| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
Can someone familiar with ops at Kentish Town explain the current platform
usage? Are there two platforms normally used for stoppers and two for through trains and diversions into St Pancras? AIUI there are junctions both north and south of the station so trains to St Pancras LL can use either route? I was wondering how they will deal with the trains that terminate at Kentish Town, (vice Blackfriars under KO0). For instance would the signalling allow all through trains to use the outer platforms, leaving the middle platforms (2 and 3) for trains terminating and reversing? Will the Kentish Town platforms remain limited to 8 car under the full Thameslink improvements - I see there is a fair amount of lengthening now happening at stations northwards to Elstree... TIA Paul S |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Nov 16, 5:27*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: Can someone familiar with ops at Kentish Town explain the current platform usage? Are there two platforms normally used for stoppers and two for through trains and diversions into St Pancras? *AIUI there are junctions both north and south of the station so trains to St Pancras LL can use either route? From Quail and also personal observations: There are two platforms on the TL line (1&2) which are shown as being reversible on Quail. Platform 3 is the other side of 2, forming an island, and is designated Up and Down Relief. It can be accessed from the TL line. Platform 4 (Up and Down Slow) can only be accessed from St Pancras. There are no platforms on the fast lines. I was wondering how they will deal with the trains that terminate at Kentish Town, (vice Blackfriars under KO0). *For instance would the signalling allow all through trains to use the outer platforms, leaving the middle platforms (2 and 3) for trains terminating and reversing? From Quail and signal locations, I would imagine that terminating trains will use 3, as this does not obstruct the TL lines. This is not regularly used by passenger trains at present. With 8 trains per hour in each direction, I imagine the operating people will not want trains blocking the northbound TL line for any length of time. Trains from the south cannot arrive at 1. Will the Kentish Town platforms remain limited to 8 car under the full Thameslink improvements - I see there is a fair amount of lengthening now happening at stations northwards to Elstree... Don't know - the site is very space constrained so platform extensions could be difficult. Again according to Quail, 2 and 3 are 10 cars long anyway, so SDO may be sufficient. Don't know if that would be acceptable for 1, which is 8 car. HTH. |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:27:39 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote: Can someone familiar with ops at Kentish Town explain the current platform usage? Are there two platforms normally used for stoppers and two for through trains and diversions into St Pancras? AIUI there are junctions both north and south of the station so trains to St Pancras LL can use either route? All trains to/from StPLL normally use the Eastern platforms 1 and 2) AFAIK. 3 and 4 are only used by empty stock moves to/from both StPs and for FCC casualities. (Weekend diversions are another matter.) I was wondering how they will deal with the trains that terminate at Kentish Town, (vice Blackfriars under KO0). For instance would the signalling allow all through trains to use the outer platforms, leaving the middle platforms (2 and 3) for trains terminating and reversing? I dunno about plans but the signalling allows this, and most other variations. Will the Kentish Town platforms remain limited to 8 car under the full Thameslink improvements - I see there is a fair amount of lengthening now happening at stations northwards to Elstree... It is accepted that extending the platforms will not be possible, due to overbridges at each end of the station. -- Peter Lawrence |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Nov 16, 6:34 pm, wrote:
Will the Kentish Town platforms remain limited to 8 car under the full Thameslink improvements - I see there is a fair amount of lengthening now happening at stations northwards to Elstree... Don't know - the site is very space constrained so platform extensions could be difficult. Again according to Quail, 2 and 3 are 10 cars long anyway, so SDO may be sufficient. Don't know if that would be acceptable for 1, which is 8 car. Kentish Town will remain 8 car platforms under the full and final scheme. There are no plans to convert to it to 12 car platforms. The bridges and structures at either end of the station are too substantial to alter. This was known in some internal documents - but has since been confirmed, and placed in the FAQ of the thameslink program web site after I prompted them to do so: http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk...ex#question_42 It does prove they are listening to public questions ... and producing an answer - even though it may not be the answer that everyone wants. In a more detailed response to myself I asked about possible SDO because my thoughts were if Kentish Town is limited permanently to 8car how much impact will that have overall i.e. will there still be 4 TPH 8car trains in the long term. They replied that SDO is not ruled out ... but no decision has been made on this yet ... and IMHO does not need to be made for some time. -- Nick |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Nov 16, 6:57 pm, "Peter Lawrence" wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:27:39 -0000, "Paul Scott" I was wondering how they will deal with the trains that terminate at Kentish Town, (vice Blackfriars under KO0). For instance would the signalling allow all through trains to use the outer platforms, leaving the middle platforms (2 and 3) for trains terminating and reversing? I dunno about plans but the signalling allows this, and most other variations. Platform 1 & 2 (''Up Moorgate'' and ''Down Moorgate;; lines) are reversible but only from the north i.e. a southbound train can be turned back northwards so that does not hrlp this answer. Platform 4 (''Up & Down Slow'') is fully reversible throughout but from the south is only accessable to/from SP high level so again is of no help. Platform 3 (''Up & Down Releif'') is fully reversible throughout and can accommodate reversing trains to/from both directions. From the south end it leads to what is known as Dock Junction North on the the Moorgate lines. The only possible question is using this creates conflicting moves as SB trains will have to cross the Down Moorgate. Do we know yet of Kentish Town terminators are turning back there or are running ECS and turning back in Cricklewood