Thameslink service should be revised to increase reliability

[Bald Rick]

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

It happens at speed (30mph) every day!

 

[weeklycommuter]

Since the opening of the Cambridge-Brighton Thameslink service in 2018 I have travelled many times by train to and from Cambridge by connecting with the Cambridge -Brighton Thameslink trains at Three Bridges. I very much welcomed this new service as it enabled me to travel by train to and from Cambridge without being forced to cross London on the Underground. The half hourly Cambridge-Brighton and Peterborough-Horsham Thameslink train services are very useful semi-fast train services with plenty of capacity on the 12 car class 700 trains that are normally used to provide the service. They provide direct train services connecting Peterborough, Cambridge and stations on route to London Kings Cross with stations in London including Farringdon for the Elizabeth Line, Blackfriars and London Bridge and stations South of London including Brighton and Gatwick Airport. They free up platforms at London Kings Cross for more long distance ECML services and enable and encourage people to make a lot more journeys by train. They call at London St Pancras underground platforms which are next door to London Kings Cross and have connections to the same London Underground services so they are also fine as alternative trains to the fast Great Northern service between Cambridge and London Kings Cross.
I note that the original plan to change the Cambridge to London Kings Cross stopping service into a Thameslink train to Maidstone has been dropped and these trains will continue to terminate at London Kings Cross. The peak Thameslink services to Littlehampton have also been dropped so changes have been made to the original plans to reduce the originally planned number of peak and off peak train services between London St Pancras and Blackfriars to ensure Thameslink services run reliably.

 

[Hadlow Road]

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.

Hmm, I take your point, but I should prefer a well-designed soft system as well as a good paper map. We’re planning some German travel (by train, I hasten to add) and no screen is big enough to assist. Yes, soft versions are helpful, but I don’t like trying to plan on a small screen that misses adjacent stuff that should be clear. E.g. Bayswater to Queensway anyone?

But paper maps, like screen-based stuff, have to be fit-for-purpose. Maps of Lisbon from the Tourist offices anyone?

 

[Minstral25]

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


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.

It is a possibility - diverting the 8 coach Rainham service to Caterham and extending the London Bridge to East Croydon via Tulse Hill stopper to Tattenham Corner (so no reversing at Purley but extra train ECR to PUR instead). That would then mean almost all services from London Bridge to East Croydon down the fast lines will be Thameslink which will aid simplicity of operation (even give opportunity to extend ATC down to Norwood Junction). Just need to sort out the Uckfield's

 

[JonathanH]

Just need to sort out the Uckfield's

...and the Epsom service.

 

[Schweir]

I think the Horsham - Peterborough route is an unusual one (I can only comment south of London):
- It is quicker to change at Three Bridges from Crawley / Horsham to get to the core
- All the times I've travelled the service south of Redhill, it is virtually empty - seems a waste of a 12 car train
- Those boarding between Horsham & Crawley almost all exclusively get off at Three Bridges to change for Brighton / other London services

I wonder if the route could be moved to the fast lines between Three Bridges & London or only call at Horley & Redhill on the slow line to make it more temporally attractive & the Three Bridges starter can pick up the extra stops.

Not to mention this route seems to be prone to many cancellations.

 

[JonathanH]

I wonder if the route could be moved to the fast lines between Three Bridges & London or only call at Horley & Redhill on the slow line to make it more temporally attractive & the Three Bridges starter can pick up the extra stops.

Horsham's fast service goes to Victoria. Its slow service serves Redhill and to keep even timings in the Redhill area takes its share of the stops, which seems reasonable. As you note, people can change at East Croydon or Three Bridges if they are in a hurry.

 

[cle]

...and the Epsom service.

This should take a St Albans / Luton pair - from the Sutton loop. I think Epsom belongs on Thameslink too. The West Croydon fast to core, especially, would be very useful for many. Sutton - not sure how the journey time would compare vs via Herne Hill.

 

[dub]

The with taking through services from Sutton is that Blackfriars couldn't cope with the amount of people using the small southern end stairs going southbound. Those trains are really heavily used from north of Blackfriars. Northbound trains are easier because it's mostly a cross platform interchange.

 

[mangyiscute]

I guess another question I'd have is how much do people dislike having to cross London by tube. Personally, I don't really find it to be much of an issue, but I am an able bodied person who can easily make transfers quickly - I imagine for disabled/elderly people, they will be so much happier having a through service, or a 1 change on the same platform/just over a footbridge compared to a 5 min walk through small crowded tube tunnels. At the same time, with the number of people who are like "I could never sit on a 700 for 2+ hours" surely they would enjoy to have a bit of a walk to break up their journey?

