GTR and the Thameslink Timetable. There are probably Southern commuters who would claim that nothing Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR – Southern’s parent company) said or did would surprise them. Many industry insiders would probably agree. When rumours spread rapidly about a proposal to completely revise the Thameslink timetable, however, there were various shades of disbelief. The rumours centred on a proposed Thameslink service to Rainham (Kent) via Greenwich. Without any background context this just seemed like a barmy idea – one that not even a mad LR crayonista in a state of psychosis could come up with. The proposal, now officially published however, is about much more than that. This is not to say that the proposals aren’t still controversial. A Thameslink timetable consultation was a complete surprise because as far as everyone else was concerned the whole thing was pretty much finalised. True, it was an open secret that the 2. September 2. 01. 6, by generally accepted industry norms, would seem to be far too late to start consulting on major timetable alterations due for implementation on Sunday 1. Combining ballet’s grace, Yoga’s focus and Pilates’ strength, Barre powered by bootybarre® classes are is a fun way to increase your fitness and it’s for.
May 2. 01. 8. It seems incredible that the Department for Transport fully consulted on what was thought to be the definitive Thameslink 2. Thameslink franchise on that basis, yet we now have major changes being put forward. More remarkable still, the whole basis of having the large Thameslink franchise was so that it would be self- contained and one operator, as much as possible, would be in overall control. If accepted, these new proposals would make Thameslink so interdependent on South. Eastern that the future influence of South. Eastern on Thameslink performance would be comparable with that of Great Northern. So maybe the franchise should have been bigger still or, as some MPs argue, it has already got too big and shouldn’t be taking over every railway on which it runs a significant number of services. We are getting ahead of ourselves, however, and so first we should step back and take a look at what the proposals contain. There ain’t nothing quite like it. It has been said many times that Thameslink, currently run by GTR, is a franchise like no other. To begin with, it is a franchise where the Df. T keeps all the revenue. The unwritten objective for the train operator is therefore not the usual one of maximising profit by getting as much revenue as possible for as little expenditure as possible. It is to keep the Df. T happy so that they continue to pay the management fee. For better or for worse, it seems that a completely unexpected – and largely unpredicted – consequence of this is that GTR is thinking more long term than other non- Tf. L- sponsored train operators. As a result it isn’t going to be panicked into doing something just because there is a loss of revenue – provided, of course, that what they are doing doesn’t upset the Df. ![]() T. Not content with doing one thing at a time. One would have thought that with the guards dispute on Southern and the controversial proposals for ticket office revision covering all of GTR that the company would be desperate not to get involved with another controversy. Not a bit of it! Indeed it is telling that the head of GTR, Charles Horton, is due to give a lecture next May entitled “Everything had to be done at once” Clearly the softly, softly approach is not on GTR’s agenda. Reading the document itself, it is clear that at its heart lies a fundamental problem. The aforementioned fact that the 2. Thameslink timetable, in its current form, won’t work. More importantly though, the consultation seems to admit that in its present form simple tweaks won’t work. As far as GTR seem concerned, it can’t be made to work. Facing up to this fundamental truth has thus led to some pretty drastic decision making. Getting into the details. It is interesting to note that up until now all the doom- merchants have claimed that Thameslink will be a disaster because of the problems of running 2. If the rhetoric of GTR is to be believed though, this is probably the least of their problems – a potential problem, certainly, but one that has been long recognised. It has been an open secret that the planned 2018 Thameslink timetable was unlikely to work. Wholesale changes, however, were something no one was expecting. The necessary measures have thus already been taken to make sure that it does not become an issue once a full service through the core is run. So what is the bigger problem GTR anticipate? Here, those looking for something exciting and new to read about are about to be mildly disappointed. For we are back to familiar topics at LR Towers – dwell times, reactionary delay and Windmill Bridge Junction. Indeed on Southern territory this junction must be the railway operational equivalent of Mornington Crescent, because it seems the final answer to everything. ![]() GTR have clearly looked at the fundamental reason why there is a problem and have come to the none- too- startling conclusion that it is the complex junctions in the Southern metro area. They also seem well aware that in the past few years a delay on Southern territory has tended to set off a bit of a chain reaction, meaning the overall consequential delay tends to be around three times the initial delay. Awareness of the systemwide problems caused by complex junctions is nothing new. Tf. L Rail are well aware of it and for many years have argued for a more Tf. L- style of railway on the Southern network – i. Indeed much of the Turn South London Orange proposal was about sorting out junctions. Sorting out junctions, however, is rarely an exercise without consequence. What was really necessary to solve, or at least reduce, the junction problem to manageable levels was thus an organisation willing to take the flak and actually do something about this – despite the inevitable initial unpopularity. Until now no TOC in their right mind would do such a thing. Far better to keep one’s head down, not upset the fare- paying punters and quietly collect those large delay payments from Network Rail when the cause of a delay can be attributed to them. Call them maverick, mad or brave. Call them forward thinking and full of willingness to take the initiative. Whatever your preference, GTR seem to be the first organisation willing to face up to this.(Evenly) spaced out. On a much more positive note, and something that would likely get the approval of Sir Herbert Walker (of original Southern Railway fame), GTR have recognised that, both north and south of the river, the current timetable is a complete mess when it comes to regularly spaced trains. This is not something that can be resolved by tweaks and tends to involve tearing the timetable up and starting again. It does seem that the proposals would produce a far superior timetable in this respect and this is again something that is greatly desired by Tf. L, who want to see a “turn up and go” railway. Maybe even Redhill users will be happy. The consultation states: Frequent all- day, evenly spaced service of six trains per hour every 1. Redhill and London. The service today from Redhill has gaps varying between 1. It is a major town with a large catchment area and it really deserves a decent service, such as the proposed train every 1. It is hard to see how this could have been achieved without a major timetable rewrite. Whilst Redhill maybe a particularly bad example of a major station with an erratic service, it is one of many examples that can be found. A solution to providing a regular interval service at most stations is not going to possible by just tinkering with the timetable we currently have. It is not only the regularity that will be better if the proposals are accepted. GTR seem to be striving to provide a better service by increasing the frequency. It has to be said that this includes lines that will never even cover their marginal costs, such as the line to Epsom Downs (which goes up from 1 train per hour . South of the river a very welcome proposal is 4tph off- peak on the Catford loop line – something campaigners have wanted for many years. North of the river there are similar proposed improvements, such as 2tph off- peak to Kings Lynn (once work is completed at Ely North Junction) though it has to be said that this is not a new proposal and was due to happen anyway. Better service in the evening and at weekends. Another Tf. L aspiration being pursued is the extension of the normal off- peak services late into the evening and at weekends, although it is conceded in this consultation that there may have to be a reduced service on Sunday mornings to allow time for maintenance. Indeed the “be more like Tf. L than Tf. L” approach may be an attempt to fight off a Tf. L takeover in future so that Govia can get another bite of the cherry once the present franchise expires. Facing reality. Refreshingly, GTR are also fully facing up to the reality of extended dwell time (for the most part). As trains get more crowded then station dwell times can get disproportionally large. It is not just the number of people wanting to get on, but how crowded the train is already, as well as such aggravating factors as a long train and a short platform. So it is a pleasure to see that reality has hit home at GTR and they now propose a one minute dwell time at busy times at stations such as South Croydon and Purley Oaks – not especially busy but the train is already crowded and the eight car platforms mean that on 1. In a similar manner the proposals also support having increased turnaround time. This would rectify a much criticised issue with previous timetables, where most industry experts regarded the turnaround times as far too tight to allow a service to be operated reliably. Dwell times are only going to get worse as demand increases. The consultation appears to confirm the fact that, despite all the current disruption, passenger numbers are rising on GTR. Let down by Network Rail. Another reality GTR are facing up to is that some of the infrastructure needed to run the previously proposed 2. Probably worst of all is the fact that a terminating platform to be built at Stevenage simply will not be ready by December 2.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
August 2017
Categories |