|
Moorgate branch decommissioned
"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 Until they were withdrawn [1] the through Moorgate trains operated by the SE&CR usually ran empty beyond Snow Hill/Holborn Viaduct LL because most passengers preferred to leave the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 |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
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 |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
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 |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
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 |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
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 |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
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 |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
"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 |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
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/ |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
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. |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
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. |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
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. |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
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. |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
|
Moorgate branch decommissioned
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 |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
"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 |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
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 |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
"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 |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
"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 |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
"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 |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Recliner wrote:
"DW downunder" noname wrote in message u "Jack Taylor" wrote in message ... Following the timetable change, FCC have ceased running empties from Farringdon into Moorgate and the branch has been fully decommissioned. As at today, Thursday, the branch has been completely dewired, final removals occurring adjacent to the LUL sidings at Farringdon today. The signalling has also been switched out. Given the speed at which this work is taking place, I guess that track recovery will not be long commencing. 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... Apparently not! Maybe nobody's come up with any new ones. The standard ones now are (a) an entirely ineffective SSL express track, (b) a largely ineffective SSL laypver point, (c) a highly effective, but phenomenally expensive and probably impractical, DLR extension north of Bank, and (d) a last-minute rerouting of a mile or so of Crossrail. Anyone got anything else? How about surfacing the Northern City line at Moorgate, and taking it to Farringdon? That's even barmier and more useless than the DLR option. tom -- All bloggers must die. |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
In article , noname (DW
downunder) wrote: Are not the FCC services already "broken" at the present .... what has happened to travel patterns? FCC announced further Thameslink emergency timetable changes yesterday. I'm not clear if they were due to the staffing situation or the weather. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
Roland Perry wrote:
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? The expected advantage of TL2k is for people travelling between Cambridge and Blackfriars or Littlehampton and Kings Cross. The percentage of people passing through the centre is not expected to rise, although the number will. -- We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile. |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 01:28:15 GMT
(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. I have an 8 minute walk to my nearest tube station. Its fine on a nice warm summers day but in the weather we've had recently or on a day when its ****ing down its a pain in the bum. If I had to do a similar walk the other end I'd really not be a happy bunny. And obviously I can only speak for myself but after I'd done 9 hours in the office I really wouldn't want a cold long walk to the train. B2003 |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
|
Moorgate branch decommissioned
On 19 Dec, 15:39, "Basil Jet"
wrote: The expected advantage of TL2k is for people travelling between Cambridge and Blackfriars or Littlehampton and Kings Cross. The percentage of people passing through the centre is not expected to rise, although the number will. The greater point of the exercise is to significantly increase the number of trains into London Bridge from the south/southeast, and likewise increase the number of ECML commuter services (especially 12- car) that can be run, as well as to extend the existing services to 12 cars. Where any of these trains actually go is not terribly important. This is relevant because every train to Moorgate is one less to/ through London Bridge (unless you can find somewhere new to start them from), undermining the purpose of the scheme. U |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
|
Moorgate branch decommissioned
On Dec 19, 1:26*am, (Neil Williams)
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!) Yes. You may recall 3-4 yars back I posted a thread about applying for an IT/comms job, with what was then ONE, at Liverpool Street - but they did not interview me because ''I lived off their route inconsistent with the possibility of call-out involved with the job''. That Moorgate was so close, and very easy for my normal commute, that TL would probably be working if ONE had collapsed, and that TL is (well was at the time) a 24/7 route (at least to Farringdon) so could easy get there at any time, seemed to have escaped them. This is HR of course. I did fire off an email asking them if they knew where Moorgate was but got no reply. Guess that attitude kind of killed my chances anyway but then again you have to wonder if you'd really want to work for a company with such a moronic view. Actually I ended up doing a temp job in Finsbury Circus even closer to Moorgate. -- Nick |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
On Dec 19, 10:17*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote: 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. Indeed. I am now of the opinion this could be project drift and de-scoping - drift towards longer distance services on MML and de-scope by not connecting GN. I know MML has not been announced for wiring yet, and its only come up recently, but that the public domain view. They may well have had 1, 2 maybe more years of planning (well if DfT plans anything) that we've not known about. I mean, when the actual announcement about GWML (and on top of that the use of 319s) came out most f us were taken by surprise. -- Nick |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
On Dec 19, 5:01*pm, Mr Thant
wrote: This is relevant because every train to Moorgate is one less to/ through London Bridge (unless you can find somewhere new to start them from), undermining the purpose of the scheme. Holborn Viaduct ;o) City TL out of St.Pauls sdgs. Its not rocket science. -- Nick |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
