Recommendation
"The electrification engineer has advised that the cost of the
alteration would be prohibitive, due to the need for extensive
immunisation of the signalling equipment on the surrounding routes,
including the lines operated by London Underground. However, it is
understood that the Hammersmith & City line is due to be re-signalled
in 2013, and this may give the opportunity for the issue to be
revisited. "

The short-sightedness of the foregoing quote beggars belief!

OF COURSE the stop for the change-over North of Mitre Bridge "eats
paths". Indeed, I remember the less than enthusiastic response of
Railtrack to having new stations built at Shepherd's Bush and Imperial
Wharf (of which - still no sign whatsoever!) because of "capacity
issues", i.e. the additional stopping time would similarly "eat paths".

That being so, with the work now going on at Shepherd's Bush, and the
inevitable disruption that this will cause, NOW is the best time to
move the change-over point to that location, so that at least the net
loss will be minimised, with that station stop more-or-less equating to
the time saved by no longer having the Mitre Bridge delay,

And, surely it MUST be cheaper to do that work now, rather than in
several years' time when service paths will have beeen settled, and a
whole load of new disruption will be caused.

Why oh why must our railway masters be sh short-sighted and
mean-fisted? When compared to the mega costs of the nonsense at St.
Pancras, where millions of domestic passengers have been and will
continue to be inconvenienced by the move Northwards of the domestic
terminal, in favour of holidaymakers and businessmen who want to get to
or from Europe a few minutes faster than they already can via Waterloo,
the cost of moving the Mitre Bridge changeover location would be a mere
pimple.

And I do not understand what the hell resignalling of the Hammersmith
and City Line has to do with this at all!

End of rant!

Marc.

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, wrote:

Recommendation

"The electrification engineer has advised that the cost of the
alteration would be prohibitive, due to the need for extensive
immunisation of the signalling equipment on the surrounding routes,
including the lines operated by London Underground. However, it is
understood that the Hammersmith & City line is due to be re-signalled
in 2013, and this may give the opportunity for the issue to be
revisited. "

The short-sightedness of the foregoing quote beggars belief!

That being so, with the work now going on at Shepherd's Bush, and the
inevitable disruption that this will cause, NOW is the best time to
move the change-over point to that location, so that at least the net
loss will be minimised, with that station stop more-or-less equating to
the time saved by no longer having the Mitre Bridge delay,

And, surely it MUST be cheaper to do that work now, rather than in
several years' time when service paths will have beeen settled, and a
whole load of new disruption will be caused.

No - the crucial phrase is "the need for extensive immunisation of the
signalling equipment on the surrounding routes, including the lines
operated by London Underground"; pushing OHLE south of its current extent
would require masses of work on the other lines. Waiting until the H&C is
being resignalled anyway lets that get done at little additional cost.

What might be sensible would be if preparatory work for the change was
done now - for instance, stringing catenary to Shepherd's Bush, but not
wiring it up to the mains. With any luck, the changeover could then be
done just by setting some jumpers in a cable cabinet somewhere, rather
than having to get the permanent way gang out again.

And I do not understand what the hell resignalling of the Hammersmith
and City Line has to do with this at all!

This, i have to admit, is a puzzle - how the hell is the H&C wired to the
WLL?

Why oh why must our railway masters be sh short-sighted and mean-fisted?
When compared to the mega costs of the nonsense at St. Pancras, where
millions of domestic passengers have been and will continue to be
inconvenienced by the move Northwards of the domestic terminal, in
favour of holidaymakers and businessmen who want to get to or from
Europe a few minutes faster than they already can via Waterloo,

Because (a) this allows the CTRL phase 2 to be built, increasing speed and
reducing congestion in the south London network, and (b) there are a lot
more people north of London than south. Give up!

tom

--
If I want consciousness expansion, i go to my local tabernacle and i SING!

"What might be sensible would be if preparatory work for the change was

done now - for instance, stringing catenary to Shepherd's Bush, but not

wiring it up to the mains."

We can but live in hope, Tom!

"Because (a) this allows the CTRL phase 2 to be built"

Yes, I gather that...

"increasing speed"

.... by a few minutes....

"and reducing congestion in the south London network"

Will removing (is it 2 or 3 per hour) a few Eurostar trains from the
South of London will hardly cause such a dramatic change will it? And,
as for the vacated terminal at Waterloo (itself built at vast expense
and admitted reduction of Waterloo domestic handling capacity), I
understand that rather than returning it to railway use, a shopping
centre is being mooted!

"(b) there are a lot more people north of London than south."

Yes, but is that really the reason behind this move to St. Pancras? I
thought it had something to do with the political goal of a high-speed
link for its own sake rather than there actually being a pressing need
for such. That, surely, must be the reason why all of St. Pancras'
domestic passengers have been given the two-finger salute as they
struggle alonng a dirty, narrow, unsafe and overcrowded passage that
was Pancras Road, to a station so badly designed that its escalators
actually face the wrong direction to the main traffic flow, and whose
departure boards are hidden like State secrets well away from view!

"Give up!"

