In article ,
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

So Blackfriars needs to be turned inside out so that the Thameslink
platforms are the easternmost ones. Since their position is constrained
by the link to City Thameslink, this means moving the terminating
platforms to the west side which, in effect, means building a new
station *and* bridge across the Thames.

Good thing somebody left some handy bridge pillars there ...

Nick
--
http://www.leverton.org/ ... So express yourself

On 5 Aug 2005 09:50:38 -0700, wrote:


Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

Right now the trains that arrive from the south on the western pair of
tracks use the eastern platforms, while those using the eastern pair
(the Thameslink ones from London Bridge) use the western pair. With the
increased traffic of TL2k this just isn't viable.

So Blackfriars needs to be turned inside out so that the Thameslink
platforms are the easternmost ones. Since their position is constrained
by the link to City Thameslink, this means moving the terminating
platforms to the west side which, in effect, means building a new
station *and* bridge across the Thames.

Thanks. I think then it might be cheaper to build new platforms over
the old piers (to the west of the station) for the southern trains, but
leave the existing station as it is, rather than demolishing the
station almost completely.

When you add the need to provide (disabled-friendly) access to these
platforms, improve access to the present ones and extend them to 12
coach length with protection from the weather you have virtually got a
(messy) new station. So why not do it properly with an integrated
design.

--
Peter Lawrence

Mizter T wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

snip
I wonder why they can't simply scrap the terminating services and send
them all to Victoria instead.


Because a lot of people use them (including me)! And if they went to
Victoria you'd land in an entirely different part of town.

Why not make them part of the TL2K thing? Instead of terminating at
Blackfriars, send them through the tunnels and on to somewhere like
Welwyn, Hertford or Letchworth.

Robin

David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 16:52:08 +0100, Roland Perry
said:

I wonder why they can't simply scrap the terminating services and send
them all to Victoria instead.

Victoria is pretty damned busy.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david
There will be some capacity becoming available at Waterloo soon.

Kevin

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 09:57:56 +0100, "R.C. Payne"
wrote:

I wonder why they can't simply scrap the terminating services and send
them all to Victoria instead.

Because a lot of people use them (including me)! And if they went to
Victoria you'd land in an entirely different part of town.

Why not make them part of the TL2K thing? Instead of terminating at
Blackfriars, send them through the tunnels and on to somewhere like
Welwyn, Hertford or Letchworth.

Exactly. Send all the services (from the Elephant & Castle direction)
that currently terminate at Blackfriars through the tunnel to
Farringdon and beyond. Terminate an equivalent number of services from
the London Bridge direction at Blackfriars. Seems a far more sensible
and sane solution than ripping apart the entire station.

In message , at 04:34:37 on
Wed, 10 Aug 2005, asdf remarked:
I wonder why they can't simply scrap the terminating services and send
them all to Victoria instead.

Because a lot of people use them (including me)! And if they went to
Victoria you'd land in an entirely different part of town.

Why not make them part of the TL2K thing? Instead of terminating at
Blackfriars, send them through the tunnels and on to somewhere like
Welwyn, Hertford or Letchworth.

Exactly. Send all the services (from the Elephant & Castle direction)
that currently terminate at Blackfriars through the tunnel to
Farringdon and beyond. Terminate an equivalent number of services from
the London Bridge direction at Blackfriars. Seems a far more sensible
and sane solution than ripping apart the entire station.

Then you wouldn't get the through services from Gatwick (and other
planned destinations) to north of the river, as they mainly go via
London Bridge.

On the other hand, adding some of the "via elephant" destinations to the
through trains doesn't seem too much of an issue, although maybe there's
not the capacity through the tunnels for them.
--
Roland Perry

Yes it is a capacity problem. It is planned to push 24 trains per
hour each direction through the tunnel. 18 of those will be via London
Bridge, the other 6 obviously via The Elephant. There are no pathways
available for SET trains that currently terminate at Blackfriars. And
those that go through the core will be of the New Thameslink Franchise
(the presnt Thamelsink merged with WAGN).




On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:18:44 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 04:34:37 on
Wed, 10 Aug 2005, asdf remarked:
I wonder why they can't simply scrap the terminating services and send
them all to Victoria instead.

Because a lot of people use them (including me)! And if they went to
Victoria you'd land in an entirely different part of town.

Why not make them part of the TL2K thing? Instead of terminating at
Blackfriars, send them through the tunnels and on to somewhere like
Welwyn, Hertford or Letchworth.

Exactly. Send all the services (from the Elephant & Castle direction)
that currently terminate at Blackfriars through the tunnel to
Farringdon and beyond. Terminate an equivalent number of services from
the London Bridge direction at Blackfriars. Seems a far more sensible
and sane solution than ripping apart the entire station.

Then you wouldn't get the through services from Gatwick (and other
planned destinations) to north of the river, as they mainly go via
London Bridge.

On the other hand, adding some of the "via elephant" destinations to the
through trains doesn't seem too much of an issue, although maybe there's
not the capacity through the tunnels for them.


Life without sex just isn't life.
Make love not war!

In message , at 08:19:40 on
Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Christine remarked:
those that go through the core will be of the New Thameslink Franchise
(the presnt Thamelsink merged with WAGN).

I see that this is creaking into existence once more (it's only been
postponed three times already). Will trains from the GN lines continue
to terminate at Kings Cross, until the Thameslink works are complete, or
will some of them start going through?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

I see that this is creaking into existence once more (it's only been
postponed three times already). Will trains from the GN lines continue
to terminate at Kings Cross, until the Thameslink works are complete, or
will some of them start going through?

The map on the National Express Group website shows the GN and existing
Thameslink routes as continuing to be self-contained, albeit coming
tantalisingly close at KX and Moorgate:

http://www.nationalexpressgroup.com/...hise_route.pdf

In message . com, at
03:18:33 on Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Rupert Candy
remarked:
I see that this is creaking into existence once more (it's only been
postponed three times already). Will trains from the GN lines continue
to terminate at Kings Cross, until the Thameslink works are complete, or
will some of them start going through?

The map on the National Express Group website shows the GN and existing
Thameslink routes as continuing to be self-contained, albeit coming
tantalisingly close at KX and Moorgate:

And the spur from Farringdon to Moorgate will, of course, be one of the
first casualties when they start building Thameslink2.5k

http://www.nationalexpressgroup.com/...hise_route.pdf

Is this the only rail franchise with discontinuous routes?
--
Roland Perry