What will happen to SouthEastern train services into Blackfriars after 
December 2008 - diverted to Victoria, cancelled, or will there be a limited 
service continuing through to City Thameslink and terminating at Smithfield 
sidings?

"eNautilus"  wrote in message 
news:k-KdnZFtHebsNtjVnZ2dnUVZ8qbinZ2d@bt.com...
> What will happen to SouthEastern train services into Blackfriars after 
> December 2008 - diverted to Victoria, cancelled, or will there be a 
> limited service continuing through to City Thameslink and terminating at 
> Smithfield sidings?

They will be running through to at least Kentish Town, possibly further, 
although March 2009 is now believed to be the start date.

FCC drivers are currently training on dual voltage 377s, a number of which 
will be transferred from Southern.

Paul

On Jun 3, 9:57 pm, "Paul Scott" 
wrote:
> "eNautilus"  wrote in message
>
> news:k-KdnZFtHebsNtjVnZ2dnUVZ8qbinZ2d@bt.com...
>
> > What will happen to SouthEastern train services into Blackfriars after
> > December 2008 - diverted to Victoria, cancelled, or will there be a
> > limited service continuing through to City Thameslink and terminating at
> > Smithfield sidings?
>
> They will be running through to at least Kentish Town, possibly further,
> although March 2009 is now believed to be the start date.
>
> FCC drivers are currently training on dual voltage 377s, a number of which
> will be transferred from Southern.

I wonder if theres an argument for extending the 3rd rail to kentish
town so dual voltage stock isn't required.

B2003

On 4 Jun, 10:12, thagor2...@googlemail.com wrote:
> I wonder if theres an argument for extending the 3rd rail to kentish
> town so dual voltage stock isn't required.

It wouldn't be very useful. The interim arrangement is more about
having somewhere to send the peak services from the north with the
Moorgate branch gone. There's not really anywhere to terminate them,
so running them through as services to Kent (replacing the SET
Blackfriars services) is the only real option.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On 4 Jun, 10:12, thagor2...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Jun 3, 9:57 pm, "Paul Scott" 
> wrote:
>
> > "eNautilus"  wrote in message
>
> >news:k-KdnZFtHebsNtjVnZ2dnUVZ8qbinZ2d@bt.com...
>
> > > What will happen to SouthEastern train services into Blackfriars after
> > > December 2008 - diverted to Victoria, cancelled, or will there be a
> > > limited service continuing through to City Thameslink and terminating at
> > > Smithfield sidings?
>
> > They will be running through to at least Kentish Town, possibly further,
> > although March 2009 is now believed to be the start date.
>
> > FCC drivers are currently training on dual voltage 377s, a number of which
> > will be transferred from Southern.
>
> I wonder if theres an argument for extending the 3rd rail to kentish
> town so dual voltage stock isn't required.

Short answer: no, there isn't.

Longer answer: dual voltage stock is easy to make and reliable, and
all post-1994 DC stock either already is or easily can be converted to
dual voltage; laying third rail [and providing the high current
substations required] is expensive, time-consuming and disruptive; and
maintaining dual AC/DC electrification is technically quite difficult.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On 4 Jun, 10:56, Mr Thant 
wrote:

> On 4 Jun, 10:12, thagor2...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > I wonder if theres an argument for extending the 3rd rail to kentish
> > town so dual voltage stock isn't required.

Apart from any other reasons, this would be pretty costly, and require
the installation of a whole new array of kit and more substations.

>
> It wouldn't be very useful. The interim arrangement is more about
> having somewhere to send the peak services from the north with the
> Moorgate branch gone. There's not really anywhere to terminate them,
> so running them through as services to Kent (replacing the SET
> Blackfriars services) is the only real option.
>

But that only accounts for the displaced peak (no-longer Moorgate
bound) Thameslink trains from points north.

I presume terminating the other off-peak trains at City Thameslink and
then perhaps parking them up in the Smithfield sidings until they're
due to head south again is considered impractical given the frequency
of trains on the core Thameslink route. At Kentish Town I presume the
benefit is that the fast Bedford trains will be on the fast tracks,
hence there's less opportunity for terminating/reversing trains to jam
up the whole Thameslink service. Still, I can see plenty of
opportunities for things to go snafu if trains are running late.

"Mr Thant"  wrote in message 
news:354401ef-57f1-4c84-9602-fb1d72554d79@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...


> It wouldn't be very useful. The interim arrangement is more about
> having somewhere to send the peak services from the north with the
> Moorgate branch gone. There's not really anywhere to terminate them,
> so running them through as services to Kent (replacing the SET
> Blackfriars services) is the only real option.
>
> U

What exactly is happening with the Moorgate branch?

wrote in message 
news:wgC1k.82474$x55.64266@newsfe17.ams2...
>
> "Mr Thant"  wrote in message 
> news:354401ef-57f1-4c84-9602-fb1d72554d79@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> It wouldn't be very useful. The interim arrangement is more about
>> having somewhere to send the peak services from the north with the
>> Moorgate branch gone. There's not really anywhere to terminate them,
>> so running them through as services to Kent (replacing the SET
>> Blackfriars services) is the only real option.
>>
>> U
>
> What exactly is happening with the Moorgate branch?

Permanent closure of the NR lines between Farringdon and Moorgate, primarily 
so that the NR platforms at Farringdon can be extended southwards over the 
existing junction for 12 car Thameslink trains.  Secondly, the 24 tph 
throughput planned for the central section could not operate across the flat 
junction anyway, even if there was an alternative way of extending the 
platforms - they can't extend to the north because of the diveunder to get 
to the other side of the LU tracks.

Paul S

On 4 Jun, 20:44,  wrote:

> "Mr Thant"  wrote:
>
> > It wouldn't be very useful. The interim arrangement is more about
> > having somewhere to send the peak services from the north with the
> > Moorgate branch gone. There's not really anywhere to terminate them,
> > so running them through as services to Kent (replacing the SET
> > Blackfriars services) is the only real option.
>

It's being shut. The platforms at Farringdon can't be extended to 12-
car length without fouling the junction towards Moorgate, so the
branch will be closed.

There are various suggestions here and elsewhere about the alignment
being used for stabling LU trains given that it's adjacent to the Met/
Circle/H&C, though nothing official.

Mizter T wrote:

> I presume terminating the other off-peak trains at City Thameslink and
> then perhaps parking them up in the Smithfield sidings until they're
> due to head south again is considered impractical given the frequency
> of trains on the core Thameslink route.

That is true, and according to Nick Lawford the sidings will close when 
the Key Output 0 service starts.

> At Kentish Town I presume the benefit is that the fast Bedford trains
> will be on the fast tracks, hence there's less opportunity for
> terminating/reversing trains to jam up the whole Thameslink service.

*All* cross-London FCC TL services use the Moorgate (TL) lines south of 
Kentish Town Jn (between West Hampstead Thameslink and Kentish Town). 
Using the same point of reference,* services on the fast and 
slow/carriage (MML) lines reverse at London St Pancras (high-level) and 
Kentish Town respectively.

It is expected that off-peak joint FCC TL/SER services will 
start/terminate at Kentish Town on the Moorgate lines, but only by 
virtue of heading ECS to/from Cricklewood sidings.

[* OK, Carlton Road Jn (also between WHP and KTN) is the point of 
reference for the fast lines since Kentish Town Jn does not include them]

On 4 Jun, 22:09, Sky Rider  wrote:

> Mizter T wrote:
> > I presume terminating the other off-peak trains at City Thameslink and
> > then perhaps parking them up in the Smithfield sidings until they're
> > due to head south again is considered impractical given the frequency
> > of trains on the core Thameslink route.
>
> That is true, and according to Nick Lawford the sidings will close when
> the Key Output 0 service starts.

By the by I've heard said sidings referred to as Ratfields before!

>
> > At Kentish Town I presume the benefit is that the fast Bedford trains
> > will be on the fast tracks, hence there's less opportunity for
> > terminating/reversing trains to jam up the whole Thameslink service.
>
> *All* cross-London FCC TL services use the Moorgate (TL) lines south of
> Kentish Town Jn (between West Hampstead Thameslink and Kentish Town).
> Using the same point of reference,* services on the fast and
> slow/carriage (MML) lines reverse at London St Pancras (high-level) and
> Kentish Town respectively.

OK, thanks, I was a bit hazy on where the fast trains moved over (when
up this way on TL I'm normally on the slow trains, and evidently never
paid much attention when I've been on the fast trains, though now I
think about it I do recall waiting occasionally at Kentish Town with
fasts thundering through on the same line).

>
> It is expected that off-peak joint FCC TL/SER services will
> start/terminate at Kentish Town on the Moorgate lines, but only by
> virtue of heading ECS to/from Cricklewood sidings.

Aha, right that makes more sense - reversing a train at Kentish Town
sounded like a recipe for disaster, but it looks like that was never
on the agenda (was it?). And that explains why people have been saying
that these trains might head further north - they could I suppose
terminate at West Hampstead or Cricklewood, and indeed this might
arguably be preferable given the extra time required to tip out as
compared to a normal stop.

>
> [* OK, Carlton Road Jn (also between WHP and KTN) is the point of
> reference for the fast lines since Kentish Town Jn does not include them]

On 4 Jun, 21:29, Mizter T  wrote:
> On 4 Jun, 20:44,  wrote:
>
> > "Mr Thant"  wrote:
>
> > > It wouldn't be very useful. The interim arrangement is more about
> > > having somewhere to send the peak services from the north with the
> > > Moorgate branch gone. There's not really anywhere to terminate them,
> > > so running them through as services to Kent (replacing the SET
> > > Blackfriars services) is the only real option.
>
> It's being shut. The platforms at Farringdon can't be extended to 12-
> car length without fouling the junction towards Moorgate, so the
> branch will be closed.
>
> There are various suggestions here and elsewhere about the alignment
> being used for stabling LU trains given that it's adjacent to the Met/
> Circle/H&C, though nothing official.

Will we get 12-car trains on Thameslink before we get them on "Kent
Link"?

Another incomplete set of platform extensions on the way (plus the
closure of a route)

But another economic downturn will mean that some stations won't get
extended, the proposed frequency won't happen and trains will remain
eight coaches.  But the Moorgate branch will sure as hell close, and
there will be huge disruption for the pointless work.

"Paul Scott"  wrote in message 
news:humdnWvRLOqzZ9vVnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> Permanent closure of the NR lines between Farringdon and Moorgate, 
> primarily so that the NR platforms at Farringdon can be extended 
> southwards over the existing junction for 12 car Thameslink trains. 
> Secondly, the 24 tph throughput planned for the central section could not 
> operate across the flat junction anyway, even if there was an alternative 
> way of extending the platforms - they can't extend to the north because of 
> the diveunder to get to the other side of the LU tracks.
>

When exactly is the closure due to happen and what will thus happen to the 
tracks between Farringdon and Moorgate?

The parallel running of LUL trains from Farringdon to Moorgate via Barbican 
probably does make this service redundant. But is there really no way of 
extending the Farringdom platforms north?

On 5 Jun, 00:28,  wrote:
> "Paul Scott"  wrote in message
>
> news:humdnWvRLOqzZ9vVnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>
>
> > Permanent closure of the NR lines between Farringdon and Moorgate,
> > primarily so that the NR platforms at Farringdon can be extended
> > southwards over the existing junction for 12 car Thameslink trains.
> > Secondly, the 24 tph throughput planned for the central section could not
> > operate across the flat junction anyway, even if there was an alternative
> > way of extending the platforms - they can't extend to the north because of
> > the diveunder to get to the other side of the LU tracks.
>
> When exactly is the closure due to happen and what will thus happen to the
> tracks between Farringdon and Moorgate?

March 2009 I think and no-one knows, one common suggestion is that
they could then be used for LU sidings. Talk on the District Dave
forum is that the new 7-car S-stock trains for the LU SSL lines are
going to be too long for some of the existing berthing points, so
perhaps here's a solution for that, perhaps not - without knowing all
the details it's hard to say.

>
> The parallel running of LUL trains from Farringdon to Moorgate via Barbican
> probably does make this service redundant. But is there really no way of
> extending the Farringdom platforms north?

No, unless you totally rebuild everything including the alignment of
the Met/Circle line at massive cost whilst causing an enormous
disturbance.

The north end of the platforms are already at a fair old slope, and
even if they were to be extended to the north they still wouldn't be
long enough.

Here's a couple of photos from Wikipedia, though I'm not sure how well
they illustrate the true level of the incline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Farringdon_TL_north.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Farringdon_3rd_rail_AC_overhead.JPG


I presume that the peaktime Thameslink through trains to Moorgate are
indeed popular with some City commuters, but in the future passengers
will be able to transfer at Farringdon to LU to do this journey. I can
see that the idea of a siding where trains to & from points north
could be reversed or 'parked up' if there was trouble further south
might be useful. However both of these factors have to be weighed
against the crucial need to increase capacity and hence lengthen
platforms. The Moorgate branch just isn't that important.

