Occasionally it seems worth posting something with very little comment, and this is one of those situations. In short, the Campaign for Better Transport have released an interactive look at rail usage in the UK. It is based on ORR numbers – the accuracy of which questions have occasionally been asked – but provides a interesting look at general trends in behaviour as much as anything else.
As they mention on their blog:
First, passenger rail travel is up enormously. In 2014/15, an estimated 2.75bn entries and exists were recorded across the rail network – 1.45 billion more than in 1997/98 (the first year comparable data was collected). There are now 686 stations which attract over 1m entries and exits each year compared with just 215 in 1997/98. Last year 85 stations attracted over 5m journeys – more than four times the number as 1997/98.
Second, the relationship between rail and London is very clear. The map shows scores of ever busier stations in Greater London itself and the snaking tentacles of commuter lines stretching away from the capital. While you might expect to see larger stations like St Albans and Cambridge have growth of well over 100 per cent, in percentage terms this is matched or exceeded by strings of stations like those running through Hertfordshire to London Kings Cross, where Baldock, Letchworth, Hitchin, Welwyn Garden City have all seen passenger number double since 1997. The Government is facilitating this trend with big investments like Crossrail and potentially Crossrail 2. But with fares high and overcrowding a significant problem, efforts to spread the morning peak and improve affordability are of increasing urgency.
We look forward to reading your comments.
I thought this was great fun to look at, however imagine my surprise when I saw that Launceston station in Cornwall had reopened before the Okehampton to Tavistock route had been confirmed as an alternative Dawlish route. Sadly actually named Hunts Cross & a fair distance from its actual Mersey location. Anyone noticed any other translocations?
Almost find it hard to believe that any London station has seen a decrease in usage but certainly highlights the effect of the Thameslink work on both London Bridge & City Thameslink
Apologies if this is answered in the links provided… but looking at a station like Gunnersbury, how can they differentiate between an entry/exit for the District line and Silverlink/Overground? (or do they differentiate?)
Hi, very interesting graphic, very surprised to see that Forest Gate gets twice as many annual passengers as Taunton!
Just a minor gripe – “based off of” is almost definitely an Americanism, as opposed to “based on”.
[My first thought when reading it! I have changed it. PoP]
…also Birmingham and Stratford are far more similar than I would expect (and A and B, and X and Y, ad nauseum…)
Any reason why all the blobs in the key are exactly the same?
I thought the figures for my local station (Clapton) were impressive, with 299% growth. Then I looked at the nearby ones, and they’re even more dramatic, even if lower in terms of actual numbers.
The old North London Line figures are astonishing – Hackney Central up 2640%, and Homerton a whopping 3453%. No wonder it’s a bit crowded in the peak.
Nigel – some of the figures are, shall we say, ‘flaky’ particularly for unstaffed stations; I imagine “oysterisation” has helped the NLL, as has the advent of LOROL as operator.
Wikipedia has annual stats in a table with a caveat about methodological changes.
When viewing the whole of London, the first two phases of London Overground takeover are very plain to see, suddenly lighting up white from end to end.
Another oddity is Epsom and Epsom Downs have swapped places
Not just Tfl in London – Thameslink seems to have boosted Sutton to Wimbledon stations (which could explain the pressure to keep across town – people think if the Thameslink service is removed they get back the old service_
re NickBXN,
ELL Phase 1 aligned with gating at the remaining ungated stations and there was a reasonable amount of ticket less travel going on beforehand on the southern services so not all of it is just down the introduction of LO services but some due to gating.
Southern have gated most of the rest of their metro stations so there would be less gain if LO take over of any more routes.
The problem with this graphic is that the data series between 1997 and the present is broken and unreliable, as hinted in the write up. ORR based its estimates for the first 15 years of that period on ticket sales. These don’t tell you the whole story at all. The problems of allocating zonal tickets to journeys is well known (and well rehearsed here) and changes in the methodology lead to bizarre and unbelievable changes (such as the NLL figures quoted). A less wellknown issue is the annualisation of season tickets – how many annual journeys does a season represent? Does anyone know what ORR assumed? Could they be bothered to tell us? A third and even less well known problem is that journeys across TOC boundaries count separately – not a problem that existed before 1997… Then there are commission sales. ORR’s latest stats are said to reflect actual counts – better, but it would still be desirable to know how and when the counts were done.Taking all these factors in to account, nothing that ORR produced until they saw the light about five years ago is in any sense reliable.
Pretty graphics tho’.
This not to say that there hasn’t been significant increases in volume, patently there has, but it does suit Ministers and TOCs – and campaigners- to ignore the statistical nonsenses they are peddled.
I have always found these station usage statistics to raise as many questions as they give answers. I am reminded of a maths teacher who took me for statistics – “You can’t mix apples and pears in the same table”. I wonder how the ORR figures compare with what the Railway Clearing House would have come up with using paper derived data?
I recently came across an interesting use of data which, combined with other types of survey, may be of use in some areas. It also goes some way to helping with routing and the size of flows which WW had mentioned on another thread.
It comes from the Moscow Metro and is based on tracking of mobile phones.
http://map.maximatelecom.ru/
@mark
“Thameslink seems to have boosted Sutton to Wimbledon stations ”
Does the data go back to pre-Thameslink days?
@Graham H “A third and even less well known problem is that journeys across TOC boundaries count separately ”
The burgeoning of cheap advance tickets also results in some boosting of the ridership stats, because two advance tickets for different trains can be a lot cheaper than one flexible one valid on either train – both advance tickets are counted as a journey although only one is used.
….and, I realised just after hitting “send”, the increase in “split ticketing” will also inflate the figures: the start and end points will have the correct number of journys recorded, but the split point will have two extra ones.
How many entries and exits are recorded at “Boundary Zone 6” I wonder?
@Graham H (and others)
This map is a great idea, but, discredited by dodgy figures.
(For all the reasons suggested by Graham H and a few more).
This is the worst howler I can find;-
Charing Cross (hardly some insignificant wayside halt!)
This is reported as having gone from 4m passengers to 43m.
An increase of 970% no less.
Could anybody possibly believe that Charing Cross only handled
about 11k passengers a day? That’s only about 600 per hour!!
Over about 40 trains per hour (in and out) average loading of
only 15 passengers per train.
The 2015 quoted figure is closer to reality but still sounds a bit low to me at c 150 per train.
Recount called for.
ngh – agreed about Southern stations now being gated so less scope for big changes if TfL takeover.
Id say that’s different from Southeastern. Get away from the terminals and the vast majority are un-gated with much scope to boost revenue.
Alan – the CX figure is a bit of a nonsense. Presumably they still don’t know how to accurately model users of London Bridge, Cannon Street, Charing Cross, Waterloo East and Victoria when a SE passenger buys a season ticket to London terminals.
* I should say vast majority of SE stations do have gates but have gatelines open, or alternative routes meaning the chances of a station with all entrances manned and gated are very low. If you include first to last trains its probably zero.
@Reynolds 953 – Both ORR and TFL publish usage figures for Gunnersbury, and they do differ – TFL’s are roughly twice as many as ORR’s. I used to use the station every day, and the ratio feels about right – roughly twice as many people would get off a District train compared to the Overground train. This is obviously a personal observation with no hard data.
