Thameslink North South connections
 

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 16:27:09 on
Wed, 3 Aug 2011, John C remarked:

Having re-read what Paul has written it looks like the through trains
from Horsham will only stop (I'm guessing here) at Stevenage, Hitchin,
Letchworth, Baldock and Royston.

What's going to serve the various intermediate stations north of
Baldock? Colin's been thinking there's a previous undisclosed 5th
train per hour terminating at Kings Cross.

Maybe they will run more trains? Could the Letchworth terminators be
extended?

Shepreth and Foxton are a pain because they have AHB crossings at the
London end so over length trains cannot stop in the down direction.

Foxton's a full barrier (with signal box next door). Shepreth might
need converting, a drop in the ocean compared to all the other
Thameslink upgrades.

There may be a signal box next door but it doesn't control Foxton level
crossing. That is controlled by CCTV from Cambridge panel. Some nice stills
in the Cambridge News recently too. ;-)

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Thameslink North South connections
 

In message , at 12:46:02
on Wed, 3 Aug 2011, remarked:

Having re-read what Paul has written it looks like the through trains
from Horsham will only stop (I'm guessing here) at Stevenage, Hitchin,
Letchworth, Baldock and Royston.

What's going to serve the various intermediate stations north of
Baldock? Colin's been thinking there's a previous undisclosed 5th
train per hour terminating at Kings Cross.

Maybe they will run more trains?

Possible, but you'd have expected that to have emerged by now.

Could the Letchworth terminators be extended?

They are going round the Hertford loop to Moorgate, in the final scheme,
I think (confirmation welcome). Not so useful for commuters to the
village stations - you'd be pretty much forced to change at Royston to
keep the journey time bearable.

Again, you'd think that things like that would have been discussed.

Shepreth and Foxton are a pain because they have AHB crossings at the
London end so over length trains cannot stop in the down direction.

Foxton's a full barrier (with signal box next door). Shepreth might
need converting, a drop in the ocean compared to all the other
Thameslink upgrades.

There may be a signal box next door but it doesn't control Foxton level
crossing. That is controlled by CCTV from Cambridge panel. Some nice stills
in the Cambridge News recently too. ;-)

--
Roland Perry

Thameslink North South connections
 

I class them as semi-fasts too. If anything, the Cambridge Cruisers
(which I'm adamant were still displayed as such on the departure
boards at Kings Cross until at least December as such) are the curious
anomaly of Cambridge being an intercity-service operated as a suburban
services to London. It's the service equivalent of Peterborough, where
the fast service is provided by the intercity TOC...but as the WAML is
so capacity-limited, they run via the ECML instead.

I do wonder how tempting it is for TPTB to consider upgrading the WAML
(loops, etc) to speed up services (enabling the fasts to go that way
down to Liverpool Street without having to further abandon the rural
stations on the route that already suffer a 1tph service) rather than
forking out to sort out the Welwyn viaduct. The stopping services on
the branch could quite easily be subsumed into an extension of the
Hertford loop services that terminate at Letchworth, with a change at
Stevenage for the Peterborough services that would run fast down the
ECML, which could then be increased in frequency to use the former
Cruiser paths or some such.

Thameslink North South connections
 

In message
, at
18:43:51 on Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Jamie Thompson
remarked:
I class them as semi-fasts too. If anything, the Cambridge Cruisers
(which I'm adamant were still displayed as such on the departure
boards at Kings Cross until at least December as such) are the curious
anomaly of Cambridge being an intercity-service operated as a suburban
services to London. It's the service equivalent of Peterborough, where
the fast service is provided by the intercity TOC...but as the WAML is
so capacity-limited, they run via the ECML instead.

When they start being operated by IEPs (oink flap) then the distinction
between them and the true suburban services will become clearer again.

I do wonder how tempting it is for TPTB to consider upgrading the WAML
(loops, etc) to speed up services (enabling the fasts to go that way
down to Liverpool Street without having to further abandon the rural
stations on the route that already suffer a 1tph service) rather than
forking out to sort out the Welwyn viaduct.

As far as I can see, widening Welwyn (and an additional tunnel) is a
dead duck. The most recent plan got shelved in the collapse of
Railtrack, and the future seems to be to make sure that the line is used
at full speed (and hence capacity) as much as possible, by all trains;
and removing the flat junction at Hitchin.

The stopping services on the branch could quite easily be subsumed into
an extension of the Hertford loop services that terminate at
Letchworth, with a change at Stevenage for the Peterborough services
that would run fast down the ECML,

The current plan is for them to be part of Thameslink.

which could then be increased in frequency to use the former Cruiser
paths or some such.

Just having the extra 2tph from the cruisers would be sufficient,
without making the semi-fasts take the Hertford loop. But none of this
is the current plan.

--
Roland Perry

Thameslink North South connections
 

In article
,
(Jamie Thompson) wrote:

I class them as semi-fasts too. If anything, the Cambridge Cruisers
(which I'm adamant were still displayed as such on the departure
boards at Kings Cross until at least December as such) are the curious
anomaly of Cambridge being an intercity-service operated as a suburban
services to London. It's the service equivalent of Peterborough, where
the fast service is provided by the intercity TOC...but as the WAML is
so capacity-limited, they run via the ECML instead.

I do wonder how tempting it is for TPTB to consider upgrading the WAML
(loops, etc) to speed up services (enabling the fasts to go that way
down to Liverpool Street without having to further abandon the rural
stations on the route that already suffer a 1tph service) rather than
forking out to sort out the Welwyn viaduct. The stopping services on
the branch could quite easily be subsumed into an extension of the
Hertford loop services that terminate at Letchworth, with a change at
Stevenage for the Peterborough services that would run fast down the
ECML, which could then be increased in frequency to use the former
Cruiser paths or some such.

How much of the West Anglia route could ever be passed for 100 MPH running
though? It's not as if the route is significantly shorter.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Thameslink North South connections
 

In message , at 03:40:08
on Fri, 5 Aug 2011, remarked:

I do wonder how tempting it is for TPTB to consider upgrading the WAML
(loops, etc) to speed up services (enabling the fasts to go that way
down to Liverpool Street without having to further abandon the rural
stations on the route that already suffer a 1tph service) rather than
forking out to sort out the Welwyn viaduct.

How much of the West Anglia route could ever be passed for 100 MPH running
though? It's not as if the route is significantly shorter.

And you've got to find a way to overtake the Stansted Express, which is
already trying to get there as fast as it can. Otherwise you'll never be
able to achieve the timing to Cambridge. I think it's a non-starter,
unless you can persuade the Cambridge passengers that it's acceptable to
have a fast train taking an hour, and as previously discussed they've
been a bit spoilt by the Cruisers which are somewhat of a one-off in
general railway terms.
--
Roland Perry

Thameslink North South connections
 

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:26:37 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:
have a fast train taking an hour, and as previously discussed
they've
been a bit spoilt by the Cruisers which are somewhat of a one-off
in
general railway terms.

They don't sound *dissimilar* to Northampton Line fasts to me.
Pseudo-IC, if you like.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

Thameslink North South connections
 

In message , at
17:39:31 on Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Neil Williams
remarked:
have a fast train taking an hour, and as previously discussed they've
been a bit spoilt by the Cruisers which are somewhat of a one-off in
general railway terms.

They don't sound *dissimilar* to Northampton Line fasts to me.
Pseudo-IC, if you like.

I can only see some semi-fasts, calling also at Watford and Milton
Keynes; or Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, Milton Keynes and Wolverton.

Cambridge has semi-fasts too (which is where we came in, quibbling over
the definition).

Northampton would have to see a 2tph London Midland non-stopper taking
about 45minutes to be equivalent to the Cruiser. That's why this
Cambridge service is so different.
--
Roland Perry

Thameslink North South connections
 

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 17:57:03 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:
Northampton would have to see a 2tph London Midland non-stopper
taking
about 45minutes to be equivalent to the Cruiser.

A few years ago MKC did see such a service, though...

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

Thameslink North South connections
 

In message ,
wrote:
Foxton's a full barrier (with signal box next door). Shepreth might
need converting, a drop in the ocean compared to all the other
Thameslink upgrades.

There may be a signal box next door but it doesn't control Foxton level
crossing. That is controlled by CCTV from Cambridge panel.

Since when? As far as I know, the gate box (not signal box, though it
looks like one) at Foxton still operates the crossing. Certainly last
time I visited Cambridge PSB that was the case, with no controls for the
crossing on the panel.

Some nice stills
in the Cambridge News recently too. ;-)

If you mean
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home...red-traffic-li
ght-at-level-crossing-01082011.htm
I don't think that's crossing control CCTV, just traffic-watching CCTV.
A signalling CCTV would be arranged so that the barrier post didn't
block the view.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: