|
|
Post by mrjrt on Aug 27, 2006 14:13:46 GMT
Just a quckie, what do you lot think of building a connection between the WCML County lines north of Euston to the MML slow lines at St Pancras, allowing Thameslink services to run to all of the former radial paths of the old varsity line? ( i.e. taking over the Silverlink services to Bletchley )
It'd free up capacity at Euston, and provide more convient through services (Bletchley to Brighton with better London interchanges), which may be needed should the mythical Orbirail eventually come into being and require the existing capacity over the West London line.
There's not a great deal of trouble with said route alongside the NLL, a short distance of viaduct, and about the other half is just re-laying track over the formed disused viaduct and a simple curving gradient down to the Thameslink route at St. Pancras. It'd also help along with their vision of St Pancras as the national rail hub; as like it or not the short walk to Euston twice a day in the rain (that's quicker than the underground) counts against it and helps push people onto the overcrowded Thameslink services where possible to reduce the connection time.
Anyway, thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2006 23:00:19 GMT
Good idea - but Thameslink has more than enough traffic on the core route from Bedford and it doesnt need extra service groups feeding in to the tunnel section - which can only handle about 15 tph now - with a plan for 24 tph - first call being the GN routes (which are very pressed for capacity with expontial growth figuring) -
The new Midland Rd station will only be about 7 - 8 mins decent walk from EUSTON and unless the latter becomes the new HSL terminus - has enough capacity in its 18 platforms for a long time.
I once tried to work out a Bedford - Luton - Heathrow service via Silkstream Jct and the Dudding Hill lines via Neasden Midland and Acton Wells Jct - (in a previous NSE job role) - no takers unfortunatly - or capacity either franky across Acton Wells plus tricky probs in getting OLE up under the A40 bridge on Acton bank.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Aug 28, 2006 21:21:52 GMT
It doesn't nessecerily have to require an increase in tunnel capacity, if say (for simplicity's sake), 2/3 trains terminated and thus 1/3 continued on.
The MML route can terminate at Kentish town now that St. Pancras doesn't have enough platforms (seriously, whoever decided to skimp on the platforms should be shot); the ECML has the suburban platforms, and Euston can still be used for terminating services.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on Aug 30, 2006 23:11:36 GMT
MML terminate at Kentish Town? Not a good idea. I worked there, and it struggled at times when Thameslink went down. With trains at 3 minute intervals [wouldnt happen] and the instigation of crowd control frequently, then maybe.
The benefits to the WCML? Wouldnt it result in less freight paths?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Aug 31, 2006 8:01:39 GMT
MML terminate at Kentish Town? Not a good idea. I worked there, and it struggled at times when Thameslink went down. With trains at 3 minute intervals [wouldnt happen] and the instigation of crowd control frequently, then maybe. I only suggested Kentish town as it has the platforms in place. I've only experienced a TL blockade once, ( when the train broke down at KX TL ), and the main reason they struggled was because no-one knew what platforms were going where. As-is, the St. Pancras platforms are all but disused now that all services run down the city branch, and without terminating platform space at St Pancras, they're unlikely to ever see normal use again. Admittedly, KT is a bit out of the way if you want to get to St Pancras, but the ideal solution of terminating platforms at the new midland road station simply wasn't an option given the limited funding available that stopped them springing for 4 platforms of even just space for passing loops. Tight gits.  The benefits to the WCML? Wouldnt it result in less freight paths? Well, I was envisioning the use of the existing SC paths to Bletchley mainly, so I doubt it'd affect the freight too much. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2006 9:10:20 GMT
Personally I feel that linking Thameslink to the WCML would be a bad idea as well - the plans for the route are already quite complex right now, and adding to them would be a bad thing.
A far better idea IMO would be the construction of a pair of slow line platforms on a pair of platform loops at Willesden Junction. Then you would be able to stop many of the slow line services at Willesden to interchange with the Bakerloo, the DC lines, the new NLL services and the existing WLL services, with the added benefit of not blocking the slow lines in the process.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Sept 5, 2006 20:17:34 GMT
The new Midland Rd station will only be about 7 - 8 mins decent walk from EUSTON and unless the latter becomes the new HSL terminus - has enough capacity in its 18 platforms for a long time. (Emphasis mine) If that is the case then why were Railtrack/Network rail discussing trying to get extra platforms into a redevelopment of Euston? King's Cross too - they want a platform 0. IMHO, I say they should of taken the opportunity to demolish the 3 warehouse suburban platforms, and build a matching extension of Kings's Cross where the open space above the northern ticket hall is planned to be. The existing building is symmetrical with 4 platforms in each half, so an extension with 4 platforms would fit right in. |
|
