In message , at 06:51:10
on Mon, 29 Nov 2010, remarked:
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.

Specifically whether the semi-fasts need 125mph capability in order not
to clog up the fast tracks from KX to Hitchin. The simple answer being
"if they don't need to use the fast tracks, don't use them if they get
in the way".

They'd also not be able to use the Thameslink tunnels with the current
IEP design - leaving only the slows.

--
Roland Perry

On Nov 29, 12:15*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

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...



Yes, and a significant proportion routes you'd potentially want to run
16x over have already some kind of gauge clearance for different types
of 23 m stock (HST, 159, 22x, 444), as well as for oddballs like 508s,
and assorted deep sea containers.

While each vehicle type is unique, profiles and throwovers different,
it often does mean a lot of the physical gauging work has been done,
and it is more often than not a case of a test run and some paperwork.

''Not allowed'' does not mean ''will not fit'' in *most* cases, just
''no paperwork allows it''.

--
Nick

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:

With the new island at Cambridge, the number of cross-platform
interchanges could fall as well as rise.

At different times? Or did you mean "could either fall or rise"?

Sam

On Nov 28, 9:22*am, Roland Perry wrote:

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,

Indeed.

I did say further back up the thread ''cambridge cruisers'' and Kings
Lynns. without writing hundreds of words on the matter I was taking it
as read I meant only the fast-er-er trains in the service. not the
whole gambit of semis and slows.

--
Nick

On Nov 28, 8:07*pm, Grumpy wrote:

So I think they need to electrify quite a bit more mileage than has
been agreed to date.

Possibly !

Is there a flaw in my logic ? *Have I got my numbers significantly
wrong?

No and no.

Now you've laid out the quantities I concur and withdraw my comments
about 365s.

I still think it is premature though to actually say they will move
until the whole IEP issue is settled, but yes the combined effect of
IEPEMU and TLP would probably create a cascade, in which case I'd
suggest SET or their descendant as it may be by then will have them
(back).

I am assuming of course that we keep Moorgate 313s as a seperate
issue.


Incidentally when I refer to "dumping" 319's it's because whilst it
makes the economics of Thameslink look better and helps them justify
the new kit that they dont need (see earlier), it might not be what's
best for GW and the North West. For example if there is an argument
for running 125 mph IEP commuter trains on the GN to save paths (as
similarly argued for Northampton), might the same argument apply on
the GW outer suburban services?

Yes.


If so 319'S aren't the answer.


Indeed.

I do wonder if it is a case of TLP happens to be the only scheme that
will yield a stock cascade in the same timescale that GWML London end
can be wired, so DfT have just gone 2 + 2 = 4.


--
Nick

"D7666" wrote in message
...

I do wonder if it is a case of TLP happens to be the only scheme that
will yield a stock cascade in the same timescale that GWML London end
can be wired, so DfT have just gone 2 + 2 = 4.

I was also thinking that just looking at the Thameslink requirement, of 1200
vehicles, it would take Bombardier 5 or 6 years to build them at typical
present rates (assuming they get the order)? I'm thinking here of the
capacity at Derby which has seen about 30 x 378s delivered in a year?

So unless they go into store somewhere, the deliveries will presumably have
to start in time for the last ones to arrive in 2018, for the full KO2
service.

So I wonder when will the first units would sensibly have to start arriving,
and presumably there would be a gradual increase of both new stock, and 12
car trains, on the KO1 Thameslink network, displacing 319s and 377/5s
gradually over however many years?

Taken to the obvious conclusion, they may end up employing Thameslink EMUs
on the GN before the link is opened...

Paul S

On Nov 29, 5:33*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

I was also thinking that just looking at the Thameslink requirement, of 1200
vehicles, it would take Bombardier 5 or 6 years to build them at typical
present rates (assuming they get the order)? I'm thinking here of the
capacity at Derby


Bombardier has plenty of other factories across the world. As do
Siemens, neither have the work yet.






Taken to the obvious conclusion, they may end up employing Thameslink EMUs
on the GN before the link is opened...


This would be logical, on the basis that the non-319 FCC fleet that
works on the GN is not suitable for TL core. Unless they ''big bang''
the GN-TL service, NGEMU will have to be in place on the GN side
first.

I'd also suggest a big bang of that magnitude is rather too big to
consider ?

--
Nick

"TimB" wrote in message
...
On Nov 28, 7:51 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
11:16:56 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?
--
Roland Perry

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

The fast Cambridge trains (xx15 and xx45 from KGX) and the fast peak trains
to Peterborough (xx10 and xx40) stay on the fast line to Hitchin or beyond.

John

In message
, at
15:58:04 on Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Sam Wilson remarked:

With the new island at Cambridge, the number of cross-platform
interchanges could fall as well as rise.

At different times? Or did you mean "could either fall or rise"?

Yes, I meant we shouldn't assume that the of cross-platform interchange
scenario can only improve, it might get worse if trains are scheduled
such that you have to get from the traditional 1&4 to the island.
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
09:06:14 on Mon, 29 Nov 2010, D7666 remarked:
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,

Indeed.

I did say further back up the thread ''cambridge cruisers'' and Kings
Lynns. without writing hundreds of words on the matter I was taking it
as read I meant only the fast-er-er trains in the service. not the
whole gambit of semis and slows.

Hmm, still a bit ambiguous - at the moment only one of the two CCs per
hour is extended to KL. Are you suggesting that *both* will, in future?
--
Roland Perry