In message , at 18:05:31 on
Mon, 29 Nov 2010, John C remarked:
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.

The fast trains aren't the issue - we are fairly sure they'll be IEPs.
It's the semi-fasts that are the main topic of conversation.
--
Roland Perry

On Nov 29, 8:08*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
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 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



Did I not write and you quoted ''cambridge cruisers'' and Kings
Lynns.

There are in the base off peak pattern 2 TPH fast (non stops) between
KX and Cambridge of which 1 TPH goes to Lynn.

I have accounted for what I am talking about i.e. ''cambridge
cruisers'' which is the term for all the non-stops and there are no
other trains Kings Lynns.

There is nothing there for you to infer anything about increasing KL
frequency.

--
Nick

FWIW, it's the xx15s that terminate at Cambridge, and the xx45s which
continue to Kings Lynn.

In message
, at
12:36:34 on Mon, 29 Nov 2010, D7666 remarked:

There are in the base off peak pattern 2 TPH fast (non stops) between
KX and Cambridge of which 1 TPH goes to Lynn.

Agreed.

I have accounted for what I am talking about i.e. ''cambridge
cruisers'' which is the term for all the non-stops and there are no
other trains Kings Lynns.

Agreed.

There is nothing there for you to infer anything about increasing KL
frequency.

I was being careful to check, because up thread you said "Once you've
got to the stage where IEP cover KX Lynn and Peterboro" - two
destinations.

In fact there are three destinations: Cambridge, Lynn and Peterborough.
Adding that third destination makes it plausible to assume (when I
wasn't clear before) that you meant that alternate fasts terminate at
Cambridge and Lynn (as they do today).

Not that I've got anything against the good Burghers of Lynn, but
spending lost of money to upgrade the OHL north of Cambridge to IEP
standard for 1tph does seem a bit extravagant. Another option would be
to extend the hourly semi-fast to Lynn, which would also give them
through trains to south of the river (and I assume most Cambridge people
would prefer that train to having to walk from Kings Cross to SPILL to
change trains).
--
Roland Perry

In article
,
(Jamie Thompson) wrote:

FWIW, it's the xx15s that terminate at Cambridge, and the xx45s which
continue to Kings Lynn.

During the day only. In the evenings, from the 20:15 the xx.15s go to
Lynn. There is also a 20:45 to Lynn.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Roland Perry wrote:

Not that I've got anything against the good Burghers of Lynn, but
spending lost of money to upgrade the OHL north of Cambridge to IEP
standard for 1tph does seem a bit extravagant.

Is it necessary to upgrade the electricity supply to run IEPs north of
Cambridge at all, or just to run them at full speed? Could IEPs replace
the current trains, travelling at the same speed and frequency? It would
be a bit of a waste of them, but it would allow a comparatively fast
service to King's Lynn (ie not an extension of some sort of Thameslink
stopping service) without exorbitant infrastructure spending.

And this is without that diesel-boosted electric idea that was floating
around for the IEPs. Is that still on the cards at all?

tom

--
Men? Women? Give me a colossal death robot any day!

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Sam Wilson wrote:

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"?

I have visions of of a rebuilt Cambridge station in which the the tracks
stay steady and the platforms keep washing up and down ...

tom

--
Men? Women? Give me a colossal death robot any day!

In message . li, at
22:06:28 on Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Tom Anderson
remarked:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Roland Perry wrote:

Not that I've got anything against the good Burghers of Lynn, but
spending lost of money to upgrade the OHL north of Cambridge to IEP
standard for 1tph does seem a bit extravagant.

Is it necessary to upgrade the electricity supply to run IEPs north of
Cambridge at all, or just to run them at full speed?

Several folks have commented on the need, and I recall some debate (a
year ago) about the possibility of briefly needing a bi-mode IEP in
order to summon enough power to start the train.

Could IEPs replace the current trains, travelling at the same speed and
frequency? It would be a bit of a waste of them, but it would allow a
comparatively fast service to King's Lynn (ie not an extension of some
sort of Thameslink stopping service) without exorbitant infrastructure
spending.

Surely the current ones have to stop at every station north of Ely. No
other trains go up that line. From Kings Cross to Cambridge on the
semi-fast isn't all that bad, should those be the ones that are
extended.

And this is without that diesel-boosted electric idea that was floating
around for the IEPs. Is that still on the cards at all?

There appears to be an assumption that it's scrapped, although I don't
know exactly what's been said (other than the "Plan B" to have diesel
loco hauled EMUs).
--
Roland Perry

D7666 wrote:
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''.

Indeed. In fact 165s have been to several exotic locations, quite apart from
regular forays across the North London line. Despite their width, the only
thing than generally stops them from going off route is the stepboards. With
these removed (which is not ideal for service use!) they can go virtually
anywhere. The original intention was, lest we forget, "that the Chiltern
165s would eventually be converted from diesel to electric and used on the
Northampton line services" (yes, I laughed at that as well, even back in
1991).

I was just generally curious as to whether anyone had seen any concrete
cascade plans for the GW units following electrification.

In article ,
D7666 wrote:
I have accounted for what I am talking about i.e. ''cambridge
cruisers'' which is the term for all the non-stops and there are no
other trains Kings Lynns.

I'm not at all sure that 'Cambridge Cruiser' has been the term for
anything for serveral years now...

-roy