On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:31:28 -0800 (PST), contrex wrote:

On 18 Dec, 15:38, 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.

Game set & match to you, Roland, I think.

Not really - he was trolled and therefore lost. In doing so he also
made some of us see the post he was responding to.

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:47:53 -0800 (PST), D7666
wrote:

Except the majority of passengers that were using Moorgate are walking
on further e.g. to Bank area, Broadgate, etc.

Broadgate/Liverpool St are (as you say) very, very close to Moorgate
station. I was surprised by how close (I've been working around there
for a week or two and it's the first time I've really walked around
that area - and the distance from Liverpool St to Moorgate seems a lot
further below ground!)

Bank is a different one. To go there I'd get off at City Thameslink
and jump a 15 or walk from there, I wouldn't even consider Moorgate
and that walk. (Though when Blackfriars LUL reopens that's another
option).

The one big thing that I think is a proper loss from Moorgate is the
comfort of joining a train early at a terminus and having a good,
relaxing choice of seats.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:48:25 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

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.

Which, if you have a door to door commute of over an hour, is pretty
insignificant. Though I must admit I'm perhaps biased in that I
normally engineer in a decent walk to my journey, as it's a way to
keep fit that I find easy to stick to once it's in a routine.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:17:17 +0000, boltar2003 wrote:

who are now going to have to crowd onto a packed tube train to do
the last mile of their journey.

If it's only a mile, surely they can walk.

peter

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:48:25 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

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.

Which, if you have a door to door commute of over an hour, is pretty
insignificant. Though I must admit I'm perhaps biased in that I
normally engineer in a decent walk to my journey, as it's a way to
keep fit that I find easy to stick to once it's in a routine.

Another reason why I cycle from King's Cross to Westminster instead of
taking the tube.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
o.uk...

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,

I think that the current RUSs give enough away for it to be highly probable
that the loop trains will terminate at Blackfriars, and that Eastbourne,
Littlehampton, Guildford etc will not be served. OTOH Kings Lynn seems to
have migrated into an ECML IEP service.

Any technical doubts about achieving the frequency will be 'claimed to be'
sorted by the spring, when either Siemens or Bombardier, (the only two
bidders remaining), are given a contract because their bid meets the spec
for the trains...

Paul S

In message , at 20:38:48 on Fri, 18 Dec 2009,
d remarked:

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.

And the new routes?
--
Roland Perry

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
o.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

Are not the FCC services already "broken" at the present .... what has
happened to travel patterns?

DW downunder

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
...
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

Certainly some shelters were commissioned to be on possible future routes,
but built because of the wartime need. Subterranea Britannica (? spelling)
has lots on the subject.

DW downunder

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"DW downunder" noname wrote in message
u

I would imagine the section would be of some use to LU - as it was in
days of yore.

Cue the usual speculation of outlandish schemes for express routes, DLR
extensions, etc...

How about maxing out straightaway? The terminus for HS2...

Paul S


An interesting proposition .... do you think LUL will let them have their
"spare" terminal platform too, to make it 3 .... serving trains of "how
long?" .... [or do we use SDO?] grin



DW downunder