In message , at 11:42:40 on
Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Paul Scott remarked:
I won't believe it's finished until I can
get a through train from Cambridge to Gatwick - one of the original
attractions of the scheme for me.

Not a total pessimist then, they won't believe it's finished until they can
get from Littlehampton to Kings Lynn...

Without changing trains? One of the enigmas about the plans are that
there are just three routes north of London, but twelve to the south
(including four 'beyond' Gatwick).

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...loadMedia.asp?
MediaDetailsID=1195
--
Roland Perry

On Oct 20, 9:51 am, Roland Perry wrote:

you'd probably want to call it Thameslink 2015*.

(* unless you're in the camp who thinks the second phase won't happen,
which I've been pondering joining)

Thameslink 2015 it is, then I won't believe it's finished until I
can get a through train from Cambridge to Gatwick - one of the original

I am now of the opinion you won't.

Even though they completed the tunnelling into SPILL I have alwys been
sceptical about connecting up GN to it.

They are going to all this trouble of re-arranging appoaches to
Blackfriars and south/east thereof to avoid as far as possible
conflicting moves to make 24 TPH in the core work, and then build a
new junction across which every move will conflict right *in* the
core ?!?!?!?

IMHO as a practical connection the GN was lost when the re-jigged
SPILL from being a 4 platform station under KX/SP of pre-Eusostar days
to 2-platforms under-SPILL box. With 4 platforms you could dovetail /
hold / alternate / regulate around junction, with 2 platforms you
cannot.

--
Nick

In message
, at
04:06:19 on Mon, 20 Oct 2008, D7666 remarked:
I won't believe it's finished until I
can get a through train from Cambridge to Gatwick - one of the original

I am now of the opinion you won't.

Even though they completed the tunnelling into SPILL I have alwys been
sceptical about connecting up GN to it.

They are going to all this trouble of re-arranging appoaches to
Blackfriars and south/east thereof to avoid as far as possible
conflicting moves to make 24 TPH in the core work, and then build a
new junction across which every move will conflict right *in* the
core ?!?!?!?

Is it a flat junction? I thought the northbound line tunnelled under.

--
Roland Perry

On Oct 20, 11:56*am, Kev wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:04*am, Rupert Candy wrote:

Like many on these groups, I try not to believe any transport project
is actually happening "until they start digging". *So, having been
away for a week or so, I was gratified to notice several signs that
"Thameslink 2000" (or whatever they're calling it these days) might
actually happen. *They've started piling at the southern end of
Blackfriars railway bridge (by the old bridge supports) - presumably
for the second river crossing - and there are hoardings at Farringdon
by the north end footbridge, though no signs of actual construction
yet. *I also noticed a stripy eye-catching "Thameslink Project"
information stand at Moorgate - currently empty, but presumably will
soon hold "You're not getting any Thameslink trains any more"
leaflets...

I think that you naive attitude to how a project is implemented then.
Now wonder there are many scew ups when people think that all that is
involved in implementing a project is to "dig holes".

With respect, I think it's your interpretation of my original post
that's naive. By 'dig holes' I meant 'tangible signs of actual
construction' as opposed to 'meaningless Government/Evening Standard
spin about Crossrail getting green light'. Clearer?

(apologies for lack of snipping, posted from mobile phone)

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:42:40 on
Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Paul Scott remarked:
I won't believe it's finished until I can
get a through train from Cambridge to Gatwick - one of the original
attractions of the scheme for me.

Not a total pessimist then, they won't believe it's finished until they
can
get from Littlehampton to Kings Lynn...

Without changing trains? One of the enigmas about the plans are that
there are just three routes north of London, but twelve to the south
(including four 'beyond' Gatwick).

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...DetailsID=1195

Just having a dig at the amount of stale information about. The linked map
shows early ideas extracted from all the planning documentation, but as
captioned, that map is only 'indicative'. The difference south of the river
is that an hourly Thameslink service at say Guildford is just an add on to
other intensive services, it's a bit different on the northern network, as
you say the 3 to 12 is quite noticeable.

As regularly discussed here though, the current South London RUS no longer
shows the south west parts of the network, eg Littlehampton and Guildford.
The Wimbledon loop is also to be turned into a Blackfriars - London Bridge
service. This is to avoid too many fast/slow flat crossing moves south of
Blackfriars.

It is about time NR brought their Thameslink site more up to date...

Paul

"Batman55" wrote in message
...
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
, at
08:35:20 on Sun, 19 Oct 2008, D7666 remarked:
I'll also add the comment it ain't called Thameslink 2000 any
more .... it is Thameslink Project.

Thameslink 2012 seems like the best name for it.
--
Roland Perry

Maybe Thameslink 2013, just to be on the safe side!

2015, see earlier posts.

Paul S

In uk.railway Batman55 twisted the electrons to say:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
Thameslink 2012 seems like the best name for it.
Maybe Thameslink 2013, just to be on the safe side!

Given how superstition some people are, probably better call it 2014?
But hey, that'll give them an extra year of safety margin!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

On Oct 20, 12:06*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Oct 20, 9:51 am, Roland Perry wrote:

you'd probably want to call it Thameslink 2015*.
(* unless you're in the camp who thinks the second phase won't happen,
which I've been pondering joining)
Thameslink 2015 it is, then *I won't believe it's finished until I
can get a through train from Cambridge to Gatwick - one of the original

I am now of the opinion you won't.

Even though they completed the tunnelling into SPILL I have alwys been
sceptical about connecting up GN to it.

They are going to all this trouble of re-arranging appoaches to
Blackfriars and south/east thereof to avoid as far as possible
conflicting moves to make 24 TPH in the core work, and then build a
new junction across which every move will conflict right *in* the
core ?!?!?!?

IMHO as a practical connection the GN was lost when the re-jigged
SPILL from being a 4 platform station under KX/SP of pre-Eusostar days
to 2-platforms under-SPILL box. With 4 platforms you could dovetail /
hold / alternate / regulate around junction, with 2 platforms you
cannot.

Amusingly, I read in My Onward Serial that DfT are sending those
responsible for Thameslink rolling stock procurement to Chatelet-Les
Halles in the rush hour to see how it's done-a station with IIRC 6
tracks and 3 island platforms where they can do exactly that.

Wasn't there some speculation on here around the time of SPILL opening
that the platforms were wide enough to be made into islands if
necessary? Obviously at much greater expense than building the thing
properly in the first place.

"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
...
In uk.railway Batman55 twisted the electrons to say:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
Thameslink 2012 seems like the best name for it.
Maybe Thameslink 2013, just to be on the safe side!

Given how superstition some people are, probably better call it 2014?
But hey, that'll give them an extra year of safety margin!

2015 - see earlier posts...

Paul S

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
, at
04:06:19 on Mon, 20 Oct 2008, D7666 remarked:

I am now of the opinion you won't.

Even though they completed the tunnelling into SPILL I have alwys been
sceptical about connecting up GN to it.

They are going to all this trouble of re-arranging appoaches to
Blackfriars and south/east thereof to avoid as far as possible
conflicting moves to make 24 TPH in the core work, and then build a
new junction across which every move will conflict right *in* the
core ?!?!?!?

Is it a flat junction? I thought the northbound line tunnelled under.

It does dive under - and it is already built, (though track yet to be laid),
you can
see it dropping down as you leave the northbound StP platform.

It ought to be less of an issue in terms of running 24 tph than the flat
junction at Blackfriars

Paul