The Future of Thameslink

[Royston Vasey]

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)

Interesting that Cambridge would be extended to 12 but Royston would stay at 8, in those plans.

As of today, Royston has been 12'ed but Foxton Shepreth and Meldreth still retain 4 coach up platforms!

 

[SynthD]

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...

TfL sets the fares for some lines, including those that continue on beyond by another operator. As I understand it, TfL must set prices that do not cause a cliff, a sharp increase in costs for going beyond this border. There is not the freedom necessary for your idea.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

I just don't understand the point of this thread. What are people trying to achieve with TfL transfers. There is no chance of any of this happening anyway.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

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

So what? That's not important. What is important is running services in the smoothest and most cost-effective way.

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

Yes, and we are allowed to ask sensible questions in this thread to ascertain that the speculation has been thought through properly.

I just don't understand the point of this thread. What are people trying to achieve with TfL transfers. There is no chance of any of this happening anyway.

I suspect that post 30 - from someone I normally disagree with - provides most of the answer. There is also the curious phenomenon that some people believe that TfL have magical managerial skills and always make every service better.

 

[miklcct]

There is also the curious phenomenon that some people believe that TfL have magical managerial skills and always make every service better.

Given how much better the service on the London Overground compared to its predecessors / other local railways in London, TfL does have the magical skills to make railway service better.

 

[Magdalia]

Interesting that Cambridge would be extended to 12 but Royston would stay at 8, in those plans.

As of today, Royston has been 12'ed but Foxton Shepreth and Meldreth still retain 4 coach up platforms!

Platform extensions for 12 car trains at Royston and Letchworth were nothing to do with Thameslink. When First Capital Connect (FCC) took over it inherited a severe and worsening overcrowding problem. At one point 6 of the top 10 in the most overcrowded trains league table were FCC trains to and from Kings Lynn. Platform extensions at Cambridge, Royston and Letchworth, to take 12 car trains, were part of the response. Cambridge platform 1 and Royston platform 1 were done in 2009, Royston platform 2 in 2010, and Letchworth in 2011.

The down platform at Meldreth is still only 4 cars.

12 car FLU class 700s cannot stop at Foxton or Shepreth on the up road because it is not possible to get the PRM facilities at the platform without fouling the level crossings.

 

[bramling]

Platform extensions for 12 car trains at Royston and Letchworth were nothing to do with Thameslink. When First Capital Connect (FCC) took over it inherited a severe and worsening overcrowding problem. At one point 6 of the top 10 in the most overcrowded trains league table were FCC trains to and from Kings Lynn. Platform extensions at Cambridge, Royston and Letchworth, to take 12 car trains, were part of the response. Cambridge platform 1 and Royston platform 1 were done in 2009, Royston platform 2 in 2010, and Letchworth in 2011.

That's my recollection. Not sure if same applies to the handful of extensions on the Peterborough route though.

12 car FLU class 700s cannot stop at Foxton or Shepreth on the up road because it is not possible to get the PRM facilities at the platform without fouling the level crossings.

Interesting, as certainly 12-cars have stopped there on occasions. In the early days of the 2018 timetable there were a few occasions when a 12-car 700 went on the 2Cxx services to cover for unavailable 8-cars. From first-hand experience they didn't non-stop the halts. Not seen as 12-car on the slow services for some time though.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Platform extensions for 12 car trains at Royston and Letchworth were nothing to do with Thameslink. When First Capital Connect (FCC) took over it inherited a severe and worsening overcrowding problem. At one point 6 of the top 10 in the most overcrowded trains league table were FCC trains to and from Kings Lynn. Platform extensions at Cambridge, Royston and Letchworth, to take 12 car trains, were part of the response. Cambridge platform 1 and Royston platform 1 were done in 2009, Royston platform 2 in 2010, and Letchworth in 2011.

The down platform at Meldreth is still only 4 cars.

12 car FLU class 700s cannot stop at Foxton or Shepreth on the up road because it is not possible to get the PRM facilities at the platform without fouling the level crossings.

Yes that's understood, but interesting that they were happy to run 12 cars but not feel the need to extend Royston then, only for a few years later, the decision to be made to extend it anyway. Different trains yes but the same set of punters. Perhaps Royston passenger numbers grew more than expected through the 2000s. By 2010ish it justified 12 in the peaks for sure, but Thameslink was no longer Plan A (or at least, it was the eventual Plan A but wouldn't come soon enough)

 

[Magdalia]

Perhaps Royston passenger numbers grew more than expected through the 2000s.

The huge growth in passenger numbers was from Cambridge and north thereof, as people increasingly commuted to/from London over longer distances. The 12 car trains were needed when FCC replaced WAGN, but it took until 2009 to deliver because of the need for the platform extensions and the additional rolling stock. The latter eventually came with the arrival of the ex Silverlink class 321s.

 

[Bald Rick]

Given how much better the service on the London Overground compared to its predecessors / other local railways in London, TfL does have the magical skills to make railway service better.

It’s called money, and they haven’t got any more.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Given how much better the service on the London Overground compared to its predecessors / other local railways in London, TfL does have the magical skills to make railway service better.

Wrong! TfL had a very large budget with which to make fairly simple improvements. Their predecessors, Silver Link, operated on a shoestring budget and were limited in what they could achieve. Seasoned TfL observers have noted that when TfL does not have a very generous budget and an easy objective, they fail to make major improvements. They do not have magical managerial skills.

 

[Wolfie]

Wrong! TfL had a very large budget with which to make fairly simple improvements. Their predecessors, City Link, operated on a shoestring budget and were limited in what they could achieve. Seasoned TfL observers have noted that when TfL does not have a very generous budget and an easy objective, they fail to make major improvements. They do not have magical managerial skills.

