|
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
Amongst a number of points covered in SoS Hammond's announcement this
morning was this one: ---quote--- Today, I can confirm we will fund and deliver the Thameslink programme in its entirety, virtually doubling the number of north-south trains running through central London at peak times. But the original programme for the rebuilding of London Bridge was always ambitious, with substantial risks around delivery, and operation of existing services, during construction. To reduce these risks, we have re-profiled the delivery of the programme to achieve completion in 2018. This will enable Network Rail to make further efficiencies to their design and delivery programme. ---/quote--- Source: http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speeches...ammond20101125 So, it appears as though the whole shebang will go ahead as originally envisaged, i.e. including Key Output 2 (of which the extensive Bermondsey dive-unders on the approaches to London Bridge are a part, for instance). |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
On Nov 25, 10:37*am, "Mizter T" wrote:
Amongst a number of points covered in SoS Hammond's announcement this morning was this one: ---quote--- Today, I can confirm we will fund and deliver the Thameslink programme in its entirety, virtually doubling the number of north-south trains running through central London at peak times. But the original programme for the rebuilding of London Bridge was always ambitious, with substantial risks around delivery, and operation of existing services, during construction. To reduce these risks, we have re-profiled the delivery of the programme to achieve completion in 2018. *This will enable Network Rail to make further efficiencies to their design and delivery programme. ---/quote--- Source:http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speeches...ts/hammond2010... So, it appears as though the whole shebang will go ahead as originally envisaged, i.e. including Key Output 2 (of which the extensive Bermondsey dive-unders on the approaches to London Bridge are a part, for instance). Excellent news. And, given the circumstances, surprising. A good day for railways of the UK's Southeast, and especially London. |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
"Mizter T" wrote:
Amongst a number of points covered in SoS Hammond's announcement this morning was this one: Today, I can confirm we will fund and deliver the Thameslink programme in its entirety, virtually doubling the number of north-south trains running through central London at peak times. But the original programme for the rebuilding of London Bridge was always ambitious, with substantial risks around delivery, and operation of existing services, during construction. To reduce these risks, we have re-profiled the delivery of the programme to achieve completion in 2018. This will enable Network Rail to make further efficiencies to their design and delivery programme. Source: http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speeches...ammond20101125 So, it appears as though the whole shebang will go ahead as originally envisaged, i.e. including Key Output 2 (of which the extensive Bermondsey dive-unders on the approaches to London Bridge are a part, for instance). This is excellent news, and by far the most satisfying part of today's announcement. The Thameslink project has recently been overshadowed by its more glamorous relative, Crossrail, yet the economic and environmental benefits that Thameslink will deliver to London and the south east are no less significant. There was real concern worry that the high cost of (1) remodelling London Bridge to include additional though platforms and (2) the Bermondsey dive-unders could have caused the project to be curtailed. However, this budgetary problem has been solved by allowing an additional two years to complete the project. This spreads the cost over a greater number of financial years and allows more economic (and less disruptive) methods of construction to be used at London Bridge. All praise to the Thameslink project team who have succeeded in gaining Ministerial approval for the whole of this vital if somewhat unsexy project. |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
"Richard Hunt" wrote:
Mizter T wrote: So, it appears as though the whole shebang will go ahead as originally envisaged, i.e. including Key Output 2 (of which the extensive Bermondsey dive-unders on the approaches to London Bridge are a part, for instance). Was the original "Thameslink 2000" project, as envisaged, ever completed? It was delayed. Basically, Thameslink 2000 is what we are discussing. |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
In article ,
Bruce wrote: "Richard Hunt" wrote: It was delayed. Basically, Thameslink 2000 is what we are discussing. Right. It was renamed "The Thameslink Programme" once the delays got so long that the 2000 name was just too emabarassingly silly. -roy |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
In message , at 10:37:20 on
Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Mizter T remarked: Amongst a number of points covered in SoS Hammond's announcement this morning was this one: ---quote--- Today, I can confirm we will fund and deliver the Thameslink programme in its entirety Does that include the link-up with the GN line to Cambridge, or was that air-brushed from the scheme long ago? istr they were supposed to be lengthening platforms at Cambridge to take 12 cars, but I think they may have changed their mind and are doing an island instead. -- Roland Perry |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
|
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
Anyone know what the plans are for the remaining parts of the moorgate line
are? Will LU take them over eventually? B2003 |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
In article ,
Bruce wrote: Basically, Thameslink 2000 is what we are discussing. Right. It was renamed "The Thameslink Programme" once the delays got so long that the 2000 name was just too emabarassingly silly. "Thameslink 2018" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. ;-) So basically, we are today celebrating that Thameslink 2000 is only delayed a further two years (now making it 18 years late) rather than actually being cancelled :-/ -roy |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote: istr they were supposed to be lengthening platforms at Cambridge to take 12 cars, but I think they may have changed their mind and are doing an island instead. Cambridge has had 12-car Class 365 services to Kings Cross in the morning peak for some time now. -roy |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
In message , at 16:14:35 on
Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Bruce remarked: It was renamed "The Thameslink Programme" once the delays got so long that the 2000 name was just too emabarassingly silly. "Thameslink 2018" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. ;-) 2018 is obviously the year when Thameslink 2000 comes of age. -- Roland Perry |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
In message , at 16:41:58 on Thu,
25 Nov 2010, Roy Badami remarked: istr they were supposed to be lengthening platforms at Cambridge to take 12 cars, but I think they may have changed their mind and are doing an island instead. Cambridge has had 12-car Class 365 services to Kings Cross in the morning peak for some time now. Isn't that being done by some sort of kludge, rather than lengthening both platforms 1 & 4 so that all trains could be 12-car, as was originally proposed? -- Roland Perry |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 10:37:20 on Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Mizter T remarked: Amongst a number of points covered in SoS Hammond's announcement this morning was this one: ---quote--- Today, I can confirm we will fund and deliver the Thameslink programme in its entirety Does that include the link-up with the GN line to Cambridge, or was that air-brushed from the scheme long ago? Yes it does, but its removal has only been presumed by the more pessimistic posts here, and IIRC some equally pessimistic rail mag editorials. This afternoons oral statement adds to what Mizter T posted above: "I can also confirm today that we will fund and deliver the Thameslink programme in its entirety, virtually doubling the number of north-south trains running through central London at peak times. This huge investment will link Sussex, Kent and Surrey, through central London, with Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire." Paul S |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
|
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
On Nov 25, 8:27*am, wrote:
Anyone know what the plans are for the remaining parts of the moorgate line are? Will LU take them over eventually? B2003 There is no obvious use for the extra pair from Farringdon to Moorgate, sad really. |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
On Nov 25, 8:40*am, (Roy Badami) wrote:
In article , Bruce wrote: Basically, Thameslink 2000 is what we are discussing. * Right. *It was renamed "The Thameslink Programme" once the delays got so long that the 2000 name was just too emabarassingly silly. "Thameslink 2018" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. *;-) So basically, we are today celebrating that Thameslink 2000 is only delayed a further two years (now making it 18 years late) rather than actually being cancelled :-/ Given the state of the UK economy, this is VERY good. |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
"1506" wrote: On Nov 25, 8:27 am, wrote: Anyone know what the plans are for the remaining parts of the moorgate line are? Will LU take them over eventually? There is no obvious use for the extra pair from Farringdon to Moorgate, sad really. I think it's to be used at least in part as a stabling location for the new (longer) S-stock - at the moment part of it is being used as a worksite (storage etc) for the Farringdon Thameslink works - might also prove useful (indeed could well be part of the plan) to utilise it in the same capacity for Crossrail works too. |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
"Roland Perry" wrote: In message , at 16:14:35 on Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Bruce remarked: It was renamed "The Thameslink Programme" once the delays got so long that the 2000 name was just too emabarassingly silly. Hence the occasional 'Thameslink 3000' moniker! "Thameslink 2018" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. ;-) 2018 is obviously the year when Thameslink 2000 comes of age. Very good! |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
"Paul Corfield" wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:27:42 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Anyone know what the plans are for the remaining parts of the moorgate line are? Will LU take them over eventually? I thought something had been said in Modern Railways about the remaining alignment (net of any incursions by Crossrail or Thameslink works) was being considered as potential stabling sidings for LUL use. I might be imagining it though! I don't think you are, though I don't think I've ever read or heard anything solid about it. From a layman's point of view it'd seems like a decent location for some sidings. |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
On 2010\11\25 16:14, Bruce wrote:
(Roy Badami) wrote: In , wrote: "Richard wrote: It was delayed. Basically, Thameslink 2000 is what we are discussing. Right. It was renamed "The Thameslink Programme" once the delays got so long that the 2000 name was just too emabarassingly silly. "Thameslink 2018" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. ;-) How about "Thameslink's 2020 Vision"? Google says that some one beat me to this gag in 2004, in a discussion about how Thameslink 2000 would not be finished until 2015. So in the last 6 years the timetable has only slipped by 3 years. At this rate, the government will be announcing in 2028 that the project was completed in 2027, even though nothing will have actually been done. |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
On 2010\11\25 18:21, Mizter T wrote:
"Paul Corfield" wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:27:42 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Anyone know what the plans are for the remaining parts of the moorgate line are? Will LU take them over eventually? I thought something had been said in Modern Railways about the remaining alignment (net of any incursions by Crossrail or Thameslink works) was being considered as potential stabling sidings for LUL use. I might be imagining it though! I don't think you are, though I don't think I've ever read or heard anything solid about it. From a layman's point of view it'd seems like a decent location for some sidings. Given the value of land in the area, it's a decent location for pretty much anything but sidings. There's a disused bay platform at Liverpool Street behind shutters, so there can't be much need for extra track in the area. |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
"Basil Jet" wrote: On 2010\11\25 18:21, Mizter T wrote: "Paul Corfield" wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:27:42 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Anyone know what the plans are for the remaining parts of the moorgate line are? Will LU take them over eventually? I thought something had been said in Modern Railways about the remaining alignment (net of any incursions by Crossrail or Thameslink works) was being considered as potential stabling sidings for LUL use. I might be imagining it though! I don't think you are, though I don't think I've ever read or heard anything solid about it. From a layman's point of view it'd seems like a decent location for some sidings. Given the value of land in the area, it's a decent location for pretty much anything but sidings. [...] I disagree - this is a two-track width railway bed in a cutting next to an operational two-track railway, and the cutting is surrounded by buildings already. I'm not trying to suggest that there couldn't be various clever ways of fitting in some development into this space, but it's a rather constrained linear location (/locations) which is hardly ideal for development. [...] There's a disused bay platform at Liverpool Street behind shutters, so there can't be much need for extra track in the area.. AIUI the issue w.r.t. the new S-stock trains is that they're going to be too long for several of the present stabling sidings that exist on the sub-surface railway. I'm not sure if the bay platform at Liverpool Street would be workable, and I rather doubt that it alone would satisfy the apparent need. |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
On 25/11/2010 16:51, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:41:58 on Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Roy Badami remarked: istr they were supposed to be lengthening platforms at Cambridge to take 12 cars, but I think they may have changed their mind and are doing an island instead. Cambridge has had 12-car Class 365 services to Kings Cross in the morning peak for some time now. Isn't that being done by some sort of kludge, rather than lengthening both platforms 1 & 4 so that all trains could be 12-car, as was originally proposed? The Island Platform at Cambridge is due to be opened in just over a year. They've possessions booked, and it is needed for the proposed 12 car service to Liverpool St, trains for which are already being produced. Jim |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 18:28:31 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote: At this rate, the government will be announcing in 2028 that the project was completed in 2027, even though nothing will have actually been done. How many times has the WCML upgrade been 'completed'?!! |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
Ivor wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 18:28:31 +0000, Basil Jet wrote: At this rate, the government will be announcing in 2028 that the project was completed in 2027, even though nothing will have actually been done. How many times has the WCML upgrade been 'completed'?!! Actually, it has never been completed. Network Rail reduced the scope of works and specification to such a extent that the WCML upgrade may never be completed to anything close to the original scope and specification. |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
On Nov 25, 8:26*pm, Bruce wrote:
How many times has the WCML upgrade been 'completed'?!! Actually, it has never been completed. * Alternative answer : every Monday morning since 1967. And upgraded starting every Friday night since 1967 . -- Nick |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:41:58 on Thu, Isn't that being done by some sort of kludge, rather than lengthening both platforms 1 & 4 so that all trains could be 12-car, as was originally proposed? What kind of kludge? I thought I read here that some work (not sure what) was done a while back to allow platform 1 to accommodate the 12-car trains. I don't think the 12-car trains straddle platforms 1 & 4, if that's what you mean? -roy |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
On Nov 25, 10:37*am, "Mizter T" wrote:
Amongst a number of points covered in SoS Hammond's announcement this morning was this one: ---quote--- Today, I can confirm we will fund and deliver the Thameslink programme in its entirety, virtually doubling the number of north-south trains running through central London at peak times. But the original programme for the rebuilding of London Bridge was always ambitious, with substantial risks around delivery, and operation of existing services, during construction. To reduce these risks, we have re-profiled the delivery of the programme to achieve completion in 2018. *This will enable Network Rail to make further efficiencies to their design and delivery programme. ---/quote--- Source:http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speeches...ts/hammond2010... So, it appears as though the whole shebang will go ahead as originally envisaged, i.e. including Key Output 2 (of which the extensive Bermondsey dive-unders on the approaches to London Bridge are a part, for instance). Well thats me twenty quid short, I had a bet going on the GN not joining up and the stock not being the new generation of fixed formation 8 / 12 cars. I thought A.T.O. had been officially poo pooed ? Richard |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
"Fat richard" wrote in message
... Well thats me twenty quid short, I had a bet going on the GN not joining up and the stock not being the new generation of fixed formation 8 / 12 cars. I thought A.T.O. had been officially poo pooed ? Never more than educated speculation I think, based on the presumption many people seem to have made 6 months ago that 'Conservatives = Guaranteed Cuts' - so discussion centred on what was likely to give. The flames will have been fanned because within NR people will have had to prepare options for downgrades, but they presumably always hoped they wouldn't happen. When one of the rail mags I get ran a piece on ATO being cancelled a while back, the very next issue quoted a NR denial. Over the late summer when posters here were suggesting the new signalling might be downgraded to only 16 tph, I searched and found that a contract had just been let to install signalling to allow 24 tph. Paul S |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
On Nov 25, 10:16*pm, Fat richard wrote:
Today, I can confirm we will fund and deliver the Thameslink programme in its entirety, Well thats me twenty quid short, I had a bet going on the GN not joining up and the stock not being the new generation of fixed formation 8 / 12 cars. I thought A.T.O. had been officially poo pooed ? I was going for no GN link up too ... with that allowing less TPH so no need for ATO. mode cynic Entirety .... ''the Thameslink programme in its entirety'' .... yes ... now what /does/ that mean ... entirety at what point of reference ? At the point TL2000 morphed into TLP ? That can't be as some parts have since been descoped from TLP eg 12car platforms at Kentish Town, 25 kV wires to Blackfriars ... and no way was the depot ever to be at Hornsey back then. TLP has moved its own goalposts since TL2000. Is it just possible there is some doublespeak here with ''entirety'' meaning ''what the DfT looked at this time round'' and some of the rumours (like no ATO) might be facts ? / mode cynic -- Nick |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:27:42 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Anyone know what the plans are for the remaining parts of the moorgate line are? Will LU take them over eventually? I thought something had been said in Modern Railways about the remaining alignment (net of any incursions by Crossrail or Thameslink works) was being considered as potential stabling sidings for LUL use. I might be imagining it though! The problem is access. The only real access route would be across the existing, short stabling sidings at Farringdon - but that would approach the Smithfield tunnels at a rather oblique angle. As someone who daily suffers the problems of congestion between Baker Street and Aldgate, due to too many trains being funnelled down into the City, I had long been thinking whether there was any way of separating Moorgate terminators at Farringdon and running them parallel down into the old Thameslink platforms at Moorgate (possibly even reducing the number of Aldgate terminators by, for example, turning all or some of the Uxbridges at Moorgate). All armchair planning, of course, but I think that the tunnel approach from the Farringdon direction rules out any serious use of the remains of the branch, unless some extensive building work is carried out beneath Smithfield to realign the tunnels. |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
In message , at 21:17:40 on Thu,
25 Nov 2010, Roy Badami remarked: Isn't that being done by some sort of kludge, rather than lengthening both platforms 1 & 4 so that all trains could be 12-car, as was originally proposed? What kind of kludge? I thought I read here that some work (not sure what) was done a while back to allow platform 1 to accommodate the 12-car trains. I don't think the 12-car trains straddle platforms 1 & 4, if that's what you mean? Yes, that's what I meant; but I haven't seen any positive indications either way (other than perhaps a lack of people commenting how they've seen a 12-car in Platform 1 that didn't foul the x-over). -- Roland Perry |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
In message , at 19:10:08 on
Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Jim Chisholm remarked: istr they were supposed to be lengthening platforms at Cambridge to take 12 cars, but I think they may have changed their mind and are doing an island instead. Cambridge has had 12-car Class 365 services to Kings Cross in the morning peak for some time now. Isn't that being done by some sort of kludge, rather than lengthening both platforms 1 & 4 so that all trains could be 12-car, as was originally proposed? The Island Platform at Cambridge is due to be opened in just over a year. They've possessions booked, and it is needed for the proposed 12 car service to Liverpool St, trains for which are already being produced. If both 1 & 4 were usable by 12-car trains, perhaps they wouldn't need such a long island. Do you know whether they've changed strategy, or will 1 & 4 & the island all be capable of 12-car? -- Roland Perry |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
In message
, at 15:17:10 on Thu, 25 Nov 2010, D7666 remarked: Entirety .... ''the Thameslink programme in its entirety'' .... yes ... now what /does/ that mean ... entirety at what point of reference ? At the point TL2000 morphed into TLP ? That can't be as some parts have since been descoped from TLP eg 12car platforms at Kentish Town, 25 kV wires to Blackfriars ... and no way was the depot ever to be at Hornsey back then. TLP has moved its own goalposts since TL2000. Is it just possible there is some doublespeak here with ''entirety'' meaning ''what the DfT looked at this time round'' and some of the rumours (like no ATO) might be facts ? I tend to agree with you. Wasn't there once a suggestion that to get 24tph you'd have needed island platforms at SPILL, with Bedpan and GN trains using alternate sides? -- Roland Perry |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
On Nov 26, 7:25*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:10:08 on Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Jim Chisholm remarked: istr they were supposed to be lengthening platforms at Cambridge to take 12 cars, but I think they may have changed their mind and are doing an island instead. Cambridge has had 12-car Class 365 services to Kings Cross in the morning peak for some time now. Isn't that being done by some sort of kludge, rather than lengthening both platforms 1 & 4 so that all trains could be 12-car, as was originally proposed? The Island Platform at Cambridge is due to be opened in just over a year. They've possessions booked, and it is needed for the proposed 12 car service to Liverpool St, trains for which are already being produced.. If both 1 & 4 were usable by 12-car trains, perhaps they wouldn't need such a long island. Do you know whether they've changed strategy, or will 1 & 4 & the island all be capable of 12-car? -- Roland Perry 1 is 12-car, 4 isn't. Tim |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
On Nov 25, 6:03*pm, "Mizter T" wrote:
"1506" wrote: On Nov 25, 8:27 am, wrote: Anyone know what the plans are for the remaining parts of the moorgate line are? Will LU take them over eventually? There is no obvious use for the extra pair from Farringdon to Moorgate, sad really. I think it's to be used at least in part as a stabling location for the new (longer) S-stock - at the moment part of it is being used as a worksite (storage etc) for the Farringdon Thameslink works - might also prove useful (indeed could well be part of the plan) to utilise it in the same capacity for Crossrail works too. Will "S" stock be able to reverse at Aldgate? The problem with utilizing the tracks and/or platforms on the Moorgate widened lines is that terminating trains have to cross the anti-clockwise Circle line in a conflicting movement. The same would apply were the terminal platform at Liverpool Street restored. |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
On Nov 26, 10:24*am, 1506 wrote:
On Nov 25, 6:03*pm, "Mizter T" wrote: "1506" wrote: On Nov 25, 8:27 am, wrote: Anyone know what the plans are for the remaining parts of the moorgate line are? Will LU take them over eventually? There is no obvious use for the extra pair from Farringdon to Moorgate, sad really. I think it's to be used at least in part as a stabling location for the new (longer) S-stock - at the moment part of it is being used as a worksite (storage etc) for the Farringdon Thameslink works - might also prove useful (indeed could well be part of the plan) to utilise it in the same capacity for Crossrail works too. Will "S" stock be able to reverse at Aldgate? *The problem with utilizing the tracks and/or platforms on the Moorgate widened lines is that terminating trains have to cross the anti-clockwise Circle line in a conflicting movement. *The same would apply were the terminal platform at Liverpool Street restored. ....one of the reasons I would've thought that the Crossrail works in Finsbury Circus would've been a golden opportunity to knock through the SSL's terminating platforms at Moorgate (or indeed, the former Thameslink bays) to connect up with the SSL under Finsbury Circus (or extended to Liverpool St.). There's the option of just knocking through a single track tunnel from one of the bays to get central terminating bays to remove the conflicting moves, or there's the option of knocking through a couple of the bays to give bidirectional terminating capability. That could provide a pair of centre terminating roads, accessible from both sides, and depending on what layout was chosen, there could even be a pair of directional islands. |
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
|
Thameslink programme to go ahead "in it's entirety"
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk