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.

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

In article . com,
(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.

It's two parallel double track viaducts though, isn't it? With space for
station platforms as islands on each viaduct?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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).

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, 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.

How about some sort of freight use? The NLL isn't just for people, you
know. However, i'm not sure where the southern end would be; Bishopsgate
is hardly the freight hub it once was, and there's no obvious way beyond
it: the Great Eastern is too busy (and you can get there via Stratford
already), and the East London line itself is never going to be four-track
south of there. You could always go down into some point-defeatingly
expensive tubes, i suppose. The big London freight study a while ago did
say we needed a new Thames crossing to get freight from the Kent ports to
the north without faffing around on the south London commuter lines and
the WLL; might as well build it here as out at Tilbury (yes, i know, it'd
still play merry hell with the Dartford lines).

Alternatively, whack in a second portal or a flyover or whatever, and run
Shoreditch - Highbury & Islington - Willesden Junction as another
Crossrail branch!

While we're on the subject of the ELLX, two questions, slightly more
serious. Firstly, what happens between the Shoreditch High Street edge of
the old Bishopsgate yard and the old Broad Street viaduct? There's a
hundred metres or so which isn't on the viaduct, and is currently (?)
occupied by buildings. Secondly, what's going to happen to the stub of
viaduct south of the junction with the answer to the first question?

Oh, third question: what was on the Bishopsgate site between 1964, when i
understand it closed as a goods yard, and the time ELLX construction
started? It seems inconceivable that a site that size so close to Livepool
Street didn't get turned into an office block. I suppose this 'City
fringes' business is all quite new.

Fourth question! How did Broad Street once function as it apparently did
as a terminus of the Great Northern? How do you get from Finsbury Park to
Broad Street? Ah, no, i see - there's a curve from just below Drayton Park
to the NLL. Isn't that single-track, though?

Genuine fourth question: was anything of industrial archaeology salvaged
from Bishopsgate, and if so, where will it be put on display?

Fifth question: goods yards with two rail levels: who on earth thought of
that? Do they still do that anywhere? Madness!

tom

--
I really don't know what any of this **** means, but it looks
impressive. -- zerolives, on YVFC

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

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

Mizter T wrote:

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).

I don't think that drawing comparisons with the WLL is valid. For a
start it is much further from the centre so a journey from Willesden to
Clapham avoiding central London is a big boost. In fact if the
Silverlink County service stopped at Willesden the the WLL would be
even more popular.
I don't see the ELL offering the same advantages as the WLL to cross
London travellers as they will be dumped at Highbury and Islington. OK
if you are going to Arsenal I suppose but do people in SE London
support a North London team. I know that the Southern trains were very
crowded on days that Chelsea were playing.

Kevin

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

In message .com, Kev
writes

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.

I don't think "billions" are being spent - phase 1 was costed at one
billion (the other two phases considerably less). The relative cheapness
of the scheme (in urban rail terms) was always one of its attractions.

--
Paul Terry

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

Paul Terry wrote:
In message .com, Kev
writes

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.

I don't think "billions" are being spent - phase 1 was costed at one
billion (the other two phases considerably less). The relative cheapness
of the scheme (in urban rail terms) was always one of its attractions.

--
Paul Terry

Relative cheapness, a billion pounds. Bearing in mind this about
joining two railways about half a mile apart. OK if you accept that you
need to reinstate the couple of miles from Shorditch to Dalston, that
is a billion pounds for about three miles of new railway. Not money
well spent.
Had Broad St never closed in the first place of couse we could now be
spending a billion pounds on something that is really necessary, like
Crossrail.

Kevin

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

Kev wrote:

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.


Kev wrote:

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.


I guess that you demonstrate the point I was trying to make to Mr
Arquati - there are some very skeptical voices that have and do appear
on utl!

As I made clear earlier I think it'll be a great success. Your comments
seem to allow for it's success ("qualified success" being your exact
words), but you appear to suggest that even if it is a success you will
nonetheless disagree that it will be money well spent.

All I can say is that I fundamentally disagree with you on that point -
I think the money will definitely be well worth it considering the
benefits that will accrue. Orbital rail services are set to become more
and more important in London, and the ELL project is an important piece
of that jigsaw.

Regarding your comments about Dalton's poor patronage: the ELL will
provide a more useful through link that goes south rather than stopping
at Broad Street (and for those who want the City the new Shoreditch
High St. station will be _just_ round the back of Liverpool Street
station); and in the late 70's / early 80's the demand for rail
services was fundamentally different from now - see the success of the
present-day North London Line and compare it to the ghost line it was
in the early 80's.

You and many others are also scathing about the potential demand a
north/south link on the ELL - I hold a diametrically opposed view. In
addition to brand new A-B journey opportunities, many journeys that
might otherwise have taken a different central London route will
instead go via the ELL.

Anyway, people who agree with my stance have won the day and the ELL
project is going ahead. In a few years I'm sure it'll be commonly
regarded as an invaluable part of the network in London.

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

Tom Anderson wrote:

How about some sort of freight use? The NLL isn't just for people, you
know. However, i'm not sure where the southern end would be;
Bishopsgate is hardly the freight hub it once was, and there's no
obvious way beyond it: the Great Eastern is too busy (and you can get
there via Stratford already), and the East London line itself is
never going to be four-track south of there. You could always go down
into some point-defeatingly expensive tubes, i suppose. The big
London freight study a while ago did say we needed a new Thames
crossing to get freight from the Kent ports to the north without
faffing around on the south London commuter lines and the WLL; might
as well build it here as out at Tilbury (yes, i know, it'd still play
merry hell with the Dartford lines).

CTRL has freight facilities.

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

In message .com, Kev
writes

Had Broad St never closed in the first place of couse we could now be
spending a billion pounds on something that is really necessary, like
Crossrail.

But one billion would buy relatively little in terms of Crossrail - just
about one mile of central area route, IIRC.

--
Paul Terry

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

On 10 Oct 2006 01:15:04 -0700, Kev wrote:

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).

I don't think that drawing comparisons with the WLL is valid. For a
start it is much further from the centre so a journey from Willesden to
Clapham avoiding central London is a big boost. In fact if the
Silverlink County service stopped at Willesden the the WLL would be
even more popular.
I don't see the ELL offering the same advantages as the WLL to cross
London travellers as they will be dumped at Highbury and Islington. OK
if you are going to Arsenal I suppose but do people in SE London
support a North London team. I know that the Southern trains were very
crowded on days that Chelsea were playing.

I bet if the were the WLL opening instead of the EELL, you'd be saying
that with only 4 stations, and no obvious reason why large flows of
people would want to travel between any of them, and an infrequent
service using grubby trains, the WLL will be a complete non-starter
and a waste of money.

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

Mizter T wrote:
You and many others are also scathing about the potential demand a
north/south link on the ELL - I hold a diametrically opposed view. In
addition to brand new A-B journey opportunities, many journeys that
might otherwise have taken a different central London route will
instead go via the ELL.

Indeed. To use just two examples of my own (I live at New Cross):

1. I have friends in Finsbury Park. I currently get train to London
Bridge, tube to King's Cross, tube to Finsbury Park. Once the ELL is
open, it'll be tube to Highbury, tube to Finsbury Park. Much easier,
and reduces congestion on central tubes.

2. I have friends in Walthamstow. Currently I get the tube to Canada
Water, change to Jubilee to Stratford, then get the 69 bus. Again,
once the ELL opens I'll be able to do the whole journey by tube with a
single change, making public transport a very attractive option.

Patrick

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 01:32:18 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

How about some sort of freight use? The NLL isn't just for people, you
know. However, i'm not sure where the southern end would be; Bishopsgate
is hardly the freight hub it once was, and there's no obvious way beyond
it: the Great Eastern is too busy (and you can get there via Stratford
already), and the East London line itself is never going to be four-track
south of there. You could always go down into some point-defeatingly
expensive tubes, i suppose. The big London freight study a while ago did
say we needed a new Thames crossing to get freight from the Kent ports to
the north without faffing around on the south London commuter lines and
the WLL; might as well build it here as out at Tilbury (yes, i know, it'd
still play merry hell with the Dartford lines).

Alternatively, whack in a second portal or a flyover or whatever, and run
Shoreditch - Highbury & Islington - Willesden Junction as another
Crossrail branch!

I'll throw in this idea: it could be used by a future high speed
inter-city line, as part of its route from the city to the outskirts,
saving lots of expensive tunnelling.

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

On 10 Oct 2006 02:56:00 -0700, "Mizter T" wrote:

Regarding your comments about Dalton's poor patronage: the ELL will
provide a more useful through link that goes south rather than stopping
at Broad Street (and for those who want the City the new Shoreditch
High St. station will be _just_ round the back of Liverpool Street
station); and in the late 70's / early 80's the demand for rail
services was fundamentally different from now - see the success of the
present-day North London Line and compare it to the ghost line it was
in the early 80's.

There are a couple of points here (happy to be corrected if my facts
aren't quite right). The NLL that exists now was two separate services
back in the late 70s. It was diesel operated out at North Woolwich and
through Hackney IIRC. You only got the third rail bit at Dalston. There
was no effective through link and the service was run with clapped out
stock with stations maintained to the lowest BR standard possible. Even
Broad Street was run in that way - it was distinctly uninviting. The GLC
spent a lot of cash on the NLL, electrified it and built / modernised
stations in Hackney. The ELLX will, from the looks of things, be a
further step change in quality and frequency. The stations and trains
will also offer far better security than the old 1980s BR services did.
The poor quality of the old services is what made them unattractive and
ELLX / Overground should reverse that in time.

The City is slowing creeping north - I see yet another bit of Broadgate
is under construction. While not 100% ideal I think the new Shoredtich
High St will do just fine.

You and many others are also scathing about the potential demand a
north/south link on the ELL - I hold a diametrically opposed view. In
addition to brand new A-B journey opportunities, many journeys that
might otherwise have taken a different central London route will
instead go via the ELL.

If someone in Forest Hill wants to go to Stansted when ELLX is open will
they go into a central London terminal, slog a few stops by tube or by
bus to Liverpool St or will they catch ELLX to Highbury and then the Vic
Line to Tottenham Hale for the Stansted Express? Once people see how
the ELLX will link them with minimal changes into a whole pile of
services (tube and NR) then the potential of the line will be realised.

There is an article in the latest Rail magazine where Gordon Pettit
comments that part of the justification for CTRL is not journeys within
the South East but the ability to make fast journeys with one convenient
change at KXSP from Kent to places north of London. I can see how on a
smaller scale the ELLX provides that "round the corner, simple
interchange" type of journey opportunity. The role of Overground
services is how they tie the rail network together rather than the
intrinsic value of an A to B journey solely on the Overground network
itself. You only have to see how well used the Ring Bahn in Berlin is
and how many people change at Westkreuz and Ostkreuz to understand the
value of proper orbital services.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
Alternatively, whack in a second portal or a flyover or whatever, and run
Shoreditch - Highbury & Islington - Willesden Junction as another
Crossrail branch!

Or extend the northern extension (!) to Finsbury Park, Stroud Green,
Crouch End, Highgate, Finchley to end by taking over the Mill Hill East
branch of the Northern Line.

It would be interesting to see the reaction from the Crouch Endites
were this to be seriously proposed. They've wanted a tube for ages,
yet this route would mean the loss of the Parkland Walk. When I lived
in Crouch End in the late 90s, there was a proposal to turn the
Parkland Walk into a road and the opposition was immense. A railway
wouldn't be able to generate the same amount of moral outrage, yet the
Parkland Walk would still be lost. I can imagine a lot of heads
exploding with contradictions!

Patrick

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, 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.

