Just reading an article about Thameslink progress in the latest Today's
Railway UK; the author writes:

"One issue still being debated is whether to grade separate Metropolitan
Junction, where FCC services now leave Southeastern's intensively used LB -
Waterloo line for Blackfriars."

I would have thought this problem [of Thameslink & SE services crossing] had
been completely designed out by moving the crossing point to the diveunders
east of London Bridge, and then having dedicated pairs of tracks westward of
London Bridge for both the Blackfriars and Charing Cross routes.

Was a grade separated Metropolitan Junction a fall back proposal if four
tracking through Borough Market proved impossible?

Paul S

"Paul Scott" wrote

Was a grade separated Metropolitan Junction a fall back proposal if four
tracking through Borough Market proved impossible?

IMHO the whole Thameslink Project collapses if 4-tracking from London Bridge
to Metropolitan Junction proves impossible. Charing Cross needs best part of
30 tph in the peak, and Thameslink is based on 16-18 tph via London Bridge
in the peak, and you can't run 46-48 tph on one track.

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:
"Paul Scott" wrote

Was a grade separated Metropolitan Junction a fall back proposal if
four tracking through Borough Market proved impossible?

IMHO the whole Thameslink Project collapses if 4-tracking from London
Bridge to Metropolitan Junction proves impossible. Charing Cross
needs best part of 30 tph in the peak, and Thameslink is based on
16-18 tph via London Bridge in the peak, and you can't run 46-48 tph
on one track.

Yes, I think that much is implied, without the Boriugh four tracking there
would have had to be a total revision of the plans with most Thameslink
trains heading for E&C as in the current peaks. However, having followed
Thameslink developments for a few years now, I don't recall a flyover at
Metropolitan Junction being mentioned much if ever?

Paul

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...
Peter Masson wrote:
"Paul Scott" wrote

Was a grade separated Metropolitan Junction a fall back proposal if
four tracking through Borough Market proved impossible?

IMHO the whole Thameslink Project collapses if 4-tracking from London
Bridge to Metropolitan Junction proves impossible. Charing Cross
needs best part of 30 tph in the peak, and Thameslink is based on
16-18 tph via London Bridge in the peak, and you can't run 46-48 tph
on one track.

Yes, I think that much is implied, without the Boriugh four tracking there
would have had to be a total revision of the plans with most Thameslink
trains heading for E&C as in the current peaks. However, having followed
Thameslink developments for a few years now, I don't recall a flyover at
Metropolitan Junction being mentioned much if ever?

Indeed. The Bermondsey diveunder not only takes the Charing Cross lines and
the Croydon Down Slow under Thameslink, but also manages some grade
separation for the link between Thameslink and the Southeastern lines. I
can't see the point of a flyover at Metropolitan Junction, and I can't see
it having any chance of approval in view of the historic buildings in the
area. Achieving the new Southeastern viaduct has been difficult enough, and
it seems that the improved transport infrastructure is only just sufficient
to outweigh the environmental detriment in the area.

Peter

On Mar 10, 4:33 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:


"Paul Scott" wrote in message
Was a grade separated Metropolitan Junction


can't see the point of a flyover at Metropolitan Junction, and I can't see



I read the article today and echo the comments upthread, I thought
Met.Jn. conflicts are effectively eliminated by proposed works east of
LB.

At the back of my mind there was a proposal a *very* VERY long time
ago for grade seperating Met.Jn. but I think this goes right back to
early TL2000 ideas even before they called it TL2000 and bears no
resemblance to the present project.

--
Nick

wrote in message
...
On Mar 10, 4:33 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:


"Paul Scott" wrote in message
Was a grade separated Metropolitan Junction


can't see the point of a flyover at Metropolitan Junction, and I can't
see



I read the article today and echo the comments upthread, I thought
Met.Jn. conflicts are effectively eliminated by proposed works east of
LB.

At the back of my mind there was a proposal a *very* VERY long time
ago for grade seperating Met.Jn. but I think this goes right back to
early TL2000 ideas even before they called it TL2000 and bears no
resemblance to the present project.

--
Nick

I thought so too. I understood the route would have been to the south of the
present line but was now impossible because the Jubilee extension ran along
the same alignment and no longer provided a safe support!

MaxB

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

"One issue still being debated is whether to grade separate Metropolitan
Junction, where FCC services now leave Southeastern's intensively used
LB - Waterloo line for Blackfriars."

I would have thought this problem [of Thameslink & SE services crossing]
had been completely designed out by moving the crossing point to the
diveunders east of London Bridge, and then having dedicated pairs of
tracks westward of London Bridge for both the Blackfriars and Charing
Cross routes.

Since Blackfriars is going to be closed for a considerable length of time,
almost three years, will LUL put up partitions at the platform edges and
allow trains to run through there at speed? What would it take to reset the
start signals to normal waysides, since now they are in essence draw ups.

Also when from where is the last Thameslink train on the Moorgate Branch due
to depart on 22 March?

wrote in message
...

Since Blackfriars is going to be closed for a considerable length of time,
almost three years, will LUL put up partitions at the platform edges and
allow trains to run through there at speed? What would it take to reset
the start signals to normal waysides, since now they are in essence draw
ups.


I've read that a 'steel framed box' is being built to allow building work to
proceed 24/7 around the running railway. No idea about the signalling,
although you would have to assume that the timescales would allow some
changes to be worthwhile.

Has anyone any idea where the displaced passengers have ended up, the advice
seems to be to either walk to Mansion House or Temple, or stay on train
until City Thameslink.

Paul S

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

I've read that a 'steel framed box' is being built to allow building work
to proceed 24/7 around the running railway. No idea about the signalling,
although you would have to assume that the timescales would allow some
changes to be worthwhile.

What would it take to reset a starter signal to a standard wayside

Has anyone any idea where the displaced passengers have ended up, the
advice seems to be to either walk to Mansion House or Temple,

Whichever is closer, I supppose.

or stay on train until City Thameslink.

Are you referring to FCC Thameslink services when you you say this? The two
stations are literally within sight of each other. It would not surprise me
to find out that this is the shortest distance between two stations on
National Rail, though I don't know.

wrote:

Since Blackfriars is going to be closed for a considerable length of
time, almost three years, will LUL put up partitions at the platform
edges and allow trains to run through there at speed? What would it
take to reset the start signals to normal waysides, since now they
are in essence draw ups.

They might well put up platform protection for staff working on the
station - but I would imagine that the normal 5mph limit through the station
will apply. Allowing trains to pass through faster would cause chaos with
the timetables, not som much on the central section where all trains are
doing the same but on the branches where other services interface.