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