Thameslink service should be revised to increase reliability

[Magdalia]

yet the way the service is currently structured means Cambridge passengers heading to the Thameslink core and beyond have to use a service which stops at seven intermediate stops

But only takes about 15 minutes longer to St Pancras than a non-stop train to Kings Cross. Once the time taken to change trains at Kings Cross is added in, going on Thameslink is quicker for many journeys, especially going out the other side of the core.

If the view is that Thameslink through services are so important to Cambridge, there surely comes a point where the fast services are less viable than they were in the 1990s?

No because the Cambridge economy is booming. For Cambridge the 1990s were a different world.

Surely the fact that they run fast from Cambridge to King's Cross and all run with at least 8 coaches proves there are commercial reasons not to fill them with Letchworth and Royston passengers.

And yet the latter is exactly what they do in the peaks, and at some other times of day as well.

In the peaks at least some of those services are 12 cars south of Cambridge, to accommodate the Letchworth and Royston passengers. The peak trains that are only 8 cars, and calling at Letchworth and Royston, are very crowded, and best avoided.

The easiest revision decision to make should be the removal of TL services from North Kent

don’t understand the purpose of the Thameslink Rainham service, I know that it was shoved through Greenwich last minute because East Croydon was full

In the lead up to 2018 Rainham was a place to go to tick the 24tph box. It is high risk for low reward and I agree it should be junked. Most of the places it serves have better options using Javelin and/or Elizabeth line. I'd go for no Thameslink trains on the South Eastern, apart from the Catford loop to Sevenoaks/Orpington.

 

[Bartsimho]

First of all trying to look at this I think there's a horrible map which Govia make as they have all Gatwick Express, Great Northern, Southern and Thameslink services on one map. This is just a confusing mess of information covering too much of a geographic area and trying to work out the services themselves is a mess (like we don't need Southampton Central and Kings Lynn on the same map).

I've seen someone suggest the idea of hub and spoke so surely that would be a good point to start at. When there's a hub and spoke model compared to the current model it could be used to find a compromise between them.
Also on the Northern side you have the possibility of utilising other companies to service destinations especially as they are 4 track lines.

Maybe utilise local hubs of Peterborough, Stevenage, Cambridge, Kings Lynn on the ECML so you have a service which starts as a stopping from Origin to the next hub then fast to destination.
For the MML have Bedford and Luton.

Maybe 4tph Sutton loop start and terminate at Blackfriars.

The question is what sort of traffic uses the core. Luton Airport to Gatwick Airport of course but beyond that it's really connecting a lot of short journeys instead of really through running

 

[BrianW]

First of all trying to look at this I think there's a horrible map which Govia make as they have all Gatwick Express, Great Northern, Southern and Thameslink services on one map. This is just a confusing mess of information covering too much of a geographic area and trying to work out the services themselves is a mess (like we don't need Southampton Central and Kings Lynn on the same map).

I've seen someone suggest the idea of hub and spoke so surely that would be a good point to start at. When there's a hub and spoke model compared to the current model it could be used to find a compromise between them.
Also on the Northern side you have the possibility of utilising other companies to service destinations especially as they are 4 track lines.

Maybe utilise local hubs of Peterborough, Stevenage, Cambridge, Kings Lynn on the ECML so you have a service which starts as a stopping from Origin to the next hub then fast to destination.
For the MML have Bedford and Luton.

Maybe 4tph Sutton loop start and terminate at Blackfriars.

The question is what sort of traffic uses the core. Luton Airport to Gatwick Airport of course but beyond that it's really connecting a lot of short journeys instead of really through running

Bartsimho, you have named SIX 'local hubs' north of the Thames there- each one of the trains starting there needs a terminus south of the river. Especially if Rainham/ North Kent is, as has been suggested in terms by an Established Member, a poor choice ...

 

[Bartsimho]

Bartsimho, you have named SIX 'local hubs' north of the Thames there- each one of the trains starting there needs a terminus south of the river. Especially if Rainham/ North Kent is, as has been suggested in terms by an Established Member, a poor choice ...

