On May 31, 1:33*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 31 May, 13:02, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:

Thameslink already has two quite separate services, the metro (via the
Sutton Loop), and the Bedford to Brighton. It would make perfect sense for
LOROL to control the metro service, but not the long distance.

Except late at night when the trains run all stops Bedford - St P, and
during the peaks when the service patterns get complicated. They also
share stock and depots and drivers. It would take a major
reorganisation to try to run the metro service as a separate
operation.


But isn't the eventual plan that the suburban services will gain new 8
car trains, whilst the longer distance services will gain 12 car
trains. This will lead to a separation in the rolling stock at least.
The question is surely whether the service has to be completely
separate or whether the suburban section can be specified by TfL as a
signatory to the franchise, with a suitable arrangement of fare
allocations.

The FCC GN side has a much clearer separation between inner and outer
services, with separate stock and termini, and to a large extent,
separate tracks. Few if any inner trains run north of Welwyn/Stevenage
(via Hertford), for example.


There are a few inner suburban trains that run to / from Letchworth
during the peaks. The situation will be more complex when 'Thameslink'
services are expanded onto the ECML at the end of the rebuild
schemes.

On 31 May, 17:50, wrote:
On May 31, 1:33*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 31 May, 13:02, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:

Thameslink already has two quite separate services, the metro (via the
Sutton Loop), and the Bedford to Brighton. It would make perfect sense for
LOROL to control the metro service, but not the long distance.

Except late at night when the trains run all stops Bedford - St P, and
during the peaks when the service patterns get complicated. They also
share stock and depots and drivers. It would take a major
reorganisation to try to run the metro service as a separate
operation.

But isn't the eventual plan that the suburban services will gain new 8
car trains, whilst the longer distance services will gain 12 car
trains. This will lead to a separation in the rolling stock at least.
The question is surely whether the service has to be completely
separate or whether the suburban section can be specified by TfL as a
signatory to the franchise, with a suitable arrangement of fare
allocations.

I would imagine that it might be better to create a new LOROL operator
for South London similar to LOROL in the North, maybe renamed to LOROL
2 with the services operated under contract to TfL on a strictly no
revenue-risk basis. These could be branded Overground similarly to the
North London services. Then these could be differentiated from the
Southern, SWT and Southeastern services and meet the minimum
requirement for metro-frequency in the suburbs which Overground will
eventually meet on all routes.

However, unfortunately there would still be the problem of other
Southern, Southeastern and Thameslink services which would call at
very few London Stations, but would still have to accept oyster. Thus
rebranding and restructuring Suburban services in South London in a
similar manor to Overground in the North while being beneficial in
other aspects, would not solve the problem of revenue allocation
because there would still be other operators not directly controlled
under TfL. So they are going to have to come to an agreement with the
4 south London TOCs which do not currently accept Oyster yet.

On May 31, 6:21*pm, D DB 90001
wrote:
On 31 May, 17:50, wrote:





On May 31, 1:33*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 31 May, 13:02, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:

Thameslink already has two quite separate services, the metro (via the
Sutton Loop), and the Bedford to Brighton. It would make perfect sense for
LOROL to control the metro service, but not the long distance.

Except late at night when the trains run all stops Bedford - St P, and
during the peaks when the service patterns get complicated. They also
share stock and depots and drivers. It would take a major
reorganisation to try to run the metro service as a separate
operation.

But isn't the eventual plan that the suburban services will gain new 8
car trains, whilst the longer distance services will gain 12 car
trains. This will lead to a separation in the rolling stock at least.
The question is surely whether the service has to be completely
separate or whether the suburban section can be specified by TfL as a
signatory to the franchise, with a suitable arrangement of fare
allocations.

I would imagine that it might be better to create a new LOROL operator
for South London similar to LOROL in the North, maybe renamed to LOROL
2 with the services operated under contract to TfL on a strictly no
revenue-risk basis. These could be branded Overground similarly to the
North London services. Then these could be differentiated from the
Southern, SWT and Southeastern services and meet the minimum
requirement for metro-frequency in the suburbs which Overground will
eventually meet on all routes.

However, unfortunately there would still be the problem of other
Southern, Southeastern and Thameslink services which would call at
very few London Stations, but would still have to accept oyster. Thus
rebranding and restructuring Suburban services in South London in a
similar manor to Overground in the North while being beneficial in
other aspects, would not solve the problem of revenue allocation
because there would still be other operators not directly controlled
under TfL. So they are going to have to come to an agreement with the
4 south London TOCs which do not currently accept Oyster yet.

This is not such a big problem, as London Midland already do this,
PAYG being valid from Watford Junction, Bushey and Harrow & Wealdstone
on long distance services. I think it was basically the pressure of
being the only TOC not accepting PAYG that forced their hand, with
Southern having accepted PAYG from the start of London Overground
operations.

Thameslink already has two quite separate services, the metro (via the
Sutton Loop), and the Bedford to Brighton. It would make perfect sense
for
LOROL to control the metro service, but not the long distance.
Except late at night when the trains run all stops Bedford - St P, and
during the peaks when the service patterns get complicated. They also
share stock and depots and drivers. It would take a major
reorganisation to try to run the metro service as a separate
operation.

Not so.
Since Govia days, their has been designated stock, and while there are
exceptions, diagrams, trains and drivers could very easily be separated. By
the time TL2000 is complete, there will be three, maybe four depots
involved, so if sharing was too painful, one could be separated out.

It really wouldn't be difficult, and would allow Boris' Lorol Map to look
much better, while service levels (and possibly times) needn't change
immediately at all; next would be the South London, followed by the Moorgate
services, that neither WAGN nor CursedGroup have ever cared about. In fact
there's really no reason why London shouldn't have its own network of
all-stations-metro trains. Is there? And I'm sure the TOCS would be happy
not be pressured to match LOROL's standards of station staffing ...

Yes, it'll take years; it may even take a non-tory mayor or two.

On 31 May, 17:50, wrote:
But isn't the eventual plan that the suburban services will gain new 8
car trains, whilst the longer distance services will gain 12 car
trains. This will lead to a separation in the rolling stock at least.

Things we know:
- All trains via London Bridge will be 12 car, to maximize capacity
- All (or most) trains via Elephant will be 8 car, due to platform
lengths at the inner south London stations
- All trains stopping at Kentish Town or Cricklewood will need to be 8
car, due to platform lengths.
- All other inner (and outer) stations are being lengthened to 12 cars

I think the likely outcome is off-peak, the "metro" services are 8
cars and call all stops, but during the peaks many of the 12 car
trains make various calls at the inner MML stations (except KT and
CW).

The question is surely whether the service has to be completely
separate or whether the suburban section can be specified by TfL as a
signatory to the franchise, with a suitable arrangement of fare
allocations.

Exactly. Splitting the operations between separate companies doesn't
necessarily make much sense.

There are a few inner suburban trains that run to / from Letchworth
during the peaks.

Checking the new timetable, they now only do this during the off-
peaks. I thought they'd stopped doing ti completely.

U

On May 31, 6:32*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 31 May, 17:50, wrote:

But isn't the eventual plan that the suburban services will gain new 8
car trains, whilst the longer distance services will gain 12 car
trains. This will lead to a separation in the rolling stock at least.

Things we know:
- All trains via London Bridge will be 12 car, to maximize capacity
- All (or most) trains via Elephant will be 8 car, due to platform
lengths at the inner south London stations
- All trains stopping at Kentish Town or Cricklewood will need to be 8
car, due to platform lengths.
- All other inner (and outer) stations are being lengthened to 12 cars

I think the likely outcome is off-peak, the "metro" services are 8
cars and call all stops, but during the peaks many of the 12 car
trains make various calls at the inner MML stations (except KT and
CW).


Hmm, I'd be surprised it there were many of the 12 car trains making
'extra' stops south of St. Albans during the peak, as the the
deceleration would make them less attractive to the longer distance
commuters. I'd think that the split between outer and inner suburban
services will be similar to now, but with extra 12 car trains running
on the outer suburban ECML services, where platforms are to be
lengthened to 12 car. Of course, there may be more stops in these
services just before and after the core peak periods and there might
be some inner suburban 12 car trains running on routes which can take
them south of the river.

The question is surely whether the service has to be completely
separate or whether the suburban section can be specified by TfL as a
signatory to the franchise, with a suitable arrangement of fare
allocations.

