Talk:Thameslink/Archive 1

Untitled

The unofficial guide to Thameslink, by Ben Samuel: -Trains now do not run continuously through King's Cross as the northern section ends at St Pancras, 10 minutes' walk away. -Because the privatised company get hand-outs from the government, tickets are checked about once a year. -The official policy on bicycles is they are not allowed at peak times, but you can get on at Blackfriars without any complaints, but avoid King's Cross. Be sure to reverse into the carriage for a rapid exit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.71.31 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2004 (UTC)

Franchise

"Govia acquired the franchise from 2 March 1997 for seven years and a day." - This would suggest that the franchise expired on 3 March 2004. Does anyone know if it was renewed or granted to someone else. And for how long? MrWeeble 9 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

The franchise was extended for approx 2 years as is often the case with the rail contacts. Govia have since lost the contact and this is reflected in the page. --M at 11:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Map

Thameslink/Temp, as-is, or Wikipedia:Image recreation requests? Ojw 19:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Unclear

The tunnel was re-opened to passengers after 50 years in 1988 and the network in May 1990.

Not sure I understand the second half of this. MRSC 23:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that when the tunnel reopened services were run by the existing train division (from recollection South Eastern lines and South London lines - Network South East was divided up by routes) and it may not have been until 1990 that an explicit "Thameslink" division was created with clear services. Timrollpickering 12:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Franchises

I've made a few edits to this section which I think makes the situation slightly clearer. Also added a link to the DfT announcement of the franchise decision. When I have the time I am going to make a bigger edit to this page to make it overall a bit easier to read. I also think that it would be best to make clear the distinction between Thameslink (the BR project to re-open the Snow Hill tunnel and create cross-London services, and the name for those services) and Thameslink (the train operating company). Doownyl32 21:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it would probably be best if the information on Thameslink (the line) and Thameslink (the company) was divided among two articles, especially given that the latter will soon be handing the former over to First Capital Connect. David Arthur 20:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, perhaps Thameslink (train operating company) should be split off as I can't think of a good diambig name for the other (Thameslink (British Rail)?). Thryduulf 14:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would leave the line as Thameslink, since the line has had that name continuously through the British Rail era, the Govia era, and presumably the First era as well (I haven’t heard of any proposals to re-name City Thameslink and Kings Cross Thameslink stations); the line is, after all, the namesake of the private company, so I think it should be given priority. Thameslink (train operating company) sounds good, and matches the form of One (train operating company). David Arthur 21:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

How many passengers can the trains hold?

In the Rolling Stock section it states that the trains are "rated to hold 284 or 314 passengers". What does this mean? Under what circumstances is it 284 passengers, and under what circumstances is it 314 passengers? --A bit iffy 08:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This page gives lots of details on the different configurations, but the refurbished Thameslink sets (Classes 319/3 and 319/4) apparently are either 308 standard class or 12 first class + 277 standard = 289. Thryduulf 10:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

First Capital Connect agree, but for some odd reason they describe the 319/2s and not the 319/0s, which is the wrong way round. I've sent a message to them and hopefully they'll rectify it. Edvid 11:32, 21st November 2006 (UTC)

Rebranding spat

One to watch out for:

There's currently an interesting dispute between First Capital Connect and Transport for London about FCC's over vigorous rebranding of "Thameslink" and also "Great Northern" (even, in some places, obliterating part of the names of City Thameslink and King's Cross Thameslink) and also the Great Northern routes. TfL aren't too happy about all this since it was done rather arbitarily without consultation (and is very confusing for rail users since the two routes share some stations). It's quite possible the name Thameslink may come back into wider use for the route - passengers are very used to it and FCC's current naming is a recipe for confusion (especially if other stakeholders refuse to play ball at stations like Moorgate and Farringdon). Timrollpickering 23:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thameslink Programme

Given that a separate article on the Thameslink Programme was created recently, I believe that all the information on the Thameslink article (under the heading Thameslink Programme (Thameslink 2000)) should be transferred to its article namesake. Edvid 03:50, 31st October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not all the information. Some needs to stay as a summary otherwise not everyone will know what this article is on about. Simply south 11:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - keep just a few summary sentences.A bit iffy 12:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the feedback is quite positive, if limited - I'll make the changes next Monday unless anyone else would like to put forward any other suggestions. Edvid 11:10, 13th November 2006 (UTC)

Route diagram and occasional flyer/metro overlap

I used to get the 8:14 a.m. from Brighton to London each day. It was highly unusual (one of two per day I think) because it crossed from the usual route onto the "metro" route and stopped at stations around and including Tulse Hill. Does this service still exist? It's not indicated as a possible route on the current route diagram. – Kieran T ^(talk) 17:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm working on more detailed maps that will cover this and other possible variations. AlexTiefling 13:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's shown on Thameslink's current maps either, although they tend to just show the off peak routes and not worry about additional combinations in peak hours. Timrollpickering 13:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Peak hours workings in the london area are complex to say the least!!!! Pickle 07:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Having checked the current timetable, it is shown (dashed) on the current map. The timetable seems to indicate that the only stop is now Tulse Hill, with other stations to Elephant & Castle being non-stopping, but the route deviation is there, so I've added it to the route map. Is there a way to indicate that the three stops after Tulse Hill are by-passed or is that just beyond the scope of the diagram? – Kieran T ^(talk) 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Route map

The route map seems to be suffering from 'coverage creep' at present. Some additions like the Smithfield siding probably deserve to be included in the Widened Lines article, but don't really form part of the Thameslink story. Similarly, stations that were closed long before Thameslink was conceived, have a place in an article on that particular line - but again are not really relevant here. What do others think? DrFrench 12:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Thameslink is the name of a train service. In fact scrub that, it was the name of t train service. First Capital Connect wanted to erase it when it took over the services. There has never been a route or line called Thameslink. I suppose the only bit that you could call Thameslink route is from Farringdon to Blackfriars, but even thats dodgy, because it was the Snow Hill Tunnel before that. To be honest, the map is way too large (see the arguments on the ECML!!), and ought to be split into foursections (1) Midland Main Line (have we duplicated?) (2) Widended lines (3) Farrindon to Blackfriars (4) Southern Region routes. At the end of the day, Network Rail still retains the word for its proposals to allow services to Dartford, Peterborugh, Brighton and East Grinstead. If that happens, then we will need more than a BS5 map. How about BS55??? Canterberry 15:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree. "Thameslink" is an identifiable route/service that didn't change in the slightest when FCC took over. FCC still call that half of their service Thameslink in all of their publicity. --82.45.163.4 16:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the map and have reverted the recent additions. The ECML link was built especially for TL2000, and the route to St Pancras is used sometimes for diversions, so those two have a reasonable case to stay. I'm not sure about the remaining connections south of the river. --82.45.163.4 16:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

For a "Mystery guest" you seem to have a lot to say. Try logging in as a registered user, and I shall engage in a debate with you. Canterberry 16:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had a registered account for nearly 3 years, but I only use it when I have to. Usernames and watchlists encourage people to think they own their edits and so pettily defend them. There's no rule requiring you to register. --82.45.163.4 16:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It is disappointing to see so much effort spent on putting this diagram together reverted at the click of a mouse by 82.45.163.4. That said, I agree with a couple of the comments made above.

There seems to be a need to decide quite what this article is trying to be:

1. an article about a present day service ignoring the history of the lines over which it runs
2. an article which looks at the history of the route constructed at various dates by many different railway companies

At the moment I think the article is trying to be a bit of each of these and has become somewhat confused as a consequence. A demonstration of this confusion is the article's opening sentence which currently reads "Thameslink is a fifty-station line in the British railway system...". As Canterberry commented, Thameslink is not a line as such, but a patchwork of several lines which share a common service - the article in fact identifies these lines in the last sentence of the first paragraph. Much of these two lines is also served by other operators, and it is arguable that the article in its present form does not need to rehearse what is covered elsewhere and should be limited to listing the stations served without the inclusion of the templated route map. The alternative is to have a detailed narrative of the history of the route with a comprehensive route map showing all of the connections to other lines and the past stations.

Regarding the use of Usernames in preference to the use of anonymous IP addresses - the use of a name may not be a requirement, but is a common curtesy when engaging in a discussion like this. A fixed name is particularly helpful if your IP address changes each time you log on as it enables other users to associate edits as coming from a single source and allows them to contact you directly by leaving messages for you. Use of an anonymous IP address gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the person behind it has something to hide. An anonymous IP address also has the effect of somewhat neutering the user's comments as others cannot see previous contributions by that user and judge whether he/she has expertise in that area. --DavidCane 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It can be frustrating to have your edits reverted when you have put a lot of work in, but I guess that's the risk we all have to accept when editing Wikipedia. The problem is there are no firm rules, but then that allows each case to be looked at on its merits. I think a good rule of thumb is when describing the history of a line (e.g. Shrewsbury to Chester Line, to use an example I have recently worked on) then more detail is required, including closed stations, etc - but when describing a service (e.g. Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway) then something approaching the style of a route map that you would see on a timetable is more in order. DrFrench 00:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and I have no problem with edits being made, but there does not seem to be a clear consensus as to the direction this article should take. My view is that most readers will come to these line articles by clicking through from a link on a station article. As such it is difficult to predict what their interest might be. As you noted above, we currently have two basic types of article covering services and the tracks they operate over. Which is this article trying to be? Is it trying to be a history of a line or description of the service? If the former we should give as much detail on the route as possible, if the latter we need only the barest mimimum in the route diagram and links to other lines are not really relevant and we need to reinforce or create separate articles for the history of the line, making sure that full links are provided here. To this end, I think we are going to have to create a separate article for the Loughborough Junction to Holborm Viaduct line (currently covered briefly under London, Chatham and Dover Railway#Second London line.

By the way Elephant & Castle has disappeared again from the route diagram. I'll reinstate this now. --DavidCane 11:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The route map should go to Sevenoaks ... the Thameslink service operates there today. Any argument against this will absolutely undermine the whole debate about what constitutes a "Route Map". Canterberry 13:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Ooops ... I take that back. I still think that the map is too big. And if the proposed work by Network Rail does proceed, then the route map will be unsupportable by the current format.Canterberry 15:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong words there Canterberry. As far as I'm aware, no Thameslink trains have served Sevenoaks for the best part of 15 years. DrFrench 13:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is an argument for having Sevenoaks on the "Route Map". The fact that it has been served in the past, should mean that it warrants being put on the map. After all, if you are going to include the full history of the route, then it ought to be included. I still think that the map is a crock though. Canterberry 07:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's an argument for it - but you need to consider (over the whole Thameslink story) how relevant it is. A link to other articles which include that route might be sufficient. You could also consider if a separate page is required for the 'historical' Thameslink routes. It's all a case of balancing 100% accuracy against usefulness.DrFrench 11:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're adding Sevenoaks then you'd need to include the whole West Croydon - Epsom - Guildford route. Thameslink has had a lot of variant routes over the years and fitting them all onto the map (especially this one because it served Sutton by a different route) will render it near impossible to read. Timrollpickering 07:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm working on separate maps for the northern section (Blackfriars to Bedford), and the Sutton-Wimbledon loop. The London-Brighton section is already covered by Brighton Main Line in appropriate detail. See User:AlexTiefling/Railmaps for the northern section. AlexTiefling 10:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Do consider if they would be more appropriately added to other pages (e.g. Widened Lines, Midland Main Line, etc). DrFrench 11:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Widened Lines is much too specific; Midland Main Line is much too general. If 'Thameslink' is to be used as a designator for the routes involved, then these diagrams belong here. But if someone would like to propose an alternative naming convention, I'd love to know. AlexTiefling 14:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Thameslink is just a service. It is pretty much a line between Kentish Town and Liondon Bridge and basically the whole of the Blackfriars-Streatham-Wimbledon-Sutton-Streatham-Blackfriars.

Strangely, National Rail define the line into 2

• CityFlier from Bedford to Brighton
• CityMetro from Luton to Wimbledon\Sutton Loop

Here for named lines. However, a general search shows that Thameslink is a line. Simply south 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Simply south 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have further evidence to support my earlier statement that First Capital Connect wanted to removed all references to "Thameslink". The following can be found under City Thameslink railway station. Due to the Thameslink franchise changing its branding to First Capital Connect, there was speculation that this station and others with Thameslink in the name might be re-named. Whilst this has not yet occurred, it appears that FCC instructed staff to remove all reference to the previous Thameslink brand from trains, and this has led to some overzealous staff blanking out Thameslink from station names on maps, with City Thameslink appearing as just City.[citation needed]. Canterberry 16:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

with the "citation needed" tag, the evidence still needs to be backed up. Simply south 15:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am about to move house, and am sorting through my old Modern Railways. I shall find a reference to this disgraceful behaviour by FCC (I hope they don't get the rolling stock they need for additional Cambridge services) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canterberry (talk • contribs) 21:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

The opening date needs pinning down better. I can't find a source that backs up this assertion:

The Snow Hill tunnel was re-opened to passengers after 50 years in 1988 and the Thameslink network in May 1990

Everyhting I can find suggests the name "Thameslink" existed from the start. --82.45.163.4 18:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am working on this ... hope to have a source soon (probably the Modern Railways Electrification Special that was published about this time).Canterberry 21:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tunnels

The map shows the Snow Hill Tunnel ... but what about the others (Clerkenwell Nos.1,2,3 and Belsize Tunnel - Longest at 1m 107 yds). Also on the Moorgate Branch ... Smithfield and Barbican!! Also, whats wrong with Camden Road and Kings Cross Tunnels, plus Elstree. Snow Hill is probably the shortest tunnel on the whole route!!!! Okay, it gets the headlines, but SO WHAT!! I demand better recognition for the other tunnels ... especially Belsize Tunnel ... which is the longest north of the Thames. And why are the tunnels south of the river not included. I shall revert the map if I do no get answers!!! Canterberry 21:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

a) on somethimg like thameslink there is a slight diffrence in routemaps between the ones that show just stations and other really notable / famous feature and ones that show copious detail (eg Watford DC line, Brighton main line, etc), especailly when they are made up of other lines (ie in thameslink's case). when we get collapsibilty working (see talk at wp:trail and the north london line) we should be able to offer lots of detail in a user friendly form

b) in the meantime be bold! and add the detail

Pickle 00:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My planned revision of these maps covers this - but as it's effectively three sections, one of which already exists as the Brighton Main Line, I'm unsure how best to finish up. AlexTiefling 21:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)