On 2015-03-08 17:24:22 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 15:02:01 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 10:45:02 +0000, Recliner said:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-07 23:38:01 +0000, Paul Corfield said:
I'm obviously guessing here but there are not many refuge sidings on
the ELL core section so you really need to get trains beyond Surrey
Quays to be able to hide them away somewhere.
I was wondering when watching it being built what they would do for
contingency - it seems very little. The elevated section down to
Shoreditch used to carry four tracks and one would have thought a siding
could have been put in there.
Yes, they used the wider embankment for the new stations, but could have
put a reversing siding between stations. But it does seem to be the modern
policy to keep tracks as simple as possible, as points and crossovers are
themselves vulnerable to failures. For this reason, I think many tube lines
now have fewer crossovers than before.
By extension, I was reading this piece in the Guardian the other day:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...y-into-the-air

The sell-off of Broad Street station and space is one example of
dreadfully short-sighted and cut price deals for developers. Imagine how
the railway would look now with a modern spur down to Broad Street.
I'd have though the Broadgate office development is far more usefu. And if
Broad St station was still open, the amazingly successful conversion of the
ELL to the Overground, with the link to H&I, would never have happened.

I think closing a London terminus given what we now know about population
growth and demand for travel was not a good decision. But you can say
that about a lot of railway closures.


The new Overground line adds a lot more capacity than was lost when that
little-used terminal finally closed.

Yes but this is with the benefit of hindsight - who knows what would
have been built around a Broad Street line by now. The point about the
sell-off of public space is also important.

E.