The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Stephen Furley wrote:

I believe that the original plan for the re-opening of the Snow Hill
(London) tunnel was for Southern Region trains to be extended to a new
interchange Station at West Hampstead; the idea of through running from
the Southern to Bedford came later, but I'm not sure when.

I wonder - would there be any mileage in changing TL from being a Bedford
- Brighton route to being Bedford - Lewisham (or something) and Brighton -
West Hampstead? The point would be that the length of each round trip
would be shorter, so reducing the scope for delays, the northern and
southern operations would be separate, reducing the scope for
cross-pollution, and the density of trains would be concentrated in the
urban core between West Hampstead and Lewisham (or something). The
downside would be more complexity, and the need to turn trains around in
funny places - this might be a complete disaster without extra sidings.

The lack of a good mirror image of West Hampstead south of the river is an
awkwardness - maybe Croydon would have to do. Or Peckham Rye, and run the
Brighton half via there, Tulse Hill and Streatham Common?

It's a pity that an all-lines, including Chiltern, interchange at West
Hampstead never happened.

Hasn't happened yet!

tom

--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that worked. -- Gall's Law

The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

"Stephen Furley" wrote in message
...

It involved building a new fleet of trains
The new trains were fairly easy to justify, given that it allowed the 317s
to replace older stock (312s?) on the routes out of Kings X, and further
cascades to replace life-expired stock elsewhere.

D A Stocks

The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

On Jul 3, 10:22*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote:

In message , at 21:37:31 on Fri,
3 Jul 2009, Peter Masson remarked:

Part of the business case for City Thameslink, and going under rather than
over Ludgate Hill was the value paid to BR for unlocking land for
development.

But people were also very happy not to have a railway bridge spoiling the
view of St Pauls.

Indeed. Though I don't recall hearing that the City Corporation contributed
any funding to the project towards achieving that aim.

The City Corporation must have put some money towards City Thameslink
station - originally named St Paul's Thameslink - because the City of
London crest is displayed on wall panels at platform level - see:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mackenzieblu/3260380147/
and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mackenzieblu/3260343935/

That's not to say that they did so in order to remove the bridge and
regain the view of St Paul's up Ludgate Hill - but having a new
station on the western side of the City is probably good enough reason
in and of itself, especially if the alternative is no station at all -
i.e. Thameslink only stopping at Blackfriars and then Farringdon,
which is just beyond the northern edge of the City itself.

The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

On Jul 3, 6:58*pm, Tony Polson wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:
I think you will find that the impetus for Thameslink came mainly from
the Greater London Council and its then-leader, Ken Livingstone.

Network SouthEast was a willing participant but not the originator of
the Thameslink scheme.

Are you sure you're not confusing Thameslink with the North London
Line, which the GLC championed at times including under Ken's
leadership?

Yes, I am sure.

My apologies Tony. My history of this is obviously somewhat lacking -
I've never really come across Thameslink being credited (even
partially) to the GLC, which probably says more about my ignorance
than anything else. In which case that's yet another feather in Ken's
transport cap - and the whole theme of Livingstone's crucial
involvement promoting and progressing key transport projects indeed
transport issues is certainly one I've visited a good number of times
beforehand on here.


I'm quite certain the GLC would have been all in support of Thameslink
- but I never thought they were instrumental in providing the
"impetus" for it - it seems to me to have been a project of the new
and thrusting entity known as Network SouthEast.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. *The GLC under
Livingstone campaigned strongly for what later became Thameslink. *It
was a key part of the GLC's transport strategy, including other
initiatives such as "Fares Fair" and "Just the Ticket", the bus/tube/
mainline Capitalcard, which later took on the name of the formerly
bus/tube only Travelcard and is still with us today.

Indeed - I'm aware of the key role in the GLC around this time in
promoting more innovative fares schemes, which after the Fares Fair
bust-up eventually led to the zonal fares system.

(The LT-only bus/Tube Travelcard was a creation of this time too was
it not? Of course the truly multi-modal Capitalcard including BR
travel was arguably the really revolutionary change. Also, one can't
help but feel that NSE would have got to grips with introducing Oyster
PAYG on suburban rail services a very long time ago! Indeed, they
might have even been in on it from the start. Alas... but I won't get
distracted!)


Thameslink opened in 1988 as part of Network SouthEast. *However,
Thameslink would have happened even if the Network SouthEast sector had
not been created, because the idea - and the GLC's support for it -
already existed before Network SouthEast came of age. *

Yes, which is obvious when I think about it. Thameslink services began
in 1988 (I think that's correct), whilst Network SouthEast was born in
1986 - though I suppose it was just the descendent of the London &
South Eastern sector (of 'Jaffa Cake livery' fame) which came into
being in 1982. But of course NSE didn't dream up Thameslink all of a
sudden - that would be absurd!


There is no doubt that Network SouthEast made the creation of Thameslink
much easier, because the GLC no longer had to negotiate with both the
London Midland and Southern Regions of BR. *The formation of Network
SouthEast meant that the GLC only had one organisation to deal with. *

Interesting point. However the Regions continued after 1986, did they
not - I've always been a bit hazy about how it all fitted together.
That's not to invalidate the above point at all though!


Thankfully, Network SouthEast's senior managers, notably Chris Green,
gave the GLC's idea very strong support - probably because the
Thameslink project was symbolic as the only key link between the
otherwise almost completely separate halves of Network SouthEast, north
and south of the river. *

Again, another interesting point. I dare say I've fallen foul of the
Thameslink 'good news' publicity pumped out by NSE on the opening of
the service, which of course happened in 1988, two years after the
demise of the GLC in 1986.

And of course Bozza will be basking in the glow of it all when the
ELLX opens next year - which was another Ken project! One could even
argue (indeed some have) that ELLX is a sort of more local Thameslink
of the east, crossing and linking up the disparate city, helping to
stitch it all together a bit better.

Who might be the next Livingstone and Wetzel, I wonder?

The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

"David A Stocks" wrote in message
...
"Stephen Furley" wrote in message
...

It involved building a new fleet of trains
The new trains were fairly easy to justify, given that it allowed the 317s
to replace older stock (312s?) on the routes out of Kings X, and further
cascades to replace life-expired stock elsewhere.

IIRC when the 319s arrived on Thameslink the 317s went to Euston, replacing
the 310s. Subsequently 321s came to Euston, the 317s went to Kings Cross,
replacing the 312s.

Peter

The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

On 4 July, 08:40, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"David A Stocks" wrote in ... "Stephen Furley" wrote in message
...

It involved building a new fleet of trains
The new trains were fairly easy to justify, given that it allowed the 317s
to replace older stock (312s?) on the routes out of Kings X, and further
cascades to replace life-expired stock elsewhere.

IIRC when the 319s arrived on Thameslink the 317s went to Euston, replacing
the 310s. Subsequently 321s came to Euston, the 317s went to Kings Cross,
replacing the 312s.

But weren't there a lot of new build 317s that went straight to Kings
Cross as well? The ones with the opening windows and smoother cabs
(all so cannibalised now it's hard to know which were which).

The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

On Jul 4, 8:40*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:

IIRC when the 319s arrived on Thameslink the 317s went to Euston, replacing
the 310s. Subsequently 321s came to Euston, the 317s went to Kings Cross,
replacing the 312s.


Correct.

The 319 317 310 cascade was created before 321s were ordered, so
can't be counted in the original Snow Hill route justfication.

--
Nick

The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

On Jul 4, 9:15*am, MIG wrote:

But weren't there a lot of new build 317s that went straight to Kings
Cross as well? *The ones with the opening windows and smoother cabs

Also correct, but that 2nd batch of 317s was never related to Snow
Hill / TL and again can't be counted as part of that fleet.

I assume they were 317s for no more reason than that was the current
type in production - this is the same reason NSC got extra 6 x 319s as
Cig/Vep accident replacements - they were the only third rail DC
capable type in current production.

--
Nick

The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

On Jul 4, 9:28*am, D7666 wrote:

IIRC when the 319s arrived on Thameslink the 317s went to Euston, replacing
the 310s. Subsequently 321s came to Euston, the 317s went to Kings Cross,
replacing the 312s.

The 319 317 310 cascade was created before 321s were ordered, so
can't be counted in the original Snow Hill route justfication.

Coming back to this point and about BR regions, the 319 317 310
was a straight LMR internal cascade.

Interesting that the 310s went over to the Tilbury lines, a former
LMSR route - but IIRC from a talk (?RCTS?) this had not actually
allowed been allowed for - the LMR were simply going to withdraw them,
and it was L+SE (as it then was) looking at the wider issues that took
them to the LT&S. I might not have the details of that all right, it
was a long while ago, I had this gen before I moved to Luton, and I
been here 20+ years (too many).

Another poster referred to the regions replaced by sectors - one
confusion point is the regions did not break up at the same time as
each other. IIRC the LMR was the last to go, well behind SR, and with
TL being what would have been a joint SR/LMR route this might have
added confusion. Once it did happen, the former exBedPan bit ''Network
north midland line'', or whatever it was, evolved into what became
''Thameslink'' sub-sector.

--
Nick

The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

On Jul 4, 9:31*am, D7666 wrote:
On Jul 4, 9:15*am, MIG wrote:

But weren't there a lot of new build 317s that went straight to Kings
Cross as well? *The ones with the opening windows and smoother cabs

Also correct, but that 2nd batch of 317s was never related to Snow
Hill / TL and again can't be counted as part of that fleet.

I assume they were 317s for no more reason than that was the current
type in production - this is the same reason NSC got extra 6 x 319s as
Cig/Vep accident replacements - they were the only third rail DC
capable type in current production.

When did SNC/Connex's allocation change from 6x319 to 20x319?

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