On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Peter Masson wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote

There are flows from kent, from the Tunnel and from the oil terminal at
the Isle of Grain mostly. They're much smaller than the Essex flows.

Also container traffic from Thamesport at the Isle of Grain.

Oops, forgot that one!

There is a case to be made for freight to use High Speed 1, both from
the Channel Tunnel (it is daft that the Ford parts train has to run all
round London on congested commuter lines when there is a convenient
connection from HS1 in teh Dagenham area.

I think this is a speed thing - the freight trains are presumably not
running at 186 mph, so they consume a lot of capacity on the high speed
link if they run to London. From the passenger operations point of view,
it makes sense to get them off the fast path as soon as possible.

There is a connection from the North Kent line to the HS1 tunnels under
the Thames, at something called Springheaad junction, plugging in just
down of Ebbsfleet; it would presumably be possible for freight trains to
come off HS1 at Folkestone, make it up to Gravesendish on normal tracks,
then hop back onto HS1 to cross the river, thus avoiding South London, but
also not clogging up the high speed link.

The one missing piece is a similar connection at Tilbury, so that freight
trains could get back onto filthy normal lines once they're across the
river, thus reducing the impact on high-speed trains still further. As it
is, they have to carry on to the connection in Dagenham.

The Grain to Willesden container trainwould also have a better route via
the Thames Tunnel and the Barking to Gospel Oak line,

Agreed.

though unless a diesel is allowed through the Thames Tunnel both Grain
to Hoo Junction and Barking to Gospel Oak would need to be electrified.

A good idea anyway!

Is the problem with diesel vehicles going through the tunnel at all, or
with them doing it under their own power? If it's the latter, you could
imagine a sort of shunting shuttle being used to move diesel trains from
the Hoo yards to Ripple lane. If the former, i suppose you could do the
same but actually remove the diesel engine; have a diesel shuttle from
Grain to Hoo, an electric one from Hoo to Ripple Lane, and then put on
your big engine for the trip up north from there. Probably simpler just to
electrify!

A long time ago, someone here proposed four-tracking the NLL all the
way from Stratford to Camden Road, and argued that it was a practical
thing to do. This would give you a route from the GEML and LTSR to the
WCML, which is where freight wants to go, that would be completely
segregated from the passenger tracks of the NLL. Skepticism about the
possibility of the scheme has also been expressed, though.

It is likely that 4 tracks will be reinstated the whole way from Dalston
to Camden Road, but the East London Line extension will be given
exclusive use of the southern pair between Dalston Junction and Highbury
& Islington, so freight will still have to run between passenger trains
between Stratford and Acton as well as between Barking and Gospel Oak.

I think we went over the reasons for this, but it still seems funny. The
ELL and NLL will both run at 8 tph between Dalston and H&I or Barnsbury,
for 16 tph combined; this is easily accommodated on a single pair of
tracks, even with a flat junction at Barnsbury. If that was done, you'd
have a freight-only pair from Dalston to Camden Road. I suppose the
freight still has to share with the planned Stratford - Queen's Park
services west of there, and NLL services to the east, so perhaps this
wouldn't actually be so great. If there were four tracks to Stratford,
though, it would be a very big deal. Oh well.

tom

[1] http://www.alwaystouchout.com/projec...ceImprovements

--
The major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the
societies in which they occur. -- Alfred North Whitehead