sidings ? There are two routes from Cricklewood into the sidings ... north and south of the platforms ... keeping all options open would suggest why such moves would not call at Cricklewood beyond Kentish Town. The Kentish Town Up & Down Releif used to be used a lot more for ECS when units from Selhurst used to run ECS to/from Moorgate peak trains but since stabling has shifted to Cricklewood and increased at Bedford is much less used ... there is only one SX move in the current workings. Even that one does not appear to be wholly necessary and might be simply a ''rusty rail'' move to keep the route activated. The Up & Down Relief is sometimes used to overtake Up trains when the ''flyer'' is late getting to pass the ''metro''. As you know, all ''flyers'' have to overtake all ''metros'' somewhere between Radlett Junctions and West Hampstead. Normally the the metro is USL all the way with the flyer on USL until either Harpenden Junction or Radlett Junction where it switches to the UFL and back to USL at WHD South Jn. If the flyer is late enough but can still overtake the metro at or around Kentish Town the normal procedure (from my observation) is that the *metro* is re-routed through Kentish Town platform 3 and does its station call there while the flyer takes its booked route across WHD South Junction thus overtaking by using platform 1. :o) from the track bashing point of view that is most irritating - use of the Dock Junction North route is extremely rare - and since you never know when this will occur, and I use the flyers from Luton, I am on the normally routed train and see the diverted train, but can do nothing about it :o( -- Nick |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On 17 Nov, 07:03, D7666 wrote: On Nov 16, 6:34 pm, wrote: Will the Kentish Town platforms remain limited to 8 car under the full Thameslink improvements - I see there is a fair amount of lengthening now happening at stations northwards to Elstree... Don't know - the site is very space constrained so platform extensions could be difficult. Again according to Quail, 2 and 3 are 10 cars long anyway, so SDO may be sufficient. Don't know if that would be acceptable for 1, which is 8 car. Kentish Town will remain 8 car platforms under the full and final scheme. There are no plans to convert to it to 12 car platforms. The bridges and structures at either end of the station are too substantial to alter. This was known in some internal documents - but has since been confirmed, and placed in the FAQ of the thameslink program web site after I prompted them to do so: http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk...es/public_inde... It does prove they are listening to public questions ... and producing an answer - even though it may not be the answer that everyone wants. From that answer... quote Brighton to Bedford [not 'Thameslink route'] trains rarely call at Kentish Town and Cricklewood other than in the late evening or early morning. Instead they are served by the Wimbledon loop trains that will remain a maximum eight carriages in length due to the road bridge at Tulse Hill and complex track layouts near other station platforms. /quote I don't understand what the 'not Thameslink route' bit in square brackets is supposed to mean? In a more detailed response to myself I asked about possible SDO because my thoughts were if Kentish Town is limited permanently to 8car how much impact will that have overall i.e. will there still be 4 TPH 8car trains in the long term. They replied that SDO is not ruled out ... but no decision has been made on this yet ... and IMHO does not need to be made for some time. As we know the plan is for the (principal) suburban Thameslink service south of the Thames to switch from being the Wimbledon loop service to being an Orpington or Sevenoaks service via the Catford loop (i.e. Peckham Rye). So, how easy would it be to sort this route out for 12 car trains? If they are to remain 8 car services then that means there will be a mix of 8 and 12 car trains going through the central section, which I suppose is perhaps less than ideal. Then again it would be wasteful providing 12 car trains on a service to Sevenoaks/ Orpington which doesn't need it. Given that Kentish Town and Cricklewood are only normally served by 8 car Wimbledon loop (to be Sevenoaks/ Orpington) services, I don't understand why there is a specific interest in whether they are getting platform extensions that they would appear not to need?. |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Nov 17, 9:06 am, Mizter T wrote:
From that answer... quote Brighton to Bedford [not 'Thameslink route'] trains rarely call at Kentish Town and Cricklewood other than in the late evening or early morning. Instead they are served by the Wimbledon loop trains that will remain a maximum eight carriages in length due to the road bridge at Tulse Hill and complex track layouts near other station platforms. /quote I don't understand what the 'not Thameslink route' bit in square brackets is supposed to mean? Yes ... in their reply to me they used the same words ... but amazingly to my surprise they followed this up without me promptng them 2/3 days later with a correction saying that is not what they meant ... but were supposed to be referring Brighton/Bedford trains at that point. It is actually clear what they meant as they refer to Wimbledon loop trains later on. In a more detailed response to myself I asked about possible SDO because my thoughts were if Kentish Town is limited permanently to 8car how much impact will that have overall i.e. will there still be 4 TPH 8car trains in the long term. They replied that SDO is not ruled out ... but no decision has been made on this yet ... and IMHO does not need to be made for some time. As we know the plan is for the (principal) suburban Thameslink service south of the Thames to switch from being the Wimbledon loop service to being an Orpington or Sevenoaks service via the Catford loop (i.e. Peckham Rye). So, how easy would it be to sort this route out for 12 car trains? The switching of the Loop trains away from TL core is not yet decided. This is proposed in one of the RUS (Brighton? South London? ) - it is not a TLprogramme suggestion and loop trains remain in their version of the 2015 network map. True, RUS proposals have a habit of turning out to be correct, and it seems to me the RUS reasoning is valid, but at the moment, but in the mean time it is not certain, again, read the FAQ at http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk...ex#question_41 Given that Kentish Town and Cricklewood are only normally served by 8 car Wimbledon loop (to be Sevenoaks/ Orpington) services, I don't understand why there is a specific interest in whether they are getting platform extensions that they would