On 14 Oct, 00:35, wrote:
Anyone know anything about the suggestion that the new trains will be in
fixed 8 or 12 car formations so precluding through trains to King's Lynn
after 2015?

No, four car equivalent units are required by the spec. They don't
actually have to be four cars, but they have to be that length. The
"8 and 12 car trains on order" is them talking down to the public.

It's highly unlikely there'll be TL trains to King's Lynn, due to its
ongoing reworking as a high-ish frequency inner suburban service. 5
car Intercity Express trains (equivalent to 6 cars in length) have
been suggested for King's Lynn/Cambridge, running to King's Cross.

Mind you, the web site doesn't mention the GN connection at all.

Yes it does - it's on the maps and there's even a FAQ question about
why they're not using it yet. Although nothing about when it'll open
and what the destinations will be.

U

In article
,
(Mr Thant) wrote:

On 14 Oct, 00:35, wrote:
Anyone know anything about the suggestion that the new trains will
be in fixed 8 or 12 car formations so precluding through trains to
King's Lynn after 2015?

No, four car equivalent units are required by the spec. They don't
actually have to be four cars, but they have to be that length. The
"8 and 12 car trains on order" is them talking down to the public.

Not what I was told by a well placed railway industry source on Saturday.
Unfortunately I can't say who or where they fit in the industry.

It's highly unlikely there'll be TL trains to King's Lynn, due to its
ongoing reworking as a high-ish frequency inner suburban service. 5
car Intercity Express trains (equivalent to 6 cars in length) have
been suggested for King's Lynn/Cambridge, running to King's Cross.

That's a major change not mentioned in Cambridge so far.

Mind you, the web site doesn't mention the GN connection at all.

Yes it does - it's on the maps and there's even a FAQ question about
why they're not using it yet. Although nothing about when it'll open
and what the destinations will be.

I must have looked at the wrong map on the site which was the present
Thameslink network only.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote in message
...

It's highly unlikely there'll be TL trains to King's Lynn, due to its
ongoing reworking as a high-ish frequency inner suburban service. 5
car Intercity Express trains (equivalent to 6 cars in length) have
been suggested for King's Lynn/Cambridge, running to King's Cross.

That's a major change not mentioned in Cambridge so far.

I don't think it has been explicitly mentioned anywhere Colin. But a number
of conclusions can be drawn from stuff like the IEP and its route specs, and
the more up to date South London RUS removes a fair number of the Southern
destinations such as Littlehampton and Guildford, shown on older Thameslink
diagrams. Unfortunately there is no combined 'Thameslink RUS' to fill in the
missing northern branches. Can't see where it might appear either - East
Midlands perhaps?

My personal suspicion is that they've decided that Kings Lynn is just a bit
too far for the high capacity inner suburban style train they really need.
Having long and short distance train variants through the centre section
doesn't really wash AFAICS, no matter what is suggested in the Thameslink
spec.

Paul S

On Oct 14, 8:20 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

My personal suspicion is that they've decided that Kings Lynn is just a bit
too far for the high capacity inner suburban style train they really need.

I woudd suggest maybe it has got more to do with getting as many
trains as possible through the Welwyn bottleneck.

The fast ''Cambrdge Cruisers'' - includes the current Lynns - if all
125 mph might overall yield another path - ECML is not in my ''route''
knowledge ) so I do not know the detail.

I can see that one 125 mph IEP for the Cambridge line simply following
or preceding a GN main line express does not gain a path - it merely
moves the white space - but if the Peterborigh and Lynn departures
were both 125 mph flighted around each other and class 91/HST then
there might be a gain. Could gain 2 TPH out of that alone (based on
half hourly to each of Cambridge and Peterboro)

125 mph operation of a standard NGEMU hi-density suburban fleet makes
no sense - maybe it is best to not include a route that is better off
being changed to something else for a different gain.

--
Nick

On Oct 14, 12:49 am, Mr Thant
wrote:

No, four car equivalent units are required by the spec. They don't
actually have to be four cars, but they have to be that length. The
"8 and 12 car trains on order" is them talking down to the public.


While that may or may not be in the spec I do not know having not read
it in that detail, there is however a very serious rumour from well
placed informed sources that fixed formation trains of 12 cars are
under consideration for NGEMU.

I do not know any more than heard it from a respected source.

My guess - and I am pure speculating - that to meet the weight
specification one or more maker (but I have one in particular in mind)
might be offering - or at least someone is suggesting - articulation.
While artics in any length above one car are obviously possible, the
longer the artic set is the more weight saving it offers, and there
are less bogies to build and maintain. That would appeal to DfT where
the bean counting mandarins will be looking at every penny costs.
12car of 6+6 half sets not divisibale except at dep[ot , each half
with 7 bogies, end bogies trailer, 5 intermediate power bogies is one
way to do fixed fromation 12-car trains.

Or simply 6car sets.

I have wodered in the past if reallly 4/8/12 car trains is the way to
go with TL. By the time we get to year 2012, 2015 etc, I suspect there
is going to be little demand for 4 car trains at any time of the day
incl. weekends and night , bearing in mind air passenger traffic to
both LTN and LGW.

6cars might be the obvious ''small'' train to operate.


Yes it does - it's on the maps and there's even a FAQ question about
why they're not using it yet. Although nothing about when it'll open
and what the destinations will be.


But , as has been pointed out elsewhere, the maps on that site are out
of date, as is some of the info.

