Crossrail to Tring
 

Modern Railways says that the Crossrail to Tring plan is going cold. I
am surprised. They can't be planning to terminate 60% of the trains at
Paddington / Old Oak indefinitely. After all, they are talking about
extending the Bakerloo southward because Elephant is too near to London
to generate significant flow into London... surely Paddington is even
nearer.

I've been thinking about the different philosophies on the big 3
projects. Thameslink has 12 southern branches, far more than either of
the Crossrails. I think with Crossrail 1, the aim is to run 24tph from
Paddington to Liverpool Street, and the extensions into the suburbs are
less important. But with Thameslink the branches are everything and the
tunnel through the middle is just a way of not having to build loads of
platforms at Blackfriars and St Pancras.

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.

Crossrail to Tring
 

On 2015\12\14 14:36, Basil Jet wrote:
Modern Railways says that the Crossrail to Tring plan is going cold. I
am surprised. They can't be planning to terminate 60% of the trains at
Paddington / Old Oak indefinitely. After all, they are talking about
extending the Bakerloo southward because Elephant is too near to London
to generate significant flow into London... surely Paddington is even
nearer.

I've been thinking about the different philosophies on the big 3
projects. Thameslink has 12 southern branches, far more than either of
the Crossrails. I think with Crossrail 1, the aim is to run 24tph from
Paddington to Liverpool Street, and the extensions into the suburbs are
less important. But with Thameslink the branches are everything and the
tunnel through the middle is just a way of not having to build loads of
platforms at Blackfriars and St Pancras.

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.

I meant to ask, is there any platform in the world which has 12
different half-hourly services?

Crossrail to Tring
 

In message , at 14:39:02 on Mon, 14 Dec
2015, Basil Jet remarked:
I've been thinking about the different philosophies on the big 3
projects. Thameslink has 12 southern branches, far more than either of
the Crossrails. I think with Crossrail 1, the aim is to run 24tph from
Paddington to Liverpool Street, and the extensions into the suburbs are
less important. But with Thameslink the branches are everything and the
tunnel through the middle is just a way of not having to build loads of
platforms at Blackfriars and St Pancras.

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.

I meant to ask, is there any platform in the world which has 12
different half-hourly services?

Waterloo East?
--
Roland Perry

Crossrail to Tring
 

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.

When you say "ditching", do you mean no trains at all to somewhere like
Tattenham Corner? Which six branches would you keep (Sutton x 2 and
Brighton seem no-brainers, so what are the other three)?

How many of the twelve go in parallel to East Croydon, or Gatwick...
--
Roland Perry

Crossrail to Tring
 

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.

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?

Crossrail to Tring
 

In message , at 17:00:20 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.

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,

Where would you turn the trains instead? Bedford ones would be
particularly challenging, closely followed by GN.

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.

I tend to agree that commuters probably want to head for places more on
their side of London than the other. But what of the commuters south of
Croydon working in the City. Is there enough extra capacity to turn all
those trains at Blackfriars, and won't many passengers be heading for
Farringdon area? I used to travel quite frequently between Cambridge and
City Thameslink in the peaks.

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.

That's a slight exaggeration; Horsham and Peterborough are neither, nor
is the Sutton Loop. A few others too.

Does no-one else think that's odd?

--
Roland Perry

Crossrail to Tring
 

In message , at 18:51:18 on
Mon, 14 Dec 2015, Paul Corfield remarked:

It is farcical that the Wimbledon loop timetable constrains the Midland
Main Line, the Brighton Main Line and the East Coast Main Line all the
way to Scotland. Network Rail have to schedule the former first and
slot everything else in around one service. ECML fast services will be
constrained by the Thameslink services once the routes are connected
together.

The Thameslink and EMT trains on the MML are pretty much segregated to
one pair of tracks each. Similarly the GN's that will go through the
core, from East Coast + Kings Lynn fasts which will continue to
terminate at Kings Cross.
--
Roland Perry

Crossrail to Tring
 

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\12\14 14:36, Basil Jet wrote:
Modern Railways says that the Crossrail to Tring plan is going cold. I
am surprised. They can't be planning to terminate 60% of the trains at
Paddington / Old Oak indefinitely. After all, they are talking about
extending the Bakerloo southward because Elephant is too near to London
to generate significant flow into London... surely Paddington is even
nearer.

I've been thinking about the different philosophies on the big 3
projects. Thameslink has 12 southern branches, far more than either of
the Crossrails. I think with Crossrail 1, the aim is to run 24tph from
Paddington to Liverpool Street, and the extensions into the suburbs are
less important. But with Thameslink the branches are everything and the
tunnel through the middle is just a way of not having to build loads of
platforms at Blackfriars and St Pancras.

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.

I meant to ask, is there any platform in the world which has 12
different half-hourly services?


There are a lot of different routes taken by trains from Manchester
Piccadilly platform 14, but some of those are hourly or less frequent.
--
Jeremy Double

Crossrail to Tring
 

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

Crossrail to Tring
 

On 2015\12\15 00:30, wrote:

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

I'd imagine it mostly survives because most of the people who want to
get a train to Central London every morning live in North London.

Crossrail to Tring
 

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 17:00:20 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

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.

