Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ELLX uses for Broad Street route
The old route out of Broad Street to Dalston Junction is built for four
tracks throughout. Given that the ELLX is likely to only require two of these tracks, does anyone know what the remaining formation will be used for? For that matter, how will the tracks themselves be positioned? One smart thing to do would be to run them down the centre of the formation, so that in case patronage begins to pick up significantly, a set of outside loops can be built at the stations and new platforms added, to permit non-stopping of trains. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ELLX uses for Broad Street route
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ELLX uses for Broad Street route
On Oct 8, 9:35 pm, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote: It's two parallel double track viaducts though, isn't it? With space for station platforms as islands on each viaduct? According to Pendar's photos (http://www.loveplums.co.uk/Tube/Broa...t_line_1.html), it appears to be a four-track viaduct with the island being in between the track pairings. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ELLX uses for Broad Street route
TheOneKEA wrote: The old route out of Broad Street to Dalston Junction is built for four tracks throughout. Given that the ELLX is likely to only require two of these tracks, does anyone know what the remaining formation will be used for? For that matter, how will the tracks themselves be positioned? One smart thing to do would be to run them down the centre of the formation, so that in case patronage begins to pick up significantly, a set of outside loops can be built at the stations and new platforms added, to permit non-stopping of trains. Won't it depend on the width of the replacement bridge decks being put in place? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ELLX uses for Broad Street route
TheOneKEA wrote: For that matter, how will the tracks themselves be positioned? One smart thing to do would be to run them down the centre of the formation, so that in case patronage begins to pick up significantly, a set of outside loops can be built at the stations and new platforms added, to permit non-stopping of trains. Funniest thing that I have read in ages, the prospect of the Eat London Line being so busy it will need to be quadrupled. You would still have the double track bottleneck to the south. Kevin |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ELLX uses for Broad Street route
On Oct 9, 11:54 am, "Kev" wrote: TheOneKEA wrote: For that matter, how will the tracks themselves be positioned? One smart thing to do would be to run them down the centre of the formation, so that in case patronage begins to pick up significantly, a set of outside loops can be built at the stations and new platforms added, to permit non-stopping of trains. Funniest thing that I have read in ages, the prospect of the Eat London Line being so busy it will need to be quadrupled. You would still have the double track bottleneck to the south. True. I was thinking more in terms of offering branched services to the north. A bit of research shows that the Dalston area once enjoyed a triangular junction with the NLL. If the four-track formation is cleared and kept clear as far as Dalston Junction, then as long as the eastern side of the triangle is not blocked, the ELLX could run onto the eastern NLL and access some of the old Eastern Region suburban routes. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ELLX uses for Broad Street route
TheOneKEA wrote: On Oct 9, 11:54 am, "Kev" wrote: TheOneKEA wrote: For that matter, how will the tracks themselves be positioned? One smart thing to do would be to run them down the centre of the formation, so that in case patronage begins to pick up significantly, a set of outside loops can be built at the stations and new platforms added, to permit non-stopping of trains. Funniest thing that I have read in ages, the prospect of the Eat London Line being so busy it will need to be quadrupled. You would still have the double track bottleneck to the south. True. I was thinking more in terms of offering branched services to the north. It certainly won't need quadrupling - as Kev says it would be a nightmare anyway as there'd be a bottleneck. If however the suggestion is the ELL is going to be a quiet line then I'd offer the contrary prediction - I think it'll be a very successful and well patronised line. I know this is contrary to what appears to be the received wisdom in this group but I'm convinced it'll be a great success. A bit of research shows that the Dalston area once enjoyed a triangular junction with the NLL. If the four-track formation is cleared and kept clear as far as Dalston Junction, then as long as the eastern side of the triangle is not blocked, the ELLX could run onto the eastern NLL and access some of the old Eastern Region suburban routes. The track formation on the eastern side of the triangle's is very much blocked by the Dalston shopping centre, which isn't going anywhere soon. I don't know whether it's luck or foresight which has resulted in the trackbed on the western side of the triangle being available for future use. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
ELLX uses for Broad Street route
Mizter T wrote:
TheOneKEA wrote: On Oct 9, 11:54 am, "Kev" wrote: TheOneKEA wrote: For that matter, how will the tracks themselves be positioned? One smart thing to do would be to run them down the centre of the formation, so that in case patronage begins to pick up significantly, a set of outside loops can be built at the stations and new platforms added, to permit non-stopping of trains. Funniest thing that I have read in ages, the prospect of the Eat London Line being so busy it will need to be quadrupled. You would still have the double track bottleneck to the south. True. I was thinking more in terms of offering branched services to the north. It certainly won't need quadrupling - as Kev says it would be a nightmare anyway as there'd be a bottleneck. If however the suggestion is the ELL is going to be a quiet line then I'd offer the contrary prediction - I think it'll be a very successful and well patronised line. I know this is contrary to what appears to be the received wisdom in this group but I'm convinced it'll be a great success. Is it contrary to the received wisdom? The North London Line and associated lines show that there is strong and increasing demand for inner city orbital services. The ELL will pass through some heavily-populated areas, with a reasonably large number of residents within 15 minutes of stops along the line. Strong job growth is expected in the inner city and suburbs in general, and suburban road congestion means that the combined North London Railway orbital services will provide competitive journey times between many pairs of origins/destinations. I think all of that will inevitably (and fairly logically) lead to strong demand for ELL services. -- Dave Arquati www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
ELLX uses for Broad Street route
Dave Arquati wrote:
Mizter T wrote: TheOneKEA wrote: On Oct 9, 11:54 am, "Kev" wrote: TheOneKEA wrote: For that matter, how will the tracks themselves be positioned? One smart thing to do would be to run them down the centre of the formation, so that in case patronage begins to pick up significantly, a set of outside loops can be built at the stations and new platforms added, to permit non-stopping of trains. Funniest thing that I have read in ages, the prospect of the Eat London Line being so busy it will need to be quadrupled. You would still have the double track bottleneck to the south. True. I was thinking more in terms of offering branched services to the north. It certainly won't need quadrupling - as Kev says it would be a nightmare anyway as there'd be a bottleneck. If however the suggestion is the ELL is going to be a quiet line then I'd offer the contrary prediction - I think it'll be a very successful and well patronised line. I know this is contrary to what appears to be the received wisdom in this group but I'm convinced it'll be a great success. Is it contrary to the received wisdom? The North London Line and associated lines show that there is strong and increasing demand for inner city orbital services. The ELL will pass through some heavily-populated areas, with a reasonably large number of residents within 15 minutes of stops along the line. Strong job growth is expected in the inner city and suburbs in general, and suburban road congestion means that the combined North London Railway orbital services will provide competitive journey times between many pairs of origins/destinations. I think all of that will inevitably (and fairly logically) lead to strong demand for ELL services. My earlier assessment of an anti-extended ELL bias in this group is perhaps wide of the mark - note that my comments on the received wisdom concerning it related to utl as opposed to the world at large. Perhaps utl isn't as guilty as uk.railway - I can't remember where I've read the many past ng posts that are (sometimes deeply) sceptical about the project, but I certainly have. Whilst I'm a relative newcomer here I have read several of the discussions from the archives (of both newsgroups). I recall reading several comments along the lines of "who wants to go from Sydenham to Hoxton anyway", "the Croydon traveller wants to go to central London not Whitechapel" and "do the people of Dalston really want to go to Surrey Quays". One 'alternative scheme' discussed poured scorn on the ELL project as being a waste and stated all that was necessary was the the ELL be funnelled into Liverpool Street, with the Broad St. - Dalston track used for a tram. I don't of course object to such fantasy schemes - after all every PT project starts with an idea - the one I read did however very easily dismiss the present scheme as poor, something that I very much disagree with. Hence my recieved wisdom statement! Of course Dave, even before endorsement above, it's pretty clear that your wisdom was in the right corner! Like you I'm sure the extended ELL will be very successful. In the mid 80's it seemed people thought the NLL was dying, but it is - as you say - a very well patronised (if horribly scruffy) route now. Plus look at the example the West London Line and the "Two Junctions" / "Junction to Junction" service (why does no-one ever call it either of those!) from Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction which never existed at all whatsoever before '94 (I think) - it's now a pretty popular route on a day-to-day basis (as well as it's revived popularity for Olympia exhibitions). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
ELLX uses for Broad Street route
Mizter T wrote: If however the suggestion is the ELL is going to be a quiet line then I'd offer the contrary prediction - I think it'll be a very successful and well patronised line. I know this is contrary to what appears to be the received wisdom in this group but I'm convinced it'll be a great success. I would like to be proved wrong, and my guess is that it will be a qualified success, but I can't see how the billions being spent can be justified. Not when you consider what the billions could be spent on. At the end of the day it is a line that goes from no where to no where via no where. Sorry to the people of West Croydon, Dalston and Shorditch. It isn't as if these places don't have public transport already. Maybe if the people of Dalston had shown more patronage on the NLL then Broad St wouldn't have closed. I would agree that doing away with the useful capacity that Broad St gave was a mistake though. Kevin |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Broad Street station | London Transport | |||
Access to the Broad Street route | London Transport | |||
Waterloo Int future uses | London Transport | |||
Question about Broad Street | London Transport | |||
Question about Broad Street | London Transport |