|
Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
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? |
Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
On 6 Feb, 11:28, 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'm sure there was a time in the early 1990s when Thameslink switched between the Crystal Palace route and the Selhurst route towards West Croydon, all before it took over the Wimbledon loop and stopped going to West Croydon. |
Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
Alec 1SJ wrote:
Don't get me wrong: I don't want thameslink to come through Crystal Palace or Gipsy Hill The last time I was on a Thameslink train, I boarded at East Croydon. passed through CP & GH, then Tulse Hill, en route to Elephant & Castle, where SWMBO boarded, and we got off at Luton. It seemed all to be done in slow motion. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633096.html (55 002 at London Kings Cross, Sep 1979) |
Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
On 6 Feb, 12:09, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote: Alec 1SJ wrote: Don't get me wrong: I don't want thameslink to come through Crystal Palace or Gipsy Hill The last time I was on a Thameslink train, I boarded at East Croydon. passed through CP & GH, then Tulse Hill, en route to Elephant & Castle, where SWMBO boarded, and we got off at Luton. It seemed all to be done in slow motion. --http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633096.html (55 002 at London Kings Cross, Sep 1979) Oh yes, that's the peak route for services to Brighton, which generally wouldn't be stopping anywhere anyway. But the "metro" type service, before it took over the Wimbledon loop, used to include a stopping service to West Croydon, which for a while went via Crystal Palace and for a while went via Selhurst. |
Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
On Feb 6, 12:09*pm, Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote: Alec 1SJ wrote: Don't get me wrong: I don't want thameslink to come through Crystal Palace or Gipsy Hill The last time I was on a Thameslink train, I boarded at East Croydon. passed through CP & GH, then Tulse Hill, en route to Elephant & Castle, where SWMBO boarded, and we got off at Luton. It seemed all to be done in slow motion. Thameslink services from Brighton are routed that way during the peaks to avoid London Bridge, which is too crowded. |
Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
|
Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
On 6 Feb, 12:59, (Paul Cummins) wrote:
In article , (MIG) wrote: I'm sure there was a time in the early 1990s when Thameslink switched between the Crystal Palace route and the Selhurst route towards West Croydon, all before it took over the Wimbledon loop and stopped going to West Croydon. I swear I recll Thameslink services going right out to Guildford once as well? Looks like alternate services continuing from West Croydon to Guildford till May 1994. I have gaps in my clutter though. |
Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
Mizter T wrote:
On Feb 6, 12:09*pm, Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote: Alec 1SJ wrote: Don't get me wrong: I don't want thameslink to come through Crystal Palace or Gipsy Hill The last time I was on a Thameslink train, I boarded at East Croydon. passed through CP & GH, then Tulse Hill, en route to Elephant & Castle, where SWMBO boarded, and we got off at Luton. It seemed all to be done in slow motion. Thameslink services from Brighton are routed that way during the peaks to avoid London Bridge, which is too crowded. Quite, but having to cross so many other routes doesn't make it exactly quick. The train I was on seemed to stand at Tulse Hill for ages. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633112.html (58 005 at Bescot, 25 Apr 1999) |
Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
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. -- Nick |
Why did Thameslink by-pass Crystal Palace?
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!) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk