St Pancras Low Level
 

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? I had assumed they would be cut-and-cover rather than
bored. Does anyone know any details?

St Pancras Low Level
 

On Apr 3, 10:24*am, wrote:
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.

I had assumed they would be cut-and-cover rather than
bored. Does anyone know any details?

Sorry, not really. I think they're cut and cover at the northern end
though - see this bird's eye view:
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?cp...&style=b&lvl=1

St Pancras Low Level
 

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

I had assumed they would be cut-and-cover rather than
bored. Does anyone know any details?

The northernmost part is cut and cover, but the rest was always planned
as bored. See:

http://fp.martinunderwood.f9.co.uk/L...RL%20lines.gif

--
Paul Terry

St Pancras Low Level
 

In message
, at
03:08:44 on Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Mizter T remarked:
I had assumed they would be cut-and-cover rather than
bored. Does anyone know any details?

Sorry, not really. I think they're cut and cover at the northern end
though - see this bird's eye view:
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?cp...&style=b&lvl=1

The SPILL box itself was built as cut and cover, but that view above
clearly shows why you couldn't realistically cut and cover all the way
to the ECML.

This picture might also be helpful, as it shows where SPILL is
positioned, and hints at the length of tunnel required to meet up with
the ECML (aligned left to right at the very bottom of the map).

http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download268.pdf
--
Roland Perry

St Pancras Low Level
 

In message , at 11:35:14 on Fri, 3
Apr 2009, Paul Terry remarked:
The northernmost part is cut and cover, but the rest was always planned
as bored.

And if, as some suspect, they never see traffic as a result of cutbacks
- they'll always be bored.
--
Roland Perry

St Pancras Low Level
 

On Apr 3, 11:39*am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
03:08:44 on Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Mizter T remarked:

I had assumed they would be cut-and-cover rather than
bored. Does anyone know any details?

Sorry, not really. I think they're cut and cover at the northern end
though - see this bird's eye view:
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?cp...&style=b&lvl=1

The SPILL box itself was built as cut and cover, but that view above
clearly shows why you couldn't realistically cut and cover all the way
to the ECML.

This picture might also be helpful, as it shows where SPILL is
positioned, and hints at the length of tunnel required to meet up with
the ECML (aligned left to right at the very bottom of the map).

http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download268.pdf


Interesting. The positioning is pretty tight - avoiding the original
bits of St Pancras station, the British Library and the housing to the
west of Midland Road. 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.

St Pancras Low Level
 

In article
,
() wrote:

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? I had assumed they would be cut-and-cover rather than
bored. Does anyone know any details?

They are indeed and their other end can be seen at Belle Isle on the way
out of King's Cross. Due for connection in 2015 under the Thameslink
Programme.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

St Pancras Low Level
 

On 3 Apr, 11:26, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:35:14 on Fri, 3
Apr 2009, Paul Terry remarked:

The northernmost part is cut and cover, but the rest was always planned
as bored.

And if, as some suspect, they never see traffic as a result of cutbacks
- they'll always be bored.
--
Roland Perry

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

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

St Pancras Low Level
 

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.

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
 

wrote in message
...
On 3 Apr, 11:26, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:35:14 on Fri, 3
Apr 2009, Paul Terry remarked:

The northernmost part is cut and cover, but the rest was always planned
as bored.

And if, as some suspect, they never see traffic as a result of cutbacks
- they'll always be bored.
--
Roland Perry

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

Not incorporating GN is a suggestion sometimes made in the event that the
London Bridge station phase of the work ( KO2) doesn't happen, ie there is
no capacity for the services. AFAICT partial GN diversion to Thameslink is
a fundamental part of the required capacity improvements on the GN though,
because KX suburban cannot be extended or widened on the existing site.
As work isn't due to start til 2012 though, anything could happen if the
allocated funding is hijacked for something else by the Treasury...

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

Only 6 (might be 8?) tph are intended to transfer from GN onto Thameslink -
with a remaining minority service into Kings Cross, and all those from the
GN slows. It ought therefore to be the least problematic junction,
especially in comparison to the merging with the existing services at St
Pancras LL, and then the 8/16 tph flat junction at the Blackfriars end of
the core section, separating the 25% 'non - London Bridge' services...

Paul S

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

St Pancras Low Level
 

wrote in message
...
In article ,

Er, Hertford North maybe but certainly not Hertford East!

Oh Fcuk - geography error...

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?

Additionally to above IEP is inconceivable for gauging reasons too.
Thameslink is tight for 20m vehicles, IEP is to be 26m vehicles with
platform and structures alterations necessary nationwide...

Paul S

St Pancras Low Level
 

In article
,
(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'sCross
- Cambridge semi-fast/Welwyn stopping services: 12-car Thameslink
- Hertford Loop: High-frequency semi-segregated service to Moorgate

So no useful Cambridge-Gatwick services after all. :-(

--
Colin Rosenstiel

St Pancras Low Level
 

St Pancras Low Level
 

In message
, at
16:54:11 on Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Mizter T remarked:
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

and somewhere in there are Peterborough's existing FCC services. Only a
very few could be described as "fast", unless the "Peterborough fasts"
above are NXEC.

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.

--
Roland Perry

St Pancras Low Level
 

In message , at 03:56:22
on Tue, 7 Apr 2009, remarked:
I think a plausible scenario is:
- Cambridge/King's Lynn/Peterborough fasts: 5+5 car IEP to King'sCross
- Cambridge semi-fast/Welwyn stopping services: 12-car Thameslink
- Hertford Loop: High-frequency semi-segregated service to Moorgate

So no useful Cambridge-Gatwick services after all. :-(

What's wrong with the semi-fasts? The Gatwick services are going to be
pretty slow from SPILL to Gatwick, so adding a few minutes north of
SPILL isn't the end of the world.
--
Roland Perry

St Pancras Low Level
 

In message , at 10:12:40 on Tue, 7
Apr 2009, John Rowland
remarked:
Why would anyone in Cambridge fly from Gatwick?

Because it serves a wide range of destinations not available from
Stansted, and it's preferable to Heathrow.
--
Roland Perry

St Pancras Low Level
 

In article ,
John Rowland wrote:
wrote:
In article
,
(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'sCross
- Cambridge semi-fast/Welwyn stopping services: 12-car Thameslink
- Hertford Loop: High-frequency semi-segregated service to Moorgate

So no useful Cambridge-Gatwick services after all. :-(

Why would anyone in Cambridge fly from Gatwick?

Because it's less hassle to get to by train than Heathrow?

St Pancras Low Level
 

On Apr 7, 10:12*am, "John Rowland"
wrote:

wrote:

In article
,
(Mr Thant) wrote:

[snip]

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

So no useful Cambridge-Gatwick services after all. :-(

Why would anyone in Cambridge fly from Gatwick?

Coz that is where the plane goes from.

St Pancras Low Level
 

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 03:56:22
on Tue, 7 Apr 2009, remarked:
I think a plausible scenario is:
- Cambridge/King's Lynn/Peterborough fasts: 5+5 car IEP to King'sCross
- Cambridge semi-fast/Welwyn stopping services: 12-car Thameslink
- Hertford Loop: High-frequency semi-segregated service to Moorgate

So no useful Cambridge-Gatwick services after all. :-(

What's wrong with the semi-fasts? The Gatwick services are going to be
pretty slow from SPILL to Gatwick, so adding a few minutes north of
SPILL isn't the end of the world.

That's what I figure. The semi-fasts still beat the next fast, so
having the fasts terminate at Kings Cross and sending the semi-fasts
and slows through Thameslink seems like a good compromise.

Whether we'll ever see trains from Cambride use SPILL in our lifetimes
is a different matter.

St Pancras Low Level
 

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
03:56:22 on Tue, 7 Apr 2009, remarked:
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

So no useful Cambridge-Gatwick services after all. :-(

What's wrong with the semi-fasts? The Gatwick services are going
to be pretty slow from SPILL to Gatwick, so adding a few minutes
north of SPILL isn't the end of the world.

It's about 15 minutes so we will get to Gatwick considerably quicker via
Victoria, by the look of it.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

St Pancras Low Level
 

On Apr 7, 11:17*am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 03:56:22
on Tue, 7 Apr 2009, remarked:

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

So no useful Cambridge-Gatwick services after all. :-(

What's wrong with the semi-fasts? *The Gatwick services are going to be
pretty slow from SPILL to Gatwick, so adding a few minutes north of
SPILL isn't the end of the world.


The Thameslink services are going to be non-stop from London Bridge to
East Croydon, then non-stop again to Gatwick - so what makes them
pretty slow south of SPILL, the trudge through the 'Thameslink core'?
I'm kind of expecting that the core section will pick up some speed
after (at least some of) the works have been done.

St Pancras Low Level
 

Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 7, 11:17 am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
03:56:22 on Tue, 7 Apr 2009, remarked:

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

So no useful Cambridge-Gatwick services after all. :-(

What's wrong with the semi-fasts? The Gatwick services are going to
be pretty slow from SPILL to Gatwick, so adding a few minutes north
of SPILL isn't the end of the world.

The Thameslink services are going to be non-stop from London Bridge to
East Croydon, then non-stop again to Gatwick - so what makes them
pretty slow south of SPILL, the trudge through the 'Thameslink core'?
I'm kind of expecting that the core section will pick up some speed
after (at least some of) the works have been done.

The eventual KO2 work to provide dedicated through routes west of, at, and
east of London Bridge should also make things speed up a bit; however the
journey should still be fairly attractive compared with a trip on the tube
to Victoria, especially with luggage - unless you conveniently ignore all
the underground walking time, and assume all the connections are instant...

Paul S

St Pancras Low Level
 

In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 7, 11:17 am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
03:56:22 on Tue, 7 Apr 2009, remarked:

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

So no useful Cambridge-Gatwick services after all. :-(

What's wrong with the semi-fasts? The Gatwick services are going to
be pretty slow from SPILL to Gatwick, so adding a few minutes north
of SPILL isn't the end of the world.

The Thameslink services are going to be non-stop from London Bridge to
East Croydon, then non-stop again to Gatwick - so what makes them
pretty slow south of SPILL, the trudge through the 'Thameslink core'?
I'm kind of expecting that the core section will pick up some speed
after (at least some of) the works have been done.

The eventual KO2 work to provide dedicated through routes west of,
at, and east of London Bridge should also make things speed up a
bit; however the journey should still be fairly attractive compared
with a trip on the tube to Victoria, especially with luggage -
unless you conveniently ignore all the underground walking time,
and assume all the connections are instant...

I'm basing current estimates on observation. I got a TL train from
Brighton only to meet arriving at the same time as me at King's Cross
someone who had left Brighton after me and taken the tube from Victoria.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

St Pancras Low Level
 

St Pancras Low Level
 

In message
, at
08:57:30 on Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Mizter T remarked:
The Thameslink services are going to be non-stop from London Bridge to
East Croydon, then non-stop again to Gatwick - so what makes them
pretty slow south of SPILL, the trudge through the 'Thameslink core'?
I'm kind of expecting that the core section will pick up some speed
after (at least some of) the works have been done.

Part of it's the core, and part is the generally low speed on the line
to Brighton. London Bridge to Gatwick is 24 miles, timetabled currently
at 29 minutes. 100mph it ain't. (The ride is terrible, too).
--
Roland Perry

St Pancras Low Level
 

In message , at 09:57:46
on Tue, 7 Apr 2009, remarked:
So no useful Cambridge-Gatwick services after all. :-(

What's wrong with the semi-fasts? The Gatwick services are going
to be pretty slow from SPILL to Gatwick, so adding a few minutes
north of SPILL isn't the end of the world.

It's about 15 minutes so we will get to Gatwick considerably quicker via
Victoria, by the look of it.

For a fit person with no luggage, perhaps.
--
Roland Perry

St Pancras Low Level
 

In article ,
wrote:
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
03:56:22 on Tue, 7 Apr 2009, remarked:
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

So no useful Cambridge-Gatwick services after all. :-(

What's wrong with the semi-fasts? The Gatwick services are going
to be pretty slow from SPILL to Gatwick, so adding a few minutes
north of SPILL isn't the end of the world.

It's about 15 minutes so we will get to Gatwick considerably quicker via
Victoria, by the look of it.

Can't use a Network Railcard discount on Gatwick Express though, and
not having to do the Tube with luggage is nice.

St Pancras Low Level
 

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

wrote on 07 April 2009 19:38:14 ...
In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 7, 11:17 am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
03:56:22 on Tue, 7 Apr 2009,
remarked:

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
So no useful Cambridge-Gatwick services after all. :-(

What's wrong with the semi-fasts? The Gatwick services are going to
be pretty slow from SPILL to Gatwick, so adding a few minutes north
of SPILL isn't the end of the world.

The Thameslink services are going to be non-stop from London Bridge
to East Croydon, then non-stop again to Gatwick - so what makes them
pretty slow south of SPILL, the trudge through the 'Thameslink
core'?
I'm kind of expecting that the core section will pick up some speed
after (at least some of) the works have been done.

The eventual KO2 work to provide dedicated through routes west of,
at, and east of London Bridge should also make things speed up a
bit; however the journey should still be fairly attractive compared
with a trip on the tube to Victoria, especially with luggage -
unless you conveniently ignore all the underground walking time,
and assume all the connections are instant...

I'm basing current estimates on observation. I got a TL train
from Brighton only to meet arriving at the same time as me at
King's Cross someone who had left Brighton after me and taken the
tube from Victoria.

Did you never learn punctuation, or is there a world shortage of commas?

Pah!

Having now understood what you are saying, I see that you are only
measuring the time to from Brighton to King's Cross, not the time
to Cambridge, which would not include a change at King's Cross for
the future Thameslink route, so it's not comparable. Also, as
Paul Scott pointed out, the change at Victoria is less attractive
if you have luggage for the holiday you are flying to from Gatwick.

Yes, I realise that.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

St Pancras Low Level
 

On Apr 7, 9:24*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
08:57:30 on Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Mizter T remarked:

The Thameslink services are going to be non-stop from London Bridge to
East Croydon, then non-stop again to Gatwick - so what makes them
pretty slow south of SPILL, the trudge through the 'Thameslink core'?
I'm kind of expecting that the core section will pick up some speed
after (at least some of) the works have been done.

Part of it's the core, and part is the generally low speed on the line
to Brighton. London Bridge to Gatwick is 24 miles, timetabled currently
at 29 minutes. 100mph it ain't.

No, but it's the same journey duration as the Gatwick Express (and
Thameslink trains manage to fit in a stop at Croydon too). But I see
now that essentially I think your looking at the Brighton main line in
the eyes of an ECML and/or MML passenger.

(The ride is terrible, too).

Is it really? Or is that just the 319s? I was on the Brighton main
line on an Electrostar very recently, it seemed fine to me. And I only
recall the GatEx being a bit rocky when negotiating points (yes, I
realise it doesn't traverse the fast lines from London Bridge to EC).

St Pancras Low Level
 

In article ,
(Sarah Brown) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
03:56:22 on Tue, 7 Apr 2009, remarked:
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

So no useful Cambridge-Gatwick services after all. :-(

What's wrong with the semi-fasts? The Gatwick services are going
to be pretty slow from SPILL to Gatwick, so adding a few minutes
north of SPILL isn't the end of the world.

It's about 15 minutes so we will get to Gatwick considerably quicker
via Victoria, by the look of it.

Can't use a Network Railcard discount on Gatwick Express though, and
not having to do the Tube with luggage is nice.

Yes, it's a better option for Gatwick. For Brighton GatEx doesn't really
come into it.

--
Colin Rosenstiel