appear not to need?. Because if the loop trains *are* diverted away it would impose a cap on any service that does call at Kentish Town unless SDO is implemented. And it would be a permanent cap, way into long term future past 2015 and way beyond. ((I assume that if the replace Cricklewood by new Brent Cross idea does not go ahead then the existing Criclewood would be extended to 12car.)) Leaving just Kentish Town at 8car north of Thames without SDO would have a very great impact on capacity on the whole core route e.g. if *all* peak hour 24 TPH trains could otherwise be 12car, the effect alone of 4 TPH 8car (the current Kentish Town pattern but no matter where it comes from) compared with all 12 car is an 11% reduction through the core - 24x12=288; (20*12)+(4*8)=256; 256/288=0.888888etc. It has a much bigger impact on the Midland side when you do that sum for only Midland trains after remoiving GN-bound trains. In turn, once one 8car station has been conceded, the whitehall bean counting mandarins can move in and suggest cost cutting by allowing other 8car station to be kept. Thus it is very important to understand this issue, and very important they get it right. -- Nick |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
"Mizter T" wrote in message ... As we know the plan is for the (principal) suburban Thameslink service south of the Thames to switch from being the Wimbledon loop service to being an Orpington or Sevenoaks service via the Catford loop (i.e. Peckham Rye). So, how easy would it be to sort this route out for 12 car trains? If they are to remain 8 car services then that means there will be a mix of 8 and 12 car trains going through the central section, which I suppose is perhaps less than ideal. Then again it would be wasteful providing 12 car trains on a service to Sevenoaks/ Orpington which doesn't need it. Given that Kentish Town and Cricklewood are only normally served by 8 car Wimbledon loop (to be Sevenoaks/ Orpington) services, I don't understand why there is a specific interest in whether they are getting platform extensions that they would appear not to need?. The 'flow diagram' for Key Output 2 in the South London RUS suggests there will be a 6tph '8 car' service through the core, 2 each from Orpington, Sevenoaks, and Maidstone East. Would a 6tph service at Kentish Town be considered adequate? Figure 9.5 page 117 of: http://tinyurl.com/2k29zc It's a pity there isn't a matching level of detail yet for 'Thameslink north' as the East Midlands RUS is still in preparation, expected for consultation in spring 2009 and publication in the summer. However at least the ECML RUS does confirm that the 8 tph off the ECML link will all be 12 carriages long, it just seems a bit unsure if they will be existing outer or inner suburban services. Paul S |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
"D7666" wrote through the core - 24x12=288; (20*12)+(4*8)=256; 256/288=0.888888etc. ITYF it should be 272, so a reduction of a little over 5%. Thus it is very important to understand this issue, and very important they get it right. Exactly. The Catford Loop stopping service only gets 2 tph in the evening peak (plus one extra shoulder peak train), so it will be difficult to justify the cost of extending platforms at these stations, especially as Elephant & Castle, Peckham Rye, and Bellingham (if the sidings are retained) look difficult to extend to full 12 car. Peter |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Nov 17, 11:58 am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
through the core - 24x12=288; (20*12)+(4*8)=256; 256/288=0.888888etc. ITYF it should be 272, so a reduction of a little over 5%. Oh yes, sorry, added the 16 to 240 instead of taking it off the 288 d'oh. Thus it is very important to understand this issue, and very important they get it right. Exactly. Having just tripped over myself there :o) even 5-6% in the core is still significant, and it still gets to be bigger when looking only at Midland services. -- Nick |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Nov 17, 11:53 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote: The 'flow diagram' for Key Output 2 in the South London RUS suggests there will be a 6tph '8 car' service through the core, 2 each from Orpington, Sevenoaks, and Maidstone East. Would a 6tph service at Kentish Town be considered adequate? Probably ... .... but my point is not whether or not the service level is adequate for that station, but about the effect one short platform station has on the central core capacity. Lets do my sums again then ... out of 24 TPH , if 6 TPH call Kentish Town and *if* SDO is not implemented then one quarter of the trains through the core are 8car not 12car - 24x12=288; (18*12)+(6*8)=264; 264/288 = 0.91666666666etc, an 8-9% reduction cap caused by one station. However at least the ECML RUS does confirm that the 8 tph off the ECML link will all be 12 carriages long, And doing my sums for Midland route then, instead of 16 x 12 car TPH = 192 cars/hour there are (10x12)+(6x8) = 168; 168/192 = 0.875 i.e. less 12-13% capacity than maximum. Of course I understand Kentish Town is probably near impossible to make 12 car without disproportionate expenditure nonetheless it has a very significant impact on the route as a whole ... without SDO. -- Nick |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Nov 17, 11:58 am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
Bellingham (if the sidings are retained) look difficult to extend to full 12 car. I'm puzzling over St.Albans for similar reasons. The south end is already extremely narrow on the island platforms 2/3 - it is so narrow it would never get through safety rules if this were a new station today. So if extending that way they would need to significantly widen as well as lengthen ... and I think that option has effectively been cut off by the new building work outside the railway on the Up side. The north end has the present 8car turnback siding in immediately off the north end of the platforms. For the turnback to be retained to be of any operational use it too would need extending to 12 cars ... and as reported in uk.railway previously it is only just dead 8car now, so probaly needs extedning by 4-and-a-bit for SPAD mitigation. So if the platforms are extended north by 4car, the buffer stops at the extreme end of the turnback needed shifting north by a bit more than equivalent to 8 car lengths, and here you are well into a deep cutting. Even staggering the extended platforms does not work for combinations of the above reasons. I am assuming therefore that St.Albans loses its turnback facility ??? -- Nick |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On 17 Nov, 12:52, D7666 wrote:
