Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

Thameslink 2000 is desperately needed but is being held up by funding
and the demolition of buildings in Borough.

The project page on http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/23 states:

"The huge problem with Thameslink 2000 is the cost which is now around
£3bn. This is mainly due to the cost of rebuilding Blackfriars station
and the new viaduct north of London Bridge to increase capacity."

I can understand the need to increase through capacity at London
Bridge, but why does blackfriars need to be rebuilt? It already has 2
through platforms, which is the same as St Pauls Thameslink just to the
north.

Can't Thameslink 2000 be done without rebuilding blackfriars? Extending
the exsiting platforms to the southbank would not be too diffciult
either.

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

In article .com,
writes
I can understand the need to increase through capacity at London
Bridge, but why does blackfriars need to be rebuilt? It already has 2
through platforms,

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.

--
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:

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

In message .com, at
07:46:53 on Fri, 5 Aug 2005, remarked:
"The huge problem with Thameslink 2000 is the cost which is now around
£3bn. This is mainly due to the cost of rebuilding Blackfriars station
and the new viaduct north of London Bridge to increase capacity."

I can understand the need to increase through capacity at London
Bridge, but why does blackfriars need to be rebuilt?

Isn't it because with the current track layout all the through and
terminating trains have to cross one another's path?

(All the terminating services go to/from Elephant and Castle, and almost
all the TL2K services go via London Bridge).

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

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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.

The terminating services at Blackfriars are not the only obstacle to
Thameslink 2000. A (if not the) major problem is the portion of double
track that passes Borough Market between London Bridge and Metropolitan
Junction (the spur that leads up to Blackfriars) - for TL2000 to work
this needs to be 4 tracked.

In addition it should be noted that it's only the Thameslink trains
coming up from Brighton and Gatwick via London Bridge that needs to
cross the path - the Thameslink services from Sutton via Herne Hill are
already on the right tracks as they go through Elephant and Castle.
Though it is of course the Thameslink services from Brighton that are
the intended beneficiaries of TL2000.

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

In message .com, at
09:18:37 on Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Mizter T remarked:
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.

Boo Hoo. Change onto a train that goes to Cannon Street, or onto a
Thameslink. Most of the country can't choose which London terminus to
travel to, people sarf of the river are simply spoilt!

The terminating services at Blackfriars are not the only obstacle to
Thameslink 2000. A (if not the) major problem is the portion of double
track that passes Borough Market between London Bridge and Metropolitan
Junction (the spur that leads up to Blackfriars) - for TL2000 to work
this needs to be 4 tracked.

OK, that's two candidates for the "major problem" now (a new bridge and
station, or your double tack).

In addition it should be noted that it's only the Thameslink trains
coming up from Brighton and Gatwick via London Bridge that needs to
cross the path - the Thameslink services from Sutton via Herne Hill are
already on the right tracks as they go through Elephant and Castle.
Though it is of course the Thameslink services from Brighton that are
the intended beneficiaries of TL2000.

Indeed.
--
Roland Perry

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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.

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

In message , at 20:32:50 on
Fri, 5 Aug 2005, David Cantrell remarked:
I wonder why they can't simply scrap the terminating services and send
them all to Victoria instead.

Victoria is pretty damned busy.

And Blackfriars is pretty small. You can't make an omelette without
breaking a few eggs, and if this is causing a billion pounds worth of
expenditure that's scuppering the whole Thameslink project it's time
some hard decisions were made.

--
Roland Perry

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:32:50 on
Fri, 5 Aug 2005, David Cantrell remarked:

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


Victoria is pretty damned busy.
snip

it's time some hard decisions were made.



Er - forget the whole thing?

--

Mark²³

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

In message , at 07:07:36 on Sat, 6 Aug
2005, Mark²³ remarked:
I wonder why they can't simply scrap the terminating services and
send
them all to Victoria instead.


Victoria is pretty damned busy.
snip

it's time some hard decisions were made.

Er - forget the whole thing?

You can't "forget Thameslink 2k" just because a few commuters who
currently use Blackfriars are stuck in their ways. I'm sure there are
other suitable routes/trains for them to get to work.
--
Roland Perry

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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.

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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!

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

"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.

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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.

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

"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).

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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?)

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

"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.

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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:

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

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

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...

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.

Agreed. However, when the 319s were ordered they were originally designed
without the end doors. The design was required to be modified to allow for
passengers to be detrained in emergency, using front and rear end doors, in
the tunnels under St P/KX. Presumably any following stock will be subject to
the same requirement. I suspect that, as previous posters have suggested,
this may be to do with clearances in the tunnels. I'll have to trawl through
some 1988/1989 "Modern Railways" when I get the chance!

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:47:53 GMT, "Jack Taylor"
wrote:


"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...

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.

Agreed. However, when the 319s were ordered they were originally designed
without the end doors. The design was required to be modified to allow for
passengers to be detrained in emergency, using front and rear end doors, in
the tunnels under St P/KX. Presumably any following stock will be subject to
the same requirement. I suspect that, as previous posters have suggested,
this may be to do with clearances in the tunnels. I'll have to trawl through
some 1988/1989 "Modern Railways" when I get the chance!


Yes 365s do run through single bore tunnels on the East Coast section,
however in an emergency, it is possible to exit via side doors within
the tunnel. Shakespeare Cliff Tunnel in Kent is single bore and can
only have trains with ends doors through it. In this case, it is
beause the tunnel is very tight to gauge and there is no way anyone
could exit through side doors.

Presumably such tight to gauge tunnels exist on the section of line
between Kentish Town and Farringdon. The section beyond here to
Blackfriars, doesn't since Class 465s, the fore runners too 365s, run
to Smithfield Sidings/City Thameslink.



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

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:35:20 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

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?


Mmmm Yes wasn't he talking about the Blackfriars Station on the bridge
OVER the Thames!!!!

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

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

In article , Christine
writes
Presumably such tight to gauge tunnels exist on the section of line
between Kentish Town and Farringdon.

It's a double-track tunnel.

--
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:

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
In article , Christine
writes
Presumably such tight to gauge tunnels exist on the section of line
between Kentish Town and Farringdon.

It's a double-track tunnel.

I wonder if the decision is based upon the premise that if two trains,
travelling in opposite directions, became stuck in the tunnels it would be
impossible to detrain passengers using the side doors, either to the cess or
the six foot. Hence the requirement for end doors.

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

Presumably such tight to gauge tunnels exist on the section of line
between Kentish Town and Farringdon.

It's a double-track tunnel.

I wonder if the decision is based upon the premise that if two trains,
travelling in opposite directions, became stuck in the tunnels it would be
impossible to detrain passengers using the side doors, either to the cess
or
the six foot. Hence the requirement for end doors.

I was wondering if perhaps the widened lines from Moorgate to King's Cross
Thameslink were still considered as part of the London Underground system at
the time and so found themselves having to meet extra requirements because
of that, regardless of the actual practicalities.

Do we actually know if the same restriction applies to this day? The 319s
have been around quite a while after all.

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:59:56 GMT, "Graham J"
wrote:

Presumably such tight to gauge tunnels exist on the section of line
between Kentish Town and Farringdon.

It's a double-track tunnel.

I wonder if the decision is based upon the premise that if two trains,
travelling in opposite directions, became stuck in the tunnels it would be
impossible to detrain passengers using the side doors, either to the cess
or
the six foot. Hence the requirement for end doors.

I was wondering if perhaps the widened lines from Moorgate to King's Cross
Thameslink were still considered as part of the London Underground system at
the time and so found themselves having to meet extra requirements because
of that, regardless of the actual practicalities.

Do we actually know if the same restriction applies to this day? The 319s
have been around quite a while after all.


I am wondering if the end door requirement wasn't because of tight to
gauge tunnels, but because of allowing driver access between units.
Not just in tunnels but anywhere, someone may have thought it a handy
option. I know at London Bridge on the multiple lines there, t has
been a handy feature when having to set back trapped trains. No
necessity to block other lines whilst the driver changed ends and
crossing between units. Not such a luxury with 465/386 trains.

Prior to Thameslink, didn't slam door stock (DMUs) use the lines from
Moorgate via Farringdon to Kentish Town. They had no end doors.

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

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

In article ,
(Matt Wheeler) wrote:

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.

Whatever, WAGN has them all now.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

Not sure if this has been posted before but the below link shows
Network Rails current thinking on TL2000. If I'm reading it right the
re-opened enquiry will limit itself to the three areas that were not
acceptable to the original enquiry chairman ie.

* Substandard designs for London Bridge
* No reinstatement plans for Borough Market
* Detailed (But relatively minor) objections to Blackfriars station

The first of these should be mittigated by the new London Bridge
masterplan.

Reinstatement plans have now been drawn up for Borough Market (Will
these be acceptable?)

Detailed changes to Blackfriars (eg. cutting the projected OHLE to City
Thameslink) which will improve the look of the station.

Therefore it seems that the whole scheme rests on whether the designs
by Network Rails Architect, Jestico & Whiles for the Borough Market
re-instatement are going to be accepted. However J&W was also the
practice that LUL contracted for their twice rejected Camden Town
re-development...

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Documents/Web%20SOC.pdf

Thameslink 2000 Blackfriars
 

Sorry missed a word out it should have been (eg. cutting the projected
OHLE BACK to City Thameslink)