IEP & Thameslink

[Rhydgaled]

Also in the ECML consultation document, revival of possible replacement of INTERCITY 225s with 26x 9-car 'electric' IEP diagrams. Not a definate, but still back on the cards.

And with that, my opinion is that any crying of 'insufficent funds for electrification' has lost any credibility. Since they are considering replacment of 20-year-old (so not life expired) 11-vehicle electric LHCS 140mph trains with donkey-engined 9-vehicle trains with coaches so long they won't fit the current loading guage, they evidently have plenty of money. Ordering enough IEPs to replace the IC225s alone (not considering guage clearance costs of £100m + or the other components of the IEP order) will cost somewhere between £300m and £500m (a very large range I know, but even £300m would allow alot of wires).

GWML electrification to Oxford, Newbury, Bristol and Cardiff comes to £1bn I believe. Let the IC225 solider on without replacment, make IEP-vehicle dimensions the same as mark3s and you can probably have half as many miles of wire again, avoiding the need to purchase £58m (ish) worth of diesel engines and hence having £58m (ish) to spend on lengthening the IEP EMU trains. (Ok, so its not quite as simple as that, you'd need some diesel locos for some diversions and the few places that remain unwired, and other things, but getting Swansea and Cheltenham, perhaps even Weston-Super-Mare/Taunton and Westbury or Worcester, wired shouldn't be a problem).

 

[anthony263]

ATOC seems have now decided to publicly say they have doubts about Hitachi's IEP and a possible further delay to signing the contract to buy these trains.

I do hope now with the news that the pfi deals dont seem to be as good as they were previously thought to be someone will take a good hard look at the figures and scrap IEP or at least talk to Bombardier/Seimens to see if they can come up with something
cheaper

 

[sprinterguy]

Also in the ECML consultation document, revival of possible replacement of INTERCITY 225s with 26x 9-car 'electric' IEP diagrams. Not a definate, but still back on the cards.

And with that, my opinion is that any crying of 'insufficent funds for electrification' has lost any credibility. Since they are considering replacment of 20-year-old (so not life expired) 11-vehicle electric LHCS 140mph trains with donkey-engined 9-vehicle trains with coaches so long they won't fit the current loading guage, they evidently have plenty of money.

They'll be thirty years old by the earliest date of their possible replacement by IEPs. That's little different to the age of the 87s, mark 2s and mark 3s (The mark 3s were younger than that but have gone on to lead successful second lives elsewhere on UK rail services) when they were replaced on the West Coast by Pendolinos.

 

[ainsworth74]

Since they are considering replacment of 20-year-old (so not life expired) 11-vehicle electric LHCS 140mph trains with donkey-engined 9-vehicle trains with coaches so long they won't fit the current loading guage

Though of course it's worth noting that there are only nine passenger vehicles and that top speed of 140mph is pretty much theoretical at this point in the IC225s lives

 

[HSTEd]

More IEPs for XC would enable the trains north of York to be portion worked with northern ECML services, reducing costs to a degree and freeing paths......

But I know that won't be popular with some people.

 

[Pen Mill]

J the revised proposed order of IEP trains as of June 2012, as has been laid out in the Great Western and East Coast franchise consultations, has shown the following weekday unit requirement for IEP trains(The information contained in the consultations has been worded to suggest that the figures shown are for the number of units required in service on a weekday, rather than the full fleet size):

Great Western
Electric 8-car: 11 diagrams
Bi-mode 8-car: 12 diagrams
Bi-mode 5-car: 26 diagrams
Total: 49 diagrams

Delivery of the new trains and entry into service is expected to take place starting in early 2017, with the full fleet ready for service by early 2018. The first timetable period that will be able to exploit the performance of the new trains will be May 2018.

East Coast
Bi-mode 9-car: 10 diagrams
Electric 5-car: 10 diagrams
Bi-mode 5-car: 8 diagrams
Total: 28 diagrams

Introduction is expected from 2018, with the full fleet deployed from the start of the May 2019 timetable change.

This gives a total fleet size of:
11 Electric full-length sets (8-car) = 88 carriages
22 Bi-mode full length sets (8 and 9-car) = 186 carriages
10 Electric half-length sets (5-car) = 50 carriages
34 Bi-mode half-length sets (5-car) = 170 carriages

TOTAL = 494 carriages

Plus presumably some sort of maintenance contingent, so perhaps there might be a total of 30 Bi-mode 5-car sets on Great Western and 10 with East Coast.

It is expected that a 27.5 year contract will be signed with the Train Service Provider (Agility Trains) to provide maintenance facilities and servicing arrangements for the IEP fleets.

Very useful summary.

However , I thought that the thrust of IEP was to replace the HSTs.
FGW currently have 119 power cars ,say 59 sets, but only 23 diagrams are envisaged to be replaced by IEPs. I'm assuming that the FGW suburbans would replace 180s and possibly 165/166s.

My question is this : Have the goal posts been uprooted and what is the ACTUAL plan to replace HSTs or alternatively , has the plot been completely lost or have I lost the plot !!! ?

 

[Bridge189]

I doubt that would be possible. EC/XC are two entirely different types of service and having to explain that to the basic punters as to which set to get into would be a nightmare. plus you would then have to reduce the length of the EC services. Complete no, no!

The concept of joining and splitting sets on route is nothing but recipe for disaster and impractical.

 

[HSTEd]

I doubt that would be possible. EC/XC are two entirely different types of service and having to explain that to the basic punters as to which set to get into would be a nightmare. plus you would then have to reduce the length of the EC services. Complete no, no!

The concept of joining and splitting sets on route is nothing but recipe for disaster and impractical.

People already get into front and rear sets on numerous services and suggesting that "London is the front set, Plymouth is the rear set" would not be particularly difficult.
Additionally since the EC consultation already has them purchasing 5 car sets as well as HST replacement sets it would appear they are going to be running shorter than normal trains somewhere.

The alternative is to simply truncate the XC services at Leeds and York to reduce the costs of the services

 

[sprinterguy]

People already get into front and rear sets on numerous services and suggesting that "London is the front set, Plymouth is the rear set" would not be particularly difficult.
Additionally since the EC consultation already has them purchasing 5 car sets as well as HST replacement sets it would appear they are going to be running shorter than normal trains somewhere.

Hopefully limited to the likes of the Kings Cross - York stoppers in the case of the electric sets, and portion-working on off-wires services such as Lincoln and Harrogate (10-cars to the limit of electrification at Newark or Leeds, then 5-cars on diesel power beyond). Nothing more than hopeful conjecture on my part though.

The proposed IEP diagrams suggests that full length trains will remain the norm on the northern ECML where there might otherwise be an opportunity to portion work with XC: 9-car Bi-mode IEPs on the long distance HST services, and the 225s continuing to fulfil their present role. There is scope though for splitting arrangements as you have described, particularly off-peak.

 

[Bridge189]

XC aren't even getting IEPs let alone five coach versions. I doubt joint paths is a realistic option. If XC did get IEPs it would probably be a small number of full lengths to replace the small HST fleet.

Are the 225a/91s still supposed to be getting new type pantographs that was mooted a few months ago

 

[John55]

Very useful summary.

However , I thought that the thrust of IEP was to replace the HSTs.
FGW currently have 119 power cars ,say 59 sets, but only 23 diagrams are envisaged to be replaced by IEPs. I'm assuming that the FGW suburbans would replace 180s and possibly 165/166s.

My question is this : Have the goal posts been uprooted and what is the ACTUAL plan to replace HSTs or alternatively , has the plot been completely lost or have I lost the plot !!! ?

The source I checked says there are 54 HST sets plus spare power cars with FGW and not all will be diagrammed on any one day. As far as I am aware there is no change to the DfTs plan that 319s will be used for suburban services out of Paddington when the wires go up.

The IEPs will in general replace HSTs except down to the far South West at least initially.

 

[IanXC]

ATOC seems have now decided to publicly say they have doubts about Hitachi's IEP and a possible further delay to signing the contract to buy these trains.

I do hope now with the news that the pfi deals dont seem to be as good as they were previously thought to be someone will take a good hard look at the figures and scrap IEP or at least talk to Bombardier/Seimens to see if they can come up with something
cheaper

If the delays continue the new franchises will be in place and ordering their own stock! That would put the final nail in the coffin!

Why do I feel the need to quote Sir Humphrey:

"I wouldn’t call Civil Service delays ‘tactics’ – that would be to mistake lethargy for strategy."

 

[ainsworth74]

Why do I feel the need to quote Sir Humphrey

Because Sir Humphrey is nearly always relevant

(And often quite right :roll

 

[Chris125]

As far as I am aware there is no change to the DfTs plan that 319s will be used for suburban services out of Paddington when the wires go up.

Im not sure 319's are compulsory, Mark Hopwood apparently said in a staff meeting last year that they were looking at 380's (for example) in their bid - how many, and whether that remains the case, who knows but the 319's will need some major work to avoid unpleasant comparisons with Crossrail stock and even the 168's Chiltern will be using to compete for Oxford traffic.

Chris

 

[sprinterguy]

Very useful summary.

However , I thought that the thrust of IEP was to replace the HSTs.
FGW currently have 119 power cars ,say 59 sets, but only 23 diagrams are envisaged to be replaced by IEPs. I'm assuming that the FGW suburbans would replace 180s and possibly 165/166s.

My question is this : Have the goal posts been uprooted and what is the ACTUAL plan to replace HSTs or alternatively , has the plot been completely lost or have I lost the plot !!! ?

Although it is far too early for it to be known, I would suggest that it is likely that FGW will retain all or a large portion of their sixteen Plymouth Laira based 2+8 long distance HSTs for working South West services. Most likely for withdrawal will be Old Oaks' 28 high density sets which currently work services to Bristol, Worcester and Cardiff, and probably Lairas' ten high density sets as well.

The full length IEP sets, both bi-mode and electric, will no doubt be employed primarily on the Bristol and South Wales corridor, but that still leaves 26 5-car bi-mode services to replace both HSTs and probably 180s (Their lease is up at the end of 2016) on Cheltenham, Oxford and Cotswolds services.

 

[John55]

Im not sure 319's are compulsory, Mark Hopwood apparently said in a staff meeting last year that they were looking at 380's (for example) in their bid - how many, and whether that remains the case, who knows but the 319's will need some major work to avoid unpleasant comparisons with Crossrail stock and even the 168's Chiltern will be using to compete for Oxford traffic.

Chris

The suburban services will not be IEP which ever EMU iseventually used for Paddington suburban services. But the plan has yet to change from that originally proposed in 2008. Plenty of time for it to change but not yet.

 

[Pen Mill]

Although it is far too early for it to be known, I would suggest that it is likely that FGW will retain all or a large portion of their sixteen Plymouth Laira based 2+8 long distance HSTs for working South West services. Most likely for withdrawal will be Old Oaks' 28 high density sets which currently work services to Bristol, Worcester and Cardiff, and probably Lairas' ten high density sets as well.

The full length IEP sets, both bi-mode and electric, will no doubt be employed primarily on the Bristol and South Wales corridor, but that still leaves 26 5-car bi-mode services to replace both HSTs and probably 180s (Their lease is up at the end of 2016) on Cheltenham, Oxford and Cotswolds services.

If as is indicated , the 5 car modules won't be used on suburban services , is it possible that the 5 car sets will run as Electric 10s from Paddington then split down the line somewhere to 5 car diesels , are there are any combinations which would suit this ? and anywhere further out than Reading where this could take place ?

 

[Class377/5]

Im not sure 319's are compulsory, Mark Hopwood apparently said in a staff meeting last year that they were looking at 380's (for example) in their bid - how many, and whether that remains the case, who knows but the 319's will need some major work to avoid unpleasant comparisons with Crossrail stock and even the 168's Chiltern will be using to compete for Oxford traffic.

Chris

I think a 319 vs the current stock on the GW isn't a step up but more capacity but not as good inside experience. However when your talking about replacing pacers and other units like in the North (apart from the 185's) it's a ATO up in experience and capacity.

As a regular user of the 319's they aren't bad units. Just not as new as other units they run alongside.

 

[D365]

319s (and 365s I'm hoping, they've never had a full refurbishment) will be completely overhauled after leaving "Greater Thameslink". Accoring to the anazing stories I've heard, they'll make the ex-First CC users jealous! The entire FCC outer suburban fleet will be replaced (319, 365, 377, 321, 317), and you can probably guess where they'll each be off to by now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh, and Crossrail will take over all stoppers to Maidenhead (hopefully Reading too), 20tph is more than enough at any time of the day! A number (15tph?) will terminate at Paddington for access to Old Oak Common TMD, and the rest will provide 4tph to Heathrow, replacing the 2tph Heathrow Connect. 319s would only be doing semi-fasts.