Well trying to decipher the map Govia provide is horrific to start with.
Of course Brighton should have services all the way through but I'd say maybe Three Bridges and East Croydon on the BML

Rainham services I'd argue shouldn't go through the core and should terminate at London Bridge as other people have suggested as well (and be South Eastern as well).

For Sevenoaks and Orpington I can't see anywhere that trains could terminate before due to lines being so busy with other traffic. Also it's delay importing we are concerned about as well

 

[Magdalia]

Maybe utilise local hubs of Peterborough, Stevenage, Cambridge, Kings Lynn on the ECML so you have a service which starts as a stopping from Origin to the next hub then fast to destination.

We already have something very much like that.

Kings Lynn trains off peak run all stations to Cambridge then non-stop to Kings Cross.
Peterborough Thameslink trains run all stations to Stevenage then non-stop to Finsbury Park.
Cambridge Thameslink trains run all stations Royston to Stevenage then non-stop to Finsbury Park.

For various infrastructure and traffic reasons trains don't start from Stevenage, but from Letchworth or Cambridge instead. These perform the same all stations function for Stevenage-Hatfield, then connecting with the inner suburban services.

 

[Bartsimho]

We already have something very much like that.

Kings Lynn trains off peak run all stations to Cambridge then non-stop to Kings Cross.
Peterborough Thameslink trains run all stations to Stevenage then non-stop to Finsbury Park.
Cambridge Thameslink trains run all stations Royston to Stevenage then non-stop to Finsbury Park.

For various infrastructure and traffic reasons trains don't start from Stevenage, but from Letchworth or Cambridge instead. These perform the same all stations function for Stevenage-Hatfield, then connecting with the inner suburban services.

Yeah I was trying to decipher what the pattern was from this horrible, horrible crimes against navigational maps Govia makes https://www.thameslinkrailway.com/destinations-and-offers/where-we-travel-to/our-routes

Like when on the Thameslink site do I need to know Southern go to Southampton. The main thing would be what goes through the tunnel as that's what imports delays across. Maybe have the Off-Peak pattern for all times though as it segregates people onto specific services nicely

 

[Magdalia]

Like when on the Thameslink site do I need to know Southern go to Southampton.

You may not but others do. I say that as someone who does get Thameslink from Cambridge to East Croydon then one change onto West Coastway trains. If ever I wanted to go from Cambridge to Southampton that's what I'd do, because getting from Kings Cross to Waterloo is horrible.

 

[mangyiscute]

You may not but others do. I say that as someone who does get Thameslink from Cambridge to East Croydon then one change onto West Coastway trains. If ever I wanted to go from Cambridge to Southampton that's what I'd do, because getting from Kings Cross to Waterloo is horrible.

I think most people will put up with having to change tube once for the King's Cross to Waterloo journey compared to a journey time of over an hour longer - especially now that no direct East Croydon to Southampton trains run after the east coastway changes (they all go to Portsmouth)
However, I get your point, that since Thameslink allows much easier cross london travel, it is very useful to show this fact on one map.
The use of such maps at all, however, is fast diminishing since people are much more likely to use a journey planner app/website or a maps app/website to plan their route rather than do the research themselves.

 

[Transilien]

It probably should show the general London & South East map rather than any GTR one because there is no point in only showing services from one toc especially when GTR has many services which run with other tocs (especially Southeastern).

 

[Basil Jet]

getting from Kings Cross to Waterloo is horrible.

You know there is a cross-platform interchange between the Bakerloo and Victoria at Oxford Circus?

 

[bramling]

But only takes about 15 minutes longer to St Pancras than a non-stop train to Kings Cross. Once the time taken to change trains at Kings Cross is added in, going on Thameslink is quicker for many journeys, especially going out the other side of the core.
No because the Cambridge economy is booming. For Cambridge the 1990s were a different world.
In the peaks at least some of those services are 12 cars south of Cambridge, to accommodate the Letchworth and Royston passengers. The peak trains that are only 8 cars, and calling at Letchworth and Royston, are very crowded, and best avoided.

Cambridge “booming” doesn’t necessarily equate to it not being viable to add a couple of stops to a non-stop service, to account for the fact that a lot of Cambridge passengers apparently are now choosing to use Thameslink instead.

Booming or otherwise, it isn’t really reasonable for Cambridge to expect to keep the 2tph non-stop effectively as a backstop in case of problems with Thameslink. It isn’t like the competition is great - the GA service is slow, and going by road London to Cambridge is hit and miss at best.

Off-peak the Cambridge fasts seem to have plenty of spare seats these days, during the week at least.

In the lead up to 2018 Rainham was a place to go to tick the 24tph box. It is high risk for low reward and I agree it should be junked. Most of the places it serves have better options using Javelin and/or Elizabeth line. I'd go for no Thameslink trains on the South Eastern, apart from the Catford loop to Sevenoaks/Orpington.

I always thought Rainham wasn’t the most sensible idea, even as a means simply of being able to stick 2tph. It’s problematic enough Thameslink combining three distinct areas (GN, Midland and South Central), without adding a fourth for very little benefit. And it hardly provides great journey opportunities that didn’t previously exist, as the SE side has both city and west end termini. It would be interesting to know how many through journeys are made on the Rainham service, I’ve always got the impression it’s relatively few. As an aside that and Sevenoaks also seem to be where the 700/0s suffer the most vandalism.

Would there now be track capacity to send them to Reigate instead? I realise this would require some infrastructure work at Reigate.

 

[JonathanH]

Would there now be track capacity to send them to Reigate instead? I realise this would require some infrastructure work at Reigate.

Why? If any Thameslink train were to one day go to Reigate, it would be a diversion of the Bedford to Three Bridges service. Putting a 8-car Thameslink train through to East Croydon just complicates passenger loadings. As much as anything, the cost of the Reigate work needs to be justified by some saving elsewhere.

Cambridge “booming” doesn’t necessarily equate to it not being viable to add a couple of stops to a non-stop service, to account for the fact that a lot of Cambridge passengers apparently are now choosing to use Thameslink instead.

What point are you trying to make here? Is the idea that Thameslink trains are too busy with Cambridge passengers to leave room at Royston and Letchworth, so Royston and Letchworth should be able to use the Cambridge fasts? Is this about Royston and Letchworth not having fast enough services to London?

 

[Royston Vasey]

What point are you trying to make here? Is the idea that Thameslink trains are too busy with Cambridge passengers to leave room at Royston and Letchworth, so Royston and Letchworth should be able to use the Cambridge fasts? Is this about Royston and Letchworth not having fast enough services to London?

The point is that the Royston and Letchworth passengers that will previously have coveted the fast Cambridge Royston Letchworth Kings Cross service now actually let it go for the Thameslink because it directly serves their office near Farringdon, City Thameslink, Blackfriars or London Bridge.

The fast Kings Cross services are still busy, but not like they were before Thameslink.

 

[bramling]

Why? If any Thameslink train were to one day go to Reigate, it would be a diversion of the Bedford to Three Bridges service. Putting a 8-car Thameslink train through to East Croydon just complicates passenger loadings.

I’m not saying it’s ideal, but if we seem to acknowledge that Rainham is problematic then presumably the 2tph has to go somewhere. There’s always Orpington I suppose, now that off-peak Kentish Town-Orpington seems to have disappeared into Covid thin air.

The point is that the Royston and Letchworth passengers that will previously have coveted the fast Cambridge Royston Letchworth Kings Cross service now actually let it go for the Thameslink because it directly serves their office near Farringdon, City Thameslink or Blackfriars.

One wonders if there would actually be a case for a few fast Cambridge/Royston/Letchworth/Thameslink peak extra services. Though I doubt there would be stock for more than a couple, and of course pathing would be a nightmare. But more satisfactory than what seems to be the case at present.

 

[JonathanH]

I’m not saying it’s ideal, but if we seem to acknowledge that Rainham is problematic then presumably the 2tph has to go somewhere. There’s always Orpington I suppose, now that off-peak Kentish Town-Orpington seems to have disappeared into Covid thin air.

