Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[gazthomas]

I don't believe there is physically space to add additional platforms at St Pancras Low Level.

I guess they could tunnel down/around?

 

[jon0844]

I think if things are really bad in the future, they'll maybe have no choice but to terminate more trains on the ECML at King's Cross than planned, and have less going through the core.

Of course that has problems in itself (8 and 12 car trains needing more room).

 

[EMD]

York road tunnels are still in situ so they could reuse that haha. It's pretty pathetic how we can't draw conclusions from past experiences and plan/invest/provision accordingly. Underground STP needs 4 platforms to work efficiently in my opinion since any, even slightest hiccup when 24tph start running, will have a core wide impact.

 

[Bald Rick]

York road tunnels are still in situ so they could reuse that haha. It's pretty pathetic how we can't draw conclusions from past experiences and plan/invest/provision accordingly. Underground STP needs 4 platforms to work efficiently in my opinion since any, even slightest hiccup when 24tph start running, will have a core wide impact.

York road / Hotel curve tunnels may be in situ, but not for use as rail tunnels.

I must have explained on this forum 4 times why it was not possible to build more than 2 platforms at St Pancras LL. I can't remember which thread.

 

[JonathanH]

York road / Hotel curve tunnels may be in situ, but not for use as rail tunnels.

I must have explained on this forum 4 times why it was not possible to build more than 2 platforms at St Pancras LL. I can't remember which thread.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1033950&postcount=9

 

[EMD]

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1033950&postcount=9

Any junction would have to be off the curve at the south end, shifting the whole station at least 150 metres further north and uphill

Or they could have made the south end tunnels 4 tracks wide and have 4 tracks from the last viable spot where the junction could be to where the STP is. It'd cost money obviously.

 

[Deepgreen]

Another 700 communications failure today - my Three Bridges to Bedford train had its internal screens saying; "This train is out of service" throughout. I told the driver when I alighted at Blackfriars. Awful performance continues.

 

[urpert]

700110 just spotted sitting at Peterborough.

 

[swt_passenger]

York road tunnels are still in situ so they could reuse that haha.

Tunnel - singular. The Hotel Curve (down direction) is not continuous in any way, it doesn't even reach the old Hotel anymore. There's a massive new London Underground station in the way...

 

[Bald Rick]

Or they could have made the south end tunnels 4 tracks wide and have 4 tracks from the last viable spot where the junction could be to where the STP is. It'd cost money obviously.

No 'they' couldn't.

I wrote a long explanation of this earlier this year (as well as in 2012, and a few times since). The last viable spot to the south is in the tunnels on the Farringdon side of the old Kings Cross Thamelink station. It's all cut and cover from there, so that means digging down. Aside from the Circle line being next door, (so you couldn't go that way) it means digging through the Euston Road outside Kings Cross, and knocking down the gothic part of St Pancras. Easy really.

 

[bramling]

No 'they' couldn't.

I wrote a long explanation of this earlier this year (as well as in 2012, and a few times since). The last viable spot to the south is in the tunnels on the Farringdon side of the old Kings Cross Thamelink station. It's all cut and cover from there, so that means digging down. Aside from the Circle line being next door, (so you couldn't go that way) it means digging through the Euston Road outside Kings Cross, and knocking down the gothic part of St Pancras. Easy really.

One presumes that some kind of Crossrail tunnel would be viable - perhaps with a tunnel portal somewhere in the Finsbury Park /Holloway area. Whether it would be able to fit through the maze of tunnels and services around King's Cross is debatable, but I'm sure someone could find a route somewhere south of the Thames which this GN could be prettily joined to. Anything has got to be a more resilient prospect than the chronically unreliable Thameslink route. I appreciate this would be extremely expensive, but if the proposed service is to work well then that's what is required. Tagging on to a network which is already inadequate is never going to work well.

 

[EMD]

No 'they' couldn't.

Nobody said it would be simple.

I appreciate space is at premium but I'm sure they could have found a workaround. One would be level separation starting between Farringdon and Kings Cross Thameslink potentially having the GN on separate level to the widened lines/TL and having STP split into two levels also. If there really is a need for GN to go through STP - I don't know why though - it feels that they decided to have GN go through STP only because it was the path of least resistance.

 

[bramling]

Nobody said it would be simple.

I appreciate space is at premium but I'm sure they could have found a workaround. One would be level separation starting between Farringdon and Kings Cross Thameslink potentially having the GN on separate level to the widened lines/TL and having STP split into two levels also. If there really is a need for GN to go through STP - I don't know why though - it feels that they decided to have GN go through STP only because it was the path of least resistance.

Path of least resistance sort of sums it up.

There is a lot of dissatisfaction locally on the GN with the proposed timetables, and anyone who thinks bustituting the Hertford to Stevenage service is a good solution is an idiot. Minimum possible work has been done on the GN - the failure to build the Stevenage extra platform is a good example of this.

 

[Hadders]

Path of least resistance sort of sums it up.

There is a lot of dissatisfaction locally on the GN with the proposed timetables, and anyone who thinks bustituting the Hertford to Stevenage service is a good solution is an idiot. Minimum possible work has been done on the GN - the failure to build the Stevenage extra platform is a good example of this.

Quite. The proposed bustitution between Hertford North and Stevenage is totally unacceptable and must not proceed until there is a clear line of sight on the funding and building of the new bay platform at Stevenage.

 

[ComUtoR]

I must have explained on this forum 4 times why it was not possible to build more than 2 platforms at St Pancras LL. I can't remember which thread.

I think a change of approach is needed.

Can it be done ?

Yes of course. Absolutely it can, there are various options. Including and not limited to a split 3 level station going nse and west all with an 8 track layout. Yeah why not. Millions and millions of pounds and years of disruption and a 6 month blockade of Farringdon and St Pancras. Yes it can be done.

Will it be done ?

Nope. Never. Not in this century.

 

[samuelmorris]

Another PIS failure this morning on 700105, between Farringdon and STP all the screens went black for 2 minutes then gradually came back on one by one running down the train. Not an especially major issue as they were able to display the whole message about St Pancras before the doors opened but still, it's a reminder that the software running the system still isn't stable. Apart from the dreadful PIS I've had very few issues with the 700s technically and with the only exception of the incorrect seat pitch I still quite like the units. It's just a shame the rest of TL is still so bad. Riding 700114 again today was rather disheartening seeing the unit that I rode a year ago brand new on its first day in service now absolutely covered in filth. Then add the fact that a test service arrived before it at St Pancras with no announcement about it not being in service. It was obvious to me, what with the 'door not in use' signs all lit and it being an 8-car unit when 12 was advertised plus the 'not in service' on the displays, but non stopping services evidently are invisible to the new Thameslink platform displays and the only audible announcement made not to board the service was after most of the passengers waiting had wandered forward and tried to open the doors. It really isn't difficult to make such an announcement as the train enters the platform, especially when it arrives at the scheduled time of the real service and your train is held up behind it (surprise, surprise!)

The criticism levied against the 700s in here is often subjective but the criticism of GTR continues to be valid across the board IMO. A real shame.

 

[FlippyFF]

Just been on a 700 on the 18:16 City Thameslink to Luton. The TfL status display was from 04:55 on the 2nd August.

Simon

 

[ijmad]

Just been on a 700 on the 18:16 City Thameslink to Luton. The TfL status display was from 04:55 on the 2nd August.

Simon

Surely that should show the lines as closed....

 

[ComUtoR]

Just been on a 700 on the 18:16 City Thameslink to Luton. The TfL status display was from 04:55 on the 2nd August.

Simon

Bathtub curve. Totally acceptable.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think a change of approach is needed.

Can it be done ?

Yes of course. Absolutely it can, there are various options. Including and not limited to a split 3 level station going nse and west all with an 8 track layout. Yeah why not. Millions and millions of pounds and years of disruption and a 6 month blockade of Farringdon and St Pancras. Yes it can be done.

Will it be done ?

Nope. Never. Not in this century.

Well, physically, anything is possible that doesn't break the laws of physics.

But knocking down the original St Pancras station? Can you imagine?

 

[bramling]

Well, physically, anything is possible that doesn't break the laws of physics.

But knocking down the original St Pancras station? Can you imagine?

The serious point is, of course, that Thameslink as a whole is barely adequate for its existing service, let alone the greatly expanded and more intensive service planned. St Pancras is just one of many locations where the infrastructure is simply inadequate for the demands certain people are attempting to make of it.

The East Croydon area is another example. So, with the Programme unravelling and the powers that be starting to see these flaws, we now have the flirtation with the South Eastern side in the form of the Rainham service. Once again, a mix of stopping patterns, a double-track railway, and one which goes through a number of reliability hotspots with flat junctions galore.

Meanwhile, we've already been treated to the spectacle of the whole fragile railway with all its much-trumpeted resilience being brought to a total standstill in one direction for ages because of something as simple as a wrong signal that wasn't quite a wrong signal at Blackfriars - with 24tph that's an extra train adding to the blocking back every 150 seconds.

 

[bramling]

Quite. The proposed bustitution between Hertford North and Stevenage is totally unacceptable and must not proceed until there is a clear line of sight on the funding and building of the new bay platform at Stevenage.

I don't see why it should be so unfeasible for the Hertford service to go through to Letchworth, now the Hitchin flyover is in full use. It all sounds like the start of a realisation that the Hitchin-Cambridge line is going to seriously struggle with the planned service - not helped in any small way by the fact that northbound Thameslink trains will have picked up varying amounts of lateness before even arriving on the GN, thus throwing the finely balanced and inherently vulnerable timetable through the proverbial paper shredder.

 

[Hadders]

I don't see why it should be so unfeasible for the Hertford service to go through to Letchworth, now the Hitchin flyover is in full use. It all sounds like the start of a realisation that the Hitchin-Cambridge line is going to seriously struggle with the planned service - not helped in any small way by the fact that northbound Thameslink trains will have picked up varying amounts of lateness before even arriving on the GN, thus throwing the finely balanced and inherently vulnerable timetable through the proverbial paper shredder.

The increase in services between London and Cambridge means there aren't any paths to run the Hertford service onto Letchworth, I believe. Terminating them in platform 4 at Stevenage (as at present) is also a no-go because the additional trains won't be able to run.

 

[westcoaster]

Another PIS failure this morning on 700105, between Farringdon and STP all the screens went black for 2 minutes then gradually came back on one by one running down the train. Not an especially major issue as they were able to display the whole message about St Pancras before the doors opened but still, it's a reminder that the software running the system still isn't stable. Apart from the dreadful PIS I've had very few issues with the 700s technically and with the only exception of the incorrect seat pitch I still quite like the units. It's just a shame the rest of TL is still so bad. Riding 700114 again today was rather disheartening seeing the unit that I rode a year ago brand new on its first day in service now absolutely covered in filth. Then add the fact that a test service arrived before it at St Pancras with no announcement about it not being in service. It was obvious to me, what with the 'door not in use' signs all lit and it being an 8-car unit when 12 was advertised plus the 'not in service' on the displays, but non stopping services evidently are invisible to the new Thameslink platform displays and the only audible announcement made not to board the service was after most of the passengers waiting had wandered forward and tried to open the doors. It really isn't difficult to make such an announcement as the train enters the platform, especially when it arrives at the scheduled time of the real service and your train is held up behind it (surprise, surprise!)

The criticism levied against the 700s in here is often subjective but the criticism of GTR continues to be valid across the board IMO. A real shame.

I've never seen a class 5 working not show up on the screens when passing through. Maybe because the commissioning runs are class 3's the system can not differentiate. Is st Pancras not NR managed ( might be continental rail) and not NR.

 

[RUFJAN15]

Reliability does not seem to be improving.

I attempted to travel on 1W30 (12.05 Brighton – Bedford) last Tuesday, however a shiny new 700026 was failed at Three Bridges after the fitters failed to resolve an unspecified fault. The unit was moved to Gatwick – and presumably back to the depot - under its own power after passengers were taken off.

Out of interest, I tracked the diagram through Real Time Trains to see how long it took to recover the service. It appears that the faulty unit was substituted starting with 2W54 (17.37 Three Bridges – Bedford), however RTT shows two other incidents at Three Bridges around this time. 1W43 (15.10 Bedford – Brighton) was failed on arrival due to a fault with the safety equipment and it appears that 2W53 (17.05 Three Bridges – Bedford) was cancelled before departure for the same reason.

Assuming the latter two incidents were also 700’s (very likely), there were three failures at Three Bridges in one afternoon.

How much longer is it going to take Siemens to sort out the teething problems with these units?

 

[bramling]

The increase in services between London and Cambridge means there aren't any paths to run the Hertford service onto Letchworth, I believe. Terminating them in platform 4 at Stevenage (as at present) is also a no-go because the additional trains won't be able to run.

Sounds like someone woke up to it all being too fragile, which we knew anyway. Makes the decision not to build the extra Stevenage platform all the more inexcusable, but is a prime example of the sheer incompetence associated with the Thameslink Programme.

I dread to think how long a bus would take between Hertford and Stevenage at peak times. The A602 is notorious locally.

This is just one aspect of the local dissatisfaction with the proposed timetables. Many stations are seeing changes to service patterns which means their London service gains more stops, this is on top of widespread dissatisfaction with the 387s especially due to the reduction in seating availability (although since May this has died down thanks to the return of 365s on most, but not all, services).

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I don't see why it should be so unfeasible for the Hertford service to go through to Letchworth, now the Hitchin flyover is in full use. It all sounds like the start of a realisation that the Hitchin-Cambridge line is going to seriously struggle with the planned service - not helped in any small way by the fact that northbound Thameslink trains will have picked up varying amounts of lateness before even arriving on the GN, thus throwing the finely balanced and inherently vulnerable timetable through the proverbial paper shredder.

Basically, not enough units .....(I think it would need another 2 or so of the new build) - however , in the contractual railway , the bus is king.....

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Makes the decision not to build the extra Stevenage platform all the more inexcusable, but is a prime example of the sheer incompetence associated with the Thameslink Programme.

Does the option to build the extra platform still exist or will it now be physically impossible to do (something built either where the extra platform would be or on where the track to the extra platform would be)?

 

[hwl]

Does the option to build the extra platform still exist or will it now be physically impossible to do (something built either where the extra platform would be or on where the track to the extra platform would be)?

Yes but the required resignalling can't be done before the timetable change...

 

[bramling]

Yes but the required resignalling can't be done before the timetable change...

They've only had about a decade or two to get this done... Yep, a well-planned project. It's farces like this which make it easy to see why there is scepticism about the whole concept, and those designing and implementing it.