 

[anthony263]

And the local services between Oxford/Newbury - Reading.

Hopefully we will see the Thames Valley branches as well as the North downs and Reading - Bassingstoke wired thus enabling FGW to get rid of their class 165/166 dmu's for use elsewhere.

I know funding has been secured to enable 8 trains per day to run between Swindon - Salisbury Via Westbury which will be a big improvement for the users of the current service through Melksham so providing they can be cleared the class 165's would be excellent for the route unless it is wired then a emu could be used.

However with all the electrification progams inclduing what I have mentioned above will there be enough emu's to go around and the class 319's would not be able to fit on the Maidenhead - Marlow line so something like a 3 carriage class 315 would have to be used.

Of course there was talk of FGW looking at ordering brand new emu's are part of their bid for the GW franchise.

 

[D365]

Good that other potential uses for existing stock has been found (Networker Turbos have a larger body or something, don't they?). The electrification schemes in the Thames Valley, Cardiff Valley and up north, if all complete, shall probably end up cascading Pacers into the dump; several preserved railways have been interested though? New stock may just be a publicity stunt, First will probably do that by suggesting the replacement of 313s with 378s (normal seating though) to try and retain FCC.

BTW, 315s are 4 carriage units just like 319s; all other PEPs are 3 car. 313s might be suitable if they are replaced on Great Northern duties; Thameslink stock won't.

 

[Skimble19]

319s (and 365s I'm hoping, they've never had a full refurbishment) will be completely overhauled after leaving "Greater Thameslink". Accoring to the anazing stories I've heard, they'll make the ex-First CC users jealous! The entire FCC outer suburban fleet will be replaced (319, 365, 377, 321, 317), and you can probably guess where they'll each be off to by now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh, and Crossrail will take over all stoppers to Maidenhead (hopefully Reading too), 20tph is more than enough at any time of the day! A number (15tph?) will terminate at Paddington for access to Old Oak Common TMD, and the rest will provide 4tph to Heathrow, replacing the 2tph Heathrow Connect. 319s would only be doing semi-fasts.

Not sure where you've heard the entire GN fleet is to be replaced; there's been no evidence whatsoever to support that. There's no specific confirmed mention of 365s being sent anywhere, for instance.

 

[Class377/5]

Not sure where you've heard the entire GN fleet is to be replaced; there's been no evidence whatsoever to support that. There's no specific confirmed mention of 365s being sent anywhere, for instance.

319s (and 365s I'm hoping, they've never had a full refurbishment) will be completely overhauled after leaving "Greater Thameslink". Accoring to the anazing stories I've heard, they'll make the ex-First CC users jealous! The entire FCC outer suburban fleet will be replaced (319, 365, 377, 321, 317), and you can probably guess where they'll each be off to by now.

Why on earth would the 365 have needed a full refurbishment when they are just over 20yrs old? You simply do not do that level of work on a new train. In fact I'd argue the point they don't need much changing as they are brilliant units for what they do, they just need some tlc.

Also the point made by the first quote is the 365 are not leaving Thameslink. They are staying put. So far we've been advised that all the 317 & 321's are going from the franchise leaving the 313, 365 & 700 fleets to run all the GN services.

 

[D365]

How is 24 tph justifiable north of the Thameslink core, on the MML? One branch in the north to gazillions in the south? That's can't be right, where would the units be reversed north of London?

Ah, I know! Kings Cross is right next door to St Pancras. We could build a short pair of tunnels from the new St Pancras low-level station to the ECML outer tracks, in order to soak up the extra trains and to release capacity in Kings Cross. Quick, better get it all done before EuroStar arrives!

Yes, St Pancras low-level is linked to Finsbury Park on the outer tracks. The actual infrastructure isn't in place yet, that will come when London Bridge has been rebuilt. This means that 321s and 317s won't been needed, as Thameslink will serve Peterborough and Cambridge. IEP (if it ever gets off the ground) will serve the Cambridge fasts and Kings Lynn under the future East Coast franchise. 365s, imho, should be kept for peak-time Great Northern services and possibly the Wimbledon loop; they are dual-voltage, after all!

It's all on ThameslinkProgramme.Co.UK if you don't believe me!

