The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

On 4 July, 09:31, 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.

That's fair enough. I was just trying to reconcile my chaotic
memory ... which also indicates to me that the 321s were marketed as
something very new and different when they replaced 312s, 309s and a
load of mark 1 suburban stock in East Anglia, but turned out to be
just 317s with a sexier cab end (and variations on GEC/Brush
equipment).

The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

Mizter T wrote:

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/

The crest was also prominent at Blackfriars in my school days and may still
be now.

The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

On 4 July, 09:45, John B wrote:
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?

The 319/1s came along later and must have changed everything.

The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

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.

King's Cross and Liverpool St.

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 317/2s (the ones with the designed instead of thrown together front
ends and opening windows as you say) are now all 317/6s and the mainstay
of the West Anglia Route out of Liverpool St. They were refurbished to
317/6 with seating similar to that in the 365s in WAGN days.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

On Jul 4, 9:45*am, John B wrote:
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 orgwww.johnband.org

Have we not been through this several times ?

There were always always more than this six .... I am sure I posted a
historical audit trail of this based on NSE sub sectors ... and it was
across 3 of them ... as NSK as well as NSC were assigned them.

--
Nick

The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message
...
Mizter T wrote:

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/

The crest was also prominent at Blackfriars in my school days and may
still be now.

And it was also prominent on the bridge over Ludgate Hill which St Paul's
Thameslink replaced.

Regards

Jonathan

a personal crusade against indifference and outright
 

Mizter T wrote:
Tony Polson wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
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.


No need for an apology, and you are far from ignorant about London's
railways, being a mine of useful information.


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 think that, in any objective review of Ken Livingtone's contribution
to London's transport system, he can only attract the highest of praise
for what he has achieved.


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.


Yes, I referred to that further up the thread. People are so used to
the Travelcard that they don't realise how it came about, and just how
much of an achievement it was for Ken. It was an incredible effort in
the face of indifference and inertia on the part of BR and outright
political opposition from the government of the day. Eventually, the
sheer common sense that underpinned Ken's point of view won through.


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!)


That's a good point. Chris Green would surely have seen the sense of it
and become another champion.


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!


It took some time for the infrastructure teams to be reshaped from the
Regions (still partly the legacy of the Big Four companies) to the
Sectors. What was important was that the Sectors drove the business.


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.


You can't blame NSE for using the opportunity to garner good publicity.
The GLC was no longer there to do it, but I bet Ken felt a lot of
satisfaction for a job well done.


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.


Absolutely. I think it is a shame that better use is not made of the
West London line as a third major north-south route.


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


The days of conviction politicians have gone, I think. Instead, we have
slippery, slimy, lying lawyers and PR men (Blair, Cameron, Johnson ...)
who have no principles at all and will do anything that is needed to
gain power, however underhand.

a personal crusade against indifference and outright
 

apologies for the unintended change of subject line.

The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

Mizter T wrote:
Tony Polson wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
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.


No need for an apology, and you are far from ignorant about London's
railways, being a mine of useful information.


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 think that, in any objective review of Ken Livingtone's contribution
to London's transport system, he can only attract the highest of praise
for what he has achieved.


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.


Yes, I referred to that further up the thread. People are so used to
the Travelcard that they don't realise how it came about, and just how
much of an achievement it was for Ken. It was an incredible effort in
the face of indifference and inertia on the part of BR and outright
political opposition from the government of the day. Eventually, the
sheer common sense that underpinned Ken's point of view won through.


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!)


That's a good point. Chris Green would surely have seen the sense of it
and become another champion.


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!


It took some time for the infrastructure teams to be reshaped from the
Regions (still partly the legacy of the Big Four companies) to the
Sectors. What was important was that the Sectors drove the business.


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.


You can't blame NSE for using the opportunity to garner good publicity.
The GLC was no longer there to do it, but I bet Ken felt a lot of
satisfaction for a job well done.


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.


Absolutely. I think it is a shame that better use is not made of the
West London line as a third major north-south route.


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


The days of conviction politicians have gone, I think. Instead, we have
slippery, slimy, lying lawyers and PR men (Blair, Cameron, Johnson ...)
who have no principles at all and will do anything that is needed to
gain power, however underhand.

The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
 

Tony Polson wrote:

Absolutely. I think it is a shame that better use is not made of the
West London line as a third major north-south route.

Are the existing trains on the WLL crowded enough to warrant more?

The Thameslink Line is little used as a through route. I can't remember the
exact percentage quoted in the TL2000 inquiry, but something like 95-97% of
TL journeys start or end in Zone 1. TL2k won't change that. The point of TL
and TL2k is giving people from north and south access to numerous stations
across the central area - giving the north access to the south is a largely
unused side-effect. The WLL doesn't have major employment or entertainment
centres on it (apart from Westfield on a Saturday), so will never have the
demand of Thameslink.