On Nov 26, 1:14*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
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.

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.

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

In message , at 07:17:21
on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, remarked:
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.

Ah ha!

So we won't have the "entire" Thameslink programme done, after all
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 07:17:21
on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, remarked:

Do keep up, Roland!

I'm trying to - by asking in here...
--
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, 3:21*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?

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?