• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The Future of Thameslink

Status
Not open for further replies.

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,530
The future for Thameslink is evidently the past - a Northern 319 was seen in the core on Saturday afternoon!
Really? This is the only movement that wasn't a service train. Seems more likely it was a 387 of some sort (and confirmed as 387202 elsewhere).
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Not seen by me, but Mrs BR was absolutely certain it was a Northern train, and that led me down the 319 assumption.

Of course, if it was a train that said ‘Great Northern’ on the side, I can see how we have both made a mistake!

:oops: :oops:
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,190
Location
St Albans
Not seen by me, but Mrs BR was absolutely certain it was a Northern train, and that led me down the 319 assumption.

Of course, if it was a train that said ‘Great Northern’ on the side, I can see how we have both made a mistake!

:oops: :oops:
So the 319s still have clearance for the route, especially since the Harrington humps were installed?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
So the 319s still have clearance for the route, especially since the Harrington humps were installed?

Yes they do.

under intense interrogation, Mrs BR has confessed that it was indeed a Great Northern train. But she didn’t think the ‘Great’ was important or appropriate when advising me.
 

TT-ONR-NRN

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
10,412
Location
Farnham
Not seen by me, but Mrs BR was absolutely certain it was a Northern train, and that led me down the 319 assumption.

Of course, if it was a train that said ‘Great Northern’ on the side, I can see how we have both made a mistake!

:oops: :oops:
I'm not doubting you, but I don't quite understand why one would be there.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
Not seen by me, but Mrs BR was absolutely certain it was a Northern train, and that led me down the 319 assumption.

Of course, if it was a train that said ‘Great Northern’ on the side, I can see how we have both made a mistake!

:oops: :oops:
A ridiculous assumption

It was a Class 150 actually :E
 

TT-ONR-NRN

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
10,412
Location
Farnham
Yes they do.

under intense interrogation, Mrs BR has confessed that it was indeed a Great Northern train. But she didn’t think the ‘Great’ was important or appropriate when advising me.
To be honest, who can blame her? It's a silly name for a company operating predominantly stopping services in London and Hertfordshire, with one "long" distance route to Norfolk, which is hardly up north. Whatever the heritage of the railway is, it's a silly name for what the TOC is today, and I still believe it should be rebranded as Thameslink.

It was a Class 150 actually :E
Well, I had a Northern 150 take me to Aberdare on Friday, and yesterday the same 150 was working out of Birmingham International, so it's fair to say they're getting around a bit! :lol:
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Not seen by me, but Mrs BR was absolutely certain it was a Northern train, and that led me down the 319 assumption.

Of course, if it was a train that said ‘Great Northern’ on the side, I can see how we have both made a mistake!

:oops: :oops:

There’s me thinking it might have been a hint that the latest DFT cost-saving idea might be to send some 700s somewhere else to replace a mid-life fleet (perhaps Networkers), and backfill them on TL with surplus 319s - which of course some users might find an upgrade in quality! ;)
 
Last edited:

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,005
Future of TL - I would hope that one day (and a shame the pandy didn't enable this) - that the Sutton loop to Blackfriars bays matter could be reignited. I know it was very political, but that doesn't mean it is laid to rest forever. And Rainham removed for something more appropriate.

The issue on both of those would be what to send through LB (or the Denmark Hill pair if via E&C) instead. That's 6tph out of Blackfriars. But ideally the future of TL would be less conflicts and threading as much through the core as possible, especially now Farringdon has a whole new purpose!
 

SE%Traveller

Member
Joined
23 Jan 2020
Messages
163
Location
London
Future of TL - I would hope that one day (and a shame the pandy didn't enable this) - that the Sutton loop to Blackfriars bays matter could be reignited. I know it was very political, but that doesn't mean it is laid to rest forever. And Rainham removed for something more appropriate.

The issue on both of those would be what to send through LB (or the Denmark Hill pair if via E&C) instead. That's 6tph out of Blackfriars. But ideally the future of TL would be less conflicts and threading as much through the core as possible, especially now Farringdon has a whole new purpose!
Well the St Albans train service lend its self to the Denmark Hill route as both have to 8 car trains, with 2tph peak Bellingham to Welwyn in the peaks perhaps. Will need another for the peak Luton service though...
 

miklcct

On Moderation
Joined
2 May 2021
Messages
4,327
Location
Cricklewood
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.
Because TfL has a track record of improving local rail services within London.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,005
Well the St Albans train service lend its self to the Denmark Hill route as both have to 8 car trains, with 2tph peak Bellingham to Welwyn in the peaks perhaps. Will need another for the peak Luton service though...
If that is 4tph then we have the Orpington and Sevenoaks covered on the other side - and an even 15 minute service between St Albans and Bickley - wouldn't that be something.

If we're adding more in the peaks, then I would think Bellingham could do 2tph, as often mentioned. Not too many other options unless we are revisiting Maidstone or somewhere else on the loop, and a faster pattern.

As for Sutton, I'm not sure about the 8tph mentioned way back when (with loops up to LB) - but I would think a solid 3tph around each way, would be very well used, especially with an even 6tph in the core to Loughborough Junction, Herne/Tulse Hills and Streatham - which is most of the usage.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
As for Sutton, I'm not sure about the 8tph mentioned way back when (with loops up to LB) - but I would think a solid 3tph around each way, would be very well used, especially with an even 6tph in the core to Loughborough Junction, Herne/Tulse Hills and Streatham - which is most of the usage.

fitting a 20 minute frequency into an otherwise 15/30 minute interval at Herne Hill, Tulse Hill, Streatham etc would be, err, interesting.
 

London Trains

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2017
Messages
901
As for Sutton, I'm not sure about the 8tph mentioned way back when (with loops up to LB) - but I would think a solid 3tph around each way, would be very well used, especially with an even 6tph in the core to Loughborough Junction, Herne/Tulse Hills and Streatham - which is most of the usage.

3tph each way could never work since the Wimbledon loop takes 15 minutes longer than the direct route via Mitcham, meaning 2tph each way creates a perfect 15 minute frequency at Streatham/Tulse Hill/Herne Hill etc. With 3tph, the service at those stations would have 15/5 minute intervals or trains would have to stand for 5 minutes extra at Sutton (which is impossible since it would destroy services towards Epsom). Additionally it would be impossible to timetable a 3tph service around all of the 2tph/4tph routes in the area.

The route either has to be 2tph or 4tph each way, nothing else will work.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
2,920
Location
The Fens
As for Sutton, I'm not sure about the 8tph mentioned way back when (with loops up to LB) - but I would think a solid 3tph around each way, would be very well used, especially with an even 6tph in the core to Loughborough Junction, Herne/Tulse Hills and Streatham - which is most of the usage.
And don't forget that trains in both directions use platform 9 at Wimbledon.
 

SE%Traveller

Member
Joined
23 Jan 2020
Messages
163
Location
London
If we're adding more in the peaks, then I would think Bellingham could do 2tph, as often mentioned. Not too many other options unless we are revisiting Maidstone or somewhere else on the loop, and a faster pattern.

Yep the passenger numbers South would certainly support it I'd have thought, trains regularly full from Bellingham and it would then maintain the service through to Welwyn which as others have mentioned previously gets 700s up to the depot for maintenance and would be covered by existing route knowledge.

the RUS indicative plan back in 2011 had 2tph Maidstone to Welwyn (semi-fast via Catford); 2 tph Sevenoaks to Luton (Skip-Stop via Catford) & 2tph Bellingham to St Albans (stopping via Catford). Semi-Fast would have been just Denmark Hill I'd have thought, with Beckenham Hill and Ravensbourne being skipped

3tph each way could never work since the Wimbledon loop takes 15 minutes longer than the direct route via Mitcham, meaning 2tph each way creates a perfect 15 minute frequency at Streatham/Tulse Hill/Herne Hill etc. With 3tph, the service at those stations would have 15/5 minute intervals or trains would have to stand for 5 minutes extra at Sutton (which is impossible since it would destroy services towards Epsom). Additionally it would be impossible to timetable a 3tph service around all of the 2tph/4tph routes in the area.

Well that neatly explains it! As I recall Southern were planning to run extra peak services into the Bays that would go round the loop and then to London Bridge as part of the consultation they did, but it never happened.
Well that
 

Basil Jet

On Moderation
Joined
23 Apr 2022
Messages
970
Location
London
3tph each way could never work since the Wimbledon loop takes 15 minutes longer than the direct route via Mitcham, meaning 2tph each way creates a perfect 15 minute frequency at Streatham/Tulse Hill/Herne Hill etc. With 3tph, the service at those stations would have 15/5 minute intervals or trains would have to stand for 5 minutes extra at Sutton (which is impossible since it would destroy services towards Epsom). Additionally it would be impossible to timetable a 3tph service around all of the 2tph/4tph routes in the area.

The route either has to be 2tph or 4tph each way, nothing else will work.

I'm sorry, but I think this is wrong. That would only make sense if there was a differential between the journey time for the two directions around the loop, but I don't think there is (apart from maybe a minute, I haven't checked). If the southbound trains leaving Streatham are x minutes apart, then the northbound trains arriving back at Streatham will be x minutes apart, regardless of what x is, even if the trains didn't alternate direction but did 75% clockwise, 25% clockwise or something ridiculous like that.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,005
I dind't know these Loop timetable things, thanks for the insight. I guess then that if 8tph could squeeze through Herne Hill, that would be an upgrade offsetting the Blackfriars moans. Might even increase usage - for most people on the line, it's a secondary route.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,597
If we are doing wild and impractical speculation, how about a Thameslink branch that went Elephant - Clapham High St - Wandsworth Rd - Clapham Junction?

With crossrail in action, routes into Liverpool St, Cannon St, London Bridge, Blackfriars, Charing Cross, Paddington, Kings Cross & St Pancras all now have direct access to either Thameslink or Crossrail - meaning you can get between them all without using the tube.

Fenchurch St, Marylebone, Euston, Waterloo and Victoria don't - but with a Thameslink service from Clapham Junction, Waterloo & Victoria could be added to the list.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,218
Location
Bristol
If we are doing wild and impractical speculation, how about a Thameslink branch that went Elephant - Clapham High St - Wandsworth Rd - Clapham Junction?

With crossrail in action, routes into Liverpool St, Cannon St, London Bridge, Blackfriars, Charing Cross, Paddington, Kings Cross & St Pancras all now have direct access to either Thameslink or Crossrail - meaning you can get between them all without using the tube.

Fenchurch St, Marylebone, Euston, Waterloo and Victoria don't - but with a Thameslink service from Clapham Junction, Waterloo & Victoria could be added to the list.
Where are you sending the Thameslink trains after Longhedge Jn? Platforms 1/2 aren't long enough and Platforms 3-6 are already busy enough without a conflicting move blocking the Up lines 4 or even 2 times an hour.
 

SE%Traveller

Member
Joined
23 Jan 2020
Messages
163
Location
London
If we are doing wild and impractical speculation, how about a Thameslink branch that went Elephant - Clapham High St - Wandsworth Rd - Clapham Junction?

LOL i think planners might have something to say about about adding another crossing move on the Holborn Lines and then the Chatham Main at Brixton, that's before rebuilding Clapham High St - Wandsworth Rd - Clapham Junction (assuming it goes to Platform 1/2) to accommodate 8 Car trains.

Doubt any one on the Southern Network would be going to Victoria if they wanted Thameslink anyway, when there are direct options or change at East Croydon/ Tulse Hill. Ditto SouthEastern with Bromley South, Herne Hill, Denmark Hill, London Bridge

You can do Clapham Junction to Blackfriars with a same platform interchange at Denmark Hill, albeit the Thameslink trains are only 2tph currently
 

Basil Jet

On Moderation
Joined
23 Apr 2022
Messages
970
Location
London
You can do Clapham Junction to Blackfriars with a same platform interchange at Denmark Hill, albeit the Thameslink trains are only 2tph currently

Cross-platform interchange, which is nearly as good, but it's a footbridge interchange for the reverse journey.
 

London Trains

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2017
Messages
901
what if thameslink took on the Watford service from Southern…

i’ll get my coat

Take that further to have an all stations Bedford to Bedford via the MML, Thameslink core, E&C, Herne Hill, Tulse Hill, Streatham Hill, Balham, Clapham Jct, West London Line, WCML and Marston Vale :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top