On 4 Jun, 23:35, MIG  wrote:

> On 4 Jun, 21:29, Mizter T  wrote:
>
> > On 4 Jun, 20:44,  wrote:
>
> > > "Mr Thant"  wrote:
>
> > > > It wouldn't be very useful. The interim arrangement is more about
> > > > having somewhere to send the peak services from the north with the
> > > > Moorgate branch gone. There's not really anywhere to terminate them,
> > > > so running them through as services to Kent (replacing the SET
> > > > Blackfriars services) is the only real option.
>
> > It's being shut. The platforms at Farringdon can't be extended to 12-
> > car length without fouling the junction towards Moorgate, so the
> > branch will be closed.
>
> > There are various suggestions here and elsewhere about the alignment
> > being used for stabling LU trains given that it's adjacent to the Met/
> > Circle/H&C, though nothing official.
>
> Will we get 12-car trains on Thameslink before we get them on "Kent
> Link"?

For a second there I thought you were coining a snazzy new phrase for
these quasi-Thameslink Kentish Town terminators which will come up
from Sevenoaks (and currently only get as far as Blackfriars).

But then I realised you were giving us a history lesson of how things
don't always work out as they should.

>
> Another incomplete set of platform extensions on the way (plus the
> closure of a route)
>
> But another economic downturn will mean that some stations won't get
> extended, the proposed frequency won't happen and trains will remain
> eight coaches.  But the Moorgate branch will sure as hell close, and
> there will be huge disruption for the pointless work.
>

What a delightfully bleak view!

Thameslink 2000 seems to be a pretty committed project. As for
Crossrail...

On Jun 4, 11:07 pm, Mizter T  wrote:
> > It is expected that off-peak joint FCC TL/SER services will
> > start/terminate at Kentish Town on the Moorgate lines, but only by
> > virtue of heading ECS to/from Cricklewood sidings.
>
> Aha, right that makes more sense - reversing a train at Kentish Town
> sounded like a recipe for disaster, but it looks like that was never
> on the agenda (was it?). And that explains why people have been saying
> that these trains might head further north - they could I suppose
> terminate at West Hampstead or Cricklewood, and indeed this might
> arguably be preferable given the extra time required to tip out as
> compared to a normal stop.

I'd go further and say that FCC/SER *should* terminate these services
at West Hampstead rather than Kentish Town as this would create an
interchange and, through it, new journey possibilities for Jubilee and
LO users.

THC

On Jun 4, 10:09 pm, Sky Rider  wrote:
> Mizter T wrote:
> > I presume terminating the other off-peak trains at City Thameslink and
> > then perhaps parking them up in the Smithfield sidings until they're
> > due to head south again is considered impractical given the frequency
> > of trains on the core Thameslink route.
>
> That is true, and according to Nick Lawford the sidings will close when
> the Key Output 0 service starts.
>
> > At Kentish Town I presume the benefit is that the fast Bedford trains
> > will be on the fast tracks, hence there's less opportunity for
> > terminating/reversing trains to jam up the whole Thameslink service.
>
> *All* cross-London FCC TL services use the Moorgate (TL) lines south of
> Kentish Town Jn (between West Hampstead Thameslink and Kentish Town).
> Using the same point of reference,* services on the fast and
> slow/carriage (MML) lines reverse at London St Pancras (high-level) and
> Kentish Town respectively.
>
> It is expected that off-peak joint FCC TL/SER services will
> start/terminate at Kentish Town on the Moorgate lines, but only by
> virtue of heading ECS to/from Cricklewood sidings.
>
> [* OK, Carlton Road Jn (also between WHP and KTN) is the point of
> reference for the fast lines since Kentish Town Jn does not include them]

I'm not sure why the off-peak joint TL/SER services would have to run
ECS to cricklewood sidings. There is spare platform capacity (4
platforms, 6 tracks) at Kentish Town and the current SER service is
only every 30 mins. Running ECS to cricklewood just moves the conflict
with existing services further north, the northbound terminating
trains would have to cross the southbound at a flat junction. Whereas
at Kentish Town, the northbound terminating trains can stop in the
current 'normal' northbound platform whilst the northbound thameslink
trains run past on the other side of the island, as sometimes happens
already when there is a service disruption.

Just because the northbound 'fast' TL trains currently stay on the
Down Moorgate line through the station, doesn't mean that they have to
keep doing so from the timetable change.

The other question is what happens to the imbalance in services during
the peak. At present there are more Moorgate terminators than there
are Blackfriars terminators, so where are the 'extras' from the north
going to go?

Andy wrote:
> On Jun 4, 10:09 pm, Sky Rider  wrote:
>> Mizter T wrote:
>>> I presume terminating the other off-peak trains at City Thameslink
>>> and then perhaps parking them up in the Smithfield sidings until
>>> they're due to head south again is considered impractical given the
>>> frequency of trains on the core Thameslink route.
>>
>
> The other question is what happens to the imbalance in services during
> the peak. At present there are more Moorgate terminators than there
> are Blackfriars terminators, so where are the 'extras' from the north
> going to go?

There is a new turnback siding currently being installed at Herne Hill
especially for Thameslink Key Output 0.

Paul S

On 5 Jun, 12:03, "Paul Scott"  wrote:

> Andy wrote:
>
> >> Mizter T wrote:
> >>> I presume terminating the other off-peak trains at City Thameslink
> >>> and then perhaps parking them up in the Smithfield sidings until
> >>> they're due to head south again is considered impractical given the
> >>> frequency of trains on the core Thameslink route.
>
> > The other question is what happens to the imbalance in services during
> > the peak. At present there are more Moorgate terminators than there
> > are Blackfriars terminators, so where are the 'extras' from the north
> > going to go?
>
> There is a new turnback siding currently being installed at Herne Hill
> especially for Thameslink Key Output 0.
>

Aha, now that's what that's for, all now becomes clear (ish).

Where will these trains from the north tip out then - Loughborough Jn,
Elephant, Blackfriars?

On Jun 5, 12:03 pm, "Paul Scott" 
wrote:
> Andy wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 10:09 pm, Sky Rider  wrote:
> >> Mizter T wrote:
> >>> I presume terminating the other off-peak trains at City Thameslink
> >>> and then perhaps parking them up in the Smithfield sidings until
> >>> they're due to head south again is considered impractical given the
> >>> frequency of trains on the core Thameslink route.
>
> > The other question is what happens to the imbalance in services during
> > the peak. At present there are more Moorgate terminators than there
> > are Blackfriars terminators, so where are the 'extras' from the north
> > going to go?
>
> There is a new turnback siding currently being installed at Herne Hill
> especially for Thameslink Key Output 0.
>

Arrgghhh, I completely forgot about the new siding at Herne Hill.
Shame that there's no room for an extra platform at Herne Hill to
allow the trains to run in service and prevent the 'tipping out'
delays.

Andy wrote:

> I'm not sure why the off-peak joint TL/SER services would have to run
> ECS to cricklewood sidings. There is spare platform capacity (4
> platforms, 6 tracks) at Kentish Town and the current SER service is
> only every 30 mins.

There is no access to the Fasts or (I think) the Up/Down Slow from the 
Moorgates until after you pass Kentish Town in the down direction, so 
that alone whittles it down to 3 platforms/tracks. And that assumes the 
Moorgates are adequately bi-di signalled, which they are not.

Therefore I make that 2 tracks/platforms available for use.

> Running ECS to cricklewood just moves the conflict with existing
>  services further north, the northbound terminating trains would have
> to cross the southbound at a flat junction. 

True, but your suggestion (as quoted below) does not eliminate the 
problem. THC has suggested how the most can be made out of reversing at 
Cricklewood sidings.

> Whereas at Kentish Town, the northbound terminating trains can stop
> in the current 'normal' northbound platform

The Down Moorgate is not signalled for reverse workings north of King's 
Cross Thameslink so you would need new equipment for that purpose, 
otherwise you would have no option but to reverse somewhere further 
north (as is the plan AFAIAA). Reverse workings will conflict with down 
  services and then up services until they clear Dock Jn North.

> whilst the northbound thameslink trains run past on the other side of
> the island, as sometimes happens already when there is a service disruption.

Really? Now there's a surprise - I was under the impression that the 
Up/Down Carriage was cleared only for ECS workings between Kentish Town 
and Dock Jn North.

> Just because the northbound 'fast' TL trains currently stay on the
> Down Moorgate line through the station, doesn't mean that they have to
> keep doing so from the timetable change.

Fair point. However, the crossover between the Moorgates and the Up/Down 
Carriage is crap (it is limited by a PSR of 15mph IIRC); although I 
don't know how the Cricklewood crossovers fare in comparison.

> The other question is what happens to the imbalance in services during
> the peak. At present there are more Moorgate terminators than there
> are Blackfriars terminators, so where are the 'extras' from the north
> going to go?

In the high am peak it's actually the other way round (9 to BFR vs. 7 to 
ZMG). I see the turnback siding at Herne Hill has already been 
mentioned, but it's only part of the whole picture. In any case I don't 
know where exactly the peak Moorgate/Blackfriars services will go.

Sky Rider wrote:

> and then up services

Please ignore that bit. I stand by the rest of my comments though.

On Jun 5, 2:17 pm, Sky Rider  wrote:
> Andy wrote:
> > I'm not sure why the off-peak joint TL/SER services would have to run
> > ECS to cricklewood sidings. There is spare platform capacity (4
> > platforms, 6 tracks) at Kentish Town and the current SER service is
> > only every 30 mins.
>
> There is no access to the Fasts or (I think) the Up/Down Slow from the
> Moorgates until after you pass Kentish Town in the down direction, so
> that alone whittles it down to 3 platforms/tracks. And that assumes the
> Moorgates are adequately bi-di signalled, which they are not.
>
> Therefore I make that 2 tracks/platforms available for use.
>
> > Running ECS to cricklewood just moves the conflict with existing
> >  services further north, the northbound terminating trains would have
> > to cross the southbound at a flat junction.
>
> True, but your suggestion (as quoted below) does not eliminate the
> problem. THC has suggested how the most can be made out of reversing at
> Cricklewood sidings.
>
> > Whereas at Kentish Town, the northbound terminating trains can stop
> > in the current 'normal' northbound platform
>
> The Down Moorgate is not signalled for reverse workings north of King's
> Cross Thameslink so you would need new equipment for that purpose,
> otherwise you would have no option but to reverse somewhere further
> north (as is the plan AFAIAA). Reverse workings will conflict with down
>   services and then up services until they clear Dock Jn North.
>
> > whilst the northbound thameslink trains run past on the other side of
> > the island, as sometimes happens already when there is a service disruption.
>
> Really? Now there's a surprise - I was under the impression that the
> Up/Down Carriage was cleared only for ECS workings between Kentish Town
> and Dock Jn North.
>

Having checked, the former Up/Down Carriage is now the Up/Down Relief
(since the works for and at St. Pancras) and is fully available for
reversals in both directions (i.e. North to South and South to North).
However, as you say, the Down and Up Moorgates are only reversible
into / out of Kentish Town to the North.

So the situation is currently not quite so good for reversals at
Kentish Town as I thought. Platform 3 is available to reverse, but
this leads to trains needing a 'gap' in both directions if reversing
North to South. However, a similar gap is needed by northbound trains
terminating at Blackfriars as well and by trains leaving Moorgate

Does anyone know if the Thameslink plans include reversible signalling
through the central section? I seem to recall that the crossovers and
signalling for reversals at King's Cross were put in quite quickly for
the closure when St. Pancras Low Level was being installed. It would
certainly make sense to make the Down Moorgate reversible at Kentish
Town to the South to give a more flexible layout and this would only
involve one or two extra signals.

> > Just because the northbound 'fast' TL trains currently stay on the
> > Down Moorgate line through the station, doesn't mean that they have to
> > keep doing so from the timetable change.
>
> Fair point. However, the crossover between the Moorgates and the Up/Down
> Carriage is crap (it is limited by a PSR of 15mph IIRC); although I
> don't know how the Cricklewood crossovers fare in comparison.
>
> > The other question is what happens to the imbalance in services during
> > the peak. At present there are more Moorgate terminators than there
> > are Blackfriars terminators, so where are the 'extras' from the north
> > going to go?
>
> In the high am peak it's actually the other way round (9 to BFR vs. 7 to
> ZMG). I see the turnback siding at Herne Hill has already been
> mentioned, but it's only part of the whole picture. In any case I don't
> know where exactly the peak Moorgate/Blackfriars services will go.

Ahh, I was looking at where the southbound trains went from Farringdon
and Blackfriars and forgot to check for the busier northbound into
Blackfriars / City Thameslink.

MIG wrote:

> Will we get 12-car trains on Thameslink before we get them on "Kent
> Link"?

Network Rail are planning to introduce 12-car services on all 
Southeastern suburban routes via London Bridge around 2011/2012 - check 
out Chapter 7 of the South London Route Utilisation Strategy.

http://tinyurl.com/2k29zc

> But the Moorgate branch will sure as hell close, and
> there will be huge disruption for the pointless work.

It will be pointless (well sort-of), but not in the way I think you 
meant. ;)

Paul Scott wrote:

> They will be running through to at least Kentish Town, possibly further, 
> although March 2009 is now believed to be the start date.
> 
> FCC drivers are currently training on dual voltage 377s, a number of which 
> will be transferred from Southern. 

I wonder how much the SER Blackfriars pax will like 319s in lieu of 
their, er...beloved (!) Notworkers. In addition, there will be some who 
get to travel on 377s instead if their service starts/terminates at 
Gillingham or Ashford International.

Paul Scott wrote:

> They will be running through to at least Kentish Town, possibly further, 
> although March 2009 is now believed to be the start date.
> 
> FCC drivers are currently training on dual voltage 377s, a number of which 
> will be transferred from Southern.

I wonder how much the SER Blackfriars pax will like 319s in lieu of 
their, er...beloved (!) Notworkers. In addition, there will be some who 
get to travel in 377s if their service starts/terminates at Gillingham 
or Ashford International.

On Jun 6, 3:35 pm, Sky Rider  wrote:

> I wonder how much the SER Blackfriars pax will like 319s in lieu of
> their, er...beloved (!) Notworkers. In addition, there will be some who
> get to travel in 377s if their service starts/terminates at Gillingham
> or Ashford International.

I presume we (for I am one) are to get the entirely unrefurbished
319/0s, rather than the pink and purple reasonably-well-refurbished
examples.  Though the Notworkers are still in 'as built' condition
internally (albeit 'refreshed'), and look pretty dingy and tired
compared to other older (but modernised) stock like 455s.

On Jun 5, 1:48 am, Mizter T  wrote:
> On 5 Jun, 00:28,  wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Paul Scott"  wrote in message
>
> >news:humdnWvRLOqzZ9vVnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> > > Permanent closure of the NR lines between Farringdon and Moorgate,
> > > primarily so that the NR platforms at Farringdon can be extended
> > > southwards over the existing junction for 12 car Thameslink trains.
> > > Secondly, the 24 tph throughput planned for the central section could not
> > > operate across the flat junction anyway, even if there was an alternative
> > > way of extending the platforms - they can't extend to the north because of
> > > the diveunder to get to the other side of the LU tracks.
>
> > When exactly is the closure due to happen and what will thus happen to the
> > tracks between Farringdon and Moorgate?
>
> March 2009 I think and no-one knows, one common suggestion is that
> they could then be used for LU sidings. Talk on the District Dave
> forum is that the new 7-car S-stock trains for the LU SSL lines are
> going to be too long for some of the existing berthing points, so
> perhaps here's a solution for that, perhaps not - without knowing all
> the details it's hard to say.
>
>
>
> > The parallel running of LUL trains from Farringdon to Moorgate via Barbican
> > probably does make this service redundant. But is there really no way of
> > extending the Farringdom platforms north?
>
> No, unless you totally rebuild everything including the alignment of
> the Met/Circle line at massive cost whilst causing an enormous
> disturbance.
>
> The north end of the platforms are already at a fair old slope, and
> even if they were to be extended to the north they still wouldn't be
> long enough.
>
> Here's a couple of photos from Wikipedia, though I'm not sure how well
> they illustrate the true level of the incline:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Farringdon_TL_north.JPGhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Farringdon_3rd_rail_AC_overhead.JPG
>
> I presume that the peaktime Thameslink through trains to Moorgate are
> indeed popular with some City commuters, but in the future passengers
> will be able to transfer at Farringdon to LU to do this journey. I can
> see that the idea of a siding where trains to & from points north
> could be reversed or 'parked up' if there was trouble further south
> might be useful. However both of these factors have to be weighed
> against the crucial need to increase capacity and hence lengthen
> platforms. The Moorgate branch just isn't that important.



What is being investigated at the moment is the use of the current
Thameslink line to Moorgate for use as sidings, quite how many, I
don't know. Access would be over what is currently Farringdon sidings.
They are one of many sidings that are not long enough for 7 cars of S
Stock which will be arriving a good few years before new signalling.

Rupert Candy wrote:

> I presume we (for I am one) are to get the entirely unrefurbished
> 319/0s, rather than the pink and purple reasonably-well-refurbished
> examples. 

Knowing how often 319/(0,3)s do Bedford-Brighton and 319/4s Luton/St 
Albans-Wimbledon Loop (because of diagramming constraints), you'll 
probably ride a non-319/0 every now and again. Or perhaps even 
semi-regularly if FCC *plan* to share the 319/(0,3)s between Wimbledon 
Loop and 7oaks services, which I don't think is unlikely - but I expect 
thy'll try to restrict the former Brighton Express trains (319/2s) 
to...er...Brighton services.

FCC will refresh all the 319s but as the C6 exams are carried out at the 
same time it will be a few more years before they are all refreshed - to 
date well over 20 319/4s have been worked on since September 2006, which 
leaves about another 60-odd 319s to do.

Unless I'm mistaken the 319/(0,2)s underwent their C6 exams back in 
2006/2007 so they will be refreshed last (possibly alongside the 319/4s 
that were merely repainted).

