In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message
,
at 13:41:23 on Sun, 28 Nov 2010, TimB
remarked:
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.

Except that there are no slow lines for a few miles north of
Welwyn.

There are a certain number of paths through Welwyn, increasing the
top speed of 2tph from 100mph to 125mph isn't going to change
that. What's the track speed there, anyway?

105 through the tunnels - the turnouts to/from the slows are 70,
which may be more relevant.

Thanks - so having 125mph trains on the Cambridge slows isn't going
to help the throughput; even if they touch 105mph for half a mile
they'll need to be slowing to 70 almost immediately.

The hourly Cambridge slows (and an hourly Peterborough) stop at Welwyn
North anyway. The ones you're talking of putting on the slow lines are
the semi-fasts, non-stop Finsbury Park to Stevenage.

I was thinking of any train which also stopped at Hitchin (and was
therefore on the slow track).

There is a relatively fast fast-to-slow crossover just south of Hitchin.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Andy wrote:

The 86 class 319s won't go far when spread between the North-West and
the Paddington routes. There are currently 57 class 165/166 used out
of Paddington, of which 35 are 3 car units. Electrification will
displace these from the mainline services, along with a few HSTs which
run to/from Oxford (not those which run through to Worcester). Maybe
just 20 2-car units would be needed for the branches / shuttle
services, meaning that 40ish class 319s would be needed for Paddington
services, maybe more for train lengthening as some of the existing
services are pretty overcrowded.

Also of interest is what the future is for the displaced 165/166s. One would
expect that they will gravitate further west on GW services, given the route
restrictions that apply, although should the TOC happen to return any to the
ROSCO then I would suspect that Chiltern may be interested in 90mph Network
Turbos as a better fit on the GW/GC joint (the 165/0s are 75mph), following
Evergreen 3 - although the refurbishment costs might preclude that as an
idea. There hasn't been any mention of the future for these units, AFAICS,
in the announcement.

In message , at 17:22:20
on Sun, 28 Nov 2010, remarked:
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.

Except that there are no slow lines for a few miles north of
Welwyn.

There are a certain number of paths through Welwyn, increasing the
top speed of 2tph from 100mph to 125mph isn't going to change
that. What's the track speed there, anyway?

105 through the tunnels - the turnouts to/from the slows are 70,
which may be more relevant.

Thanks - so having 125mph trains on the Cambridge slows isn't going
to help the throughput; even if they touch 105mph for half a mile
they'll need to be slowing to 70 almost immediately.

The hourly Cambridge slows (and an hourly Peterborough) stop at Welwyn
North anyway. The ones you're talking of putting on the slow lines are
the semi-fasts, non-stop Finsbury Park to Stevenage.

I was thinking of any train which also stopped at Hitchin (and was
therefore on the slow track).

There is a relatively fast fast-to-slow crossover just south of Hitchin.

Do any of the Cambridge trains emerge onto the fast line at Hitchin,
then swap over to the slow lines before that crossover (rather than
emerging directly onto the slow)? The objective here is to determine how
many of the Cambridge non-Cruiser trains "block" the fast lines. The
Cruisers will be 125mph IEPs, in this scenario, and therefore won't be
blocking the fast.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

Do any of the Cambridge trains emerge onto the fast line at
Hitchin, then swap over to the slow lines before that crossover
(rather than emerging directly onto the slow)? The objective here
is to determine how many of the Cambridge non-Cruiser trains
"block" the fast lines. The Cruisers will be 125mph IEPs, in this
scenario, and therefore won't be blocking the fast.

There is no Cambridge branch to ECML Up Fast connection at the junction.
The crossover is South of Hitchin station so all Cambridge Up trains use
the platform line at Hitchin.

In the down direction all Cambridge branch trains will conflict with both
ECML fast lines until the flyover is there. That will probably be built
before any 125MPH-capable trains are used for Cambridge services.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 04:04:56
on Mon, 29 Nov 2010, remarked:
Do any of the Cambridge trains emerge onto the fast line at
Hitchin, then swap over to the slow lines before that crossover
(rather than emerging directly onto the slow)? The objective here
is to determine how many of the Cambridge non-Cruiser trains
"block" the fast lines. The Cruisers will be 125mph IEPs, in this
scenario, and therefore won't be blocking the fast.

There is no Cambridge branch to ECML Up Fast connection at the junction.
The crossover is South of Hitchin station so all Cambridge Up trains use
the platform line at Hitchin.

And therefore none would use a Fast-Slow crossover south of the
platform. Which makes me wonder why you mentioned it.

In the down direction all Cambridge branch trains will conflict with both
ECML fast lines until the flyover is there. That will probably be built
before any 125MPH-capable trains are used for Cambridge services.

Sure, but as you say it's moot if the flyover arrives before the IEP (or
whatever).
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
04:04:56 on Mon, 29 Nov 2010, remarked:
Do any of the Cambridge trains emerge onto the fast line at
Hitchin, then swap over to the slow lines before that crossover
(rather than emerging directly onto the slow)? The objective here
is to determine how many of the Cambridge non-Cruiser trains
"block" the fast lines. The Cruisers will be 125mph IEPs, in this
scenario, and therefore won't be blocking the fast.

There is no Cambridge branch to ECML Up Fast connection at the
junction. The crossover is South of Hitchin station so all Cambridge
Up trains use the platform line at Hitchin.

And therefore none would use a Fast-Slow crossover south of the
platform. Which makes me wonder why you mentioned it.

I was referring to _Down_ trains stopping at Hitchin. They can run on the
fast from Welwyn to just short of Hitchin.

In the down direction all Cambridge branch trains will conflict with
both ECML fast lines until the flyover is there. That will probably be
built before any 125MPH-capable trains are used for Cambridge services.

Sure, but as you say it's moot if the flyover arrives before the
IEP (or whatever).

I don't think there is much doubt the flyover will be there before the new
trains.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

Also of interest is what the future is for the displaced 165/166s. One
would expect that they will gravitate further west on GW services, given
the route restrictions that apply, although should the TOC happen to
return any to the ROSCO then I would suspect that Chiltern may be
interested in 90mph Network Turbos as a better fit on the GW/GC joint (the
165/0s are 75mph), following Evergreen 3 - although the refurbishment
costs might preclude that as an idea. There hasn't been any mention of the
future for these units, AFAICS, in the announcement.

The current relevant route plans, for the GW, and SW, and the GWML RUS,
include 'gauge clearance of the Portsmouth - Cardiff route to allow
operation by 165/166'. In the case of the SW route plan, this proposal has
been listed for about 3 or 4 years now.

Current route restrictions aren't necessarily a bar to future usage, after
all they've just been cleared from Guildford to Basingstoke via Woking, and
from Redhill to Selhurst, apparently just by doing a quick test run.
Intuitively neither route has especially generous clearances.

In the general case, I don't think 'isn't cleared' means the same as 'can't
be cleared' because the policy is only to undertake gauge clearance as and
when needed, not preemptively...

Paul S

In message , at 05:24:56
on Mon, 29 Nov 2010, remarked:

Do any of the Cambridge trains emerge onto the fast line at
Hitchin, then swap over to the slow lines before that crossover
(rather than emerging directly onto the slow)? The objective here
is to determine how many of the Cambridge non-Cruiser trains
"block" the fast lines. The Cruisers will be 125mph IEPs, in this
scenario, and therefore won't be blocking the fast.

There is no Cambridge branch to ECML Up Fast connection at the
junction. The crossover is South of Hitchin station so all Cambridge
Up trains use the platform line at Hitchin.

And therefore none would use a Fast-Slow crossover south of the
platform. Which makes me wonder why you mentioned it.

I was referring to _Down_ trains stopping at Hitchin. They can run on the
fast from Welwyn to just short of Hitchin.

But do they? Looking at the timetable I can't see a slow train that the
Cambridge Semi-fasts would need to overtake between Welwyn and Hitchin.

(It's 4 minutes behind the Peterborough stopper at Hitchin, and 20+
minutes separated from the rest of the FCC trains each hour).

In the down direction all Cambridge branch trains will conflict with
both ECML fast lines until the flyover is there. That will probably be
built before any 125MPH-capable trains are used for Cambridge services.

Sure, but as you say it's moot if the flyover arrives before the
IEP (or whatever).

I don't think there is much doubt the flyover will be there before the new
trains.

Has it been approved and funded already - or are we assuming it will be?
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
05:24:56 on Mon, 29 Nov 2010, remarked:

Do any of the Cambridge trains emerge onto the fast line at
Hitchin, then swap over to the slow lines before that crossover
(rather than emerging directly onto the slow)? The objective here
is to determine how many of the Cambridge non-Cruiser trains
"block" the fast lines. The Cruisers will be 125mph IEPs, in this
scenario, and therefore won't be blocking the fast.

There is no Cambridge branch to ECML Up Fast connection at the
junction. The crossover is South of Hitchin station so all Cambridge
Up trains use the platform line at Hitchin.

And therefore none would use a Fast-Slow crossover south of the
platform. Which makes me wonder why you mentioned it.

I was referring to _Down_ trains stopping at Hitchin. They can run on
the fast from Welwyn to just short of Hitchin.

But do they? Looking at the timetable I can't see a slow train that
the Cambridge Semi-fasts would need to overtake between Welwyn and
Hitchin.

(It's 4 minutes behind the Peterborough stopper at Hitchin, and 20+
minutes separated from the rest of the FCC trains each hour).

They don't now I agree. Indeed a few fasts, e.g. the 9:20 Up, are
timetabled for the slow line from Hitchin to Welwyn but that's for pathing
with ECML trains.

But we are discussing the use of 125MPH-capable trains on Cambridge
services with, presumably, a new timetable.

In the down direction all Cambridge branch trains will conflict with
both ECML fast lines until the flyover is there. That will probably
be built before any 125MPH-capable trains are used for Cambridge
services.

Sure, but as you say it's moot if the flyover arrives before the
IEP (or whatever).

I don't think there is much doubt the flyover will be there before the
new trains.

Has it been approved and funded already - or are we assuming it
will be?

They are in the applications stage AIUI, TWA and planning permission.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote in message
...

Has it been approved and funded already - or are we assuming it
will be?

They are in the applications stage AIUI, TWA and planning permission.

They have had a SofS 'minded to approve' letter for the TWA order, pending
agreement on road access issues during the construction phase, and future
maintenance of drainage works.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/twa/dl/Cam...sionletter.pdf

Funding wise, 'ECML capacity improvements', of which this is just one part,
was given approval in the CSR announcement in October.

Paul S