I would guess that TFL take figures from Oyster and contactless cards, whilst ORR takes them from paper tickets. It would be interesting to know how paper tickets with TFL Travelcards are counted, but I suspect they are a minority because it was significantly cheaper to get a NR ticket to Gunnersbury rather than Z3-6 or Z1-6. This probably skews the figures a little because if you only have a NR ticket to Gunnersbury, you are not supposed to use the District from Richmond, but many commuters do. How big a factr this is is anyone’s guess.
@Ed
One for the “now it can be told” file.
I am astonished that such obviously incredible figures can be published.
They don’t seem to have been compiled by someone with management accounting experience. The basic principle is (or was)
of such an exercise is this;-
You compile an accurate accounting statement IN TOTAL,
In this case passenger journeys. This “signed off” total figure is
then spread over number of outlets (in this case passenger terminals).
A “savvy” accountant will always take care to “lose” any duff figures
and adjust , but reconciling to the fixed total. This doesn’t seem to have been done. I wonder whether the most basic check of all has been performed;-,
do the figures add up to ORR annual returns?
Put it this way, If I had seen an annual passenger numbers as low as
4million reported for a terminal such as Charing Cross, there would
have been questions (there were!).
Of course, back in my “day” BR accounting systems and procedures
although magnificent, were not absolutely infallible, and I did , on
occasions participate in the “massage” of figures that escaped
the “eagle eyed” scrutiny of the massed ranks of Dtp minions and also,
BR’s auditors! (but only where it was manifestly in the public interest to do so. of course).
Well, the strangest anomaly I’ve noticed is that apparently 119250 people used Imperial Wharf station in 1998, more than 10 years before it opened!
Anyone have any idea how that could have crept into the figures ?
The Isle of Wight is on there as well! So cute.
Another incredible clanger. The map includes a station entitled
“Hythe” with 137,440 passengers pa. Could this be the RH&DR?
No credibility.
@AR -collectively,we’ve all now identified so many basic errors in the stuff that what on earth the graphics can be used for.
@ Graham H – so people can “ooh and ahh” at the pretty flashing colours? 😉
On a slight tangent the latest TfL Commissioner’s Report, going to the Board next week, includes a commentary about changes in ticket sales. This is largely off the back of pricing changes in 2015 (as covered by PoP at the time) and the rising use of Contactless Payment Cards. Weekly and daily Travelcard sales are going down, Annuals seem to be increasing in line with traffic. Given CPCs are also accepted on NR within the “Oyster” area this will have implications for future data flows and quite what is actually happening with patronage on the railway. Fun times ahead.
Having been a client for LU ticketing and gating I find it mildly ironic that the Project Appraisals people used to hate us even mentioning the management information value (even in a limited form) from putting in gates or introducing smartcards. At the time we had no way of placing a financial value on the benefit of “more and better data”. These days with apps and open data and all the rest of it it is now seen as absolutely essential. How things change.
Technically this represents “rail usage in GB” rather than the UK, as the figures for NI are separate.
Am I correct that Heathrow is omitted probably as it is not owned by Network Rail (although maintained by them)?
Re Anon,
The heathrow services aren’t franchise operations hence aren’t included in the ORR data set. Ditto most open access operators and all charters.
A good week for data based map illustrations, this map by the CDRC shows how people commute in London (& UK). Tube/train most common but illustrates the reliance on bus services in both Hackney & Camberwell/OKR corridor very well. Again usual reservations about the data source
Given the multiple howlers in this representation, spotted by almost everyone…
Would it be a good/practical idea for “LR” to officially contact the Campaign for Better Transport & warn them? If only before real swivel-eyed loons (such as the IEA) find it & use the obviously false numbers, etc, to rubbish the railways, again ??
Greg Tingey,
I suspect most people who use these figures are aware of the limitations – most of which are well known. In any case, as far as I can tell, it is the historical stuff that is the problem – not the current stuff. And what could one do? It is not as if they could amend it to provide the correct figures as these are not known.
Despite everyone knocking this, I think that, within known limitations warned about in the text of the article, for the most part it is quite useful. The main howlers in London seem to be Charing Cross and Cannon St. We are not over-concerned here about possible errors in Hythe etc.
I am a bit puzzled by the figures for King’s Cross looking plausible but going down. Maybe it included King’s Cross Thameslink? As one might expect, spectacular variations are present for stations with low counts but these hardly matter. Even with a massive increase, stations like Birkbeck and Angel Road are still a pimple on the backside of humanity.
The one thing I thought someone would comment on was the massive growth of the Uckfield branch – again from a very small base. This is probably quite genuine. If it continues at that rate some of the upgrade options (but probably not the one of extending it) will need to be reconsidered.
@PoP
“King’s Cross looking plausible but going down. Maybe it included King’s Cross Thameslink?”
That should be easy to check. Was there a step change after 2007?
All I can see is it changes from pink to blue in 2003. If I knew what the colours meant, I might be able to say.
The Hythe railway station blob seems misplaced, as I suspect it referrs to this open station; a similar misplacement seems to have occurred with Hunt’s Cross – this seems to have been placed on the Launceston Steam Railway.
Not sure why Ebbsfleet is shown as having 284,000 entries and exits in 1998 when it opened in 2009; looking at the wikipedia entry for that station that appears to be the figure for 2009/10.
Farnborough North is an interesting one… 4 coach platforms, no huge carpark… Yet the figures record an increase in passenger numbers of over 16,000%!
My colleague who lives near there (Ash Vale), thinks this must be one of those aberrations…
As the upper threshold for ‘small’ has been set so low, two things surprise me about London; firstly how many ‘small’ stations there used to be, and secondly that some continue to exist (notably the St. Albans Abbey line).
The ‘medium’ category appears to be too wide ranging to be very useful as it encompasses both minor and major stations. I would suggest >1,000,000 as ‘large’ and >5,000,000 as ‘very large’.
The figures are correct for Hythe. They just confused Hythe in Essex with Hythe in Kent when positioning it on the map.
A season ticket is counted as 240 return journeys, so presumably contributes 960 entries and exits, which seems a bit high when you consider sickness, the growth in working from home and part time working etc. It’s probably a figure that was realistic when first used, but has become less accurate over the years.
Limitations aside I think it’s largely successful in getting across the scale of passenger growth in recent years, and personally I find it interesting. It’s particularly good at conveying which lines have experienced aggressive growth and which have stagnated.
@timbeau Maybe you need to try a different browser, it’s works for me in some, but not others. Blue means a decrease. Then you have a scale from dark red (0-50% increase) which gets paler the higher the increase, through to white (500%+) increase.
Anyone wanting to view the source data can do so here:
http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/station-usage-estimates
“Station usage 2014-15 time series” contains all the source data and the methodology report decribes how the figures were compiled.
@Edgepedia My assumption is that, for stations that opened after 1998 (I took Stratford International as my example), the figure shown as “ENTRIES AND EXITS 1998” will be the figures from the first year for which they are available.
Watford North is interesting. Although it is always shown as increasing, it appears to have gone from ‘medium’ to ‘small’ a couple of times.
Outside London, I’m glad to see Bath Spa has at last crept into ‘large’ so it no longer has to share a category with the neighbouring bench where hardly anything stops, at Oldfield Park.
@South Coast Ed – annualisation of 240, eh?! Back in the day, we used 221. Instant near 10% growth…
Is this Graham H appearing as “u” again or a “new u” or even a “Super U”
[Yes it was – I have “fixed” the symptom: can’t do much about the underlying cause, whatever that might be… Malcolm]
I just can’t shake it off, the drug is taking over….aaargh!
Am rapidly turning into arturo u, the aforementioned little known Romanian Symbolist-dadaist playwright, whose only surviving work – “Cod” – involves characters dressed as jesters shouting the names of different sorts of fish at each other for 25minutes.
It is amazing that with all those extra passengers, and the massively increased ticket prices, that the train operators can still barely make a profit even after considerable subsidy.
Moorgate looks like another aberration.
The stations on the Ebbw Vale line have 1997 figures and the line didn’t reopen until 2008!!!
@Mark
Not just Tfl in London – Thameslink seems to have boosted Sutton to Wimbledon stations (which could explain the pressure to keep across town – people think if the Thameslink service is removed they get back the old service_
The reverse actually although the people may not realise it. The decision to retain through TL services so championed by the former MP for Sutton & Cheam resulted in a proposal to double the service on the loop being abandoned. The price for keeping the through service is being stuck with the 30 min frequency for the foreseeable future. The line needs turn up and go 15 minute frequency but due to the combined efforts of local politicians, the DFT and TFL it’s not going to get it.
@Anonymous 2tph to somewhere you want to go is better than 4tph to somewhere you don’t.
@anonymous
2tph to somewhere you want to go is better than 4tph to somewhere you don’t.”
Really, even if there is a simple change from the 4tph to the place you do want to go?
Northbound, the change at Blackfriars would even be cross platform, or at least same-level.
How many Loopers (of which I am one, and would be more often if it was 4tph) actually do go beyond the City anyway? (Not many, from obsevation) Anyone in hurry would go via Vauxhall to St Pancras.
Another couple of anomalies which may distort the figures when just using ticket data:
Extensions to Travelcards from London are issued from the appropriate ‘boundary zone’ to a destination. Single tickets coming in to London are issued to the first station in the appropriate zone. Not sure if there are enough of these for it to be statistically significant but it’s almost impossible to measure what the actual journey was.
Relative changes of season prices may account for some of the apparent dramatic changes in usage. Rail only seasons are as a rule cheaper than Travelcards but not always. For example from the SWT area it was always cheaper rail only to Waterloo than a 1-6 Travelcard. However because Vauxhall is treated as a London Terminal for rail only pricing but is in zone 2 the 2-6 Travelcard would be cheaper for anyone not going past Vauxhall. If a fares change means that relationship between the sets of prices flips then the tickets sold follow suit.
There are also cases where anomalies and inter availability mean the cheapest ticket may not be for the actual journey undertaken. It’s in the back of my mind that may be the explanation for the dramatic change at Farnborough North picked up on above.
@ Jim Cobb 1936
The route from Gunnersbury to Richmond is full interchangeable so it’s fully permitted to use either LU or NR trains on any valid tickets as is the case on other duplicated routes.
@ Southern Heights
The figures for Farnborough North etc are a bit dodgy because tickets are sold to Farnborough Stations and then divided between stations using a formula.
The number along many Redhill routes stations are low compared to actual as far as we can see. The calculations being based on ticket sales has a weakness along our route. Many passengers being wise to high ticket prices along the route buy tickets from Dorking or Gatwick to save sometimes considerable sums of money, but actually travel from Redhill route stations. We think stations along the route have a 20% under calculation because of this. It also explains why Redhill route shows a negative trend of decreasing passenger numbers in last 3 years whereas on the ground it is pretty obvious that despite the appalling service, trains are significantly busier than 3 years ago.
It probably doesn’t help that platform 3 exit at Redhill never being manned, means that a few passengers take it for a free ride, but that is only supposition.
Interesting to note the decrease in Sunderland. Does that count the replacement of local services with Metros stopping at the same platforms? Does it count pure numbers on the platforms?
If so, is the decrease because people can use the new Metro stations closer to their homes?
@timbeau
“Northbound, the change at Blackfriars would even be cross platform, or at least same-level.”
— Yes, but southbound the change involves a lot of steps.
“How many Loopers (of which I am one, and would be more often if it was 4tph) actually do go beyond the City anyway? (Not many, from obsevation) Anyone in hurry would go via Vauxhall to St Pancras.”
— You seem to assume that all Loopers live in Wimbledon. Vauxhall is no use to the residents of Loughborough Jn or Elephant. For years the publicity for the Thameslink Programme never said that none of the advertised improvements (higher frequencies, longer trains) would apply to the suburban loop. This only became apparent gradually. The loop is the eternal cinderella in the Thameslink world. Eventually it turned out that the frequencies, after all the interminable work was finished, would be exactly the same as before, with 15-minute gaps. You must understand how infuriating it was, then, to be told that, on top of all that, the trains were going to terminate at Blackfriars instead of continuing to Farringdon and St Pancras, a proposal sneaked out without any consultation which turned out to be dictated by operational convenience merely. So far from a much better service as promised for years in all the dishonest (as far as the loop is concerned) Thameslink ballyhoo, we were going to get a much worse service.
Incidentally I am not the only person who often travels from the loop through the central core. Plenty of people travel between the loop and Farringdon or St Pancras. By the way, people keep implying on here that we were offered a choice of double the frequency but terminating at Blackfriars, or the present inadequate frequency continuing through the core. I am not aware that such a choice was ever presented to us.
Peezedtee,
As almost inevitable with this subject, emotional language is used. However, I don’t think “dishonest” is a fair word to use. The proposals were clear to see in the appropriate documents. I think part of the problem was that, very unhelpfully, various people on the engineering-led project team were themselves unaware that the eventual pattern of services was proposed to be something quite different. There is at least one Modern Railways article with an interview of the then project manager of the Thameslink Programme and it was quite obvious that he was clueless as to the final routes. And clearly Modern Railways didn’t pick up on this either.
In fairness to the person in question, there was no real need for him to know but it was unfortunate statements were made suggesting that the Wimbledon loop would continue. Basic rule, if you don’t know, shut up. The Thameslink Programme has suffered from the outset (and continues to suffer from) out of date maps being portayed as if they were the service pattern for the future. You can still find recently published maps in presentations showing Thameslink going to Dartford.
Two or three other points:
For years the publicity for the Thameslink Programme never said that none of the advertised improvements (higher frequencies, longer trains) would apply to the suburban loop.
Well no but that was because the suburban loop would not be part of the future Thameslink so why would they point out that services not part of Thameslink wouldn’t get an improved service.
So far from a much better service as promised for years
You may be correct but I have never seen any comment suggesting that the service on the loop would improve. Indeed, the problem was usually the lack of a mention of these services which some of us took as confirmation of the fact they would not continue and others, clearly, took this as either that nothing had changed or, it seems, that silence means that the service will get better.
operational convenience merely
It is easy using terms such as “merely” but it was more than mere convenience as it has such a significant effect throughout the Thameslink Network and in future will ripple through to other places even affecting the East Coast Main Line up to Scotland. One could equally say that sending freight via the East London Line was abandoned dictated by an operating convenience merely as the didn’t want freight reversing and crossing the station throat and making the station unusable.
I have to admit I don’t think either Network Rail or the DfT have covered themselves with glory the way this has worked out but I don’t think there was any dishonesty.
@PoP
Well, there was a lot of publicity for the eventual proposed benefits of the Thameslink Programme. Surely it was reasonable for the ordinary consumer to conclude that these promised benefits would apply throughout the Thameslink network, in the absence of any specific statements to the contrary. At the very least we were not told that things on the loop were planned to get considerably worse. We were thus misled by omission if not by commission, and that may be why people were so aggrieved.
P.S. @PoP
“that was because the suburban loop would not be part of the future Thameslink”
Where was that ever said, and by whom? I have followed this whole long saga much more closely, I am sure, than the average user, and I am quite certain I never saw any document or article suggesting that the loop was going to be detached from the Thameslink network.
peezedtee,
It was made abundantly clear in various Route Utilisation Studies published by Network Rail. These were in the public domain. I agree it is most unsatisfactory though and as soon as it was known it should have been made clear to users that the through service would eventually come to an end – preferably including large posters at the station.
So either they didn’t even think about it, or they thought about it but didn’t consider it important or, as others have suggested to me, decided that it was better to keep quiet and present it later as a done deal that was too late to change.
Could I point out that you are not the only ones affected by this? We used to get off-peak trains through to Charing Cross from Tattenham Corner and Caterham due to various historical reasons which we don’t need to go into yet again. It was not publicised at all that these would come to an end (although it was pretty obvious they would if you knew what was happening). It was all accepted without a murmur but nevertheless I do think it could have been made clearer in advance rather than suddenly finding that from the next annual timetable change all our through services had gone. Mind you, it was the same with losing our trains that started at Smitham, as was.
@PZT
“You seem to assume that all Loopers live in Wimbledon. Vauxhall is no use to the residents of Loughborough Jn or Elephant. The loop is the eternal cinderella in the Thameslink world. ”
Certainly it’s a Cinderella – four car formations are still seen on some services, and in a crisis services seem to be reduced to hourly before any Brighton line services are sacrificed.
Passengers from stations other than actually on the Loop have more trains – e.g to Victoria from Mitcham Junction or Herne Hill, or to London Bridge from Streatham and Tulse Hill, and from the Elephant there are Catford Loop services through the core, so it is the Tooting Junction to West Sutton section who are affected most. From observation, there are large numbers arriving at Wimbledon off the loop from both directions who are continuing their journeys by SWT or the District Line.
Of course not all Loopers live in Wimbledon, although that is where most of the noise came from. After all, the local MP only needed to look in a mirror if he wanted to face down the Transport Minister.
(Pork barrel transport decisions are nothing new of course – the upgrades of the A1(M) in two consecutive Prime Ministers constituencies; promises of improved train services to the transport secretary’s constituency (which evaporate as soon as she loses her seat), and of course the Humber Bridge.
One factor discouraging through travel is that point to point London terminals tickets are not accepted on the City TL- St Pancras leg, so the only option is a Travelcard that costs £600pa more (it varies a bit depending on how far out you are coming from). I am not paying an extra £600pa to travel the 200 yards from City TL to Farringdon!
If you have a point to point season and want occasionally to go further, then your only option* is to bale out, rebook (or touch in), and join a later train. So you have to change trains anyway.
*very few TOC’s have ticket machines that can sell tickets from stations other than the one they are at.
@poP
“as soon as it was known it should have been made clear to users that the through service would eventually come to an end ”
They were, perhaps understandably, more interested in emphasis on the new services. We see it elsewhere as well – electrification of a main line leading to a loss of direct services to the branches (see Blackpool, for example). But for those of us who tried to read between the lines, the frequent omission of mention of Wimbledon when singing the praises of the project certainly led me quite quickly to the conclusion that they had nothing to say and that the best we could hope for was that the service would be no worse after it was all over. I actually assumed that the lack of mention of Wimbledon meant that the services would stop going through the core, and possibly be handed back to Southern or to some other route (at one time the ELL was mooted to be going there – via North Dulwich- rather than to Clapham Junction)
Indeed, in the “Turning London Orange” discussions, a prime concern is cross-border issues – very few services south of the river terminate within the GLA area. But a Blackfriars – Wimbledon Loop service, being entirely within the GLA area, would be a prime candidate. (Indeed, most of the services which stay within the GLA are loops – e.g Hounslow, Kingston, Crystal Palace, Sidcup, Bexleyheath)
I think it is a bit disingenuous to say that the information around future Thameslink frequencies / routes is fully in the public domain. Yes, there were proposals included in the RUS, but my impression has been that even these are not cast-iron.
A while ago, when contemplating buying a flat in SE London, I sent a note to [email protected] with the simple question
I am keen to understand the final pattern of rail services that will exist once the Thameslink programme has been completed.
I have seen the proposed Thameslink service pattern but understand that there will also be knock-on impacts to the service patterns on Southern and Southeastern services running into London Bridge that do not run through the Thameslink core.
Where would I be able to find details of the impacts on these services?
The response?
The 2018 timetable has not been finalised and probably will not be for a while. But there will be 24 trains an hour in the peak through London and a range of new direct journey opportunities including services from Cambridge to Brighton and Peterborough to Horsham.
Less than helpful. If the Thameslink programme themselves won’t even give out frequencies or service pattern information when asked for it directly, what hope does the general public have?
Mark,
That was thoroughly unsatisfactory but at that stage that was all they could say.
As explained in an article a long time ago, the problem was that Network Rail were adamant “it was not operationally possible” to continue the services. Meanwhile the DfT, having taken over from the SRA, decided it was the sole arbiter and challenged the decision and took the attitude it was up to them to decide. So further confusion and doubt and hence why, by then, the Thameslink Programme could not reply other than how they did.
The ultimate problem is that Blackfriars layout and redesign was done on the basis that the trains from the loop would be terminating at Blackfriars – although it probably would have been the design they would have done anyway even if they knew then that the loop trains would have to continue to be through trains.
@PoP – I received that email from Thameslink in September 2014 (!!!)
Mark,
In that case I can’t explain it because the decision had been made by the DfT by then. Maybe, the people at the Thameslink Programme were wistfully hoping the decision would be reversed due to the problems it would cause.
The Thameslink Upgrade Project had no Operations manager telling them what particular service pattern(s) to optimise the infrastructure for. The upgrade has also been dragging on for decades now, and is opening a whopping 18 years late.
Until a couple of years ago, they had to deal with half a dozen TOCs that Thameslink would interface with in some form or other.
Furthermore, when Thameslink was originally opened, it included oddities like a service to Guildford via New Cross Gate and Leatherhead. It took a while for the final timetable to settle down. I don’t expect the upgrade to be any different. Just because a service is there on opening, it is not, then, a given that it will continue to be part of Thameslink forevermore.
Contrast with Crossrail 1, which has had an Operations Manager on its board for some time now, and therefore has a far clearer view on what services will be offered. It’s also an inherently more self-contained setup, interfacing only with the GEML and GWML. (The Abbey Wood branch is effectively segregated, and likely to remain so until a decision is made about extension further east.)
It helps that TfL don’t ‘do’ franchises. They prefer concessions, which simplifies matters somewhat and reduces scope for political arm-twisting.
@timbeau
“and from the Elephant there are Catford Loop services through the core”
— Yes there are, but only every half hour. Another inadequate service that needs its frequency doubling, not so much for Elephant as for places like Crofton Park and Bellingham where passenger numbers have grown significantly (but then again, where haven’t they?).