Rainham only seems to be treated as problematic because the passengers once had a service to Charing Cross. Is there evidence that it causes disruption on Thameslink or is it just about it being an oddball service? Some people seem to complain about the service spacing via Greenwich, but is that really just down to the Thameslink service. I don't think Greenwich to Charing Cross is straightforward any more.

 

[Royston Vasey]

One wonders if there would actually be a case for a few fast Cambridge/Royston/Letchworth/Thameslink peak extra services. Though I doubt there would be stock for more than a couple.

Not sure there's space for extras, and it would mess up the current 387 diagrams, but you could use a 700 on some of the King's Lynn to Cambridge/Royston/Letchworth and send it down the Canal Tunnels instead of KGX.

 

[bramling]

Rainham only seems to be treated as problematic because the passengers once had a service to Charing Cross. Is there evidence that it causes disruption on Thameslink or is it just about it being an oddball service? Some people seem to complain about the service spacing via Greenwich, but is that really just down to the Thameslink service. I don't think Greenwich to Charing Cross is straightforward any more.

I’m not sure it’s that it causes disruption on Thameslink, but whether it causes disruption on the various Dartford routes, and at Dartford in particular which is a bottleneck.

As a wider point, I’d say it’s also unclear what market it’s attempting to serve. There’s already access to the city in the form of Cannon Street, and there’s also connections to both Crossrail and the DLR, making the Woolwich route very well connected already. So I’m not sure what benefit the slow trundle is offering to anyone, especially when there was a quite decent semi-fast service before which seems to have been popular. And being such a slow trundle surely few from Medway use it to travel to/from core destinations, especially as they have HS1?

It seems the only people that might benefit from it are county lines types.

Not sure there's space for extras, and it would mess up the current 387 diagrams, but you could use a 700 on some of the King's Lynn to Cambridge/Royston/Letchworth and send it down the Canal Tunnels instead of KGX.

I think it would have to be done as an extra because it wouldn’t be possible to run 12/700 to Kings Lynn. Off-peak could of course work using 8/700, though these would have to come from somewhere, and of course with the issue of where they would run to. I was thinking more about a couple of 12-car peak extras.

 

[Magdalia]

One wonders if there would actually be a case for a few fast Cambridge/Royston/Letchworth/Thameslink peak extra services. Though I doubt there would be stock for more than a couple, and of course pathing would be a nightmare. But more satisfactory than what seems to be the case at present.

Not sure there's space for extras, and it would mess up the current 387 diagrams, but you could use a 700 on some of the King's Lynn to Cambridge/Royston/Letchworth and send it down the Canal Tunnels instead of KGX.

I think it would have to be done as an extra because it wouldn’t be possible to run 12/700 to Kings Lynn. Off-peak could of course work using 8/700, though these would have to come from somewhere, and of course with the issue of where they would run to. I was thinking more about a couple of 12-car peak extras.

On an already congested railway, more trains are not the answer. But there is still scope for increasing capacity with more 12 car Cambridge-Kings Cross fast trains. That includes weekends too, not just the Monday-Friday peaks.

You know there is a cross-platform interchange between the Bakerloo and Victoria at Oxford Circus?

I do thanks. In my younger and fitter days I used it a lot. For health reasons I haven't used the deep level tube for a long while now. For me one of the best things about Thameslink is that it crosses the river on a bridge not in a tunnel. There was a direct bus Kings Cross-Waterloo on route 59 for a few years but that's now gone. The least worst route for me now is probably train to City Thameslink than a bus along Fleet Street and over Waterloo Bridge.

 

[Backroom_boy]

Regarding the ATC in the core; would it be worth expanding it out incrementally to increase the benefits of automated running. Or is it sized appropriately to only cover TL, and avoid other services?

 

[NorthKent1989]

In the lead up to 2018 Rainham was a place to go to tick the 24tph box. It is high risk for low reward and I agree it should be junked. Most of the places it serves have better options using Javelin and/or Elizabeth line. I'd go for no Thameslink trains on the South Eastern, apart from the Catford loop to Sevenoaks/Orpington.

