Grumpy wrote:

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.

365s are not compliant, AFAIK. They have no emergency egress doors through
the front of the vehicle, as per the 319s and any vehicle with a corridor
connection.

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

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.

The IEPs are supposed to run Lynn to the Cross only. Maybe they'll couple
up at Cambridge. I don;t recall seeing that mentioned though.

AIUI the Thameslink stock won't run North of Cambridge (FSVO "Cambridge").

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

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.

That's not so much the issue, AIUI, as getting a grid feed at Lynn or
nearby.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message
, at
15:18:45 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.

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.

We in agreement, apart from one small niggle - when you say that IEP's
"cover" [the EMUs] KX-Lynn and Peterborough, that's only some of the
trains to those destinations, because there are many stoppers as well.
Indeed, even the faster xx44 from Peterborough has seven intermediate
stops - is that really suitable for an IEP? It stops at Hitchin, so at
that point is on the slow tracks.

There are some faster Peterborough suburban services in the peaks
(although I doubt many people use them beyond Huntingdon), but you need
to use the same trains all day.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:03:56
on Sat, 27 Nov 2010, remarked:

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.

The IEPs are supposed to run Lynn to the Cross only.

Does that mean they won't run Cambridge to KX? In other words, both the
"Cruisers" each hour will be extended to Lynn?

Maybe they'll couple up at Cambridge. I don;t recall seeing that
mentioned though.

I think you'd need a 5+5 set often enough, that this is a distinct
possibility. But it just shows that the railways don't learn from
history, and the various operational compromises involved in running 5+5
Voyagers.

AIUI the Thameslink stock won't run North of Cambridge (FSVO "Cambridge").

That makes sense, especially if the sets are semi-permanently connected
as 12-car (according to some reports).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:03:57
on Sat, 27 Nov 2010, remarked:
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.

That's not so much the issue, AIUI, as getting a grid feed at Lynn or
nearby.

Getting a new grid feed is an integral part of "beefing up" the wiring.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

AIUI the Thameslink stock won't run North of Cambridge (FSVO
"Cambridge").

That makes sense, especially if the sets are semi-permanently
connected as 12-car (according to some reports).

AIUI fixed formation 12 and 8 car trains.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
18:03:57 on Sat, 27 Nov 2010, remarked:
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.

That's not so much the issue, AIUI, as getting a grid feed at Lynn or
nearby.

Getting a new grid feed is an integral part of "beefing up" the
wiring.

Amazingly expensive at or near Lynn, AIUI.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message ,
writes

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

Getting a new grid feed is an integral part of "beefing up" the
wiring.

Amazingly expensive at or near Lynn, AIUI.

I wonder why that should be, given that the National Grid's main feeder
for East Anglia crosses the railway less than two miles from King's Lynn
station?
--
Paul Terry

On 26/11/2010 21:37, D7666 wrote:

Platform 1 being 12-car is sufficient for a couple of morning services
to London to be 12-car, and, from next month, a couple of evening
services back from KX as well.



Maybe that's been substituted by the island, or is that a completely
separate exercise?

I don't know. My understanding is that the island platform is needed
to support 12-car trains to Liverpool Street (which, as Jim C says,
are already being built).

Not yet started but at a presentation that Network Rail did to City
Council (repeated to Cambridge Cycling Campaign) they said contacts
would be let by now.
They are lifting a couple of tracks and replacing with an Island to
create 7&8. FB lands on a truncated '5'. Hence misses listed structure.
{Construction Access from Eastern side?)

There are also aspirations for an Eastern entrance and FB is to have
'passive' provision for an extension to reach that. (Build flats of
lifted sidings to fund it?)

Wouldn't 180's fit into suburbans at KX leaving space for 12 cars fasts
from Cambridge/Peterborough in zero-eight.....?


Although 12cars Cambridge Liverpool Street is also not a completely
new idea - there used to be SX peaks 12 cars 317s tats exactly why
Bishops Stortford et al got platform extensions.

Whittlesford and Audley End also at that time?

Jim