The Future of Thameslink

[JonathanH]

No point in having two TOCs running trains through the core. That'd just cause issues, especially during disruption.

It might just work if the only long distance trains through the core were 4tph Bedford to Brighton like in the old days, with everything else run by TfL not going further than the destinations suggested by the OP.

 

[Basil Jet]

No point in having two TOCs running trains through the core. That'd just cause issues, especially during disruption.

What are these issues?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I feel that stoppers/shuttles to/from Sutton, Orpington, Sevenoaks and St Albans, and maybe Luton, could transfer to TfL Rail.

Why?

 

[JonathanH]

What are these issues?

Regulation. At the moment one operator can decide which services should be held up to allow another to go first at key junctions. It can also decide which trains to cancel in disruption.

With two operators there needs to be some arbitration about those decisions.

 

[dastocks]

Thameslink is mostly commuter services going into London (I hope I'm right?)

That might be true for 4 hours a day on 5 days per week. The rest of the time it's leisure travel to certain destinations (Brighton, London plus others) and a couple of airports. I suspect that in terms of passenger volume the commuters are a minority.

 

[317 forever]

Why?

Because these are stopper services with most stops in Greater London.

 

[Bald Rick]

I feel that stoppers/shuttles to/from Sutton, Orpington, Sevenoaks and St Albans, and maybe Luton, could transfer to TfL Rail. Through services to Bedford should remain with Thameslink though.

why? What benefit would it bring?

Splitting it would certainly add costs.

 

[JonathanH]

Splitting it would certainly add costs.

..but the 'magic' of being on the tube map would increase ridership?

 

[317 forever]

why? What benefit would it bring?

Splitting it would certainly add costs.

I've answered the question elsewhere. Besides, we are allowed our speculations on this thread.

 

[Basil Jet]

Regulation. At the moment one operator can decide which services should be held up to allow another to go first at key junctions. It can also decide which trains to cancel in disruption.

With two operators there needs to be some arbitration about those decisions.

How would the operator decide? Isn't it Network Rail who controls the signalling?

 

[JonathanH]

How would the operator decide? Isn't it Network Rail who controls the signalling?

Not on a one off basis, but I imagine that the operator can discuss a standard precedence / plan with Network Rail for specific scenarios of disruption. Introducing another operator means there is another vested interest in that discussion.

 

[bramling]

I’m 99% sure that 12 coach trains have called at every 12 coach platform in regular passenger service.

however the 12 coach platforms at Mill Hill Broadway (all platforms) and Radlett / Elstree (slows only) don’t see that many 12 coach trains calling, save for the late evening.

I’d have thought it’s only West Hampstead TL to St Albans which doesn’t get all-day 12-car services. Certainly all the GN side stations see regular 12s (though not as many as before Covid!).

 

[etr221]

My thought - more generally, not just Thameslink - is that, within 'TfL land', then TfL should be specifying services and fares; outwith that area then it's National Rail/GBR. For some lines/areas//service groups (e.g perhaps out from Euston) then it is relatively easy to have two separate Operating Companies, with separate contracts. For others - such as Thameslink - it will be more difficult - so I would suggest is more of a three way contract with TfL saying within our area these services, these fares; and beyond GBR/whoever those services, those fares; and the Thameslink Operating Company agreeing to provide them - and ensuring, as part of the negotiations, that the practicalities of changing service requirements when the boundary is in the middle of nowhere get sorted out.

And from the passengers' point of view, their trains will just change from TfL to GBR services (and back again) - but be the same trains...

 

[JonathanH]

For others - such as Thameslink - it will be more difficult - so I would suggest is more of a three way contract with TfL saying within our area these services, these fares; and beyond GBR/whoever those services, those fares; and the Thameslink Operating Company agreeing to provide them - and ensuring, as part of the negotiations, that the practicalities of changing service requirements when the boundary is in the middle of nowhere get sorted out.

If that happened, would TfL specify that the fast trains should stop at Elstree & Borehamwood and Brent Cross West (when open) to improve services for people in London?

What happens if TfL say the fare should be £x and the operator says they can only provide it for £y?

 

[Richardr]

Thameslink use the Key Card - TfL the Oyster Card. Is the suggestion that we all have to get off the train at the London border to tap out on one card and tap in on the other?

Wouldn't it be in TfL's interest to say that they are operating a tube style service of 24 trains per hour through the core, 12 to East Croydon and 12 to Sutton, say from Mill Hill Broadway, and allow no longer distance services in London?

 

[AM9]

Thameslink use the Key Card - TfL the Oyster Card. Is the suggestion that we all have to get off the train at the London border to tap out on one card and tap in on the other?

Wouldn't it be in TfL's interest to say that they are operating a tube style service of 24 trains per hour through the core, 12 to East Croydon and 12 to Sutton, say from Mill Hill Broadway, and allow no longer distance services in London?

So how would the high volumes
of passengers from St Albans, Luton, etc., get to Farringdon, Blackfriars and London Bridge to connect with other services?

 

[Agent_Squash]

Wouldn't it be in TfL's interest to say that they are operating a tube style service of 24 trains per hour through the core, 12 to East Croydon and 12 to Sutton, say from Mill Hill Broadway, and allow no longer distance services in London?

Even the TfL empire builders would recognise there’s easier targets than this!

Really Crossrail and Thameslink need to be treated as the same thing - because they are. They have their quirks (one has PEDs in the core, the other a power change) but disrupting the core idea (connecting places to others via Central London) is a no go.

 

[etr221]

If that happened, would TfL specify that the fast trains should stop at Elstree & Borehamwood and Brent Cross West (when open) to improve services for people in London?

I don't think that E&BW is in the TfL area; but whatever, TfL will be saying what they want, for 'their' people (i.e. Londoners)

What happens if TfL say the fare should be £x and the operator says they can only provide it for £y?

Then it all comes down to the financial part of the negotiations: TfL specify 'these services, these fares', the Operating Company says 'this cost', ... and GBR are in on the discussions, specifying 'those services, those fares' for beyond 'TfL land' (wherever the boundary is) - they all talk as to what gives and come to an agreement as to what will be...

 

[JonathanH]

So how would the high volumes
of passengers from St Albans, Luton, etc., get to Farringdon, Blackfriars and London Bridge to connect with other services?

Kentish Town?

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't think that E&BW is in the TfL area

It is, Zone 6.

 

[Royston Vasey]

What incentive does Transport for London have to adequately serve the needs of sleepy Cambridgeshire or Sussex villages, and what appetite do London taxpayers have to bankroll their services? None and none.

 

[JonathanH]

What incentive does Transport for London have to adequately serve the needs of sleepy Cambridgeshire or Sussex villages, and what appetite do London taxpayers have to bankroll their services? None and none.

At the same time, how do services at stations within London running below underground frequencies best serve the needs of Londoners?

 

[AM9]

Kentish Town?

There are currently over 2500 seats each way per hour provided into Central London* by trains that don't stop between St Pancras and St Albans between the peaks. That is in addition to the 1700+ that the four metro services provide. Unless I've misunderstood where this thread is going, to provide the total of over 4000 seats involving over half of the passengers changing trains, (I assume that Kentish Town wasn't a serious suggestion), at a suburban station would not only be a logistical nightmare, but a massive disincentive to travellers.
If getting Thameslink on the Underground map is that important, then TfL can just declare TL as a 'Crossrail' type of service and draw it on at virtually zero cost. No Need for any change of responsibility or juristiction. Would the DfT throw their arms in the air because TfL have something on their map that isn't funded by TfL?

* Most Beds/Herts originating passengers heading into London on the MML connect to other services, - I imagine by the time the Lizzie is running through, Farringdon, St Pancras and London Bridge will be the dominant intechange stations for that flow.

 

[bramling]

Even the TfL empire builders would recognise there’s easier targets than this!

Really Crossrail and Thameslink need to be treated as the same thing - because they are. They have their quirks (one has PEDs in the core, the other a power change) but disrupting the core idea (connecting places to others via Central London) is a no go.

I don’t get the comparison between XR and Thameslink.

Crossrail is pretty much entirely about relieving central London LU lines. The fact that it happens to provide extra capacity on the GE and GE is really an added bonus.

Thameslink simply doesn’t relieve LU in the same way, though the fact that it happens to do so for a relatively limited number of journeys is a bonus. Thameslink is more about providing outer-suburban capacity, and perhaps enabling some journey opportunities such as to Gatwick Airport (and indeed Crossrail).

Some of the Thameslink metro routes may bear more resemblance to Crossrail, but the likes of Peterborough, Cambridge, Bedford, Brighton (etc) don’t.

 

[Basil Jet]

I’d have thought it’s only West Hampstead TL to St Albans which doesn’t get all-day 12-car services. Certainly all the GN side stations see regular 12s (though not as many as before Covid!).

Obviously the northern side of the Thameslink project has basically happened. I was thinking about southern branches which got cut out of the TL plan after their platforms had already been lengthened.

 

[bramling]

Obviously the northern side of the Thameslink project has basically happened. I was thinking about southern branches which got cut out of the TL plan after their platforms had already been lengthened.

If you mean Caterham and Tattenham Corner, I don’t think any platform extensions were done for Thameslink.

Indeed I’m not sure how many platform extensions were actually done specifically for Thameslink anywhere. On the GN places like the Peterborough line and Letchworth were seeing 12-car trains some time before Thaneslink, but not sure if this was done as part of Thameslink readiness, or as a separate scheme.

On the GN from memory we’d be taking about Letchworth, Arlesey, Biggleswade and Sandy, and IIRC partially Royston too, with some minor work at Cambridge. All these certainly see 12 cars on a routine basis.

 

[AM9]

I don’t get the comparison between XR and Thameslink.

Crossrail is pretty much entirely about relieving central London LU lines. The fact that it happens to provide extra capacity on the GE and GE is really an added bonus.

Thameslink simply doesn’t relieve LU in the same way, though the fact that it happens to do so for a relatively limited number of journeys is a bonus. Thameslink is more about providing outer-suburban capacity, and perhaps enabling some journey opportunities such as to Gatwick Airport (and indeed Crossrail).

Some of the Thameslink metro routes may bear more resemblance to Crossrail, but the likes of Peterborough, Cambridge, Bedford, Brighton (etc) don’t.

Yes, it's true that the original raison d'être of the two lines differ, but their roles in the urban and central areas have similarities in that their crossing provides much needed improvements to key points on their mutual axes. For instance, there is already a considerable bi-directional flow from TL (GN, MML, SE & BML) to XR (Liverpool ST/Stratford, Canary Wharf, Paddington, LHR, and in the medium future, OOC). So within Zones 1 & 2 there will be considerable simplification of journeys - providing the Farringdon interchange can cope.

 

[bramling]

Yes, it's true that the original raison d'être of the two lines differ, but their roles in the urban and central areas have similarities in that their crossing provides much needed improvements to key points on their mutual axes. For instance, there is already a considerable bi-directional flow from TL (GN, MML, SE & BML) to XR (Liverpool ST/Stratford, Canary Wharf, Paddington, LHR, and in the medium future, OOC). So within Zones 1 & 2 there will be considerable simplification of journeys - providing the Farringdon interchange can cope.

I suppose in a perfect world there would be a transport body for London *and* the south-east commuter services (something like an amalgamation of Network SouthEast and the railway part of TFL). That is really the only way that the TFL/NR tidemark would ever be properly dismantled in a way which didn’t introduce damaging parochial politics.

As ever we have the mayoralty stuck there as a blocker to anything sensible, especially with the current incumbent who seems to want to enclave off London into some kind of inward-looking ghetto.

 

[Basil Jet]

If you mean Caterham and Tattenham Corner, I don’t think any platform extensions were done for Thameslink.

Indeed I’m not sure how many platform extensions were actually done specifically for Thameslink anywhere. On the GN places like the Peterborough line and Letchworth were seeing 12-car trains some time before Thaneslink, but not sure if this was done as part of Thameslink readiness, or as a separate scheme.

On the GN from memory we’d be taking about Letchworth, Arlesey, Biggleswade and Sandy, and IIRC partially Royston too, with some minor work at Cambridge. All these certainly see 12 cars on a routine basis.

From Transport Plans For The London Area

• In mid 2000, Railtrack's evidence to the [Thameslink Project] public inquiry stated that the following stations would have platforms extended (in alphabetical order, ignoring the central St Pancras to London Bridge trunk): Angmering (8 cars), Arlesey (12 cars), Balcombe (12), Bedford (12), Berwick (8), Biggleswade (12), Brighton (12), Cambridge (12), Cooksbridge (8), Dartford (12), Durrington-on-Sea (8), Earlswood (12), Eastbourne (12), East Croydon (12), Elephant & Castle (8), Elstree (12), Eltham (12), Finsbury Park (12), Flitwick (12), Foxton (8), Glynde (8), Goring-by-sea (8), Guildford (8), Hampden Park (8), Harlington (12), Harpenden (12), Haywards Heath (12), Hendon (8), Hither Green (12), Lancing (8), Leagrave (12), Littlehampton (12), Luton (12), Luton Airport Parkway (12), Meldreth (8), Mill Hill Broadway (12), Mottingham (12), New Cross (12), Oxted (12), Paddock Wood (12), Pluckley (12), Plumpton (8), Portslade (8), Saint Albans (12), Salfords (12), Sanderstead (12), Sandy (12), Shepreth (8), Three Bridges (12), Tonbridge (12), West Croydon (8), West Hampstead Thameslink (12)

 

[Agent_Squash]

I don’t get the comparison between XR and Thameslink.

Crossrail is pretty much entirely about relieving central London LU lines. The fact that it happens to provide extra capacity on the GE and GE is really an added bonus.

Thameslink simply doesn’t relieve LU in the same way, though the fact that it happens to do so for a relatively limited number of journeys is a bonus. Thameslink is more about providing outer-suburban capacity, and perhaps enabling some journey opportunities such as to Gatwick Airport (and indeed Crossrail).

Some of the Thameslink metro routes may bear more resemblance to Crossrail, but the likes of Peterborough, Cambridge, Bedford, Brighton (etc) don’t.

Paddington to Reading is only 15 miles shorter than London Bridge to Brighton. As @AM9 says, they largely end up doing the same thing in practice - two heavy rail railways crossing Central London and going out into the Home Counties. And they both share the new centre of the rail universe (Farringdon).