill trains is a theoretical issue.
In practice is there sufficient track capacity for it not to be a problem?
Really?Yes, theoretical only and it’s been emphasised by insiders in many previous discussions that it doesn’t cause problems.
This needless conflict between Loughborough Junction and Blackfriars for Denmark Hill and Herne Hill trains is a theoretical issue.
In practice is there sufficient track capacity for it not to be a problem?
There was a discussion about Thameslink last month, and one of Bald Rick’s replies is presumably still valid this month:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/thameslink-ideas.187554/page-3#post-4140819
Changing at Blackfriars can easily add 10-15 minutes on to what is only usually a 20 minute journey for me.
It's also with the proviso of doubling loop services, so what may be lost in one form of convenience could be gained in another form of it. This is where average journey times come in too (i.e. penalty of missing a train, or leaving work at a different times/set time re average wait).
I find this a bit odd. I use Blackfriars regularly. I get from either entrance to a train in 90 seconds. It can’t possibly take 10 minutes to change trains, even if you were using the lifts.
I use the loop regularly and I will admit I enjoy and make use of the through trains a lot.
- If they wanted to get people on board with the idea of using Blackfriars as an interchange station they should have built it as one. It takes absolutely ages to cross the station, especially to change from southbound core to a southbound from the bay. Arguably they should stop the 8 cars right up to the north side ticket barriers rather than half way down the platform to speed up the transfer a bit. A footbridge halfway down would bave been the real solution though.
Changing at Blackfriars can easily add 10-15 minutes on to what is only usually a 20 minute journey for me. That is a very steep increase and that is when services are are actually turning up to/ from London Bridge to change on to.
There needs to be a train on the platform you are transferring to to have successfully changed! So it is transfer time PLUS time until the next train, plus a margin of error as you are probably on your way to work. That easily adds up to 10-15 minutes even for somebody fit and able, especially as the errors that require margin are particularly pronounced on Thameslink in general. As an example today I went to catch a northbound at Blackfriars to make a Eurostar connection and the next 6 trains were delayed.Really, 10 minutes? If you are at the "front" from the north going southbound, then the stairs are very close.