Post 12/2015 it seems to be everyone elses understanding that
Wimbledon / Sutton loop is being disconnected from Thameslink because
there is no 12car platform upgrade on those parts of the network. Yet
the TL-program web site still shows it included post 2015.

I have fired off a query to them about this ....... will report as and
when.

--
Nick

"D7666" wrote in message
...

But , as has been pointed out elsewhere, the maps on that site are out
of date, as is some of the info.

Post 12/2015 it seems to be everyone elses understanding that
Wimbledon / Sutton loop is being disconnected from Thameslink because
there is no 12car platform upgrade on those parts of the network. Yet
the TL-program web site still shows it included post 2015.

I have fired off a query to them about this ....... will report as and
when.

I thought it a little odd that the south of the river hasn't caught up with
the SL RUS too, but I guess they'll just say the RUS consultation isn't yet,
while denying the real reason is that they've just trotted out the same old
stuff as previously.

You would expect the Blackfriars terminating services to be transferred to
SN or SE as appropriate, as once they aren't cross river they aren't really
Thameslink. Similarly, what about the rump of the GN services that remain
disconnected. Isn't that the main reason that FCC dropped 'Thameslink' from
the franchise name, cos it was inappropriate for the GN to Moorgate route in
the combined franchise?

Paul S

On Oct 14, 9:07 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

You would expect the Blackfriars terminating services to be transferred to
SN or SE as appropriate, as once they aren't cross river

nitpick

Technically they do *cross* the Thames ... although thats open to
debate post 2015 with BF station actually spanning it.

nitpick

However, obviously I know what you meant )

Thameslink. Similarly, what about the rump of the GN services that remain
disconnected. Isn't that the main reason that FCC dropped 'Thameslink' from
the franchise name, cos it was inappropriate for the GN to Moorgate route in
the combined franchise?

IMHO they dropped it for the sake of it ... to try and distance
themselves from any previous incumbent.

Mistake in my view ... as I said at the time that would be like First
taking over a tube line and for example renaming the Central Line as
the First Oxford Street Connect line.

Thameslink is like a tube line in the sense it needs to keep a
permanent identity with central London. The franchise is still TL
after all, no matter who runs it.

--
Nick

"D7666" wrote in message
...
On Oct 14, 9:07 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

You would expect the Blackfriars terminating services to be transferred
to
SN or SE as appropriate, as once they aren't cross river

nitpick

Technically they do *cross* the Thames ... although thats open to
debate post 2015 with BF station actually spanning it.

nitpick

However, obviously I know what you meant )

I checked that - the bay buffer stops are over the water. Except at high
tide )

Paul

Paul Scott wrote:
"D7666" wrote in message
...

But , as has been pointed out elsewhere, the maps on that site are
out of date, as is some of the info.

Post 12/2015 it seems to be everyone elses understanding that
Wimbledon / Sutton loop is being disconnected from Thameslink because
there is no 12car platform upgrade on those parts of the network. Yet
the TL-program web site still shows it included post 2015.

I have fired off a query to them about this ....... will report as
and when.

I thought it a little odd that the south of the river hasn't caught
up with the SL RUS too, but I guess they'll just say the RUS
consultation isn't yet, while denying the real reason is that they've
just trotted out the same old stuff as previously.

Ah...

That's the wrong RUS it turns out, it's the South Central franchise that's
still being consulted on, the earlier South London RUS is an established
document since March 2008, so I've bounced them a question as well, asking
why their route info contradicts the RUS. I guess if more people seek
clarification they might fix it, but I'm not holding my breath...

Paul

In article
,
(D7666) wrote:

On Oct 14, 12:49 am, Mr Thant
wrote:

No, four car equivalent units are required by the spec. They don't
actually have to be four cars, but they have to be that length. The
"8 and 12 car trains on order" is them talking down to the public.

While that may or may not be in the spec I do not know having not read
it in that detail, there is however a very serious rumour from well
placed informed sources that fixed formation trains of 12 cars are
under consideration for NGEMU.

I do not know any more than heard it from a respected source.

You and me both then. My source was at the national HQ of a TOC-owning
group.

My guess - and I am pure speculating - that to meet the weight
specification one or more maker (but I have one in particular in mind)
might be offering - or at least someone is suggesting - articulation.
While artics in any length above one car are obviously possible, the
longer the artic set is the more weight saving it offers, and there
are less bogies to build and maintain. That would appeal to DfT where
the bean counting mandarins will be looking at every penny costs.
12car of 6+6 half sets not divisibale except at dep[ot , each half
with 7 bogies, end bogies trailer, 5 intermediate power bogies is one
way to do fixed fromation 12-car trains.

My source was specific that it was the cost and complexity of intermediate
cabs, as a result of talking to TfL who have been reducing or
sub-equipping upon modernisation intermediate cabs. With ERTMS and GSM-R
coming the complexity and cost of cabs is rising.

Or simply 6car sets.

I have wodered in the past if reallly 4/8/12 car trains is the way to
go with TL. By the time we get to year 2012, 2015 etc, I suspect there
is going to be little demand for 4 car trains at any time of the day
incl. weekends and night , bearing in mind air passenger traffic to
both LTN and LGW.

6cars might be the obvious ''small'' train to operate.

I agree this could be a way to go. Except that I'm not sure King's Lynn
can handle 6 car trains. Certainly, 4 car trains are needed for local
services between Royston and Cambridge due to short platforms at Meldreth,
Shepreth and Foxton.

--
Colin Rosenstiel