Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:27:42 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

Anyone know what the plans are for the remaining parts of the
moorgate line are? Will LU take them over eventually?

I thought something had been said in Modern Railways about the
remaining alignment (net of any incursions by Crossrail or Thameslink
works) was being considered as potential stabling sidings for LUL
use. I might be imagining it though!

The problem is access. The only real access route would be across the
existing, short stabling sidings at Farringdon - but that would approach the
Smithfield tunnels at a rather oblique angle.

As someone who daily suffers the problems of congestion between Baker Street
and Aldgate, due to too many trains being funnelled down into the City, I
had long been thinking whether there was any way of separating Moorgate
terminators at Farringdon and running them parallel down into the old
Thameslink platforms at Moorgate (possibly even reducing the number of
Aldgate terminators by, for example, turning all or some of the Uxbridges at
Moorgate). All armchair planning, of course, but I think that the tunnel
approach from the Farringdon direction rules out any serious use of the
remains of the branch, unless some extensive building work is carried out
beneath Smithfield to realign the tunnels.

In message , at 21:17:40 on Thu,
25 Nov 2010, Roy Badami remarked:
Isn't that being done by some sort of kludge, rather than lengthening
both platforms 1 & 4 so that all trains could be 12-car, as was
originally proposed?

What kind of kludge? I thought I read here that some work (not sure
what) was done a while back to allow platform 1 to accommodate the
12-car trains.

I don't think the 12-car trains straddle platforms 1 & 4, if that's
what you mean?

Yes, that's what I meant; but I haven't seen any positive indications
either way (other than perhaps a lack of people commenting how they've
seen a 12-car in Platform 1 that didn't foul the x-over).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 19:10:08 on
Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Jim Chisholm remarked:

istr they were supposed to be lengthening platforms at Cambridge to take
12 cars, but I think they may have changed their mind and are doing an
island instead.

Cambridge has had 12-car Class 365 services to Kings Cross in the
morning peak for some time now.

Isn't that being done by some sort of kludge, rather than lengthening
both platforms 1 & 4 so that all trains could be 12-car, as was
originally proposed?

The Island Platform at Cambridge is due to be opened in just over a
year. They've possessions booked, and it is needed for the proposed 12
car service to Liverpool St, trains for which are already being produced.

If both 1 & 4 were usable by 12-car trains, perhaps they wouldn't need
such a long island. Do you know whether they've changed strategy, or
will 1 & 4 & the island all be capable of 12-car?
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
15:17:10 on Thu, 25 Nov 2010, D7666 remarked:
Entirety .... ''the Thameslink programme in its entirety'' ....
yes ... now what /does/ that mean ... entirety at what point of
reference ?

At the point TL2000 morphed into TLP ? That can't be as some parts
have since been descoped from TLP eg 12car platforms at Kentish
Town, 25 kV wires to Blackfriars ... and no way was the depot ever
to be at Hornsey back then.

TLP has moved its own goalposts since TL2000.

Is it just possible there is some doublespeak here with ''entirety''
meaning ''what the DfT looked at this time round'' and some of the
rumours (like no ATO) might be facts ?

I tend to agree with you. Wasn't there once a suggestion that to get
24tph you'd have needed island platforms at SPILL, with Bedpan and GN
trains using alternate sides?
--
Roland Perry

On Nov 26, 7:25*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:10:08 on
Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Jim Chisholm remarked:

istr they were supposed to be lengthening platforms at Cambridge to take
12 cars, but I think they may have changed their mind and are doing an
island instead.

Cambridge has had 12-car Class 365 services to Kings Cross in the
morning peak for some time now.

Isn't that being done by some sort of kludge, rather than lengthening
both platforms 1 & 4 so that all trains could be 12-car, as was
originally proposed?

The Island Platform at Cambridge is due to be opened in just over a
year. They've possessions booked, and it is needed for the proposed 12
car service to Liverpool St, trains for which are already being produced..

If both 1 & 4 were usable by 12-car trains, perhaps they wouldn't need
such a long island. Do you know whether they've changed strategy, or
will 1 & 4 & the island all be capable of 12-car?
--
Roland Perry

1 is 12-car, 4 isn't.
Tim

On Nov 25, 6:03*pm, "Mizter T" wrote:
"1506" wrote:
On Nov 25, 8:27 am, wrote:

Anyone know what the plans are for the remaining parts of the moorgate
line
are? Will LU take them over eventually?

There is no obvious use for the extra pair from Farringdon to
Moorgate, sad really.

I think it's to be used at least in part as a stabling location for the new
(longer) S-stock - at the moment part of it is being used as a worksite
(storage etc) for the Farringdon Thameslink works - might also prove useful
(indeed could well be part of the plan) to utilise it in the same capacity
for Crossrail works too.

Will "S" stock be able to reverse at Aldgate? The problem with
utilizing the tracks and/or platforms on the Moorgate widened lines is
that terminating trains have to cross the anti-clockwise Circle line
in a conflicting movement. The same would apply were the terminal
platform at Liverpool Street restored.

On Nov 26, 10:24*am, 1506 wrote:
On Nov 25, 6:03*pm, "Mizter T" wrote:

"1506" wrote:
On Nov 25, 8:27 am, wrote:

Anyone know what the plans are for the remaining parts of the moorgate
line
are? Will LU take them over eventually?

There is no obvious use for the extra pair from Farringdon to
Moorgate, sad really.

I think it's to be used at least in part as a stabling location for the new
(longer) S-stock - at the moment part of it is being used as a worksite
(storage etc) for the Farringdon Thameslink works - might also prove useful
(indeed could well be part of the plan) to utilise it in the same capacity
for Crossrail works too.

Will "S" stock be able to reverse at Aldgate? *The problem with
utilizing the tracks and/or platforms on the Moorgate widened lines is
that terminating trains have to cross the anti-clockwise Circle line
in a conflicting movement. *The same would apply were the terminal
platform at Liverpool Street restored.

....one of the reasons I would've thought that the Crossrail works in
Finsbury Circus would've been a golden opportunity to knock through
the SSL's terminating platforms at Moorgate (or indeed, the former
Thameslink bays) to connect up with the SSL under Finsbury Circus (or
extended to Liverpool St.).

There's the option of just knocking through a single track tunnel from
one of the bays to get central terminating bays to remove the
conflicting moves, or there's the option of knocking through a couple
of the bays to give bidirectional terminating capability. That could
provide a pair of centre terminating roads, accessible from both
sides, and depending on what layout was chosen, there could even be a
pair of directional islands.

In article ,
(Mizter T) wrote:

"Basil Jet" wrote:

On 2010\11\25 18:21, Mizter T wrote:

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:27:42 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

Anyone know what the plans are for the remaining parts of the
moorgate line are? Will LU take them over eventually?

I thought something had been said in Modern Railways about the
remaining alignment (net of any incursions by Crossrail or
Thameslink works) was being considered as potential stabling
sidings for LUL use. I might be imagining it though!

I don't think you are, though I don't think I've ever read or heard
anything solid about it. From a layman's point of view it'd seems
like a decent location for some sidings.

Given the value of land in the area, it's a decent location for
pretty much anything but sidings. [...]

I disagree - this is a two-track width railway bed in a cutting
next to an operational two-track railway, and the cutting is
surrounded by buildings already. I'm not trying to suggest that
there couldn't be various clever ways of fitting in some
development into this space, but it's a rather constrained linear
location (/locations) which is hardly ideal for development.

[...] There's a disused bay platform at Liverpool Street behind
shutters, so there can't be much need for extra track in the area..

AIUI the issue w.r.t. the new S-stock trains is that they're going
to be too long for several of the present stabling sidings that
exist on the sub-surface railway. I'm not sure if the bay platform
at Liverpool Street would be workable, and I rather doubt that it
alone would satisfy the apparent need.

They could do both of course. Use the trackbed for new sidings and
construct new buildings above them like over most of that part of the
Metropolitan.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 19:10:08
on Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Jim Chisholm
remarked:

istr they were supposed to be lengthening platforms at Cambridge to
take 12 cars, but I think they may have changed their mind and are
doing an island instead.

As well, not instead.

Cambridge has had 12-car Class 365 services to Kings Cross in the
morning peak for some time now.

Isn't that being done by some sort of kludge, rather than lengthening
both platforms 1 & 4 so that all trains could be 12-car, as was
originally proposed?

The Island Platform at Cambridge is due to be opened in just over a
year. They've possessions booked, and it is needed for the proposed 12
car service to Liverpool St, trains for which are already being
produced.

If both 1 & 4 were usable by 12-car trains, perhaps they wouldn't
need such a long island. Do you know whether they've changed
strategy, or will 1 & 4 & the island all be capable of 12-car?

Extending 1 and 4 was part of the Thameslink Programme. 1 was extended
early to allow FCC to run a few 12-car trains in the peak (two up trains
at present but that might change in December).

Only extending 1 & 4 would not provide the terminating capacity needed for
West Anglia 12-car trains that start in December next year, however.

Hence the accelerated programme for the island platform. A bit of an oops
from the lack of coordination between GN and WA routes. Once the island is
there I expect the platform 4 extension will not proceed.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 21:17:40 on
Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Roy Badami remarked:
Isn't that being done by some sort of kludge, rather than lengthening
both platforms 1 & 4 so that all trains could be 12-car, as was
originally proposed?

What kind of kludge? I thought I read here that some work (not sure
what) was done a while back to allow platform 1 to accommodate the
12-car trains.

I don't think the 12-car trains straddle platforms 1 & 4, if that's
what you mean?

Yes, that's what I meant; but I haven't seen any positive
indications either way (other than perhaps a lack of people
commenting how they've seen a 12-car in Platform 1 that didn't foul
the x-over).

Do keep up, Roland! Class 317 12 car trains could already fit in platform
1 but class 365 units are slightly longer so the platform had to be
slightly extended. There were no changes at the crossover end at all.

--
Colin Rosenstiel