On Feb 6, 6:21*pm, D7666 wrote:

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.

Agreed about your broad point, no doubt - but where possible/ feasible
I think 4tph should be the goal for metro-esque services, perhaps
instead of 2tph here and 2tph there - at a 4tph level of frequency it
turns it into a turn-up-and-go proposition. Obviously if other routes
are 4tph then interchanging between the two becomes a more attractive
option. (Nothing I'm saying is remotely original, I know, and I
wouldn't wish to claim it was!)