"Rupert Candy" wrote in message
ups.com...

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:

Until new stock is ordered they are unlikely to start running through. The
Class 365s, currently used by WAGN, do not have end-doors for use in
emergencies (like the 319s do), which is a requirement for the tunnel
sections. Thameslink have been making noises about replacement stock for the
franchise which would, presumably, occur when the GN lines are absorbed.

In message , at 14:05:53 on
Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Jack Taylor 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:

Until new stock is ordered they are unlikely to start running through. The
Class 365s, currently used by WAGN, do not have end-doors for use in
emergencies (like the 319s do), which is a requirement for the tunnel
sections. Thameslink have been making noises about replacement stock for the
franchise which would, presumably, occur when the GN lines are absorbed.

But WAGN have many 317s as well. They could run the stoppers, which tend
to be 317s [during the week, at least; after all, the people who get the
stoppers are second class citizens and don't deserve the newer stock]
through, and have the fasts shuttling back at KX.
--
Roland Perry

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

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.

You still would, as the number of services via Elephant terminating at
Blackfriars is relatively small, so running them through the tunnel
would only displace a proportion of the London Bridge services. Unless
the plans involve significantly increasing SET services to
Blackfriars?

I really don't see why heaven and earth need to be moved just so that
a few people coming from one direction have to change trains instead
of a few people coming from the other direction. Especially with the
huge cost of the project threatening its very viability.

In message , at 15:54:35 on
Wed, 10 Aug 2005, asdf remarked:

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.

You still would, as the number of services via Elephant terminating at
Blackfriars is relatively small, so running them through the tunnel
would only displace a proportion of the London Bridge services. Unless
the plans involve significantly increasing SET services to
Blackfriars?

I really don't see why heaven and earth need to be moved just so that
a few people coming from one direction have to change trains instead
of a few people coming from the other direction. Especially with the
huge cost of the project threatening its very viability.

Apparently there are too many trains, and so the somewhat small number
that terminate at Blackfriars can't make it through the tunnels. I agree
that these issues shouldn't hold up the whole project, hence my original
suggestion that the surplus trains be sent to Victoria, or in the last
resort, scrapped altogether.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk...

But WAGN have many 317s as well. They could run the stoppers, which tend
to be 317s [during the week, at least; after all, the people who get the
stoppers are second class citizens and don't deserve the newer stock]
through, and have the fasts shuttling back at KX.

Unfortunately the 317s are not dual-voltage so, although they are permitted
through the tunnels, they wouldn't get much further than Farringdon (at
present the limit of 25kV ac catenary, although City Thameslink is proposed
to be the changeover point under TL2000).

wrote:
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.
There will be some capacity becoming available at Waterloo soon.

.... and that is probably how we can use joined-up thinking to make TL2K
work without rebuilding Blackfriars station.

Consider: what are the pieces of TL2K?

* Platform lengthening -- useful but not absolutely critical.
* Borough Market four-tracking -- desperately needed, TL2K or no TL2K.
* London Bridge rebuild -- at least part of it is needed for Borough
Market
* Bermondsey underpasses/flyovers -- needed to make Borough Market work
properly.
* St Pancras Midland Road -- done. (OK, it'll cost money to fit it out,
but the hard work is done.)
* Link to Kings Cross lines -- done. (again, at least the hard part is
done.)
* Blackfriars station rebuild -- do we need it?

If we don't rebuild Blackfriars station, what do we have? A situation
where trains from London Bridge have to use the terminating platforms
rather than trains from the Elephant. Is that such a bad thing? It
requires a rethink of the plans, certainly -- but it sounds to me like
we'd get 85% of the benefit for 60% of the cost.

I suppose this is what I'd do:
(1) Connect a four-tracked Borough Market to the existing station at
London Bridge, except that Platform 8 would probably have to go in
order to build a new up Platform 7 on the existing up through line.
That implies that Platform 6 becomes the down fast (or the down
ex-Charing Cross) platform. Re-fiddle the flyover plan sufficiently
that most movements are conflict-free without spiralling the cost. Use
Platform 5 for up trains to Blackfriars and some up trains (generally
those from the slow lines) to Charing Cross, ditto Platform 4 for down
trains. Don't bother with the huge grandioseness of the last plan I saw
for London Bridge, that rebuilt most of the station and added about
four extra through platforms. Closing one terminating platform and
adding one through platform on an existing track should be sufficient.
It will require people on the platforms to make sure the trains get
dispatched OK, because each platform will be very busy, but getting rid
of slam-door stock helps a LOT there.

(2) Terminate as many Dartford and/or Caterham trains at Blackfriars as
are necessary. Run the Sevenoaks via Bellingham trains (and anything
else that comes up from the Elephant) through to somewhere north of
town (the existing terminators used to be through trains anyway). Make
sure, of course, that the long-distance (Brighton, Gatwick, etc.)
trains from London Bridge can run through. Of course that will require
franchise negotiation logistics, route and stock swaps between
franchises, and probably a complete timetable revamp, but (assuming
goodwill between the franchises or an SRA-wielded big stick) those are
paper operations and much cheaper than building a great big new white
elephant of a station.

(3) If it makes sense to run the Sevenoaks or Wimbledon Loop trains
into Victoria rather than Blackfriars (and it may), transfer some
trains (those, or more likely, some long-distance ones) into Waterloo,
in order to equalise platform capacity, given that Waterloo will have
five new spare platforms.

By the way, someone upthread mentioned that end doors are needed on
Thameslink -- really? Even in a double-track tunnel? But wasn't the
whole point of ordering 365s on both sides of the river that they were
going to run through? (Or is this the Prescottists instituting
pointless safety rules again?) I know that the GN&C tunnels are
single-bore and small enough that end doors are needed -- that seems
fair enough. But I didn't think that would apply to the Thameslink
tunnels. If you can run a Pendolino through Primrose
Hill/Shugborough/wherever without end doors, why can't you run a 365
through Thameslink? (What's the current status on running 365s between
Dover and Folkestone? Are they still banned?)

Alistair Bell wrote:

By the way, someone upthread mentioned that end doors are needed on
Thameslink -- really? Even in a double-track tunnel? But wasn't the
whole point of ordering 365s on both sides of the river that they were
going to run through? (Or is this the Prescottists instituting
pointless safety rules again?) I know that the GN&C tunnels are
single-bore and small enough that end doors are needed -- that seems
fair enough. But I didn't think that would apply to the Thameslink
tunnels. If you can run a Pendolino through Primrose
Hill/Shugborough/wherever without end doors, why can't you run a 365
through Thameslink? (What's the current status on running 365s between
Dover and Folkestone? Are they still banned?)

Indeed. An even more extreme example is running Pendolinos through the
single-bore down fast tunnel at Linslade - no end doors there! (Incidentally
when tilting at full speed they have only a couple of inches to spare on the
kinematic envelope through that tunnel, according to the latest MR.) Same
applies for 365s on the ECML tunnels near London between KX and Potter's
Bar - one of those tunnels has single bores on the slow lines I think, but I
forget which.

Angus

"Alistair Bell" wrote in message
ups.com...



By the way, someone upthread mentioned that end doors are needed on
Thameslink -- really? Even in a double-track tunnel? But wasn't the
whole point of ordering 365s on both sides of the river that they
were
going to run through?

I may be wrong, but I had understood that, originally, all the 365s
were to go to South Eastern to replace some slammers, but ultimately
25 were sent to (what was) WAGN instead, leaving just 16 for South
Eastern.



(Or is this the Prescottists instituting
pointless safety rules again?) I know that the GN&C tunnels are
single-bore and small enough that end doors are needed -- that seems
fair enough. But I didn't think that would apply to the Thameslink
tunnels. If you can run a Pendolino through Primrose
Hill/Shugborough/wherever without end doors, why can't you run a 365
through Thameslink? (What's the current status on running 365s
between
Dover and Folkestone? Are they still banned?)


I think its something to do with tunnel width not necessarily the
single/double track/boredness of them.
The Dover/Folkestone tunnels are very narrow with no room to escape
from the side of the train, hence the need for end doors. Other
single-bore tunnels may well be wide enough to allow egress and safe
passage from the side of the train, so no need for end doors.

Similarly, its possible the double track Thameslink tunnel, whilst
wide enough for two tracks, doesn't have enough width either side for
passengers to escape and walk along the side, and therefore need to be
able to escape from the ends. And if its any tunnel, its more likely
the one north of Farringdon rather than the one under the Thames.

In article , Jack Taylor
writes
Until new stock is ordered they are unlikely to start running through. The
Class 365s, currently used by WAGN, do not have end-doors for use in
emergencies (like the 319s do), which is a requirement for the tunnel
sections.

The tunnels are all double-track, aren't they? Apart from the new
(short) links.

365s already run through single-track tunnels between Ally Pally and
Potters Bar.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In message , at 18:17:36 on Wed, 10
Aug 2005, Matt Wheeler remarked:
And if its any tunnel, its more likely
the one north of Farringdon rather than the one under the Thames.

err, which Thameslink tunnel goes under the Thames?
--
Roland Perry