 

[D7666]

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?

TL was supposed to have had a comprehensive stand alone traffic management system (NO not the 'traffic management system' sense from the 'tms' part of the ERTMS abbreviation; this is something else) to aid core regulation before trains hit the ATO area. It was referred to in papers and talks given by the late Paul Bates (TL core signalling project manager) and the idea was to pick up trains from about a 20 mile radius - on my side, MML, transponders for this appeared at the London end of Radlett Junctions (the useful 'last point' to identify which trains are on USL or UFL before they get too close to London) and feed that specific data into whatever they were trying to do with it. It required no train borne kit. Roger Ford IIRC referred to it in Modern Railways, but I think somewhere it was reported it was not going to go ahead ? TBH I lost track of this one. I must remember to look see if the transponders are still in place.

_

A general comment to this thread.

Have you all forgotten that the very May 2018 Thameslink timetable mentioned in OP opening wording introduction had a huge impact everywhere ? Nationwide impact. When introduced 05/2018 impacted on many many other services far and wide and well away from London and or south east some not even apparently even connecting services by TOC(s) out in the provinces. You start twiddling with something that locally appears to be no more than a want - or proposing random tweaks here and there - on TL services and you will find something hundreds of miles away needs attention.

 

[cle]

I guess another question I'd have is how much do people dislike having to cross London by tube. Personally, I don't really find it to be much of an issue, but I am an able bodied person who can easily make transfers quickly - I imagine for disabled/elderly people, they will be so much happier having a through service, or a 1 change on the same platform/just over a footbridge compared to a 5 min walk through small crowded tube tunnels. At the same time, with the number of people who are like "I could never sit on a 700 for 2+ hours" surely they would enjoy to have a bit of a walk to break up their journey?

People are loving the one-seat Heathrow journeys now on Crossrail - even when 'slower' than Heathrow Express (only the 15 min part - on aggregate far quicker than a change and wait - plus the cost) - and I suspect there are a lot of people north of London who love a direct, if slow at times, train to Gatwick and Brighton. Just as so many south of the river can access Gatwick so well.

 

[bramling]

People are loving the one-seat Heathrow journeys now on Crossrail - even when 'slower' than Heathrow Express (only the 15 min part - on aggregate far quicker than a change and wait - plus the cost) - and I suspect there are a lot of people north of London who love a direct, if slow at times, train to Gatwick and Brighton. Just as so many south of the river can access Gatwick so well.

It’s all very well people liking the prospect of a “one seat” journey to the airport once in a while, but the penalty for this is being stuck on platforms for long periods often multiple days a week for the regular commute due to Thameslink’s inherent unreliability.

Put like that it isn’t so attractive, unless you’re Cambridge in which case they get the best of all worlds as they always have.

 

[Bald Rick]

TL was supposed to have had a comprehensive stand alone traffic management system (NO not the 'traffic management system' sense from the 'tms' part of the ERTMS abbreviation; this is something else) to aid core regulation before trains hit the ATO area. It was referred to in papers and talks given by the late Paul Bates (TL core signalling project manager) and the idea was to pick up trains from about a 20 mile radius - on my side, MML, transponders for this appeared at the London end of Radlett Junctions (the useful 'last point' to identify which trains are on USL or UFL before they get too close to London) and feed that specific data into whatever they were trying to do with it. It required no train borne kit.

I‘ve never seen ‘transponders’ at the London end if Radlett Jn*, and even if they were / are there it was nothing to do with the then proposed TM system. The TM would (and one day will) takes info from the Train Describers in the signalling centres. It doesn‘t need ant additional train identification.

* unless you mean the Auto Power Cutoffs for the OLE neutral section just south of Radkett Jn?

 

[D7666]

I‘ve never seen ‘transponders’ at the London end if Radlett Jn*, and even if they were / are there it was nothing to do with the then proposed TM system. The TM would (and one day will) takes info from the Train Describers in the signalling centres. It doesn‘t need ant additional train identification.

* unless you mean the Auto Power Cutoffs for the OLE neutral section just south of Radkett Jn?

No not APC kit.

The transponders I mention were referred to in presentation by Paul Bates (himself an Elstree commuter at the time); this was some time back now, 10 years maybe, well before 700s appeared; was the first I heard of them, but must have been contemporary to that presentation. Maybe they were tested and removed - like I said I can't remember now if they are in place, so perhaps they are not, Perhaps 'transponder' is the wrong term, I don't have a copy of the presentation; one of the things "transponder" would do was confirm if FLU or RLU that TD don't do (well not one based on a signalling system using track circuits). Or confirm a 10car unit, which was an other thing floating around at that time.

The same (or very similar) presentation (I went to 7 or 8 all told) contained a number of other novelties that have long since been dropped - one of which was not to have an exact timetable in the core, but 'free running' where a train would simply proceed X seconds after it was presented to the core and not necessarily wait it's booked path ..... one can immediately find all sorts of issues with that (and no need to go into them, I merely state it as an example that things looked that never happened). Nor did 10car.

Normally this sort of change while a scheme evolves is known as "project drift" and Thameslink drifted more than most in the near 30 years or so it finally took.


EDIT I wonder if our Learned Contributor supercross can throw any light on what I refer too or resolve if I have confused these items with something else.

 

[Bald Rick]

No not APC kit.

The transponders I mention were referred to in presentation by Paul Bates (himself an Elstree commuter at the time); this was some time back now, 10 years maybe, well before 700s appeared; was the first I heard of them, but must have been contemporary to that presentation. Maybe they were tested and removed - like I said I can't remember now if they are in place, so perhaps they are not, Perhaps 'transponder' is the wrong term, I don't have a copy of the presentation; one of the things "transponder" would do was confirm if FLU or RLU that TD don't do (well not one based on a signalling system using track circuits). Or confirm a 10car unit, which was an other thing floating around at that time.

The same (or very similar) presentation (I went to 7 or 8 all told) contained a number of other novelties that have long since been dropped - one of which was not to have an exact timetable in the core, but 'free running' where a train would simply proceed X seconds after it was presented to the core and not necessarily wait it's booked path ..... one can immediately find all sorts of issues with that (and no need to go into them, I merely state it as an example that things looked that never happened). Nor did 10car.

Normally this sort of change while a scheme evolves is known as "project drift" and Thameslink drifted more than most in the near 30 years or so it finally took.


EDIT I wonder if our Learned Contributor supercross can throw any light on what I refer too or resolve if I have confused these items with something else.

I knew Paul very well, I remember him fondly.

10 years ago, 10 car 700s was not on the agenda - 10 years ago the first of the 700s were being built!

The ‘no timetable’ in the core was explored briefly - there was to be a timetable, but essentially trains would have ‘free depart’ as Southeastern do at London Bridge and Waterloo East) heading into London. It didn‘t take long to convince the proponents the challenges with that in the core.

The concept of transponders (almost certainly ETCS eurobalises) south of Radlett is a new one on me though.

 

[Basil Jet]

I notice that during the daytime there is a 7-10 minute gap in the Thameslink core every 15 minutes. I was wondering if anyone has considered diverting the 4tph Oxford to Marylebone services into the TL core, via a new curve near Neasden onto the Dudden Hill line. Since Marylebone is just around the corner from Paddington, A TL service to Oxford would serve a lot more parts of London than a service from Marylebone. Chiltern say crowding at Marylebone is a problem, which is why they are talking about a branch to OOC, but this would relieve lines to Marylebone as well. It would allow these services to call at West Hampstead Thameslink allowing Jubilee connection to Baker Street for anyone who really wanted the Marylebone area. Obvious problems are electrification and rolling stock amount. As for where they would go in South London, 2tph to Sevenoaks via Catford seems like an option, but I'm not sure where the other two tph would go.

 

[Bald Rick]

I notice that during the daytime there is a 7-10 minute gap in the Thameslink core every 15 minutes. I was wondering if anyone has considered diverting the 4tph Oxford to Marylebone services into the TL core, via a new curve near Neasden onto the Dudden Hill line. Since Marylebone is just around the corner from Paddington, A TL service to Oxford would serve a lot more parts of London than a service from Marylebone. Chiltern say crowding at Marylebone is a problem, which is why they are talking about a branch to OOC, but this would relieve lines to Marylebone as well. It would allow these services to call at West Hampstead Thameslink allowing Jubilee connection to Baker Street for anyone who really wanted the Marylebone area. Obvious problems are electrification and rolling stock amount. As for where they would go in South London, 2tph to Sevenoaks via Catford seems like an option, but I'm not sure where the other two tph would go.

No, that has not been considered. It would need a rather difficult to build grade separated junction to get trains from the Dudding Hill line to the Moorgate lines, which in reality could only be a longish tunnel.

And, obviously, it could only run off peak.

 

[D7666]

I knew Paul very well, I remember him fondly.

10 years ago, 10 car 700s was not on the agenda - 10 years ago the first of the 700s were being built!

The ‘no timetable’ in the core was explored briefly - there was to be a timetable, but essentially trains would have ‘free depart’ as Southeastern do at London Bridge and Waterloo East) heading into London. It didn‘t take long to convince the proponents the challenges with that in the core.

The concept of transponders (almost certainly ETCS eurobalises) south of Radlett is a new one on me though.

I didn't say 10car was on any agenda 10 years ago. I merely referred to 10car. The 10car comment at the time was about future proofing - 8car and 12car were referred to as well as future changes and stated at the time - and as this particular aspect has come up, I am now sure my memory of the whole subject is not that flawed.

It is possible that the 'transponders' I have confused with something else, although certainly not APC; I will have to remember to look out at Radlett Jns to see if the things I mean are there still; but I'm not commuting that way for another 2 weeks being in leave right now.

Concerning 10car 700s side of things, I also went to 700s presentations and Learned Society visits to both Three Bridges (twice; one before 700s entered public traffic one after) and Hornsey. The 3B presentation during the 1st visit, in 2016, we were told all about 700s - /0 and /1 - as back to back half sets of 4 and 6 cars, and, in the subsequent discussion could be mixed and matched into 10car trains of 6+4 half sets if needed. While there may not have been any operator need or interest in that, it was certainly at a early stage technically allowed for in the trains => potentially allowed for in traffic control systems.

Again, it is called future proofing. Just because something was not done at the time does not block out that something might be allowed for. The actual need for 10car trains might not have been on any agenda then ; but the need to /future provide/ for 10car trains certainly was, and, I suggest, still is.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I notice that during the daytime there is a 7-10 minute gap in the Thameslink core every 15 minutes. I was wondering if anyone has considered diverting the 4tph Oxford to Marylebone services into the TL core, via a new curve near Neasden onto the Dudden Hill line. Since Marylebone is just around the corner from Paddington, A TL service to Oxford would serve a lot more parts of London than a service from Marylebone. Chiltern say crowding at Marylebone is a problem, which is why they are talking about a branch to OOC, but this would relieve lines to Marylebone as well. It would allow these services to call at West Hampstead Thameslink allowing Jubilee connection to Baker Street for anyone who really wanted the Marylebone area. Obvious problems are electrification and rolling stock amount. As for where they would go in South London, 2tph to Sevenoaks via Catford seems like an option, but I'm not sure where the other two tph would go.

This reminds of things I’ve read about Thameslink’s early days in the 90s and when they planned the expansion of the network in its initial stages.

I don’t recall Oxford ever being on the agenda but a Stanstead to Dover Priory service was mooted I believe.

And they came very close to running services to Ashford in 1993/94 to connect with the then future international services, but privatisation put that on hold indefinitely.

The old Connex Brighton to Rugby (supposedly supposed to run all the way to Birmingham) was eventually supposed to be absorbed by Thameslink as a “Thameslink 2” of sorts.

 

[D7666]

deleted error

 

[Basil Jet]

No, that has not been considered. It would need a rather difficult to build grade separated junction to get trains from the Dudding Hill line to the Moorgate lines, which in reality could only be a longish tunnel.

If the depot exit road on the east side of Cricklewood Station was lowered then a single track 130 metre tunnel would get under the mainline. Although that would mean trains to and from Oxford were sharing a sharing a bidirectional track for 600 metres...

And, obviously, it could only run off peak.

I wasn't suggesting that all of the current peak-only TL services would continue to be part of TL - the introduction of a full time Oxford service would be more important.

 

[whoosh]

TL was supposed to have had a comprehensive stand alone traffic management system (NO not the 'traffic management system' sense from the 'tms' part of the ERTMS abbreviation; this is something else) to aid core regulation before trains hit the ATO area.

By early to mid 2017, this had been 'de-scoped' from the Thameslink Programme.

I didn't say 10car was on any agenda 10 years ago. I merely referred to 10car. The 10car comment at the time was about future proofing - 8car and 12car were referred to as well as future changes and stated at the time - and as this particular aspect has come up, I am now sure my memory of the whole subject is not that flawed.

It is possible that the 'transponders' I have confused with something else, although certainly not APC; I will have to remember to look out at Radlett Jns to see if the things I mean are there still; but I'm not commuting that way for another 2 weeks being in leave right now.

