| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
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? |
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
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. |
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. 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 |
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
|
The beginnings of Thameslink
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 |
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
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 |
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
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. |
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
"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 |
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
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 |
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
"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 |
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 |
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)
|
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. |
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
In message , at 15:24:12 on Sat, 4
Jul 2009, Basil Jet remarked: 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. I think there would be a few examples of extra flows - for example people north of London heading to/from Gatwick. It's much better now that there's step-free access from KX to SPILL, but once you have through trains from the ECML and WA corridor, and maybe an extension of the MML electrification to Leicester, business will pick up. -- Roland Perry |
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
"Basil Jet" wrote 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. Earl's Court? Olympia? Chelsea FC? And the Watford/Milton Keynes trains stop at Wembley Central. Peter |
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
"Mizter T" wrote in message ... snip NSE would have got to grips with introducing Oyster PAYG on suburban rail services a very long time ago! Good god I'm glad that they didn't, why are so many people so complacent at making interest free loans to utilities and transport companies - as for PAYG, WTF do you think turning up at station, buying ticket, getting on train is - the railways got the hang of PAYG travel over a 100 years ago! -- BBC = Biased Broadcasting Corporation... Time for the BBC tax to be repealed. Sorry, mail to this address goes unread. Please reply via group. |
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
In message , at 15:57:22 on
Sat, 4 Jul 2009, Jerry remarked: as for PAYG, WTF do you think turning up at station, buying ticket, getting on train is - the railways got the hang of PAYG travel over a 100 years ago! Chorus: "Oh no they haven't". Witness when I turned up at Gatwick station on an unexceptional mid-evening recently, to find a queue six-deep at every ticket machine. -- Roland Perry |
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
"Basil Jet" wrote:
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? With the current service, the trains are not sufficiently frequent to draw people from using a wide range of alternatives, including the Underground, other National Rail lines, buses and the car. I believe a much more frequent core Watford Junction to East Croydon service would attract many more people but there apparently isn't enough capacity between Clapham Junction and East Croydon. 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. Even if 95-97% of TL journeys start or end in Zone 1, so what? Compared to the situation before Thameslink, where trains from the north went no further south than St Pancras, and trains from the south went no further north than Blackfriars, the route offers a wealth of north-south opportunities that simply didn't exist before without changing trains at least once. For example, St Albans (or anywhere points north) to Farringdon, City Thameslink and London Bridge. Or Redhill (or anywhere points south) to City Thameslink, Farringdon and Kings Cross/St Pancras. These new journey opportunities are of immense value, and the fact that they start or end in Zone 1 is completely irrelevant. 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. No, it won't ever match the demand for Thameslink, but as Peter Masson rightly pointed out, there is no shortage of retail, entertainment and other employment and leisure centres on the route. But as long as radial routes offer vastly more frequent services, those are the routes that people will choose to take. A much more frequent service between Watford Junction to East Croydon would make the West London route far more attractive than it is. Perhaps comparison should be made with the East London Line rather than Thameslink? |
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009, Tony Polson wrote:
The days of conviction politicians have gone, I think. Oh i don't know - i think we might yet get a few convictions out of the espenses debacle! tom -- I fought the law and the law won. |
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
"Tony Polson" wrote
No, it won't ever match the demand for Thameslink, but as Peter Masson rightly pointed out, there is no shortage of retail, entertainment and other employment and leisure centres on the route. But as long as radial routes offer vastly more frequent services, those are the routes that people will choose to take. A much more frequent service between Watford Junction to East Croydon would make the West London route far more attractive than it is. Perhaps comparison should be made with the East London Line rather than Thameslink? What happened to the suggestion of Slow Line platforms at Willesden Junction? There aren't the paths for a 4 tph service between Watford Junction and East Croydon, either on the WCML or the WLL. But if LM trains called at Willesden Junction, a 4 tph LO service from Willesden Junction HL to Clapham Junction, preferably running through to East Croydon (perhaps alternately via Selhurst and via Crystal Palace) could give all users of the WLL a better service. There is also a need for Willesden Junction to Ealing Broadway trains, perhaps (subject to rearrangement at Gospel Oak) running through from Barking to Greenford. Peter |
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
"Peter Masson" wrote:
"Tony Polson" wrote No, it won't ever match the demand for Thameslink, but as Peter Masson rightly pointed out, there is no shortage of retail, entertainment and other employment and leisure centres on the route. But as long as radial routes offer vastly more frequent services, those are the routes that people will choose to take. A much more frequent service between Watford Junction to East Croydon would make the West London route far more attractive than it is. Perhaps comparison should be made with the East London Line rather than Thameslink? What happened to the suggestion of Slow Line platforms at Willesden Junction? There aren't the paths for a 4 tph service between Watford Junction and East Croydon, either on the WCML or the WLL. But if LM trains called at Willesden Junction, a 4 tph LO service from Willesden Junction HL to Clapham Junction, preferably running through to East Croydon (perhaps alternately via Selhurst and via Crystal Palace) could give all users of the WLL a better service. True. There is also a need for Willesden Junction to Ealing Broadway trains, perhaps (subject to rearrangement at Gospel Oak) running through from Barking to Greenford. Now there's an idea! Such a service would go a long way towards making up for Greenford's loss of through services with Crossrail. Interesting! |
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009, Tony Polson wrote: The days of conviction politicians have gone, I think. Oh i don't know - i think we might yet get a few convictions out of the espenses debacle! I hope you're right! ;-) But I yearn for those days when at least some politicians (but by no means all) had the courage of their convictions and acted and voted according to them. |
The beginnings of Thameslink (was: ECML demise)
"Peter Masson" wrote in message
... "Basil Jet" wrote 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. Earl's Court? Olympia? Chelsea FC? And the Watford/Milton Keynes trains stop at Wembley Central. Add the BBC to the list. I was recently contemplating the possibility of a daily commute between Brighton and Hanger Lane, for which the WLL would be incredibly convenient, if only the Brighton peak hour trains still called at CLJ! D A Stocks |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:59 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk