On Nov 27, 5:41*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Nov 27, 5:11*pm, Grumpy wrote:





On Nov 26, 5:54*pm, D7666 wrote:

On Nov 26, 3:22*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:

I've been trying to find out what's planned for the 365s, to no avail
though.

Unlike FCC/TL 319s that are all deployed on current TL services that
remain TL services therefor get replaced by new stock, many FCC/GN
units (the majority in fact if you count 313s in the fleet totals) do
not work services that are intended to run over TL. There is no reason
to suppose 365s will be cascaded anywhere at this moment in time and
we probably won't know until the x-IEP EMU is known and confirmed for
the KL line.

--
Nick

*I cant quite grasp this. Currently there are 15tph trains through the
core in the peak. That the plan is to run 24 ie 9 extra. Several of
these must be coming off the GN. Peterborough and Cambridge feature on
the proposed route maps. Unless there are some spare paths available
on the GN, surely the additional trains through the core must be
mainly extensions/replacements for existing trains operated by
317/365 ? Which means the existing units must be thrown surplus if the
trains through the core are worked by the new fleet. So where are they
going? Or are they to replace the 313's?

I accept there may be an argument for using IEP to free up paths, but
this would just replace either existing kit or the new units-you still
end up replacing something unless you are providing more or longer
trains.

All this (IEP apart) really begs the question as to why we need any
new rolling stock to complete the Thameslink programme.

Thus to quote a famous sage on another thread -"The entire original
GLC / NSE Thameslink scheme paid for itself by introducing
operational
efficiency in train fleets. There were 48 317s, of which 46 were
needed to operate BedPan. The very original Thameslink service was
only 46 319s (the other 14 originals were ordered before the service
started but were extra to the original plan). Those same 46 319s did
all that the 46 317s did AND eliminated a goodly number of EPBs, all
by * through running and no terminals dead time"

Surely the same principles apply now? *The 20 minutes or so to run
through the core being less than the combined time to turn round an
existing service at Kings Cross and an existing service at a Southern
terminal. Why cant existing Electrostars on the Southern lines be
adapted to work north through the core and beyond?

Similarly adapt the 365's to work through.

The money saved by not *buying a fleet of 1200 vehicles would for
example probably pay for a lot of new electrification elsewhere.

All I meant was we can't assume 365s go anywhere until we know the how
why and whens of IEP EMU.

After all, we did not know where the 319s were going until GWML and NW
electrics were announced 6 months ago.

I agree with the general comment about why does TLP need new stock and
yes operational efficiency demands less overall stock and yes there
are conflicts with what is going on elsewhere.

And indeed, I've never been able to get my head around understanding
the GN side of the TLP w.r.t. what services are intended to run. There
are several high level maps yes, but no detail.

Taking TL and ECML both routes have ''white space'' capacity issues
arising from current or potential stock type differences.

IIMU the sole reason behind total TL fleet replacement is to maintain
24 TPH headway through the core - and, importantly, over junctions
south of the river - they need all trains to have identical
performance characteristics, else you get unusable white space in the
timetable if you for example simply build more 377s and mix with 319s.
Thus the plan is all new stock for TLP and cascade older 319s and
newer 377s none of which are approaching life expiry to other routes.
365s can't work through, so I understand because they are not through
gangway units. HOWEVER that is based on old data and possibly re-opens
a perennial uk.railway topic.

It is exactly the other plan that puts express 125 mph capable EMU on
to Kings Lynns. The whole point is solving its own white space problem
on the southern end of the ECML. That means it ain't those services,
and probably fast-er Peterboroughs as well, that come through TLP core
as IEP/descendants performance will be very different, and in any case
TL core is limited to 20 m cars. (At least it is now, I've never seen
anything to suggest this is eased in the current works). IEP-et-al is
based around 26 m cars, not even 23 m, so to introduce 20 m cars is
yet another input the IEP-et-al project can do without.

Once you've got to the stage where IEP cover KX Lynn and Peterboro
fixing the 100/125 mph ECML white space issue I then do not understand
where all these GN bound trains using TL core are going to. Yes this
does seem to kill all 317 and 321 and 365s.

--
Nick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well I think it kills even more than that.
I am sure I read that they were tendering for 1200 new carriages for
Thameslink.

My understanding of the present is that FCC have 86*319 sets,and
23*377's for the present Thameslink service. Say 436 carriages.

On the GN they have 13*321,12*317, and 40*365. Say 260 carriages, or a
total of 696 between the two routes. In addition I believe they have
around 46*313 ie another 138 carriages bringing our total to 834.
Which is an awful lot less than 1200. In fact it's approx 90*4 car
sets worth.

I am having real difficulty getting my head round this-it couldn't all
be further train lengthening and given pathing constraints north and
south it couldn't be lots of additional trains. Then it struck me that
some of this represents vehicles required to run the new services
south of the Thames to/from the GN. But as these will be mainly
existing services diverted/extended to run beyond London Bridge they
will be displacing a lot of existing 3rd rail kit, including
presumably a fair few Electrostars which might run anywhere given the
provision of Pantographs etc.

Now one of the problems with electric trains is you can only run them
where the power is. And if all this kit is thrown up spare I wonder if
we have the electrified mileage with capacity to run it on. I realise
they are talking about dumping the 319's onto the GW and North West,
but where else will we have we got that can usefully absorb the
321,317,365, 313 and the potential 90 sets of 3rd rail kit displaced?
If all these just go into store or are scrapped it's going to be
pretty embarassing.

So I think they need to electrify quite a bit more mileage than has
been agreed to date.

Is there a flaw in my logic ? Have I got my numbers significantly
wrong?


Incidentally when I refer to "dumping" 319's it's because whilst it
makes the economics of Thameslink look better and helps them justify
the new kit that they dont need (see earlier), it might not be what's
best for GW and the North West. For example if there is an argument
for running 125 mph IEP commuter trains on the GN to save paths (as
similarly argued for Northampton), might the same argument apply on
the GW outer suburban services? If so 319'S aren't the answer.