This article grew in the telling. As with so many other places on the London rail network, it is hard to give a comprehensive overview of plans for one improvement on the East Coast Mainline (ECML) without attempting to coherently explain neighbouring developments that influence or shape those plans. This is one reason why the Thameslink Programme features so often on London Reconnections; it has a huge impact on existing services both north and south of the river. The London end of the ECML has several branches, whose routes are currently integrally intertwined and overlapping. Here, Thameslink will absorb some services and create significant opportunities to rethink others.
While this article was initially intended to focus on the segregation of the Hertford Loop from other suburban services, no real justice can be done to this topic without also setting it in the context of its eccentric spouse, the Northern City Line. Nor can the future of the Hertford North – Moorgate service that they carry be fully understood without examining the huge impact that segregation and Thameslink will have on that service’s twin, the Welwyn – Moorgate route. All of this has become especially topical following the belated release of the combined Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern (hereafter, ‘Greater Thameslink’) Franchise consultation response and Invitation to Tender. These documents finally answer (at least in outline) some of the outstanding questions concerning the future of services on the ECML and the Northern City Line.
So in this, the latest in our occasional series on the ECML and its London branches, we will look at the under-publicised work to increase suburban service levels on the ECML Great Northern routes, and the impact of the new franchise specification.
A Potted History
As we detailed in our earlier look at the Past and Future of Finsbury Park, the Hertford Loop and the Northern City Line had separate origins prior to being connected in 1976. The loop began in 1871 as a branch line connecting Alexandra Palace station (1859, then called ‘Wood Green’) on the ECML to Enfield, and did not reach Hertford North until 1924. The original Enfield station and spur were demolished in 1974, three years before the branch was electrified. The Great Northern & City Railway, on the other hand, was opened in 1904 to connect Moorgate and Finsbury Park by tunnel, and was not linked to the ECML until the post-Victoria Line changes of the late 1970s. Subsequently, the Hertford Loop has comprised a substantial part of the inner-suburban ECML services running into Moorgate (during weekdays before 22:00) and King’s Cross (during late evenings and weekends).
The Hertford Loop consists of three stations outside the TfL area (including Hertford North), and a further seven within it. The loop then joins the ECML at Alexandra Palace, from where the route serves Hornsey (1850) and Harringay (1885) stations, before leaving the ECML at Finsbury Park to join the Northern City Line. The route then serves five stations, culminating at the Moorgate terminus, including a notable cross-platform interchange with the Victoria Line at Highbury & Islington.
Southbound inner-suburban services on the ECML from Welwyn Garden City merge with the Hertford Loop services at Alexandra Palace (after serving five stations outside the TfL area and only four within it). This, and the mixture of stopping and semi-stopping services, causes capacity constraints on the shared track between Alexandra Palace and Finsbury Park, and has long prevented any significant increase in service levels.
Diagram of Inner Services to King’s Cross and Moorgate taken from the DfT’s Greater Thameslink consultation response document.
The current service level is as follows:
Off peak:
- 3tph Moorgate – Hertford North (with 1tph extended to Stevenage)
- 3tph Moorgate – Welwyn Garden City
Peak:
- 4 – 5tph Moorgate-Hertford North
- 3-4tph Moorgate – Gordon Hill
- 3-4tph Moorgate – Welwyn
(So timetabled that Moorgate currently receives no more than 12tph)
Some peak trains on the Loop start or terminate at Gordon Hill, others continue to Stevenage or Letchworth. The Welwyn-Moorgate service is supplemented at peak times by 1-3tph semi-stopping from King’s Cross to Welwyn, Stevenage, Hitchin or Letchworth.
Increasing Capacity on the Hertford Loop
The need to increase capacity on the Hertford Loop has been recognised for some time. The 2008 ECML Rail Utilisation Strategy (RUS) recommended that all three-car peak services be increased to six-car, which is the maximum length that the Northern City Line stations can cater for. It also called for the off-peak service be increased to four trains per hour, and for the peak-hour service to be raised from 12 to 15tph, the ‘absolute limit’ of the Northern City Line track and platform capacity (actually the practical maximum under modern standards – the NCL originally handled 18tph); these would be additional Hertford-Moorgate trains.
However, the ‘second generation’ 2011 London & South East RUS (which brought together and updated the various ‘first generation’ RUSs that cover London) suggests that the planned additional capacity on the Hertford Loop will be accommodated by the withdrawal of the Welwyn-Moorgate service, rather than through increasing the number of trains terminating at Moorgate from 12 to 15, stating:
Following completion of the Thameslink Programme it is assumed that the current peak service into Moorgate will remain at 12 trains per hour as today. However, several of the existing Welwyn Garden City to Moorgate/London King’s Cross services are anticipated as being re-routed through the Thameslink route tunnels … Capacity would be freed up on the Moorgate branch if this element was implemented, enabling a frequency increase to 10 trains per hour on the Hertford Loop.
Despite this, a residual Welwyn – Moorgate service is expected to remain post-2018. While minimum standards have been set in the Greater Thameslink specification, specific details of these services will be determined by the future franchise operator.
The capacity limitations that we have seen above, and the diversion of some Welwyn – Moorgate services and passengers to Thameslink, mean that passenger numbers into Moorgate are only expected to grow 1% by 2031, whereas Great Northern/Thameslink traffic into King’s Cross and St Pancras will grow by 66%. This seems to assume that increased capacity on the Hertford Loop will ease overcrowding without stimulating significant growth in the number of passengers wishing to alight at the Moorgate terminus.
The 2011 RUS states that:
Beyond 2018, the Thameslink Programme will alleviate suburban capacity constraints and improve connectivity, by enabling commuter services to continue through the Thameslink tunnels, rather than needing to terminate at London King’s Cross. However, no (or very few) additional peak trains relative to today will be able to run through the critical Welwyn viaduct area, so it is likely that frequency increases in the morning peak will generally be restricted to inner suburban services. These will benefit from a combination of the Thameslink Programme and committed infrastructure enhancements in the Finsbury Park to Alexandra Palace area, with six fully usable tracks planned.
It is those infrastructure enhancements that we will examine next.
Segregating the Hertford Loop
As we noted in the introduction, no increase in trains per hour can occur on the Hertford Loop without at least partially untangling Welwyn and Hertford stopping services between Alexandra Palace and Finsbury Park. For some time work has been under way to convert a goods track south of Alexandra Palace into a second up slow track (i.e. from the country to Moorgate) for passenger use, allowing for segregation of the two services (two lines can already be simultaneously used as down slows). This project will mean that there are six passenger tracks in between Alexandra Palace and Finsbury Park, in addition to a tangled web of tracks linking the Ferme Park goods depot and the Hornsey and Bounds Green train depots.
Harringay and Hornsey looking north, Glover & Hay
In addition to resignalling the goods track for passenger use through the addition of AWS (Automatic Warning System) and TPWS (Train Protection & Warning System), this plan requires the re-instatement of the disused up platform at Finsbury Park and associated station accessibility improvements, in addition to extra platforms at Alexandra Palace, Hornsey and Harringay and revised access to the Bounds Green Depot. Work at Alexandra Palace and Finsbury Park is now nearing completion, and we understand that the Bounds Green depot access works have been completed as part of the Thameslink Hornsey Depot works.
The Impact of Segregation on Harringay and Hornsey Stations
The precise plans for Harringay and Hornsey Stations remain somewhat opaque. It would appear that since the 2008 RUS was published the planned work on new platforms at Harringay and Hornsey have been postponed, perhaps indefinitely. Any mention of these two stations appears to have slipped from the Control Period 4 (2008-2013) plan, and while proposals for CP5 (2014-19) assume that all works between Alexandra Palace and Finsbury Park will ‘be completed’ by 2018 they do not specify whether this includes the intermediate stations. This led to speculation that service levels at Harringay and Hornsey were under threat, as full segregation of Hertford Loop and Welwyn services north of Finsbury Park would prevent Hertford Loop trains from stopping at those stations.
After local pressure, the DfT suggested that both stations could be served by the 4tph 8-car Thameslink service (in addition to a residual Welwyn Great Northern service), which would compensate for the loss of Loop trains. However, it has not been confirmed whether the platforms will be extended to cater for these 8-car trains in order to avoid using Selective Door Opening. Such extensions would not be technically problematic at Harringay, and LR understands that the recent trackwork to cater for the new Hornsey Thameslink depot now means that extension is feasible at Hornsey too.
However, the author is assured that all trains serving Harringay & Hornsey are likely to continue to be from the Hertford Loop and the residual Welwyn – Moorgate service, with no Thameslink trains stopping there despite their sharing the same track, yet retaining the current 6tph service level. The new ‘Greater Thameslink’ franchise specification appears to leave room for this option. This would mean that Hertford and Welwyn services would continue to use the existing platforms at Harringay and Hornsey. It seems, then, that the current works may result in only a partial segregation of inner-suburban services north of Finsbury Park. Whatever solution is ultimately revealed, it will be interesting to see how the Thameslink and non-Thameslink suburbans are threaded across the new six-tracked railway.
As a result of local compensatory spending attached to the Thameslink Hornsey Depot works, Hornsey station is currently being upgraded using a £500,000 investment by the London Borough of Haringey, Network Rail and First Capital Connect. However, no similar package has been announced for Harringay station. The DfT have announced, though, that both stations will become permanently staffed during opening hours; this is in line with the franchise specification, which calls for all stations with more than one million passengers per year to be permanently staffed. In last few years both stations have crept past the one million mark.
Segregation, Thameslink, and the future of inner-suburban services
As we have explored elsewhere at London Reconnections, a combined Thameslink, Southern & Great Northern service will be created from 2015. This would be the largest franchise in the country. Abellio, FirstGroup, Govia, MTR and Stagecoach all made the original March 2012 short-list, but progress was postponed in October 2012 following the West Coast franchise disaster. The process was relaunched in January 2013, and it has been announced that the First Capital Connect franchise will be extended by 28 weeks from the formal 13 September 2013 end date to allow the process to be completed. The formal Invitation to Tender was released on 26 September.
The 2012 Thameslink franchise consultation suggested that non-Thameslink great Northern inner-suburbans could be detached from this mega-franchise, and passed to an Inter-City East Coast franchise. The newly-published Consultation Response and Invitation to Tender note that this was not a popular option, and confirm that the residual inner-suburbans will remain with the Greater Thameslink franchise.
Yet the consensus seems to be that the train operating companies tend to neglect inner-London stations and services in favour of more lucrative long-distance customers, and therefore there are legitimate doubts as to whether either franchise option best serves commuters in London and Hertfordshire. In light of this, questions are being asked as to whether TfL control of these services might now be in order.
Back in May, our own Walthamstow Writer noted an interesting exchange between London Assembly Member Joanne McCartney and Sir Peter Hendy:
Joanne McCartney asked if the Great Northern stopping services into Moorgate were being looked at by TfL for devolution. She felt it would make sense for these services to be devolved. Sir Peter said this line was a rare example of a London railway where patronage had fallen since the through service had been put in place in the late 1970s. He agreed that the relatively self-contained nature of the service, and it being largely within Greater London, leant itself to being run by TfL. Joanne McCartney added a plaintive “please” by way of closing reply.
It seems this will not now occur before the new franchise ends in 2021. It may be that the chances of devolution occurring after then have been bolstered by (and are contingent upon the success of) TfL’s recent takeover of West Anglia inner-suburban services. That said, the imposed limit of Chingford/Cheshunt/Enfield for this TfL service – rather than allow it to serve destinations outside the TfL area through to Hertford East – may be problematic. If TfL were to be given control of suburban services on the Loop they might well be limited to the turnback at Gordon Hill, where many peak-time services currently start and terminate. In this scenario only a minority of services on the Loop could be TfL-run in order to maintain services to Hertford and beyond, undermining the case for and feasibility of devolution.
Evening & weekend service
The Hertford Loop and the Welwyn route currently endure a 3tph daytime and 2tph evening & weekend service. South of Finsbury Park these trains are diverted to King’s Cross after 22:00 and at weekends; astonishingly this leaves the Northern City Line with no service after these times. The RUS suggested that there was a poor standalone business case for introducing an evening and weekend service due to additional staffing costs. However the RUS was produced prior to the successful introduction of London Overground and the subsequent explosion in passenger numbers interchanging at Highbury & Islington. Further, the business case will improve once Crossrail begins calling at Moorgate, increasing interchange possibilities there. The RUS did note that it might be necessary to introduce a Saturday service in future if other service levels increase due to capacity constraints at King’s Cross, especially once Network Rail is compelled to restrict access to King’s Cross in order to resignal the station.
Delightfully, the new Greater Thameslink Franchise has revealed that passengers will not need to wait until the arrival of Crossrail in 2018 for the introduction of an evening and weekend service to Moorgate. Instead, this service has been written into the new franchise specification, and will be introduced from December 2015 with a minimum 6tph (4tph at weekends) between no later than 06:00 and no earlier than 23:59 (07:30 and 23:30 on Sundays). London’s Cinderella line will finally get to go to the ball.
Beyond Thameslink & Segregation
We have seen that the combined result of the Thameslink programme and Hertford Loop segregation will be an increase in service levels and destinations for ECML inner-suburban customers. Yet these plans will leave the Hertford Loop and Northern City line significantly under-utilised, with the Loop in particular seemingly destined to continue to suffer from neglected stations and ancient rolling stock. Unless TfL decide to stake a claim on these services, they are likely to remain tied to the growing Thameslink franchise.
A comparison of (admittedly notoriously unreliable) passenger figures for the inner-suburban National Rail stations and the parallel Piccadilly Line is very revealing. The National Rail stations often struggle to reach one million passengers per year, while the Piccadilly Line stations approach ten million users. This, along with the impressive success of the London Overground model – improved stock, improved minimum service levels, and a bold place on the tube map – strongly suggests that demand on the suburban ECML branches is currently repressed. This may throw into question the assumptions made about predicted growth and therefore the cost-effectiveness of proposed enhancements. If this is so, how might further growth be achieved?
It should also be noted that the European Rail Traffic Management System is expected to be rolled out on this part of the ECML by 2018/19. The RUS suggests that this “may offer opportunities for improved exploitation of the infrastructure in place from that time”. This implies that Moorgate may be expected to handle its ‘absolute maximum’ capacity of 15tph. Interestingly, the RUS specifically mentions that any additional trains would need to terminate elsewhere, and raises the curious prospect of diverting some trains through the Canonbury Curve and onto the North or East London Line. It does, though, describe this as a ‘limited’ opportunity, perhaps acknowledging the well-attested difficulties of merging services at this flat junction, and the major challenges involved in providing a segregated junction.
The remaining elephant in the room is the question of replacing the existing rolling stock. The 313s date from the 1970s and are the oldest suburban stock in use in London. Their replacement is complicated by the peculiarities of the Northern City Line, which has third rail electrification and which is unsuited for most mainline stock. As yet there have been no announcements addressing this issue, though the cost of making the 313s compatible with the ERTMS signalling so near to their presumed retirement/displacement may force the question before 2018.
London Reconnections maintains a strict policy of non-speculation when it comes to ‘fantasy lines’, and this article will avoid musing on the possible extension of the Northern City Line beyond Moorgate. It appears not to be part of any medium or long-term plans, or even close to being so. Indeed, it seems likely that the most authoritative and detailed discussions concerning that prospect have repeatedly and extensively occurred at the level of the LR Commentariat, discussions that you are kindly invited not to repeat here.
We have seen that the existing plans for the London-end of the ECML, however, will bring considerable improvements for passengers. Yet some questions concerning how service patterns will change post-2018 remain unanswered. Further, the current plans do not make the most of the existing infrastructure for inner-suburban services, such that track and stations on the Hertford Loop and Northern City Line will remain under-utilised, especially off-peak. Time will tell whether TfL eventually seize the opportunity and seek to address this gap, staking a claim on the non-Thameslink Programme suburban services on the ECML and its branches. It seems that this solution might more practical if the Loop and Northern & City service is entirely segregated from the ECML suburbans to Welwyn Garden City, though this would require additional platforms at Harringay and Hornsey. However, the current geographic limitations on TfL services into Hertfordshire (Watford aside) raises doubts as to the feasibility of this option, as Loop passengers north of Gordon Hill would still need to be catered for by a different franchise, meaning that TfL would not be the sole operator on the route into Moorgate.
In the meantime – with the safe assumption that the ‘Greater Thameslink’ franchise does go ahead in its proposed form – it will be interesting to see precisely how suburban services are configured once Thameslink trains begin running through the Canal Tunnels and elbow their way onto the ECML. We are unlikely to know exactly how this will work for some years yet.
Future articles in this series will take a look at London’s lost ECML branches, namely the ‘Northern Heights’ and the Palace Gates Line, focussing on the mooted resurrection of the latter as a branch of Crossrail 2.
Would it be possible to build two new platforms south of Harringay on the GOBLIN linking Thameslink and NCL?
@Anonymous
It’s a 500m walk from Harringay and Harringay Green Lanes – I’m guessing the question is “can Harringay and Harringay Green Lanes stations be moved to be where the Lines cross?”
The answer is … it could if the money could be justified. The north-south platforms and their access might be a little hard to do because they are part of the long-distance high-speed lines.
The other problem is that the stations would be a long way from anywhere useful: both the current stations are not that well places, but the intersections would be another half-km away from the high streets, bus routes and so forth.
I think if you costed it out the benefits of an interchange would not justify the costs.
IMHO the money would be better spent re-opening the Highgate Road, Junction Road, Hornsea Road, St Annes Road “missing” stations.
http://tubedreams.london/will-re-open-missing-overground-station/
I had occasion to take the train from New Southgate towards Central London recently.
The morning peak services seemed to be relatively short trains (6 coaches in 2 sets of 3).
It doesn’t seem clear what will happen once some of the trains that currently head towards Kings Cross instead go via the Thameslink.
Will some of the suburban trains (the Thameslink ones) be longer ?
There also seems to be some potential for trains to split (Southern Region style) at Finsbury Park with half to Moorgate and half to the suburban Kings Cross platforms.
Finsbury Park (surface) is a curious station. To the west there seems to be the remains of a platform and a line with generally no passenger access.
@Enver. The flats at New Southgate (with a handy Co-Op downstairs) will be well connected when CR2 gets there.
Hopefully New Southgate station will get a rebuild (for disabled access if nothing else) when CR2 arrives and the local buses will be tweaked to make a few more pass the railway station. Ideally there would be a bus station incorporated at New Southgate.
@Mark H -all the TLK will be unsplittable 12s or 8s.
@mark H
As you say, all the GN line local services are currently operated by six-car trains, (2×3-car class 313) rather than the longer trains of classes 317 and 365 (normally two x 4-car units) which work the longer distance services beyond Welwyn, to Cambridge and Peterborough. As I assume you are aware, most of these services run to Moorgate, and beyond Drayton Park that line is in tunnel: the stations on the tunnel section cannot take anything longer than six cars, and it would be prohibitively expensive to extend them. (It would be easier to build a new line between the City and the GN line – and indeed that is what CR2 is proposed to do, some time in the 2030s. A similar argument applies to the Waterloo and City – and the solution is the same too!)
(Moreover, neither the 317s nor the 365s can work down the hole – the 317s because they are not equipped for running on the live rail system (the tunnel section has insufficient clearance for overhead cables) and the 365s because they have no door in the front of the cab – a requirement for emergency evacuation on all single-track tube sections).
The 313s are now the second oldest trains running on the mainland (after the HSTs), and Govia are committed to replacing them.
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/govia-wins-tsgn-franchise-beating-firstgroup
“It will also secure 150 new carriages to replace the 40-year-old trains currently operating on the route between Moorgate, north London and Hertfordshire.” (This equates to 50 3-car units, six more than the existing GN fleet)
Future plans for the line are outlined here.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/245205/consultation-responses-tsgn.pdf
page 44-46
In the short term (next month) the weekend service will be diverted from Kings Cross to Moorgate (para 4.87) , but in the longer term some (most?) Welwyn services will run through the Thameslink core (para 4.91) to Caterham
https://beleben.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/proposed-thameslink-2018-service-pattern-01.png?w=700
and these will presumably be class 700s. If the platforms on the GN local line cannot already take eight cars, they will have to be extended.
Consideration of how to tweak bus services to fit CR2 is, I think, a little premature – there may be no oil left to power such things by then – or we may all have hoverboards!
Meant to add – splitting southbound trains at Finsbury Park would not be a Good Plan, as it would mean shorter trains to each terminus, which is not a good use of capacity. People can change trains faster than trains can be split and, particularly, joined.
Dividing trains for West end and City was practiced in the early days of the LCDR (at Herne Hill), but as far as I am aware all services which now split do so in the down direction, and rejoin in the up direction. This allows one path in and out of London to serve two routes that do not individually justify a whole twelve car train.
The disused platforms 9 and 10 are discussed here
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/f/finsbury_park/
They were used for the “Northern heights” line to Highgate to Edgware via Mill Hill East, High Barnet, and Alexandra Palace (High Level), all now either closed or part of the Northern Line
Just to clarify timbeau’s post above; the Welywn GC services to Thameslink will be additional to, and not replace, the existing Welwyn GC to Moorgate services.
The Thameslink services will call at selected stations, whilst the Moorgate services will call at all stations, as now ( except for a few in the peak).
I would guess that the Welwyn to Caterham trains will be 8 car. The stations on the Caterham branch are 5 car with the exception of Caterham itself which will hold 8.
Purley Dweller,
I am pretty sure they can all take 8-cars except one which uses SDO as the maximum is 7-cars. I think you are confusing the length of the platform with the maximum length permitted for Driver Only Operation without full monitors. As the branch is only equipped with mirrors for self-dispatch any class 455 trains have to have all carriages beyond the first 4 locked out of use on its outward journey at Purley and brought back in use on its return – a time consuming business.
I think you will find class 377 is unrestricted on the branch as it has integrated monitors with cameras on the outside of the train.
Incidently, when a 5-car class 377/7 appears at Purley for the Tattenham Corner branch the automated announcement tells us we must only board the first four carriages as the fifth car will be locked out of use due to short platforms (or something very similar). Needless to say the fifth carriage is not locked out of use and the train operates with doors opening at all stations. Passengers ignore this routine and erroneous announcement.
@SFD
Thank you – it wasn’t at all clear from the official paper what the service on the GN mainline locals would be – even whether the off peak service would be only to Moorgate, only the core, or both. (It seems that Hertford will get only Moorgate services in future)
Is there any indication as to which stations the WGC to Caterham services would call at? (In particular, whether Mark H’s wish for 8-car trains at New Southgate will come to pass)
PoP, re: the lockout of the back 4 on an 8 car 455 is due to the interaction of short platforms, fire regs and lack of SDO (a long and tedious explanation). However as the automated announcement doesn’t know which stock is turning up it has to err on the side of caution and go with only the front 4 ever being available. On a 377 the automated announcer (hopefully) states which number of coaches will have doors opening. Same on Tattenham branch. This didn’t stop one passenger with a pram getting trapped in the back coach of my 8 car 377 at Tadworth, as she had “always got out the back coach in the past”.
Talking of future services …
Does anyone have any idea how long before the new ( Dec 2015 – May 2016) tt becomes available on-line?
@timbeau, many thanks for such a comprehensive reply, in particular the service pattern diagram (paying due attention to the notes).
I realise that the Moorgate route is a major constraint on train length. By implication (with the exception of the viaduct at Welwyn), paths are not seen as a big constraint on the suburban train service at the moment.
It thus looks like there will be longer Thameslink trains with few stops (if any) within the M25 to the North of Finsbury Park and the current service with a greater proportion of trains going to Moorgate.
How well the interchange will work at Finsbury Park for the (relatively few) passengers from North London who want a Thameslink destination (most obviously Gatwick) will be interesting to see.
Going North, travelling to (say) York or Leeds, there are trains that stop at Stevenage but rather than an outward local train from (say) New Southgate or Palmers Green it is generally quicker to go to Kings Cross (on the tube) and catch the train from there (passing a starting point in the suburbs on the way).
Making Stevenage the equivalent of Reading for services heading North seems to have considerable merit to me.
Mark H, don’t forget Thameslink is not so much about providing better interchange or through trains, but increasing overall capacity by not having trains terminating in London Bridge, St Pancras or Kings Cross, where platform time is at a premium. Hence stoppers and semi fasts being joined together leaving the terminal platforms for the expresses (in North London at least!). The rest is secondary but useful stuff.
@GTR Driver
Thanks for your point.
Thinking about it, the current Thameslink scheme is essentially an incremental project with a number of related changes. The East Coast Line trains are a third of the total and reasonably I might expect a stopping pattern similar to that on the St Pancras trains (a mix of generally outer suburban services as I recall).
As you point out, the key “Thameslink Benefit” is essentially being able to add trains without having to find platform space for them at Kings Cross (which is so short of platforms it had to have a platform “0” added).
Personally I’m looking forward to the additional journey options (without use of the Underground) that the combination of Thameslink and Crossrail will bring. My guess is that preferred routes will change for a fair number of people.
Mark H 19 November 2015 at 19:19
“Kings Cross (which is so short of platforms it had to have a platform “0” added).”
0 is just a crafty trick to avoid reprogramming lots of signalling kit.
Apparently that would cost so much that they wouldn’t renumber the platforms at Stratford before the Olympics, even after £100m+ investment in the station.
The platform 0 at KX seems daft to me, with its overtones of ‘C’ programmers. It just builds up legacy confusion. For motorway junctions, I can see the sense given renamed junctions could be 20 miles apart, but platforms…
Haymarket, Stockport and Cardiff Central also have a Platform 0. Leeds chose to call its extra platform W instead, but the whole station has since been renumbered during resignalling.
Note that for many years KX only had ten platforms – No11 (the original 13*) was reinstated relatively recently.
(before renumbering in the early seventies, there were no platforms 2 or 9 – platform 2 had originally been a short bay, later eliminated by widening platform 3, and “platform 9” had been a third track with no platform between tracks 8 and 10 (now 7 and 8) later eliminated by widening platform 8.
(When Harry Potter’s parents went to school, platform 9 would have been just as hard to find as platform nine-and-three-quarters!)
Re John B,
I think most here could see better uses of a 8 digit sum (or something near it) to eliminate the need for P0 for a few years than than doing lots of work to an old signalling system that is going to be completely replaced with a new ETCS L2 system shortly which will be a good point to renumber everything from 1 upwards. (Already being tested on Hertford loop and will be rolled out KGX to Peterborough when the new stock has been delivered (700s 800s and replacement Moorgate stock) just leaving some 375/5s and 365s to be retrofitted)).
Alan Griffiths, John B,
We have been through the platform 0 thing before. In short, you can call it something else (at King’s Cross it was going to be platform Y – for York Road) but only by calling it platform 0 is it obvious where it is. Platform Y could be anywhere.
As stated, renumbering would be extremely expensive unless done at the same time as resignalling. It can also be confusing so the short term implications needs to be carefully considered.
Starting counting from zero is not as daft as you might think. You don’t have to be a C programmer to do it. When was your 0th birthday? When was your first birthday? Now if you are Chinese your first birthday is when you are born and on your second birthday Westerners would consider you to be one year old.
FYI: All computers count from zero. It’s not limited to the “C” programming language family.
It’s also not as uncommon in real life as one might think: In most of Europe, we count from zero when referring to floors in a building, though we refer to the zeroth floor as the “Ground” floor. In my nearest shopping centre here in Italy, the lifts have buttons labelled “-1”, “0”, and “1”, for basement (parking), ground floor, and first floor respectively. (Our North American cousins refer to their ground floors their “First” floor, so they count floors from 1, not zero, but they’ve always been a little ornery.)
[Snip. I find this digression fascinating but think this is about as far as we can tolerate in the interests of maintaining some semblance of order. PoP]
I may, of course, be overthinking this. [You said it. PoP]
Very sorry I started this…..
@ngh I don’t see why the passenger facing numbering of platforms is connected with the vagaries of the signalling system behind the scenes.
KX has clearly had a history of confusing platform numbers, but as passenger I expect to have all the extant platforms when I arrive to have consecutive numbers starting from 1 working across the concourse. Odd gaps to preserve historic working patterns “the Bradford train always leaves from Platform 3” just confuse new passengers, the ones who most need clear direction.
John B: There is something in what you say. However, contrary arguments do exist. One would be that platform numbers are just labels; normally they are “consecutive starting from 1”, but all a passenger really has to do is look for the sign with their platform number on, little details like platform 4 being next to platform 5 are not necessary; many multi-platform stations have anyway a more complex topology.
The other bit is that signallers and drivers “behind the scenes” have to use the numbers which are “known” to the signalling system. Although it would be possible to then translate these numbers to a different set for passenger use, this would be confusing and error-prone. Staff making manual platform announcements (rare but it can happen), or advising individual passengers, would have to translate the internal to the passenger-facing number. It is considered simpler, generally, to let the same number be used in all contexts.
The historic reasons for certain platforms having certain numbers are fascinating (maybe) to some people here, but continued use of these numbers is not “to preserve historic working patterns”. It is because renumbering them internally (when the signalling is not being changed for some other reason) would be very expensive, and having a dual system would also be expensive and error-prone.
Anyone troubled by Kings Cross platform numbering should definitely not go to Stratford!
Wow….I never knew that platform numbers were so intricately linked to the signalling system, making renumbering less straightforward than it might initially appear. This would explain the current mess (!) at Stratford, as well as the anomaly at London Bridge that existed for many years before the recent rebuild when there was no Platform 7, but the other platform numbers remained unaltered. Suddenly, the idea of a Platform 9 3/4 being squeezed into an existing station doesn’t sound so ridiculous, does it? ?
Do the same considerations apply to Tube stations? If not, the OCD part of me wants to ask if renumbering could be done at certain stations? Moorgate is the obvious one, but also Liverpool Street (where the Central line platforms are 4 and 5, even though there hasn’t been a Platform 3 on the subsurface line platforms for several decades!) comes to mind….
Anonymously,
I am sure I read on Mike Horne’s website that numbering of platforms on the Underground originally related to the location of the station signalbox and so had no obvious logic to it. The same inconsistencies are there as platforms are added. Go to the non-Stratford end of the Jubilee line to see platforms 3, 1 and 2 in that sequence – if only they had called platform 3 platform 0. The difference is than no one normally cares as people think of Victoria line southbound or whatever.
And just imagine the fun and torment, for the lovers of neatness, that double ended Crossrail stations are going to cause. Now are the platforms at Crossrail Liverpool St / Moorgate going to be numbered platforms 19 and 20 or 11 and 12 or ???. Fun for all the family, signallers, track workers and train drivers. 😉
Well, they could do a ‘St Pancras/New Cross/Waterloo East’ and just use letters. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if they only used letters for all of the underground Crossrail stations!
I just noticed in the new timetable that on weekdays, some Hertford loop trains (1 tph off-peak) continue to terminate at Letchworth. And yet the above article and diagram seemed to indicate that from now on all of these trains would terminate at Stevenage.
Does anyone know what has happened? Is it because there is insufficient capacity on weekdays to terminate trains in the slow platforms at Stevenage (as I suspect)?
TSGN have named Siemens as preferred bidder for the new Moorgate routes rolling stock to replace the 313s.
The order will be for 25 six-car units (150 vehicles), of a variant of the Class 700 Desiro City and enter service by the end of 2018 on routes to and from Welwyn and Hertford, Stevenage and Letchworth.
Features include:
• Fixed length with full width inter-vehicle gangways, creating more space for passengers on board (there are no intermediate cabs)
• Air-conditioning
• Passenger information systems with real-time information
• Power points throughout
Financing for the order isn’t sorted yet and apparently they won’t have overground style longitudinal seating
http://www.govia.info/news/siemens-announced-preferred-bidder-new-great-northern-fleet/
A few pics here (Govia):
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B37S24j3JgC7R0tTLWkySXhTZlk&usp=sharing
Further details on Thameslink Moorgate trains can be found here –
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/siemens-selected-to-supply-moorgate-suburban-emu-fleet.html
This announcement will have the benefit of both inner and outer Thameslink services because no provided by basically the same train giving benefits re train parts etc.
One question is what differences may be needed to ensure these trains fit the tunnels to Moorgate ?
The choice of Siemens isn’t surprising given Hornsey (or the new part of it) will already be maintaining Thameslink 700s and the Siemens ATO / ETCS will have already have been proven to work on the stock and parts of the route reducing the risk there given ETCS roll out on the ECML southern routes starting in 2019.
The stock will also have cab end doors (needed for the single track tunnels) so the new crash regulations may not have killed off gangway connections on the end of new units yet…
Gangways haven’t been killed off, the new Scottish Hitachi trains will have them. They do seem to be out of fashion though.
No point in gangways on 378s or 700s, as they are too long to work in multiple. (In extremis, I suppose two of the Moorgate units could deputise for a 12-car 700, but even an eight car 700 coupled to a Moorgate unit would be 14 cars.
@Purley Dweller: I know what you mean, but I think referring to “out of fashion” is a bit hard on train specifiers and designers. They are juggling a whole host of pressures (including but not limited to, driver protection in a crash), and quite often recently, gangways seem to have had to go. However much that might annoy us sideline-standers who mostly see the benefits foregone (not least in future-proofing) without always appreciating the price (in terms of other features and/or money) which their provision would have required.
There is a difference between cab end doors (as on the Class 319s) and full passenger gangways. Emergency evacuation only requires some means of getting out through the front of the train, not an ability to walk between trains in service.
Anonymously 21 November 2015 at 16:52
” it wouldn’t surprise me if they only used letters for all of the underground Crossrail stations!”
Nor me.
Westbound platforms A for airport, eastbound platforms B for not-airport.
@Ian J: Good point. But if there are emergency cab end doors in the design, then there may be more scope to “extend” to full passenger gangways, since some of the compromises (e.g. no big central driving position, or no long pointy javelin-nose) have already been made.
AIUI end Gangways are being fitted on the new Hitachi units for Scotrail, they definitely haven’t been abandoned.
@paul
Also fitted to Class 387s for TSGN including Gatwick Express, and to London Midland’s class 172s.
There was a head of Design in late BR days who decreed that gangway doors shouldn’t be allowed, which resulted in the cab of the class 320/321/322/456.
Gangwayed units were first introduced with the 4COR type, in which only one of the three units making up a 12 car train had a buffet car, to allow passengers in the other units to reach it, It wasn’t necessary in the older 6PUL and 6PAN sets because boh units in a 12-car train had catering.
The non-gangwaed 456s had toilets, unlike the gangwayed 455s, so the commonly-seen mixed 455/456 formations, had one unit with a gangway and the other with a toilet! The toilets have been removed now, but the 456s are the only non-gangwayed units on SWT, and thus a guard (SW still has them!) cannot walk the length of the train if a 456 is in the formation .
The new trains for the Northern City will not have toilets or catering or guards, so even if they were going to operate in multiple in some unspecified future use, there would be little point in having gangways.
Paul the Hitachi units for Scotrail look ugly with the provision for gangways and they would appear to reduce the drivers vision to the right hand side for anything close up to the front of the train on that side.
There are some good reasons for having inter-unit gangways, and there are some good reasons for not having them. I would not count perceived ugliness among the good reasons, but that’s just me.
Every class of train with a front end gangway reduces right hand vision, the drivers must cope on a day to day basis. I agree looks are irrelevant, but I’d suggest the Hitachi artists impressions are a lot better than the 380s.
@ timbeau, I didn’t mention those Electorstar and Turbostar derivatives because they are basically repeat orders of an existing structural design. I assumed the original questioners were thinking that the latest crash structure requirements were preventing gangways on new original designs.
Will the air conditioning be switched off whenever the units are using the Moorgate line tunnels? Otherwise those tunnels and stations are going to get rather warm….
(PS Does anybody know the answer to my earlier query above, on the 18th December?)
I did not say or imply there was not a good reson for walkways or exit points but have seen them done in a much more visually pleasing maner. the more slope the front the lessw drag but the more drivers vision reduced to the near right and the more the walkway povision looks like a pimple on a bum. Other people are entitled to their opinon buts that is mine and form and function need not be mutually exclusive
@Anonymously: despite the tubelike construction, the tunnels are mainline sized – and shorter and less intensively used than, say, the Crossrail tunnels – so heat might not be such an issue?
@Ian J…..They might be mainline size, but they’re still a fairly tight fit! Even the current stock has to be shorter in height in order to fit the tunnels, as others have explained.
My main concern is that, unlike Crossrail (which I presume has been designed with sufficient ventilation shafts and extraction systems to enable AC to be used), the GN&C tunnels and stations have no similar measures to disperse the retained heat. Their depth and (relatively) light use would preclude any modifications to add these, I would have thought.
Even with a maximum of 12tph, that exhaust heat from the AC is still going to build up, since there’s nowhere else (other than the adjacent Vic line platforms at H&I!) for it to go, right?
Sorry, I meant to say a maximum of 12-15 tph (to match what is stated in the main article).
Emergency exit doors like on this design (and the 319, 378, and most Underground stock) are relatively unobtrusive compared with the big protruberances required for movement between units whilst in motion. The slightly recessed arrangement on the 313 and its close relatives is a bit more clumsy, but is probably done for a reason.
Sightlines from a side cab are not as good as a full width one, but were a vast improvement on the view from the footplate of something like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_West_Country_and_Battle_of_Britain_classes#/media/File:Wadebridge_(530149724).jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Wadebridge_%28530149724%29.jpg
There is also this solution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Intercity_Materieel#/media/File:ICMm_4012_in_Apeldoorn.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/ICMm_4012_in_Apeldoorn.jpg/1280px-ICMm_4012_in_Apeldoorn.jpg
[Edited to ensure URL is hyperlinked. PoP]
The door looks like it will drop down in an emergency and form steps to allow escape.
(As someone previously suggested like a private jet.)
@Chris L
Like this?
http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/stock/1973tubeStock/73refFrontLadrSotM.jpg
timbeau
Get 403 – forbidden link on that one …..
[Not quite sure why that is but suspect square wheels has explicitly forbidden linking directly to photo. Annoying. Try
http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/stock/1973tubeStock/ and scrolling to bottom of page. PoP]
I believe it is a legal requirement for trains working through single track underground tunnels to have end to end passenger access, for emergency evacuation. This must apply to the Northern City Line.
