View Single Post
  #7   Report Post  
Old November 17th 08, 08:47 AM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
D7666 D7666 is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 529
Default Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town

On Nov 17, 9:06 am, Mizter T wrote:

From that answer...

quote
Brighton to Bedford [not 'Thameslink route'] trains rarely call at
Kentish Town and Cricklewood other than in the late evening or early
morning. Instead they are served by the Wimbledon loop trains that
will remain a maximum eight carriages in length due to the road bridge
at Tulse Hill and complex track layouts near other station platforms.
/quote

I don't understand what the 'not Thameslink route' bit in square
brackets is supposed to mean?


Yes ... in their reply to me they used the same words ... but
amazingly to my surprise they followed this up without me promptng
them 2/3 days later with a correction saying that is not what they
meant ... but were supposed to be referring Brighton/Bedford trains at
that point. It is actually clear what they meant as they refer to
Wimbledon loop trains later on.



In a more detailed response to myself I asked about possible SDO
because my thoughts were if Kentish Town is limited permanently to
8car how much impact will that have overall i.e. will there still be 4
TPH 8car trains in the long term. They replied that SDO is not ruled
out ... but no decision has been made on this yet ... and IMHO does
not need to be made for some time.


As we know the plan is for the (principal) suburban Thameslink service
south of the Thames to switch from being the Wimbledon loop service to
being an Orpington or Sevenoaks service via the Catford loop (i.e.
Peckham Rye). So, how easy would it be to sort this route out for 12
car trains?


The switching of the Loop trains away from TL core is not yet decided.
This is proposed in one of the RUS (Brighton? South London? ) - it is
not a TLprogramme suggestion and loop trains remain in their version
of the 2015 network map.

True, RUS proposals have a habit of turning out to be correct, and it
seems to me the RUS reasoning is valid, but at the moment, but in the
mean time it is not certain, again, read the FAQ at

http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk...ex#question_41


Given that Kentish Town and Cricklewood are only normally served by 8
car Wimbledon loop (to be Sevenoaks/ Orpington) services, I don't
understand why there is a specific interest in whether they are
getting platform extensions that they would appear not to need?.


Because if the loop trains *are* diverted away it would impose a cap
on any service that does call at Kentish Town unless SDO is
implemented. And it would be a permanent cap, way into long term
future past 2015 and way beyond. ((I assume that if the replace
Cricklewood by new Brent Cross idea does not go ahead then the
existing Criclewood would be extended to 12car.))

Leaving just Kentish Town at 8car north of Thames without SDO would
have a very great impact on capacity on the whole core route e.g. if
*all* peak hour 24 TPH trains could otherwise be 12car, the effect
alone of 4 TPH 8car (the current Kentish Town pattern but no matter
where it comes from) compared with all 12 car is an 11% reduction
through the core - 24x12=288; (20*12)+(4*8)=256; 256/288=0.888888etc.
It has a much bigger impact on the Midland side when you do that sum
for only Midland trains after remoiving GN-bound trains.

In turn, once one 8car station has been conceded, the whitehall bean
counting mandarins can move in and suggest cost cutting by allowing
other 8car station to be kept.

Thus it is very important to understand this issue, and very important
they get it right.

--
Nick