On Nov 26, 5:46*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Nov 26, 4:08*pm, TimB wrote:

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.

The project includes power upgrade.

To say unlikely is really quite wrong, it was hard in the IEP EMU
version for these to go to Kings Lynn, and one assumes that whatever
the final version of IEP or equivalent turns out to be then the
express EMU will go there.

--
Nick

Personally I don't believe this 5-car IEP will materialize. What's
needed is an HST replacement, not a 365 replacement.
Tim

On Nov 26, 10:58*pm, TimB wrote:

Personally I don't believe this 5-car IEP will materialize. What's
needed is an HST replacement, not a 365 replacement.

its not a 365 replacement and never was.

its a Kings Lynn route speed and ECML capacity enhancement (125 mph
running) that has a side effect of DISplacing 365s.

--
Nick

On Nov 26, 11:01*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Nov 26, 10:58*pm, TimB wrote:

Personally I don't believe this 5-car IEP will materialize. What's
needed is an HST replacement, not a 365 replacement.

its not a 365 replacement and never was.

its a Kings Lynn route speed and ECML capacity enhancement (125 mph
running) that has a side effect of DISplacing 365s.

--
Nick

Ah yes, I see - actually 115 mph would do, as the only 125 is through
Knebworth and Stevenage (what will the limit be on the Hitchin flyover
- 40 or so?).
Tim

On Nov 26, 11:36*pm, TimB wrote:

its a Kings Lynn route speed and ECML capacity enhancement (125 mph
running) that has a side effect of DISplacing 365s.

Ah yes, I see - actually 115 mph would do, as the only 125 is through
Knebworth and Stevenage

Yep, run the Cambridge Cruisers and the Lynns at full line speed be it
115/125 whatever and squeeze out white space caused by the 100/125 mph
speed differential. OK 2 TPH fast won't gain you much, but the few
seconds it does might allow one more TPH overall, and thats a lot of
seats extra that could go somewhere.

There is *some* method in some madnesses in a few cases.

--
Nick

In article
,
(D7666) wrote:

On Nov 26, 11:36*pm, TimB wrote:

its a Kings Lynn route speed and ECML capacity enhancement (125 mph
running) that has a side effect of DISplacing 365s.

Ah yes, I see - actually 115 mph would do, as the only 125 is through
Knebworth and Stevenage

Yep, run the Cambridge Cruisers and the Lynns at full line speed be it
115/125 whatever and squeeze out white space caused by the 100/125 mph
speed differential. OK 2 TPH fast won't gain you much, but the few
seconds it does might allow one more TPH overall, and thats a lot of
seats extra that could go somewhere.

There is *some* method in some madnesses in a few cases.

The Hitchin flyover will bring rather greater benefits, surely?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message
, at
15:49:39 on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, D7666 remarked:
its a Kings Lynn route speed and ECML capacity enhancement (125 mph
running) that has a side effect of DISplacing 365s.

Ah yes, I see - actually 115 mph would do, as the only 125 is through
Knebworth and Stevenage

Yep, run the Cambridge Cruisers and the Lynns at full line speed be it
115/125 whatever

What's the current line speed between Royston and Cambridge (and
beyond). I remember a major track improvement project about nine years
ago which clipped an astonishing [sarcasm] one and a half minutes from
the time to London, through South Cambs. But the trains don't feel
particularly fast. 80mph perhaps...
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 19:52:00 on
Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Bruce remarked:

But they cannot possibly exist, because Roland Perry couldn't find any
evidence of them in a Google search . ;-)

I didn't look. Your persistence on this matter is astonishing - In case
people have forgotten, this is an old feud that Tony pursues related to
the absence of online footprint of his various activities/aliases.
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
11:07:11 on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Mizter T remarked:
I'm not sure all the tunnels are in place, but the parts which had to be
built contemporaneously with other works are there.

They're all in place - it's not particularly obvious unless you're
looking for it, but it's possible to see the concrete trench that
leads to the tunnel portal from the GN lines north of King's Cross.

I'm aware when the works would have been done, but had an idea that as
part of the cost-cutting which almost saw the SPILL box cancelled, they
didn't complete everything needed for the connection to GN.

But various people have posted to say it was all done, which is good
news (even though it implies a flat junction just outside Kings Cross).
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
11:54:29 on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, D7666 remarked:
I'm not sure all the tunnels are in place, but the parts which had to be
built contemporaneously with other works are there.

I have assumed from at least some historical posts you must have
arrived at EMT SPIHL and used FCC SPILL ?

If you look hard enough, especially if there is a northbound 377 in
the SPILL platforms uisng its headlight beams, you can clearly see the
tunnels.

Yes, I can see the tunnels at the SPILL end (I've walked to the end of
the platforms especially), and I can see the "slope" that approaches the
ECML at the other end (on aerial photos). What I wasn't *sure* about was
whether everything in between had been done.
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
13:26:28 on Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Paul Oter remarked:
Platform 1 at Cambridge was lengthened by a few metres about a year
ago (I forget exactly when). It's quite narrow so there's a short
length of fence on the Platform 2 side.

Thanks for the information. But it sounds like they didn't do Platform 4
as well - which was in the original Thameslink plan.

Platform 4 is unchanged, and so 8-cars only.

Platform 1 being 12-car is sufficient for a couple of morning services
to London to be 12-car, and, from next month, a couple of evening
services back from KX as well.

Indeed so, but at the risk of getting bogged down, the title of the
thread is "Thameslink in its entirety", which would originally have
included platform 4 lengthening. But we have until 2018 it seems (they
don't want to through-run the trains until the capacity improvements at
London Bridge have been done).

Maybe that's been substituted by the island, or is that a completely
separate exercise?

I don't know. My understanding is that the island platform is needed
to support 12-car trains to Liverpool Street (which, as Jim C says,
are already being built).

Yes, and the feeling I get from what's been posted is that this is a
separate exercise.
--
Roland Perry