London Banter - View Single Post

[email protected] · December 14th 15, 11:30 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

On 2015\12\14 15:34, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:36:22 on Mon, 14 Dec
2015, Basil Jet remarked:
But I think the 12 southern branches on Thameslink is a mistake, and
will cause so many people to wait around on the Zone 1 southbound
platforms for up to half an hour for their train home that the
stations will be regularly closed for crowding. This will be resolved
about 6 months after the project opens by ditching about half of the
southern branches and running the other ones quarter-hourly.

Some will already be quarterly, e.g. Brighton, surely?

When you say "ditching", do you mean no trains at all to somewhere like
Tattenham Corner?

I would not be surprised if TfL makes a land grab for the Thameslink
core and it becomes Crossrail 0, with very little penetration outside
the M25 apart from airports, so Tattenham would be in but Brighton
would be out. My sister lives in Brighton and works near Kings Cross
and changes at Victoria every morning because she says the Thameslink
route is slower, so I'm not sure how much Brighton would care about
losing Thameslink services.

Actually crowding will only be a problem in the peak, so maybe all
twelve branches would still have off-peak service. But the desire to
keep the branches down on the Crossrails, even turning half the
trains at Paddington or Wimbledon just so that they won't have too
many branches, is in marked contrast to the Thameslink Programme
where every train heads in a different direction until it hits
buffers or the sea. Does no-one else think that's odd?

Isn't the problem with the Southern end of Thameslink that none of the
routes can take much more frequent services so diversity is the only answer?
The Brighton main line won't just be served by Thameslink.

After all, isn't that why the Southern survives with no metro frequencies.
It's such a complex and multifarious network.

--
Colin Rosenstiel