My proposal for a 2nd phase of the Thameslink Programme

[AlanFry1]

As you know, the Thameslink Programme is finally nearing its end (all they have to do is remodel London Bridge), what I am suggesting is that once they finish it in 2018, demand would have risen from where it is now and will continue to do so. Then there is the fact the Northern City Line services will remain separate from Thameslink (leaving it with an uncertain future) to add to that.

So what I am suggesting is a 2nd phase to the Thameslink programme to solve those 2 problems and create major improvements to rail capacity in London, this project will consist of:

1: The introduction of 16-car trains (which are 320 meters long), which would increase the capacity of the individual trains by 33% (when compared to a 12-car train), this can be done with platform extensions or more SDO operations

2: Linking the Northern City Line with the Thameslink Network, this will be done by closing the section between Old Street-Moorgate and building a new section between Old Street to Farringdon, this will allow FCC’s services between Moorage-Hertford North/Welwyn Garden City to linked up to services South of the River and not be the odd one out in the future Thameslink Network

3: Linking the West Anglican lines with the Thameslink Network , this will be done by building a link between Bethnal Green and Farringdon , this will allow Greater Anglia’s services between London Liverpool Street-Chingford/Enfield Town/Cheshunt/Hertford East/Cambridge to be linked up to services South of the River, thus improving links with North-East London with South London

4: Upgrading of Blackfriars, by replace the 2 terminating platforms with 2 though platforms as well as other capacity improvements to cope with additional services on the Thameslink Network, such as services that currently terminate at Cannon Street

5: The closure of Cannon Street so that services that terminate at this station become part of the Thameslink Network, this will be done by rerouting services though Blackfriars to destinations north of the River

6: Expand the St Pancras-Blackfriars “Central Section” line from 2-track to 4-track (with additional tunnels etc) to cope with the “Northern City Line” services as well as services that currently terminate at Blackfriars and Cannon Street, all of which will formally become part of the Thameslink Network (Along with the remaining FCC Cambridge and King Lynn services that will terminate at King Cross after the Thameslink Programme is complete), this will mean that the maximum frequency will rise from 24 trains per hour to 48 trains per hour*

7: Upgrading the Cambridge-King-Lynn section to allow Thameslink Services to reach beyond Cambridge to Kings Lynn (which will not currently be the case after the Thameslink Programme is complete

8: Re-Signalling (and track upgrades if needed) of the “Thameslink” sections of the ECML/MML/WAML to allow additional frequencies (due to additional services on those links coming mainly from trains that currently end at Blackfriars and Cannot Street being extended North of the River), the same might be done for lines south of the river that currently (or will under both phases of the Thameslink Programme) have Thameslink services.

9: Upgrades to stations in the Thameslink Network, this mainly consists of platform extensions to allow 12-16 car trains to stop on the network (this should be done as many stations as possible) and related improvements to stations to cope with the extra demand that will come from longer and more frequent trains in the network

10: The development of the West Hampstead Interchange project, to allow better connections to other stations in the area (London Overground and Jubilee Line services) and allow Metropolitan Line and Chiltern Railway services to link up to Thameslink services in the area

11: An additional 2 platforms (and extensions to the current platforms) at City Thameslink, Farringdon and St Pancras Thameslink to cope with additional services on this section (from 24-tph to 48-tph)*, this will also mean major upgrades to these stations to cope with longer and more frequent train services

12: Additional platforms at stations where Thameslink (current and future) services terminate to come with additional services that will terminate at those stations

13: Along with Cannon Street Services (that terminate at that station), I propose that services that terminate at Charring Cross** will also be redirected to Blackfriars (and North of the River) and become part of the Thameslink Network, I also propose the transfer to Sothern’s Brighton Mainline/Mainline East/Mainline West as well

*With further improvements to signalling, then the frequency might further increase from 48 trains per hour to 60 trains per hour

**To compensate, I plan to launch a new London Overground Charring Cross-Waterloo East-London Bridge service, which maintain the frequency and maybe add capacity on this route (with longer trains)

Overall it will mean longer trains, more frequent services (on current Thameslink routes, additional routes Post-Thameslink Programme and additional routes Post-Thameslink Programme Phase 2) and further link ups with services North and South of the River, along with much needed additional capacity…

Do you think this is a good idea?

 

[Wolfie]

As you know, the Thameslink Programme is finally nearing its end (all they have to do is remodel London Bridge), what I am suggesting is that once they finish it in 2018, demand would have risen from where it is now and will continue to do so. Then there is the fact the Northern City Line services will remain separate from Thameslink (leaving it with an uncertain future) to add to that.

So what I am suggesting is a 2nd phase to the Thameslink programme to solve those 2 problems and create major improvements to rail capacity in London, this project will consist of...

Hum, likely to be massively expensive, no obvious signs of any passenger demand, and violates the KISS principle completely by introducing massive complexity for no obvious purpose - what do you think my likely answer is?

 

[AlanFry1]

Hum, likely to be massively expensive, no obvious signs of any passenger demand, and violates the KISS principle completely by introducing massive complexity for no obvious purpose - what do you think my likely answer is?

Is there no need for further addtional capacity or better links between North and South of the River?

Certainly is going to be quite expensive however...

 

[joeykins82]

Closing the Northern City Line would further increase the pressure on the Victoria, Piccadilly and Northern lines between Finsbury Park & KXStP/Moorgate. This is bad. If anything this service needs enhancing, the solution which leaps off the page being to make Moorgate-Stevenage via Hertford North a 7-day LO service and send all of the WGC stoppers via Thameslink (which I think is pretty similar to what's already planned for 2018+). Hertford North services are also not due to be part of the Thameslink super-franchise anyway.

I remember reading in a RUS document (probably the SWML RUS) that 16-car trains can in many cases reduce capacity because they are longer than many of the current signal blocks. In addition to the massive disruption that would be caused by attempting to further lengthen all of the platforms I think this is a non-starter.

I have absolutely no idea where the space would come from to 4-track the Thameslink core without demolishing a sizeable amount of Central London!

Closing Cannon St would likely lead to outcry from the city workers who use that station and live on routes served by Cannon St services. There were enough people annoyed by the Farringdon-Moorgate closure and that was genuinely unavoidable.

The leaked Crossrail 2 proposals of linking the SWT and Lea Valley stopping services via Victoria/TCR/Euston/StP/KX somehow has much more practical merit I think; it'd be way less disruptive and cheaper to implement and offer better outcomes at the end of it all.

 

[jopsuk]

there may be more demand for cross river services, but this is better left to Crossrail 2 (and beyond); seperating out services into corridors that have good interchanges rather than having a unwieldy core section with branches resembling the hydra to the north and south.

Part of the reason that TL services will terminate at Cambridge is that they will be using shorter distance oriented stock- idf anything, Kings Lynn may see IEP services, allowing the Cambridge/Kings Lynn fast services to go up to 125mph south of Hitchin.

Some of the ideas perhaps have merit- no longer having a "metro terminus" at Cannon Street for example- but perhaps Cannon Street would be better dealt with in a "Crossrail 3" or "Thameslink 2" linking Kent metro/suburban services to the west coast mainline suburban/watford DC metro services? You would still need a station under the Cannon Street area, obviously.

As for 16 car trains? It's been looked at. Again and again. It really isn't feasible to go to more than about 250m (a 12-car electrostar etc is 240m) for suburban trains. Too many locations are tricky enough to extend to 12 car as it is- 360m platforms just aren't going to happen at far too many stations.

 

[glbotu]

1: The introduction of 16-car trains...

1. Most trains struggle in more than 12-car formation, you would definitely need new trains (especially as you're wasting a lot of space with Cabs at this point). You're also going to start fouling junctions and signals in tight areas (London Bridge - Farringdon is very close together).

2: Linking the Northern City Line with the Thameslink Network...

2. If you look on a map where Old Street is in relation to Farringdon, I'd say that would not be the easiest thing in the world. If you want it to go to a section level with the current Thameslink platforms, then you need to have a lot of tight curves along Old Street itself, and if you want to have a separate level then good luck negotiating the grade changes to get around Crossrail. Even then you'll need to have a fairly tight curve on a fairly steep grade to get your trains to face the right way (ie South-South-West) before you hit City Thameslink.

...3: Linking the West Anglican lines with the Thameslink Network...

3. Lea Valley lines to Farringdon (from Bethnal Green), while you have more distance, you'll either end up with a MASSIVE curve, which will be very expensive, or more tight/steep workings.

4: Upgrading of Blackfriars...

4. Ignoring the Cannon St thing - I'll deal with that in a sec - actually not a terrible idea, although it does mean platform capacity issues as you no longer have a big concourse to put passengers into. On its own, with a connection to Thameslink at the Northern end, could have some small benefits (like preventing conflicting moves at the Southern end, although this would require additional turnaround facilities, as you can't stick more trains down the Snow Hill Tunnel.

5: The closure of Cannon Street ...

5. People who work in the city might assassinate you. I mean, you've just replaced a very convenient, 6 platform Terminus, with many, many destinations in SE London and Kent and a Tube Station with, well, just a Tube station. You'd need significant improvements on the southern part of the Circle Line to shift all those passengers.

6: Expand the St Pancras-Blackfriars “Central Section” line...

6. Increasing cross-london services to 48 tph seems great, but what you'll really be doing is forcing all cross-london journeys down the same route, which will almost certainly mean over-crowded stations. This would be why the money would be better spent on Crossrail 2 than some desire to force all N-S services down Thameslink.

7: Upgrading the Cambridge-King-Lynn section to allow ...

7. But, that area doesn't need it. I know, I live and work there. I mean, doubling the service frequency will be great (which is already happening), but I don't think a 15 min or better service is required. The trains I take aren't particularly full with the current 1 tph we have.

8: Re-Signalling (and track upgrades if needed) of the “Thameslink” sections of the ECML/MML/WAML

8. This would seem obvious in light of everything else. Re-signalling for better frequencies should be done anyway.

9: Upgrades to stations ...

9. Again, obvious.

10: The development of the West Hampstead Interchange project...

10.This should happen regardless. (IMO as opposed to will actually)

11: An additional 2 platforms (and extensions to the current platforms) at City Thameslink, Farringdon and St Pancras Thameslink to cope with additional services on this section (from 24-tph to 48-tph)*, this will also mean major upgrades to these stations to cope with longer and more frequent train services

12: Additional platforms at stations where Thameslink (current and future) services terminate to come with additional services that will terminate at those stations

11 and 12. If you implement all of your ideas, this is obvious.

13: Along with Cannon Street Services (that terminate at that station), I propose that services that terminate at Charring Cross** will also be redirected to Blackfriars (and North of the River) and become part of the Thameslink Network, I also propose the transfer to Sothern’s Brighton Mainline/Mainline East/Mainline West as well

13. Well, you're just trying to shove everything down a single corridor. Maybe not everyone WANTS to travel to Blackfriars, City Thameslink or Farringdon. There are other destinations in London.

Overall I think your plan has considered the concept of railway capacity but not of railway convenience. From a capacity principle, we could have all of the trains from everywhere in London shoved down and 8 or 12 or 16 tracked Thameslink, but then how do we get to everywhere else (ie: where we actually want to go).

I think this is the major flaw in your plan. GN is being put through Thameslink, because it makes sense (Kings Cross and St Pancras being right next to each other and all) and increases capacity. Trying to shove EVERYTHING through from North or South reduces the actual usefulness of the railways.

 

[JamesRowden]

13: Along with Cannon Street Services (that terminate at that station), I propose that services that terminate at Charring Cross** will also be redirected to Blackfriars (and North of the River) and become part of the Thameslink Network, I also propose the transfer to Sothern’s Brighton Mainline/Mainline East/Mainline West as well

*With further improvements to signalling, then the frequency might further increase from 48 trains per hour to 60 trains per hour

Do you think this is a good idea?

Between 5pm and 6pm there are 21tph from Cannon Street and 24tph from Charing Cross. This means that to even equal the current service frequency you would need to add 45tph (even ignoring your idea to reroute Brighton Mainline services) to the current peak Thameslink service of 12tph (southbound through core). Then there are the Southern services that presently terminate at London Bridge of which some are meant to be extended through Thameslink and there is also the additional services from London that the Thameslink project is suposed to make possible. I think this shows how the numbers in your plan just do not add up.

Also it is useful to have services to a variety of London Termini (and subsequently a variety of connections) through a common London Terminus (as the Thameslink project will produce by allowing all peak servcies through London Bridge to stop there rather than a significant number having to run fast through).

 

[joeykins82]

I didn't think that any services skipped London Bridge? I know that a lot of peak time Thameslink services are sent via Herne Hill because there isn't capacity through London Bridge but I didn't think that anything went straight through without stopping.

 

[ntg]

16 cars is fine for Amtrak...not so fine for the UK. To increase capacity more the only think that can be done is to introduce double tecker trains which in itself will require makes changes across the network (but probably not more much than 16 car platform extensions...), or to simply build otherwise largely redundant lines simply for the sake of relieving the crowded ones (cf. Crossrail 2).

 

[Barn]

I didn't think that any services skipped London Bridge? I know that a lot of peak time Thameslink services are sent via Herne Hill because there isn't capacity through London Bridge but I didn't think that anything went straight through without stopping.

Yes, in the AM peak some services use the passing loop between platforms 6 and 8. In the PM peak some services just run non-stop through platform 5. Often a peak only down service from Cannon Street will fill in the gap.

 

[jopsuk]

so, looking at the maps, for a Crossrail 3:
I reckon if you went down steep (it would be near adhesion limit for heavyily loaded commuter trains) as soon as you cleared the Thames, you could have a tunnel portal at Cannon Street leading to platforms as part of the Bank/monument complex. Swing across to deep platforms under Farringdon (giving interchange with Crossrail 1 and Thameslink) and then Euston (Crossrail 2, HS2, WCML IC) before surfacing. As suggested, incorporate both the Watford DC and the shorter range WCML local services (currently London Midland) and graft to suitable Southeastern services.

Major problems with plan:
getting deep enough quick enough to clear existing lines at Bank/Monument
would require huge new ticket halls and access to platforms at Bank/Monument to cope with vast increase in passenger numbers
crowding at Farringdon
connections to WCML/Watford DC tricky
loss of capacity during project when Cannon Street gets removed to make way for massive hole.

 

[JamesRowden]

so, looking at the maps, for a Crossrail 3:
I reckon if you went down steep (it would be near adhesion limit for heavyily loaded commuter trains) as soon as you cleared the Thames, you could have a tunnel portal at Cannon Street leading to platforms as part of the Bank/monument complex. Swing across to deep platforms under Farringdon (giving interchange with Crossrail 1 and Thameslink) and then Euston (Crossrail 2, HS2, WCML IC) before surfacing. As suggested, incorporate both the Watford DC and the shorter range WCML local services (currently London Midland) and graft to suitable Southeastern services.

Major problems with plan:
getting deep enough quick enough to clear existing lines at Bank/Monument
would require huge new ticket halls and access to platforms at Bank/Monument to cope with vast increase in passenger numbers
crowding at Farringdon
connections to WCML/Watford DC tricky
loss of capacity during project when Cannon Street gets removed to make way for massive hole.

There are proposals to run some WCML metro services through Crossrail by extending those Crossrail services that are presently planned to terminate at Paddington. Perhaps you could route your 'Crossrail 3' plan to take over the Metropolitan line (West of Baker Street) and some Chiltern line services instead.

The Bakerloo line could be extended to take over some South East London metro services (which would reduce capacity problems while you have Cannon Street closed).

 

[D365]

There are proposals to run some WCML metro services through Crossrail via the West London Line by extending those Crossrail services that are presently planned to terminate at Paddington. Perhaps you could route your 'Crossrail 3' plan to take over the Metropolitan line (West of Baker Street) and some Chiltern line services instead.

Wasn't the idea to build a link between GWML slow and Watford DC/WCML slow in the OOC/Willsden complex? Crossrail 345 can be fitted with third rail pickup and Euston DCs can be rerouted through Primrose Hill and perhaps onto an electric Goblin. Who needs Crossrail 3 and such :P

To the OP, your plans are not viable as has been explained.

 

[Chrisgr31]

My suggestion is to electrify the Uckfield line and then run Thameslink trains down to Uckfield. Now I could have vested interest in this as i live in Cowborough and its rumoured our office is moving to Kings Cross!

 

[Chris125]

Wasn't the idea to build a link between GWML slow and Watford DC/WCML slow in the OOC/Willsden complex? Crossrail 345 can be fitted with third rail pickup and Euston DCs can be rerouted through Primrose Hill and perhaps onto an electric Goblin. Who needs Crossrail 3 and such :P

There is a very thorough NR document on the various options available here.

Chris

 

[Fred26]

I think if the money was available, every line running into London could run through and out the other side. However, this would be massively expensive and massively disruptive.
To do what the original poster is saying and run all the mentioned servies through the current tunnels... Madness. That's far too complicated.

 

[AlanFry1]

Firstly, thanks very much for all your comments and suggestions

Closing the Northern City Line would further increase the pressure on the Victoria, Piccadilly and Northern lines between Finsbury Park & KXStP/Moorgate. This is bad. If anything this service needs enhancing, the solution which leaps off the page being to make Moorgate-Stevenage via Hertford North a 7-day LO service and send all of the WGC stoppers via Thameslink (which I think is pretty similar to what's already planned for 2018+). Hertford North services are also not due to be part of the Thameslink super-franchise anyway.

I am only closing the Old Street-Moorage section of the line and leaving the rest open, what I my proposal plans is that a new underground rail line beyond Old Street linking the line to Farringdon, along with 7-day operation (Kings Cross will be served via St Pancras International only) and (if there is demand) platform extensions to at least 8-car, just thought I would clear any misunderstandings

I remember reading in a RUS document (probably the SWML RUS) that 16-car trains can in many cases reduce capacity because they are longer than many of the current signal blocks. In addition to the massive disruption that would be caused by attempting to further lengthen all of the platforms I think this is a non-starter.

Are you suggesting that to allow 16-car trains, frequencies would have to be cut? (Is there any way around it)

Would there be more disruption extending platforms from 12-car to 16-car when compared to extending platforms from 8-car to 12-car?

Closing Cannon St would likely lead to outcry from the city workers who use that station and live on routes served by Cannon St services. There were enough people annoyed by the Farringdon-Moorgate closure and that was genuinely unavoidable.

Cannon Street is pretty close to Blackfriars in the first place, surely the City of London small enough to for all the offices in that area to be within walking distance from Farringdon/City Thameslink/Blackfrairs?

If not then there is always the tube, Cannon Street is a short LU journey from Blackfriars…

The leaked Crossrail 2 proposals of linking the SWT and Lea Valley stopping services via Victoria/TCR/Euston/StP/KX somehow has much more practical merit I think; it'd be way less disruptive and cheaper to implement and offer better outcomes at the end of it all.

They seem to not have finalised what “Crossrail 2/Chelsea-Hackney line” proposal is, but currently the “SWT-Lea Valley” option is the leading one
I suppose I would agree with what you said, I only suggested this so that the extra services South of the River are better spread out North of the River (not just the MML/ECML/NCL), another big difference is that while “Crossrail 2” covers just the Enfield/Chesthunt/Chingford/Hertford East services, my proposal covers all West Anglican services (improving connections to Stansted Airport for example)

Part of the reason that TL services will terminate at Cambridge is that they will be using shorter distance oriented stock- idf anything, Kings Lynn may see IEP services, allowing the Cambridge/Kings Lynn fast services to go up to 125mph south of Hitchin.

What FCC services will become part of the Thameslink network is a rather unclear; personally I would put the Cambridge Non-stops (half of these services are extended to Kings Lynn) are moved to Intercity East Coast and the rest moving to the new “Thameslink & Southern” franchise after the Thameslink Programme is finished (and my Phase 2 proposal is not implemented)

Some of the ideas perhaps have merit- no longer having a "metro terminus" at Cannon Street for example- but perhaps Cannon Street would be better dealt with in a "Crossrail 3" or "Thameslink 2" linking Kent metro/suburban services to the west coast mainline suburban/watford DC metro services? You would still need a station under the Cannon Street area, obviously.

Is it not the case that Crossrail 3 (of Thameslink 2 as you call it) will link WCML (I would suggest that Chiltern Rail services as well) to Waterloo, there will still be a station at Cannon Street, but only for London Underground services

As for 16 car trains? It's been looked at. Again and again. It really isn't feasible to go to more than about 250m (a 12-car electrostar etc is 240m) for suburban trains. Too many locations are tricky enough to extend to 12 car as it is- 360m platforms just aren't going to happen at far too many stations.

A 16-car Electrostar is 320 meters long, or 80 meters longer than the 12-car trains used by Thameslink, is this impossible for at least some of the Thameslink stations?

Would SDO operation at those stations that cannot extend their platforms be viable?

1: Most trains struggle in more than 12-car formation, you would definitely need new trains (especially as you're wasting a lot of space with Cabs at this point). You're also going to start fouling junctions and signals in tight areas (London Bridge - Farringdon is very close together).

Would you mind explaining further on the points you have just stated?
On the subject of the new trains, why have they decided to make them either 8-car or 12-car trains rather than have them all 4-car for the sake of flexibility?

More importantly why on earth is the DFT bothering to continue with the controversial and badly managed (as well as overcomplicated) Thameslink Rolling Stock Programme when all they had to do was order more 377/5s* which they are already making for Southern (some of which might end up on Thameslink due to delays with the Thameslink Rolling Stock Programme)

*After all they already operate on the Thameslink Network and based on being on them several times on these routes, they are rather good and fit in well with the services they operate

4: Ignoring the Cannon St thing - I'll deal with that in a sec - actually not a terrible idea, although it does mean platform capacity issues as you no longer have a big concourse to put passengers into. On its own, with a connection to Thameslink at the Northern end, could have some small benefits (like preventing conflicting moves at the Southern end, although this would require additional turnaround facilities, as you can't stick more trains down the Snow Hill Tunnel.

Well since the numbers of trains using Blackfriars will more than more than double, plus the fact those trains will be longer, there would have to be (another) major upgrade to the station (with additional concourse space) to deal with the large increase in passenger numbers

7: But, that area doesn't need it. I know, I live and work there. I mean, doubling the service frequency will be great (which is already happening), but I don't think a 15 min or better service is required. The trains I take aren't particularly full with the current 1 tph we have.

The only reason I suggested it is because the consortium managing the Thameslink Programme have stated that the Cambridge-Kings Lynn line will become part of Thameslink due to that fact it cannot cope with the new trains, despite the fact it was part of the original plan

13: Well, you're just trying to shove everything down a single corridor. Maybe not everyone WANTS to travel to Blackfriars, City Thameslink or Farringdon. There are other destinations in London.

They can get direct connections for the rest of Central London via those 3 stations (and St Pancras) to the Sub-Surface Tube Lines and there is there is the fact Farringdon will gain Crossrail and City Thameslink might gain DLR in the near future

Between 5pm and 6pm there are 21tph from Cannon Street and 24tph from Charing Cross. This means that to even equal the current service frequency you would need to add 45tph (even ignoring your idea to reroute Brighton Mainline services) to the current peak Thameslink service of 12tph (southbound through core). Then there are the Southern services that presently terminate at London Bridge of which some are meant to be extended through Thameslink and there is also the additional services from London that the Thameslink project is suposed to make possible. I think this shows how the numbers in your plan just do not add up..

You have to include the fact that the Thameslink peak service will rise 24tph once the Thameslink Programme is complete, which means that (including the 11tph Southern Main Line Services) will rise to 80tph
This means that a 4-tracked Thameslink section will need an additional 20tph worth of capacity, would it be possible to add that much or would further upgrades be needed

16 cars is fine for Amtrak...not so fine for the UK. To increase capacity more the only think that can be done is to introduce double tecker trains which in itself will require makes changes across the network (but probably not more much than 16 car platform extensions...), or to simply build otherwise largely redundant lines simply for the sake of relieving the crowded ones (cf. Crossrail 2).

Well Double-Decker trains is not an option (with the loading gauge we have) and remember we already have trains longer than a 16-car Electrostar in the UK, the question is that will it be able to be fitted into the Thameslink Network is a rather different story

Until we build new lines, I guess the only way we could with growth (unless we launch further major upgrades as I have been suggesting) is more frequent trains, remember the central Thameslink section could cope with 30tph with 2-tracks (based on what Crossrail can cope with)

More responses will follow shortly...

 

[stut]

I often wondered how feasible it would be to connect Moorgate to Cannon Street and create a second N-S corridor via Bank. I imagine it would be rather tricky, given the number of tunnels and centuries of gubbins down there, but it always looked like and obvious link-up to me.

 

[NSE]

I personally am quite sceptical over the Thameslink Programme. I'm not a fan of everything going through two tracks which cause me loads of delays. Also, I find the connections to the tube bad. I always go from Kings Cross to the Victoria line, and its a stupidly long walk from the St Pancras Thameslink platforms. I understand it will be handy for the non enthusiast, and I will benefit from direct St Neots-East Croydon journeys. I guess I'm more a fan of the old terminus set up. But that's just the rail enthusiast in me coming out.

 

[tbtc]

I often wondered how feasible it would be to connect Moorgate to Cannon Street and create a second N-S corridor via Bank. I imagine it would be rather tricky, given the number of tunnels and centuries of gubbins down there, but it always looked like and obvious link-up to me.

Either that or linking the Finsbury Park - Moorgate line to the Waterloo & City and on to replace some SWT services from Waterloo (probably taking over a pair of tracks out of Waterloo).

But the topography of London makes these things very complicated/ expensive/ time consuming.

 

[jopsuk]

Well Double-Decker trains is not an option (with the loading gauge we have) and remember we already have trains longer than a 16-car Electrostar in the UK, the question is that will it be able to be fitted into the Thameslink Network is a rather different story

The Caledonian sleepers are very unusual cases, with very few stations they CAN stop at and have all carriages on the platform

 

[AlanFry1]

The Caledonian sleepers are very unusual cases, with very few stations they CAN stop at and have all carriages on the platform

I did not have that train in mind when I made that comment, I was mainly thinking about the Eurostar trains...

 

[Manchester77]

I did not have that train in mind when I made that comment, I was mainly thinking about the Eurostar trains...

Eurostars only call at 3(?) stations in the UK. They're all purpose built and remember to facilitate Eurostars at St Pancras the train shed had to be extended.

 

[AlanFry1]

Eurostars only call at 3(?) stations in the UK. They're all purpose built and remember to facilitate Eurostars at St Pancras the train shed had to be extended.

True, what my point was that trains longer than a 12-car Class 377/5 are not that rare in this country...

 

[Manchester77]

True, what my point was that trains longer than a 12-car Class 377/5 are not that rare in this country...

Not including international trains:-
Caledonian Sleeper

Iirc that's it

 

[ainsworth74]

True, what my point was that trains longer than a 12-car Class 377/5 are not that rare in this country...

But they are unless your're one of the stations served by the Caledonian Sleeper (before they split) or Eurostar, the number of which, I could probably count on my hands.

 

[AlanFry1]

Not including international trains:-
Caledonian Sleeper

Iirc that's it

What about the 11-Car Class 390?

12-Car Class 377: 244.8 Meters

11-Car Class 390: 265.3 Meters

There are others such as:

12-Car Class 321: 239.4 Meters

12-Car Class 360: 264 Meters

Intercity 225 (1 X Class 91 + 9 X Mark 4 + 1 X DVT): 245.3 Meters

 

[jopsuk]

I'm not sure the "22m" quoted on Wikipedia for the 360 is at all accurate- as far as I know the carriages are identical in length to the 350 and 450, ie 20.5m

The 11 car 390s have required quite a few platform extensions- and they again are limited stop express trains, as are the 225s.

You're suggesting modifying a suburban network with many, many constrained stations (constrained by being between tunnels, by being elevated, by level crossings, by buildings close to the line side beyond the platform ramps) and with much shorter signal sections (lower line speeds and shorter headways) to take trains that are in excess of 320m long.

Much of the network south of London is hard enough to extend to any longer than 8 cars (160m long platforms)- much of the work that has been done extend to 10 or 12 car operation has been expensive. Selective Door Opening isn't that sensible an option for the busy services you suggest should be extended.

 

[Chris125]

12-Car Class 360: 264 Meters

I think you'll find that they are the same length as 12-car 350's and 450's, and the rest of the list doesn't really disprove the fact that trains substantially longer than a 12-car 377 are exceptionally rare in this country.

Chris

 

[swt_passenger]

What FCC services will become part of the Thameslink network is a rather unclear; personally I would put the Cambridge Non-stops (half of these services are extended to Kings Lynn) are moved to Intercity East Coast and the rest moving to the new “Thameslink & Southern” franchise after the Thameslink Programme is finished (and my Phase 2 proposal is not implemented)...

You could try this post and the subsequent discussion in the Wimbledon Loop thread: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1342167&postcount=62

It's about the most up to date info around...