Talk:Thameslink Programme

Thameslink Programme received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).

London Transport High‑importance

	London transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in England may be able to help!

History[edit]

Does anyone think that the history of the Thameslink Programme merits its own page, or should it stay where it is? What does the article need to reach GA status, or even B-Class in the interim? Edvid 17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is wondering, I'm leaving the history where it is right now, but please feel free to suggest that the history should get its own article if you feel that it is necessary. Edvid 00:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth putting a bit in about the contractors winning the bids, i.e. Balfour winning for Blackfriars and Costain/Laing O Rourke for Farringdon. Also the wonderful launch week could do with a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.123.123 (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion[edit]

On the article page I've tagged a few sections that I think need some more content. I would really like to see this article get to GA status at least, although I'm not concerned about reaching the dizzy heights of FA yet. Edvid 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dual voltage[edit]

The present statement is true but not comprehensive. Not only are there two voltages on the line but, more demandingly, current is delivered to the trains in two different quite ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk • contribs)

True, but dual voltage is how these trains are refered to 81.144.251.46 (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the "more demandingly" statement. With the two voltages delivered on different systems trains can switch while sitting in a station that has both (the two systems overlap) and there is no risk of accidently applying the higher voltage to systems designed for the lower voltages. With two voltages delivered in the same way more complex switching arrangements would be needed. Plugwash (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

£4m Blackfriars-Farringdon[edit]

This soundd incredibly cheap. I checked the citation and it does seem to be correct (although the citation does not say if that includes the cost of labour). I wonder if making it "just £4m" or something like that would save others doing a double-take? Or to make it clear that was just for the upgrade of the central section, not for the new trains etc etc?

SimonTrew (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it sounds incredible in this day and age but it is true. I will show my age and say I remember it at the time. More accurately I suppose that £4 million was the additional cost on top of what had to be done anyway (e.g. new rolling stock for St. Pancras - Bedford). The track needed to be re-instated between Snow Hill junction and Farringdon and resignalled but the infrastructure was there and it was sound. However we are talking about internal costs in BR days.

To put this in perspective I think that the cost of electrifying Bedford - St. Pancras/Moorgate (including rolling stock) which was done shortly prior to this was £56 million.

It really was the minimum cost to get the thing going. Once everyone could see it really was a good idea then the big costs (City Thameslink station, elimination of Holborn Viaduct etc) started to come in.--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St Pancras Junction[edit]

Is there a flying junction underground just to the north of St. Pancras ? Otherwise there would be conflicts between southbound trains from Kentish Town and northbound Great Northern line trains - which would reduce capacity. Given that all other Thameslink programme work involves removing such conflicts it's not clear why or if such a clear bottleneck would remain. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.90.147 (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is formed by the two single bore tunnels which were driven from the East Coast Mainline down into the Kings Cross tunnel 'box' when the Thameslink blockade was in place. The track and OHLE have not been installed in the bores yet, but if you stand at the north end of St Pancras International Low Level station you can see where the northbound and southbound line junctions will be. Ivor the driver (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to planned services section[edit]

I tried to tidy this new section up but the more I looked at it the more I thought is was just speculative as I believed that nothing has been finally decided. At the very least it needs references or I think it should go. I am not really convinced by the "Transport for London's plans" section either. I know noises were made in this direction but I am not convinced they were treated as anything other than a bit of political posturing. Does it merit an entry ?--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government Annoucement[edit]

see Philip Hammond MP (Secretary of State for transport) (25 November 2010). "Rail Investment". To go adhead but completion in 2018. Edgepedia (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now added. Please feel free to amend if you think you can improve on it.Pedantic of Purley (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge[edit]

Merge into Thameslink rolling stock programme into Thameslink_Programme#Rolling_stock -the last three paragraphs in this article's section are duplicates and could be replaced with the body of the other article. Good or bad idea.

Unrelated note Also NXEMU appears to be either an invention or something else - in all the documents and news reports I read including the official ones it isn't mentioned once - please remove on sight unless it is shown to be a valid term. Thanks.Imgaril (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fly-down ?[edit]

what is a fly-down ? I cannot find anything by searching that does not relate to trouser flies or horses. please link to an explanation or change it ☭Иθи Иθьїs Sθlцmтдлж^ЅТЦФФ 13:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bermondsey Dive-under[edit]

I shall refrain from commenting on flashy signatures; but isn't the Bermondsey Diveunder section very confused? At Bermondsey, Charing Cross trains have got 6 tracks, not 2; Thameslink don't have any -- they run on the Up Brighton Main in the Up direction. In the Down direction they don't arrive at London Birdge on the Southern pair of tracks. Etc etc. I'll improve this section unless anyone has other ideas. Afterbrunel (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I added a 'disputed' tag to this section. Are there any sources that can be used for this. As a last resort a high scale OS map may helpOranjblud (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Originally Thameslink 2000??"[edit]

(new section moved to bottom by Oranjblud (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Excuse me, but Thameslink 2000 was a rebranding of the ealier Thameslink scheme, that had been running fom 1990 or before.Afterbrunel (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it refers to the original name of the successful (act passed) scheme. ie this http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/3117/contents/made Maybe that needs clarifying ?

I don't think we can say "originally Thameslink" because the article is about an extension to Thameslink. (if I have understood correctly)Oranjblud (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor and speculation[edit]

Dear 83.67.147.66, before you add any more speculation to this page can you please engage in some dialogue with us as to what you are actually trying to do? I think you will find that if you just keep adding what appears to be completely unsourced speculation, people will probably just keep removing it on grounds such as WP:NOTAFORUM and similar. I am sure you can find more information on this in the Talk Page Guidelines. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not explain what the Thameslink Programme is for[edit]

What is the purpose of this project? This article explains with what changes, at an engineering and technical level, are being made, but does not explain why these are being done. There is a vague sentence in the opening paragraph of "to provide new and longer trains between a wider range of stations to the north and to the south of London without requiring passengers to change trains in London.". A reference to "12-carriage trains", but how long are they at the moment? and a vague comment "thereby opening up the Thameslink network to new destinations north of London.", what destinations? This article needs to have a "Purpose" section at the beginning saying something like:

This programme will increase the capacity of the key central London section of the Thameslink route from xx nn-coach trains per hour to yy mm-coach trains per hour.
It will allow routes currently terminating at King's Cross (Cambridge Peterborough) to use the Thameslink route, giving these destinations direct services south of London. There is hardly a mention of this in the article.
It will free up platforms at King's Cross for use by InterCity services (is this one of the objectives?).

Question: Are the future 4 tph termination at WGC new services, or the ones currently going to Moorgate? TiffaF (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/thameslink/
Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Thameslink Programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thameslink Programme/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Thanks for the assessment simply south. Could you please give your reasons for it and perhaps a few tips on how to improve the article? Thanks. Edvid 13:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the very late reply. It is important as it shows the planned improvements to the rail network. It is a generally well known subject and not just a specialist interest. A way to improve is to look at other sources. I feel there are too many references from Network Rail and the Department for Transport so more diversity is needed. Simply south 19:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional assessment Slambo - I would also like some comments from you if you have some time thanks. Edvid 21:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 19:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Thameslink Programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both seem OK Dr Sludge (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]