"Stephen Furley" wrote in message
...

It involved building a new fleet of trains
The new trains were fairly easy to justify, given that it allowed the 317s
to replace older stock (312s?) on the routes out of Kings X, and further
cascades to replace life-expired stock elsewhere.

D A Stocks

"David A Stocks" wrote in message
...
"Stephen Furley" wrote in message
...

It involved building a new fleet of trains
The new trains were fairly easy to justify, given that it allowed the 317s
to replace older stock (312s?) on the routes out of Kings X, and further
cascades to replace life-expired stock elsewhere.

IIRC when the 319s arrived on Thameslink the 317s went to Euston, replacing
the 310s. Subsequently 321s came to Euston, the 317s went to Kings Cross,
replacing the 312s.

Peter

On 4 July, 08:40, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"David A Stocks" wrote in ... "Stephen Furley" wrote in message
...

It involved building a new fleet of trains
The new trains were fairly easy to justify, given that it allowed the 317s
to replace older stock (312s?) on the routes out of Kings X, and further
cascades to replace life-expired stock elsewhere.

IIRC when the 319s arrived on Thameslink the 317s went to Euston, replacing
the 310s. Subsequently 321s came to Euston, the 317s went to Kings Cross,
replacing the 312s.

But weren't there a lot of new build 317s that went straight to Kings
Cross as well? The ones with the opening windows and smoother cabs
(all so cannibalised now it's hard to know which were which).

On Jul 4, 8:40*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:

IIRC when the 319s arrived on Thameslink the 317s went to Euston, replacing
the 310s. Subsequently 321s came to Euston, the 317s went to Kings Cross,
replacing the 312s.


Correct.

The 319 317 310 cascade was created before 321s were ordered, so
can't be counted in the original Snow Hill route justfication.

--
Nick

On Jul 3, 6:58*pm, Tony Polson wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:
I think you will find that the impetus for Thameslink came mainly from
the Greater London Council and its then-leader, Ken Livingstone.

Network SouthEast was a willing participant but not the originator of
the Thameslink scheme.

Are you sure you're not confusing Thameslink with the North London
Line, which the GLC championed at times including under Ken's
leadership?

Yes, I am sure.

My apologies Tony. My history of this is obviously somewhat lacking -
I've never really come across Thameslink being credited (even
partially) to the GLC, which probably says more about my ignorance
than anything else. In which case that's yet another feather in Ken's
transport cap - and the whole theme of Livingstone's crucial
involvement promoting and progressing key transport projects indeed
transport issues is certainly one I've visited a good number of times
beforehand on here.


I'm quite certain the GLC would have been all in support of Thameslink
- but I never thought they were instrumental in providing the
"impetus" for it - it seems to me to have been a project of the new
and thrusting entity known as Network SouthEast.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. *The GLC under
Livingstone campaigned strongly for what later became Thameslink. *It
was a key part of the GLC's transport strategy, including other
initiatives such as "Fares Fair" and "Just the Ticket", the bus/tube/
mainline Capitalcard, which later took on the name of the formerly
bus/tube only Travelcard and is still with us today.

Indeed - I'm aware of the key role in the GLC around this time in
promoting more innovative fares schemes, which after the Fares Fair
bust-up eventually led to the zonal fares system.

(The LT-only bus/Tube Travelcard was a creation of this time too was
it not? Of course the truly multi-modal Capitalcard including BR
travel was arguably the really revolutionary change. Also, one can't
help but feel that NSE would have got to grips with introducing Oyster
PAYG on suburban rail services a very long time ago! Indeed, they
might have even been in on it from the start. Alas... but I won't get
distracted!)


Thameslink opened in 1988 as part of Network SouthEast. *However,
Thameslink would have happened even if the Network SouthEast sector had
not been created, because the idea - and the GLC's support for it -
already existed before Network SouthEast came of age. *

Yes, which is obvious when I think about it. Thameslink services began
in 1988 (I think that's correct), whilst Network SouthEast was born in
1986 - though I suppose it was just the descendent of the London &
South Eastern sector (of 'Jaffa Cake livery' fame) which came into
being in 1982. But of course NSE didn't dream up Thameslink all of a
sudden - that would be absurd!


There is no doubt that Network SouthEast made the creation of Thameslink
much easier, because the GLC no longer had to negotiate with both the
London Midland and Southern Regions of BR. *The formation of Network
SouthEast meant that the GLC only had one organisation to deal with. *

Interesting point. However the Regions continued after 1986, did they
not - I've always been a bit hazy about how it all fitted together.
That's not to invalidate the above point at all though!


Thankfully, Network SouthEast's senior managers, notably Chris Green,
gave the GLC's idea very strong support - probably because the
Thameslink project was symbolic as the only key link between the
otherwise almost completely separate halves of Network SouthEast, north
and south of the river. *

Again, another interesting point. I dare say I've fallen foul of the
Thameslink 'good news' publicity pumped out by NSE on the opening of
the service, which of course happened in 1988, two years after the
demise of the GLC in 1986.

And of course Bozza will be basking in the glow of it all when the
ELLX opens next year - which was another Ken project! One could even
argue (indeed some have) that ELLX is a sort of more local Thameslink
of the east, crossing and linking up the disparate city, helping to
stitch it all together a bit better.

Who might be the next Livingstone and Wetzel, I wonder?

Mizter T wrote:
Tony Polson wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
Are you sure you're not confusing Thameslink with the North London
Line, which the GLC championed at times including under Ken's
leadership?

Yes, I am sure.

My apologies Tony. My history of this is obviously somewhat lacking -
I've never really come across Thameslink being credited (even
partially) to the GLC, which probably says more about my ignorance
than anything else.


No need for an apology, and you are far from ignorant about London's
railways, being a mine of useful information.


In which case that's yet another feather in Ken's
transport cap - and the whole theme of Livingstone's crucial
involvement promoting and progressing key transport projects indeed
transport issues is certainly one I've visited a good number of times
beforehand on here.


I think that, in any objective review of Ken Livingtone's contribution
to London's transport system, he can only attract the highest of praise
for what he has achieved.


The GLC under
Livingstone campaigned strongly for what later became Thameslink. *It
was a key part of the GLC's transport strategy, including other
initiatives such as "Fares Fair" and "Just the Ticket", the bus/tube/
mainline Capitalcard, which later took on the name of the formerly
bus/tube only Travelcard and is still with us today.

Indeed - I'm aware of the key role in the GLC around this time in
promoting more innovative fares schemes, which after the Fares Fair
bust-up eventually led to the zonal fares system.

(The LT-only bus/Tube Travelcard was a creation of this time too was
it not?
Of course the truly multi-modal Capitalcard including BR
travel was arguably the really revolutionary change.


Yes, I referred to that further up the thread. People are so used to
the Travelcard that they don't realise how it came about, and just how
much of an achievement it was for Ken. It was an incredible effort in
the face of indifference and inertia on the part of BR and outright
political opposition from the government of the day. Eventually, the
sheer common sense that underpinned Ken's point of view won through.


Also, one can't
help but feel that NSE would have got to grips with introducing Oyster
PAYG on suburban rail services a very long time ago! Indeed, they
might have even been in on it from the start. Alas... but I won't get
distracted!)


That's a good point. Chris Green would surely have seen the sense of it
and become another champion.


There is no doubt that Network SouthEast made the creation of Thameslink
much easier, because the GLC no longer had to negotiate with both the
London Midland and Southern Regions of BR. *The formation of Network
SouthEast meant that the GLC only had one organisation to deal with. *

Interesting point. However the Regions continued after 1986, did they
not - I've always been a bit hazy about how it all fitted together.
That's not to invalidate the above point at all though!


It took some time for the infrastructure teams to be reshaped from the
Regions (still partly the legacy of the Big Four companies) to the
Sectors. What was important was that the Sectors drove the business.


Thankfully, Network SouthEast's senior managers, notably Chris Green,
gave the GLC's idea very strong support - probably because the
Thameslink project was symbolic as the only key link between the
otherwise almost completely separate halves of Network SouthEast, north
and south of the river. *

Again, another interesting point. I dare say I've fallen foul of the
Thameslink 'good news' publicity pumped out by NSE on the opening of
the service, which of course happened in 1988, two years after the
demise of the GLC in 1986.


You can't blame NSE for using the opportunity to garner good publicity.
The GLC was no longer there to do it, but I bet Ken felt a lot of
satisfaction for a job well done.


And of course Bozza will be basking in the glow of it all when the
ELLX opens next year - which was another Ken project! One could even
argue (indeed some have) that ELLX is a sort of more local Thameslink
of the east, crossing and linking up the disparate city, helping to
stitch it all together a bit better.


Absolutely. I think it is a shame that better use is not made of the
West London line as a third major north-south route.


Who might be the next Livingstone and Wetzel, I wonder?


The days of conviction politicians have gone, I think. Instead, we have
slippery, slimy, lying lawyers and PR men (Blair, Cameron, Johnson ...)
who have no principles at all and will do anything that is needed to
gain power, however underhand.

apologies for the unintended change of subject line.

Mizter T wrote:
Tony Polson wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
Are you sure you're not confusing Thameslink with the North London
Line, which the GLC championed at times including under Ken's
leadership?

Yes, I am sure.

My apologies Tony. My history of this is obviously somewhat lacking -
I've never really come across Thameslink being credited (even
partially) to the GLC, which probably says more about my ignorance
than anything else.


No need for an apology, and you are far from ignorant about London's
railways, being a mine of useful information.


In which case that's yet another feather in Ken's
transport cap - and the whole theme of Livingstone's crucial
involvement promoting and progressing key transport projects indeed
transport issues is certainly one I've visited a good number of times
beforehand on here.


I think that, in any objective review of Ken Livingtone's contribution
to London's transport system, he can only attract the highest of praise
for what he has achieved.


The GLC under
Livingstone campaigned strongly for what later became Thameslink. *It
was a key part of the GLC's transport strategy, including other
initiatives such as "Fares Fair" and "Just the Ticket", the bus/tube/
mainline Capitalcard, which later took on the name of the formerly
bus/tube only Travelcard and is still with us today.

Indeed - I'm aware of the key role in the GLC around this time in
promoting more innovative fares schemes, which after the Fares Fair
bust-up eventually led to the zonal fares system.

(The LT-only bus/Tube Travelcard was a creation of this time too was
it not?
Of course the truly multi-modal Capitalcard including BR
travel was arguably the really revolutionary change.


Yes, I referred to that further up the thread. People are so used to
the Travelcard that they don't realise how it came about, and just how
much of an achievement it was for Ken. It was an incredible effort in
the face of indifference and inertia on the part of BR and outright
political opposition from the government of the day. Eventually, the
sheer common sense that underpinned Ken's point of view won through.


Also, one can't
help but feel that NSE would have got to grips with introducing Oyster
PAYG on suburban rail services a very long time ago! Indeed, they
might have even been in on it from the start. Alas... but I won't get
distracted!)


That's a good point. Chris Green would surely have seen the sense of it
and become another champion.


There is no doubt that Network SouthEast made the creation of Thameslink
much easier, because the GLC no longer had to negotiate with both the
London Midland and Southern Regions of BR. *The formation of Network
SouthEast meant that the GLC only had one organisation to deal with. *

Interesting point. However the Regions continued after 1986, did they
not - I've always been a bit hazy about how it all fitted together.
That's not to invalidate the above point at all though!


It took some time for the infrastructure teams to be reshaped from the
Regions (still partly the legacy of the Big Four companies) to the
Sectors. What was important was that the Sectors drove the business.


Thankfully, Network SouthEast's senior managers, notably Chris Green,
gave the GLC's idea very strong support - probably because the
Thameslink project was symbolic as the only key link between the
otherwise almost completely separate halves of Network SouthEast, north
and south of the river. *

Again, another interesting point. I dare say I've fallen foul of the
Thameslink 'good news' publicity pumped out by NSE on the opening of
the service, which of course happened in 1988, two years after the
demise of the GLC in 1986.


You can't blame NSE for using the opportunity to garner good publicity.
The GLC was no longer there to do it, but I bet Ken felt a lot of
satisfaction for a job well done.


And of course Bozza will be basking in the glow of it all when the
ELLX opens next year - which was another Ken project! One could even
argue (indeed some have) that ELLX is a sort of more local Thameslink
of the east, crossing and linking up the disparate city, helping to
stitch it all together a bit better.


Absolutely. I think it is a shame that better use is not made of the
West London line as a third major north-south route.


Who might be the next Livingstone and Wetzel, I wonder?


The days of conviction politicians have gone, I think. Instead, we have
slippery, slimy, lying lawyers and PR men (Blair, Cameron, Johnson ...)
who have no principles at all and will do anything that is needed to
gain power, however underhand.

Tony Polson wrote:

Absolutely. I think it is a shame that better use is not made of the
West London line as a third major north-south route.

Are the existing trains on the WLL crowded enough to warrant more?

The Thameslink Line is little used as a through route. I can't remember the
exact percentage quoted in the TL2000 inquiry, but something like 95-97% of
TL journeys start or end in Zone 1. TL2k won't change that. The point of TL
and TL2k is giving people from north and south access to numerous stations
across the central area - giving the north access to the south is a largely
unused side-effect. The WLL doesn't have major employment or entertainment
centres on it (apart from Westfield on a Saturday), so will never have the
demand of Thameslink.

In message , at 15:24:12 on Sat, 4
Jul 2009, Basil Jet remarked:
The Thameslink Line is little used as a through route. I can't remember the
exact percentage quoted in the TL2000 inquiry, but something like 95-97% of
TL journeys start or end in Zone 1. TL2k won't change that. The point of TL
and TL2k is giving people from north and south access to numerous stations
across the central area - giving the north access to the south is a largely
unused side-effect.

I think there would be a few examples of extra flows - for example
people north of London heading to/from Gatwick. It's much better now
that there's step-free access from KX to SPILL, but once you have
through trains from the ECML and WA corridor, and maybe an extension of
the MML electrification to Leicester, business will pick up.
--
Roland Perry