Thameslink part of Crossrail?

[Lucky Lukas]

Crossrail seems to be going ahead so I guess we're going to have to live with it. But if this is the start of a new network why isn't Thameslink integrated into Crossrail? It seems to be the same thing - a long range cross-town commuter line.

I know that in Paris for example, if Crossrail were RER 1, Thameslink would be RER 2. If it is a matter of line custodianship, again, in Paris, some RER lines are RATP operated (TfL couterpart) and some are SNCF (National Rail's counterpart, although nationalised).

It is all getting horribly complicated in London. I miss the times when there was just the tube.

Now it's:

Underground, Overground
Crossrail (ain't free)
Chelney don't know yet what it wants to be
Tramlink and Thameslink are different machines
One's light, one's heavy, DLR's in between.

Remember Network Rail, Remember Network Rail...

[streetquark]

Thameslink was there first, perhaps the Crossrail branding was to signify a new approach and none of the negative Thameslink baggage (would CR have got off the ground?). Of course branding of different liners/routes has generally become split in recent decades so that might be playing a part in this. Thameslink is also a bit of a testing ground for Crossrail, both as first original cross-London mainline suburban route and in its upgraded 2000 form.

I hope my reply gets kept when this gets merged with the Crossrail thread.

[ill tonkso]

The thing with Thameslink is it covers a longer route. 140 miles compared to Crossrails 73 (although still long). Crossrail is for London, Thameslink is for the South East.

[Bob]

Will this tube frequency service through central London even appear on the tube map?

Lucky Lukas raises a good point. I don't think TfL have decided themselves yet though. I don't think Londoners really know how they will view the network either. I have an opinion, but that will probably change too. It will have to gradually evolve.

[cle]

The problem is that they are quite different.

Crossrail will be an express tube within London, and not interface very much or overlap with other existing NR services. Many West branch services will still run, and there may be some Shenfield shuttles, but that's it.

Whereas Thameslink is painfully slow from Kentish Town to London Bridge, and as such doesn't have a reputation as a Tube alternative within London, even though the corridor through City Thameslink and Blackfriars is underserved in a North/South axis. Also it has a lot more interaction with other NR lines, has some peak idiosyncracies such as Tulse Hill Brightons and Redhill stops, wildly differing stopping patterns, and after TL2000 the route map will be even more complicated and less self-contained.

But it would be neat and tidy to have them branded similarly - and to have a Farringdon hub. Maybe they could rip off the RER and have Crossrail A with A1 Heathrow, A2 Reading etc... and Crossrail B with B1 Bedford, B2 Luton etc...

[streetquark]

The station format in particular is quite different but both Thameslink after Thameslink 2000 and Crossrail are being evolved to something closer. Crossrail's aim is Reading and possibly Staines to Shenfield and Gravesend, Thameslink has too many branches and long routes but a kind of Thameslink 2 will exist in the form of the southern services terminating at Blackfriars, including 8 car trains. Thameslink 2000 through services will be 24 tph 12-car trains through the centre - the same as Crossrail - and delays should be greatly reduced from the past and present situation once all the works between say West Hampstead/York Way and Southwark/London Bridge are complete. Nor will there be too much in the way of closer stations on the through route (especially with Kentish Town and possibly Cricklewood and/or Hendon missed out on the through service). The Thameslink trains will be a test for Crossrail and Crossrail 2 is slated to branch in the north not just to Dalston etc but onto the GN route, presumably sharing the same tracks as Thameslink (each being 12 tph).

I wonder what other changes might occur in each case further down the line. Will we ever see more than one or two crossrail's or other through routes? Will any of the Blackfriars terminating services be extended elsewhere?

[Lucky Lukas]

Originally Posted by ill tonkso

The thing with Thameslink is it covers a longer route. 140 miles compared to Crossrails 73 (although still long). Crossrail is for London, Thameslink is for the South East.

Maidenhead and Shenfield are not in London. I'm betting the service will eventually reach Slough, and perhaps even Southend at some stage. Once the tunnel's in place it's actually trivial to extend services. I would say Crossrail is for the Southeast also. I think that's what distinguishes it from a LU line.

[ill tonkso]

Maidenhead and Shenfield however are in the London Commuter Belt/Metro. Brighton is it's own entity.

[streetquark]

Reading is the stated aim for Crossrail though obviously not straight away (part of the gradual rolling out of the network I guess). The GN branch of Thameslink will likely be a Crossrail 2 branch too. The 2 networks are distinct but compatible and have similarities. Both are RER's (Paris's is not uniform either) and that means regional commuter networks (Brighton and Northampton are commutes).

Crossrail will undoubtedly expand outwards and possibly with another branch or two (DC line?), Thameslink 2000 by contrast could do with shedding some branches (even assuming Blackfriars terminators are not strictly Thameslink and allowing for Crossrail 2 along the GN route).

[kerouac1848]

I don't think it matters that crossrail and thameslink differ in terms of length, branches, etc. The main function of both is to provide cross city journeys and offer a tube level of frequency in the centre; that is their core purpose and what separates them from both the tube and wider NR network. If you look at the RER network there are similar differences; Line A is very much like Crossrail (around 70 miles, east/west, and not too many branches). Line C, however, is almost 200km in length, has about 8 or 9 different branches and 84 stations - similar to thameslink. Line D is also long, going outside the very large Paris Metro area.


The fact that both will have the same rolling stock (i believe so anyway) also means it makes sense to brand the 2 lines as part of a single (and hopefully growing) network/identity. London's transport system is getting more and more complicated, and having two lines that, despite many differences, are very similar will make it even more so (we will end up with about 7 types of transport modes on the map!).

[streetquark]

Originally Posted by kerouac1848

we will end up with about 7 types of transport modes on the map!

If the DLR, LOROL and Tramlink can be incorporated into LU an d Thameslink into Crossrail then we'd have just NR, LU and Crossrail.

[mr_jrt]

Originally Posted by streetquark

The station format in particular is quite different but both Thameslink after Thameslink 2000 and Crossrail are being evolved to something closer. Crossrail's aim is Reading and possibly Staines to Shenfield and Gravesend, Thameslink has too many branches and long routes but a kind of Thameslink 2 will exist in the form of the southern services terminating at Blackfriars, including 8 car trains. Thameslink 2000 through services will be 24 tph 12-car trains through the centre - the same as Crossrail - and delays should be greatly reduced from the past and present situation once all the works between say West Hampstead/York Way and Southwark/London Bridge are complete. Nor will there be too much in the way of closer stations on the through route (especially with Kentish Town and possibly Cricklewood and/or Hendon missed out on the through service). The Thameslink trains will be a test for Crossrail and Crossrail 2 is slated to branch in the north not just to Dalston etc but onto the GN route, presumably sharing the same tracks as Thameslink (each being 12 tph).

I wonder what other changes might occur in each case further down the line. Will we ever see more than one or two crossrail's or other through routes? Will any of the Blackfriars terminating services be extended elsewhere?

Personally, I think the tunnel between the GN and St. Pancras was a temporary sop to get the services running as Thameslink. The original plan was a new tunnel south from the GN lines to Bermondsey. The central route will have no capacity to expand beyond 24tph, and KX's new design was designed in a way so as to prevent more platforms (IMHO, they should have extended the suburban shed to 12 car length and built more 8 car platforms out towards St. P.)...but anyway.

Once the need to increase services happens they will have no option but to send the trains somewhere else. I think having the GN Thameslink services merged with the North Kent lines by tunnelling between Finsbury Park and New Cross would give a balanced service of Peterborough/Welwyn/Cambridge to Gillingham/Dartford/Sevenoaks via Moorgate-Bank and Cannon St.-London Bridge (i.e. Crossrail-style double stations). That new route will then be able to handle 24tph of it's own, which also then enables more Bedford-Brighton services to run through on the Thameslink core, or perhaps giving the option of extending up to Northampton/Kettering or even Leicester. Basically, trying to balance out the number of branches on each side a bit better.

[Lucky Lukas]

Originally Posted by kerouac1848

I don't think it matters that crossrail and thameslink differ in terms of length, branches, etc. The main function of both is to provide cross city journeys and offer a tube level of frequency in the centre; that is their core purpose and what separates them from both the tube and wider NR network. If you look at the RER network there are similar differences; Line A is very much like Crossrail (around 70 miles, east/west, and not too many branches). Line C, however, is almost 200km in length, has about 8 or 9 different branches and 84 stations - similar to thameslink. Line D is also long, going outside the very large Paris Metro area.


