In message
, at
07:29:17 on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, 1506 remarked:
On Nov 26, 3:21*pm, "Ian Bidwell" wrote:

It may be that only the semi fast run on Thames link with the fasts and
slows still running into KX. The statement talks about services to Herts and
Cambs using TL but *no mention of Norfolk, so Kings Lynn may no be included.
There was also talk of using IEP stock to Cambridge, so there should be
spare 317s to redeploy yet again

If they put IEP onto the Cambridge fast services, but don't send them
through to Kings Lynn, maybe the timetable will have to use the
semi-fasts for that - but they are the ones suggested above for
Thameslink (less the Norfolk attribution). Surely they wouldn't condemn
Ely and Kings Lynn to an extension of the stoppers?

And the minister just said they don't like making people change trains.

What sort of junction is there going to be, to the north of St Pancras
Low Level? Is it flat, or non-conflicting?

It's a dive-under I think.
--
Roland Perry

On Nov 26, 3:40*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
07:29:17 on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, 1506 remarked:

On Nov 26, 3:21*pm, "Ian Bidwell" wrote:

It may be that only the semi fast run on Thames link with the fasts and
slows still running into KX. The statement talks about services to Herts and
Cambs using TL but *no mention of Norfolk, so Kings Lynn may no be included.
There was also talk of using IEP stock to Cambridge, so there should be
spare 317s to redeploy yet again

If they put IEP onto the Cambridge fast services, but don't send them
through to Kings Lynn, maybe the timetable will have to use the
semi-fasts for that - but they are the ones suggested above for
Thameslink (less the Norfolk attribution). Surely they wouldn't condemn
Ely and Kings Lynn to an extension of the stoppers?

And the minister just said they don't like making people change trains.

What sort of junction is there going to be, to the north of St Pancras
Low Level? *Is it flat, or non-conflicting?

It's a dive-under I think.
--
Roland Perry

North of Ely you've got largely single track, four-car platforms, and
not enough power. It's unlikely to be IEP to Kings Lynn.
Tim

In message
, at
08:08:46 on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, TimB remarked:
It may be that only the semi fast run on Thames link with the fasts and
slows still running into KX. The statement talks about services to Herts and
Cambs using TL but *no mention of Norfolk, so Kings Lynn may no be included.
There was also talk of using IEP stock to Cambridge, so there should be
spare 317s to redeploy yet again

If they put IEP onto the Cambridge fast services, but don't send them
through to Kings Lynn, maybe the timetable will have to use the
semi-fasts for that - but they are the ones suggested above for
Thameslink (less the Norfolk attribution). Surely they wouldn't condemn
Ely and Kings Lynn to an extension of the stoppers?

And the minister just said they don't like making people change trains.

What sort of junction is there going to be, to the north of St Pancras
Low Level? *Is it flat, or non-conflicting?

It's a dive-under I think.

North of Ely you've got largely single track, four-car platforms, and
not enough power. It's unlikely to be IEP to Kings Lynn.

Yes, I know not-the-IEP; but what would they use instead? The simplest
might be to do one of the regular "swaps" on the line and extend the
Liverpool St electrics, with all the GN ones terminating at Cambridge.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

In message
,
at 07:29:17 on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, 1506 remarked:

What sort of junction is there going to be, to the north of St Pancras
Low Level? Is it flat, or non-conflicting?

It's a dive-under I think.

Yes - it's a totally non-conflicting junction - from the north end of the
SPILL platforms you can actually see the track-less GN connection tunnels
snake off into the distance, all ready and waiting. (A quick search failed
to find a photo, but it's all there.)

Well, it's a non-conflicting junction in terms of northbound and southbound
trains - at a train every two minutes the southbound services (from the MML
and the GN) are still going to have to be made to mesh together - I can
foresee it being quite normal for a train to have to wait at some point just
north of St Pancras for a minute or so until it's got a clear road ahead
into St Pancras and on south through the Thameslink core.

On Nov 26, 7:40*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
07:29:17 on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, 1506 remarked:

On Nov 26, 3:21*pm, "Ian Bidwell" wrote:

It may be that only the semi fast run on Thames link with the fasts and
slows still running into KX. The statement talks about services to Herts and
Cambs using TL but *no mention of Norfolk, so Kings Lynn may no be included.
There was also talk of using IEP stock to Cambridge, so there should be
spare 317s to redeploy yet again

If they put IEP onto the Cambridge fast services, but don't send them
through to Kings Lynn, maybe the timetable will have to use the
semi-fasts for that - but they are the ones suggested above for
Thameslink (less the Norfolk attribution). Surely they wouldn't condemn
Ely and Kings Lynn to an extension of the stoppers?

And the minister just said they don't like making people change trains.

What sort of junction is there going to be, to the north of St Pancras
Low Level? *Is it flat, or non-conflicting?

It's a dive-under I think.

Thanks. That, at least, is good news.

"1506" wrote:

On Nov 26, 3:21 pm, "Ian Bidwell" wrote:

It may be that only the semi fast run on Thames link with the fasts and
slows still running into KX. The statement talks about services to Herts
and
Cambs using TL but no mention of Norfolk, so Kings Lynn may no be
included.
There was also talk of using IEP stock to Cambridge, so there should be
spare 317s to redeploy yet again

What sort of junction is there going to be, to the north of St
Pancras Low Level? Is it flat, or non-conflicting?

See my reply to Roland Perry about this - the junction immediately north of
'SPILL' is a non-conflicting dive-under and furthermore it already exists as
it was built as part of the CTRL works, albeit without any tracks in it yet.
The tunnels switch from being bored to cut and cover and then emerge near
the GN lines north of King's Cross - I'm not quite sure what the plan is for
the junction here though, but it's worth bearing in mind there are some
fly-overs on the GN just north of this.

On Nov 26, 7:40*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
07:29:17 on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, 1506 remarked:

On Nov 26, 3:21*pm, "Ian Bidwell" wrote:

It may be that only the semi fast run on Thames link with the fasts and
slows still running into KX. The statement talks about services to Herts and
Cambs using TL but *no mention of Norfolk, so Kings Lynn may no be included.
There was also talk of using IEP stock to Cambridge, so there should be
spare 317s to redeploy yet again

If they put IEP onto the Cambridge fast services, but don't send them
through to Kings Lynn, maybe the timetable will have to use the
semi-fasts for that - but they are the ones suggested above for
Thameslink (less the Norfolk attribution). Surely they wouldn't condemn
Ely and Kings Lynn to an extension of the stoppers?

And the minister just said they don't like making people change trains.

What sort of junction is there going to be, to the north of St Pancras
Low Level? *Is it flat, or non-conflicting?

It's a dive-under I think.
--
Roland Perry

Thanks. That, at least, is good news.

On Nov 26, 8:52*am, "Mizter T" wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message

...

In message
,
at 07:29:17 on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, 1506 remarked:

What sort of junction is there going to be, to the north of St Pancras
Low Level? *Is it flat, or non-conflicting?

It's a dive-under I think.

Yes - it's a totally non-conflicting junction - from the north end of the
SPILL platforms you can actually see the track-less GN connection tunnels
snake off into the distance, all ready and waiting. (A quick search failed
to find a photo, but it's all there.)

Well, it's a non-conflicting junction in terms of northbound and southbound
trains - at a train every two minutes the southbound services (from the MML
and the GN) are still going to have to be made to mesh together - I can
foresee it being quite normal for a train to have to wait at some point just
north of St Pancras for a minute or so until it's got a clear road ahead
into St Pancras and on south through the Thameslink core.

Since Farringdon, and City Thameslink each have two platforms, there
would be little to gained from more platform accomodation at KX/StP.

"TimB" wrote in message
...

North of Ely you've got largely single track, four-car platforms, and
not enough power. It's unlikely to be IEP to Kings Lynn.

Why ever not?

The IEP project would include upgrading the power and lengthening the
platforms if the decision was taken to use IEP - it isn't just a rolling
stock introduction to existing infrastructure. I'd agree it might never
happen due to other reasons though.

Quote:

"East Coast Main Line, including Hitchin to Cambridge and Kings Lynn
The scope of works on this line includes platform works, gauging works,
power supply/overhead line works to introduce Intercity Express trains ...
etc etc"

NR CP4 enhancements plan refers.

Paul S

In message , at 17:08:27 on Fri,
26 Nov 2010, Ian Bidwell remarked:

The Kings Lynn travellers will not be happy swapping a 96 minutes
service for one taking 132mins I think they would prefer a cross
platform;atform interchange

With the new island at Cambridge, the number of cross-platform
interchanges could fall as well as rise.

to save 1/2 travelling time

You could kill two birds with one stone by making the Liverpool St to
Kings Lynn service depart Cambridge soon after an IEP arrived.
--
Roland Perry