Tom Anderson wrote in message ...
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Aidan Stanger wrote:

Alex Terrell wrote:

Alex Terrell wrote:

I also put a case for converting the Maidstone West line to
light rail, and (after A2 capacity is freed up by the opening of
the Lower Thames Crossing) taking over 2 lanes of the A2 to
extend it to Ebbsfleet.

So do you still object to my plan to use freed up A2 capacity for a
light rail line from Ebbsfleet to Cuxton, where it would join the
Maidstone line (which would also be converted to light rail).

Why would it have to be light rail, rather than a real railway?

tom

Quite. I don't know what the elevations of the lines are round there,
but it looks on the OS 1:25k map like it would be rather easy to
create a spur between Cuxton and the Chatham line before it goes over
the bridge, thus allowing a Gillingham - Paddock Wood service.

(Aidan Stanger) wrote in message .. .
No, the shortage of paths is on the CTRL, as a lot more people are
expected to start using Eurostars once they run at high speeds all the
way.

They always say that. But lets assume passenger numbers treble. That
would fill six trains per hour.

I think the main point is that they don't want the domestic services to
prevent future growth in international services. They want the passenger
numbers to do far more than just treble.

What they want and what's realistic are two very different things.
Knocking 30 minutes off the journey time won't treble volumes,
especially with the rise of low cost airlines. So we still have 10 tph
for domestic services.

snip

But I still don't see the disadvantage of using the existing N Kent
Line as it serves Ebsfleet and Ebbsfleet, Rochester, Gillingham and
Chatham.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The high speed services
probably will use the existing N Kent line, and trains from Maidstone
can connect with them at Strood. However, a new route along the A2
corridor from Ebbsfleet to Cuxton would be shorter and faster than going
via Gravesend and Strood.

Maybe, but would more expensive. With 4 CTRL tph, and say 4 other tph
from Dartford to Ebbsfleet to Medway Towns to Sittingbourne, plus
Dartford to Tonbridge, the Medway towns would be adequately served.

Overall, I accept that some of the lines are not suitable for high
speed services. But that means that Ashford and Ebbsfleet need to
become hubs for normal train services (remember, CTRL will have huge
capacity), such as:

Via Ebbsfleet:
- Tonbridge to Dartford
- Dartford to Sittingbourne
- A new tram / light rail service from Ebbsfleet to Bluewater, and
ideally on to somewhere inside the M25. I haven't figured out a path,
but Bluewater seems to be a place where lots of people want to go to,
and Ebbsfleet will be a place where lots of people can go to.
- Of course, CrossRail from Isle of Dogs to Ebbsfleet

(As an aside, I'd also propose building an Olympic village
accommodation within walking distance of Ebbsfleet. That would put
athletes within ~10 minutes of Stratford. Later it could be turned
into affordable housing)

Via Ashford:
Easbourne to Ashford (currently goes only to Hastings)
Gatwick to Ashford?
Ashford to Folkstone to Dover to Ramsgate (see below)

Only from somewhere South of Maidstone West. And if the line goes
there, then why not Tonbridge.

Because the high speed trains cost far more than normal trains, so it
doesn't make sense to spend millions of pounds on the extra high speed
trains needed for the Tonbridge service when normal trains could do the
job just as well.

Point taken - I would now propose normal trains from Dartford to
Tonbridge.

I've never been able to figure out how
to get from Tunbridge Wells to Maidstone by train.

It would require reversing at Tonbridge.

I could then get From Tunbridge Wells to Maidstone or Ebbsfleet with
one change, and to Rochester with 2 changes.

snip

It would be much quicker to get to Dover via Folkestone, so I see no
point in extending using the high speed trains to run there via
Faversham if those trains are well designed.

As I understand the Dover - Folkstone tunnel is not suitable for high
speed trains. So I would run conventional trains from Ashford to
Folstone to Dover to Ramsgate, with high speed trains splitting at
Ashford to go to Folkstone and Ramsgate.

On the North Kent Line the high speed trains could get overcrowded in
the peaks if they went all the way to Ramsgate. That's part of the
reason I suggested turning them back at Rochester. That way commuters
for whom Stratford and Kings Cross are much better destinations would
have cross platform interchange at Rochester (which has double faced
platforms, unlike Chatham and Gillingham), but passengers without such a
strong preference of London termini would continue to go to Victoria.

Getting overcrowded is a sign of success and clearly something the
train operators would like. Bear in mind these could be 12 or 16 car
trains. Perhaps only half the train would continue from Rochester (or
Ebbsfleet, if Strood and Rochester stations can't take 16 carriage
trains.

I still think 2 tph to Tonbridge would be good, but if the track can't
take it, then the older trains should run Tonbridge to Dartford. (It
makes no sense to stop at Paddock Wood and Strood).

I don't know about Tonbridge, but Dartford is not a suitable terminus.

Tonbridge is as it's a major interchange. I don't know about Dartford
- pick somewhere else, bearing in mind that many commuters from west
of Ebbsfleet will also want to take CTRL.

FWIW I don't think Paddock Wood is a good choice of terminus. When BR
was originally broken up, AIUI there was planned to be a Maidstone to
Gatwick Airport microfranchise, but the plan was abandoned and the
service pattern went back to how it was before.

Buses from Strood are not the answer, as the Medway Bridge is crowded
enough already. Those passengers who want to take the bus can do so from
Maidstone.

Then more train services

The trains can't do it directly without reversing at Strood, and IIRC
the junction at Strood is flat and quite busy (and will be busier once
the high speed trains start running).

Passengers can change at Strood. As long as there's about 8 tph, and
it's cross platform, that's not too big an issue.

Why do you assume they'll only start with the "core service" option?
After all, this consultation provoked several suggestions on how to
operate the service more efficiently.

Let's hope. Have they placed rolling stock orders?

Not AFAIK. Shall we take this to uk.railway?

Agreed - and thanks for your thoughts.

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...

Overall, I accept that some of the lines are not suitable for high
speed services. But that means that Ashford and Ebbsfleet need to
become hubs for normal train services (remember, CTRL will have huge
capacity), such as:

Via Ebbsfleet:
- Tonbridge to Dartford
- Dartford to Sittingbourne
- A new tram / light rail service from Ebbsfleet to Bluewater, and
ideally on to somewhere inside the M25. I haven't figured out a path,
but Bluewater seems to be a place where lots of people want to go to,
and Ebbsfleet will be a place where lots of people can go to.
- Of course, CrossRail from Isle of Dogs to Ebbsfleet

Fastrack segregated bus service, which will serve Dartford, Bluewater,
Ebbsfleet, Gravesend is already under construction.

Via Ashford:
Easbourne to Ashford (currently goes only to Hastings)
Gatwick to Ashford?
Ashford to Folkstone to Dover to Ramsgate (see below)

A Brighton - Eastbourne - Hastings - Ashford through service is already
planned, and the Class 171 trains to run it are being built.

Peter

Alex Terrell wrote:

(Aidan Stanger) wrote\...
No, the shortage of paths is on the CTRL, as a lot more people are
expected to start using Eurostars once they run at high speeds all the
way.

They always say that. But lets assume passenger numbers treble. That
would fill six trains per hour.

I think the main point is that they don't want the domestic services to
prevent future growth in international services. They want the passenger
numbers to do far more than just treble.

What they want and what's realistic are two very different things.
Knocking 30 minutes off the journey time won't treble volumes,
especially with the rise of low cost airlines. So we still have 10 tph
for domestic services.

Knocking 30 minutes off the journey time won't treble volumes
immediately, but what makes you think that it won't do so over 20 years?

| snip

Overall, I accept that some of the lines are not suitable for high
speed services. But that means that Ashford and Ebbsfleet need to
become hubs for normal train services (remember, CTRL will have huge
capacity), such as:

Via Ebbsfleet:
- Tonbridge to Dartford
- Dartford to Sittingbourne
- A new tram / light rail service from Ebbsfleet to Bluewater, and
ideally on to somewhere inside the M25. I haven't figured out a path,
but Bluewater seems to be a place where lots of people want to go to,
and Ebbsfleet will be a place where lots of people can go to.

Kent County Council have figured out a path, and are building a busway
called Fastrack (whick despite its name, will be unguided) along the
route. A future conversion to light rail is tentatively planned.

- Of course, CrossRail from Isle of Dogs to Ebbsfleet

....is an insane waste of money!

(As an aside, I'd also propose building an Olympic village
accommodation within walking distance of Ebbsfleet. That would put
athletes within ~10 minutes of Stratford. Later it could be turned
into affordable housing)

So Athletes would have to rely on the high speed trains that the crowds
would also rely on?

| snip

It would be much quicker to get to Dover via Folkestone, so I see no
point in extending using the high speed trains to run there via
Faversham if those trains are well designed.

As I understand the Dover - Folkstone tunnel is not suitable for high
speed trains.

I have already explained to you why it is! They were thought to be
unsuitable because of incompatibility with end doors, but high speed
trains with end doors were around decades ago!

So I would run conventional trains from Ashford to
Folstone to Dover to Ramsgate, with high speed trains splitting at
Ashford to go to Folkstone and Ramsgate.

It would still be advantageous to have conventional trains do so as
well.


On the North Kent Line the high speed trains could get overcrowded in
the peaks if they went all the way to Ramsgate. That's part of the
reason I suggested turning them back at Rochester. That way commuters
for whom Stratford and Kings Cross are much better destinations would
have cross platform interchange at Rochester (which has double faced
platforms, unlike Chatham and Gillingham), but passengers without such a
strong preference of London termini would continue to go to Victoria.

Getting overcrowded is a sign of success and clearly something the
train operators would like.

Not if the train operators are competent. Some trains getting
overcrowded is a sign of bad timetabling!

Bear in mind these could be 12 or 16 car trains. Perhaps only half the
train would continue from Rochester (or Ebbsfleet, if Strood and Rochester
stations can't take 16 carriage trains.

The station length is not the problem. The trains are almost certain to
be a success, but overcrowding would be unpopular with the passengers.

I still think 2 tph to Tonbridge would be good, but if the track can't
take it, then the older trains should run Tonbridge to Dartford. (It
makes no sense to stop at Paddock Wood and Strood).

I don't know about Tonbridge, but Dartford is not a suitable terminus.

Tonbridge is as it's a major interchange. I don't know about Dartford
- pick somewhere else, bearing in mind that many commuters from west
of Ebbsfleet will also want to take CTRL.

There is really only one sensible alternative: London. However, traffic
on the Medway Valley line is unlikely to ever half fill a train of the
length needed for services in the London suburbs. Presumably that's why
the service was cut back to Strood in the first place.

FWIW I don't think Paddock Wood is a good choice of terminus. When BR
was originally broken up, AIUI there was planned to be a Maidstone to
Gatwick Airport microfranchise, but the plan was abandoned and the
service pattern went back to how it was before.

Buses from Strood are not the answer, as the Medway Bridge is crowded
enough already. Those passengers who want to take the bus can do so from
Maidstone.

Then more train services

The trains can't do it directly without reversing at Strood, and IIRC
the junction at Strood is flat and quite busy (and will be busier once
the high speed trains start running).

Passengers can change at Strood. As long as there's about 8 tph, and
it's cross platform, that's not too big an issue.

On what basis do you assume that? Considering that it's quicker by car,
and that a lot of Chatham is a long way from the railway, I'd say it's a
bigger issue than you think.

Why do you assume they'll only start with the "core service" option?
After all, this consultation provoked several suggestions on how to
operate the service more efficiently.

Let's hope. Have they placed rolling stock orders?

Not AFAIK. Shall we take this to uk.railway?

Agreed - and thanks for your thoughts.

[Followups set to uk.railway only]

James wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote...
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Aidan Stanger wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:

I also put a case for converting the Maidstone West line to
light rail, and (after A2 capacity is freed up by the opening of
the Lower Thames Crossing) taking over 2 lanes of the A2 to
extend it to Ebbsfleet.

So do you still object to my plan to use freed up A2 capacity for a
light rail line from Ebbsfleet to Cuxton, where it would join the
Maidstone line (which would also be converted to light rail).

Why would it have to be light rail, rather than a real railway?

