"Neil Williams" wrote

And the Met Line services aren't overcrowded as a result. I guess
most of them are seeing it as a pleasant walk - it isn't *that* far
from Farringdon to Moorgate.

Until they were withdrawn [1] the through Moorgate trains operated by the
SE&CR usually ran empty beyond Snow Hill/Holborn Viaduct LL because most
passengers preferred to leave the train there, or at Ludgate Hill, and walk.

[1] April 3rd 1916.

Peter

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:38:58 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
It would be a co-incidence if the southbound trains to Moorgate exactly
co-incided (at Farringdon) with the northbound ones from Moorgate. You
can claim it would always be timetabled thus, but such things are
exactly what makes a timetable impossible to deliver in practice.

Well if a timetable goes to pot then all bets are off anyway.

When I used to commute on that line 3 years ago the number of people going to
moorgate far exceeded the numbers going south via city thameslink

But the new service will be introducing many more useful "through
routes" than the old one ever delivered.

From my own personal experience I'd say only 5% of Thameslink passengers
use it as a through route. The rest use it as just another way to get into
central london or in my case to shuttle between KX and Blackfriars. Southbound
trains leaving Blackfriars were virtually empty in the morning rush hour.

B2003

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:13:35 -0800 (PST)
MIG wrote:
*Can someone explain to me how the performance of the 100 mph 319s
explains the crawling speed and the five-minute scheduled dwell times
which are the real problem with the service?

Another Thameslink classic which they may not do any more now its FCC was pull
into City Thameslink. Let the passengers on. Close doors. Drive to end of the
very long platform. Stop at signal. Wait. Wait a bit more. Don't open the
doors to let off irritated passengers who were getting off at Farringdon and
could have walked there by this time. More waiting. Move off. No apology from
driver.

Why he couldn't have just waited at the other end of the platforn with the
doors open is a mystery known only to Thameslink management and drivers.

B2003

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:36:32 -0800 (PST)
Neil Williams wrote:
On 18 Dec, 18:04, allanbonnetracy wrote:

It=92s not as if we=92ve had a huge outcry since services were
discontinued is it?

And the Met Line services aren't overcrowded as a result. I guess
most of them are seeing it as a pleasant walk - it isn't *that* far
from Farringdon to Moorgate.

Its further than it looks. If you walk quick you might do it in 7 or 8
minutes. At normal walking pace its closer to 10 minutes.

B2003

Graeme wrote:
In message
Neil Williams wrote:

On 18 Dec, 14:52, "Recliner" wrote:

Cue the usual speculation of outlandish schemes for express routes, DLR
extensions, etc...
Speculation aside, having been to New York the 4-track express/local
split works wonders - Manhattan is as a result far, far quicker to get
around than London, though the system has its own faults. It's a pity
London didn't go that way early on.

That said, I'm not sure you'd save a lot skip-stopping Barbican, which
is all you'd really manage. Perhaps a more effective way to speed up
the subsurface lines is for the stock to have acceleration/
deceleration like a Desiro and presumably a higher top speed to make
use of it. Will the S-stock manage that, or is the power supply not
up to it?

That said, if the infrastructure was there, a District Line that did
Earls Court-Victoria-Embankment-Blackfriars-Monument-Tower Gateway
would speed up that somewhat glacially slow service somewhat. The
western part, of course, already has express services in the form of
the Picc. A Central Line that missed out everything except the
interchanges would also be useful, same with the Picc, but I don't see
a lot of scope on other lines.


Google deep level tubes, it nearly came to pass if it hadn't been disrupted
by an Austrian painter of limited abilty but limitless ambition.

Weren't the bits that got built, built because of him?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

D7666 wrote:
I wonder whether there was any 'consultation' with passengers using
the branch.

They said there was.

They could still have kept the new frequency even with moorgate.

Indeed.

While myself and boltar have dis-agreed on several points in the past,
I agree 100% on this one.

In view of what they are *now* doing with TL , I'd have argued to have
kept Holborn Viaduct as well as Moorgate. For every peak train that
departs Moorgate northbound, one departs HV southbound and timed to
take up the path through Blackfriars that would have conflicted (*)
with the Moorgate departure had it not been there ... if you see what
I mean ... and vice versa.

The office rebuilding on site of HV could simply have been City
TLHL , maybe even a single platform. At least City would then have got
3 platforms, in turn dwell time ''downstairs'' might be less of a
problem.

You lose no paths, but you provide two city terminii departures at the
same time, one north and one south.

I shall provde another rant about how I think the Farringdon Junction
argument is a cop out in due course .... I need to check on one item
first before I do. It won't alter what I will suggest, just the way in
which it could be carried out.


(*) i.e. northbound Moorgate departures cross southbound Farringdon
departures at Farringdon Junction.

What would be the possibilities of TPTB deciding to give up on the very
concept of Thameslink sooner or later?

It still seems a bit vague as to what the future services will be,
no-one seems to know what to do with the Sutton/Wimbledon loop, there
are/were the technical doubts about the rolling stock and automation
needed to get a zillion trains an hour through Farringdon, there seems
to be a possibility for something breaking at King's Lynn and wrecking
all the services at Eastbourne, and a while ago there was even
speculation that TfL or someone really wanted to have a North London
Line-esque Croydon to Somewhere in North London inner-suburban service,
with everyone who wants to pass through London having to change onto
then off it (at bit like on if a future High Speed N turfs everyone onto
Crossrail at some kind of West London Parkway to avoid needing to
rebuild Euston).

Maybe they could try a period of having the Thameslink service being
really broken, just to see what happens and if people can change their
travel to cope...
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Arthur Figgis" wrote

It still seems a bit vague as to what the future services will be, no-one
seems to know what to do with the Sutton/Wimbledon loop, there are/were
the technical doubts about the rolling stock and automation needed to get
a zillion trains an hour through Farringdon, there seems to be a
possibility for something breaking at King's Lynn and wrecking all the
services at Eastbourne, and a while ago there was even speculation that
TfL or someone really wanted to have a North London Line-esque Croydon to
Somewhere in North London inner-suburban service, with everyone who wants
to pass through London having to change onto then off it (at bit like on
if a future High Speed N turfs everyone onto Crossrail at some kind of
West London Parkway to avoid needing to rebuild Euston).

Things are becoming a lot clearer as the relevant Route Utilisation
Strategies are developed. In particular, the Thameslink trains which don't
go via London Bridge will head down the Catford Loop. The rebuilding of
Blackfriars will provide two bay platforms on the west side, which will be
used for trains via Herne Hill, including the Wimbledon/Sutton loop.

Peter

In message
Arthur Figgis wrote:

Graeme wrote:
In message
Neil Williams wrote:

On 18 Dec, 14:52, "Recliner" wrote:

Cue the usual speculation of outlandish schemes for express routes, DLR
extensions, etc...
Speculation aside, having been to New York the 4-track express/local
split works wonders - Manhattan is as a result far, far quicker to get
around than London, though the system has its own faults. It's a pity
London didn't go that way early on.

That said, I'm not sure you'd save a lot skip-stopping Barbican, which
is all you'd really manage. Perhaps a more effective way to speed up
the subsurface lines is for the stock to have acceleration/
deceleration like a Desiro and presumably a higher top speed to make
use of it. Will the S-stock manage that, or is the power supply not
up to it?

That said, if the infrastructure was there, a District Line that did
Earls Court-Victoria-Embankment-Blackfriars-Monument-Tower Gateway
would speed up that somewhat glacially slow service somewhat. The
western part, of course, already has express services in the form of
the Picc. A Central Line that missed out everything except the
interchanges would also be useful, same with the Picc, but I don't see
a lot of scope on other lines.


Google deep level tubes, it nearly came to pass if it hadn't been
disrupted by an Austrian painter of limited abilty but limitless
ambition.

Weren't the bits that got built, built because of him?


No, just found an alternate use.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:08:38 -0000, Peter Masson wrote:

And the Met Line services aren't overcrowded as a result. I guess
most of them are seeing it as a pleasant walk - it isn't *that* far
from Farringdon to Moorgate.

Until they were withdrawn [1] the through Moorgate trains operated by the
SE&CR usually ran empty beyond Snow Hill/Holborn Viaduct LL because most
passengers preferred to leave the train there, or at Ludgate Hill, and walk.

Not surprising if the trains ran as slowly through the central area as
the current Thameslink services do.

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:41:34 -0000, Recliner wrote:

A Central Line that missed out everything except the
interchanges would also be useful,

Isn't that Crossrail?

Almost, though it won't have an interchange with the Victoria or
Piccadilly.