On Nov 26, 7:22*am, 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).

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.

PaulO

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.

Maybe that's been substituted by the island, or is that a completely
separate exercise?
--
Roland Perry

The Govt. statement mentions a virtual doubling of services through
central London. And it's the full job with the GN linked in.

Currently they run at approx 4 minute headways, which implies at
future 2 minute headways. Which will be a nice trick if you can pull
it off especially given the junction at St P.

But doesn't this beg the question as to whether the decision to give
St P only 2 platform faces, rather than 4 (losing an easy once in a
lifetime opportunity) ranks as one of the most stupid ever made ?

And is it clear what stock is to run on the GN? Thus all the talk has
been of redeploying the 319's, but if the new stock is also to run on
the GN, what happens to the stock currently working on the GN?

Grumpy wrote:
The Govt. statement mentions a virtual doubling of services through
central London. And it's the full job with the GN linked in.

Currently they run at approx 4 minute headways, which implies at
future 2 minute headways. Which will be a nice trick if you can pull
it off especially given the junction at St P.

But doesn't this beg the question as to whether the decision to give
St P only 2 platform faces, rather than 4 (losing an easy once in a
lifetime opportunity) ranks as one of the most stupid ever made ?


Indeed, to run Thameslink successfully at such a high frequency, you
would think that an extra platform or two on the central London
section of the route would be essential.

The money saved was probably a small amount (a couple of tens of
millions) compared with the overall £5 billion cost of the project.
Short sighted in the extreme.

On Nov 26, 3:10*pm, Grumpy wrote:
The Govt. statement mentions a virtual doubling of services through
central London. And it's the full job with the GN linked in.

Currently they run at approx 4 minute headways, which implies at
future 2 minute headways. Which will be a nice trick if you can pull
it off especially given the junction at St P.

But doesn't this beg the question as to whether the decision to give
St P only 2 platform faces, rather than 4 (losing an easy once in a
lifetime opportunity) *ranks as one of the most stupid ever made ?

And is it clear what stock is to run on the GN? Thus all the talk has
been of redeploying the 319's, but if the new stock is also to run on
the GN, what happens to the stock currently working on the GN?

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

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.

--
Nick

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

On Nov 26, 5:54*pm, 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.

--
Nick

I cant quite grasp this. Currently there are 15tph trains through the
core in the peak. That the plan is to run 24 ie 9 extra. Several of
these must be coming off the GN. Peterborough and Cambridge feature on
the proposed route maps. Unless there are some spare paths available
on the GN, surely the additional trains through the core must be
mainly extensions/replacements for existing trains operated by
317/365 ? Which means the existing units must be thrown surplus if the
trains through the core are worked by the new fleet. So where are they
going? Or are they to replace the 313's?

I accept there may be an argument for using IEP to free up paths, but
this would just replace either existing kit or the new units-you still
end up replacing something unless you are providing more or longer
trains.

All this (IEP apart) really begs the question as to why we need any
new rolling stock to complete the Thameslink programme.

Thus to quote a famous sage on another thread -"The entire original
GLC / NSE Thameslink scheme paid for itself by introducing
operational
efficiency in train fleets. There were 48 317s, of which 46 were
needed to operate BedPan. The very original Thameslink service was
only 46 319s (the other 14 originals were ordered before the service
started but were extra to the original plan). Those same 46 319s did
all that the 46 317s did AND eliminated a goodly number of EPBs, all
by through running and no terminals dead time"

Surely the same principles apply now? The 20 minutes or so to run
through the core being less than the combined time to turn round an
existing service at Kings Cross and an existing service at a Southern
terminal. Why cant existing Electrostars on the Southern lines be
adapted to work north through the core and beyond?

Similarly adapt the 365's to work through.

The money saved by not buying a fleet of 1200 vehicles would for
example probably pay for a lot of new electrification elsewhere.

On Nov 27, 5:11*pm, Grumpy wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:54*pm, 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.

--
Nick

*I cant quite grasp this. Currently there are 15tph trains through the
core in the peak. That the plan is to run 24 ie 9 extra. Several of
these must be coming off the GN. Peterborough and Cambridge feature on
the proposed route maps. Unless there are some spare paths available
on the GN, surely the additional trains through the core must be
mainly extensions/replacements for existing trains operated by
317/365 ? Which means the existing units must be thrown surplus if the
trains through the core are worked by the new fleet. So where are they
going? Or are they to replace the 313's?

Many of the GN trains are currently 4 or 8 cars, units released by
running through the Thameslink route would therefore be available for
lengthening the remaining services to King's Cross to 12 cars and
releasing any remaining class 313s which run into King's Cross for
Moorgate services.


I accept there may be an argument for using IEP to free up paths, but
this would just replace either existing kit or the new units-you still
end up replacing something unless you are providing more or longer
trains.

All this (IEP apart) really begs the question as to why we need any
new rolling stock to complete the Thameslink programme.


Surely the same principles apply now? *The 20 minutes or so to run
through the core being less than the combined time to turn round an
existing service at Kings Cross and an existing service at a Southern
terminal. Why cant existing Electrostars on the Southern lines be
adapted to work north through the core and beyond?

Similarly adapt the 365's to work through.


Because for the 24 tph timetable, trains will need fitting with ETCS.
This will almost certainly be easier if designed into a single new
class than being retro-fitted to the class 319/377 units (and maybe
class 365) currently in use. I don't know how much work would be
needed to use class 365s as dual-voltage as they've only ever worked
on a single voltage at a time.

The money saved by not *buying a fleet of 1200 vehicles would for
example probably pay for a lot of new electrification elsewhere.

But the units cascaded from Thameslink will be used on new
electrification schemes, without these new units would be needed for
the north-west and Paddington schemes.

"Grumpy" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 5:54 pm, 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.

I cant quite grasp this. Currently there are 15tph trains through the
core in the peak. That the plan is to run 24 ie 9 extra. Several of
these must be coming off the GN.

It's 8 tph from the GN, and I think you are quite correct to suggest they
will be at least partly existing services. It is too difficult to summarise
in a paragraph or two, but a search through the 200 pages of the ECML RUS
for 'Thameslink' brings up a lot of possibilites, and it does deal with
options dependent on the Cambridge/Kings Lynn IEP decision. At the same
time it is clear that current capacity is currently capped by Kings Cross
platform numbers.

OTOH the follow up effects on existing rolling stock aren't that obvious in
the RUS, so perhaps there's an implication that some existing units will be
scrapped as life expired?

Paul S