On Nov 27, 5:11*pm, Grumpy wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:54*pm, D7666 wrote:





On Nov 26, 3:22*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:

I've been trying to find out what's planned for the 365s, to no avail
though.

Unlike FCC/TL 319s that are all deployed on current TL services that
remain TL services therefor get replaced by new stock, many FCC/GN
units (the majority in fact if you count 313s in the fleet totals) do
not work services that are intended to run over TL. There is no reason
to suppose 365s will be cascaded anywhere at this moment in time and
we probably won't know until the x-IEP EMU is known and confirmed for
the KL line.

--
Nick

*I cant quite grasp this. Currently there are 15tph trains through the
core in the peak. That the plan is to run 24 ie 9 extra. Several of
these must be coming off the GN. Peterborough and Cambridge feature on
the proposed route maps. Unless there are some spare paths available
on the GN, surely the additional trains through the core must be
mainly extensions/replacements for existing trains operated by
317/365 ? Which means the existing units must be thrown surplus if the
trains through the core are worked by the new fleet. So where are they
going? Or are they to replace the 313's?

I accept there may be an argument for using IEP to free up paths, but
this would just replace either existing kit or the new units-you still
end up replacing something unless you are providing more or longer
trains.

All this (IEP apart) really begs the question as to why we need any
new rolling stock to complete the Thameslink programme.

Thus to quote a famous sage on another thread -"The entire original
GLC / NSE Thameslink scheme paid for itself by introducing
operational
efficiency in train fleets. There were 48 317s, of which 46 were
needed to operate BedPan. The very original Thameslink service was
only 46 319s (the other 14 originals were ordered before the service
started but were extra to the original plan). Those same 46 319s did
all that the 46 317s did AND eliminated a goodly number of EPBs, all
by * through running and no terminals dead time"

Surely the same principles apply now? *The 20 minutes or so to run
through the core being less than the combined time to turn round an
existing service at Kings Cross and an existing service at a Southern
terminal. Why cant existing Electrostars on the Southern lines be
adapted to work north through the core and beyond?

Similarly adapt the 365's to work through.

The money saved by not *buying a fleet of 1200 vehicles would for
example probably pay for a lot of new electrification elsewhere.

All I meant was we can't assume 365s go anywhere until we know the how
why and whens of IEP EMU.

After all, we did not know where the 319s were going until GWML and NW
electrics were announced 6 months ago.

I agree with the general comment about why does TLP need new stock and
yes operational efficiency demands less overall stock and yes there
are conflicts with what is going on elsewhere.

And indeed, I've never been able to get my head around understanding
the GN side of the TLP w.r.t. what services are intended to run. There
are several high level maps yes, but no detail.

Taking TL and ECML both routes have ''white space'' capacity issues
arising from current or potential stock type differences.

IIMU the sole reason behind total TL fleet replacement is to maintain
24 TPH headway through the core - and, importantly, over junctions
south of the river - they need all trains to have identical
performance characteristics, else you get unusable white space in the
timetable if you for example simply build more 377s and mix with 319s.
Thus the plan is all new stock for TLP and cascade older 319s and
newer 377s none of which are approaching life expiry to other routes.
365s can't work through, so I understand because they are not through
gangway units. HOWEVER that is based on old data and possibly re-opens
a perennial uk.railway topic.

It is exactly the other plan that puts express 125 mph capable EMU on
to Kings Lynns. The whole point is solving its own white space problem
on the southern end of the ECML. That means it ain't those services,
and probably fast-er Peterboroughs as well, that come through TLP core
as IEP/descendants performance will be very different, and in any case
TL core is limited to 20 m cars. (At least it is now, I've never seen
anything to suggest this is eased in the current works). IEP-et-al is
based around 26 m cars, not even 23 m, so to introduce 20 m cars is
yet another input the IEP-et-al project can do without.

Once you've got to the stage where IEP cover KX Lynn and Peterboro
fixing the 100/125 mph ECML white space issue I then do not understand
where all these GN bound trains using TL core are going to. Yes this
does seem to kill all 317 and 321 and 365s.

--
Nick

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
12:44:29 on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, remarked:
Do keep up, Roland!

I'm trying to - by asking in here...

There's another group you frequent where this was done to death several
months ago.

I don't recall much discussion of the fate of platform 1, most of
it being about the new island.

Before then.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
12:44:29 on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, remarked:
North of Ely you've got largely single track, four-car platforms, and
not enough power. It's unlikely to be IEP to Kings Lynn.

In fact the plan was for five-car half-IEPs which would run Kings Cross
to Kings Lynn. IEP is still on hold of course.

There seem to be several plans

Would that be alternate IEPs extended to Ely, or a proper half-hour
service?

I also recall some discussion that it would have to be a bi-mode
IEP, or the OHL would need enhancing north of Cambridge.

Just 5-car electric IEPs according to Uncle Roger.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Nov 27, 5:35*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

OTOH the follow up effects on existing rolling stock aren't that obvious in
the RUS, so perhaps there's an implication that some existing units will be
scrapped as life expired?

The implications of TLP are also not that obvious in the south central
RUS whatever it was called.

--
Nick

"D7666" wrote in message
...
On Nov 27, 5:35 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

OTOH the follow up effects on existing rolling stock aren't that obvious
in
the RUS, so perhaps there's an implication that some existing units will
be
scrapped as life expired?

The implications of TLP are also not that obvious in the south central
RUS whatever it was called.

I think the 'probable' route maps in the south are much more detailed than
north, but there's just as much unsaid (in the Sussex, South London, and
Kent RUSs) regarding cascades of stock when Thameslink takes over the
relevant existing routes - and then there's the opposite case (fairly likely
IMO) of the Wimbledon/Sutton rounders being transferred to SN - all things
being equal these could end up with 8 car SN 377s?

I'd assume the bulk will go to maximising the lengths of more existing
services following the various platform lengthening schemes in the SN and SE
divisions. Most of the stock will be stuck on the third rail network by
default of course.

Paul S

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

I also recall some discussion that it would have to be a bi-mode IEP, or
the OHL would need enhancing north of Cambridge.

To an extent that's only because many posters haven't acknowledged that the
IEP project included associated infrastructure upgrades.

One might as well suggest that new trains can't run from Cambridge onto
Thameslink because there are no rails in the tunnels...

Paul S

In message
, at
09:41:50 on Sat, 27 Nov 2010, D7666 remarked:
Once you've got to the stage where IEP cover KX Lynn and Peterboro
fixing the 100/125 mph ECML white space issue I then do not understand
where all these GN bound trains using TL core are going to. Yes this
does seem to kill all 317 and 321 and 365s.

The IEP can solve the white space issue on the ECML fast tracks (ie the
ex Cambridge Cruisers), but there's also the stoppers - who can live in
their own space on the slow tracks and flow through Thameslink rather
than terminating at Kings Cross.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:12:36
on Sat, 27 Nov 2010, remarked:
North of Ely you've got largely single track, four-car platforms, and
not enough power. It's unlikely to be IEP to Kings Lynn.

In fact the plan was for five-car half-IEPs which would run Kings Cross
to Kings Lynn. IEP is still on hold of course.

There seem to be several plans

Would that be alternate IEPs extended to Ely, or a proper half-hour
service?

I also recall some discussion that it would have to be a bi-mode
IEP, or the OHL would need enhancing north of Cambridge.

Just 5-car electric IEPs according to Uncle Roger.

The brevity of your replies is clouding the situation.

I can't see 8-12 car half-hourly "Cambridge Cruisers" being operated by
a 5-car IEP and all of them terminating at Kings Lynn. So you must mean
something else.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:37:06 on
Sat, 27 Nov 2010, Paul Scott remarked:
I also recall some discussion that it would have to be a bi-mode IEP,
or the OHL would need enhancing north of Cambridge.

To an extent that's only because many posters haven't acknowledged that
the IEP project included associated infrastructure upgrades.

One might as well suggest that new trains can't run from Cambridge onto
Thameslink because there are no rails in the tunnels...

That's less of an issue than beefing up the wiring all the way from
Cambridge to Kings Lynn.
--
Roland Perry

On Nov 27, 9:59*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
09:41:50 on Sat, 27 Nov 2010, D7666 remarked:

Once you've got to the stage where IEP cover KX Lynn and Peterboro
fixing the 100/125 mph ECML white space issue I then do not understand
where all these GN bound trains using TL core are going to. Yes this
does seem to kill all 317 and 321 and 365s.

The IEP can solve the white space issue on the ECML fast tracks (ie the
ex Cambridge Cruisers), but there's also the stoppers - who can live in
their own space on the slow tracks and flow through Thameslink rather
than terminating at Kings Cross.
--
Roland Perry

Yes thats what I'm saying IEPEMU fast ECML EMU working and TLNGEMU
slower TL EMU working.

What I'm trying to get through is if the Lynns etc are IEPEMU they
can't go through TL because TL is limited to 20 m stock, and, well so
far anyway, all IEP has been 26 m.

So yes you are right, but I'd said all that anyway.

--
Nick