There are probably Southern commuters who would claim that nothing Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR – Southern’s parent company) said or did would surprise them. Many industry insiders would probably agree. When rumours spread rapidly about a proposal to completely revise the Thameslink timetable, however, there were various shades of disbelief.
The rumours centred on a proposed Thameslink service to Rainham (Kent) via Greenwich. Without any background context this just seemed like a barmy idea – one that not even a mad LR crayonista in a state of psychosis could come up with. The proposal, now officially published however, is about much more than that.
This is not to say that the proposals aren’t still controversial. A Thameslink timetable consultation was a complete surprise because as far as everyone else was concerned the whole thing was pretty much finalised. True, it was an open secret that the 2018 timetable didn’t actually work, but this was thought to be resolvable with a few minor tweaks or the judicious removal of the odd train. September 2016, by generally accepted industry norms, would seem to be far too late to start consulting on major timetable alterations due for implementation on Sunday 13th May 2018.
It seems incredible that the Department for Transport fully consulted on what was thought to be the definitive Thameslink 2018 timetable (give or take the aforementioned minor tweaks) and awarded the Thameslink franchise on that basis, yet we now have major changes being put forward. More remarkable still, the whole basis of having the large Thameslink franchise was so that it would be self-contained and one operator, as much as possible, would be in overall control. If accepted, these new proposals would make Thameslink so interdependent on SouthEastern that the future influence of SouthEastern on Thameslink performance would be comparable with that of Great Northern. So maybe the franchise should have been bigger still or, as some MPs argue, it has already got too big and shouldn’t be taking over every railway on which it runs a significant number of services.
We are getting ahead of ourselves, however, and so first we should step back and take a look at what the proposals contain.
There ain’t nothing quite like it
It has been said many times that Thameslink, currently run by GTR, is a franchise like no other. To begin with, it is a franchise where the DfT keeps all the revenue. The unwritten objective for the train operator is therefore not the usual one of maximising profit by getting as much revenue as possible for as little expenditure as possible. It is to keep the DfT happy so that they continue to pay the management fee.
For better or for worse, it seems that a completely unexpected – and largely unpredicted – consequence of this is that GTR is thinking more long term than other non-TfL-sponsored train operators. As a result it isn’t going to be panicked into doing something just because there is a loss of revenue – provided, of course, that what they are doing doesn’t upset the DfT.
Not content with doing one thing at a time
One would have thought that with the guards dispute on Southern and the controversial proposals for ticket office revision covering all of GTR that the company would be desperate not to get involved with another controversy. Not a bit of it! Indeed it is telling that the head of GTR, Charles Horton, is due to give a lecture next May entitled “Everything had to be done at once” Clearly the softly, softly approach is not on GTR’s agenda.
Reading the document itself, it is clear that at its heart lies a fundamental problem. The aforementioned fact that the 2018 Thameslink timetable, in its current form, won’t work. More importantly though, the consultation seems to admit that in its present form simple tweaks won’t work. As far as GTR seem concerned, it can’t be made to work. Facing up to this fundamental truth has thus led to some pretty drastic decision making.
Getting into the details
It is interesting to note that up until now all the doom-merchants have claimed that Thameslink will be a disaster because of the problems of running 24tph through the core. If the rhetoric of GTR is to be believed though, this is probably the least of their problems – a potential problem, certainly, but one that has been long recognised. The necessary measures have thus already been taken to make sure that it does not become an issue once a full service through the core is run.
So what is the bigger problem GTR anticipate? Here, those looking for something exciting and new to read about are about to be mildly disappointed. For we are back to familiar topics at LR Towers – dwell times, reactionary delay and Windmill Bridge Junction. Indeed on Southern territory this junction must be the railway operational equivalent of Mornington Crescent, because it seems the final answer to everything.
GTR have clearly looked at the fundamental reason why there is a problem and have come to the none-too-startling conclusion that it is the complex junctions in the Southern metro area. They also seem well aware that in the past few years a delay on Southern territory has tended to set off a bit of a chain reaction, meaning the overall consequential delay tends to be around three times the initial delay.
Awareness of the systemwide problems caused by complex junctions is nothing new. TfL Rail are well aware of it and for many years have argued for a more TfL-style of railway on the Southern network – i.e. fewer, more self-contained routes. Indeed much of the Turn South London Orange proposal was about sorting out junctions.
Sorting out junctions, however, is rarely an exercise without consequence. What was really necessary to solve, or at least reduce, the junction problem to manageable levels was thus an organisation willing to take the flak and actually do something about this – despite the inevitable initial unpopularity. Until now no TOC in their right mind would do such a thing. Far better to keep one’s head down, not upset the fare-paying punters and quietly collect those large delay payments from Network Rail when the cause of a delay can be attributed to them. Call them maverick, mad or brave. Call them forward thinking and full of willingness to take the initiative. Whatever your preference, GTR seem to be the first organisation willing to face up to this.
(Evenly) spaced out
On a much more positive note, and something that would likely get the approval of Sir Herbert Walker (of original Southern Railway fame), GTR have recognised that, both north and south of the river, the current timetable is a complete mess when it comes to regularly spaced trains. This is not something that can be resolved by tweaks and tends to involve tearing the timetable up and starting again. It does seem that the proposals would produce a far superior timetable in this respect and this is again something that is greatly desired by TfL, who want to see a “turn up and go” railway.
Maybe even Redhill users will be happy
The consultation states:
Frequent all-day, evenly spaced service of six trains per hour every 10 minutes is proposed between Redhill and London.
The service today from Redhill has gaps varying between 10 and 20 minutes. It is a major town with a large catchment area and it really deserves a decent service, such as the proposed train every 10 minutes in the off-peak period. It is hard to see how this could have been achieved without a major timetable rewrite.
Whilst Redhill maybe a particularly bad example of a major station with an erratic service, it is one of many examples that can be found. A solution to providing a regular interval service at most stations is not going to possible by just tinkering with the timetable we currently have.
It is not only the regularity that will be better if the proposals are accepted. GTR seem to be striving to provide a better service by increasing the frequency. It has to be said that this includes lines that will never even cover their marginal costs, such as the line to Epsom Downs (which goes up from 1 train per hour [tph] to 2tph). South of the river a very welcome proposal is 4tph off-peak on the Catford loop line – something campaigners have wanted for many years. North of the river there are similar proposed improvements, such as 2tph off-peak to Kings Lynn (once work is completed at Ely North Junction) though it has to be said that this is not a new proposal and was due to happen anyway.
Better service in the evening and at weekends
Another TfL aspiration being pursued is the extension of the normal off-peak services late into the evening and at weekends, although it is conceded in this consultation that there may have to be a reduced service on Sunday mornings to allow time for maintenance. Indeed the “be more like TfL than TfL” approach may be an attempt to fight off a TfL takeover in future so that Govia can get another bite of the cherry once the present franchise expires.
Facing reality
Refreshingly, GTR are also fully facing up to the reality of extended dwell time (for the most part). As trains get more crowded then station dwell times can get disproportionally large. It is not just the number of people wanting to get on, but how crowded the train is already, as well as such aggravating factors as a long train and a short platform. So it is a pleasure to see that reality has hit home at GTR and they now propose a one minute dwell time at busy times at stations such as South Croydon and Purley Oaks – not especially busy but the train is already crowded and the eight car platforms mean that on 10-car trains the last two carriages are not accessible.
In a similar manner the proposals also support having increased turnaround time. This would rectify a much criticised issue with previous timetables, where most industry experts regarded the turnaround times as far too tight to allow a service to be operated reliably.
Dwell times are only going to get worse as demand increases. The consultation appears to confirm the fact that, despite all the current disruption, passenger numbers are rising on GTR.
Let down by Network Rail
Another reality GTR are facing up to is that some of the infrastructure needed to run the previously proposed 2018 timetable is not going to be present in time for implementation. Probably worst of all is the fact that a terminating platform to be built at Stevenage simply will not be ready by December 2018. GTR’s proposed solution is to run trains to Watton-at-Stone and provide a replacement bus service from there or Hertford North to Stevenage. This must produce one of the railway’s quietest terminating stations. Watton-at-Stone, the village where Sir Nigel Gresley died, has fewer than 1000 households and its long-closed railway station only reopened in 1982.
Another disappointment is that there will not be an eight car terminating platform at Reigate by the time the timetable comes into force. The consultation proposes the options of having 4-car trains combine with another train at Redhill or a more frequent shuttle service. The shuttle service would run up to three trains an hour which, when combined with the Great Western Reading-Redhill service, would give a surprisingly good service of 6tph between Redhill and Reigate.
Windmill Bridge Junction
More controversially, GTR believe that the originally proposed throughput of trains through Windmill Bridge Junction (just north of East Croydon) is simply not reliably workable. This would appear to be in contrast to their beliefs when pressing for a more intensive 2015 timetable. For that timetable – the notorious one that produced an unreliable evening peak from London Bridge – it has been suggested that it was at GTR’s insistence that the service into London Bridge was as intense as it was. Network Rail were arguing for slightly fewer trains – not because they thought it theoretically wouldn’t work, but because they thought it would make the service more reliable. Maybe the lesson has been learnt or perhaps it is a case of once bitten, twice shy. Either way, GTR have decided that not only must train routes be modified to minimise conflict at Windmill Bridge Junction, but the service through Windmill Bridge Junction must also be reduced slightly. This fits in well with another objective which is to reduce (or eliminate) trains terminating at East Croydon in the peak.
The problem is that once you reduce the number of trains through Windmill Junction you potentially reduce the number of trains to London. You don’t want to reduce the terminating trains at Victoria and London Bridge because it is not easy to usefully replace them with something else. That leaves Thameslink, which was proposed to have 16tph between London Bridge and East Croydon.
Terminal capacity in London issues
Here it starts getting complicated. Conventional wisdom states that you don’t want to run any Thameslink trains via London Bridge onto SouthEastern tracks because the approaches to Charing Cross and Cannon Street are as full as the termini themselves. So by running from Thameslink to SouthEastern destinations you don’t gain capacity because you lose a path into Cannon Street or Charing Cross. The critical problem seems to be Lewisham station and junction which have severely limited capacity.
New route proposals
GTR are proposing that a proposed Thameslink service to Maidstone East via Elephant & Castle in the peaks be replaced with an all day service to Maidstone East via London Bridge. GTR are convinced that there is capacity on the main line through Grove Park (not via Lewisham). The removal of this service via Elephant & Castle offers a lot of other opportunities for service via Elephant & Castle and GTR is quick to capitalise on this.
Much more controversially they propose a service to Rainham (Kent). The document on the proposals in Kent doesn’t even include the route on the detailed diagram but they do have the route to Maidstone East. It is almost as if they don’t want to draw too much attention to the proposal.
The route to Rainham can’t go via Lewisham and the line through St Johns and Grove Park is full up, so the proposal is to go via Greenwich. GTR argues that this has a lot to commend it as they are convinced that, with their service to Charing Cross permanently severed, many people on the Greenwich line want to travel on Thameslink to Blackfriars and beyond. Furthermore, they point to the rising demand from the Medway towns that is not being met.
The solution of going to Rainham via Greenwich looks clever but has been treated with deep skepticism and concern. The objections basically fall into three categories:
- There isn’t the demand
- Operationally it is a nightmare
- Long term, you have reduced capacity from East Croydon to London Bridge
One could add that there are also a couple of other concerns. One is that after going to the trouble of building the Bermondsey Diveunder the number of Thameslink trains fully taking advantage of it has gone down from 18tph originally to 16tph and now to 12tph. The other great concern is its impact on the business case for the work to sort out Windmill Bridge.
The first issue with demand on any proposed Thameslink service via Greenwich is that GTR’s predictions aren’t believed. They claim they take Crossrail into account and that people will change at Abbey Wood, but one wonders if the fact that TfL fares are cheaper has been factored in. Not only that but it would also be quicker to get to Farringdon via Crossrail at Abbey Wood, so one wonders how many through passengers (beyond London Bridge) would actually be on the train. The service would appear to be too slow for passengers from further out because it stops at too many stations. Stated benefits of satisfying a future demand from the south east to the rebuilt Brent Cross shopping centre from 2021 onwards seem rather far fetched with Bluewater much closer and Stratford easily accessible from Abbey Wood via Crossrail (admittedly with a change of train at Whitechapel). Coming to that, by 2021 there may even be a brand new shopping centre near East Croydon.
Confidence in how well this option was thought out also take a dent when one reads that:
These trains are not able to call at Woolwich Dockyard due to short platforms being unable to accommodate 12 carriage trains.
This seems to either be a highly inaccurate statement or, incredibly, Thameslink class 700 trains have not been provided with Selective Door Operation – which would seem to be almost unbelievable.
The stuff of nightmares
Probably the biggest criticism is that by introducing a Thameslink route via Greenwich one introduces an operational nightmare. Still, based on past history, the mere fact that a Thameslink route is an operating nightmare seems to be no bar to insisting on its introduction (or, more strictly speaking, retention). It is almost as if the imp of the perverse first made sure that the Wimbledon loop remained part of Thameslink and then, not content with his efforts, decided to add running trains via Greenwich to the toxic mix.
It almost beggars belief that having spent millions of pounds and years of construction effort segregating the Cannon Street, Thameslink and Charing Cross flows there is now a proposal to undo some of the good work and have Thameslink services interworked with the Cannon Street services via a flat junction. Worse still, one of the critical track sections involved is only a shade longer than 12-cars. This means trains will probably slow down to a crawl – or stop altogether – before crossing over a crucial junction.
or maybe not
Currently semi-fast trains do not run via Greenwich. There is a reason for this. It comes back to dwell time and the fact that it only takes a minute or so dwell time (in addition to time lost stopping and accelerating again) for the all-stations trains to be holding back a following semi-fast.
Indeed a Network Rail paper highlights this very real difficulty. The issue of dwell time (or berth time) is looked at in considerable detail on the Greenwich line. In the worst case in 2014, the accumulated dwell time for stations from Abbey Wood to London Bridge via Greenwich was around 790 seconds – that’s over 13 minutes. It is not that much better off-peak. If the slow train ran every ten minutes, which is what they do on this line in the off-peak, then the “semi-fast” needs to make an awful lot of stops if it is going to not be held back by the previous slow train.
It gets worse. The ATO (automatic train operation) section of Thameslink apparently has its handover position (where trains go from being manually driven to being driven under ATO) just about at the point where the Thameslink trains would turn off for Greenwich. This has not been catered for in the complex signalling or the arrangements to switch between ATO and manual driving.
What also does not really appear to have been taken into account is that, with ATO overlay and replacement of Networker trains with modern stock, in a few years time you could probably run the extra Rainham trains into Cannon Street – no Thameslink involved. This, and possibly other factors, may well appear in the much anticipated Network Rail long term study for Kent. One hopes this document surfaces before the end of the GTR consultation in order to see what the alternatives are.
Above all, the proposed route to Greenwich produces yet another interface. It means that yet another train service has to be running well for Thameslink to work properly. It is true that Thameslink already interfaces with SouthEastern at Herne Hill, but the SouthEastern route to Victoria is relatively reliable and not problematic.
SouthEastern’s gain, Southern’s loss
A long term issue with Thameslink going via Greenwich is that it reduces long term capacity on Southern services. If you take away Thameslink routes into London Bridge from Southern territory and replace them with ones from SouthEastern territory then you have either lost that route on Southern or you need to take up a terminating platform at London Bridge to replace it. In the latter case this reduces the opportunity in future for more Southern trains to run to London Bridge terminating platforms as there will be none spare.
Likely to be of far greater concern to some is how this will affect the business case for rebuilding Windmill Bridge junction. If you can’t send the trains to London because there is no capacity, there is not much point in spending money to remove the operating constraints at Windmill Bridge Junction. There’s equally little point in eight platforms at East Croydon.
There is a counterargument which is that if the proposals show various mitigations (such as terminating at Selhurst) to deal with lack of capacity at Windmill Bridge junction then that shows that the work at Windmill Bridge is desperately needed in any case, just to improve the current situation and it will be even more vital if there is any suggestion of an improved service through East Croydon.
Probably at the back of a lot of people’s minds is the issue that once you have introduced a service and have had it established for a few years it becomes extremely difficult to withdraw it. So in ten years time it could be a case that the paths through the Thameslink core for the Rainham trains via Greenwich could be far better used for other services, but that it becomes very difficult to implement those future proposals.
A necessary risk?
It is easy to criticise the Rainham via Greenwich proposal. One suspects that GTR have taken the attitude that, even with this issue, the timetable is much more workable overall and produces a better result. They also have a fundamental problem – if not Rainham via Greenwich then where? It may not be ideal but it could be that, in their analysis, it is the least-worst option.
End of round one
The first round of consultation is due to end in December 2016. This means that GTR will have their work cut out in 2017. In the early days of the original Southern Railway during the 1920s the company introduced electrification, colour light signalling and major track layout changes in the space of a few years. Not since then has so much different activity been undertaken south of the river in such a short space of time. It looks though like GTR have an insatiable desire to be remembered as a franchise that changed the nature of the railway. Whether others will welcome that change is, of course, another matter.
Cover image by My another account
Like what you read? You’ll find more in our magazine
In Issue four we talked to Crossrail’s Chief Engineer Chris Binns about the challenges of building a new railway from scratch, and to Network Rail Chairman Sir Peter Hendy about making Britain proud of its railways once again. Buy it now
I wrote a post about the Greenwich line proposal here: https://fromthemurkydepths.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/will-erith-belvedere-and-woolwich-see-rail-service-cuts-due-to-thameslink/
The consultation document is very odd and almost looks like it was cobbled together at the last minute. There’s points in there that seem unbelievable but given the number of errors who knows if they are correct?
For example, not stopping at Woolwich Dockyard due to short platforms, as mentioned above. That’s with SDO equipped 700s!
Then it states Thameslink will not stop at Erith and Belvedere, and those stations will see ‘up to’ 4 trains an hour. They currently have 6 off-peak, had more in the peaks before re-building work, and are seeing mass housing growth. 2000 homes imminent in Erith. Bexley Council has designated Belvedere as its main housing growth area in the next 15 years – even above Thamesmead – and claims 10k homes will be built.
Growth figures at the station were 9% last year at Erith and 11% at Belvedere, and as both are not barriered or always open that is likely an underestimation.
Yet Thameslink will call at all other stations except those AND cause a reduction in services?
But everyone will use Crossrail right? Hmmm. With the awkward non-same-platform interchange at Abbey Wood why not just stay on SE Metro if going to the City. There’s barely anything in it once changing is considered.
And presumably it means the end of Gillingham to Charing Cross via Lewisham semi-fasts, meaning the whole line loses a connection to SW Trains at Waterloo East and the West End. If that does go then other stations like Charlton see 8 trains an hour off-peak and 10 in the peaks drop to 6. Just a week after early plans were revealed for the 5000 home plans at Charlton Riverside.
This all raises another question. Just how closely are transport planners looking at housebuilding plans? Maybe worth a future post. I’d love to hear people views.
Greenwich Council will see the second highest number of homes over the next decade out of 32 London Councils according to the London Plan. Bexley sees less but they are almost all clustered around Slade Green, Belvedere and Erith.
If anyone has the misfortune to look at planning application attached transport plans they often have a minimal mention of rail. Lots on roads and Highways, and a fair bit with TfL if they run services (tube etc) but suburban rail? Not much at all.
Ah, I also wanted to add that could the ‘up to’ 4 tph on the Greenwich line instead of 6 be because Cannon Street capacity is permanently reduced due to Thameslink?
If no more homes were to be built that could probably suffice with Crossrail coming very soon. But when you look at the housing plans at just about every station its a long shot. To name just some further up the line there’s 4-5k at Charlton Riverside, 2k at Woolwich Dockyard, many thousands at Deptford etc.
A very good write-up about the hotly-anticipated (in some circles at least) timetable consultation. I read virtually the entire report at the weekend and noted that there were a number of interesting implications (some of which are quite a distance from London and therefore not within the remit of this site).
Without trying to criticize the quality of this article, I did spot a slight typo: Under the section New Route Proposals the sentence:
“The other great concern its impact on the business case for the work to sort out Windmill Bridge.”
should read as:
“The other great concern is its impact on the business case for the work to sort out Windmill Bridge.”
[Yes I am terrible at missing out words. The proofreaders pick most of my errors up but somehow this one got through. Now corrected. PoP]
Woolwich Dockyard & SDO.
One of the numerous items spewing out from the GTR random reason generator that does not match underlying facts as the 700s have SDO and CSDE using the same Tracklink system as 387s/377s (and very similar to the one on SWT Windsor lines made by the same firm with the 458 and 450s equipped and also the soon to be delivered 707s). Not stopping at Woolwich Dockyard is purely about keeping the service semi fast as any stops west of Abbey Wood create a further advantage for Crossrail. I also suspect fromthemurkydepths is correct that GTR haven’t looked at planning proposals etc. (NR do hence it will be interesting to see the Kent Study…). [A good dose of all 12 car into Cannon Street would be good start…]
The demand levels for Thameslink core services are about the same on the via New Cross Gate Metro (stopping) corridor as the Greenwich Corridor according to the data in the consultation so why didn’t GTR propose a Crystal Palace stopping TL service (which could them have been rerouted once Windmill Bridge Jn etc gets sorted.), this would also compensate for the new proposal of not calling any TL services at New Cross Gate which isn’t highly publicised (no surprise). The only logical reason is effectively an ORCATS raid especially on the beyond Z6 fares (and even potentially 25% of the CR Abbey Wood ones) with GTR needing to maximise revenue for DfT to avoid getting penalised on management fees and to hell with the long term consequences. (Indeed this may have been what Clare Perry was insinuating in her pre-“resignation” speech).
GTR shouldn’t really be allowed to consult without NR’s”Kent” study proposal being on the table too.
Reigate (and Redhill) will end up being retimetabled again when Reigate 12 car and longer term Redhill South Jn get rebuilt and resignalled) so the Reigate 6tph may be temporary!
Disappointed to see only 2tph on the Wimbledon Loop. I understand the capacity constraints through the core – but would it be possible to have 4tph on the Wimbledon Loop with services alternating between Blackfriars / Bedford terminators?
There is already insufficient capacity on this route (e.g. at Herne Hill), so it’s a shame to see the new timetable failing to offer any improvement.
St Mary Cray (or Swanley) will be celebrating fast trains to London Bridge and I guess everyone on the Bat and Ball line will change there, so you’ll be injecting near empty trains into Bickley.
Not sure that coupling Thameslink into both the Grove Park and Swanley fast lines all day is a good idea, it does make the diveunder less useful
Here’s one: GN are proclaiming 4tph throughout the day on GN Route 5 (WGC Metro service) on page 71 of their consultation – a headline increase of 1tph during the weekdays and 2tph on a weekend.
Yet looking at their comparison Excel – which is currently for weekdays – they appear to reducing service to 2TPH at some stations, which includes Hadley Wood in Zone 6. This is now scheduled as 1 train every 30mins instead of 1 every 20mins currently. None of which is even asterisked on the consultation document as “not every train calls” (or similar).
The 700s are certainly equipped with SDO- the Cambridge – Maidstone East (changed from Tattenham Corner as part of all this rearrangement and to remove Thameslink from Southern Metro) will use it at the Up platforms at Foxton and Shepreth- the Down platforms are being extended to avoid the rear of trains hanging across roads (in the case of Foxton, the A10).
With the consultation, whilst it’s sort of good to see the official acceptance that the 2tph to Kings Lynn will be delayed, it’s also good to see that the additional service will terminate at Ely in the interim. Currently Cambridge-Ely is served by 3tph off peak, but these are all within about 15 minutes. An additional off peak service, especially on Saturdays, in the opposite half of the timetable fits with the objective you mention of spacing services more evenly.
There’s disquiet that some stations south of Stevenage will lose direct services to stations between there and Peterborough. The change time appears to be about 23 minutes. But presumably this has been looked at and the numbers affected are low- much as with the Stevenage-Watton at Stone bus link.
Re Anon E. Mouse,
PoP and I are pondering a second article including look more in depth at the implication hidden between the lines in white ink especially as there is too much in the consultation for just one article.
[Typos, there will always be some and finding them is welcomed. In mitigation PoP did write most of it during the night, I reviewed on the mobile so wasn’t that through (as the on train wi-fi in Austria in non existent even on almost new trains and 3G patchy) but LBM managed to capture a number.]
I’ve read through the article again and there’s the impression that Southeastern and the Greenwich line benefit. But this isn’t the case in terms of frequencies based on what I’ve read and been told.
The long term pattern on the line has been 6 trains an hour off-peak which are all-stoppers and 2 semi-fasts. In the peaks that went up to about 10 and 8.
Remove the 2 Southeastern semi-fasts (I’ve been told by GTR staff this is planned) and service numbers are roughly the same (6 SE and 2 Thameslink) with some slightly different service patterns. But the document say only 4 SE trains an hour. Add in the 2 Thameslink and at best stations like Woolwich Arsenal and Charlton get 6 an hour instead of 8 now, and at worst some like Erith get 4 an hour instead of 6 off-peak as now. If its also 4 in the peak that’s a halving of frequencies before Thameslink all kicked off isn’t it?
Re ngh & 2nd article
Probably a good idea as another titbit is that London Bridge metro services via Forest Hill will be re-routed to West Croydon, thus duplicating the Overground. In the peaks there will be a 20% service reduction to London Bridge!
FromtheMurkyDepths,
The problem is that we don’t know exactly what would happen if this consultation was not accepted i.e. what the current state of play is. So for a really valid comparison we need to know what would have been come 2018 if this had not been published. What went on before the Thameslink Programme commenced is sort of irrelevant.
So we have the problem can’t make a proper comparison because all we can do is rely on what GTR tells us the changes would have been.
Re Mark,
Not covered in the article is the Wimbledon loop getting another 2tph doing Blackfriars – Wimbledon Loop – London Bridge and vice versa. The knock on effects are quite interesting when looking at the rest of SN metro and what it allows especially with Windmill Bridge re-routing. The other welcome Metro proposal is the return is of the direct Crystal Palace – East Croydon services withdrawn in 2008 which also help ameliorate the reduction in stopping Thameslink services at Norwood Junction (at least GTR seem to want to stop more at Norwood Jn (NWD) post rebuild which sorts the platform capacity issues). Indeed the Norwood Jn rebuild should sort some of the Windmill Bridge Jn issues so might it be worth holding off on some of the changes till late 2019… (oops I forgot GTR need to get the revenue in for GTR earlier than that!)
@PoP – your reference to “operating nightmares” got me. It’s rare that LR articles make me laugh but that paragraph raised a chuckle. The thought that an imp is resident in the GTR timetable planning department seems all too plausible.
When I first read the full consultation document one key thought lodged in my head. It was “this is about doing TfL-esque stuff before TfL can claim it for themselves”. It does look rather like the DfT are forcing these changes through albeit with GTR in the driving seat so they can go “oh look TfL aren’t the only people who can introduce new trains, more frequent services and run a management contract form of franchise”. Obviously there isn’t a further infrastructure shopping list here after the Thameslink works are done although with TfL there probably would be in order to squeeze more service volume of the network.
One of the things I find most surprising is the Stevenage platform issue. GTR have been really rather “blunt” about Network Rail’s failure here. I was left wondering if this was GTR’s frustration boiling over or a DfT endorsed side swipe at NR or simply an attempt at embarrassing NR into action. It’s rare to see such remarks in a public consultation because the usual stance about a “partner’s” problems is much more measured and diplomatic.
And as for even headways well yes and no. Isn’t the n/b Gatwick Express service being shunted to a x10/x20 headway under these proposals? You also have the ludicrous position that people making local trips on the ECML from the Peterborough service to stops south of Stevenage will have a 23 minutes wait compared to a through service today. That’s ridiculous – how to kill off local service usage in one easy lesson. People will drive. I know there are always compromises and conflicts but there are some aspects in these proposals that look puzzling. Oh and cynical comment – isn’t it *lovely* how Epsom does *so* well out of these proposals and how much emphasis there is about it in the consultation? One might think that an important politician represented Epsom in Parliament. 😛
Re PoP,
Comparison – Unless you happen to have the original detailed franchise agreement proposals 😉
I suspect bit of excel this evening…
About the Watton wagon, could it be that it could save money – if one fewer train is required (or maybe even if it isn’t), then the bus hire costs could well be less than the train operating costs (savings which convert into GTR Brownie points). In which case it’s extra cheeky of GTR to be rude about Network Rail.
I wonder if part of the desire to run to Rainham (or at least a fortuitous consequence) is that you descope the Southeastern franchise of trains that run deep into Medway.
That presumably then makes a transfer of the Southeastern metro to TfL in the future much simpler as (apart from small trespasses into Dartford / Sevenoaks, etc) it would be entirely within the London boroughs.
I understand that the Thameslink service will call at principal stations between Dartford and Charlton inclusive and then at all stations west of Charlton. The documentation does not make this clear, but I suspect that this is because the Cannon Street service will fall to 4tph. The Thameslink service will then top-up stations such as Greenwich and Maze Hill to their current 6tph via London Bridge.
What isn’t stated is that there would almost certainly still be a Charing Cross service via Woolwich Arsenal and Blackheath. Stations on the line (other than Deptford to Westcombe Park) were promised a return of the Charing Cross service in due course. We don’t know whether this service would be semi-fast, stopping, or vary depending on the time of day. It would be useful to know the calling patterns of this service, and the fact that Southeastern services are missing from this consultation makes it very hard to understand the full picture of services on the Greenwich and North Kent lines.
@walthamstowwriter
I agree that this looks like DfT making the best of a management contract (as with DOO). But it makes you wonder who now is the great proponent of franchising? The TOCs would seem to be happy to take management contracts. The public doesn’t care (or if it does, wants ‘renationalisation’). I doubt NR prefers franchising. I had always thought it was DfT who were the keepers of the faith. If they are getting a better deal from management contracts, perhaps the end of this ludicrous system is conceivable. (As Graham H would point out, it was always intended to be temporary…)
Re WW,
“Obviously there isn’t a further infrastructure shopping list here after the Thameslink works are done although with TfL there probably would be in order to squeeze more service volume of the network.”
NR have a list that is already well advanced so it is shame that GTR ignore it.
Stevenage requires signalling and electrification changes with NR already upgrading some of the BR era ECML equipment with F+F series 1 to improve reliability so a big rebuild in the Stevenage area is on the cards not as simple as it might appear.
Epsom etc. changes are also about removing trains from Windmill Bridge Jn also see new Sutton – LBG/BKR services and removing the Palace – West Croydon direct link.
Congratulations on a masterly analysis. But as a long standing ’24tph through the Central Core’ Doom Merchant can I challenge the comment that steps have been taken to make sure it doesn’t become an issue? The issue is not the central core but presenting the 24tph each way at the approaches on time and in the right sequence.
As a regular Great Northern user, last year I started recording station dwell times on my trips to London. I gave up after a couple of months because there was no pattern. On one journey the dwell times could vary between 45 sec and over a minute. Only on one all stations stopper did the driver achieve 45 seconds at every station, Add in the long standing regulation issues at Woolmer Green and it is going to require a revolution in driving standards and regulation at Kings Cross box to get southbound trains hitting Canal Tunnels junction on time. Similarly, I imagine, Thameslink St Pancras-Bedford services.
Yes, ‘isolated’ TMS is being provided at three Bridges and the two North of the Thames boxes, but all that does is show the signaller operating strategies which can then then implemented manually.
Then there is the factor that everyone seems to be ignoring. What happens when a passenger in a wheelchair turns up at City Thameslink? With all trains required to be RVAR/TSI PRM compliant from 1 January 2020 and stations accessible, disabled travellers will be expecting to turn-up and go. ‘Who puts the ramp down ?’ doesn’t seem to be on the check list for single manning proposals.
So, technically, 24tph is not an issue, but operationally it is a different matter.
Captain Deltic,
That’s exactly how I see it. I was thinking more of the people (including one professor) claiming that 24tph was fundamentally a problem due to dwell times etc.
@Bluesman 10.40
I also find it rather astonishing that the “Sydenham” line from LB to East Croydon is being diverted to West Croydon. Like you say, most of that route option is delivered by Overground, plus there is therefore zero direct trains to East Croydon for Gatwick passengers, on top of which the other alternative of using New Cross Gate is seemingly taken away too. It either means more passengers buying zone 1 tickets for changing at LB, or getting off to change at Norwood Jcn which really does not seem like an ideal interchange with its narrow platforms and lack of disabled access.
This must be one of the most significant route losses proposed.
Aren’t the Core platforms being provided with level boarding? Not an issue on the ELL Core with its 16tph
Small typo:
“They also seem well aware that in the past few years a delay on Southern *tends* has tended to set off a bit of a chain reaction, meaning the overall consequential delay tends to be around three times the initial delay.”
Should be “trains”?
[I am guessing it should have been territory so I am changing it to that. PoP]
RE ngh
Thanks for pointing that out – I hadn’t spotted it. Shame that it is only proposed as operating during the peaks, and not daytime / evenings / weekends. The route really deserves a turn up and go service throughout the day.
It’s also not clear if the northbound trains from Wimbledon will run to London Bridge or Blackfriars – the headings for SN3.11 and SN3.12 don’t match the detailed list of calling points for each service. If it’s running into London Bridge, it will be doubly useless, as it creates a potentially more confusing service pattern.
@ngh
I agree that there is a lot that can be said about the implications and as such, I do hope this article gets a sequel.
@bluesman, ngh
Would definitely appreciate an additional article on the 2018 proposals and the impact to the Sydenham line.
Checking the inner suburban GN services, Alexander Palace looks like it’ll lose the Kings Cross trains in the peaks, however all slow trains stop there (ten per hour off peak), but Harringay & Hornsey have six trains per hour, so something isn’t stopping there, either the Welwyn Garden City trains (four trains per hour), or a mixture of the Hertford North and Welwyn Garden City will be mixed skip stop.
“maybe even Redhill passengers will be happy” NO!
Having said that GTR are coming to meet with us this evening and some gem may come out from that which we haven’t understood from first reading
One question crosses my mind – If Windmill Bridge is such a problem why didn’t they divert the Cat/Tatt’s to East Grinstead rather than Greenwich to replace the Victoria services, so that East Grinstead’s service then doesn’t cross half the flat crossings of Windmill Bridge trying to get to Victoria. Why is this option never pursued?
Finally 4tph on Catford Loop – though wonder how the freight paths have been diverted – overnight?
And presumably the GTR Maidstone East proposal will mean an end to the SE Victoria/Maidstone East service currently running over the Loop…
Also the ‘extra capacity through Grove Park’ (!) will mean the final nail in the coffin of the Bromley North branch (unless SE can be persuaded to run the 466’s 4tph) – far better as I suggested a couple of years ago to rip the whole thing up and replace with a guided busway – which would have added benefit of reducing bus traffic through Grove Park road junction – currently a major source of congestion imho.
2/2
…also the permanent withdrawal of Thameslink services running over the Chatham Main from P4 Beckenham Junction via Herne Hill will displace pax (presumably onto the Catford Loop stations) from what is now a (very) well used service…
Is the Luton- Maidstone service going to run on the fast or slows between the dive down and Chislehurst? The connections at the dive down are for the Cannon Street lines (slow) but I suppose the trains could access the fast after the Lewisham lines once the tracks are less congested?
It has already been pointed out that the Govia plan without any SE input is bizarre especially as SET are a Govia company. Left hand and right hand seemingly not part of the same body!
Living in Gravesend, naturally I have views on the proposed changes which may, inevitably, be at variance with the needs of those living between Dartford and Central London. Gravesend has the advantage of the Javelin services (2 from central Gravesend and 4 from Ebbsfleet). The use of these, even with the enhanced cost of fares, has transformed travel and the number of people using these services to Central London has increased enormously even with the need to use the underground to the West End. As a result, the town has an alternative to the tedious, virtually all stations crawl to London Bridge and beyond now proposed.
Dartford, however, is less fortunate and it will be interesting to see the reaction of Jeremy Kite (the Council Leader) to the fact that, unless the SE Kent plan has some surprises, his town will be severely compromised in travel to Central London. The long standing issues of “defects” in the 3 main routes to London are, of course, well known and we have all suffered by crawling from, at best, Slade Green inwards behind a late-running stopping train.
To avoid the conflicts and congestion at Dartford, the only obvious solution is to “convert” the current 2tph service from Gravesend to Charing Cross to a limited stop service; this, however, is plainly to the detriment of some intermediate stations along the Dartford Loop as I assume that extra trains along that already crowded route are a non-starter.
@T33: I’ve heard that it may be an issue with 12/10 car services fouling junctions when held at a red signal in the Windmill Bridge area due to insufficient signal spacing
Keith Knight,
I recall a rather amusing surmise by a Network Rail bod who imagined that the timetable planner from SouthEastern and the timetable planner from Govia got together in a pub. The SE guy said he had a problem with too few trains running via Greenwich, the Govia guy said he had too many trains at Windmill Bridge Junction, out came the crayons and viola!
@Jon
My thinking is in line with yours, in that the Rainham service is designed to remove the last Metro route from Southeastern that couldn’t reasonably be transferred to TfL.
But there are other implications of the proposal –
– Slade Green depot only need supply trains to TfL Metro
– Gillingham depot is possibly handed over to Thameslink (though its current role in maintaining all the 466s, including in particular those that run Sheerness branch trains and historically, the Medway Valley line, would require alternative rolling stock on these lines).
– Grove Park may become a main-line only depot.
– Gillingham’s train crew base would end up being split between two operators.
So it is not just the infrastructure that needs to be considered, but staff working patterns.
“The critical problem seems to be Lewisham station and junction which have severely limited capacity.”
Can I ask a naive question, as someone who has been using Lewisham station for 40-odd years (and used to live in a house overlooked by platform 4)?
Why do so many trains cross over at Lewisham? In other words, why don’t the trains coming in from Blackheath on platform 3 head through St John’s towards Cannon Street, while the trains coming into platform 1 head to Victoria or Charing Cross? And vice-versa for trains going out of London?
Many times I’ve sat on a Blackheath train at a red light on the way into Lewisham of an evening, waiting for a train to head out of Lewisham platform 1 towards St John’s, New Cross, etc. And, equally, many times in a mornings a train waits at platform 3 for another service crossing to or from platform 1 or 2.
Surely, unless I’m missing something obvious, it would be easier just to miss such conflicts entirely. But I’m not a transport person, so maybe I am missing something.
Is there some demographic research that says people on the Blackheath line need to go to Victoria or Charing Cross, and people from Sidcup are inevitably destined to Cannon Street?
@ Anonymous (20 September 2016 at 12:58) – plan is currently (per the consultation) for all WGC slows to call AAP then fast to FPK, and miss out Harringay & Hornsey in Peak into London.
@PoP
“out came the crayons and viola!”
Crayonistate chamber music – what a charming concept.
Re Golden*
It is indeed, with at least 4 separate fouling issues especially around Cottage Jn (see Sussex articles part 7, 9 &13 + comments).
Re Tim,
Given the peak only via Sydenham Hill TL services that expire in 2018 are currently some of the most crowded in the UK (after DfT finally bothered to count pax on them after slipping through the net for years) one hopes SE are going to take them back and operate Blackfriars – Beckenham Jn services as they did before the temporary transfer to Thameslink in 2009 and that they won’t be forgotten.
Re T33,
Indeed the Redhill journey times increase again but Redhill line users have to realise the compensation for being on the slow route is more services and fast Redhill – London services are a distant memory (as is the school run and in the City office by 9am that so many hark back to).
@Alan Burkitt-Gray
I’ve wondered the same. I think the answer must be partly “because it has been that way for some time and people would complain if it changed”.
There are a couple of geographical reasons though:
– Trains through Blackheath which have come from Charlton (rather than Kidbrooke) would normally be targeting Charing Cross because the bulk of the service on the North Kent Line is already heading towards Cannon Street via Greenwich. The service via Blackheath and Lewisham is effectively their only means of heading towards Charing Cross.
– Conversely, trains from Sidcup, Orpington and Hayes which head through Lewisham station are biased towards Cannon Street because they could more easily reach Charing Cross through by-passing Lewisham and heading directly from Hither Green or Ladywell to London Bridge.
I’m less sure about the Victoria service. The Victoria to Dartford service has to go some way or another, and perhaps it was thought that the Bexleyheath line had greater need of the uplift from 4tph to 6tph that the Victoria service provides. I think it has served Sidcup in the past.
Re Cap’n Deltic’s passenger in a wheelchair at City Thameslink.
They will simply go to the middle part of the platform, where there will be a ‘hump’ to give level access to the middle two coaches of the Class 700, and roll on without staff assistance. What the hump will look like can be seen on the part built platform 5 at London Bridge.
What the same passenger does when he/she gets to Welwyn Garden City*, and the staff haven’t been told to expect them, is a different question.
* or the outer suburban station of your choice.
Re Alan B-G,
There is now a large demographic of “Blackheath” line users for Victoria given the number of decades this service has been running! Hence changing it unless there is an increase in frequency to mitigate the change on trains won’t be popular.
Also remember that lots of the Sidcups* (to CST) and Hayes* (to CHX) etc avoid Lewisham where as the Blackheaths can’t avoid Lewisham. Many of the Greenwich and Sidcup line Cannon Street services are in fact the same trains running the loop services due to capacity issue at Dartford.
*Many users probably happy not to have lots of extra passengers from Lewisham boarding!
Jon,
Conversely, trains from Sidcup, Orpington and Hayes which head through Lewisham station are biased towards Cannon Street because they could more easily reach Charing Cross through by-passing Lewisham and heading directly from Hither Green or Ladywell to London Bridge.
In the case of Hayes – not any more. Even if they call at Lewisham they go to Charing Cross. There are a few exceptions in the peaks but these are single digit numbers in each direction per day. Basically they want Hayes trains to call at Lewisham because there is a demand for that and they should ideally go to Charing Cross in the off-peak because that is where most people want to go – and there are a surprising number of trains that now run off-peak to Cannon St so there isn’t really much spare capacity there anyway.
@Jon
“The service via Blackheath and Lewisham is effectively their only means of heading towards Charing Cross.”
Until London Bridge is fully rebuilt from early 2018, when they could change there.
“I’m less sure about the Victoria service. The Victoria to Dartford service has to go some way or another, and perhaps it was thought that the Bexleyheath line had greater need of the uplift from 4tph to 6tph that the Victoria service provides. I think it has served Sidcup in the past.”
For a long time it was a relatively infrequent service — mainly rush hours, when I lived in Lewisham in the mid-late 1990s. It has increased over the years, especially since 2000 (when there was a fast service from Victoria via Lewisham and Blackheath for all the millions going to the Millennium Dome).
But that’s no reason the pattern can’t be changed if the benefit is more frequent services, at the cost of a change or two — that, after all, is what most Tube passengers do, because they have a real turn-up-and-go service.
(Back in the 1970s there were a few morning trains from the Blackheath line to Blackfriars and Holborn Viaduct, and back again in the evening rush. I’d love that now, but I’m keeping my crayons in the drawer.)
The timetable that is being consulted on appears to add a layer of complexity (and thus unreliability) by adding services to south-eastern territory. Is there any big change that simplifies, to compensate for this?
What alternatives would there be if there were not the newly proposed services into south-eastern territory?
Watton at Stone may be a quiet stop but try getting a (free) parking space in the morning. With the local council wanting to build houses prolifically in the area in the next 10 years or so WAS is lined up to be one of the places – because of the train line – that they build on. It’s a commuter village into London, so more trains to SVG aren’t important in the grand scheme of things (says a London commuter). But the plans also have a removal of a train from the morning rush hour from a growing village (30% increase in usage since 09/10 based on ORR data), but with more trains during the day – that doesn’t make sense.
It might be worth noting that the Rainham Thameslink service is that it’s trying to fix a problem the article has ignored completely (i can’t believe the informed writer team didn’t know about it).
The simple fact is the rebuild is reducing the peak Cannon Street service as they cannot fit enough trains in to provide the same tph as today due to no inward paths. These have traditionally come via Elephant & Castle reversing outside Blackfriars. So come 2018 these will not be able to run as Cannon Street services will see a decrease in tph. NR hasn’t got a solution to this.
And this is where we come to an important point that’s also missing from this article. It’s not a just a GTR suggestion but a joint GTR/SE consultation, hence why it makes it clear it’s visiting SE locations with SE management team attending! The consultation is SE/GTR looking at providing better capacity using the stock it’s planning to have in December 2018 (with SE 377/1) and targeting the increase in capacity where the big growth is.
The current NR proposed timetable doesn’t work, GTR franchise award timetable doesn’t work so another alternative has been proposed. It’s worth noting that TL is doing the opposite of Crossrail. Crossrail has its timetable planned first then infrastructure built around that. The DfT green light the BR scheme with infrastructure changes first, then ordered the trains and is now trying to build a timetable around those limits. That’s why the timetable doesn’t work!
Why can’t the Watton-at-Stone trains (1 tph off-peak, IIRC) continue to do what they do now and terminate at Letchworth??? Are train paths on the slow lines through Stevenage and Hitchin and over the flyover really that sparse?
[This message has been slightly modified for tone by Malcolm]
Re Fromthemurkydepths
You seem to have skipped certain key sections of the consultations.
The size of the Thameslink train fleet is fixed (by the DfT). The more stations a train stops at, the longer it takes to get to its destinations. The longer a train takes to complete an entire trip, the larger the fleet needs to be (as does the number of drivers and the stabling / servicing requirements.
The primary reason Hertford N trains will be replaced by buses between Walton-at-Stone and Stevenage is because with only 25 trains in the fleet, there are not enough trains to keep up the promised service frequency into Moorgate if trains also have to go up to Letchworth to terminate. More trains or completion of the planned bay platforms at Stevenage is needed to resolve this.
So to call at Erith etc you either have to convince the DfT to cough up for extra class 700 trains or knock out station calls elsewhere.
————————————————————
Re Mark
The reason the Wimbledon loop is stuck at 2tPH is because of a lack of train paths at the critical junctions of Herne Hill, Tulse Hill and to a lesser extent Streatham and Sutton.
Wimbledon loop users had the chance of a regular interval 4TPH service around 5 years ago – but they created such a stink about being required to change trains at Blackfriars for the onward hop to City Thameslink that the SOS for Transport told NR in no uncertain terms that through Thameslink trains had to continue – which limits them to 2tph precisely because the junction conflicts still exist. Yes they may get a further 2 TPH from London Bridge or Blackfriars – but junction constraints will probably prevent this from linking up nicely with the retained Thameslink services to give a regular 15minute interval service.
The lessons
(1) You cannot simply ‘add’ extra train services if paths do not exist
(2) Commuters HATE having their established services mucked around with
(3) Critical junctions don’t become any less of a problem because of shiny new trains or re branding exercises.
——————————————————————-
Re T33
E Grinstead users might actually value their Victoria services. Please think back to the reaction of Wimbledon loop passengers when they heard about proposals to require them to alight Blackfriars instead of taking them one station further on and be under no illusions exactly the same is likely to happen elsewhere – particularly as Victora is not ‘one stop on’ from London bridge (as City Thameslink is from Blackfriars)
Re Mack
Crossrail might well have a timetable – but there are plenty of people (both inside the industry and other who have retired) with intimate knowledge of the GWML who say it won’t work
TfL might be very good at producing timetables for their all stops Overground / Underground services – but they have very little understanding of the requirements of heavy freights or 100MPH fast trains with which Crossrail will intermingle west of Paddington. All sorts of clever tricks have had to be applied (including skip stopping leaving adjacent stations with no direct service) to try and make it work – none of which featured in Crossrails early claims about what the timetable / service pattern would be like.
So in a sense Thameslink and Crossrail (west of Paddington) are facing not dissimilar issues…….
@ Mack – I have a copy of a draft timetable for Crossrail from the 1990s. Let’s just say that what’s being planned now (based on the recent TfL consultation on access rights) is a bit different. I think the simple point here is that things change and demand moves and will no doubt move again – partly in response to the transport links offered but also all the traditional thinks like housing availability, school choice and employment. Nothing’s set in stone. We also know that some of the service levels TfL would now like to run on Crossrail are in excess of what was envisaged in the governing legislation and agreements.
Picking up on your (and PoP’s) “timetable doesn’t work” point – can someone explain why we have had so many failed timetables? I’ll take complexity as a given but surely we are talking about skilled and knowledgeable people doing the planning? They must surely be aware of the considerable constraints they are dealing with at multiple points on the network? I’m asking because I *don’t* understand all those constraints because my knowledge level of the S London is fairly poor.
One other comment – if this is a joint GTR / South Eastern consultation why do there appear to be so many questions about the future SE service patterns and service levels? Surely they should be all put in the public domain so people understand the choices they face? I see the Kent consultation summary shows the TL peak service to Beckenham Junc (BJ) as not run by Thameslink but it says nothing else. Although South Eastern are advertising the consultation and they say some SE routes are affected there is scant reference to South Eastern or their services in GTR’s consultation. That doesn’t add up to me – it just leaves questions. Heck if Ngh doesn’t know what’s happening to that peak service to BJ then no one does!
Mack says “It’s worth noting that TL is doing the opposite of Crossrail. ”
This is a bit of a caricature. Neither Crossrail nor Thameslink had every detail of the final timetable established before the infrastructure is improved. But both of them had outlines worked out beforehand, otherwise it would have been impossible to design the infrastructure.
What may be accurate is that the final Crossrail timetable is likely to be closer to the outline plans than the Thameslink one turns out to be. Exactly where the blame for this discrepancy should lie is a matter of opinion (I favour PoP’s gremlin). But there are plenty of substantial differences between the two projects, so caparisons could well be odorous.
This is not to say that the proposals aren’t still controversial.
More like utterly Barmy & well-past-Upney might be more like it … the proposals to, effectively negate a large chunk of the very expensive & complicated civil-engineering work, still in progress looks very dubious – more directed & detailed criticism to follow.
If the proposed timetable is not going to work, isn’t it a bit late to realise this now, even with a year or so to completion? “forward planning” – however, I may be jumping the gun. The decisions or worry or reluctance regarding Windmill Bridge do strike a chord – see the previous articles in these pages, I suppose. Yet I think PoP is entirely correct in highlighting the, err “difficulties” with the proposed Rainham service.
When you add in the ATO complications …
I’m beginning to wonder if this daft proposal has been deliberately “flown” simply so that it can be shot down, & then GTR don’t have to run so many trains AT ALL.
Or is that overly cynical, even for me?
ngh @ 10.31, 20/09/16
I’d welcome a second article, because, so far the only reason I can see for these “proposals” is to ensure that they are rejected – by the travelling public & the politicians, which suggests something sinister to me.
That, coupled with the numerous errors, omissions, inconsistencies, etc in the original report makes me wonder what is really going on.
[Modified for tone. LBM]
Tim
Serious typo there … the correct term for a “guided busway” is: TRAM …
@Mack
It isn’t really appropriate to consider the consultation in its current form a “joint GTR/SE consultation”.
Whilst it covers some stations which are currently in Southeastern territory, the consultation only talks about one service which is to operate over those stations. Without further details from Southeastern as to which services they will operate alongside the Thameslink service, it is very difficult to understand how the Greenwich line will be affected overall.
This absence of information contributes to some of the surprise people are experiencing about the proposals. It is prima facie odd, for example, to omit Erith station (850,000 uses and growing) but call at Stone Crossing (165,000 uses and static). This is probably explainable by the fact that the Thameslink train will be Stone Crossing’s primary or only service whereas Erith will have more Southeastern calls. But without that extra detail the current consultation is almost useless for this line.
I am finding myself a bit bemused by this talk of “timetables that are predicted not to work”. We can all imagine what this might mean, but I am a little concerned that we may each be imagining slightly different things. Is there someone who knows about today’s timetable planning process, who can enlighten us about which stage of elaboration these non-working timetables have been taken to, and how subjective (or not) the “it won’t work” opinion might be?
Wasn’t there a mass exodus of experienced timetable planners when the operation moved to Milton Keynes? I seem to recall Barry Doe writing about this in the context of the numerous and repeated mistakes I’m the National Rail published timetable.
Does Kings Lynn REALLY merit two direct trains an hour to London? There are plenty of much larger places at a similar distance with a much inferior service to that.
Wimbledon Loop to London Bridge services are nothing new: they have run(in the peaks) since at least the early 1980s.
The curious statement that the Rainham via Greenwich services will provide new connections with Crossrail at Abbey Wood. What connections will they provide that the existing Greenwich Line services, and the existing semi-fasts via Woolwich and Lewisham would not.
Well, I suppose the new direct service from City TL and Blackfriars to Abbey Wood might provide a useful connection for passengers wanting to go to Custom House, Whitechapel or Liverpool Street, but only if they had a really pressing need to avoid Farringdon!
It would be useful to see a diagram showing exactly how these Thameslink to Greenwich (and return) trains would thread their way through the layout in Bermondsey, and how many flat crossings would be involved. And I’m not sure yet another City service (to add to the two they already have) will mollify those Greenwich residents who had their direct Waterloo/Charing Cross services sneakily filched from them without any consultation. (Clearly no influential politicians represented Greenwich at the crucial time)
@Anonymously re Hitchin flyover – I imagine that the problem remains further down the line with lack of paths over the Welwyn Viaduct and the risk of ‘bunching’ on the 2 track section from stopping GN services ex Kings X if further slow services are introduced at Stevenage(?) The Grand Central services I travel on most weeks – especially northbound – are frequently held up just north of WGC due to this…
@Greg
I know it’s heresy 😉 – but the tram idea won’t happen as has been done to death before on here, not least because there is nowhere for it to go. My comment was more snark about the supposed capacity increase through Grove Park when we’ve been told that it is full for years, and any capacity that new TL services gobble up would appear to finally preclude any remote possibility of resumption of through services from Bromley North.
(said remote possibility hinted at, but dismissed, back in 2014 in response to a petition)
“The service via Blackheath and Lewisham is effectively their only means of heading towards Charing Cross.”
Until London Bridge is fully rebuilt from early 2018, when they could change there.
That’s true, but it does also cut Blackheath and Lewisham connections for those past Charlton. There is the DLR from Greenwich to Lewisham though but its already a tad busy. Are the fares the same for a train from say Woolwich Arsenal to Lewisham as they are from Woolwich Arsenal to Greenwich then DLR to Lewisham?
The oyster fare finder doesn’t show a difference but it’s not been too reliable for me recently with fares. Wouldn’t be an issue if TfL takeover but if not…
Phil – “So to call at Erith etc you either have to convince the DfT to cough up for extra class 700 trains or knock out station calls elsewhere.”
With annual growth at 9% and 850k users, plus massive housebuilding plans in the vicinity, calling at Erith makes much more sense than some of the shacks past Dartford with less than 100k annual users which are not seeing passenger rises nor big housing plans. Belvedere is over 900k users and saw 11% growth last year.
Those small stations in Kent can then be served by other Medway trains running through the Sidcup and Belxeyheath line that currently sail through.
NGH – Redhill is a decrease in services by destinations served not an increase. In fact in actual trains numbers it is about the same just destinations have changed.
No more Brighton, Chichester, Southampton, Portsmouth or Bognor trains at weekend or evenings, but hurrah Bedford and Peterborough.
Longer Journey times, same number of trains and 2,000 new houses just round the corner from the station = not good (but I’m only guessing there)
Several other commentators have noted the other serious disconnect here:
That between housing growth, both actual & planned & the reverse happening to train services. Couple that with apparent removals of any improvement in services elsewhere, also remarked on …
And one should, surely posit the question:
“What has all the money spent on the rebuilding of London Bridge & its approaches been FOR, if we (The paying, travelling public) get no actual improvement at all?”
If/when the implications of all this sink in to the people of S London / Surrey / Kent, then I predict loud serious waves of annoyance being noted.
[Snip! Please email directly if you have a question. LBM]
@Malcolm -there are reasonably sophisticated pieces of software – Railsys is the most popular; NR has its own version – which are designed to test the robustness of any given timetable. They have their faults; one of the principal and principle faults of Railsys is that you have to calibrate the model with data from allegedly similar situations. That has always struck me as telling it the answer you want…. Mind you,some of its rivals are worse; at least Railsys linked trains into complete diagrams. The software that DfT allowed to be used for the initial TLK timetable modelling- and which was used to estimate the number of sets required – did no such things. Rather, it assumed that trains left their termini no more than 1 minute after arriving.[This was a major issue for the risk evaluation for the banks funding the stock – it became essential toensure that the lawyers held the manufacturers harmless against being be sued because their trains couldn’t deliver a wholly impossible timetable… Good business for their advisers such as I, but a waste indirectly of taxpayers’money].
——————————————————————————————————-
To note such software is not the same as writing the timetable – a concept that I could never din into the very thick skulls of the senior management in the firms for whom I worked. At best, Railsys and similar could help you identify pinchpoints in the tracklayout or timetable as specified but it did not write the timetable for you. The problem said management had was that Railsys was grunt work which someone with good GCSEs in maths and the right cast of mind could pick up quickly,but they firmly believed it was serious work that required maths graduates (it didn’t, they got bored and left after a year). It also meant that the work was low margin and needed a high volume to make it pay; that volume didn’t exist and yet they wanted us to pay graduate salaries. Not a good business model. Now, actually writing timetables is an art ( and a fairly black one at that) and commands high salaries; the supply of adepts is less than the demand…
@Phil….I think you’re confusing two different classes of trains! The 313s that are presently used on the Hertford loop line are due to be replaced by 717s, which are a *completely separate order* from the 700s that are destined for the TL services (which….at the time of writing(!)….are not currently planned to include the Hertford loop line). Twenty-five fixed-formation six-car 717 units are due to replace 44 three-car 313 units (equivalent to 22 six-car units when coupled together). I fully realise that most services down to Moorgate (in the off-peak) are operated with three-car formations…..but aren’t the planned number of units enough? And if not, since this fleet is completely separate from the TL DfT-determined order, can’t GTR just add a couple more units to the order, if their finances permit?
@timbeau….’Does Kings Lynn REALLY merit two direct trains an hour to London?’
I think you should rephrase the question as: ‘Does King’s Lynn and the intermediate stations (Waterbeach/Ely etc.) really merit two direct trains an hour to *Cambridge* that then travel onto London?’ The answer (for a whole host of reasons that are too off-topic to discuss fully here) is an unequivocal YES! If you don’t believe me, just travel on the hourly four-car service that currently ventures into the Fens north of Cambridge, and get back to me ?….
@Tim…That doesn’t make sense, though, since AFAIK no extra services are planned north of Hertford (unless they are planning to extend *all* of the Hertford terminators to Watton-at-Stone?). Does the existing one tph off-peak using the slow lines between Stevenage and Hitchin currently cause a major problem with bunching further back at Welwyn?
Also, does the current track and signal layout at Watton-at-Stone allow for train reversal? If not, wouldn’t it make more sense just to spend money on the extra infrastructure required at Stevenage to terminate there instead of wasting a considerable sum on a (temporary!!!) arrangement at Watton?
Jordan D – thanks for the clarification re Hornsey and Harringay.
The current peak timetable of 12 tph has a departure every 5 minutes irrespective of the destination, so if we assume they do the same with 10 tph, then its every 6 minutes, so a possible departure schedule might be 00, 12, 24, 30, 42, 54 to Hertford North and 06, 18, 36, 48 to WGC.
Anonymously: Re King’s Lynn. The question needs to be reworded to: “does the line to King’s Lynn require additional passenger capacity in peak and/or off peak hours?” (answer, probably).
Then the supplementary question is “how does one achieve that increase in capacity in the most cost effective manner?” (answer, lengthening the existing trains)
Also, now I come to think of it, if trains to both Welwyn AND Hertford are due to stop at Hornsey and Harringey (albeit varying depending on the time of day), does this mean that the stations will be rebuilt to serve both lines (see earlier LR article on this issue: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/east-coast-mainline-routes-branches-part-2-hertford-loop-northern-city-line/)? If not, then why bother going to all that trouble to segregate these services between Finsbury Park and Ally Pally?
The mind really does boggle?….
@Malcolm. This is not the place to do a treatise on the science of timetabling (and it is a science, not an art, black or otherwise!). The subject could easily fill a couple of textbooks.
The problem of timetables not working is probably summed up by stating that a timetable for a congested network has many interrelationships and is thus a series of assumptions and compromises. The most typical compromises are between calling patterns and journey time.
In my experience, all timetables at this stage of development work in theory. However either the compromises are unpalatable (cf Wimbledon loop terminating at Blackfriars), or not all of the assumptions hold true when put together on an operational railway with passengers.
I, for one, am looking forward to seeing what compromises have been accepted by DfT that allows Abellio to offer the improvements in frequency and journey time proposed for the new Anglia franchise, given the network over there is effectively at capacity now. I rather fear that some passengers are going to be annoyed. But that’s another subject.
@SFD…..Is lengthening the trains (with all the associated infrastructure requirements e.g. platform extensions) more cost-effective than re-jigging Ely North junction and extending an existing terminating Cambridge service north to KL to give 2tph? Answers on a postcard to LR please…..
(If money were no object, I would suggest increasing both frequency AND train length. But given the choice, I (and, I suspect, most Fen line users) would opt for increased frequency every time.)
Re Captain Deltic on dwell times. From a driver perspective there can be no rhyme or reason, it might be one rucksack protruding from door on a lazy Sunday or a party of people travelling together funnelling into one door, or the driver needing to contact the signaller (unbeknown to passengers), but it has been mentioned oft and in a way I am heartened to think that the reality of what occurs is now being factored in.
I suspect WW may be right in thinking that GTR are trying to get ahead of the ‘orangisation’ of the inners (I know that isn’t a word but I also rather like that my spell checker tried to correct it to ‘Orangutan’). My head spins at a lot of what was put forward in the article – I really don’t know how you do it just in a night, but I do know that if we are to realistically solve the problems the expensive options of ironing out flat junctions (that doesn’t sound right), there is so much more that can be done at the coal face… I mean the Platform Train Interface. You may get the odd quick door close press and it would suit most of us most of the time, but not now we have trial by CCTV. At some point we are going to have to ‘blame the passenger’ (controversial) and ask for a change in behaviour, costly behaviour, dwelling behaviour, or at least help modify it by various means. Beyond that, where possible more turnbacks (things work reasonably efficiently when we have to do Shadwell shunts on the ELL), not possible everywhere I know, but some places maybe. Above all, factor in that things go wrong, perhaps GTR have finally twigged this?
Nevertheless it’s pretty darned remarkable that a company in crisis at the lowest ebb in terms of both customer and industrial relations can presume they have the mantle. Under this union bashing government maybe they do? I’m confused, on the one hand I see some learning (why not consult those of us who know – drivers and passengers alike?), on the other hand I see a form of rebranding. What colour do we get when green and orange mix? The answer is clear as mud surely?
Anonymously : yes, much cheaper, because you missed all the level crossing works required for a doubling of frequency, that aren’t required for a doubling of train length. Also Ely N Jn is a lot, lot more than a ‘rejigging’. Finally extending an ‘existing’ service north from Cambridge still needs more units, indeed the same number as extending the existing train. It also needs more drivers, which extending the existing doesn’t.
No postcard required!
Cambridge to Ely I can just about believe gets that busy, especially as there are connections east and west at Ely to much larger cities. But not north of Ely surely?
On the other side of the fens is a much larger city, for which an irregular shuttle connection to the main line, run by single car 153s, is deemed sufficient.
Doubling of train length may not be possible without beefing up the power supply. This is why, (even during the Olympic sailing events there), Weymouth has only ever had 5 car trains since electrification. Both electrification schemes were made under Network South East’s brief reign. Were similar economies made at both ends of the empire?
@SFD – science perhaps, but you can tell who has written a timetable by their style…
Mack,
I can’t believe that you thought we didn’t know about either the reduction of capacity at Cannon St or the way trains used the west curve at Borough Market Junction to “sneak out” during the morning peak (and to a lesser extent “sneak in” in the evening peak). We could easily write an article on just that topic if we had the time.
It is a topic that I will talk about or write about at any opportunity and both ngh and myself probably think far too much about. And I am sure at one stage Graham Feakins could list the various routeing taken by trains to get back to their depot without going via London Bridge.
Not only that, but as stated in the article and as ngh loves to point out, with ERTMS and ATO you could probably get back up to pre-Thameslink levels without resorting to such devious manoeuvres.
Phil,
Critical junctions don’t become any less of a problem because of shiny new trains
Well sorry to disagree but actually they do. Shiny new trains inevitably have better acceleration and so are able to get back to line speed once they have cleared the junction that much faster.
Graham H,
As if to verify your point, I once had an interview for being a timetable clerk but was turned down because I was a maths graduate. They explained to me that I would find the work boring and not a challenge. It seems that you filled in the gaps in the grand plan and modified it as necessary to try and make it work. What baffled me was how you became someone higher up who designed the basic skeleton of the timetable in the first place.
It seemed to me that you needed dull, reliable, methodical plodders to do the detailed work and people with inspiration and problem solving ability to do the overall design. My fear was that the latter were selected from the former.
It is a bit like the classical military problem. You need people who obey orders and don’t think too much to carry out the plan but you need free-spirits with inventiveness and original thought (not least to try to achieve the vital element of surprise) to make the plan in the first place. But the latter have been too indoctrinated by their experience of being the former.
Timbeau – the line north of Ely is surprisingly busy at peak and shoulder peak. Much of NW Norfolk appears to railhead to Downham Market and Maggy Rd / Watlington. Off peak less so.
Power supply – needs beefing up whether the extra 4 cars are run as a seperate train or on the back of another train. Either way, it is being done.
Graham H: re the art/science of timetabling. Quite. The same can be said about many technical disciplines. To quote Captain Deltic’s alter ego:
“Engineers design, Designers style”.
Re: Timetabling and timetable verification
I am sure I have stated much of this before but, yes, as pointed out, to a large extent verification is a plodders task which can methodically be done either manually or with software based on certain standard criteria which you have to presume is correct.
What is much more difficult is devising the timetable in the first place.
To take an analogy. If I ask you to find by yourself (simple calculator allowed) a prime number between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 you would be struggling for a long time and it would probably take you weeks unless you knew of various tricks to find likely ones then test for them.
On the other hand, once you claim you have found one I could test to see whether it really was a prime number in a matter of minutes. Not only that, I could write a simple set of instructions which means that any reasonably intelligent person could perform a series of basic tests to see if it was a prime number.
Devising a timetable is still a bit of a black art though there must be software around to fill in the bits. For example how do you decide where to start and on what basis? East Croydon platforms 1 & 2? The Wimbledon Loop (full of very unpleasant constraints)? Windmill Bridge Junction? Maybe if you are GTR you need to start at North Kent Junction where the Greenwich Line branches off from the main line. No computer can really answer this question.
You also have to consider what you are optimising for. Is it best use of rolling stock, best use of crew, maximising passenger capacity or maximising passenger convenience (e.g. turn up and go, minimising the need to change trains, as fast as possible)?
It is definitely a black art on National Rail. On London Underground it is more systematic but even there one finds various challenges such as how to organise train paths north of Baker Street on the Metropolitan line or timetabling over the many flat junctions on the Circle line when the frequencies of different branches and not always in harmony with each other.
Once you have devised a timetable others such as roster clerks will pore over it and demand tweaks to minimise crewing needs and rolling stock allocators to make sure that trains visit a depot every so often and that it is run with a suitable sufficient but minimal amount of stock.
@ngh What would such a Crystal Palace service do? Terminate at the unused platforms there (IIRC there are a couple of platforms which don’t see regular use)? Presumably they’d have to join the TL fast lines on a flat junction immediately north of New Cross Gate?
On the surface it sounds like a sensible idea, but they don’t seem to want to have any TL services stopping along the Sydenham corridor. Anything from CYP would have to do so, I think.
May I remind everyone that, if sufficiently concerned, they should reply to the consultation (in addition to any comment here). There is an interactive version here:
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/2018timetableconsultation
Almost every question is couched in terms of “Do you agree with the proposal to….. . Yes/No – Any further comments on this proposal?”, so there is plenty of opportunity for comment.
Anyone can respond, including Network Rail, who are themselves deemed to be stakeholders for the purposes of the consultation.
@Timbeau
“Does Kings Lynn REALLY merit two direct trains an hour to London? There are plenty of much larger places at a similar distance with a much inferior service to that.”
Yes. Not because Kings Lynn itself is a thriving metropolis, but because it’s the only station for miles around. East of Lynn, there’s nothing with a direct service to London north of Norwich (which is 40 miles further east). To the west, the next place is Peterborough, 30 miles away. Lynn serves a very large area, which although not densely populated overall, really does add up.
Compare North Norfolk to even the least-well-served bits of East Kent, a similar distance from London, it’s night and day.
Moderators are considering a ban on comments which fall into the following template:
PLACE_A deserves/does not deserve a train service of N1 tph because PLACE_B has only/more than/less than N2 tph and it is nearer to/further from/the same distance from London, and it has a bigger/smaller/the same population.
This is because such discussions always seem to result in nowhere-leading wrangles about how comparable PLACE_A and PLACE_B really are, and everyone seems to come out of the discussion with the same opinion on the matter as when they went in.
For now, it’s not an absolute ban, but a request to please look as hard as you can for alternative approaches to these matters.
@Phil East Grinstead Customers might value their Victoria services – well you should see the screaming going on at Earlswood and Salfords because of losing Victoria services and at Reigate for loss of London Bridge services. Interesting because at each station which are mixed between Victoria and LBG as destinations, it is unfortunately the larger group of passengers at each station that are losing their services. Remember when I refer to Redhill I tend to mean the line rather than just the station
@Timbeau I don’t have the exact details of timing of the Thameslink trains to Greenwich at Bermondsey but they are timetabled to cross in each direction at exactly the same time (should be good for photos if it works)
@POP To answer your question where do you start the timetable from, well apparently it is built from the flat crossing just south of Blackfriars
Anonymously asks ” If not, then why bother going to all that trouble to segregate these services between Finsbury Park and Ally Pally?”
Without attempting to redo the article and subsequent comments from 2013, the “trouble gone to” between Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace was primarily to provide three passenger-train-useable tracks in each direction over that stretch. A sort of optional secondary benefit might be segregation, but the desirability of that is compromised a bit by the Hornsey-and-Harringay issues and complicated questions about which of Moorgate or Thameslink (or Kings Cross) trains should connect to from particular stations. The tertiary issue of a possible TfL takeover (of exactly what?) seems to have retreated into the far background.
T33,
Thank you for that bit of info. And now the question, which I suppose must be rhetorical, is …
If Thameslink had 18tph running via London Bridge as originally planned and if the Wimbledon Loop terminated at Blackfriars as originally planned, would it have been necessary to build the timetable from the flat crossing just south of Blackfriars?
T33 refers to trains crossing at Bermondsey in each direction at the same time.
This is of course attempted at every intensively worked flat junction on double track in the world. There is no surprise here, though there may be scepticism as to whether it can actually be achieved reliably.
Malcolm,
Before ngh says it, I will point out that though this is attempted at every intensively worked flat junction it can never be totally successful because flat junctions affect each other.
So you can do it at flat junction A but when you come to nearby flat junction B you find that you cannot do it so successfully without messing up the working of flat junction A.
Unfortunately flat junction C is close to both flat junction A and flat junction B forming a triangle of flat junctions (think of Aldgate) and so the ability to optimise for all three is severely compromised and normally impossible to achieve.
hilltopper @ 22:51: There are two unused platform faces at Crystal Palace (7&8), but one’s on the same track as the current platform 6. So with the current building arrangements there’d only be room for one extra east-facing bay. Adding a second would require cutting platform 6 back to be the same width as platform 5.
@ Malcom 2349 – The TfL Board paper on suburban rail services actually confirms that TfL are looking to take over the local services out of Moorgate. This is presumably because they consider they have a reasonable working relationship with Herts CC plus taking over new stock post 2021 has its attractions. I doubt GTR will do a great deal with the stations which all need a fair amount of TLC and effort spent on them to get them to anything approaching a decent standard and also capable of gating properly. I know they have some franchise commitments on stations but IIRC it’s not to the scale that TfL would undertake.
@SFD…..Why would level crossing work be required in an area as rural as the Fens to enable a doubling of frequency? We’re not exactly talking about a heavily built-up area with tons of road traffic! The only problematic crossing I can think of is the A10 crossing near Littleport; and I’d much rather the money was spent to replace the much busier A10 crossing further south at Foxton!
You may well be right about the cost-effectiveness of train lengthening vs. increasing service frequency….all I’ll suggest is for you to try selling that to the Fen Line Users’ Association (who have been campaigning on this issue for years), and see how far you get ?.
@timbeau….I was wondering how long it would take for you to mention Lincoln ?. Cambridge is now very much a major commuting destination in its own right, and with fewer people able to afford a home (rented or owned) in the immediate vicinity, the settlements on the line north of Ely are going to become increasingly important dormitory towns for commuting there (which takes c. 50 mins from KL, IIRC). Plus, as hilltopper mentions, thanks to the closures of the 50s and 60s, the whole line now acts as an extended railhead for north-east Cambridgeshire, south-east Lincolnshire, and the western half of Norfolk!
@WW…..Amen and Hallelujah to that! ?
WW: Oh, so my tertiary issue is not so background as I thought. Regardless, I don’t think that the now-proposed stopping pattern of trains at Hornsey and Harringay makes the work already done on this stretch unnecessary or misdirected, although it clearly confuses things a touch.
hilltopper
Simple: Re-open the M&GN ( or parts of it at least) – says he who has covered a large slice of it, for ancient family reasons ….
Malcolm @ 23.56
Ask Chingford-line users, when(frequently) the Clapton Jn screws up because the Stansted’s are running late …
(etc)
Anonymously: I don’t know anything about the level crossings in question. But the fact that the area is “rural” (by which I take it you mean it has a low population density) does not necessarily mean that the roads will be quiet, because it also has a low road density. Therefore the traffic levels on each road may well be similar to what you might find anywhere in the South-East of England.
Certainly when I’ve driven in the area (typically to avoid the A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge) all the roads have seemed quite busy.