To be fair, a large part of the largesse of the Thameslink programme is to
speed up the crawl from London Bridge/Blackfriars to St Pancras.

I've not seen TfL people express much enthusiasm for grabbing
Thameslink when they've been interviewed about rail devolution. I
think there is an acceptance that splitting operations on a very
complex route with an equally complex PFI contract for the rolling
stock is not going to be easy.

I also don't believe DfT would split services on Thameslink having
taken years to group services together. I suspect TfL would like to
get the inners run under the Southern brand name even though they
will, of course, have an overlap with Thameslink in places.

TfL Dft and City Hall are jointly launching a "rail vision" for London
and South East rail services at some point in January 2016. Mike Brown
said this to the Assembly Transport Committee last week. Had been due
this month but diary problems have prevented the joint launch being
scheduled.

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?

I think the Thameslink service pattern will unravel over time. This is
purely on the basis that I think it will prove inoperable on a robust
and reliable basis. It is farcical that the Wimbledon loop timetable
constrains the Midland Main Line, the Brighton Main Line and the East
Coast Main Line all the way to Scotland. Network Rail have to
schedule the former first and slot everything else in around one
service. ECML fast services will be constrained by the Thameslink
services once the routes are connected together. I don't believe that
is a sustainable position for the TOCs, for passengers or Network
Rail. Can you imagine the announcement at Edinburgh Waverley "bing
bong we apologise for the delay to the 0900 service from London Kings
Cross. This was due to a points failure at Sutton."

We all know that the insane decision to include the Wimbledon loop services
in Thameslink was prompted by the then Sutton MPs. Will DfT now have the
balls to tell them (only 1 is new) to stop holding half the rest of the
country to ransom?

I think 10 Crossrail 2 trains will turn at Wimbledon. 30 are planned through
the core and 20 an hour to Raynes Park.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Crossrail to Tring
 

In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

On 2015\12\15 00:30, wrote:

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

I'd imagine it mostly survives because most of the people who want to
get a train to Central London every morning live in North London.

Why do you think that? I had to cross the river every day just to get to
school north of the river.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Crossrail to Tring
 

In message , at 07:16:21
on Tue, 15 Dec 2015, remarked:

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

I'd imagine it mostly survives because most of the people who want to
get a train to Central London every morning live in North London.

Why do you think that? I had to cross the river every day just to get to
school north of the river.

And why is the Waterloo and City packed in the Rush Hour if not with
"sarf-ov-de-riva" commuters trying to get to the City.
--
Roland Perry

Crossrail to Tring
 

I couldn't agree more about the terrible decision to keep Sutton loop trains using Thameslink core. It's an established fact that loops (as opposed to termini) are bad for reliability, hence the conversion of the Circle line to the 'tea cup". The Sutton loop also has a single track section through Wimbledon station, which can only worsen reliability. Finally, the Sutton loop is restricted to 8-coach trains, reducing capacity through the core, and also on the Thameslink slow services north of the river which are in desperate need of additional peak hour capacity.

The campaign and decision to keep Sutton loop trains using the Thameslink core took place without people north of the river knowing that there was a chance of such a decision, so there was no opportunity for a counter-campaign.

Crossrail to Tring
 

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:16:21 -0600,
wrote:

We all know that the insane decision to include the Wimbledon loop
services in Thameslink was prompted by the then Sutton MPs. Will DfT
now have the balls to tell them (only 1 is new) to stop holding half
the rest of the country to ransom?

It wasn't just Sutton MPs though. It was the Wimbledon MP, London
Assembly Members, the Streatham MP and others. The bit I've never
understood is that running through consigns the route to a x30 headway
whereas terminating at Blackfriars would give a x15 frequency *and*
would have allowed more 12 car trains to run through the core. The
politicians aren't all dim so why a more nuanced decision wasn't
pursued I don't know. I doubt any of them would have suffered
particular electoral consequences over an issue that doesn't manifest
until 2018.

I'm sad to say that the number of politicians who understand how to run a
transport system is very small and doesn't include that lot as far as I know
(not certain about the GLA members). I'm a lifelong and committed Lib Dem
but my is no more exempt from that than any other in my experience. I know
that Paul Burstow and Tom Brake made as much noise about it as any but they
were just wrong. I'm surprised they didn't realise the impact on
frequencies, mind. I would have thought a 15 minute service (would that work
at Wimbledon?) would be much better.

I think 10 Crossrail 2 trains will turn at Wimbledon. 30 are planned
through the core and 20 an hour to Raynes Park.

I didn't think it was 30 tph from day one for CR2 but I may be wrong.

I was quoting from the CR2 web site. My son-in-law is working on the current
consultations programme at present so I've seen some leaflets too.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Crossrail to Tring
 

On 2015\12\15 13:16, wrote:
In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

On 2015\12\15 00:30, wrote:

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

I'd imagine it mostly survives because most of the people who want to
get a train to Central London every morning live in North London.

Why do you think that? I had to cross the river every day just to get to
school north of the river.

So?

. . . and there is no service from Clapham Junction through
to St. Pancras International and points further north. Clapham
Junction, of course, is such a quiet back water . . . .