BTW, I like 365s as you may have deduced already. They're good units, but they'll be more than 20 years old when replaced on most GN services; about halfway through their careers without a proper interior refurbishment. They aren't looking the best inside; wearing seat covers, broken air vents and PA systems, plus the blasted windows never shut! I hope the traction package won't be replaced; I have this video of me at a very young age getting excited about the "funny sound"!

 

[ainsworth74]

They're good units, but they'll be more than 20 years old when replaced on most GN services; about halfway through their careers without a proper interior refurbishment.

I wouldn't be surprised if they're a fair bit older when they're replaced on GN services seeing as there is nothing confirmed about them being replaced yet.

 

[D365]

They are younger than the 319s and quicker-accelerating, which is why it may be wise to retain them. Who know what stock will be running on the Wimbledon Loop; it's going to be disconnected from Thameslink. 8tph in the peaks for GN O.Suburban is not enough, but will the new Thameslink fleet operate out of Kings Cross? The suburban platforms can only handle 8-car trains IIRC.

365s will justify a mid-life rebuild though. 319s will be 25-30 by the time of theirs, but I don't think any 321s have been done though?

 

[Skimble19]

Why on earth would the 365 have needed a full refurbishment when they are just over 20yrs old? You simply do not do that level of work on a new train. In fact I'd argue the point they don't need much changing as they are brilliant units for what they do, they just need some tlc.

Also the point made by the first quote is the 365 are not leaving Thameslink. They are staying put. So far we've been advised that all the 317 & 321's are going from the franchise leaving the 313, 365 & 700 fleets to run all the GN services.

Perhaps I misread the original quote, I was also of the opinion that the 365s were staying put.

Can't see why they'd need a complete refurb though, more like an actual refresh (repainting panels and repairing broken parts, rather than replacing seats etc. - they're perfectly good for what they do. Completely agree with not replacing the traction package though - I'd definitely miss that whine they make.

 

[D365]

Does anyone have any references that state what will happen to the 365 fleet post-Siemensisation? Proper air-conditioning, better quality tables and slightly larger bins (they're tucked away between back-to-back seats) should be added. They're not too bad in terms of design (2+2 seating rather than the dreaded 3+2 of 317s and 321s), but a deep-clean as well would be almost essential by then (FCC haven't given their stock the TLC it deserves). They may stay with "Greater Thameslink", they may not. They may get new motors (please no...). Who knows yet?

 

[Class377/5]

Perhaps I misread the original quote, I was also of the opinion that the 365s were staying put.

Can't see why they'd need a complete refurb though, more like an actual refresh (repainting panels and repairing broken parts, rather than replacing seats etc. - they're perfectly good for what they do. Completely agree with not replacing the traction package though - I'd definitely miss that whine they make.

The 365 are staying. Can't show the proof but they are (unless they've changed their minds that is).

A good refresh of the units would work wonders on the units.

How is 24 tph justifiable north of the Thameslink core, on the MML? One branch in the north to gazillions in the south? That's can't be right, where would the units be reversed north of London?

Ah, I know! Kings Cross is right next door to St Pancras. We could build a short pair of tunnels from the new St Pancras low-level station to the ECML outer tracks, in order to soak up the extra trains and to release capacity in Kings Cross. Quick, better get it all done before EuroStar arrives!

Yes, St Pancras low-level is linked to Finsbury Park on the outer tracks. The actual infrastructure isn't in place yet, that will come when London Bridge has been rebuilt. This means that 321s and 317s won't been needed, as Thameslink will serve Peterborough and Cambridge. IEP (if it ever gets off the ground) will serve the Cambridge fasts and Kings Lynn under the future East Coast franchise. 365s, imho, should be kept for peak-time Great Northern services and possibly the Wimbledon loop; they are dual-voltage, after all!

It's all on ThameslinkProgramme.Co.UK if you don't believe me!

BTW, I like 365s as you may have deduced already. They're good units, but they'll be more than 20 years old when replaced on most GN services; about halfway through their careers without a proper interior refurbishment. They aren't looking the best inside; wearing seat covers, broken air vents and PA systems, plus the blasted windows never shut! I hope the traction package won't be replaced; I have this video of me at a very young age getting excited about the "funny sound"!

Prehaps if you involved like some on here or used Thameslink you'd actually understand. You do realise that there is no plan to send all 24tph to the MML don't you? What the MML will actually see will be 16tph in peak. Guess what it gets now.... 16tph and it's very busy. Longer trains will help deal with the crowds. As for justifying the service, well ask a commuter on the line for the answer as they will all say the same thing, it's needed years ago! We can turn around 16tph now do there won't be a problem doing this in 6 years time.

As for where trains will be reversed north of the Thames, worry not as the initial plans into the Core being shut are already being formed, some 6 years before they are needed.

It does seem the more I read the less you know. You do know the link from the Thameslink Core to ECML comes from the early 1990's? In fact if you research things you find it's part if an 1980's idea as well. The facts is it pre dates the idea to send international services to St Pancras.

You may want to read up on the 365 because out if a fleet of 41, only 16 were built dual voltage. Although this may be enough to run the Wimbledon loop services if they stay at current service levels but a planned 8tph 8 car service needs a lot more trains. It's a 90min round trip with say 15mins turn around means roughly 28 plus spares.

Yes the 365 will need some some work at some point, but currently it's not a major stripping down state.

As for the Thameslink Programme website. Do you know that's a purely FCC website with no input from the DfT or NR (you know the people who are funding, building and deciding what's happening) don't you? Nothing on that website can be taken as offical as its all rehashing of old information that's very out of date. Some of it is the same as when BR came up with Thameslink 2000.

 

[D365]

Perhaps if you involved like some on here or used Thameslink you'd actually understand. You do realise that there is no plan to send all 24tph to the MML don't you? What the MML will actually see will be 16tph in peak. Guess what it gets now.... 16tph and it's very busy. Longer trains will help deal with the crowds. As for justifying the service, well ask a commuter on the line for the answer as they will all say the same thing, it's needed years ago! We can turn around 16tph now do there won't be a problem doing this in 6 years time.

I'm not trying to be arrogant here, but I do understand what the Thameslink Programme entails: in short; platform lengthening, signalling upgrades and a new fleet. This will all add to 24tph of mostly 12 carriage length by 2018 (with luck!), a great increase in capacity we will all appreciate. Services will split at St. Pancras, with 16tph to/from the MML, and 8tph to/from Finsbury Park and the ECML via the "Canal Tunnels".

As for where trains will be reversed north of the Thames, worry not as the initial plans into the Core being shut are already being formed, some 6 years before they are needed.

That was an element of my rather exaggerated sarcasm...

It does seem the more I read the less you know. You do know the link from the Thameslink Core to ECML comes from the early 1990's? In fact if you research things you find it's part if an 1980's idea as well. The facts is it pre dates the idea to send international services to St Pancras.

I understand the upgrade was in the planning stage for a long time (basically straight after Thameslink launched? I wasn't alive then), but the tunnels were only bored in 2005 (and the low-level station box dug out) as it would be a lot more difficult doing this after the St. Pancras rebuild. The low-level platforms are in full use as I write, but the Canal Tunnels will only be fitted out and operation begun in 2018 because "The simple reason is that London Bridge station won’t be able to cope with the extra trains from the East Coast mainline until it has been rebuilt and its track upgraded..."

You may want to read up on the 365 because out if a fleet of 41, only 16 were built dual voltage. Although this may be enough to run the Wimbledon loop services if they stay at current service levels but a planned 8tph 8 car service needs a lot more trains. It's a 90min round trip with say 15mins turn around means roughly 28 plus spares.

Yes the 365 will need some some work at some point, but currently it's not a major stripping down state.

No, all 365s were built exactly the same, aside from the current pickup equipment that was fitted (16 with shoegear for SE area, 25 with pantographs for GN). Obviously, all are fitted with pantographs now and no 3rd rail shoegear. The units aren't in a terrible condition (I probably was exaggerating a little), but as I have mentioned before, there are several faults which need to be rectified, and they are looking a bit scruffy on the inside.

Now that I come to think of it, there surely aren't enough for peak-time GN services out of Kings Cross AND the Wimbledon Loop, are there? The latter might (MIGHT) be taken over by London Overground and run with Class 378s, however.

As for the Thameslink Programme website. Do you know that's a purely FCC website with no input from the DfT or NR (you know the people who are funding, building and deciding what's happening) don't you? Nothing on that website can be taken as offical as its all rehashing of old information that's very out of date. Some of it is the same as when BR came up with Thameslink 2000.

The plans haven't changed that much since then, have they? And I haven't seen any difference in the information given from the Network Rail website...