Re Hilltopper & John Elliot and others,
1. The Crystal Palace suggestion is a suggested temporary destination till Windmill Bridge gets sorted when it can go back to East Croydon and beyond. It retains the TL services to “Southern” rather than “SE” destination, till after the Windmill Bridge works (when some where like Reigate may be the best solution rather than CAT/TAT).
2. London Overground only normally use P5 with the other bay (P3) only normally being used for 2x of the 4x Southern AM peak PIXC busters to London Bridge (the other 2 start at Streatham Hill) and the first and last LO services of the day. P4 could (and is used in emergencies today) also be used to turn services (some overlap issues but these reduce post 2018 with fewer via HerneHill TL services).
3. Operationally the idea is to replace current 2tph PIXC busters (4tp2h in am peak (7-9am)) with an all day stopping service from Crystal Palace to New Cross Gate which then swaps to the Sussex (Thameslink) fasts near Bricklayers Arms Jn. The gaps are there for the paths on the slow lines via New Cross Gate anyway! All grade separated or same direction swap to adjacent tracks with no conflicting moves…
4. Post Windmill Bridge works just reinstate the Southern PIXC busters which are far more useful than 5 car LO services for capacity.
5. the main reason GTR don’t want via TL New Cross Gate stoppers is that is isn’t big potential revenue generator as Rainham and DfT want revenue so it needs to grab revenue preferably from another franchise. (SE will have been refranchised by the time the changes happen…)
Re Graham H,
So I’m not the only one who suspected (post quick spreadsheet model) TL may be a few 700s short of what it really needed to run the 2014-2016 proposed services… (without some heroic operating assumptions)
To clarify the Palace suggestion: no infrastructure works required.
Greg: There’s a big gap between explaining the desire (railheadwise) for 2tph on an existing line, and any kind of re-opening (given that nostalgic reasons seldom furnish much cash).
On the flat junctions, I was referring to the planned timetable. What happens in practice may well often be a different matter.
Perhaps one of the better lessons learnt from previous consultations is to include context for their decisions to try to avoid a repeat of the Wimbledon Loop campaign.
For example the graph showing predicted core demand (even if people disagree with the figures) to explain which services have been chosen to run through. They quietly ignore the ranking of Orpington – Beckenham Junction – Herne Hill to meet the desired outcome, with all other mentions of Beckenham Junction in the main document relating to the Southern service giving no indication of the core withdrawal let alone a question relating to it.
On the Watton-at-Stone – Stevenage issue they show a reasonable case, along with graphs showing how quickly the route will end up beyond capacity (again) even at 14tph let alone 12tph. Looking at proposed frequencies and current runtime the 25 units will be heavily utilised with these proposals, the Harringay/Hornsey skipping complexity may be to help achieve the 14tph high peak. Even off peak when unit numbers aren’t such an issue, it would probably require a lot of timetable fiddling as I’d expect the 2018 timetable to be designed utilising the separation of the service groups. OpenTrainTimes shows the lines as bi-di with a convenient enough cross over for the Watton-at-Stone termination.
It’s not clear the exact measurement used for the peak core demand graph, maybe people in a single hour or people in the 2 hour window referred to as ‘high peak’. What it does suggest unsurprisingly that several routes will still be over capacity.
On the less positive side the proposed new services via London Bridge as others have commented seem a bit strange. The Maidstone East via London Bridge seems like the runt in the group. The total high peak demand is relatively small and much smaller than via Bromley. 1000 people is less than a 8-car class 700s worth! The proposed service skips St Mary Cray (1.8 million annual journeys) as it doesn’t have time, then calls at only 5 stations all with lower usages. Is there any good reason for running it at 2tph off peak?
Epsom / Epsom Downs improved services and conspiracy theories over the new SoS:
All the proposed improved services were in the franchise Train Service Requirements (TSR) so nothing new and no conspiracy. (One of the main issues is currently no stock to run the service today)
Southern operated London Bridge – Sutton – Wimbledon was also in the TSR so the only new addition was the Wimbledon – Tulse Hill -Blackfriars and separately NR reckoned (Sussex Route Study) that there was Wimbledon – Tulse Hill (- London Bridge) capacity post 2018 anyway and then are 4tph fewer TL services between Tulse Hill and Blackfriars so plenty of opportunity to make it work (and fewer conflicts at Tulse Hill than currently!).
Re SE passenger,
I smell an ORCATS raid on SE ticket revenue…
[for LBM: ORCATS = Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services].
The other reason it is that is is far easier for TL to run than SE (via either route to Blackfriars)
The current via Sydenham Hill peak only TL services are certainly rammed (as noted previously in LR discussion) but as with stopping via New Cross Gate services the ticket revenues will be lower than service that goes much further out…
This service effectively becomes SE’s successor’s problem in 2018 which is one reason why SE is getting circa 36x 377s from Southern for 2018.
ngh (and others) say “DfT want revenue”.
This competition stuff confuses me a bit, but if the southeastern franchise is made that much less profitable (or more loss-making) because Thameslink have pinched some of its traffic, then doesn’t that just mean that it will be refranchised for a correspondingly lower premium (or higher subsidy), resulting in the total cash to/from DfT being about the same? Or is it a case of better cash in the bank today and let the future take care of itself (as something is sure to have changed by then anyway)?
Orcats raid: spelling out what the abbreviation stands for is probably insufficient here.
What I understand by an orcats raid is artificially contriving services to get an “unfairly large” allocation of revenue, by exploiting weaknesses in the ORCATS algorithms. In other words, not just pinching real passengers from another franchise (for that you have to go to the trouble of actually carrying the pinched passengers), but so organising the timetables and services so that you get paid for carrying more passengers than actually rode on your trains.
I may have got it wrong though.
Re Malcolm,
It think your last sentence has it.
DfT get the revenue from GTR till mid 2021 (+ potential extension period). GTR will be a gross (e.g. including NR grant allocation) contributor to DfT coffers. Hence the incentive for Govia (and DfT) so it performs in line with expectations even if they have to do things to get there.
The new SE franchise or components if split to TfL + other will still need subsidy on a net basis so squeezing hard bargain with TfL who then actually go and attempt to collect more revenue is probably what they hope. Longer trains and more passengers is probably the hope for the remainder of SE.
(It will be entertaining if TfL decide not to go for SE Metro in the end.)
Also see numerous previous discussions for Graham H’s rule x. The new longer distance service always gets chosen for a path in preference to new shorter distance ones due to revenue.
Re Malcolm 0143,
Exactly GTR as a minority service provider at the stations in question grabbing revenue from other operators when they won’t actually carry the same proportion of passengers. hence the semi fast Rainham services and to an extent Maidstone East to London Terminals ticket revenues.
[My 0129 comment was reply to your 0129 comment]
Example of an orcats raid: I run a service timed to depart somewhere hourly at xx03. Competitor’s hourly train departs at xx00, and he runs a big expensive 12-car train. I can get away with one of Chiltern’s bubble cars, because for some strange reason there never seem to be many passengers riding on my train. Nevertheless, we share the revenue 50-50.
East Coast tried to game the ORCATS system as well, by trying to match any increase in open access services on their patch with more paths for their own trains.
@NGH 21 Sept 01:00 Point 3) Regarding extra Crystal Palace services, how many extra paths are there on the slow lines capacity wise realistically? Does this factor in the 2 extra LO services they are wanting to push through the ELL or are those going to originate elsewhere? I must admit that every time I drive the limited Battersea Park service I’m struck by just how many new apartments have been built in close proximity to the station and wonder if there would be a demand for a couple of rush hour services originating from there. That said, although more paths up from Crystal Palace might cause additional delay from late running services there is good reason to alleviate the heaving platforms from Forest Hill upwards. I often wondered whether the two extra ELL services should be brought up from Crystal Palace platform 3 for this very reason.
On another note, aside from the first and last LO services using platform 3 it serves a very useful purpose during times of disruption to West Croydon services. Provided we get the call before Sydenham it is easy to divert there and pick up a return working at the booked time without blocking any other services. There is a lot to be said for having a bay platform free to enable this, these events happen more regularly than you might think, so if platform 3 does get used more by Southern then maybe platform 6 should be reinstated?
ngh
(One of the main issues is currently no stock to run the service today)
Or in the future, either, according to many writers, because DfT didn’t “allow” a big enough stock-order, or so it seems?
The new longer distance service always gets chosen for a path in preference to new shorter distance ones due to revenue. – hence the perpetual annoyance of Chingford-line passengers, as referred to by me, further back up, as the Stansted’s seem unable to keep time on up services, even with the none-too-fast scheduling.
[ Though I suspect all the LC’s between Broxbourne & Northumberland Pk don’t help – coming in from Stansted last month, mid-evening, it was quite noticeable that we were delayed more than once & brought to a stand at one point, because, as I realised the NR “signal” operators were not getting the barriers down soon enough. ]
But I suspect that might be a topic for a n other article:
“Level Crossings in the London Area – Crossing them out.”
Re TfL & wanting control of Moorgate GN services (Walthamstow Writer, 21 September 2016 at 00:04 and Malcolm, 20 September 2016 at 23:49): in a way this goes back to the point I made further upthread at 20 September 2016 at 10:31 regarding Hadley Wood: we have a zone 6 station seeing a real fall in services (50% reduction during the daytime) within the TfL zonal boundary – something I can’t imagine they would be let to pass?
@Malcolm – it’s funny you should mention the “Chiltern bubble car” raid – would be franchisees used exactly the same example when the whole privatisation arrangements were being set up. A complacent DfT official responded that no regulator would ever allow such a thing. Would they? [ORCATS raids are certainly as old as the programme itself – in BR days, the Eastern Region,for some reason, seemed to attract a lot of these -Peterborough and Colchester were perpetual targets that usually ended up with JKW banging the IC and NSE MDs’ heads together.]
@timbeau – gaming ORCATS was/is an essential part of most bids these days.
@ngh – yes, I’d assumed that the defect in the original TLK specimen timetable was what is is causing the stock shortage (because it formed the basis of the order) but I haven’t tracked the changes through since the build commenced.
@PoP/ngh/SFD – my own experience with running timetable teams as part of a wider operation is exactly as you describe. The numbers of clever timetablers who rise from the ranks of the PBI can probably be numbered on the fingers of one hand. The timetable construction process certainly has always started – at least with the timetables I have seen being created – with the selection of the critical points, then building a framework round them to meet the commercial side’s basic requirements, then – and this where the junior team members get going – heavy tweaking to meet the commercial side’s less important aspirations. The art of the activity lies in the careful selection of those critical points and the ability to spot interesting opportunities within the framework constraints.
@Malcolm – I am absolutely sure the moderators are right to consider banning the” A is more worthy than B” contributions. The reasons for traffic levels at any point are pretty diverse (not just population) and without wishing to be rude, I shouldn’t think any of the contributors here (me included) has the detailed local knowledge to identify all the factors involved, let alone assess their relative weight.
The whole discussion just shows how impossible it is to satisfy everyone’s wishes – hence the unpleasant cries of “I’m more important than you”. The miracle is that anyone ever manages to change any timetable at all.
Anonymously: this is also not the place for a treatise on Level Crossing Risk, which is also worth a couple of textbooks.
Needless to say, if you double the train service on a relatively lightly used line, you broadly double the risk of an incident at a level crossing. Therefore you must demonstrate that you are doing everything ‘reasonably practical’ to bring that risk back to where it was, and preferably better. Otherwise when there is an incident (and there will be), the man (or woman) from the ORR or BTP will be asking you some questions with a tape recorder running.
There are over 60 Level Crossings between Cambridge and Kings Lynn, most of them for farm access, and incidents on them are frighteningly frequent. Roughly once or twice a year some sort of vehicle will end up being struck by a train on that stretch.
Greg – your Stansted train may have been delayed by Level Crossings being lowered later than needed – almost certainly because of a car or pedestrian not obeying the lights. However it is more likely that you simply caught up the train in front. The timetable is designed that way as a compromise between journey time to Stansted and frequency of calls south of Cheshunt.
Re Graham,
Have noticed that the am peak Littlehampton TL service have gone from 5 to 4 so an extra unit squeezed there! All the TSGN franchise stock is worked extra hard with SN 377s at about 96% availability required.
I suspect I’ll bite the bullet later and have good hard analysis on spreadsheet and paper…
@ngh – signs of the pips squeaking! If the order remained as it was at the time the build went out to tender, there was already an assumption of something like 95% availability in relation to the “short” fleet. Look forward to your analysis
4th paragraph ” … make Thameslink so interdependent on SouthEastern …”
I would have thought ‘interdependent with’ or ‘dependent on’ to avoid ambiguity. In the context of setting up the background and explaining the issues that are covered in the piece (great article and interesting discussion as ever) this is significant.
Couple of things.
Running a few Thameslink services to and from the SE division rather than all SC is made a little easier by the Bermondsey grade separation, as the layout will allow up trains from the New Cross slow lines to join the TL pair without conflict with trains heading for Croydon. However, weaving some of those trains right across all the SE inner services to and from the Greenwich line to get to parts of Kent seems highly counterintuitive and against the whole spirit of the project . It will be essential that TL will be given regulating priority for these moves in order to avoid traffic backing up through the core, so this idea seems to be introducing significant additional ‘performance pollution’ risk to the SE inners.
The Stevenage issue. The additional bay project was dropped or deferred after the major projects review following the Kings Cross Christmas overruns a while back. I understood in that major triage exercise NR simply felt they and the industry couldn’t resource it. Something had to give. With increased traffic it isn’t possible to continue the historical practice of to terminating some trains on one of the existing slow line platforms at Stevenage, although there is a very simple fix to run all the Hertford terminators through to Letchworth to reverse in the offline siding there, a mere 11 minutes or so running time in one direction from Stevenage with no fast line conflict now the Hitchin flyover exists. In a perfect world that could be done out and back within 30 minutes, meaning one additional unit could do the job for a half hourly service, but in reality movements in and out of the sidings and contingency probably mean two units would be required. Two 6-car units added to the Siemens GN order at say a total of £15 million would be good value compared to the infrastructure work I think, and would also preserve connectivity between the North Herts towns and Hertford. There is really no major issue slotting the Hertford trains into the slow line flow between Stevenage and Hitchin, the proposed short terminating at Watton-at Stone is purely a rolling stock constraint.
@John Elliott
The main issue with bringing Crystal Palace P7 back in to use is the lack of lifts. Looks fixable to my untrained eye, though – plenty of room at the western end.
@Graham Feakins (& others)
I’m considering responding to the consultation, but there’s no point in asking for stuff which is unfeasible or strays in to crayonista territory.
Given the major changes to service patterns around E & W Croydon, is it worth suggesting to GTR that additional TL services call at Norwood Junction, to at least give people the shortest possible connection time if their service has now been rerouted to or from the “wrong” Croydon? Or is there some capacity reason that only 2TPH TL is possible at Norwood Jct?
@ Jordan D 0828 – I strongly suspect that there won’t be a service reduction at Hadley Wood. Clearly the station comparison spreadsheet shows a reduction but nothing else in the consultation material mentions this. There is no reduction in trains elsewhere on the WGC stopping service and I can’t think why Hadley Wood mysteriously would warrant a reduction when the “sleepy hollow” of Oakleigh Park gets an increase. The main consultation document clearly shows service GN5 at 4 tph all day, every day with no caveats shown for Hadley Wood. I suspect the spreadsheet is wrong and no one checked it or if they did they didn’t go a good enough check and double check before publication.
One thing about the consultation document was the use of “route ids”. As the network is complex to the occasional visitor, shame these will not see the light of day on the front of a train and/or platform indicator come 2018.
I note in the stations spreadsheet that St Albans gets 16ph trains into London during the morning rush hour, but only 14ph back from London during the evening. It would appear that whilst 4ph are terminating at St Albans during the morning and off peak, it would be only 2ph during the evening peak as Harpenden gets 12ph.
Another aspect is that Radlett and Esltree have different evening peak numbers over the three hour period.
This suggests 8ph slow/semi fast to St Albans in the evening peak and thus only 6 fast (which would be a reduction from the current 7 fast).
So I am not sure how accurate the spreadsheet is.
It would be nice to see a network diagram showing the gains/losses on different lines, to different destinations. It does seem like the southern network is going to see even fewer services (either from Southern or TL) with the new plans, but the longer TL trains could make up for that in passenger capacity.
Once the ramifications of these suggestions get into the public domain – which requires some clear explanations of the impact at specific stations – I can imagine a lot of protest. And this will lead to political pressure (all those Conservative Surrey Commuter Towns that could be losing out) that could mess things up even more (like the political pressure on the Wimbledoom Loop service screwed things up).
@ Skyobee – with my usual warning about not being that conversant with today’s services the sense I get from the consultation documents is similar to yours. Southern seems to see frequency reductions, there is a switch from Victoria to London Bridge / TL Core in terms of emphasis, several routes seem to see longer journey times. From an outsider’s point of view (given I barely use these services) some of that seems counter intuitive if you look at the broad sweep of external influences – rising demand, people wanting faster journeys and more frequent trains. Obviously some places *do* get those things but several do not. Obviously GTR have to have something in place for 2018 but it all feels a little “back to front” as I’ve suggested above. Quite a lot of compromise in those bits of the network where there is no stated (well not in this consultation) desire to push for infrastructure improvement / more rolling stock to unlock some of the problems.
I also wonder if the much discussed remodelling at East Croydon happens how the proposed service structure and frequencies could cope with it. Cutting back on services that will already see reductions doesn’t feel very “saleable” to the mass of South London, Surrey and Sussex commuters.
The consultation and article both mention the allday increase in Catford Loop services to 4tph. This includes the high peak.
Unless I’m missing something there are currently more than this during high peak
The current timetable (http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/download/6415.5/b5-bedford-london-sevenoaks/ ) shows that in the morning there are trains arriving at Elephant & Castle, having come off the Catford Loop (all calling at least at Catford itself) at 0813 (Sevenoaks, slow), 0825 (Orpington, semi-fast), 0835 (Sevenoaks, semi-fast), 0848 (Bromley South, semi-fast), 0854 (Sevenoaks, semi-fast), 0914 (Bromley South, Slow)
I make that 6 trains in 1h 1m
Looking at the Sevenoaks trains alone, these currently appear to be roughly every 20 mins during the high peak.
The story in the evening is similar.
Have I missed a reference somewhere to peak extras?
DJL
The problem that we have for the Kent Lines is that we do not know what trains are planned to be run by Southeastern. Hence there are likely to be trains from Beckenham Junction via Sydenham Hill to Blackfriars replacing the existing Thameslink trains. Similarly there may be addition SE trains via Catford, although they might go to Victoria rather than Blackfriars?
@ Walthamstow Writer 21 September 2016 at 12:01: I’ve done a double check and it seems Brookmans Park and Welham Green are similarly consigned (to Hadley Wood) to have only 2 tph (down from 3tph) during the daytime under the proposals.
Seems these three stations are consigned to a certain low grade status -in which case there is a deliberate degradation in service proposed, rather than sheer incompetence in completing the spreadsheet.
@Mark Townend…..Thank you for that explanation of the Stevenage conundrum. It confirms my suspicion that there is nothing substantial to prevent continuing the existing practice of terminating Hertford loop trains at Letchworth, other than seemingly a lack of rolling stock (which still baffles me…..have GTR knowingly under-ordered enough 717s to replace the Welwyn and Hertford services as they are presently constituted?).
@SFD…..I see your point. However, the push to increase the service frequency is now so strong that I see nothing but the bare minimum (closing off some farm crossings wherever possible and installing warning lights on the others?) being done to mitigate the risk. Otherwise, why not eliminate the risk completely…..by completely closing the line north of Ely??
Anonymously: No amount of “strong pressure” should cause railway operators to break the law. And if SFD’s summary is correct, doubling the frequency without adequate crossing risk mitigation would be simply illegal.
(Deciding to take your ball home because you don’t like the rules, and closing the line, would probably also be illegal, but under some different law altogether).
Not having enough rolling stock to meet all of passengers’ aspirations is an extremely widespread problem over most or all of the British network. I cannot say whether or not the problem is much worse on the future Thameslink system which we are discussing compared to anywhere else.
But as I see it, the bustitution proposed is a creative response to this pressure. Far better to have all available trains constructively employed carrying people round north London rather than taking a couple of shoppers and a lot of fresh air on a long trundle to Letchworth and back.
Yes, ideally every line should have enough trains and crew to fulfil the prescribed timetable, and then some. But the sad fact is that on most lines (perhaps all), these trains and staff are in short supply – so everywhere has to make the best possible use of what they’ve got.
@Malcolm – you may have missed the point, which is that DfT seem to have *knowingly* underresourced the franchise, whilst pretending otherwise – as usual. It’s very simple -either cut the trains or cut the timetable. Anything else comes close to defrauding the taxpayer (and the passenger) who have been asked/forced to brass up for something that cannot exist.
Does anyone ‘in the know’ have any idea when a Southeastern service consultation will begin? It’s very hard to comment without knowing what SE changes will occur.
*cynical alert* Maybe they don’t want people to see SE plans as it shows a cut in services? And then who would support these Thameslink plans?
Graham: You are right that my post does not address any seeming deliberate under-resourcing of the franchise. That was not my objective.
My point was rather that given such under-resourcing (regardless of why it has happened), the Watton bus is a creative response to it.
I hope that the under-resourcing is put right somehow. But until and unless it is rectified, someone has to run a service of some kind. And that service should be the best that can be managed. Anything else is playing into the hands of the villains (if that’s what they are) by giving them an opportunity to say “there would have been enough trains if they had been properly deployed”.
@DJL
In the section describing Thameslink service patterns it says at one point:
Thameslink Metro Routes TL8 and TL9 combine to provide four trains per hour (daily) between Central London, Catford, Bromley South and Bickley. During peak times these services may be supplemented by Southeastern Metro services providing six trains per hour.
Graham H…”The new longer distance service always gets chosen for a path in preference to new shorter distance ones due to revenue.”
Surely this is the best argument for the TfL takeover.. ..the shorter services get a seat at the table to argue their corner rather than simply being trumped by the revenue.
@130 – if you wish. But be careful what you do wish for: in general, short distance services come with disproportionately high costs because (a) time-based costs are proportionately higher in relation to revenue earned, and (b) asset costs are also proportionately higher partly due to the usual greater asset complexity and intensity required to operate them (eg more stations and signalling per km) and partly because more assets tend to spend their time idle and not earning (more time spent proportionately at termini and peakier services).
In the Board we had a bet on as to the point at which this penny would drop with DfT and whether that point would coincide with some revived London authority’s growing desire to take on the inners. I think I would be winning now…
Re hilltopper,
The main issue with P7 or 8 (what ever people like to call it, I suspect NR use 8) at Palace would be the 3 new points and the new interlocking. The lift is pretty quick, cheap and easy in comparison. The stairs were refurbed with the rest of the station and are still fully lit etc. for emergency evacuation purposes. Though you shouldn’t need another platform to do what I’m suggesting any way as the extra 2TPH LO and 2tph TL would be circa 15 mins apart so shouldn’t cause any issues with P3 occupation so P7 should be moot.
Re 130,
One last attempt at grabbing any capacity for Long distance services…
Re Anon E. Mouse, Verulamus and DJL,
The detail on peak extra is often very scant in this “consultation”
Re Malcolm and Graham H,
Under resourcing. The number of cars ordered went from 1200 (not clear what the 8/12 car split was) to 1160 (60x 12car 55x 8 car) to 1140 (55×12 car 60x 8car). Graham presumably meant not enough 8car units with 55x?
Re Sykobee,
I’m pondering some spider maps I started a while ago before the original consultation start date.
Re Ed WW Jordan and others,
I’m cynical on the consultation especially the disappearance on the interactive bit which both presumably showed the cuts far to easily and didn’t show everything especially peak services thus making cuts appear even bigger than in reality hence it being kicked into the long grass…
Re Hilltopper,
Norwood Junction – see Sussex part 13 there is very limited opportunity to stop any thing on the fasts especially in the up direction till Norwood Junction is rebuilt without gridlocking cottage junction etc. the proposed – East Croydon Palaces are very clever in that they path the odd slow line train from Cottage Jn in between the fasts and are probably need to run immediately after a stopping TL service to enable it to stop. (Asymmetric service pattern don’t go down well)
Graham: those points about the higher cost of shorter-distance services are telling. But surely this is not too relevant to consideration of possible TfL takeovers. TfL do not have any choice about which category they try to take, since the longer-distance services obviously extend well outside the area. TfL can only either take over the inner services, or nothing.
Or am I missing your point again?
Given the comments about this perhaps being an attempt to beat Tfl to things,
I notice that Londonist has published a story today about a “new” Tfl map showing their Overground aspirations.
It would appear to include trains to Welwyn Garden City, Letchworth, Gravesend, Sevenoaks and even Dorking but no services into Kings Cross or Blackfriars. The map is dated July 2016.
http://londonist.com/2016/09/overgroundbig
@Malcolm- no,TfL has no real choice; I was addressing 130’s point about “giving the short distance routes a seat at the table”. But not now , of course, the same table as the longer distance stuff, so the cross-subsidy implicit within a “mixed” franchise like most of the ex-NSE ones is removed.
@Anonymously, 21 September 2016 at 15:05
To limit the amount of extra rolling stock a routine Letchworth extension of the Hertford loopers would require, a third platform at the First Garden City might be considered. Letchworth station and the nearby road overbridge (‘Bridge Road’) were built in 1904 with a four platform double island layout in mind so a new track and face around the back of the down side island should be possible. This could allow the existing down platform to become a centre loop for quick turnback towards London, as with the other two platforms as well more flexibly handling other starting and terminating workings associated with the carriage sidings nearby (allowing a ready-loaded starting service to be launched immediately behind a preceding up fast for example). Such a feature could be of use as a peak short bounceback facility for Thameslink core trains, conflict free as it is with respect to the ECML fast lines by dint of the Down Cambridge Flyover at Hitchin. The Stevenage turnback by contrast, would only be of use for Hertford loop trains reversing there. A centre platform fast turnback facility at Letchworth also represents a much more flexible and lower risk alternative to attempting to perform such manouevres on one of the running lines at Letchworth or one of the the other branch stations, or worse still, across the fast lines at a station on the ECML itself.
For the Hertford Loop service, a quicker turnback facility at Letchworth should be able to reduce the out and back journey time from Stevenage to comfortably within 30 minutes, thus allowing only a single additional unit to maintain the half hourly service.
For the Wooton-at-Stone turnback proposal, I reckon the trains will have to go nearly all the way to Langley Junction to reverse over the trailing crossover just before the the down branch underpass beneath the main line (known as Langley South Jn). This is used for the peak reversing movements that currently take place in Stevenage’s down slow platform #4. Thoughts of a (temporary perhaps) Stevenage south parkway platform (‘Stevenage Road’) come to mind at the reversing point, also near the GSK complex. With trains terminating there a shuttle bus need only run a much shorter to the mainline station, perhaps combined somehow with a GSK – town centre link.
@ap, 21 September 2016 at 18:17
Note the map includes almost all radial main and branch lines except those used by GTR along the Blackfriars corridor and through the central ‘core’. The MML is omitted in its entirety as is Kings Cross to Finsbury Park and all routes south of Windmill Bridge to East Croydon and beyond. Chiltern Railways routes are notable by their absence but, mystifyingly, the map includes the entire Sutton – Wimbledon loop from Tulse Hill.
Mark: Someone has already indicated that both tracks at Watton are signaled bi-directionally, so the obvious way of turning, given that there should be no other trains around at the time, is just to return to Hertford North on the same track. Using a crossover anywhere between the two stations, or if there is none, then return into the Hertford platform that you just left.
@ Jordan D – OK you win in terms of checking more comprehensively than I did. I am still utterly bemused as to what GTR could possibly gain from removing trains *at off peak* times when the general headline on the GN inners is to provide a “metro style” service all the time. Cutting off peak trains from their current level makes no sense whatsoever given there are no obvious fleet savings from chopping, say, 3-4 mins each way if that from the round trip time? Surely if the line can run an all stoppers service in the peaks to those stops it can do so off peak? The usual lunacy on the railway is that headways widen in the peaks because of having to cram in so many other peak only trains to other places.
Even if you accept that GTR don’t want to advertise the cuts too heavily they have usually managed to make at least one statement somewhere about changes and their impact. There’s nothing on the GN inners expect the Harringay / Hornsey peak issue and I confess I really don’t understand that at all given all the money spent to add extra tracks.
As there is an E Mail address to which you can submit questions about the consultation I’ve just drafted and sent an E mail asking a few clarificatory questions including one about the GN inners. Let’s see if it gets an answer!
@Mark Townend, 21 September 2016 at 19:12
1st para, 2nd sent. should read:
This could allow the existing down platform to become a centre loop facility for quick turnback towards London and, with the other two platforms, be able to handle other starting and terminating workings associated with the carriage sidings more flexibly (e.g. allowing a ready-loaded starting service to be launched immediately behind a preceding up fast or an unloading terminating service to be overtaken),
@Malcolm
Good point. The current London North Eastern Route Sectional Appendix agrees with that. I forgot this area has been resignalled recently in conjunction with ETCS testing activity (The site is known as ENIF, the ETCS National Integration Facility) . There is a new facing crossover at Molewood Jn, just short of Watton approaching from Hertford, and a trailing crossover at Bragbury Jn just over 2 miles beyond Watton heading to Stevenage. These are in addition to the trailing crossover that remains at Langley South Jn. The sectional appendix also shows an additional facing crossover south of the platforms at Hertford East, not shown in decade old aerial photography.
Anonymously: even doing the relatively simple work you suggest to the LCs costs more than the entire annual revenue of the line north of Ely. Unfortunately it’s not all that simple, as there are some Automatic Half Barrier crossings on busy roads which would have to be converted to full barriers at £3m each. As a result the business case for doubling the frequency is atrocious. The case for doubling train length somewhat better.
@Graham H
The shorter distance inner suburban services may be more expensive to run, as you suggest, but, at the same time, fares per km are higher and the loadings tend to be much less one-directional peaky. There are fewer units (if any) which are used just for one morning and one evening trip each day and so the resources are used much more productively.
Re Mark T @1932,
Wimbledon loop, Southern even before the current consultation would have operated services there in the peak again in the future (just in slightly different form of Blackfriars – Tulse Hill – Wimbledon – Sutton – Tulse Hill – London Bridge if the consultation proposal is confirmed).
The map is very out of date / incomplete and also shows a lack of TfL knowledge south of the river hence plenty of scepticism from lots of parties as to TfL’s expertise (especially when the mayor offered help and step in with TSGN):
1. Blackfriars – Herne Hill – Bromley South (- Orpington) was always due to return to SE so will be an extra service that is their problem if they want to take over, presumably along with the 2tph extra peak Catford Loop SE services mentioned in the consultation
2. 100+ Southern Metro services in each direction through East Croydon on weekdays with more possibly added with the resumption of Palace – East Croydon direct services that were diverted to West C. to enable London Overground ELL to start. What they “forgot” at the time was it altered the balance of services / movements thought the Windmill Bridge complex which the proposal in the consultation is to reverse!!!
I suspect DfT won’t allow TfL to cherry pick because they didn’t know so TfL will have some scope and cost creep on take over vs current expectations. (see Romford – Upminster)
Original high res version of the TfL map:
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/vision-for-london-map.jpg
@quinlet – some of what you say is true in part but just think of the earning power of an hour’s worth an inner train and the same for an outer. Although some – stress some – inner fares /km are higher, that inner travels more slowly than an outer – more stops, more congestion, so it earns less per minute. It is,however, not so much the relative earning power of inners and outers but their relative cost that makes the difference. Inners and outers have much the same turnround times, for example, but for the inners that proportion of -wasted – time and therefore capital is higher. Inners consume more assets (eg closer signal spacing, more S&C work/km, more stations/km). Put this factor together with slower trains and you see that the inners are hit by a double whammy – in lay terms, they have to work that much harder to generate revenue proportionate to their costs.
Read that problem across to LU/LO relativities and, as you would expect, running a tube train is even further along the scale.
Interesting article. An idly curious question: which station have you used to illustrate it please? The old London Bridge? Brighton?
@ Ngh – I note the interesting new station near Norbury called “Thornton East” 😉
@ Graham H – while not disagreeing with your basic points it is interesting that DfT are removing the £23m pa grant they pay specifically for the old North London Railways lines in the Overground network. Their view is that the routes should be financially self supporting in around 2018 or so. More likely that DfT consider that TfL will be rolling in so much money post Crossrail opening that there will some “flex” in the budget to cross subsidise.
@Malcolm: given such under-resourcing (regardless of why it has happened), the Watton bus is a creative response to it.
The more Macchiavellan interpretation would be that proposing a line closure (the first with no rail-based substitute since privatisation?) in a marginal constituency is a creative way of ensuring that either the DfT stump up more money for rolling stock or Network Rail are told to rearrange their work programme.
Re: costs being higher for shorter distance services: yes, but then TfL’s willingness to sustain higher costs is likely to be higher than DfT’s, because the Mayor’s remit includes things like housing and economic regeneration that would benefit from better short distance services (and it helps that some of the property value uplift from better services flows through to the Mayor via taxation, land revenues etc).
Or to put it another way, should the network be run to maximise revenue, or to maximise public benefit?
@WW: In principle the Overground has the long-term advantage of peak flows in both directions which of course is more efficient than classic ‘out-and-back’ suburban services into a terminus where the peak trains leave all but empty. The same applies to the central bits of the Underground, which has broken even (at least) on operating costs for longer than any suburban franchise.
From the looks of things, I think the photo is of Brighton station?
@SFD/Malcolm…Please note I am not suggesting that *nothing* is done to mitigate level crossing risk. I’m just suggesting that it is kept in proportion to the improvement proposed (in this case, increased train service frequency from 1 tph to 2 tph) and the type of risk that is being mitigated against (level crossing ‘incidents’, including lethal and non-lethal ones). And in any case, NR are planning to address level crossings in Cambs on the Fen line (although seemingly not in Norfolk), as detailed here: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/anglialevelcrossings/.
And even if the revenue is as low as you say it is, it is definitely going to rise rapidly in the next few years as the line attracts more commuter traffic to Cambridge and London (http://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/homes-along-the-fen-line-journeys-to-london-from-cambridgeshire-norfolk-and-the-fens-set-to-improve-a102886.html).
For an idea with such a poor business case as you say, it seems to have a lot of momentum! Are you privy to some insider information that the Fen Users Line Association and others don’t seem to know about, or are you just expressing your own personal opinion?
@Malcolm…Ian J has just made a very good point that I was going to add regarding Watton-at-Stone to Stevenage ‘bustitution’. What appears to you to be a ‘creative’ response appears to others (myself included) to be a perfect example of running down a service at best, and (arguably) closure-by-stealth at worst.
The numbers affected might be small, but they have every right to feel deeply alarmed by the proposals, and what they mean for the future of services between Hertford and Stevenage/Letchworth (particularly if TfL decide not to take these over, despite what the map shows).
‘Or to put it another way, should the network be run to maximise revenue, or to maximise public benefit?’
In that one sentence, you have brilliantly summarised the unsolvable conundrum faced by railway operators, Graham Hs (aka DfT civil servants) and politicians since the late 1940s!
The presence of a 313 in Southern colours puts the picture somewhere on the south coast, and I’m pretty sure that’s Brighton
Separating operation of ishort and long distance services. This was tried, for example on what is now Greater Anglia. Having them all under one operator’s control allows the operators to act in a more integrated way – for example making extra stops in a long distance service to cover for a cancellation on the inner suburban route, or holding connections between inners and outers.
But in practice the operators always seem to prioritise the long distance services. Separating ownership would give each service group it’s own voice in such situations.
@anonymously: the unsolvable conundrum
I’m not sure that it is that unsolvable: all that is required is that the process for planning services factors in social and economic benefits as well as revenue and costs. TfL has a well-developed methodology for this: the DfT, I’m not so sure…
The Unsolvable Conundrum per anonymously & Ian J
1 ‘Parliamentary’ trains and the obligation to be a “universal carrier” of goods injected a public benefit element to railway regulation very early.
2 it’s a question of profit or operating surplus not revenue.
On Watton, there seems to be a considerable loss of benefit, not least access to King’s Cross without a change of mode. But it may be that people wishing to make that journey drive to Stevenage (aka “Silkingrad”) in the first place.
@old buccaneer
Watton at Stone will still have access to Kings Cross without a change of mode, as it always has done, by changing trains at Finsbury Park (or indeed Highbury & Islington)
(Is via Stevenage even a permitted route?)
@Timbeau sorry yes I was thinking of access to King’s Cross on a fast train. I don’t know about the fares.
The ultimate conclusion of DfT thinking is that everyone moves to Brighton etc so they can pay more rail fares and London become ghost city at night!
@ngh -quite wrong… the ultimate DfT thought is likely to be “if only everybody stayed at home and teleworked, we wouldn’t need all this boring and expensive transport kit”.
@Graham H As in the railway civil engineer’s plaint ‘I could maintain perfect track condition if the operators did not insist on running trains on it’.
This from a transport consultant chum on exploiting the Watton- St Evenage sur Beane bus.
“One thought about the possible cut between Hertford North and Stevenage. If there is funding to put on a bus, perhaps hourly all week, why keep it as a purely railway bus? Why not use the support to create an all-week 390, operating on bus ticketing but also carrying rail ticket holders Hertford – Watton-at-Stone – Stevenage? Running time Stevenage – Hertford North at present is about 40 minutes, running via Gresley Way and Six Hills Way in Stevenage. Times Stevenage rail station to Lister Hospital and Hertford North station to bus station are 8 and 5 minutes respectively. Thus It needs two buses on circuit to run an hourly service but they would just suffice to run Hertford bus station to Lister Hospital. Times could be reduced by running via Shephall Way in Stevenage instead but still serve parts of Poplars. [Presumably switching some other Stevenage route to go round Gresley Way for the very few trips that the current 390 does?] Thus East Herts would gain a valuable bus service and GTR would not need to run trains to turn at Watton-at-Stone.
Captain Deltic: As you will certainly realise, talk like that about using “train money” to provide a bus service is most alarming, maybe almost treasonous-sounding. The feeling is that the gulf between passenger train running costs – anywhere – and the bus equivalent is a taboo subject. Who knows where it will lead?
While I still see this Watton bus idea as creative, I also accept that it is ominous. I don’t really think that closure (by stealth or otherwise) is on the cards, but who knows?
Your chum may be mistaken about the bus making Watton trains unnecessary, however, as the current proposal steers well clear of upsetting Watton-London commuters (who, like any other London commuters, would not go quietly).
@Captain Deltic – in BR-speak, the p/way engineers were the enemy of the real civils – “those chaps with the track just spoil a perfect embankment” etc
@CD (2nd) – that sounds awfully like the arguments ministers put forward for bus substitution on a grander scale
One small observation – there may be one too many suches here: “as well as such aggravating factors such as a long train and a short platform.” [There was. Fixed now.]
I think I understood the argument for a service from Woolwich via Blackfriars. Can’t for the life of me understand the case for it running east of Dartford.
@Malcolm/Captain Deltic – the conundrum for policy makers is how to distinguish “railway buses” from “local authority buses”,both financially (eventually) and functionally. Either the railway bus replicates the railway service or it gets – increasingly – diverted, as in the scheme mentioned by Cap’n Deltic, and begins to look more and more like a normal LA-supported (or even commercial) bus service -maybe even duplicates (oh horror) a commercial or LA-subsidised bus service. The more it does this, the more the relevant local authority shrugs its shoulders and says why should we subsidise anything when DfT will do it for us – and the more enraged DfT gets about LA dumping on them. (Not to mention Mr Souter getting angry about DfT-subsised competition).
One is reminded of the chaotic situation that used to obtain in Austria before the various state -owned bus operators were combined, in which some valleys had parallel post, railway and private bus operations (and in one extreme case, trains also) , usually, this being Austria,leaving within a fewminutes of each other.
And, in these days of increasing cuts to LA-funded bus services, the voters get puzzled/cross as to why one type of bus service merits subsidy when others do not.
But – on the other hand, the DfT bus service may actually be better in some respects (eg visits village centres) than the train service (remote stations), albeit, slower. More, the LA service is usually the result of some careful planning and analysis oflocal conditions;the DfT version can hardly be so, for obvious reasons (and in any case, why should DfT set up a national planning service for all local transport)
There isn’t a glib answer to this conundrum. Pragmatism doesn’t leave a convenient line in the sand, which is one reason why Ministers didn’t pursue bus substituion in the late ’80s, despite intense pressure from No 10 and the then SoS’s personal favour. [Fortunatelyfor the rail network, he delegated the selection of substitution routes to David Mitchell, who hated the idea. We duly sat down with him and the map of the railway system, and went through the more obvious loss=-makers. For each one, Mitchell’s answer was “no, too marginal (politically)”, “no, that’s in old Binky Smither’s patch – can’t subject him to the riot of a closure case”, “no,my aunt lives there” etc.. until the list had been whittled down to Sleaford-Spalding. The Board got the message and nothing ever happened (apart from TilburyTown to Tilbury Riverside).
Following on from what Alan said, I think I’ve come to a conclusion about the proposed Luton-Rainham service. Now I would first like to point out that I don’t have any local knowledge but in my opinion, if it’s to be run at all, I reckon that it should be curtailed at Gravesend. Because the service is proposed to be a “stopper”, I don’t think there would be big demand for it from the Medway towns in comparison to the High-speed services to St. Pancras and the fast trains to Victoria. By terminating at Gravesend, they cut down on the running time of the service which should then give them the time necessary to serve Erith and Belvedere (and maybe even Woolwich Dockyard).
Another thought on suburban services costing more- is that still the case when fare evasion is cracked down on? Levels are very high on services taken over at around 15-20%. SE Metro is no different. If they get that down to 2% on SE that’s a lot of revenue that is currently slipping through SE fingers. Currently you can travel on a lot of journeys without ever needing to pay – no barriers, few staff and no on-board staff to check.
If 80% of freeloaders have to then pay (and they will as road transport is so slow), plus you add in newcomers attracted by a safer and well publicied service + then add in more capacity off-peak and associated house building (which TfL are much better at planning with transport) then a lot of the additional costs of suburban routes can be reduced?
Ed – I think you are confusing revenue with costs. Perhaps you meant cash surplus/shortfall -the difference between revenue and costs? More cash in doesn’t reduce the cost, merely the difference.
I must say, I don’t recognise the 15-20% evasion figure – do you have a source? [The figure that most operators quote publicly tends to be 5%; spot checks in SE-land used to yield a figure close to that, admittedly 20 years ago].
Getting existing punters to pay up is, I agree,costless, but conveying more punters isn’t.
I will try and locate my NSE route studies to see if I can dig out some more precise figures, but off the cuff, the different pro rata costs of assets consumed by inners and outers is likely to be in excess of 20%. (A quick back of envelope estimate based on SWT suggests the difference is likely to be something in excess of 1/3.) One reason why the asset consumption issue is so important numerically is that assets (infrastructure, stock) account for approximately 70% of all railway costs.
@Anon E. Mouse
The only good reason I can see for Rainham to Luton is the Rainham to Abbey Wood leg. If this is quick enough, then it becomes an attractive way to get from North and East Kent onto Crossrail.
My commute is from beyond the Medway towns into Canary Wharf, and a reasonable route onto Crossrail looks more enticing than the current options:
* (Not-very) High-speed (at a price premium) to Stratford International, the patchy interchange to Stratford National, then Jubilee or DLR.
* South Eastern mainline to Cannon Street then DLR from Bank, again interchange is not great and DLR is slow.
* South Eastern mainline to London Bridge then Jubilee line, good interchange but not available as a route until 2018.
Re: Bustitution
The best current example (off patch) must be Barlaston, Wedgwood and Norton Bridge, which are still technically open but haven’t had a train stop for years. London Midland contribute to a couple of different bus services to Stoke-on-Trent and Stafford. Although Norton Bridge has a “good” reason for no trains (no footbridge to get on/off the platforms), the others are a victim of the line being too busy to stop any trains there. Would that argument wash in the South East?
@JimH
You make a good point about Crossrail. However, there is a possibility that Southeastern might be able to cater for that flow. (At this moment in time, we don’t know what services Southeastern are planning to run come Dec 2018 but they may want to run more trains via Abbey Wood because of Crossrail.)
Just to add to what I said at 12:13, it’s worth pointing out that in the report, the service in question is treated as a metro service (i.e. stopping at most stations with excuses as to why they can’t stop at the others) and looks like it replaces the current Cannon St. to Dartford via Greenwich services. I would have said that Gravesend is quite far enough for a metro service to go (especially when you consider that the further out the service originates, the harder it will be to board at Greenwich and Deptford).
@Anon E. Mouse
South Eastern already run metro service from Gillingham via Gravesend and Swanley, I assume this is because of the Gillingham depot.
They’re certainly not the optimal way to travel from Gillingham to a London terminus!
@JimH
I am aware of the existing Gillingham-London via Dartford services and I hasten to point out that they are semi-fast (usually) which means that (in principle) they would be a better way of getting from the Medway towns to Crossrail (in terms of journey time) than the proposed Thameslink service. However, this would only be the case if these services actually go via Abbey Wood (hence my comment about what Southeastern might plan to do in 2018).
@Ian J…..If only it were so. Railway policy in this country since Beeching seems to have been incredibly confused, often swinging between the two extremes depending on whoever happens to be in charge and whether they get their way or not (as Graham H will perhaps attest to, given his experiences with Nicholas Ridley and co.). IMHO, BRB came closest to balancing the two following sectorisation (particularly in the NSE area), before John Major’s government scuttled it through privatisation ?.
The through service along the Hertford loop to Stevenage is of benefit to people living further south than Hertford or Watton-at-Stone, particularly those who use the 5 Hertford Loop stations in the London Borough of Enfield and who wish to travel to destinations in the North and East of the country. For example, the 09.47 from Gordon Hill northwards will get you to Peterborough in 1 hour and 11 minutes with a cross platform change at Stevenage at a cost of £18. The 09.49 southwards from Gordon Hill will get you to Peterborough in 1 hour and 50 minutes via Finsbury Park at a cost of £29.30 with stairs and crowds to negotiate at Finsbury Park.
True connections at Stevenage into some services are less than sympathetic eg connections at Stevenage into Virgin East Coast’s hourly Leeds services allow only 3 minutes, while some London-bound services just miss the hourly Hertford loop connection. The proposal for half-hourly services to Stevenage makes avoiding London more attractive and could encourage greater use, but a bus transfer for passengers with luggage rules this out on time and convenience grounds. If the Stevenage bay platform is only delayed and not cancelled, would keeping a couple of 313 units in use to run a Hertford-Letchworth shuttle for a couple of years be worth the maintenance cost of sweating these 40year old assets a little more?
@ MJ24 – Part of GTR’s contention is that with the revised GN faster services there are no longer the paths to allow a local service between Watton at Stone and Letchworth Garden City. It isn’t just the lack of a platform being built at Stevenage by 2018 but their words in the consultation provide two arguments. Whether it is true I really have no idea. I didn’t think there was that much extra service volume being run to Peterborough / Cambridge / Kings Lynn that would absorb a lot of local line paths north of Stevenage.
@ Graham H – I don’t have any fare evasion numbers for S Eastern but what has been quite telling is that in “before and after” comparisons made by TfL the fraud levels have been around the 15% level under TOC control and in the low single figures under TfL control. I don’t know how that is measured, calculated and over what time period and area but such levels of evasion are really *very* high indeed. Back when I had to be interested in LU Fraud models and the evasion rates you were certainly right to be concerned if you’d got to the wrong side of 5% never mind knocking on the door of 15%. Just checked the recent Board paper – old Silverlink Metro was 12.6% and West Anglia 14.5% prior to TfL takeover. Those are pretty abysmal numbers and if South Eastern is in similar shape then someone isn’t doing their job properly or they are not measuring properly in specific parts of their network. 5% across all of S Eastern might be tolerable but not if it hides pockets of far worse rates. Any skilled revenue protection manager should know the “hot spots” on their network.
Walthamstow Writer,
I didn’t think there was that much extra service volume being run to Peterborough / Cambridge / Kings Lynn that would absorb a lot of local line paths north of Stevenage
But how could you know? The signalling blocks might be few and far between. There are some bad cases. I suspect one of the worse is Dorking – Horsham which seems to have capacity for only one or two trains an hour. I believe there were quite a few bad examples on Chiltern in times gone by.
The differential usage figures for Freedom Pass pre and post the transfer of the West Anglia and Shenfield services to TfL and the introduction of better gating and reduced fare evasions would more or less bear out the previous estimate of 15% fare evasion, too.
@WW – I don’t know how these things are done now; in NSE days, we organised surprise sealing of stations and flooded them with ticket inspectors. For reasons I couldn’t possibly explain to some of the contributors to this thread without causing outrage, we tended to concentrate such efforts on the SE Inners. The results usually came in around the 5% mark or less. Then there was overriding and its more sophisticated sibling, the “polo or bookend”, but for controlling these we relied on TTIs; the numbers of these tended to be lower and concentrated mainly in the outers. It’s certainly possible that ticketless travel rates have risen substantially since privatisation – contrary to popular belief, many TOCs are quite happy to rely on the guaranteed cash flow from seasons (a result of whatever banking covenants they may have, I suspect) and view the effort involved in policing off peak seriously as not worth the candle. Maybe they are being paid too much?
@Anonymously – oddly, that sort of balance you describe wasn’t so much the result of the format of the PSO of the day, but more a process of continuous ear-stroking by ministers and officials. Although some ministers took a right wing view of rail subsidies, they tended to be in a transient minority and even the fanatics never doubted that service quality was important. What I think has changed since has been the reliance on contract-driven management instead of less rigid, more pragmatic approach by both industry and their regulators. The resulting reliance on measurable outcomes has – as in so many areas of public life -led to regulators and specifiers deliberately ignoring those things that cannot be measured or are very difficult to measure, however much they may be cherished by the users. In the national rail field, such very different things as ride quality and service presentation and customer handling ( many things that are *not* considered at all) get subsumed in a generalised customer satisfaction measure -and where ranking against other TOCs is as important as any absolute achievement. How regulators love their benchmarking and how different from the TfL approach…
WW
Fraud/ticketless travel in SE land
High – I remember being at “Elephant” over 4 years back now, on one of my last “counting” exercises & they had a full check in operation.
The number of penalty fares issued was staggering , & a couple of arrests as well!
The permanently open-gates + often-unmanned stations is practically an invitation to do without a ticket …..
PoP
Call up “Open Train Timess”, go to “Maps” & look at the signal/block-spacing along that route
Here for a start then Here too which should tell you something about line-capacity.
@Pedantic of Purley, 22 September 2016 at 17:33
“But how could you know? The signalling blocks might be few and far between. There are some bad cases. . . Dorking – Horsham . . . Chiltern in times gone by.”
Not on the ECML in the Stevenage area, where full 4-aspect colour light signalling applies on all four lines and there are plans for even higher capacity ETCS. With only two stations, both major as far as suburban services are concerned, there is little stopping pattern or journey time variation for most trains between Langley Junction and Cambridge Branch Junction, and the down flyover at Hitchin avoids any interaction with the fast lines in either direction, so there’s no reason this section shouldn’t be able to support up to 14 or more tph in each direction with the same stopping pattern. There is a possibility that with the overall plan envisaged, the Hertford Loop trains happen to present at Langley Jn at a time when there’s a large flight of closely running slow line services, difficult to find a convenient path between, but it seems very unlikely that such a ‘traffic wall’ could persist throughout a 30 minute operating cycle, so it should be possible to retime Hertford – Letchworth services to avoid it.
Cutting Hertford Loop GN services back from Stevenage smacks of a kind of anti Croxley link, where a London focused metro style railway, instead of being extended to a busy outer suburban Intercity hub is being snipped back from one. Perhaps DfT through their GTR proxy are angling for a contribution from Herts CC as they did in Watford, to purchase an extra train and pay to improvements to the Letchworth turnback.
Mark’s speculation about angling for a contribution has a certain logic to it, though I suspect that they might be angling in a rather empty pond, what with the state of local authority funding in general.
But I doubt if the angled-for money, should it arrive, would be used at Letchworth. Until the planned Stevenage turnback is built (if it ever is), then the money, if it comes, will surely pay for one or more trains only. It seems most unlikely to me that work at Letchworth could have any sort of BCR – there would be costs, but no visible benefit.
Greg,
Here for a start then Here too which should tell you something about line-capacity
That tells me there are a lot of signals on a section of bi-directional track. Looking at a diagram like that tells you next to nothing. The stations involved could be one mile or one hundred miles apart.
Mark Townend,
I am hesitant to disagree with you but let’s say I am not at all convinced. It is a standard in signalling practice (not always adhered to) that you don’t mix aspect signals. So the idea is that a driver is consistently running on four, three or two aspect signals and they don’t change en-route. So the mere fact that there are four aspect colour light signals present tells you next to nothing for certain though it is certainly indicative of close headways.
Graham H,
I never knew but guessed that working out the portion of ticketless travel was done in such a manner.
It does seem to only really cater for truly ticketless travel though. The person travelling on an out of date but otherwise legitimate ticket may not be spotted by the TTIs and I suspect the occasional railcard may be out of date and inspection of the railcard is not asked for or the fact it is out of date is not spotted. Similarly, expertly tampered tickets may be undetected.
Other forms of ticketless travel fraud may well not be picked up by such a method e.g. 5 year old travelling and parents claim they are only 4 years old.
My non-expert experience was that unless you wanted to spend quite a few seconds checking a ticket then realistically you could only decide to focus on one thing (e.g. date, validity, needs supporting railcard. If dealing with a lot of people at a station exit then just ensuring that any tickets that should be collected were done so was enough of a challenge.
PoP
The stations involved could be one mile or one hundred miles apart.
Consult the GBTT where mileages between stations are given (!)
From KGX in the down direction: ( distance to next station, given in brackets )
Welwyn GC 20.25 ( 1.75 )
Welwyn N 22 ( 3 )
Knebworth 25 ( 2.5 )
Stevenage 27.5 (4.25 )
Hitchin 31.75 ( to Letch: 3, to Arlesey: 5.25 )
( Letchworth – 34.75 )
Arlesey 37 ( 4 )
Biggleswade 41 ( 3 )
Sandy 44 ( 7.5 )
St Neots 51.5 ( 7.25 )
Huntingdon 58.75 ( & 17.5 to Peterboro’ )
Greg,
Well, if I really cared at all about the answer and I had a GBTT to hand I might have done so. But I was just trying to point out that looking at existing train frequency is no reliable guide to establishing what the line capacity is. All you can presume is that it is at least equal to the service timetabled over it – but of course there are occasions when it isn’t. There are also occasions when it probably isn’t but we don’t know because some of the paths are rarely used freight paths.
Oh, GH, how very true.
I so well remember the solicitor who drew up our directors’ service agreement (or “contract”) telling us this was the divorce agreement – if all went well (it didn’t) it would be left in the drawer and never referred to. But it seems contracts these day, rather than being the “backstop” are used to define the entire relationship. Crazy.
And then measurement. I only needed to spend a few months as an elected member (in the mid-90’s) to realise that what was being measured was what was easy to measure, rather than what was important. And that’s before we enter the territory of “turn a measure into a target and it becomes useless as either”
Coming up to London Bridge is any preference given to certain trains, eg destined for the core or ATO?
The Watford DC lines seem to be comparable to pretty much everything considered here, though simpler. I’m interested in why TfL already has the line. I see that TfL took over everything Silverlink had, but why did they (rather than the long distance operator at Euston) have it?
Toby, maybe it’s because TFL already run the majority of the services on that line. Thus, making perfect sense for it to takeover the whole show.
Stevenage area ECML capacity issues.
ORR have granted more long distance paths including new extras (including from 2019) before NR have done the capacity improvements…
But it will probably resolve themselves in early CP6 with Huntingdon area 4 tracking and other similar schemes. Flighting through Huntingdon at the moment causes lots of knock on issues for huge distances in either direction.
I suspect lots of the ECML works will be aligned with ETCS installation on the ECML hence holding fire on installing new interlocking that would only be binned after a couple of years.
@Toby – whilst there was /is a clear technical and operational distinction between the non-DC and the DC services, the Watford DC and NLL lines are run with the same stock, the same technology, out of the same depot, and both fall conveniently within the zonal fares structure.So transferring the NLL to TfL – a long -standing political aspiration of successive London authorities – pretty well automatically brought the DC with it. The only plausible alternative would have been to transfer the Watford orphan to the Bakerloo – something TfL considered up to about 2004. Amalgamating it into any longer -distance operator would have had no technical or commercial advantages, if anything, rather the opposite. It has always been a commercially weak service and I imagine DfT were glad to see the back of it.
Not scientific, but having used a few trains between Hertford North and Stevenage, loadings would barely justify a Ford Transit, never mind a fully-fledged bus.
390 is a commercial service with no Herts CC subsidy.
@Man of Kent – “390 is a commercial service with no Herts CC subsidy.” Which neatly illustrates the difficulty – how could one justify setting up a subsidised “Railway 390” in competition with the commercial one, or even tweaking the commercial one to make it uncommercial? And on what basis would DfT take a decision to do that when Herts hasn’t seen fit to do so?
@Man of Kent….But that rather misses the point, and as you state yourself, is completely anecdotal and doesn’t take time of day, direction of travel etc. into account. Loadings at the end of any long-distance stopping service (particularly when paralleled by a faster service to the same destination) are by their very nature going to be very light. The point is that a group of people (who knows what the total number is, taking into account local commuters e.g. schoolchildren as well as those who are travelling to Stevenage to change onto other services as mentioned above?) are going to be seriously inconvenienced due to a set of circumstances and decisions that were (and perhaps still are) completely avoidable!
the conundrum for policy makers is how to distinguish “railway buses” from “local authority buses”,both financially (eventually) and functionally
Less of a conundrum if one local or regional authority specifies and funds the local rail and bus services – it shows how much easier things are within London. Or most of Europe outside the UK.
A more hopeful precedent for Stevenage would be the arrangement Chiltern has come to with the operator of the Park and Ride bus to cover journeys between Oxford Parkway and Oxford station until the railway is open.
@WW: old Silverlink Metro was 12.6% and West Anglia 14.5% prior to TfL takeover
Presumably the same profit implications between inner and outer suburban services apply to targeting fare evasion – it will be more profitable to decrease fare evasion on the outer suburban routes because the costs are fairly fixed but the fares are higher so the revenue available is greater. Hence outer suburban stations getting gated long before the inner suburban ones on many franchises.
No need for anecdote on passenger numbers between Hertford North and Stevenage, they are right there in the document:
This will, on average affect 1,100 passengers per day
@IanJ – I couldn’t agree more but that would require a revolution in the way in which local government is financed – unlikely, alas. The problem with what might seem to be the “logical” or “natural” solution – aka the Local Option – is that government funds to local government is distributed by formula (so much for each of a number of factors such as population, sheep, or whatever) and applied indifferently across the whole country. More sheep=more grant. Unfortunately for the rail industry, no one has found any objective factors (eg track miles, route miles) which replicate the pattern of subsidised services, so giving the rail industry subsidies to local government would automatically lead to many local authorities (eg Surrey) receiving money they didn’t need and others (eg Cumbria and Lincolnshire,noteably) receiving much less than they needed. The result would be a wave of railway closures blamed on the lack of government funding – something politicians have shied away from for the obvious reasons. If anything the passage pf time and the privatisation of the railway system have made it more difficult by exacerbating the differences between the needy and unneedy areas.
We struggled hard in the ’80s to find a way of jinking the local finance system with exactly the intention you suggest but the closest we would come was to distinguish between different classes of local authority – MRG was the outcome of that. I believe I have described before an internal DTp exercise we undertook to see if we could get the railway out of grant, with a combination of pricing up selected elements within NSE and OPS (eg Alphaline), and devolution to Wales, Scotland and the Mets. This disposed of much of the subsidised network but we were left with an irreducible “fringe” (ie mainly the West Country, the rural North and Lincolnshire).There was no obvious underlying factor common to all these areas which we could use to give them enough money. Regional government might have helped but the dichotomy between the SE and the rest of the country would have remained, alas.
@Toby
TfL did not take over everything Silverlink had – the services to Northampton, the Abbey Flyer, and the Marston Vale line to Bedford are now part of London Midland.
The “dc” Watford lines were simply the latest example of London Transport/TfL taking over the local service whilst leaving the services to the Home Counties and beyond to National Rail or its predecessors. This is also why C2C does not appear on the mayor’s radar – the local services have already been taken over by the District Line, back in the 1930s. A similar arrangement, but in reverse, explains Chiltern – where British Rail took over operation of the longer-distance services of the Metropolitan Railway in 1960.
@Graham H
“This disposed of much of the subsidised network but we were left with an irreducible “fringe” (ie mainly the West Country, the rural North and Lincolnshire)”
The rump of lines left open in Lincolnshire is difficult to explain – busy lines like Peterborough – Boston – Grimsby went, but relative backwaters like Grantham-Sleaford-Skegness were kept.
Re: Hadley Wood, Brookmans Park and Welham Green Skip-Stopping
This is just a thought, but could reducing the service to these stations have something to do with the increasing frequency (or even the timing) of the Cambridge stopping service.
The Cambridge (and Peterborough) stopping services run 1tph, calling at Welwyn GC, Hatfield and Potters Bar, running on the slow lines, before crossing over onto the fast lines South of Potters Bar (normally). Could it be that to ensure that the GN Inners get out of the way of the Thameslink trains, the 4tph have to go fast for a certain amount of time. While Hadley Wood isn’t interfering, it could be that the stopper needs to get to Potters Bar at a certain time, such that the 4 min saving or so could be worth it to not hold up a Thameslink train over Digswell viaduct.
@Graham H
“For each one, Mitchell’s answer was “no, …………. until the list had been whittled down to Sleaford-Spalding. ”
A line on which very little saving would be made by withdrawing the passenger service anyway.
Peterborough and Spalding is quite a busy section – (indeed, getting back on topic, extension of the GN electric service to Spalding has been suggested!) and if you are running a shuttle as far as Spalding, extending it to Sleaford would be a marginal cost, especially as you could make no economies by closing any intermediate stations (there are none) and the line would have to remain open anyway for the a large volume of freight traffic over the “Joint Line”. (The passenger loadings are anyway probably higher than revenue statistics would suggest because it is the preferred route for those in the know travelling between Lincoln and London, because of the better connections available at Peterborough compared with Newark).
@timbeau – indeed, the whole exercise was pretty futile for that reason. I also agree that the joint line has seen increasing use over the last 30 years or so and probably wouldn’t be a candidate now. Even in 1986 it was pretty much a token sacrificial lamb.
It illustrates why the Beeching era closures never achieved the claimed savings because so much shared infrastructure remained in use after the passenger service closed; it also illustrates why most recent closures have been triggered by a major infrastructure renewal rather than just because the passenger service was loss making. [To note, NR’s programme of Integrated Control centres will further strengthen this jointness of costs]
For those musing about fare evasion surveys it might be instructive to pop over to the “Hopper ticket” thread and see the recent post by Matt Dickinson. He links to a copy of the TfL Ticketing and Revenue update which shows the results, by line, of a LU fares evasion survey earlier in 2016. It shows the different forms of fraud that were detected. While accepting that PoP was commenting as a “non expert” I would expect a properly trained Revenue Inspector to pick up on all the points queried by PoP. They are trained to spot all these things. A standard ticket collector or “security guard” acting as a form of ticket inspector would, I agree, struggle to spot anything remotely complex by way of fraud. Doing a visual ticket check as people flood past you is pretty much impossible – I’ve done it more than once so I know. Doing an on train ticket check or a fully controlled revenue block is really quite different because there is the time and resource to allow more scrutiny.
@ PoP – re signal sections. The smart answer to your “how would you know?” is “I would ask on London Reconnections and a suitable answer would no doubt be provided from someone with access to the facts”. 🙂 One of the joys of this place is that someone almost always does know! The other way to get an idea, and I accept no more than that, is to look at Realtime Trains for a peak period and look at how many trains pass a given point. That gives a reasonable hint as to the capacity but is obviously not definitive or an absolute worst case.
The change to paper ticket layout must make their job harder. Its hard enough as a customer to read the new smaller fonts, you’d need to be eagle-eyed as a ticket inspector to spot problems now. It really was a poorly thought-out change.
@Malcolm, 22 September 2016 at 19:40
“. . . I doubt if the angled-for money, should it arrive, would be used at Letchworth. Until the planned Stevenage turnback is built (if it ever is), then the money, if it comes, will surely pay for one or more trains only. It seems most unlikely to me that work at Letchworth could have any sort of BCR – there would be costs, but no visible benefit.
I’m not suggesting it would definitely add up to a business case, but my suggestion was that if an extra turnback platform was available at Letchworth then the out and back run from Stevenage might be comfortably contained within 30 minutes, which suggests that a half hourly service could be accomplished with only one addition train. With the current shunt moves via the carriage sidings A&D road, 30 minutes out and back is impossible so more than one additional train and crew would be required, probably with a fairly lengthy layover that would block access to the sidings for its duration. A quick turnback platfrom at Letchworth could also have some value for peak bounce backs of other TL services and for starting and terminating services going to and from the sidings without extended loading activity impacting on other trains. Letchworth is in a unique position in being the only place north of WGC near the ECML proper where such turnbacks can take place without conflict with the fast lines, due to the Hitchin flyover. The proposed Stevenage bay as envisaged cannot provide such functionality for main line trains, only for Hertford Loop services.
I agree the simplest way round the impasse is to buy two more GN trains and use the current reversing method at Letchworth. At the unit price of the current GN order, that would cost in the order of £16m plus ongoing operating expense.
@Ian J….Assuming that figure is accurate, then it is quite small in the grand scheme of SE rail travel (where we talk of tens to hundreds of thousands passenger movements per day!). I just hope those 1100 can get themselves organised into a room with GTR management, so they know upfront just how much this will inconvenience them ?.
@Mark Townend…..That Hitchin flyover is really starting to prove it’s worth! Pity it couldn’t have been built much earlier (e.g. in the 70s at the time of the Great Northern electrification).
Anonymously: 1100 people will need quite a big room! But of course they will not be the same 1100 every day. Apart from a few people with jobs in Stevenage, they will not be commuters. I guess some people shopping etc in Stevenage (once a week at most), and a varied collection of travellers from Palmers Green, Hertford or stops inbetween making longer trips “up north” (including Cambridge).
(But speculation of travel purpose could be a bit pointless, the one time in my life that I have ever been asked my journey purpose on a train survey was en route to my grandmother’s funeral – most people get no more than two of those).
@MT
“The proposed Stevenage bay as envisaged cannot provide such functionality for main line trains, only for Hertford Loop services.”
As I understand it, the bay at Stevenage will be on the down side. From Google Earth it looks possible to provide a connection between the Down Hertford and Up Slow, south of the underpass at Langley Junction, which would allow trains from the bay to return towards Welwyn route without crossing the fast lines on the flat. Whether there is a BCR for doing so is doubtful though – any train on the Welwyn route would be better turned back at Welwyn, before hitting the Digswell bottleneck.
With all ECML trains likely to be electric (or electro-diesel) in the near future, a tunnel carrying the fast lines under the Mimram valley might become practical (cost determined by the trade-off between tunnel length and gradient required to lose and gain the requisite height not to break the surface at the bottom of the valley)
@timbeau.
The Langley Junction main line turnback connection would be possible I agree, perhaps at a reasonable cost. The angle of intersection suggests a fairly wide curve would be needed starting just south of the Old Knebworth Lane underbridge, then describing about a 350m radius through some small business premises adjacent to the Odyssey Health club and a couple of that club’s game courts, then straightening up and running across a field parallel with the B197 and climbing with the rising ground level to join the up slow just at the end of the embankment as the main line alignment dives into the cutting leading to Knebworth station. About 1km of new single track alignment with fairly minimal earthworks and no public roads to cross. There is what looks like a private unpaved access from the B197 across to the golf club on the west side of the main line via an underbridge. That would need stopping up, diverting or bridging.
Discovered this morning (23/9), that Govia’s brand new Cl 387s for the GN route fast services to Cambridge will not be allowed to run at their maximum speed of 110mph. Why? Because Network Rail is worried about effect on overhead line.
This came as a surprise as 1. Virgin all-electric services do not have a problem under this same wire and 2. the ‘387 pantograph is already passed for 110mph elsewhere, so I’m told.
This is quite important as getting services through the Welwyn two-track bottleneck as quickly and safely as possible is vital. This will be truer still when Thameslink services begin. Do hope Network Rail sort this out well before then.
@A Cam Cruiser – “This is quite important as getting services through the Welwyn two-track bottleneck as quickly and safely as possible is vital.” Yes, but the practical difference between 110 and 125 is a matter of about 3 extra seconds per mile.It would show up in the modelling but wouldn’t register in the Working Time table
@Graham H
I assume you meant:
…the practical difference between 100 and 110…
since those are the speeds we actually need to compare.
@Anonymously – sorry, yes: the difference is even less per mile.
Re Anon E Mouse
Effectively it doesn’t matter as the difference is the same:
3.27s (100 vs 110) or 3.93 (110 vs 125)
Hence it would only make the smallest increment (30s) difference to WTT over a distance of 10miles.
The 1980s cheap ECML wiring job is responsible for the 100mph multi-pantograph limit till it gets upgraded to have significant elements of Series 1 which has started.
@A Cam Cruiser…..What effects are they worried about? Is it to do with power supply?
@Mark Townend/timbeau….What you describe is virtually pointless without first addressing the Digswell bottleneck. And, even then, the business case for it (which would just allow the current Welwyn terminators to serve Welwyn North/Knebworth and terminate at Stevenage) wouldn’t stack up, I suspect. It would though be one way of getting this fabled terminating platform built!
Re anonymously,
Mainly contact wire oscillation and the risk of bringing the wires down especially with the 3rd pantograph of the a 12car set which would also have a very poor contact and arc badly.
IEP partly gets round it by having the 2 pantographs 190m apart vs up to 3 at 75-85m spacing depending on which way round the units are.
The lack of juice is being sorted as well including upgrades to Autotransformers but isn’t the issue in this case.
@ngh….That surprises me a little, since I thought the electrification on the relevant lines was done fairly robustly (well, at least in comparison to what was later done north of Peterborough….)?
110mph would be nice, but the current 100mph (90mph north of Hitchin, curves excepted) seems fine for now, until the wiring can be upgraded.
Headspans on 4 track sections is robust???
Plenty of other less than ideal OHLE south of P’boro too.
Class 700s are already using SDO in service to stop at Balcombe in the down direction. PIS turns a lovely bright red in the last four coaches to tell passengers to move forward if they want to alight.
@Anon
(Langley) Agreed- a paper exercise to see why the proposed turn back is in fact only going to serve the Hertford line.
The 100mph limit on 387s will presumably apply not just through the bottleneck at Digswell, but it will mean they will find it harder to mix it with the 125mph HSTs, 225s, and the new 80x types.
re Timbeau,
Just for the time being till the OHLE upgrades get done.
The acceleration on the 387s especially at higher speeds is significantly better then all the others currently in service which ofsets the top speed issue and still an improvement on the current GN EMUs.
@Anonymously: quite small in the scheme of things, but more than a fifth of the local MP’s majority (not that they would all live on the constituency).
A few things:
Class 387s – the original pantographs are ‘out of gauge’ for the GN routes apparently. So they are being changed for class 365 style ones. And that design has only ever been passed for 100mph.
Watton-at-Stone – Up line is bi-directional so will support terminating trains.
The Down line has signalling in the Up direction for test trains only.
Much as a change of layout with an extra platform at Letchworth would be useful, there are no plans for this. Stevenage, on the other hand, has had plans drawn up.
ECML is four aspect signalling on the fasts, THREE aspect signalling on the slows.
More trains are going to be running running between Stevenage and Hitchin, in fact at Hitchin the Slows will have 8tph for a short distance (2tph Peterborough-Horsham, 2tph Cambridge to Brighton, 2tph Cambridge to Maidstone East, and (for the short distance after/before access to/from the fast lines 2tph Kings Lynn/Ely to Kings Cross. Adding another 2tph from Moorgate would be stretching things I think, especially as if they terminated at Letchworth they would need ‘tipping-out’ before going to the sidings. When leaving the sidings, they would block both Up and Down lines whilst doing so.
A separate bay platform at Stevenage is the way forward, but a bus will have to do until it’s built, unpopular though this may be.
@Whoosh
Thanks for the signalling info. Three aspects on the slows makes sense. They should be spaced at the same intervals as the four aspects on the fasts but for a lower maximum permitted speed. The headway at the respective design speeds would be broadly similar.
I found the “Stevenage Central Framework”, a local authority masterplan document published in 2015, here:
http://www.stevenage.gov.uk/content/15953/17966/18223/Stevenage-Central-Town-Centre-Framework.pdf
This suggests putting the station at the heart of the town with a new east- west axis of development bisecting the railway and relocation of the bus station nearby to create an integrated transport hub.
This fairly recent news article is from June 2016:
http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/central-and-east/stevenage-first-signs-up-for-major-regeneration
and includes the following statement “. . . confirmation from Network Rail of £18.8m for a new fifth platform at Stevenage Station in 2020 has proved a significant step forward for a new train station”
It was the tipping out issue at Letchworth as well the time taken for the siding reversal manouevre that prompted my additional platform suggestion. Even with the quicker turnround facility however, running that far would require at least one extra train for a half hourly service.
@Whoosh
‘A separate bay platform at Stevenage is the way forward, but a bus will have to do until it’s built, unpopular though this may be.’
The real danger of this approach is that when the time comes (after one/two/three+ years?) to build the new platform, someone will turn around and say, “We no longer have to do this….there are so few passengers using the replacement bus service [everyone else having long since switched to other modes of transport] that it is no longer worthwhile or cost-effective to spend money on this scheme. Instead, we’ll propose permanent withdrawal of passenger services between Watton-at-Stone and Stevenage, and the existing commercial bus service can take up the remaining slack.”
Recent railway history is littered with examples both in this country and abroad where this ‘closure-by-stealth’ has happened (intentional or otherwise). My own personal favourite is the post-war fate of the Northern Heights Ally Pally branch (and to a lesser extent the Mill Hill-Edgware branch), for reasons too off-topic to discuss in detail here.
@Whoosh – “Class 387s – the original pantographs are ‘out of gauge’ for the GN routes apparently. So they are being changed for class 365 style ones. And that design has only ever been passed for 100mph.”
That made me smile because, and I don’t doubt going on past experience of such things and therefore assuming is true (PoP et al bound to tell me off for making such an assumption), then why hasn’t anyone tried to get the Class 365 ones passed for 110mph, or is there an inherent problem with them, or even solve the out of gauge problem anyway? After all, does nobody think of future proofing? Oops, that might be fiction.
To put that another way around, would ngh’s recent comments on wire oscillation with two or three pantographs be avoided with Class 365s tested and cleared for 110mph? On the other hand, from what you say, I guess that it’s the width of the Class 387 pantographs that are deemed to be out of gauge. Can nobody cope with a modification in the workshop should that be the only barrier?
I recall that Roger Ford recently discussed related problems in ‘Modern Railways’, comparing the East Coast main line wiring with the GWR burden. In fact, I compared it when reading it at the time with Southern’s problems with the RMT union regarding who should close the doors, bearing in mind that identical trains are being run on the same routes by a different organisation but same owner, with the drivers (mainly) content that they close the doors themselves.
Re Graham F and Whoosh,
They are both variants of the Brecknell-Wills High Speed pantograph developed by BR, just with different heads, aerofoils (or not), uplift force and damper settings. There are 2 main family variants 100mph (most late BR EMUs and 100mph EMUs from Bombardier /Siemens / Hitachi / CAF) and 140mph (Class 90, 91, Pendolino, 387, 350 (110mph), 395s, 800s)
The issues is on the Hitchin to near Cambridge route (which those with long memories will remember Graham H had electrified as a turnback siding with the budget of what he found down the back of the DfT sofa) rather than ECML proper.
To deal with multi-pantograph issue at higher speeds the 387s, 350s (110mph variant), 395s and 800s have pantographs with knuckle aerofoils, higher uplift forces (the issue on Hitchin – Cambridge / Kings Lynn) and stiffer damper settings (also possibly an issue on Hitchin – Cambridge / Kings Lynn). Replacing the contact wire tensioning equipment should solve most of the issues.
Traditional UK OHLE has contact wire tension between 8.9 and 13.2KN but the new series 1 (GWML) & Series 2 electrification is at 16.2KN with heavier section contact wire to provide far better damping of the wire oscillation. (Multipantograph to 140mph+).
By “out of gauge” I suspect the contact wire gets a bit to near metal over bridges due to the greater uplift forces…
Yes, signal spacing is the same on slow and fasts. Slow lines are 75mph, fasts 125mph.
It’s rumoured to be the Anglia part of Network Rail that have issues with Class 387’s original pantographs, that do look wider than 365’s.
Someone early on in the discussion questioned whether GTR were serious with their suggestion of Luton to Rainham, and that maybe they were deliberately wanting it to be rejected.
They have advertised for Qualified and Trainee Drivers at Gillingham, which suggests they are serious!
Anonymously refers to the danger of the replacement bus leading, eventurally, to service withdrawl.
I agree that this is a danger which should be taken seriously. I also agree that it would not be fruitful, here, to go into the details of the Northern Heights issues, though I agree that they do seem to be a close parallel, and they are not far away either.
But it might be helpful to note one big difference. The year is now 2016: then it was about 1952. The world has moved on, and any withdrawl of passenger service (‘temporary’ or otherwise) is most unlikely to be followed by total line closure and selling off the land, such as happened at Muswell Hill (or, also nearby) at Gamlingay. The worst plausible fate is so-called mothballing (as with, say, Winslow). In fact it is most unlikely even to go that far, what with the usefulness of the line as a test track and as a diversionary route when a cow is struck in Wood Green tunnel (say).
A further point would be that the likelihood of a closure case being successfully pursued (low anyway) is unlikely to differ much depending on whether the service proposed for closure is a train service carrying say 1100 passengers per day, or a replacement bus carrying say 110 passengers per day.
Is the extra width of the 387 pantographs necessary because of the greater sway at higher speeds? (a narrower pantograph being more prone to de-wiring),
@Mark Townend
“This suggests putting the station at the heart of the town ”
deja vu – the station was moved about a mile south in 1973 to be nearer the centre of the new town. Has the centre moved again?
I did wonder whether the question posed in the consultation document about the trade off between 14 tph into Moorgate and a bus from Watton-at-Stone to Stevenage versus 12 tph into Moorgate and trains to Stevenage is the wrong question or at least posed in the wrong way. In the long term, the trends shown in the document (if borne out) would mean that the benefit from crowding relief from 14 tph would far outweigh the benefit of trains continuing to Stevenage for a smaller number of passengers. But the Stevenage turnback problem isn’t a long term issue. Although the turnback has been delayed, if it can be delivered for 2020, perhaps the alternative is 12 tph into Moorgate to 2020 and then a timetable change to 14 tph into Moorgate from 2020 once the turnback is delivered. The negative then isn’t the crowding from only 12 tph long term, but only the crowding from only 12 tph from 2018 to 2020 – a much smaller issue, and one which the consultation document avoids by concentrating on the long term problem. Introduction of higher capacity trains from 2018, all 6 carriages long, will itself improve capacity into Moorgate significantly from 2018.
On the Southern side, I can see the logic of splitting/joining trains to/from Caterham/Tattenham Corner to reduce the number of paths required, which means they can’t be part of the Thameslink. However, it seems they will still run non-stop from E Croydon to London Bridge, which presumably puts them on the fast lines, so doesn’t that mean more crossing moves as they approach London Bridge to cross from the fast lines to the terminal platform lines?
Similarly, the newly all day Epsom to London Bridge trains will run non-stop from Norwood Junction to London Bridge, which again presumably puts them on the fast lines, so doesn’t that again mean more crossing moves as they approach London Bridge to cross from the fast lines to the terminal platform lines?
It seems odd unnecessarily to create crossing moves to thread paths from Rainham into Thameslink and at the same time create more crossing moves to get the (Caterham/TC and) Epsom trains off the Thameslink lines in the approach to London Bridge, when the Thameslink paths could be linked to the Epsom trains (as was in the plans many iterations ago). I’m probably missing something.
As the Forest Hill line is paired by direction switching between fast and slow can be done without conflict with the other direction. And the slow lines are connected to the terminal platforms, on the down direction via the diveunder.
@Timbeau
Indeed, and they can switch between fasts and slows at, or north of, New Cross Gate to avoid conflict with Overground.
@Timbeau
Neither the town nor the station is moving. The way I read the framework is that the council wishes to create a new pedestrian friendly east – west development spine across the town that crosses the railway at the existing station site, also to be improved. They want to move the bus station closer to the railway too, for easier interchange and to group transport services together into an easily understandable hub. It is hoped through such better integration and improved quality that more people will be encouraged to use public transport in preference to their cars. The station is felt to be rather isolated across inhospitable fast roads and car parks today, and the town centre is mostly focused on the north south ‘Queensway’ axis, parallel with the railway and about 400m away.
@Malcolm….I’m glad you share my concerns. The only point I would add is that the purpose of any future hypothetical service withdrawal would be to avoid additional expenditure on new infrastructure (in this case, the Stevenage terminating platform), rather than to save on running costs and losses (which would be minimal in this instance…..the loop line between Hertford and Stevenage is far too useful to dismantle or even mothball completely; indeed, it owes its very existence to that perennial, expensive-to-solve problem at Welwyn!). Again, history is littered with examples of additional infrastructure costs being used as an excuse to close lines (e.g. Horsted Keynes to Ardingly).
Anonymously: we seem to be broadly agreed. It does seem to me that economical and efficient provision of this service really does require the planned new Stevenage platform – I am not convinced by the arguments for the Letchworth trundle, with or without a new platform there. So it should be both or neither – either build the platform and resume/retain the service, or do neither. The “neither” option would be a hard sell, both locally and from the strategic point of view that it would seem in rather daft contrast to an otherwise (gradually) expanding network of railways in the South-East region.
ML,
Not explicitly stated but implied from the earlier comments …
There isn’t really an issue as long as you can timetable it OK. You time it in the up direction so that there is an empty slow train path which London Overground occupied as far as New Cross Gate but is now vacant. In reverse (down direction) it is the same idea. You time so that the down fast reaches New Cross Gate approximately when the London Overground is departing so that you can take advantage of the empty slow path between London Bridge and New Cross Gate.
@Malcolm…I’m open minded about the merits of terminating at Letchworth vs. terminating at Stevenage. If sufficient rolling stock was available, I’m sure GTR would opt to continue the existing practice (well, at least until this fabled new platform is built), rather than suffer the opprobrium that is heading their way. Anyhow, I sincerely hope this bustitution proposal doesn’t make it into the final timetable, as it would set a worrying precedent that I’m willing to bet some at the DfT would gladly take advantage of…..
I forgot another way of withdrawing the service whilst avoiding the hoo-ha of a closure proposal….our old favourite, the Parliamentary Train! Perhaps a weekly 6am Letchworth to Hertford North service will be a future one sought out by all those travel buffs who like travelling on these services? ?
@Anonymously
Speaking of Parlimentary Trains, the report does actually say:
A very limited train service will operate beyond Watton-at-Stone to Stevenage or Letchworth Garden City during early mornings, late evenings and Sundays.
@ML 1218 – I’m not quibbling with the logic of your argument about relative benefit / disbenefit while we wait for the platform at Stevenage to be constructed. One thing that I suspect may undo the “smaller” element of crowding between 2018 and 2020 is what happens to the GN service in 2018 plus Crossrail. There will be new trains. There will be a higher frequency service daily. There will be a relatively convenient interchange to Crossrail at Moorgate.
While I expect GTR have tried to model these three things in their forecasts I suspect reality will be that the GN locals see a surge in demand that overwhelms the extra capacity pretty quickly. We have seen all too readily what happens on the Overground when you do something similar. The ridiculous [1] thing is that three major positive things will happen at the same time which are likely to open the floodgates. Therefore any ability for the route to be able “to cope” with a lower service level for 2 years to retain a train service to Letchworth is probably illusory and GTR would find themselves in a pickle before 2020.
[1] having three positive things happen at once would never normally warrant the term “ridiculous”.
I would have thought that the building of a platform to be open in 2020 would have to be underway in late 2018 anyway. Therefore funding will be settled well before the patronage drops.
Re Timbeau,
Extra sway – exactly and also reduced risk of bringing the wires down in general. It the wires didn’t lift so much (because of lower tension) it shouldn’t be an issue having wider head.
Re WW,
GTR modelling* 😆
Agreed on 3 positives, but I suspect GTR* have no intention of doing anything further as regards Moorgate services, it will be for their successor in 2021 (or 22 if DfT choose to extend, especially if services are being devolved to TfL I can see the rump surviving longer to let the dust settle especially if TL and the long distance remain of GN are split from the remain of SN + GatEx, you wouldn’t do all the splitting at once if you were sane).
I suspect the Southern ECML + branches getting ETCS will open up the opportunities for Moorgate to be lifted above the current 15tph theoretical (14 proposed in timetable) max given the post accident signalling arrangements so it may well be for TfL post take over to order the extra stock, do bit of digging at Moorgate** and write a new safety case based on the new signalling system and slightly longer over runs created. Hence why should TSGN bother…
** Plenty of spraycrete contractors available post CR, Bank, Victoria, Super Sewer before CR2 ramps up fully.
re ngh
“do bit of digging at Moorgate** and write a new safety case based on the new signalling system and slightly longer over runs created”
Crikey, careful now, that’s the sort of talk that gets crayons out of boxes as people start eyeing up southern/southeastern routes to pair the lines to. But what tunnels/foundations are beyond the end of the NCL tubes? Obviously a through service (to more than one branch) would allow much higher frequency, but the expense would be huge and the south end routes would have their trains limited in length by the NCL platforms
@Al–S 🙂 Yes, costs, huge, benefits slight (probably less than the price of a largest box of the fabled products of Herrn Faeber-Castell), even for just the platform extensions that I think is what ngh meant. Amongst other things, you wouldn’t have to dig far to encounter CrossRail.
Yes, it is nice (naughty, but nice) to talk about Moorgate. Before discussion gets shut down, I think that ngh’s plan may have a little mileage. More and better pedestrian access to the platforms can perhaps be provided, and if platforms and overruns are to be lengthened, then the “obvious” way to do it is at the north end: the south is just too cluttered. However, lengthening might have to be coupled with something similar at Essex Road etc, and the costs start to mount.
The benefits side may be tricky too: today GN traffic is managing without Thameslink which is soon to be added. And Crossrail 2 is also slated to provide relief – though admittedly not for a while.
@Malcolm- as a moderator, you should know better….
Actually… Why have two overruns? You could have a single overrun for both lines with a loose point that would be set depending on which terminating train overran.
After all, if an overrun were to occur, modern H&S regulations would probable evacuate the whole station and stop all trains running into it…
Re Malcolm,
I wasn’t suggesting “digging” far, starting with removing the remains of the tunnel shield, traction substation and other electrical equipment would be huge head start. Just 20metres of actual overrun track would make huge difference with new signalling.
(About 2m and 5m currently).
Platform lengthening is whole different game.
Re SH (LR),
Oh dear, if you dig much further than I suggest you’ll find some Crossrail escalator tunnels which is the point at which the moderators shears come out as the line between CAD file and crayons has been crossed.
Re Malcolm,
Platform lengthening – In cab signalling, ATO and SDO would radically reduce the amount of work required to get to 7 car…
ngh: Ah, that’s clearer.
Graham: yes, a change of millinery is pending…
@SH(LR), ngh
The other problem with building a single overrun for the two separate lines is that the terminating platforms are actually staggered which I found out recently when I decided to check the line out having never actually travelled on it.
Anon E. Mouse: a bit browser-dependent, but that’s a wonderful use of italic letters.
I believe Moorgate was 15mph at the time of the crash in 1975. It’s 10mph over the crossovers and into the station now. With in-cab signalling, I would think an easy return (or an increase if it was always 10mph) to 15mph is possible, as there would be a continuous check on a train’s speed, and an intervention possible at any time, as opposed to four train-stops spread out as currently.
With a 33% increase in speed, the throughput of the junction would be greater, stepping-back of drivers could be introduced, and an automatic changeover of power supply at Drayton Park, would all contribute towards more trains being able to be run as tens of seconds would be saved per train.
You won’t get much faster than 15mph for as apart from a straight run in the Up direction into platform 9, there are some tight curves outside Moorgate on the scissors crossover.
All stations from Watton-at-Stone to Moorgate (except Alexandra Palace and Finsbury Park) are six car platforms, as well as Brookmans Park and Welham Green. Drayton Park has crossovers at both ends of the station.
More trains running, and without space-wasting intermediate cabs, are the answer for the foreseeable future. No-one has money to clean the tunnels, nevermind extend them through water-seeping ground for an extra two carriages of platform space.
Re Anon E Mouse,
As you can’t actually do it that is a very theoretical and academic other problem…
Re Whoosh,
I was expecting a return to 15mph and may be 20mph at a push with a new set of scissors. (see Walthamstow Central article from summer 2015). 20mph being far more useful for departing services but every little helps.
As the new units are fixed 6 car a 7th car lengthening could be possibility (which it isn’t really today with 3 car units and hypothetical mix of 4 and 3 would never really working in practice with splitting and joining but is more practical with fixed full length units) if the back set of doors don’t open at Old Street etc.
Improved train detection will allow the junction to be verified as cleared far sooner and route setting for conflicting moves to happen far quicker too.
The speed (distance / time) over junctions (or a track section) isn’t what matters but pace (time /distance) with the 100 vs 110 mph discussions above. The relative times take to travel the distance of the relatively common 400m 4 aspect suburban signal spacing:
5mph – 180s
10mph – 90s
15 mph – 60s
20mph – 45s
25mph – 36s
The value in improvements has effectively disappeared above 20mph for terminating platforms but 10 to 15 or 20 is very worthwhile.
@ngh
I know it’s only academic, I was just stating it for the record. Plus, as Malcolm pointed out, it was a good excuse for creative use of italics 😉
@ngh – an extremely helpful tabulation! (And one I wish I had had many years ago…)
Graham H
H A Ivatt demonstrated a similar table, showing it at the International Railway Congress of 1895.
Said diagram is reproduced in H A V Bullied’s book “The Aspinall Era” on p129.
It showed the distance which would be lost or gained by changing from one speed ( in 10 mph increments ) to the next.
@GregT – sadly, despite my great age, I wasn’t at the 1895 congress…. (although my great grandfather might have been!)
@ngh: Ah! A little bit of digging! I hadn’t quite realised that the CrossRail escalators were that close (nor that the over-run was that short!).
@Anon E. Mouse: Staggered? Never noticed it and I’ve used the station multiple times!
@greg
H A V Bulleid (if I can persuade the spell checker to get his name right).
Son of the Southern Railway locomotive engineer O V S Bulleid.
@SH(LR)
It’s easy to miss if you’re not looking for it but if you stand near the bottom of the escalators, you’ll notice that the connecting passage there links into the end of Plat.10 and the middle of Plat.9
Someone will be a long to correct me – but am I right in thinking that none of the GN platforms are being extended for the 12 car TL trains (other than work already done at FPK)?
Seems very odd if that is the case.
timbeau
H A V B was also author of “Master Builders of Steam”, most of whom he knew, personally, either as family, ot through those connections;
HA Ivatt ( His grandfather). H N Gresley ( met several times ), O VS Bullied ( His father ) G J Churchward, W Stanier ( met more than once), & H G Ivatt ( His cousin )
Died aged over 100, in 2009.
Also a historian of the cinema, especially the silent era.
12 car GN platforms:
All stations Peterborough to Stevenage (except little used 8 car bay at Huntingdon);
Cambridge (platforms 1,7, &8), Royston, Letchworth;
Finsbury Park.
If you look at the stopping patterns of Cambridge to Brighton, and Peterborough to Horsham trains, that’s where they stop.
Cambridge to Maidstone East will be 8 car units.
*Should’ve said Finsbury Park (except eight car Platform 8)!
For the purists out there!
Cambridge North will also have 3x 12 car platforms (when built)
@Mark and others
Whilst an increase from 2 to 4 tph on the Wimbledon loop would be welcome, I would personally be happy if they at least ran the 2 tph that are timetabled! The service on the loop is often appalling due to the many and frequent cancellations. It is quite common for two consecutive trains to be cancelled, sometimes three or more, leaving gaps of 1½+hours. Late running trains are often turned short at Wimbledon meaning that Tooting, Haydons Road and Wimbledon may get a bit better service but at the expense of the rest of the line.
It is often easier for me to get a bus than risk relying on whether a train is running or not by the time I get to a station. Even though an app may show a train is running, it will often disappear at the last minute or just remain stuck on the platform describer before eventually being cleared ten minutes after the train was due to have arrived.
Other than staff shortages, many of the cancellations are caused by reasons way beyond the loop – overhead wires down somewhere, problems on the Brighton line, etc. Terminating the loop service at Blackfriars as originally proposed and better relieving staff allocation would, in theory at least, have prevented many of these cancellations.
Rogmi,
We have been through this before but others have suggested that in the event of disruption the first service the controllers will look at cancelling is the Wimbledon loop one as it is by far the most difficult to regulate (loads of conflicting junctions, no easy place to turn short and no layover before it comes back to London). If they had two platforms at Wimbledon they could think of terminating short there but they haven’t . Another factor is they are only eight car trains not twelve.
More back on topic, I would suggest that the second service in the sights of controllers when cancellations are needed would be the one to Rainham if it ever happens. This would be especially true in the peak where it risks affecting or being affected by SouthEastern services at North Kent junction.
I know some strongly disagree with me but I really think continuation of the Wimbeldon loop is a case of “beware what you wish for”.
Somewhat ridiculous to get fixed formation new 12 car trains and then not have them serve any stations FPK-SVG. WGC at least should have had platform extensions done, as somewhere to short terminate the trains. Can’t imagine they want to SDO a 12 car at WGC each day?
Some ‘loop’ routes work well, but successful ones seem to reverse at the other end at a conventional terminal where a slug of ‘invisible’ recovery time can be inserted into layover to allow small perturbations to be corrected in the next cycle. A loop plugged into a crosstown core merely replays the outbound delays directly back to the inbound sequence with little opportunity for recovery unless some random through station on the loop is given an excessive dwell time, subjecting local through passengers to a very ‘visible’ and irritating timetabled wait. In the case of Wimbledon, complexity of the junctions and conflicts en route add to the uncertainty, and although there are various conventional turnbacks used on the MML, they’re on the other side of the core so they can’t help correct the passage of a train from the south that had accumulated problems on it’s last run through the core from the north. For these factors I think the loop should have been discounted as a candidate core route south of the Thames, at least as it is configured today. It could be reconfigured as two branches beyond Streatham as far as Thameslink is concerned however, one going to Sutton and the other to Wimbledon where each could have a more conventional turnback where some recovery margin could be incorporated.
In order to compensate the people of the the ‘loop proper’ for lost service between Sutton and Wimbledon, a vastly improved central London service could be offered instead by joining the line to Crossrail 2 to take all those core trains currently envisaged to terminate at Wimbledon. The CR2 Sutton branch would terminate in a new pair of dedicated bays at the west end of Sutton station. It would be worth investigating the opportunities for developing the Head Post Office site on Grove Road to help achieve this, or a deep box could be excavated on the site of the current ramp and junction, with access by new passageways from the west end of the Epsom line platforms and a new street entrance onto Bridge Road. Capacity released in the Epsom line platforms at Sutton might be used for additional longer distance services from the Horsham and Guildford directions.
Crayons locked away now!
I would like to remind all commentators to please use full station names, not the three letter station codes. We have many non-railway professional readers and we endeavour to have an online magazine, and comments, that are understood by all. LBM
@Mark Townend
The problems with that idea are that XR2 is many years away and the rebuilding of Sutton station would be expensive and potentially very awkward. I think a simpler solution would be to run the loop with extensions of Southern services that would otherwise terminate at Sutton (with a few minutes layover included) and divert the proposed TL12 service somewhere else (Beckenham Junction, for example).
Maybe the original topic is to do with the new boss..
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/26/southern-rail-owner-govia-chief-operator-lands-hs1-top-job-dyan-crowther
@Mark Townend
It won’t be possible to provide much layover time at Wimbledon if you are terminating services from both directions in the single platform there. Short of evicting the trams upstairs or waiting for the remodelling of Crossrail 2, I don’t see a way of squaring that circle.
An out and back loop from |London Bridge, with the Thameslink services taking over something else currently running via North Dulwich, would be easier to manage operationally – but politics may tell against it.
In any case, the operator’s favourite way of recovering from disruptions may turn out to be terminating Loop services at Blackfriars, where they can wait for their path back.
A thought just hit me on account of timbeau’s line “In any case, the operator’s favourite way of recovering from disruptions may turn out to be terminating Loop services at Blackfriars”. If nothing else is done about the loop and it proves to be a bit of a headache for efficient running then they could potentially restructure the timetable to terminate some of the loop services at Blackfriars off-peak instead of the Sevenoaks services. It’s not a perfect solution and it does nothing about peak hours but it does at least put slightly more resilience into the timetable.
@timbeau
“recovering from [the inevitable!] disruptions”
…so, at least officially, the ‘people of the loop’ are kept happy until 2018 when it all cocks up and TL are forced to do a(nother) timetable change…”we (and NR) told you so…”
Re Phil,
Already mentioned in the Last Guards thread yesterday, LR may cover it in more detail…
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/last-stand-old-guard/#comment-278094
Hmm, that solution would seem to attract all the opprobrium of (part) retreating from a promise to run loop services through the core, without adding much resilience (because most disruptions start in peak hours). So worst of both worlds.
Re Rogmi, Mark T, Timbeau, Tim, Anon E Mouse,
The proposed service pattern for the loop makes quite a lot of sense as it reduces conflicting moves at Tulse Hill compared to today (-4tph TL each way via but not stopping at Herne Hill & Crystal Palace which is the worst move and really helps) and minimises the increase in them at Streatham South Jn. despite adding 2tph each way round the loop which is quite an achievement for South London! So post 2018 there should be fewer issues overall effecting the loop.
Streatham could become a very popular station to change at.
The proposed TL12 to Beckenham Junction doesn’t help because it has the potential to make Tulse Hill more prone to delays and disruption again.
I’m changing my previous view on the first services to be cancelled/altered etc. in the event of Thameslink core issues from Wimbledon loopers to the proposed Gravesend via Greenwich services.
Re Jordan,
Lack of 12 car station calls from Finsbury park to Stevenage etc.
Thameslink will be proving the semi-fast service on the GN routes with some residual GN semi-fasts (from Kings Cross) and GN the all stations (Moorgate) so why would any of the stations need 12car (Welwyn is a sensible option if the were more cash around).
The 29x 387s heading to GN also have SDO which should help with some of the peak semi fasts if needed.
@Malcolm
I would have said more in my comment at 18:35 but I was in a bit of a rush as my dinner was ready! What I should have added was that my idea was only intended as a quick-fix solution if it comes to it. I still ultimately think the best course of action is to sever the loop somehow (as mentioned in my comment at 15:01).
@ngh
Just to clarify, I wasn’t actually saying that Thameslink services should go to Beckenham Junction, it was merely the first example that came to mind. (Also, TL to Beckenham J. makes more sense via Kent House than via Crystal Palace because of fewer conflicts.)
@timbeau, 27 September 2016 at 17:39
If the Sutton line was emerging from undergound to the west of Wimbledon station along with the rest of CR2, then neither platforms #9 or #10 would be required as a through heavy rail facilities. Hence a substantial extension of the island at the east end could provide two terminal platforms for Thameslink and two platforms at the other end for Tramlink.
How to build it all?
1. Split the loop, terminating the service from Wimbledon at a temporary turnback at West Sutton, and the Mitcham Junction trains in the Epsom Downs platforms #3, #4.
2. Now build the new bays at the west of Sutton station.
3. Once new Sutton platforms complete, restore Wimbledon TL trains to terminate at Sutton.
4. Build CR2 incorporating Wimbledon changes.
5. Transfer Sutton line to CR2, truncate TL at Wimbledon.
Mark T – look at last year’s consultation for Crossrail 2 at Wimbledon and you’ll see why what you suggest isn’t st all straightforward. The tunnel portal is to the east of Wimbeldon, and the number of tracks and grade separation necessary to also get to and from the proposed depot means that any terminal platforms from the Haydons Road direction would be a long, long way from the station.
There would then be the issue of having grade separation for the Sutton line west of the station in roughly the same place as the grade separation required to get the ‘up’ Crossrail 2 line from one side of the SWML to the other.
And finally, it would sever the connection from the Haydons Road direction to the SWML, used four times daily for freight and more occasionally for charters etc.
How about Potters Bar, Hatfield, Welwyns GC and North – don’t they comprise the semis out of Kings Cross?
I understood they’d be part of Thameslink – 1tph from each of Peterborough and Cambridge as today (or rejigged) ?
Will all Cambridge TL trains be extended to Cambridge North?
Re C,
There are also the semi-semi-fast 8 car TL services that take over from the current 4 car Cambridge stoppers (or “Cambridge local” in GTR language). 4car because some platforms are too short on the Hitchin – Cambridge section but SDO and platform lengthening will sort that, those services will stop at Potters Bar, Hatfield, Welwyns GC and North as they currently do. There will also be residual Peterborough semi-fasts from Kings Cross (presumably using the remaining 365s).
@ Tim 1839 – I don’t think anyone who uses Thameslink could ever be described as “happy”. Better to say they’ll remain as miserable in 2018 as they are now. I expect that if any hint of a proposal to scrap the Loop service into the core will results in MPs Stephen Hammond, Chuka Umunna, Siobhain McDonagh, Helen Hayes, Paul Scully, Tom Brake, Rosena Allin-Khan and possibly even Harriet Harman all mounting the barricades to “protect” the rail service for their constituents. I doubt anyone is brave enough to actually sit down and explain the facts and the consequences of the different service pattern options to these MPs so they could at least get past the irrational “must have a through train, must have a through train” logic which grips Thameslink passengers.
Personally I’d rather have higher frequency and changing than low frequency and a direct train but I’ve been used to high frequency services in Tyne and Wear and London so it’s what I’m used to. I just really struggle with the “direct train” mantra in a complex and relatively integrated transport system as we have in London.
WW: I basically agree. But your north-Londoner notions are showing somewhat. For historical reasons (that’s what they are used to), south-Londoners are much more into through trains. Of course there are plenty of exceptions, doubtless, and it may be difficult to survey scientifically, but that seems to me to be a useful general rule.
C
The Thameslink proposals for GN services are two per hour 8 car trains Cambridge to Maidstone , these will be stopping at Hatfield, Potters Bar, Welwyn Garden City, etc. and stations to Cambridge. There will also be two per hour 8 car trains, peak only, Sevenoaks to Welwyn Garden City stopping.
In addition there will be the 12 car Peterborough Horsham and Cambridge Brighton trains. These are fast Finsbury Park to Stevenage and both routes will be 2 per hour.
So no through trains from Welwyn Garden City to Peterborough.
@C: Will all Cambridge TL trains be extended to Cambridge North?
The map on p.12 of the full consultation document shows the 12 car Cambridge-Brightons starting from Cambridge North, but not the 8 car Maidstone stoppers.
ngh,
I’m changing my previous view on the first services to be cancelled/altered etc. in the event of Thameslink core issues from Wimbledon loopers to the proposed Gravesend via Greenwich services.
Yes, but why? A conclusion without reasoning gets us nowhere.
C,
ngh and others including myself think that the Thameslink fleet will be much harder worked off-peak than originally envisaged so they will already be “tight” with their stock. There has to be some maintenance done.
To me it seems appalling that they will have a new station in a very successful high tech science park and it won’t have as good a service as it could have. The Watton-at-Stone situation seems to suggest how desperate it is. I do hate this cutting down of fleet size. Having spent billions on upgrading the route it does seem to be spoiling the ship for a hap’worth of tar – albeit probably a £50 million hap’worth of tar.
@Sad Fat Dad, 27 September 2016 at 20:05
Good points about the impracticability of extension of platfroms #9 and #10 but from the documentation I read that work would not be necessary because:
1. While not in bored tunnel, the new subsurface alignments for the CR2 platform tracks are next to but clear of the existing station complex, and built under the Centre Court shopping centre.
2. Tramlink will be moved to a new street level terminus above heavy rail to the west of Wimbledon Bridge.
These factors suggest both #9 and #10 could become available in their entirety once again for Thameslink trains, whether running through or terminating.
To the west of Wimbledon station the two CR2 lines will have to remain in a subsurface trench for a few hundred metres until the up CR2 passes under the Sutton branch and all four lines of the main line, and the down CR2 also passes under the Sutton line. That inherent grade separation offers the opportunity of a ramp connection between the two routes. Connections between #9 and #10 and the main line can remain as they are to cater for freight, departmental and excursion movements.
With the Thameslink platforms remaining broadly as they are, whether the services terminate or not should have no impact on access to the CR2 depot and stabling facilities envisaged to the east of Wimbledon, between the station and the portal.
I see many commentators are suggesting modifications to the Wimbledon loop. Perhaps they are forgetting three key points:-
(1) NR, GTR, etc would love nothing better than to remove the loop from Thameslink – so comments like “they should” are going after the wrong people.
(2) Wimbledon loop users are politically savvy and created enough political pressure that the then SOS specifically said (without consulting NR first by the way!) back in 2013 was DIRECTING – (note, not suggesting, recommending, advising) he specifically said that Wimbledon Loop services MUST remain as part of the Thameslink franchise come what may. People also need to remember that NR is firmly part of the Government and has to dance to the DfTs tune (however ridiculous, sub-optimal or illogical said tune might be) and the same is true if franchised TOCs. Transport professionals, planners and commentators to this website can say what they like – the die is cast and people should stop wasting their time pretending otherwise.
(3) It would be nice to think that Wimbledon loop users will learn in time that they have made a mistake and that the inevitable terminating short will make them think again about the insistence on being part of Thameslink. However given they seem to have ignored that when clamoring to keep Thameslink services, the reality is they will just whinge to their MPs / SOS who will simply vent their anger at NR / the TOC for providing a bad service as none of the politicians will have the guts to tell voters “you bought this on yourselves”
My understanding on Cambridge North trains is that it is due to see 4 GTR trains an hour (two fast Kings Cross to Kings Lynn/Ely and the two Cambridge to Brighton) plus probably the Cambridge/Standsted to Norwich and Birmingham trains. The Cambridge Maidstone trains are currently due to terminate at Cambridge City (is this the right name for the existing station?)
Malcolm @ 23:25 27.9.16: a wild generalisation about those who live South of the Thames in the Khanate. South East Londoners have a metro type service with multiple central destinations; South West Londoners have the poorly placed Waterloo, with connections via Shanks’ pony, Bakerloo, ‘Waterloo & Wharf’ & Unmentionable lines; I could go on.
South London also has a virtual orbital road, little more than a collection of road signs; the North Circular, in contrast, sweeps majestically from Hanger Lane to the M 11.
Travel habits & expectations are only partly a function of geography. And many Londoners, North and South, arrived here in adult life, with habits & expectations mostly formed.
Most of the “linking” being done by Thameslink seems not to be in South London, where substitution appears to be the order of the day. Those who call it ‘Crossrail 0.x’ may have a point, particularly as an allusion to the passengers’ feelings.
Thanks all for the responses.
I didn’t realise SDO would still be needed in between Letchworth and Cambridge, for the slower trains. That line through Royston will certainly be busy now (going from 4 to 6tph?)
Will Cambridge North have services to Liverpool Street? Or maybe just the peak ones which extend beyond Cambridge?
Old Buccaneer: Correct that I indulged in a wild generalisation. Discussion of north/south contrasts rarely leads anywhere helpful in these pages anyway.
But I do find it interesting that so many of the comments here are about issues on the Great Northern line – of course the timetable proposals under discussion do affect that line, but they also affect many others.
To determine this problem politically there needs to be more precision in defining the audience or constituency. Who are the ‘people of the loop’ that have been made so many promises to? I suspect most people who use the loop trains for journeys to and through the core do so from stations including and north of Sutton and Wimbledon. Anecdotally most travelling from stations between Sutton and Wimbledon tend to change to faster London services at the first major junction they encounter. If that really is the case, the majority of customers on the trains then could be adequately served by a two branch configuration terminating at Wimbledon and Sutton, with the potential benefits to core reliability that conventional termini with layovers could bring compared to the loop configuration. The Thameslink MML inners need to terminate somewhere in the south clearly and although there are a number of flat conflicts on the routes, all candidate inner suburban routes in the south have at least some flat conflict, so Sutton and Wimbledon are not exceptionally poor in this respect, if re-imagined as two conventional branch termini. It is the loop form that is the current route’s most significant flaw.
If the loop was discontinued and truncated as suggested, and a new terminus built at Sutton, the stations between Sutton and Wimbledon would need a replacement train service for their local journeys but, more importantly politically, they would also need to retain a central London service at least as good if not better than that they receive today via Thameslink. After Crossrail 2 these stations might instead get a Waterloo service using some of the slow capacity released by CR2 via Clapham Junction. That would be a reasonable offer, maybe politically acceptable in being faster to central London than the tortuous route to Blackfriars and beyond via Herne Hill, but multiple central London stations and connections to northern termini would be lost.
A much more palatable , indeed highly desirable offer would be a 6TPH+ Crossrail 2 service with direct trains to Clapham Junction, Chelsea, Victoria, the West End, the northern intercity and HS termini and north London. This would be “Sutton’s tube”, and could transform the attractiveness of the string of stations between there and Wimbledon. A walk or bus to one of these for central London could become a significantly more compelling prospect than going to Morden to catch the Northern Line.
A project to upgrade this railway and provide a new independent terminus in Sutton would be popular I am sure, and might be a better investment of transport budget than the local Tramlink scheme. More attractive service on the line could help to relieve peak road traffic on nearby main roads to Morden and Wimbledon which might allow existing bus services to cope.
The Wimbledon and Sutton Railway is a modern railway built for electric operations in the 1930s. Today it is a rather quiet backwater with infrequent service and a long journey time to central London. Crossrail 2 offers a unique opportunity to transform it to the higher density near-Metro type operation it always had the potential to be. In current plans there are many Crossrail 2 trains envisaged to terminate at Wimbledon. These are just itching to go somewhere useful, just like the CR1 Paddington terminators from the east. Running them to Sutton could avoid the need for (or reduce the size of) a dedicated reversing facility at Wimbledon and avoid any tipping out timing issues in the very busy CR2 platfroms there (although I accept that can also be managed by a CR1 Paddington type arrangement).
Go Sutton tube!
Wouldn’t you actually want the two branches to overlap? Then there is no break to be covered by bus…
Of course the people in the bit where it overlaps would get a super service but then you can’t have everything…
@Mark Townend
While I have to admit that your idea is interesting and has some logic to it, the problem remains that XR2 is still a long way away. (Who knows how long it will be before it gets built?)
You mentioned that the routes most significant flaw is (as we all know) the loop format. Perhaps the simplest and most politically palatable solution is to provide reversal facilities at Sutton so that all TL trains that arrive there can terminate and head back the way they came. The key advantage to this is that you remove the loop without anyone losing their through service. The only problem is where exactly to provide these reversal facilities?
Mark T
Don’t forget that the Thamelink “there must be a through service” lobby” will also be looking at Carshalton, Hackbridge and to a lesser extent Mitcham Junction. I was at the Tom Brake Southern meeting in the summer and tried pushing at the “you MPs and Sutton Council have made the service worse” angle. Tom got my point, but it never got a serious airing because of the furious noise about Southern in general (which takes us to another topic and one I will not go down).
@Anon E Mouse
“provide reversal facilities at Sutton so that all TL trains that arrive there can terminate and head back the way they came. The key advantage to this is that you remove the loop without anyone losing their through service.”
But the half way round the loop point is not Sutton but St Helier, so everyone between there and West Sutton would have a longer journey or need to change at Sutton.
@SH(LR)
“Wouldn’t you actually want the two branches to overlap? Then there is no break to be covered by bus…”
As I understood it, the break (between Sutton and Wimbledon) would be served by Mark’s proposal to extend terminating XR2 trains beyond Wimbledon to Sutton
@Anon of Croydon
Carshalton etc would, on this proposal, still have their service through the core as the Sutton branch of the former loop.
@Old Bucaneer
“wild generalisation about those who live South of the Thames in the Khanate. South East Londoners have a metro type service with multiple central destinations; South West Londoners have the poorly placed Waterloo, with connections via Shanks’ pony, Bakerloo, ‘Waterloo & Wharf’ & Unmentionable lines; I could go on. ”
Moreover, the Southern NR lines are much better interconnected than the northern ones, witness the numbers changing at Clapham Junction, Waterloo East and London Bridge. For example, although Waterloo is not particularly well-placed, it is relatively easy to travel from SWT stations to Victoria, London Bridge or Charing Cross (or even City Thameslink!) without ever going near a Tube train.
Re C,
SDO only till the platforms are sorted won’t be cheap/ easy which is why they haven’t be done up till now…
@ Phil – your “suggestion” that we all, effectively, shut up because a politician said something at a point in time is all too redolent of other attitudes that are all too prevalent at the moment. It’s fine that you point out the past but so what? If we adopted that attitude we’d make no progress or change anything because every idea would be “off limits”. It’s as much a fact that the Thameslink loop service is useless because of the “we must have a through service” brigade (whoever they are) as GTR being a pretty below par train operator and NR’s infrastructure regularly falling over somewhere. Last time I looked we were allowed to discuss options and ideas (within bounds) and that must surely include options for the Wimbledon loop as much as anywhere else.
@ Malcolm – based on what I’ve seen elsewhere there is a fair degree of concern about what Thameslink means for the GN route. My impression is the GN service pattern is pretty long established so people have their preferences and I’m not shocked to see lots of questions and comment given the pretty fundamental changes being proposed. I have seen virulent (not an understatement) remarks about the class 700s and how much of a step down in quality they will represent on the GN so I suspect GTR will not be getting much positive comment!
@ Mark T – I quite like the CR2 to Sutton idea and breaking the loop service. Anything which allows an improvement has to be better than a parlously operated 30 minute headway service. However it is worth harking back to the dismissal by the CR2 team / sponsors of multiple service options onto bits of Thameslink or South Central. I can’t see a change away from concentrating on South Western being contemplated given a “final” service / route structure is due to be announced in October this year.
The other thing is whether there will be enough capacity for the Sutton – Waterloo alternative. Again that looks decent in terms of a x10 min frequency. I also wonder what approach DfT will take to SWT devolution and how a “CR2 TOC” fits in. Will the DfT really cut the SWT franchise in half with all London locals going to a TfL contracted TOC and will TfL then split its operation into Waterloo and CR2 bits? I see the draft South Western franchise contract doesn’t give very much away other than allowing for an accounting separation of Greater London services and for the SoS to designate whatever he might want to designate – twas ever thus!
There will also be peak extra semi fast GNs from Kings Cross to Peterborough though I’m not sure on the calling pattern.
Also worth noting that GN will have an extra 10x 4 car 387s compared to the originally planned 377/5 quota cascaded and this should help non TL capacity including the Cambridge North extensions.
GTR also apparently bid on the assumption of using some 4 car 377/5s during the middle of the night for TL services. Everyone’s original assumptions were propably around cost as the reason but it now looks like GTR understood how stretched the 700 stock would be hence using other stock to allow larger maintenence and cleaning “windows”.
GTR are apparently having some robust discussions with Siemens as the labour required to clean the 700s in a given time span is significantly higher than specified…
Re Malcolm,
GN is simple enough for enough people to have got a handle on all the GN proposals, I suspect this isn’t the case south of the river yet due to the higher complexity…
@timbeau
“But the half way round the loop point is not Sutton but St Helier, so everyone between there and West Sutton would have a longer journey or need to change at Sutton.”
I suppose that’s a good point, however, Sutton is by far and away the most logical place to split the loop if it is to be split at all.
May I remind everyone discussing the Wimbledon loop that it was not the politicians per se who kicked up the fuss. The DfT themselves gave every opportunity for everyone to do so, e.g. in their May 2012 Consultation on the combined Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise:
“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?”
It follows that most folk thought it eminently sensible to run 4tph off the Wimbledon loop through the core, plus 4tph off the Catford loop through, thereby effectively retaining the status quo but with the desired additional 2tph on the Catford loop.
So far as I am aware, there was never any significant call for the other services (e.g. Rochester, Beckenham Junction and Kent House), most of which terminated at Blackfriars anyway, to run through at the time. There are three, well spaced-apart locations between Loughborough Junction and before Blackfriars where crossing moves can be and are made between Wimbledon loop (via Herne Hill) and Catford loop (via Denmark Hill) services.
So where’s the problem everyone is moaning about?
@Graham Feakins
“So where’s the problem everyone is moaning about?”
The loop itself, of course. I don’t think anyone’s said anything about the Loughborough J. to Blackfriars section (on this comment thread at least).
@ Graham F – I’d have thought a useless 2 tph each way round the loop was enough of an issue? Nothing you quoted points out the apparent choice of having a better frequency round the loop – to “Metro” standard – and increased reliability by terminating at Blackfriars. Some of the trains mentioned in 2012 no longer feature in the new proposals and one, Maidstone, is shuffled through London Bridge instead. I’m sorry for being infected with “North London-itis” (tm Malcolm) but I think a 2 tph service is shockingly bad within Greater London and surely the good folk of Sutton and Merton boroughs deserve something rather better [1]? And actually the good folk of everywhere else in London who might to travel to that bit of South London deserve better too. The DfT might be content to specify such shockingly poor services but they’re not really to the standard that a world class city with a growing population and declining use of private transport needs.
[1] and exactly the same arguments apply with respect to Overground services to Enfield Town / Cheshunt and the stoppers on the West Anglia main line. At least we are getting a partial improvement on the latter and I await the day [2] when TfL get round to announcing they’ve secured some extra off peak paths to bolster the Overground service.
[2] although I’m not holding my breath as I think DfT have “done a dirty” on TfL with the higher frequencies on the Anglia franchise and the implications on train paths.
Alongside all this talk of “splitting the loop”, I would just like to put forward certain abstract advantages of a loop system rather than an out-and-back. Fully acknowledging that it any given case (such as the Wimbledon one under discussion) these advantages may be overcome by loop-snags, such as the difficulty of regulation.
One “line” is normally expected to serve a sector-shaped piece of city, wider at the outskirts than near the centre. A loop is the obvious way to do this, helping to ensure that no point is more than walking distance away from a station. It can make certain “orbital” journeys possible. A loop also avoids the waste of time changing ends or turning out, thus facilitating more efficient use of trains and crews. It is also more resilient against total blockage, since in theory every point on it can be served from either direction.
Two trains per hour is shockingly few, but the trade off has traditionally been that the service is faster. My 2tph Purley Oaks to Victoria semi fast in the rush hours is scheduled for 25 mins from zone six. Try that on the Central Line or the Piccadily line. I know my train times, and leave work or home at the right time to get those trains.
Off course if I am at West Sutton the speed issue doesn’t really happen, not least because the service is so round the houses. But it is worth remembering what the traditional bargain was.
And as far as Hackbridge and Carshalton were concerned my point was not to forget them in favour of the St Helier line when trying to understand why MPs and Councils wanted certain things done.
I have had a reply from GTR to the questions I asked about some aspects of the Thameslink consultation proposals. Qs and As pasted below. Note I have *not* gone back to GTR on these and I recognise the answers raise more questions so don’t shoot the messenger! Answers in italics.
1. Is it correct that the GN5 off peak service will not offer a 4 tph service at Hadley Wood, Brookmans Park and Welham Green? Your main document says 4 tph, the station comparator shows 2 tph? If you planning a reduced off peak service then I think it is incumbent on you to say so clearly in the text of the consultation document and also to explain why.
Thank you – the document has been corrected for Brookmans Park and Welham Green but Hadley Wood will be corrected on the next version along with an explanation of passenger demand.
This rather suggests Hadley Wood may only get 2 tph. There are no updates on the documents accessible via Thameslink’s website.
2. Is the peak hour Beckenham Junction to Bedford line via Sydenham Hill service being abolished completely or will it be part replaced by a South Eastern service into a Central London terminal?
This will be replaced by a Southeastern service going as far as Bedford. This route will no longer be part of the Thameslink network. This will be clarified in the next version of the document.
Completely bamboozled by this. I assume they probably meant to say Blackfriars as it implies 26tph through the core in the peak.
3. Are you able to say what the full combined train frequency will be on the Greenwich line? It is not at all clear whether the proposed Thameslink service to Rainham (Kent) is additional or if it replaces existing South Eastern services and if so what services it does replace.
The proposed Thameslink service will replace 2 of the 6 current Southeastern services to provide greater connectivity.
While I understand this is a very large scale set of changes it is very difficult in places to genuinely understand what the end state of service will be across all relevant operators. Therefore it is near impossible to give a considered view of your plans when the full impact is not clear.
Where possible we have tried to include details of other operators however as you know the future Southeastern franchise is currently in the process of being tendered by the DfT. We appreciate that without a full timetable it is not easy to check individual travel plans but these will come in phase 2 (late spring/early summer 2017) for comments.
I find it interesting that GTR appear to know my knowledge about the South Eastern franchising process! “as you know”. 🙂 Psychic powers or what? 😛
WW: I’d join up with your manifesto for “4 trains per hour minimum” at every [1] station in greater London, and I don’t think it’s an unreasonable goal, nor is it particularly North-Londonish (as you point out).
[1] (I like the footnote concept.) The exceptions would be stations like Sudbury and Harrow Road, which are only used for exotic and specialised purposes, and do not really count.
@ Anon of Croydon – thanks for the comment and I understand “the bargain” and it’s fine if you have structured your life round that level of service and are content with it. I just wonder if it works for other people who may have radically different expectations to you but may well be forced to live on the outer edges of London with pretty hopeless train services. I guess if the service is super reliable then you cope but I’d go “mad” (understatement) if I only had a x30 frequency and the actual service quality was diabolical (as it has been for many for months on Southern and Thameslink). I’d also question if we are not hitting the point at which “the bargain” is becoming untenable because of burgeoning demand on the network and having to reconsider service structures in order to properly cater for demand.
I’m more than happy to trade a slightly longer journey time for a vastly higher frequency – in fact we have the reverse on the Vic Line. Vastly higher frequency and a faster service than before. I know that’s not presently deliverable south of the Thames on NR services but I’d argue very strongly that there is a case for those sorts of services. We just don’t have anyone in power who agrees. Please note no crayons have emerged during the typing of this reply so no one needs to start a redesign process!
The other small crumb of comfort available to people living in Enfield Town (and possibly Purley Oaks too, though I don’t know that one so well) was (once upon a time) the off-peak tram (later trolleybus later bus) to a railhead such as Wood Green from which frequent trains to town were (and still are) available. I think that would have been the traditional approach for trips to the Science Museum or whatever. (Typically not much use for commuting, but then you must know your trains instead).
I suspect this fall-back method may have gone completely out of use, due to road congestion. (Putting another spin on the words “later” in the above).
Few points:
– Re. South London ‘addiction’ to through services. I suspect part of the reason for this is an understandable aversion to losing a very prized seat when forced to change onto an already packed, standing-room-only service during one’s journey. North Londoners might laugh out loud at this thought, but for various reasons people south of the river have got used to direct (albeit infrequent) services to various London termini, and may need some convincing as to the benefits of a different service pattern.
– Re. Wimble-loop. I think this issue may not be as settled as others seem to think. As we’ve seen with the Neverending Heathrow Saga, politicians can be persuaded to change their minds and potentially break previously made promises if the case for doing so becomes too great to ignore. If the service on there continues to be as poor as people say, then we may reach that point soon once the whole GTR mess is sorted out first.
– Re. Splitting the loop and transferring Wimbledon to Sutton to CR2. This was something I suggested a year ago on another thread…..and was promptly shot down in flames at the time! I think there is a lot of merit to this idea, but the associated expense and complications of building new terminal platforms at Sutton might make it difficult to implement. Plus, as others have mentioned, it’s going to be years/decades before we see it built (if at all).
Incidentally, the original promoters of the Wimbledon and Sutton Railway intended it to be connected to the District line at Wimbledon (and possibly to the Northern line at Morden), but these plans were blocked by the Southern Railway. Perhaps it’s time (tongue firmly planted in cheek) to revisit these ideas? ?
– @Verulamius…..Cambridge station has always been known as just plain-old Cambridge (or, if you want to be pedantic, Cambridge GER, during the period when the GNR had its own station building and platforms next-door). AFAIK, there are no plans to change its name when Cambridge North opens. And even if there were, given the station’s less-than-central location, renaming it ‘Cambridge City’ would be a tad misleading ? (a better name for it IMHO would be ‘Cambridge Hills Road’).
@anon e mouse
Sutton is probably the very worst place to terminate loop services as trains can only lay over there on the through line to Epsom.
@WW…..’This will be replaced by a Southeastern service going as far as Bedford.”
??? This one answer alone makes me suspect that the person who replied to you doesn’t have a clue what they’re talking about, and so I would take its contents with a huge pinch of sodium chloride ?……
Re Walthamstow Writer:-
Its not a case people should ‘shut up about it’ (as regards the Wimbledon loop) – but any comments should reflect realities. Thus its fine to flag up ideas, etc provided they also recognize that NR have been overruled for the time being by the DfT and any suggestions commentators may make on here are extremely unlikely to happen – however good they may be.
Also its worth noting that if the service come 2018 is still unreliable then NR might have more clout to say to ministers “You really need to leave service planning to the professionals” – even if its politically awkward. At present the ‘Thameslink project’ is not finished and as such ministers, etc can tell NR it will all be fine once the project is completed.
As to how strong emotions run with regular commuters from the Loop over its retention in the post 2018 Thameslink service pattern, doing a Google search brings up plenty of evidence of effective campaigning by the residents of the area. Any attempt to go back on the promise the SOS made would soon see the campaigning resume.
Anonymously: ‘Cambridge as near to the city as you’re going to get’? No, it wouldn’t fit on the nameboards.
Mind you, the days when your ultimate destination had 9 chances out of 10 of being within the historic centre (Parkers Piece to Magdalene Bridge) have long gone. Chances are you’ve got a long taxi/bus/cycle ride to wherever you’re going, the whole place has puffed up like a scopperdiddle, it’s no longer a town, more like a small nation.
@timbeau
Which is exactly why I mentioned “providing reversal facilities at Sutton” earlier. Even something as simple as a reversal siding might be enough (if a little sub-optimal). Also, if necessary, services via Mitcham could be extended to Epsom to make use of the sidings there.
I kept my earlier comment as short as I could but in response to subsequent comments, note that the Catford loop train service is also still generally 2tph and it’s proposed to increase that to 4tph.
For the Wimbledon loop itself (outwards from Streatham) it is proposed to increase that in each direction by 2tph (at least during the peaks), thus providing 4tph on each ‘side’ of the loop itself by running extra trains starting at Blackfriars, then Streatham – Wimbledon – Sutton – Streatham – London Bridge and back. ngh has already alluded to this above, so I thought that it had been taken on board (but clearly not).
Tulse Hill and Streatham therefore stand to become more important interchange stations should one want the ‘other side’ of the loop or a better connection towards London Bridge/Blackfriars if not originally on a direct service. See e.g. a London Connections map if unclear.
@ Anonymously – well yes I’m not placing *too much* weight on the response. Obviously it’s not of massive importance to me but given we were getting nowhere on here debating the GN local services for example I thought it was easier to ask those who are supposed to know. Ditto on the other points where there was uncertainty.
@ Graham F – perfectly fair comment about the Catford loop improvement but it’s not 4 tph *daily* from early to late is it? Why skimp on a Sunday when we know plenty of people want to travel? If you run it people will turn up to use it.
As for that Southern extra then OK but why peaks only? If you can run it at the most constrained times of the day then why not offer it at least M-S off peak to start with? I can’t imagine people between London Bridge and Tulse Hill being sniffy about 6 tph. It’s the lack of ambition that gets me. This would be a “no brainer” for TfL although they’re not going to be speccing anything on Thameslink. There is plenty of evidence that the Overground service concept works – 4 tph, reliable timetable, new trains, staffed and refurbed stns. Ditto on the Underground where Sundays are almost as busy as weekdays now and the service levels are somewhat different for obvious reasons (discussed here before). And yet I read comments on rail forums where TfL are viewed as the “Great Satan” destroying the National Rail network as we know it. Apart from their bizarre non use of the “flying arrows” NR symbol I’ve yet to understand what is so evil in running frequent, attractive and affordable rail services and continuing to invest to run more service volume. Strikes me as ideal but then I’ve got that funny Northern “infection”. 😉
Timbeau, 28 September 2016 at 22:40
“Sutton is probably the very worst place to terminate loop services as trains can only lay over there on the through line to Epsom”.
Terminating Thameslink trains from Wimbledon at Sutton would require some kind of additional dedicated facility for them I agree, hence my suggestion for development of the head post office site, or a deeper station box a little further west with an additional street entrance onto Bridge Road and connecting passageways to the west ends of the Epsom platforms. The idea would be that the new terminal platforms would be built early and used by ‘split loop’ Thameslink services initially, then be transferred to CR2 when that project is ready to take over the Sutton branch.
The other half of the ‘split loop’ service via Mitcham Junction could operate in and out of the Epsom Downs platforms at Sutton, and a Tunbridge Wells style turnback siding might be added out on the branch to accomodate a layover while a branch train passes through.
@WW
“And yet I read comments on rail forums where TfL are viewed as the “Great Satan” destroying the National Rail network as we know it.”
Really? Why? They seem to make a rather better job of it than the unholy DfT/franchisee/NR alliance!
“Apart from their bizarre non-use of the ‘flying-arrows’ NR symbol….”
Not really all that bizarre if you consider that TfL see their LOROL services as their ‘own’, and not part of the NR franchising system. Why would you use the NR symbol if no NR services actually serve that station*? It is as illogical as slapping a Tube roundel all over a station not served by the Tube!
*I’m purposely avoiding the weird anomaly that existed until 1994 on the Wimbledon branch, where East Putney, Southfields and Wimbledon Park stations were owned and operated by BR, but not served by any BR trains.
@Anonymously
The Overground remains part of the National Rail network – trains comply with NR standards, infrastructure maintained by Network Rail (except the ELL which, for historical reasons, is owned by TfL), trains on the NR register and numbered accordongly, timetables appear in the GBTT and national rail website, stations obliged to sell full range of NR tickets. This last reason alone is sufficient requirement for them to display the “electric swastika”, to distinguish from LUL stations which do not have that facility.
@Malcolm
‘Puffed up like a scopperdiddle’? Is that a Roald Dahl word, or an invention of your own? ? Yes, Cambridge has grown a lot, but if you think it’s a small nation, what do you call London? A continent? ?
@timbeau…..So what? Railway affeccionados might care, but I’ve yet to read or hear about a single member of the general public who has been confused or inconvenienced by this. I’m still impressed that the double-arrow has managed to survive at all, given that the organisation it represents (BR) no longer exists. Even NSE in their later years kept their use of the double-arrow to the absolute minimum (e.g. none of their newer rolling stock such as the Networkers had it on their exterior).
Plus what about those NR stations (mainly rural ones) that don’t have a ticket office? Should the double-arrow symbol be removed from them, since they (depending on their ticket machine) don’t have a full range of tickets available from them?
@WW – Just for clarification, Southern used to run 6tph daily on the London Bridge – Peckham Rye – Tulse Hill stretch but the ‘extra’ 2tph peeled off at Tulse Hill to go via Crystal Palace and Norwood Junction to terminate at various periods at Sanderstead, East Croydon itself and Smitham – a service still missed. During the peaks there were 8tph, with the extras running to Sutton and sometimes as far as Guildford. The track from Peckham Rye via Streatham wasn’t called “The Portsmouth Line” by NR and its predecessors for nothing. Much of it can be run quite fast (60mph) but the intermediate stations of course hinder much of that.
Those via East Croydon services were taken off because of, guess what, congestion in the East Croydon area (‘official’ reason given to the public) but mainly because the paths were required for the then new Milton Keynes service (not publicly explained as such).
So far as I can see from the latest Consultation (TL8 + TL9) there will be 4tph on the Catford loop “Daily” (not just e.g. peak hours) – that to me includes Sundays.
cf: “Thameslink Metro Routes TL8 and TL9 combine to provide four trains per hour (daily) between Central London, Catford, Bromley South and Bickley. During peak times these services may be supplemented by Southeastern Metro services providing six trains per hour. During Monday to Saturday daytimes only Route TL9 will operate north of London Blackfriars to and from Kentish Town.”
P.S. “New all day train services are proposed to be introduced between Kentish Town – Central London (via Elephant & Castle) – Catford – Bromley South – Orpington. During Monday to Friday peak periods these trains will be extended to and from Luton. This is in addition to the current train services between London Blackfriars – Elephant & Castle – Catford – Bromley South – Swanley – Sevenoaks. During peak periods these trains will be extended to and from Welwyn Garden City. The two routes combine between London Blackfriars and Bickley to provide 4tph on the Catford Loop route at all times of the day, doubling the frequency of Thameslink train services.”
@WW – BTW my quote just above was from page 14 of the Consultation.
You ask: “As for that Southern extra then OK but why peaks only? If you can run it at the most constrained times of the day then why not offer it at least M-S off peak to start with? I can’t imagine people between London Bridge and Tulse Hill being sniffy about 6 tph. It’s the lack of ambition that gets me.”
Well, the answer is that, on the route London Bridge via Tulse Hill, some off-peak services make way for peak services going somewhere else. So, for example, those via Crystal Palace to East Croydon services didn’t run in the peaks because their paths were taken as far as Tulse Hill to boost the services via Streatham to Sutton and beyond! So, even today, one might have in fact say 4tph running to Sutton during the peak and at least one West Croydon via Tulse Hill service omitted. Indeed, in the olden days, the service to East Croydon didn’t even commence until near the end of the morning peak! It ceased again during the evening peak for the same reason and continued afterwards.
Also, how does one explain the London Bridge via Tulse Hill & Selhurst service to West Croydon, which runs Mons-Sats, but runs to East Croydon (and oft to Caterham) on Sundays?
However, when I worked in Croydon, there was an excellent Thameslink train to Bedford that left East Croydon at 18.16 and ran non-stop to Tulse Hill and Herne Hill and then non-stop to Blackfriars, thereby enabling many local connections to be made at the two Hill stations. It was very popular, too, as folk going home learned about it. Not only that but passengers to/from Gatwick found the rail link(when running) directly into that part of London very useful, rather than having to go into a London terminus and out again, simply by a change at East Croydon.
I hope that this provides some useful background.
@Anonymously:
The District Line proposal for the Wimbledon and Sutton included express running north of Wimbledon on additional tracks. (No, I’m not suggesting it should be done now).
One advantage of a loop from a private railway company point of view is that they mark out a lot of “territory” to be served by a single company, and as you say the Southern Railway was very defensive of its territory.
Oh, and how about calling the original Cambridge station “Cambridge Parkway”? 🙂
@ngh: GTR also apparently bid on the assumption of using some 4 car 377/5s during the middle of the night for TL services
That’s interesting – so the lineside signalling will still get some use after the core goes ATO in the daytime.
@Phil: Transport ministers come and go almost as frequently as the Wimbledon loop. No one minister’s promise binds any future minister. The views of the Department might not be the same as those of their minister and the DfT might give the same advice to successive ministers and get a different decision from each.
Cambridge Hauptbahnhof?
English needs a word like that, often mistranslated as Central Station – which Cambridge ain’t! Main or Head don’t sound right, but Chief Station (cf post offices) could work.
WW
I am annoyed about the poor service Southern are providing. My comments were prefaced with “traditionally”: I do wonder if the bargain is breaking down now.
Getting a seat has rarely been easy at East Croydon, though often possible further south, either immediately on getting on or at East Croydon when some people alight. Having to change and being virtually guaranteed not to get a seat at East Croydon will not go down well.
WW
I have seen virulent (not an understatement) remarks about the class 700s and how much of a step down in quality they will represent …
Well-justified IMHO. [ Seat-spacing & seat lack-of-comfort particularly ]
The internal arrangements might be suitable for an inner-suburban journey, but contemplating Cambridge – Brighton in one gives me the shudders.
GF
May I remind everyone discussing the Wimbledon loop that it was not the politicians per se who kicked up the fuss.
Which |I don’t understand _ AIUI, the locals were offered a better service, with greater reliability at the price of “No throughs” & rejected it.
To which (IMHO) the correct response to future complainants should be: “You have got what you wished for” – [ And – “now, do you want to change your mind?” ]
WW
21.54 @ 28/9
Those answers are disturbing vague, aren’t they?
Deliberate, or simple ignorance? Worrying that the people supposedly managing this profound change do not appear to “know their brief”.
Anonymously & Malcolm
Much as it goes against the grain to admit it, the old GWR had the right idea for station-naming, for location vs main station.
They called their large station: “General” as in Reading & Cardiff ( & I think other places – Bodmin (?))
@Anonymously/WW – the double arrow was “stolen” from BR by the Franchising Director in 1995 to be used as “a symbol that franchised services called there”, not to do with the range of tickets sold – a regulatory matter. [The transfer left BR bereft of a corporate trade mark, for which I revived the lion and wheel rising from a wreathed crown; this became an immediate hit with Board members and looked very good embossed on decent quality notepaper, as it did on the range of the Board’s giftware. …hhmmm]. Salmon’s attempt to swipe the Pullman Company coat of arms as “a symbol of a quality train service” met with much sterner opposition,however, in the form of Garter King of Arms].
Anon of Croydon & others
On the subject of service frequency & reliability.
Again, a valuable resource here is any version of G T Moody’s book “Southern Electric”, in various editions, mine being from 1967, which has service-frequency ( peak & off-peak) diagrams as appendices.
Very informative & also a useful comparator against the self-puffed-up posturings of all & any of “Southern”, Thameslink & the DfT.
The figures I find “amusing” are those for Loughboro’ Jn – Holbon Viaduct, remembering that the trains had to reverse at HV & that this was done on, admitedly colour-light signalling, but with relatively small areas covered & without TPWS or ATO or anything …..
22 trains in the AM peak & 20 in the PM & yet it is “claimed” that ATO is essential in the core to get to 24 tph. Similar numbers are visible for Cannon St ( 26/31) & Charing Cross (30/30).
@Mike: In Great Western-land the term “General” was used (eg. Reading General) but it has died out everywhere except Wrexham (an example of a town where the Central station is not the main one). In a parallel universe we might have Croydon General and Croydon Central instead of East Croydon and West Croydon.
Oops, hit “send” too soon.
May I suggest that, certainly sarf of river, that people should be complaining, loud & long to the abovementioned bodies as to why they are getting, after all this time of disruption & money spent, they are getting no better a service than that of 55-60 years ago ?@
@ Ian j
Cambridge Parkway for the existing station?
Have you ever tried to park there?
“Parkway” is the modern equivalent of “Road” or “Junction” – usually meaning “not actually anywhere near the settlement in the name, but if you want to get any closer this is where you need to get off the train”
@timbeau 🙂 Of course, if you spent half the year living in Trumpington Street, then the railway station *did* seem to be off the end of the universe (there was a theory that Audley End was nearer), but that was then…
@timbeau, GH
Given the speed of traffic on Hills Road and Station Road, comparing them to a car park is possibly optimistic. I recall my better-off fellows once taking a taxi to the station from Trumpington St, and walking myself (park a bicycle at the station? ha!) and beating them by enough time to have queued up and purchased a ticket before their taxi got to the station.
Greg,
22 trains in the AM peak & 20 in the PM & yet it is “claimed” that ATO is essential in the core to get to 24 tph. Similar numbers are visible for Cannon St ( 26/31) & Charing Cross (30/30).
You do love going over old ground. Just the fact that signalling safety standards are higher and fewer derogations permitted would be enough to explain this away. Dwell time is the other main factor. Gradients on Thameslink are not insignificant (double meaning intended).
May I suggest that, certainly sarf of river, that people should be complaining, loud & long to the abovementioned bodies as to why they are getting, after all this time of disruption & money spent, they are getting no better a service than that of 55-60 years ago
I would refute that. In the peak it is clearly a challenge to run just as good a service and the peak is much longer nowadays. Off-peak, things are generally much better.
Perhaps an overall read of G T Moody’s book without being especially selective would make you see things in a different light.
Oh, and this is also an issue you keep mentioning.
To add to PoP’s points, I would mention in-flight opening of slam doors and associated passenger descent before the train had stopped. And, while notstalgia is not what it was, we are not going back to those days.
@Moosealot – Cabs were for when you had a steamer trunk with you… There was also (at least in my day), the “secret express bus” to town – an unadvertised half-cab with “City centre 6d” on a slip board – non-stop to Regent St and a short stroll through Fitzwilliam (now gated -off, alas), much nicer than the Hills Road ; difficult to use in the reverse direction, as there was no timetable.
@Ian J
At one time there actually was a Croydon Central station as well as East and West Croydon…
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/central_croydon/
Re Greg, PoP and Malcolm,
Many trains are now also longer so take longer to clear junctions etc.
And we aren’t going back to detonator placers half way down the Up direction through platforms at London Bridge as part of the normal signalling usage!
Wrexham General: if it followed the example of Edenbridge, the slightly more out-of-town station would just be called “Wrexham” (or Wrecsam). This would however, like Edenbridge, be daft (though it might bring us back to near-London).
PoP & Malcolm
Like you, I’m well-aware of the factors that mitigate against reproducing those “classic” figures under today’s safety regime & with longer trains, too.
But, the point I didn’t think I needed to make was that these figures are readily avaialble to “ordinary” members of the public, journos & politicians.
It only needs one of the above to raise a very public hue-&-cry over this, for some very bad publicity to emerge, especially given our own comments on timetable padding & slowing down of services.
I also wonder, even with TPWS, if terminal-approaches could be faster, if only by inserting “staggered” speed-control grids, so that one could enter a 12-coach platform at, say 20 or 25 mph, but you must be down to 5 mph 2 coach-lengths from the buffers ( ?? )
Will agree with PoP that off-peak it is mostly improved ….
@Graham H…..”A symbol that franchised services go there.” So are LOROL services ‘franchised’ then, in that sense? If not (and from what I’ve read on here in the past I see no reason to believe that they are), then I see no reason why TfL should be forced to use the double-arrow at stations served only by the Overground.
Incidentally, do you happen to know why NSE minimised their use of the double-arrow in the early nineties, preferring to use the triple-colour rhombus on their rolling stock, running-in name boards, publications etc?
Lastly, your comment on steamer trunks makes me wonder if we ought to get together one of these days to compare and contrast our uni experiences ?. By the time I arrived there (2000), this secret bus you mentioned had long gone. And if you thought the station was off the end of the universe, I can’t begin to imagine what you thought of Girton….
@Mooselot…..In my experience, taxis often avoid the Hills Road log jam by using Tenison Road. Plus you may not have seen the brand-new multi-storey cycle park at the station!
@Malcolm….Ah, those were the days ?. I wonder how many passenger injuries or fatalities there were per year in the London area due to slam door ‘incidents’? Even as a child, they appeared to me to be potentially very dangerous if used incorrectly.
Greg: Ah, that shifts the focus slightly. We seem to be agreed that the historical figures cannot readily be reproduced, but you are concerned that others might notice, and “raise a hue and cry”. Well, I suppose they might, but most of the general public, I find, are rather unconcerned about historical issues. There is plenty of public dissatisfaction with train services, but most of it is (rightly in my view) concentrated on contrasting what IS achieved now with what COULD BE (in their opinion) achieved now. What WAS achieved then is seen as a bit of an irrelevance (“before my time, mate”).
The main current usefulness of the double-arrow symbol, I reckon, is on road signs. Outside London, it helps drivers and pedestrians to find the railway station, just like an aeroplane symbol helps them to find the airport.
Within London, the “round thing” is now so overused (e.g. on taxis of all things!) that a symbol which means “here be trains” would be quite useful. Nobody cares who runs the trains, let alone whether it is a franchise or some other arrangement. But “corporate pride” and “branding” will probably get in the way of anything sensible.
I do think Cambridge station should be renamed. With two stations, anyone hearing a train was calling at Cambridge would assume that meant both stations not just the station which isn’t Cambridge North. Cambridge General was half-suggested by someone and it isn’t a bad choice.
As to location, Cambridge is certainly one of the destinations where Plus Bus tickets make a lot of sense although if I do want Trumpington St which got a few mentions (and I often do) then I quite like the somewhat out of the way walking route via Coe Fen.
“Like you, I’m well-aware of the factors that mitigate against reproducing those “classic” figures under today’s safety regime & with longer trains, too.
But, the point I didn’t think I needed to make was that these figures are readily avaialble to “ordinary” members of the public, journos & politicians.
It only needs one of the above to raise a very public hue-&-cry over this, for some very bad publicity to emerge, especially given our own comments on timetable padding & slowing down of services.”
The better acceleration / deceleration performance ought to offset signalling changes so I do think it is relevant to compare present journey times with better historic times. A major reason for the degradation has come up here with the attitude that a turn up and go service should be preferred to a faster, less frequent service. All those extra stops required for turn up and go have a terrible impact on overall system performance.
Anonomously 12.31: InterCity also dispensed with the double arrow (from rolling stock at least) in the swallow era. I always assumed it was the sectors’ management wishing to assert their (quasi-)independence and distance themselves from the days of “bad old BR” even though they were still part of it. No doubt there are other explanations abroad.
Re: Kate “A major reason for the degradation has come up here with the attitude that a turn up and go service should be preferred to a faster, less frequent service.” Is that attitude wrong? If not, then the “degradation” is actually the reality of providing a rail service in today’s world.
Similarly, recent developments/societal expectations have introduced a host of adjustments to the baseline of what operating a passenger railway involves – maintaining powered doors in operating condition, making arrangements for carrying passengers in wheelchairs, emptying controlled emission toilet tanks and meeting the cost of providing free-to-use wi-fi being four examples.
@anonymously
“So are LOROL services ‘franchised’ then, in that sense? ”
No, they are a “concession” (as is Merseyrail) – a system not envisaged by the privatisation planners. (What about the halfway-house of the management-style contracts such as DOR and TSGN?)
The only real difference is who carries the financial risk, so why should it make a difference to the NR branding?
And yes, you can buy a ticket from an unstaffed NR station to any other station on the NR network – from a TTI or online.
How about Cambridge City?
@GT
An interesting observation about TPWS in terminal platforms. I am sure it would be feasible to have a a series of speed traps along such a platform each decreasing in trip speed as the buffer stop is approached and calculated to always effect an emergency stop short of the stop. Effectively that’s how ‘Moorgate controls’ work using mechanical trainstops on LUL. A problem on NR would be the amount and cost of the equipment, it’s reliability (important as loops, being not inherently failsafe, are proved active in the approach signal circuits), and maintenance access concerns. ETCS offers more hope in this respect however when introduced standalone or as a colour light overlay Thameslink style. With less and much more resilient track equipment, fitted trains will be able to work out a far more precise continuous safe speed envelope so speed of entry at the ramp ends could be rather quicker if the throat pointwork would allow it. With the speed through terminal throat areas and other junctions being so critical to capacity and performance, this is one area where ETCS could offer significant and realistic benefits.
Greg, Mark Townend
this is one area where ETCS could offer significant and realistic benefits.
As in “one of many” not as in “the one area”.
Talking of the way it used to be done, look very closely ate the opening sequence of this ( 1962 it says, but I thin a couple of years later ) …
And the way the trains roll into Liverpool St E side & the doors opening (!)
Also of interest for other outdated practices ….
Mark Townend……I can’t speak for Moorgate but the typical LU speed trap is a single train stop which will lower if the systems detects the train speed is below 10mph. The Speed Trap TPWS is also designed to do the same thing. However, on LU the driver can generally see the train stop lower so will know the train won’t be tripped. There is no such comfort with TPWS as far as I know.
!
Franchisees are required to display the double arrow at stations and it must be shown on tickets valid on a franchised train service. (I’m not sure what happens with print at home ones). However, franchisees may not display the double arrow on their rolling stock. Copyright in the double arrow rests with the Secretary of State.
@Pedantic of Purley, 29 September 2016 at 15:00
I agree it is “one of many”, but terminal throat throughput could be a particularly compelling investment criteria at congested city terminals where other capacity measures might be eyewateringly expensive. Another advantage of ETCS in the perfomance arena is the effect of temporary speed restrictions. It’s obvious these slow trains down, adding to journey time, but it’s not so widely understood they can also sap capacity on conventionally signalled lines as convoys of trains must still be spaced according to the fixed signal blocks calculated at the normal speed braking distance (although there is some leeway using colour lights , driving on double yellows for example). Trains running through such speed restrictions are therefore further apart in time than at the normal speed. ETCS, where specified with much shorter blocks as in the Thameslink core, will have more blocks between following trains at normal speed, and with this increased granularity the system can allow trains to ‘close up’ on each other to a greater extent when running at a lower speed than normal. Therefore under ETCS, temporary speed restrictions impact throughput to a smaller degree than under conventional signals.
With respect to earlier comments about platform extensions on the GN line, Welwyn Garden City is the main constraint. The platforms are islands between the slow and loop lines. The flyover is immediately to the south of the station. Directly to the north is a large road bridge over the line followed by the carriage sidings, including the washing machine.
Platform extensions on the down side, in particular, would be astonishingly expensive. Extensive track alterations would be needed on both sides.
TPWS into terminals:
Many TOCs (inc. GTR) also tell the drivers a lower speed limit than NR sets the loops at into terminals so the TOC shouldn’t get any triggering at all. This also happens to sap more capacity see London Bridge Jan 2015 as an example…
Re PoP, Mark T,
Agree on the “one of many” but ETCS is not a universal cure for capacity issues. I’m not sure how good the NR analysis is on ETCS and real multiple junction optimisation in south London to create paths is. I know one modelling exercise suggested a 2tph drop in capacity as soon a multiple flat junctions were modelled as an overall system.
@130
Introduced after the tragic endwall collision at the station, ‘Moorgate controls’ had a series of trainstops arranged at intervals along the platform, each with its own timer triggered by the berth track circuit occupancy. Such elaborate measures were unnecessary at many stations with nice long overrun tunnels, or friction bufferstops etc on surface sections.
I agree with Londoner in Scotland that platform extensions at Welwyn Garden City would be expensive, and would require track alterations. But I could make just a small quibble about the relevance of the flyover. The bridge bit of it is adequately further south, and even the points on the westmost track seem to be about 120 metres south of the present end of the down platform (but anyway, points might be allowed alongside the platform, provided trains using the relevant one of the tracks would always be out of passenger service).
@Malcolm
The flyover at Welwyn is used by southbound trains in service starting at Welwyn. They have to negotiate those points in order to access the flyover from the down slow (westernmost) platform.
Lengthening the platform further south so that trains cannot use the points makes both the points and the flyover unusable, which in turn means that all trains arriving at Welwyn from the south must either continue through the Digswell bottleneck or cross over the entire four track formation on the flat to return south.
On another subject, the naming problem facing Cambridge when the new station opens has already arisen at the other end of the Varsity line. They seem to be coping without changing the name of the old station. I’m sure the residents of the junior university city will cope too.
@ Graham F – on the subject of the Catford loop frequencies I agree that parts of the consultation document do say Daily. Unfortunately I referred to the detailed tables on page 21 of the pdf which clearly shows TL9 not running on Sunday. Worse there is a captioned box below the TL9 details proudly saying that TL8 and TL9 provide a 4 tph daily service. Another example of the inconsistency nonsense in this consultation. Did anyone bother to proof read this before it went out? There is so much contradiction, error and lack of clarity that it can’t really stand up to any sort of robust challenge. If DfT and GTR try to rely on the consultation findings with the level of error as there is currently is then they’re at risk of making some wrong decisions.
On the wider point you’re just saying the network is inadequate and therefore the train service has to “bend” to cope with it. The fact the public aren’t well served is also another case of “hard cheese”. Well if South Londoners are forever prepared to put up with this then little is going to change as it hasn’t really changed for decades as far as I can see.
Just a thought – some commentators have made reference to “2IPH from X and 2 TPH from Y” giving a 4TPH service. That is fine and dandy if the trains are evenly spaced (i.e. a train once every 15minutes) but the reality is that due to junction conflicts and pathing requirements, the total service pattern is likely to be uneven – with gaps in the service ranging from 5 to 25 minutes in the worst case.
This is the thing which makes service provision at many South London stations seem worse than it is. Norbury for example probably does have at least 4TPH (the ‘minimum service frequency TfL want) – the problem is that the trains are provided by different services running at non even intervals. As such saying the Wimbledon loop will have 4TPH in the peaks is not particularly helpful – and a 4TPH consistently spaced service to a single destination throughout the day would be better.
Unfortunately as the bulk of existing users of the loop are City commuters – who only care about keeping their peak hour services to City Thameslink , services round the loop will continue to be sub-optimal.
@Anonymously and others – the question of the double arrow versus the sector branding was resolved internally by insisting that the Board’s corporate activities and stations always had to carry thedouble arrow, but stations could also carry the sector branding -as per the notorious door markers on the Drain platform edges. Quite how this would have evolved had the subsectors become established is unclear – I doubt that the InterCity subsectors would have been given or,indeed, wanted much freedom on the matter, but the NSE subsector Directors were mostly keen to do their own thing.
Why hasn’t the department insisted on the use of the double arrow on the LO services (or the Elizabeth Line, come to that)? I doubt if it has anything to do with the difference between concession and franchise (which is fairly fluid in practice) but may well be either that DfT have agreed with TfL not to push the point or DfT don’t care enough.
@Kate – a long way round to get to Trumpington St via Coe Fen (unless it was after midnight, you’d arrived on the last train, and you wished to climb in via the ditch at the edge of the fen.)
Wlwyn G C
Try This view ( Zoomable) to see how much space there is or isn’t for platform extensions
Welwyn GC: The down island might gain about 70 metres at the south end if the first crossover was removed, but that would reduce flexibility so the flyover would only be connected to the outer face track. The north end is more promising. Again the first crossover would have to be removed, allowing a 70m or so extension with ease before the overbridge narrowing. That crossover could be replaced a little further north which would change detailed layout functionality slightly but both platforms would still be able to host northbound departures. Overlaps would need some thought. Similar issues on the up. Room to do it but lots of trackwork and signalling changes, so something to do at the next resignalling or major junction track renewal perhaps.
A major settlement name with no suffix makes sense as the ‘main’ station name where that facility offers the most connectivity and route choice. More minor stations in the same town can have a directional, local place, or functional suffixes as appropriate. The addition of a suffix such as ‘General’ does no harm for a ‘main’ station but a ‘Central’ (in the city centre for intance) need not be the ‘main’ (if you see what I mean). What I think I mean in short is there’s absolutely no need to consider changing the names of either historic main stations at Cambridge or Oxford!
ngh says “ETCS is not a universal cure for capacity issues.”
Indeed, but there is of course no cure (universal or otherwise) because as long as demand keeps rising, a desire to raise the capacity of anything at all from x to x+1 will always be expressed.
But I’m really only quibbling with the wording, because your main point was probably something like “capacity in some places will not be increased at all (or not enough) by introducing ETCS, so other measures will be needed if it is to rise”.
@ Anonymously / Timbeau – instead of getting tied up in knots over franchises, concessions and management contracts the simpler question is “does the provision of the railway service still have to be contracted to a private sector supplier?” In all cases the answer is “yes”. The only difference with devolution is who is in charge of service specification, procurement and contract management. Mostly it is DfT but with the Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly, Rail North, TfL and Merseyside ITA having devolved responsibilities in defined areas. AIUI the government could, if it wished, reverse devolution and bring all the contracted services back under DfT control. There may be a complication with Crossrail because of its legislation which envisaged TfL being in charge of procuring the service operation.
While I can understand why TfL likes to assert its own identity I don’t think it’s really right to hide the fact that the NR services it contracts are as much a part of the National Rail network as a train in Manchester or Carlisle or Cardiff.
[I have deliberately ignored Heathrow Express before anyone goes into smart alec mode]
On naming stations: I would suggest that any station name which can be suffixed to form the name of another station is a potential source of confusion. An example would be the incoming tourists who (Anneka Dote reports) have bought tickets [1] to Liverpool because they thought it was a shortened form of Liverpool Street.
But combatting this by renaming anything (whether in Oxbridge or anywhere else) would be enormously expensive, and is unlikely to pass any BCR test. Indeed, even renumbering the platforms at Stratford [2] is way over the financial horizon.
[1] From Paddington, Stansted (historically) , Norwich or Ely – in case this hasn’t been said enough times already.
[2] Or Stratford-by-bow as it would have to be renamed for these pesky tourists.
It is an oddity that a ticket from Gospel Oak to Norwich exists, but not one from Tufnell Park.
Indeed, rather dafter, a through ticket from Reading to Norwich (via Paddington and Liverpool Street) exists, using an LU connection, but the subsets Paddington to Norwich or Reading to Liverpool Street are not through-ticketable. [ I seem to be mistaken here, it appears that they are through-ticketable after all. Another prejudice bites the dust. Please ignore this bit! Malcolm]
Obviously there are practical difficulties (not least the closed ticket offices). But with increasing numbers of tickets being bought online anyway, shouldn’t we be aiming for a truly national ticketing system?
Back in the 60s/70s there was a series in the BR house magazine, “Rail News” called something like “The name is the same” which would have short notes, and possibly one or two comments from relevant employees, about stations with the same name. One or two come to mind immediately, but there must have been a lot of them for the series to run as long as it did.
@Graham H….I was hoping you could shed light on why NSE over time seemed to eliminate the double-arrow from its own trains, signage and literature as far as possible. For example, when the Kent Coast EMUs were repainted into NSE colours, the cab end sides were initially painted with a white double-arrow, but this was.later painted over. Similarly, the initial batch of station name running-in boards had the double-arrow over a variation of the rhomboids, but this was dropped in favour of the triple rhomboid (e.g. on those newly extended 12-car platforms for the Networker). Surely I’m not the only person who noticed this at the time?
Also, I never knew about this subsectorisation business (beyond giving names to various groups of services e.g. Kent Link)….are you able to provide more details?
@Nameless…..If you had ever used the station, I doubt you’d be suggesting that name ?. As I said before, there are no plans to change the station name (whether this remains the case if the fabled ‘Cambridge South/Biomedical Campus/Addenbrooke’s station ever gets built we shall see….). In fact, station name suffixes seem to be going out of fashion wherever there is no longer any pressing need to continue using them (cf Lincoln Central, Leeds City, Hull Paragon, and arguably even Edinburgh Waverley!). As for Oxford Parkway, I preferred its provisional name of ‘Water Eaton Parkway’ (or perhaps ‘Kidlington Parkway’), but there we go.
@Malcolm…..It is rather unfortunate that there are two ‘Liverpools’ one can catch a train to from Norwich or (at peak times) Ely! They do try to minimise confusion though by listing trains on the destination boards as ‘Lime St Liverpool’. It’d be amusing to find out if anyone has ever been caught out by this….
@WW…..But why does this matter unless you’re very pedantic about these things? Should East Putney/Southfields/Wimbledon Park be decked out in SWT colours since they are on a NR line, and could theoretically still be served by SWT trains (even though this is highly unlikely to ever happen)? I always found it rather bizarre that they spent a lengthy portion of their existence as BR/NSE stations with no BR/NSE services?
Copyright in the double arrow rests with the Secretary of State.
Today I noticed a poster at Fareham station that showed a multi coloured double arrow logo on a picture background (no box).
As copyright holders it seems that the DfT have allowed any style guide to usage to be thrown away. I think it looked awful (much of my career was involved with TV graphics / logos and associated style guides which if ignored always led to suboptimal aesthetic results).
Earlier in the thread there was discussion regarding the problems of reversing trains from Wimbledon that arrive at Sutton if the loop was split. Where could a reversing siding be put, due to the lack of space around the station?
Well, there IS space not far away, simply by reinstating the reversing siding just to the west of Wallington Station. Access would be from the west. The train would tip out at Sutton Platform 1, run 1.6 miles up to the siding (say 3 minutes) reverse and present itself at Sutton Platform 2 ready for the return run.
The current off-peak service between Sutton and West Croydon is six trains an hour in each direction with four gaps of more than 5 mins during the hour in the current schedule. These trains already interleave with the 4 trains per hour Overground service at West Croydon
Oh for an edit facility! I really shouldn’t have included the word ‘simply’.
In his excellent book “Behind the Crumbling Edge” (ISBN 1 85776 610 5) Stephen Poole writes “Other schemes we were working on at LMR HQ in 1974 included the BRB proposal that where there were two or more stations in a town or city, one should be designated ‘Main’, so that, for example Manchester Piccadilly would have become Manchester Main….”. I think it is helpful to the public to indicate which is the main station in a town, but otherwise to call stations after the street they are in or a prominent local feature – so Croydon Main and Croydon North End. When Liverpool Street was being rebuilt there was some consideration given to renaming it Bishopsgate, to avoid the Liverpool Lime Street confusion, but the idea did not progress very far.
As another, overseas, example, Brussels Central is not the main station in Brussels. It isn’t even the second most main station in Brussels.
@Anonymously -I confess I don’t know why NSE removed the doublearrow from (some of ) its stock – certaily other sectors (and subsectors, especially in Freight) did the same. The NSE “racing slugs” (as they were known internally) never seemed to capture the public imagination in quite the same way as the IC swallow.
Subsectorisation was the intended completion of the process of undoing the Regions/Businesses matrix and gave subsectors control over “their” infrastructure in the same way as the first round did for the Businesses. Unfortunately for us all, the whole process (known as Organising for Quality – O4Q – sometimes mispronounced, of course) took so long that it was completed just one week before the infrastructure was handed over to Railtrack.
NSE was divided into ten subsectors (the number varied over time) based on line of route. The subsector directors soon started to work up their own subsector identities although I don’t recall the process getting beyond branding on posters and other marketing material. These were overlaid by the NSE marketing so long as NSE was managed by Chris Green. SWT played around with a design based on a punched ticket in shades of navy blue and eau de nil (still have the mug with that…). I don’t recall what the others did. The internal NSE jest at the expense of LTS was that it was to be branded as the “Route of the White Socks”.
And to throw in yet another suffix and to bring it back to Greater London, Smitham was renamed only recently as Coulsdon Town (there is a Coulsdon South, not surprisingly to the south of the town). I’m not sure why it was done as the locals knew where Smitham was and I never heard of anyone being confused by the name.
@anonymously
“It is rather unfortunate that there are two ‘Liverpools’ one can catch a train to from Norwich ”
There are two Ashfords and two Gillinghams you can get to from Waterloo. I know at least one person who has bought a ticket to one Ashford and travelled to the other.
There are direct trains to both Gloucester and Gloucester Road from Paddington. If the “haykerloo” were to happen Paddington would also have trains to both Hayses.
Patrticularly confusing is Llandudno, where there is another station (Deganwy) between the Junction and Llandudno station itself.
I get bemused by this eternal discussion about the need to standardise station names – however hard you try, there will always be anomalies in which the “principal” station, with the most/best/fastest services, isn’t necessarily the one nearest one to the centre – think Southampton, for example – or there is real difficulty in identifying the centre at all, as in the Actons – or there are multiple stations in the same area with similar characteristics: Pontefract, Catford, Gainsborough, for example.
Better, one might think, to stick with what is well-established. Tidiness comes at the price of confusion sometimes. If it ain’t broke…
Peter Heather says “I’m not sure why it was done”. The Croydon Advertiser was not impressed either. It reported that an FoI request indicated that 34 respondents to a consultation were in favour, and 27 against. That probably says more about “consultations” (which might bring us back slightly on topic too) than it does about Smitham Bottom.
Ah fond memories of O4Q. . . I recall calling up the Operations Manager at Swindon who as a new Intercity employee had recently dropped the Regional qualifier in his title. I was enquiring about the status of a foot crossing over the Didcot West Curve, part of the Didcot – Swindon resignalling area I was attempting to finalise the scheme plans for. “Oh that’s no longer my responsibility, it’s a freight asset now”, he informed me. “A lorry came to pick up all the files last week”. The files had indeed gone to York to a new freight sector management unit, so I spoke to the contact the former ROM had given me. “We haven’t even started unpacking the boxes yet and have no idea what we’ve got, call me back in a month or two.” There was some irony there in that the scheme itself was largely a freight funded scheme, providing extra capacity to handle imported power station coal through Avonmouth. Another former design engineer colleague was working for the local NSE subsector organisations at the time. He explained to me how his full time job was cataloging individual lamps (bulbs) in signal heads and junction indicators, relays, fuses, transformers etc. in cabinets and relay rooms to determine which subsector owned each and every one. O4Q indeed!
@MarkTownend – and if you thought that was fun, then there was the same game played – only more fiercely – when privatisation happened. (The objective then was different,of course: winning was not acquiring liabilities).
BTW, my favourite O4Q asset was the one piece of track allocated to the Telecoms sector – a siding at Guildford, now, alas, lifted. No one else would take it. As the shadow Franchise Director for LTS, I found myself spending too much time trying to get rid of assets that were unloved – the toughest was a GUV that had sat in the bay at Barking for many years; eventually, we simply told LTS that it was theirs and that was that.
@timbeau…..Well, I have to say I didn’t think of that example since they are served from completely separate parts of the station (some might argue completely different stations). Ditto your Paddington examples. Whereas at Norwich and Ely, it is (theoretically) possible for the Lime Street and Liverpool Street trains to depart one after the other from the same station platform!
@Graham H……Hmmm, that’s a pity you’re not privy as to the reasons why. Perhaps Chris Green had something to do with it (aiming towards a wholly separate NSE entity shorn of anything to do with BR, perhaps)? I confess that I’m struggling to think of *any* NSE rolling stock that still carried the double-arrow on their exterior at the time of the 1994 break-up.
I agree InterCity did much the same with their own ‘swallow’ branding, although I’d hesitate to call it iconic. The only ones who seemed prepared to continue using the double-arrow prominently were Regional Railways (AKA all the unprofitable train services nobody else wants to operate).
Incidentally, the practice of qualifying a station’s location by their county still seems to continue on the railways, both on destination boards and on timetables, if there is any possibility of confusion with another location (even if the other settlement doesn’t have a railway station). Thus we have Farnborough (Hants), Alton (Hants), Gillingham (Kent) and Hayes (Kent), although strictly speaking the last of these hasn’t been part of Kent for over 50 years!
@ Kit Green – the multi coloured logo is being used in the Rail Delivery Group’s “Britain runs on rail” campaign. I think I’ll finish at this point lest I say too many rude things as the RDG have a spooky ability to track you down and challenge what you say about them. (Don’t ask! – just accept I’ve had it happen).
Confusion between London Liverpool Street and Liverpool Lime Street was a notorious issue for tourists at Stansted Airport- rumour has it this was part of the reason services to the latter were withdrawn.
Back where I grew up the train went Ipswich Derby Road, Westerfield, Ipswich. This was accurate to the geography though – the line really does loop out of town and in again.
@Anonymously – the IC staff shared your views on the swallow – I still cherish the memory of a 125 I spotted arriving at Kings Cross with a dead pigeon carefully draped over the side of the power car in the swallow position… As for Regional Railways, their previous nom du guerre – Other Provincial Services – tells it all. Subsectorisation in RR,Scotrail apart as a special case, didn’t really advance at ll. RR was more (and I think rightly) focussed on making sense of the random portfolio of markets and assets that they had inherited. The Alpha Line brand was an early fruit of that – and one which,to judge from the performance of its routes over the last 20 years, might well have become a viable commercial entity – of course, if they had succeeded, IC would have taken them over…. perhaps as part of an expanded CrossCountry.
Peter Heather,
I’m not sure why it was done as the locals knew where Smitham was and I never heard of anyone being confused by the name
But, as a local, as I understand it, there never was any such place as Smitham. Its full name was Smitham Bottom – a bottom being the valley. The name was largely out of use and Coulsdon Town made much more sense to emphasise it actually was in Coulsdon Town whereas Coulsdon South isn’t.
As others are usually quick to point out, the locals will generally know it as their local station whatever you call it – it is for those not local you have to think about what to call it.
Malcolm,
The Croydon Advertiser was not impressed either. It reported that an FoI request indicated that 34 respondents to a consultation were in favour, and 27 against.
I find that it is strange that it took a FoI request because I am sure the results of the consultation were made public.
Well, if I had been the reporter, and I had thought of the wheeze, I might have made the FoI request to spice up the story. I think the rules do not exclude things which have already been made public.
@ Graham H / Anonymously – as you have been discussing “branding” and the run up to privatisation here is Spitting Image’s view based on a bit of a skit of BR’s own advertising in the 80s. Remarkably accurate in some respects as things have turned out – watch out for Mr Branson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFcBRHC9MV0
Well, I’m still confused on the reference to a scopperdiddle, as the only definition I can find refers to a Yorkshire dialect word for a spinning top – certainly nothing that you can inflate …
@Malcolm/PoP: Using an FoI makes it sound as though the authorities were hiding something…. Better headlines….
I encountered it as a Suffolk dialect word meaning something that rushes about. The inflation bit is my invention. What would you use to complete the phrase “blowing up like a ….” ?
@anonymously
“even if the other settlement doesn’t have a railway station). Thus we have Farnborough (Hants), Alton (Hants), Gillingham (Kent) and Hayes (Kent), ”
Gillingham has a namesake (albeit pronounced with a hard “G”) in Dorset. You can get from one to the other by changing at Waterloo – the Waterloo in London, of course, not the one on Merseyside. (Waterloo to Charing Cross can take five hours – changing at Sandhills, Ormskirk, Preston, Glasgow Central, and Partick.
It used to be possible to see two trains leaving Waterloo together, each headed for a diferent Ashford, although the one leaving the Internatoinal station would only be calling at Ashford to pick up so would not be advertising the fact. And during that era it was also possible to get non-stop trains from Brussels Midi to two different stations, both called Waterloo.
Alton (Hants) avoids confusion with Olton (W Mids); albeit you have to say the latter in a south Birmingham accent. And I can’t think of many places where you would have people asking for trains to both destinations!
@graham h,: “the “principal” station, with the most/best/fastest services, isn’t necessarily the one nearest one to the centre – think Southampton, for example”
I am not sure what you mean about Southampton. If you are looking back to when Terminus station was open – fifty years ago – both it and West/Central station were on the edge of the central area, and which was nearest would depend on which part of the city centre you were going to. If you take the Bargate as being the central point then there’s almost nothing in it according to Google Map’s walking directions.
Now, with Terminus station long gone, the Central station is clearly the closest to most of the city centre, with walking over the Itchen bridge from Woolston slightly quicker just for the far south eastern area around Ocean Village.
Imm: “Confusion between London Liverpool Street and Liverpool Lime Street was a notorious issue for tourists at Stansted Airport …”
A similar situation might have existed in the old days for people coming off the ferries at Parkeston Quay (itself an unfortunate victim of modern renaming). I just had a look at the NR journey planner, and passengers for both destinations are now directed to London services.
I still remember helping, along with other customers, a lady who was trying to get to Hayes. We eventually determined that she wanted Hayes (Middlesex), although she had set off to Hayes (Kent). Sadly she was so confused that she’d got on a train to East Croydon which stopped at neither Hayes station.
I should have put this link in my last comment.
http://www.doublearrow.co.uk/manual.htm
A lot to wade through if you have a quiet weekend ahead.
(I will not mention this subject again in this thread. There do seem to be an awful lot of tangents from the commentariat.)
@Anonymously
I, too, matriculated in 2000 (Pembroke, Natsci). Haven’t been back that way for a number of years though.
@timbeau
Merely for the sake of accuracy rather than pedantry, the Gillingham in Dorset has a soft G, it’s the Kentish one which has the hard G! The first is 105¼ miles from Waterloo and generally (hard G) takes 2 hours or a tad less, garnished (soft G) with a trolley as far as and Salisbury, the second is 33¾-35¼ miles depending on the route from Waterloo East and frequently takes 1 hour 20 mins or so on a stopping suburban unit. On the evidence available, I couldn’t comment whether the journey quality has an impact on pronunciation at the further end.
@SFD…..I thought it was to avoid confusion with Alton (Staffs)?
@Malcolm…….balloon?
@Imm….As juicy as that rumour sounds, I think you’ll find the truth was rather more prosaic. The operator at the time split the route at Birmingham (I think at the instigation of the SRA?) in an attempt to improve timekeeping on the route.
Plus I’m guessing you might be rather advanced in age…..Derby Road station hasn’t included Ipswich in its name since 1879!
Birmingham International is forever a source of confusion, with passengers stepping off Pendolinos from Euston thinking they’re in “Birmingham” (even when it’s actually in Solihull)
A more helpful name would be “Birmingham It’s The Airport & NEC Not The City Centre So Get Back On The Train Parkway”
I don’t know what actually happened to the West Coast franchise proposal for an actual re-naming?
@Jonathan Roberts – 30 September 2016 at 13:06
@timbeau
Merely for the sake of accuracy rather than pedantry, the Gillingham in Dorset has a soft G, it’s the Kentish one which has the hard G!
????? Having lived in the Medway Towns for a dozen years, in those days Gillingham Kent was th soft ‘G’ – indeed, 16th cent docs use the Jillingham speling – and Dorset the hard ‘G’!!!
Jonathan Roberts: for the sake of further accuracy, timbeau’s description of the g in Gillingham-Dorset and goat as a “hard g” corresponds with the Wikipedia one. However, I think I have also heard some people use the terms the same was round as you do. So in a spirit of linguistic relativity, you are both equally correct, but maybe timbeau is slightly more equally correct.
@anonymously
I have both lived there and used the station. I was not necessarily suggesting that any change was necessary but if one was required, the word city was short and clear. The fact that it is nowhere near their ground isn’t likely to confuse many people.
@Malcolm
You may be right in implying it is whether or not individuals interpret a J sound as harder, compared to the alternative! The G(D) phrasing is certainly not a J.
Here’s a way to think about the pronunciation of Gillingham without going into the whole “hard-G, soft-G” thing: The Dorset one sounds like the gills of a fish while the Kent one sounds like Jack and Jill.
Technically, the initial letter of the Kentish* Gillingham is a Voiced palato-alveolar affricate, whilst the one in Dorset is a Voiced velar stop
*actually Gillingham, being east of the Medway, is fully “of Kent” rather than merely Kent-ish
Not sure when Parkeston Quay last had a service to Liverpool – the old “North Country Continental” (via the GN/GE Joint and Woodhead lines) was already cut back to Manchester in the 1960s, before being diverted first via Nottingham and later via the North London Line.
At least Gillingham (Kent) is a proposed stop on the Luton Rainham service and thus the pronouciation of the station will be relevant for on train Thameslink announcements.
With all the chopping and changing of destinations on Thameslink, it may still be possible at some time in the future to see trains departing from Stevenage in both directions, but both going to Berwick
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations_destinations/BRK.aspx
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations_destinations/BWK.aspx
@timbeau
It seems that Parkeston Quay is no more. It is called Harwich International Port. The station is just Harwich International. Trains for the latter have to pass through Dovercourt station before they get to Harwich Town.
Of course all three are adjacent to that exotic body of water, Arijaba.
“Merely for the sake of accuracy rather than pedantry, the Gillingham in Dorset has a soft G, it’s the Kentish one which has the hard G!”
Yet the computerised announcements at Charing Cross now seem to swap between hard and soft with irritating irregularity. “The train at platform 3 is the 1809 to Jillingham calling at … Rochester, Chatham and Ghillingham.”
gee we seem to have wandered off topic somewhat
Berwick upon Tweed (BWK) to Berwick (Sussex) (BRK) takes ~9 hours for the princely sum of £147.90 (travelling tomorrow). An expensive mistake. I didn’t check details of the 4 changes but I guess you’ll avoid filling The Slink’s coffers. Vain attempt to drag thread in general direction of the topic, via apportionment (mentioned above).
@OB
If that’s the 1150 departure you were looking at, the changes are at Newcastle, Kings Cross, St Pancras low level, and Brighton. So it does include Thameslink
Two hours later there’s a faster one – 7h30, changing at Newcastle, Kings Cross and Victoria.
In both cases you would be on a bus until you reach Tyneside
Alan Burkitt-Gray,
Yet the computerised announcements at Charing Cross now seem to swap between hard and soft with irritating irregularity.
Yes I have noticed that. Yet at London Bridge I understand it is always correct. London Bridge is a text-to-speech system. Apparently the first thing they tried when they got it was Gillingham and were relieved when it got it correct. Second thing tried was Greenwich which also came out correct and not as Green Witch as they feared.
I’ll just add that this Charing Cross wrong – London Bridge right has a bit of a history. For years the departure boards at Charing Cross were manually set but those at London Bridge were computer driven from the signal box. It was most noticeable between Christmas and New Year with the (slightly) amended timetable. Additional stops on some trains in place of cancelled trains elsewhere were often omitted at Charing Cross.
@Nameless Parkeston Quay is indeed no more, but a trace remains in the station code for Harwich International (HPQ).
Re quoting county names to distinguish stations, South West trains go one better by quoting both Middlesex and Surrey for their Ashford It can be called Surrey on a platform indicator, but once you’re on the train you can see and hear it called Middlesex.
OB The UK fares seem pretty steep to me, no wonder they say get a rail pass or two before flying to Britain. I suppose the 9 hour journey makes it better value on a per hour basis.
@alanbluemountains: yep, sticker prices are horrendous but many discounts are available including “advance” tickets & as you say a range of passes.
A couple of months ago I travelled from Gatwick to Hackney off peak with senior rail card and Freedom Pass, price £2.40. Admittedly I wasn’t in a hurry!
There again, I very recently made a day return trip on Chiltern Railways to Birmingham Moor Street from Marylebone, Standard Class on a Senior Railcard, that cost me a mere £3.35 each way! That was the cheapest rail fare I have experienced for a journey of such a length for many a decade and it took only just over 1½ hours each way.
What’s more, it was on one of the most comfortable and smart trains I have been on for a long time in the UK – part of Chiltern’s Silver Train fleet, I understand.
@Alan Blue Mountains
“The UK fares seem pretty steep to me, . I suppose the 9 hour journey makes it better value on a per hour basis.”
That is the walk-on fare, of course, and it is 400 miles (from the Scottish border to the south coast). Much cheaper advance fares can be available – especially if you split the journey.
It seems odd to calculate the value of a journey by the hour – people usually pay more for faster trains!
The journey time is usually nearer six hours – the times quoted for today include a fifty mile amble down the Great North Road (which is single carriageway for the first 30 miles to Alnwick), and a connection allowance at Newcastle. Normally Berwick to Newcastle takes about 45 minutes and the train continues to London.
timbeau. The reference to the per hour cost was tongue in cheek over the seemingly long journey time and cost, not forgetting I don’t necessarily have trackwork info for UK. People complain about rail fares here (Australia) but they appear modest compared to some UK fares. And in Australia 400 miles is not a particularly long trip. In my youth I used to drive 480 km each way on a weekend to go to a ball (oh to be young again and have raging hormones)
Distance does seem to be no object to Australians. My father’s Australian cousins visited him recently, and were frankly amazed at how long you need to allow to get to places they think of as a short drive away. A 120 mile trip will take a lot longer if the first 30 miles are in London traffic!
A day trip to somewhere 250 miles away from London is possible if your destination is Newcastle, but many Australians want to visit Captain Cook’s home town of Whitby – which is completely out of the question!
As a matter of interest, how much would a 400 mile (640km) one way walk-up fare be in Australia?
(Noting that, to be comparable, the cited journey is not city centre to city centre, but from a market town to a seaside village)
@Alan Blue Mountains
“The UK fares seem pretty steep to me, I suppose the 9 hour journey makes it better value on a per hour basis.”
It would follow from that suggestion that people would pay more for as slow train than a fast one!
The journey is about 400 miles – from the Scottish border to the south coast – and the quoted fare was the walk-on fare.
timbeau. I think you missed my point. As previously stated it was tongue in cheek about expressing the cost of an expensive and long (time) journey in a way that it sounded better value. In New South Wales (railways run by states) all fares are walk-on no discount for advance purchase. However for slow travel periods ie February, discounts generally apply but this applies to “walk on” fares as well. Other states may differ but not to my knowledge, fares are not my area of expertise I have not had to pay for rail travel for past 18 years.
timbeau. Spent some time on net and from Bathurst (239.9km from Sydney) to Broken Hill(1124.8km) a distance of 844.9 km single fare $115.28 economy, $161.39 first class, exchange approx. aud $1=UK Pound 0.59. hope this is enlightening. (would say something about just having to chase kangaroos out of rose garden but that would raise the widely held misconception that they are in streets of Sydney).
In a recent Modern railways there was a story about how recently the staff at St Margarets (Essex) managed to put up a map outside the station showing the vicinity of St Margarets (Surrey)!
@other Malcolm.
I saw that item too. But in fact MR’s geography is not much better, as there is no St Margaret’s station either in Surrey or in Essex. One is a suburb of Hertford, in errm … Hertfordshire. And the other one is in Twickenham, which, before it became part of Greater London was in Middlesex.
Alan blue mountains
So that’s about £70 for 850 miles. Or, in round numbers, twice the distance for half the price.
timbeau. The price pounds 70 is correct, the distance I gave was in km, in miles about 560. That is why I was staggered at the fare. Half the fare for nearly one and a half in distance, that train only runs on mondays. I also came across a mention of a walk on fare from Edinburgh to London at just one pound short of 400 pounds can’t remember where and no details , first class?. I would like to try the dinning car in one of the virgin trains but I hate to think what that would cost together with the first class ticket. We should call it quits I think and let this get back to topic. Was looking forward to meeting some of london reconnects folk last month but had both knees replaced and a bit slow in kicking on so maybe next summer.
@abm
It was my geography that was at fault, not my arithmetic. I had assumed, apparently wrongly, that the journey you specified was via Sidney and thus that I needed to add the distances rather than calculate the difference.
The first class return anytime fare from Edinburgh to London is £283. Add first class sleeper berth supplements of £43 each way and you get £369. But it’s unlikely anyone would ever pay that as off peak fares are valid on the sleeper. (£135 first class return, plus the supplements)
The highest fare I have managed to find is St Ives to Wick, anytime return 1st class £660. (About 820 miles each way), Although I have found a newspaper report from 2009 reporting £1002 for Newquay to Kyle of Lochalsh, (a slightly shorter distance) that seems to also now “only” be £660. (A first class seven day all line rover is £731)
Oops. I do know how to spell Sydney, even if my autocorrect doesn’t!
@PoP: The London Bridge system has until 2018 to learn the difference between Gatwick and Flitwick.
Timbeau. It’s ok I know Sidney and he would not take offence, cheers
“I think it is helpful to the public to indicate which is the main station in a town, but otherwise to call stations after the street they are in or a prominent local feature – so Croydon Main and Croydon North End.
Croydon is an oddity because West Croydon is the nearer to the shops and (once the rebuild has finished) is next to the more important of the two bus stations. So arguably it should be Croydon Central (formerly West Croydon) and East Croydon.
Croydon is not unusual in that respect – the most central station not being the one with the fastest/busiest service. Look at Colchester, Newark, Yeovil, Exeter, Kingston/Surbiton.
Or indeed London: I’m not sure which is the most central station of all, but I’m pretty sure it is one that has no Inter City services!
Timbeau
I thought 283 first Edinburgh to London sounded a bit cheap. On checking it is actually 451 return. 283 is the Standard Anytime. First off peak is still 354.
@ timbeau
It is entirely possible to make a day trip from London and Whitby and back by public transport. Train to Scarborough to connect with the half-hourly bus to Whitby. Journey time from London about four and a half hours. There are also railway buses between York and Whitby, on which through ticketing is available.
@Purley Dweler
You’re right – somehow I’d slipped from 1st Class back into 2nd on the NR website’s fare finder
@timbeau…..Since all distances from London are measured from the site of the original Charing Cross (i.e. not the Victorian replica!), now occupied by a statue of Charles I at the end of Whitehall, surely the most central mainline station in London is the one closest to it? No prizes for guessing its name ?…..
And you’re completely right that it doesn’t have any InterCity services!
@Londoner in Scotland
A nine hour round trip leaves little time for enough actual sightseeing to be worth the trip.
Taking the Charles I statue as the centre of London, the nearest station is actually the former Trafalgar Square on the Bakerloo Line, now incorporated into Charing Cross Underground.
@Anonymously
If you cut out London and balance it on a pinhead, the pinhead’s closest station is Lambeth North.
Please. We’ve done “where is the centre of London?” many times before, and the answer is always “it depends what you mean”. So let’s not do it again.
Malcolm
Londonist did it recently (as a repost)
Final word ( honest) here:
http://londonist.com/2014/04/where-is-the-centre-of-london-an-update?rel=handpicked
Kate (2 Oct 19:13)
“I think it is helpful ….. to call stations after …. a prominent local feature”
Can I propose ‘Cambridge, Botanic Garden’?
@Timbeau
Colchester is a good example but I don’t get Kingston / Surbiton?
Kate
Kingston station is on the slow,all stations branch.
Surbiton is on the mainline and has fast trains.
Surbiton, when opened in 1838, was originally called “Kingston-on-railway” station (seriously) and was only renamed when the current Kingston station opened with the branch in 1869
@Kate/Slugabed
The station on the London & Southampton Railway opened as plain “Kingston” . It was in open country to the south of the town, not far from the main Portsmouth Road. The suburb that grew round it was a planned development by the entrepreneur Thomas Pooley, and was named by him New Kingston or Kingston-on-Railway, both names being used by the station at different times. At some point the station was renamed Surbiton after the farm that had been there before the New Town was built, and by analogy with the longer-established suburb of Norbiton on the other side of the Hogsmill River. Being on the main line, Surbiton station still has a faster and more frequent service to London than the station in the town centre, and Surbiton is well-connected to the town centre by numerous bus routes, (as well as a new cycle path alongside the Portsmouth Road!)
See also back issues of the T-shirts for Kingston Beer Festival – One showed Surbiton station in the year of the 175th (?) anniversary of the line’s opening, & this year, when it showed an LSWR “torpedo” unit for 100 years of electric services through the town
@Greg. (and apologies for further digression)
KBF have done transport-related themes since 2010, but I can’t find one relating to Surbiton station, whose 175th anniversary was last year. .
2009: Tumbling telephone boxes (20 years, the last one not transport-related)
2010: Turks River launches (300 years)
2011: First trolleybuses in Kingston – and indeed London (80 years – Kingston also saw their demise 31 years later)
2012 (don’t recall – the beer must have been particularly good that year)
2013: Kingston station (150 years)
2014: Schneider Trophy win by Kingston-built Sopwith Camel (100 years)
2015: Kingston’s first horse bus (140 years)
2016: electric trains at Kingston (100 years) – an anniversary passed unremarked by SWT (perhaps afraid of embarrassment by comparisons with the speed and frequency of the current service)
I have asked GTR whether there is 16 trains an hour in the evening peak back to St Albans from London or 14.
The consultation document suggests 16 (8 fast 4 slow and 4 semi fast) as there is no difference suggested between morning and evening peak.
However the station by station spreadsheet for St Albans indicates 14 an hour for the evening peak.
The lady in customer services I spoke to did not know what was right/wrong but agreed to pass on my query on to the relevant team.
timbeau
I think 2012 might have been the Surbiton-station one, with the usual Three Fish ( Kingston’s Charge of Arms IIRC ) showing an “airsmoothed” passing through …..
And wasn’t 2008 Trams ??
@Verulamius
I think, in practice, it’s 14 per hour in the direction of peak flow. The station by station section column appears to refer to evenings after the peak period, rather than the evening peak, while the first two columns appear to relate to both peaks. The difference between 14 and 16, for both the morning and evening peaks is TL4, the Littlehampton service, which seems to run only northbound in the morning and only southbound in the evening peak.
@Greg
If you say so – Google Images isn’t coming up with anything.
@quinlet
My understanding is that it is 16 trains per hour in the morning peak from St Albans in to London, otherwise there would be a reduction from the current peak hour service. So in the morning the Bedford Littlehampton service is both directions (at least through London).
The consultation document refers to eight peak hour trains between St Albans and East Croydon.
@quinlet
The detailed spreadsheet http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/download/12394.2/station-by-station-comparison/ is the document with reference to 14 trains in the evening peak which does not tie up with the main document.
@Various
The current Surbiton station was opened in 1845. The original Kingston (1838 to 1845) station was sited a few 100 yards east of the current station, and there is a photograph in existence of the original down platform (Connor and Butler LSWR book).
I can’t make the spreadsheet tie up with the other document for Purley at all. There seems to be an element of double counting somewhere.
[Emphatic language snipped. LBM]
If there is a capacity issue at Windmill Bridge Junction why not just terminate the train at Norwood Jcn or Crystal Palace? Then when Windmill Bridge Junction is fixed you can easily re-extend the service!!! Oh and as any good railway metro service timetabler knows: exclusive services are the key to reliability of service. Don’t mix ‘n’ match your routes.
@ Verulamius. You can ask them yourself tomorrow (Weds); GTR have a timetable consultation session at St Albans station in the morning.
@asl: why not just terminate the train at Norwood Jcn
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/study-sussex-part-13-norwood-junction/
@Sad Fat Dad
I spoke with a member of the team at St Albans this morning and he told me the station by station spreadsheet was put together rather quickly and had some errors.
On his revised version St Albans does have 16 in the high peak (both morning and evening) but only 46 in three hour period. So that probably means only 4 Bedford Littlehampton trains each way.
The main document should be accurate (although it does have a few typos).
@ Walthamstow Writer (28 September 2016 at 21:54)
Thanks for obtaining a response from GTR (and apologies for the delay in seeing this). Blimey – Hadley Wood is getting right royally screwed if they are dropping it to 2tph. Wholly unacceptable for a London Zonal Station, and worse because there is often no bus service to even pick up any passenger alternate routing.
If they are blaming it on low passenger numbers it is entirely because they keep cancelling trains at weekends and leaving passengers with 1tph or often 1t per 90mins.
@Londoner in Scotland (29 September 2016 at 16:09) and others thereafter
Re: Welwyn Garden City layout – whilst a 12 car platform may not be possible, there’s definitely room at the north end of the northbound platforms and at both ends of the southbound platforms to extend to 10 cars, which makes a 12 car SDO operational much more feasible and optimal?
@ Jordan D – No need for any apologies. I keep looking to see if they have updated the consultation document but only one recorded amendment as of last night. They must be aware that the material they have provided is inconsistent at best and down right wrong at worst. How they can possibly reach any sensible conclusions from responses received from people who have been given inaccurate information I know not. If there are enough errors then it could be enough for people to have the consultation deemed “invalid” meaning they have to start again. I remain of the view that GTR don’t know what they are doing and that would be entirely in line with so much of the operation of this franchise.
Having read as much as possible on the proposed new timetable I am left struggling to see any real improvements for day-to-day commuters inside of zone 5 after the multi-million investment and what will be at least 8 years of disruption when finally finished.
Us poor souls on the Sydenham corridor not only do not get back our previous service level ‘temporarily’ reduced while the works were implemented, but we even seem to be losing peak services off that reduced schedule! (in the meantime, station usage figures show a near doubling of demand over the period). We do not get any direct connectivity to the TL services through the core (even though the consultation highlights the high demand for such) and lose any opportunity to connect at New Cross Gate. Norwood Junction is flagged as an interchange but has zero facilities for disabled people (whereas NXG has just had millions spent providing lift access to all platforms including some that will no longer see any trains stop! On top of all that we lose direct trains to East Croydon and points south.
I know Wimbledon loop passengers are not going to gain anything, albeit that is seemingly self-inflicted.
The Catford loop does gain some new services to bring it up to a vaguely acceptable service level at 4 trains per hour, but I would think that could have been achieved independently of the TL 2000 project.
So are there any benefits for people in zones 1-4 at the end of this 28-year improvement project?
WW
I remain of the view that GTR don’t know what they are doing and that would be entirely in line with so much of the operation of this franchise.
Seconded, with the extra proviso that they (GTR) are merely acting as a sock-puppet for the DfT ( Who also haven’t a clue, IMHO, but that’s just me, perhaps) [smiley]
Brockley Mike
Yes, we have all noticed this – the important question is: What happens when the general public & the popular press notice?
Perceptions matter, as in the case of the Wimbledon loop, as a dire example ….
Brockley Mike – I agree with you. As someone who uses New Cross Gate frequently to travel to Gatwick Airport and Brighton, the proposals are a serious diminution to service and will cause real inconvenience (or cost to travel into London Bridge and out again). I hope enough people will kick up a fuss. I’d just be happy with a similar service to today!
“Having read as much as possible on the proposed new timetable I am left struggling to see any real improvements for day-to-day commuters inside of zone 5 after the multi-million investment and what will be at least 8 years of disruption when finally finished.”
The premise going in was that cross-London services deliver better capacity than using terminal platforms. The outcome doesn’t seem to back that up, does it?
So where does that leave Crossrail 2? Will that be more effective? And, is Crossrail 2 still a priority even if effective or does even more need spending on the Brighton Mainline?
And if pollution is the Achilles heel of Heathrow expansion, the increasing difficulty of reliably reaching Gatwick by train must be a major issue for expansion of Gatwick.
Brockley Mike is right to focus on the problems of switching interchange from New Cross Gate to Norwood Junction.
And that’s part of the issue isn’t it? Because the timetable is only being settled after construction, we are now seeing that some parts of the network have been redeveloped when they aren’t now a priority but needed improvements have been missed. Hopefully someone will realise that the HS2 timetable needs publishing before construction begins to avoid a repetition.
Kate: Although there do seem to be many passengers disappointed (or expecting to be disappointed) by the Thameslink outcome [1], it’s a bit of a leap from that to discredit the whole idea of cross-London services. The extra capacity to be added by Crossrail 2 (assuming – as studies show – that that capacity is needed) could not be provided in any other way – certainly not by building more terminus platforms (there’s just nowhere feasible to build them).
While spending on lines to Gatwick and Brighton (and the rest of that corridor) is definitely required, it is also definitely in the plans. There is no reason to suppose that such spending could be significantly increased by cancelling, postponing or altering the Crossrail 2 plans.
[1] Subject to the customary point that there will undoubtedly be some passengers who are glad of the new Thameslink opportunities, but their cries of delight are unlikely to drown out the negative noises coming (understandably) from those whose service is worse.
@Kate – we have actually had a concept timetable for HS2 (what we haven’t had – and what will be very controversial when it’s revealed – is the timetable for the classic services) . More generally, it’s quite impossible with something with as many interfaces with other services as TLK, to publish too long in advance a detailed timetable. Everything around it is in a constant state of flux and no one would argue that (as would have been the case here) the entire rail network in the south east should be frozen from the moment the TLK project had been finally settled.
BTW, the modernisation of the Brighton line is not really linked financially with CR2 – one comes exclusively from NR’s pocket, the other mainly from the Mayor’s. Those two pockets meet, for the purposes of financial control, only at the Treasury, not even within a single department of state.
Re Brockley Mike,
I suspect the consultation documents aren’t complete for the South London Metro services but it was so behind they had to publish anyway (I believe it isn’t the Southern half of GTR that is running the consultation which is why the south of the river part looks so disjoined and at first draft stage – they probably didn’t realise the time required to write up very the complicated service pattern*). There is apparently no mention of the am peak extras starting at Streatham Hill /Crystal Palace to London Bridge via Forest Hill – the franchise TSR requires all of them put back after the dive under track is available after Christmas.
*I suspect they were expecting to relying on input from Southern staff who have been otherwise occupied.
@ Brockley Mike – with my cynic’s hat on I’m not massively shocked that the Thameslink project is delivering more for longer distance commuters than inner area ones. It’s never really been about “metro” type services at all. This takes up back to Sir Peter Hendy’s remark that no one really cares very much for inner suburban commuters as their services get in the way of those that make the money for franchisees (and the DfT). That was obviously when Sir Peter had his “TfL hat” on and was arguing for devolution. I agree it’s daft to abandon stops at places like NXG but clearly the accessibility stuff there was something TfL was keen to see even if it was a DfT funded “access for all” scheme. That assets are going to sit there unused – possibly for years – is of no concern to GTR. They aren’t responsible for them. I saw a remark in a London Travelwatch document from someone at TfL about the TOC’s version of “turn up and go” [1] policy of disabled person’s access to rail services. To say it was scathing is an understatement and says that the more TfL do the more the TOCs go in the opposite direction to avoid the cost impacts in the hope that TfL give them funding. The issues at NXG and Norwood Junction (acknowledging all the physical issues with the site) are illustrative of this poor attitude to the travelling public (not everyone who benefits from lifts and level access is necessarily disabled).
[1] not really “turn up and go” at all. It was “turn up and go but tell us 24 hours in advance just to help us”.
Clearly there are other infrastructure issues (much discussed here already) on Southern’s network but there’s clearly little push to make things demonstrably better for inner area users.
@ Kate – with respect to CR2 we are clearly at an earlyish stage although the service structure and station options are beginning to firm up. There should be a “final” proposition very soon. If we are to learn anything from what seems to be emerging from Thameslink then it is surely the following.
1. Even with the best laid plans circumstances change and service patterns may need to change to reflect those. I suspect housing development will be the biggest problem for CR2 to cope with as plans for large scale development will inevitably change.
2. The balance of trains into CR2 and residual inner suburban services to Waterloo will no doubt be a big issue. I can see the issues from Thameslink repeating themselves here.
3. TfL’s approach to services tends to be “all stations” which will no doubt “bring the pains on” for a section of the commuting public who like their fast / semi-fast trains they have today and may lose in future. I actually think that “row” needs to be had now so it’s clear to people what may well happen in 20 years time. We’re about to have that row with the Shenfield line services too based on some of the tweets to “Twitter session” held yesterday.
4. No doubt there will be gripes about the train design / seating layout etc. Again better to make it as clear as possible now what is likely to transpire. Get the service concept into people’s heads and force a reaction. No doubt all the capacity calculations etc underpinning the design have assumptions about the nature of the train seating and internal layout.
5. The future franchise structure – as in who controls and runs what services – will also be crucial. Whereas there is one TOC today on SWML and one on WAML there may be three on SWML (CR2 TOC, Inner Suburban TOC, Long Distance) and 2 on WAML (CR2 TOC, Long Distance TOC). Obviously that’s guesswork on my part but there may be conflicts if there are multiple parties seeking to run services unless you can get and retain good infrastructure separation.
I don’t see CR2 as being damaging per se but there are risks around what passengers may expect to happen and what will actually transpire.
And please don’t take any of the above as an invitation to re-run alternative CR2 route structures, alignments, etc etc. Already done to death.
Re WW @ 1352,
3.
With people flow issues at Stratford on suspect TfLrail/Crossrail will be encouraging as many as possible to use Maryland etc. if it makes sense in the future as Stratford potentially gets even busier…
@ Ngh – they can do all the persuading they like but it’s demonstrably clear that trains today are so full people are struggling to board peak trains at stations west of Ilford. I know the class 345s will have more space and will later be longer but how long do we think it will take before that is all gobbled up in the peak? Days? Weeks? I’d be astonished if it took more than 9 weeks for it all to be used up. It was always a busy line but post TfL takeover the usage has seemingly rocketed and we all know what happens when you start service improvements – more and more people are pulled in.
It was interesting that someone in the recent Twitter session said “Stratford is an accident waiting to happen”. I’ve not seen the place at the height of the peak for a long while but I’ve read many similar comments in different forums. I wonder if someone at TfL is beginning to wonder if an opportunity has not been missed at Stratford to try to bolster capacity even more. Once you get more offices and retail and housing open there are going to be huge problems as you will get more bi-directional commuting placing greater strain on the station.
@WW
Re: point 5 of the 13:52 post
As WAML inners aren’t on TfL’s target list for Overgroundisation, I’d imagine that there would only be two TOCs on the WAML (CR2 concession and Greater Anglia franchise), with CR2 concession running the STAR services.
Re: Stratford crowding
Platforms 6-8 in the PM peak is horrendous, and the one-way system (which could probably be done better) just dumps passengers for that island at one end of it (other than the few who sneak their way up). You do well to avoid it – keep up the good work of not adding another person there! 😉
Really don’t know why we are talking about Stratford but since you are …
Stratford is horrible in the evening peaks but platform 8 must be one of the most staffed platforms on the entire rail network. I am not sure what accident some people are expecting. I would describe the situation as bad but not out of control.
I really don’t buy all this “Crossrail won’t cope stuff” if you are going to measure it in days or weeks. As an infrequent visitor to the station it seemed pretty obvious to me that the problem was the large gaps between TfL trains during which three or even four Central line trains disgorged a lot of people on the adjacent platform. Once Crossrail runs a train consistently every 5 minutes (with one or two extras terminating at Gidea Park) then things should get a lot better.
What you most certainly don’t want to do is have a mixture of stopping patterns that would encourage passengers to remain on the platform for “their” train. Just make sure they want to catch the first train that pulls in. And better still if they abandon the Central line and catch Crossrail all the way for their journey.
And as I have said before, their journey in all probability won’t be slower due to better acceleration and faster boarding time (wider and more doors per carriage).
Sometimes I really think people go looking for future problems that aren’t there. Or maybe good news stories aren’t popular.
@ PoP – as you are responding to my remarks here are some in return.
1. I’m not looking for an accident. I shared what a user of the service said to Howard Smith of TfL Rail in a public comms session. The user of the service would have to provide more detail on their concerns.
2. There is no doubting that patronage on that route is increasing. I was questioning whether the demand trajectory is one which may be using up expected spare capacity on Crossrail. I’m not exactly the first person to express concerns about how quickly Crossrail’s capacity will be used. I believe a former Transport Commissioner is “on the record” about this. Asking questions is not exactly hunting out “bad news”. It’s a legitimate part of debate even if we have strayed somewhat from Thameslink.
3. Post Crossrail you gain 1 train per hour heading east (compared to the current PM peak service out of Liverpool St – Table 5). Not exactly startling.
4. Yes there may some reconfiguration of whether people interchange or not but you seem to have skipped past my point about the scale of development at *Stratford* also having an impact on the efficient working of Stratford Station. I’ve also not mentioned further development along the route that will no doubt drive up demand.
Last time I looked I thought reasoned questioning about the future was permitted discussion on LR. If it no longer is then please let us know.
“Once you get more offices and retail and housing open there are going to be huge problems as you will get more bi-directional commuting placing greater strain on the station.”
In interesting point. It is often remarked on LR that bi-directional commuting makes better use of locomotive assets but the corollary is the tension that stations work more effectively with uni-directional tidal flow.
“What you most certainly don’t want to do is have a mixture of stopping patterns that would encourage passengers to remain on the platform for “their” train. Just make sure they want to catch the first train that pulls in. ”
But won’t the revised plan for Thameslink cause that problem in the Thameslink core? With the increased diversity of destinations, some of which get relatively infrequent services, there are going to be a lot of people waiting on those platforms.
@Kate – At least two years ago, Network Rail at a lecture I attended had already envisaged this problem and they used the Farringdon platforms as an example.
It was realised that there would be a lot of people waiting on those platforms for different services and so the stated plan was to get the passengers to distribute themselves along the length of each platform by the use of multiple electronic signage from end to end, stating not only where to stand for an 8-car or 12-car service but also to encourage standing back towards the wall whilst awaiting a following service, whilst coupling this with information from the trains themselves as to which are likely to be the more lightly-loaded portions as each train approaches.
Whether or not all of this will occur in practice, I don’t know but the spirit was willing. One can anticipate, however, a certain melee up and down the platforms as intending passengers try to obey the indicators…
On the other hand, judging by the, albeit poor, static signage for the Underground in the new London Bridge concourse, where a couple of days ago when there were masses of folk coming from the toilets end of a long corridor at midday, those lavs were either extraordinarily busy or there were many making for the tube who simply didn’t see any sign to use another route (for there were none) and had to turn back. In other words, if folk don’t look at the indicators at all, then all NR’s good intentions will have been to no avail.
Graham Feakins, Kate,
At least at Farringdon for part of the length of the platform there is plenty of space to wait although in other places the platforms are really quite narrow. It will be interesting to see where they recommend people change. Blackfriars (liked by some, hated by others) would seem to be one option.
Bonus point to Graham for steering this more back on topic.
Wathamstow Writer,
One of my objections were to the phrase “accident waiting to happen” which is highly non-specific and gives no clue as to what problems there are. It is just emotive language that does not help. I really do not like this emotional clap trap when people don’t explain what they mean or why they mean it. If we descend to that level then I have better things to do with my life than be involved with this website.
I also take strong objection to “being full up with weeks”. I take your point that other improvements have very quickly been used to the point that trains are just as crowded within weeks. A particularly noticeable one was the 7th car on the Jubilee line. However, the increase in capacity on Crossrail in East London will be huge. I myself have pointed out on many occasions that you don’t actually get many more trains (same at London Bridge) but the trains you do get will be much longer. We are taking about people capacity not the number of trains. It is the number of people you can move that matters.
It is true that there will be a day in 2019 when all trains go to Liverpool St (High Level) and the next day (or at least a few days later after the customary engineering works) most trains will go on to Paddington and beyond with just a few peak hour trains starting from or terminating at Liverpool St (High Level).
Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, something that seems to overlooked is that you seem to perceive Crossrail to Shenfield as one day it isn’t there and the next day it is. It ain’t going to be like that.
It is fairly meaningless to talk about Crossrail being full up within weeks of opening given that we are talking of a period of around two years from the start to the end of the expansion. As I understand it the timetable for the Shenfield service is roughly as follows:
May 2017: First few 7-car Crossrail trains with longer carriages replace existing 8-car trains on existing timetable.
May 2017 – May 2019. Gradual increase in introducing new 7-car Crossrail trains so that the entire service is provided by these. Possibly by then the service is entirely all stations but nothing has been said about this one way or another.
May 2019: Timetable changes and most trains no longer terminate at Liverpool St but continue to Paddington and beyond.
May 2019 onward. Work starts at Liverpool St to remove one platform and extend three others so they can accommodate 9-car Crossrail trains. Also a programme is started to extend the remaining 7-car trains to 9-car. From previous experience (e.g. East London Line, WCML pendolinos) this will be a gradual process.
So by December 2019 or maybe even as early as Summer 2019 we can regard the service from Shenfield as fully open. My point is that there really is no “big bang” moment – more like “little whimper” in May 2019 when capacity increases. So as capacity keeps growing it becomes fairly meaningless to talk of it being full within weeks. And in any case, within weeks of what? First train being introduced, all previous rolling stock retired, diversion to Paddington, rolling stock implementation fully complete?
PoP – Amen to that.
You can see the same effect closer to home, and closer to now, with the introduction of the Class 700s on Thameslink. Whilst their reliability leaves something to be desired at present, there is no doubt that replacing 8 and 12 car Class 377 s and 387s with 12 car* 700s has effected a notable capacity increase. This has been done gradually over the space of about 3 months, and there are now around 10 in service.
Whilst a couple of contributors over on RailUK forums may disagree, they are splendid trains, and there has unquestionably been a shift in passengers towards catching the “shiny new trains”. This has in turn freed up capacity on some of the services that continue to be formed of existing stock. Whilst Thameslink can rarely be described as being un-full, it is certainly a little less full than it was.
* the first 8 car 700s were introduced this week, and one disgraced itself at Blackfriars a few hours ago.
Sad Fat Dad. I have seen several references to class 700 being unreliable in service which is not totally unheard of with new classes of train. How ever I can’t find any thing on the internet about faults on 700 class. Can you give me some brief info on what the problems are. Is it a single problem or a series of different faults?.
@SFD: The mental image produced by your phrase “disgraced itself”, was priceless…
I got stuck behind a 700 earlier this week between Tulse Hill and Chrystal Palace. They look nice but the grey colour scheme is uninspiring, maybe a touch of blue, say just below the windows would help?
@alanbluemountains. This is drifting slightly off topic, so to avoid Malcolm’s pruning shears all I will say is that it is mostly a combination of software issues and drivers getting themselves familiar with what is (apparently) a completely new ‘system’ for them to use.
If you can bear it, and have a couple of days spare, there are several hundred pages of discussion / argument / ranting on the subject here: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=92632&page=374
Sad Fat Dad. thanks alan
“Within weeks of opening”
I think to most people “opening” will mean when trains start running in the core tunnels. December 2018.
For the Shenfield line, trains through the core will start the following May)
It will be interesting to see how busy the tunnel section gets when only the Abbey Wood services are running.
Pedantic of Purley 7 October 2016 at 06:17
“It is fairly meaningless to talk about Crossrail being full up within weeks of opening given that we are talking of a period of around two years from the start to the end of the expansion.”
An extended masterclass; reminding us all that the pedantry continue to be a vital part of society.
Re: Alanbluemountains
Just to reiterate what SFD has said on Class700s…
In my opinion they are far superior to anything gone before. They suck people off platforms in to their vast cavernous insides in seconds. They have excellent acceleration (the FLU are quicker than 387s but having driven my first RLU yesterday these are quicker still) are well built and robust and despite many a complaint re availability of sockets/tables are in my opinion just marvellous. I am an optimist (unlike many of my driver colleagues) but a cynic too and I could not see how they would be able to cope with the sheer number of passengers that would need to be moved by 24tph in the core. Well sir, I am a convert. Marvellous trains – did I mention that?
The problems are (as already mentioned) software based little gremlins that appear and disappear and problems/delays getting those doors open (again software related). I’m sure they will all get ironed out soon enough. They are very unlike any train gone before and some of the older chaps are struggling to get used to them. But they will and all will be fine.
Marvellous trains. I’ll be interested to see how Bomardiers 345s measure up…
@TL driver
Interesting to see the view from the driver’s seat, so to speak, but all is not quite so rosy for the passenger. I cannot speak from direct experience as the only time I have been on a 700 to date I did not get a seat, but I have tried the mockup of the 707 that was at Waterloo, which I understand to have identical seating. It was immediately apparent that the seats are narrower and firmer than the “ironing boards” on the 455s, or indeed any other train seats I have used, except those on the 378s.
There was one exception – the seat with a view ahead!
I was told the seats meet industry standards. Unfortunately, ever since the withdrawal of wartime rationing, the proportion of the population who still meet the industry standard has been diminishing as their physical proportions have expanded.
I assume FLU and RLU are the two different versions, but which is which? Fairly Long Unit and Really Long Unit perhaps?
Perhaps, anticipating problems in extreme weather, they are Freezing, Late, Uncomfortable and Roasting, Late, Uncomfortable?
Timbeau: Full Length and Reduced Length, but I suspect you knew that.
Don’t believe everything you read about the seats.
I have been using 700s twice a day for most of the last two months, and find the seats more than adequate. Certainly more comfortable than the 455s, the 376s, anything on LU or LO, most commuter DMUs ‘up north’ and for that matter any Easyjet or BA aircraft (economy). The only issue is shortage of leg room in the face to back seats (I’m 6’4″) but in that respect it is no worse than most other trains, and is just about manageable for me.
I have heard plenty of passengers stating (unprompted) how much they like the new trains; at the end of the day that’s what actually matters. Let’s hope the bugs get ironed out quickly and they get introduced onto other GTR services ASAP as their superior acceleration and dwell time performance will certainly make the existing and future* timetables be more robust.
*Do I win £5 for getting us back in topic?
Sad Fat Dad. sorry no five pounds but next September when I will be over would gladly buy you and a few others a beer.
Full Length and Reduced Length: that’s 12 car & 8 car in old money. More 70x’s are on the way, I gather: 5-car for SWT on the Windsor line and 6-car for Northern City Line out of Moorgate. Good to hear people like them & let’s hope the “intermittent gremlins” respond to “expelliamus” or the German equivalent!!
Re Anonymous @ 5 October 2016 at 22:25
If you read the consultation you will note that the reason for the removal of the New Cross Gate stops is down to a lack of infrastructure capacity, primary in the Croydon area preventing such stops from being included in the timetable. As such, to retain the New Cross Gate stop, please tell us which other stops you would remove to facilitate your desire, bearing mind dwell times must be similar so as to still fit into the available paths. How about Norwood junction….
Fact – not everyone preferences can be accommodated – its a question of trade offs and minimising the dis-benefits to the majority – not protecting what is of benefit to the minority.
@OLd Buccaneer
“More 70x’s are on the way, I gather: 5-car for SWT on the Windsor line and 6-car for Northern City Line out of Moorgate. ”
Not strictly speaking both 70xs, as they are to be classes 707 and 717 respectively. (The new Overground units will be 710). The 717 number may be a nice allusion to their class 313 predecessors, but I do wonder at the profligacy with which the Rolling Stock Library is getting through the available numbers in the 7xx series, although there are still at least four 3xx classes still to enter service (331, 345, 385, 397). No news yet as to what class numbers will be allocated to Anglia’s new Aventra and Flirt units.
@ PoP – I provided a context and a backdrop to my comments. I am painfully aware of the introduction phases of the class 345s having read through the relevant agreements and I know the phases for Crossrail’s service buildup. I understand the point you make but I don’t agree. Demand is continuing to build and I assume will continue to do so unless we have an economic downturn and then all bets are off on a whole load of issues to do with London’s transport. I don’t consider the move of thousands of TfL staff to Stratford as “gradual” – that’s a substantive change likely to take place over a matter of weeks as they occupy the new buildings. Ditto new housing at Stratford and elsewhere. And as you have condemned the use of “ill defined” social media related comment I trust that is new policy and will be applied consistently for everyone and across all articles. I will leave it there.
@OB – Raus, presumably.
@WW – and not just in the 7xx range; the profligacy with loco numbers is equally bad. Seen a 54 recently? Or 63 etc?
OB/GH
“Verschwind! ” I suspect may do the trick…accompanies by nose-holding and turning thrice anti-clockwise with eyes shut.
This was how such things were done in Austria…things may be done differently “further North”!
There are 3 trains I can use to get home that are 700s. I try to get them. Mind you 12 coaches is serious over provision and most people get a bay of 4 to themselves! I find them no less comfortable than 387s or the lateright 377s. I can’t believe how fast the doors are. I timed 7 seconds from wheel stop to doors open on one occasion. They can easily be in and out of Merstham and Coulsdon South in less than 30 seconds. The doors are also really wide.
@slugabed – remember the old dictum – in Prussia, everything which is not permitted is forbidden, in Britain everything which is not forbidden is permitted, in Austria everything which is forbidden is permitted. Servus as we old K-k civil servants used to say…
@Graham H
“the profligacy with loco numbers is equally bad. Seen a 54 recently? Or 63 etc?”
The loco number range was fairly well used, and below class 60 most of the gaps can be explained as originally intended for what became subclasses – e.g 18 and 19 for the Class 17/2 and 17/3 “Clayton” variants with Rolls Royce engines and Crompton Parkinson electrical gear. 54 was probably reserved for one of the many flavours of what in the end were all classified as “47” – remember that their Sulzer engines had to be de-rated, so in their original state would have been more powerful and therefore have a higher class number.
From around 1980, it was decreed that carriage numbers and loco numbers should not be duplicated. This resulted in a large number of dmu cars in the 50xxx and 56xxx being renumbered in the 53xxx and 54xxx series, after which class 54 became an impossibility. Likewise, the diesel classes had to skip classes 61-65 inclusive as this was the main number block for emu motor coaches in the BR era
Re SFD,
In one (traditional) sense the 700s habit of failing in their first week in service could be regarded as engineering perfection in that they fail just after acceptance and the accumulation of fault free mileage! Unfortunately with the modern habit of supplying and maintaining rolling stock maybe this isn’t quite such an accomplishment.
Bombardier have apparently been investing lots in a new hardware and software testing environment so perhaps the have anticipated such issues with the next generation of stock better than Siemens especially as the previous generation of Electrostars were more complex beasts in terms of hardware – software interaction* than Siemens Desiros and Bombardier having a smaller generational gap to jump.
Siemens seem to have had a recent string of issues on rolling stock contracts pre the 700s with issues not being resolved for years (recent Velaros especially the multi-voltage units including the new Eurostar Stock being several years behind).
One wonders if Siemens railway heritage built up from various suppliers heritage** to supply modules is beginning to catch up with it where modules are suddenly far more integrated and with more software than before. Siemens had centralised specialist production far more than others manufacturers such as Bombardier or Alstom who have or had far more multi sourcing options who are possibly more used to integration issues.
*e.g. Electric door actuation vs Desiro’s pneumatic; SDO, CSDE and bodyside DOO cameras; telemetry to depot and far more complex computer systems (e.g ASEA heritage) etc…
**
Siemens (VT)
Some of the West German AEG rail assets
Brown Boveri Austria
Kraus Maffei
Simmering Graz Pauker
Re Timbeau,
707 enables SWT to keep using the old southern region 4 digit unit number system internally…
@ngh
So would 701. (or indeed 702 or 703)
ngh/timbeau
As I’ve said before, a reversion to the old SR usage of three-letter codes for EMU’s would be a great improvement (!)
@timbeau -and I understand that we have been forced into the 7xx s because of various blocks of freight wagon numbers. All of which suggests very poor forward planning indeed by the rolling stock library managers.
@ Phil, 8th Oct 18.55:
‘As such, to retain the New Cross Gate stop, please tell us which other stops you would remove to facilitate your desire, bearing mind dwell times must be similar so as to still fit into the available paths. How about Norwood junction….
Fact – not everyone preferences can be accommodated – its a question of trade offs and minimising the dis-benefits to the majority – not protecting what is of benefit to the minority’.
Actually I would say there was a case for stopping at New Cross Gate in lieu of Norwood Junction (assuming the timetable can’t accommodate both). That would provide connectivity with, for example, more Overground trains and would be a suitable connection for those needing lifts to change platforms. It would also provide 12 off-peak connections per hour to the Thameslink core for Sydenham line passengers rather than the 4 per hour in the current plan (ie those via London Bridge).
In terms of dis-benefits, I would have thought that the first step in constructing the new timetable would be to reinstate the services cut ‘temporarily’ prior to the TL works, and only then assessing the relative balance of new services in the timetable. To not do so merely reinforces the case to transfer metro services to TfL urgently, as Southern / Govia clearly have lost all focus on that market.
I would tend to agree with Brockley Mike that to give the greatest benefit TL trains should stop at New Cross Gate rather than Norwood Junction if they can’t do both. This gives better overground access from south of Croydon and better core access from North of Norwood. Norwood Junction will get fast London trains using the ones from Epsom and connections from the south via East Croydon and the Coulsdon to Victoria trains. The Sydenham corridor needs a stopping train to East Croydon though – maybe one could terminate at South Croydon, Sanderstead or Purley. As it stands there don’t appear to be any extra trains than now using cottage junction so it should be timetablable (I haven’t modelled it myself – I gave up trying at Welwyn which I think is the key to the whole thing. Get that right and you’re sorted!)
Re Purley Dweller and Brockley Mike,
1. New Cross Gate – Norwood Junction isn’t a both vs equally weighted either /or as you seem to assume:
a) have and will have fewer trains (2tph or 4tph if Palace LO goes to 6tph) at Norwood Junction compared to New Cross so it is easier to stop services at Norwood Junction
b) have more platforms in the down direction at Norwood Junction usable by fast trains and post proposed rebuild by 2020-ish (See Sussex part 13 article) lots more capacity to stop up fast services at Norwood Junction.
New Cross Gate /Norwood Junction isn’t necessarily an either / or.
c) Post 2020 the only reason not to stop Thameslink at New Cross Gate will just be down to issues at New Cross Gate.
2. Withdrawing the Thameslink Norwood Junction stops reduces /removes the Crystal Palace – East Croydon link which has already got worse over the years (paging Graham F) and currently requires a Norwood Junction Change with the Norwwod Junction link provided by Thameslink which is better used than the Thameslink LO connection at New Cross Gate…
Thameslink stopping at New Cross Gate instead is not a substitute.
@ngh:
I can see that it might be easier to choose NJ as the stopping location ahead of New Cross Gate (NXG) due to platform capacity (albeit of no-use to those needing lift access – even after 2020 as I understand it). In which case that strengthens the case to restore the reduced service of Southern trains on the Sydenham corridor to London Bridge, to improve TL interchange opportunities there instead of at NXG.
Regarding your comment:
‘Withdrawing the Thameslink Norwood Junction stops reduces /removes the Crystal Palace – East Croydon link which has already got worse over the years (paging Graham F) and currently requires a Norwood Junction Change with the Norwwod Junction link provided by Thameslink which is better used than the Thameslink LO connection at New Cross Gate…
Thameslink stopping at New Cross Gate instead is not a substitute’.
However it is seemingly ok to lose the Sydenham corridor direct services to East Croydon?
Regarding demand for TL connectivity on this route, the consultation has this to say:
Analysis has also revealed that passengers travelling from stations between Norwood Junction and New Cross Gate (shown as the Sydenham route on the graph), in many cases travel beyond London Bridge to stations such as London Charing Cross, London Blackfriars, City Thameslink, Farringdon, London St Pancras International and beyond. Whilst this route ranked third in terms of passengers travelling to Thameslink stations London Overground are expected to operate additional services to meet this demand’.
So the Sydenham corridor ranks third in terms of demand for TL connectivity and yet somehow LO services are going to serve this demand, even though they go nowhere near any TL stopping stations north of Norwood Junction (but could of course really help meet that demand if they did stop at NXG)!
Re Brockley Mike,
Agree the frequency on the corridor needs improving I note that they don’t mention the Streatham Hill / Crystal Palace – London Bridge am peak PIxC busters in the consultation.
Thameslink services on the Forest Hill corridor stopping services would be really sensible but as I noted several hundred comments ago it doesn’t bring in the revenue (either real or accountancy trick) that longer distance services would do such as GTR’s infamous Gravesend proposal so GTR won’t be interestedas they need get the revenue in for DfT.
Re the proposed cuts at Brookmans Park, Welham Green and Hadley Wood (and expanding on the post made by glbotu in the same vein):
Just guessing here and not having looked much further than this article and the comments – maybe this is intended for the benefit of the “slow” outer suburban service (currently 1 tph Peterborough and Cambridge each, planned to be 2 tph Cambridge in the future)?
At the moment, with the Moorgate service running every 20 min, this is just enough time for a slow outer service (calling at Potters Bar, Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City) to depart Finsbury Park just in front of the stopper and get almost to Welwyn before starting to catch up with the preceding inner service. However since the outer services run on a 30-min pattern, in practice this only works for one train each hour, with the other train having to run on the fast line between Finsbury Park and Potters Bar in order to overtake the Moorgate stopper.
Now as far as I’ve gathered, there’s been a desire to eliminate those weaving movements in order to free up some fast line capacity, meaning to keep the other tph on the slow line all the way to/from Welwyn as well. Moving the inner suburbans to a 15-min pattern eliminates the basic incompatibility with the 30-min outer suburban service, but at the same time the reduced spacing between stopping trains means the faster trains will start catching up with the stoppers earlier than before. So maybe those stations are skipped twice per hour in order to speed up the stopper so as to avoid having to lengthen running times for the slow outer suburbans instead.
Apart from the reduced service at those three stations, that would also mean that on at least part of the line the stopping service couldn’t run at a perfectly even 15-min interval and would have to be spaced slightly irregularly.
Having been ‘paged’ by ngh re. stopping Thameslink trains serving East Croydon at New Cross Gate v. Norwood Junction, my response is that there is a gap in Southern’s Metro services, in that at least stations and the areas so embraced outwards beyond Tulse Hill/Streatham Hill, viz. West Norwood, Gipsy Hill and Crystal Palace to Norwood Junction, are no longer served by direct trains reaching East Croydon on what was a popular ‘feed route’ not only to/from East Croydon but also Gatwick Airport and beyond. If they get as far as Norwood Junction, the trains use the West Croydon route instead at the moment.
It is thus important whatever happens to maintain a good connecting service to/from East Croydon at Norwood Junction with the via Crystal Palace route from the south. New Cross Gate cannot meet that purpose in any useful way, so Norwood Junction becomes the preferred choice.
Those at New Cross Gate who require East Croydon can also travel on the frequent services on the local lines to Norwood Junction and change there for East Croydon and beyond. To have nothing stopping at Norwood Junction for East Croydon, I submit, would be out of the question.
Stopping at Norwood Junction also facilitates connections to/from West Croydon and beyond to the via East Croydon routes. One must remember that not all rail services are London-centric. Traditionally, East Croydon itself sees as many commuters arriving in the morning peak for work in the town as commuters entering the station departing for London. Of course, much of that depends on office occupancy in the town.
@ Jan H – you may well be correct. The point, surely, is that GTR’s consultation material should be accurate and consistent? Even when you ask them the question about what the frequency is at those stns their response is incoherent. And passengers are supposed to entrust their safety to an organisation that can’t cross check and proof read documents nor give people a straight answer? The public deserve to be given accurate information and a clear justification as to why three stns will get a worse service than they currently do.
Several commenter have mentioned Crystal Palace to East Croydon as one of the requirements for Norwood Junction stops. This will be filled by the Victoria to Coulsdon services. There is as I said still a need for a half hourly train from the Sydenham corridor to East Croydon. Get that and the Caterham slow to London Bridge via Streatham and Coulsdon to Victoria and then all metro stations north of Croydon are served which is what we need. Just how to get all three services? Could the Milton Keynes service divert to West Croydon to leave room at Cottage Junction and East Croydon?
Purley Dweller 10 October 2016 at 21:59
” Could the Milton Keynes service divert to West Croydon to leave room at Cottage Junction and East Croydon? ”
That wouldn’t be much use to Gatwick Airport passengers.
I have been reading for an hour but only got part way down the list. So apologies if these questions/points have already been covered. Feel free to ignore answering/responding rather than flame me for wanting to get to bed (its after 23:30!)
1) Why do Kings Lynn/Cambridge fast trains need to go into Kings Cross at all, taking up valuable slots over Welwyn Viaduct and other two-track sections as well as wanting clear platforms cleared of Hertford loop trains at Stevenage and offering no stops for anyone in Hertfordshire or even at Finsbury Park. Why could they not go into Liverpool Street instead? Is that line even more congested? Or is it that GTR will not let Abellio have some of its business?
2) I do not understand the logic of linking the relatively trouble free Northern services to the trouble-stricken Southern. Any problems on Southern will inevitably become Northern’s after 2018. Is the gain of not having to transfer to the tube for people wanting to get from the north to Farringdon and Blackfriars sufficient motivation? I cannot imagine that many people need a change free train to get from the north to the south coast and vice versa (Gatwick may be an exception)
3) I do not understand how one platform at St Pancras can handle all the passengers for a succession of services. At peak times there are passengers alighting trains on two suburban platforms at Kings Cross as well as one intercity on the point of travelling within a few minutes of one another north.
4) How confusing and stressful will it be for passengers leaving London to have to make a choice about whether to go to St Pancras for a train or Kings Cross. Or when there is a problem at St Pancras to then have to go back to Kings Cross. There is also a certain reassurance and stress reduction about Kings Cross being the terminus – you could fall asleep on the way there and on the way home get to sit down straightaway. That won’t be the case at St Pancras
5) If all the services are moved out of Kings Cross, which has a lot of platforms already unused, yet has recently been refurbished, isn’t this underutilisation inefficient of resources?
6) Hertford North is 12 minutes from Stevenage and I cannot see bustitution reducing that commute. I also know people working in Enfield who commute from Stevenage and people in Watton at Stone who come up to Stevenage by train to join trains south.
7) If the services on the Hertford Loop are stopped will is still remain open if there is a problem on the main line?
I have made a submission on this basis but am planning to meet the managers at Stevenage on Thursday (a very poorly advertised opportunity which station staff seem to know nothing about and customer services could not definitively confirm was happening) so I would welcome any intel before that meeting.
@ Sprayerpaint – what follows is largely opinion, not fact so probably not worth throwing at officials from GTR!
1. I think there is a strong and proven market for fast trains from London to Cambridge. That’s really only achieveable on the ECML. It is far too slow and congested out of Liverpool St plus the only “fast” paths are taken by Stansted Express trains. Disrupt those and you will have the wrath of the airport and airlines after you plus a fair slice of Essex / Herts commuters. As has been said many times the DfT wants oodles of revenue out of the GTR franchise so retaining fast, popular trains is a good way to keep the money rolling in. I also expect passengers would be *very* upset to lose their fast trains. I also expect they will be popular with tourists visiting Cambridge.
2. Well Bedford line trains have been linked to the Southern network for nearly 30 years. All the project does is build on that core and try to provide a lot more capacity. You can’t send them all to Bedford so linking to the Great Northern route was viewed as the next sensible option. Clearly running the services well, reliably and on time is going to be an enormous challenge hence this consultation to try to get a “workable” pattern of services. Whether “workable” means “what the public wants and needs” is another topic altogether.
3. Not very familiar with St Pancras LL and certainly not in the peak so can’t comment really. One assumes someone did some clever calculations before they built it but time will tell if the place copes or not. Plenty of other places in the world with intensively worked single platforms with varying destinations – lots of them in Tokyo to take one example. Crossrail will have the same challenge for westbound passengers when it’s fully open in late 2019.
4. There may well be confusion but regular travellers settle into “patterns” so will know where to go. The saving grace, I suppose, is that the distance between the two is not too far given the Western concourse at KX and you can switch stations under cover if you wish to. If you’re not a regular then you will either make scrupulous arrangements and follow them or you’ll just be in a tizz as usual and just ask someone. That’s my experience of giving assistance to the travelling public. I’ve been left wondering how some people manage to dress and feed themselves never mind get around but they clearly cope somehow. Thankfully we’re all different and not precision set robots.
Can’t comment on the rest as I’ve no familiarity about KX platform utilisation post 2018 nor the service and usage patterns on the Hertford North branch. If you do manage to get any sense out of the GTR reps about the GN services, including the local services to Moorgate and their stopping patterns / frequencies I’ll be interested to hear what you were told.
Sprayerpaint
1) yes the Cambridge to Liverpool St route is more congested than to Kings X. And even if it wasn’t, a non stop train would still take 10 minutes longer as the line is notably less straight. It would not be well received in Cambridge.
2) the logic is only partly that linking the two creates new direct regional links – Welwyn to Croydon, or Royston to Gatwick for example. But mostly, the logic is enabling better distribution within London (a significant majority of commuters arriving at Kings Cross do not work near Kings Cross), and also, with 24 tph, providing (effectively) a new high capacity metro line across London, which will connect with Crossrail. This helps relieve parts of the Northern, Victoria, Jubilee and Circle lines.
3) easily. Southbound, when the service is slighter out of kilter, St P LL routinely has trains arriving at under 3 minute intervals and works. As per above, many of the passengers who currently use Kings Cross to get home in the evening will already be on the train, having boarded at London Bridge or City Thameslink for example.
4) the good folk of Sussex, Kent and (for example) Purley have managed with services to 2, 3 or even 4 London termini for over a century. For that matter so have the good folk of Welwyn GC, Hatfield and Potters Bar. It really isn’t difficult.
5) post 2018, those platforms will soon be refilled with additional longer distance services. See the new East Coast franchise.
6) fair point
7) yes, definitely
sparayerpaint / WW / SFD
Which brings us back to the problem of Wilberforce Junction
I suspect that this, rather than the Welwyn bottleneck is going to be one of the principal sensitive break/trip nodes of the whole thing.
How & why the “planners” were allowed to get away with a new flat junction at that location baffles me.
[ NOTE: There is some boring official name for that junction, but as in “The Ladykillers” most of us call it “Wilberforce” … ]
Re Point 4. Personally I’m not looking forward to this for this very reason. At present I have a train service to St Neots that is basically reliable – due to it being pretty much an out and back route with very little external to perturb it (OLE failures permitting).
In the future I’ve got a situation where the trains from St Pancras are more likely to be delayed departing due to the complexities south of the river, but is liable to be pushed through in favour of a departure from King’s X due to it being necessary to get it out of the core.
Unless there’s some seriously good information flows it is pretty much going to be impossible to know which way to head when standing on the main concourse at Kings X waiting for a platform number.
Greg Tingey,
You have raised the issue of what you call Wliberforce Junction and the fact that it is flat far too often.
See for example here.
On one occasion someone, obviously an insider, wrote a detailed response explaining why it was completely impossible for it to be anything other because of canals, other tunnels etc. and why it had to be sited where it was. Unfortunately despite a long search I can no longer find this comment.
If you raise this again I will delete the comment.
Re PoP and Greg,
Quick response as reminder* ( a more in depth response may also available if others want):
Belle Isle Junction (Wilberforce Jn to Greg) isn’t an issue it is actually a solution to current problems especially as fewer King Cross platforms are fully accessible from the slow lines (the down slow is only directly accessible from P8-11 of which P9-11 have short platforms) with the current Kings Cross throat arrangement. (Might I suggest Greg has a quick look at pages 167 & 168 of the LNE sectional appendix).
The Thameslink solution to the short platforms issues and fewer accessible platforms from/to the slows is to sent 12cars etc through Thameslink instead and utilise the short platforms less instead (This also allows higher utilisation of the longer P7&8 from the fast lines).
So quite cunning overall when you look at the detail.
There is a proposed longer term capacity solution to deal to more (especially intercity) services on the ECML by reinstating a 5th track through the currently unused eastern most Canal and Copenhagen Tunnels till the Holloway Flyover to have 3 fast lines allowing far higher utilisation of the low numbered (but long) platforms (especially P0). ETCS etc. will also bring some changes and improvements especially as the P0 implementation was “ducktape” solution till resignalling.
*time for an LR FAQs?
And to clarify even further for those without a detailed map: Belle Isle Junction is where the two Thameslink tracks split off from the slow Kings Cross lines to descend to the Thameslink station under St Pancras. The junction at St Pancras being a flying junction….
I think for reasons given by PoP, we will decline the offer of more details. There is of course a junction at each end of the canal tunnels line, Belle Isle junction at the north end, and Canal (Tunnels) Junction (sources differ) at the south end. I am not sure which one of them Greg would like to rebaptise, but anyway use of unofficial names is discouraged on this site. (My bete noire is “Northern City Line”, but that misname is at least sanctioned by history). The Canal Tunnels line is built and it is where it is.
@sprayerpaint: As others have said, the Cambridge/Stansted line into Liverpool St is hopelessly congested, and therefore slow, which is why there has been talk for some time of four-tracking it from Coppermill Junction at least as far as Broxbourne. Also don’t overlook the value of passengers from the Great Northern stations being able to directly access Farringdon, which can only gain in importance as an interchange station when Crossrail appears. It’s a pity that in all the rebuilding the Thameslink and Met/H+C/Circle lines couldn’t have been paired by direction with two island platforms at Farringdon to allow cross-platform interchange from southbound Thameslink to eastbound Underground (and likewise westbound Underground to northbound Thameslink).
Another thing worth mentioning about Belle Isle Junction is that according to the consultation, no trains to/from King’s X will stop at any stations between there and Welwyn North and as such will stay on the fast lines from Welwyn inwards. The only trains to/from King’s X which will be forced to interact with Belle Isle will be those using Platforms 10 and 11 (the only ones without access to the fast lines) as well as any ’empties’ which cannot get a path on the fast lines.
Also, it could prove beneficial to replace the existing Dn. Fast to Dn. Slow connection between the Canal and Copenhagen Tunnels with a Dn. Slow to Dn. Fast connection. That way a train leaving Plat. 10/11 needing to join the Dn. Fast could avoid Belle Isle as long as there wasn’t a train approaching King’s X on the Up Slow. Note that if a train was approaching King’s X on the Up Slow then there is a better chance of getting a path across Belle Isle as there could not be an Up TL service at the same time. The train could then join the Dn. Fast at an existing connection in the Holloway Rd. area.
Correction: Both me and ngh at 12:53 referred to the tunnels between King’s X and Belle Isle as the Canal Tunnels when they are in fact the Gasworks Tunnels. The Canal Tunnels are those that connect the Thameslink core to the ECML.
Re Anon E. Mouse,
Opps obviously need some more caffeine today.
The Gas Work tunnel of course goes under the Canal…
@Anon E. Mouse: The Canal Tunnels are those that connect the Thameslink core to the ECML.
MML (Midland Mainline) instead of ECML (East Coast Main Line)?
@ ngh
……..as do the Canal Tunnels of course.
@Malcolm
“I am not sure which one of them Greg would like to rebaptise”
It is Belle Isle – the one overlooked by the house of Mrs Wilberforce (the Lady in “The Ladykillers”) – recommended viewing to see how the area has changed (and because it is a good film!) The area was even less deserving of the epithet “Belle” sixty years ago than it is now!
The point of running trains through London and out the other side is the same as it was in 1988 when the Snow Hill Link first re-opened: getting more trains into London without having to expand the terminals. Redistribution of passengers over several central London stations is a bonus. The direct (no changes) cross-London journey opportunities are very much a fringe benefit for a lucky handful, with the selection of actual pairings more to do with operational convenience than passenger flows.
@Southern Heights
No, Anon E Mouse is right. The Canal Tunnels, complete but not yet in use, will indeed connect the Thameslink core at St pancras Low level to the ECML. They essentially replace the old Hotel Curve and York Road curve, which connected the Widened Lines at the old Kings Cross Metropolitan station to Kings Cross itself, but have been defunct since Moorgate services were diverted via the Northern City Line*, and are too tightly curved for modern stock.
*as it was known at the time. Malcolm suggests it has another name now, but I don’t know what it is.
Yes, it is not ideal that Belle Isle/ Wilberforce/ Maiden Lane/whatever you want to call it is a flat junction, but better that than nothing, and there was indeed no room to put in grade separation there. At least it is not a single lead!
timbeau says “and are too tightly curved for modern stock”. I think, at least for the Hotel Curve, “were” might fit better, since it has completely disappeared and is thoroughly filled in and covered over by the rather splendid blister on the side of Kings Cross station. The tunnel which contained the York Road curve still seems to exist, and doesn’t look very tightly curved, but it may be too narrow, it contains no track, and certainly York Road station had a platform which was much too short (and would require access from the fast line).
@timbeau et al:
http://thevictorianist.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/belle-isle.html?m=1
In re: “Ladykillers”: I may be over thinking it, but there is also a link between W Wilberforce & Belle Isle: see the ‘John Curwen’ section of:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Workington
@Southern Heights, timbeau
As an amusing aside, according to my Ian Allen Rail Atlas, the tunnel between the TL core and the MML is called the King’s Cross Tunnel. Somewhat ironic as it no longer directly serves King’s X!
PoP & ngh
Err .. thanks, actually – I had forgotten that – & ngh especially for the extra info.
Malcolm
“Wilberforce” = Belle Isle, i.e. the junction at the N end of the new link, as overlooked by Mrs’ Wilberforce’s house in “The Ladykillers” ….. ( as I see Timbeau also says )
Also:
The York Rd curve wasn’t very tight, but the now-totally defunct Hotel curve was both tight & steep – watching & listening to an N-2 starting a down suburban out of there was “fun”….
Clearances in both were not very much & VERY smokey.
Lastly, tunnels – all very confusing.
IIRC the new tunnel(s) between KXStP Thameslink & Belle Isle/Wilberforce are called the “Canal Tunnels”
BUT the those directly N out of King’s Cross are called the “Gasworks” & “Copenhagen” tunnels respectively.
@PoP at 1158 11 10 2016 : I think this:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/east-coast-mainline-routes-branches-part-1-thameslink-works/#comment-116101
is what you were looking for.
GT
Because the Gasworks Tunnel goes under the canal,whereas the Canal Tunnels go under (the site of) the gasworks…
@Malcolm: The tunnel which contained the York Road curve still seems to exist
I believe that as part of the general Kings Cross rebuild, it had a diverted utility of some kind put into it (a sewer? a large water main?).
@Greg
Thameslink trains will also use Copenhagen Tunnel, as Belle Isle is south thereof.
It may have been possible for long framed stock to go down the York Road curve but it would only have been able to get back out of the Widened Lines onto the MML!
Where was the original temporary GNR “Maiden Lane” terminus? The modern thoroughfare of that name seems rather too far from the GN main line.
Timbeau
As far as I can tell,Maiden La temporary station was in the area of erstwhile goods yards just to the north of the canal.After being superceded by King’s Cross,it was used as a potato warehouse and demolished in the late 19thC.
Maiden Lane is the old name for York Way.
National Library of Scotland as usual has some lovely maps of the area.
http://maps.nls.uk/view/101201436
http://maps.nls.uk/view/101201466
http://maps.nls.uk/view/101201496
Never noticed the tunnel coming out of the top of the Copenhagen tunnels though …
And for confusion-avoidance, we should mention the other station called Maiden Lane, which was on the North London line, closed in about 1917.
Old Buccaneer,
That was it. Thanks very much.
@Slugabed
“Maiden Lane is the old name for York Way.”
That explains it. Thankyou
Interestingly enough there is an said to be an acceptance within Network Rail and TfL that a proposal for reopening the old North London line station at Maidens Lane would have a respectable business case given the anticipated demand caused by both the new housing and the the new office developments (such as Google’s proposed headquarters building) on the old Kings Cross railway lands.
I am not aware of any formal proposal to take this forward but it might be one to watch
Back on topic for a moment, I don’t think it’s been mentioned that the Rainham terminating option only exists following the construction of the new Platform 0 as part of the East Kent resignalling programme.
Having grown up in Rainham, I was tickled when Class 395 high speed trains began passing through a hand-cut ex-canal tunnel that’s almost 200 years old http://kentrail.org.uk/higham_tunnel.htm
IanJ 01:29
What I read was that a water or gas main was diverted into a short isolated section of the Hotel Curve, somewhere between the original junction with the widened lines and the western ticket hall box, which is only a relatively short length in the vicinity of the tube ticket hall.
But I have also since seen pictures showing the York Road curve is available to road vehicles almost as far as the now removed junction with the widened lines. Apparently NR use it as an access route to an underground power facility of some sort in one of the tunnels that is towards the Southern end but no longer part of the rail network.
I cannot now link to the pictures, I think the owner has removed them.
@RichardB That is interesting, especially in contrast with the suggestion to re-open York Road for similar reasons, which came out with a horrible BCR (IIRC something like 0.03?!)
@ Imm it is of course possible that the draconian costs of opening a New Tube station on the Piccadilly line would sink any business case. Bear in mind it would have to be built to current standards with escalators and provision for full access for the disabled as although the old station existed in the past any reopening would be considered a new build. In contrast building a new station on the North London line whilst doubtless expensive would be significantly cheaper than a new Tube station as it would be wholly above ground. Nevertheless it will be interesting if pressure grows for its reinstatement. I rather hope it happens but I suspect if it were to happen developers money would be required to kick it off.
@ Richard B – hooray if we do actually get an Overground station on the NLL at York Way. Makes a great deal of sense given the enormous scale of development to the south. Let’s hope TfL has been getting a decent slice of developer contributions channelled into Islington Council for use on transport improvements. Given there hasn’t been a single extra bus or bus service laid on in the area since it started to redevelop there must be a decent sum of money accruing as nowt’s been spent.
Thanks to those who commented on my questions.
I met with the managers today and the response was as follows:
1) Kings Lynn to KGX confirmed as much faster than to Liverpool Street and unable to stop to help Hertfordshire passenger journeys because at 90-95% occupancy.
2) Linking with Southern Rail being like moving in with someone with a permanent cold: Less convincing response however this will be managed by segregating GTR from Southern staff and turning round trains at intermediate stations south of river if necessary.
3) This will depend on encouraging passengers to treat STP like the underground, i.e. getting on the first available train and changing up the line. That sounds unrealistic to me, at least in the first few years.
4) There will be two GTR trains an hour out of KGX still (my only way to guarantee a seat home I suspect) but signing of alternative departures from STP on KGX departure boards is unlikely because of the risk of passengers rushing around. (In answer to one of my respondents I would say that just because other people are suffering south of river doesn’t mean more should to the north – race to bottom?). Part of justification to switch to STP is to enable track changes at KGX
5) GTR claims it will not lose its capacity to use platforms at KGX. (9-11 seem not to be liked that much anyway for being too short.)
6) Managers agree that the loss of SVG to Hertford trains (much, not all of the day) is a reduction in service but blame DFT for cutting the 5th ‘bay’ platform project. It is not clear yet whether there will be much of a rail service at Watton at all and although some acceptance of the need for 5th platform a lot of collateral engineering required for effectively only a few passengers. No support for keeping a few older trains.
7) Hertford Loop will remain open for emergency use.
I also asked if they were liaising with other operators to massage timetables and they are.
Just for the record platforms 9-11 at King’s Cross can take 8 x 20 metre coach trains which is what most of the GN Cambridge and Peterborough trains are in any case.Just a few peak trains are 12 coach trains which have to use the main line platforms 0-8.
GTR have now added details on the Top 6 destinations for individual stations including predicted demand for the core. To be consistent with the rest of the consultation this has been done in a haphazard fashion. The only station in the Kent Thameslink route section is Otford on both the Thameslink and Southern consultation pages. I tried to check the Gatwick Express version, but found all routes just have a PDF icon and no clickable link.
They have mostly worked out that Cambridge’s meet the manager was on Wednesday not Monday (apart from the Gatwick Express page which is still incorrect). All three still refer to London Canon Street which is at least an easy mistake to make.
In the main consultation document itself they’ve had another swing at the titles for SN3.11 and SN3.12. Previously these read “London Blackfriars – Peckham Rye – Tulse Hill – Streatham – Wimbledon – Sutton” and “London Bridge– Tulse Hill – Mitcham Eastfields – Sutton” respectively. Now SN3.11 has Herne Hill instead of Tulse Hill and SN3.12 has Peckham Rye instead of Tulse Hill. In both cases they’ve replaced a station in the stop list with another one so it hasn’t made the situation worse. However, SN3.11 doesn’t stop at Peckham Rye or Wimbledon and SN3.12 doesn’t stop at Mitcham Eastfields which was probably what they were meant to be fixing…
On a more positive note GN5 has been updated to show 2tph off-peak for Hadley Wood and 2tph (presumably just off peak too though not explicitly stated) at Welham Green and Brookmans Park. No explanation is provided for why, but suspect the guesses given here are broadly right. Hopefully not many people have responded from those stations based on 4tph off peak rather than 2tph.
SE passenger
Indeed, that level of apparent total lack …
[Snip! Repeated axe grinding, which we’ve discussed previously at least a few times. LBM]
Yes I noticed the slapdash appearance of the graphs, and although some of the explanatory notes are badly written, the data itself is reasonably interesting… for instance I didn’t realise the significance of Cambridge over London from the stations between Royston and Ely, nor the relative insignificance of Liverpool Street compared to King’s Cross when compared to the roughly 50/50 split of flows between many Brighton Main Line stations and London Bridge/Victoria.
The other comment I’d add is that it would be good to see East and West Croydon separated out where the option of travelling to either station is available; one wonders whether doing this would work against their proposals to simplify the South London Metro network, or perhaps I’m just being cynical?
The graphs are very interesting. The fact that local journeys to the next station appear so often in the top six (in the Croydon and Redhill graphs at least). Not so surprising to me was the number of local stations with Reigate as a popular destination. I reckon that is mostly accounted for on my regular training where about 200+ students get off at Redhill and stuff themselves on a connection! That’s about 40000 journeys a year.
@Anonymous
“nor the relative insignificance of Liverpool Street compared to King’s Cross”
The KX service is much faster and more frequent than the LSt one these days – mainly because the Stansted service has taken the slots the Cambridge fast trains used to have. I would guess, also, that the City is a less important destination for Cambridge residents than it may have been in the past, as Cambridge is itself a much bigger centre of employment than it was fifty years ago (all those science parks etc).
The station by station comparison spreadsheet has also been updated. For St Albans this now shows 46 in the three hour peak and 16 in the high peak both in the morning and evening.
This agrees with the information provided at the St Albans meeting earlier this month. It would appear that there are only 4 trains on the Littlehamptons (in both directions in both peaks) rather than 6 in the three hour peak.
So this is a more significant increase in trains in the evening, as currently there are fewer trains in the evening peak compared with the morning.
Re sprayerpaint et al.
As 700s on test runs don’t seem to be able to make it all the way to Cambridge without losing their 3rd rail shoes to inappropriately placed track side items may be the only way to run reliable Thameslink services is to turn the units early before they get to far north on the GN routes 😉
Purley Dweller – the graphs would be much more useful if they group line destinations such as “trains via Clapham Junction & Victoria”, “trains via London Bridge” as there is never going to be a direct train to many destinations from say Earlswood but the indication of how many passengers need Victoria trains and how many Thameslink would be useful.
However providing useful information is not the goal. For example suddenly the normal is 2 trains per hour to London Bridge from Redhill that take 41 minutes which is the temporary timetable when 2 London Bridge services were diverted via Tulse Hill for 4 years and the journey time extended from 34 to 41 minutes. So it falsely makes the new plan look like an improvement.
I have to ask if it is right to allow a consultation to have such misleading quotes that does not show the true changes in patterns proposed that most people won’t notice.
T33
So is the collection of “inaccuracies” in the “consultation” document deliberate or accidental?
Either way it does not look good, but the important point is not that the commentariat here notice such things, but do the supposedly-responsible politicians & voters & fare-paying putative passengers
The 50/50 splits south of East Croydon between London Bridge services and Victoria ones are useful as they show the outcry that would happen if people were expected to change at East Croydon instead of having direct trains as now. Actually I think the splits are not quite so even as Victoria services also transport those changing at Clapham Junction (and the charts show how important South West London via Clapham Junction is.) Nevertheless my argument remains- expect pain if interchange is forced on those who do not have to do so at the moment.
Re Anonymous 16th Oct:
‘The other comment I’d add is that it would be good to see East and West Croydon separated out where the option of travelling to either station is available; one wonders whether doing this would work against their proposals to simplify the South London Metro network, or perhaps I’m just being cynical?’
I was looking at the TfL map showing their proposals for when they take over local routes and noted that all Sydenham corridor trains from London Bridge will go to East Croydon (after 2021?) – ie no more LBG to Victoria via Crystal Palace and no more LBG to West Croydon.
That seems to undo the current Southern plans in this regard completely – whereby they are taking everything away from East Croydon and sending them to West Croydon instead!
The outcome of this consultation will therefore have a life of about 2 or 3 years seemingly (on the Sydenham corridor at least), before being completely changed again. That does not seem terribly well joined up thinking to my mind?
@ Brockley Mike – I think no one should be thinking any of TfL’s plans are “set in stone”. We have no indication yet from the DfT about South Eastern never mind subsequent franchises. I don’t expect we will get the go ahead for devolution on 4 networks / routes in one go. I expect each one will be decided separately.
We also have no sense, yet, as to TfL’s timeline for implementing any of their plans nor where the funding will come from. I think it is way too early to make any assumptions about service patterns that might end up being implemented regardless of what TfL have published. TfL will have an enormous job on their hands shifting opinion. We know just from the tiny amount of opinion on here that views are very split and also very strongly held. I also suspect the more “aggressive” frequencies being suggested require some level of capital investment and that will take years to implement.
If we assume Southern is devolved to TfL it will be the next Mayoralty before anything happens and we could have a different party in charge with a very different view about where money will be spent and on what. There will also be a not insignificant issue around comparative fare levels by that time. Implementing TfL fares on devolved TOCs will be unaffordable – the scale of fare reduction will be too great and that’s before we get to the point that TfL’s fares will have to increase, probably substantially. That could have severe ramifications for TfL’s services – demand and revenue. An awful lot can change by 2020 and beyond so I’d treat any radical service changes with appropriate scepticism.
@WW – yes I agree – all of that makes sense. What makes less sense is that one can only really comment on what is put out there in the public domain – and with lots of updates now to the Govia consultation (after I have commented on it to them) plus the likelihood of major change just a few years later via TfL – albeit not necessarily the changes they are advertising to make their case – it is hard to know what to say ultimately!
@WW
Implementing TfL fares on devolved TOCs is absolutely essential, as soon as possible. It is simply not acceptable that south London pays more than north for equivalent journeys. And don’t forget that the higher TOC fare only gets you to a handful of stations on the edge of Zone 1. To get to somewhere more central you not only have to switch to the Tube, but pay an even higher fare.
As they claim 97℅ of fare revenue goes back to the railway, it is not hard to conclude how a 3% reduction in fares could be achieved immediately.
@ Brockley Mike – you can only ever comment on what is current and that’s the GTR consultation for all of its flaws. TfL’s prospectus is a long way off (comparatively) and with little certainty. I think it is clear from the SoS’s remarks to the Transport Select Cttee that he has no appetite for removing Govia from running the GTR contract. Why would he? – it looks as if GTR are winning the industrial relations issues and therefore achieving the govt’s objectives.
@ Timbeau – to be fair I was not arguing as to the rights and wrongs of fare policies for rail users south of the Thames. I understand why S Londoners have every right to feel aggrieved. I was speculating a little as to the risks that exist come 2020 for the next Mayoralty. While I understand why people are attracted to the idea of a fares freeze I remain deeply sceptical as to the ramifications for TfL’s budget and for service quality and investment. I’d never argue TfL couldn’t be more efficient – of course it could. However 4 years of a freeze when we now have a number of dangerous issues affecting the costs of imports will become increasingly damaging. Remember all the arguments about TfL vs the Labour candidate’s “fares freeze numbers” and how TfL’s pessimistic inflation assumptions were a major factor in the difference? I wouldn’t be shocked to find that those TfL assumptions end up being largely reflected in reality. That means hundreds of millions of pounds difference in the budget.
I have long been of the view, for over 30 years, that an investment led strategy for public transport coupled with inflation or just over inflation fare rises is far, far more sensible than operating with massive fares subsidies to the exclusion of funding many other good things. I saw the former in action when Tyne and Wear PTE achieved an integrated bus and metro network and had rising patronage over many years up to 1986 when bus deregulation hit and destroyed a lot of the good work. Tyne and Wear’s model was not perfect but it broadly worked and gave decent service levels and good links.
On your very final point I don’t see much prospect of the current policy of contracting out railway service operation to private companies changing any time soon. After all not even TfL can get round that and their contractors will all be earning some level of profit.
@WW
Just to take up your final point, on a franchise model the risk lies with the operator and they charge (bid) accordingly. On a concession model the risk lies with the government (local or central) and so the contractors can bid lower. Only if the risk actually occurs does someone have to pay.
That is why LO now charge TfL fares, not TOC fares.
Actually, most of the few remaining TOC services in London north of the Thames/A4 corridor also charge TfL rates, (The only exceptions now being, I believe, north of Finsbury Park and north of West Hampstead Thameslink)
@timbeau – except that TfL’s role in the LO operations is technically as franchisor on behalf of the SoS. The trouble is that the whole terminology has become thoroughly confused thanks to the different models used in different parts of the UK. It’s far better not to use terms such as franchisee but talk in terms of the way risk is/isn’t transferred.
Timbeau – LO charge ‘TfL’ fares as that is what is in their contract, ie that TfL set the fares. Other TOCs set fares as per what is in their contract with their specifier, usually DfT, and is controlled by regulation.
It has nothing to do with the balance of risk in the franchise. See GTR.
@WW: ‘TfL’s prospectus is a long way off (comparatively) and with little certainty’.
is that the case though as the map I was looking at when commenting on TfL proposed services came from the document submitted a week or so ago to Government by the Mayor / TfL – from TfL’s website:
‘In October 2016 we presented a business case on rail devolution to the Secretary of State for Transport’
If that has ‘little certainty’ would that not be a little misleading from a business case perspective – ie if the proposals were merely ‘indicative’ rather than firm plans backed up by a detailed business case?
It seems not unreasonable at the very least for the proposals to be subject to scrutiny / comment on the basis they are serious propositions. As you say, we can only comment on what is current and these seem at the ultra-fresh end of ‘current’
Warning – “pedant mode” has been set.
To be completely, strictly correct the Mayor mandates the fares that are set on TfL contracted services. TfL “do the legwork” to frame a package and negotiate with the TOCs but within the policy framework set by the Mayor. The Mayor issues a Mayoral Decision and a Direction to require TfL to implement (revised) fares. Even with all of that TfL is itself constrained by DfT decisions over fare setting responsibities at Watford and Shenfield where TOC fares are charged even if you use a TfL service. They will have similar constraints in South Eastern land if devolution happens and I fully expect Reading to be a similar issue for Crossrail fares. We must also remember that there is NOT a single TfL farescale – there are two because of higher fares applying on West Anglia and the Shenfield line. It is also the case that LO – TOC journeys with no tube or DLR or interavailable element are charged on the National Rail farescale.
I am not sure it is a “fact” that the revenue risk being retained by TfL necessarily creates the financial headroom to allow TfL fares to be charged. I’ve never seen any financial analysis that supports this for any part of the network. The fares that are charged in London are set by Mayoral policy except where there are legal / DfT constraints requiring a divergence from said policy. I agree that bids for a TfL run contract are almost certainly lower than would be the case if the franchisee was asked to hold revenue risk.
We have yet to really see what happens in London if the economy goes into reverse, ridership falls and TfL *does* have to bear the revenue risk relative to the cost of its contracted services. It has been fortunate to have had only a small blip in patronage in 2007/8 and even then it wasn’t that severe or long lived. We may be in for “interesting times” on the revenue front over the next few years for a whole load of reasons.
@Brockley Mike: It seems to me that there are three important things in the latest business case: a) the Mayor has offered to take on devolution on a cost-neutral basis to the DfT (ie no difference in cost for central government, contradicting the confident assertions of some that they would want more money), b) the letter of support from Kent, Surrey and Herts County Councils (Kent’s opposition stymied the last round of devolution proposals) and c) the emphasis on supporting housing construction at a time the economy will need stimulus.
Establishing these principles as important as the particular projected numbers in a business case.
To clarify the published document has both a business case and a set of further appendices with more detail on what TfL would like to do.
The business case relates solely to “Transfer of contracting authority for Southeastern inner suburban rail services” costing £435million over ten years with a BCR of 4.39. The economic case states it includes “the net impact of the reduced fares TfL plans to introduce following the transfer”. It places the saving from revenue risk at around 2% on Southeastern concession revenue. Ian has summed up the plus points for central government well.
The maps with increased frequencies and different service patterns are in the bits about what TfL would like to do. These seem more like potential ideas of the sort of network TfL want to establish rather than firm proposals. Many need infrastructure interventions to be achieved. Some of these works may be carried out even if no transfer to TfL occurs.
This reduces the TfL impact on this consultation. A lot of the current proposals are about trying to make the best use of the available infrastructure while having a workable timetable. It would be a bold claim that the 2018 timetable will remain entirely unchanged in terms of routes/calling patterns for a significant period of time.
Firstly even with the improved modelling, some things may not quite work out as planned. There are a lot of alterations in the document before even considering the changes other operators need to make in response. These revisions would hopefully be quite minor though.
Secondly future infrastructure changes, such as the potential remodelling of East Croydon and surrounding junctions, would probably lead to further timetable changes. These might easily allow some of the current compromises to be reversed.
Article in the current issue of Rail suggesting that ever-increasing inner suburban traffic is tending to make Thameslink more and more inner urban rather than inter-urban.
Fewer trains going through to the south coast.
A change from the original 50/50 balance between Midland and GN lines to favour the former, because increasing demand on both routes can be accommodated at KX but not at St Pancras
Problems of integrating the Thameslink services at Peterborough with Inter City – suggesting that if current practice of holding a local service to give a later running Inter City a clear run to KX is maintained, the local will miss its slot through the Thameslink core and be terminated at Kings Cross – with consequences for stock and crew displacement as well as for passengers for Horsham, East Grinstead or wherever the train was supposed to be going next.
The conclusion was that Thameslink will end up as a suburban operation – Crossrail 3. Some think it should have been planned that way in the first place.
timbeau,
I thought it always was the case that there would be a Thameslink 16/8 split in favour of Midland Main Line over East Coast Main Line and that nothing has changed throughout the Thameslink process. I have never even heard it suggested that there should have ever been a 50/50 balance.
I suspect fewer trains going to the South Coast has more to do with a distinct lack of trains due to DfT pruning the order to an absolute minimum rather than any strategic considerations or response to inner urban commuting.
We have discussed whether Thameslink should have been a suburban operation before. Basically was history that leant itself to longer distance operation and, with passenger flows established, it would be almost impossible without a major mutiny by passengers to change the nature of the the market it serves. So no repeated discussion please.
Re PoP,
And with the continued delays* to the 700s programme there isn’t really the opportunity to increased the rolling stock order size (or exercise options) and get it delivered + in service by the key times in 2018.
*Currently about 7 months behind what the plan was this time last year…
@PoP
Don’t shoot the messenger! The article is in RAIL if anyone wants to follow it up.
@ Ngh – 7 months late? Someone, somewhere must be feeling some financial pain because of that delay. That isn’t good and must surely be getting to the point of being irrecoverable in the wider context of Thameslink Programme milestones in 2018. Also must surely be causing significant issues re rolling stock cascades and also GTR’s franchise costs (keeping 319s going for longer but perhaps not incurring higher charges for the 700s as expected). I knew there were reliability issues with the 700s but not that scale of delay.
The delay to 319s is bad news for Northern presumably… at least they’ll be getting (some of) the ex-GWR diesel fleet soon, ahem.
Re WW,
I suspect there is much legal finger pointing with all parties* busy pointing fingers at each other to deflect the blame hence it could be while before we see anything sensible emerge on the subject as there won’t be a single reason so it will take while to apportion, possibly not even resolved till 2019 when the full effects can be calculated?
Half of the time they have lost will have been padding but they now need to pick up the pace.
The cascade of the 387s and some 365s to GWR was cancelled and GWR got new 387s instead with GTR retaining the 387s which will have cost a bit so DfT on the GTR contract and they will have to have agreed to that. Cascade of 319s, 317s and 321s is very much behind (the later 2 mostly to Greater Anglia). The extra leasing cost for retained units will be equivalent to 7-8 4car units per year at the moment but then they are hopefully paying less to Cross London trains.
The interesting thing is why there are 30 “complete” units in Germany / Netherlands many just sitting in sidings and another 200 carbodies completed and being or waiting to be fitted out but such a slow delivery rate. There have been issues transporting them to the UK but it does feel like there are issues with the ability to assemble the complete units (there isn’t enough space in the factory to assemble the cars into units which is done at the test track) and then test the units. The ghosts of Eurostar Siemens Velaro deliveries after the paperwork issues were sorted coming back to haunt in part?
*Siemens (and its PPP partners aka Cross London Trains and its business sub units)/ Siemens subcontractors and suppliers / GTR / DfT / NR.
You could say these problems are really down to the DfT who delayed so much in putting in the final confirming order for the Thameslink stock after awarding it to Siemens – a two year delay which is understood to be because of needing to get a financing package together. Obviously the old fashioned method of just buying what is required is no longer in favour.
Also, the DfT’s obsession with buying the minimum amount of stock they think they can get away with rather than the maximum they could usefully use was bound to lead to problems and route allocation plans based on what they could run with the stock they have available rather than what they could run if stock availability was not an issue. All the more galling because, I believe, that the trains actually work out cheap compared to the cost of other equivalent trains if one ordered them today.
PoP…I still recall the drawn out delay in starting with the (perhaps unspoken) expectation that the end date wouldn’t be affected.
@ Ngh – thanks for the extra details. I had no expectation of anyone having determined responsibility and then agreed anything. As you suggest it’ll run and run.
@ PoP – I suspect DfT has now moved away from PFI / PPPs for train fleets. Most recent awards with new stock have left responsibility with the TOC, ROSCO and manufacturers which, in theory, should work better. We will see how well Abellio and Arriva cope with the huge endeavours they have in Scotland, Anglia and Northern England.
Re: timbeau – ah, the “Industry Insider” column (which once told us that the Keolis/Eurostar bid for East Coast could bring direct ECML-continental services as – and I quote – the IEP trains are designed to European Technical Standards for Interoperability). Sometimes I’m not sure which industry…
Balthazar – and these are the people who bid for franchises.
More seriously, with all the new trains on order, many to new designs, there is a lot of pressure on the folk that have to assess compatibility with the infrastructure and the 101 other jobs necessary to get trains into service. This is in addition to all the work the suppliers have to do. As they all depend on consultants and agency people, it’ll be a bit of a bonanza for them!
I’m not sure the 700s are behind on manufacture, maybe in delivery (a little), but it is more about the customer accepting them. Siemens don’t get paid for each unit until it is accepted, so I should imagine they are taking a significant hit on cash flow if nothing else.
Nevertheless I understand another 3 enter service in Monday, releasing 8 X 3x7s
@SFD – will they actually have working Passenger Information Screens? Every time I’ve been on a 700 in the last couple of weeks they’ve been resolutely turned off.
Dave
Re SFD,
And another 2 extra 700 units next Monday.
The revised plan from when the first unit ended service in summer apparently had more units in service in August than there actually are this week.
If the units aren’t even in the country then they won’t even have started acceptance tests. The question is then what is happening with the 10-15 units in the UK awaiting acceptance. The pace and time taken seems to be far slow than for current Bombardier units.
Re Balthazar,
Interoperability of coffee machines?
Re: 130 – I wasn’t commenting on the bidders, just the observer!
@ Ngh – who is responsible for providing the drivers to undertake acceptance / reliability mileage accumulation runs? If it’s GTR then surely they are short staffed based on past discussions about the underlying issues in the franchise? If it’s someone else then that’s another party in the melée if they are not doing what they should. The joys of implementing major project programmes!
Anonymous – the screens are working on about 70% of the units I catch. New software causing issues I gather. When they do work they are, at least, much more accurate than those on the 377s.
What is it with on-train PIS’s and their software?? Scrolling some text, taking location information from a (presumably) external source and route information (from the driver ??). Not rocket science. But we have these problems on the 700’s. And the (infamous) seizure-inducing flashing on the Networker ones when the messages got too long. And all-too-frequent random next-station announcements on the Networkers too.
Is the job always given to this month’s intern with minimal supervision?
Networkers seem to tell you all the stations on the route – including the ones it has already passed. (“This is a train to Charing Cross via Lewisham, calling at West Whickham, Eden Park, Elmers End , ………..” it says, as it leaves Waterloo East to cross the Thames)
SWT’s seem to know where they are, but often not which way they are going: “This train is for Waterloo, the next station is Vauxhall” says your Hampton Court train as it approaches Clapham Junction.
@timbeau
Re Networkers – do they? The Victoria ones (Orpington / Dartford terminators) always seem to work correctly.
What I was really surprised by was an occasion a couple of months ago where I got on southbound at Farringdon mid-afternoon to find they were running a stopping Catford Loop service using a new red 387. The PIS on that was working…with the condition that they announced *every* remaining station at every single stop. Slowly.
“This is a Thameslink service…..to………Sevenoaks………..calling at *lists torturously slowly every stop…”
interrupted halfway through by
“The next station is City Thameslink”…
rinse and repeat
The irritating voiceovers lasted the whole journey back to Ravensbourne and probably amounted to >50% of the entire journey.
By the way, does anyone know when the Catford Loop is getting any 8-car 700s?
@Tim
Networkers – do they?
I have noticed it on several occasions in the past, but they may have fixed it recently.
My most recent trips between London Bridge, Waterloo and CX have all been on Electrostars.
Tim, it’s part of making trains accessible that the stopping pattern is announced. Useful if you can’t just read a station name through the window.
But do you need the full works after every station? You presumably got on the train with some idea where it was going. And you only need to know whether the next station is yours or not.
Repeating the entire stopping pattern is not necessary except at stations where there might be a difference – so junctions, and stations with fast and slow services.
That only works if everyone getting on at non junction intermediate stations knows for sure where the train is going, and this is not the case.
Spending the entire distance between stations narrating every stop seems like overkill, and is likely to irritate most of the passengers
@anon
Announcements are made on the platform at most stations.
If it’s so important on NR to announce the complete litany, why isn’t it done on the Tube? “This is a Central Line train to Epping, calling at Ruislip Gardens, South Ruislip, Northolt, Greenford, Perivale, Hanger Lane…………………….”.
Repeated (mutatis mutandis) at every stop.
Timbeau: because with the usual exceptions, every tube train stops at every stop on the line it serves. This is very much not the case on NR, Catford Loop included.
@SFD: Siemens don’t get paid for each unit until it is accepted, so I should imagine they are taking a significant hit on cash flow if nothing else.
Getting paid for units in post-June 23 pounds instead of pre-June 23 must hurt…
@SFD
” every tube train stops at every stop on the line it serves. This is very much not the case on NR, Catford Loop included”
Which is why I said “except at stations where there might be a difference – so junctions, and stations with both fast and slow services”
Assuming you are at least going in the right direction, if you are on the wrong train, and about to call at a station (not a junction) only served by slow trains, the best thing to do is stay on the train until a point where you can change to the right train. (Whether you need to change to a fast train or another slow train to a different destination makes no difference)
post-June-23 pounds: Not necessarily. Even supposing the contract was expressed in pounds (as it may well have been), the company may have forward-sold them (or whatever the correct term is). Large companies often transfer risks of currency fluctuations to other agents, in a way that cannot readily be copied by individuals.
@Malcolm – “hedge”
@timbeau
Not all ‘slow’ or ‘fast’ trains always make the same stops. On my line, ‘slow’ trains can serve four different terminii on three distinct routes (including one normally reserved for ‘fast’ trains alone. Irritatingly, although most of the ‘slow’ trains on the main line usually serve the same stations, two peak hour trains miss out just one of these stations (for no seemingly apparent reason). Relying on destination alone would be confusing here as many passengers would have no clear idea as to whether they needed to change or not.
“two peak hour trains miss out just one of these stations (for no seemingly apparent reason). Relying on destination alone would be confusing here”
So announce the skipped stop clearly at the previous station, rather than expect people to play “spot what’s missing” in a long litany repeated at every station, which regular users won’t be listening to anyway because they are so used to it.
Likewise if you are on a line which enjoys service to four different termini, you only need to be reminded which one it is at the points (pun not intended) where it makes a difference – such as Lewisham.
Re Ian J, Malcolm, Graham H,
And Siemens happens to have banking license in Germany, they will most certainly have hedged. Of the other big heavy electrical background conglomerates only GE is probably more financially astute there was a quip up until about 10 years ago the GE was a bank that also sold manufactured goods (which was actually true as well until about 2009 when they dramatically reduced the size of the finance ops).
Siemens debt credit ratings are significantly higher that any of the other train builders which will certainly have helped secure a lower financing cost for the rolling stock supply and maintain contract for Thameslink that may well have been the deciding factor in them winning it…
@Malcolm: I think we should refer to Pounds as Ounces perhaps?
My big annoyance with the PIS systems is that they often read out the calling points after the train has left the station, a bit annoying if you wanted to board a slow train and you’ve accidentally jumped on a fast train!
As the list of calling points can be long, they should give an indication of the train type and destination whilst the doors are open… Most don’t!
SHLR
Or better, a silent, scrolling display that really works……..
( Far too many seem prone to glitches )
Greg: Agreed that it would be good for everything to work properly.
But according to the RNIB, it is predicted that by 2020 the number of people with sight loss [in the UK] will rise to over 2,250,000. Granted, they will not all be travelling on the trains from Blackfriars to Greenwich, but as far as possible, provision should be made. Not at any price – and some would say that the price paid by everyone of irritating over-repetitive announcements is too great. But certainly blind and partially-sighted people should not be forgotten. (And of course, neither should deaf people, which is another reason for getting the visual displays right).
Given the carriages have the scrolling visual displays, the audio ones are really aimed at people with visual problems, who I suspect are very clued up on service patterns because they need to be. So what the audio needs is a a set of clues that makes each announcement unique, “this is the stopping service to Sevenoaks, next stop Ravensbourne”
There will always be disabled irregular travellers, but I expect they’ve planned their journey very carefully, consulted platform staff etc. I’d hope rail companies could even fund development of phone apps that could monitor real-time train information and GPS to tell you what train you were on.
We’d not want all passengers distracted with audio messages, when those that need them have other sources of information.
They could also get rid of the security theatre messages, and the nagging messages from guards about 1st class compartment rules
Malcom
I’m with Roger Ford on “disability provision” in that everything possible should be done to make life as easy as possible for those less physically able as we are.
But, very importantly, said provisions must not, at any time disadvantage the remaining majority-population.
And, as previously mentioned … ultra-repetitive ( & loud) “announcements” can all too easily fall into this category.
John B has the correct way of doing it, incidentally – it’s not as if it was difficult, is it?
@Malcolm
“Not at any price – and some would say that the price paid by everyone of irritating over-repetitive announcements is too great.”
Just as one person’s tactile paving is another person’s trip hazard.
“They could also get rid of the security theatre messages”
The latest pointless and out-of-touch example is “do not put your feet on the seats”, on a crush-loaded train on which less than half the passengers are able to put any part of their anatomy on a seat.
Greg says ” said provisions must not, at any time disadvantage the remaining majority-population”.
I do not think it is as hard and fast as that. The majority population should be ready for some disadvantage (if only by paying through taxes or fares for the appropriate provision). But is a matter of judgment and compromise just how much of this disadvantage should be tolerated.
For myself, I do not find the repetitive announcements especially irritating, they pass harmlessly over my head. But I do acknowledge that some other people get very wound up about them. And improvements of the kind suggested by John B seem as if they might go a long way towards satisfying everyone.
Security messages are required by the DfT.
Plenty of people need reminding to keep their feet off the seats, sadly.
What guards are left are under pressure to keep first class for first class ticket holders. Short of spending the entire journey shuttling between the first class sections, PA announcements are the simplest way to do this.
The PIS systems are possibly not as advanced as some of you might think. They don’t have the functionality to react to whether trains are crowded or stoppers to change the announcements. And asking drivers to fiddle with them on the move is risky or delay inducing at a standstill or another distraction from safe dispatch.
No technology is perfect. Being irritated is not much to put up with compared to coping with travelling with impaired sight. To some extent this is the price to pay for reducing staff generally.
What is a ‘stopping service’ when you have skip stop in operation? John B’s is an easy principle where the service pattern is absolutely regular – no exceptions, but very few (if any) lines out of London have that.
Re: Anon at 20.32 – not sure what you mean by “PIS … don’t have the functionality to react to whether trains are … stoppers” since this would imply an acceptance of incorrect stopping pattern announcements which is most certainly not PRM-TSI* compliant!
Re: John B – you may disagree with the aim or/and execution, but the whole purpose behind all this is equality, i.e. (among many other things) that the visually impaired do not have to be any more clued-up in advance than anyone else.
Re: Greg T: at face value your proposal of no disadvantage to the “majority” would seem to rule out, among other things, wheelchair spaces, wheelchair accessible toilets and priority seats (on the grounds that they all reduce seating capacity) as well as – apparently – comprehensive information provision.
Incidentally I think a perusal of the PRM-TSI/RVAR** will reveal the information to be provided both visually and audibly, including the particular provisions for circular routes and short inter-station duration.
*Technical Standard for Interoperability for Persons of Reduced Mobility.
**Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations.
Regarding compliance, the UK situation is that DfT-approved levels of “targeted compliance” (i.e. not full compliance where benefits are low compared to cost) should be fully implemented before 1st January 2020 with, broadly, PRM-TSI applying to all mainline stock and RVAR to light rail and Underground stock.
Yes, it might be helpful if those commenting on PRM-TSI are taking exception to what the rules say (in which case their argument is essentially with parliament) or the particular ways in which they are being applied.
@John B, Quintet, etc.
Skip stop patterns might be differentiated in shorter announcements if unique line IDs could be allocated to them that appear in all timetables & publicity. Route numbers maybe, as used for buses with suffixes for variations, 29B for example, 29X for an express etc, or something like ‘This is a pattern B local to Leafytown… “. A problem with the scrolling display of all station calls is that if you are giving that level of detail visually, it’s discriminatory not to provide it audibly as well. So could we do without the full listing of stops for on board displays? Perhaps if we had unique route IDs we could cope with that, then only route ID and next call need be given by both means.
So how is someone unfamiliar with the system going to know what ‘skip stop pattern B’ actually means? Even assuming that it is an entirely regular pattern with no exceptions – which is not usual. I think it would cause huge difficulties not to include all stops on the visual displays and, as a regular traveller I am normally able to let the oral repeats of all the intermediate stations just wash over me. The visual displays are particularly valuable, though, if I doze off and can find out immediately whether I should be alarmed or not. Overall I think that all the ‘cures’ mentioned to avoid the repeated lists of stations are somewhat worse than the ‘disease’.
The visual displays can be ignored, its much harder with the audio ones. You’d not want “calling in pattern B”, but naming an intermediate station that was in one pattern and not the other.
If TOC are tied by DfT rules, I think its legitimate to criticise the latter. I’m just glad I mostly get fast trains with 1 long leg out of London, and don’t live in “The door buttons are now activated” territory.
Activating door buttons doesn’t need any announcement as it has a screeching beep! I’m just glad I don’t travel on virgin often. They’re thank you for travelling announcement is the most vomit inducing insincerity I’ve ever had the misfortune to hear. Bearing in mind I rarely notice announcements at all. They just wash over me on my regular commute and irregular journeys too.
@quinlet
“So how is someone unfamiliar with the system going to know what ‘skip stop pattern B’ actually means? ”
By giving them distinctive identities. Just as the trains that skip most of the stops between Finchley Road and Wembley Park, or Hammersmith and Acton Town, or West Ham and Upminster do. It is so ingrained in the public mind that no-one would ever expect a Met train to stop at West Hampstead, or a C2C to stop at Plaistow. (Or a Gatwick Express as East Croydon, to take an example where the actual tracks are shared)
@Anonm
“Plenty of people need reminding to keep their feet off the seats, sadly.”
Not on a train leaving a central London terminus in the evening peak, when there are often three times as many people as seats, and actually finding floor space for your feet is a challenge. Such an announcement is as pointless as banning ice skating in the Sahara.
And the more pointless announcements there are, the more the announcements get ignored – including the important ones like “this train will now skip the next five stations” [because getting to the end of the line on time is more important to us than getting everyone home]
I was interested to see in Balthazar’s post that the PIS regulations have special provision for circular services. South West Trains seem to be oblivious to this aspect. The 458s recently introduced on the Hounslow loop service say & show “This train is for Waterloo” throughout the journey which is positively misleading for half of the time. The older stocks quite properly announce, for example, all stations as far as Hounslow on leaving Waterloo, Queenstown Road to Hounslow at Vauxhall, reducing at each station as far as Kew Bridge, then all stations to Mortlake (via Richmond) at Brentford, and finally all stations to Waterloo from Hounslow onwards. This agrees with the displays on the platforms and with what passengers actually need to know, si it can be done.
The loop trains do sometimes get confused though. We occasionally get enjoined to “mind the gap” at Queenstown Road on a Kingston Loop train on the Up Main Slow – the gap to the nearest platform being three tracks wide at that point.
Balthazar what I mean is that the PIS code gives the system its stopping pattern – it does not care whether that pattern stops everywhere or misses every other stop – it’s just another code. So nuances such as knowing it’s a rush hour train on which it is less likely that feet are on seats is beyond it. However I can unfortunately assure Timbeau that I have seen plenty of feet on seats on rush hour trains, more so as seats start emptying the further it goes and up go the feet.
As for tube stopping patterns being engrained in the public mind, well maybe if that public is local. I’m a Londonder and what you said about Finchley Road and what have you is totally meaningless to me. What chance for a partially sighted tourist?
Re: Malcolm – personally I find this site useful for checking the requirements and the status of various items of rolling stock as they were several years ago (although I suspect it’s somewhat out of date now; no doubt someone can find the up to date requirements, which in the case of the PRM-TSI were more or less incomprehensible the last time I checked, the UK having done a much better job on its own regulations).
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/heavy-rail-fleets-2020-targeted-compliance
Re: 3078260061 – but that’s not a *circular* route, is it?!
@Anonymous
“I’m a Londonder and what you said about Finchley Road and what have you is totally meaningless to me.”
I think most Londoners are familiar with the fact that Metropolitan Line trains run non-stop between Finchley Road and Wembley Park, and the Piccadilly between Hammersmith and Acton Town, whilst the Jubilee and District provide the respective all stations services. (That there is a fast service between West Ham, Barking and Upminster is less well-known is only because C2C services are not shown on the Tube map). If NR stopping patterns south of the river were as consistent, and clearly differentiated in its publicity, as LU and LO manage, would the incessant announcements still be needed?
@Balthazar
Other than the Glasgow Subway, I know of no actual never-ending circular services in the UK. But out-and-back loops are referred to as “circular” on the NR website.
I’ve re-read the article and sadly, still cannot understand what Thameslink is trying to do or why it’s not going to work.
I understand Windmill Bridge junction, there is conflict between the Victoria fasts and the London Bridge Thameslinks, but then there is the South Croydon and Purley junctions as well to factor in that all require trains to cross the up/down fasts and slows to reach. In a previous article (I forget which one) the possibility of pairing lines by direction between Balham Junction and Coulsdon was mooted to avoid conflicts of Thameslink trains entering and leaving the BML. Reading this article again I can’t help thinking that might be an awkward but useful solution.
Would it not be easier to can the long distance Thameslinks and use the core as an inner suburban London Overground line with a maximum of two branches on either side of the river? I understand the problem of Charing Cross and Cannon Street being full with SE Metros, if we could take those out of the equation for a moment and route Thameslink’s 14tph from the BML in the Charing Cross instead, would this be a better system that the one currently being built?
@Tiger Tanaka
It might have been a better system, but it’s not what’s being built. So it would not, now, be easier to have anthing more than a minority of Thameslink core services come from anywhere other than the BML.
@Tiger Tanaka – given that BML-City traffic represents something like 15-20% of all the franchise’s traffic, there might just be a good reason for those 14 tph…
It might be known by Londoners who use the Met Line and Piccadilly Line Timbeau, but that’s not generally an everyday occurrence if you are using railways or tubes elsewhere in the capital. I know that the vast majority of fast trains from Victoria go fast to Bromley South but I don’t expect someone in Pinner to realise it.
@anon 1726
Most Londoners are familiar with the Tube map, which makes the different stopping patterns of the Met/Jubilee and Picc/District on those stretches vary clear. So much so that few people realise that the Stanmore branch was just another branch of the Met, and Hounslow and Rayner’s branches of the District.
@Anonymous – if you were unfamiliar, you’d check beforehand wouldn’t you?
@timbeau
The fact that Met line trains don’t stop between Finchley Road and Wembley Park is something that is true for every Met train. On the Piccadilly it is only true that most trains don’t stop between Hammersmith and Acton Town and particular notice needs to be given on those trains that stop at Turnham Green. Those passengers going to Turnham Green who believe, as you do, that all Piccadilly trains run non-stop between Hammersmith and Acton town may have some needlessly long waits. With few exceptions, the ‘slow’ and ‘fast’ services on National Rail don’t have that degree of certainty or regularity. Look at the Great Western suburban trains, for example. Very difficult here to describe a general rule that has no exceptions. Similarly most of the south London services.
Being familiar with the tube map is one thing, knowing what particular trains do, if one does not regularly use them, is another. Why would one know unless one wanted a destination on the relevant line?
So why wouldn’t you check beforehand?
@ Graham H – you are being too logical. Yes a lot of people may check but plenty do not. Sorry to bring up again my past experience of doing front line customer information but that taught me that people have a hugely varied level of knowledge, often very small, about the transport network or their journeys or even the basic geography of Central London. Plenty of people just find their way from step to step in a journey and do no advance checking. They’ll try to find someone to ask or they’ll just take a punt they’re going the right way. It’s even worse with people using mobile phones – I’ve lost count of the number of people whose phones have clearly told them to get off a bus about three stops too early. Presumably because of mismatched location tracking on their phones. You can see them looking completely lost expecting to see other stops or a station and none are in sight. The other classic is standing at the wrong stop for the direction they wish to travel.
Coming back to the underlying issue about equality of provision which seems to erk several people here it’s easy to check in advance if English is your first language, you can use a computer and your eyesight and hearing are in decent nick. If you are somehow disadvantaged in any of these ways then it all gets much harder. Sorry if that’s in “egg sucking tuition” territory but many people here are experts / regular travellers / enthusiasts which gives them a knowledge base far, far removed from the average person using trains, tubes and buses.
All the assertions that “Londoners” (whoever they are) know the service patterns on the tube is not correct in my experience. I had people on my team at LU who knew nothing about tube services other than their regular commutes. My boss, a long served LU man, knew next to nothing about the buses – hardly ever used them. Doing strike cover another LU (office) person who lives locally to E17 had no idea the 20 bus went direct to Loughton from the bus stn upstairs. They were about to send someone via Central London on the tube to get there. I understand why people are “annoyed” about announcements and displays but it’s perfectly clear to me why they are there and who benefits from them – an awful lot of people is the answer.
Re: WW – hear hear. And of course there are a lot of people on the other side of average from LR readers (pesky statistical distributions, eh?).
@WW – I ‘m sure you are right (and I freely admit that one of my many faults is the belief that people should behave rationally – a belief so frequently confounded when I deal with my electorate; I will go to the grave a disappointed person*). Whether, however, we should let empathy turn into sympathy is a moral issue not for this forum…
*Actually, I will return to Tharg to let the High Council know that the vaguely sentient source of protien on the planet won’t offer much resistance to modern farming techniques.
Even when unfamiliar passengers do check in advance (and many will) there is a frequent need for reassurance en route. I’ve certainly been on a train from Victoria which left at 1847 to find a frantic passenger who wanted an 1847 from the other side of the station.
If you research your journey beforehand, it reduces cost and journey time at the expense of that research time. I know as an obsessive researcher that winging it, and accepting occasional disasters, might actually be less time overall, though more money. So customer information needs to be available, but it must not be in your face, and in-train announcements often are.
DfT should set goals for the level of audio distraction on a journey, and endless repetitions of destinations, security theatre and nagging about anti-social behaviour should count against them.
If I were disabled, I’d be a researcher, because the consequences of any problems are so much more severe. I don’t think railways can handle someone who’s happy-go-lucky and blind or can’t manage stairs.
Graham H 31 October 2016 at 07:37
” the belief that people should behave rationally” –
First step on the road from Enlightenment to dictatorship.
Restrain yourself!
Alternatively, first delusion of Economists who think they’re in a branch of mathematics, rather than social psychology.
@AG
Hush – he’s only a High Council lackey. Come the Revolution……..
@GH
Never underestimate the lack of forethought by the public. Human beings are often hopeless.
The very nature of these services means that most non commuting punters will be totally baffled because of their lack of familiarity with stations over the major parts of each route. I fear the only way that the proposed service patterns can be made clear to users will be the introduction of route numbers, with enough suffixes to cover all stopping patterns.
@AG – consider the inverse proposition: people should behave irrationally – there, better now?
@Nameless – L’etat c’est lui. More generally, I very much agree with you about distinguishing individual services – well trodden ground within these portals and a surprising source of disagreement – although as WW implies, even that won’t stop people going astray. The sad point is probably that no matter how sensibly one plans and presents a public (or commercial) service, there will always be those who don’t know what they are doing/don’t know what they don’t know/think they know better/have “views”/or simply rely on winging it. It’s difficult to help these people. Dogs in microwaves time.
Turning back to the PIS question, where there does seem room for marked improvement is in the range and frequency of security and customer service announcements. Clearly, these are actually left to the guards’ choice (at least in SWland) and many of them are repeated so often throughout a journey as to become meaningless background noise (and therefore counterproductive). At least we have been spared the threat from Anglia (?) a few years ago to install seat back screens – cue endless unwanted announcements about financial services.
Noise cancelling headphones have a lot to recommend them.
@AG – agree entirely with you about economists – one of my first targets come the revolution. [To note, however, even pure mathematicians are not entirely dispute free when talking amongst themselves – it’s simply that no one else can follow them].
@quinlet
“I’ve certainly been on a train from Victoria which left at 1847 to find a frantic passenger who wanted an 1847 from the other side of the station.”
I’ve had a frantic phone call from my best beloved who made the same mistake at Waterloo – which (on the pre 2004 timetable) used to have three trains leaving at xx12. She had compounded the error by making the understandable mistake of baling out at the first opportunity, from where there were no direct trains to her destination, when the semi fast service she had been on would have actually connected further down the line with the fast service following the one she should have been on.
@Nameless: ” I fear the only way that the proposed service patterns can be made clear to users will be the introduction of route numbers, with enough suffixes to cover all stopping patterns.”
The need for these different stopping patterns should of course be addressed as well! Adding route codes addresses the symptom, but not the cause (paths, loading, etc.).
Re SH(LR),
But as GTR have discovered when you get into skip stops and service disruption options there are an 8 digit number of possible service permutations on Thameslink alone for the PIS on the 700s to deal with (and then there is GN, Southern and GatEx within the franchise too!).
A coding system only work for regular services when everything is working.
@ngh: Surely the provision of an option to set a destination, via and stops manually would not be beyond the realms of possibility?
Or am I being too logical?
Surely the provision of an option to set a destination, via and stops manually…
An ideal job for the Onboard Supervisor.
Re SHLR and Kit Green,
Control texts a code to the train to update the PIS with revised stopping patterns.
Though that means you need to increase not reduce control staff as they have already found out earlier this year…
Let me guess: The code is list is fixed and hard-coded into the software at both ends? Plus there is no possibility of a local over-ride?
Sounds to me like some requirements were possibly missed!
As a wild stab, I would say the code has 3 (or 4) digits? Two indicating an old (South central division) Southern Railway route code and the rest for the stopping pattern?
Re SHLR,
I think there are local code lists with the drivers but they only cover the normal timetabled options.
Given there is an 8 digit number of possible permutations with disruption why would only a 3-4 digit code system be designed???
@ngh
Out of curiosity, where does this 8-digit number come from? It’s certainly a lot larger than I would have expected it to be.
This is where pure mathematics comes in. Very roughly, a train can either stop or not at each station (disruptions mean individual stations can be missed out). So an upper estimate should be 2 to the power of the number of stations served. It should be significantly less as some station combinations are impossible.
A more realistic figure would be (number of northern termini) x (number of southern termini) x 2 ^ (number of stops on typical end to end route)
The number of northern termini is 3. (Cambridge, St Alban’s, etc are treated as simply short W in this calculation)
If we are being really fussy, timbeau’s formula ought to be adjusted for the Hertford loop by counting Peterborough and Cambridge twice, so there are 5 northern terminals in total. Not that it really matters, the point is made that the number of possible journeys x stopping patterns on Thameslink without reversing is, err, quite large. As for the south end, I’m not convinced that we are yet settled down to a firm number of termini at all. What about Bognor Regis? I’m sure that some justification could be found for that one…
Talking of Bognor Regis, those Arundel Valley line trains really do benefit from all of the stations being announced for those who board at every station due to the splitting at Horsham. I really don’t see what the fuss about listing all the stations is about. It’s easy enough to tune out, and useful to be able to tune back in when wondering what the next stop is. The increased complexity of the Thameslink layout will also make this a vital feature. What’s really a bother is when in-train audio listings are drowned out by the platform version, out of sync.
My other truck is with superfluous verbiage on certain Underground lines in comparison to the sparing and exemplary iBus (Compare “this is a Northern line train terminating at Morden” with what iBus would have as “Northern line… to Morden” – it’s also easier for those who aren’t fluent in english to understand).
OK, so the very large number comes from considering every possible combination of stopping and not-stopping. It seems to me, though, that designing a system which can take care of every possible eventuality, going well into the millions when a sizeable proportion of them will never be needed, makes for an unnecessarily complicated system.
Of course, we could always welcome Mr Branson’s attempt at on board announcements… :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dy2tWz0OUM
On the other hand, maybe you would prefer this, as witnessed on Southern suburban:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SMQR60mgrk
and here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A4Xy3OWozA
Malcom / Nick
Re Bognor “Regis” there’s always King George V’s reputed last word(s) on the subject. (!)
Nick
It’s easy enough to tune out
Excuse me, but NO IT ISN’T – that’s the problem. Most people naturally try to listen to human speech, it’s a survival trait, actually.
Which is why some of us get so annoyed & wound-up about this very sensitive subject. ( OK? )
GF
Priceless – though “balham” should be pronounced: “Bal-Ham, gateway to ve sarf”
( We might omit the bit about the pretty coloured lights though? )
@Graham F – 🙂 I’m reminded of one service where the driver gave us an airline style chat: “We’ll be out of here just as soon as the tower has given us clearance and then we’ll reach our cruising altitude of 1.5m. Expected arrival time in Sutton,where the weather on the ground is warm and sunny, is 16.43”. It lightened a dreary day visiting the Crown Agents.
And remember to add in diversionary routes with stations that might be used for detraining off route (e.g. Victoria SE side with some platform issues for 12 car units though only 8 car are likely to end up there in emergency but still needing to be catered for). The PIS and SDO functions are linked and the coding system will have to know the routing for example if the overnight services Blackfriars -East Croydon services are diverted via Brixton, Clapham Jn, Balham, Selhurst whether it is on the fast or slows incase a 12 car needs to evacuate in an emergency at Wandsworth Common (fast 8 car platforms, slows 10 car)
@ Graham F – while I can see why some may think Mr Southern Guard is being a tad daft he did at least make me laugh. No great harm in that. As for Mr Branson – where’s the bucket?
@ Greg – Sorry but I really don’t think you are in the majority here. *You* are quite clearly irritated beyond your tolerance levels by announcements but I see little evidence of other people being so when I use buses and trains. I remember when I-Bus launched on buses and people were demanding the announcements be removed and it was the end of civilisation as we know it if they were not. Not a squeak these days about it because people have learned to “tune out” if they’re on a regular trip and know where they’re going. Let’s face it – that’s most of the people, most of the time.
In fact I suspect that passengers like having the system there – especially if they are heading somewhere new / unfamiliar. There is also a decent amount of evidence from groups representing those who are blind, deaf or with learning difficulties that the system provides really valuable information to allow them to travel independently and with confidence. When you couple this with the other info from I-Bus like “next bus” info on displays / phones / websites then it’s a hugely valuable system.
The only time I see people being visibly irritated is when drivers or platform staff make announcements that people cannot understand or cannot hear clearly. There seems to be an unconscious recognition that those personal interventions carry more importance about things that might have gone wrong so they need to hear them. I never see the same reaction for the regular recorded stuff.
Re WW,
It a Southern driver rather than guard as those announcements were both made on DOO services. Those aren’t his best announcements either!
@ Ngh – well I may have to adjust my view then if he’s making those announcements on the move. Less serious if he’s doing it while the train is stood still. I gathered from comments under the videos that he has something of a reputation.
A friend who is a regular commuter from Greenwich has alerted me that leaflets were handed out at Greenwich station earlier this week. The opening text announces “additional trains” but in the detail it confirms that they aren’t really additional. The 2tph Thameslink will take the paths of existing services, so service pattern through Greenwich still 6tph total.
Not clear who produced the leaflets and whether a deliberate attempt to confuse or just more of the poor editing/proofreading that other consultation documents have suffered from.
@IslandDweller I’d guess poor editing or time constraints on producing the leaflet. Southern/Gatwick Express (not Thameslink) now have a FAQ document which on page 2 manages to both say the Thamelink Greenwich services replace the Gillingham – Charing Cross and “at present we cannot confirm this one way or the other”.
Generally the Southeastern answers just say it depends on the future holder of the Southeastern franchise. However, the paths available for that entity (or entities) to run services is obviously constrained by the Thameslink service pattern. It’s not much use for passengers who care about the train service rather than the operator name on the side of it.
I also wonder whether the Maidstone East are actually additional or instead of the few peak only services via Catford. Running both seems to be wasting capacity, but then again the Thameslink service doesn’t stop at all the places the current Southeastern ones do. The FAQ document says additional, but previous information said replaced the current Southeastern ones.
@Southeastern Passenger: The confusion is an inevitable consequence of the fragmented and leaderless railway – GTR are expected to run a consultation process and produce a timetable for approval by DfT, but GTR can’t commit DfT to doing anything beyond the bounds of the franchise.
A better way of doing it would have been for DfT to have conducted the consultation, with timetabling input from Network Rail, and used its results when specifying both the GTR and Southeastern franchises. But that would have made the lines of accountability clear and might have exposed ministers, instead of TOCs, to criticism.
Re Ian J,
Given the GTR leaders bonuses are significantly predicated on running 24tph through the core they don’t particularly care where they go as long as there are 24…
There is leadership just with perverse incentives. Sorting out the mess afterwards will be “interesting”.
As a consequence of the Redhill meeting, I am led to understand that the East Croydon timetable modelling for future services presumes that absolute priority northbound is given to Thameslink trains as they must turn up on time and in sequence. This makes logical sense as trains that are terminating in London can lose the odd minute with less severe consequences but as long as humans are involved in day-to-day decisions I can envisage bad decisions concerning priority being made with the maker not fully understanding the consequences of their actions.
Also, to use a future East Croydon to maximise capacity you need 16tph on Thameslink via London Bridge and East Croydon. A combination of Wimbledon loop through running and Thameslink via Greenwich (if made permanent) would prevent that.
@ngh
“GTR leaders bonuses are significantly predicated on running 24tph through the core ”
@poP
“you need 16tph on Thameslink via London Bridge and East Croydon. A combination of Wimbledon loop through running and Thameslink via Greenwich (if made permanent) would prevent that.”
2tph each way round the houses, and 4tph via Greenwich leaves room for 16 via East Croydon, to add up to exactly 24 through the core.
timbeau,
2tph each way round the houses, and 4tph via Greenwich leaves room for 16 via East Croydon, to add up to exactly 24 through the core.
Well 2tph each way to the Wimbledon loop, 2 tph via Greenwich and 2tph to Maidstone East via the main line from London Bridge would give you 16tph via East Croydon. That would give 20tph on Thameslink via London Bridge which personally I would think is a better use of paths (and fits in better with the way Blackfriars has been remodelled) though I bet there will be protests at only 4tph from Elephant & Castle though the core. And are there enough terminating platforms at Blackfriars to implement this?
@timbeau, PoP
In your suggested service patterns, it seems that you have both neglected the Catford loop which, layout-wise at least, makes more sense to keep through the Thameslink core than the Wimbledon loop. [Disclaimer: I am not inviting a debate about the future of the Wimbledon loop as there has already been a large amount of argument about it.] Also bear in mind that because of the limited terminal capacity of Blackfriars, running more Thameslink trains via London Bridge means that less trains can use the 4 track alignment to Loughborough Junc, resulting in wasted capacity.
And the problem is that just 12tph via East Croydon are currently proposed by GTR.
Blackfriars is the most sensible choice to provide a service for the Catford Loop while maximising services to Victoria (Eastern) overall without additional major infrastructure upgrades.
@AnonE Mouse
“In your suggested service patterns”
Not my suggestion, but simply totting up what others have discussed. It would seem that PoP’s quoted 24tph through Croydon is still (just) possible with Greenwich and Wimbledon on 4tph each, or 2tph Greenwich, 2tph Maidstone and 4tph Wimbledon (2 each way) . Hardly Metro frequencies though.
Blackfriars has two bays. How many trains can use them in an hour is an interesting question. A ten minute layover allowance would mean 12 tph.
Re timbeau,
I think the initial aim for the bays is 8tph with plenty of those being SE services.
Sorry to quibble over a minor detail, but after allowing for getting in and out of the platform, at 12 tph in two platforms, each train could only be stationary in the platform for about 7.5 minutes, which would include time for tipping out passengers, so the “layover” could only be described as about 6 minutes.
@ngh
SE services from where?
Sevenoaks via Otford trains are already Thameslink’s responsibility (and would appear to be terminating at Blackfriars in future). Everything else off the South Eastern is set to go through – 2x Rainham via Greenwich, 2x Orpington via Catford loop, and what appears to be 2x Maidstone East via London Bridge to Cambridge (mentioned on Kent pages but not GN mainline).
@ManOfKent Only trains that go through the core during peak times will run as TL services and only TL services run through the core. Other GTR services will use Great Northern, Gatwick Express or Southern branding. GTR won’t run services to traditionally Southeastern destinations apart from the Thameslink ones. This means some Thameslink services go to Southeastern and vice versa. So the future SE services aren’t currently all SE services.
The Blackfriars bays in the 2018 timetable morning peak should have at least:
2 SE from Beckenham Junction to cover existing core services withdrawn (one currently starts from Orpington)
2 SN from Wimbledon Loop as per consultation
2 SE from Catford Loop as suggested by consultation (loop currently has 5tph)
1 SE from Rochester or beyond (currently Dover Priory)
This is on the assumption the Orpington – Blackfriars via Lewisham trains divert back or disappear. These both stop at Denmark Hill and one at Peckham Rye which has absorbed some of the passenger increases in the last few years. So the extra Catford Loop train is arugable whether it is additional capacity.
This is 7tph in the bays and 15tph overall at Elephant & Castle. If SE keep an Ashford International – Blackfriars service with similar stops to now that’s 8tph.
While Moorgate has some operating awkwardness, the Blackfriars bays also have their own share such as 12-car platforms for 8-car trains and around 200m from platform 3 starter where both inbound and outbound trains have to share the same line. Operationally trying to reliably do 12tph sounds like a headache for all involved.
The political political reaction can also not be ignored. The Wimbledon Loop campaign is well known and the Catford Loop now has a similar group who would make their feelings known. They are already unhappy about the Sevenoaks trains terminating at Blackfriars outside peak times and that the gaps are apparently 20/10 rather than evenly spaced.
Slight problem with 20tph through Thameslink platforms at London Bridge.
It will be required to have 90seconds dwell time, and another 90seconds platform reoccupation (even with ATO). So 3 minute headways. Which makes 20tph the absolute maximum theoretical capacity; ie absolutely no room for recovery from even a minor delay.
Hence the original plan of 18tph (2 firebreak paths per hour), and now 16tph. Even then there has to be pathing time in the TL services to get them to/from a 2.5min headway for the core onto a 3 min headway for London Bridge, then back to a 2.5 min headway to/ from Croydon.
@Sad Fat Dad: Why is 20tph unattainable in the Thameslink platforms at London Bridge, while 24tph is (apparently) attainable for the platforms from Blackfriars to St Pancras?
@IanJ. Because the predictions for passenger demand at London Bridge are such that 90second dwell times are required (as I said above). In all the other core stations it is 60 seconds.
The extra 30 seconds pushes the headway out from 2.5 mins to 3mins, hence 20tph rather than 24. But there must be some spare capacity in the system at London Bridge to help regulate the trains for the core (which will be at capacity) so 20 becomes 18.
Sad Fat Dad,
Not doubting you are correct but this has a bit of a feel of partially being a consequence of Network Rail only being able to time trains to the nearest thirty seconds – so no advance over the past 100 years.
There is also the issue that if the number of passengers using Thameslink at London Bridge is not dependent on frequency once the frequency gets below 5 minutes (a big “if” I concede) then more trains should lead to shorter dwell times for each one.
In favour of your argument, in later years it was apparent the old platform 6 struggled with 18tph but then we are told that Thameslink trains will have more doors per carriage.
Agreed that I was sloppy in language – a ten minute re-occupation (not layover) time would mean 12 tph at a two-platform terminus. The layover time would be significantly shorter, and probably means 12tph is unrealistic.
At Blackfriars yesterday evening I heard an announcer say that the train in the platform was allowed only 15 seconds dwell time. Is this actually true, or is it just a more subtle way of hustling passengers than the traditional blowing of whistles whilst people are still alighting?
Is there another service group via East Croydon that would suit running via Thameslink to increase the service from 12tph to 16tph and what is the issue with 12tph? I can’t think of any that make sense.
The only remaining service group to London Bridge from East Croydon are the Tattenham and Caterham trains. They were in the original plan but much to my disappointment are not in the new plan. In fact Purley is down to two trains through the core much as now but with a bonus pair of fast trains to Victoria. I can’t see why they can’t run Caterham to Victoria fast off peak as well. Those random slow trains could be turned at Purley, South Croydon or Sanderstead if there’s no room at East Croydon.
Reigate’s proposed third platform provides a useful additional Thameslink service group and resolves its currently proposed loss of London Bridge services.
No, the Reigate trains would just be the Gatwick terminators diverted. The peak service levels to Tattenham and Caterham cannot be maintained without splitting at Purley and the fixed formation of the 700s puts pay to that.
Having said that, it is perhaps possible to squeeze a Gatwick via Quarry terminator in if the Reigate option happens. (This is now when (but only if platform 3 can be funded)).
When I spoke to Phil Hutchinson on Wednesday night I was quite surprised that he would still be crossing some Redhill trains (presumably ones without a Purley stop) at Stoats Nest Junction in the 2018 timetable. It seems obvious that the ‘Sussex’ part of the timetable would be more efficient if crossings here are eliminated.
You’ll have heard on Wednesday that the ‘Surrey’ denizens feel that their interests have been postponed to the needs of the ‘Sussex’ timetable for too long.
Without Stoats Nest peak Redhill services conflict with peak Purley Oaks / South Croydon stoppers.
Yes, but you can construct a timetable with 18tph through East Croydon where in each 10 minutes, a train from Redhill is folllowed from Purley by a train from the branches. First, the Redhill train runs from Purley onto East Croydon. While the train from Purley stops at Purley Oaks, the train from the Oxted line slots into the gap. This then would repeat. Simple as clockwork if everything runs to time. The fast line is then left for ‘Sussex’ services to run unhindered between Gatwick Airport and East Croydon.
Problem for the Surrey residents is that GTR only have to offer 6tph to London as that is all that is in the franchise specification – page 378 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/525781/tsgn-service-level-commitments.pdf
I would have liked the GTR presentation to have explained just how much a no-no direct services from Redhill to stations south of Three Bridges are. One problem is Thameslink services have, for some time, provided the slow service south of Gatwick Airport and, given Redhill already has four trains to Thameslink under the proposals, it isn’t appropriate to divert these trains. The RRDRUA proposal is to divert the Brighton semi-fast but that doesn’t stop at Haywards Heath and, ever since Gatwick Express was extended to Brighton is the ‘fast’ connection between Brighton and South West London. The average journey time requirement of 61 minutes between Victoria and Brighton in the train service specification just about precludes that from coming via Redhill anyway. Interestingly, there is no journey time requirement in that document from Redhill.
I can’t see any different outcome in 2018 for Redhill from what has been proposed or the infrastructure change which would unlock services from Brighton or more than 6tph (other than some kind of High Speed line to London that Gatwick Airport pays for if it ever gets an additional runway).
Presentations from Wednesday’s meeting now available https://www.rrdrua.org.uk/campaigns/2018-timetable-consultation/
A helpful map of the problems at Windmill Bridge Junction shown on slide 6.
Jonathan H,
Thank you for the link. Two very helpful presentations. I note in GTR’s presentation they state (regarding Windmill Bridge Junction):
“Govia supports Network Rail CP6 proposals to remodel this critical junction by 2023 but in the meantime other methods should be explored to achieve capacity whilst ensuring right time presentation here and ultimately the core”
The really big question is: do they intend their “other methods” to be temporary or permanent? My big fear is the latter. Even if it is only intended to be temporary I don’t think they have taken into account the full works could take up to a decade and Windmill Bridge junction isn’t first on the list. The big danger is that the revised services (especially via Greenwich) become politically impossible to remove at a later date.
PoP
The way to avoid that is not to have the intellectually-&-operationally questionable “Greenwich” services (via TsLK) not operate in the first place.
It would appear that, the travelling public have woken up to at least some of the proposals, so that the suggested reduction of stopping services, in places where traffic is increasing ( the ex-GNR lines) are provoking outrage amongst the commuterati, at least.
@ PoP – given DfT have said the current size of the GTR franchise is a mistake it is highly unlikely that whoever is running GTR now gives a damn about works in Croydon taking 10 years. They’re very unlikely to be responsible for the trains when the works are (hopefully) in full swing. If we get devolution of Southern’s inner area services we could see 3 or even 4 operators in the Croydon area in the early 2020s – Arriva London, the Inner Suburban operator (assumes it’s tendered separately from Overground), the Thameslink TOC and a Southern outers & GATex operator. Obviously other permutations are possible.
I agree that decisions that GTR take now could well have long lasting implications for whoever succeeds them and for whatever NR finally decide to do at East Croydon. I am beginning to get a sense that we are now heading towards a “do whatever it takes to make the Thameslink core work and hang the consequences” approach with the train service design. Roger Ford’s recent words on signalling and control technology in Modern Railways hardly fill me with much hope though!
Re the 15s dwell time at Blackfriars (and the rest of the Thameslink core for that matter.
I realize that this is a signalling nightmare can of worms, but it might help if the shorter trains didn’t have to stop at the far end of each platform. Then you wouldn’t have to wait so long for those people further down the platform to run to the train – those who haven’t managed to read the scrolling small print on the display / are simply used to their “normal” formation (there can’t be too many of the latter left, though, given the variability (ahem) of Thameslink services …)
@Putters
Not helped at Blackfriars by the signs saying “4 car trains stop beyond this point”, with no indication as to which direction is “beyond” (the station is double-ended).
And even if you do guess right, they are misleading – the signs are not placed at the point where the rears of such trains stop, as you might expect, but at several points along the section of platform where they do not stop.
Re: Putters, timbeau – surely the stopping location of the 700s in the Thameslink core will be much more predictable?
If I’ve understood it right, all trains will be centred at the same stopping point, so each unit’s middle two doors are adjacent to the raised platform section for level wheelchair access.
Therefore, the difference between a 12-car (Full Length Unit) and 8-car (Reduced Length Unit) will be a 2-car length at each end of the train, making a maximum of 40m to get from the leading or trailing door position of an FLU to that of an RLU should an unexpected short train turn up.
Some people might like to note that – at one end anyway – those with the longest trot under these circumstances will be first class passengers.
Re Balthazar, Timbeau, Putters,
That issue will largely disappear within a few months (by Feb ’17?) as 8 car 700s replace existing stock on the Wimbledon loop (started change over last week) and then Sevenoaks services as well as some of the remaining BML services so the possibility of 4 car services on the fewer remaining 4car units (just 319 and 377s) will be much lower.
(TL 387s will all be transferred to GN services soon reducing the species in the Thameslink rolling stock zoo, enough have already been transferred to GN to probably make this the last week of 321 services on GN).
Comment is made above about Reigate being restricted to just 4-car trains and I wondered why that should be because I remember when I was much younger 8-car electric trains terminating there from the Redhill direction during the peaks, so I checked my NR Sectional Appendix of 2006 to discover that, whilst platform 2 is restricted to 4-car trains, platform 1 (the up platform) could accept 8-car trains – and is equipped with the third rail.
What has changed since then to prevent 8-car trains from using platform 1?
@GF
Only platform 2 is accessible from the Redhill direction for terminating and reversing. There is a trailing crossover at the London end of the station to allow the terminator to regain the up line. Perhaps in days gone by the layout was more complex. Platform 2 train length is limited by the siding turnout at the east end and the position of the signal at the west end protecting the level crossing, at the statutory minimum 25yds from the crossing. I reckon you could probably reverse a 6x20m car train in platform 2 if necessary. Platform 1 is not so constrained, but is useless for reversing. Streetview standing on the crossing clearly shows both tracks electrified as far as the crossing.
Mark Townend, Graham Feakins,
Platform one at Reigate is definitely not currently conveniently accessible for electric trains. The third rail there always looks like an anomaly. I can only presume there was once a full scissors crossover.
The third rail on platform 1 is also very rusty and I do wonder if it is even live.
8-car electric trains can (and have used) Reigate but to reverse them involves pushing part of the train over the level crossing to reverse which isn’t particularly clever. It still happens if a failed 377 requires rescuing from Reigate.
Electric trains do occasionally access platform 1 via a double shunt from platform 2 to clear platform 2 for a while before departure. It happened daily for a few weeks a few years ago when the siding was out of use.
I have been in contact with a pal who was a signaller at Reigate in the 1980s. Here is his explanation (abbreviated):
“There was no scissors crossover. In fact only three sets of points were ever worked directly from the signal box of which two remain.
It was the case that 8 coach and very occasionally 12 coach electric trains arrived at Reigate and it was necessary for these to proceed beyond the limit of the third rail, over the level crossing at the western end of the station to either access the Down Sidings or to return towards Redhill.
However in order to do so required the driver to drive his train backwards, a move that is now prohibited except in special circumstances. Drivers now have to change ends in order to change direction and doing this over a very busy level crossing is not an option. The line is electrified as far as the level crossing but there is no electrification beyond Reigate towards Guildford.
It is a risky manoeuvre from the point of view of performance, but not from the safety aspect because these moves would be fully signalled.
Prior to resignalling in the 1980s at Reigate all up passenger trains could only start from the Up platform, which meant that every train had to be shunted over. After resignalling the remaining points were motorised and a new three aspect colour light signal was erected at the Redhill end of the Down platform to permit passenger train movements in that direction.
Is there any reason why that trailing crossover can’t be moved closer to Redhill, so any stray 8- or 12-car train that finds its way there can be reversed without all those shenanigans?
Timbeau – a couple of million reasons.
@timbeau
The siding turnout is also a constraint. It is even closer to the platform end than the crossover.
There’s an aspiration in the NR Sussex Area Route Study to remove the siding, relocate the crossover and provide a new turnout to a 12-car bay platform. Something like this perhaps: http://www.townend.me/files/reigate.pdf
@SFD
Might be worth it to gain the operational flexibility. But are there any physical constraints on doing it, if the money was there?
Re Timbeau,
“physical constraints on doing it”
Availability of signalling engineers… (Or rather lack of availability)
Realistically any modification to Reigate will be done upon closure of Reigate Signal Box and transfer to Three Bridges ROC along with upgrading the Level Crossings.
A public suggestion:
That Cat/Tatt services may not become part of Thameslink services – and a statement by Sadiq.
Any more reliable information on this?
@Greg
That is included in the consultation which is currently running, they are going to combine at Purley and run to London Bridge only all day IIRC
Greg Tingey,
Just part of an ongoing Mayoral policy to keep the surrounding counties onside in support of rail devolution. Words of comfort more than anything else. Should rail devolution happen I am sure that the Mayor will continue to make sure all services are treated fairly regardless of whether they originate within the GLA boundary or not.
This reassurance in general has been stated many times and the Metropolitan line shows that this has worked for years elsewhere.
@PoP
“the Metropolitan line shows that this has worked for years elsewhere.”
Debatable – I recall there was considerable unrest amongst Bucks commuters both over the more “standee” design of the S stock, and over the reduction in the number of fast services in order to give places like Pinner a more frequent service.
timbeau,
It is not a mathematical hypothesis. You don’t invalidate the general point by providing one (dubious) counterexample.
Anyway, we have been through this before. TfL insisted that the decision was made without regard to boundaries – namely analysis showed that there were more gains than losses to passengers. I don’t think that has ever seriously been disputed.
I hope tfl don’t get their hands on the Tattenham trains. I don’t want my fast trains to London replaced by seatless stopping trains.
Particularly as Southern are promising us 10 coach trains every half hour. Be nice if they could run the Victoria’s all day too.
@Purley Dweller
‘I hope tfl don’t get their hands on the Tattenham trains. I don’t want my fast trains to London replaced by seatless stopping trains.’
I agree, the suggestion of 5 car trains, joining up at Purley also suggest to me the end of Class 455 stock on the Cat and Tat lines and Class 377’s replacing them. Hopefully if that is the case then good riddance to the 455’s.
@Purley Dweller: Promises, promises…..
There is not demand for 4tph from the Tattenham branch during the day; nor any paths for fast trains from East Croydon to Vic. The Vic-Palace-Sutton trains are to be turned at Coulsdon Town because it’s a convenient place to turn them which will give 2tph extra from East Croydon to Coulsdon Town. The London Bridge-Selhurst-West Croydon is to be diverted to Caterham taking pressure off Gloucester Road junction whilst maintaining 4tph East Croydon to Caterham.
In the consultation document (page 8), the document states “nearly all TAT/CAT demand is from Purley, Croydon and Norwood covered by Redhill route trains”.
It might be me that makes no sense, have these researchers ever traveled from CAT in the peak? Most trains are standing room only by the time they reach Kenley, and while I have never been on a TAT line service I would be pretty sure that their trains are in a similar scenario long before they reach Purley.
Stations on the CAT line are generally short platforms (except Caterham which can accommodate 8 car units, cant speak for the TAT line) but even the class 700’s with SDO could have been utilised for TL services, using 8 car units
I probably will be answering my own question here – but is GTR’s reluctance to have TL on these lines down to the fact that 4 paths would have been required? Could there have been a case for having just peak hour services been offered?
Tattenham trains in the Peak are full and standing by Reedham. A lot get off at Purley and run over to pick up a faster train. There are seats for Purley on the cat and tats as a result. The Redhill trains come in full and standing. The 0755 manages to pick up another 200 or so people at Purley as well.
Anonymous – I agree about the daytime Tattenham branch but if there are fast paths to Victoria in the Peak then I can’t see why there aren’t off peak.
FYI
Now that the first phase of the consultation is over, the page that the link at the top of this page is supposed to connect to no longer exists. Clicking on the link now just sends you to the Southern homepage.
Still available here:
http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/your-journey/timetable-consultation
and the pdf
http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/download/12366.9/timetable-consultation/
Trade mag Passenger Transport reporting this week that the Thameslink core will only get 17 tph not 24th.
Al,
Unfortunately behind a paywall – and it doesn’t have a ring of truth. Maybe Passenger Transport is jumping on the fake news bandwagon.
17tph seems highly unlikely as a final number given that 17 is a prime number. It could be 18tph with a “white path” or more likely 20tph with three “white paths” but I just don’t see it given the desire for consistent frequencies on routes.
Are we sure this is not:
a) the number at London Bridge rather than Blackfriars
or
b) the number for initial reintroduction of service in January 2018 – but I thought this was 16tph rising to 20tph in May and 24tph in December.
If this were true the Evening Standard and everyone else would be having a field day.
The info concerned is in their “Great Minster Grumbles” section which is a comment section rather than a news section. The bit says “17 or 18 trains per hour is apparently all that can be delivered “. This is credited to a supply chain source, so maybe not the best!
Al / PoP
That, combined makes some sort of “sense”.
I suspect that design/failure of nerve considerations during the construction are going to hamstring the whole thing.
In one case, it’s far too late to do anything ( 3 platforms @ KGX/StP ) in the other, it’s theoretically possible, but hideously expensive ( 3rd through platform on the W side @ Blackfriars )
Well well well. What some have advocated but few dared tread. DFT launches consultation on focusing different lines on one terminal to reduce delays in the network. Much like the existing Greenwich line.
There is a consultation Sat 1st April 10:00-13:00 Lewisham Glass Mill Leisure Centre.
From the franchise consultation document.
“There would be a limit to the improvements that could be made to the timetable without also reducing the number of central London stations served from certain locations at particular times. An example might be for all Metro services on the north Kent (between Dartford and Charlton), Greenwich and Bexleyheath lines to terminate at Cannon Street only.
“We believe that the simplicity of a regular service to a single London terminal throughout the day would benefit both regular and occasional passengers. A simpler service can help deliver a step-change improvement in the punctuality of both Metro and Mainline services. We are aware that losing direct connections to particular central London stations has the potential to inconvenience a number of passengers, by requiring them to change their usual journey patterns.”
http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/600437/south-eastern-franchise-consultation.pdf
Interesting it looks at potential new routes opened up by Crossrail and Thameslink and extension of High Speed to Hastings , PLUS potential investigation of
“For instance the Ashford to Tonbridge line, which connects on to Redhill and Reading under other operators, could form part of a fast and frequent London orbital service, taking pressure away from the M20 and M25. As it is journeys are faster via London and this potential link is underused.”
@rational plan
You think that’s a surprise. How about Network Rail proposing a new line connecting the Ashford to Canterbury line to the Canterbury to Faversham line to provide through services from Ashford to Faversham. It’s almost as if somebody slipped some crayons in via the back door.
What happens to Vic to Dartford trains?
The existing service are VERY busy. Links to Denmark Hill (for the hospitals) and Victoria are popular. Go via Sidcup instead?
That will keep a link from the Bexleyheath line with a change at Lewisham (where they have noted rapid housing growth + increasing interchange presents a real problem) but what about Woolwicj lines connection to Lewisham?
Take the DLR instead I presume or tube from Cannon Street – but that’s more expensive.
Ed, Rational Plan, et al,
As Pedantic of Purley noted on another thread, we know that the Kent RUS is out, and whilst we appreciate the keen commentariat are waiting to comment, we asking everyone to please refrain from commenting on this subject until he has published his take on the subject.
@quinlet
“Network Rail proposing a new line connecting the Ashford to Canterbury line to the Canterbury to Faversham line ”
Where is that? Not in the RUS as far as I can see?
(not a comment, but a request for clarification)
@timbeau
Paragraph 30 and page 49.
I was at the APTU (association of public transport users – the passengers organisation for users between West Hampstead and Harlington inclusive http://www.aptu.org.uk) AGM last week. The GTR person responsible for the 2018 timetable gave an update:
All responses have been read, considered and a report sent to DfT for approval.
Late Spring/Early Summer a full timetable to be published.
One of the main reasons given for Luton – Rainham was facilitating future train extensions to 12 coach, given the stations served, which would be significantly more difficult for other southern routes ( e.g. via Elephant and Castle).
GTR is feeding into the Kent RUS.
Minor timetable changes in January with the Big Bang in May 2018. Between those dates will be driver training over the new and reinstated routes via London Bridge.
20 services per hour in the rush hour, 16 midland main line, 4 from the great northern from May with the remainder in December 2018.
Also at the meeting was a very interesting report from the individual in charge at the Three Bridges ROC about operations management, particularly around service outages.
It was clear that GTR consider that their class 700 trains can do 24 per hour through the core; provided that train regulation, signallers prioritisation, and operations management allow them to do so.
@ Verulamius – I just love that final para. Summed up as “We’ll do fine provided Network Rail do their bit” or in slopey shoulder mode “not our fault if it goes wrong, it’s those twonks at Network Rail”. 😉
Verulamius,
One of the main reasons given for Luton – Rainham was facilitating future train extensions to 12 coach, given the stations served, which would be significantly more difficult for other southern routes
And I think one of the concerns is that leaving the proper Thameslink route at North Kent Junction to go onto the Greenwich line involves using a short track circuit section which is only marginally longer than a Thameslink 12-car train.
Maybe, one could mitigate against this by having ATO extended to the Deptford area. It would still allow Southeastern services to run as signals would be kept.
I think we are in the classic “we could run our trains to time if we were given the priority we clearly deserve over other trains” scenario. Clearly potential for friction at Three Bridges especially between Thameslink and London Overground who both seem to believe their trains are the most important and should take precedence.
@WW
To be fair, the talk about the Three Bridges ROC operations management was very positive on this front. I particular the timetable is being written from first principles, station stopping times revisited, routes and junctions times reconsidered. The junction just south of Blackfriars appears to be fundamental to the Thameslink (and thus wider) timetable.
I think the concern was more about operations further north…
@MoK
“Paragraph 30 and page 49.”
now I’m really confused – there are not that many pages in either the consultation document linked by Rational Plan or the South East Route RUS paper https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Network-Specification-2016-South-East-Route.pdf
@POP Could you give some detail on what is solved by extending ATO that distance?
ATO to Deptford etc.
You’d need it to Blackheath, Hither Green and Ladywell too in-order to coordinate all the movements on the CST (slow) lines so the Thameslink Rainham services can effectively cross over the 16tph in either direction from CST to New Cross. Just coordinating the TL Rainham to Deptford alone probably isn’t enough without impacting the via New Cross Gate services.
Toby,
Yes. But I am speculating.
One problem you will have is that if a train has to stop in that track circuit area it will be important that it doesn’t stop short and keep the track circuit behind it occupied it. I presume ATO will stop the train more accurately.
Also, I am presuming a driver encountering a red signal will proceed very cautiously. He will do this partly so as not to SPAD (signal
pastpassed at danger) and partly in the hope it will change before he reaches it. While he is crawling along he is potentially blocking the junction. Finally, the ATO is, I presume, centrally controlled so can make more intelligent decisions about how to approach the junction (or even hold the train back before it reaches it).Toby, ngh
The bigger the area covered, the more effective it will be. As the Networkers won’t be ATO equipped I don’t know how much “knowledge” the ATO system will have about these trains and whether it can sensibly anticipate their movements.
Re Timbeau,
There were far more pages when I read it (that is the wrong document you’ve linked to by the way) the route study 77 pages and techinical appendix is 58pages, any way best wait for the article.
I know I’m only trying to out-pedant Pedantic, but I feel I should point out that SPAD actually means “signal passed at danger”.
[Oops. I felt that there was something wrong as I wrote it but could not work out what. PoP]
Re PoP,
and if the Networkers are replaced 😉 😉 😉
Otherwise there is TMS which will roll out in 2018 to the full extent on the “Kent” side of the then former extent of the current London Bridge (future Three Bridges) signal box area (Woolwich Arsenal / Falconwood / New Eltham / Chislehurst Tunnel / Hayes).
[Till Ashford IECC (Gillingham in the case of Rainham area) is closed and transferred to Three Bridges]
PoP and others re ATO
As I understand it, the ATO system is mostly in the train, it basically reads the output of the onboard ETCS computer and drives to the speed profile permitted.
The train itself doesn’t know what other trains are around or what they are doing. That is the job of the Traffic Management System (TMS).
In very simple terms:
TMS knows where all the trains are and what they should be doing in the next 30-60 minutes. TMS (with help from a signaller / controller) then takes decisions on which services get priority if a conflict is predicted to arise. TMS then tells the signalling which signalled routes to clear and when.
The signalling system takes instructions from TMS, and sets routes accordingly, moving points, clearing signals, and issuing ETCS movement authorities. Lineside signals tell the driver how far ahead the line is clear. ETCS movement authorities tell the train how far ahead the route is clear; the train then tells the driver, who drives accordingly.
On trains with ATO fitted and activated, the driver is a computer on the train.
To add – TMS is entirely based in signal boxes, ETCS is part in signalboxes (interlocking, controlling workstations, telecomms transmission) and partly in the train (knowledge of route including gradients, block marker positions and speed profile), ATO is almost entirely on the train.
ngh
??
I thought the whole of the old real Southern was to controlled from three “ROC’s”?
Basingrad, 3-Bridges & Ashford …
so Ashford won’t be closing …. will it?
Greg Tingey,
I very much doubt is Ashford IECC will close because High Speed 1 is controlled from there. But, within the context that ngh was talking about, that is irrelevant.
Try Basingrad, Three Bridges and Gillingham (Kent) as your three.
@PoP, SFD: the ATO is, I presume, centrally controlled so can make more intelligent decisions about how to approach the junction (or even hold the train back before it reaches it).
Am I right in thinking that the Thameslink C-DAS (Connected Driver Advisory System) will have this ability – so that drivers approaching the core can be told to slow down if needed to ensure they arrive in the correct sequence?
Re Ian J; Trains approaching the core are all intended to be in ATO before the key convergences (Spa Road Junction, Blackfriars South Junction and Canal Tunnel Junction).
C-DAS, if it happens, is simply a way of giving the driver the output of the TMS (non-safety critical) before the signalling system does.
Re PoP and Greg T,
It has been suggested for while (at least 3 years) that the final number of ROCs won’t be as great as initially proposed with both of the main Kent sites on the “may be” list.
Might I suggest a closer read of the Route Study page53:
The Thameslink TMS area is actually slightly larger than I remembered on the “Kent” side, also includes:
Bromley North Branch,
Clapham High Street – Chislehurst Jn via Herne Hill and Catford Loop
Chislehurst Jn- Hildenborough via Orpington and Bat & Ball
Chislehurst Jn – Longfield
TBROC is the Three Bridges Rail Operating Centre
ngh,
And, as you probably know, Three Bridges ROC is HUGE.
Ashford IECC is a tiddler in comparison.
But Ashford appears large when compared to London Bridge panel signal box.
London Bridge PSB seemed enormous when it opened because one compared it to other signal boxes.
Greg Tingey,
For an up-to-date list of proposed ROCs, read UK signalling – A 2017 update.
Note the current number proposed is 11 but this is not set in stone. Ashford isn’t mentioned.
PoP & others
Thanks – I’m obviously out-of-date …
So, Gillingham (maybe) instead of Ashford, apart from HS1, unless Gillingham goes to 3-B
That Rail Engineer link you posted was interesting.
Of note to us in London was this:
The southern end of the ECML is an early candidate for ETCS, but this will not be ready in time for the new track layout, which involves re-opening the third Gasworks tunnel so that train routing into platforms does not have to happen in the immediate station throat area.
That & the mentioned KGX re-signalling is going to happen – when?
RE Anon E. Mouse @ 20.44
“I know I’m only trying to out-pedant Pedantic, but I feel I should point out that SPAD actually means “signal passed at danger”.
NR (sorry Network Rail) have been using an new acronym lately SPAR (Signal Passed At Red) vice SPAD.
En passant, I’m amused at the near universal currency of Basingrad these days. I thought it originated in Scott Wilson about 15 years ago; they had their (shabby) head office in a Minsk-style avenue of other corporate shabbiness, where even the local news con tob operation had barred windows, and being summoned to HQ was known as going to Basingrad by all those of us who had experienced Eastern European commie regimes at first hand. Sorry, off topic..
Phil Harmonic,
And, I would suspect, only an old-school railwayman would have written SPAR vice SPAD.
What is the equivalent for semaphore during daylight hours? SPAH?
@PoP: Wouldn’t that depend on whether or not you’re on GWR metals?
Southern Heights,
No. At horizontal both GWR and non-GWR semaphore home signals mean danger. But no doubt GWR would refer to it as something different to everyone else.
Strictly speaking, a SPAD is still a SPAD, and refers to a signal being passed at danger in an unauthorised movement when the signal was correctly displaying a red aspect, with the correct aspect sequence on approach.
A SPAR is a signal passed at danger that was incorrectly displaying a red aspect, and/or with an incorrect aspect sequence in approach. In these cases the driver rarely has any explaining to do.
Just a few comments regards ROCs
(1) When that list was drawn up a few years ago it didn’t come with any extra money to implement it! (over and above already planned moves due to electrification or layout changes, etc).
In fact such is the costs associated with re-signalling some schemes have been reduced in scope to cope. For example the East Sussex Coastway scheme removed Lewes and Newhaven from the scope and went and re-used some old BR era SSI modules rather than commission one of the new fancy SmartLoc / WestLoc interlockings), or the decision to leave out Comprehensive approch locking at Gatwick.
As a result its finally dawning on those in high office that their ROC migration timeline list is worthless, but avoid to PR damage, they have instead adopted a strategy that involves the re-branding of Power signal boxes or small IECC installations as ‘mini ROCs’. In such an environment, Ashford and Gillingham still have a decent lifespan ahead of them.
(2) Three Bridges ROC may look big, but size can be deceptive. The ROC itself has a whole floor of controllers (train running, Infrastructure faulting, etc), one floor of signalers and one floor acting as the equipment room.
Furthermore because of fire and security considerations it is actually a building within a building – the rooms facing the outside being messing facilities etc that are separate from the building core and as such the space on the operating floor is consummately less.
Finally whoever designed it either got the dimensions of the workstations wrong, or said workstations have got bigger since the building was designed (not helped by the fact that those supplied by Siemens are of a different design to these supplied by Alstom) and it is formally acknowledged that there simply isn’t the space to put in everything originally planned. As such, if you are going to have to leave something out, Ashford and / or Gillingham are the obvious candidates
Indeed.
I have visited Trois Ponts ROC twice, the first time shortly after it opened. I was initially amazed at how big it was with its three floors plus its side offices & facilities. However, on the second visit the space seemed to have shrunk considerable on the top two floors as more work stations & functions were being migrated to the ROC. On the top floor (if I remember correctly) they were planning the new work stations for the West Hamstead & Kings Cross signallers with dummy work desks, cardboard PCs & masking tape on the floor to ensure a legal working space (Regulation 10 of the Workplace, (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 I think?).
It was obvious that room was running out rapidly for all the new functions that had been proposed to move there, including Selhurst ECO (Electrical Control Office). I believe that It had been planned/proposed to move Southern Train Planning to the ROC but this was soon abandoned.
I’m not even sure if Three Bridges Signallers have moved into the ROC yet from across the BML tracks? I would be happy to be corrected on this though.
Phil, no the Three Bridges ASC signallers are staying where they are until it is resignalled over the next decade or so.
The ROC was designed for a rather different type of control methodology, and have been reverse engineered to accept conventional signalling workstations. When (if) the change is made to the originally proposed technology, the whole of Sussex and Kent will fit comfortably.
GTR have published the latest draft 2018 timetables post first round of consultations:
https://www.transformingrail.com/download-timetables
And individual journey check tool (direct journeys only, no changes as it is simple look up tool)):
https://www.transformingrail.com/
Prepare to be underwhelmed….
Services between 2330 and 0500 are still subject to review due to Gibb report recommendations on overnight maintenance.
@Ngh – thanks for sharing those links. It’s one of those cases where you couldn’t be sure as to what the “shiny new future” would look like but when you see it you’re, as you say, “underwhelmed”. There are some rather peculiar things like a 90 minute gap at the end of the evening peak in trains from Maidstone East. Don’t people travel into London at this time for leisure activities?
I was also hoping for something a little more balanced in terms of regular headways but some routes are lumbered with horrible 10/20 or 12/18 headways rather than a regular x15. And before anyone shouts yes I know it’s all terribly complicated and involved but as a passenger it’s not very attractive to face lopsided waiting times. It’s one of the things that puts me off travelling – 1 or 2 mins delay for a connection, wham it’s 20 mins wait. The GN Metro timetable looks rather better than today if you’re on the core section but less good if you’re at Brookmans Park but then we knew they were going to be missing out on better frequencies.
I notice that the Orpington Blackfriars services have also been changed, but I can’t see a full timetable covering those services.
I know they are being transfered, but would have expected them to be listed somewhere!
There is a separate Southeastern consultation for their train services from May 2018:
https://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/-/media/goahead/southeastern/documents/consultation-timetables/southeastern-may-2018-timetable-changes.pdf?la=en
On the Thameslink consultation there are some strange stopping patterns in the metro service pm peak to Cricklewood and Hendon. There appears to be a 45min gap in services as a number of the St Albans terminators skip these stations, presumably to give enough time to turn around before coming back South?
The West London timetable no longer shows Imperial Wharf station. I assume this is a glitch and that Southern will continue to call with the hourly Milton Keynes service.
I don’t want to nitpick too much but the Southeastern consultation has a few errors with the diagrams not reflecting the service patterns mentioned in the text. A more interesting discrepancy though is the fact that while the Southeastern consultation refers to the GTR Luton-Rainham services as
“8 car trains which have the same capacity as a 10 car Networker service”
the GTR consultation explains that
“These trains are not able to call at Woolwich Dockyard due to short platforms being unable to accommodate 12 carriage trains.”
Verulamius, skipping Hendon and Cricklewood is a regular feature today of the semi fast trains, and this appears to have been extended a little. Of interest is that Brent Cross station appears only to be open in the northbound direction!
There appears to be the answer to my previous question about what happens to the current dawdling timetable slack in the core section when it jumps to 24tph under automatic operation: According to the timetable comparisons, the time between St Pancras and Blackfriars will reduce from 11 minutes to 8, so it should feel a lot snappier through there at long last. Meanwhile, the time between W Hampstead and Loughborough Junction will actually increase from 27 to 29 minutes, so it looks as though it’ll be a touch slack around places like Elephant & Castle when no time recovery is required. With 2 minutes apparently off the overall slack, the timetable will be more vulnerable, but it’s probably not a bad compromise.
For someone who works near Kentish Town and regularly has business in Woolwich, as long as the trains arrive in the right order, I will selfishly not complain about the Greenwich route development, even if it adds complexity and doesn’t make use of the Bermondsey diveunder. It’s also good to see the end of the current skipping of Sutton services from Kentish Town in the evening peak. The more consistent the stopping patterns throughout the day, the better.
Trying to fathom what goes where and who runs what is not terribly easy (for us “clueless about SR” folks). The South Eastern consultation timetables do not make it crystal clear as to what is actually a Thameslink train on certain routes and what is a South Eastern service. It would be helpful if South Eastern at least indicated that semi fasts from Rainham do actually go further than London Bridge. Similar remarks can apply to the “Bromley South” timetable which has the Orpington / Sevenoaks services that mostly run north of Blackfriars.
Making these small things clearer and perhaps emphasising the future connectivity to Crossrail at Farringdon might help to crystalise in people’s heads that these new timetables fit into a bigger picture. I know commuters will simply want to know if “their” train still runs at around the same time and takes the same time but surely a proportion may be interested to know that they may have a smoother overall trip by taking Thameslink and then Crossrail than perhaps battling on to the Jubilee Line at London Bridge?
@SFD – Brent Cross! 🙂 That looks like a very premature inclusion in the timetable. I can understand they want to model the effects of a future stop but showing it on a public timetable? We must be many years away from the potential Brent Cross NR station opening. I’m not aware of a start date for the proposed redevelopment at Brent Cross. I suspect it may have been delayed due to issues over the proportions of affordable housing given the change of London Mayor.
@WW: I thought the Orpington trains were reverting back to Southeastern? Because if any of them ventured north of Blackfriars then I would have expected them to be on a timetable.
Another silly thing: The West London line timetable, mentions Wandsworth Common, yet not a single train stops there!
@ SHLR – I was looking to see if I could work out how many Thameslink trains were working through the core and then via LB / E&C. This then made me look at both the South Eastern and Thameslink Metro / Main Line timetables. It looks to me, and I may be wrong, that the peak hour Blackfriars – Bromley S via Beck Jnc are South Eastern. The other trains to Orpington or Sevenoaks via Catford on the SE timetable all run in slots that perfectly match Thameslink Metro trips. On the SE timetable the train IDs are shown and I assume Thameslink journeys are prefixed with a “9” and South Eastern with “2” but I am guessing. As I say I’m no expert on these routes so “wibble flip”. 😉
Walthamstow Writer,
You are more or less correct with your supposition of the first character of the headcode. There are complicated rules. Traditionally ‘1’ was express passenger, ‘2’ stopping passenger and ‘5’ empty coaching stock with the other numbers usually assigned to freight.
In recent years the defunct ‘9’ character (originally unfitted freight) was reassigned to London Overground services. More recently still, in future, specific subgroups of ‘9’ will be assigned to either London Overground or Thameslink. I strongly suspect that ‘9’ will also be assigned to Crossrail but haven’t seen any evidence of this.
My belief is that ‘9’ indicates a train that for regulation purpose needs to be kept to time. In the case of London Overground this is because of skewed financial penalties. A consequence of this is that London Overground can totally screw up Southern by being given a priority that is not in the overall passenger interest.
In the case of Thameslink this is probably a recognition that late running Thameslink trains will have the ability to screw up the timetable for much of the country from Scotland in the north to Brighton and the South Coast in the south. Hence the need for some easy identification so that signallers and regulators know not to delay them.
9 doesn’t mean anything other than making the train code stand out. Virgin WC services to Scotland via Birmingham are class 9, whereas the direct Scotland services are all class 1 – they share the same letter so signallers could have confused them otherwise. c2c also had some class 9 trains before the timetable recast. (Eurostars are all 9, but that’s only so that they fit into the SNCF numbering system).
Similarly, some Thameslink ECS moves, specifically ones heading to or through the core, are now class 3 instead of class 5 (class 3 freight is rare outside the ECML and WCML).
Ten-coach suburban trains to Waterloo are also 9, so signallers can readily identify ones that will not fit in platforms 1 to 4.
Oh for a 12 18 split. The London Bridge to Purley service seems to be a 4 26 split. Redhill to Purley is a 22 8 split (and the fast one is 8 behind the slow so a 3 27 split on arrival). Purley to Coulsdon Town is 22 8 as well. And to cap it all they haven’t improved the morning service to Redhill, just returned it so I will have to get up w0 minutes earlier. Obviously I am focusing on purley but the name gives it away.
There’s some odd things in the two consultations.
The Greenwich line Thameslink service is 8 carriages as Woolwich Dockyard cannot take 12-car, but it skips it anyway and no service all day long stops there…
Trains from Gillingham/Gravesend to Abbey Wood for forthcoming Crossrail stays at 2 an hour as now (though Thameslink instead of SE). Not many will transfer then?
@WW & SH(LR) – Southeastern propose, inter alia, these changes from May 2018 and I quote:
The timetable change is required as GTR will be introducing additional Thameslink services into Kent, increasing frequency on some routes and replacing some Southeastern services . The Southeastern timetable therefore needs to be adjusted in order to integrate these services.
For Southeastern passengers there are no major changes and the level of service will be broadly what it is today.
The main features of our draft timetable are:
• Cannon Street trains now able to stop at London Bridge. Charing cross trains diverted to Cannon Street in January 2015 return to their original service pattern. This includes the peak services from Orpington to Blackfriars via Lewisham which return to Charing Cross.
• Six trains per hour (the) Monday to Saturday serving New Eltham, Sidcup, Bexley and Crayford
• Reduced off-peak journey times between Charing Cross, Dartford and Gravesend
• Extension of Victoria to Dartford services off peak to Gravesend calling at Greenhithe
• Six tph at peak times for Deptford, Greenwich, Maze Hill and Westcombe Park
• Six tph at peak times for West Dulwich, Sydenham Hill, Penge east, Kent House and Beckenham Junction
• GTR service between Beckenham Junction and Blackfriars to transfer to Southeastern. Service to be enhanced to five tph in the morning and evening peaks
• Additional peak peak services calling at Denmark Hill.
Two tph Gillingham to Charing cross service operated by Southeastern to be replaced by a two tph Rainham to Luton service via London Bridge, Blackfriars and St. Pancras, operated by GTR
Re Brent Cross Thameslink – there was a recent Barnet Council consultation on rephrasing the development, including bringing forward the station opening to 2022. So not 2018 but within the lifetime of the 2018 timetable?
https://engage.barnet.gov.uk/Brent-Cross-Thameslink-new-project-timescales
The off-peak timetable for the SE Metro looks like this:
GTR:
2tph Luton – Blackfriars – LB – Greenwich – Dartford – Rainham (no stop Woolwich Dockyard, Erith, Belverdere)
2tph Blackfriars – Denmark Hill – Bromley South – Sevenoaks
2tph Kentish Town – Blackfriars – Denmark Hill – Bromley South – Orpington
Southeastern:
2tph Cannon St – LB – Greenwich – Abbey Wood – Barnehurst – Lewisham – LB – CS
2tph Cannon St – LB – Greenwich – Abbey Wood – Sidcup – Lewisham – LB – CS
2tph Cannon St – LB – Lewisham – Hayes
2tph Cannon St – LB – Lewisham – Orpington
2tph Victoria – Denmark Hill – Lewisham – Barnehurst – Dartford – Gravesend (no stop Swanscombe, Stone Crossing, Northfleet)
2tph Victoria – Herne Hill – Bromley South
2tph Victoria – Herne Hill – Bromley South – Orpington
2tph Charing X – LB – Lewisham – Woolwich – Dartford
2tph Charing X – LB – Lewisham – Barnehurst – Dartford – Gravesend
2tph Charing X – LB – Sidcup – Dartford
2tph Charing X – LB – Sidcup – Dartford – Gravesend (no stop at Hither Green, Lee, Mottingham or Albany Park)
2tph Charing X – LB – Hayes
2tph Charing X – LB – Orpington – Sevenoaks
3tph Grove Park – Bromley North
The peak would be
GTR:
2tph Luton – Blackfriars – LB – Greenwich – Dartford – Rainham (no stop Woolwich Dockyard, Erith, Belverdere)
2tph WGC – Blackfriars – Denmark Hill – Bromley South – Sevenoaks
2tph Luton – Blackfriars – Denmark Hill – Bromley South – Orpington
Southeastern:
2tph Cannon St – LB – Greenwich – Abbey Wood – Slade Green
2tph Cannon St – LB – Greenwich – Abbey Wood – Crayford
3tph Cannon St – LB – Lewisham – Barnehust
3tph Cannon St – LB – Lewisham – Sidcup – Crayford
3tph Cannon St – LB – Lewisham – Hayes
3tph Cannon St – LB – Orpington – Sevenoaks
3tph Victoria – Denmark Hill – Lewisham – Barnehurst – Dartford
2tph Victoria – Herne Hill – Bromley South
2tph Victoria – Herne Hill – Bromley South – Orpington
5tpd Blackfriars – Herne Hill – Beckenham Junction
3tph Charing X – LB – Lewisham – Woolwich – Dartford
2tph Charing X – LB – Lewisham – Barnehurst
3tph Charing X – LB – Lewisham – Barnehurst – Dartford
2tph Charing X – LB – Sidcup – Crayford
1tph Charing X – LB – Sidcup – Dartford
1tph Charing X – LB – Sidcup – Dartford – Gravesend
1tph Charing X – LB – Sidcup – Dartford – Gravesend – Strood
3tph Charing X – LB – Hayes
3tph Charing X – LB – Lewisham – Orpington
1tph Charing X – LB – Orpington
4tph Grove Park – Bromley North
It still seems like a lot of everywhere-everywhere else overlapping 2tph (or 3tph in the peaks) services.
If the proposals are correct, Gravesend gets 8 Metro/GTR off peak (plus 2 Javelins) and 4 Metro/GTR peak (plus 4 Javelins).
Additionally there are Javelins to Ebbsfleet and current experience is that traffic from Ebbsfleet is heavy and increasing with he first tranches of housing at Ebbsfleet nearing completion.
Of course, for a time of 22 minutes by Javelin from Gravesend to St. Pancras as opposed to about 80 minutes by GTR it is not surprising that many feel the premium fare worthwhile.
Yes, indeed – off peak Gravesend will get a better frequency – 10tph rather than 8tph, though the balance would be towards slower services, though 2tph of those Metro off-peak services would be semi-fast giving a 38 minute time to Charing Cross (faster than now) despite stopping a couple more times in the peak hour. There’d also be direct Victoria service off-peak, but not peak. Seems strange!
Re Si, thanks for the comments. However the best time Charing Cross to Gravesend is currently 58 minutes (not 38) so the best in future will be 55 minutes give or take – for a journey of 24 miles. So the heavy use (both rush hour and off peak) of the Javelin premium service is not surprising. Yesterday early afternoon at Ebbsfleet, both Car Park sadjacent to the terminal were heavily used.
I’m chuffed that my battle (& that of others) for a 4tph frequency at a Z6 station (Hadley Wood) has been won, instead of the proposed drop from 3 to 2. Small victories, but something.
Less good is the ‘standardisation’ of morning peak services from Welwyn Garden City to Kings Cross/St Pancras. Gone are the semi-fast and fast services and they are replaced by fomulaic, but regular services: e.g. Welwyn GC has had 3 ‘fast’ services which are either non-stop or one stop to Finsbury Park, with a quickest run time of 14mins. These are gone. A great shame.
@Keith Knight
You are right – I misread the “38 minutes Charing X to Dartford and 55 minutes Charing X to Gravesend” as 38 minutes Charing X to Gravesend. 8 minutes quicker to Dartford is rather good, but this semi-fast via Sidcup service is only an off-peak service.
@WalthamstowWriter at 1319, 10 Oct,2016
I picked up a ‘Transformingrail’ leaflet and looked for any reference to Maidstone. That, I did not find. Instead, one of the highlights of our proposed 2018 timetables was ‘new direct routes through and beyond London; Cambridge and Ashford’.
I looked up the ‘transforming rail’ website and found my way to Information Sheet 7 – Kent Thameslink. The detail on this page is so tiny that I went to the second page, where its slightly larger, and found that London is TWENTY-FOUR stops away from Maidstone. That’ll take hours! And it doesn’t go to London Bridge!
@ Maidstone Jotter – well perhaps (?) GTR have moved on a little in 9 months since I made that post. I have downloaded on my PC the proposed 2018 Thameslink Mainline timetable that does show a Maidstone service and one that clearly does stop at London Bridge. I confess I have not read the summary notes published with these updated timetables to see if they are better or worse than 9 months ago.
The detailed timetables are hidden away on the transforming rail website. https://www.transformingrail.com/download-timetables ,is the direct link, alternatively if you look up times for particular stations there is a link stating :download timetables, which will access the above webpage.
These show, on the TL main line timetable, half hourly services via London Bridge to Maidstone taking 60mins between Blackfriars and Maidstone.
@ WW + Verulamius
Thanks for your guidance, but my point is that if Thameslink is going to announce that a useful service is, in fact, rubbish, then nobody’s going to use it, and its going to close, as a similar service did, in 2006. And that service had no publicity at all.
Similarly, the transformingrail leaflet states that the Maidstone service terminates at Ashford. If an Ashford dweller thinks that this new service is going to be better than his present service, he’s going to be madder than a box of frogs.
If he turns up the timetable, he will find that, while Maidstone East has two Thameslink trains an hour to London all day; starting at 05:13, last train 22:43, and the last train in the evening reaches Maidstone at 00:02; Ashford has only five trains to London by this route, first train 04:49, LAST TRAIN 06:49, then no more trains, and the FIRST TRAIN back from London arrives at Ashford at 23:25, and the last train at 00:25.
Ashford, considering its distance from London, at present gets the best service on Southeastern – 38 minutes to St Pancras by HighSpeed 1, while the proposed service by Thameslink takes an hour and 34 minutes to get to St Pancras. By the time our Ashford resident gets home, he’ll have a face like someone chewing on a wasp.
Veulamius & Maidstone Jotter
Current tt …
Victoria – Maidstone E: 40 miles, 57 minutes
Or:
St Pancra (I) – Maidstone W: 44.25 miles 52 minutes
So – no improvement at all, really, is it?
Maidstone: I imagine that, like many services in south-east land, the train at Ashford will be labelled with a shorter desination (Otford?) until later in its journey, so there are unlikely to be many disappointed riders from Ashford.
Re. Ashford. I assume the early/late operation is only because there may be room at Ashford for stabling.
In fact the services from Ashford are likely to be pretty similar to the current services to Victoria. They are labelled as destination Victoria but few, if any, passengers use them to get to London because they are extremely slow – typically over an hour and a half compared to the HS1 services (38 minutes to St Pancras) or even the semi-fast Charing Cross services (75 minutes to London Bridge). Useful, though, for intermediate stations or if you want to get to the area around Victoria and don’t fancy the tube from King’s Cross. I don’t think many passengers are caught out.
@ Quinlet.
Similar remarks apply to services between the Medway Towns and Gravesend to St. Pancras.
Gravesend to St. Pancras via HS1 is 22 minutes (18 or 19 depending on service from Ebbsfleet). The draft timing from Gravesend to St. Pancras via Thameslink is 75 minutes; so guess why so many pay the premium fare now!
For the Maidstone East services the sheet referred to above can be found here. The first map seems an accurate representation of the services proposed – though stops not served by Thameslink are omitted entirely and the Swanley – London Bridge link doesn’t go via St Mary Cray. The second map is from the first phase of the consultation – itself a badly modified map from the rather different 2014 proposal.
There isn’t an easily searchable planner with both operators and connections to allow people to easily see the impacts to their actual journeys. The common theme of the Southeastern and Thameslink consultations is that the timetable proposed often seems to be more convenient for the operators than passengers.
One example of this is that the evenly spaced 4tph SE Victoria – Orpington would have 2tph switched to Victoria – Bromley South instead. TL would run 2tph to Blackfriars – Bromley South – Orpington, so technically Bromley South – Orpington keeps 4tph. However, they run much closer together with the split as 9/21 in one direction and 7/23 the opposite way.
This change gives Petts Wood a rather strange 8tph off-peak service to London. It would have direct trains to 8 of the ‘London Terminals’ group (London Bridge, Waterloo East, Charing Cross, Cannon Street, Victoria, Blackfriars, City Thameslink and St Pancras). All except London Bridge are only 2tph though and even to London Bridge the 4tph arrive as a pair each half hour separated by just 2 minutes.
@SouthEasternPassenger: Which kind of puts us back to where we were 10 years ago, when the Cannon Street trains used to leave 4 minutes before the Charing Cross services…
@ Southeastern Passenger – It is precisely those ludicrous timetabling decisions that make me glad I don’t live south of the Thames and also deter me from using rail to get around that area. Before anyone “tells me off” yes the tracks are old, knackered, designed in the wrong way through daft competition in the 1800s yadda yadda yadda. However it is the lack of any vision / plan / commitment to do anything about it that drives me nuts. People deserve vastly better than this “compromised” load of nonsense that’s existed for decades. It will most likely carry on for decades more because of the ludicrous inertia around peak services / service patterns and the political make up of the county of Kent. Hurry up Kent and have a revolt about your train services rather than fretting about the stopping pattern of the 0736 from Ashford.
@WW: Which one? The one to Cannon Street or the one to St. Pancras? 😉
Walthamstow Writer,
In defence of the timetable to someone who lives north of the river, I would point out that Charing Cross and Cannon Street are very different destinations. Not many people will be travelling short of London Bridge. So the only significant destination in common is London Bridge station. Until fairly recently this was not usually the final destination except for those who chose to walk over the bridge to the city.
I suspect things have changed a lot since I used the services but years ago, in the morning at any rate, Charing Cross and Cannon St trains each had their own distinctive mix of commuters.
So, in the past at any rate, it really didn’t matter much if the Cannon St and Charing Cross trains left within four minutes of each other
@SH(LR)
Identification notes:
Commuters to Cannon Street carry briefcases and dress in suits.
Commuters to Charing Cross have carrier bags and wear jeans or chinos.
*well they did ten years ago.
@ PoP – I note your comment. I just wonder if the same demands from the 60s, 70s or 80s still apply now. Obviously people still work in the City and the West End but the nature of employment / work has changed and continues to change. The scale of non work activity and its distribution has also changed which in turn creates employment for people. One might have hoped that rail services would have adapted but that requires investment and some increase in operating costs (e.g better evening and Sunday services). Surely the development and expansion of Tube, DLR and some Overground services tells us this?
@PoP
The other thing that has changed is the importance of London Bridge as an interchange. While it had little local employment and only the Northern line, the interchange options were limited. Now with both Jubilee and Northern lines as well as Thameslink, interchange is much more important and local employment has shot up, too. Times have certainly moved on.
Agreed WW, we just seem incapable of making progress down here. Aside from the measly 2ph still persisting on Sundays, my own local SE service on the Hayes line is back to 2tph via Lewisham to Cannon Street and 2tph fast Ladywell to Charing Cross via London Bridge. Back to strange intervals rather than turn up and go as we’ve had at least in the return direction during the Thameslink works while everything left from Charing Cross. Please, minimum of 4tph on every route all day every day going to one destination with the same stopping pattern. Make people change! They’ll grumble but they’ll get used to it. My other local service, Orpington-Vic is so much easier to use in comparison. I know I’ll never wait more than 15m at Vic, Herne Hill, Bromley South etc and I know it’ll be stopping everywhere. Except ironically in the morning peak when awkward intervals start to appear because the direct trains to the City have to be accommodated – which speaks for itself.
This is also evident on the mainline services. I can see fast trains coming through in pairs. One for Charing Cross the next for Cannon Street (or v.v., can’t remember which way around this is), then a bigger gap and repeat… Unfortunately now that SE have eliminated route codes, it’s hard to tell where they come from…
I can only hope that when London Bridge is completed, that they then start to go back to a regular cycle, so we get a slow train every 15 minutes and can get to either Cannon Street or Charing Cross with possibly a change at London Bridge. They can do this on the mainline off peak, so why not the suburbans?
re: GT 17 July 17 @ 16:12
My journey is from Maidstone to Holborn or the City, so no route to Victoria is of any interest. But this thread concerns Thameslink, so the route in question is St Pancras to Maidstone East, and whether at peak times it will run through the Core from the Canal Tunnels, and/or whether it will run at all at peak times south of London after May 2018.
In particular, I hate paying wages to those who, either through ignorance or idleness, put in writing erroneous statements which can mislead the travelling public into thinking that proposed rail services are different to what is actually the case.
The only consolation from the damage to the Orpington-Victoria service is the possible connections with the Victoria fasts to the Thameslink trains
VIC xx28 ORP xx07 – 39 minutes
VIC xx40 BMS xx57 BMS xx03 ORP xx14 – 34 minutes
VIC xx58 ORP xx37 – 39 minutes
VIC xx10 BMS xx27 BMS xx33 ORP xx44 – 34 minutes
ORP xx24 VIC xx03 – 39 minutes
ORP xx33 BMS xx42 BMS xx47 VIC xx06 – 33 minutes
ORP xx54 VIC xx33 – 39 minutes
ORP xx03 BMS xx12 BMS xx17 VIC xx36 – 33 minutes
But the arrival spacing is still poor
People also like to use the 4tph Orpington service from points in South London to change trains on to the services towards Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and beyond. By curtailing half of these services at Bromley South this will become more difficult. It is already a pain on a sunday when the trains from Kent and East Sussex are timed to arrive at Orpington just as the train via Herne Hill is about to leave. It would have been better to terminate the new Thameslink service at Bromley South rather than Orpington (assuming that the station could have accommodated the layover of the train in Platform 2 which I appreciate may not be the case).
The Thameslink and SE consultations are also hopeless as they don’t show each other’s services between Herne Hill and Blackfriars which makes people think there is a worse service than present (given the SE service will replace the existing Thameslink Beckenham Junction services) – in fact 3 different operators – Southern, Thameslink and Southeastern will be operating between Herne Hill and Blackfriars in the peaks if the plans consulted on are implemented!
One step forward and half a step back in SE land. For a whole decade we finally had a turn up and go on the Orpington line, recently extended to all day Mon-Sat. Now it’s to run at an irregular interval, as is the Catford Loop, as is the Hayes line. When will they learn? Please bring in TFL!!!
Jonathan
But … that would mean an integrated co-ordinated railway service & we can’t have that – we must have “competition” at all costs!
[ The exact opposite of Germany …
Get on bus in village – get ticket ( Group ticket actually ) not only to end of bus-route, but forward on train to Osnabrück [ Or Rheine or Münster ] & return …
And, surprise (!) people use the services … ]
Greg Tingey 6 September 2017 at 08:40
“Get on bus in village – get ticket ( Group ticket actually ) not only to end of bus-route, but forward on train”
Sounds like a Derbyshire Wayfarer or a Greater Manchester Wayfarer.
AG
Yes, but such things are exceptional in England .. in Germany it’s the standard
Thameslink Programme have announced the completion of the trackwork at London Bridge, with the Christmas break being used to commission the signalling.
http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk/another-milestone-achieved-allowing-reintroduction-cross-london-thameslink-services
“With the completion of this track, to the west of London Bridge, the lines are now in their final position through the landmark station, awaiting final signalling commissioning at Christmas and the New Year. Once drivers are trained and familiarised with using the new section of track and its signalling, Thameslink services will once again serve the new station, in the next major industry timetable change of May 2018″
I’d been previously led to believe that Thameslink through services would return to London Bridge in January 2018. There’s another quote further down from George McInulty at GTR:
“From May, we’ll be back at the station cutting journey times for thousands of passengers travelling to this part of London. At the same time we will expand the Thameslink network massively, connecting Peterborough and Cambridge into the north-south, cross-London route, transforming the journeys for thousands of people”
Did I misunderstand the scheduling previously, or has something slipped?
I was also expecting Thameslink branded services to resume calling at London Bridge from January. Glad it’s not just me puzzled about this.
Believe official start date is May. The option is there to run via L Bridge from January with the same timings to allow for having to run via Elephant instead.
They’d better not turn up too early, there’s still some work to do to the east of London Bridge….
So Mr McInulty has turned up at GTR following his departure from LU? Wondered where he’d end up after he appeared in the long list of “departed Directors” in the last annual report.
It’ll be a slight shame if Thameslink doesn’t resume, albeit on slowish timings, at London Bridge come January. I assume GTR are trying to get people focused on a “biggish bang” change in May rather than them expecting a 24tph service via LB come January.
This has always been the plan. Infrastructure available from Jan ’18, service change from May ’18.
It is a significant timetable change to have the Thameslink to Brighton Main Line services routed via London Bridge on quicker timings. There are actually two timetable paths for each train in the timetable, one via each route. Those via London Bridge have a chunk of ‘pathing time’ so that they drop into the via Herne Hill paths at each end.
As drivers get to learn the line, more services will be routed via London Bridge. I don’t know the plan, but suspect it will take about 6-8 weeks.
Sad Fat Dad: ah, that makes a lot more sense. A phased changeover, while keeping the timings the same, and then a new timetable in May. Thanks!
@ SFD – thanks. Do I assume that even if trains are routed via LB because the drivers have learnt the new route that they won’t actually allow people to board or alight at London Bridge? I can’t see that a timetable with LB stops would work until such time as GTR are confident that *all* drivers rostered for particular services know the route. No point in saying e.g. the 1006 will stop at London Bridge if it only has familiarised drivers for, say, 3 days out of 7 in the early weeks post Jan 2018. That’s just a hypothetical example btw – I have no knowledge of what times the trains run or how drivers are rostered – just in case anyone tries to correct me on the example. 😉
Re WW,
If only it were that simple…
If it goes via LBG then it definitely won’t stop at Elephant and Castle!!!
So some will stop at LBG to allow a substitute Northern Line interchange.
The proportion of “some” will increase between Jan & May, with the target appearing to be 50% stopping at LBG after 2 full operating weeks.
The problems is that there are routes transferring over from Southern which complicates the picture as well (adds a few more moving targets to benchmark against.)
@ Ngh – Ah ok that makes sense. I confess I hadn’t realised the diverted BML Thameslink trains were actually calling at Elephant. I thought they just went straight through with E&C just keeping its old services of Wimbledon Loop and Sevenoaks trains plus the odd peak special workings. I’ve stayed away from Thameslink for years while the works were ongoing. I’ve only seen a couple of class 700s in the metal and not yet ridden on one.
@ngh, WW
Actually, earlier this year, I was travelling up from Croydon by Thameslink (which incidentally is the only chance I have had so far to ride on one of the 700s) and I can confirm that it was not scheduled to stop at E&C. It just went straight through to Blackfriars.
Re WW,
There is a very good case-study with this years opening of the Down Sussex Slow through the Bermondsey Diveunder. While a large number of drivers could use it relatively quickly it took SFD’s circa 8 weeks to get to 100%.
There are only two trains a day direct from East Croydon to Elephant & Castle (07:23 and 08:39) so I hardly think this is an issue.
If diverted via London Bridge, they don’t need to call at London Bridge to satisfy Elephant & Castle passengers. Any passengers for Elephant & Castle simply change at Blackfriars – which is what they would do today. As East Croydon – Blackfriars timings will identical they will be no worse off except for passengers on those two direct trains.
Anyway. I strongly suspect the Elephant & Castle call will disappear for those two trains in the new timetable,
I’m still struggling with this.
Are we saying that between Jan 18 to May 18..
. Thameslink brand services may travel from E Croydon to Blackfriars via either Tulse Hill or London Bridge (and vv in reverse). If so…
Will the route of each service potentially vary each day, depending on whether the driver has updated route knowledge?
Presumably this will mean London Bridge won’t show in the published timetable – but services that run via London Bridge will stop there? Will they use their pathing time (to match running time via Tulse Hill) by sitting in platform at London Bridge?
@Island Dweller: I don’t think that’s going to be possible, the line between London Bridge and Blackfriars is going to fill up quite fast when you get consecutive trains routed that way.
It’s more likely that some will go via London Bridge, but others will keep going via Tulse Hill until the timetable changes, even after all drivers have been trained.
Southern Heights,
How many Thameslink trains an hour do you think currently run between East Croydon and Blackfriars? It is not many. Four to be precise.
They could each sit at the platform at London Bridge for 10 minutes if they were equally spaced apart. As it is, they don’t have that luxury because they would be late and, in any case, they are not equally spaced apart. But they could sit at London Bridge for as long as needed to get back on time without a problem.
And here was me thinking that there were at least 8…
@Sad Fat Dad. Re May 2018 for resumption at London Bridge. You said (8 Nov @2059) “that has always been the plan”
No – I don’t think so. This weblink unambiguously states that the diversion of Gatwick services via Tulse Hill only runs until Jan18
http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk/key-dates-and-service-changes
The exact quote is:
“Monday 5 January 2015 to January 2018 – No Bedford to Brighton Thameslink trains will call at London Bridge station”
@Island Dweller
I think there is a fair amount of ambiguity in that statement. After all, “No (Brighton line) Thameslink trains at London Bridge until Jan ’18” is not the same as “All (Brighton line) Thameslink trains stop at London Bridge from Jan ’18”.
I would agree if the Thameslink Project website then went on to say something about services in the Jan 18 to May 18 interval. But it conspicuously doesn’t, from which I infer that the original plan was that the “stopping at London Bridge” service was intended to resume in January.
ID
If you use the “official” source, the electronic version of the National Raill timetable, we have about a week to wait until publication of the Dec ’17 – May ’18 tt ( And we know that, for the area covered by the Southern & Southeastern TOC’s there will, mostly be two sets of tables in that period, one covering until the :LBG works are (hopefully) finished on 2nd/3rd January & the second set, running until May.
Checking the TOC’s websites … SouthEastern give nothing away as to what they are doing, Thameslink refuse to recognise the existence of Farringdon, when trying to make a tt up (!), but forcing a search on their site ( using either St Alban’s or King’s Cross as start-point & London Bridge as end, gives a (different in each case) set of answers, though they all involve a change of trains, tending to indicate that they have, indeed, changed their minds & that there won’t be any Thameslink-to-London Bridge “throughs” until May ’18.
Make of that what you will.
The wtt in real time trains shows two paths for each service. One by each route. None have a public stop at London Bridge. The London Bridge ones stop for pathing purposes by bricklayers arms southbound and just before Blackfriars northbound. I have heard that the route taken will depend on the drivers route knowledge.
@ Greg – if you look at Opentraintimes and select a date in Jan 2018 you can see precisely the set up explained above re two train paths per T/Link train. One runs via London Bridge but doesn’t stop for passengers and the other via Tulse Hill. It also shows all platforms in use if you look at London Bridge itself. The dual paths show up nicely if you look at London Blackfriars.
WW
Thanks for that – I obviously dived down the wrong rabbit-‘ole.
We will obviously have to wait & see what actually transpires.
Purley Dweller is correct in that the route taken from January, 2018 will depend on the driver’s route knowledge. This was confirmed by GTR at a meeting I attended tonight. However, they did suggest that the trains would stop at London Bridge for passengers if they ran that way. However, short-notice changes could be the order of the day, i.e. just prior to start of service concerned once the driver confirmed knowledge or otherwise.
It might not be so bad, however, because Thameslink are now happily some 20 drivers over ‘establishment’ (as opposed to some 80 under at the beginning of the franchise). As an aside, Great Northern are still some 10 drivers under establishment.
GF
But Public services across, ahem, “Wilberforce Junction” are not supposed to start until May, IIRC?
I’d love to hear the announcements: The next train at platform 5 may, or may not appear depending on the driver, please stand well clear of the platforms edge!
SHLR
Prescisely.
Not exactly the way to run a railway, is it … more reminiscent of trying to get the 11.05 for Kingston in “Three Men in a Boat”
@ Graham F – surely it is just simpler if they delay the advertised stopping of trains at London Bridge until a point where, if the route learning goes to schedule, that they can be confident that particular trains will call at LB on a consistent weekday / Sat / Sun basis? Then you can introduced stopping services with some level of confidence.
I can see there are problems no matter what they do but the thought of random train departures that can vary day by day is borderline farcical. You can imagine the social media / TV media reaction. Equally if trains go via LB but do not open doors and then sit for 7-8 mins west of LB before finally arriving at Blackfriars you can imagine the reaction there too. Either way you are going to get ridicule or complaints from people even if the journey takes no longer than advertised or if the train went via Tulse Hill.
There’s a bit of me that says getting the “daft headlines” out of the way beforehand by being open about what needs to happen and how the trains may run for a number of weeks is preferable to an almighty ongoing moan post January when commuters find they go via LB one day, T Hill the next and trains sit on a track for nearly 10 mins going nowhere. Throw in the potential for bad weather causing issues and the reputational issues could be difficult to clear prior to May’s “medium sized bang”. As I say it’s not easy and I’d hate to be faced with the problem myself.
A quick update that the Thameslink Programme website service changes now says May 2018 for core trains stopping at London Bridge. Thameslink twitter’s feed thinks there won’t be any stops at London Bridge before then either, but they aren’t known for being 100% reliable. Unfortunately the ticket acceptance listed everywhere still ends January 1st 2018.
It’s also being reported by Thameslink/GTR staff that the 24tph core rollout has apparently been delayed to December 2019 with 18tph through the core in May 2018. If true hopefully full details will be announced shortly, but yet another instance where Thameslink aren’t exactly covering themselves in glory.
As has been extensively discussed on here, whilst London Bridge to King’s Cross is providing new capacity, the rest of the network more or less as is, and is more or less full. I believe is it very sensible to increase to full capacity is stages to test timetables and allow staff to practice what will be very a demanding service to operate. Which would be preferred? A better service run reliably of the full service run unreliably? I think LU’s practice of working gradually up to the planned service is prudent.