City Link? As l recall, and l have been using the North London line since 1990, Silverlink (who were utterly awful) proceeded London Overground. Even in the short term there were virtually immediate improvements.

 

[Bald Rick]

City Link? As l recall, and l have been using the North London line since 1990, Silverlink (who were utterly awful) proceeded London Overground. Even in the short term there were virtually immediate improvements.

Silverlink, and this was part of Silverlink Metro.

The immediate improvements were made because a pot full of cash was provided, immediately, for more staff and very rapid cosmetic station improvements - deep cleaning, graffiti removal, repainting, signage, etc. Had the money been provided to Silverlink, a similar improvement would have been most likely.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

City Link? As l recall, and l have been using the North London line since 1990, Silverlink (who were utterly awful) proceeded London Overground. Even in the short term there were virtually immediate improvements.

Yes, correct. Silverlink, not City Link. It was some time ago. I've amended my post accordingly.

 

[JonathanH]

From another thread about today's ECML disruption:

all Thameslink services originating from Horsham are terminating at Redhill currently

This now seems to be the usual contingency arrangement, which results in various stations south of London losing their London services because of something many many miles away.

I guess it is for this reason that people feel that the Peterborough and Horsham services should not work through London - just too much opportunity for the service to be withdrawn because of incidents on what is essentially another route.

 

[bramling]

From another thread about today's ECML disruption:


This now seems to be the usual contingency arrangement, which results in various stations south of London losing their London services because of something many many miles away.

I guess it is for this reason that people feel that the Peterborough and Horsham services should not work through London - just too much opportunity for the service to be withdrawn because of incidents on what is essentially another route.

It’s no better for Cambridge-Brighton, slightest whiff trouble and that gets pulled completely. The difference is that there are alternatives on this route, which Peterborough doesn’t have.

The TL service up the GN side is simply not dependable. It remains very prone to cancellations, and when something happens it simply doesn’t recover well.

All the worse now there aren’t the 365/387 peak and evening services, which provided another option when something had gone wrong south of the river (which to be fair wasn’t the case today).

Peterborough-Horsham doesn’t seem to get that many journeys into and through the core from my observations. The Cambridge services certainly get people staying on, but it’s conspicuously less on the Peterborough services, though more are using Farringdon since Crossrail opened.

 

[NorthKent1989]

The Luton-Rainham service often gets cancelled too, from my observations whenever I’ve used it most people would go as far as London Bridge/Blackfriars/City Thameslink very few seem to head through the core.

Certainly since the Liz Line opened Thameslink services seem more spacious once it reaches Woolwich Arsenal and it has never been a particularly busy service to begin with.

 

[317 forever]

So what? That's not important. What is important is running services in the smoothest and most cost-effective way.

Yes, and we are allowed to ask sensible questions in this thread to ascertain that the speculation has been thought through properly.

It is fair to say that the level of awareness to railways shown here is above average.

By way of a contrast, the level of etiquette shown here comes across as below average.

 

[JonathanH]

Thameslink running shuttles Peterborough to Stevenage and Redhill to Horsham today to cope with a staff shortage.

Might be the future.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Thameslink running shuttles Peterborough to Stevenage and Redhill to Horsham today to cope with a staff shortage.

Might be the future.

It really isn't.

 

[Wolfie]

Thameslink running shuttles Peterborough to Stevenage and Redhill to Horsham today to cope with a staff shortage.

Might be the future.

Completely defeats the whole object of the line.

 

[Benjaminmorgan]

Is it class 700s Horsham to Redhill and 387s or 700s Stevenage to Peterborough please?

 

[AM9]

Is it class 700s Horsham to Redhill and 387s or 700s Stevenage to Peterborough please?

No, 700s everywhere, that's what they were bought for.

 

[Benjaminmorgan]

No, 700s everywhere, that's what they were bought for.

Thanks

 

[bramling]

No, 700s everywhere, that's what they were bought for.

A half-hourly Stevenage to Peterborough shuttle would require 4-5 units, so well within the capacity of the 700/1s which stable overnight at Peterborough Spital.

In any case, of the (from memory) 6 387s which stable overnight at Peterborough Nene, I believe all six are booked to form the three tidal-flow extras, so that wouldn’t leave anything left over except should one or more of these services be cancelled for whatever reason. Looking at RTTT two of them appear to have run today.

 

[Kilopylae]

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

Other than a kind of conceptual neatness--having lines be the right colour on the map, so to speak--there is no reason why stopping trains in London 'just should' be run by TfL.

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.

Shenfield and the east M4 corridor (Slough, Twyford, etc) are 'essentially part of London' in a way that Cambridge, Brighton and Peterborough simply aren't; it is not the same concept at all.

 

[NorthKent1989]

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.

What about the Rainham service? That used to be a fast service under South Eastern but Thameslink made it a stopper, isn’t Medway also too far out to be in TfL’s jurisdiction?

 

[Mikey C]

What about the Rainham service? That used to be a fast service under South Eastern but Thameslink made it a stopper, isn’t Medway also too far out to be in TfL’s jurisdiction?

It worked rather well, the semi fast service from Gillingham to Charing Cross, while Greenwich had Cannon Street services every 10 minutes...

 

[Bald Rick]

The future for Thameslink is evidently the past - a Northern 319 was seen in the core on Saturday afternoon!

 

[NorthKent1989]

It worked rather well, the semi fast service from Gillingham to Charing Cross, while Greenwich had Cannon Street services every 10 minutes...

Indeed it was better, now if there’s disruption to Thameslink, the Rainham service is usually the first to be cancelled, leaving Higham without a train service for large gaps.

It would be a handy service now to connect with Crossrail at Abbey Wood.