St Pancras - MML platforms

[Bald Rick]

Ah, that's OK then. The magic money tree pays.

Overall benefit? I seem to remember there were some rather unhappy Bedford passengers at losing their fast trains to London as a result.

Yes overall benefit. Substantially more capacity for Thameslink passengers. As you’ve said you don’t live near he line, I guess you rarely (ever?) experienced the peak crowding, meaning it was routine for thousands of passengers to be unable to board the first or second train, and thus be delayed 15-20 minutes or more. Every morning and evening.

 

[43096]

All of, what, two trains an hour? Still consumes less capacity than the 6-8 stopping on the Slows.

A train stopping on the fasts eats a lot more capacity than the equivalent on the slows. If you have 6-8 slow trains all with similar stopping patterns then it's not bad for capacity (which is how they get so many through the TL tunnels!). It is self evident that the gap between trains on the fasts has to be greater if one of them has intermediate stops. That's the whole reason why London Midland found it so hard to find 110mph paths out of Euston on the fasts. Mixing speeds and stopping patterns on fast lines kills both capacity (one train used two or more slots) and performance.

 

[43096]

Yes overall benefit. Substantially more capacity for Thameslink passengers. As you’ve said you don’t live near he line, I guess you rarely (ever?) experienced the peak crowding, meaning it was routine for thousands of passengers to be unable to board the first or second train, and thus be delayed 15-20 minutes or more. Every morning and evening.

It's funny, but with all these projects this place starts negative (e.g. IEP, no doubt the same with Thameslink) then swallows the party line hook, line and sinker once it opens. I remember IEP being criticised to high heaven but now it's a wonderful thing and cannot be criticised. Thameslink is a shambles: just shows what a mess the project was that we have to sacrifice long distance passengers because they are deemed less important.

 

[Ianno87]

A train stopping on the fasts eats a lot more capacity than the equivalent on the slows. If you have 6-8 slow trains all with similar stopping patterns then it's not bad for capacity (which is how they get so many through the TL tunnels!). It is self evident that the gap between trains on the fasts has to be greater if one of them has intermediate stops. That's the whole reason why London Midland found it so hard to find 110mph paths out of Euston on the fasts. Mixing speeds and stopping patterns on fast lines kills both capacity (one train used two or more slots) and performance.

West Hampstead is still as trains on the fasts are gaining speed, so a 1 minute dwell time takes maybe 2-3 minutes of extra capacity overall. So up to 6 minutes 'lost' per hour for two trains per hour. And effectively using capacity that cannot be used further north due to other trains stopping at Luton etc on the Fasts.

8 trains each stopping on the Slows cost 8 minutes just for the dwell, plus an extra minute or so on the headway to allow for a recoccupation to the next train above the normal heafway. Capacity lost = 16 minutes per hour.

 

[Domh245]

just shows what a mess the project was that we have to sacrifice long distance passengers because they are deemed less important.

'sacrificing' long distance passengers by adding a few minutes to a handful of peak journeys to gain extra capacity for Thameslink passengers seems like a fairly rational idea to be honest. It's not that the long distance passengers are less important, there's far less of them..

 

[Bald Rick]

Thameslink is a shambles: just shows what a mess the project was that we have to sacrifice long distance passengers because they are deemed less important.

How, exactly, is Thameslink a shambles?

And how, exactly, is delaying perhaps a couple of thousand long distance passengers by a few minutes, (for a couple of years only) so that several thousand more are not delayed by 15-20 minutes, not be in the best interest of passengers collectively? As in a overall net benefit to society. Surely that’s what we all want to see?

 

[Metal_gee_man]

I guess it's a case of needing an extra Up Fast and an extra Down Fast to allow the stopper to be stoppers on the slow, the semi fast stoppers stopping on the original fasts and then some fast passing loops of either stations or sections of track, when the new IETs are in service and capable of 125mph and have better acceleration than a 700 or the original rolling stock having the ability to pass a slower running service would be beneficial, where these loops could be achieved due to space etc is beyond my pay grade but I guess some of the stopping TL do get in the way

 

[Peter Kelford]

Really. So you want to completely ruin services at Bedford, Flitwick, Harlington, Leagrave, Luton, Luton Airport Parkway, Harpenden and St Albans (one of the biggest commuter flows into London) for a relatively small amount of long distance passengers. Dont get me wrong, faster EMR services would be very beneficial, but Thameslink trains on the fast lines carry a lot more passengers than EMR services.

Well, I wouldn't think that 700s should be running those routes. At least you would want 377s or suchlike.

Presumably your view is the same of the WCML, ECML, GWML and GEML, all of which have more trains on their ‘Fast’ lines than their ‘Slow’ lines? Spot the trend?

It think it's worth pointing out here that signalling is done by distance and not time interval so faster lines normally have a higher capacity, as well as any potential freight which will use the slow/relief lines.

As others say, maintaining a perfect 4-block interval between trains is the optimal solution, at least if there is no moving block, which can only be achieved at standardised patterns.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

Well, I wouldn't think that 700s should be running those routes. At least you would want 377s or suchlike

Why, yes both are 100mph EMUs that is their only similarity, so the 700s are designed for short distance commuters, have a much higher capacity and accelerate faster than the 377s and you want to slow the fast lines down by slower loading and lower acceleration 377s... Try again

 

[Bald Rick]

It think it's worth pointing out here that signalling is done by distance and not time interval so faster lines normally have a higher capacity, as well as any potential freight which will use the slow/relief lines.

Thank you, I know all about signalling headways and track capacity. But I’m not sure what your point is. The MML, like the GWML, WCML and ECML have 125mph fast lines. My point is that it is exactly the same on all four routes, ie 125mph fast lines being used for 125mph long distance services and lower speed ‘commuter’ trains. So why should the latter be excluded from the MML fast lines, but not on the WCML, ECML, GWML Etc?

 

[Hadders]

Thameslink is a shambles: just shows what a mess the project was that we have to sacrifice long distance passengers because they are deemed less important.

How is it a shambles? The seats on the trains aren't great but that's not relevant here.

What would you do differently? Don't say put Thameslink exclusively on the slows, you'd never be able to carry everybody. Have you ever travelled on a Thameslink service at the height of the peak and seen the numbers involved? Absolutely staggering.

 

[JonathanH]

Why, yes both are 100mph EMUs that is their only similarity, so the 700s are designed for short distance commuters, have a much higher capacity and accelerate faster than the 377s and you want to slow the fast lines down by slower loading and lower acceleration 377s... Try again

700s are not designed for 'short-distance commuters", they are designed for 'quick-loading commuters'. Some people don't like them because they don't include the more comfortable aspects of class 377s but they definitely do the job they are designed for (as you acknowledge).

I think comparisons of the main lines are unhelpful. They all do different things and connect places of different sizes and different commuter flows over the first 50 miles or so.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

700s are not designed for 'short-distance commuters", they are designed for 'quick-loading commuters'. Some people don't like them because they don't include the more comfortable aspects of class 377s but they definitely do the job they are designed for (as you acknowledge).

I think comparisons of the main lines are unhelpful. They all do different things and connect places of different sizes and different commuter flows over the first 50 miles or so.

They eliminate overcrowding very well. They are very good for the job they do transporting a lot of commuters across the capital.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

They eliminate overcrowding very well. They are very good for the job they do transporting a lot of commuters across the capital.

They are People Eaters, big doors, big vestibules & lots of standing room good acceleration, they shouldn't be used on Peterborough/Cambridge/Horsham because any longer than 1/2 Hour on one is too long but they move people very successfully.

 

[Bald Rick]

they shouldn't be used on Peterborough/Cambridge/Horsham because any longer than 1/2 Hour on one is too long but they move people very successfully.

In your opinion. I’ve done more than 2hours at a time and have no issues with them.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

In your opinion. I’ve done more than 2hours at a time and have no issues with them.

There are thing you can do to mitigate the comfort for longer journeys, find a priority seat with better leg room, find an emptier carriage to allow you to sprawl out or just walk to the back of the train and hope the masses don't know that 1st Class is declassified. I've done Cambridge to St Pancras in 1st class and its perfectly tolerable, but I've been forced to use them in shoulder peak from London Bridge to Brighton in cattle class no priority seat and my 6ft2 larger frame didn't like the seating for that distance full stop.

 

[Ianno87]

They are People Eaters, big doors, big vestibules & lots of standing room good acceleration, they shouldn't be used on Peterborough/Cambridge/Horsham because any longer than 1/2 Hour on one is too long but they move people very successfully.

I must be imaginging all the people specifically choosing them at Cambridge for the hour plus direct journey to the core, London Bridge and Gatwick etc.

 

[Mikey C]

In your opinion. I’ve done more than 2hours at a time and have no issues with them.

2 hours on a 700 (in standard) sounds like torture to me!

 

[Bald Rick]

2 hours on a 700 (in standard) sounds like torture to me!

It’s fine, and far, far more preferable than 2hours on, say, a pacer, a 156, a 319, a 321, Etc. In my opinion.

 

[Starmill]

It’s fine, and far, far more preferable than 2hours on, say, a pacer, a 156, a 319, a 321, Etc. In my opinion.

To be fair all 700s are the same, those others have large variations, some of which are (were) genuinely appalling in a way a 700 certainly isn't, and some were actually alright.

 

[Bald Rick]

To be fair all 700s are the same, those others have large variations, some of which are (were) genuinely appalling in a way a 700 certainly isn't, and some were actually alright.

Fair enough, but I think the 700is better than any of them for seat comfort. The most uncomfortable train journey I’ve had in recent years was a 156 from Preston to Windermere.

 

[Starmill]

Fair enough, but I think the 700is better than any of them for seat comfort. The most uncomfortable train journey I’ve had in recent years was a 156 from Preston to Windermere.

Indeed. I believe you've mentioned this before about a Northern 153 in a similar context. The so-called Richmond seats were the common thread between them, if I remember correctly. If so, then I would quite agree on the pain in the hips (and possibly elsewhere) they were like to cause! An East Midlands Trains interior 156, or some of the new Northern ones with the softer moquette, are quite different from a 700.

 

[Starmill]

Extra trains that were paid for by DfT, because that’s what they wanted. It’s a short term measure, as has been explained upthread. And, significantly, it resulted in an overall benefit to passengers on the route as a whole.

I agree with nearly everything you've pointed out in this thread, although I would point out that there's no point in pretending that the delivery couldn't have gone better. Paid for by the DfT simply means more of my taxes (and my fares) being used up. "a few minutes" was 10 in one case, after all. You of all people know the commercial implications of that much extra time.

 

[Mikey C]

It’s fine, and far, far more preferable than 2hours on, say, a pacer, a 156, a 319, a 321, Etc. In my opinion.

But compared to more recent stock, operating similar routes near London like the 377s, 450s etc it's not a favourable comparison. All those trains you mention are 30 years old and will be scrapped in the next 10 years or so.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Thank you, I know all about signalling headways and track capacity. But I’m not sure what your point is. The MML, like the GWML, WCML and ECML have 125mph fast lines. My point is that it is exactly the same on all four routes, ie 125mph fast lines being used for 125mph long distance services and lower speed ‘commuter’ trains. So why should the latter be excluded from the MML fast lines, but not on the WCML, ECML, GWML Etc?

Sorry if the two sentences appearing together made the post look like it was a dissenting opinion, it was intended to concur with you.

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree with nearly everything you've pointed out in this thread, although I would point out that there's no point in pretending that the delivery couldn't have gone better. Paid for by the DfT simply means more of my taxes (and my fares) being used up. "a few minutes" was 10 in one case, after all. You of all people know the commercial implications of that much extra time.

Oh it could definitely have been done better for EMR, but that would have meant someone else losing out.

And an apology, I’ve been particularly stroppy the last couple of weeks, so I’m sorry if this has fed through to some of my posts!