On 17 Nov, 15:22, 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.


What are the service upgrade plans on the Northern City you speak of?
This has passed me straight by!

On 17 Nov, 09:47, D7666 wrote:

On Nov 17, 9:06 am, Mizter T wrote:

From that answer...

quote
Brighton to Bedford [not 'Thameslink route'] trains rarely call at
Kentish Town and Cricklewood other than in the late evening or early
morning. Instead they are served by the Wimbledon loop trains that
will remain a maximum eight carriages in length due to the road bridge
at Tulse Hill and complex track layouts near other station platforms.
/quote

I don't understand what the 'not Thameslink route' bit in square
brackets is supposed to mean?

Yes ... in their reply to me they used the same words ... but
amazingly to my surprise they followed this up without me promptng
them 2/3 days later with a correction saying that is not what they
meant ... but were supposed to be referring Brighton/Bedford trains at
that point. It is actually clear what they meant as they refer to
Wimbledon loop trains later on.


Thanks. Yes, it can indeed be deciphered when in context but it's a
really stupid mistake for them to make - it only succeeds in adding
confusion where there is already enough befuddlement!


In a more detailed response to myself I asked about possible SDO
because my thoughts were if Kentish Town is limited permanently to
8car how much impact will that have overall i.e. will there still be 4
TPH 8car trains in the long term. They replied that SDO is not ruled
out ... but no decision has been made on this yet ... and IMHO does
not need to be made for some time.

As we know the plan is for the (principal) suburban Thameslink service
south of the Thames to switch from being the Wimbledon loop service to
being an Orpington or Sevenoaks service via the Catford loop (i.e.
Peckham Rye). So, how easy would it be to sort this route out for 12
car trains?

The switching of the Loop trains away from TL core is not yet decided.
This is proposed in one of the RUS (Brighton? South London? ) - it is
not a TLprogramme suggestion and loop trains remain in their version
of the 2015 network map.


'Twas proposed in the South London RUS.


True, RUS proposals have a habit of turning out to be correct, and it
seems to me the RUS reasoning is valid, but at the moment, but in the
mean time it is not certain, again, read the FAQ at

http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk...es/public_inde...


Very interesting. Some intriguing wording used in that answer:

"The view of the team that compiled the South London Route RUS was
that the success of the 24 trains per hour operation [through the core
Thameslink route] will depend upon a very high level of operating
performance."

Surely this should also be the view of the TL Programme team! Unless
they've subcontracted their thinking out to others, perhaps after
being lobotomised by DfT Rail.

I find it hard to believe that anything other than the RUS's
recommendation will come to be - the logic behind it is pretty solid
after all. The talk of decisions being left until later so "they will
be made with the benefit of the most relevant and contemporary
analysis possible" sounds good but unless someone's going to build a
flyover or diveunder somewhere south of Blackfriars then the physical
facts won't have changed.

I wonder if putting this official decision off (when it seems to have
essentially been decided already) can at least partially be explained
as being a bit of quasi-politically expedient procrastination? After
all there's going to be a good number of users of the Wimbledon loop
who're going to be properly cheesed off that they're losing their
through Thameslink service and are being relegated to a plain-vanilla
suburban service, especially given all this exciting talk they've
heard about the new all-singing all-dancing super-duper Thameslink
which is on the way which they previously assumed they'd be part of.

Personally I think they should just get it over and done with, confirm
the changes officially and get on with singing the praises of the new
Blackfriars station and the easy interchange that will be available
there with the frequent new Thameslink services come 2015 (or whenever
it is). But of course this is DfT Rail, the masters of
prevarication...


Given that Kentish Town and Cricklewood are only normally served by 8
car Wimbledon loop (to be Sevenoaks/ Orpington) services, I don't
understand why there is a specific interest in whether they are
getting platform extensions that they would appear not to need?.

Because if the loop trains *are* diverted away it would impose a cap
on any service that does call at Kentish Town unless SDO is
implemented. And it would be a permanent cap, way into long term
future past 2015 and way beyond. ((I assume that if the replace
Cricklewood by new Brent Cross idea does not go ahead then the
existing Criclewood would be extended to 12car.))


Understood - but as I state downthread Kentish Town is far from the
only place where the issue of short platforms pops up, there's all the
other stations south of the Thames on the proposed routes up through
the Elephant. Unless of course some of the Brighton trains might
become stopping trains north of the Thames...

(snip calculations)

In turn, once one 8car station has been conceded, the whitehall bean
counting mandarins can move in and suggest cost cutting by allowing
other 8car station to be kept.

I certainly see your point - but my recollection of the South London
RUS is that the routes they recommend for 12-car trains are not those
proposed for the 'metro' Thameslink services that run through Elephant
& Castle. The RUS places the demand for 12-car trains elsewhere.


Thus it is very important to understand this issue, and very important
they get it right.


Which is that the trains should have SDO, right?

I think this discussion is perhaps particularly illuminating in one
respect, which is the different perspectives with which the Thameslink
Programme can be approached from - put simply, from the north or from
the south. It's illustrative of the challenge of Thameslink - the
meshing of somewhat distinct suburban railways both north and south of
the Thames.

(Perhaps that's a rather banal comment!? Perhaps I'm putting words
into your mouth too?!)

On 17 Nov, 23:49, Mizter T wrote:
What are the service upgrade plans on the Northern City you speak of?
This has passed me straight by!

Just the stuff in the ECML RUS:
"- Six-car trains will be used on all shoulder-peak First Capital
Connect inner-suburban services as soon as trains are available from
London Overground (four are needed).
- Off-peak inner-suburban services will be increased from 3tph to 4tph
on each branch, including weekday evenings and Saturdays.
- Extension of hours on the Moorgate branch is unlikely.
- The Up Goods line (the easternmost track) from Alexandra Palace to
Finsbury Park will be converted into a third southbound passenger
track. The four stations it passes will get extra platforms on the
line, and may also get them on the equivalent northbound line, the
Down Slow 2 (the westernmost track). This will improve flexibility and
capacity.
- Extra trains will run from the Hertford Loop to Moorgate in the
morning peak."

http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...published.html

U

On Nov 17, 11:47 pm, Mizter T wrote:

*Incredibly* stupid question coming up...

Not stupid.

I presume (perhaps
erroneously)

Not erroneous.

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.


I agree, the trains will almost certainly be SDO capable if not
enabled.

It is not that, it is if SDO would be permitted or even being looked
at. I am neither arguing for or against SDO, merely trying to
ascertain from those who plan Thameslink program if they are looking
at this, and posting here what I have found so far. If SDO is not
permitted, you do have the capacity caps I have been referring to. If
SDO is permitted, not only does the Kentish Town limiting cap
disappear , but all other stations could have SDO. But it would be
highly unusual, would it not, to have SDO on inner suburban lines - I
am not talking about the TL core, but the routes to Kentish Town and
the north and Elephant & Castle to the south. I can't off the top of
my head think of any heavy traffic inner suburban service that runs
with SDO.

More importantly, lets say Kentish Town does become a permanent 8car
no SDO feature, and lets say the Cricklewood / Brent Cross issue gets
put on the back burner, then the next obvious thing in DfT cost
cutting mindset is ''do you need 12cars at Hendon ?'', then ditto
Leagrave, ditto Harlington. Then, ahh now you don't need as many units
as there are now more 8car and less 12car trains, and so on, and then
go on and apply that to south of the Thames.

Excuse me for being both sceptical and cynical but there been too many
projects that get trimmed back bit by bit when the bean counters
actually start counting individual beans.

--
Nick

On Nov 17, 11:47 pm, Mizter T wrote:

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.

Well yes and no.

I was under the impression that a side effect of the SL RUS suggesting
(for good reasons IMHO) Wimbledon loop be decoupled from Thameslink
was diversion to other lines where 8car length limits (such as around
all of the Wimbledon loop) would be less of a problem.

The South Central Metro services supposedly have their own 10car
extension scheme although I'm not sure to what timescale and already
most if not all of Kent suburban is already 10car (I accept the access
route between Kent via Elephant to Thameslink core is not 10car).

So I do think it is relevant that north of the Thames there just might
be one limiting station, ignoring conspiracy theory about bean
counting, where south of Thames at least 10car could be run on routes
or planned routes existing for other reasons before 12car extensions
are looked at on top of the exisitng main line 12car stations.

This does throw another variable into the frame ... possible bean
counting compromises of 10car trains through the core ... probably not
that hard to built into the rolling stock order if considered early
enough.

Digressing having mentioned rolling stock, I notice the latest Modern
Railways that I have only just got to read refers [page 51 middle
column] to the four car units with their three motor coaches (like
377s) having three traction motors per motor coach. Is that right i.e.
1A-Bo ? I am a little bit sceptical about what that section is ,
beginning bottom previous page, as it starts off by correctly saying
378 are akin to 376 as both are 75 mph, but then ends up ''gearing
the motors for rather than the 100 mph'' makes it unclear what they
are comparing between 376/378 and 375/377 as they switch the term
Electrostar instead of class numbers.

Anyway the reason I'm mentioning 378s now is if they are 9 motors vice
6 per 4car train, and the traction spec might be similar to the new
NGEMU for TL especially as TL core has two of the fiercest grades
anywhere (approaching Farringdon and departing City both southbound)
so we ware talking 27 motors in a 12car train ... thats 50% more than
a 12car 375/377 ... so do we need more DC power upgrades ?

--
Nick

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...


*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.

The 377s that will be running interim services have GPS-based SDO, and ISTR
reading somewhere that it was having to be specially adapted for the
Thameslink route.

D A Stocks

On Nov 18, 11:31 am, "David A Stocks" wrote:


The 377s that will be running interim services have GPS-based SDO, and ISTR
reading somewhere that it was having to be specially adapted for the
Thameslink route.

eRRR why ?

Nowhere on any current Thameslink route nor on any of those from March
2009 is there any SDO because all stations are already 8-car.

The exception to prove the rule is Barbican Up which in modern terms
is a 7car platform but there is a narrow platform edge there for the
8th car - 319s doors are released and you could get out despite the DO
NOT ALIGHT HERE signs. (Pedants - Barbican Down is irrelevant as
nothing stops there.) There is no need to cater for SDO 377s at
Barbican since it closes weekend March 1/2 or March 21/22 depending
which document you decide to read or believe. 377/5s should only just
be all in traffic by then and that would be a sheer waste of resource
setting up commissioing testing approving and running SDO 377s to
Moorgate.

12car trains won't come in for a long long time and AIUI 377s will be
gone from TL routes by then.

Thus I can't see what SDO mod a 377/5 needs ... except may to suppress
the function ?

GPS might need a mod for PIS ... I suppose we are going to have the
infernal auto-PA. At least 319s are PA-free.

So what have I missed )

--
Nick

"D7666" wrote

I was under the impression that a side effect of the SL RUS suggesting
(for good reasons IMHO) Wimbledon loop be decoupled from Thameslink
was diversion to other lines where 8car length limits (such as around
all of the Wimbledon loop) would be less of a problem.

The South Central Metro services supposedly have their own 10car
extension scheme although I'm not sure to what timescale and already
most if not all of Kent suburban is already 10car (I accept the access
route between Kent via Elephant to Thameslink core is not 10car).

It's only the ex-SER lines (Charing Cross and Cannon Street) of Kent
Suburban that are 10-car (implemented in the 1950s), and many platforms were
extended to 12-car when it was intended (and may be again, on some routes)
that Networkers would run in 12-car formation. The ex-LCDR lines (Victoria
and Blackfriars) have always remained 8-car, with the only longer platforms
being at a few stations at which main line trains call - from memory, Herne
Hill, Beckenham Junction, Shortlands, Bromley South, St Mary Cray and
Swanley.

IIRC Bat and Ball is only about 5-car length - how is this managed with
longer trains?

Peter

On 18 Nov, 12:04, D7666 wrote:


GPS might need a mod for PIS ... I suppose we are going to have the
infernal auto-PA. At least 319s are PA-free.

So what have I missed )

--
Nick

A couple of points. Southern use SDO on 377s at Battersea park on the
up slow and down fast as they are that little bit longer than 455s.
The GPS also has a lot to do with doors being opened in normal use as
well as in SDO mode. This is why part of the testing has involved
visiting every possible platform scenario to make sure it works. As
with some southern locations track side beacons have been fitted where
no satellite signal is available. This is the reason that 12 car 377s
take an age to get door release at victoria. One assumes that if 24
tph with 12 cars happens this issue will be resolved some how.
Richard.

On Nov 18, 3:38 pm, wrote:

A couple of points. Southern use SDO on 377s at Battersea park on the
up slow and down fast as they are that little bit longer than 455s.

So the analogy then is 377/5 are using GPS for normal doors use as a
319 is more or less same as a 455 in this respect ?

--
Nick