"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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.

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