Tony Polson wrote:

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:

Would Thameslink have ever come about if it hadn't been for Network South
East bringing the northern and southern sections under one roof?

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?

The GLC was I think fairly pivotal in ramping up the service on the
NLL, especially when it shifted to being an 'all orbital' route when
Broad Street closed and it was diverted to run Richmond - Dalston -
Stratford - North Woolwich, and this included getting a number of
stations rebuilt - many more or less from scratch, i.e. Hacknet
Central.

When the NLL was diverted out of Broad Street it officially assumed
the "North London *Link*" name - and there was an interim "Cross-Town
Link Line" service from Camden Road at least as far as Stratford, if
not North Woolwich, which was a precursor to this - it operated with
DMUs and didn't stop at all the new stations from Dalston to Stratford
as they weren't open yet. But it seems that everyone just carried on
calling it the North London *Line*!

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.

Can anyone else help out with the history here?

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


GLC under Ken were the main drivers of the original Thameslink idea,
so yes Tony, I agree.

Of course GLC were only interested in the route as a cross London
quasi-tub line, not the long distance regional network that the
concept snowballed into, but nonetheless GLC should get the credit.


--
Nick

On 3/7/09 18:58, in article ,
"Tony Polson" wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. The tunnel
re-opening idea had been around for a long time without much happening, but
once the final scheme was approved things happened quickly, and within a few
years trains were running. Why this couldn't have been decades before, I
don't know. It involved building a new fleet of trains, but otherwise the
work involved was relatively minor, certainly when compared to building a
new cross-London tube line, and the disposal of the Holborn Viaduct site
must have been worthwhile. It's a pity that an all-lines, including
Chiltern, interchange at West Hampstead never happened.

D7666 wrote:
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.


GLC under Ken were the main drivers of the original Thameslink idea,
so yes Tony, I agree.

Of course GLC were only interested in the route as a cross London
quasi-tub line, not the long distance regional network that the
concept snowballed into, but nonetheless GLC should get the credit.

Wasn't there some chatter more recently about some TfL types suggesting
making it into a limited tube-esque/Overgound service, thus simplifying
operations and removing the need to build trains catering for nasty
non-Lononders doing long distance-trips?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Jul 3, 8:23*pm, Stephen Furley wrote:

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



Indeed.

Taking West Hampstead one step further, and looking at a less
''regional express'' solution than TL2000 / Thameslink Program, maybe
not just a passenger interchange but a Met./TL junction allowing Mets
to Moorgate via TL tracks if DC electrified, and 3rd and 3rd/4th rail
stock is not rocket science. This would have relieved congestion at
Baker Street - there would in effect be 4 tracks all the way from West
Hampstead to Moorgate via KX.

Of course most of that would prevent todays inflated TL plans, but
even as a TL user I do remain of the core view that while TL as a
through route is a must, it is better off as part of the
''underground'' network served only by inner suburban trains. It is
and always will be a slow route. If main line railways want to play
RER style cross London routes then those would be far better with new
construction like Crossrail. Yes I know it costs money, but money is
what it must have,

--
Nick

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. The tunnel
re-opening idea had been around for a long time without much happening, but
once the final scheme was approved things happened quickly, and within a few
years trains were running. Why this couldn't have been decades before, I
don't know.


Because train travel was still declining, perhaps?

It took Ken Livingstone's and his Transport Chair, Dave Wetzel's ideas
for cheaper fares to kick start the growth of train travel to/from/
within London. Their eventual aim was to make London Undergound and Bus
travel free. The strong opposition of the Thatcher government rightly
put pay to that, but the fare reductions and the introduction of the
Travelcard and Capitalcard were enough to usher in a period of strong
growth in bus and rail use that continued for almost a quarter of a
century. A fine achievement.


It involved building a new fleet of trains, but otherwise the
work involved was relatively minor, certainly when compared to building a
new cross-London tube line, and the disposal of the Holborn Viaduct site
must have been worthwhile. It's a pity that an all-lines, including
Chiltern, interchange at West Hampstead never happened.


Closure of some/all of the Chiltern, and/or conversion into a bus
expressway, was still on the cards then. Also, the country was almost
bankrupt having been economically devastated by a deep recession, so the
money simply wasn't available.

When Network SouthEast was formed, there was a budget for paint to
relivery the trains and stations, and not much else. Against that
background, the re-opening of the Snow Hill line, the construction of
City Thameslink station and the tunnel up to Blackfriars, and the
building of the Class 319s, represented another fine achievement.

Well done Ken! I really hated his "loony left" politics but what he
achieved in transport simply amazed me. I still don't like his
politics, but I admire him for what he has achieved in transport.

"Tony Polson" wrote

When Network SouthEast was formed, there was a budget for paint to
relivery the trains and stations, and not much else. Against that
background, the re-opening of the Snow Hill line, the construction of
City Thameslink station and the tunnel up to Blackfriars, and the
building of the Class 319s, represented another fine achievement.

IIRC part of the original business case for Thameslink was saving in stock
by not having trains hanging around at Central London termini. 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.

Peter

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.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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 teh project towards achieving that aim.

Peter