Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)
 

"J. Chisholm" wrote in message
...

Has the publication of Network Rail's 'Statement of Case' dated
March 2005 for Thameslink 2000 been mentioned on this group?

see:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Documents/Web%20SOC.pdf

for a 90 page document submitted in advance of
pre-inquiry meeting to be held on Tuesday 26th April

The Planning Inspectorate has confirmed that the
public inquiry will start on September 6th 2005

Thanks.

"4.33 Since the first inquiry the Crossrail project team has worked closely
with the
Thameslink 2000 project team to completely redesign the Farringdon Crossrail
station at street level. The effect of the new Crossrail station design is
to remove its
dependency on the Thameslink 2000 scheme. In particular the new Crossrail
design
does not require use of the Moorgate branch"

Use of the Moorgate branch? I don't know what they mean, unless the former
plan required widening of the Circle Line platform at Barbican.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)
 

John Rowland wrote:


"4.33 Since the first inquiry the Crossrail project team has worked
closely
with the
Thameslink 2000 project team to completely redesign the Farringdon
Crossrail
station at street level. The effect of the new Crossrail station
design is
to remove its
dependency on the Thameslink 2000 scheme. In particular the new
Crossrail
design
does not require use of the Moorgate branch"

Use of the Moorgate branch? I don't know what they mean, unless the
former
plan required widening of the Circle Line platform at Barbican.

It says the redesign is 'At street level'. It sounds like the disused
(following Thameslink 2000) Widened Lines were going to be used for
passenger access or buildings.

Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)
 

wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
Use of the Moorgate branch? I don't know what they mean, unless the
former
plan required widening of the Circle Line platform at Barbican.

It says the redesign is 'At street level'. It sounds like the
disused
(following Thameslink 2000) Widened Lines were going to be used for
passenger access or buildings.

I can't help thinking that closing the moorgate spur is a hopelessly
short sighted decision. Huge numbers of people use thameslink to travel
into the city in the rush hour and if they all have to pile onto the
circle line at farringdon into already overcrowded trains its going to
be
chaos. If they want to make the trains longer why not just delegate
some carriages at the end that won't open their doors at the shorter
farringdon platforms? Works elsewhere in the world. Or would the
bedwetters in the HSE & HMRI have to reach for the smelling salts?

B2003

Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
ps.com...

I can't help thinking that closing the moorgate spur
is a hopelessly short sighted decision. Huge numbers
of people use thameslink to travel into the city in the
rush hour and if they all have to pile onto the circle line
at farringdon into already overcrowded trains its going to
be chaos. If they want to make the trains longer why not
just delegate some carriages at the end that won't open
their doors at the shorter farringdon platforms? Works
elsewhere in the world. Or would the bedwetters in the
HSE & HMRI have to reach for the smelling salts?

The "2000" in Thameslink 2000 represents the number of times this has been
suggested on Usenet.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)
 

Boltar wrote:

I can't help thinking that closing the moorgate spur is a hopelessly
short sighted decision. Huge numbers of people use thameslink to
travel
into the city in the rush hour and if they all have to pile onto the
circle line at farringdon into already overcrowded trains its going
to
be
chaos. If they want to make the trains longer why not just delegate
some carriages at the end that won't open their doors at the shorter
farringdon platforms? Works elsewhere in the world. Or would the
bedwetters in the HSE & HMRI have to reach for the smelling salts?

B2003

or cut out the doors in the rear 4 coaches then move the train forward
for the people at the back to get out. It does seem that in modern life
the human race has lost the ability to come up with any compromise for
anything.
They must be really kicking themselves that they built on the goods
yard and freight lines now.
Kevin

Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)
 

John Rowland wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message
ps.com...

I can't help thinking that closing the moorgate spur
is a hopelessly short sighted decision. Huge numbers
of people use thameslink to travel into the city in the
rush hour and if they all have to pile onto the circle line
at farringdon into already overcrowded trains its going to
be chaos. If they want to make the trains longer why not
just delegate some carriages at the end that won't open
their doors at the shorter farringdon platforms? Works
elsewhere in the world. Or would the bedwetters in the
HSE & HMRI have to reach for the smelling salts?

The "2000" in Thameslink 2000 represents the number of times this has
been
suggested on Usenet.

Thank you for that helpful reply. Perhaps some of us have work to do
and
don't have the time to read back a couple of years worth of posts.

B2003

Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)
 

Other countries manage compromise , its just in this hopeless
paranoid litigation driven culture that nothing can get done or has to
be put back 50 years because the inmates have taken over the asylum.
No doubt theres some pointless rule made up by some intellectual
midget that prevents my earlier suggestion from happening.

B2003

Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)
 

Boltar wrote:
Other countries manage compromise , its just in this hopeless
paranoid litigation driven culture that nothing can get done or has to
be put back 50 years because the inmates have taken over the asylum.
No doubt theres some pointless rule made up by some intellectual
midget that prevents my earlier suggestion from happening.

B2003


Shirley there could be some sort of transponder just under the platform
edges that could tie in to receivers on the doors in order to guarantee
that only doors adjacent to the platform would open ? Would this not
appease the HSE ?

Funnily enough, we were talking about this at work the other day.
Someone had suggested making trains longer to reduce overcrowding and
selective door opening to avoid lengthening platforms. When we pointed
out that this was not allowed, and he said - but what about the doors on
the other side of the train - what is to stop them opening accidentally?

Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)
 

matt wrote:
Boltar wrote:

Other countries manage compromise , its just in this hopeless
paranoid litigation driven culture that nothing can get done or has to
be put back 50 years because the inmates have taken over the asylum.
No doubt theres some pointless rule made up by some intellectual
midget that prevents my earlier suggestion from happening.

B2003


Shirley there could be some sort of transponder just under the platform
edges that could tie in to receivers on the doors in order to guarantee
that only doors adjacent to the platform would open ? Would this not
appease the HSE ?

Funnily enough, we were talking about this at work the other day.
Someone had suggested making trains longer to reduce overcrowding and
selective door opening to avoid lengthening platforms. When we pointed
out that this was not allowed, and he said - but what about the doors on
the other side of the train - what is to stop them opening accidentally?

Doesn't this lead to a massive dwell-time problem, as you have a lot of
passengers trying to disembark through a lower proportion of doors per
passenger? ISTR this is the answer constantly floated in this newsgroup
to the similar "why don't we have double-decker trains" question.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)
 

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:25:59 +0000 (UTC), matt wrote:

Funnily enough, we were talking about this at work the other day.
Someone had suggested making trains longer to reduce overcrowding and
selective door opening to avoid lengthening platforms. When we pointed
out that this was not allowed, and he said - but what about the doors on
the other side of the train - what is to stop them opening accidentally?

Did he *really* say that?
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632874.html
(A 33/1+4-TC combination at London Waterloo: 33 104, 28 Mar 1981)

Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)
 

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 02:40:55 +0000, Chris Tolley
wrote:

Did he *really* say that?

It's relevant on any stock in Europe fitted with door blocking instead
of proper door locking. When the doors release, they do so on both
sides.

When I first saw this on sliding door stock (while twiddling with the
offside door buttons at a station) I was astonished.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)
 

Chris Tolley wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:25:59 +0000 (UTC), matt wrote:


Funnily enough, we were talking about this at work the other day.
Someone had suggested making trains longer to reduce overcrowding and
selective door opening to avoid lengthening platforms. When we pointed
out that this was not allowed, and he said - but what about the doors on
the other side of the train - what is to stop them opening accidentally?


Did he *really* say that?

He did. I suppose the point he was trying to make is that "selective
opening" means only opening (or unlocking) a subset of the available
doors, which is what already happens (except with MK1s, and on the DLR
at Canary Wharf etc.)

Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)
 

matt wrote:
Chris Tolley wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:25:59 +0000 (UTC), matt wrote:


Funnily enough, we were talking about this at work the other day.
Someone had suggested making trains longer to reduce overcrowding
and
selective door opening to avoid lengthening platforms. When we
pointed
out that this was not allowed, and he said - but what about the
doors on
the other side of the train - what is to stop them opening
accidentally?


Did he *really* say that?

He did. I suppose the point he was trying to make is that "selective
opening" means only opening (or unlocking) a subset of the available
doors, which is what already happens (except with MK1s, and on the
DLR
at Canary Wharf etc.)

It's certainly a fair question - I have seen large signs attached to
platform monitors (IIRC at High Wycombe) which say OPEN DOORS OTHER
SIDE, suggesting that mistakes do happen!

Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)
 

On 18 Mar 2005 04:12:06 -0800, Rupert Candy wrote:

It's certainly a fair question - I have seen large signs attached to
platform monitors (IIRC at High Wycombe) which say OPEN DOORS OTHER
SIDE, suggesting that mistakes do happen!

me2, but I had always assumed that those were in case of slam-door
stock. You live and learn, eh.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767172.html
(Fisheye view of 312 799, Colchester, 1980. Spot the buffers down below)

Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)
 

"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
...
On 18 Mar 2005 04:12:06 -0800, Rupert Candy wrote:

It's certainly a fair question - I have seen large signs attached to
platform monitors (IIRC at High Wycombe) which say OPEN DOORS OTHER
SIDE, suggesting that mistakes do happen!

me2, but I had always assumed that those were in case of slam-door
stock. You live and learn, eh.

'Open doors other side' seems to be used on DOO lines where the platform is
on the off side (e.g. for Up trains on the reversible Down platform 2 at
High Wycombe. The signs for passengers of slam door trains were typically
white lettering on a red background, reading 'Alight other side' where there
was something a bit like, but not quite, a platform on the wrong side. One
example was platform 7 (now 6) at London Bridge pre the alterations of the
early 1970s, where the post office 'Mount' platform was on the other side of
the train.

Peter

Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)
 

Peter Masson wrote:
"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
...
On 18 Mar 2005 04:12:06 -0800, Rupert Candy wrote:

It's certainly a fair question - I have seen large signs attached
to
platform monitors (IIRC at High Wycombe) which say OPEN DOORS
OTHER
SIDE, suggesting that mistakes do happen!

me2, but I had always assumed that those were in case of slam-door
stock. You live and learn, eh.

'Open doors other side' seems to be used on DOO lines where the
platform is
on the off side (e.g. for Up trains on the reversible Down platform 2
at
High Wycombe. The signs for passengers of slam door trains were
typically
white lettering on a red background, reading 'Alight other side'
where there
was something a bit like, but not quite, a platform on the wrong
side. One
example was platform 7 (now 6) at London Bridge pre the alterations
of the
early 1970s, where the post office 'Mount' platform was on the other
side of
the train.

There are some similar signs at Norwood Junction (though I can't
remeber which line it is that has platforms on both sides!). Again,
will presumably be obsolete once slammers are all gone.

Thameslink 2012 (Statement of Case)
 

In message , at 21:39:21 on Wed,
16 Mar 2005, John Rowland
remarked:
In particular the new Crossrail
design
does not require use of the Moorgate branch"

Use of the Moorgate branch? I don't know what they mean, unless the former
plan required widening of the Circle Line platform at Barbican.

Perhaps the earlier design used the land upon which the Moorgate Branch
track runs today (and which would be no longer required for running
trains over after TLK2K).
--
Roland Perry