|
|
| Thameslink 2020 inches closer (353283) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (353283) | |
Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Thu Dec 14 09:27:37 2006 A legal notice has appeared at Bedford (England) station. The Secretary of State for Transport has given permission for the withdrawal of national rail services from the Farringdon-Barbican-Moorgate line (but not before 30 September 2008 at the earliest), and for the closure of Kings Cross Thameslink station (but not before the opening of St Pancras Midland Road station).Explanation - if and when Thameslink 2000 gets built, the extension of the Thameslink platforms at Farringdon will run across the site of the junction with the branch to Moorgate. (Underground trains, on their own separate tracks between Farringdon and Moorgate, are unaffected.) St Pancras Midland Road is the name that has been decided on for the new Thameslink station underneath St Pancras International (which the main line station upstairs is now called). Kings Cross Thameslink (originally Kings Cross station on the Metropolitan Widened Lines) is inadequate, bady sited, and incapable of being extended. |
|
|
| (353374) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Thu Dec 14 13:27:13 2006, in response to Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Fytton on Thu Dec 14 09:27:37 2006. What is going to happen to the tracks at Barbican & Moorgate? Are they just going to sit unused? |
|
|
| (353697) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Dec 15 05:25:40 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by JohnL on Thu Dec 14 13:27:13 2006. 'What is going to happen to the tracks at Barbican & Moorgate? Are they just going to sit unused?'I would imagine so, in the short term. LU has some sidings just east of Farringdon and could in principle take over the current Thameslink tracks for some more. Similarly, LU has some terminal platforms at Moorgate subsurface station which it doesn't use much except in emergencies; it could take over the Thameslink terminal platforms too, but it doesn't need them. All of this would need money for track rearrangements, and why spend it on facilities that you barely need? On a related point - the plans for extending Farringdon Thameslink platforms to twelve-car length envisage a new station entrance for Thameslink across the street from the existing LU station entrance. The street in between the two is scheduled to become a pedestrian piazza (appropriately named, in what is a historically Italian district of London!). When I was there recently I noticed that the building across the street from the station, where the new Thameslink entrance will be, actually matches the station architecturally, and was presumably built by the Metropolitan Railway Company at the same time as the station building. And the station still has 'Metropolitan Railway Farringdon and High Holborn Station' on it! |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (353700) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Fri Dec 15 05:50:05 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Fytton on Fri Dec 15 05:25:40 2006. I think that various people from time to time have suggested that the redundant track could be turned into some sort of cheapo Crossrail scheme, but in order to get anywhere, it would be necessary to dive down between Farringdon and Barbican, and between Barbican and Moorgate, so at the end of the day all that extra work would get you just one free station (Barbican).The problem is that Liverpool Street is a much more important destination than Moorgate, so extra eastbound trains turning round at Moorgate are not much use. Also, Liverpool Street is the problem, not Moorgate. Liverpool Street is a cramped station (no chance of squeezing in extra platforms above or below the current ones) leading to several flat junctions. Thats where the money should be spent, reorganising services and eliminating these. |
|
|
| (353702) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Dec 15 06:00:45 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Max Roberts on Fri Dec 15 05:50:05 2006. '..it would be necessary to dive down between Farringdon and Barbican, and between Barbican and Moorgate, so at the end of the day all that extra work would get you just one free station (Barbican).'Which is pointless! Crossrail is supposed to be an express route with a limited number of stations, all of them interchanges, so it doesn't need a Barbican stop anyway. Farringdon would be the major interchange between the two RER-style routes, the north-south Thameslink 2000 and the east-west Crossrail. Shame Farringdon isn't situated in an area where most people want to go..... 'Liverpool Street [Underground station] is a cramped station (no chance of squeezing in extra platforms above or below the current ones) leading to several flat junctions. That's where the money should be spent, reorganising services and eliminating these.' Agreed. That triangle of flat junctions between Liverpool Street, Aldgate east and Tower Hill is a major cause of delay and disruption throughout the LU subsurface lines. But we know that this isn't going to happen. What is going to happen - sooner or later - is the daft East London Line extension that **just misses** Liverpool Street (certainly), Thameslink 2000 (probably) and Crossrail (possibly). Nothing else is planned. |
|
|
| (353707) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Fri Dec 15 06:18:46 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Fytton on Fri Dec 15 06:00:45 2006. OK, here is something weird for Christmas.Run all eastbound trains Earls Court to Aldgate East, Whitechapel etc. on the north side of the Circle. Run all westbound trains from Aldgate East, Whitechapel etc. to Earls Court on the south side of the Circle. Run an anti-clockwise Circle Line service on the inner rail of the Circle Line. Now work out what to do with Met Main Line services and H&C services (you could just terminate them at Paddington and Baker Street) and all the flat junctions have gone, free of charge. |
|
|
| (353714) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Dec 15 06:40:38 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Max Roberts on Fri Dec 15 06:18:46 2006. 'Run all eastbound trains Earls Court to Aldgate East, Whitechapel etc. on the north side of the Circle.Run all westbound trains from Aldgate East, Whitechapel etc. to Earls Court on the south side of the Circle. Run an anti-clockwise Circle Line service on the inner rail of the Circle Line. Now work out what to do with Met Main Line services and H&C services' An entertaining fantasy. The sting is in the last line! The affluent Metropolitan Line commuters would object to losing their through trains to The City. The less-affluent Hammersmith & City Line passengers would be royally screwed, given the distance from the H&C platforms to the Circle/District and Bakerloo platforms at Paddington. Also, you would have to convert Tower Hill, Aldgate East, Liverpool Street, Gloucester Road and High St Ken stations to just one island platform each, Aldgate would become a one-way station (or maybe you'd just close it), and you'd need to do something fairly spectacular at Earls Court station too, to facilitate cross-platform transfers for those who no longer have a through train to where they want to go. |
|
|
| (353829) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Fri Dec 15 12:27:55 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Fytton on Fri Dec 15 06:40:38 2006. You wouldn't necessarily need cross platform transfers. After solving the Met/H&C problem, these could be tackled one by one. For all passengers, one journey is perfect, its the other which requires an interchange. Gloucester Road and Tower Hill would be easiest to convertOne interesting thing is that this scheme could cause some problems by unbalancing services. For example, two lines would offer a direct service from South Kensington to Hammersmith, but only one line would offer a direct service from Hammersmith to South Kensington. Also, someone travelling from the west to Oxford Circus would probably take the Bakerloo from Baker Street in the morning, but take the Victoria Line to Victoria in the evening. Another interesting thing is that the surface line interchanges need not be cross-platform as they will only be made in one direction. For example, at High Street Kensington, the only interchange would be from the North Circle trains to the Circle Line, so in theory it would be still be an easy interchange if it were two-level, as long as the lower level was the destination platform. |
|
|
| (354175) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Dec 16 10:37:39 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Max Roberts on Fri Dec 15 06:18:46 2006. Too right that's weird! Probably way too many trains out east too. Perhaps some could cross over at Bromley-by-Bow, magically grow pantos, and make a dash for Shoeburyness.Now work out what to do with Met Main Line services and H&C services (you could just terminate them at Paddington and Baker Street) and all the flat junctions have gone, free of charge. Ouch. Sounds like you just worked out where to send Crossfail out west. |
|
|
| (354179) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Dec 16 10:44:39 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Fytton on Fri Dec 15 06:00:45 2006. What is going to happen - sooner or later - is the daft East London Line extension that **just misses** Liverpool Street (certainly)This strikes me as a really really dumb project. What would be far better would be to run trams from Bank, stop at Liverpool St, then Shoreditch, take over the ELL to New X Gate, then run on street via New Cross and Deptford Bridge to Greenwich, then maybe become the Greenwich Waterfront Transit thingy if that can ever be justified. This would actually deal with the problems of the ridership really being far too low for proper tube trains and the silly branching at the southern end. If re-opening to Dalston Junction is actually worthwhile, that would give somewhere to send the DLR from Bank. An extension to Charing X (or even Hammersmith!) would need new platforms at Bank (or more likely Cannon St) anyway, so in that eventuality the Dalston Branch could then become a self-contained shuttle using the old platforms. Thameslink 2000 (probably) Very silly project. and Crossrail (possibly). Excruciatingly silly project. |
|
|
| (354183) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Dec 16 10:51:12 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Fytton on Fri Dec 15 05:25:40 2006. Similarly, LU has some terminal platforms at Moorgate subsurface station which it doesn't use much except in emergencies; it could take over the Thameslink terminal platforms too, but it doesn't need them. All of this would need money for track rearrangements, and why spend it on facilities that you barely need?Sounds like a wonderful way of creating a museum... |
|
|
| (354186) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Dec 16 10:53:06 2006, in response to Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Fytton on Thu Dec 14 09:27:37 2006. Now all they need to do is work out somewhere sensible to send those 12-car trains. |
|
|
| (354288) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Dec 16 15:08:25 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Rail Blue on Sat Dec 16 10:53:06 2006. Now all they need to do is work out somewhere sensible to send those 12-car trains.According to alwaystouchout.com: Under the Thameslink Programme there will be 8 service patterns - essentially "lines" on the Thameslink network. These are as follows. Bedford - London Bridge - Brighton (4tph) Bedford - London Bridge - Dartford (4tph) ... via Sidcup (2tph) ... via Bexley (2tph) Luton - Elephant & Castle - Sutton, Wimbledon (4tph) ... clockwise via Sutton then Wimbledon (2tph) ... anticlockwise via Wimbledon then Sutton (2tph) St Albans - Elephant & Castle - Sevenoaks (2tph) Peterborough - London Bridge - Horsham / East Grinstead (4tph) ... Horsham, inc Gatwick Airport (2tph) ... East Grinstead (2tph) King's Lynn - London Bridge - Sevenoaks - Ashford (2tph) Cambridge - London Bridge - Eastbourne / Littlehampton (2tph) ... Eastbourne (1tph) ... Littlehampton (1tph) Letchworth - London Bridge - Guildford (2tph) |
|
|
| (354294) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Dec 16 15:22:16 2006, in response to Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Fytton on Thu Dec 14 09:27:37 2006. extension of the Thameslink platforms at Farringdon will run across the site of the junction with the branch to Moorgate.Further explanation, due to Wikipedia: Farringdon station is limited to 8 cars, and therefore requires platform extensions in order to allow 12 car trains to serve the station. Extensions towards the north are not planned mainly due to the steep gradient (1 in 27) of the Thameslink line immediately north of Farringdon. Northward platform extensions therefore would not comply with safety standards, which leaves the alternative of re-aligning both the Thameslink and Circle/Hammersmith & City/Metropolitan LUL lines, given that the latter crosses over the former via a bridge. This has been deemed impractical due to the constrained space in the area. The platforms will therefore be extended southwards, physically severing the two-station branch to Moorgate. |
|
|
| (354379) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Dec 16 18:37:29 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Dec 16 15:08:25 2006. And does that strike you as even remotely sensible? |
|
|
| (354811) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Sun Dec 17 15:09:53 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Rail Blue on Sat Dec 16 18:37:29 2006. And does that strike you as even remotely sensible?I feel uneasy about the effect that it would have ... by encouraging even more long-distance commuting. There are doubts about running 24 tph reliably through the tunnel, given the large number of distant branches. The only way that I can see to reduce the large number of southern branches would be to provide Victoria and Thameslink only services on some routes, rather than Victoria, London Bridge and Thameslink (or Victoria, Charing Cross, Cannon Street and Thameslink). Given that all trains via London Bridge will stop at London Bridge, it doesn't much matter if they continue via the Thameslink tunnel or not; Thameslink passengers can change at London Bridge if necessary, provided that there is a reasonably frequent Thameslink service. I imagine that some of the longer branches, such as Littlehampton and Eastbourne, will run in the peak hours only. Only existing Blackfriars routes (Catford loop; Wimbledon & Sutton loop) are to go via the Elephant & Castle. |
|
|
| (355259) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Dec 18 07:13:39 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by David Fairthorne on Sun Dec 17 15:09:53 2006. Thameslink passengers can change at London Bridge if necessary, provided that there is a reasonably frequent Thameslink service.Or better still at East Croydon. Only existing Blackfriars routes (Catford loop; Wimbledon & Sutton loop) are to go via the Elephant & Castle. Which still makes rather poor use of the Chatham Lines. I see this as being a far more reliable selection of routes: 4tph Hertford North - Swanley via Herne Hill 2tph Stevenage via Hertford - Swanley via Herne Hill 6tph Welwyn Garden City - Orpington via Herne Hill 2tph St Albans - Guildford via London Bridge and West Croydon 2tph St Albans - East Grinstead via London Bridge 2tph St Albans - Uckfield via London Bridge 2tph Bedford Fast - Tonbridge via London Bridge and Redhill 2tph Bedford Fast - Horsham via London Bridge and Redhill 2tph Bedford Fast - Brighton via London Bridge and Redhill |
|
|
| (355283) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Dec 18 09:51:50 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Dec 16 15:08:25 2006. Assuming this is the weekday midday off-peak service, it represents a considerable increase in frequencies on some lines. As a Bedford resident, I shouldn't complain at doubling the frequency to 8 tph, but it does seem excessive. There will be 6 tph, presumably all-stations, southwards from St Albans (versus 4 now), in addition to the 8 tph, presumably semi-fast, from Bedford. The Peterborough offpeak service is doubled from 2 to 4 tph, but Cambridge, oddly, is reduced from 6 to 4 tph - there are currently 2 tph all-stations, 2 tph semi-fast, and two tph nonstop Kings Cross-Cambridge of which 1 tph goes on to Kings Lynn. Maybe the nonstops will still terminate at Kings Cross? The Letchworth service is presumably the one via Watton-at-Stone, doubled in frequency from 1 to 2 tph.South of the Thames, Thameslink trains to Brighton are unchanged at 4 tph, and presumably the 1 tph each to Eastbourne and Littlehampton replace existing workings from Victoria. The Horsham via Gatwick and East Grinstead services presumably replace existing ones from Victoria too. This begs the question of whether an enhanced service via London Bridge will mean a reduced service from Victoria - which might not be popular with people down the Brighton line. The St Albans-Sevenoaks 2 tph is the Catford Loop, replacing the service that currently ends at Blackfriars, at an unchanged frequency, and is thus uncontroversial. The Ashford service presumably replaces the existing Charing Cross-Ashford stopping service - again, would passengers be happy at being denied Charing Cross, the best-sited of all the London termini? And the Dartford ones would only be part of the service to Dartford - a set of routes that cry out for a proper Msubway-style service of frequent trains all going the same way, so that no-one need look at a timetable, and not a service that has several different London destinations all at 2 tph each. I don't know about the Guildford service - that's James Rail Blue's part of London, so I'll leave him to comment. |
|
|
| (355291) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Dec 18 10:26:01 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Max Roberts on Fri Dec 15 12:27:55 2006. 'For example, at High Street Kensington, the only interchange would be from the North Circle trains to the Circle Line, so in theory it would be still be an easy interchange if it were two-level, as long as the lower level was the destination platform.'I don't understand that argument. If we are trying to minimize building new tracks and switches, we are not talking about builsing platforms one above the other at High St Ken. We are talking about island platforms versus side platforms at one-level stations. Even if all the passengers transferring are tranferring the same way across the platform, you still need an island. Side platforms imply people having to go up or down to an overpass or underpass, and then back down or up again on the other side. |
|
|
| (355298) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer - couple of further oddments |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Dec 18 10:35:21 2006, in response to Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Fytton on Thu Dec 14 09:27:37 2006. 1. Fitting out of the St Pancras Midland Road 'box' - the new station to replace Kings Cross Thameslink, to make the currently bare box underneath St Pancras main line station into a station - has started, and is expected to finish not long after Eurostar services to St Pancras start next November. Although Midland Mainline (MML) already has a new booking office at St Pancras labelled 'Domestic Tickets', First Capital Connect will have a separate booking office there, heaven knows why.2. Local media in Bedford have started to talk about the extension of the platforms there to twelve cars. It seems we are also going to get separate MML platforms at Bedford both north- and south-bound - currently the southbound express track through Bedford has no platform, so MML trains scheduled to stop southbound have to move over on to one of the tracks used by terminating Thameslink trains. Adding platform 5 will keep the MML trains out of Thameslink's way - necessary if they really are going to have 8 tph terminatiing at Bedford, as David Fairthorne suggested. |
|
|
| (355402) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Dec 18 13:57:04 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Dec 18 07:13:39 2006. I see this as being a far more reliable selection of routes:4tph Hertford North - Swanley via Herne Hill 2tph Stevenage via Hertford - Swanley via Herne Hill 6tph Welwyn Garden City - Orpington via Herne Hill 2tph St Albans - Guildford via London Bridge and West Croydon 2tph St Albans - East Grinstead via London Bridge 2tph St Albans - Uckfield via London Bridge 2tph Bedford Fast - Tonbridge via London Bridge and Redhill 2tph Bedford Fast - Horsham via London Bridge and Redhill 2tph Bedford Fast - Brighton via London Bridge and Redhill Your service plan has the advantage of regularity, and I agree that it would probably be more reliable. North of London, there is an equal split between Kings Cross and St Pancras lines, with 12 tph each. St Pancras has an equal 6 tph split between St Albans slow and Bedford fast, and Kings Cross has an equal 6 tph split between Hertford and Welwyn. South of London, there is an equal split between Herne Hill and London Bridge, with 12 tph each. Via Herne Hill there is an equal 6 tph split between Swanley and Orpington, and via London Bridge there is an equal 6 tph split between Redhill routes and other routes. This plan looks good as a purely Thameslink plan. But one needs to consider also what becomes of the existing services (Thameslink and non-Thameslink), otherwise it's hard to tell who would be adversely affected. There are political implications. Presumably the Blackfriars to Sevenoaks via the Catford loop would be unaffected, and the Wimbledon-Sutton loop could be served from either Blackfriars terminus or London Bridge terminus. Neither of these needs 12-car trains. I think you are right to focus on the main line via New Cross Gate, because that fast route is under-utilized. There is no need for Thameslink service via New Cross, and it's better operationally to keep the South Eastern separate from Thameslink. Your 12 tph via Herne Hill to Swanley and Orpington seems excessive; on those lines there is more demand for Victoria than for Thameslink. However, a proper interchange with the underground at Elephant & Castle could make quite a difference. You have eliminated or reduced some of the longest routes, which should help reliability. Kings Lynn, Cambridge, Letchworth, Peterborough, Eastbourne, Littlehampton are all eliminated and Brighton is reduced. Welwyn and Hertford North currently have slow services to Moorgate (deep level); if you plan to replace these local services by Thameslink, you might want to reintroduce the Northern City line shuttle from Finsbury Park to Moorgate. One last point: the Uckfield branch would have to be electrified; traffic on that line is light, and a shuttle service might suffice, with a more frequent service to East Grinstead. This service pattern applies to the peak period. I suggest that each 6 tph peak service should have a 4 tph off-peak service. |
|
|
| (356494) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Dec 20 14:57:03 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Dec 18 07:13:39 2006. Here is a much simpler service plan for Thameslink 2000 (compared with the proposed offical service plan), intended to improve reliability by running fewer trains through the Thamslink tunnel and severely reducing the number of branches.1. All Thameslink services to run via London Bridge and the fast tracks via New Cross Gate and Norwood Junction. 2. All services via Elephant & Castle to terminate at Blackfriars (bay platforms re-sited on the west side of the station). 3. Proposed services via Finsbury Park to be completely eliminated. 4. Proposed services via Lewisham or Parks Bridge to be completely eliminated. 5. Total Thameslink tunnel service to be at most 16 tph (peak), to allow ample dwell times, and at least 8 tph (off-peak). 6. Have a regular (clock-face) off-peak timetable, but allow irregular services in the peak periods. Proposed off-peak services: -- Bedford (fast) to Brighton (via Quarry line) -- 4 tph; -- St Albans (slow) to Three Bridges (via Redhill) -- 4 tph. Proposed services in busiest single hour (all from Bedford, Luton or St Albans): -- Brighton (via Quarry line) -- at least 4 tph; -- Three Bridges or other (via Redhill) -- at least 4 tph; -- Eastbourne, Littlehampton and Bognor Regis (via Quarry line) -- at least 4 tph in total. In my opinion there is not sufficient demand to warrant running 24 tph (peak) through the core Thameslink tunnel, and the attempt to do so, especially with so many branches, would compromise reliability. I agree with John Armitt, retiring head of Network Rail, that Thameslink 2000 is a worthwhile project, and that users of little-used rural routes should take a taxi. See the Observer. |
|
|
| (357627) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer - couple of further oddments |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Dec 23 10:00:45 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer - couple of further oddments, posted by Fytton on Mon Dec 18 10:35:21 2006. 1. Fitting out of the St Pancras Midland Road 'box' - the new station to replace Kings Cross Thameslink, to make the currently bare box underneath St Pancras main line station into a station - has startedThanks - I thought I spied something was different when I went through it in the early hours of Friday morning (isn't Thameslink great?!). First Capital Connect will have a separate booking office there, heaven knows why. Well they had to spend their money from their afternoon peak con on something. |
|
|
| (357631) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Dec 23 10:24:41 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Fytton on Mon Dec 18 09:51:50 2006. This begs the question of whether an enhanced service via London Bridge will mean a reduced service from Victoria - which might not be popular with people down the Brighton line.Exactly. The layout through East Croydon is rather limited (actually, the phrase "bursting at the seams" springs to mind - it's why doing in the GEx is so popular among planning types). Anything on the Slow Lines can be paralleled by a West Croydon train, making full use of the Victoria Slow Lines and either pair of London Bridge Lines. The Fast Lines, however, merge (although thankfully, southbound effectively south of East Croydon station) - neither route can be used to full capacity: the London Bridge route can only be filled by diverting trains from the Slow Lines to the Fast Lines, whilst the Victoria route can take the half-hourly "fast" trains from Horsham/Dorking no problem. If these weren't enough in terms of constraints, the layout north of New Cross Gate effectively halves the capacity of the four tracks of the London Bridge Lines, meaning that it's far easier to send more trains to Victoria. If we wanted to base service patterns on leaving the levers well alone, we'd get something like: 12tph London Bridge Slow - West Croydon 12tph London Bridge Fast - Brighton Slow / East Grinstead / Caterham etc 12tph Victoria Slow - West Croydon 12tph Victoria Slow - Brighton Slow / East Grinstead / Caterham etc 24tph Victoria Fast - Brighton Fast Obviously this is silly on many levels, but it demonstrates quite how awful the layout is. I don't know about the Guildford service - that's James Rail Blue's part of London, so I'll leave him to comment. Presumably it's via Forest Hill. Whether it would run fast or slow between London Bridge and West Croydon will really determine how well it does - in general, this route would not attract many passengers from Sutton or beyond if it ran slow (and unsurprisingly, this route's tended to have abysmal service). Routeing the Bookham branch into London Bridge is a very good idea in itself - as Waterloo trains they're really rather wasted as it is the slowest of the three vaguely sensible routes to Guildford. It also solves the issue of running an Epsom - West Croydon service - terminating trains at West Croydon from the west is a silly idea as it blocks the Up Wallington Line; running them to Victoria just about ensures that the train empties out at West Croydon. Ultimately, if TL3k is to work, a lot of other things need to be done, particularly in South London. |
|
|
| (357661) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Dec 23 13:08:30 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Fytton on Mon Dec 18 09:51:50 2006. whether an enhanced service via London Bridge will mean a reduced service from VictoriaI don't think so. Presumably the 24 tph service plan applies only to the peak period, and probably only to the busiest single hour. Current peak services to and from London Bridge (main fast tracks) in the busiest hour (8AM/5PM): Brighton 3/4; (including also Thameslink services via Tulse Hill) Eastbourne 2/1; Littlehampton 1/1; Bognor via Horsham 1/1; Billingshurst 1/0; Three Bridges 1/0; Three Bridges and Reigate 0/1; (divides @Redhill) Reigate 1/0; East Grinstead 3/3; Uckfield 2/1; (diesel) Dorking 0/1; Guildford 0/1; Caterham 1/0; Tattenham Corner and Caterham 2/2; (divides @Purley) TOTAL 18/16. Current off-peak services to and from London Bridge (main fast tracks): Brighton 4; Caterham 2; Tattenham Corner 2; (extends to Charing Cross) Tunbridge Wells via Redhill 1; Horsham via Redhill 1; TOTAL 10. So in most cases the London Bridge services already do supplement the Victoria services, often in the peak hours only. Currently the only 12-car trains are those serving Eastbourne, Littlehampton, Bognor, and a few serving Brighton. |
|
|
| (357665) | |
Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Dec 23 13:40:16 2006, in response to Re: Thameslink 2020 inches closer, posted by Fytton on Mon Dec 18 09:51:50 2006. There will be 6 tph, presumably all-stations, southwards from St Albans (versus 4 now), in addition to the 8 tph, presumably semi-fast, from Bedford.For a total of 14 tph (peak) compared with the present 15 tph (peak) in the Bedford direction. But trains would be longer. The Peterborough offpeak service is doubled ... but Cambridge ... is reduced ... Maybe the nonstops will still terminate at Kings Cross? I have suggested an alternative (simpler) plan that would completely exclude the Kings Cross lines from Thameslink. South of the Thames ... This begs the question of whether an enhanced service via London Bridge will mean a reduced service from Victoria Probably not; these mostly correspond to existing peak-hour London Bridge services; see my other post. The Ashford service ... would passengers be happy at being denied Charing Cross? ... And the Dartford ones would only be part of the service to Dartford - a set of routes that cry out for a proper subway-style service of frequent trains all going the same way I agree, and in my opinion Thameslink should not serve the South Eastern area at all; this would also simplify operation. In my simplified plan, all Thameslink trains would run via London Bridge and the fast tracks to Croydon. I don't think there is a need for 24 tph through the Thameslink tunnel, and it would make for a more complicated and less robust service. But for political reasons the idea of serving as many places as possible may be more attractive. |
|
|