The fact that both will have the same rolling stock (i believe so anyway) also means it makes sense to brand the 2 lines as part of a single (and hopefully growing) network/identity. London's transport system is getting more and more complicated, and having two lines that, despite many differences, are very similar will make it even more so (we will end up with about 7 types of transport modes on the map!).

You're dead right. And this reflects the fact that RERs C and D are SNCF (read National Rail) projects, whereas A and B were RATP (TfP) initiatives.

It is getting way too complicated. Why have underground lines gone out of fashion? And by the way what is LOROL?

[streetquark]

Originally Posted by Lucky Lukas

You're dead right. And this reflects the fact that RERs C and D are SNCF (read National Rail) projects, whereas A and B were RATP (TfP) initiatives.

It is getting way too complicated. Why have underground lines gone out of fashion? And by the way what is LOROL?

The DLR is under TfL. It has seen a lot of expansion but it is relatively cheap and on budget. Of course the DLR is also connected to a construction group so any aspects of the projects are done in house. A lot of former rail route has been used and corridors are usually in need of redevelopment in areas that have often had lower land prices or under public ownership. These have all helped in costs. It has been preferred in East London due to it being relatively quick and cheap and the Olympics in that area. After the Stratford International extension (almost all existing route of course) nothing definite is planned expansion-wise. The Dagenham Dock extension is very much on the back burner, the Victoria extension tentative at the moment.

Thameslink 2000 and Crossrail are very big long-term projects - Thamesink 2000 is mainly an upgrade. In some respects Crossrail has taken the funds that might have gone to other projects but we're not talking about a number of Crossrail projects here, just the one. Crossrail 2 is very much a paper project (safeguarded of course) and there is no funding to go to it for the foreseeable future.

NR has not seen much in the way of changes or proposals beyond upgrade, branding and airport-related developments.

LOROL is London Overground, also shortened to LO. It is under TfL but part of NR in respect of rules etc. This is due to service constraints, low frequencies, high freight carriage and perhaps the non-radial nature of most of the network - in fact the orbital nature of the combined network is noticeable. As I have pointed out elsewhere I suspect the DC services have been included with a view to diverting them away from Euston station possibly in conjunction with Bakerloo extension (and maybe to become a Crossrail branch eventually but meantime likely to see some services diverted to Camden Road and along the WLL, i.e. all LOROL lines). The ELL is the only one to be transferred from LU but it was always a low frequency short platform stub of a line. LOROL is a network which is seeing upgrade and incorporation of existing routes except for the extension north of the East London Line which of course was proposed and approved as an LU project.

LU has also seen some airport expansion and there is of course the proposed PPP Northern Line Battersea extension, which is certainly more active than future DLR extensions. There is also a lot of interest in extending the Bakerloo south, but only once other projects are complete and funding available. Meanwhile, the Jubilee extension was the biggest since the Victoria line and no doubt the next biggest project after Crossrail will be an underground line.

Thameslink has had a lot of money spent on upgrade but nothing like the underground network upgrade which is far bigger, more costly, and long-term.

[stimarco]

Originally Posted by Lucky Lukas

Crossrail seems to be going ahead so I guess we're going to have to live with it.

British Rail wanted to build Crossrail decades ago, so it's about damned time it got built!

But if this is the start of a new network why isn't Thameslink integrated into Crossrail? It seems to be the same thing - a long range cross-town commuter line.

Crossrail's core infrastructure is entirely new build. Thameslink's core section through London was a recycling of an existing route—the Ludgate Hill-Snow Hill-Farringdon link. This route was built nearly a century ago. (There was also a big terminus station at Holborn Viaduct, but that disappeared in the '80s, along with Broad Street.) The most expensive change was dropping the Thamelink line into a tunnel, rather than having it on a viaduct before dropping down into the original tunnel before Farringdon.

The point is that the original Thameslink project deliberately involved very little new build. Only City Thameslink was created entirely from scratch. (It's roughly beneath the site of Ludgate Hill, though it's a lot longer.) The problem with this approach is clear today: the single-track chord linking London Bridge with Blackfriars; its short, 8-car trains and platforms, and the steep grades and sharp curves between Farringdon and St. Pancras Thameslink necessitating low line speeds. (Note too that the present Thameslink upgrade project was, for a long time, known as "Thameslink 2000"—2000 being the year it was supposed to have been completed!)

Crossrail is a wholly new slice of infrastructure. It doesn't recycle an existing tunnel or cross-London route. It's brand new, and will be built with modern running speeds in mind. Instead of umpteen inner-London stations, it'll have only a handful to keep journey speeds high. It's an express link, whereas Thameslink is essentially an SSL Underground line (the Metropolitan / Circle tracks alongside are almost contemporary) using mainline rolling stock.

Speaking for myself, I think retaining both "Crossrail" and "Thameslink" names is a good idea. For lines running primarily North-South, "Thameslink x" should be used. For those running broadly East-West, "Crossrail x" can be used. They should be part of the London Overground branding though, rather than National Rail. Their primary purpose is to serve local commuter flows.

I know that in Paris for example, if Crossrail were RER 1, Thameslink would be RER 2. If it is a matter of line custodianship, again, in Paris, some RER lines are RATP operated (TfL couterpart) and some are SNCF (National Rail's counterpart, although nationalised).

Paris is more compact than London, so it's easier to display all the options on a single map. London's infrastructure is horrifically overcomplicated now, so multiple maps are increasingly being used. LO and LU should be separate.

(LO is likely to see far more expansion than LU, IMHO. Crossrail 2 may run underground through central London, but you'd have to be insane to build it to the tiny tube gauge. The primary civil engineering cost today is the stations, not the size of the tunnel. And building yet another line which can't have air-con fitted is just plain stupid.)

It is all getting horribly complicated in London. I miss the times when there was just the tube.

It's never been "just the tube" though. The Tube branding didn't appear until the very early 1900s. Prior to that, it was just the sub-surface line network—Metropolitan, District, Circle, etc.—which was, at the time, still considered part of the national railway network. You could get a train from Southend all the way to Richmond via what is now the District Line. It wasn't until electrification that their links with the mainline railways were severed.

[Lucky Lukas]

Originally Posted by stimarco

Crossrail is a wholly new slice of infrastructure. It doesn't recycle an existing tunnel or cross-London route.

Only the tunnel portion is new. The surface sections mostly exist already.

Originally Posted by stimarco

Speaking for myself, I think retaining both "Crossrail" and "Thameslink" names is a good idea. For lines running primarily North-South, "Thameslink x" should be used. For those running broadly East-West, "Crossrail x" can be used. They should be part of the London Overground branding though, rather than National Rail. Their primary purpose is to serve local commuter flows.

I don't see how they can fit into LO branding, since such a chunk of XR is underground. It would just be illogical.

Originally Posted by stimarco

Paris is more compact than London, so it's easier to display all the options on a single map. London's infrastructure is horrifically overcomplicated now, so multiple maps are increasingly being used. LO and LU should be separate.

More compact, but with a denser network also. You need two maps two get around the Paris region, for sure.

Originally Posted by stimarco

(LO is likely to see far more expansion than LU, IMHO. Crossrail 2 may run underground through central London, but you'd have to be insane to build it to the tiny tube gauge. The primary civil engineering cost today is the stations, not the size of the tunnel. And building yet another line which can't have air-con fitted is just plain stupid.)

Absolutely, when I say Underground lines I'm not referring to the tunnel bore, I just mean subway lines, part of LU, which I HOPE will never be sized to the old tube guage in future...

[/QUOTE]

[streetquark]

I suspect tunnel extensions to existing tube-sized (i.e Yerkes) lines will get tube-size tunnels a bit larger like the Jub extension got.

Originally Posted by stimarco

Crossrail's core infrastructure is entirely new build. Thameslink's core section through London was a recycling of an existing route—the Ludgate Hill-Snow Hill-Farringdon link. This route was built nearly a century ago. (There was also a big terminus station at Holborn Viaduct, but that disappeared in the '80s, along with Broad Street.) The most expensive change was dropping the Thamelink line into a tunnel, rather than having it on a viaduct before dropping down into the original tunnel before Farringdon.

The point is that the original Thameslink project deliberately involved very little new build. Only City Thameslink was created entirely from scratch. (It's roughly beneath the site of Ludgate Hill, though it's a lot longer.) The problem with this approach is clear today: the single-track chord linking London Bridge with Blackfriars; its short, 8-car trains and platforms, and the steep grades and sharp curves between Farringdon and St. Pancras Thameslink necessitating low line speeds. (Note too that the present Thameslink upgrade project was, for a long time, known as "Thameslink 2000"—2000 being the year it was supposed to have been completed!)

Crossrail is a wholly new slice of infrastructure. It doesn't recycle an existing tunnel or cross-London route. It's brand new, and will be built with modern running speeds in mind. Instead of umpteen inner-London stations, it'll have only a handful to keep journey speeds high. It's an express link, whereas Thameslink is essentially an SSL Underground line (the Metropolitan / Circle tracks alongside are almost contemporary) using mainline rolling stock.

Now don't getr me wrong, I don't see them as the same but I think if you judge the 2 projects as they will be when Crossrail opens you will see how they could be branded under one network (Blackfriars terminators excepted).

I honestly believe there are a number of factors which have contributed to the separate naming that have nothing especially to do with the different aspects of the 2 lines (I concede the overground nature of the line so close to the centre of London i.e. Blackfriars may have some bearing though).

Thameslink is not really a useful name for the 2nd cross-town line and it got there first.

Crossrail has been the project-specific name for yonks so its stuck.

Crossrail is a good branding which has undoubtedly been kept for funding and recognition purposes.

Thameslink already had a bad name by the time it opened. It too had taken years to get going and was found out on opening as it had been done on the cheap (and with under-estimated forecasting typical of the time).

Because of this the slow nature of the service was not something that was planned but from early on it was decided to rectify this problem. Thameslink 2000 was started before the current Crossrail project and is slated to be completed before it opens. It will reduce the difference between the 2 by allowing for high frequency trains through the centre, but it won't be as fast and has close spacing between its 3 Crossrail-style stations (note the dual entrances at CityThameslink and Blackfriars). This upgrade will also sideline the 8-car services from south-central by terminating them at Blackfriars and similarly drop Kentish Town and 1-2 of the existing and new Midland stations between West Hampstead and Mill Hill Broadway. This will aid operational performance and make the through services more lie Crossrail.

Crossrail has provision for stations at City Airport, Limehouse, Silvertown (west) and Holborn, and there has long been talk of stations at different sites between Ealing Bdy and Paddington, plus Pudding Mill lane, so close stations won't be confined to Bond Street and TCR or the routes outside inner London and overall Crossrail will be more like Thameslink.

Naturally Thameslink was going to use the corridor on which the project idea was based, which had been closed to freight for over 50 years at the time, and more than a decade longer in the case of passenger trains. It was not new but it was totally rebuilt. By contrast there is no equivalent for Crossrail, unless one includes the original idea of running an east-west link via the northern circle, a background to Crossrail that's even more akin to Thameslink. The closest 2 east-west sub-surface lines were already used by a number of services so his was not going to happen unlike reusing a short derelict 4-track route.

In spite of the long new section in the centre, if anything its Thameslink that has stretched out to express running beyond the core. Even then, through the 2000 upgrade too, its been an evolution of dropping stations and sidelining services, improving the core section and extending to 12-car operation, and of course extending services by adding on branches (which I expect to get taken off, especially the whole Blackfriars terminating service) and heading further out. So in some ways its moved away from Crossrail as its evolved, in other respects brought closer to it.

In terms of evolution away from Crossrail, Crossrail will undoubtedly follow Thameslink with extended routes. Crossrail 2 will emphasise this by taking over the new GN branch in the north.

If it was about new projects getting new names then there would be no Crossrail 2 name (but who's to say it won't get rebranded if it ever gets built?). Equally it could be that Crossrail 2 indicates the network nature of the name and Thameslink will eventually get put under the Crossrail banner. I really don't think we can judge the nature of each route on names. I see them both as RER's as opposed to Light Rail, tram or metro (tube or sub-surface).

There are other similarities in reference to points you raised:

Not in the centre, but the Custom House-North Woolwich section is mostly reused and includes tunnel. The sections beyond the tunnel portals is along existing routes too.

Most if not all of the Thameslink through services will be the same 12-car trains as will later be seen on Crossrail, stopping only at the stations with long enough platforms, which will be almost all on the through services and all in the centre (there will probably be more stations along the outer reaches of Crossrail that can't take 12-car trains and won't be changed).

That Thameslink shares some route with the Met etc means nothing. It shares with NR too, as does Crossrail.