As a regular user, I will say there has been some very small improvement but the situation is still dire. Among the multitude of problems, the one thing I struggle with is that service recovery is ridiculously poor. There seems to be this mentality that 'we have got to get the train to its final destination as quickly as possible' and that is prolonging the service disruption because it means short-term changes, inconsistent customer information, customers being dumped at inconvenient stations and trains being either crushed or empty. If this is the mechanism which is used with the current, emergency timetable then there really will be a meltdown with the full timetable.
Although Thameslink is trying to be all things to all people, I think its closest partner is the RER B/D in Paris. Granted there is a massive crime issue on these routes, the routes are slightly more self-contained and there are less 'regional' sections, but the core role and types of service frequency are quite similar. The RER B/D might be a nightmare for regular commuters for various reasons, but the service recovery after a disruption is excellent, far better than Thameslink. I see this as because:
- There are spare platforms and turnaround facilities that mean you can 'split the core'. TL doesn't have this luxury but it could at least try - Kentish Town, Finsbury Park, London Bridge do have a very small bit of slack even if it requires some out of service running.
- They get passengers moving by getting everyone to the stations with the highest passenger numbers. I agree with this, even if some places on GN/BML have only 2tph, they have nowhere near the passenger numbers. It's better handling the customer flow by telling them to get to their nearest hub, then give them options of getting to their final destinations then trying to be all things to all people. Yes, it would probably mean a vocal Twitter backlash from the locals of central Bedfordshire, or mid-Sussex but the truth is St Albans, Luton, Bedford has the numbers so should have the priority. On GN that means Stevenage, Hitchin, Cambridge - if that means killing Hertford Loop for 2 hours, do it, the compensation bill will be less. Skip-stopping is not ideal, ever, but if they have to do it, they need to consider this as well as operational convenience.
- Customer information: TL is actually not bad at sorting out ticket acceptance, offering alternative routes on Twitter etc but they have a big problem at ensuring the same info on their app, the NR app and social media gets to their colleagues on the ground. In addition, some of their CIS's do their own thing. However they do it, they need a system which allows for X team to input info into a live feed for all staff to see on their phones, station positions, control rooms etc in addition to the local operational tools which give info about the next given trains - no one seem to have the 'big picture'. Every station needs to have an authorised, efficient alternative route to and from London so that each time there is a major disruption, staff can simply look it up and send customers that way, be that face-to-face or via Twitter. At SNCF, when things go majorly wrong, they get the red vests out at all of the main Paris hubs who are all relatively well informed. At TL, we seem to get agency staff who don't know anything and act as bouncers for queues. One feature I like is that regular RER B/D users have a blog which posts detailed explanations of projects and learnings from previous disruptions on their lines. It builds confidence that something is being done, unlike TL who have an awful public reputation. The blogs get many questions and comments which are answered in a more objective, non-customer-service way than on Twitter.
Granted, none of the above can overcome the huge operational hurdles and in any case, operations comes first, they have been discussed many a time on this thread though. I just wanted to highlight some ideas at how when things go wrong, there must be a more positive, efficient solution than at present.