Light rail could serve more places, penetrating deeper into the towns it
serves without sacrificing the advantages of a "real" railway. It would
also be able to manage steeper gradients, and would avoid capacity
problems on the Strood Bridge to Gillingham section of line.

Quite. I don't know what the elevations of the lines are round there,
but it looks on the OS 1:25k map like it would be rather easy to
create a spur between Cuxton and the Chatham line before it goes over
the bridge, thus allowing a Gillingham - Paddock Wood service.

Rather steep IIRC, though I expect modern trains could manage it.

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004, Aidan Stanger wrote:

James wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote...
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Aidan Stanger wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:

I also put a case for converting the Maidstone West line to
light rail, and (after A2 capacity is freed up by the opening of
the Lower Thames Crossing) taking over 2 lanes of the A2 to
extend it to Ebbsfleet.

So do you still object to my plan to use freed up A2 capacity for a
light rail line from Ebbsfleet to Cuxton, where it would join the
Maidstone line (which would also be converted to light rail).

Why would it have to be light rail, rather than a real railway?

Light rail could serve more places, penetrating deeper into the towns it
serves

Ah, so you're thinking of including on-street running? A solution towards
the tram end of light rail?

without sacrificing the advantages of a "real" railway.

Um.

Still, could well be a good idea.

tom

--
sh(1) was the first MOO

Alex Terrell wrote:


I pointed out that the Amtrak Metroliners had proved decades ago that
front doors weren't incompatible with high speeds, and they passed that
info on to the train manufacturers.

Yes indeed the Metroliners do have end corridor connections, but if I
recall correctly they are limited to 125 MPH.

Until the end of 2001 I was the head of Electrification & Plant for
Union Railways and was initmately involved in the development of the
CTRL domestic rolling stock specification. A few facts:

The units have to be 6 coaches long in order to prevent both
pantographs (1 per unit) from entering the long carrier wire neutral
setions. If they did, a phase to phase short circuit at 44kV would
result.

In order to maintain the required line capacity, the units were
specified to have a top speed of 140MPH (225 Km/h), with a high rate
of accelleration. The crashworthiness standards for stock of this
speed are very stringent unless you want to end up with the farce
applied to the like of pendolinos where the front half of each leading
vehicle cannot be used for passenger accommodation - a complete non
starter for a commuter train where bums on seats is paramount.

We consulted 7 rolling stock manufacturers over the crashworthiness
standards and end loadings and not one of them could satisfactorily
engineer the requisite stength with a central corridor connection.

So for other posters on this thread - 16 train cars? Are you serious.
Which platforms could accommodate them (apart from the eurostar
platforms), certainly not rural station platforms unless they were
split to 2 x 8 cars. That's not in the spec, so don't expect that to
happen either!

Richard

Add on to Richard's excellent summary that the trains need to be capable
of running with AWS, TPWS, TVM, KVB, to fit the UK standard loading
gauge, to be able to support CSR and GSM-R, to satisfy the EMI/EMC
characteristics of the UK conventional trains, to operate at both 25kV
and 750DC with automated changeover between the two, possibly to have a
capability to work on limited 25kV current if they escape to a BR AC
area, etc.

John

In article , Richard
Catlow writes
Alex Terrell wrote:


I pointed out that the Amtrak Metroliners had proved decades ago that
front doors weren't incompatible with high speeds, and they passed that
info on to the train manufacturers.

Yes indeed the Metroliners do have end corridor connections, but if I
recall correctly they are limited to 125 MPH.

Until the end of 2001 I was the head of Electrification & Plant for
Union Railways and was initmately involved in the development of the
CTRL domestic rolling stock specification. A few facts:

The units have to be 6 coaches long in order to prevent both
pantographs (1 per unit) from entering the long carrier wire neutral
setions. If they did, a phase to phase short circuit at 44kV would
result.

In order to maintain the required line capacity, the units were
specified to have a top speed of 140MPH (225 Km/h), with a high rate
of accelleration. The crashworthiness standards for stock of this
speed are very stringent unless you want to end up with the farce
applied to the like of pendolinos where the front half of each leading
vehicle cannot be used for passenger accommodation - a complete non
starter for a commuter train where bums on seats is paramount.

We consulted 7 rolling stock manufacturers over the crashworthiness
standards and end loadings and not one of them could satisfactorily
engineer the requisite stength with a central corridor connection.

So for other posters on this thread - 16 train cars? Are you serious.
Which platforms could accommodate them (apart from the eurostar
platforms), certainly not rural station platforms unless they were
split to 2 x 8 cars. That's not in the spec, so don't expect that to
happen either!

Richard

--
John Alexander,

(Richard Catlow) wrote in message . com...
Alex Terrell wrote:


I pointed out that the Amtrak Metroliners had proved decades ago that
front doors weren't incompatible with high speeds, and they passed that
info on to the train manufacturers.

Yes indeed the Metroliners do have end corridor connections, but if I
recall correctly they are limited to 125 MPH.

Until the end of 2001 I was the head of Electrification & Plant for
Union Railways and was initmately involved in the development of the
CTRL domestic rolling stock specification. A few facts:

The units have to be 6 coaches long in order to prevent both
pantographs (1 per unit) from entering the long carrier wire neutral
setions. If they did, a phase to phase short circuit at 44kV would
result.

In order to maintain the required line capacity, the units were
specified to have a top speed of 140MPH (225 Km/h), with a high rate
of accelleration. The crashworthiness standards for stock of this
speed are very stringent unless you want to end up with the farce
applied to the like of pendolinos where the front half of each leading
vehicle cannot be used for passenger accommodation - a complete non
starter for a commuter train where bums on seats is paramount.

We consulted 7 rolling stock manufacturers over the crashworthiness
standards and end loadings and not one of them could satisfactorily
engineer the requisite stength with a central corridor connection.

So what's the outcome?

So for other posters on this thread - 16 train cars? Are you serious.
Which platforms could accommodate them (apart from the eurostar
platforms), certainly not rural station platforms unless they were
split to 2 x 8 cars. That's not in the spec, so don't expect that to
happen either!

Thanks for the info

Core stations are St Pancras, Stratford, Ebbsfleet, Ashford, and
possibly some on the North Kent line, so 16 cars is feasible with some
extension. I suppose the end result could be two 2 times 6 cars, which
might split at Ashford or Ebbsfleet.

Richard Catlow wrote:

Alex Terrell wrote:


I pointed out that the Amtrak Metroliners had proved decades ago that
front doors weren't incompatible with high speeds, and they passed that
info on to the train manufacturers.

Yes indeed the Metroliners do have end corridor connections, but if I
recall correctly they are limited to 125 MPH.

They were designed to run at 160mph. It was only the poor state of the
track that limited them to 125mph.

Until the end of 2001 I was the head of Electrification & Plant for
Union Railways and was initmately involved in the development of the
CTRL domestic rolling stock specification. A few facts:

The units have to be 6 coaches long in order to prevent both
pantographs (1 per unit) from entering the long carrier wire neutral
setions. If they did, a phase to phase short circuit at 44kV would
result.

How come?

In order to maintain the required line capacity, the units were
specified to have a top speed of 140MPH (225 Km/h), with a high rate
of accelleration. The crashworthiness standards for stock of this
speed are very stringent unless you want to end up with the farce
applied to the like of pendolinos where the front half of each leading
vehicle cannot be used for passenger accommodation - a complete non
starter for a commuter train where bums on seats is paramount.

I thought crashworthiness requirements under ATP were lower. If they
aren't, why aren't they. It's ridiculous mandating such high standards
on a line where there's nothing to crash into! An exemption should be
sought even if it requires special legislation to get it.

We consulted 7 rolling stock manufacturers over the crashworthiness
standards and end loadings and not one of them could satisfactorily
engineer the requisite stength with a central corridor connection.

Any idea how far short of the standard the Metroliners fell?

So for other posters on this thread - 16 train cars? Are you serious.
Which platforms could accommodate them (apart from the eurostar
platforms), certainly not rural station platforms unless they were
split to 2 x 8 cars. That's not in the spec, so don't expect that to
happen either!

Are you sure it's not in the spec? UIVMM all the consultation options
included some offpeak splitting at Ashford.