St Pancras Low Level
 

On 3 Apr, 13:43, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 3 Apr, 14:23, wrote:

Cutbacks to which programme, Thameslink? Is that really likely? Surely
now that the tunnels are built, the connection to ECML isn't that
extensive?

Yes, but they're only useful if the very expensive works to open up
capacity through London Bridge and Bermondsey go ahead. There's a
reasonable argument not to go ahead with this whole phase of works
once the current phase (12 cars at Farringdon and Blackfriars) is
done.


And once again leave SE London with a sub-standard network. Great.
Personally I would consider the whole Thameslink budget to have been
wasted if it didn't include sorting out the train segregation into and
out-of London Bridge.

I did wonder how well the flat junction onto the ECML would work
though.

Holloway flyover plus all the bi-directional signalling in the area
means you have a lot of flexibility to avoid conflicts.

U

St Pancras Low Level
 

In message
, at
04:29:51 on Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Mizter T remarked:
I'd be interested to know how far if at all this
alignment deviates from what was there beforehand, i.e. the
subterranean course of the Thameslink line before SPILL was
constructed.

Almost identical I think.

--
Roland Perry

St Pancras Low Level
 

On 3 Apr, 15:34, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
04:29:51 on Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Mizter T remarked:

I'd be interested to know how far if at all this
alignment deviates from what was there beforehand, i.e. the
subterranean course of the Thameslink line before SPILL was
constructed.

Almost identical I think.

--
Roland Perry

Indeed. I used to travel in via Thameslink, and the platform area was
visible throughout, with big white/grey fencing separating off the
(then to be) platform areas. Always quite nice to see how things were
progressing each day (as much as you could see in the gaps anyway)
before my mad run from KXTL to catch my KX train (ironically, then in
the main shed, now I come via the Met, in the suburban shed). C'est la
vie.

St Pancras Low Level
 

Paul Scott wrote:

Only 6 (might be 8?) tph are intended to transfer from GN onto Thameslink

There will be 16tph from the MML from Dec 2011 onwards, leaving room for
8tph.

8/16 tph flat junction at the Blackfriars end of
the core section, separating the 25% 'non - London Bridge' services

Time to go back to school mate. ;-)

St Pancras Low Level
 

"Sky Rider" wrote in message
...
Paul Scott wrote:

Only 6 (might be 8?) tph are intended to transfer from GN onto Thameslink

There will be 16tph from the MML from Dec 2011 onwards, leaving room for
8tph.

Thanks - not easy to find stuff about the north of Thameslink, the SL RUS
seems much more advanced...

6/18 tph flat junction at the Blackfriars end of the core section,
separating the 25% 'non - London Bridge' services

Time to go back to school mate. ;-)

Oh Fcuk - it was a typo, honest, so I've fixed it...

:-)

Paul

St Pancras Low Level
 

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message
,
writes

I was standing at St Pancras Low Level the other day and saw that from
the Northern end of the platforms you can see a couple of bored
tunnels. One is to the left of the Midland line and the other is to
the right. Both are fenced off and neither has track laid.

Would I be right in thinking that these are the eventual connections
to the ECML?

Yes

Where would eventual destinations be, should they connect SPILL with ECML?
Will all connections always use EMU stock or is there the eventual
possibility of locomotive-drawn stock?

St Pancras Low Level
 

St Pancras Low Level
 

In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

wrote:
"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message
,
writes

I was standing at St Pancras Low Level the other day and saw that
from the Northern end of the platforms you can see a couple of bored
tunnels. One is to the left of the Midland line and the other is to
the right. Both are fenced off and neither has track laid.

Would I be right in thinking that these are the eventual connections
to the ECML?

Yes

Where would eventual destinations be, should they connect SPILL with
ECML? Will all connections always use EMU stock or is there the
eventual possibility of locomotive-drawn stock?

Peterborough, Cambridge, Kings Lynn, Hertford East and all points
inbetween - basically as per FCC/GN.

Er, Hertford North maybe but certainly not Hertford East!

Almost bound to be limited to the Thameslink specific 8 or 12 car
fixed formation units, as they will be dual voltage, have high
acceleration, and have the ATO required for the core route between
StP and Blackfriars. Running any form of stock with different
performance, and especially without metro style doors, would wreck
the timetable.

So not the IEP half trains planned for Lynn?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

St Pancras Low Level
 

On Apr 6, 11:28*pm, wrote:
So not the IEP half trains planned for Lynn?

They don't have third-rail or ATO or high-capacity doors or any of the
other features required for the 24 tph Thameslink core.

I think a plausible scenario is:
- Cambridge/King's Lynn/Peterborough fasts: 5+5 car IEP to King's
Cross
- Cambridge semi-fast/Welwyn stopping services: 12-car Thameslink
- Hertford Loop: High-frequency semi-segregated service to Moorgate

U

St Pancras Low Level
 

On Apr 6, 11:46*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On Apr 6, 11:28*pm, wrote:

So not the IEP half trains planned for Lynn?

They don't have third-rail or ATO or high-capacity doors or any of the
other features required for the 24 tph Thameslink core.

I think a plausible scenario is:
- Cambridge/King's Lynn/Peterborough fasts: 5+5 car IEP to King's
Cross
- Cambridge semi-fast/Welwyn stopping services: 12-car Thameslink

Which raises the really obvious point that some passengers from
Cambridge might opt for the Thameslink semi-fasts over the IEP fasts
if the Thameslink route gets them to where they need to be with less
fuss, and if time wise there's not much in it. Any such phenomenon
could become more apparent after Crossrail opens, what with the
interchange at Farringdon.

- Hertford Loop: High-frequency semi-segregated service to Moorgate