It was also done to appease Deptford, Greenwich, Maze Hill and Westcombe Park passengers as well, who had lost their Charing Cross service, until 2022, anywhere east of Charlton still had Charing Cross trains via Lewisham, but I don’t think it was worth it.

As you a lot of this route is paralleled by HS1 and the Elizabeth Line and can be covered in half the time.

Its only passengers west of Charlton (ie the Greenwich line) that gets the benefit of it but even then I don’t feel it’s worth it as it does cause disruption, if anything goes wrong with Thameslink the Rainham are always the first to be cancelled, personally, they should axe Thameslink, give the Greenwich line 6tph to Cannon Street from the Loops and Dartford/Gravesend and restore the Gillingham service as a Charing Cross via Lewisham train, doesn’t even have to be semi fast as before but can at least run semi fast between Gravesend and Dartford or even skip Erith and Belvedere.

Rainham only seems to be treated as problematic because the passengers once had a service to Charing Cross. Is there evidence that it causes disruption on Thameslink or is it just about it being an oddball service? Some people seem to complain about the service spacing via Greenwich, but is that really just down to the Thameslink service. I don't think Greenwich to Charing Cross is straightforward any more.

As I’ve said, if Thameslink gets delayed which it often does then the Rainhams are always canned which causes no end of disruption to the Dartford corridors, there was a reason why all the Dartford routes were ditched in the early 2000s proposals because there was no way to get any of the routes to the Thameslink tracks At Bermondsey without causing conflict which the Rainham does, which also defeats the purpose of axing Charing Cross trains from the Greenwich line.

Plus as many have said, this all stopper replaced a well used and handy semi fast train which in the age of the Elizabeth line would be handy for those coming from Medway/Gravesend to reach Abbey Wood inside of half an hour.

As a wider point, I’d say it’s also unclear what market it’s attempting to serve. There’s already access to the city in the form of Cannon Street, and there’s also connections to both Crossrail and the DLR, making the Woolwich route very well connected already. So I’m not sure what benefit the slow trundle is offering to anyone, especially when there was a quite decent semi-fast service before which seems to have been popular. And being such a slow trundle surely few from Medway use it to travel to/from core destinations, especially as they have HS1?

This is the other thing, before 2018 there was 4tph Loop-Greenwich-CST trains, 2tph Dartford-Greenwich-CHX trains and 2tph Gillingham-Woolwich-Blackheath-CHX semi fast trains

Thameslink if I’m honest has added nothing to this corridor that we wouldn’t have eventually gotten with the Elizabeth line.

If St. Albans & Luton were in such demand for those on this corridor then all one has to do is get HS1 from Medway/Gravesend to St. Pancras, points east of Abbey Wood can change there for the EL to Farringdon, same if at Woolwich, and both routes would still get you to St. Albans/Luton far quicker than the existing Rainham service which would be only reaching London Bridge by the time you’re zooming past Brent Cross, if the EL hadn’t of been built then there would be some justification for it.

 

[cle]

I would think the easiest solve for Rainham would be to stick it into Cannon St, and try to figure a more uniform 10 min service through Greenwich. Amazing how we argue about the craziness of something logical we once had. That route should really be higher - the development from Deptford all the way along has been huge.

North of the river, less easy. Could they turn at Elephant, if there was enough time? I would personally love for them to run through the Catford loop - but I'm not sure if 6tph there is doable - or justified. Perhaps as a fast - take over something out of Victoria (the Gillingham/Dover via Denmark Hill) - and send something else out of Victoria. If it has to be London Bridge, maybe take over a Caterham or something simple. West Croydon/Epsom semi-fast is often mentioned too.

And yes we should look again at Blackfriars bays. But again, we really need more southern/south London turning options.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I would think the easiest solve for Rainham would be to stick it into Cannon St, and try to figure a more uniform 10 min service through Greenwich. Amazing how we argue about the craziness of something logical we once had. That route should really be higher - the development from Deptford all the way along has been huge.

North of the river, less easy. Could they turn at Elephant, if there was enough time? I would personally love for them to run through the Catford loop - but I'm not sure if 6tph there is doable - or justified. Perhaps as a fast - take over something out of Victoria (the Gillingham/Dover via Denmark Hill) - and send something else out of Victoria. If it has to be London Bridge, maybe take over a Caterham or something simple. West Croydon/Epsom semi-fast is often mentioned too.

And yes we should look again at Blackfriars bays. But again, we really need more southern/south London turning options.

The Rainham service was never a Cannon Street service it was a Charing Cross service, better to restore that, then still 6tph Cannon Street via Greenwich, 4tph Loop 2tph to Gravesend, plus in the likely future event that TfL does take over the Dartford routes then it keeps that part of the network nice and tidy, the Blackheath-Woolwich route is the only 2tph route in the metro area and historically this was the Gillingham service, so it separates a 2tph outer surburban service from the 4/6tph network of routes to Gravesend, Sevenoaks and Hayes, routes likely to be taken over by TfL

I never understood why Thameslink just didn’t take over the LB-Sydenham-Caterham stopper, Southern barely runs through that corridor these days apart from the LB-Victoria service, and the Rainham service is 8 coaches so was the old Caterham stopper.

Thameslink out to Dover may be too far but certainly to Gillingham via Denmark Hill, the semi fast Epsom service as well would be a far better fit for Thameslink than the Rainham is

 

[JonathanH]

If it has to be London Bridge, maybe take over a Caterham or something simple.

Losing the Caterham / Tattenham Corner splitting service wouldn't really be desirable, as reversing a Tattenham Corner train at Purley isn't helpful.

I never understood why Thameslink just didn’t take over the LB-Sydenham-Caterham stopper, Southern barely runs through that corridor these days apart from the LB-Victoria service, and the Rainham service is 8 coaches so was the old Caterham stopper.

A Sydenham route stopper couldn't be made to work in the original timetabling, and doesn't run now in any case. It was explicitly mentioned at the point the timetable was being consulted on.

 

[PGAT]

What about Thameslink replacing the Charing Cross - Maidstone East service freeing up resources for an improved service on the Greenwich line

 

[AM9]

What about Thameslink replacing the Charing Cross - Maidstone East service freeing up resources for an improved service on the Greenwich line

Why would you want to waste class 700 trains by tying them to 3rd rail only services, they are the only stock that is cleared to run services through the core.

 

[PGAT]

Why would you want to waste class 700 trains by tying them to 3rd rail only services, they are the only stock that is cleared to run services through the core.

Sorry if I was unclear, it would run through the core to Luton instead of the current Rainham trains

 

[AM9]

Sorry if I was unclear, it would run through the core to Luton instead of the current Rainham trains

Ah, OK, I read that as running a CHX to MDE service.

 

[cle]

I thought about Maidstone - and I guess it does keep to a London Bridge path re Rainham - but ideally there wouldn't be any services down into SE territory. Orpington/Sevenoaks is though, at the country end. Same line, via Otford, so I guess it makes sense.

And yes, the Charing Cross paths would be handy elsewhere.

 

[Bald Rick]

Regarding the ATC in the core; would it be worth expanding it out incrementally to increase the benefits of automated running. Or is it sized appropriately to only cover TL, and avoid other services?

Yes it would. And it’s relatively cheap, once the signalling is ‘ETCS Ready’.

By far the biggest win would be to have ATO out to (roughly) Cricklewood so that all the fast / slow moves in/out of the core from the MML were done at pace. That would transform punctuailty, and probably enable a minute off mkst journey times.

 

[AM9]

Yes it would. And it’s relatively cheap, once the signalling is ‘ETCS Ready’.

By far the biggest win would be to have ATO out to (roughly) Cricklewood so that all the fast / slow moves in/out of the core from the MML were done at pace. That would transform punctuailty, and probably enable a minute off mkst journey times.

So does that mean that ATO handover and disengagement con happen at speed?