... but my point is not whether or not the service level is adequate for that station, but about the effect one short platform station has on the central core capacity. All of the 8 car trains in the RUS are coming from Elephant, and I'm assuming there are lots of stations in that direction that only have 8 car platforms. Since there isn't capacity at Blackfriars to not run at least some of these 8 car trains through the Thameslink core, that means even if Kentish Town were extended, Thameslink would still have 8 car trains. U |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Nov 17, 11:53*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote: However at least the ECML RUS does confirm that the 8 tph off the ECML link will all be 12 carriages long, it just seems a bit unsure if they will be existing outer or inner suburban services. I thought that it was fairly settled they'd be 'outer', at least in the sense of being trains that currently go to KX rather than Moorgate. AIUI there's no suggestion of cutting Northern City services. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On 17 Nov, 13:44, John B wrote:
I thought that it was fairly settled they'd be 'outer', at least in the sense of being trains that currently go to KX rather than Moorgate. AIUI there's no suggestion of cutting Northern City services. The Northern City is at capacity in terms of train frequency, or will be after the next service upgrade. The only way to run more inner services after that will be if they terminate somewhere else. Given the six tracks from Finsbury Park to Hertford/Welwyn, there appears to be capacity to run the services themselves. U |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 17 Nov, 13:44, John B wrote: I thought that it was fairly settled they'd be 'outer', at least in the sense of being trains that currently go to KX rather than Moorgate. AIUI there's no suggestion of cutting Northern City services. The Northern City is at capacity in terms of train frequency, or will be after the next service upgrade. The only way to run more inner services after that will be if they terminate somewhere else. Given the six tracks from Finsbury Park to Hertford/Welwyn, there appears to be capacity to run the services themselves. So are you suggesting that some services on the Hertford Loop or the GN main slows could, should, or would run to Snow Hill, in addition to the Moorgate services? From both branches, or just one? On the face of it, that sounds like a pretty good idea. For anyone working west of Goswell Road / St Martin's Le Grand, Farringdon and Holborn Viaduct^W^W City Thameslink are closer than Old Street and Moorgate. It might even relieve the Piccadilly line of some people who get off the train at Finsbury Park to head to Holborn. Could it introduce performance pollution issues, though, where troubles on the Northern City lead to problems in the Thameslink core? With Finsbury Park becoming a sort of overground Camden Town! I think the only way to absolutely rule that out would be, as with Camden Town, to split the current two-branch route (possibly requiring reinstating some platforms at FP?), and have, say, all Hertford trains running to the Thameslink core, and all Hertford loop trains to Moorgate (or vice versa). Or is there room between Drayton Park and the junction at FP to buffer trains when they're out of sync? tom -- Don't anthropomorphize computers: they don't like that. |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
John B wrote:
On Nov 17, 11:53 am, "Paul Scott" wrote: However at least the ECML RUS does confirm that the 8 tph off the ECML link will all be 12 carriages long, it just seems a bit unsure if they will be existing outer or inner suburban services. I thought that it was fairly settled they'd be 'outer', at least in the sense of being trains that currently go to KX rather than Moorgate. AIUI there's no suggestion of cutting Northern City services. It's an alternate option to do with IEP, and the info is fairly well hidden within section 9.2, 'Train Services': "Alternatively, the longer distance flows from Peterborough and Cambridge/King's Lynn to King's Cross might be handled by IEP trains, providing additional train and route capacity through an increase in individual train capacity, better harmonisation of train speeds on the route, improved performance and product quality. This is an option within the current Invitation to Tender for the IEP trains. As a consequence it would be the inner suburban services that would form the core of the Thameslink timetable on the route." So although much of the ECML RUS does appear to be written on a 'outer suburban to Thameslink' basis, the IEP decision could still alter that. Paul |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On 17 Nov, 16:32, Tom Anderson wrote:
Could it introduce performance pollution issues, though, where troubles on the Northern City lead to problems in the Thameslink core? With Finsbury Park becoming a sort of overground Camden Town! I think the only way to absolutely rule that out would be, as with Camden Town, to split the current two-branch route (possibly requiring reinstating some platforms at FP?), and have, say, all Hertford trains running to the Thameslink core, and all Hertford loop trains to Moorgate (or vice versa). Your starting point would be making all six tracks between Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace usable by passenger trains, and if we want segrgation, due to the junction layout at AP the outermost tracks would be to/from Hertford and the middle four to/from Welwyn. I think there's actually enough flexibility at FP to provide segregated routes to/from Moorgate and KX/Thameslink either way round, assuming you're willing to rebuild the disused islands. However, I think you'd end up with a lopsided service if you did this. I don't think either inner branch needs the 15 tph Moorgate could handle, but equally I don't think either would be happy with 4 tph (or at best 8) to Thameslink. Thus you'd probably want the branched segregated off-peak, with extra trains to Moorgate from the normally- TL branch in the peaks. U |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:01:55 -0800 (PST), D7666 wrote:
