Boltar wrote:

I never understood why it was part of it in the first place.

It wasn't. It was more like the third place.

Thameslink was supposed to be a north to south express route. Not a
north to obscure-suburb-in-sw-london local train. I mean why Sutton?

I think it was a by-product of available routes - and also I don't think it
was part of the original set-up in the late 1980s, which nixes the idea it
was a Holborn Viaduct inheritance. Until about 1994 (?) the second
Thameslink branch ran via West Croydon, Sutton, Epsom and Guildford, whilst
I recall the "loop" didn't really operate as such but rather South London
Lines trains ran from the terminuses to Wimbledon, Sutton and then West
Croydon (and possibly back up to the centre), with the Sutton to Mitcham
section covered by trains to/from Victoria.

Then between 1994 & 1996 (?) the second Thameslink branch was cut back to
West Croydon. Then from about 1996 (?) it was replaced with the Sutton loop.

I presume the reasoning was to cut down the amount of track it shared with
what was then Connex South Central and also the problems of congestion - in
early 1994 I started commuting Epsom to Blackfriars but my recollection is
that the through service was never a viable option, possibly because it took
far too long, perhaps because the timetable didn't fit well with my
departure and arrival needs.

Why not Wandsworth or Dulwich or Chessington or ..... If anyone
suggested the northbound thameslink had a terminus at Barnet everyone
would laugh, but for some reason if its in south london no ones bats
an eyelid.

Well yes - but the rail routes long predated Thameslink. And also the
limited number of tubes in South London means that a through service that
can reach North London is not undesirable - and the Sutton loop is about as
far west from the Croydon mainline as Thameslink could reasonably do (any
further would still need to go as far as Wimbledon and then clash with both
whatever was serving Wimbledon to Sutton and the south west lines).

I'm sorry if this is a bit of a stupid questions, but by Wimbledon
loop do people mean the one with Sutton on it, right? What's the one
from Clapham Junction to Richmond, Kingston and Wimbledon called then?

sweek wrote:

I'm sorry if this is a bit of a stupid questions, but by Wimbledon
loop do people mean the one with Sutton on it, right?

Yes.

What's the one
from Clapham Junction to Richmond, Kingston and Wimbledon called then?

The Kingston loop I think.

On 11 Apr, 17:46, "Peter Masson" wrote:

(snip)

While Blackfriars may not be the ideal London terminus for all Wimbledon
Loop passengers, they do have a wide choice by one change, at Wimbledon to
Waterloo or LUL District Line, at Sutton or Herne Hill to Victoria, at Tulse
Hill to London Bridge, at Elephant to LUL Northern or Bakerloo Line (though
this interchange desperately needs improvement), and at Blackfriars to LUL
Circle Line and to Thameslink.


There are big changes afoot at Elephant & Castle as part of the
regeneration scheme for the area which should certainly improve things
for those interchanging there - the existing railway station will be
demolished and replaced with something new and better, the tatty
shopping centre will also be demolished as will the large Heygate
estate to the south (that architectural masterpiece that you can see
from the high up platforms at E&C), the road system will be remodelled
so as to stop E&C just being a big gyratory system, most of the
subways will go, and intriguingly:

"The Northern Line sub-station will be replaced and a new link between
the Bakerloo and Northern Lines created. Pedestrians will be able to
access the tube stations from the Civic Square, through improved
entrances."
http://www.elephantandcastle.org.uk/...ustainability/
Transport2/

I don't quite know what form that new link will take.

Whilst it may be hard to believe that the grotty old Elephant might
become a nice place various works have been under way for a while now
and the regeneration scheme is going ahead. More he
http://www.elephantandcastle.org.uk/

On Apr 11, 5:59*pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
Boltar wrote:
I never understood why it was part of it in the first place.

It wasn't. It was more like the third place.

Thameslink was supposed to be a north to south express route. Not a
north to obscure-suburb-in-sw-london local train. I mean why Sutton?

I think it was a by-product of available routes - and also I don't think it
was part of the original set-up in the late 1980s, which nixes the idea it
was a Holborn Viaduct inheritance. Until about 1994 (?) the second
Thameslink branch ran via West Croydon, Sutton, Epsom and Guildford, whilst
I recall the "loop" didn't really operate as such but rather South London
Lines trains ran from the terminuses to Wimbledon, Sutton and then West
Croydon (and possibly back up to the centre), with the Sutton to Mitcham
section covered by trains to/from Victoria.

Then between 1994 & 1996 (?) the second Thameslink branch was cut back to
West Croydon. Then from about 1996 (?) it was replaced with the Sutton loop.

It has changed around quite a lot. The Holborn Viaduct to Sevenoaks
service was more consistent, and was originally taken over by
Thameslink.

Where the other Holborn Viaduct trains went swapped around more, and
the swapping around continued with Thameslink, so I think the
inheritance idea is valid.

For a few years in the early 1990s, trains ran in a partial figure of
eight, going from London Bridge to Wimbledon, then Sutton, then
Selhurst and on to Victoria.

I think in the past some trains from Holborn Viaduct may have ended up
at Victoria as well in a similar way.



I presume the reasoning was to cut down the amount of track it shared with
what was then Connex South Central and also the problems of congestion - in
early 1994 I started commuting Epsom to Blackfriars but my recollection is
that the through service was never a viable option, possibly because it took
far too long, perhaps because the timetable didn't fit well with my
departure and arrival needs.

Why not Wandsworth or Dulwich or Chessington or ..... If anyone
suggested the northbound thameslink had a terminus at Barnet everyone
would laugh, but for some reason if its in south london no ones bats
an eyelid.

Well yes - but the rail routes long predated Thameslink. And also the
limited number of tubes in South London means that a through service that
can reach North London is not undesirable - and the Sutton loop is about as
far west from the Croydon mainline as Thameslink could reasonably do (any
further would still need to go as far as Wimbledon and then clash with both
whatever was serving Wimbledon to Sutton and the south west lines).

On 11 Apr, 18:13, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

sweek wrote:
I'm sorry if this is a bit of a stupid questions, but by Wimbledon
loop do people mean the one with Sutton on it, right?

Yes.

It variously gets called the Wimbledon Loop, the Sutton Loop and the
Sutton/Wimbledon (or indeed Wimbledon/Sutton) Loop. All the same thing.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Paul Scott wrote:

Mwmbwls wrote:
http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=4878
quote
Network Rail plans for 32 Thameslink trains an hour
Filed 09/04/08

Up to 32 trains an hour will run between London and the south coast
along Thameslink routes by 2015, according to information contained
within Network Rail's newly published South London Route Utilisation
Strategy.

List edited for clarity:

four per hour to Brighton.
two per hour to East Grinstead.
four to Tonbridge with two going on to Tunbridge Wells.
four to Gatwick Airport with two going on to Horsham.
four stoppers running to Sydenham and East Croydon.
four heading to Orpington/Sevenoaks.
two running to Maidstone.
four services along the Wimbledon loop
two running to and from Herne Hill and
two heading to Rochester in Kent.

Please correct me if I'm being a bit geographically challenged, but isn't
the only one of these destinations that is on the South Coast actually
Brighton? What's with these journalists ffs...

Only one's *on* the south coast, but all of them are *between London and
the south coast*, as described!

tom

--
Ed editor textorum probatissimus est -- Cicero, De officiis IV.7

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Andy wrote:

On Apr 11, 3:58 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Mwmbwls wrote:

With the transfer of the Thameslink Sutton Loop services to other
south eastern destinations - and their termination at Blackfriars will
these service continue to be part of the Thameslink franchise or would
they be better integrated into a southern franchise or even possibly
LOROL. Would a connection to the ELL be of advantage?

I agree that the Wimbledon loop services wouldn't need to be part of
Thameslink, (as I suggested when I raised the Wimbledons being
curtailed a week ago) but I can't see an obvious way of connecting them
to the ELL. Is there a practical route - and would the ELL have enough
capacity anyway amongst the 16 tph it will already have?

I'd imagine that the potential route would be from Tulse Hill - Peckham
Rye (rather than to Herne Hill and Blackfriars), joining ELL phase 2 at
Peckham Rye. This would avoid the flat crossing of the South Eastern
mainline at Herne Hill, but at the cost of the Blackfriars to Tulse Hill
route.

It would also avoid taking people into central London. This makes it a bit
of a non-starter. Yes, you could get to the City via Shoreditch High
Street, but this is hardly a good alternative to going via Blackfriars.
For any other destination west of Whitechapel, it's a disaster.

tom

--
Ed editor textorum probatissimus est -- Cicero, De officiis IV.7

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, sweek wrote:

I'm sorry if this is a bit of a stupid questions, but by Wimbledon loop
do people mean the one with Sutton on it, right? What's the one from
Clapham Junction to Richmond, Kingston and Wimbledon called then?

The Sutton one i've always heard referred to as the Sutton Loop. I can't
remember ever hearing the term Wimbledon Loop before this thread.

tom

--
Ed editor textorum probatissimus est -- Cicero, De officiis IV.7

On 11 Apr, 18:50, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Andy wrote:

On Apr 11, 3:58 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Mwmbwls wrote:

With the transfer of the Thameslink Sutton Loop services to other
south eastern destinations - and their termination at Blackfriars will
these service continue to be part of the Thameslink franchise or would
they be better integrated into a southern franchise or even possibly
LOROL. Would a connection to the ELL be of advantage?

I agree that the Wimbledon loop services wouldn't need to be part of
Thameslink, (as I suggested when I raised the Wimbledons being
curtailed a week ago) but I can't see an obvious way of connecting them
to the ELL. Is there a practical route - and would the ELL have enough
capacity anyway amongst the 16 tph it will already have?

I'd imagine that the potential route would be from Tulse Hill - Peckham
Rye (rather than to Herne Hill and Blackfriars), joining ELL phase 2 at
Peckham Rye. This would avoid the flat crossing of the South Eastern
mainline at Herne Hill, but at the cost of the Blackfriars to Tulse Hill
route.

It would also avoid taking people into central London. This makes it a bit
of a non-starter. Yes, you could get to the City via Shoreditch High
Street, but this is hardly a good alternative to going via Blackfriars.
For any other destination west of Whitechapel, it's a disaster.



It would take people to the Docklands though - not, of course, that
the present set-up really helps people to do that (apart from the peak-
only Sutton loop trains to/from London Bridge for interchange with the
Jubilee, where the current set-up does... er... help people do that).
But I do quite agree with your point.

Anyway I'd suggest the whole idea is not really a go-er anyway, given
the limited capacity for expansion on the ELL core route and also on
the lines between Peckham Rye and where the ELL connection will
diverge north of Queens Road Peckham.

Anyway if the core Thameslink route actually does fulfil its promise
of operating akin to a tube line with a reliable high-frequency
service then getting booted out at Blackfriars should be a bit less of
an issue.