Re SE passenger,
Not much to do with Thameslink directly, the supplier of the TMS system is allegedly having big problems resulting in being 12-18 months behind schedule. It appears they didn’t quite appreciate the detail of the rail infrastructure in South London when bidding. The situation could apparently be summarised as “needing to invent new maths for Windmill Bridge Junction etc and the number of separate junctions they are attempting to optimise over the wider network”, which will be no surprise to LR readers of the Sussex series of articles.
As regards London Bridge stopping that is only when they are guaranteeing all trains via LBG will stop, the “may be” Schrodinger’s Cat situation as outlined above is the reality but try explaining that to some users…
The Thameslink comms strategy is largely keep it simple and only mention the next stage if possible to avoid confusion…
The ‘Some Thameslink peak services will call at Redhill’ is a consequence of the new platform 0 (nearly complete) at Redhill.
It would be nice if the update was complete and got everything correct. I like the fact that advice for passengers of the now defunct ‘South West Trains’ contains no information at all. Consistent, if nothing else.
It is a bit sad that they appear to have been successful in introducing ERTMS and ATO which must have been extremely challenging only to be let down by an inadequate/incomplete TMS system.
Also I wonder if we will have a full service before they have to start causing more long-term disruption by trying to sort out East Croydon. If the Croydon works take place and run consecutively could we apply to the Guinness Book of World records for the longest continuous period temporary period of railway disruption? By my reckoning it will be 2013 to 2030.
Mind you, at a stroke they have solved the problem of going via Greenwich (what this article was about) in December 2018. Or at least put off the evil day. Please don’t tell me this is still going ahead as originally planned.
100andthirty,
Yes but the difference is that London Underground plan from the outset to introduce things gradually whereas on National Rail they try to make a big change and when they hit trouble they, belatedly, introduce a less-ambitious plan.
To some extent this is understandable, London Underground, on most lines, has much more freedom as to when to introduce a new timetable. On National Rail everything has to be co-ordinated. I suspect they could probably manage without the TMS package, but they can only really make big changes to Thameslink once a year as the timetable affects so many other TOCs – maybe even Scotrail. So they can’t risk it not being ready by December 2018 as you can’t easily introduce a back-up plan once the new timetable is introduced.
@NGH The Hitachi TMS at Three Bridges ROC is pretty basic. It provides what are called Operations Decision Support Tools at West Hampstead and King’s Cross boxes. AKA ‘Isolated TM’, this works out alternative operating strategies which are then presented to the signaller on a display screen for manual implementation. There was an article on how ODST will be used at the South Wales signalling Centre in the November 2017 Informed Sources
Three Bridges will have ‘Interfaced TM’, where the revised schedules are, er, interfaced with the signaller’s work stations and could, I emphasise, could drive Automatic Route Setting . From the slow progress with other TM schemes I think that ‘bolt-on’ TM from a third party is proving much harder to make work than assumed. Resonate’s package of their own TM integrated with their latest IECC on the GWML, may stand a better chance.
If I’m allowed a second blatant plug, next week’s Modern Railways has an update on Thameslink, including service introduction details.
Thameslink trains have different reporting numbers depending on route xWxx via Tulse Hill and xTxx via London Bridge. Presumably the driver will select the route to be used when setting up the reporting number at the start of the journey and that will inform the signaller and ARS which way the train is to go?
Do the new Thameslink platforms at London Bridge require dispatch staff? If so, that suggests another reason why random station stops could be hard to manage.
Re LiS,
Exactly: T vs W for the second character on routeing… it is not hard… oops then we meet the average passenger…
Re Captain Deltic,
Indeed but if the expectation was to port an existing product that works in another country and you suddenly find it unable to handle the complexity, then it is back to the drawing board (all confessions received in anonymity etc.) [you have my email address for more in-depth discussion]
If interested, please watch out for Phase 3 of the GTR/GN/Southern Consultation, which will run from 22nd November to noon on the 20th
December.
PoP….based solely on a presentation last Tuesday by a senior Network Rail person working on capacity upgrades, I think they are starting to see the benefit of a number of smaller incremental bangs.
LiS
Well, at the moment, on the through platforms at London Bridge, there are certainly multiple despatchers present ….
LiS – TL is planned to be self (ie driver) dispatched from London Bridge. Since the 700s took over, City Thameslink and Blackfriars have both switched from platform staff to driver dispatch.
Also the ‘T’ vs ‘W’ decision is unlikely to be taken by the driver him/herself, and certainly not when setting up the train before departure. Incidentally no part of the current Thameslink route has ARS (Automatic Route Setting).
I suspect (my guess!) that it will be confirmed the day before by control based on the next day’s driver rosters. Those trains that have drivers rostered who sign via London Bridge will cause the T to be activated by control staff, cancelling off the alternative schedule. It will be a fairly quick process to get all drivers signed up via London Bridge, a few weeks at most. However in the intervening period it will still be a headache during major disruption when drivers are switched onto different diagrams, as there will then have to be some sharp work in control at very short notice swapping reporting numbers and schedules.
130 – intriguing!
@SFD – Thanks, for I wasn’t sufficiently precise as to how and which TL service would be routed via Tulse Hill or London Bridge.
@130 – If that was the same presentation as I attended last Tuesday evening, then what you say was clearly apparent, in which case I tend to suggest adding the word “significant” before “number” where you say “a number of smaller incremental bangs”. I just hope that the presentation slides to be sent to us will show all those changes as displayed on-screen. There were too many to note as the slides changed to cover the transition period and I didn’t learn shorthand.
There was little time for ‘networking’, so I regret not coming across you during the evening if you were indeed there.
@SFD – an interesting point about the need to select T v W routeing the day before. Given that one can’t absolutely guarantee that a specific driver will actually be available for the specific shift on the day, for obvious reasons, presumably this means that one needs to roster “signed for” spare cover for both routeing options – an addiitional cost/inflexibility?
@ Graham H. All the drivers will continue to sign via Herne Hill so that’s not an issue. I don’t see the need for spare drivers specifically for this. There are no booked stops between Blackfriars and Croydon, so if a ‘T’ turns up with a driver who doesn’t sign via London Bridge, then it can simply go the other way without causing a cancellation in the system. There will have to be sharp work in control to let the signallers know at Three Bridges ROC (for Blackfriars) and Area Signalling Centre (for Windmill Bridge) to avoid delay.
If it was me managing it (it isn’t), for the first week every train would be a ‘W’. I’d have all the driver managers out, waiting at Blackfriars and New Cross Gate or East Croydon. In the first few days they would be piloting drivers on a planned basis through London Bridge to get them competent – clearly there aren’t enough driver managers to do every train. the first week would see enough drivers are trained to enable a decent proportion of Ws (via Herne Hill) to be swapped to Ts (via London Bridge) on a reliable basis. The driver managers continue to pilot ‘fresh’ drivers, but can also be there to jump on an errant one if it turns up.
In theory it should be possible to do around 95% of the drivers in two to three weeks. That last 5% will be drivers not on duty for most of that time for whatever reason.
The key is to keep the transition period as short as possible, in order to avoid confusion in the signalboxes. Finally, I wouldn’t necessarily start the driver training in the first week that the new route is available. Personally I’d give it a week to settle down.
@130 17 Nov. at 07:50
‘I think they are starting to see the benefit of a number of smaller incremental bangs.’
I am mildly puzzled. Are you saying that they are starting to *understand* the benefits or that they are starting to *experience* them?
@130 and GF. Are the slides likely to become available online?
GF……..it was a different event. The presentation I saw was in the morning!
RayK…….”understand”. They haven’t applied this principle yet although they will do so for Crossrail as “incremental” is TfL’s plan.
@SFD – thank you for the very full explanation!
Amazed that they are going to self dispatch at busy London platforms…I can see that slowing things down unless the platforms have been built in mind with leaving a full train length clear gap.
Myself I now won’t go all the time there are folk hugging the side of the train or standing too far over the yellow line, dodging round installations on the platform bringing them back close to the train.
Press release on the Thameslink timetables up to December 2019 published today :
https://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/govia-thameslink-railway/pressreleases/wide-range-of-benefits-revealed-for-may-2018-south-east-timetable-2285889
@irate driver: The platforms at London Bridge are pretty much straight.
As for your second paragraph, I wish I could understand it…
Southern Heights (Light Railway)
What irate driver is basically saying is that he won’t depart from the platform when there are people in close proximity to the train. Or, look as if they are about to be in close proximity to the train as they deviate to avoid clutter on the platform that sends them close or over the yellow line.
Personally, I have a lot of sympathy with irate driver on this one. I don’t understand why we can’t mandate that trains (LU and NR) do not depart whilst people are over the yellow line – at least at critical stations. It happens on the Hamburg Hochbahn and people soon get the message (from fellow irate passengers if nothing else) to stand well clear.
Better still, lets have sensors to detect proximity to train when the train is ready to depart. It might prevent various accidents where the member of staff (driver or guard) has failed to realise the danger – typically clothing being trapped on leaving the train and the doors closing.
“Straight” platforms at London Bridge?
On the ex-LBSC side, current numbers 10 – 15 maybe, but those routes leading towards any of Charing Cross, the new Thameslink route & Cannon St are emphatically not straight – you simply can not see the whole of a train form any single point.
Additionally, Southern Heights, whether or not the platform is curved or straight is irrelevant when using body side cameras. The problem is people remaining too close to the train, whether they are moving or static.
Hi Irate Driver,
It makes sense now, thank you!
@Greg: About as straight as possible and certainly a vast improvement on how they used to be. At least that’s for platforms 4-9…. I know 4 & 5 haven’t opened yet, but the shape is pretty obvious.
SHLR
Agreed – but you still can’t see one end of a train from the other, which ( I think ) is the essential point, if we are talking about safe despatch of trains.
Greg,
If the driver is relying on his monitors, he can’t see one end of a train from the other even if it is a single carriage. Contrarywise, if dispatching from a platform the ideally you want someone who can see the whole length of the train. Better still, someone on the platform who can do this without having to look behind them. Multiple dispatchers on the platform when the platform is curved is not ideal (because of cost) but can be done pretty safely.
The most awful situation of the lot is a long train in a curved platform with a guard to dispatch it. Either he looks at monitors (in which case the driver might as well do it) or he has to physically leave the train to establish it is safe to issue his ding-ding (in which case something might be happening subsequent to him checking it is clear and getting back on the train).
I have a very simple view that a clear view of the PTI is the required. If this can be achieved with the driver using his monitors connected to the bodyside cameras, then all well and good. The challenge is on crowded curved platforms, especially as the driver has no means of addressing folk left on the platform. Station staff with wireless microphones connected to thd public address can be very effective. I see no option but to use multiple station staff on long, crowded, curved platforms. Fortunately conforming to all three factors are comparatively rare, and the number of passengers involved would easily justify the cost.
Note, on LU where the longest train is only just over half the length of a Thameslink train, they have started to use more than one SATS on crowded or multi entrance platforms.
In an ideal world driver or guard would be able to close doors in stages if necessary, sometimes I have 11 clear coaches and 1 hidden by a gaggle all leaving through the two sets of doors nearest the exit.
130:
“PTI” = “Passenger – Train – Interface” ?
SATS = “Station Assistants Train Supervision” ??????
I’d guess “platform/train interface”
SATS appears to be “Station assistant, train services”.
Great – so delaying full Thameslink implementation now means some of us on the Catford loop go from 5 tph through the core in the mornings (8:30-9:30) to just 2 for an entire year…. although compensation after that gap is we go up from 2 to 4 tph in the evening peak
@Paul Kent – As I understand it from a Southeastern source, this will be the situation:
• 2 tph Kentish Town – Central London (via Elephant & Castle) – Catford – Bromley South – Orpington. During Monday to Friday peak periods these trains will be extended to and from Luton.
• 2tph London Blackfriars – Elephant & Castle – Catford – Bromley South –Swanley – Sevenoaks. During peak periods these trains will be extended to and from Welwyn Garden City.
The two routes combine between London Blackfriars and Bickley to provide 4 tph on the Catford Loop route at all times of the day, doubling the frequency of Thameslink train services.
However, I agree that from this information, it’s not clear that all this would happen in May, 2018 but I can’t see the present service on the Catford Loop being substantially reduced even pro tem, even if Blackfriars is used to terminate e.g. half the services. I hope more will be clear when the next GTR consultation comes online during today.
Sorry I failed to spell out the acronyms – Henning Makholm – got them right!!!
Paul Kent surely it just be a case of changing at Blackfriars for plenty of other Thameslink trains going through the core anyway?
@ Graham F – the press release from GTR (linked to in an earlier post in the thread) says that 4 tph will run on the Catford loop but half terminate at Blackfriars as you state. These are “joined up” with KX to Welwyn GC train in May 2019 and represent the step up to 22 tph in the core.
Basically it is 18tph in May 2018 and then 2 tph are added to the core service every 5-7 months until Dec 2019 when 24 tph is achieved. The service builds up at the same time as Crossrail does but each increment is, on the face of it, less challenging than the step changes Crossrail have to make.
So is there actually a current overall picture of what GTR are actually planning to run?
Given the consultations and various tid-bits being dropped, it would appear that the words “arse” and “elbow” might be put into use quite successfully….
But then again “press releases” are more to obfuscate rather than anything else aren’t they? 😉
Southern Heights,
I tend to agree. The article in about the Thameslink changes in ‘Newsfront’ in the December issue of Modern Railways is much clearer than anything put out by GTR.
Re SH(LR) and PoP,
Given GTR seem to be bit confused especially about what they can say and what not to say without causing themselves difficulties with DfT you aren’t going to get a clear picture from them!
The core issue is that DfT were warned that driver training was going to be a very critical issue by the 2 incumbents and that DfT would need to fund the incumbents to start recruiting and training new drivers 2 years before the existing franchises expired. DfT didn’t and everything is now coming out in the wash.
The problem effectively revolves around the new Thameslink routes that transfer from Southern /GN and to a less extent SE. For everything to have worked the drivers transferring into TL would have to:
a) be trained on the 700s and get used to them operating existing services on routes that will transfer to TL
b) get trained on the TL core including the new Blackfriars – New Cross gate infrastructure
c) get trained on the routes the other side the Thames
Unfortunately with:
1) a limited number of training staff
2) a limited number of new 700 units available for training (deliveries running late, poor reliability)
3) a limited number of paths
4) a backlog of new drivers to get sorted first
5) getting all existing TL drivers trained on the new Blackfriars – New Cross gate infrastructure in the next few months
there wasn’t an icicle in hell’s chance of that happening to enable the original schedule, a delay then conveniently makes a softer launch for everything else that cause issues far easier. Needless to say everything else is being used to help justify the delay while ignore the elephant in the room!
In terms of current status of a,b,c the SN/GN staff transferring which would pretty much have required 100% completion before May 2018 to have working driver rostering and diagrams:
a) depending on depot in the region of 5-50% staff trained on 700s
b) 0%
c) 0%
Hence the new strategy of get existing TL working after the January London Bridge route opening then spend time preparing some of the other routes to swap in partial state in May 2018 e.g. Cambridge* – Brighton and Bedford – Littlehampton* only starts at 1tph with than the final 2tph to come with lack of available drivers.
*training on 700s for Cambridge / Littlehampton drivers has been very low so far resulting in the above.
@ Ngh – without spoiling the potential for a future article I have read the NAO audit report about Thameslink. Some very interesting things in there that I was not aware of in terms of cost overruns and governance. To link to your point it is clear the NAO is not terribly impressed about the lack of forward planning about service mobilisation and planning the introduction, operation, contingency planning and maintenance for the new service pattern. There seem to be issues with the availability of sidings and also train crew accommodation in the right places and the DfT are already considering contingency measures and that’s for the May 2018 service pattern never mind later services.
While not a trains project person I am really quite surprised at some of the points the NAO raised as these were “bread and butter” issues that LU considers, plans and implements as standard when upgrading its routes or services. Perhaps I am being naive but I would have expected there to be enough competence and knowledge in both Network Rail and the TOCs for these things not to be missed.
Re WW,
You seem to assume DfT listen, agree and sign off in due time!
Might it have been a good idea for DfT to check if bidders timetables fitted in with the future timetables of all the other TOCs for 2018 at the bidding stage? 😉
e.g. fitting in with changes DfT had already specified for 2018 or before on the MML /ECML and Cambridge (/North) GA interaction, GWR Redhill – Gatwick and SE. Or may be even have checked if the timetable worked at Windmill Bridge Jn, or ordering enough trains so an operator would have had enough trains (watch for 8car units turning up on 12car routes)…
The problems with the 700s wouldn’t have mattered (as much) if DfT hadn’t faffed around and delayed ordering by over a year as all the new stock would have been in service by now relieving the training issues now faced by GTR!
None of the bidders proposed timetables actually worked by the way! Not that DfT noticed… I’m certain the majority of bidders realised DfT wouldn’t pre-submission too…
[Lessons learned and procedures changed on virtually all the above]
NAO not really any news, just nice to see the Comptroller General saying it!
Re WW,
A direct consequence of the unworkable timetables screw ups mentioned above. After the Nth iteration that NR says won’t work, GTR then decided to run some trains to Rainham via Greenwich instead of via Windmill Bridge Jn which then necessitates having new previously unplanned crew depots up and running for May ’18 when that service starts. The problem is only for May ’18 and some services that differ from the ones the bid with, i.e. late alterations.
GTR’s bid effectively proposed closing Bedford Cauldwell Depot as a maintenance depot just becoming stabling / cleaning / preparation, however this spoiled DfT’s grand plans as they needed Cauldwell to remain open as a maintenance depot to maintain the future East Midlands EMUs that will be used on St Pancras – Corby services from 2019 but didn’t put this in the tender…
GTR then need more stabling space in lieu of some at Cauldwell.
You couldn’t make this up but luckily DfT have got there first and saved everyone else the creative effort.
NGH, WW,…….paraphrasing you both. “LU handled these things better”. It has two advantages. 1) It is a much simpler operation. Knock on effects from, say, the Victoria line onto, say, the Central line are small to non existent. Secondly, LU’s infrastructure improvements start from consideration of the train services desired, all the parties are at the table and their money comes effectively from the same jam jar.
That said, despite, the bad press, a huge amount of extra capacity has been provided in CP5 and there are a lot more trains to accommodate and timetable. As a couple of examples, it’s not impossible that Edinburgh-Glasgow electrification impacts Thameslink, as both have to interface with the expanding VTEC service with the IEP trains. Second and perhaps more tenuous, Elizabeth line timetables might be influenced by Edinburgh-Glasgow which interfaces with Cross Country. The latter interfaces further south with GW, which in turn interfaces with Elizabeth line. Fixing the Cross Country interface issues could then have knock on effects at other hubs.
These just illustrate the scale of the challenge that all TOCs have got, but NR’s timetabling team has to cope with something like 60% of ALL schedules having to be changed due to the capacity schemes coming on stream.
This is the same DfT that, at the time of the TLK rolling stock bids,handed down a highly prescriptive timetable spec and details of berthing arrangements. There was considerable concern (at least amongst the banks ‘advisers) that the manufacturers were held harmless from any risks to availability arising – not a popular issue’although the rigidityof the spec did enable the manufacturers to plan in exact detail the way in which the units would cycle through the maintenance programmes. [ In another place, I even found myself attacked by armchair operator trolls for suggestng such risks…]
@ Ngh – you may say the NAO report isn’t news to you but it certainly was to me. I had no idea about the serious risks that emerged in the rebuilding of London Bridge station nor the considerable extra costs. You’re clearly fortunate to have access to a lot of internal info or have exceedingly good contacts. And yes I probably was assuming a modicum of competence at the DfT in wishing to avoid unnecessary delays and cock-ups. How stupid of me!!
@100&30 – I agree that LU tackling one “self contained” line at a time helps reduce some risks. However the basic engineering and operational issues and risks are pretty much the same on LU and NR. Yes NR is more complex and has more financially driven relationships but you still need the same things in place to deliver a safe, functioning service to the pubic. I’ve made my fair share of mistakes in my time at LU but the organisation did try to “learn lessons” and carry that learning forward. I guess I just look at some of the poor decisions / risks that have arisen on Thameslink and wonder how on earth those sorts of “basic” mistakes are being made in 2017. And I’m not inviting a “oh it was so much better in the 19xxs” type reply there. No era is perfect and technology changes but even so!
I never cease to find myself amazed at the complete lack of sensible professional joined up thinking that is leading us into the current state of things on Thameslink and GW Electrification among others. I can’t help thinking that it doesn’t go as wrong on LU and didn’t on BR because the joined up thinking could be done in a joined up oraginisation of professionals in their field.
Now the “thinking” appears to be done by the DfT, by civil servants and ministers, many of whom have no knowledge of how things work outside their own bubble. See also many other areas of govenment. This looks to be a direct result of the deskilling through decades of “efficiency” cuts to the civil service, combined what appears to be a ever growing number of ministers from all parties who lack any skills beyond soundbites (i’m sure there are honourable exceptions but I’m blowed if I can name them now).
We are reaping from the seeds sown by the original catastophic privatisation and successive governemnts wish to get more control since.
PD ( & WW )
Agree wholeheartedly with your comments
BUT
You both correctly point fingers at DfT, yet every time that something goes wrong, who gets the public blame?
Network Rail or the TOC’s, without fail, as far as I can see, anyway. We know that is is not the case, or certainly not the whole story, yet the state of affairs mentioned here seems to be carrying on, with DfT evading any blame at all.
Why & how is this so?
Re WW,
Most of the contruction cost increases has been public for at least 18 months (NR CP5 progress reports, Gibb report…) and some was even covered in the previous NAO reports.
London construction cost inflation running at circa 10% since before the LBG works started won’t be news to any engineers or Architects inside the M25.
The state (detail and condition) of the William IV era parts of the station (some hadn’t seen the light of day since) weren’t as expected and also had some of the most tightest construction timescales and least over run allowance so it was case of get it done or everything got delayed 4 months.
Re 130,
There are direct EGIP – VTEC links, the EGIP rolling stock is/will be maintained at Craigentinny (Edinburgh) at the same depot as some of the existing (HST) and future (IEP) VTEC stock with some alterations to the depot.
IEP testing also impact Thameslink and the ability to get paths for GTR driver training on the ECML.
Is it really too hard to swap drivers somewhere in the middle?
Greg: A cynic would answer that a major purpose of privatising (British Rail or anything else) is for government to avoid getting blamed for anything that might happen to go wrong.
However, I am not a cynic, so I won’t say that.
@ Ngh – I haven’t read those past reports hence why it was news to me. I understand why decisions were taken to “keep going” and work through the issues but the point still comes back to “didn’t someone know there were ancient parts of London Bridge that had not been surveyed?” If the answer to that is “yes” then we get into a load of other “obvious” questions about why some short term pain and cost was not endured to undertake surveys. I appreciate it may not have been easy to do this but surely this was an understood and recorded risk and therefore proper risk provision should have been made for potential redesign costs. I know I am in “perfection mode” but this really, really is bog standard stuff on such a massive scheme. If I can see it from my fairly basic risk training at LU and then being an accountable risk manager (in amongst everything else I was accountable for) why wasn’t the same stuff done in NR and TOCs?
Re WW,
I was just citing one major example this isn’t the only reason.
Pretty well known to a large number, the issues is that there were areas which were very inaccessible (under Victorian brick and iron work additions with 70’s concrete on top) hence a survey would involve closures and several weeks demolition in order to begin the survey followed by a massive reinstatement job pre-full works after the survey all adding risk and the possibility of not being able to reinstate. So major pain and high cost just to survey and potentially increased risk and no guarantee all the issues would have been found. And some of it being listed too to add to the complexity.
In later stages strip out and demolition immediately after a blockade was sped up even further to bring any issues out as early as possible but increasing costs.
Roger B. Swapping drivers en route is fine when everything goes like clockwork. Problem is, it so often doesn’t. The Gibb Report, identified this as one of the reasons for Southern woes. Also I speak from tedious repeated experiences.
Roger B – yes. With 45 second station dwell times, and another train ‘up your six’ 150 seconds behind, you don’t want to swap a driver in the core.
@Malcolm: And here was me thinking it was because of the innovation they would bring…. 😉
As a regular commuter on the North Kent line from Rochester to London Bridge and on occasion to Stratford I am concerned by the loss of the semi fast CX to Gillingham service which is being replaced by effectively an all stations service, Kent County Council have expressed this concern, it’s a bit much to expect Medway commuters to have an all stations
I hope this service wont last beyond GTR’s expiration date of 2021 because it seems illogical to have untangled all the routes into London only to have GTR Greenwich services cross over probably being held up by an express CS service thereby adding time or if it is kept due to political issues GTR should restore the semi fast stopping pattern.
Nick Harley,
Nothing to do with franchise commitments and everything to do with finding suitable places to send Thameslink trains. Until Windmill Bridge Junction is rebuilt I can’t see anything changing as that will be the first opportunity for the trains to go elsewhere.
There is the classic problem of calling at a lot of intermediate stations so that inner suburban passengers keep their clockface 6tph service or omitting some so as to benefit longer distance passengers. The trouble is, with dwell times as they are, the option of omitting too many stations leads to fast trains catching up with the slow trains – so they might as well stop at stations.
Note: this wouldn’t be so much of an issue if the Thameslink trains to Rainham were routed via Lewisham but you can’t do that because there is no spare capacity at Lewisham. Also the GTR Thameslink plan can only work because it keeps away from the main Southeastern line out of London Bridge – it uses Thameslink tracks from London Bridge to North Kent junction then switches over to the Greenwich branch. It also doesn’t eat into terminal capacity at Charing Cross or Cannon St.
It is a double edged sword, but for selfish purposes I’m still going to hold out on KCC getting their own way by maintaining semi fast trains, I know this will mean Deptford, Maze Hill and Westcombe Park only get 4tph but usership at the latter two stations has fallen since 2010, so perhaps keep the Deptford stop since it is a large area with development again I’m just being selfish.
I feel that this service will be a disaster and will probably be very underused, especially east of Abbey Wood when the Crossrail connection opens up fully.
Routing this via Lewisham would’ve been ideal, however what if you could still do that? Have the Rainham service run via Lewisham but instead of heading into London Bridge it feeds into Elephant & Castle with an non stop run from Lewisham, (so not to interfere too much with the Victoria-Gravesend service and the other GTR services from the Catford Loop) could this be possible? Plus it will open up new connections between E&C to large parts of SE London and Kent as its a growing regenerating area in Central London.
With all the dwell times I’ve worked out that my nice 1hr10 minute commute into LB will be increased to 1hr30 almost
@Nick Harley: I hope that 1h10 is door to door?
@Southern Heights
More or less on a good day, sometimes there’s delays around Lewisham for obvious reasons, i have in the past made my way to Strood where some rush hour services start and they usually skip Charlton and Lewisham and admittedly your not saving much time but it’s still useful.
I used to live in Sydenham Hill up until 2011 and the suburban Services have 4tph and it worked since even off peak there were 6-8 coaches there were only 4 coaches in really quiet parts of the day, usually early afternoon until around 3pm or if the remaining coaches were presumably needed elsewhere
My point is is that could the stoppers on the Greenwich line be ran that way? 4tph with 6-8 coaches, or are we entering into dark political matters here? The North Kent line in general a precarious line to please at best.
@Nick Harley 2/12
“I feel that this service will be a disaster and will probably be very underused, especially east of Abbey Wood when the Crossrail connection opens up fully.”
I presume you mean west of Abbey Wood – east of there, the Crossrail connection would route traffic onto such a service. And, as for west of Abbey Wood, I’d suggest that the different zone 1 destinations compared to the alternatives would make the route popular for the people of Charlton and Greenwich.
@Nick Harley 3/12 22:49
“My point is is that could the stoppers on the Greenwich line be ran that way? 4tph with 6-8 coaches, or are we entering into dark political matters here?”
6-8 coaches? Other than Woolwich Dockyard, the line takes 12 car trains! Giving you want to cut frequency to London stops to save you a couple of minutes, you can’t make the trains shorter than now on top of that unless you really want to annoy people.
But there’s no need to cut frequency to those stops as the Thameslink trains aren’t going to be the only beyond-Dartford ones: there’s the trains via Sidcup that will be faster to London Bridge than today’s. As described in the Southeastern May 2018 timetable consultation:
@ Si
But this new Sidcup fast service is no use to us in Medway
A: we have to change at Gravesend
B: For connectivity The Sidcup line is useless
C: Demand is for the Woolwich line, especially after 2018
I’m very skeptical about the Rainham service as the issues which plagued London Bridge before 2014/15 will return becuase the Rainham service will cross over to the Thameslink core by crossing over the Cannon Street lines which will potentially hold up those services if one thing goes wrong.
Thameslink should just run 18-20tph for the moment as I feel that 24tph is too ambitious.
Don’t think many of the Rainham services are going to be 12 car anyway as there is not enough units without running some 8 car on the core main line routes.
TL1 Bedford to Brighton needs 11 units (based on round trips)
TL2 Bedford to Gatwick needs 10
Tl5 Peterborough to Horsham needs 12
TL6 Cambridge to Brighton needs 11
That means 44 of the 55 12 car units will be needed on these routes alone
Then assuming they are 12 car in the peak
TL3 East Grinstead to Bedford needs 6 units
TL4 Littlehampton to Bedford needs 3 units
Thus at Peak 53 of the 55 12 car units will be in use and that seems fair to allow 2 remaining in depot as hot spares or for maintenance routines.
So other than for off-peak services perhaps, it looks like Rainham (which did replace the Tattenham Corner branch services) will be fully 8 car units.
T33,
Unofficially, it has been confirmed that Rainham services won’t be seeing any 12-car Thameslink trains.
PoP – I think we may have the same source bottle!
T33
I think that you have underestimated the number of trains required for the peak only Bedford:Littlehampton / East Grinstead. I think your numbers are one direction only. I make it 9 for Bedford:East Grinstead as some of the trains can make both a north and a south journey in the peak. Whilst Bedford : Littlehampton is around 7; no ability to make a round trip in one peak.
This makes it around around 60 trains required on the mainline services with around 52 on the metro.
So not only are there not enough FLUs (12 car)for the Luton:Rainham service but also some of the mainline services will need to be RLUs (8 car).
PS. I am having great difficulty reading the comments on this thread on my iPhone; in portrait mode the right hand side of the comments are cut off. It is similar on some of the other threads.
Well Thameslink is now going via London Bridge at least for some services.
Yesterday 16:45 a Thameslink train was sitting on Platform 5 according to the annoucements, it was an all stations to Bedford, but the displays were blank.
Having a poke around Realtime Trains, lists 5 going north to Bedford (one of which was cancelled), and 4 going the other way (Bedford to Three Bridges/Brighton). All of them in the rush hour.
I first noticed last week when I saw a 700 going round the curve into Blackfriars as I was waiting for my train home from Waterloo East. I thought rush hour was a strange time to be doing testing!
I saw a notice recently at City TL saying that certain services would cease calling at Elephant & Castle, and assume these were some of those now diverted via London Bridge. I take they are not calling at London Bridge though?
timbeau,
I think last time I looked at few months ago there were only two trains a day calling at both East Croydon and Elephant & Castle. So either someone has got rather over-enthusiastic or maybe they are cutting out the Elephant & Castle stop on other services – but a bit hard to believe.
Yes a few TLK (Thameslink) services are now stopping at London Bridge as more drivers sign-off the route.
For today see: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G72822/2018/02/15/advanced
@poP
There were only two trains on the list
@PhilHarmonic
Can passengers to/from London Bridge use these trains? Are they advertised on the departure screens at London Bridge – are platforms 4 and 5 actually open? – or at preceding stations?
@timbeau: The one I saw yesterday stopped and opened the doors. The platform displays were lacking information as was the side of the train.
The displays downstairs said “See staff” besides Blackfriars et al..
So this looks very much like a soft launch.
What is problematic is the pre-advertised status of these trains by the public tt’s.
Knowing in advance that your train is going to stop at LBG ( London Bridge) is surely a “useful thing to have”? The on-line-available NR tt, table 52 is fixed until the next change & shows nothing via LBG.
But I assume that T’link will update their web-pages as changes occur?
Before LBG work started I boarded a train at City Thamslink at 11pm that promised to go to London Bridge. I was not happy when it went first stop East Croydon via E&C. I did get home, but it was very stressful. I’d be very wary of soft launch trains.
Any update to the timetable, even an online one, will only occur when the operators can be sure that every train can be sent that way. And when that occurs will depend on driver knowledge (and perhaps other factors).
Meanwhile, a train which stops, and allows casual users who turned up without consulting timetables to board, is quite harmless. Just as it has always been possible for trains which on the timetable pass a particular station non-stop to make a one-off stop (including opening the doors) if on a particular day it is operationally convenient to do so.
There is no difference (to normal passengers) between going non-stop through a station and going by another route entirely.
John B: Wariness is clearly required. However, stopping somewhere without prior announcement is OK, whereas announcing somewhere without actually stopping there is not.
Some of the on train announcements do include the London Bridge stop. The public timetable doesn’t to allow flexibility for not actually stopping, apparently drivers are instructed not to open doors on platforms 3 or 6 so it could be very short notice.
There’s currently around 15 in each direction planned to go via London Bridge. A testing/training path via Greenwich has also been entered into the system, but I’m not aware of it running yet.
I also saw a Thameslink train leaving London Bridge platform 4 (southbound) with passengers last thursday afternoon, about 1530. However, in the station hall at London Bridge, platforms 4 and 5 were marked ‘platforms closed’ with no escalators and tape across the stairs. So even if the trains are actually going via London bridge and stopping at platforms 4/5 it will be tricky for passengers to join or alight there.
@Quinlet The staff notice shared had unadvertised passenger stops starting from Monday 12th February. Before that the platforms would have been taped off to avoid potential confusion. I’d expect they are now accessible with the screens still staying platform closed.
If you are on the windswept down Blackfriars Thameslink platform & the theatre box on the down signal displays S the route is set for London Bridge.
If it displays D you are off towards Elephant & Castle.
Oddly there is a rare route to London Bridge at the next down signal even if given a D, but it is not normally used.
What do S & D stand for? My driver friend has no idea, but he knows what they mean.
@ Quinlet / S Eastern Pass – the TL platforms are now accessible at London Bridge. I’ve seen comments on this from more than one source. Although in theory for set down only people are not prevented from boarding a train once its doors are open. You may have to be very patient though given the sparse service frequency.
The 16 trains per day per direction stopping and opening doors at London Bridge started this Monday (12th) having just been stopping but not opening doors the previous week.
The London Bridge stop is only annouced on the train and not at stations or on journey planners.
Dispatch is with the on board DOO cameras.
@Jim Elson – The explanation I’ve given ‘may be’ as follows:
The Down and Up Snow Hill Lines extend from the St Pancras International side of Farringdon station (which is also the route boundary between the East Midlands Route and the Kent & Sussex Route) through London Blackfriars station platforms 1 and 2 to Blackfriars Junction. From this point southwards the line towards Elephant & Castle becomes the Down and Up Holborn Fast lines. The terminal lines out of platforms 3 and 4 at London Blackfriars become the Down and Up Holborn Slow Lines more or less as soon as they are clear of London Blackfriars Station.
From London Blackfriars Platform 1, signal TVS1075 (which I assume is the platform that you are referring to), there are now three possible routes:
Down Blackfriars Spur (leading directly to Dickens Junction and on to Metropolitan Junction)
Down Snow Hill towards Blackfriars Junction
Down Holborn Slow towards Elephant & Castle
So to answer your question I would suggest the following:
S = Down Blackfriars (Spur), (via the former siding)?
D = Down Snow Hill?
H = Down Holborn Slow?
Re GF and Jim Elson, I see from the ‘Complex Procedure Notice – LB’ Pg 24 that the lines from Blackfriars are named thus:- Lines round to Dickens Junction are ‘Dn Snow Hill Spur’ and ‘Down Snow Hill’. There is only one Up Snow Hill line. The Elephant & Castle lines are named ‘Holborn Fast’.
This fits in with JE’s observations as the S always takes a train on the Snow Hill lines round through London Bridge and the D always takes the Down Holborn Fast line through Elephant and Castle.
The Holborn Slow lines terminate at Blackfriars. Do I recall correctly that the Fast and Slow Holborn lines were swapped over during the Blackfriars rebuild or was it that the lines have retained their names and the services have been enabled to swap between fast and slow lines further South?
Comparison of the present line designation with my tatty Quail track plans book confirms that the fast and slow pairs have been swapped. The lines through the platforms at Loughborough Junction are the Up and Down Holborn, and they now lead onto the slow pair.
Yes, my error. Apologies. The through tracks south of Blackfriars lead onto the Holborn fast lines these days, not slow. They were indeed swapped over and the track pair between Loughborough Junction and Blackfriars on the upstream side of the bridge over the Thames were indeed the Holborn fast lines, then leading onto the tracks on the now removed part of the bridge that avoided Blackfriars station itself.
However, that still fits if ‘D’ also indicates the direct route down to Metropolitan Junction (as opposed to ‘S’ for the (what was a siding) spur to the same place). That leaves whether ‘H’ is still in use for what are today the Holborn fast lines but were the slow lines through Elephant & Castle.
That fits in with JE’s comment that “Oddly there is a rare route to London Bridge at the next down signal even if given a D, but it is not normally used”, although I think it’s used more often than just rarely, or at least it used to be.
D for Denmark Hill and H for Herne Hill would be a simpler explanation, rather than a mixture of up/down and a station that no longer exists!
Timbeau
Or, remembering that until 1899, there were two separate railways:
The LCDR ( The Chatham & Dover ) = D (?) route via Herne Hill
and the SER = S (?) route towards London Bridge & Cannon St.
Such things can last a very long time …. Certainly, until quite recently, the Streatham Juncs – Sutton route was called “the Portsmouth” because pre-1923 LBSCR Portsmouth services went that way ….
Don’t forget the “Atlantic Lines”…
SHLR
Because they cross Atlantic Road & the other pair iirc, do not ….
@Greg
I have got a direct train from Sutton to Portsmouth considerably more recently than 95 years ago! They were actually diverted via Gatwick forty years ago this May.
I love the fact that the ‘country’ end of the platforms at Paddington is still called the ‘Bristol’ end, even in public announcements.
We still have the Holborn fast and slow lines and, so far as I am aware, the lines named as the Portsmouth up and down lines extending at least from Tulse Hill outwards. Without checking again, I think they still start just beyond Peckham Rye towards Tulse Hill.
The “Wood Platforms” at Euston are another longlived survival.
Graham H: do tell us more! (Or leave it as a mystery if your staying-on-topic side is feeling dominant).
Well, now the general subject has been raised and encouraged, surely ‘The Lawn’ at Paddington is the ultimate case? Apparently it was the lawn of the garden of the station master’s house originally built in front of the station..
And there was me thinking it was called the ‘lawn’ because the GWR wouldn’t have anything as common as a concourse!
@Malcolm – I always understood that the Wood Platforms (the dc ones) were so called because they were constructed of wood (obvs…) rather than the stone or asphalte surface of the rest.
Taken from a Thameslink press release:
“From Monday 26th February 2018 we will commence “trial” operations through Canal Tunnels and the Thameslink core from the Great Northern Route. These “preview” services will replace some of our normal Southern, Great Northern & Thameslink services to form the first through services between Horsham & Peterborough and Cambridge to Brighton.
The 09:46 (9J57) and 13:17 (9J63) Peterborough to Kings Cross services will no longer call at Kings Cross, they will diverted to Horsham, via Canal Tunnels and the Thameslink core.
The 10:00 (9J52) and 13:30 (9J58) Horsham to London Bridge services will be extended to Peterborough, via the Thameslink core and Canal Tunnels.
The 11:32 (9S24) Brighton to London Bridge service will be extended to Cambridge. This is an additional service between London Bridge & Cambridge and does NOT replace any existing service.
There is also an additional service running at 14:24 (9S39) from Cambridge to Brighton.”
And whilst on the subject of wooden platforms, Brighton station has wooden platforms, platform 8 (& the old platform 9, now the walking route to the station car park)
@ Phil Harmonic – interesting to see those T/Link changes starting so soon – gives me an excuse to have a ride on a class 700. Not yet reflected in any of the journey planners or online working timetable databases. I assume you receive GTR press releases directly as there is nothing yet on their own website but there is often a lag in getting corporate websites updated with press releases. Note I am NOT challenging what you said – just reflecting that this info is not yet in wide circulation. I suspect the GTR press office is rather more pre-occupied with “hard seats” and other media delights at the moment.
A very poorly worded press release: “will no longer call at Kings Cross, they will diverted to Horsham” could confuse a few people.
Passengers from the north finding themselves at St Pancras may be slightly confused, but more important will be how easy the northbound services will be to find by passengers looking for them at King’s Cross.
@RogerB: The average Joe won’t care less what the Canal tunnels are!
@WW. The databases have been updated – you can now find these trial services on systems such as real time trains.
Strangely, whilst the Horsham – Peterborough services show up as Thameslink services as expected, the Peterborough – Horsham services show as Great Northern services.
There is just nine minutes dwell time at Peterborough (arrives 13:08, departs 13:17). That may include a bit of padding in the schedule to help ensure it arrives on time but it does not seem a lot of time for the driver to change ends and go to the toilet – if the same driver is taking it out. Even if it is a different driver (which I think it must be) that is not a lot of recovery time and does not bode well for the future.
Is it necessarily the same train? Some previous arrival could form the 1317.
But no Class 700 trains currently serve Peterborough, as far as I am aware, so it has to be the same train.
A passenger friendly page of the changes is available here. I think these will be the first fully advertised services for platform 4 and 5 at London Bridge.
The dwell time isn’t huge, but there are several 8 minute turnarounds at Peterborough (and even some six minute turnarounds for shorter trains). Would be the same train and possibly the same driver. These services have to fit in around the existing timetable so the timings aren’t necessarily representative of the future timetable.
@pop
Class 700s have been operating a handful of peak hour GN services (and passengers have been complaining about the seats) since November.
The very useful link provided by SE Passenger shows one of the round trips to start at Peterborough at 0946 (return from Horsham at 1330). On Monday this should be the first public service through the Canal Tunnels (the first northbound service being about an hour later), but as snow is forecast anything could happen !
Times of first trains through Canal Tunnels
Southbound 1059 from Finsbury Park.
Northbound 1145 from St Pancras
PoP: according to Realtime Trains, the southbound trains from Peterborough are GN class 365s…
The long dwell times at London Bridge on all three northbound trains are notable, eg 17 minutes on 9J58.
The long dwell times at London Bridge are because the schedule is still based on routing by the slower route via Tulse Hill. In order to avoid early arrivals at Blackfriars or east Croydon they wait for time at London bridge, where they have two platforms out of the way of everyone else.
Timbeau: the long dwell times are northbound only and the Peterborough trains stop at New Cross Gate in both directions, so continuing use of via-Tulse-Hill timings doesn’t appear to be the full answer.
Betterbee 23:08
Interesting – but don’t get caught out.
That just means the timing is for class 365, for whatever reason. I can’t see how a class 365 can get to Horsham without 3rd rail pickup.
Class 365s were built with 3rd rail pickups and could presumably have them put back. But I would expect to see 700s running on the GN in existing (365) timings until the full timetable change in May.
Yes, don’t read anything into the train type on RTT, as PoP says it is what the service is timed for not what is scheduled to run. E.g. the local services in Bristol which are switching to Class 166 all still show as ‘timed for sprinter’
Just a reminder – the show’s not over till Thameslink gets to Maidstone.
Saw a Class 700 loading ramp installed on the wall at Woolwich Arsenal station on Saturday.
See that the planned engineering closures on the Brighton Main Line are being organised using industry best practice:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/25/southern-rail-users-miss-flights-after-bottleneck-at-station
Well, if you always accept the ‘cheapest’ bid…..
Re Roger B,
But was it the cheapest bid though? Some of the other bids were significantly non compliant with requirements. There were also plenty of technical bonus points available which they also picked up.
Re Answer=42
Definite shades of Finsbury Park 27th December saga as regards all the pedestrian flow aspects… The woeful lack of Rail Replacement Buses is another matter.
There were also significant closures elsewhere on Southern (e.g. everything via West Croydon) and lots of additional South Croydon turnbacks on diverted services so GTR resources were stretched very thin with lots of rail replacement buses required South of the Thames as the Wimbledon Branch of the District line was also closed.
NGH/Ans=42 (etc)
I assume that, once NR announce track closures/engineering work it is the responsibility of the relevant TOC(s) to “organise” alternative services ( Such as buses ) Yes/No?
It wasn’t clear to me whether RogerB meant the franchise or the replacement buses.
I do wonder if the other challenges on the network that Sunday meant that the tried and tested alternative (or addition) of non-stop train to East Grinstead and then bus from there couldn’t be done. I suspect in retrospect it would have been better, if possible, to do the Stoats Nest junction replacement plan and have 4tph to Coulsdon Town and bus (or preferably coach) from there to Gatwick. That worked really well and at least that way you are on the M23 for most of the time and you don’t get caught up in any town centre traffic at Redhill. I think the claim made at the time then was that no-one missed their flight as a result of the rail replacement bus service.
I also wonder if there is an element of loss of staff at Southern who have done this thing (rather more successfully) before.
The junction involved in engineering works is the junction at Earlswood which is effectively the southern end equivalent of Stoats Nest Junction at the northern end where the track diverges into the Quarry and Redhill line before rejoining south of Redhill. So the good news is that once that is done then the three big junctions that force all lines to be closed for replacement (Purley, Stoats Nest and Earlswood) will have all be done in the past few years.
The bad news is that the same engineering works continue next weekend and the weekend after that.
Greg Tingey,
Yes, and this has always struck me as a bit daft. You can understand it when it is simply a case of rescheduling existing services and routes as the TOCs are in the best position to do that. There is also some logic in leaving it to the TOCs for short term disruption. After all, the TOC might have created it by having one of their trains break down for instance.
However, if it is planned engineering work for which rail replacement buses are unavoidable wouldn’t it make some kind of sense to put the onus on Network Rail to provide the rail replacement bus service? After all, they caused the problem.
@POP I meant the franchise. Hill’s first law of contracting states that the contractor who leaves most out of his tender gets the job. How thoroughly are replacement buses specified in the franchise contract?
RogerB,
There is also the bid issued by the TOC for providing the rail replacement buses which is what I thought you might be talking about.
I know at one stage DfT were fed up with complaints about ropey old buses being used for rail replacement so they specified in the franchises that they had to be under six years old (or maybe it was TfL under a similar set of circumstances with the DLR). This then created a new set of problems as there aren’t necessarily that many spare buses of that age belonging to companies who have spare drivers available so fewer buses were used than desired.
I have always thought the main problem with arranging rail replacement buses is that no-one wants to do it as a positive career move. And the people who joined because they liked railways and usually do their job with enthusiasm don’t want to end up organising buses.
When the rail industry really sets its mind to it, it can organise replacement services really well. First Great Western was universally commended a few years ago for its work during the closure of Reading station. I suspect the difference is that these are known in advance to be very bad for publicity if they go wrong and the managing director gets very involved at an early stage.
@ PoP – there is also the point that some TOCs, owned by bus groups, tend to try to use “in house” companies. This has been to varying degrees of success and I suspect you are right that expertise and knowledge built up over years has left in recent months. There are, of course, some bus companies that are very skilled at planning and controlling RRSs but you have to pay them to do the work. I think some recent franchise awards have seen the new owners try to save money on RRSs with the inevitable consequences. SWR have had a bit of tough time as they’ve hacked back frequencies and changed service patterns and found themselves with masses of people and buses in the wrong place and wrongly sized buses on routes that needed more capacity.
Quite why GTR got this weekend’s buses so badly wrong is slightly baffling given they have plenty of good experience to fall back on (as you acknowledged). They have a lot of potential “parent company” resource to fall back on in the shape of Metrobus, Brighton and Hove, Go Ahead London and Go South Coast.
As a small aside had a spin through the Canal Tunnel, T/Link core and London Bridge and approaches today. Nice to see all the hard work of rebuilding and asset replacement all done and working nicely. The ride over the new flyover east of London Bridge was very fast and smooth. First ride on a 700 – smooth and quiet but not overly pleased about the poor legroom and less than marvellous seats. A competent design but could be better with some effort.
Can we please hold off on commenting on the Canal Tunnels on this thread, which is a separate topic from Crossrail 1. I will add a link to this week’s Friday Reads on the new Thameslink connection, under which commentators may post their observations.
LBM
Re LBM,
But the article and comments are all about the new Thameslink Timetables (not Crossrail 1) of which the canal Tunnels are a key part enabling the connection of the GN services – Did you mean to put this comment under the Crossrail Problems article? All the other usually fortnightly Thameslink changes between 2nd Jan and the big May TT change have been discussed in the comments above so far…
ngh,
I think, more pertinently, that the concern is that we might get lots of comments on the opening of the Canal Tunnels on a thread that is already ridiculously long. This is really just a news item that has been well reported elsewhere (see Diamond Geezer for example). We see ourselves talking about serious ongoing railway issues and don’t want to get too carried away on issues like the standard of cupcakes given away.
Will there be turnback facilities in the core if part of the route is impassable?
For example if Surrey/Sussex/Kent are snowbound will trains run to a limited timetable to Cambridge/ Peterborough/ Bedford if they are clear of snow?
Bill Matters,
London Bridge has various turnback facilities. It is just one of the reasons the new station is so much better than the old. On the Charing Cross lines they can treat London Bridge as a 4 track terminus. Probably, they can treat the Cannon St lines as a 3 track terminus.
For the Thameslink lines they can terminate in either direction and I believe they can ‘borrow’ adjacent platforms if necessary – subject to availability of course.
Turnback is also possible at Blackfriars, City TL (both directions I think – particularly useful if the train refuses to switch between ac and dc or vice versa), Kings Cross (diverted from St Pancras low level) and – space permitting – at St Pancras high level.,
For detailed – up to the minute layouts of the areas in question see:
St Pancras – Blackfriars
and …
Blackfriars – ( SER termini) LBG – New Cross Gate
All possible reversal & turnback points should be visible.
Re PoP,
In both Charing Cross and Cannon Street cases at London Bridge turnback is limited to about 55% of the normal peak frequencies so a large number of services need to be cancelled or diverted elsewhere.
Thameslink can’t use P3 or P6 at London Bridge (no level boarding platform humps and other issues) at the moment so turnback is limited to P4&5.
Re Timbeau,
Turnback is also available at New Cross Gate, StPancras Low Level and Finsbury Park (the later 2 with reversal in the Canal tunnels) and a number of options between Blackfriars and London Bridge or Elephant and Castle are also available
Thanks to all re my turnback query.
ngh,
And 55% is getting close to the peak/off-peak ratio for Charing Cross and, after May 2018, will probably comfortably exceed it for Cannon St.
ngh,
So terminating Thameslink trains at platforms 3 or 6 can’t currently be done in service. Or is there something preventing it being done at all?
@Betterbee
Re Horsham – Peterborough timings
Please remember that this is a new service and links together two services that have never been connected before. As such there is no ‘excess time’ to lose to regain the paths at East Croydon or Blackfriars (which is true of BML – MML services).
However on the other hand its unlikely that the previous London Bridge – Horsham and Kings Cross – Peterborough services could be fitted together perfectly without a serious timetable rewrite (potentially encompassing trains in Scotland when you start tinkering with the ECML).
To get over this in the short term therefore, these new through services will have a extended delay built in as they cross the Thameslink core so they can hit the paths on the BML (used by the London Bridge – Horsham) and ECML (Kins Cross – Peterborough) paths precisely on time.
No different in principle to Bedford – Brighton trains needing to waste time at London Bridge – as it all comes down to needing to hit precise train paths which have yet to be optimised for the new Thameslink infrastructure.
Come the May timetable change, the ECML, MML, BML and some South Eastern timetables will undergo a complete revamp to eliminate this ‘dead time’.
Thanks, Phil – but “these new through services will have a extended delay built in…so they can hit the paths on the BML…and ECML…paths precisely on time” is only half true, because if you look at the timetable you will see that there are no such extended “delays” (or rather dwell times) southbound.
@ Betterbee – On another forum people have looked at some of the May timetables that are now online and compared them to the services that started this week. It seems that station dwells will be much shorter come May as will run times. These new services may not be sitting anywhere for 10-12 mins, as the Bedford – Brighton trains via Lon Bdge do, *but* they are running more slowly than they will in future and they have 3-4 min dwell times at Finsbury Park, St Pancras and London Bridge. It also looks to me that some of the turnround times are tight making it hard to recover any time lost on a previous trip. Hopefully that fragility will not be present in the May timetables.
@PoP: I don’t know why NGH is saying that. Both platforms 3 & 6 have RLU/FLU markings and manual ramps are available as these are needed for normal operations with SouthEastern.
I think even platform 7 is accessible from the Blackfriars end.
Southern Heights,
Because ngh has multiple generally reliable sources. But information gets out of date and, as I know full well, nothing beats actually going to the location and seeing for yourself.
The ramps etc. may be there but has the paperwork been signed off ?
Re PoP and SH(LR),
Ultimately no paperwork sign off, the priority was to get P4&5 in operation and drivers familiar with the route. Yes they do have FLU and RLU markers but far more is needed than that.
Thameslink trains can pass through but not stop at P3&6 or divert through Elephant and Castle so there wasn’t an urgent need (it also handicaps SE if they do unless on a Sunday etc.).
The ramps for the 700s are of course different to those for Electrostars and Networkers so the SE ramps on P3&6 can’t be used. (The 700 doors are far wider for start and the step has different slot geometry to existing stock as regards the locating pins)
Re. the through trains from the ECML, do we have any regular users of the up Cambridge fasts here? I’ve used them quite a few times over the past few years and have yet to arrive less than 7 mins. late.
Will the new timetable facilitate on-time running for these? (I realise this is not a good time to check, but I couldn’t resist looking at the ‘live arrival board’ and the 17:38 arrival from King’s Lynn is 16 minutes late, the 18:08 from Ely is cancelled)
[This seems to be really about the Canal Tunnels so, bearing in mind LBM’s edict of 27 February 2018 at 00:22, I am going to discourage further discussion on this for the moment. PoP]
@NGH
“The ramps for the 700s are of course different to those for Electrostars and Networkers ”
Of course! In the bad old days of nationalised railways any new stock would have been designed to fit existing ramps – one size fits all.
All BR-era class 14x and 15x dmus (and 16x?) can work in multiple. (The same was true of the previous generation, classes 100-128). With more recent units almost nothing fits anything else, and even basic equipment like ramps have to be bespoke for each class of unit.
Well… the first generation DMUs broadly could overwhelmingly work together, but they weren’t all blue square. 125 and 126 were different, also a few others within larger classes had differing systems to work with early ‘lightweights’ locally, IIRC.
But yes, it was still far more interoperable. If a standard system of electrical/pneumatic/digital unit connexion/interface could be developed now who’s characteristics or capabilities could be defined and controlled by software bespoke to each class there’d surely be some sort of case for mandating it for future units. Except nowadays there’s no agreement on mechanical coupling either!
@Ben
I meant to say “most” of the previous generation, classes 100-131. For the record, the exceptions were classes 113, 125-127, 129 and the early “lightweights” withdrawn before TOPS classes were allocated.
Timbeau
Then there are the differing non-standards for couplers …..
Every recently introduced EMU or DMU has the same mechanical coupler, Dellner/Scharfenberg. That’s two names for the same device.
I believe this has been encouraged by RSSSB. It is the electrical box position that appears to differ most.
Re Timbeau,
Except when you have chosen a wider door opening so the ramp has to match the door opening width to prevent wheels not ending up on the ramp.
Southern users will also have been aware that 3 types of ramp were needed till recently as not even the BR era stock could share the same ramps!
Most of the current generations of rolling stock do have compatible couplers (Dellner with #12 geometry of electrical connector and height of coupler above the rails) so the stock can work with each other in emergencies, the issues arise with different PIS (inc audio) and SDO systems on the units meaning they can’t run in passenger service. The only incompatible stock south of the Thames will soon be the 158/159s, 455s/456s and 465s/466s. The 18x 442 that SWR are going to be using from December 18 onwards are getting retrofitted with Dellners as part of the refurb and retraction (the 4REP traction equipment is getting skipped in Eastleigh shortly). The Alstom 458s also got retrofitted with Dellners as part of the 5 car conversion.
Re Paul,
Not quite. The Virgin ordered 390s, 220s, 221s have different coupler height to all other Dellner fitted stock. The electric connection box (underneath is on the DMUs/EMUs but above on the virgin stock). is at fairly standardised height but there are some differences in the conection pins /contacts used, for example newer units use different pins for digital PA signals to the other ones used for analogue PA signals on older designs of unit. Desiro City & Aventra use networked control systems so effectively have a Cat 5 cable connected up to some pins that aren’t used in the older installations e.g. desiro / electrostar. There is a meaty RSSB document on the subject.
@NGH
don’t the 222s also have the 220/221 type of Dellner?
As for DMUs, BSI couplers are fitted to all classes still in service up to 170, and Dellner/Scharfenberg to 171 upwards. (That is in fact the principal difference between a 170 and 171, Southern having specified the Dellners to be compatible with its class 377 Electrostars (themselves reclassified from 375s when Dellners replaced Tightlocks – South Eastrern has since retrofitted its own 375s with Dellners but not renumbered them)
We digress
Re: Timbeau – not quite (again). Class 172s are the exception. Not unreasonably, West Mids examples with interoperable with the BR Provincial standard, while Chiltern units have the Network SouthEast standard* – in both cases this allows them to interwork with the other types they need to interwork with (there is a particularly interesting empty stock working comprising Classes 150, 153, 170 and 172). The LO 172s are also coming to the West Mids.
*I note the myth that privatisation caused lack of standardisation is being peddled here.
None of which changes the simple facts that the Scharfenberg/Delner type is far superior to any historic type in use and in the West Mids as an example the ex-BR units that dictated the use of sub-optimal couplers on modern stock will be no more under the current franchise’s fleet plan.
I noticed a route learning train today to Rainham (Kent) originating on the MML reporting number 5Z87
@ Nick Harley
I’m surprised at the lack of backlash against the removal of semi fast trains from Gillingham, I commute from Gillingham and I sympathise with you.
It’s very unreasonable for inner Londom commuters to expect longer, outer suburban services to basically become all stations metro services just because they don’t want to wait in the cold or an extra five minutes.
I honestly see no benefit in Thameslink coming down to the Medway a lot of us are very unhappy about the changes, the Woolwich line semi fasts are popular largely due to the vast amount of connections and urban centres you can get to in a relatively quick time, without paying premium for HS1, The Bromley fasts have basically been stoppers for years now, but doesn’t have half the useful connections as the Woolwich line has.
Does Plumstead and Slade Green really need to have 8tph? Probably not every time I’ve been to those stations theyre not exactly busy stations now, also they seem to do well on 6tph,
I will agree that Deptford, Greenwich, Maze Hill and Westcombe Park do need the trains as it would be a downgrade otherwise to 4tph and that is unreasonable.
From the Murky Depths has a scoop that the Rainham Thameslink services may be delayed: http://www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk/2018/03/31/thameslink-rail-route-through-greenwich-and-woolwich-delayed/
Anyone got any further info?
No further information, but an official confirmation is on GTR’s railplain 2020 site. It now says “A completely new timetable will be rolled out over several weeks during May and June. This timetable will help with the planned improvements in metro and mainline services. More information will be available in the coming weeks”.
It doesn’t mention Rainham in particular, but it seems likely that a new route will be impacted more than existing routes.
“Delays” to Rainham services
1. Not enough units accepted into service and not expected to be given the other changes also happening. Hence a 4-6 week delay will help.
2. Rainham is lower priority than the other “May” changes.
(1+2 => e.g. enough 700s on GN to enable May’s ECML timetable changes)
Running everything else through LBG without the 12-15minutes of padding of the via Palace fall back option to the new timetable is they key thing to get right once that has bedded down other changes will then resume.
3. All the changes on Thameslink are micro changes rather than macro changes if possible to reduce disruption i.e. Terminal 2 rather than Terminal 5 opening.
So far in 2018 there have been stepped changes every 2 weeks (usually starting Mondays) on Thameslink/London Bridge and sometimes in the intermediate weeks too, in reality the normally fortnightly operational changes model will keep going:
e.g. (not a complete list so far)
a) Driver instructor training runs via London Bridge (LBG)
b) Driver training runs (limited numbers per day)
c) In service non stopping at LBG runs (13 tpd /direction)
d) In service stopping at LBG (16tpd /direction)
e) Limited in service to ECML (Cambridge/ P’boro)
f) first in service ATO runs (via E&C which is now quieter with lots of services running via LBG)
g) Increases in services stopping at LBG e.g. 60tpd/direction from this coming Tuesday (of which 4 are ECML and 56 MML)
It does make sense, but it will be interesting to see how Southeastern deal with the delay to Rainham services.
Were Southeastern planning to do anything with the 2 train paths into Cannon Street that will transfer to Thameslink? Or just using the stock to increase other train lengths?
All of this is going to make planning to catch any particular train “fun” …
For those of us who rely on the NR ElectronicNational Timetable, it probably means that it’s fiction, so one will have to check each likely TOC’s on-lime tt, assuming, of course that it those are really up-to-date & accurate, which we already know, is not always the case.
Um.
Greg Tingey,
I understand your concerns but suspect it will not be like that. Unlike now, the trains will already be in the national timetable and they will need to be cancelled.
Not adding the services at present is understandable as it reduces flexibility in case of a problem during the changeover phase (e.g. driver not signed off to go via London Bridge).
I strongly suspect removing a train from the timetable is much easier than setting up a train which is not yet present or modifying one which is already there. There is also probably a big incentive to cancel at least 48 hours in advance so the service does not appear on the national timetable and won’t impact adversely on PPM (a performance measure) figures.
PoP
Thanks, I understand perfectly – but we will have to wait & see what actually transpires, won’t we?
I have just checked the off peak service from my local station (Woolwich Arsenal) to London Bridge after the May changes.
00 Charing Cross via Lewisham
04 Thameslink via Greenwich
14 Cannon Street via Greenwich
24 Cannon Street via Greenwich
30 Charing Cross via Lewisham
34 Thameslink via Greenwich
44 Cannon Street via Greenwich
54 Cannon Street via Greenwich
This replaces a 10 minute service to Cannon Street with extra Charing Cross trains at 13 & 43.
The temporary loss of the Thameslink trains will create a 14 minute gap. Not ideal.
And that also means a twenty minute gap on the Greenwich line.
Can SE provide a service in those paths as a temporary fix (probably only to London Bridge unless they can use the terminal platforms at Blackfriars)
The new peak hour service from Woolwich Arsenal to London Bridge is very erratic:
06:29 Charing Cross
06:34 Thameslink
06:41 Cannon Street
06:53 Charing Cross
06:58 Cannon Street
07:04 Thameslink
07:15 Cannon Street
07:24 Charing Cross
07:28 Cannon Street
07:34 Thameslink
07:40 Cannon Street
07:47 Charing Cross
07:51 Cannon Street
08:04 Thameslink
The DLR trains to Bank will probably be more overcrowded until the Crossrail service begins.
CDPL/Timbeau
Sir Herbert Walker is reported to have said:
“People don’t like timetables, make it easy for them”.
I would imagine his current rotation-speed must be measurable by a sizeable fraction of mach 1 by now, given the trashing of his legacy in the figures given above.
@GREG TINGEY
It will be simpler under the new franchise.
The Charing Cross trains get diverted to Cannon Street after Lewisham.
Seriously, a 10 minute service is considered by users to be turn up and go. No timetable needed.
Greg Tingey,
On the other hand, Sir Herbert Walker presided over all of the pre-nationalisation Southern Railway and GTR’s Railplan 2020 is producing a lot of regular clockface services where none existed before. For example, times from Reedham on the Tattenham Corner branch appeared to be entirely random in the morning peak but from May it will be remarkably consistent – and there are plenty of other examples both north and south of the river.
The Woolwich Arsenal service may have fewer Cannon Street trains, but there are two more trains overall between 0629-0800. However, journey time by DLR to Bank already appears to be a couple of minutes faster than SE to Cannon Street, perhaps balanced by weekly TfL capping being dearer than a London Terminals 7 day season (£49 v £35). Conversely single fares are 20p cheaper on DLR.
Not running any of the currently planned Rainham services (as in the timetable on the rail2020 site) would have the knock on effect of removing 3 of the all stations between Bedford and St Albans (06:38, 07:10, 07:40) services that are fast from St Albans in the morning and half of the all stations from St Pancras to St Albans in the evening peak giving Kentish Town, Cricklewood and Hendon only a half hourly service.
@Cpdl: There are gaps of more than ten minutes in that service, even if you are not choosy about which terminus you want to go to – or, more importantly, set out from.
@TIMBEAU at present the off peak service has Cannon Street trains every 10 minutes with Charing Cross trains at 13 & 43.
The proposed new franchise services are a serious downgrading on both the Woolwich and Bexleyheath lines.
Mr Grayling seems happy enough to make people walk through the retail park at London Bridge to change trains. The only alternative is pay considerably more for Zone 1.
PoP /CDPL
Well, it’s good to see that more “clockface” services are arriving ( oops! ) but the example quoted upstream is certainly “backsliding”.
Greg Tingey,
In defence of the timetablers, it is ‘clockface’ – just not even interval. It is hard to do even interval everywhere on such a complex network.
Things are certainly not helped by SouthEastern metro having a 20 minute cycle in the morning peak and an approximately 22 minutes cycle in the evening peak which means threading a 30 minute interval service through this is not exactly easy.
I received a tweet from Thameslink today which states that the Greenwich line trains will be running from day 1 of the new timetable.
I cannot see the Thameslink service lasting, demand for SE London and Medway is for Crossrail, it’s too slow And calls at too many minor stations,
I noticed both South Eastern and GTR were very cagey on wheather the Luton service will be in addition to the CX-Gillingham service or replaced entirely, unfortunately the latter option has been chosen,
Now they’re talking about removing CX trains entirely and having Cannon Street train station only?? Are they trying to mess things up for us in Kent and South East London???
Why will it mess things up for those of us in SE London (like me) or Kent? If you want to get to Charing Cross, you can change at London Bridge. Or you can get the District line from Cannon Street.
No one on the Central line, for example, expects the Underground to reroute its trains into central London onto different lines. Why should National Rail services go everywhere-to-everywhere if a simpler service is more reliable, with potentially more frequent trains, if passengers can change to get somewhere off the line?
ALANBG
A lot of people bought their homes based on the traditional services from nearby stations.
I regularly use Woolwich Arsenal where a lot of people wait for the Charing Cross trains.
You say change at London Bridge. The new platform layout and deep stairs/escalators there mean that changing between Charing Cross and Cannon Street platforms takes at least 3 minutes plus the time waiting for the next train.
Perhaps you can tell Bexleyheath line passengers for Denmark Hill are going to travel under the new franchise. Fancy changing at Lewisham with small passages?
The central line is very different from the North Kent line….strange comparison to make.
Also it’s going to be hard to enforce this, Rail authorities for years have tried one line one terminal in SE London and locals and MPs have fought and fought and won.
In 2022 there is potential that Maidstone West trains will run through to the Woolwich line (presumably for Crossrail connectivity) hopefully this will restore semi fast patterns on this line
@ CDLP – why is this “people bought their houses” argument trotted out all the time? Transport authorities are under no obligation to maintain existing service patterns, frequencies etc. I could say I bought my flat in the expectation of having a certain level of bus service – TfL can and have changed services near me. I’ve no claim or inalienable right to contest or challenge TfL for their decisions nor can I have any expectation that they’d pay any attention. Exactly the same applies in respect of the tube service on the Victoria Line or the local line into Liverpool St. We are fortunate in that the Vic Line has been upgraded to offer an exceptionally high level of service but it could have been different if the timing of the upgrade had been later than it was – it probably would not be finished even now and would be offering a lower level of service.
On the opposite end of the commute journey when I worked for LT / TfL there was a condition in the contract that allowed TfL to move my workplace to anywhere in the Gtr London area. I ended up in offices all over Zone 1 but managed to avoid a permanent displacement to Canary Wharf. I had no grounds whatsoever to complain about any resultant “inefficiency” in my commute if my office changed. I had to lump it.
I fail to see why the DfT / train operating companies should be so hidebound to people “who have bought houses” in SE London and Kent to the extent that genuine *overall* improvements are denied to millions of actual and potential users of the service. It’s frankly ridiculous to set a rail network is aspic so that services are barely changed from 80 or 90 years ago.
I was reading on a forum once that suggested that all metro and semi fast routes should use either Victoria or Cannon Street while mainline and some outer suburban services use Charing Cross, it’s a strange idea i know.
If one line one terminal fails again (which judging by the huge backlash against that idea in 2015, it could happen again) then something must be done about Lewisham.
That’s the bug bear in the room here, instead of building a mini Canary Wharf right next to the station! They should have altered the junctions east of the stations, Vic and CX trains use a new platforms 1-2 while the existing platforms 3-4 are Cannon Street trains only of course this would have meant the removal of Sidcup, Grove Park and Hayes line trains, so perhaps a new station south of Lewisham Town Centre would be required.
GStM
Lewisham, yes well … the golden opportunity to completely rebuild was lost, slowly in the period (approx) 2000 – 2012 when massive rebuilding & commercial development eat up all the available land over which a properly rebuilt station complex could have been constructed, in the area between ( again approx ) St Johns & Parks Bridge Junction.
That ship has now sailed & there is simply nowhere practicable to put new alignments, without horrendous compulsory purchase costs, which just won’t happen.
As short-sighted as the apparent failure to re-protect the western alignment at Blackfrairs Bridge – which we discussed here a year or two back
Re Gillingham Stan,
“then something must be done about Lewisham.” but the proposed solution always reverts to either Cannon Street or Charing Cross solution as the simplest, easiest and by far the cheapest solution to Lewisham (i.e. conflicting moves west of the station.)
With all Charing Cross services now able to stop at London Bridge (unlike before the works when only 18tph of 29tph could) then “either or” is less problematic especially Hayes – CHX avoiding Lewisham (pairs well with the SEML Thameslink services swapping from Fast to Slows in parallel)
NGH – DfT interference means that the Bexleyheath line Victoria services are being diverted to Hayes. Still a conflicting movement but I’m sure it looks simple on a map.
@CDPL
Actually, the Victoria-Dartford via Bexleyheath services are simply being diverted via Sidcup. The new Victoria-Hayes service is in fact a diversion of the current Cannon St-Hayes route so as to increase the frequency between Lewisham and Peckham Rye/Victoria.
It’s worth pointing out that both of these changes result in fewer conflicts at the most critical point: Lewisham.
@CDPL – To confirm what Anon E. Mouse says, please have a look at Timetables 5 & 6 from 20 May:
https://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/travel-information/live-travel-information/timetables
Re Anon E Mouse,
Exactly – it will also produce lots of data on how reducing conflicting moves improves performance at Lewisham, which can be used as evidence to justify the future conflicting move reduction…
@ngh: It will also tell them how much work they’ll need to do at Lewisham to make the train changes bearable!
Re SH(LR),
That too, as I’ve previously said on LR, DfT are going to have to agree to spend significantly more on pedestrian interchange at Lewisham than they want too….
Confirmation, in part, of what Ngh said in the Crossrail Western Approach thread of comments (1353 24/4) about the phased introduction of Thameslink services.
GTR have identified the Thameslink services that will have a somewhat slower build up of their timetables for 3 weeks after the main 20 May 2018 changeover.
https://www.railplan2020.com/timetables/timetables-introduction
As anticipated the Luton – Rainham service is affected but so is the Luton – Orpington service and the new Peterborough – Horsham route. The Rainham service looks worst affected with little “backfilling” by South Eastern. The other two routes fair a bit better with some backfilling and a short period of non operation of some departures. Still not exactly wonderful given some of the service gaps that will exist.
And on a slightly unrelated theme how on earth does St Albans manage to justify tube like frequencies in the peak periods? Very impressive service levels for somewhere with a population of 140,000. I assume a lot of people from a wider area park their cars at the station and commute by train.
@WW: how on earth does St Albans manage to justify tube like frequencies in the peak periods
See pages 65 and 66 here – about a quarter of all passengers leaving the Thameslink core in either direction in the afternoon/evening are heading for either St Albans or Harpenden, with nowhere else even close to them in demand – the top 7 origin-destination flows are all to St Albans or Harpenden.
In 2011 St Albans and District had 16,600 commuters to London (here, p. 8), and the Thameslink services from St Albans and Harpenden are the only realistic way to get there. There is also high off-peak demand.
RE WW,
SE will be backfilling with extra trains mainly into Cannon Street (a good opportunity to see quite how many trains it can actually take (without the met curve ECS option!) but this is a work in progress (they are having to work out what else to shorten or cancel etc.) so won’t be published until 7th May.
There are also massive issues on the MML as EMT will be making fewer stops at Bedford and Luton (town and airport) with knock on effects on Thameslink usage patterns which will affect boarding (or inability to) at St Albans…
@WW
And at the other end of that Thameslink route, Tooting and Wimbledon still only gets 2 trains an hour, and a slightly worse service after May (it appears there are fewer in-fill Southern services)
ANON E. MOUSE
Thanks for clarification.
The trenches between the platform and the train on the Sidcup bound platform will probably claim more interchanging passengers. Honestly don’t know how the gaps are allowed.
As mentioned here the opportunity to re-align the tracks/platforms with tower blocks everywhere. The up platform could have moved to the other side of the lift with the down platform taking the vacated space.
Re ChrisMitch (&WW et al),
There will be more southern infill* services but they are still a work in progress and not all published; again like SE, Southern don’t have the stock to operate them without shortening other services which will probably resulting some passengers being unable to board what are currently 12car services, but temporarily become 8 car after the May TT change and then 12car again in a (long) while. Shortening will be focused on services that use the original 377s (with via Redhill drawing the short straws again) as they have to operate mroe services with the amount of stock fixed at post 700s intro and service transfer levels.
*including long term infill till 700s start on the services even if labelled as Southern into LBG terminating platforms.
@CDPL: Those trenches are needed so that the trains can actually move. Now it might be a huge gap where descending from a 376, but they probably aren’t so big when a train of JGA hoppers or MBA boxes squeals around the corner….
SOUTHERN HEIGHTS (LIGHT RAILWAY)
Horizontal and vertical gaps which are very dangerous. People have fallen into them.
Was fine with with shorter trains of a previous era.
Big gaps between train and platform are undoubtedly dangerous (I have fallen into one myself, although not at Lewisham), but the only way to eliminate them is to close the platform (and relocate it on a straight bit of track). The number of proposals to do just that are legion – but people can’t travel on paper proposals. The overall length of the train is immaterial, but the modern trend for longer carriages has exacerbated the situation in some places – however, I don’t think carriage lengths on the South Eastern have changed much since electrification in 1925.
Can someone confirm this fact, was speaking to a fellow Medway commuter and he told me that GTR will review the Rainham service next year and may omit certain stations, Deptford & Slade Green are the stations chosen for the chop, if so then the shacks between Dartford/Greenhithe and Gravesend should go too.
funny about carriage lengths being unchanged, platforms in the SE London & Kent areas were lengthened in the early 90s and it’s only now some services get 10 car trains.
Reading (and rereading) the endless comments and problems re Lewisham, I do sometimes think – not entirely in jest – if the most sensible thing wouldn’t be to close the station entirely and judiciously move the ‘problems’ elsewhere via re-timetabling/diagramming etc.
Lewisham must be fairly unique in terms of ‘problem’ stations in having a (normally) conflict free avoiding line from the SE.
2/2…which does leave me thinking that GT is entirely right – the time to completely remodel and rebuild Lewisham station has now gone for ever – (hell, they could have closed the station most mornings over most of the ‘worst times’ on the LB rebuild and people would have at least not wasted time in travelling there).
With the ongoing (over)building in the Lewisham area, combined with the inexorable increase in pax numbers from the SE wanting to use the station as an interchange, and the complete impossibility of now ‘sorting the station out’, I can’t help but wonder if this is an unfloated idea higher up as well. After all, by 2030-40 the current station site will at least have Bakerloo and DLR services…
@ Ngh – how on earth, after months and months of consultation and planning, do we get to a position where Southern are now deemed to be short of stock and the revised services are going to be shorter than they are now? We seem to stagger from one disaster to another with Southern / GTR. Surely the timetable was planned to work within *existing* resources or am I being stupid again?
@ Tim – closing Lewisham NR station is simply not feasible. I completely agree that local planning decisions have caused enormous problems for the future but closure is a political and practical impossibility. The outcry would be enormous and Lewisham has something of a reputation for inflicting defeat on government (e.g. Lewisham Hospital).
If the Bakerloo Line ever does reach Lewisham then it will bring huge issues in its wake and may well force someone, somewhere to do make substantive improvements. The problem, though, is that I can see DfT trying to make it all TfL’s problem to fix which will be a pretty stupid but entirely predictable stance on their part.
The issues with the curved platforms are not only a potential safety issue but they impede performance by extending dwell times. Passengers rightly are more cautious when faced with large drops *and* stepping distances between train and platform. The more and more people who try to interchange at Lewisham the worse and worse the dwell time issues become thus worsening train throughput. One wonders if / how DfT and Network Rail will resolve this particular conundrum.
I know many stations have “grandfather rights” which permit existing distances to be operational but some are very dangerous and probably unusable by some people who may not be as fit and agile as they once were. I remember being shocked at the step height at Hampton Court stn – I probably couldn’t get on or off a train there now.
To emphasise what WW said, the gap on platform 2 can be quite frightening. As I have a dodgy knee and need to be cautious, I hate using it. No doubt the experts on here will call out if there is somewhere worse, but I can’t think of any high usage station within London with a worse platform to train gap.
Furthermore, the connecting passages between platforms are not wide – the station just isn’t fit for purpose.
A couple of ideas for Lewisham:
1. Tightly curved platforms with 1/3 and 2/3 door positions are most troublesome for stepping distance when they’re on the outside of the curve, hence platform #1 at Lewisham is much better than #2. A new parallel track and platform on a raised structure, with its own access arrangements to the station subway could be constructed immediately on the inside of the current #1, with the platform on the inside of the track. There appears to be space for this clear of surrounding buildings. Once this is finished and operational, replacing existing #1, the track alongside the existing #1 face could be removed and that platform widened across the track space to form a new #2 face with the original outside #2 face then taken out of use. Now both #1 and #2 would have platforms faces on the inside of their curves. Coaches with doors at their extremities could still have stepping distance problems but these are rare on the SE and special instructions could cover their use at the station.
2. Much more radically, and in conjunction with 1 above, provision of new platforms on the ‘bypass’ lines, with a pedestrian walkway connection to the existing station complex, possibly incorporating travelators (and passing right through one of the new apartment blocks), The major problem with this idea is the existing four track alignment of the bypass is tightly constrained (just like all the other lines in the area). Thus I suggest (controverisally I’m sure) a reduction from four tracks to a single pair with either a new island between the two outer tracks or the two inners retained with separate side platforms. I further suggest Lewisham stops at these platforms are added to all (or at least the majority of) express trains to and from the far reaches of Kent that currently use the fast lines. This would include all Hayes trains, some of which would thus no longer need to go through #1/#2 to stop at Lewisham, so the lines from Hayes to these could be removed as part of a major simplification of the junction layouts throughout the area. The big double scissors immediately to the west of the original station would have to remain of course. Thus with its six mainline, two DLR and two future Bakerloo line platforms, Lewisham could grow to meet its true potential as a major ‘edge city’ interchange, a Stratford or Clapham Junction of the South Eastern network. All that’s missing is an Overground East London Line terminating platform somewhere on the north side.
RE WW at 23:07
1. DfT effectively controls when stock goes off lease and even the original plan (in the ITT) had very little slack. (Not releasing the 25 377s to SE or keeping all the 365 on GN so some 387/1 could back fill on southern services]
2. The DfT plan relied Siemens not being to behind with deliveries. [There are still about 8 units in Germany as well as plenty in the acceptance programme]
3. DfT had a poor understanding of the driver numbers and training time scales, the previous incumbents told them they were sleep walking into huge issues and that DfT would need to start funding driver recruitment & training under the old franchises before the new one even started…
DfT didn’t and the bidders all go the driver numbers under partly as result of duff DfT bidding info.
Basically not having short forms on Southern would have involved having virtually all the 700s in service including on Southern services that are transferring to Thameslink but many transfers are delayed till 2019.
The logistics of doing all the changes over a weekend also proved impossible due to the need to get stock moved to new stabling locations and doing all the maintenance and cleaning while running all the normal and engineering work disrupted services on the Sunday proved to be a non starter.
The worst of the short forms should only be about a few weeks while the May TT changes are phased in and the number of 700s in service increases.
Re Gillingham Stan
Given the 8 car units used for the Rainham services culling few inner stops might work if passengers are struggling to board any way and if right time arrival at North Kent East Jn proves to be as critical as everyone reckons. Culling stops east of Dartford is very unlikely especially as the fares from those stations are higher and some of those stations serve Ebbsfleet (the housing not the station) so usage is likely to increase and the there is no operation benefit to cuttting those stops as they will just catch the train in front and crawl along especially the west of Dartford in the Up direction and probably not have a viable path through Dartford.
Of the 4 intermediate stations 3 are timed for 30s dwell times and Greenhithe for 1m.
In addition to the above post:
Crossrail (or rather part of it) will be appearing on the Thameslink maps between Abbey Wood and Farringdon in a very very light mauve colour* [lets see if TfL reciprocate 😉 ] which helps reinforce the view that they are more interested in the outer stations market. [Ditto for GN Moorgate service maps]
* Not the same colour as TfL maps
The post December Deptford and Slade Green stopping review is probably mostly to do with the possibility of Abbey Wood requiring longer dwell times depending on passenger numbers interchanging to Crossrail and there being no slack in the timetable to do this hence removing a stop after Abbey Wood in each direction to ensure right time arrival at the following critical junctions and then the one before so the service provision is symmetric.
Given the mix of SE and Thameslink stock along the line users may not be as slick with entry and exit as on routes with all 700 usage or given the location of the 2 sets of stairs at Abbey Wood concentrate themselves in the cars nearest the steps (See SWR Metro services at P7&8 at Vauxhall for an extreme example of this). Dwell times at stations west of Abbey Wood may improve from December if trains are less crowded with passengers using CR instead, hence GTR look to be giving themselves options depending on what actually happens rather than just crystal ball gazing and fingers crossed.
The automatic passenger loading data along the Rainham TL route should make for interesting analysis especially compared with ticket sales & oyster usage (or lack there off). GTR are probably aware that some intermediate loadings along the line will be far higher than ticket revenue suggests.
MARK TOWNEND
Re-align platforms 1 & 2 at Lewisham. Precisely what I suggested further up the thread’
Good Points @ NGH, though I’m curious as to why the Victoria to Gravesend service will skip Northfleet, Swanscombe and Stone Crossing.
Yes I think with the North Kent East Junction it might be better if stations were skipped, let’s also bear in mind Plumstead residents may choose to head to Woolwich Crossrail instead of using Plumstead itself (not saying Plumstead will be skipped but just pointing out a possible scenario) the situation would be the same at Slade Green, heading Abbey Wood, not sure about Deptford maybe it’s not as busy as Greenwich or Maze Hill, will have to keep an eye on that.
Selfishly as a Medway resident I do hope for fewer stations on the Rainham TL service
@CDPL – Fair enough. I’d missed that comment.
I’ve now drawn a layout sketch to illustrate the ideas. I believe there is still space to do this, based on aerial imagery from approx. 12 months ago.
http://www.townend.me/files/lewisham.pdf
Re: WW 26/04/18, 01:08hrs
It is indeed true that the TL service Luton – Rainham will be a slow starter though not necessarily for the reasons laid down in the rail 20/20 brief…
Two major cock ups. Firstly, despite massive driver recruitment and training, there are still zero drivers passed out on this route. There are Bedford drivers route learning as we speak but with one training train a day due to a shortage of paths this is proving difficult.
Furthermore, despite the mass of trainee drivers taken on for the new Gillingham depot, less than four have been passed out and none of these sign the route yet. Many of these trainees have not driven a train for over a year due to the shortage of driver trainers. This has become so chronic that the new plan is to drag management in to run an emergency skeleton service and for them to start training these trainees that have spent the last year in limbo. Then there are th newly qualified drivers who were trained by Southeastern on behalf of GTR. I’m lead to believ many of these do sign the route though they don’t sign 700’s.
The second cock up is so monumental and schoolboy in nature that it has caused absolute havoc across the brand and means *all* driver diagrams need to be rewritten across the TL and GN brand (possibly Southern too, I don’t know enough regarding their issue here). Needless to say it is going to be a very busy time for the PR team to bat this one away…
@Mark I think the SEML fast lines are full already as they bypass Lewisham, so you’d be forced to send even more slow services into Lewisham, and it would need more than just straightened platforms to cope.
You are trying to make Lewisham into the Stratford of SE London, but its a very clunky solution with 250m gaps between platforms. I doubt many Kent passengers want to change at Lewisham anyway. To get to Canary Wharf London Bridge is faster, for the Bakerloo Charing Cross.
Adding 3 minutes to every fast journey, and 5 minutes for the slows that would need to additionally go into Lewisham would not be popular.
@Mark T
Although I don’t think reducing the bypass line to two tracks would be able to support the current level of through traffic, if it were to happen your plan might be improved by eliminating the flat junction at Parks Bridge, which looks possible by using the existing bridge carrying the main line over the Hayes line.
Lewisham as an interchange for Canary Wharf has become increasingly redundant in recent years especially those on the Dartford routes, the 2009 DLR extension to Woolwich Arsenal saw to this and I’m certain Crossrail at Abbey Wood will increase this trend in the years to come, with even commuters who live on the Sidcup and Bexleyheath lines opting to use local buses to get to either Woolwich Arsenal for DLR or North Greenwich for the Jubilee line.
The interchange at Lewisham is woefully unattractive and frankly rather unsafe at times when I’ve used it.
Lewisham aspires to the SE London equivalent to Stratford and Clapham Junction but in truth it could never be this, not now and probably not ever,
Silly question here but would it be useful to rebuild the mainline platforms at New Cross? Have an interchange between CX & CS trains and also London Overground to perhaps take some of the load off Lewisham, I know mainline commuters may object to stopping at New Cross (again sorry if this is a silly question, I Know New Cross used to have mainline platforms years ago)
@JOHNB – Good points, particularly about journey times to Docklands vs via London Bridge, but perhaps for DLR stations south of Canary Wharf a change at Lewisham might still be competetive, and price-wise I think there may be a zone 1 avoidance benefit, although a large scale shift of demand to that route could overwhelm the DLR.
@TIMBEAU – I looked at grade separation at Parks Bridge but a curve under that bridge would be far too tight without residential demolition, road closures etc. It might just be possible with a new skew bridge under the main line a little further south and the alignment cutting through Lewisham’s “Wearside Service Centre” which appears to be a municipal vehicle depot. You’d also want to avoid the huge Parks Bridge signalling interlocking building near the intersection bridge, at least during construction, even though resignalling might make that redundant in the end.
If more main line traffic on the slows was going through Lewisham station as a result of the main line narrowing, then that would result in even more conflict at Lewisham Junction so some further measures might be required. It’s just possible another double track ramp up from the Blackheath line might be squeezed in next to the substation to join the Nunhead line, but that would likely mean the end of the Tanners Hill Flydown, although could it remove some conflict with all the main line slow traffic going through Lewisham #1/#2.
I think this all just goes to show that perhaps layouts aren’t completely boxed in by development at Lewisham yet, and some reasonable enhancement options may remain for the future.
New version of layout sketch here: http://www.townend.me/files/lewisham.pdf
Re Gillingham Stan,
18tph is considered the normal limit for stopping all trains on 2 track 2 platform railway and there are 28tph on the fast through New Cross which is why the platforms aren’t still there.
The Cannon Street services using 3 platforms 1 in each direction with 1 for tidal flow in the main peak flow direction and fewer stopping in the counter peak direction.
To stop Fast /Charing Cross services at New Cross would need the replication of the 4 track – 4 platform layout seen on Charing Cross lines through London Bridge and there isn’t the space at NEw Cross to do this without massive spending and disruption (requires closing the A2 Bridge for a very long time….)
Gillingham Stan The Man,
The idea of platforms on the Charing Cross lines at New Cross is quite often raised. Not a stupid idea in the sense that initially it looks like a quite sensible suggestion but a deeper understanding of railway operation shows it is a non-starter.
The two tracks (one up and one down) carry all the Charing Cross services. That is nominally 28tph but is better thought of as 30tph with a couple of ‘white spaces’ on the timetable for service recovery. So basically we are talking about a train every 2 minutes.
Now dwell time is getting horrendous and 1 minute is typical. Less than that and you have to ask: is it worthwhile stopping the train? By the time the train has slowed down and stopped and started up and accelerated again you have probably lost another 90 seconds. Lets be generous and keep it simple and assume that each stop only costs 2 minutes.
What you get is a situation where, for every train that stops at New Cross, you effectively reduce the number of trains per hour to Charing Cross by one. Thinking of it another way, you have 30 slots per hour at 2 minute intervals and every stop at New Cross means a train occupies 2 slots.
Note that adding passing loops (if possible) won’t help the situation. Nor will stopping all the trains there rather than just some of the them. The only way around the problem is to have a two platforms in each direction and stop every train at the station with alternative platforms being used. This is exactly what they spent many £100s of millions doing at London Bridge. At London Bridge it is worth doing. At New Cross it isn’t.
The situation at New Cross Gate on the fast lines is almost identical. Currently only 2tph stop there as that is all that is possible despite repeated requests for more. It looks like, in the Thameslink final timetable, even those two stops will have to go because it just won’t be possible to include them.
Mark Townend,
I think this current proposal of yours is completely flawed on so many fronts and I won’t waste my time explaining why. However, a request for the future. When drawing these pretty diagrams could you please include the number of trains per hour expected to use the relevant sections of track? I think then we could all see at a glance some of the inherent problems and we won’t need to spend time discussing the pros and cons.
I might even put my stroppy moderators hat on and remove all future references to diagrams that do not include this information.
Re John B and Mark T,
By the time Thameslink is fully up and running there will be even more trains through the area which make all of these alternative station with just 2 tracks a non starter.
As a reminder the timetable (for at least the last 44 years if not more) relies on the current miracle of 3 sets of parallel moves at Parks Bridge in each direction to avoid the need for more grade separation:
(e.g. Up)
1. Hayes – Fast lines (not via LEW) to Charing Cross
2. Fast – Slow lines (not via LEW) e.g. Fast Kent Cannon Street services and the future Thameslink SEML services
3.Slow Lines – P1 At Lewisham
And vice versa for down services.
Hence any alternative Lewisham bypassing route would need a 4 track 4 platform solution.
Slow Lines
“Lewisham’s “Wearside Service Centre” which appears to be a municipal vehicle depot. ” It is and is the future Bakerloo Extension TBM launch site.
Ps Hadn’t seen PoP’s comment when I started typing but completely agree on the non feasability…
PoP & MT
Is anything actually gained by MT’s proposed rebuild – apart from, perhas easier boarding at Lewisham?
No.
And you lose flexibility by removing the diveunder & slow down the already pedestrian so-called “fast” lines, and ….
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As has been said previously, a comprehansive rebuild of Lewisham, with much better ( less curved ) platforms & wider, easier interchange oassages is entirely possible.
But it would cost getting on for the same as the LBG-rebuild ( I think ) once you take property-compensation into account.
So – maybe not?
Blame the total lack of planning & forward thinking in the period 2000 – 2012 ( approx )
Gillingham Stan The Man,
Meant to add, the reason you can stop some Cannon St trains at New Cross is that:
a) there are three platforms at New Cross which helps considerably with two in use in the peak flow direction. Critically, there are three tracks all the way from just east of New Cross to London Bridge so you really can take advantage of two of them being available in the peak-flow direction.
b) Cannon St currently has a maximum of 22tph as opposed to Charing Cross having 28tph.
c) The Greenwich line means that New Cross has already ‘lost’ some trains departing from Cannon St. Currently this is nominally around 6tph but, with Thameslink to Rainham, this will mean an extra 2tph through New Cross on the Cannon St side.
As a separate issue, you can see the challenges that St Johns creates in the peak period as the island platform is on a critical two track section on the lines to/from Cannon St. From May 20th there is a slight reduction in peak hour calls there – from 8tph to 7tph – which I suspect is down to the need to cater for an extra 1 or 2tph though the station as a consequence of Thameslink taking 2 of the paths via Greenwich thus enabling more trains to go via New Cross and St Johns.
Re PoP
The 2tph Thameslink services down the SEML will also eventually go through St Johns but not stop so this is space being freed up for them for later.
What Thameslink services down the SEML? I thought everything was going through Greenwich, New Cross Gate or Elephant. Is this not the latest plan?
https://www.palmersgreencommunity.org.uk/pgc/public-transport/1256-great-northern-service-improvements-planned-for-2018
Oh, do keep up at the back. There was a plan and it got changed, and changed again, and again and again …
Yes that is the latest reiteration. On it there is a future service to Maidstone East via London Bridge. That will have to go via New, Cross, St Johns, Chislehurst and Swanley.
Re Pedantic’s rather cruel put down of MT.
I greatly enjoy MT’s diagrams here & elsewhere, They provoke thought & I would miss them if a stroppy moderator banned them. Pedantic calls himself stroppy.
At the risk of being ground into the ballast by pedantic, is St John’s station really necessary? It is so close to Lewisham & all its services, & from memory there are very frequent buses nearby to New Cross.
Once the island platform is removed, MT’s sensible flyovers from the Victoria line to the Blackheath line avoiding conflict with services into Lewisham platform 1 & 2 could be built more easily & cheaply..
Also there would be space for the down fast line chord to Lewisham to leave the down fast to the left (rather than currently to the right) & climb up to the bridge on a new alignment so the queue of stopped fast up trains in the morning peak one currently sees as one crosses the bridge would be able to sail past at 45 mph, unimpended by trains bound for Lewisham.
I look forward to MT’s diagrams. Does he know that there used to be an extra through line up under the girder bridge to the west of the fast up line? See circa 1910 o/S map. Could that be used instead to weave fast up trains under down ex fast line trains climbing to the top of the bridge bound for Lewisham?
Jim Elson,
Sorry if my request to Mark sounded cruel but I do have a real problem with these diagrams. We highly discourage crayonistaing but these diagrams are just that but in visual rather than verbal form. We really don’t want to become a site where people flaunt their pet ideas. People who know me will also know that I have a particular dislike of ideas that I very much doubt would be suggested if people actually visited the site. The idea that you can just look at Google maps or other similar apps and come up with solutions is usually highly flawed.
I thought about it long and hard how best to reply and thought that the main problem is that it just takes no account of the required capacity of various lines – most of which are completely unattainable under any scenario. The suggestion to include this in future will hopefully alert both the maker of the diagram and those who view it as to what is really being proposed.
So it seems there’s agreement that any changes on the main lines bypassing Lewisham are unfeasible if they reduce the number of tracks, and any widening to accommodate platforms there would be extraordinarily expensive and no doubt very difficult politically. If we discount all those elements, is there still any merit in the simple idea of reconstructing platform #1 on a new viaduct alongside the existing alignment, with the platform on the inside of the curve, allowing #2s face to be similarly relocated on the inside. I believe there may still be room to do that between surrounding buildings, but are there any other constraints to that I’m not aware of, such as any proposed Bakerloo works. Platforms on the inside of curves definitely can help with stepping distance, see Clapham Junction #7/#8 for an example.
I apologise if I got carried away with the crayons on the other ideas. They were only intended as suggestions though, not something I’m trying to defend as the ultimate answer. I will in future put in meaningful ‘tph’ annotations where useful. Thanks for the suggestion.
What I’m not accepting however is GTs premise that only something ‘London Bridge sized’ can ‘solve’ Lewisham, and it’s all the fault of those dastardly planners! The stepping distance problem on #1/#2 might be addressed by my initial suggestion (yellow on the diagrams) and some reconfiguration of Lewisham Junction and the flyover ramp to the Nunhead line might be possible at some stage, possibly when structures need replacing in the future.
@NGH – Will the Bakerloo TBM launch site in the municipal yard become a rolling stock depot for the line?
Jim Elson,
Given that the girder bridge wasn’t built in 1910 I think you have a temporal as well as a spacial problem there. See St Johns – part 1 for a story of how and when that girder bridge came about and what, I think, is the track you are actually talking about.
I presume you are referring to the scenario shown in this picture of a totally different bridge. The landscape is almost unrecognisable now.
Mark Townend,
Your ‘very difficult politically’ comment really sums up a lot of the problems – even if a technical solution could be found. The London Borough of Lewisham seems to have a bit of a reputation for not making the necessary safeguarding and other preparations for transport improvements – even ones that they themselves have initiated.
The political implications of your ideas – even if they could be implemented – would be immense and, literally, far-reaching. For instance, there is a lot of pressure to speed up Hastings – Cannon St services and I think there is even one that runs fast from Hildenborough to London Bridge. I really cannot see many people, including an ex Home Secretary, being too happy with a jolly little detour around the delights of the curved platforms at Lewisham.
To answer your point about the Bakerloo line extension, if built. There won’t be a depot but there will be underground sidings for eight trains. Once suspects that will mean a permanent access shaft of some form being necessary both for air quality and as means of egress.
As a former old school pen & ink electrical draughtsman, I tend to think visually. For me, diagrams are merely a visual communication tool however, not some expression of my intellectual or emotional attachment to any particular content illustrated. Hence I am very willing to take on criticism and suggestions, even willing to remove drawings if someone can convince me they may be misleading in a public realm such as this. So no offence taken PoP, and thanks for the compliments, Jim.
@PoP
Oh, I see – I had misread the plan and assumed the Maidstone service would go via Bromley South.
I’m not sure that eliminating St John’s station would allow space for a flyover linking to the Blackheath line – it’s too far west for the space to be useful. The fifth track Jim Elson refers to (visible in the 1910 picture) is now buried under the ramp for the “flydown”.
There have been various proposals that, instead of new tube lines, new tunnels could be built for long distance services to bypass pinch-points. Even though built to main line gauge, this would be cheaper than a new Tube line because no stations would be needed. I recall Battersea to West Dulwich, Waterloo to New Malden, and Hatfield to Knebworth have all been suggested. Would a Lewisham diveunder allow sufficient space for reorganising the surface layout as proposed by MT? Indeed, if such a diveunder continued towards London Bridge it could reduce the cost of the Bakerloo extension as it could use the two existing NR thus released, with surface stations at or near the sites of the old Spa Road and Southwark Park stations saving the costs of building the two proposed underground stations on the Old Kent Road.
@Timbeau: Indeed it has… For the SEML a good place to start such a tunnel would be around the diveunder at its lowest point. You might just be able to duck down fast enough to get under the ELL branch to Peckham (ngh can probably tell you off the top of his head).
Then the place to surface again would be somewhere between Hither Green and Grove Park.
Immediately after Grove Park you have Chinbrook Meadows where the train is on an embankment, then you have a cutting, tunnel, more cutting (Elmstead Woods) and another embankment (Chislehurst) so the next possible realistic place to surface wouldn’t be until after it has crossed the LCDR lines!
As you’re not actually gaining any capacity with this bypass, continuing all the way to Petts Wood is probably overkill.
In order maximise the use of the tunnel you’d probably want to alter the service pattern and have Sevenoaks to Charing Cross (slow) trains use it too… I’m not sure if there is enough space between Manor Lane and Burnt Ash Hill to add a connection to the Sidcup line, but if there is, then Sidcup to CHX trains could use it too. The next location would be by the A20 Sidcup Road and is probably too far out to be cost effective.
This will of course annoy the good burghers of Hither Green who would only have trains to Cannon Street left!
@SHLR
I had envisaged a two-track tunnel, with two tracks for local traffic remaining on the surface – so Hither Green keeps its Charing Cross service. The width made available could accommodate platforms at Lewisham as suggested earlier, and/or St Johns, and/or a Bakerloo Line to Bromley North (and beyond)?
MT & PoP & Jim Elson & others
The real problem is that there are not enough tracks between just by or slightly NW of New Cross & Hither Green.
The “obvious” answer is to widen to 5 or 6 tracks, but – unfortunately – where would you put them? And how much property-demolition would there be & therefore how much would it cost?
IF you could make this exercise feasible, it would help “solve” the Lewisham/congestion/curavture problem, but I happen to think it unfeasible..
This whole discussion is very reminiscent of the similar problems regarding the succesive pinch points of Herne Hill & Tulse Hill / Herne Hill – Shortlands.
If you do “solve” one, the problem simply moves a stop or two down ( or up ) the line …..
PoP
There certainly exists a Cannon St – High Brooms non-stop service ( I’ve used it ) which isn’t quite a slow as all the others …
@Greg
“The “obvious” answer is to widen to 5 or 6 tracks, but – unfortunately – where would you put them? ”
Under the ground? hardly a new idea. See:
Whitechapel & Bow Railway (relieving LTSR)
Deep Level District (Hammersmith to South Kensington)
Piccadilly Line from Kings Cross to Finsbury Park (hence the “GN” in its original name,
Bakerloo from Baker Street to Finchley Road (relieving the Met, now part of the Jubilee),
Central Line, (and Crossrail) from Liverpool Street to Stratford (relieving the GE line)
Whether you call this one a Bakerloo Line extension or a SEML diveunder depends on what trains will use it.
Wild ideas department here again…
Regarding SEML Fast Tunnel:
1. Swap the SEML fasts and slows over via the existing grade separation between Petts Wood and Chislehurst. Requires doubling of the Up Chatham Loop spur from St Marys Cray, but that has advantages too for delivering Thameslink Maidstones from the new slow side to the correct pair of the LCDR (the Fasts, which are really the Slows) for turning right at Swanley. Such trains would thus not interfere with either SE or Chatham fast traffic.
2. With the SEML Slows on the west side, there is possibility of an easier connection of the Bromley North Branch at the south end of Grove Park station for through service to central London. Possibly a ‘Thameslink Metro’ destination?
3. Commence SEML fast tunnel south ramp just north of Grove Park, taking over space occupied by the south car shed and sidings on the east side. Where to accomodate stock and activities displaced thereby is a problem yet to solve. Possibly remove appropriate island platform (current Slow lines) at Grove Park station to remove kink and improve speed.
4. Now The Sidcup and SEML Slow lines would each have their own independent pair north of Hither Green to Lewisham. The Sidcups would then go via the old platforms #1/#2 at Lewisham, the SEML Slows through my new platforms on the ML bypass. The Hayes line could remain connected to either or both pairs at Parks Bridge, depending on where services are envisaged to run.
5. The SEML slow pair continues northwards on the alignment of the former Fasts. No new platforms at St Johns provided. Tanners Hill junction trails in from left as now. The old Slows (lets call ’em the St Johns through this section) carry on in parallel.
6. At New Cross, one track (former Up Kent Fast) removed and tracks shuffled over to create space for a new Up Slow side platform on the west side.
7. Depending on exactly where the new north ramp of the SEML fast tunnel was constructed, space constraints may mean the ELL New Cross branch may no longer be able to pass beneath the SEML to the north of New Cross station to terminate on the east side. The former alignment of the ancient ELL chord to the west side of the station might be reinstated instead with a new terminal platform tacked on to the far end of the new Up Slow platform in 6 above. Alternatively (or additionally) a connection could be made to the slows to allow ELL trains to continue south somewhere via Lewisham using the new capacity created by the six tracking through the corridor (another potential contender for the Bromley North branch perhaps).
8. The London end (north) SEML fast tunnel ramp itself: It’s difficult to find a space between underbridges for this. My initial stab would be Folkstone Gardens, starting to descend from London Bridge immediately after crossing the ELL and the road nearby. The ramp would curve through the park with the actual portal tucked between the existing railway and Milton Court Road, with the rerouted ELL New Cross branch passing over it. Temporary road closures at least might be required in the area and Rolt Street alongside the park may have to be rerouted and downgraded to foot/cycle status, as with Bolina Road for Thameslink.
The problem with the ‘put it underground’ suggestions is highlighted by Southern Heights. The terrain is absolutely awful for this. Just west of New Cross you are on an embankment with roads immediately underneath. Then there is a deep cutting towards Lewisham but beyond St Johns to the east this becomes a very high embankment. Lewisham junction and station is way above ground level and is situated at the confluence of two rivers. One route continues on an embankment (towards Hither Green) whilst another (towards Blackheath) is in a cutting.
So yes, you could build a long tunnel but what you want is a short tunnel.
Even more to the point, lets not overlook that a main objective is for suburban trains to call at Lewisham. There are various routes that most trains can take to avoid Lewisham but that rather defeats what is trying to be achieved.
@PoP: Given that Lewisham was, is, and forever will be a “slow station” (in that trains that call there take a long time regardless of the number of passengers). Do we really want to load the station even more?
More creative solutions could have been implemented in times past:
1) Locating a very expensive station under it for the DLR and tube.
2) Extending the DLR to Ladywell/Catford and Bakerloo to Hither Green.
3) Making the Hayes, Sidcup and Grove Park by pass Lewisham, most of the time.
Voila, the station is no longer overcrowded…
But I guess that is no longer an option… So let me put my tired crayons to bed!
I should also reiterate that the tunnel option doesn’t add capacity, the constraint is closer in, so it would only improve reliability (and by how much exactly?). If It only handles the fast trains that’s a mere 6 tph in each direction, so it would probably need the Orpington and Sidcup slow trains to bump this up to 10/12 tph to make it viable.
Perhaps the conflicts on the big railway at Lewisham could be reduced if the Bakerloo line was extended beyond Lewisham by, for instance, taking over the Hayes branch.
Re: PoP 1st May 10.13
Whoops of joy from the back of the class! The proposed new Thameslink service to Maidstone East had not been mentioned for some time, so I thought it had been superseded by a proposal to run a (presumably SE) service shuttling between Maidstone West and Abbey Wood. Will there be turnback facilities at Abbey Wood?
It’s great to see confirmation that the Maidstone East proposal is still on the stocks, despite the regime change next April.
@SHLR re your 6ph SEML fasts, it will soon be 8tph off-peak as the proposed faster Hasting service skipping Orpington will require a new pair of trains to Ashford to restore Orpington 4tph. I assume the Thameslink Maidstone service will come down the fasts to avoid the stoppers too, So that’s 10tph, Add the 2 Orpington-CHX stoppers, and perhaps 2 tph going to Rochester this way, you’ve got 14tph for your tunnel!
I think the portal would need to be between Hither Green and Grove Park though, so not the Sidcup services.
No – PoP had it right about the Thameslink Maidstone East service (if it happens). It will join the up fasts at Chislehurst, but come down the slow line from New Cross as far as Chislehurst, then turn east to Swanley. I guess the down slow line would have to be used to avoid the need to cross the up slow line immediately south of Chislehurst, thus vacating a path for a service through Bromley South to Orpington to join the down slow line just to the north of Petts Wood.
@JOHN B
With the Thameslink programme final layout, I assume the Thameslink Maidstones will normally join the Fasts (assuming they use them) from the slows either just north/west of New Cross or at Parks Bridge. The grade separation at Bermondsey is optimised for delivering trains from the Thameslink core conflict free onto the no 3 and 4 lines east therof which join the the SEML slows just east of North Kent East Jn. If the notional fast tunnel north portal was just west of New Cross, they could not join that pair without using flat crossings nearer London Bridge. Other layout changes in the vicinity might be possible to address this but would be further expense and there’s limited space in the area.
With the south portal sited country side of Hither Green, there could be effectively two slow pairs north thereof, so a significant increase of capacity would be created on the surface as well, with a potential for additional platforms at Lewisham.
I would have thought those Orpington – CHX stoppers would wish to stop at Hither Green and New cross at least, if not Lewisham, so the tunnel with suggested portal locations would be of no use. They, and the Thameslinks, would be better off using the old surface Fasts through the area I suggest (the new Slows).
Perhaps a business case could be based not on how many trains the tunnel itself carries, but how much capacity and flexibility it releases on the surface. Fast trains are clearly necessary to run but they tend to consume a lot of path space when squeezed through lots of successive flat junctions and stations shared with stopping services, and because of their importance, they tend to get priority so their performance dictates the performance of the entire network as other trains wait for their passage. One simple tunnel bypassing a series of junctions could also avoid a series of smaller but cumulative interventions at those individual junctions. This is the HS2 concept for Phase 2 through Crewe; a tunnel (with no platforms) for the fastest trains, burrowing under the entire complex and avoiding all the conflicts.
“Fast trains………………because of their importance, they tend to get priority ”
The idea that one train is more “important” than another should be confined to the pages of Thomas the Tank Engine. A local train may well be earning more revenue (because it has more passengers on board, because they are paying more per mile, and because the train can make several short trips in the time the longer distance train makes only one).
The only reasons a fast train gets priority are
1. because it wastes more time slowing down and speeding up again from a high speed than it does from a low speed, and
2. because putting a slow train in front of a fast train will delay the fast train all the way down the line, whereas letting the fast train go first will only delay the local until the fast train has got clear.
This also applies to holding connections – the passengers already on the main line train are not in any way superior to those on the incoming connection off the branch line, and if they have to wait five minutes to avoid a delay of an hour to the connecting passengers then so be it.
@timbeau – actually, you are wrong – our studies in NSE days showed very clearly that the earning power of faster services was almost always far ahead of that of slow services on a fully allocated cost basis. (That, of course, was one of the reasons why InterCity showed a profit). Slower services attracted a lot of costs hidden to the casual observer, such as the actual cost of stopping, the complexity of the assets involved, and so on. And in commercial terms, people will pay for speed, maybe less so than now but still a significant amount. At its most cynical, putting 10% on the journey time of an already slow service will have a markedly less revenue impact than putting 10% on a fast.
@TIMBEAU – That’s what I really meant by importance. Regardless of any ‘hierachy’ of trains, its usually better for overall network performance to let the fast trains through and get out of the way. The same applies to long heavy freights which are far down the traditional pecking order but can be notoriously disruptive once stopped, then lumbering slowly back up to linespeed, blocking junctions for ages etc. Also, as PoP mentioned above, people on long distance peak commuter expresses from distant leafy neighbourhoods are often the kind of well-heeled, influential and vocal people who the rail industry probably doesn’t want to rub up the wrong way!
@Mark the Sevenoaks-CHX slows are fast from Hither Green at the moment, its the Orpington-CST that stop at Lewisham, St Johns and New Cross, and add 10 minutes onto the time. Hither Green gets 10 tph to LBG off peak, so could lose the Orpington-CHX, though they are the fastest services.
The Motor depot south of Hither Green looks like a good place for a portal with access from the SEML and Sidcup lines, nice railway land. You could put a terminus for the Overground/DLR/Bakerloo there, and an interchange station without any of the constraints of the Lewisham site, with a small industrial estate that could be converted to flats. The depot and warehouse either side of the line south of there could be converted to flats in walking distance, for more development revenue.
In a way you are all correct about fast and slow trains as it depends entirely in what context you are talking about.
Fast trains generally are better at being profitable – Former South West Trains longer distance trains were very close to making a profit – even when taking into account all track maintenance costs and not just a nominal cost from Network Rail. But, as a complete counter-argument, London Underground just about makes an operating profit, and that certainly isn’t long-distance and that also takes into account all track maintenance costs.
Then again, you can talk about priorities. There is a world of difference between priority when drawing up the timetable – when fast trains tend to get a priority – and day-to-day operating where the decision is often made to give priority to the local. Fast trains tend to have long turnround times and controllers can afford to delay them for a few minutes on their inward journey without risking messing up the entire service pattern. And, as mentioned, once you have a freight train in your territory, often the best thing to do is get rid of it as soon as possible.
It’s clear that the sensible use of any expenditure requires an increase in throughput for a given line or station. On the ‘you can’t get a quart into a pint pot’ principle, isn’t the way to improve timings by removing conflicting moves, ie. by making south of the Thames match the north by having a single target terminus for a given pair of metals? The time to bite that bullet is, surely, approaching rapidly if the overall pax throughput is to be increased.
(aside: Why am I being moderated please?)
[Most comments are immediately visible to all. A small minority are held awaiting approval from a moderator. This can happen because of particular words or phrases (including apparently innocuous ones) which trigger the site software. For obvious reasons we do not publicise exactly what those words are. In the case of Alison’s recent message, I cannot see exactly why it happened – the phrase “one of those things” fits best.
Regardless of all that, we would prefer that anyone querying or challenging moderation issues should do so by email to “[email protected]”, rather than in a comment. Malcolm]
I actually would have the Bakerloo extension beyond Lewisham take over the Bexleyheath line, since this line hits the conflict at Lewisham, the Hayes line can avoid Lewisham entirely if need be long term.
Re platforms being shifted to the inside of
platformsthe curved track to help reduce the platform / train gap. All very well until someone introduces trains with 3 sets of doors per side…The Bakerloo is a 7 car (16m) Tube Line. The mainline trains are between 8 and 12 car (20m) trains during the rush hour.
Any transfer of one of the lines out of Lewisham to the Bakerloo Line would have a serious effect on capacity.
Thought I’d left a comment about ATO earlier but my computer must have glitched on posting grr!
The gist was twofold
In response to a previous post, I’m absolutely of the opinion the Bakerloo will end up going somewhere beyond Lewisham, not least because it represents an opportunity for NR to dispose of a suburban route, and to simplify a complex problem.
Secondly, all these big suggestions of massive civils works. Would some sort of ATO/ETCS/CBTC installation overlay focussed on pinch points allow better meshing and throughput for a lesser price?
SFD: True. But of course the very idea of trains being specified and introduced without proper consultation with those who are going to be saddled with running them is quite out of the question. Err, wait a minute….
The Bakerloo to Hayes idea (“Haykerloo”) has been widely discussed on this site and elsewhere. This is not really the time or place to go over that ground again. (No reflection on the mentions just recently made – brief mentions are OK, but we don’t want a groundhoggy repetition).
@SFDD
“platforms being shifted to the inside of platforms”?
It seems one of those platforms was meant to be something else.
Please have another go.
[ changed to ‘the curved track’ which was clearly the sentiment intended to be conveyed PoP]
Ben,
Secondly, all these big suggestions of massive civils works. Would some sort of ATO/ETCS/CBTC installation overlay focussed on pinch points allow better meshing and throughput for a lesser price?
At last. A suggestion I can believe in. This, obvious to me, suggestion tends to get overlooked by those who love to dream up new viaducts, embankments, tunnels etc. It is the way Network Rail thinks and, whilst I am very happy to criticise them, it does seem the sensible next option if you are going to change any infrastructure. What is more, you could probably do it in a far shorter timeframe – still many years away mind you.
Network Rail seem to have an informal standard list of preferences in the event of needing more capacity on existing routes. It seems to be: carriages with more capacity (so not their problem), more trains if the existing infrastructure will take it (buying more trains is not their problem but they may need to increase the power supply), longer trains, improving signalling capacity and (desperate last resort) actually building more civil engineering infrastructure.
@sad fat dad
“platforms being shifted to the inside of platforms the curved track to help reduce the platform / train gap. All very well until someone introduces trains with 3 sets of doors per side…”
I read on the District Dave forum that the 345s (which do have three doors per side) can have the middle doors isolated at sharply concave platforms (the country end of Paddington High Level for example)
@Mikey C
“The Bakerloo is a 7 car (16m) Tube Line. The mainline trains are between 8 and 12 car (20m) trains during the rush hour. Any transfer of one of the lines out of Lewisham to the Bakerloo Line would have a serious effect on capacity”
The Bakerloo is a 20tph Tube Line. The Bexleyheath and Hayes lines are 6-8 tph main lines. A transfer of one of those lines to the Bakerloo Line would indeed be a serious effect on capacity…………..
12cars x 20m x 8tph = 1920metres/hr
7cars x 16m x 20tph = 2240 metres/hr
An improvement of about 16%
Re M @ 2211
DfT keep promising to do better next time and give NR more involvement especially in checking and given the future disaster that will happen on Greater Anglia with the new stock* the greater involvement of NR in the SW tender and the future SE tender should be much better.
* Fourfold
1. Stadler Intercity Norwich / Stansted units with 1 set of doors per car (centre of car) – dwell time and stepping distance issues. Dwell times at Tottenham Hale (and similar) are likely to derail the whole timetable running to time.
2. Bi-mode untis too heavy to use higher line speeds for lighter units (aka Sprinter differentials)
3. Bombardier EMUs with nice large vestibules to help reduce dwell times but installing flip down seats that make the vestibules worse / as bad than the existing units to game seat numbers in the bid.
4. Proposing an unviable depot location then abandoning after spending £16m and 2+ years on it…
Re Ben / PoP,
[for probably the 10th repetition on LR – just change the number of months till completion 😉 ]
Conveniently the signalling assets in the area* are getting renewed in the next 14months as part of the Thameslink Programme allowing the closure of the London Bridge signal box and transfer to Three Bridges, hence advanced traffic management and ATO additions should be far easier.
* From “New Cross-ish” east to Woolwich Arsenal / Eltham / Mottingham and South to Chiselhurst Tunnels / Bromley North / Hayes
ngh 09:41,
These are, presumably, the same bi-mode vehicles that the Secretary of State and his underling, Jo Johnson, tell us are a wonderful thing and obviate the need for future electrification because they can do just as good a job as a fully electrified railway.
If Network Rail told the DfT and their masters of these problems with bi-mode, which I am sure they do, do you think the DfT will listen?
timbeau: Isolating the centre doors would not help at conVEX platforms, such as the (hypothetical) Lewisham ones to which SFD was referring. But more generally, isolating any doors is a sticking-plaster kind of arrangement which should never be contemplated when planning expensive new infrastructure work. It also generally wrecks dwell times.
PoP
For more on bi-modes, of course, people are recommended to read Cap’n Deltic ( Roger Ford) pieces in “Modern Railways”
[ Where, recently, it became apparent that a new bi-mode was inferior to steam traction in 1938 (!) – yes, really. ]
ngh 09:54,
Yes, I was aware of that but you keep telling me how immature the Train Management Software (TMS) is and that really needs to be part of this. Also I strongly suspect priority for ATO etc will be elsewhere, notably the East London line, and probably a better case could be made for extending from London Bridge (Thameslink) and on the fast lines from New Cross Gate to Norwood Junction where you already have most of the trains suitably fitted.
So you would realistically need new trains, mature TMS software and a business case to prioritise this over other schemes which why I suggested it is still years away – still much sooner than any infrastructure changes.
@NGH
Stadler units. Many Anglia trains (mark 3 stock, classes 153, 156) have single doors at each end, so a double door (in the middle) may not be too bad for dwell time. The carriages are also shorter (but more of them) so a 3-car 755 (three double doors, 60 metres) will replace a 2-car 156 (four single doors, 46 metres)
Nevertheless, is a single exit not a bad idea from a safety perspective?
Re PoP,
The informal NR heirarchy – As many franchises including SE* are maxed out on depot /stabling space then it rather does become partly NR’s problem even if they aren’t buying the land or building the depot, hence lots of focus on this in the near future:
* {London servicing TOCs only for trains servicing London]
1. Maxed out and needing to build more in the next 5 years: SE, SWR, Anglia, EMT, GWR.
2. Maxed out TL, GN, Crossrail, LO, Chiltern, LM (might need some stabling mods for longer trains)
3. Small amount of headroom Southern / GatEx especially once SE sort themselves.
With that hierarchy there is plenty of room for improvement at SE (see ITT documents):
New Rolling stock with wider doors and more standing / movement space to reduce dwell times.
More stock to increase train lengths to maximum 12 cars on those routes.
@Malcolm
“Isolating the centre doors would not help at conVEX platforms, such as the (hypothetical) Lewisham ones to which SFD was referring.”
As you say SFD was referring to “platforms being shifted to the inside of the curved track “, which would be a convex platform, so the centre doors are not an issue. At convex platforms you could isolate the end doors if centre doors were available.
Doubtless in the days of slam door stock, with 10 doors per carriage, seasoned commuters would choose compartments which would end up with the smallest gap at their regular station. You also see the same phenomenon at Bank (Central Line), with passengers favouring the end or middle doors depending on whether the train is eastbound or westbound.
Re Timbeau,
There are 2 separate issues (I sort of conflated the 2 for brevity and seem to have knack of causing confusion when I do that!).
1) rural platforms with lots of curvature that are OK with end door or 1/3 + 2/3rd doors but not centre doors
2) replacing 1/3 + 2/3rd doors units e.g. 379s on Stansted express with one door units at stations with dwell time issues (Tottenham Hale). Ditto Stader Norwich units at Stratford where mk3 are already problematic.
Abellio need some cheap EMUs as they couldn’t make a winning bid work financially with 100% Bombardier Aventra EMUs and Stadler was able to oblige, 2 fewer doors per car helps bring the cost down as do longer units with fewer cabs. Users many feel a bit let down by small things such as Stadlers having more sharp edges (e.g. damaging bags when placed under seats) than existing Uk suppliers (B/H/S)
I guess the weight problem with the Stadlers is related to having all the traction equipment concentrated in the central power car rather than being distributed under each vehicle as in a traditional DMU concept.
A way to address stepping distance problems might be to fit movable gap filler steps, preferably to the rolling stock, but also possible on the platforms themselves. I recall NY subway equipped a particular curved platform with the infrastructure version.
It certainly makes sense to gradually extend ETCS/ATO further out from the Thameslink core to the approach lines on both Sussex and Kent. The Sussex line to Croydon looks the more compelling case first and it fits well with a similar conversion of the ELR core.
Mark: These gap filler devices have been discussed fairly recently somewhere on LR I think. One issue raised about them is that they need to be super reliable, as all sorts of nasty things happen if even one of them goes slightly wrong – including (but not limited to) blocking the line for an extended period. Experience of extending steps under the door of minibuses suggests that such super-reliability may be hard to achieve.
Re PoP @ 1008,
I think we were both typing at the same time and agreeing as well (see my 1015 comment).
There are far better cases for ATO /ETCS installation near by as we all know but I wasn’t mentioning them!
There are far more productive ways increase capacity through Lewisham without it (more stock and fewer conflicting moves). so you do those first.
If the entire SER metro area gets new stock then it will be ETCS/ATO compatible and make later installation far easier.
So post 2022 and the probable new stock introduction then it is far easier to justify but not until all the other work has been done as part of other programmes.
Stadler trains do have gap fillers. They have extensive experience of same. I saw my first ones in the Netherlands in 2014.
NR are working on what the right speeds are on branch lines. The basis for the “sprinter differentials” doesn’t bear modern scrutiny. So they are working on what the right speeds are for “branch lines”, given the various improvements (CWR etc) that have been made since sprinters were introduced.
Stadler bi-modes have mass concentrations over the end bogies where all the electrical equipment is concentrated, and over the two articulated bogies where the diesel generator pod is located.
The 12 car sets have four motor bogies, so there will be four mass concentrations. There needs to be quite a lot of mass on the four motor bogies. Just 8 motored axles on a 236m long EMU is pretty unusual and with a peak power of 5.2MW at the wheel and 0.9m/s^2 acceleration up to 40km/h (from Stadler data sheet), some pretty good adhesion will be necessary!
@Maidstone Jotter
I was lead to believe that Maidstone West services were to be extended all the way to London via Abbey in 2022, possibly restoring the semi fast stopping pattern, not sure if this would mean that Abbey Wood, Woolwich Arsenal and Charlton would gain an extra 2tph, bringing these stations up to 10tph or if this would replace an existing 2tph on the line.
The latter option seems unlikely, however I’m sure those in Maidstone would be happy with an extra service to London in addition to a Crossrail, DLR and Jubilee line connection at those stations.
@Malcolm it is interesting that the new passenger trains in Florida (Brightline) use high level platforms as we do but to give sufficient clearance to the Florida East Coast freight trains a significant gap has been left between the coach body and the platform edge. In order to make these trains fully accessible they are reliant on extendible steel fillers fitted on each coach door to provide the necessary ingress/egress. They are 3 foot wide to take account of wheel chair widths. However it does mean the service depends on these fillers to automatically extend each time the train stops to provide safe passage as the gap they cover is considerable sufficiently big enough to swallow an adult.
Incidentally I do know of an incident some years ago where an adult woman passed out as she exited a North London line train at Willesden Junction ( high level). She came to lying on the track with the train immediately above her. She had fallen vertically through the platform gap. Fortunately others witnessed her fall and got the guard to stop the train from proceeding. She had cuts and bruises and was somewhat shocked but otherwise okay. I do wonder what would have happened if no guard had been present.
@Malcolm – Yes super high reliability is a must. I think gap fillers are best fitted to the rolling stock. Eurotunnel shuttle trains have them on their loading vehicles, also the recent Siemens supplied Brightline passenger equipment in Florida, USA, where the new high platforms are set back to clear wider freight vehicles passing. HS2 is planning to equip its entire initial Phase 1 fleet with gap fillers. These trains will all be conventional network compatible which means a narrow body to pass standard UK platforms. To reach the platforms on the new line itself, gap fillers will deploy at each door. The new platforms, specified to match the vehicle floor height for Japanese-style level boarding, will be set back sufficiently to allow standard UIC profile stock to pass. Further train orders at Phase 2 and beyond, as the dedicated network expands, may have wider bodies and thus may not require the gap fillers.
Video illustrating the Brightline implementation:
https://youtu.be/V-eNFxkNWHM?t=3m33s
I’m surprised, given the cries from Hastings for a faster service to CHX, there has not been similar calls for Far-Eastern Kent to revive the pre-2009 fast services to CHX. Surely for the West End, fast Waterloo East to Tonbridge to Ashford services will be just as fast and cheaper than HS1?
With on-board gap fillers, a simple traction interlock could be arranged, part of the door actuation and proving subsystem, to prevent movement unless fully retracted. A failure at a single door might be dealt with by manual movement and isolation, just like the door mechanisms. On a platform edge, the infrastructure version might be interlocked with signalling. A route cleared in or out of the platform could prove the fillers retracted and locked in place.
Gap Fillers
Deutsche Bahn have these on some trains.
They consist of a motored cylinder, with a flat-step attached along the axis. When running, they are rotated so that the “step” is flat against the coach, & when the train stops, they rotate through 90° providing a space-filler.
Having only a single motor & one moving part & robust construction, means good reliability
Mark Townend 19:51. What you describe is more or less what would be provided.
Greg Tingey 20:01. This is a system that has often been applied to tramcars where the steps are driven by bevel gears from the bi-fold doors. It is not how the Stadler gap fillers work which are strong steps fitted to something like a filing cabinets sliders. The link shows a platform gap filler that is used in France, but was developed for use on London Underground. It was demonstrated at this week’s InfraRail. It demonstrates the principle, but is somewhat bigger than would normally be seen on a train. http://www.bigorre-ingenierie.com/en/products/gap-filler/
Stadlers on Stansted Expresses and Cambridge Fasts at 1 (large) door per carriage may cause notable timing problems for the intended East Anglia franchise services, because the dwell time at Tottenham Hale could extend from 1 min (current peak Network Rail allowance) to 1½-2 minutes. So 4 x SSD and 2 x CBG fast = 3-6 mins extra, which risks losing 1-2 train slots per hour on WAML during peak times with a 3 minute minimum interval between paths on this two-track railway. Who authorised these trains to be ordered?
@MC – The fourth track through the area might be needed rather sooner than previously envisaged!
Platform edge gap fillers like that shown in 130’s post may have a problem if people are standing on them at the moment they are retracted, they would be scraped off and end up under the train.
Milton Clevedon – the Stadlers will only be on the Stansteds on the WAML (as well as 2/3rds of the Norwich services on the GEML).
Nevertheless, the dwells will be interesting at Tottenham Hale and (particularly) Harlow in the peak.
@Timbeau – but if you viewed the whole video, you will have observed that they don’t retract if somebody is standing on them and stop if somebody decides to tread on them whilst retracting.
@TIMBEAU – The video on the manufacturers site claimed the system incorporates person detection that should prevent scrape off. There is also obstacle detection and automatic adjustment to the gap so it might be able to cope with variable width rolling stock.
If the gap fillers on the CAF EMUs in Auckland are anything to go by, they do increase dwell times. They can’t start extending until the train has stopped, have to be fully extended before the doors open, can’t start retracting until the doors have closed, and have to be fully retracted before the train starts. It’s all a bit of a process.
By the way, in my comment about 8 motor axles being pretty unusual……there is precedent……the 4REP plus two 4TC sets which later transmitted into two class 442 sets. However these had MUCH less power. We are right off the topic I know, but the 3 car Stadler bi-mode units when operating on electric power will be pretty much as powerful as a 12 car REP/TC was.
For ” transmitted”, I meant “transmogrified”. My spell checker didn’t agree and automatically changed it.
Timbeau……the gap fillers have sensors. They don’t retract automatically. They can be programmed to retract slowly if several warnings to a person standing on them are ignored, but don’t have to. I witnessed this at the exhibition and it is shown on the web site’s video.
Addled brain this morning. I should’ve said “The gap fillers don’t retract automatically if someone is standing on them.
A very boring video….the action takes place at around 40sec of a 44sec video, but shows how fast gap fillers can be. The train doors remained closed throughout because no one was using them. https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aqvm6eCNRO9r7T7Zov5pq9GkeDsM
(Video filmed at Utrecht station in 2014)
Re 130,
Not unusual if you are in 3rd rail land:
442!
Which have rather porky motor cars at 54+ tonnes (and adhesion issues which should be solve-able by the imminent IGBT upgrade and 3 phase motors)
Then the Swiss have gone for the steriods with 117% extra power, (yes extra!) 2.4MW for 10car 442 vs 5,2MW for the Stadler.
Mind you 12 less IGBT drives per ~240m unit than an Aventra (or 16 less vs Desiro City) so another saving, of several hundred K there…
PS forgot to hit “post” on the above post last night and 130 in the interim had realised it wasn’t unusual.
In older times with than much power and so comparatively little weight and DC motors and traction control or single phase AC motors and tap changer control there would have been plenty of rail burn leaving every station they stopped at due to wheel slide, but with modern IGBT drives and individual axle control and relatively light overall weight they just won’t get be able to get near full power…
(the motors effectively follow the controller set speed very closely as the available current falls off very quickly if the rotor speed is very much outside a narrow envelope either side of the usual 7-8% difference to the field coil speed set by the drive system.)
Theoretical PIS announcements “Will everybody please move to the end cars when leaving the station as we need to increase the weight to get more grip”
One wonders what the track access charges will be.
As someone who uses a variety of Stadler stock equipped with gap fillers on a near daily basis, I think it’s a question of exactly how they are implemented.
They are so ubiquitous where I am, that I seriously doubt reliability is a serious concern. Although I have no evidence of this, I would presume that in the unlikely event one did fail, it would do so in a ‘safe’ way that would avoid it ending up out of gauge, or at the very least that this would be detected and be easily corrected manually.
They can take into account the width of the gap when extending, and if platform height is lower than the stock floor height, then they can also act as a step.
A key concept in terms of reducing dwell times is that of ‘door ordering’. The idea is that you can push a button to request the adjacent door be opened at any point after departing the previous station. This door will then open automatically upon arrival at the next station. On older stock, they will sometimes begin opening when the train is at about walking pace, so that they will have opened completely by the time the train is at a stand. On trains it is even so designed, that if you push the button next to the door on the opposite side to that of the platform (quite a common occurrence given you don’t always know which side the platform will be on) the door on the correct side will open instead. The same system is used on buses and trams throughout the city.
On newer stock, the train does come to a complete halt before the gap filler extends and the doors open, but I would estimate the total effect of this on dwell time to be at most 5s per stop. Doors are programmed to close automatically when there is nobody entering them (gap fillers remain extended), so that by the time the train is dispatched in most cases the doors are already closed (on the majority of coaches at least) and all that remains is for the gap fillers to be retracted..
This system removes the guesswork in the UK of ‘Have the door buttons been activated yet?’ which increases dwell times (albeit probably almost negligibly in the peaks).
In summary, I am of the view that gap fillers as fitted on Stadler stock will have negligible effect on dwell time from a mechanical perspective, but are likely to speed up boarding considerably due to the gap being significantly smaller (a large gap in itself will have a significant effect on dwell times).
This combined with the fast acceleration being promised by the new trains, means I doubt Greater Anglia should have any major concerns in this regard.
This “door ordering” concept seems such an easy win. All other expedients to reduce dwell time seem to have significant cost or risk, but this one just looks like a no-brainer. Why hasn’t it been done in the UK ages since?
Why not just open all the doors automatically? Then no-one has to wait.
ChrisMitch: Because it lets the heat (or cold) out.
@ Malcolm – “Why hasn’t it been done in the UK ages since?” – It has – on the Croydon trams.
Graham: Good point. However, I now think I meant “Why hasn’t it become universal in the UK ages since?”
@Malcolm
Perhaps because such a feature requires some (safety critical) software to be implemented, that has not been done for trains in the UK market (for cost reasons perhaps?).
I should note, that the bombardier units here do the same thing – this is not unique to Stadler.
I’d be interested to hear whether the 700s or 345s can do this – and if so whether this is being used or not.
A key feature of the system is doors closing automatically if there is nothing obstructing them (checked using light beams and/or pressure sensors as far as I can tell), which might make regulators a bit shaky (although there is something similar on the S stock in that respect).
dm1,
On class 700, in the core section, as you approach a station an automated announcement is made to the effect that the door will open automatically at the next station. And it does, very promptly.
@ Ngh – so we have another DfT inspired / authorised “disaster” on our hands with Greater Anglia to add to Thameslink, IEP, East Coast franchise, Midland Main line. Whoopy doo. The last thing the WAML needs is to lose 1 or 2 train paths in the peak. The service is already poor within Greater London and you can guarantee what will be sacrificed if they need to cope with trains with excessive dwell times – NOT fast / semi-fast services to Cambridge / Stansted / Bishops Stortford. I am now getting quite concerned that the railway is being pushed into a whole load of unacceptable compromises due to appalling decision making / lack of complete / lack of strategic oversight.
As a small but related aside I was astonished to find T Hale station resembling the AM peak but at 2100 on Monday evening. The down escalator was full of passengers and the ticket hall and entrance (currently somewhat constrained by building works) were full to overflowing. It was almost impossible to exit through the gateline. This was, I assume, the flow of people from a Stansted Express train (given many passengers had luggage with them). I’ve never seen so many people crushed into that ticket hall. If we are talking about hundreds of people getting off trains in the evening then the dwell time impacts of the Stadler trains may not be solely in the peaks!!
Oh and a belated thank you for your detailed and interesting responses re the problems with the Southern / Thameslink / S Eastern timetabling issues. More grist to the “incompetence” mill. Sadly.
Interesting that trains on the Greenwich line have been running to and from Charing Cross all weekend. (Not supposed to be possible after the London Bridge project.)
CDPL
Not so.
A careful examination of this interactive map should show how it is entirely possible, provided you have fewer services than normal, so that conflicting moves are less common.
CDPL,
More a case of not practical in normal service conditions. Under the original Thameslink Programme plans the option would have been completely severed. But the TOC made a strong case for keeping this possible for situations like this Bank Holiday weekend.
You can watch the trains on the relevant diagram on Open Train times (until the end of Monday evening) and see that it probably wouldn’t normally be feasible to do this on a daily basis – certainly not in future with 16tph Thameslink trains.
Greg Tingey,
Snap (almost).
Gillingham: “Can someone confirm this fact, was speaking to a fellow Medway commuter and he told me that GTR will review the Rainham service next year and may omit certain stations, Deptford & Slade Green are the stations chosen for the chop”
That wouldn’t leave a great service for Deptford. Both stations have lots of housebuilding – Slade Green’s not so much though and Bexley’s recently adopted “growth strategy” will take longer to implement. 8000+ is what they want:
http://www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk/2017/04/11/belvedere-to-see-outlet-shopping-village-and-8000-homes-just-one-idea-in-bexleys-new-growth-strategy/
@PoP: They were offering a scenic tour over the weekend! Orpington to Charing Cross via Grove Park, Sidcup, Erith, Woolwich and Greenwich!
I wonder if they had to reprogram the displays?
Southern Heights,
I am virtually certain the displays pick this information up automatically from the special timetable and no manual intervention is required. I have never known them to be unable to cope with weird workings.
It seems to me that this is a scenario where manual intervening on the displays would be desirable. A Passenger from Orpington for Charing Cross surely would have found it quicker to go via Victoria + tube – was this a permitted route?
In fact even those from as far up the line as Grove park may have found it quicker to double back via Pettswood / Orpington?
“Trumpton” on a train display means that the train described will get you to Trumpton. It is not guaranteed to mean that, if you want Trumpton this train is the quickest way to get there.
Although often it is, of course, and final destinations of overtaken trains are often suppressed, which is helpful. But not always suppressed, as I know to my cost.
It is nevertheless confusing to infrequent travellers that want to go, for example, from Waterloo to Guildford or Basingstoke, that the train saying “GUILDFORD” or “BASINGSTOKE” in big friendly letters is very much not the right train to get.
We also get the situation that, without route numbers or any other indication of stopping pattern, “up” trains all display the same destination, with no indication of whether it’s an all stations or a non-stop, or something in between.
Best of all is the announcements, at Waterloo, of the “xx:xx arrival from Waterloo”. At least departures boards only show the furthest point of the loop as the destination.
I was about to use via Strawberry hill loop trains as an example of where the full destination list is not typically displayed but I imagine this is what Timbeau refers to.
Actually – Cannon Street to Cannon Street via the various Dartford lines is another good example.
@DJL
Strawberry Hill was the one I had in mind, although curiously the trains in each direction are advertised to the station beyond the point where they pass each other, so the quickest way to Strawberry Hill is to get a “Teddington” (via Richmond) train, and the quickest way to Teddington is to get a “Strawberry Hill” (via Kingston) train. (Departures are within a few minutes of each other, which also means that although Strawberry Hill gets four trains an hour to and from Waterloo, there are gaps of over 25 minutes)
An odd one used to be (may still be) Aylesbury via High Wycombe trains, which displayed “Little Kimble” on the destination blind – despite the fact that no-one at Marylebone was likely to see the front destination blind, and the next station on the route is beyond the point where the two routes to Aylesbury diverge.
DJL
Even more extreme are the StPancras”International”-loopers.
Do Southern trains from Gatwick still say “Clapham Junction” on the departure board there instead of “Victoria”, to make tourists think that you have to use Gatwick Express?
Reverting to the subject in the heading ….
The new tt’s start on the 20/21st, yet (According to National Rail) several are not yet published or certain.
Visitors to the NR web-site are urged to look at the relevant sites and <A HREF= check for updates (!)
FYI the tables not yet in the public domain are, & I quote:
tables 024, 025, 039, 052, 116A, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192.
I think this might reasonably described as:”Cutting it a bit fine” don’t you think?
Re DJL @ 1307,
It would have been quicker for passengers to take the Rail Replacement Buses from Grove Park inwards than to take the train on the scenic tour of SE London!
@The Murky Depths
I can understand how this will be a dogs dinner for Deptford, I think they’re reviewing Slade Green and I think Plumstead because the effect Crossrail may have, passengers from Slade Green (and like wise Belvedere and Erith) may end up changing at Abbey Wood for Crossrail, situation is probably similar for Plumstead, they may end up heading to Woolwich Crossrail, so if the numbers drop then Thameslink may omit those stations, personally I wouldn’t omit Deptford, but I would omit Maze Hill and Westcombe Park.
Personally I’m not happy that they’ve made the Medway service a stopping service, I think it’s unreasonable that we are expected to put up with an all stations, just because 6tph is “is such a bad service for zone 3/4” (quoted from other forums) Gillingham is too far out for such a service, and I’m skeptical on how well GTR will perform, I know I sound like a “selfish out of towner” (as one person on a forum once described myself and another Medway traveller) but I am genuinely worried about how this will effect my commute, have I really got to wait until 2022/23 until the Maidstone – Woolwich – London service begins (I assume this will be semi fast) to get a decent commute???
Gillingham Stan The Man
Given that Network Rail have announced it will take 4 years to catch up on a backlog of maintenance it may not be 2019.
I’m not sure how long Network Rail years are now. I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Re Gillingham Stan
The problem is that they are struggling to get passengers on/off trains further in than Z4 hence the loadings need to be evened out a bit and secondly with dwell times increasing mixed stopping patterns on 2 track railways don’t really work.
@Gillingham STM : surely Gillingham passengers from London use the Kent coast services that call at Gillingham rather than the all-stations-to-Gillingham ones (see comments above on Trumpton, Basingstoke etc)
Most of the Kent Coasts via Bromley South will also be mostly stoppers (to Bromley South the fast to Victoria) most will transfer to there so they don’t have to pay premium for HS1 (why is HS1 still with South Eastern?? I thought it would have split off on its own by now), I think the Ramsgates will be fast to Bromley or will call only at Meopham and Longfield, but the Dovers will be all stops And the Sheerness trains too (I think this will actually call at Denmark Hill, not sure)
I work in the Twickenham area and occasionally in the Docklands so the North Kent is more useful to me and others for this reason, as I can either change at Waterloo or at Woolwich (soon to be Abbey Wood 🙂 ) for the Docklands, i doubt loading will much improve if you add another stopping service on the line especially east of Dartford.
Re Gillingham Stan,
“(why is HS1 still with South Eastern?? I thought it would have split off on its own by now)”
Because DfT still need to hide the subsidy to HS1 some how 🙂
And till the early 2040s…
Given what was written a week ago about no drivers signed for the route is Rainham Thameslink still going to start at all on 20 May?
@J: Some must be signed now. I saw a 700 approaching Rochester the Friday after Easter.
The Rainham trains are now on the journey planner.
A few early morning trains will be introduced over a 3 week period.
See https://www.railplan2020.com/timetables/timetables-introduction for the introduction phasing. The peak Rainham services aren’t impacted but there are some big gaps in the first week for other services (e.g. nothing leaving London for Arlesey and Sandy between 18:16 and 19:16)
On the subject of Lewisham, just putting the out there, how about trains on the Sidcup side terminate at Lewisham’s platforms 1 and 2? The Sidcup, Orpington and Hayes lines can still get to London via the by pass line and this leaves Lewisham as a through station for The Woolwich and Bexleyheath lines and perhaps the platform 1 and 2 side could be used for slightly longer distance services to Gravesend, Medway or Sevenoaks and beyond, similar to services at Stratford to Bishops Stortford, sorry if this sounds barmy Andy please say so if it is 🙂
Re: J & Southern Heights
They’ve thinned the timetable out to one train an hour each direction I believe now as a starting point.
At the last count there were 5 GTR Gillingham drivers trained though GTR are currently poaching SET drivers (Orpington & Gillingham depots) and also getting the remaining SET drivers to pilot TL services where possible. Amusingly, the usual three month notice period has been quashed with drivers finishing at SET this Friday and starting at GTR on Monday. It nearly sounds like a TUPE situation – but instead with a quick ‘five question job interview’ over the phone!
The advice from consultants over two years ago regarding an urgent necessity to get driver trainers was largely ignored and it seems the upcoming issues were only (internally) publicised 3 weeks ago leading to this last ditch attempt to get people ready now. Managers are being drafted in from various locations to try and plug the service anyway they can; some will be conducting Horsham drivers through the TL core; others acting as driver instructors for the still waiting Gillingham drivers on the Dartford to Rainham section of route. From what I understand, this service is the real concern as it’s effectively being split in to 3 sections due to drivers not signing enough of the route (a driver Luton to Blackfriars; Orpington drivers/pilots Blackfriars to Dartford; managers/trainees/the odd driver Dartford to Rainham). God only knows how bad the disruption will be if someone isn’t where they should be – this is the whole reason that GTR decided to go with the one route per depot philosophy.
One last note, the 700’s you’ve seen running down to Rainham the last couple of weeks are the route learning trains. For the last couple of weeks they have been running two a day due to the numbers still needing to learn the route. As far as I am aware, no 700’s have stopped at any stations along the route though i’d like to think some night testing has taken place so hopefully we’ll avoid the issues we’ve had on other routes when they first came in.
Batten down the hatches. I’ll see you on this route next week. If I sign it by then…
Re TL driver,
Apparently the usual poor platform lighting for the DOO camera issues have popped up….
Not always poor lighting.
The yellow lamps can cause problems with the cab monitors.
Regarding previous comments about possible different fares – or revenue splits – between Abbey Wood and Farringdon, depending on the route taken, I notice that the TL in-car diagrams newly on display show a thin purple thread marked Elizabeth that cuts a straight path between Farringdon, Moorgate (as the map also shows the GN suburbans) and Abbey Wood. It’s almost as if GTR are encouraging people to take the short cut. Perhaps TFL will return the favour by – ahem – putting the core on the ‘Tube’ map.
I expect more information will emerge on this soon, but the Maidstone services are not launching this December (see link). Does this mean Thameslink 24tph is not going to happen, or is there reason (e.g. ATO?) to think it will soon become possible to run these services without presenting “a real risk of delay and disruption”?
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/thameslink-service-launch-delayed-again-212574/
This service depends on stabling sidings opening at the former Chart Leacon depot. I don’t know how work here is progressing, I haven’t passed in a train for several months.
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/govia-go-via-greenwich/#comment-401555
I guess Thameslink are adding more trains an hour through the core in December, but somehow I’ve always expected the Maidstone East service to be the last one to start. Strange we have negative news “We’re not getting to 24tph yet”, rather than “Here’s yet more services, more to come!”.
Has there yet been a day when all the services between Brighton and Cambridge have run the full length of their route without being cancelled, or turned short at Three Bridges / Finsbury Park / Royston / wherever ? Even as I type this today’s copybook has already been blotted by the 0637 from Brighton being cancelled throughout.
Any update on the Sevenoaks service going through to Welwyn ?
Chris Wedge and SE5TRAVELLER, unless there are any last minute (in railway terms) there are no extra Thameslink services in the December according to the data in the Open Data Feeds.
Some of the peak Sevenoaks to Blackfriars services get to wait longer at Bromley South and so get longer end to end journey times.
There are extra trains through the Thameslink core on Saturdays from December, with through services between Peterborough and Horsham.
The Thameslink service to Cambridge North is being withdrawn, this having been a temporary measure to help out Greater Anglia while it was introducing its new train fleet.
And just to continue the theme from my post on Friday: this morning we have the 0506 from Brighton to Cambridge terminated at Letchworth, with the corresponding 0754 return cancelled between Cambridge and Letchworth; the 0538 from Brighton cancelled throughout; and the 0854 from Cambridge cancelled between Cambridge and Finsbury Park. And it isn’t yet half-past eight. So never mind “extra” TL services, it would be nice if the ones we should have now just reliably existed.
LiS – the services to Cambridge North were always part of the long term Thameslink plan, not just a temporary assistance to GA. They were included in both the DfT spec for the franchise and the consultation (pre May 2018) on the long term Thameslink timetable – albeit linked to the semi-fast Brighton service rather than the stopping service.
ML
Advice from Thameslink to commuter associations and other stakeholders says: “The existing one per hour Thameslink service between Cambridge and Cambridge North will be withdrawn to release a train path for the introduction of a new direct Greater Anglia service between Cambridge North and London Liverpool Street. This Thameslink service was a temporary measure while Greater Anglia worked to introduce its new train fleets.”
Chart Leacon (former mainly Bombardier owned site in Ashford):
The site is problematic in that ownership of the land got split into many parcels and there is one holdout owner of several parcels who is refusing to sell and NR have had to go down the compulsory purchase route which is taking considerable time. (The land owners didn’t get the message from the council that nothing apart from rail usage was going to get planning permission).
Above 20tph in the core requires ATO and there are plenty of practical issues for GTR to address outside of the core / ATO to run additional services reliably as well as the Kings Cross throat rebuild and resignal early next year.
Then there are other issues dragging on e.g. 717 introduction being 18months and counting late that need addressing.
LiS – I accept that is what they are now saying – but they are re-writing history.