On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:14:21 -0800 (PST)
Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
On 18 Dec, 15:06, Simon Barber wrote:

I wonder whether there was any 'consultation' with passengers using
the branch. =A0It sounds as if there were a lot of them and that should
have made the decision. =A0The railway exists to serve its customers,
not jerks in the DfT or TfL.

I'm pleased about the closure because I'll eventually gain from it -
the increased frequency on Thameslink will mean Great Northern trains
are sent through the central section so combined with Crossrail I'll
be able to make a single change to get to work.

They could still have kept the new frequency even with moorgate. For every
southbound train to moorgate they could just have had a northbound from
Blackfriars reverse at City.

B2003

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:14:21 -0800 (PST)
Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
On 18 Dec, 15:06, Simon Barber wrote:

I wonder whether there was any 'consultation' with passengers using
the branch. =A0It sounds as if there were a lot of them and that should
have made the decision. =A0The railway exists to serve its customers,
not jerks in the DfT or TfL.

I'm pleased about the closure because I'll eventually gain from it -
the increased frequency on Thameslink will mean Great Northern trains
are sent through the central section so combined with Crossrail I'll
be able to make a single change to get to work.

They could still have kept the new frequency even with moorgate. For every
southbound train to moorgate they could just have had a northbound from
Blackfriars reverse at City.

B2003

In message , at 14:58:08 on Fri, 18 Dec 2009,
d remarked:

A train crossing a junction blocks it for much longer than just the
time taken to physically cross it. You're a bit of a prat, aren't you,
Boltar?

Oh , nicely argued. A train from moorgate would take up a slot from a
train going north from city thameslink just like it does at the moment.

But it would also take a slot for a southbound train. Flat junctions do
that.

Funnily enough they also allow a train to go to moorgate instead of
southbound. Or did you think there was a train factory at moorgate churning
out one every 30 mins to go north?

It would be a co-incidence if the southbound trains to Moorgate exactly
co-incided (at Farringdon) with the northbound ones from Moorgate. You
can claim it would always be timetabled thus, but such things are
exactly what makes a timetable impossible to deliver in practice.

When I used to commute on that line 3 years ago the number of people going to
moorgate far exceeded the numbers going south via city thameslink

But the new service will be introducing many more useful "through
routes" than the old one ever delivered.

--
Roland Perry

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"DW downunder" noname wrote in message
u

I would imagine the section would be of some use to LU - as it was in
days of yore.

Cue the usual speculation of outlandish schemes for express routes, DLR
extensions, etc...

How about maxing out straightaway? The terminus for HS2...

Paul S

"Simon Barber" wrote in message
...

I wonder whether there was any 'consultation' with passengers using the
branch. It sounds as if there were a lot of them and that should have
made the decision. The railway exists to serve its customers, not jerks
in the DfT or TfL.

There was loads of consultation, the DfT's website is full of it. And when
Thameslink was delayed due to problems with other areas, they did it all
over again IIRC.

Paul S

On 18 Dec, 15:34, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:14:21 -0800 (PST)

Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
On 18 Dec, 15:06, Simon Barber wrote:

I wonder whether there was any 'consultation' with passengers using
the branch. =A0It sounds as if there were a lot of them and that should
have made the decision. =A0The railway exists to serve its customers,
not jerks in the DfT or TfL.

I'm pleased about the closure because I'll eventually gain from it -
the increased frequency on Thameslink will mean Great Northern trains
are sent through the central section so combined with Crossrail I'll
be able to make a single change to get to work.

They could still have kept the new frequency even with moorgate. For every
southbound train to moorgate they could just have had a northbound from
Blackfriars reverse at City.

That assumes no delays to services ever happen, as any such delay
would create a conflict at the flat junction thus increasing the
delays further. With trains coming from across the entire expanded
Thameslink network some delays are extremely likely.

Ganesh

I wonder whether there was any 'consultation' with passengers using
the branch.

They said there was.

They could still have kept the new frequency even with moorgate.

Indeed.

While myself and boltar have dis-agreed on several points in the past,
I agree 100% on this one.

In view of what they are *now* doing with TL , I'd have argued to have
kept Holborn Viaduct as well as Moorgate. For every peak train that
departs Moorgate northbound, one departs HV southbound and timed to
take up the path through Blackfriars that would have conflicted (*)
with the Moorgate departure had it not been there ... if you see what
I mean ... and vice versa.

The office rebuilding on site of HV could simply have been City
TLHL , maybe even a single platform. At least City would then have got
3 platforms, in turn dwell time ''downstairs'' might be less of a
problem.

You lose no paths, but you provide two city terminii departures at the
same time, one north and one south.

I shall provde another rant about how I think the Farringdon Junction
argument is a cop out in due course .... I need to check on one item
first before I do. It won't alter what I will suggest, just the way in
which it could be carried out.


(*) i.e. northbound Moorgate departures cross southbound Farringdon
departures at Farringdon Junction.


--
Nick

On 18 Dec, 14:58, wrote:

Or did you think there was a train factory at moorgate churning
out one every 30 mins to go north?

It would be very handy, as long as it wasn't turning out 317s.

On 18 Dec, 15:38, Roland Perry wrote:

It would be a co-incidence if the southbound trains to Moorgate exactly
co-incided (at Farringdon) with the northbound ones from Moorgate. You
can claim it would always be timetabled thus, but such things are
exactly what makes a timetable impossible to deliver in practice.


Game set & match to you, Roland, I think.

On Dec 18, 3:38*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

It would be a co-incidence if the southbound trains to Moorgate exactly
co-incided (at Farringdon) with the northbound ones from Moorgate. You
can claim it would always be timetabled thus, but such things are
exactly what makes a timetable impossible to deliver in practice.

Actually they did do that at Farringdon, and this is no more than the
sort of detailed timetabling that has to go into the planning of every
single location where there are conflicts.

Parallel running they call it - how do you think locations like
Borough Market Junction work without it.

Not delivered in practice to the nearest microsecond no, but delivered
it is and it works.

When I used to commute on that line 3 years ago the number of people going to
moorgate far exceeded the numbers going south via city thameslink

But the new service will be introducing many more useful "through
routes" than the old one ever delivered.

Moorgate trains were full enough to justify their existence.

I used them as often as I possibly could to get to and from that area
- and did so ever since I moved to Luton 20+ years ago.

--
Nick