Bellingham (if the sidings are retained) look difficult to extend to full 12 car. I'm puzzling over St.Albans for similar reasons. The south end is already extremely narrow on the island platforms 2/3 - it is so narrow it would never get through safety rules if this were a new station today. So if extending that way they would need to significantly widen as well as lengthen ... and I think that option has effectively been cut off by the new building work outside the railway on the Up side. The north end has the present 8car turnback siding in immediately off the north end of the platforms. For the turnback to be retained to be of any operational use it too would need extending to 12 cars ... and as reported in uk.railway previously it is only just dead 8car now, so probaly needs extedning by 4-and-a-bit for SPAD mitigation. So if the platforms are extended north by 4car, the buffer stops at the extreme end of the turnback needed shifting north by a bit more than equivalent to 8 car lengths, and here you are well into a deep cutting. Even staggering the extended platforms does not work for combinations of the above reasons. I am assuming therefore that St.Albans loses its turnback facility ??? Surely the turnback siding doesn't have to be immediately outside the station? It could, for example, be moved a few hundred yards down the line. |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On 17 Nov, 13:09, Mr Thant wrote: On 17 Nov, 12:52, D7666 wrote: ... but my point is not whether or not the service level is adequate for that station, but about the effect one short platform station has on the central core capacity. All of the 8 car trains in the RUS are coming from Elephant, and I'm assuming there are lots of stations in that direction that only have 8 car platforms. Since there isn't capacity at Blackfriars to not run at least some of these 8 car trains through the Thameslink core, that means even if Kentish Town were extended, Thameslink would still have 8 car trains. This is the crux of the matter, is it not? i.e. if the services coming up from the south through the Elephant are set to be 8-car, then what does or doesn't happen at Kentish Town is somewhat irrelevant. There's a couple of critical assumptions in that however - one being that the model whereby 'flyer' and 'metro' service segregation continues (to use the old Thameslink TOC's nomenclature). Such an assumption wouldn't take account of the possibility that some of the 12-car Brighton trains might become slow 'metro' trains north of St. Pancras, and hence would need to be able to stop at K Town. The other assumption is that trains coming up through the Elephant from Sevenoaks/ Orpington/ Maidstone East (or wherever else might be chosen) could only ever be 8-car - perhaps running 12-car trains on these routes is not beyond the bounds of possibility? This would of course involve a fair old bit of platform extension work south of the river, which - if my memory serves me right - was't even mooted in the South London RUS. *Incredibly* stupid question coming up... I presume (perhaps erroneously) from your talk of Kentish Town and SDO that you are arguing for SDO to be included in the spec for the new Thameslink rolling stock, right? If so then how much of a big thing is it to equip new trains with SDO systems? Perhaps foolishly it seems to me that (a) it can't be that big a deal and (b) new stock such as that which will be ordered for Thameslink should arguably have SDO capabilities installed anyway to ensure the stock is versatile, adaptable and future-proof. Or is the issue more to do with signalling at Kentish Town - i.e. signalling needing to take account for the fact that 12-car trains would be jutting out at both ends of the platform? |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On 17 Nov, 15:22, Mr Thant wrote: On 17 Nov, 13:44, John B wrote: I thought that it was fairly settled they'd be 'outer', at least in the sense of being trains that currently go to KX rather than Moorgate. AIUI there's no suggestion of cutting Northern City services. The Northern City is at capacity in terms of train frequency, or will be after the next service upgrade. The only way to run more inner services after that will be if they terminate somewhere else. Given the six tracks from Finsbury Park to Hertford/Welwyn, there appears to be capacity to run the services themselves. What are the service upgrade plans on the Northern City you speak of? This has passed me straight by! |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On 17 Nov, 09:47, D7666 wrote: On Nov 17, 9:06 am, Mizter T wrote: From that answer... quote Brighton to Bedford [not 'Thameslink route'] trains rarely call at Kentish Town and Cricklewood other than in the late evening or early morning. Instead they are served by the Wimbledon loop trains that will remain a maximum eight carriages in length due to the road bridge at Tulse Hill and complex track layouts near other station platforms. /quote I don't understand what the 'not Thameslink route' bit in square brackets is supposed to mean? Yes ... in their reply to me they used the same words ... but amazingly to my surprise they followed this up without me promptng them 2/3 days later with a correction saying that is not what they meant ... but were supposed to be referring Brighton/Bedford trains at that point. It is actually clear what they meant as they refer to Wimbledon loop trains later on. Thanks. Yes, it can indeed be deciphered when in context but it's a really stupid mistake for them to make - it only succeeds in adding confusion where there is already enough befuddlement! In a more detailed response to myself I asked about possible SDO because my thoughts were if Kentish Town is limited permanently to 8car how much impact will that have overall i.e. will there still be 4 TPH 8car trains in the long term. They replied that SDO is not ruled out ... but no decision has been made on this yet ... and IMHO does not need to be made for some time. As we know the plan is for the (principal) suburban Thameslink service south of the Thames to switch from being the Wimbledon loop service to being an Orpington or Sevenoaks service via the Catford loop (i.e. Peckham Rye). So, how easy would it be to sort this route out for 12 car trains? The switching of the Loop trains away from TL core is not yet decided. This is proposed in one of the RUS (Brighton? South London? ) - it is not a TLprogramme suggestion and loop trains remain in their version of the 2015 network map. 'Twas proposed in the South London RUS. True, RUS proposals have a habit of turning out to be correct, and it seems to me the RUS reasoning is valid, but at the moment, but in the mean time it is not certain, again, read the FAQ at http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk...es/public_inde... Very interesting. Some intriguing wording used in that answer: "The view of the team that compiled the South London Route RUS was that the success of the 24 trains per hour operation [through the core Thameslink route] will depend upon a very high level of operating performance." Surely this should also be the view of the TL Programme team! Unless they've subcontracted their thinking out to others, perhaps after being lobotomised by DfT Rail. I find it hard to believe that anything other than the RUS's recommendation will come to be - the logic behind it is pretty solid after all. The talk of decisions being left until later so "they will be made with the benefit of the most relevant and contemporary analysis possible" sounds good but unless someone's going to build a flyover or diveunder somewhere south of Blackfriars then the physical facts won't have changed. I wonder if putting this official decision off (when it seems to have essentially been decided already) can at least partially be explained as being a bit of quasi-politically expedient procrastination? After all there's going to be a good number of users of the Wimbledon loop who're going to be properly cheesed off that they're losing their through Thameslink service and are being relegated to a plain-vanilla suburban service, especially given all this exciting talk they've heard about the new all-singing all-dancing super-duper Thameslink which is on the way which they previously assumed they'd be part of. Personally I think they should just get it over and done with, confirm the changes officially and get on with singing the praises of the new Blackfriars station and the easy interchange that will be available there with the frequent new Thameslink services come 2015 (or whenever it is). But of course this is DfT Rail, the masters of prevarication... Given that Kentish Town and Cricklewood are only normally served by 8 car Wimbledon loop (to be Sevenoaks/ Orpington) services, I don't understand why there is a specific interest in whether they are getting platform extensions that they would appear not to need?. Because if the loop trains *are* diverted away it would impose a cap on any service that does call at Kentish Town unless SDO is implemented. And it would be a permanent cap, way into long term future past 2015 and way beyond. ((I assume that if the replace Cricklewood by new Brent Cross idea does not go ahead then the existing Criclewood would be extended to 12car.)) Understood - but as I state downthread Kentish Town is far from the only place where the issue of short platforms pops up, there's all the other stations south of the Thames on the proposed routes up through the Elephant. Unless of course some of the Brighton trains might become stopping trains north of the Thames... (snip calculations) In turn, once one 8car station has been conceded, the whitehall bean counting mandarins can move in and suggest cost cutting by allowing other 8car station to be kept. I certainly see your point - but my recollection of the South London RUS is that the routes they recommend for 12-car trains are not those proposed for the 'metro' Thameslink services that run through Elephant & Castle. The RUS places the demand for 12-car trains elsewhere. Thus it is very important to understand this issue, and very important they get it right. Which is that the trains should have SDO, right? I think this discussion is perhaps particularly illuminating in one respect, which is the different perspectives with which the Thameslink Programme can be approached from - put simply, from the north or from the south. It's illustrative of the challenge of Thameslink - the meshing of somewhat distinct suburban railways both north and south of the Thames. (Perhaps that's a rather banal comment!? Perhaps I'm putting words into your mouth too?!) |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On 17 Nov, 23:49, Mizter T wrote:
What are the service upgrade plans on the Northern City you speak of? This has passed me straight by! Just the stuff in the ECML RUS: "- Six-car trains will be used on all shoulder-peak First Capital Connect inner-suburban services as soon as trains are available from London Overground (four are needed). - Off-peak inner-suburban services will be increased from 3tph to 4tph on each branch, including weekday evenings and Saturdays. - Extension of hours on the Moorgate branch is unlikely. - The Up Goods line (the easternmost track) from Alexandra Palace to Finsbury Park will be converted into a third southbound passenger track. The four stations it passes will get extra platforms on the line, and may also get them on the equivalent northbound line, the Down Slow 2 (the westernmost track). This will improve flexibility and capacity. - Extra trains will run from the Hertford Loop to Moorgate in the morning peak." http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...published.html U |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Nov 17, 11:47 pm, Mizter T wrote:
*Incredibly* stupid question coming up... Not stupid. I presume (perhaps erroneously) Not erroneous. from your talk of Kentish Town and SDO that you are arguing for SDO to be included in the spec for the new Thameslink rolling stock, right? If so then how much of a big thing is it to equip new trains with SDO systems? Perhaps foolishly it seems to me that (a) it can't be that big a deal and (b) new stock such as that which will be ordered for Thameslink should arguably have SDO capabilities installed anyway to ensure the stock is versatile, adaptable and future-proof. I agree, the trains will almost certainly be SDO capable if not enabled. It is not that, it is if SDO would be permitted or even being looked at. I am neither arguing for or against SDO, merely trying to ascertain from those who plan Thameslink program if they are looking at this, and posting here what I have found so far. If SDO is not permitted, you do have the capacity caps I have been referring to. If SDO is permitted, not only does the Kentish Town limiting cap disappear , but all other stations could have SDO. But it would be highly unusual, would it not, to have SDO on inner suburban lines - I am not talking about the TL core, but the routes to Kentish Town and the north and Elephant & Castle to the south. I can't off the top of my head think of any heavy traffic inner suburban service that runs with SDO. More importantly, lets say Kentish Town does become a permanent 8car no SDO feature, and lets say the Cricklewood / Brent Cross issue gets put on the back burner, then the next obvious thing in DfT cost cutting mindset is ''do you need 12cars at Hendon ?'', then ditto Leagrave, ditto Harlington. Then, ahh now you don't need as many units as there are now more 8car and less 12car trains, and so on, and then go on and apply that to south of the Thames. Excuse me for being both sceptical and cynical but there been too many projects that get trimmed back bit by bit when the bean counters actually start counting individual beans. -- Nick |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Nov 17, 11:47 pm, Mizter T wrote:
This is the crux of the matter, is it not? i.e. if the services coming up from the south through the Elephant are set to be 8-car, then what does or doesn't happen at Kentish Town is somewhat irrelevant. Well yes and no. I was under the impression that a side effect of the SL RUS suggesting (for good reasons IMHO) Wimbledon loop be decoupled from Thameslink was diversion to other lines where 8car length limits (such as around all of the Wimbledon loop) would be less of a problem. The South Central Metro services supposedly have their own 10car extension scheme although I'm not sure to what timescale and already most if not all of Kent suburban is already 10car (I accept the access route between Kent via Elephant to Thameslink core is not 10car). So I do think it is relevant that north of the Thames there just might be one limiting station, ignoring conspiracy theory about bean counting, where south of Thames at least 10car could be run on routes or planned routes existing for other reasons before 12car extensions are looked at on top of the exisitng main line 12car stations. This does throw another variable into the frame ... possible bean counting compromises of 10car trains through the core ... probably not that hard to built into the rolling stock order if considered early enough. Digressing having mentioned rolling stock, I notice the latest Modern Railways that I have only just got to read refers [page 51 middle column] to the four car units with their three motor coaches (like 377s) having three traction motors per motor coach. Is that right i.e. 1A-Bo ? I am a little bit sceptical about what that section is , beginning bottom previous page, as it starts off by correctly saying 378 are akin to 376 as both are 75 mph, but then ends up ''gearing the motors for rather than the 100 mph'' makes it unclear what they are comparing between 376/378 and 375/377 as they switch the term Electrostar instead of class numbers. Anyway the reason I'm mentioning 378s now is if they are 9 motors vice 6 per 4car train, and the traction spec might be similar to the new NGEMU for TL especially as TL core has two of the fiercest grades anywhere (approaching Farringdon and departing City both southbound) so we ware talking 27 motors in a 12car train ... thats 50% more than a 12car 375/377 ... so do we need more DC power upgrades ? -- Nick |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
"Mizter T" wrote in message ... *Incredibly* stupid question coming up... I presume (perhaps erroneously) from your talk of Kentish Town and SDO that you are arguing for SDO to be included in the spec for the new Thameslink rolling stock, right? If so then how much of a big thing is it to equip new trains with SDO systems? Perhaps foolishly it seems to me that (a) it can't be that big a deal and (b) new stock such as that which will be ordered for Thameslink should arguably have SDO capabilities installed anyway to ensure the stock is versatile, adaptable and future-proof. The 377s that will be running interim services have GPS-based SDO, and ISTR reading somewhere that it was having to be specially adapted for the Thameslink route. D A Stocks |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Nov 18, 11:31 am, "David A Stocks" wrote:
The 377s that will be running interim services have GPS-based SDO, and ISTR reading somewhere that it was having to be specially adapted for the Thameslink route. eRRR why ? Nowhere on any current Thameslink route nor on any of those from March 2009 is there any SDO because all stations are already 8-car. The exception to prove the rule is Barbican Up which in modern terms is a 7car platform but there is a narrow platform edge there for the 8th car - 319s doors are released and you could get out despite the DO NOT ALIGHT HERE signs. (Pedants - Barbican Down is irrelevant as nothing stops there.) There is no need to cater for SDO 377s at Barbican since it closes weekend March 1/2 or March 21/22 depending which document you decide to read or believe. 377/5s should only just be all in traffic by then and that would be a sheer waste of resource setting up commissioing testing approving and running SDO 377s to Moorgate. 12car trains won't come in for a long long time and AIUI 377s will be gone from TL routes by then. Thus I can't see what SDO mod a 377/5 needs ... except may to suppress the function ? GPS might need a mod for PIS ... I suppose we are going to have the infernal auto-PA. At least 319s are PA-free. So what have I missed :o) -- Nick |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
"D7666" wrote I was under the impression that a side effect of the SL RUS suggesting (for good reasons IMHO) Wimbledon loop be decoupled from Thameslink was diversion to other lines where 8car length limits (such as around all of the Wimbledon loop) would be less of a problem. The South Central Metro services supposedly have their own 10car extension scheme although I'm not sure to what timescale and already most if not all of Kent suburban is already 10car (I accept the access route between Kent via Elephant to Thameslink core is not 10car). It's only the ex-SER lines (Charing Cross and Cannon Street) of Kent Suburban that are 10-car (implemented in the 1950s), and many platforms were extended to 12-car when it was intended (and may be again, on some routes) that Networkers would run in 12-car formation. The ex-LCDR lines (Victoria and Blackfriars) have always remained 8-car, with the only longer platforms being at a few stations at which main line trains call - from memory, Herne Hill, Beckenham Junction, Shortlands, Bromley South, St Mary Cray and Swanley. IIRC Bat and Ball is only about 5-car length - how is this managed with longer trains? Peter |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On 18 Nov, 12:04, D7666 wrote:
GPS might need a mod for PIS ... I suppose we are going to have the infernal auto-PA. At least 319s are PA-free. So what have I missed :o) -- Nick A couple of points. Southern use SDO on 377s at Battersea park on the up slow and down fast as they are that little bit longer than 455s. The GPS also has a lot to do with doors being opened in normal use as well as in SDO mode. This is why part of the testing has involved visiting every possible platform scenario to make sure it works. As with some southern locations track side beacons have been fitted where no satellite signal is available. This is the reason that 12 car 377s take an age to get door release at victoria. One assumes that if 24 tph with 12 cars happens this issue will be resolved some how. Richard. |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Nov 18, 3:38 pm, wrote:
A couple of points. Southern use SDO on 377s at Battersea park on the up slow and down fast as they are that little bit longer than 455s. So the analogy then is 377/5 are using GPS for normal doors use as a 319 is more or less same as a 455 in this respect ? -- Nick |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Nov 18, 2:32*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"D7666" wrote I was under the impression that a side effect of the SL RUS suggesting (for good reasons IMHO) Wimbledon loop be decoupled from Thameslink was diversion to other lines where 8car length limits (such as around all of the Wimbledon loop) would be less of a problem. The South Central Metro services supposedly have their own 10car extension scheme although I'm not sure to what timescale and already most if not all of Kent suburban is already 10car (I accept the access route between Kent *via Elephant to *Thameslink core is not 10car). It's only the ex-SER lines (Charing Cross and Cannon Street) of Kent Suburban that are 10-car (implemented in the 1950s), and many platforms were extended to 12-car when it was intended (and may be again, on some routes) that Networkers would run in 12-car formation. The ex-LCDR lines (Victoria and Blackfriars) have always remained 8-car, with the only longer platforms being at a few stations at which main line trains call - from memory, Herne Hill, Beckenham Junction, Shortlands, Bromley South, St Mary Cray and Swanley. IIRC Bat and Ball is only about 5-car length - how is this managed with longer trains? According to Quail it's 8, but the southern edition must be long overdue for an update. Haven't been there for about fifteen years. |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
MIG wrote:
On Nov 18, 2:32 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "D7666" wrote I was under the impression that a side effect of the SL RUS suggesting (for good reasons IMHO) Wimbledon loop be decoupled from Thameslink was diversion to other lines where 8car length limits (such as around all of the Wimbledon loop) would be less of a problem. The South Central Metro services supposedly have their own 10car extension scheme although I'm not sure to what timescale and already most if not all of Kent suburban is already 10car (I accept the access route between Kent via Elephant to Thameslink core is not 10car). It's only the ex-SER lines (Charing Cross and Cannon Street) of Kent Suburban that are 10-car (implemented in the 1950s), and many platforms were extended to 12-car when it was intended (and may be again, on some routes) that Networkers would run in 12-car formation. The ex-LCDR lines (Victoria and Blackfriars) have always remained 8-car, with the only longer platforms being at a few stations at which main line trains call - from memory, Herne Hill, Beckenham Junction, Shortlands, Bromley South, St Mary Cray and Swanley. IIRC Bat and Ball is only about 5-car length - how is this managed with longer trains? According to Quail it's 8, but the southern edition must be long overdue for an update. Haven't been there for about fifteen years. Well, back in the mid 80's, during that relatively short period when TL ran from Sevenoaks, I used to travel fairly often from Crofton Park to Sevenoaks, and as the person I went to see was about equidistant from Bat & Ball and Sevenoaks I sometimes used to get off there. Now I cannot remember how long the trains were, 8 or 4 cars, but the announcement for Bat & Ball was "Passengers for Bat & Ball should travel in the first 2 or 4 carriages only, it was a very short platform. Sorry I cannot be any more specific. -- Martin replies to newsgroup only please. |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Nov 18, 9:08 pm, Martin Smith wrote:
Well, back in the mid 80's, during that relatively short period when TL ran from Sevenoaks, pedant Late 1980s. TL to Sevenoaks did not start until May 1988 timetable. In fact, TL did not start at all until then. /pedant -- Nick |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Nov 18, 9:50*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Nov 18, 9:08 pm, Martin Smith wrote: Well, back in the mid 80's, during that relatively short period when TL ran from Sevenoaks, pedant Late 1980s. TL to Sevenoaks did not start until May 1988 timetable. In fact, TL did not start at all until then. /pedant -- Nick The Quail is dated 2002, long ago, but long after we seem to have been there. |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
MIG wrote:
According to Quail it's 8, but the southern edition must be long overdue for an update. Imminent - http://www.trackmaps.co.uk/news.htm JP |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Nov 19, 8:20*am, Johannes Patruus wrote:
MIG wrote: According to Quail it's 8, but the southern edition must be long overdue for an update. Imminent -http://www.trackmaps.co.uk/news.htm JP Excellent. That's Christmas sorted for the whole family. |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:08:05 +0000, Martin Smith
wrote: Well, back in the mid 80's, during that relatively short period when TL ran from Sevenoaks, I used to travel fairly often from Crofton Park to Sevenoaks, and as the person I went to see was about equidistant from Bat & Ball and Sevenoaks I sometimes used to get off there. Now I cannot remember how long the trains were, 8 or 4 cars, but the announcement for Bat & Ball was "Passengers for Bat & Ball should travel in the first 2 or 4 carriages only, it was a very short platform. Sorry I cannot be any more specific. Not that short. You could fit 6 EPB onto the up, and 5 onto the down. It never seemed to be a problem. -- Bill Hayles http://www.rossrail.com |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
"David A Stocks" wrote in message ... "Mizter T" wrote in message ... *Incredibly* stupid question coming up... I presume (perhaps erroneously) from your talk of Kentish Town and SDO that you are arguing for SDO to be included in the spec for the new Thameslink rolling stock, right? If so then how much of a big thing is it to equip new trains with SDO systems? Perhaps foolishly it seems to me that (a) it can't be that big a deal and (b) new stock such as that which will be ordered for Thameslink should arguably have SDO capabilities installed anyway to ensure the stock is versatile, adaptable and future-proof. The 377s that will be running interim services have GPS-based SDO, and ISTR reading somewhere that it was having to be specially adapted for the Thameslink route. Hopefully a better system than the existing one which results in trains sitting at Victoria with the doors locked for 30 seconds after arrival whilst the computer works out which platform it's on... |
Thameslink KO0 at Kentish Town
D7666 wrote:
On Nov 18, 9:08 pm, Martin Smith wrote: Well, back in the mid 80's, during that relatively short period when TL ran from Sevenoaks, pedant Late 1980s. TL to Sevenoaks did not start until May 1988 timetable. In fact, TL did not start at all until then. /pedant Sorry about that, memory not as good as it used to be :) -- Martin replies to newsgroup only please. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:47 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk