You've got nowhere to stable the trains apart from 1 unit at Plumstead if you do that.
The gap is filled by the additional peak fast Bedford services which go to/from East Grinstead or Three Bridges.
On the Redhill route, the Victoria to Reigate service runs in the gap. On the Brighton line, the Thameslink services need to fit with Gatwick Express and the other Victoria services.
How can you tell? If the doors open automatically?
They spent all that money on Gatwick Airport station and could have improved things by making Platform 7 an island Platform, creating an extra Platform 8. Trains could then have "zigzag" plats 7 & 8 which would have stopped that P7 to P6 change of platform issue. The best thing they could do now would be to "zig-zag" P5 & P6 , but is that possible with the new layout that side?
Sorry, but what do you mean by "zigzag"?
Trains are timetabled to use, as in my example Platform 8 or 7, but because of late running you "zigzag" the platforms. While one is in 8 unloading you run the next one in 7, even if it is booked in 8. It arrives, unloads, one of 8 departs. The next one you signal in 8, it arrives and unloads, one on 7 departs. Next one you signal in 7 and soon. It is a princple that has been used for years at London Bridge. Example. The Charing Cross side at London Bridge are two island platforms. P6 & P7 down, P8 & P9 up. By zigzagging it keeps trains flowing through the station in both directions. Such a principle should be applied at East Croydon, if signalling allows. It could have applied at Gatwick Airport if they had added an extra Platform 8.
Ah right. I knew what it was but I'd never heard that term used for it before. Makes perfect sense to do that a high-dwell-time stations.
It does make it perfect sense, so much so that we got it written into ARS software to work at London Bridge.
Cold you free up extra paths in the core by going back to terminating Sutton Loop services at Blackfriars?
It feels like it's basically nearly done and the trackbed is there for p8 for it to be an island - other than where they built the escalator!
That was the original Thameslink Programme plan, until locals, MPs and Government got involved and Sutton/Wimbledon service had to go through the Core. Hence why the 700 8 cars came about, which were meant to be 12 cars (look at carriage numbers), because the "wall of death" in the Sutton/Wimbledon area limited the platform lengths there to 8 cars.
I think it is doing a good job of hiding the fact the reliablility of the 700 is a log way short of expectations, will some need to be table out of service for ETMS upgrades on the ECML or does the fact they can operate on the core mean they are OK?
Was there ever a plan for all 700s to be 12 cars? I think that is unlikely, regardless of the Sutton / Wimbledon area. There are loads of places on the Thameslink network where only 8-car units can be accommodated.
It isn't in the final state that it was supposed to be. There are 3 services that were expected to happen as part of the Thameslink Programme that never happened or were scrapped
The 717s don't have toilets so I suspect that wouldn't be too popular with people going on 1+ hour journeys to Peterborough!
You mention the Maidstone East Service that South Eastern have introduced Maidstone East - Charing X. This is in fact a reinstated service that used to exist many years ago, was rerouted into Cannon Street then abandoned. Interestingly, the train description headcodes for the service used to be 1Nxx Maidstone East to Charing Cross and 1Axx Charing Cross to Maidstone East. I was at TBROC as a Signaller when the latest service started up. We had a train planner come around and I asked a question. Why was the 1Nxx & 1Axx not used any more and the xUxx code used instead? I was told that the xUxx code was the allocated code for the Thameslink Maidstone East - Cambridge services. Now read into that what you will. But the train planner did tell me that the Maidstone East - Charing Cross service was in essence half of what would be the Thameslink Maidstone East - Cambridge service. The crossover facilities are all in place at New Cross/Edward Street junction, and with Hitachi's SARS routing trains in the area now, getting on and off the Thameslink Core lines would be no major issue.
Yes there was initially. But as with all Rail Projects, especially Thameslink, the Government changes and have have different policies, votes speak. Also the Thameslink project got heavilly delayed by various factors, that as time went on the original scheme had been altered by politics and then Privatisation and separate TOCs changed it all. Routes using it. Originally Wimbledon/Sutton trains to terminate at Blackfriars. Even stopping patterns changed, hence why there are a lot of non 12 car platforms on some of the Thameslink routes Originally it was about capacity and having 12 car trains maximised this. Kings Lynn was originally going to be a Thameslink destination, not now. There was never going to be a Luton to Rainham (Kent) service, Government insisted on it when the project was mid-flow.
Excuse my ignorance, but what is SARS (apart from a disease
) and how is it different to bog standard ARS?New Cross area is signalling from Three Bridges ROC using WestCad. Last year it finalling got a version of ARS, after the Thamelinks Programme promising it from day one. The version installed on the old London Bridge ASC area at THree Bridge ROC is Hitachi's Signaller Assistant Route Setting (SARS). Despite what a lot of Railway people think, especially those in management, ARS in what ever form is not a replacement for a Signaller, it is merely an aid for the Signaller. ARS system work only to the inputted timetable download prior to each days service. They are controlled by set parameters programmed into the software that enable the ARS to regulate trains. As any Signaller that uses an ARS system will tell you, they are not perfect. The Hitachi SARS, for once correctly named "Assistant" instead of "Automatic", has a Signaller interface. This screen enables to see what SARS is thinking about each train. So if a signaller sees a train at a Red signal, by reading the SARS screen it will indicate, maybe waiting for a particular train to pass. This enables the Signaller to step and change priorities if needed. Also alerts can be set up as reminders for particular trains, also regulating priorities can be given to a train over other trains at a junction. The is an additional screen for a "Super User", someone who can programme regulation moves into the SARS system. so for example, if there was a station close to a junction that SARS would ordinarilly set the route at the junction for a train calling at that station, it is possible to put on restrictions like, do not set across the junction until the train leaves the platform. Reason being if the train is delayed, you will not have to worry about getting the signal timed out across the junction. It is in place on the Downline at Ewer Street for trains from Waterloo East. SARS is one of the better ARS systems I have seen.Excuse my ignorance, but what is SARS (apart from a disease
