Thameslink

[johnb78]

I agree it was dreadfully short sighted not to have used the construction of City Thameslink as a prime opportunity for building a four-track tunnel through central London.

I don't think that's fair. When Thameslink 1.0 was planned in the early 1980s, London was a declining city in population terms and had been for a generation. Public transport numbers were still falling too - hard to imagine now, but in those days the car was still seen by politicians and the public as the desirable solution for urban transport.

In that context, the fact that Thameslink 1 happened at all was something of a miracle - it only happened because the savings to British Rail from electrification and freed-up terminus space (and, some suggest, from selling St Pancras to developers) outweighed the costs.

For that to work, the costs had to be kept to an absolute minimum - which is why KX Thameslink and Farringdon were both barely changed from their Widened Lines days, bar a bit of repainting, and apart from the new ski jump to the north of Blackfriars nothing else about the layout there was changed. I could be wrong, but I have an idea City Thameslink was largely paid for by the developers of the block above (most of) it.

"Hi Mrs Thatcher, we've had an idea, you know that really cheap railway scheme you grudgingly approved, well we'd like a few billion quid to rebuild Blackfriars Bridge and build a new tunnel through the City. What do you mean, 'get out of here and never come back?"

[mackenziesoley]

Originally Posted by johnb78

I don't think that's fair. When Thameslink 1.0 was planned in the early 1980s, London was a declining city in population terms and had been for a generation. Public transport numbers were still falling too - hard to imagine now, but in those days the car was still seen by politicians and the public as the desirable solution for urban transport.

In that context, the fact that Thameslink 1 happened at all was something of a miracle - it only happened because the savings to British Rail from electrification and freed-up terminus space (and, some suggest, from selling St Pancras to developers) outweighed the costs.

For that to work, the costs had to be kept to an absolute minimum - which is why KX Thameslink and Farringdon were both barely changed from their Widened Lines days, bar a bit of repainting, and apart from the new ski jump to the north of Blackfriars nothing else about the layout there was changed. I could be wrong, but I have an idea City Thameslink was largely paid for by the developers of the block above (most of) it.

"Hi Mrs Thatcher, we've had an idea, you know that really cheap railway scheme you grudgingly approved, well we'd like a few billion quid to rebuild Blackfriars Bridge and build a new tunnel through the City. What do you mean, 'get out of here and never come back?"

Actually while in the TfL archives I found they were planning Thameslink in 1968 with clear refences to linking Holborn Viaduct/Blackfriars trains to Farringdon and St Pancras.

City was paid for by developers as it was discovered you couldn't shut one station without replacing it. Silly rule as its so close to Farringdon and Blackfriars you could have justified it.

Thameslink was a cheap and cheerful link that created through journeys and proved wildly popluar than anyone expected. Hell 12 car upgrade was being drawn up at opening.

[sotonsi]

It's a shame they didn't build extra terminating platforms at Blackfriars to remove the via Elephant services, and find some outlet for the St Albans trains (and build a link to the WCML slows) so they could have it all 12-car and all middle distance (as the short runs aren't where the success is). As part of Thameslink 2.0 of course.

[mackenziesoley]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

It's a shame they didn't build extra terminating platforms at Blackfriars to remove the via Elephant services, and find some outlet for the St Albans trains (and build a link to the WCML slows) so they could have it all 12-car and all middle distance (as the short runs aren't where the success is)

All 12 car isn't an option or are you proposing the closure of Kentish Town? It's a well used station especially in peak.

[sotonsi]

Err, I talk about finding some outlet for the St Albans trains - ie taking Kentish Town off the Thameslink network and putting it on some other route into London. Should have really said inlet.

Thameslink's success is in the middle distance services and not just as they have longer terminal dwell times, or the Airports on them. You will never get people travelling from one commuter suburb (eg Crystal Palace)/dormantory town (eg Radlett) to another, but you do get people travelling between large towns (Bedford, Luton, Stevenage, Cambridge, Peterborough, Brighton, Crawley, Horsham, Tunbridge Wells, Croydon, St Albans, Watford, Hemel, Milton Keynes, Eastbourne, Hastings, etc) across London - it additionally acts as a through route, not just better dispersal of London-bound traffic in the centre. While stations like Kentish Town are popular, Thameslink is only fairly grudgingly holding on to them - they've greatly expanded middle distance services but can't shake off the 8-car routes to WGC, Cat/Tat, St Albans and via Elephant without great expense.

Then again, I'd rather see the middle-distance trains in a shiny new tunnel between West Hampstead/Finsbury Park/Primrose Hill and the Bermondsey area (stops at Euston, TCR, Ludgate and London Bridge), with metro services (WGC, St Albans, plus Amersham/Chesham/Aylesbury in the north, Orpington via Peckham, Croydon via Sydenham, Gillingham via Sidcup and Hayes in the south), even if mostly only 8-car, use the original route.

[LondonerMiles]

What would of been really great is a station on the Central Line at Holborn Viaduct. Moreover, such a station could of provided a link with City Thameslink station, making Liverpool Street and the West End more accessible.

[NCT]

Originally Posted by LondonerMiles

What would of been really great is a station on the Central Line at Holborn Viaduct. Moreover, such a station could of provided a link with City Thameslink station, making Liverpool Street and the West End more accessible.

If that happened then St Paul's and Chancery Lane could both close. At the moment stations between Bank and Holborn are pretty close to each other. Back to planet earth though, I think a case could be made for City Thameslink and St Paul's to become a signed surface interchange?

[mr_jrt]

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

All 12 car isn't an option or are you proposing the closure of Kentish Town? It's a well used station especially in peak.

It's platforms can easily be rebuilt on the other side of the A400 to 12-car length. The junction that used to be there probably isn't coming back.

Originally Posted by sotonsi

Err, I talk about finding some outlet for the St Albans trains - ie taking Kentish Town off the Thameslink network and putting it on some other route into London. Should have really said inlet.

Thameslink's success is in the middle distance services and not just as they have longer terminal dwell times, or the Airports on them. You will never get people travelling from one commuter suburb (eg Crystal Palace)/dormantory town (eg Radlett) to another, but you do get people travelling between large towns (Bedford, Luton, Stevenage, Cambridge, Peterborough, Brighton, Crawley, Horsham, Tunbridge Wells, Croydon, St Albans, Watford, Hemel, Milton Keynes, Eastbourne, Hastings, etc) across London - it additionally acts as a through route, not just better dispersal of London-bound traffic in the centre. While stations like Kentish Town are popular, Thameslink is only fairly grudgingly holding on to them - they've greatly expanded middle distance services but can't shake off the 8-car routes to WGC, Cat/Tat, St Albans and via Elephant without great expense.

Then again, I'd rather see the middle-distance trains in a shiny new tunnel between West Hampstead/Finsbury Park/Primrose Hill and the Bermondsey area (stops at Euston, TCR, Ludgate and London Bridge), with metro services (WGC, St Albans, plus Amersham/Chesham/Aylesbury in the north, Orpington via Peckham, Croydon via Sydenham, Gillingham via Sidcup and Hayes in the south), even if mostly only 8-car, use the original route.

Personally, I'd like to see better use made of the freight lines, ideally extending them up to St Albans to segregate the metro service completely. Then you just have to make a decision at West Hampstead. I suspect a new tunnel for Thameslink would work out best, you can take a much shorter route (i.e. via Camden Town). You then have plenty of opportunities to open /reopen surface stations long the current route.

[Rational Plan]

Originally Posted by mr_jrt

It's platforms can easily be rebuilt on the other side of the A400 to 12-car length. The junction that used to be there probably isn't coming back.



Personally, I'd like to see better use made of the freight lines, ideally extending them up to St Albans to segregate the metro service completely. Then you just have to make a decision at West Hampstead. I suspect a new tunnel for Thameslink would work out best, you can take a much shorter route (i.e. via Camden Town). You then have plenty of opportunities to open /reopen surface stations long the current route.

The problem with a new express Thameslink is that a tunnel from Croydon to St Albans is almost 30 miles. Though you can reduce it to 20 odd miles if you can build it on the surface from Cricklewood.

Anyway as it's my favourite pastime here's a Map.

http://goo.gl/maps/12jD

An express Thameslink could be tunneled with stations at Croydon, London Bridge then a joint Mansion House/St Pauls station, Farringdon, Kings Cross, Camden Town and then West Hampstead.

Too add to the expense a spur from just South of St Albans would cut across to just South of Stevenage avoinding the viaduct and allowing all the Cambridge services to be diverted.

[mr_jrt]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan

The problem with a new express Thameslink is that a tunnel from Croydon to St Albans is almost 30 miles. Though you can reduce it to 20 odd miles if you can build it on the surface from Cricklewood.

Anyway as it's my favourite pastime here's a Map.

http://goo.gl/maps/12jD

An express Thameslink could be tunneled with stations at Croydon, London Bridge then a joint Mansion House/St Pauls station, Farringdon, Kings Cross, Camden Town and then West Hampstead.

Too add to the expense a spur from just South of St Albans would cut across to just South of Stevenage avoinding the viaduct and allowing all the Cambridge services to be diverted.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I didn't mean tunnelled all the way to Croydon, just West Hampstead-somewhere south on the way to E&C south of the junction of the lines to London Bridge, taking advantage of the woefully underused 4 track line that exists there. Even if you were to go via London Bridge, surfacing around Bermondsey and runnign south on the fast lines would be sufficient as Southern's "express" terminus is Victoria. The fast lines between East Croydon and London bridge are fine for use on Thameslink.

...in retrospect, even though the point is to just shortern the mileage and speed things up, going via Camden Town would be a great opportunity for a station there that would do wonders to relive the Northern Line interchange.

[Rational Plan]

Originally Posted by mr_jrt

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I didn't mean tunnelled all the way to Croydon, just West Hampstead-somewhere south on the way to E&C south of the junction of the lines to London Bridge, taking advantage of the woefully underused 4 track line that exists there. Even if you were to go via London Bridge, surfacing around Bermondsey and runnign south on the fast lines would be sufficient as Southern's "express" terminus is Victoria. The fast lines between East Croydon and London bridge are fine for use on Thameslink.

...in retrospect, even though the point is to just shortern the mileage and speed things up, going via Camden Town would be a great opportunity for a station there that would do wonders to relive the Northern Line interchange.

Is there much spare capacity south of Loughborough junction? Also, Croydon area is mentioned as a major constraint as well, with a solution being a tunnel from there to London bridge. As for Camden, it's practically on the way and it's almost part of the West End these days and so to have direct access to a major national rail route could only help with it's access isssues.

[-james-]

I got this for the first time at the weekend for a long time and it was very good. Much nicer than the tube on a hot day.

I don't see them going via Camden as I changed at Kings Cross and it was an easy change for the Northern line for Camden.

[makita09]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan

Also, Croydon area is mentioned as a major constraint as well, with a solution being a tunnel from there to London bridge.

I thought the tunnel was to go to Victoria, not the LB branch?

[Rational Plan]

Originally Posted by makita09

I thought the tunnel was to go to Victoria, not the LB branch?

I think its all a bit vague at the moment.

[makita09]

OK. Yeah I thought going to Victoria would be better, if it goes in a straightish line it can approach from the direction the Medway route comes from, which means a spur could easily be added to access the West London Line too, for added decadence.

[Bob]

Purley to Loughborugh Junction is my favoured tunnel being the shortest and taking people to central London. Then using the underused tracks to a few more platforms at Blackfriars. Alternatively stay in tunnel to Faringdon, then Kings Cross and out the other side would be better, but twice the cost.

Any service on the Brighton Main Line could use this, or even services on the proposed Brighton Main Line 2 via Uckfield.

[-james-]

I think this may have been suggested before, but for a Thameslink 2.

I like the idea of running fast trains between East Croydon and New Cross Gate stopping through the Overgorund stations to Highbury & Islington then join up with the line from Moorgate/Kings Cross at Finsbury park. They would probably go further North and South but am not sure where to.

[mackenziesoley]

Passengers views sought on new rail franchise for london and the south
Publisher: Department for Transport
Published date: 31 May 2012
Type: Press release
Mode/topic: Rail, Rail passenger franchises
Passengers across London, the South East, Sussex and the South Coast are being asked for their views to help shape a major new franchise for train services across their area, Rail Minister Theresa Villiers announced today.

The franchise is expected to cover most of the existing First Capital Connect franchise, including the Thameslink line which is undergoing a £6 billion upgrade. Services currently run by Southern will be added to the new combined franchise from 2015. This would see a single train operator to take responsibility for all rail services from Brighton to King’s Lynn and Southampton to Ashford with London at the heart, creating the largest franchise in the UK rail market.

The consultation launched today gives local communities across the areas covered by the new franchise a chance to say what train services they would like to see run by the winning operator. It also asks the views of potential bidders on how they will improve the experience of passengers.

Theresa Villiers said:

“This new franchise will be a key part of public transport in London and the South of England. Before we set the terms of the franchise and choose who will operate it, we want to hear a wide range of views on the services passengers want.

“We are also seeking views on how to maximise the benefits of the Thameslink upgrade and how they should be shared between different communities along the line.

“This consultation outlines a number of standards we expect any new operator to deliver as a matter of course, including improvements to stations, better ticket-buying facilities and passenger information and good levels of punctuality. But we also want passengers, and anyone else with an interest in improving the railways, to tell us about other ways in which they think services could be better.”

The combined franchise is due to start in September 2013 and run for a minimum of seven years. The consultation commences on 31 May 2012 and closes on 23 August 2012.

Related documents
Consultation on the combined Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise, 31 May 2012
Notes to Editors
1. The combined Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise (known as ‘the combined franchise&rsquo would bring together the services currently operated by two franchisees: First Capital Connect (FCC), in 2013 and from July 2015 Southern (including Gatwick Express). However, final decisions have yet to be made on whether all Great Northern services (currently run by FCC) will be included in the new franchise since some may be transferred to the next InterCity East Coast franchise. The combined franchise will also include a number of services now delivered by Southeastern, to be added in 2014 and 2018.

2. The combined franchise would be responsible for delivering rail services across Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Greater London, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Kent, Norfolk, Surrey and Sussex. This would make it the biggest franchise that has ever been let. When all the services have been incorporated, it would have the largest income, most trains and most staff of any franchise in the UK rail market.

3. The consultation exercise will help inform what we include in the Invitation to Tender (ITT) which is scheduled to be released in October 2012. The ITT will:

require bidders to set out how they will successfully deliver the challenges in this franchise and integrate services to improve the overall service offered to passengers; and
set out a framework of incentives to allow bidders to develop and enhance services, where appropriate, but also strikes the right balance between commercial freedom for the operator and ensuring that interests of passengers, taxpayers and the economy are suitably protected.
4. We expect bidders to develop an appropriate vision for the franchise. Bidders will need to take into account value for money, affordability and the deliverability of their plans.

5. A copy of the consultation documents is available on the DfT website:

Consultation on the combined Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise, 31 May 2012

http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-rel...ess-20120531b/

Documents

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultatio...thameslink.pdf

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultatio...thameslink.doc

Some selective quoting by myself including Thameslink peak services to Dartford, re-routing all Southern services through the Core in 2018 via Herne Hill not London Bridge, 'only' 16 tph to London Bridge, handover of Southeastern/FCC joint services and the possibility of future service patterns coming from public ideas......

The rail industry's work on this suggests that the current pattern of four trains an hour from Brighton that serve both London Bridge and the Thameslink core will need to be replaced by two trains per hour to London Bridge (low level station) and two trains to the Thameslink core. There will be insufficient rolling stock and insufficient track capacity for all four trains (two from the Thameslink core and the two from London Bridge) to reach Brighton, so two trains per hour will have to turn back at Gatwick Airport or Three Bridges.

However, achievement of this density of service on the Thameslink core route is an extremely demanding challenge and the decision has been taken that the service will only operate reliably if Automatic Train Operation (ATO)6 technology is deployed between St Pancras International low level and London Blackfriars. Development of ATO cannot begin until the new Thameslink trains are available, so it will not be possible to introduce the 24 trains per hour service until December 2018 at the earliest. Therefore, the build-up to the 24 trains per hour full service will be achieved progressively during 2018. There are likely to be incremental changes to the timetable during 2018 to achieve this.

The services that are currently jointly operated between FCC and Southeastern will continue to be jointed operated until they transfer to the combined franchise in their entirety from 1 April 2014.

We have yet to confirm the exact scope of services that we will transfer from Southeastern in 2018 and we are seeking respondents' views as part of this consultation. Current thinking is that in addition to Thameslink core services serving Sevenoaks, these will be expanded to include Maidstone East. It is also possible that in peak hours this may include some services from Dartford and Orpington.

One particular conclusion has emerged from this work: if services between Kent and the Thameslink core route run via London Bridge it becomes physically impossible, within the envisaged infrastructure available at that time, for the present level of service to continue to run into and out of London Cannon Street. In view of the high demand for Cannon Street services, we believe it may be best for services between Kent and the Thameslink core to run only via Elephant & Castle. We are seeking respondents' views on this and the destinations in Kent that it would be appropriate for Thameslink core services to operate to and from.

The BML timetable pattern will be dictated by the timings of trains as they enter and leave the Thameslink core. We intend to specify the numbers of trains that run on the BML and each of its feeder routes to and from London, but to leave bidders to determine the best pattern of service, and calling patterns, south of Gatwick.

In order to ensure that a sensible pattern of services can be achieved for stations south of Gatwick both to and from Victoria, it may be necessary to make greater use of the practice of operating the non-stop Victoria-Gatwick services (Gatwick Express) as through trains to and from Brighton. This may be best achieved by restoring the practice of detaching (southbound) and attaching (northbound) a portion of the train so that airport passengers can have more time to alight from the train (southbound) and to join (northbound).

The current FCC franchise includes all suburban services on the Great Northern route. This route serves destinations such as Peterborough, Cambridge, King's Lynn, Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City and Hertford into and out of London Kings Cross and London Moorgate. From 2018, up to eight trains per hour from the Great Northern route will run via the Thameslink core route. Work is currently underway to determine the optimal destinations for these trains. Whilst we do not have proposals as yet, we are considering whether or not it might be appropriate that services that are not serving the Thameslink core route should transfer to the new Intercity East Coast franchise.

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.

What this does is reveal that the entire Thameslink programme is still fluid in terms of final output.

[Damarr]

Interesting reading, thanks for posting it.

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

...re-routing all Southern services through the Core in 2018 via Herne Hill not London Bridge

Are you sure they'd go via HH? The doc refers to sending SE services via E&C, so presumably the Catford Loop (via LJ) is also a possibility.

[mackenziesoley]

Originally Posted by Damarr

Interesting reading, thanks for posting it.

Are you sure they'd go via HH? The doc refers to sending SE services via E&C, so presumably the Catford Loop (via LJ) is also a possibility.

It's a typo and should say Southeastern via E&C. Sorry was bumping along the SWML at the time and missed my mistake.

One particular conclusion has emerged from this work: if services between Kent and the Thameslink core route run via London Bridge it becomes physically impossible, within the envisaged infrastructure available at that time, for the present level of service to continue to run into and out of London Cannon Street. In view of the high demand for Cannon Street services, we believe it may be best [b]for services between Kent and the Thameslink core to run only via Elephant & Castle.[b] We are seeking respondents' views on this and the destinations in Kent that it would be appropriate for Thameslink core services to operate to and from.

That means the Network Rail timetable is out with the 2tph Luton - Ashford & 2tph Luton - Tunbridge Wells out. These were originally included for operational reasons as the stock runs ECS from Victoria to Cannon Street via Blackfriars.

Also seem to be looking at reducing London Bridge trains by 2tph and moving them via E&C.