In message , at 12:44:29
on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, remarked:
Do keep up, Roland!

I'm trying to - by asking in here...

There's another group you frequent where this was done to death several
months ago.

I don't recall much discussion of the fate of platform 1, most of it
being about the new island.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:44:29
on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, remarked:
North of Ely you've got largely single track, four-car platforms, and
not enough power. It's unlikely to be IEP to Kings Lynn.

In fact the plan was for five-car half-IEPs which would run Kings Cross to
Kings Lynn. IEP is still on hold of course.

There seem to be several plans

Would that be alternate IEPs extended to Ely, or a proper half-hour
service?

I also recall some discussion that it would have to be a bi-mode IEP, or
the OHL would need enhancing north of Cambridge.
--
Roland Perry

On Nov 27, 10:00*am, Roland Perry wrote:

I remember a major track improvement project about nine years
ago which clipped an astonishing [sarcasm] one and a half minutes from
the time to London, through South Cambs. But the trains don't feel
particularly fast. 80mph perhaps...
--
Roland Perry

Without teaching Grandmother to suck eggs, it's more to do with
increasing track capacity and robustness of the timetable. Other
benefits (e.g. journey time, energy consumption and rolling stock wear
and tear) are incidental but nonetheless important.

Patrick

"Roland Perry" wrote

What's the current line speed between Royston and Cambridge (and beyond).
I remember a major track improvement project about nine years ago which
clipped an astonishing [sarcasm] one and a half minutes from the time to
London, through South Cambs. But the trains don't feel particularly fast.
80mph perhaps...

90 mph between Hitchin and Cambridge, but with quite a few local
restrictions to lower permitted speeds.

Peter

"1506" wrote in message
...

Since Farringdon, and City Thameslink each have two platforms, there
would be little to gained from more platform accomodation at KX/StP.

On the contrary. The logic behind the "two islands" idea was that two trains
could be signalled from the north to arrive together on opposite sides of
the island. In the northbound direction Train X could be signalled into one
side of the island. As soon as it has passed the turn-out, the road can be
reset for the other side, allowing Train Y to be signalled into the other
side of the island - see the northbound fast island at Milton Keynes for an
example of this. With the "two track throughout" arrangement we are now
stuck with in perpetuity, this cannot happen, and as others have said, the
idea of 24 tph with vast numbers of passengers trying to get off at StPILL
seems optimistic.

Also as others have said, credit should be given for doing the rest of the
scheme properly - even at the expense of spreading the work/cost and
therefore delaying completion. The railways are littered with the blighting
effects of short-sighted money-saving ideas - LNW quadrupling (by use - not
corrected in the '60s, not corrected in the last upgrade), South Devon
atmospheric, only four MML platforms at StP just to name a few that
immediately spring to mind.

Regards

Jonathan

In message
, at
03:02:34 on Sat, 27 Nov 2010, D1039 remarked:
I remember a major track improvement project about nine years
ago which clipped an astonishing [sarcasm] one and a half minutes from
the time to London, through South Cambs. But the trains don't feel
particularly fast. 80mph perhaps...

Without teaching Grandmother to suck eggs, it's more to do with
increasing track capacity and robustness of the timetable. Other
benefits (e.g. journey time, energy consumption and rolling stock wear
and tear) are incidental but nonetheless important.

Speaking as a passenger, the only benefit that WAGN disclosed, in return
for a week of no trains, was the 1.5 minute faster journey!

But that wasn't my point...

I was asking if anyone knew the speed to which the track had been
upgraded, given loose talk of 110/125mph trains to Cambridge (let alone
Ely).

ps. Yes, I do know that running at full line speed from KX to Hitchin is
also contributing a benefit.
--
Roland Perry

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

Clearly.

My point was just that the link I suggested is a hell of a lot shorter
then the corresponding link between the Met around Lords and Edgware
Road (which it would almost certainly need to be for the curve
radius), and mostly goes under the open area rather than through a
load of buildings (I think the only buildings my link would pass
though are being worked on already as Crossrail is doing a load of
work in that area). I would speculate the closest equivalent would be
to "knock through" the wall at the end of platform 4 at Baker Street
to give a central terminating bay that doesn't conflict with any other
movements.

Anyway...just an idea.

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