Thameslink '2000' Programme: What could have been

[Jorge Da Silva]

What things were planned under the Thameslink Programme (or Thameslink 2000) that are no longer part of it. This includes services.

 

[Kieran1990]

What things were planned under the Thameslink Programme (or Thameslink 2000) that are no longer part of it. This includes services.

The destinations were a different south of the Thames.
This was one of the maps

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

The destinations were a different south of the Thames.
This was one of the maps
View attachment 56073

When was Guildford, Eastbourne, West Croydon and Kings Lynn dropped

 

[swt_passenger]

When was Guildford, Eastbourne, West Croydon and Kings Lynn dropped

Getting on for 10 years ago I reckon. The 2011 London and SE RUS had a thorough analysis of the entire Thameslink network and none of those destinations were on the map then.

There has always been very “stale” route information knocking about online - even FCC’s website included Guildford long after it had been binned. Littlehampton wasn’t on the map for years and then appeared again only a couple of years ago, but it is peak tidal flow only and mainly driven by the berthing plan. Wimbledon loop was famously removed and came back.

It’s difficult to say for certain when the eventual route map ever became firmed up enough to say “this is the plan”, the 1999 diagram found above may never have been workable, how do we find out if anyone ever confirmed a working timetable, I mean even now they can’t seem to make it work.

 

[Ianno87]

Stansted Airport was a proposal in the late 80s/early 90s too!

(I presume reinstated Kentish Town curve > South Tottenham > reinstated curve > Tottenham Hale > West Anglia Main Line)

 

[ijmad]

A more recent idea was to have Caterham and Tattenham Corner as southern destinations for Thameslink services. Instead, we got Rainham and Orpington services through the Core.

This map was doing the rounds in 2015 and represented the current thinking at the time:

As you can see, it's closer to the final service pattern we'll end up with, but still has Tattenham Corner and Caterham services shown, plus the Maidstone East trains ended up running to Ashford.

I was pretty concerned about the reduction in through services for the metro Catford Loop stations of 4 through the core to 2 through the core. While this has happened while they terminate the Sevenoaks trains in P3 at Blackfriars for now, this is a lot better than not having them at all!

 

[Helvellyn]

Is it only the Wimbledon Loop services that drive the requirement for some 8-car units? If so, and given 12-car isn't possible, could they have gone 9-car or 10-car at least?

Also, slightly off topic, but could a different layout have been done at Blackfriars? The two bay platforms must create some congestion with conflicting movements departing needing to cross the line that heads North. I wondered if they could have created all through line platforms, using the outer faces (i.e. 1 and 4) for through services and the middle two lines (platforms 2 and 3) for terminating trains. Conflicting movements would have been removed plus you could terminate trains from the North and South, which would surely be useful in disruption or engineering works?

 

[petersi]

Is it only the Wimbledon Loop services that drive the requirement for some 8-car units? If so, and given 12-car isn't possible, could they have gone 9-car or 10-car at least?

No quite a few GN side stations can only take 8 and some Cambridge villages are only 4 but can use SDO

The biggest head ache for 12 car on the gn side could well be Welwyn garden city
As even with SDO in the down direction in platform 4 a 12 coach train block access to the flyover
Plus Foxton level crossing a 12 car train would block the level crossing which block the secondary route from Royston to Cambridge. But is still a busy road

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wow, that seems a mad recipe for serious unreliability - or was there a plan to 4-track the core? Would have needed an entirely new underground tunnel.

 

[swt_passenger]

Also, slightly off topic, but could a different layout have been done at Blackfriars? The two bay platforms must create some congestion with conflicting movements departing needing to cross the line that heads North. I wondered if they could have created all through line platforms, using the outer faces (i.e. 1 and 4) for through services and the middle two lines (platforms 2 and 3) for terminating trains. Conflicting movements would have been removed plus you could terminate trains from the North and South, which would surely be useful in disruption or engineering works?

Ah, but that needs hindsight. When it was designed the Wimbledon Loop service wasn’t going to be running through, but would have used the bays, so there’s 4 tph less crossing conflicts straightaway. 18 tph was also supposed to run through London Bridge. So the layout would have worked completely differently (for example as with the 2011 London & SE service pairs).

 

[swt_passenger]

Wow, that seems a mad recipe for serious unreliability - or was there a plan to 4-track the core? Would have needed an entirely new underground tunnel.

I took it to mean 4 tracks reducing to 2 at a north bank junction. Would have reduced the space for circulation a lot, with maybe three banks of escalators. I don’t think 4 tracking was ever a serious option.

 

[edwin_m]

Is it only the Wimbledon Loop services that drive the requirement for some 8-car units? If so, and given 12-car isn't possible, could they have gone 9-car or 10-car at least?

Also, slightly off topic, but could a different layout have been done at Blackfriars? The two bay platforms must create some congestion with conflicting movements departing needing to cross the line that heads North. I wondered if they could have created all through line platforms, using the outer faces (i.e. 1 and 4) for through services and the middle two lines (platforms 2 and 3) for terminating trains. Conflicting movements would have been removed plus you could terminate trains from the North and South, which would surely be useful in disruption or engineering works?

I think Blackfriars was done as it was because the Wimbledon Loop services could terminate on the west side avoiding conflict with the through trains into the Core. That obviously went out of the window when it was decided to continue running the Loop serivce through. I suspect signalling overlaps would have killed the idea of four through tracks, but "knowing then what we know now" the bays could perhaps have gone in the middle.

 

[jon0844]

No quite a few GN side stations can only take 8 and some Cambridge villages are only 4 but can use SDO

The biggest head ache for 12 car on the gn side could well be Welwyn garden city
As even with SDO in the down direction in platform 4 a 12 coach train block access to the flyover
Plus Foxton level crossing a 12 car train would block the level crossing which block the secondary route from Royston to Cambridge. But is still a busy road

The only 12 car train that stops at WGC (at around 0113 ISTR) uses platform 3. I doubt there's any immediate plan to increase the number of 12 car trains, as this and the one to London around 5am are more for picking up/dropping off staff.

 

[ijmad]

I think Blackfriars was done as it was because the Wimbledon Loop services could terminate on the west side avoiding conflict with the through trains into the Core. That obviously went out of the window when it was decided to continue running the Loop serivce through. I suspect signalling overlaps would have killed the idea of four through tracks, but "knowing then what we know now" the bays could perhaps have gone in the middle.

Given the amount of money ultimately spent on the Core, I wonder if they'd have considered a couple of flyovers or diveunders on the Blackfriars approach had they known the service pattern was going to end up as a 16tph/8tph split including the Wimbledon services.

 

[IceAgeComing]

Interesting that the route originally proposed down to Dartford was via Bexleyheath which of course changed in the final proposals to go via Woolwich Arsenal - my guess as to why is Crossrail connectivity at Abbey Wood but I could be wrong there: I've not followed it closely and only really since I moved down here a few months ago.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Given the amount of money ultimately spent on the Core, I wonder if they'd have considered a couple of flyovers or diveunders on the Blackfriars approach had they known the service pattern was going to end up as a 16tph/8tph split including the Wimbledon services.

Budget would not have allowed for that at Blackfriars and keeping the Wimbledon services into the core was as a result of local MP's Getting involved and a massive campaign in the SW postal areas.

 

[ijmad]

Budget would not have allowed for that at Blackfriars and keeping the Wimbledon services into the core was as a result of local MP's Getting involved and a massive campaign in the SW postal areas.

If the clock was wound back that far, Network Rail might have been able to make the case for more money with the Wimbledon services in mind, who knows