Thameslink brighton service

[winks]

If two trains had been cancelled with further disruption I would've just used the Gatwick Express regardless of whether there's ticket acceptance or not tbh.

I'm not getting stranded

This.

 

[bramling]

RPIS definitely exist on 700s, used to get them along getting on at East Croydon getting off at Purley

Certainly happens on the GN side, though in my experience more likely to be found on the King’s Cross to Cambridge / Letchworth stopping services than those via St Pancras.

 

[Busman]

What was the initial plan for Thameslink trains through the core? Was it 24? Makes me wonder what kind of substances they are smoking at HQ, they can barely manage to squeeze 15 through and half of them are mostly late. Absolute clowns.

 

[Failed Unit]

Certainly happens on the GN side, though in my experience more likely to be found on the King’s Cross to Cambridge / Letchworth stopping services than those via St Pancras.

I suspect that is because of the crew depot at Welwyn Garden City. I often see them shuttling between Welwyn Garden City and Potters Bar or Finsbury Park (depending on the time of day and how busy the service is). They don't seem to have any preference of what trains they check. Agree that the 700s / 717s give the harded criminal more chance of jumping off at the next station, but they check them.

Not sure where other RPIs are based, but recognise most of them on the GN routes now.

As for the other issue of service disruption, the 700s are not the most reliable of services which is recognised in the annual "modern railways" survey. But as others point out the 387s are 2 units so that may make an impact on the numbers.

I do find service recovery difficult to understand at times. You can see a delayed train following on the same line as service that stops everywhere so it loses more times as it stops after the stopper. Other times they run non-stop between Wewlyn Garden City and Finsbury Park which does recover the service well, but not making any friends on Hatfield or Potters Bar. I am going to curse the service but it does seem better recently. But the less intensive working of the 700s has probably helped this.

 

[Minstral25]

What was the initial plan for Thameslink trains through the core? Was it 24? Makes me wonder what kind of substances they are smoking at HQ, they can barely manage to squeeze 15 through and half of them are mostly late. Absolute clowns.

Thameslink are currently running up to 20 per hour with over last 12 weeks between 6am and 10 am they have achieved 98% of services running with almost 90% on time. Talented clowns

 

[sh24]

Thameslink are currently running up to 20 per hour with over last 12 weeks between 6am and 10 am they have achieved 98% of services running with almost 90% on time. Talented clowns

The core works very well IME, even with delays imported from elsewhere. It's certainly more reliable than the Elizabeth Line

 

[bramling]

Thameslink are currently running up to 20 per hour with over last 12 weeks between 6am and 10 am they have achieved 98% of services running with almost 90% on time. Talented clowns

The core isn’t, and never was going to be, the biggest problem with the whole thing - though when something does go wrong there the consequences are horrific.

The bigger problem is when something goes wrong at somewhere like East Croydon, Gatwick or wherever, then places like Sandy find they have gaps in their service measured in hours, and the service screwed for the remainder of the day. Even ignoring the fact that none of the areas served by Thameslink seem to have great reliability, the extra length of route greatly increases the probability of something happening somewhere along it.

And of course the further into the day, the more chance there is of encountering disruption - someone else posted that Horsham to Peterborough is awful by the evening, and I can certainly concur with this.

 

[jon0844]

Certainly happens on the GN side, though in my experience more likely to be found on the King’s Cross to Cambridge / Letchworth stopping services than those via St Pancras.

I believe they've been trained so they can work into Moorgate and the core, so they don't have to alight at Finsbury Park (or only go into King's Cross).

 

[Benjwri]

The core isn’t, and never was going to be, the biggest problem with the whole thing - though when something does go wrong there the consequences are horrific.

The bigger problem is when something goes wrong at somewhere like East Croydon, Gatwick or wherever, then places like Sandy find they have gaps in their service measured in hours, and the service screwed for the remainder of the day. Even ignoring the fact that none of the areas served by Thameslink seem to have great reliability, the extra length of route greatly increases the probability of something happening somewhere along it.

And of course the further into the day, the more chance there is of encountering disruption - someone else posted that Horsham to Peterborough is awful by the evening, and I can certainly concur with this.

The other option though, like you see in the Elizabeth Line is to abandon sections that have issues, and start turning things back super early to keep the rest on time, leaving stations with absolutely no service for hours, and very little communication because you refuse to update staff that work for GA or GWR, and therefore there is no information available to them.

 

[Busman]

Thameslink are currently running up to 20 per hour with over last 12 weeks between 6am and 10 am they have achieved 98% of services running with almost 90% on time. Talented clowns

I''ll ask again, what was the initial plan for tph through the core?

 

[AM9]

... Even ignoring the fact that none of the areas served by Thameslink seem to have great reliability, the extra length of route greatly increases the probability of something happening somewhere along it.

And of course the further into the day, the more chance there is of encountering disruption - someone else posted that Horsham to Peterborough is awful by the evening, and I can certainly concur with this.

Actually, Thameslink services on the MML routes are pretty reliable on the MML line despite trains presented to the core from the BML frequently being disrupted.

 

[Benjwri]

I''ll ask again, what was the initial plan for tph through the core?

Your original statement was correct, 24tph was the original planned peak frequency.

 

[AM9]

Deleted

 

[Bald Rick]

What was the initial plan for Thameslink trains through the core? Was it 24? Makes me wonder what kind of substances they are smoking at HQ, they can barely manage to squeeze 15 through and half of them are mostly late. Absolute clowns.

I''ll ask again, what was the initial plan for tph through the core?

What do you mean by ‘intitial’?

In 1987 the plan was 5 trains an hour…

 

[43066]

What do you mean by ‘intitial’?

In 1987 the plan was 5 trains an hour…

Post #67 probably captures it, though?

The core itself isn’t the usual source of problems - indeed it’s extremely robust. The ability of the TL network to both pick up and transmit delay around other parts of the system is more of an issue, however.

 

[Busman]

What do you mean by ‘intitial’?

In 1987 the plan was 5 trains an hour…

'Initial' chief, being the plan when 'Thameslink 2000' or so it was called then when it was quoted 'x' amount of trains during the peak will travel through the core.

Not sure why I would be talking about a plan in 1987.

 

[Bald Rick]

'Initial' chief, being the plan when 'Thameslink 2000' or so it was called then when it was quoted 'x' amount of trains during the peak will travel through the core.

Not sure why I would be talking about a plan in 1987.

Because the thread is about Thameslink Brighton services, and the plans for Thameslink have evolved a lot over the last (nearly) 40 years !

 

[izvor]

Being diverted on to the quarry line isnt just a case of regaining a couple of minutes. Anything that runs via Redhill is inheritantly unreliable because of the conflicting movements. Our coastway rail users association constantly has to lobby for Arun Valley services to be routed via the quarry line because a redhill call just destroys the reliability of the west coastway line.

I understand this, but I can't see this is an issue now, or for a couple of years: Coastways (Arun Valleys) only call at Redhill on Sundays, apart from a couple of odd journeys at the extremes of operating hours.

 

[Busman]

Thameslink are currently running up to 20 per hour with over last 12 weeks between 6am and 10 am they have achieved 98% of services running with almost 90% on time. Talented clowns

Not that talented. It was supposed to be 24 when it was all unbottlenecked.

Years on, still not 24.

 

[Skimble19]

Not that talented. It was supposed to be 24 when it was all unbottlenecked.

Years on, still not 24.

What exactly is your point? You’ve already been told the plans have changed considerably over the years..

 

[Magdalia]

Don't have this razzamatazz of "we're going to have 24 trains running through the core at peak times" when deep down they know it can't be achieved.

That "razzamatazz" is about 10 years old now. Back then my view, as an experienced GN commuter and frequent Thameslink user, was that 24tph was unachievable but 20 tph would be resilient. 24 tph is a train every 150 seconds, 20 tph is a train every 180 seconds, those extra 30 seconds are critical.

Thameslink are currently running up to 20 per hour with over last 12 weeks between 6am and 10 am they have achieved 98% of services running with almost 90% on time.

I stand by that view, in the light of experience since the 2018 changes were implemented.

just get on with it behind the scenes

My impression is that's what is happening now. Since the pandemic I don't see much talk about an ambition of getting to 24 tph, the changed traffic patterns don't demand it. The Thameslink core now operates very well most days at 18-20 tph, the problems are elsewhere, particularly the Norwood-Three Bridges section, and the 2 track sections on the ECML.

 

[Busman]

That "razzamatazz" is about 10 years old now. Back then my view, as an experienced GN commuter and frequent Thameslink user, was that 24tph was unachievable but 20 tph would be resilient. 24 tph is a train every 150 seconds, 20 tph is a train every 180 seconds, those extra 30 seconds are critical.



I stand by that view, in the light of experience since the 2018 changes were implemented.


My impression is that's what is happening now. Since the pandemic I don't see much talk about an ambition of getting to 24 tph, the changed traffic patterns don't demand it. The Thameslink core now operates very well most days at 18-20 tph, the problems are elsewhere, particularly the Norwood-Three Bridges section, and the 2 track sections on the ECML.

You see, I still have to question the 180 minutes thing. Just this morning, a train rolls out of Farringdon and the next one is 8 minutes. By my calculations that's a lot more than 180 seconds. This isn't a one-off either, this happens frequently and this is in the 8am-9am period, at the very peak of peak time.

 

[jon0844]

Bar the narrower sections of Farringdon, things work pretty well relating to people queuing for trains when there are such wildly different stopping patterns outside of the core. I was always fearful of there being carnage, as unlike the tube, a lot of people wouldn't board the next train and get in the way of others.

Thankfully people are either choosing not to go onto the platform early, or they stand/sit back out of the way.

So, while at 24tph trains might end up out of sequence due to external (of the core) delays, I think 24tph would be achievable and not a total disaster.

The issue is that if there's an issue in the core and they switch to bi-di operation, the capacity is slashed. The emergency plan instantly knocks out specified headcodes to run a skeleton service, and it will usually take a LONG time to recover. Depending on when the incident occurs, it could run from one peak to the next, or until the end of service.

 

[izvor]

I'd rather have a reliable 20 tph than an a vulnerable 24.

 

[AM9]

Not that talented. It was supposed to be 24 when it was all unbottlenecked.

Years on, still not 24.

The issues now are not in the core. It can still handle 24 TPH, but the routes feeding it are less able, - particularly the BML.

 

[bramling]

The issues now are not in the core. It can still handle 24 TPH, but the routes feeding it are less able, - particularly the BML.

I’m not sure the contingency arrangements are up to 24tph. The various control functions don’t seem quick enough on the case when something happens, so my feeling is that 24tph - whilst it could no doubt operate during times of no or low disruption - would be a serious liability during disruption.

Just take the GN side, which is enough of a problem with the Finsbury Park crew changes now. And the Welwyn-Sevenoaks service is causing issues on the GN side when it runs, and that’s only a few trips per day.

If it *had* to happen, then there would have to be a realisation that the current KX to Cambridge stopping service wouldn’t be able to be transferred over in anything like its current form. We already have a problem in that Cambridge-Brighton gets pulled at the first hint of trouble.

 

[AM9]

I'd rather have a reliable 20 tph than an a vulnerable 24.

That's what most experienced users prefer. I'm not sure why some are so indignant over the current full timetable being slightly below the designed maximum capacity. Next complaint might be 'why aren't they pushing the number of trains up to the peak recovery capacity' which ISTR is 30tph, i.e. a train every two minutes in the core. Provided the passengers are well behaved, I'm sure that the core's capability to do that is there for recovering serious disruption, it would be the feed points' inability to supp,ly the stream of trains that would be the limiting factor.

 

[bramling]

That's what most experienced users prefer. I'm not sure why some are so indignant over the current full timetable being slightly below the designed maximum capacity. Next complaint might be 'why aren't they pushing the number of trains up to the peak recovery capacity' which ISTR is 30tph, i.e. a train every two minutes in the core. Provided the passengers are well behaved, I'm sure that the core's capability to do that is there for recovering serious disruption, it would be the feed points' inability to supp,ly the stream of trains that would be the limiting factor.

Oh no, trust me GN users are *quite happy* that we don’t have the originally planned service, happier still that many of the Cambridge stopping services are no longer booked for class 700s, and *even* happier that they may well become worked by more comfortable class 379s in the near future.

Just a shame so much money was wasted to take us back to that point. And doesn’t help if you’re travelling from somewhere like Arlesey and there’s now routinely hour or more gaps in the service (there’s one occurring just as I write this, as it happens!).

 

[whoosh]

Considering only around half the drivers are trained on ETCS/ATO, you don't really want 24tph at the moment, what with a considerable amount of trains still being manually driven through the core on lineside signals.

 

[AM9]

Oh no, trust me GN users are *quite happy* that we don’t have the originally planned service, happier still that many of the Cambridge stopping services are no longer booked for class 700s, and *even* happier that they may well become worked my more comfortable class 379s in the near future.

Just a shame so much money was wasted to take us back to that point.

Any diagrams that are not using the only class of trains cleared for the core are by definition not functionally 'Thameslink', i.e. providing for through central London journeys. The money (which was pretty well within budget) has delivered a robust high capacity two track railway through the centre of London using mostly existing infrastructure. Trivia like the interior cosmetics of the rolling stock are irrelevant when there's not enough on-time trains to where people want to go. The class 700s have proved to be amongst the most reliable EMU stock in the UK. *

* Once the various issues with the delivered software were resolved.