Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
 

|"D7666" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 11:28 am, Alec 1SJ wrote:
Don't get me wrong: I don't want thameslink to come through Crystal
Palace or Gipsy Hill, but I might like some other lines to be extended
and so I wander why now that so many other stations in South London
get thameslink trains stopping, these stations get none?

|I think this is a very valid question.
|
|I have long been of the opinion that the *current* TL operation (never
|mind who the franchise holder is) before TL2000 / TLP came along is
|too restrictive in that there are 2 patterns of 4 TPH i.e. Bedford
|Brighton and Luton/Snorbens - Sutton. Back in NSe / BR TOU days there
|was a wider range of stations served like Guildford and Sevenoaks and
|those got taken away. That was a great loss in my view. I would have
|had least 4 route / station calling patterns south of Thames -
|probably 4 routes each 2 TPH that grouped through the core to the 2 x
|4 TPH to the north.
|
|Of course TL can't serve every station - but I do think there should
|have been a greater range in ''metro'' destinations served in the
|current operation, and should be served under TLP rather than longer
|distance routes. TL will forever be a heavy metro operation through
|the core not a fast regional link and I think it would be better off
|focussing on being a sort of large overground contributing to London
|suburban routes rather than an extended network of cross linked
|regional services.
|

One problem with the original incarnation of Thameslink in BR days was that
too much thought was given to serving the maximum number of stations and not
enough as to how this was to be practically achieved. The result was some
very slow journeys by some very circuitous routes.

I personally had a go on the Guildford route once. It was like one of those
enthusiasts' railtours - you got to see a lot of interesting track and not a
few junction curves, but unless you were out for pleasure or had a phobia
about the Underground it was a pretty pointless exercise. Anyone travelling
to some purpose for whom journey time had any importance could find a number
of much quicker options.

A similar thing happened with the "Anglia" experiment to Basingstoke. Nice
idea, but absolutely lousy pathing and much too slow to attract any
significant custom.

Even today, Kings Cross to Waterloo via Thameslink and London Bridge is
significantly slower than via the Victoria and Bakerloo lines - I tried it
once just to see.

Hopefully, once the Thameslink scheme is finally complete, it will lift many
of the severe speed restrictions on the central "core" and allow trains to
traverse this route at a speed which compares favourably with cycling on the
parallel road network. This, together with a bit more thought about proper
pathing on the outlying sections will, with luck, provide both more varied
and more useful journey options than in the past.
--
- Yokel -

"Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.

Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
 

On 6 Feb, 18:56, "Yokel" wrote:
|"D7666" wrote in message

...
On Feb 6, 11:28 am, Alec 1SJ wrote:

Don't get me wrong: I don't want thameslink to come through Crystal
Palace or Gipsy Hill, but I might like some other lines to be extended
and so I wander why now that so many other stations in South London
get thameslink trains stopping, these stations get none?

|I think this is a very valid question.
|
|I have long been of the opinion that the *current* TL operation (never
|mind who the franchise holder is) before TL2000 / TLP came along is
|too restrictive in that there are 2 patterns of 4 TPH i.e. Bedford
|Brighton and Luton/Snorbens - Sutton. Back in NSe / BR TOU days there
|was a wider range of stations served like Guildford and Sevenoaks and
|those got taken away. That was a great loss in my view. I would have
|had least 4 route / station calling patterns south of Thames -
|probably 4 routes each *2 TPH that grouped through the core to the 2 x
|4 TPH to the north.
|
|Of course TL can't serve every station - but I do think there should
|have been *a greater range in ''metro'' destinations served in the
|current operation, and should be served under TLP rather than longer
|distance routes. TL will forever be a heavy metro operation through
|the core not a fast regional link and I think it would be better off
|focussing on being a sort of large overground contributing to London
|suburban routes rather than an extended network of cross linked
|regional services.
|

One problem with the original incarnation of Thameslink in BR days was that
too much thought was given to serving the maximum number of stations and not
enough as to how this was to be practically achieved. *The result was some
very slow journeys by some very circuitous routes.