@PoP
“decided that it was better to keep quiet and present it later as a done deal that was too late to change.”
— Exactly — that’s why I used the word “dishonest”. People felt tricked.
And I don’t really think you can expect ordinary users to read, still less try to understand, NR’s RUS documents, which were surely not aimed at the average passenger.
Peezedtee, there can’t be 4tph on the Catford and Wimbledon Loops. It’s my understanding that not terminating the Wimbledon Loop at Blackfriars (which would have allowed 4tph on the then self contained loop) ate up the two paths through the core that would have allowed the Catford Loop its long awaited 4tph (which it operationally makes much more sense to send through the core). Now we have the worst of both worlds to look forward to, though frankly on the Catford Loop, the punters must know they are second best by now!
peezedtee,
All valid comments if this were to happen today but the culture then, even a few years ago was different – as I was trying to point out with the changes made locally. The fact that some people would have to change trains in future was not thought of as a big deal – certainly not one that would need publicising years in advance. Apart from everything else, it rather limits changes if you can’t make them without having to publicise so far in the future.
1. I suspect the 2018 TL timetable is still only draft as there may be some tweaks in the light of experience gained in the December 2105 off peak time table, which is designed to test the 2018 timetable. Hence they probably don’t want to be held to a draft. The routes are however know but the precise stopping patterns of the fast/semifast TL services might still be tweated slightly…
An example the fast Catford loop TL services sometimes have a Denmark Hill stop, so would this be for every post 2018 TL service, none or just some?
2. NR didn’t probably didn’t believe that any one would campaign in the way they did against a more frequent 4tph Blackfriars service which would have been a big improvement especially for those in Streatham and inwards. The choice was 2tph through or 4tph terminating at Blackriars. The campaign was dishonest in that it did not state the choice above but rather assumed 4tph and still through. If the campaign had been more honest they might have had a lot less support though?
3. Re GTR Driver but potential for 2tph Catford loop – bay platforms at Blackfriars instead?
@ Anomnibus – I thought that the franchisee responsible for Thameslink services, previously First and now Govia, were obliged to provide operational input into the Thameslink project. It may not be the same concept as TfL use on their tube upgrades or Crossrail but I’m afraid I don’t believe there is NO input which you seem to be implying. The other point to make, and I saw it first hand with the JLE, is that the Client and / or operator is inevitably outweighed by the size of any major project team which will be resource and personnel heavy. That’s not to belittle anyone’s role and clearly the end users (operator and passenger) must have a clear voice during the whole project. I feel that Thameslink is especially difficult because it’s not an easy service to run and it has been mired in politics for a long time and still is. Crossrail seems to have avoided the politics during construction but was obviously mired in it for decades beforehand as much discussed here. Wonder how Crossrail 2 will fare?
@ngh
” The choice was 2tph through or 4tph terminating at Blackfriars.”
— People keep saying this, but I live on the loop and avidly read all the literature, and I was never aware of such a choice. Can you show me who said this and where and when?
My understanding of this “choice” (based on memory) was that when there was a campaign to retain through services from Wimbledon beyond Blackfriars, some people (probably not anyone “official”) suggested that if the services terminated at Blackfriars, it might be possible to raise the frequency. The campaigners, if they even knew of this suggestion, did not trust that it would actually happen.
Given the other difficulties, (Wimbledon platform, other pathing problems, stock and crew availability, etc) it is most unlikely that anyone would have promised 4 tph to Blackfriars. Even if someone had promised it, there would have been room for scepticism as to whether such a promise could be kept.
Nigh, the impression I had received from possibly the South East Route Utilisation Study OR the unhelpfully named “Integrated Kent Franchise” spec in the mid-late 2000s was that that was going to be the way of things – 2tph from Bromley South terminating in the bays and 2tph from Sevenoaks going beyond St Pancras. However that was also before a decision had been made as to how the Thameslink franchise was to be awarded – nothing seemed to be off the table, with a possible merger of all SE, TL and Central services being one option. Now I guess mixing operators and tracks is less popular; and of course it introduces a conflict at Blackfriars in addition to the one caused by the Wimbledon loop trains. I’d like to be proved wrong though.
A couple of thoughts, as ever…
The lack of information on routes and frequencies on the Thameslink Programme website is still woeful, picking up on comments earlier about trying to get hold of such basic details. Did the business case have ‘er, not sure’ and ‘um, good question, don’t know’ as answers to such key queries?
This is the very last ‘FAQ’ on the website today (not pre-loop decisions, or even in 2014):
http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk/faq
‘What will be the final Thameslink route map once the programme is finished’?
To which the answer is (cue drumroll):
‘This map shows routes that could benefit from the upgraded Thameslink London core. The Department for Transport awarded the Thameslink Southern and Great Northern Franchise (TSGN) to Govia Thameslink Railway Limited. See an interactive map of the TSGN network’.
The link below is to the all-important map, which shows one tenuous route as a dotted line going between London Bridge and Blackfriars, accompanied by a note saying: ‘Dotted line indicates services that will only operate for part of the franchise term’!!!
http://maps.dft.gov.uk/tsgn/index.html#
So their own website implies there will be no services running between LBG and Blackfriars – unbelievable but true.
I do slightly disagree with PoP about people not due to be served by Thameslink trains not needing to being kept in the loop on service patterns being planned. (PoP 1st Feb 23.49pm):
‘Well no but that was because the suburban loop would not be part of the future Thameslink so why would they point out that services not part of Thameslink wouldn’t get an improved service’.
Here in Brockley we have lost 2 out of 6 trains per hour to London Bridge, entirely due to the Thameslink works I believe. Should we not be advised / reassured that those (non-Thameslink) services will be re-instated? Mind you, if they can’t even be clear about services on the Thameslink routes….
The Thameslink routes saga is intrinsically linked with the south London ‘everywhere to everywhere’ routing.
Until somebody – probably TfL – grasps the nettle of simplification, service frequencies can’t really be improved.
The Thameslink routes probably still have not been finalised because it is not treated as a standalone railway like Crossrail, it is just another option in the south London spaghetti of lines for sending trains down.
ChirsMitch says “Until somebody – probably TfL – grasps the nettle of simplification, service frequencies can’t really be improved.”
This is not quite as obviously-true as it seems on first reading, since there may be other ways of improving frequencies – but a good case can be made for the argument.
But “simplification”, even if it is a necessary condition for frequency improvement, is certainly not a sufficient one. If such simplification permits more frequent trains on certain parts of the network, then unless other parts get fewer trains (unlikely to prove popular) there will be nowhere in central London to terminate everything.
Fixable, of course, just build a few more crossrails, but suddenly you’re into costs in the billions and timescales into the 2070s.
Sometimes I think that there’s an element of “Why can’t Beckenham be more like Hampstead” in such claims. South London has its own history, its own characteristics, and if it can be changed at all, it won’t be quick or easy.
@ngh – AFAIK the ‘fast’ Catford Loop services stopping only at Denmark Hill are SE not TL – got on one yesterday from Denmark Hill to Bromley South (then turning back). Of course a solution *may* be for these 1/2tph Victoria-Gillingham services to include more intermediate stops (i.e. Catford, Bellingham, Shortlands, Peckham, (ravensbourne – pretty please!!) – as with the semi-fast 8:24 TL northbound from Sevenoaks)…
Only other comments re unreliability/otherwise of this data are:
– the slightly amusing observation (back on adopted home patch ‘oop north’) that York suddenly turned into a ‘large station’ circa 2003
– the Harrogate line services seem to have had a steady increase, ditto the stopping TP Thirsk/Northallerton services – possibly due to introduction of Grand Central
– …that would be transformed by the reinstatement of the Ripon line (again pretty please…)
– that the colouring is a little ‘wanting’, to say the least, in particular the grading of increase between 50 shades of red…
apologies for non-London comments, but others have!
Brockley Mike – “So their own website implies there will be no services running between LBG and Blackfriars – unbelievable but true”: no, it says (as you quote) that such services will operate for only part of the franchise term. As there are no such services currently, that bit of the map is factually absolutely correct about what happens now (but it could certainly have been made a bit clearer).
Another less-than-helpful feature of the FAQ page is that there is a facility to “see how our plans affect you”, by station. Click on Brockley (or anywhere else that I tried), then click on Search, and (as an old railway colleague used to say, in rather more colourful fashion) quick as a flash, stuff all happens.
The 2012 DfT Consultation on the combined Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise said this and asked questions as quoted (and was effectively the first time that the general public and most stakeholders were alerted to any problem – I consider the opening part of the first sentence of 7.21 to be a cover up, to use Parliamentary-style polite language):
“Wimbledon loop and Thameslink core services via Elephant & Castle
7.21 Many stakeholders are aware that Network Rail has recommended, in both the South London and London and South East Route Utilisation Strategies, that Wimbledon loop services should start and terminate at Blackfriars. Network Rail wishes to see trains presented to the Thameslink core punctually, and it sees the crossing moves that the Wimbledon loop trains have to make south of Blackfriars as potential conflicts with other trains, and thus a threat to punctuality. At peak times, from December 2018, it will be possible for up to 16 trains per hour to approach Blackfriars from the south route via Elephant & Castle, but for no more than eight of these to proceed through the Thameslink core. The other eight must terminate in the new platforms on the west side of Blackfriars station. All these trains will approach Blackfriars either from the Denmark Hill direction (including Catford loop trains) or from Herne Hill (including Wimbledon loop trains). The question to be decided is which six or eight trains (depending on whether 16 or 18 approach from London Bridge) go through the Thameslink core and which terminate. Trains that use these routes today come from Sutton, Wimbledon, Ashford (via Maidstone East), Rochester, Sevenoaks, Orpington, Beckenham Junction and Kent House. We are seeking respondents’ views on which of these service groups should run through the Thameslink core and which should terminate at Blackfriars.
Q.18 What services that run via Elephant & Castle do respondents think should run via the Thameslink core route?
Q.19 Recognising that not all of these services can run via the Thameslink core route, what would be the most satisfactory way of managing the interchange at Blackfriars?”
The response seemed simple then. Terminate at Blackfriars the services from Ashford (via Maidstone East), Rochester, Orpington, Beckenham Junction and Kent House as they invariably did and run the rest through, which totalled six out of the eight possible, as it does today. So why all the fuss? Indeed, why rob the Wimbledon loop of its through services simply to introduce new services from originating stations that at present terminate at Blackfriars?
There would still be capacity to accept a further 4tph off the Wimbledon loop terminating at Blackfriars out of the 8tph adjudged from the above to be able to be accommodated at the terminating platforms. Remember, too, that other services via Herne Hill would also fall foul of NR’s fear of conflicting movements approaching Blackfriars if running through, e.g. the Orpington, Beckenham Junction and Kent House services, so why pick on the Wimbledon loop services?
Indeed, why did the DfT find it necessary finally to ask us, the users and user groups, those questions at all? They must have sensed a flaw in the original NR RUS’s.
P.S. If NR were worried about conflicting routes south of Herne Hill on the Wimbledon loop affecting punctuality through the core, then they are in for a rude awakening if they add in the multitude of conflicting routes on the mass of services proposed to pass through London Bridge to join the core! And that’s on a good day.
Graham Feakins,
Indeed, why did the DfT find it necessary finally to ask us, the users and user groups, those questions at all? They must have sensed a flaw in the original NR RUS’s
I think they did sense a flaw. Trouble was, as I see it, the DfT had sensed a flaw that was not there. Network Rail could grasp the problems that sending the Wimbledon Loop trains through the core would cause and the DfT couldn’t . I don’t dispute the situation was not handled well, publicity-wise, but that ought to be a separate issue.
I really do not understand your P.S. comment at all. You will have 16tph on the main route with no conflict running from Norwood Junction through to St Pancras and beyond. A few, very few, other trains will join them between Norwood Junction and London Bridge on the fast lines.
Where you do have a conflict is south of Blackfriars because those pesky trains via Elephant & Castle mess everything up. There was going to only be 6tph of these but the DfT in its infinite wisdom, because it knows better, increased this to 8tph and reduced the number via the sensible route (London Bridge) by 2tph. Remember one of the main objectives of the Thameslink Programme – as confirmed at the public inquiry when alternative routes were proposed – was to serve London Bridge.
So anyway, hardly a multitude of conflicting routes – but more than necessary and more than planned for. In this case though they will run under ATO so not nearly a bad as a scenario is if conventionally signalled. And certainly not as bad as locations such as Herne Hill where you effectively have a crossroads with one lot of trains having to cross the paths of another lot – relying on a gap on both the up and down lines of the other route to complete the manouvre.
If it were me I would run the whole lot via London Bridge. Trouble is:
i) there aren’t enough terminating platforms at Blackfriars to do this
ii) (surprisingly) Network Rail have practically run out of fast services via London Bridge and Norwood Junction that can be routed via Thameslink.
iii) No politician would dare do it because, it seems, that changing trains is far to much an imposition on people who have had a through service – even if it is to the general benefit of a far larger group of people.
@Brockley Mike
“Dotted line indicates services that will only operate for part of the franchise term’”
You are aware that there are currently no services between LBG and Blackfriars? And that the franchise has already started?
There is also a dotted line between Finsbury Park and St Pancras .
@Malcolm
” If such simplification permits more frequent trains on certain parts of the network, then unless other parts get fewer trains (unlikely to prove popular) there will be nowhere in central London to terminate everything.”
Not necessarily. Consider two branches each with 2tph to Victoria and 2 tph to London Bridge. You can simplify this by having one branch have 4tph to Victoria and the other having 4tph to London Bridge – provided that there is a decent interchange somewhere, this effectively doubles the frequency on between both branches and both termini.
The problem is the lack of interchange – for example you cannot easily switch between a Crystal Palace – Victoria service and a Norbury – LBG service because they don’t call at any stations in common (the Victoria service passes over the London Bridge service in the West Norwood/Tulse Hill area). Improved connections, such as the Streatham “virtual tube” (allowing suburban services from Victoria to the Norbury and Sutton lines to call at Streatham for interchange with London Bridge and Thameslink services) would be essential for any such simplification.
The problem would be selling this as an improvement to those who lose direct trains. However, if the routes reduce the number of conflicts, you might be able to get more trains through the system, so you are exchanging, say 2tph direct for maybe 6tph with a connection. This is, after all, the deal on most of the Underground – there are no longer any direct trains from, say, Victoria to Hounslow or Rayners Lane, or Piccadilly Circus to Stanmore. These were sacrificed for improved frequencies on both legs, with simple interchanges. Were there serious objections when this happened?
And there are now serious proposals to scrap direct trains from Kings Cross to Hampstead, and Waterloo to High Barnet, once the interchange problems are sorted out.
@Graham F
“The response seemed simple then. Terminate at Blackfriars the services from Ashford (via Maidstone East), Rochester, Orpington, Beckenham Junction and Kent House as they invariably did. ….Why rob the Wimbledon loop of its through services simply to introduce new services from originating stations that at present terminate at Blackfriars?”
Whilst the choice of whether to terminate Herne Hill or Denmark Hill-routed trains at Blackfriars does not affect the amount of conflict with the core LBG-Blackfriars route, it massively increases the conflicts between the Herne Hill and Denmark Hill routes. If DH trains go through the core and HH trains terminate, there is no conflict at all. Swap hem over, and every single train has to switch between the eastern pair of tracks and the western pair, and whilst it’s doing so, no train can make the swap in the opposite sense. This almost halves the theoretical capacity of this four track line.
This is precisely why, when the terminal platforms were on the east side, it was the DH trains which used them and the HH trains which ran to and from Holborn Viaduct. It was quite common for a HV-HH train to “race”* a Blackfriars- Catford Loop train all the way from Blackfriars to Loughborough Junction (including the stop at Elephant) , completely unimpeded by each other. But now the terminal platforms are on the other side, so the boot is on the other foot.
Of course, there is a solution to services approaching on the wrong side of each other having to swap over without causing a conflict, as we can see at Bermondsey. But as far as I am aware no-one has seriously suggested remodelling the spur from Denmark Hill to fly over Loughborough Junction station and use the west side pair of tracks towards the Elephant.
If, as is suggested, most passengers who want the through service are from Streatham and Tulse Hill, future timetable changes might see a compromise with loop services from one or other direction round the loop cut back to Blackfriars (so they would run Blackfriars – loop – St Albans). Those who value the through service will time their journey to use it – those in a hurry will take the first train and change if necessary. It would be very interesting to see how many do which!
(The outcome of the races was difficult to predict – normally the HH train would be formed of SAP stock, (downgraded 2HAPs) with express gear ratios, which gave slower acceleration but a better top speed. The DH train did not have to stop at Loughborough Junction, but the severe speed restriction on the curve leading to DH meant it actually had to brake sooner for the curve than the HH train did for the station).
@PoP
” I don’t dispute the situation was not handled well, publicity-wise, but that ought to be a separate issue.”
— Ought it? I thought that was precisely the issue we were discussing.
“those pesky trains via Elephant & Castle…”
“via the sensible route (London Bridge)…”
“If it were me I would run the whole lot via London Bridge.”
— These remarks illustrate just the, if I may say so, arrogant, de-haut-en-bas attitude that some of us Loopers are complaining about. You cannot suddenly announce the withdrawal of a service that people have had for almost 30 years and not expect bitter complaints.
“even if it is to the general benefit of a far larger group of people.” If it had ever been honestly and clearly explained in those terms, and who this “far larger group of people” might be and exactly how they were going to benefit, people might have been more receptive. There was nothing resembling the careful and thorough publicity campaign that forewarned Moorgate users that Thameslink trains weren’t going to go there any more, and exactly why this was necessary (12-car platforms at Farringdon), and the alternatives that would be available.
@PZT
“If it were me I would run the whole lot via London Bridge”
The layout on the London Bridge approaches would actually allow trains from Tulse Hill to run through the core via London Bridge. It would avoid conflicts in the Elephant area, but would of course do nothing for reliability on the main Thameslink route or the Charing Cross lines, as they would have to cross on the flat (the South London Line joins the viaduct west of the diveunder)
I don’t recall what the service pattern was in the last days of Holborn Viaduct (although I used them every day, I didn’t care where they went after Tulse Hill) but at one time they certainly ran to West Croydon via Norbury, and nowhere near Wimbledon. Loadings were very light by London standards, which is why they were run using 2SAPs – complete with side corridors, downgraded first class compartments (wider seats, more legroom), and in an eight-car train no less than six redundant driving cabs and four guard’s compartments.
@timbeau
“This is, after all, the deal on most of the Underground – there are no longer any direct trains from, say, Victoria to Hounslow or Rayners Lane, or Piccadilly Circus to Stanmore. These were sacrificed for improved frequencies on both legs, with simple interchanges. Were there serious objections when this happened?
And there are now serious proposals to scrap direct trains from Kings Cross to Hampstead, and Waterloo to High Barnet, once the interchange problems are sorted out.”
— Yes, but those are cross-platform or at least same-level interchanges between trains running every 3 minutes or so. Not really equivalent to changing southbound at Blackfriars via a lot of stairs into a train that only runs every 15 minutes (or in the Catford Loop case only every 30 minutes).
@timbeau
“The layout on the London Bridge approaches would actually allow trains from Tulse Hill to run through the core via London Bridge.”
— But then you would be reducing services even more at E&C and Loughborough Jn. and Herne Hill, which rather defeats the purpose.
timbeau says “Not necessarily. Consider two branches each with 2tph to Victoria and 2 tph to London Bridge. You can simplify this by having one branch have 4tph to Victoria and the other having 4tph to London Bridge – provided that there is a decent interchange somewhere, this effectively doubles the frequency on between both branches and both termini. ”
I am bemused. With a decent interchange in place, the effective frequency is the same (4 tph to either terminal) whether or not the “simplification” of dedicating one branch to Victoria and one to LBG is done. This demonstrates the benefits of building better interchanges, but not the benefits of “simplification” (which I think is over-rated).
Later in the same message, we have “if the routes reduce the number of conflicts, you might be able to get more trains through the system, so you are exchanging, say 2tph direct for maybe 6tph with a connection.“. This would seem to confirm the point I was making about terminal capacity – you could only improve the service to 6 tph if there was space to terminate them in London. Provision of this space could be costly.
I am not opposed to simplification. I am just opposed to seeing it as a magic bullet which can somehow “solve South London ” at the stroke of a crayon.
@Malcolm
Indeed – if it is terminal capacity rather than junction capacity which is the limiting factor. (And if it is dwell time at interchanges, then you should be doing the opposite and running services between as many different permutations of terminals as possible!)
(Wasn’t there a proposal at one time to divert some Windsor Line services to Victoria to make space at Waterloo?)
A little research suggests that running the east side of the Thameslink loop via Sutton – all stops to Norwood Junction – fast to London Bridge and then through the Thameslink core should give similar journey times to the current route through Mitcham. This might allow 4th to run both ways around the loop without too many conflicts at Blackfriars or Bermondsey. Of course, Carshalton to Eastfields would then lose their Thameslink service, presumably to be replaced by 2tph or 4th to Blackfriars. I have no idea how many other unresolvable conflicts I’ve just created.
@Mike and @timbeau:
‘“Dotted line indicates services that will only operate for part of the franchise term’”
You are aware that there are currently no services between LBG and Blackfriars? And that the franchise has already started?’
Yes, indeed, my mistake! However, the diagram then implies that only Brighton trains will run through LBG to Blackfriars in due course, so still pretty poor information after 24(?) years of detailed development of the Thameslink 2000 project. I am sure there were better diagrams on the website in the past that showed how routes would evolve over time from maybe about 2010 through to 2018/19, so the removal of that level of detail does still imply to me that the Wimbledon loop saga still has unresolved implications.
