D7666 wrote:

I suppose you could counter argue that since no TOC owns any
infrastructure ** all TOC have running power over NR ?


More precisely defined by their safety case, perhaps?

On Nov 26, 8:52*pm, Bruce wrote:
D7666 wrote:

I suppose you could counter argue that since no TOC owns any
infrastructure ** all TOC have running power over NR ?

More precisely defined by their safety case, perhaps?

Possibly ... veering sounds likely.

--
Nick

On Nov 26, 2:04*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
05:53:48 on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Paul Oter 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).

Platform 1 at Cambridge was lengthened by a few metres about a year
ago (I forget exactly when). It's quite narrow so there's a short
length of fence on the Platform 2 side.

Thanks for the information. But it sounds like they didn't do Platform 4
as well - which was in the original Thameslink plan.

Platform 4 is unchanged, and so 8-cars only.

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).

PaulO

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).

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.

OK it was an extremely limited operation, maybe it was even only one
train each way each peak, but it did happen.

--
Nick

1506 wrote:
On Nov 26, 1:14 pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:

...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.

Excellent solutions. Unfortunately they are not on the TfL radar
screen. Removing the conflicting Junction at Edgeware Rd would also
contribute greatly to the efficient running of the Circle, H&C, and
Met. lines.

Well, whilst we're chucking money about willy-nilly, why not 'knock through'
a north to west link at Baker Street? Then our new go-anywhere S stock can
come in from the Met main line and do a circle clockwise or anticlockwise
before heading off back up the Met again - and we wouldn't need so many
terminating platforms on the top side. ;-)

Anything is possible if the will and the money is there. The trouble is,
with TfL, neither are.

On Nov 26, 9:53*pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:

Well, whilst we're chucking money about willy-nilly, why not 'knock through'
a north to west link at Baker Street? Then our new go-anywhere S stock can
come in from the Met main line and do a circle clockwise or anticlockwise
before heading off back up the Met again - and we wouldn't need so many
terminating platforms on the top side. * ;-)

Anything is possible if the will and the money is there. The trouble is,
with TfL, neither are.

Or link the Baker Street Met terminators with Edgware Road -
Wimbledons.

Indeed, yes, if you have the money anything is possible.

And I am sure this is the reason LU are not taking up utilising the
exBedPan alignment and/or eastern extension therefor, under Finsbury
Circus whatever. I'm not sure whats been posted upthread is anything
new, wasn't some of this investigated way back in various Crossrail
and/or Thameslink proposals, maybe not, anyway I'm sure I've read
somewhere it was cost that blocked things. Yes it would be useful but
when it came down to costs it was disproportionate because of
underpinning existing buildings, I cant recall exactly what it was all
about but pretty certain it was a non starter in any economic climate
never mind recent years.

If you do have money to burn in that area, (Finsbury Park) Moorgate -
Cannon Street makes more sense.

--
Nick

In article ,
(Mizter T) wrote:

"1506" wrote:

On Nov 26, 3:21 pm, "Ian Bidwell" wrote:

It may be that only the semi fast run on Thames link with the fasts
and slows still running into KX. The statement talks about services
to Herts and Cambs using TL but no mention of Norfolk, so Kings Lynn
may no be included. There was also talk of using IEP stock to
Cambridge, so there should be spare 317s to redeploy yet again

What sort of junction is there going to be, to the north of St
Pancras Low Level? Is it flat, or non-conflicting?

See my reply to Roland Perry about this - the junction immediately
north of 'SPILL' is a non-conflicting dive-under and furthermore it
already exists as it was built as part of the CTRL works, albeit
without any tracks in it yet. The tunnels switch from being bored
to cut and cover and then emerge near the GN lines north of King's
Cross - I'm not quite sure what the plan is for the junction here
though, but it's worth bearing in mind there are some fly-overs on
the GN just north of this.

Just the one flyover but otherwise I agree.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
(D7666) wrote:

On Nov 26, 3:22*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:

I've been trying to find out what's planned for the 365s, to no avail
though.

Unlike FCC/TL 319s that are all deployed on current TL services that
remain TL services therefor get replaced by new stock, many FCC/GN
units (the majority in fact if you count 313s in the fleet totals) do
not work services that are intended to run over TL. There is no reason
to suppose 365s will be cascaded anywhere at this moment in time and
we probably won't know until the x-IEP EMU is known and confirmed for
the KL line.

If IEPs are bought for Kings Lynn services, there will be surplus units.
The 317s will presumably be first to go, however.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 16:52:26

I'm not sure all the tunnels are in place, but the parts which had to
be built contemporaneously with other works are there.

They were completed during 2004/5 or so, probably during the Thameslink
blockade? Anyone know for sure?

I read an online version of some civil engineering magazine a while back
that had reports/pics of the completed job. I'm pretty sure that the
GN end incline might also visible from passing trains, it's pretty
obvious on Google's aerial view anyway, which dates back to the time
when MML were using the interim station.

The tunnel ends can be seen at the North end of the SPILL platforms and by
the GN at Belle Isle. The connections there still need to be put in but
otherwise all it seems to await is tracklaying and connecting the
signalling.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
(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).

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.

OK it was an extremely limited operation, maybe it was even only one
train each way each peak, but it did happen.

And Platform 1 was long enough to accommodate them. The 365s are longer
than other stock, by about the lengths of the cabs.

--
Colin Rosenstiel