> Though the Notworkers are still in 'as built' condition
> internally (albeit 'refreshed'), and look pretty dingy and tired
> compared to other older (but modernised) stock like 455s.

Some of the 465/2s were [refreshed/refurbished]* and renumbered as 
465/9s weren't they? I don't know if any of the other Networkers have 
been altered though.


*Delete as appropriate

On Jun 6, 3:07 pm, Sky Rider  wrote:
> MIG wrote:
> > Will we get 12-car trains on Thameslink before we get them on "Kent
> > Link"?
>
> Network Rail are planning to introduce 12-car services on all
> Southeastern suburban routes via London Bridge around 2011/2012 - check
> out Chapter 7 of the South London Route Utilisation Strategy.

BR planned them for 1993/4.  The work included closing Charing Cross
for three weeks and diversion of trains to Cannon Street, Blackfriars
and Victoria.

The special timetable during that period was more interesting than
most of the grinding disruption and closure over a couple of years,
but it resulted in peak-hour trains shortening from 10 coaches of slam-
door stuff to 8 or 6-coach "Networkers" (and it took years for average
peak lengths to get near to what they were in 1992).

So, with another dowturn on the way, my response to any such plan is
"I'll believe it when I see it".  On past evidence, trains are due to
get shorter again, not longer, but they may have yet more long
platforms for punters to have to chase them to the wrong end of.

>
> http://tinyurl.com/2k29zc
>
> > But the Moorgate branch will sure as hell close, and
> > there will be huge disruption for the pointless work.
>
> It will be pointless (well sort-of), but not in the way I think you
> meant. ;)

On Jun 6, 8:33 pm, Sky Rider  wrote:
> Rupert Candy wrote:
> > I presume we (for I am one) are to get the entirely unrefurbished
> > 319/0s, rather than the pink and purple reasonably-well-refurbished
> > examples.
>
> Knowing how often 319/(0,3)s do Bedford-Brighton and 319/4s Luton/St
> Albans-Wimbledon Loop (because of diagramming constraints), you'll
> probably ride a non-319/0 every now and again. Or perhaps even
> semi-regularly if FCC *plan* to share the 319/(0,3)s between Wimbledon
> Loop and 7oaks services, which I don't think is unlikely - but I expect
> thy'll try to restrict the former Brighton Express trains (319/2s)
> to...er...Brighton services.
>
> FCC will refresh all the 319s but as the C6 exams are carried out at the
> same time it will be a few more years before they are all refreshed - to
> date well over 20 319/4s have been worked on since September 2006, which
> leaves about another 60-odd 319s to do.
>
> Unless I'm mistaken the 319/(0,2)s underwent their C6 exams back in
> 2006/2007 so they will be refreshed last (possibly alongside the 319/4s
> that were merely repainted).
>
> > Though the Notworkers are still in 'as built' condition
> > internally (albeit 'refreshed'), and look pretty dingy and tired
> > compared to other older (but modernised) stock like 455s.
>
> Some of the 465/2s were [refreshed/refurbished]* and renumbered as
> 465/9s weren't they? I don't know if any of the other Networkers have
> been altered though.
>
> *Delete as appropriate

Most of the 465/2s in fact (30-odd out of 50), but as 465/9s they
still haven't been given working PIS, which one would normally expect
in the circumstances.

The rest of the 465/466s are pretty much untouched apart from some
internal anti-graffiti spraying and the removal of the Eddie Ponds.

"eNautilus"  wrote in message 
news:k-KdnZFtHebsNtjVnZ2dnUVZ8qbinZ2d@bt.com...
> What will happen to SouthEastern train services into Blackfriars after 
> December 2008 - diverted to Victoria, cancelled, or will there be a 
> limited service continuing through to City Thameslink and terminating at 
> Smithfield sidings?

So, in summary, the current very reliable and punctual Sevenoaks-Blackfriars 
service, as operated by SET, will be replaced by a much less reliable, 
frequently cancelled and generally useless 'service' as provided by 
Thameslink/Worst Capital Connect/Whatever It's Called This Week.

eNautilus wrote:

> So, in summary, the current very reliable and punctual 
> Sevenoaks-Blackfriars service, as operated by SET, will be replaced by a 
> much less reliable, frequently cancelled and generally useless 'service' 
> as provided by Thameslink/Worst Capital Connect/Whatever It's Called 
> This Week.

Not quite. The service you describe will actually be jointly operated by 
FCC and SER (with TOC changeovers at Blackfriars).