On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 16:52:08 +0100, Roland Perry
said:

I wonder why they can't simply scrap the terminating services and send
them all to Victoria instead.

Victoria is pretty damned busy.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

In message , at 20:32:50 on
Fri, 5 Aug 2005, David Cantrell remarked:
I wonder why they can't simply scrap the terminating services and send
them all to Victoria instead.

Victoria is pretty damned busy.

And Blackfriars is pretty small. You can't make an omelette without
breaking a few eggs, and if this is causing a billion pounds worth of
expenditure that's scuppering the whole Thameslink project it's time
some hard decisions were made.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:32:50 on
Fri, 5 Aug 2005, David Cantrell remarked:

I wonder why they can't simply scrap the terminating services and send
them all to Victoria instead.


Victoria is pretty damned busy.
snip

it's time some hard decisions were made.



Er - forget the whole thing?

--

Mark²³

In message , at 07:07:36 on Sat, 6 Aug
2005, Mark²³ remarked:
I wonder why they can't simply scrap the terminating services and
send
them all to Victoria instead.


Victoria is pretty damned busy.
snip

it's time some hard decisions were made.

Er - forget the whole thing?

You can't "forget Thameslink 2k" just because a few commuters who
currently use Blackfriars are stuck in their ways. I'm sure there are
other suitable routes/trains for them to get to work.
--
Roland Perry

David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 16:52:08 +0100, Roland Perry
said:

I wonder why they can't simply scrap the terminating services and send
them all to Victoria instead.

Victoria is pretty damned busy.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david
There will be some capacity becoming available at Waterloo soon.

Kevin

wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 16:52:08 +0100, Roland Perry
said:
I wonder why they can't simply scrap the terminating services and send
them all to Victoria instead.
Victoria is pretty damned busy.
There will be some capacity becoming available at Waterloo soon.

.... and that is probably how we can use joined-up thinking to make TL2K
work without rebuilding Blackfriars station.

Consider: what are the pieces of TL2K?

* Platform lengthening -- useful but not absolutely critical.
* Borough Market four-tracking -- desperately needed, TL2K or no TL2K.
* London Bridge rebuild -- at least part of it is needed for Borough
Market
* Bermondsey underpasses/flyovers -- needed to make Borough Market work
properly.
* St Pancras Midland Road -- done. (OK, it'll cost money to fit it out,
but the hard work is done.)
* Link to Kings Cross lines -- done. (again, at least the hard part is
done.)
* Blackfriars station rebuild -- do we need it?

If we don't rebuild Blackfriars station, what do we have? A situation
where trains from London Bridge have to use the terminating platforms
rather than trains from the Elephant. Is that such a bad thing? It
requires a rethink of the plans, certainly -- but it sounds to me like
we'd get 85% of the benefit for 60% of the cost.

I suppose this is what I'd do:
(1) Connect a four-tracked Borough Market to the existing station at
London Bridge, except that Platform 8 would probably have to go in
order to build a new up Platform 7 on the existing up through line.
That implies that Platform 6 becomes the down fast (or the down
ex-Charing Cross) platform. Re-fiddle the flyover plan sufficiently
that most movements are conflict-free without spiralling the cost. Use
Platform 5 for up trains to Blackfriars and some up trains (generally
those from the slow lines) to Charing Cross, ditto Platform 4 for down
trains. Don't bother with the huge grandioseness of the last plan I saw
for London Bridge, that rebuilt most of the station and added about
four extra through platforms. Closing one terminating platform and
adding one through platform on an existing track should be sufficient.
It will require people on the platforms to make sure the trains get
dispatched OK, because each platform will be very busy, but getting rid
of slam-door stock helps a LOT there.

(2) Terminate as many Dartford and/or Caterham trains at Blackfriars as
are necessary. Run the Sevenoaks via Bellingham trains (and anything
else that comes up from the Elephant) through to somewhere north of
town (the existing terminators used to be through trains anyway). Make
sure, of course, that the long-distance (Brighton, Gatwick, etc.)
trains from London Bridge can run through. Of course that will require
franchise negotiation logistics, route and stock swaps between
franchises, and probably a complete timetable revamp, but (assuming
goodwill between the franchises or an SRA-wielded big stick) those are
paper operations and much cheaper than building a great big new white
elephant of a station.

(3) If it makes sense to run the Sevenoaks or Wimbledon Loop trains
into Victoria rather than Blackfriars (and it may), transfer some
trains (those, or more likely, some long-distance ones) into Waterloo,
in order to equalise platform capacity, given that Waterloo will have
five new spare platforms.

By the way, someone upthread mentioned that end doors are needed on
Thameslink -- really? Even in a double-track tunnel? But wasn't the
whole point of ordering 365s on both sides of the river that they were
going to run through? (Or is this the Prescottists instituting
pointless safety rules again?) I know that the GN&C tunnels are
single-bore and small enough that end doors are needed -- that seems
fair enough. But I didn't think that would apply to the Thameslink
tunnels. If you can run a Pendolino through Primrose
Hill/Shugborough/wherever without end doors, why can't you run a 365
through Thameslink? (What's the current status on running 365s between
Dover and Folkestone? Are they still banned?)

Alistair Bell wrote:

By the way, someone upthread mentioned that end doors are needed on
Thameslink -- really? Even in a double-track tunnel? But wasn't the
whole point of ordering 365s on both sides of the river that they were
going to run through? (Or is this the Prescottists instituting
pointless safety rules again?) I know that the GN&C tunnels are
single-bore and small enough that end doors are needed -- that seems
fair enough. But I didn't think that would apply to the Thameslink
tunnels. If you can run a Pendolino through Primrose
Hill/Shugborough/wherever without end doors, why can't you run a 365
through Thameslink? (What's the current status on running 365s between
Dover and Folkestone? Are they still banned?)

Indeed. An even more extreme example is running Pendolinos through the
single-bore down fast tunnel at Linslade - no end doors there! (Incidentally
when tilting at full speed they have only a couple of inches to spare on the
kinematic envelope through that tunnel, according to the latest MR.) Same
applies for 365s on the ECML tunnels near London between KX and Potter's
Bar - one of those tunnels has single bores on the slow lines I think, but I
forget which.

Angus

"Alistair Bell" wrote in message
ups.com...



By the way, someone upthread mentioned that end doors are needed on
Thameslink -- really? Even in a double-track tunnel? But wasn't the
whole point of ordering 365s on both sides of the river that they
were
going to run through?

I may be wrong, but I had understood that, originally, all the 365s
were to go to South Eastern to replace some slammers, but ultimately
25 were sent to (what was) WAGN instead, leaving just 16 for South
Eastern.



(Or is this the Prescottists instituting
pointless safety rules again?) I know that the GN&C tunnels are
single-bore and small enough that end doors are needed -- that seems
fair enough. But I didn't think that would apply to the Thameslink
tunnels. If you can run a Pendolino through Primrose
Hill/Shugborough/wherever without end doors, why can't you run a 365
through Thameslink? (What's the current status on running 365s
between
Dover and Folkestone? Are they still banned?)


I think its something to do with tunnel width not necessarily the
single/double track/boredness of them.
The Dover/Folkestone tunnels are very narrow with no room to escape
from the side of the train, hence the need for end doors. Other
single-bore tunnels may well be wide enough to allow egress and safe
passage from the side of the train, so no need for end doors.

Similarly, its possible the double track Thameslink tunnel, whilst
wide enough for two tracks, doesn't have enough width either side for
passengers to escape and walk along the side, and therefore need to be
able to escape from the ends. And if its any tunnel, its more likely
the one north of Farringdon rather than the one under the Thames.

In message , at 18:17:36 on Wed, 10
Aug 2005, Matt Wheeler remarked:
And if its any tunnel, its more likely
the one north of Farringdon rather than the one under the Thames.

err, which Thameslink tunnel goes under the Thames?
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:35:20 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 18:17:36 on Wed, 10
Aug 2005, Matt Wheeler remarked:
And if its any tunnel, its more likely
the one north of Farringdon rather than the one under the Thames.

err, which Thameslink tunnel goes under the Thames?


Mmmm Yes wasn't he talking about the Blackfriars Station on the bridge
OVER the Thames!!!!

Life without sex just isn't life.
Make love not war!