I personally had a go on the Guildford route once. *It was like one of those
enthusiasts' railtours - you got to see a lot of interesting track and not a
few junction curves, but unless you were out for pleasure or had a phobia
about the Underground it was a pretty pointless exercise. *Anyone travelling
to some purpose for whom journey time had any importance could find a number
of much quicker options.

But West Croydon and Sutton to Guildford is useful. Just saves
changing drivers and turning trains round. Similar to Victoria to
Portsmouth etc: plenty of demand along the route even if not much end
to end traffic.


A similar thing happened with the "Anglia" experiment to Basingstoke. *Nice
idea, but absolutely lousy pathing and much too slow to attract any
significant custom.

The pathing was terrible, but it had a real use for people visiting
relatives who didn't want to hoik their suitcases through the
Underground. A great shame it was lost instead of improved.


Even today, Kings Cross to Waterloo via Thameslink and London Bridge is
significantly slower than via the Victoria and Bakerloo lines - I tried it
once just to see.

Hopefully, once the Thameslink scheme is finally complete, it will lift many
of the severe speed restrictions on the central "core" and allow trains to
traverse this route at a speed which compares favourably with cycling on the
parallel road network. *This, together with a bit more thought about proper
pathing on the outlying sections will, with luck, provide both more varied
and more useful journey options than in the past.

This is where I remain mystified about the specification of trains
with fast acceleration and sliding doors (instead of windows, probly).

Farringdon is effectively a terminus, just that trains continue the
way they are facing after their layover. If there is a good
operational reason now for every station in the central section to
have a long dwell time (ie to avoid contamination between delays on
opposite ends of the route) then there always will be. The
performance of 319s is a red herring on a route with minutes of dwell
time and a top speed of about 10 mph.

Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
 

On Feb 6, 7:11*pm, MIG wrote:

Farringdon is effectively a terminus, just that trains continue the
way they are facing after their layover. *

Well I'd say all of SPILL + Farringdon + City + Blackfriars are
terminii, and that from north of Thames trains effectively terminate
at BF, and trains to south of Thames effectively start at SPILL, and
v.v. for NB trains.

Connection of the north and south bits is more an operating
convenience than a through route for passengers - useful that it is.
Indeed, the original Thameslink was based on money released by economy
in operation linking together 2 dead end services, using 48 319s to do
what was previously done with 46 317s and about a dozen 4 EPBs.

If there is a good
operational reason now for every station in the central section to
have a long dwell time (ie to avoid contamination between delays on
opposite ends of the route) then there always will be. *The
performance of 319s is a red herring on a route with minutes of dwell
time and a top speed of about 10 mph.

Yep.

Again this is why I think the existing TL route is and always be a
slow speed metro route thus is better off being a sort of overground
route.

24 TPH yes, attempting to serve most of the south coast and deepest
fenlands no.

--
Nick

Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
 

On Feb 6, 7:11*pm, MIG wrote:
On 6 Feb, 18:56, "Yokel" wrote:



|"D7666" wrote in message

....
On Feb 6, 11:28 am, Alec 1SJ wrote:

Don't get me wrong: I don't want thameslink to come through Crystal
Palace or Gipsy Hill, but I might like some other lines to be extended
and so I wander why now that so many other stations in South London
get thameslink trains stopping, these stations get none?

|I think this is a very valid question.
|
|I have long been of the opinion that the *current* TL operation (never
|mind who the franchise holder is) before TL2000 / TLP came along is
|too restrictive in that there are 2 patterns of 4 TPH i.e. Bedford
|Brighton and Luton/Snorbens - Sutton. Back in NSe / BR TOU days there
|was a wider range of stations served like Guildford and Sevenoaks and
|those got taken away. That was a great loss in my view. I would have
|had least 4 route / station calling patterns south of Thames -
|probably 4 routes each *2 TPH that grouped through the core to the 2 x
|4 TPH to the north.
|
|Of course TL can't serve every station - but I do think there should
|have been *a greater range in ''metro'' destinations served in the
|current operation, and should be served under TLP rather than longer
|distance routes. TL will forever be a heavy metro operation through
|the core not a fast regional link and I think it would be better off
|focussing on being a sort of large overground contributing to London
|suburban routes rather than an extended network of cross linked
|regional services.
|

One problem with the original incarnation of Thameslink in BR days was that
too much thought was given to serving the maximum number of stations and not
enough as to how this was to be practically achieved. *The result was some
very slow journeys by some very circuitous routes.

