On Nov 27, 9:59*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
09:41:50 on Sat, 27 Nov 2010, D7666 remarked:

Once you've got to the stage where IEP cover KX Lynn and Peterboro
fixing the 100/125 mph ECML white space issue I then do not understand
where all these GN bound trains using TL core are going to. Yes this
does seem to kill all 317 and 321 and 365s.

The IEP can solve the white space issue on the ECML fast tracks (ie the
ex Cambridge Cruisers), but there's also the stoppers - who can live in
their own space on the slow tracks and flow through Thameslink rather
than terminating at Kings Cross.
--
Roland Perry

Except that there are no slow lines for a few miles north of Welwyn.
Tim

In message
, at
11:16:56 on Sun, 28 Nov 2010, TimB remarked:
The IEP can solve the white space issue on the ECML fast tracks (ie the
ex Cambridge Cruisers), but there's also the stoppers - who can live in
their own space on the slow tracks and flow through Thameslink rather
than terminating at Kings Cross.

Except that there are no slow lines for a few miles north of Welwyn.

There are a certain number of paths through Welwyn, increasing the top
speed of 2tph from 100mph to 125mph isn't going to change that. What's
the track speed there, anyway?
--
Roland Perry

On Nov 27, 5:41*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Nov 27, 5:11*pm, Grumpy wrote:





On Nov 26, 5:54*pm, D7666 wrote:

On Nov 26, 3:22*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:

I've been trying to find out what's planned for the 365s, to no avail
though.

Unlike FCC/TL 319s that are all deployed on current TL services that
remain TL services therefor get replaced by new stock, many FCC/GN
units (the majority in fact if you count 313s in the fleet totals) do
not work services that are intended to run over TL. There is no reason
to suppose 365s will be cascaded anywhere at this moment in time and
we probably won't know until the x-IEP EMU is known and confirmed for
the KL line.

--
Nick

*I cant quite grasp this. Currently there are 15tph trains through the
core in the peak. That the plan is to run 24 ie 9 extra. Several of
these must be coming off the GN. Peterborough and Cambridge feature on
the proposed route maps. Unless there are some spare paths available
on the GN, surely the additional trains through the core must be
mainly extensions/replacements for existing trains operated by
317/365 ? Which means the existing units must be thrown surplus if the
trains through the core are worked by the new fleet. So where are they
going? Or are they to replace the 313's?

I accept there may be an argument for using IEP to free up paths, but
this would just replace either existing kit or the new units-you still
end up replacing something unless you are providing more or longer
trains.

All this (IEP apart) really begs the question as to why we need any
new rolling stock to complete the Thameslink programme.

Thus to quote a famous sage on another thread -"The entire original
GLC / NSE Thameslink scheme paid for itself by introducing
operational
efficiency in train fleets. There were 48 317s, of which 46 were
needed to operate BedPan. The very original Thameslink service was
only 46 319s (the other 14 originals were ordered before the service
started but were extra to the original plan). Those same 46 319s did
all that the 46 317s did AND eliminated a goodly number of EPBs, all
by * through running and no terminals dead time"

Surely the same principles apply now? *The 20 minutes or so to run
through the core being less than the combined time to turn round an
existing service at Kings Cross and an existing service at a Southern
terminal. Why cant existing Electrostars on the Southern lines be
adapted to work north through the core and beyond?

Similarly adapt the 365's to work through.

The money saved by not *buying a fleet of 1200 vehicles would for
example probably pay for a lot of new electrification elsewhere.

All I meant was we can't assume 365s go anywhere until we know the how
why and whens of IEP EMU.

After all, we did not know where the 319s were going until GWML and NW
electrics were announced 6 months ago.

I agree with the general comment about why does TLP need new stock and
yes operational efficiency demands less overall stock and yes there
are conflicts with what is going on elsewhere.

And indeed, I've never been able to get my head around understanding
the GN side of the TLP w.r.t. what services are intended to run. There
are several high level maps yes, but no detail.

Taking TL and ECML both routes have ''white space'' capacity issues
arising from current or potential stock type differences.

IIMU the sole reason behind total TL fleet replacement is to maintain
24 TPH headway through the core - and, importantly, over junctions
south of the river - they need all trains to have identical
performance characteristics, else you get unusable white space in the
timetable if you for example simply build more 377s and mix with 319s.
Thus the plan is all new stock for TLP and cascade older 319s and
newer 377s none of which are approaching life expiry to other routes.
365s can't work through, so I understand because they are not through
gangway units. HOWEVER that is based on old data and possibly re-opens
a perennial uk.railway topic.

It is exactly the other plan that puts express 125 mph capable EMU on
to Kings Lynns. The whole point is solving its own white space problem
on the southern end of the ECML. That means it ain't those services,
and probably fast-er Peterboroughs as well, that come through TLP core
as IEP/descendants performance will be very different, and in any case
TL core is limited to 20 m cars. (At least it is now, I've never seen
anything to suggest this is eased in the current works). IEP-et-al is
based around 26 m cars, not even 23 m, so to introduce 20 m cars is
yet another input the IEP-et-al project can do without.

Once you've got to the stage where IEP cover KX Lynn and Peterboro
fixing the 100/125 mph ECML white space issue I then do not understand
where all these GN bound trains using TL core are going to. Yes this
does seem to kill all 317 and 321 and 365s.

--
Nick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well I think it kills even more than that.
I am sure I read that they were tendering for 1200 new carriages for
Thameslink.

My understanding of the present is that FCC have 86*319 sets,and
23*377's for the present Thameslink service. Say 436 carriages.

On the GN they have 13*321,12*317, and 40*365. Say 260 carriages, or a
total of 696 between the two routes. In addition I believe they have
around 46*313 ie another 138 carriages bringing our total to 834.
Which is an awful lot less than 1200. In fact it's approx 90*4 car
sets worth.

I am having real difficulty getting my head round this-it couldn't all
be further train lengthening and given pathing constraints north and
south it couldn't be lots of additional trains. Then it struck me that
some of this represents vehicles required to run the new services
south of the Thames to/from the GN. But as these will be mainly
existing services diverted/extended to run beyond London Bridge they
will be displacing a lot of existing 3rd rail kit, including
presumably a fair few Electrostars which might run anywhere given the
provision of Pantographs etc.

Now one of the problems with electric trains is you can only run them
where the power is. And if all this kit is thrown up spare I wonder if
we have the electrified mileage with capacity to run it on. I realise
they are talking about dumping the 319's onto the GW and North West,
but where else will we have we got that can usefully absorb the
321,317,365, 313 and the potential 90 sets of 3rd rail kit displaced?
If all these just go into store or are scrapped it's going to be
pretty embarassing.

So I think they need to electrify quite a bit more mileage than has
been agreed to date.

Is there a flaw in my logic ? Have I got my numbers significantly
wrong?


Incidentally when I refer to "dumping" 319's it's because whilst it
makes the economics of Thameslink look better and helps them justify
the new kit that they dont need (see earlier), it might not be what's
best for GW and the North West. For example if there is an argument
for running 125 mph IEP commuter trains on the GN to save paths (as
similarly argued for Northampton), might the same argument apply on
the GW outer suburban services? If so 319'S aren't the answer.

"Grumpy" wrote in message
...

My understanding of the present is that FCC have 86*319 sets,and
23*377's for the present Thameslink service. Say 436 carriages.

On the GN they have 13*321,12*317, and 40*365. Say 260 carriages, or a
total of 696 between the two routes. In addition I believe they have
around 46*313 ie another 138 carriages bringing our total to 834.
Which is an awful lot less than 1200. In fact it's approx 90*4 car
sets worth.

Are you not forgetting that the same 1200 new carriages also replace a
significant number of current Southern and Southeastern services? And the
other key point is that most services will be 12 car equivalent rather than
8, even before you consider the 8 to 12tph increase. Then extend out to
more distant destinations on the southern routes as well as Cambridge or
wherever on the GN, and I think soaking up 1200 carriages will not be too
difficult at all.

Paul S

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...
"Grumpy" wrote in message
...

My understanding of the present is that FCC have 86*319 sets,and
23*377's for the present Thameslink service. Say 436 carriages.

On the GN they have 13*321,12*317, and 40*365. Say 260 carriages, or a
total of 696 between the two routes. In addition I believe they have
around 46*313 ie another 138 carriages bringing our total to 834.
Which is an awful lot less than 1200. In fact it's approx 90*4 car
sets worth.

Are you not forgetting that the same 1200 new carriages also replace a
significant number of current Southern and Southeastern services?

No you aren't! I skimmed your post and in editing it missed a key chunk out,
sorry.

Paul

On Nov 28, 7:51*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
11:16:56 on Sun, 28 Nov 2010, TimB remarked:

The IEP can solve the white space issue on the ECML fast tracks (ie the
ex Cambridge Cruisers), but there's also the stoppers - who can live in
their own space on the slow tracks and flow through Thameslink rather
than terminating at Kings Cross.

Except that there are no slow lines for a few miles north of Welwyn.

There are a certain number of paths through Welwyn, increasing the top
speed of 2tph from 100mph to 125mph isn't going to change that. What's
the track speed there, anyway?
--
Roland Perry

105 through the tunnels - the turnouts to/from the slows are 70, which
may be more relevant.
Tim

On Nov 28, 8:07*pm, Grumpy wrote:
On Nov 27, 5:41*pm, D7666 wrote:





On Nov 27, 5:11*pm, Grumpy wrote:

On Nov 26, 5:54*pm, D7666 wrote:

On Nov 26, 3:22*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:

I've been trying to find out what's planned for the 365s, to no avail
though.

Unlike FCC/TL 319s that are all deployed on current TL services that
remain TL services therefor get replaced by new stock, many FCC/GN
units (the majority in fact if you count 313s in the fleet totals) do
not work services that are intended to run over TL. There is no reason
to suppose 365s will be cascaded anywhere at this moment in time and
we probably won't know until the x-IEP EMU is known and confirmed for
the KL line.

--
Nick

*I cant quite grasp this. Currently there are 15tph trains through the
core in the peak. That the plan is to run 24 ie 9 extra. Several of
these must be coming off the GN. Peterborough and Cambridge feature on
the proposed route maps. Unless there are some spare paths available
on the GN, surely the additional trains through the core must be
mainly extensions/replacements for existing trains operated by
317/365 ? Which means the existing units must be thrown surplus if the
trains through the core are worked by the new fleet. So where are they
going? Or are they to replace the 313's?

I accept there may be an argument for using IEP to free up paths, but
this would just replace either existing kit or the new units-you still
end up replacing something unless you are providing more or longer
trains.

All this (IEP apart) really begs the question as to why we need any
new rolling stock to complete the Thameslink programme.

Thus to quote a famous sage on another thread -"The entire original
GLC / NSE Thameslink scheme paid for itself by introducing
operational
efficiency in train fleets. There were 48 317s, of which 46 were
needed to operate BedPan. The very original Thameslink service was
only 46 319s (the other 14 originals were ordered before the service
started but were extra to the original plan). Those same 46 319s did
all that the 46 317s did AND eliminated a goodly number of EPBs, all
by * through running and no terminals dead time"

Surely the same principles apply now? *The 20 minutes or so to run
through the core being less than the combined time to turn round an
existing service at Kings Cross and an existing service at a Southern
terminal. Why cant existing Electrostars on the Southern lines be
adapted to work north through the core and beyond?

Similarly adapt the 365's to work through.

The money saved by not *buying a fleet of 1200 vehicles would for
example probably pay for a lot of new electrification elsewhere.

All I meant was we can't assume 365s go anywhere until we know the how
why and whens of IEP EMU.

After all, we did not know where the 319s were going until GWML and NW
electrics were announced 6 months ago.

I agree with the general comment about why does TLP need new stock and
yes operational efficiency demands less overall stock and yes there
are conflicts with what is going on elsewhere.

And indeed, I've never been able to get my head around understanding
the GN side of the TLP w.r.t. what services are intended to run. There
are several high level maps yes, but no detail.

Taking TL and ECML both routes have ''white space'' capacity issues
arising from current or potential stock type differences.

IIMU the sole reason behind total TL fleet replacement is to maintain
24 TPH headway through the core - and, importantly, over junctions
south of the river - they need all trains to have identical
performance characteristics, else you get unusable white space in the
timetable if you for example simply build more 377s and mix with 319s.
Thus the plan is all new stock for TLP and cascade older 319s and
newer 377s none of which are approaching life expiry to other routes.
365s can't work through, so I understand because they are not through
gangway units. HOWEVER that is based on old data and possibly re-opens
a perennial uk.railway topic.

It is exactly the other plan that puts express 125 mph capable EMU on
to Kings Lynns. The whole point is solving its own white space problem
on the southern end of the ECML. That means it ain't those services,
and probably fast-er Peterboroughs as well, that come through TLP core
as IEP/descendants performance will be very different, and in any case
TL core is limited to 20 m cars. (At least it is now, I've never seen
anything to suggest this is eased in the current works). IEP-et-al is
based around 26 m cars, not even 23 m, so to introduce 20 m cars is
yet another input the IEP-et-al project can do without.

Once you've got to the stage where IEP cover KX Lynn and Peterboro
fixing the 100/125 mph ECML white space issue I then do not understand
where all these GN bound trains using TL core are going to. Yes this
does seem to kill all 317 and 321 and 365s.

--
Nick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well I think it kills even more than that.
I am sure I read that they were tendering for 1200 new carriages for
Thameslink.

My understanding of the present is that FCC have 86*319 sets,and
23*377's for the present Thameslink service. Say 436 carriages.

On the GN they have 13*321,12*317, and 40*365. Say 260 carriages, or a
total of 696 between the two routes. In addition I believe they have
around 46*313 ie another 138 carriages bringing our total to 834.
Which is an awful lot less than 1200. In fact it's approx 90*4 car
sets worth.

I am having real difficulty getting my head round this-it couldn't all
be further train lengthening and given pathing constraints north and
south it couldn't be lots of additional trains. Then it struck me that
some of this represents vehicles required to run the new services
south of the Thames to/from the GN. But as these will be mainly
existing services diverted/extended to run beyond London Bridge they
will be displacing a lot of existing 3rd rail kit, including
presumably a fair few Electrostars which might run anywhere given the
provision of Pantographs etc.

Now one of the problems with electric trains is you can only run them
where the power is. And if all this kit is thrown up spare I wonder if
we have the electrified mileage with capacity to run it on. I realise
they are talking about dumping the 319's onto the GW and North West,
but where else will we have we got that can usefully absorb the
321,317,365, 313 and the potential 90 sets of 3rd rail kit displaced?
If all these just go into store or are scrapped it's going to be
pretty embarassing.


The class 313s won't go (or at least their services won't), as the
Moorgate line will be retained and can only take 6 car units (with end
gangways), remember that all 64 class 313s were originally on the
Moorgate line; this could potentially mean that the class 313s now
with Southern could be displaced by some the class 365s or cascaded DC
units instead. Of course, by the time that the Thameslink tunnel
opens, it may be necessary to replace the class 313s due to their age.

The 317s and 321s are only a comparatively small fleet and will most
likely goto East Anglian to join the rest of their respective fleets
(although possibly class 321 units will be deployed to the Leeds area
to join their 3 class 321s and enhance services). The rest of the
third rail stock will be needed for train lengthening (for example 12
car platforms are nearly ready for services on the East Grinstead
line). The Thameslink class 377s are only on loan from Southern anyway
and maybe needed for any enhanced service on the West London line and
inner suburban trains. There will still be a demand for some of the
class 365s on GN services from King's Cross, as Thameslink won't take
all over all the services.

So I think they need to electrify quite a bit more mileage than has
been agreed to date.


The 86 class 319s won't go far when spread between the North-West and
the Paddington routes. There are currently 57 class 165/166 used out
of Paddington, of which 35 are 3 car units. Electrification will
displace these from the mainline services, along with a few HSTs which
run to/from Oxford (not those which run through to Worcester). Maybe
just 20 2-car units would be needed for the branches / shuttle
services, meaning that 40ish class 319s would be needed for Paddington
services, maybe more for train lengthening as some of the existing
services are pretty overcrowded. Similarly in the North West a lot of
electric units would be needed for the new services and potentially
for replacing class 323s (to strengthen the cross-city line peak
trains in Birmingham)

Is there a flaw in my logic ? *Have I got my numbers significantly
wrong?

Incidentally when I refer to "dumping" 319's it's because whilst it
makes the economics of Thameslink look better and helps them justify
the new kit that they dont need (see earlier), it might not be what's
best for GW and the North West. For example if there is an argument
for running 125 mph IEP commuter trains on the GN to save paths (as
similarly argued for Northampton), might the same argument apply on
the GW outer suburban services? If so 319'S aren't the answer.

Pathing on the GW mainlines currently suffers from having the 100mph
Heathrow Express paths at the London end. The class 319s would be
running mainly semi fast services on the relief lines (although
Crossrail will also be changing service patterns).

In message
, at
12:57:13 on Sun, 28 Nov 2010, TimB remarked:
The IEP can solve the white space issue on the ECML fast tracks (ie the
ex Cambridge Cruisers), but there's also the stoppers - who can live in
their own space on the slow tracks and flow through Thameslink rather
than terminating at Kings Cross.

Except that there are no slow lines for a few miles north of Welwyn.

There are a certain number of paths through Welwyn, increasing the top
speed of 2tph from 100mph to 125mph isn't going to change that. What's
the track speed there, anyway?

105 through the tunnels - the turnouts to/from the slows are 70, which
may be more relevant.

Thanks - so having 125mph trains on the Cambridge slows isn't going to
help the throughput; even if they touch 105mph for half a mile they'll
need to be slowing to 70 almost immediately.
--
Roland Perry

On Nov 28, 9:25*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
12:57:13 on Sun, 28 Nov 2010, TimB remarked:

The IEP can solve the white space issue on the ECML fast tracks (ie the
ex Cambridge Cruisers), but there's also the stoppers - who can live in
their own space on the slow tracks and flow through Thameslink rather
than terminating at Kings Cross.

Except that there are no slow lines for a few miles north of Welwyn.

There are a certain number of paths through Welwyn, increasing the top
speed of 2tph from 100mph to 125mph isn't going to change that. What's
the track speed there, anyway?

105 through the tunnels - the turnouts to/from the slows are 70, which
may be more relevant.

Thanks - so having 125mph trains on the Cambridge slows isn't going to
help the throughput; even if they touch 105mph for half a mile they'll
need to be slowing to 70 almost immediately.
--
Roland Perry

The hourly Cambridge slows (and an hourly Peterborough) stop at Welwyn
North anyway. The ones you're talking of putting on the slow lines are
the semi-fasts, non-stop Finsbury Park to Stevenage.
But I do sometimes wonder if getting the 365s passed for 105 instead
of 100 would make any difference!
Tim

In message
, at
13:41:23 on Sun, 28 Nov 2010, TimB remarked:
The IEP can solve the white space issue on the ECML fast tracks (ie the
ex Cambridge Cruisers), but there's also the stoppers - who can live in
their own space on the slow tracks and flow through Thameslink rather
than terminating at Kings Cross.

Except that there are no slow lines for a few miles north of Welwyn.

There are a certain number of paths through Welwyn, increasing the top
speed of 2tph from 100mph to 125mph isn't going to change that. What's
the track speed there, anyway?

105 through the tunnels - the turnouts to/from the slows are 70, which
may be more relevant.

Thanks - so having 125mph trains on the Cambridge slows isn't going to
help the throughput; even if they touch 105mph for half a mile they'll
need to be slowing to 70 almost immediately.

The hourly Cambridge slows (and an hourly Peterborough) stop at Welwyn
North anyway. The ones you're talking of putting on the slow lines are
the semi-fasts, non-stop Finsbury Park to Stevenage.

I was thinking of any train which also stopped at Hitchin (and was
therefore on the slow track).

But I do sometimes wonder if getting the 365s passed for 105 instead
of 100 would make any difference!

--
Roland Perry