"D7666" wrote in message ... On Dec 19, 5:01 pm, Mr Thant wrote: This is relevant because every train to Moorgate is one less to/ through London Bridge (unless you can find somewhere new to start them from), undermining the purpose of the scheme. Holborn Viaduct ;o) City TL out of St.Pauls sdgs. For each train turned back in St Pauls Sidings you lose two paths to Farringdon, one as it goes into the sidings and one as it comes out. To avoid this you'd have to remodel the sidings so that they are between the up and down lines. Even then you'd lose capacity when trains don't turn up at the right time. I doubt that you could lengthen the platforms at Moorgate for 12-car trains - down trains didn't call at Barbican because the platform was too short. As others have pointed out, you couldn't operate Farringdon at 24 tph with SDO. If you retain the Moorgate branch you can't lengthen the Farringdon platforms south of the station, because that's where the junction is. You can't extend them to the north because of the gradient of the diveunder under the LUL lines. So you'd have to rebuild the gridiron so that the Thameslink line stays level and the LUL line dives underneath it. All in all completely unaffordable, and quite unnecessary, as passengers can change at Farringdon to LUL (or in future, Crossrail) to reach Moogate or Liverpool Street. Or walk. Peter |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote: On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 21:35:11 +0800, "DW downunder" noname wrote: [big snip] Are not the FCC services already "broken" at the present .... what has happened to travel patterns? Well yes - here's an alternative view (apologies if this link has already turned up on uk.r or utl) http://www.firstcrapitalconnect.co.uk/index.html Certainly made me laugh but then I don't have to use FCC. It's alright for you, then! Actually, much as it might pain me and/or others, I find FCC more reliable than WAGN were, for Cambridge-King's Cross services anyway. I've not spent so many evenings stuck at Welwyn or the likes since the franchise change. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
Peter Masson wrote:
"D7666" wrote in message ... On Dec 19, 5:01 pm, Mr Thant wrote: This is relevant because every train to Moorgate is one less to/ through London Bridge (unless you can find somewhere new to start them from), undermining the purpose of the scheme. Holborn Viaduct ;o) City TL out of St.Pauls sdgs. For each train turned back in St Pauls Sidings you lose two paths to Farringdon, one as it goes into the sidings and one as it comes out. To avoid this you'd have to remodel the sidings so that they are between the up and down lines. Even then you'd lose capacity when trains don't turn up at the right time. I doubt that you could lengthen the platforms at Moorgate for 12-car trains - down trains didn't call at Barbican because the platform was too short. As others have pointed out, you couldn't operate Farringdon at 24 tph with SDO. If you retain the Moorgate branch you can't lengthen the Farringdon platforms south of the station, because that's where the junction is. You can't extend them to the north because of the gradient of the diveunder under the LUL lines. So you'd have to rebuild the gridiron so that the Thameslink line stays level and the LUL line dives underneath it. All in all completely unaffordable, and quite unnecessary, as passengers can change at Farringdon to LUL (or in future, Crossrail) to reach Moogate or Liverpool Street. Or walk. I'd also suggest [with hindsight] that they had a pretty good idea that it wasn't just the Farringdon platform lengthening that would go over the junction, but the combined Thameslink/Crossrail station, and I believe the Crossrail construction access is to use the disused track bed. Was this all assumed to be happening by the original decision makers? Paul S |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
In message , at 15:39:05 on Sat, 19
Dec 2009, Basil Jet 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? The expected advantage of TL2k is for people travelling between Cambridge and Blackfriars or Littlehampton and Kings Cross. The percentage of people passing through the centre is not expected to rise, although the number will. I find that quite surprising, given how much people complain when longer trips require changes to get from one side of London to the other. -- Roland Perry |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
On Dec 19, 5:56*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
For each train turned back in St Pauls Sidings you lose two paths to Farringdon, one as it goes into the sidings and one as it comes out. Not if the path of one NB train that goes into the sidings is taken up by the Down train from Moorgate, and the one out of St.Pauls by an Up train into Moorgate. -- Nick |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:39:05 on Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Basil Jet remarked: The expected advantage of TL2k is for people travelling between Cambridge and Blackfriars or Littlehampton and Kings Cross. The percentage of people passing through the centre is not expected to rise, although the number will. I find that quite surprising, given how much people complain when longer trips require changes to get from one side of London to the other. I think it depends very much on when you are travelling. Based on my Thameslink trips during the middle of the day, I'd say a good number seem to be passing through. I can well believe it is different in the morning peak though. Paul S |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote: On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:57:14 -0600, wrote: Actually, much as it might pain me and/or others, I find FCC more reliable than WAGN were, for Cambridge-King's Cross services anyway. I've not spent so many evenings stuck at Welwyn or the likes since the franchise change. Seems they can get some things right then. The last time I went to use FCC Thameslink (Burgess Hill - Brighton) the train was cancelled thus wrecking my plans. I had no option but to return to London. I was not impressed - and it was nothing to do with the current problems. Burgess Hill-Brighton you could have used Southern for, surely? -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
"D7666" wrote in message ... On Dec 19, 5:56 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: For each train turned back in St Pauls Sidings you lose two paths to Farringdon, one as it goes into the sidings and one as it comes out. Not if the path of one NB train that goes into the sidings is taken up by the Down train from Moorgate, and the one out of St.Pauls by an Up train into Moorgate. ------ But the one out of the sidings also takes up a path from City Thameslink to Farringdon, as it has to cross that line. Peter |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:39:05 on Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Basil Jet 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? The expected advantage of TL2k is for people travelling between Cambridge and Blackfriars or Littlehampton and Kings Cross. The percentage of people passing through the centre is not expected to rise, although the number will. I find that quite surprising, given how much people complain when longer trips require changes to get from one side of London to the other. The complaints might be loud and justified, but the number of passengers per day who have to do this sort of journey is a twenteth or thirtieth of the number who commute to the centre. -- We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile. |
Moorgate branch decommissioned
On 19 Dec, 18:11, D7666 wrote:
Not if the path of one NB train that goes into the sidings is taken up by the Down train from Moorgate, and the one out of St.Pauls by an Up train into Moorgate. The timetable already has to be planned around making the flat junction south of Blackfriars work, and (hypothetically) making the Moorgate branch junction work. You'll be very lucky to come up with a workable timetable that allows all three to work efficiently and which doesn't sacrifice a big chunk of capacity and/or resilience. U |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk