On Nov 17, 11:53 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

The 'flow diagram' for Key Output 2 in the South London RUS suggests there
will be a 6tph '8 car' service through the core, 2 each from Orpington,
Sevenoaks, and Maidstone East.

Would a 6tph service at Kentish Town be considered adequate?

Probably ...

.... but my point is not whether or not the service level is adequate
for that station, but about the effect one short platform station has
on the central core capacity.

Lets do my sums again then ... out of 24 TPH , if 6 TPH call Kentish
Town and *if* SDO is not implemented then one quarter of the trains
through the core are 8car not 12car - 24x12=288; (18*12)+(6*8)=264;
264/288 = 0.91666666666etc, an 8-9% reduction cap caused by one
station.


However at least the ECML RUS does confirm that the 8 tph off the ECML link
will all be 12 carriages long,


And doing my sums for Midland route then, instead of 16 x 12 car TPH =
192 cars/hour there are (10x12)+(6x8) = 168; 168/192 = 0.875 i.e. less
12-13% capacity than maximum.

Of course I understand Kentish Town is probably near impossible to
make 12 car without disproportionate expenditure nonetheless it has a
very significant impact on the route as a whole ... without SDO.

--
Nick

On Nov 17, 11:58 am, "Peter Masson" wrote:

Bellingham (if the sidings are retained) look difficult to
extend to full 12 car.

I'm puzzling over St.Albans for similar reasons.

The south end is already extremely narrow on the island platforms 2/3
- it is so narrow it would never get through safety rules if this were
a new station today. So if extending that way they would need to
significantly widen as well as lengthen ... and I think that option
has effectively been cut off by the new building work outside the
railway on the Up side.

The north end has the present 8car turnback siding in immediately off
the north end of the platforms. For the turnback to be retained to be
of any operational use it too would need extending to 12 cars ... and
as reported in uk.railway previously it is only just dead 8car now, so
probaly needs extedning by 4-and-a-bit for SPAD mitigation. So if the
platforms are extended north by 4car, the buffer stops at the extreme
end of the turnback needed shifting north by a bit more than
equivalent to 8 car lengths, and here you are well into a deep
cutting.

Even staggering the extended platforms does not work for combinations
of the above reasons.

I am assuming therefore that St.Albans loses its turnback facility ???

--
Nick

On 17 Nov, 12:52, D7666 wrote:
... but my point is not whether or not the service level is adequate
for that station, but about the effect one short platform station has
on the central core capacity.

All of the 8 car trains in the RUS are coming from Elephant, and I'm
assuming there are lots of stations in that direction that only have 8
car platforms. Since there isn't capacity at Blackfriars to not run at
least some of these 8 car trains through the Thameslink core, that
means even if Kentish Town were extended, Thameslink would still have
8 car trains.

U

On Nov 17, 11:53*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
However at least the ECML RUS does confirm that the 8 tph off the ECML link
will all be 12 carriages long, it just seems a bit unsure if they will be
existing outer or inner suburban services.

I thought that it was fairly settled they'd be 'outer', at least in
the sense of being trains that currently go to KX rather than
Moorgate. AIUI there's no suggestion of cutting Northern City
services.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On 17 Nov, 13:44, John B wrote:
I thought that it was fairly settled they'd be 'outer', at least in
the sense of being trains that currently go to KX rather than
Moorgate. AIUI there's no suggestion of cutting Northern City
services.

The Northern City is at capacity in terms of train frequency, or will
be after the next service upgrade. The only way to run more inner
services after that will be if they terminate somewhere else. Given
the six tracks from Finsbury Park to Hertford/Welwyn, there appears to
be capacity to run the services themselves.

U

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 17 Nov, 13:44, John B wrote:
I thought that it was fairly settled they'd be 'outer', at least in
the sense of being trains that currently go to KX rather than
Moorgate. AIUI there's no suggestion of cutting Northern City
services.

The Northern City is at capacity in terms of train frequency, or will be
after the next service upgrade. The only way to run more inner services
after that will be if they terminate somewhere else. Given the six
tracks from Finsbury Park to Hertford/Welwyn, there appears to be
capacity to run the services themselves.

So are you suggesting that some services on the Hertford Loop or the GN
main slows could, should, or would run to Snow Hill, in addition to the
Moorgate services? From both branches, or just one?

On the face of it, that sounds like a pretty good idea. For anyone working
west of Goswell Road / St Martin's Le Grand, Farringdon and Holborn
Viaduct^W^W City Thameslink are closer than Old Street and Moorgate. It
might even relieve the Piccadilly line of some people who get off the
train at Finsbury Park to head to Holborn.

Could it introduce performance pollution issues, though, where troubles on
the Northern City lead to problems in the Thameslink core? With Finsbury
Park becoming a sort of overground Camden Town! I think the only way to
absolutely rule that out would be, as with Camden Town, to split the
current two-branch route (possibly requiring reinstating some platforms at
FP?), and have, say, all Hertford trains running to the Thameslink core,
and all Hertford loop trains to Moorgate (or vice versa). Or is there room
between Drayton Park and the junction at FP to buffer trains when they're
out of sync?

tom

--
Don't anthropomorphize computers: they don't like that.

John B wrote:
On Nov 17, 11:53 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
However at least the ECML RUS does confirm that the 8 tph off the
ECML link will all be 12 carriages long, it just seems a bit unsure
if they will be existing outer or inner suburban services.

I thought that it was fairly settled they'd be 'outer', at least in
the sense of being trains that currently go to KX rather than
Moorgate. AIUI there's no suggestion of cutting Northern City
services.

It's an alternate option to do with IEP, and the info is fairly well hidden
within section 9.2, 'Train Services':

"Alternatively, the longer distance flows from Peterborough and
Cambridge/King's Lynn to King's Cross might be handled by IEP trains,
providing additional train and route capacity through an increase in
individual train capacity, better harmonisation of train speeds on the
route, improved performance and product quality. This is an option within
the current Invitation to Tender for the IEP trains. As a consequence it
would be the inner suburban services that would form the core of the
Thameslink timetable on the route."

So although much of the ECML RUS does appear to be written on a 'outer
suburban to Thameslink' basis, the IEP decision could still alter that.

Paul

On 17 Nov, 16:32, Tom Anderson wrote:
Could it introduce performance pollution issues, though, where troubles on
the Northern City lead to problems in the Thameslink core? With Finsbury
Park becoming a sort of overground Camden Town! I think the only way to
absolutely rule that out would be, as with Camden Town, to split the
current two-branch route (possibly requiring reinstating some platforms at
FP?), and have, say, all Hertford trains running to the Thameslink core,
and all Hertford loop trains to Moorgate (or vice versa).

Your starting point would be making all six tracks between Finsbury
Park and Alexandra Palace usable by passenger trains, and if we want
segrgation, due to the junction layout at AP the outermost tracks
would be to/from Hertford and the middle four to/from Welwyn. I think
there's actually enough flexibility at FP to provide segregated routes
to/from Moorgate and KX/Thameslink either way round, assuming you're
willing to rebuild the disused islands.

However, I think you'd end up with a lopsided service if you did this.
I don't think either inner branch needs the 15 tph Moorgate could
handle, but equally I don't think either would be happy with 4 tph
(or at best 8) to Thameslink. Thus you'd probably want the branched
segregated off-peak, with extra trains to Moorgate from the normally-
TL branch in the peaks.

U

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:01:55 -0800 (PST), D7666 wrote:

Bellingham (if the sidings are retained) look difficult to
extend to full 12 car.

I'm puzzling over St.Albans for similar reasons.

The south end is already extremely narrow on the island platforms 2/3
- it is so narrow it would never get through safety rules if this were
a new station today. So if extending that way they would need to
significantly widen as well as lengthen ... and I think that option
has effectively been cut off by the new building work outside the
railway on the Up side.

The north end has the present 8car turnback siding in immediately off
the north end of the platforms. For the turnback to be retained to be
of any operational use it too would need extending to 12 cars ... and
as reported in uk.railway previously it is only just dead 8car now, so
probaly needs extedning by 4-and-a-bit for SPAD mitigation. So if the
platforms are extended north by 4car, the buffer stops at the extreme
end of the turnback needed shifting north by a bit more than
equivalent to 8 car lengths, and here you are well into a deep
cutting.

Even staggering the extended platforms does not work for combinations
of the above reasons.

I am assuming therefore that St.Albans loses its turnback facility ???

Surely the turnback siding doesn't have to be immediately outside the
station? It could, for example, be moved a few hundred yards down the
line.

On 17 Nov, 13:09, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 17 Nov, 12:52, D7666 wrote:

... but my point is not whether or not the service level is adequate
for that station, but about the effect one short platform station has
on the central core capacity.

All of the 8 car trains in the RUS are coming from Elephant, and I'm
assuming there are lots of stations in that direction that only have 8
car platforms. Since there isn't capacity at Blackfriars to not run at
least some of these 8 car trains through the Thameslink core, that
means even if Kentish Town were extended, Thameslink would still have
8 car trains.


This is the crux of the matter, is it not? i.e. if the services coming
up from the south through the Elephant are set to be 8-car, then what
does or doesn't happen at Kentish Town is somewhat irrelevant.

There's a couple of critical assumptions in that however - one being
that the model whereby 'flyer' and 'metro' service segregation
continues (to use the old Thameslink TOC's nomenclature). Such an
assumption wouldn't take account of the possibility that some of the
12-car Brighton trains might become slow 'metro' trains north of St.
Pancras, and hence would need to be able to stop at K Town.

The other assumption is that trains coming up through the Elephant
from Sevenoaks/ Orpington/ Maidstone East (or wherever else might be
chosen) could only ever be 8-car - perhaps running 12-car trains on
these routes is not beyond the bounds of possibility? This would of
course involve a fair old bit of platform extension work south of the
river, which - if my memory serves me right - was't even mooted in the
South London RUS.

*Incredibly* stupid question coming up... I presume (perhaps
erroneously) from your talk of Kentish Town and SDO that you are
arguing for SDO to be included in the spec for the new Thameslink
rolling stock, right? If so then how much of a big thing is it to
equip new trains with SDO systems? Perhaps foolishly it seems to me
that (a) it can't be that big a deal and (b) new stock such as that
which will be ordered for Thameslink should arguably have SDO
capabilities installed anyway to ensure the stock is versatile,
adaptable and future-proof.

Or is the issue more to do with signalling at Kentish Town - i.e.
signalling needing to take account for the fact that 12-car trains
would be jutting out at both ends of the platform?