Timbeau and Greg Tingey. The 1973 Tube Stock has seps that pull out from the floor of the cab when standing on the track in front of the train. It’s the 1996 tube stock that has a drop down door which can be released from the inside:
http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/stock/1996tubeStock/
Or…. detrainment doors turning into ramps often used on far east metros:
http://www.barat.com/EN/prod_doors-emergency.html
Now announced that the new Moorgate units will not be class 700/2, or 701 but……..class 717
http://www.railmagazine.com/tag/news/class-717
Is there any logic at all to the classification system any more?
Re Timbeau,
Copying a well known Seattle based plane manufacturer???
Or maybe its ternary arithmetic – class 7xx units can only use the digits 0, 1 and 7.
Or maybe the GN&C just likes palindromic class numbers with a “1” in the middle.
Re Timbeau,
and SWT with 707?
Re: timbeau 22/6 16.00:
There are of course plenty of numbers still available in the 3XX series, so the 7XX and indeed 8XX series are completely unnecessary. Number inflation seems to have been partly driven by a preference for classes ending in 0 or 5 (after 350, 360 and 380 there were no more zeroes left for the next Siemens buld, which seems as likely an explanation as any for the 7XX series being opened up…), only this now seems to have been superseded by palindromes and/or historical references to the replaced fleet.
Personally I blame the Class 365. Up until then, the various series were roughly logical but different:
– 1XX first generation numbered up from 100, subsequent generations given separate ‘decades’
– 2XX much like 1XX, but intercity units numbered up from 250
– 3XX numbered up from 300 in chronogical order (almost), intercity units numbered up from 370*
– 4XX second digit represents build series (e.g. 42X = 1963 stock), second digit represents generic type (4X1 = express, 4X2 = express with catering, 4X3 = outer suburban, 4X5 = inner suburban 4-car**, 4X6 = inner suburban 2-car, 4X8*** = unpowered units, 4X9 = vans***)
– 5XX much like 3XX
*Eurostars having two prefix digits added to the SNCF TGV set numbering of 3XXX
**hence the two distinct types of 4-car Networker having the same class number
*** both used by Gatwick Express coaching stock in Class 73 days
But with Class 365 an attempt was made to merge two series, and the genie escaped, never to be seen again.
I ought to get out more…
Re: ngh 22/6/18.25:
I’ve always thought that was because Wimbledon depot still refers to its fleets by the Southern convention of 4-digit unit numbers. Hence it has 5XXX (Class 455), 6XXX (Class 456) and 8XXX (Class 456). Leaving a clear gap. And since it doesn’t use the first two digits of the class number, it doesn’t matter whether they are 45 or 70, so someone else (possibly the manufacturer) got to choose the thrusting modern prefix.
@ Balthazar,
The logic behind TOPS numbers was (I think):
xx locomotives (0x-5x representing diesel power type, 7x DC locos and 8x AC locos))
1xx diesel mechanical multiple units (DMUs)
2xx diesel electric multiple units (DEMUs)
3xx AC electric multiple units (EMUs, later including AC/DC dual voltage stock)
4xx Southern Region DC electric multiple units
5xx other region DC units
I agree it has all got a bit messy since then. Tempting to get the crayons out and redesign it, but…
I had read that not all six digit numbers in the 3xxxxx series are available because some blocks are used by wagons, but nevertheless there does seem to be some randomness in the allocation of 7xx class numbers. I hadn’t thought of the 707s fitting into a 444/455/456/707/458/159/450 sequence – that’s clever. Note that SWT’s small fleet of 158s do not overlap with the 458s either before or after refurbishment.
@Lazarus – that’s broadly right with the addition of xx for ships, but why so many gaps have been left is difficult to explain – some such as cl 48 were allocated but the locos never got beyond the business case stage, but others… who knows?
Re: Lazarus – yes, but I was rather taking that as read, and delving into the methodology of class allocations within each series. (The latest issue of the relevant group standard reallocates 7X to diesel locomotives with an explicit exception for 73 and introduces 6XX, 7XX and 8XX.)
Re: timbeau – I may need to get out more but I draw the line at studying wagon numbers, so you may well be right…!
Re: Graham H – I have seen it claimed that all the misding numbers in the loco range had at one time been allocated to various exotica like Brush Type 4s with different engines, Falcon, Kestrel, etc. as well as those classes which never made it to renumbering. DMU classifications temporarily reached into 13X by counting
trailer and power cars separately, which is apparently why Class 139 isn’t 131 or 130.
@Balthazar – yes, i have also seen that claim but without any supporting detail. FWIW, 48 was supposed to be a a new class of diesel loco for the Salisburys, but remained only a concept used for evaluating the alternatives such as electrification. (That didn’t happen either…)
There was a Class 48, it was the Brush Class 47 with a Sulzer V12 engine in place of the 12LDA twin-bank. Only 5 were built, in 1965/6, and all were rebuilt as standard Cl47s by 1971. The engines were sold on to SNCF.
The Brush class 48 was an example of a class that received a TOPS class number but didn’t survive long enough to have it it painted on. Others include Classes 14, 15, 16 and 17, Classes 22 and 29 (NBL type 2s), Class 23 “Baby Deltic”, Class 28 CoBo, Class 30 (Mirlees engined Class 31s), Class 35 Hymek, Class 42 and 43 Warships, Class 53 Falcon, Class 70 SR Co-Co electrics and Class 80 prototype AC electric rebuilt from Gas Turbine loco 18100. I don’t pretend this is an exhaustive list!
Classes 43 and 70 are examples of where a tops code is reused for a different class of locomotive, in these cases the HST power car and GE diesel.
I believe there were a range of x8 proposals around at BR in the 80s: the class 38 replacement for class 37s, the class 48 mentioned by Graham H, the class 58 which actually made it to production, and the class 88 Co-Co freight loco for ECML electrification (hence the gap between classes 87 and 89) which was not developed in favour of the class 90. There may even have been a class 28 proposal.
Re: Lazarus – IIRC it was Class 18, not Class 28, in the 80s. Goodness knows what BR thought a Type 1 diesel was needed for by then…
@Balthazar….As a non-engineer, could you (or someone else) please explain to me the difference between a DMU and a DEMU? If they’re both diesel-powered, why separate them into different class groups?
Anonymously: I think we have been here before, and it was Lazarus who mentioned “diesel mechanical multiple units (DMUs)”. The strict term is “DMMU” with DMU being the generic term for diesel multiple units (agnostic about transmission). If I can get in on the pedantic act, most of the DMMUs should mostly be described as DHMU as their transmission is hydraulic! Back in the day loco engineers got quite excited about the virtues of hydraulic transmission vs electric transmission.
All…….re numbering conventions, we have 12 digit vehicle numbers to look forward to(allowing for the impending decision overnight)!
Re numbering, I forgot to include a reference to one of the most exciting documents you will ever read (does irony work in print?)
http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Documents/IU-OPE-report-on-TSI%20OPE-AnnexP-vehicle-identification-Annex%202.pdf
@Balthazar
DMUs power cars got into the 13x range – classes 128 – 131 being parcels units, either purpose built or converted from classes 116 and 121. (Later some 127s were also converted). When unpowered vehicles were classified separately they ran from 140 to 150 (driving trailers) and 160 to about 188 (non driving trailers).
Am article in the Railway Magazine many years ago suggested that all the gaps in the locomotive sequence could have been intended for existing types which were lumped together before publication of the system and became mere subclasses. Viz:
Classes 18 and 19: the variant types of class 17
Classes 32 and 34: variants of class 33
Class 36: the LMS twins
Classes 38 and 39: variants of class 37. (There was a technical difference between the first 118 and the rest, which is why 6700 was renumbered as 37118 rather than being tacked on the end at 37308 – I can’t account fortrue need for a third class)
Class 49 “Generator” class 47s (the first twenty- the rest had alternators for train heating)
classes 51, 53, 54: classes 47-⁴9 as built, before de-rating. Class 53 was later used for the “Falcon” prototype
Class 72: the first six members of Class 73, which differed from the production series in several respects.
Incidentally, the rebuilt class 73s are essentially diesel locos now, as they have much bigger diesel engines (type 3 rather than a large shunting engine) and rarely if ever use their electrical capability. (It is a strange irony that althoigh there are two 3rd-rail capable electric loco classes, the only regular passenger services to use them are the Anglo Scottish sleepers!
Anonymously, 130. I thought that a DMU is a Diesel Multiple Unit – in which the engine drives the wheels. A DEMU is a Diesel Electrical Multiple Unit in which the Diesel engine drives a generator which in turn provides electrical power. Like the Thumpers (Class 207?) and also I think Class 206.
All class 2xx units are diesel-electrics, whether Thumpers or HSTs.
Class 206s were oddities cobbled together from a driving trailer from a 416 and a trailer and diesel-electric motor coach from a class 201. (The narrow “Hastings” profile of the powered “tail” earning them the nickname “Tadpole”)
The term “DMU” may, or may not, embrace DEMUs – depending on context. DMMU can be used if the distinction is important. In comparison, no-one would consider a Deltic or a Class 68 not to be a “diesel” locomotive.
Sorry, should have added. The term “Thumper” was usually applied to the class 205s, although all the 20x series had essentially the same engine (some uprated from 500hp to 600hp). Classes 201-203 were the six car Hastings sets (with two power cars) and classes 204-207 were 2- or 3-car outer suburban sets with one power car. Class 207 had a narrower body profile than the 204/205 although not as narrow as the Hastings units) to cope with limited clearances in the Tunbridge Wells area.
DMUs and DEMU. Uses of these abbreviations vary, so it is impossible to be firm on the meaning of either of them, even though what the letters stand for may be unambiguous. All have diesel engines, and the diesel engines all (directly or indirectly, always or sometimes) drive the wheels. Unlike a steam engine, a diesel engine must have some form of transmission, which can be electric, mechanical or hydraulic. The “E” in the abbreviation might mean that the transmission is electric, and/or that the unit can also run on externally supplied electricity if available. Even the terms mechanical and hydraulic (for the transmission) are ambiguous, as the hydraulic element may be entirely absent (a mechanical clutch used instead), present in the form of a fluid flywheel (which serves as a clutch), or present as a torque converter (which also does some or all of the ratio changing). We could even find confusion in the “M”, as it may mean that the unit comprises more than one car, or it may mean that the unit is a single car which is capable of being driven in conjunction with others coupled to it.
Of course, specific users of the terms have made firmer definitions, but such definitions are not universally respected.
12 digit European vehicle numbers (EVNs), as mentioned 21:39 yesterday, was a bit of an academic point, because the source railway group standard clearly explains that for GB passenger vehicles not intended for international use only part of the number would need to be displayed. Various segments of the EVN such as country codes, leading zeros within the 7 digit vehicle number, and check digits are not shown on painted numbers.
Hence the latest EMU vehicles having six digit numbers displayed, and those up until very recently carrying on with five digit numbers.
http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GMRT2453%20Iss%202.pdf
…is the UK interpretation of the aforementioned rules.
@Malcolm
A vehicle capable of taking power from an external supply is classified as an electric, whether it can also take power from an onboard generator or not. – see classes 73 and 800.
This is so even when, as in the case of the Caledonian sleepers, whose class 73s operate at least 200 miles from any 3rd rail (other than the Glasgow Subway for which they are out of gauge.
Timbeau says “A vehicle capable of taking power from an external supply is classified as an electric, whether or…”
This may well be the official line, by whoever classifies these things. But I think I have seen the phrase “diesel electric” also used to describe such dual supply vehicles. I am not sure where I have seen it, and I may be wrong, or it may have been someone sufficiently ill-informed to be discounted.
@malcolm
Those (class 73s and the like) are usually referred to as Electro-diesels
I cannot now find anything referring to a dual mode vehicle as “diesel electric”. I think I was mistaken. Plenty of mention of electro-diesel, of course, but clearly the order of the parts matters. Sorry to have added to any confusion while trying to clear it up!
Timbeau at 1612
The remainder of the converted GBRf class73 Electro-Diesels work on the 750 volt third rail here in the south where their 1600 hp diesels really turn them into Type 3’s (about the same as a class 37) and their electric motor bogies are still the same as those under the 4-REPs.
Their original rating was 400 hp each motor thus giving each power car 1600 hp or the 4-REP 3200 hp. But on load bank testing it was found that they develop 2400 hp making them a type 4 in Electric mode or in rough terms equal to a class 47.
I see the Thameslink timetable consultation has been launched:
http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/your-journey/timetable-consultation/
There is a lot of detail. The Great Northern Metro route seems very messy. If I read this correctly, there will be no segregation of the Hertford and Welwyn lines as Welwyn trains will not stop at Hornsey and Harringay in the peak and some Hertford trains will.
I also not sure what to make of having a bus replacement service between Stevenage and Watton (until they can build a new platform at Stevenage).
[We have recently asked (in a different thread) for comments on this consultation to be held back because an article about them is imminent. In general any comments made by people disregarding this request will be deleted. This one as been left as the commentator was unaware of the request. But please would no-one reply here. Malcolm]