I personally had a go on the Guildford route once. *It was like one of those
enthusiasts' railtours - you got to see a lot of interesting track and not a
few junction curves, but unless you were out for pleasure or had a phobia
about the Underground it was a pretty pointless exercise. *Anyone travelling
to some purpose for whom journey time had any importance could find a number
of much quicker options.

But West Croydon and Sutton to Guildford is useful. *Just saves
changing drivers and turning trains round. *Similar to Victoria to
Portsmouth etc: plenty of demand along the route even if not much end
to end traffic.



A similar thing happened with the "Anglia" experiment to Basingstoke. *Nice
idea, but absolutely lousy pathing and much too slow to attract any
significant custom.

The pathing was terrible, but it had a real use for people visiting
relatives who didn't want to hoik their suitcases through the
Underground. *A great shame it was lost instead of improved.



Even today, Kings Cross to Waterloo via Thameslink and London Bridge is
significantly slower than via the Victoria and Bakerloo lines - I tried it
once just to see.

Hopefully, once the Thameslink scheme is finally complete, it will lift many
of the severe speed restrictions on the central "core" and allow trains to
traverse this route at a speed which compares favourably with cycling on the
parallel road network. *This, together with a bit more thought about proper
pathing on the outlying sections will, with luck, provide both more varied
and more useful journey options than in the past.

This is where I remain mystified about the specification of trains
with fast acceleration and sliding doors (instead of windows, probly).

Farringdon is effectively a terminus, just that trains continue the
way they are facing after their layover. *If there is a good
operational reason now for every station in the central section to
have a long dwell time (ie to avoid contamination between delays on
opposite ends of the route) then there always will be. *The
performance of 319s is a red herring on a route with minutes of dwell
time and a top speed of about 10 mph.

With Basingstoke to East Anglia, there were three significant issues:

1) Pathing: yes it took too long but this would have been acceptable
if the other two issues had been addressed and these were

2) It was fore-shortened and post-shortened. Southampton to Ipswich or
Norwich would have been fine, but Southampton to Basingstoke, change,
to Chelmsford, anfd then change for the rest of East Anglia was a
pain. Even this pain, if it had involved single platform transfers,
would have been useful, but

3 Publicity was pretty poor. no one, apart from a few sad souls like
those reading this posting, even knew about it.

d

Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
 

"D7666" wrote

Again this is why I think the existing TL route is and always be a
slow speed metro route thus is better off being a sort of overground
route.

24 TPH yes, attempting to serve most of the south coast and deepest
fenlands no.

I understand the point you and MIG are making, but the opportunity to run
that sort of Thameslink as probably lost in 1916, when the original high
frequency (for those days) inner suburban to inner suburban service via the
Widened Lines collapsed (as much as anything because the paths were needed
for freight).

North of the River, Thameslink now serves a medium-distance operation along
the MML (north of Kentish Town there are only 5 stations out to the boundary
of Zone 6), with City Thameslink almost exactly half way between Bedford an
Brighton. On the new Great Northern route, the shorter distance routes to
Welwyn and Hertford are served from Moorgate via the Northern City Line;
it's not possible to lengthen trains to Moorgate beyond 6 coaches, so
Moorgate is no use as a terminus for the longer distance GN commuter trains
to Cambridge and Peterborough. So these will have to be served from
Thameslink and/or Kings Cross. And again, Cambridge and Huntingdon are very
little further from London than Bedford or Brighton.

South of the River, Thameslink designs mean that the main routes which can
be served are the London Bridge - East Croydon fast lines, with a more
limited service on the SEML, and via Elephant & Castle. But to avoid
conflicts south of Blackfriars, the Blackfriars bays are moving to the west
side, so will serve the Herne Hill route, while Thameslink will serve the
Catford Loop, which only has a limited inner suburban passenger potential.
On the Croydon corridor, the slow lines are being connected up to the ELL;
it is desirable to keep ELL and Thameslink trains as separate as possible.

So future Thameslink must be thought of mainly as a Bedford, Luton,
Huntingdon, Cambridge and Stevenage to Maidstone, Tonbridge, Brighton, etc
railway, with 5 central London stations (St Pancras, Farringdon, City
Thameslink, Blackfriars, and London Bridge). It's a bonus that it also acts
as a metro between these five stations, where it will give considerable
relief especially to the City branch of the Northern Line.

Peter

Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
 

On 6 Feb, 20:56, Dick Selwood wrote:
On Feb 6, 7:11*pm, MIG wrote:





On 6 Feb, 18:56, "Yokel" wrote:

|"D7666" wrote in message

....
On Feb 6, 11:28 am, Alec 1SJ wrote:

Don't get me wrong: I don't want thameslink to come through Crystal
Palace or Gipsy Hill, but I might like some other lines to be extended
and so I wander why now that so many other stations in South London
get thameslink trains stopping, these stations get none?

|I think this is a very valid question.
|
|I have long been of the opinion that the *current* TL operation (never
|mind who the franchise holder is) before TL2000 / TLP came along is
|too restrictive in that there are 2 patterns of 4 TPH i.e. Bedford
|Brighton and Luton/Snorbens - Sutton. Back in NSe / BR TOU days there
|was a wider range of stations served like Guildford and Sevenoaks and
|those got taken away. That was a great loss in my view. I would have
|had least 4 route / station calling patterns south of Thames -
|probably 4 routes each *2 TPH that grouped through the core to the 2 x
|4 TPH to the north.
|
|Of course TL can't serve every station - but I do think there should
|have been *a greater range in ''metro'' destinations served in the
|current operation, and should be served under TLP rather than longer
|distance routes. TL will forever be a heavy metro operation through
|the core not a fast regional link and I think it would be better off
|focussing on being a sort of large overground contributing to London
|suburban routes rather than an extended network of cross linked
|regional services.
|

One problem with the original incarnation of Thameslink in BR days was that
too much thought was given to serving the maximum number of stations and not
enough as to how this was to be practically achieved. *The result was some
very slow journeys by some very circuitous routes.

I personally had a go on the Guildford route once. *It was like one of those
enthusiasts' railtours - you got to see a lot of interesting track and not a
few junction curves, but unless you were out for pleasure or had a phobia
about the Underground it was a pretty pointless exercise. *Anyone travelling
to some purpose for whom journey time had any importance could find a number
of much quicker options.

But West Croydon and Sutton to Guildford is useful. *Just saves
changing drivers and turning trains round. *Similar to Victoria to
Portsmouth etc: plenty of demand along the route even if not much end
to end traffic.

A similar thing happened with the "Anglia" experiment to Basingstoke. *Nice
idea, but absolutely lousy pathing and much too slow to attract any
significant custom.

The pathing was terrible, but it had a real use for people visiting
relatives who didn't want to hoik their suitcases through the
Underground. *A great shame it was lost instead of improved.

Even today, Kings Cross to Waterloo via Thameslink and London Bridge is
significantly slower than via the Victoria and Bakerloo lines - I tried it
once just to see.

Hopefully, once the Thameslink scheme is finally complete, it will lift many
of the severe speed restrictions on the central "core" and allow trains to
traverse this route at a speed which compares favourably with cycling on the
parallel road network. *This, together with a bit more thought about proper
pathing on the outlying sections will, with luck, provide both more varied
and more useful journey options than in the past.

This is where I remain mystified about the specification of trains
with fast acceleration and sliding doors (instead of windows, probly).

Farringdon is effectively a terminus, just that trains continue the
way they are facing after their layover. *If there is a good
operational reason now for every station in the central section to
have a long dwell time (ie to avoid contamination between delays on
opposite ends of the route) then there always will be. *The
performance of 319s is a red herring on a route with minutes of dwell
time and a top speed of about 10 mph.

With Basingstoke to East Anglia, there were three significant issues:

1) Pathing: yes it took too long but this would have been acceptable
if the other two issues had been addressed and these were

2) It was fore-shortened and post-shortened. Southampton to Ipswich or
Norwich would have been fine, but Southampton to Basingstoke, change,
to Chelmsford, anfd then change for the rest of East Anglia was a
pain. Even this pain, if it had involved single platform transfers,
would have been useful, but

Yes, and I think it probably would (not sure about what platform they
used at Basingstoke, but Chelmsford, Colchester and Ipswich all would
have done, some terminating at each of them as I recall). Still
better than lots of escalators and staircases and standing in crowds
and all the things that put frail people off "The Tube".

As far as Southampton is concerned, I guess it was entirely down to
how many 170s Anglia had to spare at the time, so Basingstoke it was.
Salisbury might have been nice too.

I also recall it being used by relatives between Brighton and Ipswich,
changing at West Hampstead and avoiding the Underground with Stuff.

Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
 

On Feb 6, 9:02*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:

"D7666" wrote
Again this is why I think the existing TL route is and always be a
slow speed metro route thus is better off being a sort of overground
route.

24 TPH yes, attempting to serve most of the south coast and deepest
fenlands no.

I understand the point you and MIG are making, but the opportunity to run
that sort of Thameslink as probably lost in 1916, when the original high
frequency (for those days) inner suburban to inner suburban service via the
Widened Lines collapsed (as much as anything because the paths were needed
for freight).

Is that so - I must admit I'd never really thought about the notion
that the demands from freight contributed to the demise of the Widened
Lines passenger services, that's very interesting.


North of the River, Thameslink now serves a medium-distance operation along
the MML (north of Kentish Town there are only 5 stations out to the boundary
of Zone 6), with City Thameslink almost exactly half way between Bedford an
Brighton. On the new Great Northern route, the shorter distance routes to
Welwyn and Hertford are served from Moorgate via the Northern City Line;
it's not possible to lengthen trains to Moorgate beyond 6 coaches, so
Moorgate is no use as a terminus for the longer distance GN commuter trains
to Cambridge and Peterborough. So these will have to be served from
Thameslink and/or Kings Cross. And again, Cambridge and Huntingdon are very
little further from London than Bedford or Brighton.

All very good points - the 'express' nature of the Thameslink service
along the MML in London is, as you say, quite apparent - the stations
that would have made it a metro service (Camden Road/ Haverstock Hill/
Finchley Road) all being very much closed with little remaining
thereof. I suppose they could be rebuilt, more or less from
scratch...!

Additionally I suppose there could have been some ultra radical
rethink, with extra capacity for terminating longer distance GN trains
at KX, and the (inner) suburban services pushed through Thameslink
instead of don the Northern City Line to Moorgate. Not sure what you'd
do with the NCL line then though - give it back to LU again?!

Obviously both the above are thoughts from fantasy-land, with the
usage pattern on the existing Thameslink service very much contrary to
anything of the sort!


South of the River, Thameslink designs mean that the main routes which can
be served are the London Bridge - East Croydon fast lines, with a more
limited service on the SEML, and via Elephant & Castle. But to avoid
conflicts south of Blackfriars, the Blackfriars bays are moving to the west
side, so will serve the Herne Hill route, while Thameslink will serve the
Catford Loop, which only has a limited inner suburban passenger potential..
On the Croydon corridor, the slow lines are being connected up to the ELL;
it is desirable to keep ELL and Thameslink trains as separate as possible..

The obvious point to make of course is that the above restrictions are
based on the Thameslink Programme designs, which are themselves
predicated on the notion of Thameslink being a regional, as opposed to
metro service. But, as you point out, that's what's happening!

Also I can predict Nick (D7666) will point out that the final decision
on what's going to happen to the Wimbledon loop service hasn't been
made - but AFAICS it's effectively been made if not announced, given
the re-siting at Blackfriars of the bays to the western side of the
through Thameslink running line.


So future Thameslink must be thought of mainly as a Bedford, Luton,
Huntingdon, Cambridge and Stevenage to Maidstone, Tonbridge, Brighton, etc
railway, with 5 central London stations (St Pancras, Farringdon, City
Thameslink, Blackfriars, and London Bridge). It's a bonus that it also acts
as a metro between these five stations, where it will give considerable
relief especially to the City branch of the Northern Line.

There's certainly a degree of metro-ness to the current Thameslink
service beyond those five central stations, i.e. in south London on
the existing Wimbledon loop and new Catford loop service - I've heard
lots of positive things about 'the new service to St Pancras' for
example (which of course existed in incarnations of Thameslink
services past, albeit to KX Thameslink not St P!), even if that
service dies a death in the late evening and is non-existent at
weekends.

Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
 

D7666 wrote:

Again this is why I think the existing TL route is and always be a
slow speed metro route thus is better off being a sort of overground
route.

24 TPH yes, attempting to serve most of the south coast and deepest
fenlands no.

If it wasn't for their marked reluctance to amend the future Thameslink
routes shown on the Thameslink programme website, we'd have a much better
picture of KO2. From the various RUSs, (and the Kent and Sussex published
last month are consistent with the earlier South London), attempting to
serve most of the south coast has been to all intents binned, but more
relevant to this thread, there are planned transfers of stopping services to
Thameslink yet to come, such as the 4 tph all stations on the Norwood Jn to
London Bridge route, which will be transferred from Southern. I believe the
4 tph from Orpington is basically a stopping service as well.

The question left hanging seems to be what the balancing all stations
service will be on the north side...

Paul S

Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
 

On Feb 7, 12:01*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

24 TPH yes, attempting to serve most of the south coast and deepest
fenlands no.

If it wasn't for their marked reluctance to amend the future Thameslink
routes shown on the Thameslink programme website, we'd have a much better
picture of KO2.

Err yes, must admit I had just flicked to the TLP website only a week
or so ago and have not gone though the recent RUS to see what was
going on.



From the various RUSs, (and the Kent and Sussex published
last month are consistent with the earlier South London), attempting to
serve most of the south coast has been to all intents binned,

IMHO good.

Interestingly when the Brighton main line [or whatever it was called]
RUS came out a few years back - this being the one that formally
proposed the alternative ideas for dumping GEx as a wholly seperate
operation I did comment at the time that in some places it conflicted
with what was then still TL2000 and in other places where you would
have logically expected to have found reference to TL2000 there was
none at all.

but more
relevant to this thread, there are planned transfers of stopping services to
Thameslink yet to come, such as the 4 tph all stations on the Norwood Jn to
London Bridge route, which will be transferred from Southern. *I believe the
4 tph from Orpington is basically a stopping service as well.


cynic

I wonder in turn how much of that will involve less 12car trains and
more 8car trains. Or possibly 10car trains. If they are still
twiddling destinations then they'll have to twiddle stock totals and
less cars even if not less units is a way to cut costs.



The question left hanging seems to be what the balancing all stations
service will be on the north side...


I think we will need to await MML electrification slow/semi-fast
service patterns south of Leicester to understand that. This has come
up way after TLP plans but it would surprise me not if *part* of the
reasons for the suggested 20 vice 24 TPH through TL core has got
something to do with using those paths for MML/part MML semifasts. I
think I wrote something to this effect in uk.r not long ago can't seem
to find which thread now to read what the responses were.

--
Nick

Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
 

On Feb 7, 12:01*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

D7666 wrote:
Again this is why I think the existing TL route is and always be a
slow speed metro route thus is better off being a sort of overground
route.

24 TPH yes, attempting to serve most of the south coast and deepest
fenlands no.

If it wasn't for their marked reluctance to amend the future Thameslink
routes shown on the Thameslink programme website, we'd have a much better
picture of KO2. From the various RUSs, (and the Kent and Sussex published
last month are consistent with the earlier South London), attempting to
serve most of the south coast has been to all intents binned, but more
relevant to this thread, there are planned transfers of stopping services to
Thameslink yet to come, such as the 4 tph all stations on the Norwood Jn to
London Bridge route, which will be transferred from Southern. *I believe the
4 tph from Orpington is basically a stopping service as well.

The transfer of that 4 tph Norwood Jn to London Bridge all stations
service is a highly likely part of the plan then?

I must admit I'm less than clear on the outcome of the Thameslink
Programme w.r.t. the eventual service patterns, but I suppose that's
because it hasn't been made clear what's actually going to happen - I
suppose the RUSs are after all recommendations from Network Rail
(albeit strong recommendations), as opposed to statements of intent
from DfT Rail (though of course intent can change... as can
governments).


The question left hanging seems to be what the balancing all stations
service will be on the north side...

Reopen the Dudding Hill line for passenger services... ;-)