On 19 Dec, 15:39, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
The expected advantage of TL2k is for people travelling between Cambridge
and Blackfriars or Littlehampton and Kings Cross. The percentage of people
passing through the centre is not expected to rise, although the number
will.

The greater point of the exercise is to significantly increase the
number of trains into London Bridge from the south/southeast, and
likewise increase the number of ECML commuter services (especially 12-
car) that can be run, as well as to extend the existing services to 12
cars. Where any of these trains actually go is not terribly
important.

This is relevant because every train to Moorgate is one less to/
through London Bridge (unless you can find somewhere new to start them
from), undermining the purpose of the scheme.

U

On Dec 19, 5:01*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

This is relevant because every train to Moorgate is one less to/
through London Bridge (unless you can find somewhere new to start them
from), undermining the purpose of the scheme.

Holborn Viaduct ;o)

City TL out of St.Pauls sdgs.

Its not rocket science.

--
Nick

"D7666" wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 5:01 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

This is relevant because every train to Moorgate is one less to/
through London Bridge (unless you can find somewhere new to start them
from), undermining the purpose of the scheme.

Holborn Viaduct ;o)

City TL out of St.Pauls sdgs.

For each train turned back in St Pauls Sidings you lose two paths to
Farringdon, one as it goes into the sidings and one as it comes out. To
avoid this you'd have to remodel the sidings so that they are between the up
and down lines. Even then you'd lose capacity when trains don't turn up at
the right time. I doubt that you could lengthen the platforms at Moorgate
for 12-car trains - down trains didn't call at Barbican because the platform
was too short. As others have pointed out, you couldn't operate Farringdon
at 24 tph with SDO. If you retain the Moorgate branch you can't lengthen the
Farringdon platforms south of the station, because that's where the junction
is. You can't extend them to the north because of the gradient of the
diveunder under the LUL lines. So you'd have to rebuild the gridiron so that
the Thameslink line stays level and the LUL line dives underneath it. All in
all completely unaffordable, and quite unnecessary, as passengers can change
at Farringdon to LUL (or in future, Crossrail) to reach Moogate or Liverpool
Street. Or walk.

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:
"D7666" wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 5:01 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

This is relevant because every train to Moorgate is one less to/
through London Bridge (unless you can find somewhere new to start
them from), undermining the purpose of the scheme.

Holborn Viaduct ;o)

City TL out of St.Pauls sdgs.

For each train turned back in St Pauls Sidings you lose two paths to
Farringdon, one as it goes into the sidings and one as it comes out.
To avoid this you'd have to remodel the sidings so that they are
between the up and down lines. Even then you'd lose capacity when
trains don't turn up at the right time. I doubt that you could
lengthen the platforms at Moorgate for 12-car trains - down trains
didn't call at Barbican because the platform was too short. As others
have pointed out, you couldn't operate Farringdon at 24 tph with SDO.
If you retain the Moorgate branch you can't lengthen the Farringdon
platforms south of the station, because that's where the junction is.
You can't extend them to the north because of the gradient of the
diveunder under the LUL lines. So you'd have to rebuild the gridiron
so that the Thameslink line stays level and the LUL line dives
underneath it. All in all completely unaffordable, and quite
unnecessary, as passengers can change at Farringdon to LUL (or in
future, Crossrail) to reach Moogate or Liverpool Street. Or walk.

I'd also suggest [with hindsight] that they had a pretty good idea that it
wasn't just the Farringdon platform lengthening that would go over the
junction, but the combined Thameslink/Crossrail station, and I believe the
Crossrail construction access is to use the disused track bed. Was this all
assumed to be happening by the original decision makers?

Paul S

On Dec 19, 5:56*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:

For each train turned back in St Pauls Sidings you lose two paths to
Farringdon, one as it goes into the sidings and one as it comes out.

Not if the path of one NB train that goes into the sidings is taken up
by the Down train from Moorgate, and the one out of St.Pauls by an Up
train into Moorgate.


--
Nick

"D7666" wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 5:56 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:

For each train turned back in St Pauls Sidings you lose two paths to
Farringdon, one as it goes into the sidings and one as it comes out.

Not if the path of one NB train that goes into the sidings is taken up
by the Down train from Moorgate, and the one out of St.Pauls by an Up
train into Moorgate.

------
But the one out of the sidings also takes up a path from City Thameslink to
Farringdon, as it has to cross that line.

Peter

On 19 Dec, 18:11, D7666 wrote:
Not if the path of one NB train that goes into the sidings is taken up
by the Down train from Moorgate, and the one out of St.Pauls by an Up
train into Moorgate.

The timetable already has to be planned around making the flat
junction south of Blackfriars work, and (hypothetically) making the
Moorgate branch junction work. You'll be very lucky to come up with a
workable timetable that allows all three to work efficiently and which
doesn't sacrifice a big chunk of capacity and/or resilience.

U