I have sympathy with peezedtee’s arguments that if the through routing of loop trains started many years ago, then loop line users are entitled to feel they have just maintained the status quo in their ‘victory’. Ultimately though, the terminating of loop trains is seemingly ‘embedded’ into the design of the lines around Blackfriars so the failure to get that message across to loop line users over many years must lie with the scheme promoter.
I do however feel strongly that maintaining that through service should not be at the expense of loss of capacity elsewhere in SE London, for example on the really poorly served Catford loop line – and to protect the massive investment that is being made, it is not acceptable to compromise on maximizing the capacity that is being created.
Hopefully the vagueness of official information on the planned service levels is an indicator of a huge behind-the-scenes effort to reconcile these conflicts. There will be far bigger political fall-out than over the Wimbledon loop if the wider commuter population feel they have put up with years of disruption for no direct gain to themselves.
@Brockley Mike – You may recall that the plan for the Catford Loop was to increase the service to 4tph but with ‘new’ 2tph serving Victoria from either Bellingham or Bromley South. In that way the Catford Loop would get its 4tph and there would at least be connections to London Bridge and now the Overground off all services at Peckham Rye but that hasn’t yet happened either. The only consolation there is that at least the Victoria-Lewisham-Dartford services via Nunhead run ‘all day’.
PoP says that he really does not understand my P.S. comment at all, saying: “You will have 16tph on the main route with no conflict running from Norwood Junction through to St Pancras and beyond. A few, very few, other trains will join them between Norwood Junction and London Bridge on the fast lines.”
But I didn’t mean on that part of the TL routes at all and I fully appreciated the comparatively clear run through the central area via London Bridge. I took that as a given. However, the TL map extends beyond there. On the north side will be the diverging routes up the Midland Main Line and that towards Cambridge (the latter presumably joining services from King’s Cross). So far, so simple but on the south side, there will be conflicts, as today, at least at South Croydon, Purley, Stoats Nest (?), Three Bridges, Wivesfield and beyond.
However, all this may pale into insignificance if the report of a friend, who has been studying cancellations for the month of January on services at Hassocks on the BML, including today’s Thameslink services but excluding anything to do with engineering work. I find his investigation astonishing.
Here is an overview:
“There have been a total of 172 train cancellations at Hassocks.
Broken down the figures are:-
118 trains cancelled because they didn’t run, terminated at Hassocks and did not continue in passenger service or were diverted to another route, either via Horsham, or via Lewes.
Of these 118 trains:-
107 did not run through Hassocks. These were either cancelled throughout or cancelled en-route
2 trains terminated at Hassocks and did not continue as passenger trains.
3 trains ran via Horsham
6 trains ran via Lewes
To add to this total are a further 54 trains that did run but did not stop at Hassocks as scheduled. All of these trains were late running trains but the degree of lateness varies greatly from running just 2 minutes late to 51 minutes late.”
He adds: “For the record Hassocks has three trains per hour scheduled to stop in each direction and an estimated annual footfall of 1,344,382 according to ORR.”
Well, if that’s the sort of thing to be expected, then let’s stop worrying about conflicting junctions. That’s what signallers (and flexible track layouts) are for.
@Brockley Mike
“the terminating of loop trains is seemingly ‘embedded’ into the design of the lines around Blackfriars so the failure to get that message across to loop line users over many years must lie with the scheme promoter.”
— Indeed, that was my main point really. As soon as that design of those lines was decided upon, the otherwise copious publicity efforts for the Thameslink Programme should have included explaining to the general public, long before the event, exactly why that was necessary and what the consequences would have to be, preferably with some consolation prizes thrown in to sugar the pill. Instead it was brusquely presented as a fait accompli without much explanation and seemingly with no understanding of the hostility this was bound to provoke.
peezedtee,
As soon as that design of those lines was decided upon, the otherwise copious publicity efforts for the Thameslink Programme should have included explaining to the general public, long before the event, exactly why that was necessary and what the consequences would have to be
And on that point I totally agree with you. But, as Graham Feakins has pointed out to me, even the Thameslink Programme manager seemed to be under the illusion that the intention was that the Wimbledon loop services would continue through the centre so help reinforce the idea that this would be the case.
It was badly handled but on the basis that “we are where we are” I would like to think that would have been put behind us and some rational decisions made. Grossly unfair for the people who suffered and were not informed as they should have been, I know, but, once you are in that situation, any decision made is going to be unfair to someone.
GF
The “failures” or “absences” or whatever at Hassocks…
Do we have any idea as to the proportion of err.. “blame” for these?
I would guess mostly TSGN/Southern, rather than NR, but.
It certainly seems an unacceptable level of disruption.
Cue Gerry Feinnes on “Failure of Management” again, I suppose.
This week has mostly been nr from what I can work out. Rough ride near Forest Hill on Monday. TSGN aren’t great at managing but by and large the delays are infrastructure related.
@Greg Tingey – “Do we have any idea as to the proportion of err.. “blame” for these?”
Here is a more detailed breakdown:
At least 38 trains were cancelled as a result of an infrastructure problem, either track or signalling, 20 were due to a fault on a train, 13 were because the inbound service was running late, 10 were due to adverse weather, 7 due to a fatality at Leagrave, 5 due to train crew issues, 4 due to planning errors, 2 due to a problem at the depot, 1 due to disorder, 1 due to trespass, the remaining 17 trains were due to unknown causes.
GF
Even there, it’s difficult to apportion, isn’t it?
I mean 38 – infrastructure is NR
& 20 fault on train + 5 train-crew + 4 planning + 2 depot are TSGN, but ….
17 unknown (which is not acceptable),
13 – inbound service, now is that NR or TSGN?
plus the disorder/trespass/death are down to “legal” I suppose.
Interesting & complicated.
Thanks, anyway.
They give you reasons for delays and cancellations. We just get “congestion”, meaning “too many trains to fit the infrastructure”. Which is odd, because the timetable has not changed for twelve years.
But the reason trains are being delayed is because more people are trying to travel, causing longer dwell times. So they thin the service out so the remaining trains can run to time. (Yes, more passengers results in fewer trains!) So those trains get even more crowded, and dwell times get even longer.
What is interesting looking at TSGN performance stats for south of the river is that other TOC caused delay was around 4% of all TSGN delay in Jan which can only be SWT Epsom etc and GWR Reigate – Redhill – Gatwick. I would put money on the later especially with Redhill P0 being on the urgent to do list being the main culprit and you wonder why TSGN don’t want to run more services on the Redhill lines at the moment…
Yet more reports in the press today about housing, particularly in London, becoming unaffordable for people on middle incomes. (Latest wheeze is to charge higher rents to those earning). Surely the greatest reason for increasing numbers on the railways – far greater than any double counting due to privatisation, or people hedging their bets by buying two advance tickets – is the simple fact that workers in essential services are far less likely now to be able to afford to live within a short distance of their place of work.
The typical commuter to London is no longer the company director with a country estate in the Chilterns: it’s the nurse, postal worker or teacher living on a council estate in Luton.
This is the best article I have ever read on LR
DRB 14.55: Because it’s the shortest, or because it contains no comment or analysis?
@ C L
Because the interactive map is so fascinating, and the comments, generally, are helpful