Don't go through here very much these days, but noticed today what
looked to be quite new installation of overhead wires. Guess this is
all to do with Thameslink 2000, but how long and does this mean
Farringdon will no longer the overhead to third rail changeover
station?

Martin J

On Oct 2, 7:43*pm, martin j wrote:
Don't go through here very much these days, but noticed today what
looked to be quite new installation of overhead wires. *Guess this is
all to do with Thameslink 2000, but how long and does this mean
Farringdon will no longer the overhead to third rail changeover
station?


As I understand it, Farringdon will remain the normal change over
spot, but the extension of the wires to City Thameslink will allow any
unit which has a problem switching from AC to DC to reverse at City
Thameslink and return north. At the moment any unit with this problem
can still access Moorgate to reverse, but the branch will be
decommissioned in December.

Andy wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:43 pm, martin j wrote:
Don't go through here very much these days, but noticed today what
looked to be quite new installation of overhead wires. Guess this is
all to do with Thameslink 2000, but how long and does this mean
Farringdon will no longer the overhead to third rail changeover
station?


As I understand it, Farringdon will remain the normal change over
spot, but the extension of the wires to City Thameslink will allow any
unit which has a problem switching from AC to DC to reverse at City
Thameslink and return north. At the moment any unit with this problem
can still access Moorgate to reverse, but the branch will be
decommissioned in December.

To add to that Andy, both platforms have been fully wired at City
Thameslink, and that seems to allow for the operational scenarios described
in the DfT's Thameslink EMU spec. This suggests units will normally
changeover at Farringdon southbound, as now, but at City Thameslink
northbound.

Failure to changeover AC to DC will result in southbound trains continuing
to City T/L on AC to detrain, and then reversing through Farringdon.
Northbound, DC to AC failures will detrain at City T/L and can then either
be binned into Smithfield sidings (subject to 8 car limit), or continue to
Farringdon on DC and reverse.

Source:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/th...cification.pdf

Section 2.4.3 onward refers

I imagine the plan to detrain at City T/L in both directions is because it
has significantly more room (than Farringdon) to deal with the pax from a 12
car train?

Paul

On Oct 2, 12:41*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Andy wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:43 pm, martin j wrote:
Don't go through here very much these days, but noticed today what
looked to be quite new installation of overhead wires. Guess this is
all to do with Thameslink 2000, but how long and does this mean
Farringdon will no longer the overhead to third rail changeover
station?

As I understand it, Farringdon will remain the normal change over
spot, but the extension of the wires to City Thameslink will allow any
unit which has a problem switching from AC to DC to reverse at City
Thameslink and return north. At the moment any unit with this problem
can still access Moorgate to reverse, but the branch will be
decommissioned in December.

To add to that Andy, both platforms have been fully wired at City
Thameslink, and that seems to allow for the operational scenarios described
in the DfT's Thameslink EMU spec. This suggests units will normally
changeover at Farringdon southbound, as now, but at City Thameslink
northbound.

Failure to changeover AC to DC will result in southbound trains continuing
to City T/L on AC to detrain, and then reversing through Farringdon.
Northbound, DC to AC failures will detrain at City T/L and can then either
be binned into Smithfield sidings (subject to 8 car limit), or continue to
Farringdon on DC and reverse.

Source:http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/th...k/itt/specific...

Section 2.4.3 onward refers

I imagine the plan to detrain at City T/L in both directions is because it
has significantly more room (than Farringdon) to deal with the pax from a 12
car train?

After TL 20nn, one would hope that Farringdon will have considerably
more passenger handling capability. Is there not going to be another
entrance/exit?

E27002 wrote:
On Oct 2, 12:41 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

I imagine the plan to detrain at City T/L in both directions is
because it has significantly more room (than Farringdon) to deal
with the pax from a 12 car train?

After TL 20nn, one would hope that Farringdon will have considerably
more passenger handling capability. Is there not going to be another
entrance/exit?

Yes, but the platform width of either platform within the existing station
can't really be improved much if at all, and that'll still be where 8 of 12
coaches would have to tip out. I think City is definitely better given the
choice...

Paul S

On Oct 2, 8:41*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Andy wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:43 pm, martin j wrote:
Don't go through here very much these days, but noticed today what
looked to be quite new installation of overhead wires. Guess this is
all to do with Thameslink 2000, but how long and does this mean
Farringdon will no longer the overhead to third rail changeover
station?

As I understand it, Farringdon will remain the normal change over
spot, but the extension of the wires to City Thameslink will allow any
unit which has a problem switching from AC to DC to reverse at City
Thameslink and return north. At the moment any unit with this problem
can still access Moorgate to reverse, but the branch will be
decommissioned in December.

To add to that Andy, both platforms have been fully wired at City
Thameslink, and that seems to allow for the operational scenarios described
in the DfT's Thameslink EMU spec. This suggests units will normally
changeover at Farringdon southbound, as now, but at City Thameslink
northbound.

Failure to changeover AC to DC will result in southbound trains continuing
to City T/L on AC to detrain, and then reversing through Farringdon.
Northbound, DC to AC failures will detrain at City T/L and can then either
be binned into Smithfield sidings (subject to 8 car limit), or continue to
Farringdon on DC and reverse.


with a third option, which doesn't appear in the specs, of reversing
(in service or not) on DC from the northbound platform at City
Thameslink. This happens occasionally during engineering work.

In message
..com of Fri, 2 Oct 2009 13:00:30 in uk.transport.london, E27002
writes
On Oct 2, 12:41*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Andy wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:43 pm, martin j wrote:

[snip]

Source:http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/th...ingstock/itt/s
pecific...

The original URL got truncated here so a 404 results when one attempts
to follow it.


Section 2.4.3 onward refers

I imagine the plan to detrain at City T/L in both directions is because it
has significantly more room (than Farringdon) to deal with the pax from a 12
car train?

After TL 20nn, one would hope that Farringdon will have considerably
more passenger handling capability. Is there not going to be another
entrance/exit?

There is already a new, low capacity entrance/exit in Turnmill Street.
FWIR, it is open M-F 07.00-10.00 and 15.30-18.30. Signage restrict it to
the peak flow direction. At first, I obeyed those signs; nothing seems
to exist to enforce them any more than "no exit except in emergency".
There is no gateline; there is a PAYG validator.
Do you refer to that access or something to be provided in future?

No relevant info is in
Source:http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/th...ingstock/itt/s
pecific...
I trust a working URL follows:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/th...itt/specificat
ion.pdf
Now I look at the title, it ia not surprising.
--
Walter Briscoe

"Walter Briscoe" wrote in message
...
In message
.com of Fri, 2 Oct 2009 13:00:30 in uk.transport.london, E27002
writes
On Oct 2, 12:41 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Andy wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:43 pm, martin j wrote:

[snip]

Source:http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/th...ingstock/itt/s
pecific...

The original URL got truncated here so a 404 results when one attempts
to follow it.


Section 2.4.3 onward refers

I imagine the plan to detrain at City T/L in both directions is because
it
has significantly more room (than Farringdon) to deal with the pax from
a 12
car train?

After TL 20nn, one would hope that Farringdon will have considerably
more passenger handling capability. Is there not going to be another
entrance/exit?

There is already a new, low capacity entrance/exit in Turnmill Street.
FWIR, it is open M-F 07.00-10.00 and 15.30-18.30. Signage restrict it to
the peak flow direction. At first, I obeyed those signs; nothing seems
to exist to enforce them any more than "no exit except in emergency".
There is no gateline; there is a PAYG validator.
Do you refer to that access or something to be provided in future?

The entrance you mention will eventually be made more permanent, I believe,
but there is also to be a major new Thameslink/Crossrail entrance and ticket
hall to be built on the other side of Cowcross St, vertically above the
Thameslink platform extensions.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...Cate goryID=8

However as I mentioned in another post, there is no practical way of
increasing the width of the existing platform areas.

Paul S

There is already a new, low capacity entrance/exit in Turnmill Street.

The entrance you mention will eventually be made more permanent,


I'm not sure where I got this from, but I think this exit is currently
really an emrgency entry/exit that finds temporary double use as a
peaks-only entry/exit; a permanent entry/exit is AIUI somewhere there,
maybe even the same location, but rebuilt, altered, whatever.

--
Nick

"D7666" wrote in message
...
There is already a new, low capacity entrance/exit in Turnmill Street.

The entrance you mention will eventually be made more permanent,

I'm not sure where I got this from, but I think this exit is currently
really an emrgency entry/exit that finds temporary double use as a
peaks-only entry/exit; a permanent entry/exit is AIUI somewhere there,
maybe even the same location, but rebuilt, altered, whatever.

Yes, that rings a bell, 'broadly in the same place', with a new surface
building, is how I understood it. I'd expect it'll probably line up with
the rearranged footbridges somehow.

Paul