Exactly. Splitting the operations between separate companies doesn't
necessarily make much sense.

There are a few inner suburban trains that run to / from Letchworth
during the peaks.

Checking the new timetable, they now only do this during the off-
peaks. I thought they'd stopped doing ti completely.


So they do, and every hour now, the former Stevenage via Hertford
services have been extended to Letchworth. I wonder if they plan to
extend peak trains as well, once they get a few more 313s

On 31 May, 20:13, wrote:
Hmm, I'd be surprised it there were many of the 12 car trains making
'extra' stops south of St. Albans during the peak, as the the
deceleration would make them less attractive to the longer distance
commuters.

I'm suggesting there will be 12 car metro services, and potentially
some 8-car outer services, and to a mix of destinations south of the
river. Balancing capacity between inner and outer is going to be the
biggest challenge of the service going forward, and it would daft to
set one particular split in stone by divvying up the fleet and paths
between two companies.

So they do, and every hour now, the former Stevenage via Hertford
services have been extended to Letchworth. I wonder if they plan to
extend peak trains as well, once they get a few more 313s

Not running them was a recommendation from the ECML RUS to free up
peak paths over the flat junction at Hitchin.

U

Mr Thant wrote:
On 31 May, 20:13, wrote:
Hmm, I'd be surprised it there were many of the 12 car trains making
'extra' stops south of St. Albans during the peak, as the the
deceleration would make them less attractive to the longer distance
commuters.

I'm suggesting there will be 12 car metro services, and potentially
some 8-car outer services, and to a mix of destinations south of the
river. Balancing capacity between inner and outer is going to be the
biggest challenge of the service going forward, and it would daft to
set one particular split in stone by divvying up the fleet and paths
between two companies.


I suspect the only likely split of Thameslink compared to the existing setup
is the widely predicted transfer of the Wimbledon - Blackfriars terminators
(SL RUS) back to the South Central division.

Suggesting what might happen based on the current service pattern is a bit
of a waste of time, because by KO2 services will be significantly different.
It would be a bit odd if the planned 12 car metro services providing 4tph
all stations stoppers through the Sydenham corridor to St Pancras Int (SL
RUS Fig 9.5) were not still 'all stations' north of the core surely?
(Notwithstanding the stations that cannot be lengthened for 12 car
services).

I don't honestly see 'transfer to LO' as the panacea anyway. For instance,
IMO the ELLX would work equally well if it had been allocated to Southern,
station manning and train frequency could be specified in a franchise if the
will was there.

Paul S

On 31 May, 22:32, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 31 May, 20:13, wrote:

Hmm, I'd be surprised it there were many of the 12 car trains making
'extra' stops south of St. Albans during the peak, as the the
deceleration would make them less attractive to the longer distance
commuters.

I'm suggesting there will be 12 car metro services, and potentially
some 8-car outer services, and to a mix of destinations south of the
river. Balancing capacity between inner and outer is going to be the
biggest challenge of the service going forward, and it would daft to
set one particular split in stone by divvying up the fleet and paths
between two companies.


I suppose it will depend on how many metro services run via Elephant
and Castle, as this is the route which will retain the short platforms
south of the river. Of course, part of the setting things in stone is
already coming from the use of 8 or 12 car units. My personal view is
that the order should be for a mix of 8 and 4 cars units (if not all 4
car), to give flexibility over having fixed 12 car formations.

So they do, and every hour now, the former Stevenage via Hertford
services have been extended to Letchworth. I wonder if they plan to
extend peak trains as well, once they get a few more 313s

Not running them was a recommendation from the ECML RUS to free up
peak paths over the flat junction at Hitchin.


Hmm, I wonder if the Hitchin flyover, due 2014, will change that.

On 1 June, 11:10, wrote:
I suppose it will depend on how many metro services run via Elephant
and Castle, as this is the route which will retain the short platforms
south of the river.

The plan is to send as many London Bridge services as possible via
Thameslink, so there's likely to be only 6 tph via Elephant, as
proposed by the South London RUS. 6x 8 carriages (48) for the inner
stations is no improvement on today, and also means 10x 12 carriages
(120) on the outer services, which is probably an overprovision, and
more than there'll be fast paths for on the MML.

U