Concerning 10car 700s side of things, I also went to 700s presentations and Learned Society visits to both Three Bridges (twice; one before 700s entered public traffic one after) and Hornsey. The 3B presentation during the 1st visit, in 2016, we were told all about 700s - /0 and /1 - as back to back half sets of 4 and 6 cars, and, in the subsequent discussion could be mixed and matched into 10car trains of 6+4 half sets if needed. While there may not have been any operator need or interest in that, it was certainly at a early stage technically allowed for in the trains => potentially allowed for in traffic control systems.

Again, it is called future proofing. Just because something was not done at the time does not block out that something might be allowed for. The actual need for 10car trains might not have been on any agenda then ; but the need to /future provide/ for 10car trains certainly was, and, I suggest, still is.

I can see some "higher ups" discussing this way of making 10 cars a possibility, but with the disabled accommodation being where two 'halfs' join, this would involve 10 cars stopping at RLU or FLU board Stopping points depending on which way around they were. Maybe more realistic under ATO, but outside of that (which won't be used full time, even when all drivers are trained) it's just asking for trains to stop at the wrong board by mistake.
Unrealistic in reality, in other words.

10 cars as two five car half sets with a separate (MLU? Mid Length Unit?) stop board could work, but that would be 3 sub-fleets instead of two.

 

[Magdalia]

This reminds of things I’ve read about Thameslink’s early days in the 90s and when they planned the expansion of the network in its initial stages.

I don’t recall Oxford ever being on the agenda but a Stanstead to Dover Priory service was mooted I believe.

Stansted Airport was in the early 1990s proposals but I'm not aware of Dover being included.

And they came very close to running services to Ashford in 1993/94 to connect with the then future international services, but privatisation put that on hold indefinitely.

These did run between 2009 and 2014 when there were no bay platforms at Blackfriars. There were 0542/0623 Ashford-Bedford also 0728 Rochester-Bedford. Going the other way was 1634 Bedford-Ashford also 1620/1654 Bedford-Rochester.

 

[AM9]

Stansted Airport was in the early 1990s proposals but I'm not aware of Dover being included.

Just how would a class 700 run through the core en route from Stansted to Dover?

 

[JonathanH]

Just how would a class 700 run through the core en route from Stansted to Dover?

The previous explanation has been a restoration of the curve at Kentish Town onto the line through South Tottenham, considered and dismissed 35 years ago.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gatwick-to-stansted-through-service.268545/#post-6796732
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...tion-cost-benefits.242277/page-2#post-6037127
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/stansted-thameslink-idea.234475/#post-5758214

 

[AM9]

The previous explanation has been a restoration of the curve at Kentish Town onto the line through South Tottenham, considered and dismissed 35 years ago.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gatwick-to-stansted-through-service.268545/#post-6796732
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...tion-cost-benefits.242277/page-2#post-6037127
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/stansted-thameslink-idea.234475/#post-5758214

OK, so as mentioned in those linked threads, the whole exercise would be pointless given the ridiculous circuitous route via the NLL or the GOBlin.

 

[Magdalia]

Just how would a class 700 run through the core en route from Stansted to Dover?

Including Stansted in Thameslink was an idea of its time, the early 1990s when the new terminal there was just opening. Back then Transport for London did not exist: Network SouthEast ran the North London Line with 3tph off peak and Gospel Oak-Barking with 2tph. There was a historical precedent of running from the Cambridge line into St Pancras, the Great Eastern Railway used to do it before the Grouping,

OK, so as mentioned in those linked threads, the whole exercise would be pointless given the ridiculous circuitous route via the NLL or the GOBlin.

It isn't a ridiculous circuitous route. Tottenham Hale to St Pancras via Junction Road Junction is less than a mile further than Tottenham Hale to Liverpool Street.

 

[Transilien]

That reminds me of London Crosslink, which had all the problems of Thameslink but even worse! Really long routes that were never going to be used by anyone end to end and an even more infrequent service hampered by capacity on the NLL.

 

[MPW]

I personally love the Peak-only thameslink route from orpington to Luton and kentish town. It's way slower than SE to CST/CHX but I am guaranteed a seat in the 1st class section where I can use my laptop comfortably.

The long and modern trains somehow feel out of place "out in the sticks" as they stop at so many minor stations but by the time it gets to Peckham it's absolutely crammed and seems to more than warrant the rolling stock used.

Based just on that personal experience I have now come around to agreeing with the idea of 1 or 2 additional services per hour to Bellingham which use the sidings to turn around. The stations closer to London certainly deserve more capacity.

Of course the other issue is the SE fast services which limit Catford Loop availability. It's crazy to me that these trains take up such valuable space in a massively overcrowded corridor which is often the subject of proposals for redevelopment and even new tube line (eg BLE to Peckham, catford).