Indeed, so appalling do I find the new St. Pancras interchange that I
will find ANY alternative changing arrangements when travelling North
next time. Surely this travesty of a station should be called Pancras
North or similar, and unsuspecting passengers who are so naive to
believe they can get from Underground to mainline train in less than 15
minutes should be warned of what they can expect.

Marc.

Yes, but is that really the reason behind this move to St. Pancras? I
thought it had something to do with the political goal of a high-speed
link for its own sake rather than there actually being a pressing need
for such. That, surely, must be the reason why all of St. Pancras'
domestic passengers have been given the two-finger salute as they
struggle alonng a dirty, narrow, unsafe and overcrowded passage that
was Pancras Road, to a station so badly designed that its escalators
actually face the wrong direction to the main traffic flow, and whose
departure boards are hidden like State secrets well away from view!

"Give up!"

Indeed, so appalling do I find the new St. Pancras interchange that I
will find ANY alternative changing arrangements when travelling North
next time. Surely this travesty of a station should be called Pancras
North or similar, and unsuspecting passengers who are so naive to
believe they can get from Underground to mainline train in less than 15
minutes should be warned of what they can expect.


The current arrangement is temporary.
When all the work is finished there will be direct indoor access from the
new tube station ticket halls to the main line station,
but you know this already.

How are the departure boards hidden? They are straight in front of you as
you walk in the main entrance.

And 15 minutes is plenty of time, even with luggage.
Seven minutes was my time today.

--
Peter

Peter Goodland,

Actually, I did not know that the present arrangements are temporary -
indeed the staff seem not to know that either since, when I asked one
of them, he agreed that this was a lamentable change and mentioned
nothing about it being temporary either!

The departure boards on the platform level is what I was referring to.
I did not even see any at the entrance as I came in - I was too busy
searching for the escalators!

Seven minutes is hardly something to boast about! Why should domestic
passengers have to be so inconvenienced (to say nothing of being denied
the use of one of London's finest Gothic buildings) at all?

Moreover, I'd suggest 7 minutes when going AGAINST the morning commuter
flow, as I invariably would be, is rather optimistic!

Marc.

wrote:
Peter Goodland,

Actually, I did not know that the present arrangements are temporary -
indeed the staff seem not to know that either since, when I asked one
of them, he agreed that this was a lamentable change and mentioned
nothing about it being temporary either!


snip

Seven minutes is hardly something to boast about! Why should domestic
passengers have to be so inconvenienced (to say nothing of being denied
the use of one of London's finest Gothic buildings) at all?


snip

The Midland Mainline platforms will be moving to the other side
(western) of the station and will still be a long way from the Euston
Road.
I think that the time taken to get to the tube will be substantially
shortened when the King's Cross northern ticket hall opens in 2009.
This will have extra access to most of the underground lines and will
also have access to the domestic platforms.
I can't immediately find an on-line plan showing this, but I think
there was a map in Modern Railways a few months ago though. Although,
there are some pictures showing the location of the new ticket hall
above ground on the tfl website.

whose departure boards are hidden like State secrets well away from view!

Left in taxis?

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, wrote:

Recommendation

"The electrification engineer has advised that the cost of the
alteration would be prohibitive, due to the need for extensive
immunisation of the signalling equipment on the surrounding routes,
including the lines operated by London Underground. However, it is
understood that the Hammersmith & City line is due to be re-signalled
in 2013, and this may give the opportunity for the issue to be
revisited. "

What might be sensible would be if preparatory work
for the change was done now - for instance, stringing
catenary to Shepherd's Bush, but not wiring it up to the mains.

I can see the Evening Standard headline now.

It would also make it easy for tinkers to pinch the catenary and sell it for
scrap.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, wrote:
This, i have to admit, is a puzzle - how the hell is the H&C wired to the
WLL?


It's not. The important thing, however, is the electromagnetic
interference caused by high voltages and alternating currents. This
interference can work "at a distance", and can cause signalling
circuits (amongst other things) to misbehave. I'm sure that we all
agree that it's not a goot idea to mess with safety systems without
suitable safeguards (that is, immunising them).

PhilD

--

In article , Tom
Anderson writes
What might be sensible would be if preparatory work for the change was
done now - for instance, stringing catenary to Shepherd's Bush, but not
wiring it up to the mains.

Do you think it would still be there in 6 years time?

With any luck, the changeover could then be done just by setting some
jumpers in a cable cabinet somewhere, rather than having to get the
permanent way gang out again.

I would hope it would be deliberately made a lot harder than that. Do
you really want an accident waiting to happen?

And I do not understand what the hell resignalling of the Hammersmith
and City Line has to do with this at all!
This, i have to admit, is a puzzle - how the hell is the H&C wired to
the WLL?

It isn't, but there are such things as earth leakage and induction.

I know someone involved in the electrification work on CTRL2. He has to
worry about the fact that the Underground tube tunnels, the King's Cross
station structure, the St.Pancras station structure, and the NLL all
have different values for "earth". He reckons that if he gets things
wrong, opening a breaker at Ashford could cause a lethal change in earth
voltage at the KXSP complex.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: