Can't see anything new there, but might be worth a look in the future.....

http://www.ellp.co.uk/

dan

"dan" wrote in message
om...
Can't see anything new there, but might be worth a look in the future.....

http://www.ellp.co.uk/

.... when they get it up to date. "Information regarding the Court of Appeal
that took place between the 18th and 20th of June 2003 will be placed here
in the near future."
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

dan wrote:
Can't see anything new there, but might be worth a look in the future.....

http://www.ellp.co.uk/


The website doesn't appear to contain any info on the form of
electrification that will be used throughout.
I understand that the construction work is sponsored by LUL, but on
completion the entire route will be handed over to National Rail. As
there will be through workings at the southern end onto NR, I presume
the existing 4th rail system will be converted to 3rd rail, but what
about the 'new' section to Dalston, and from there to Highbury etc?

Derek Robinson writes
dan wrote:
Can't see anything new there, but might be worth a look in the future.....
http://www.ellp.co.uk/

The website doesn't appear to contain any info on the form of
electrification that will be used throughout.
I understand that the construction work is sponsored by LUL, but on
completion the entire route will be handed over to National Rail. As
there will be through workings at the southern end onto NR, I presume
the existing 4th rail system will be converted to 3rd rail,

AIUI, the ELL has already been altered electrically so that it can be
worked by 3rd rail trains. Specifically, it's been mentioned here by a
few people that work was undertaken to clear Networkers for the route.

but what about the 'new' section to Dalston, and from there to
Highbury etc?

--
Dave

The Only Living Boy in New Cross writes
Or, failing that, it'd be pretty easy to extend the Canada Water
platforms to take in the Rotherhithe ones, as they're so close; that'd
solve the problem of Canada Water not being able to take longer trains.

The ELL has 4-car trains at the moment. I presume they fit Canada Water
station. How much room is to 'spare' on the platform.

The proposals are for the extended ELL to be served by 4-car trains.
According to Tubeprune [1] each car on the A stock trains currently used
on the ELL is almost 16.2m long - so a 4-car train is almost 65m long.
AIUI, each car on a Networker train is 20m long, so a 4-car train would
be 80m long.

If Networker trains are to be used on the extended ELL, then the
platforms at Canada Water need to be about 15m longer than a current ELL
train. I don't travel on that line, but for anyone that does - perhaps
they could have a look at tell us. Are the platforms longer than the
trains? If so, does it look like the platforms are long enough to fit
another carriage of the same length? Because if you can fit 5 carriages
of the current length, then you'll be able to fit a 4-car Networker
train in.


Another possibility; even if the platforms aren't long enough. If
you've ever travelled on the Tyne & Wear Metro, the platform end walls
are false. The platform continues out of sight to allow for future
expansion - you only notice this if you look carefully when a train
approaches the station. Perhaps Canada Water was built in the same way?


[1] http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/Dimensions.htm
--
Dave

"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message om...
It'd be a shame if they had to close Wapping or Rotherhithe because
they can't be expanded in line with current safety rules. I wonder if
it'd be possible to carve out a new station UNDER the Thames, called
"Wapping & Rotherhithe" which you could enter & exit on both sides of
the river? Or, failing that, it'd be pretty easy to extend the Canada
Water platforms to take in the Rotherhithe ones, as they're so close;
that'd solve the problem of Canada Water not being able to take longer
trains.

Patrick

Likewise, Shadwell could maybe be extended south and have an additional exit
on The Highway, to give access to Wapping, if Wapping station has to close.
I agree that it would be a shame though, Wapping station had a unique smell
!

Andrew.

"Patrick" writes:
... I wonder if it'd be possible to carve out a new station UNDER
the Thames, called "Wapping & Rotherhithe" which you could enter
& exit on both sides of the river?

Paris has a station like that%, but the Thames is wider. The length
of tunnel between Wapping and Rotherhithe is about 1,200 feet, which
would make rather a long station for urban trains.

Also, the existing tunnel was built with *great* difficulty because
preparatory bores were misleading and it was built too close to the
riverbed. Of course, this was the first tunnel ever to be built
under a river and technology has advanced since then... but I'd think
that building a station at the depth of the present tunnel is something
that engineers would shrink from even today.

% St-Germain - Notre Dame on RER Line B.
--
Mark Brader "If you design for compatibility with a
Toronto donkey cart, what you get is a donkey cart."
-- ?, quoted by Henry Spencer

My text in this article is in the public domain.

"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message om...

It'd be a shame if they had to close Wapping or Rotherhithe
because they can't be expanded in line with current safety
rules. I wonder if it'd be possible to carve out a new station
UNDER the Thames, called "Wapping & Rotherhithe" which
you could enter & exit on both sides of the river?

The Thames Tunnel is listed. Enlarging it to make room for platforms is, I'm
sure, not an option.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

(Mark Brader) wrote in message ...
"Patrick" writes:
... I wonder if it'd be possible to carve out a new station UNDER
the Thames, called "Wapping & Rotherhithe" which you could enter
& exit on both sides of the river?

Paris has a station like that%, but the Thames is wider. The length
of tunnel between Wapping and Rotherhithe is about 1,200 feet, which
would make rather a long station for urban trains.

But we have bridges over the Thames which people happily cross. And
given some of the distances you have to walk when you change lines on
parts of the tube, I'm sure it wouldn't be insurmountable.

John Rowland's point about listing, though, is probably more reason
why it won't happen. I'd forgotten that it was the tunnel listing,
and bickering over it, which caused the whole line to be shut for four
years instead of six months back in 1995. Yet another example (see
Bishopsgate Goods Yard) of the heritage industry making it difficult
to live in a modern society. Don't get me wrong, I'm heritage-minded
myself, but sometimes they do shoot themselves in the foot.

Patrick