Andy wrote:

I'm not sure why the off-peak joint TL/SER services would have to run
ECS to cricklewood sidings. There is spare platform capacity (4
platforms, 6 tracks) at Kentish Town and the current SER service is
only every 30 mins.

There is no access to the Fasts or (I think) the Up/Down Slow from the
Moorgates until after you pass Kentish Town in the down direction, so
that alone whittles it down to 3 platforms/tracks. And that assumes the
Moorgates are adequately bi-di signalled, which they are not.

Therefore I make that 2 tracks/platforms available for use.

Running ECS to cricklewood just moves the conflict with existing
services further north, the northbound terminating trains would have
to cross the southbound at a flat junction.

True, but your suggestion (as quoted below) does not eliminate the
problem. THC has suggested how the most can be made out of reversing at
Cricklewood sidings.

Whereas at Kentish Town, the northbound terminating trains can stop
in the current 'normal' northbound platform

The Down Moorgate is not signalled for reverse workings north of King's
Cross Thameslink so you would need new equipment for that purpose,
otherwise you would have no option but to reverse somewhere further
north (as is the plan AFAIAA). Reverse workings will conflict with down
services and then up services until they clear Dock Jn North.

whilst the northbound thameslink trains run past on the other side of
the island, as sometimes happens already when there is a service disruption.

Really? Now there's a surprise - I was under the impression that the
Up/Down Carriage was cleared only for ECS workings between Kentish Town
and Dock Jn North.

Just because the northbound 'fast' TL trains currently stay on the
Down Moorgate line through the station, doesn't mean that they have to
keep doing so from the timetable change.

Fair point. However, the crossover between the Moorgates and the Up/Down
Carriage is crap (it is limited by a PSR of 15mph IIRC); although I
don't know how the Cricklewood crossovers fare in comparison.

The other question is what happens to the imbalance in services during
the peak. At present there are more Moorgate terminators than there
are Blackfriars terminators, so where are the 'extras' from the north
going to go?

In the high am peak it's actually the other way round (9 to BFR vs. 7 to
ZMG). I see the turnback siding at Herne Hill has already been
mentioned, but it's only part of the whole picture. In any case I don't
know where exactly the peak Moorgate/Blackfriars services will go.

Sky Rider wrote:

and then up services

Please ignore that bit. I stand by the rest of my comments though.

On Jun 5, 2:17*pm, Sky Rider wrote:
Andy wrote:
I'm not sure why the off-peak joint TL/SER services would have to run
ECS to cricklewood sidings. There is spare platform capacity (4
platforms, 6 tracks) at Kentish Town and the current SER service is
only every 30 mins.

There is no access to the Fasts or (I think) the Up/Down Slow from the
Moorgates until after you pass Kentish Town in the down direction, so
that alone whittles it down to 3 platforms/tracks. And that assumes the
Moorgates are adequately bi-di signalled, which they are not.

Therefore I make that 2 tracks/platforms available for use.

Running ECS to cricklewood just moves the conflict with existing
*services further north, the northbound terminating trains would have
to cross the southbound at a flat junction.

True, but your suggestion (as quoted below) does not eliminate the
problem. THC has suggested how the most can be made out of reversing at
Cricklewood sidings.

Whereas at Kentish Town, the northbound terminating trains can stop
in the current 'normal' northbound platform

The Down Moorgate is not signalled for reverse workings north of King's
Cross Thameslink so you would need new equipment for that purpose,
otherwise you would have no option but to reverse somewhere further
north (as is the plan AFAIAA). Reverse workings will conflict with down
* services and then up services until they clear Dock Jn North.

whilst the northbound thameslink trains run past on the other side of
the island, as sometimes happens already when there is a service disruption.

Really? Now there's a surprise - I was under the impression that the
Up/Down Carriage was cleared only for ECS workings between Kentish Town
and Dock Jn North.


Having checked, the former Up/Down Carriage is now the Up/Down Relief
(since the works for and at St. Pancras) and is fully available for
reversals in both directions (i.e. North to South and South to North).
However, as you say, the Down and Up Moorgates are only reversible
into / out of Kentish Town to the North.

So the situation is currently not quite so good for reversals at
Kentish Town as I thought. Platform 3 is available to reverse, but
this leads to trains needing a 'gap' in both directions if reversing
North to South. However, a similar gap is needed by northbound trains
terminating at Blackfriars as well and by trains leaving Moorgate

Does anyone know if the Thameslink plans include reversible signalling
through the central section? I seem to recall that the crossovers and
signalling for reversals at King's Cross were put in quite quickly for
the closure when St. Pancras Low Level was being installed. It would
certainly make sense to make the Down Moorgate reversible at Kentish
Town to the South to give a more flexible layout and this would only
involve one or two extra signals.

Just because the northbound 'fast' TL trains currently stay on the
Down Moorgate line through the station, doesn't mean that they have to
keep doing so from the timetable change.

Fair point. However, the crossover between the Moorgates and the Up/Down
Carriage is crap (it is limited by a PSR of 15mph IIRC); although I
don't know how the Cricklewood crossovers fare in comparison.

The other question is what happens to the imbalance in services during
the peak. At present there are more Moorgate terminators than there
are Blackfriars terminators, so where are the 'extras' from the north
going to go?

In the high am peak it's actually the other way round (9 to BFR vs. 7 to
ZMG). I see the turnback siding at Herne Hill has already been
mentioned, but it's only part of the whole picture. In any case I don't
know where exactly the peak Moorgate/Blackfriars services will go.

Ahh, I was looking at where the southbound trains went from Farringdon
and Blackfriars and forgot to check for the busier northbound into
Blackfriars / City Thameslink.

MIG wrote:

Will we get 12-car trains on Thameslink before we get them on "Kent
Link"?

Network Rail are planning to introduce 12-car services on all
Southeastern suburban routes via London Bridge around 2011/2012 - check
out Chapter 7 of the South London Route Utilisation Strategy.

http://tinyurl.com/2k29zc

But the Moorgate branch will sure as hell close, and
there will be huge disruption for the pointless work.

It will be pointless (well sort-of), but not in the way I think you
meant.

Paul Scott wrote:

They will be running through to at least Kentish Town, possibly further,
although March 2009 is now believed to be the start date.

FCC drivers are currently training on dual voltage 377s, a number of which
will be transferred from Southern.

I wonder how much the SER Blackfriars pax will like 319s in lieu of
their, er...beloved (!) Notworkers. In addition, there will be some who
get to travel on 377s instead if their service starts/terminates at
Gillingham or Ashford International.

Paul Scott wrote:

They will be running through to at least Kentish Town, possibly further,
although March 2009 is now believed to be the start date.

FCC drivers are currently training on dual voltage 377s, a number of which
will be transferred from Southern.

I wonder how much the SER Blackfriars pax will like 319s in lieu of
their, er...beloved (!) Notworkers. In addition, there will be some who
get to travel in 377s if their service starts/terminates at Gillingham
or Ashford International.

On Jun 6, 3:35*pm, Sky Rider wrote:

I wonder how much the SER Blackfriars pax will like 319s in lieu of
their, er...beloved (!) Notworkers. In addition, there will be some who
get to travel in 377s if their service starts/terminates at Gillingham
or Ashford International.

I presume we (for I am one) are to get the entirely unrefurbished
319/0s, rather than the pink and purple reasonably-well-refurbished
examples. Though the Notworkers are still in 'as built' condition
internally (albeit 'refreshed'), and look pretty dingy and tired
compared to other older (but modernised) stock like 455s.

Rupert Candy wrote:

I presume we (for I am one) are to get the entirely unrefurbished
319/0s, rather than the pink and purple reasonably-well-refurbished
examples.

Knowing how often 319/(0,3)s do Bedford-Brighton and 319/4s Luton/St
Albans-Wimbledon Loop (because of diagramming constraints), you'll
probably ride a non-319/0 every now and again. Or perhaps even
semi-regularly if FCC *plan* to share the 319/(0,3)s between Wimbledon
Loop and 7oaks services, which I don't think is unlikely - but I expect
thy'll try to restrict the former Brighton Express trains (319/2s)
to...er...Brighton services.

FCC will refresh all the 319s but as the C6 exams are carried out at the
same time it will be a few more years before they are all refreshed - to
date well over 20 319/4s have been worked on since September 2006, which
leaves about another 60-odd 319s to do.

Unless I'm mistaken the 319/(0,2)s underwent their C6 exams back in
2006/2007 so they will be refreshed last (possibly alongside the 319/4s
that were merely repainted).

Though the Notworkers are still in 'as built' condition
internally (albeit 'refreshed'), and look pretty dingy and tired
compared to other older (but modernised) stock like 455s.

Some of the 465/2s were [refreshed/refurbished]* and renumbered as
465/9s weren't they? I don't know if any of the other Networkers have
been altered though.


*Delete as appropriate

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

On 4 Jun, 20:44, wrote:

"Mr Thant" wrote:

It wouldn't be very useful. The interim arrangement is more about
having somewhere to send the peak services from the north with the
Moorgate branch gone. There's not really anywhere to terminate
them,
so running them through as services to Kent (replacing the SET
Blackfriars services) is the only real option.

It's being shut. The platforms at Farringdon can't be extended to
12-car length without fouling the junction towards Moorgate, so the
branch will be closed.

There are various suggestions here and elsewhere about the alignment
being used for stabling LU trains given that it's adjacent to the
Met/Circle/H&C, though nothing official.

Is that using Smithfield sidings or the Widened lines running lines?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Jun 5, 1:48 am, Mizter T wrote:
On 5 Jun, 00:28, wrote:



"Paul Scott" wrote in message

...

Permanent closure of the NR lines between Farringdon and Moorgate,
primarily so that the NR platforms at Farringdon can be extended
southwards over the existing junction for 12 car Thameslink trains.
Secondly, the 24 tph throughput planned for the central section could not
operate across the flat junction anyway, even if there was an alternative
way of extending the platforms - they can't extend to the north because of
the diveunder to get to the other side of the LU tracks.

When exactly is the closure due to happen and what will thus happen to the
tracks between Farringdon and Moorgate?

March 2009 I think and no-one knows, one common suggestion is that
they could then be used for LU sidings. Talk on the District Dave
forum is that the new 7-car S-stock trains for the LU SSL lines are
going to be too long for some of the existing berthing points, so
perhaps here's a solution for that, perhaps not - without knowing all
the details it's hard to say.



The parallel running of LUL trains from Farringdon to Moorgate via Barbican
probably does make this service redundant. But is there really no way of
extending the Farringdom platforms north?

No, unless you totally rebuild everything including the alignment of
the Met/Circle line at massive cost whilst causing an enormous
disturbance.

The north end of the platforms are already at a fair old slope, and
even if they were to be extended to the north they still wouldn't be
long enough.

Here's a couple of photos from Wikipedia, though I'm not sure how well
they illustrate the true level of the incline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F...C_overhead.JPG

I presume that the peaktime Thameslink through trains to Moorgate are
indeed popular with some City commuters, but in the future passengers
will be able to transfer at Farringdon to LU to do this journey. I can
see that the idea of a siding where trains to & from points north
could be reversed or 'parked up' if there was trouble further south
might be useful. However both of these factors have to be weighed
against the crucial need to increase capacity and hence lengthen
platforms. The Moorgate branch just isn't that important.



What is being investigated at the moment is the use of the current
Thameslink line to Moorgate for use as sidings, quite how many, I
don't know. Access would be over what is currently Farringdon sidings.
They are one of many sidings that are not long enough for 7 cars of S
Stock which will be arriving a good few years before new signalling.