How about some sort of freight use? The NLL isn't just for people, you
know. However, i'm not sure where the southern end would be; Bishopsgate
is hardly the freight hub it once was, and there's no obvious way beyond
it: the Great Eastern is too busy (and you can get there via Stratford
already), and the East London line itself is never going to be four-track
south of there. You could always go down into some point-defeatingly
expensive tubes, i suppose. The big London freight study a while ago did
say we needed a new Thames crossing to get freight from the Kent ports to
the north without faffing around on the south London commuter lines and
the WLL; might as well build it here as out at Tilbury (yes, i know, it'd
still play merry hell with the Dartford lines).


I think it'd be far preferable to get as much rail freight traffic as
possible on routes that avoid going through London. I've not read the
freight study but an out of town link across the Thames, such as at
Tilbury, sounds good.

Alternatively, whack in a second portal or a flyover or whatever, and run
Shoreditch - Highbury & Islington - Willesden Junction as another
Crossrail branch!


As if Crossrail isn't expensive enough already!

While we're on the subject of the ELLX, two questions, slightly more
serious. Firstly, what happens between the Shoreditch High Street edge of
the old Bishopsgate yard and the old Broad Street viaduct? There's a
hundred metres or so which isn't on the viaduct, and is currently (?)
occupied by buildings. Secondly, what's going to happen to the stub of
viaduct south of the junction with the answer to the first question?


Re your first question - I don't know the details but it would indeed
seem that some building demolition is necessary. See the route map in
the Spring '06 ELLX brochure [1] and the ELLX pages on the TfL London
Rail website [2]. Re your second question - the stub of the viaduct
might contain business premises in the arches, I don't know, I'll take
a look next time I'm around there. Presumably it could be knocked down
and built on, though I'd imagine such a redevelopment would be
expensive given the difficulty of demolition so close to the busy
tracks out of Liverpool Street (look at an aerial photo [1] to see this
for yourself)

Oh, third question: what was on the Bishopsgate site between 1964, when i
understand it closed as a goods yard, and the time ELLX construction
started? It seems inconceivable that a site that size so close to Livepool
Street didn't get turned into an office block. I suppose this 'City
fringes' business is all quite new.


The Sub Brit website has several fascinating pages and photos
concerning Bishopsgate Goods Yard [4]. On it Nick Catford says:

"Eventually some uses were found for the former goods station; an
unlicenced car breaker set up in business at the east end of the goods
yard while the top of the ramp up from Shoreditch High Street was used
as a car park. The lower level roadway west of Wheler Street was also
adapted as an 'underground' car park."

I'd guess that any development there would be expensive, given the fact
it is located over the tracks out of Liverpool Street. And the focus of
80's development was more central within, such as the Broadgate
development on the site of Broad Street station. As you say,
developments on the fringes of the City are a relatively new thing.

The ELLX was proposed by LU in 1989, which has presumably meant a
certain amount of safeguarding in relation to Bishopsgate Goods Yard.


Fourth question! How did Broad Street once function as it apparently did
as a terminus of the Great Northern? How do you get from Finsbury Park to
Broad Street? Ah, no, i see - there's a curve from just below Drayton Park
to the NLL. Isn't that single-track, though?


The "Canonbury Curve" (search for it on uk.railway) used to be a two
track railway. If you look through the fence opposite of Drayton Park
station you'll see that the trackbed and tunnel do have space for two
tracks.

Genuine fourth question: was anything of industrial archaeology salvaged
from Bishopsgate, and if so, where will it be put on display?

Fifth question: goods yards with two rail levels: who on earth thought of
that? Do they still do that anywhere? Madness!



Dunno about these questions but again I'd say turn to Sub Brit which
may answer your queries (I read it a while ago and I can't remember
what it says). Interesting method of counting to 6 you have!

-----
[1]
http://ellp.tfl.gov.uk/UserFiles/Fil...(Final)(1).pdf
or via shortURL http://tinyurl.com/mwdp3

[2] http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/initiativ...oduction.shtml

[3] http://tinyurl.com/qodww

[4]
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...on/index.shtml

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

Paul Corfield wrote:

On 10 Oct 2006 02:56:00 -0700, "Mizter T" wrote:

Regarding your comments about Dalton's poor patronage: the ELL will
provide a more useful through link that goes south rather than stopping
at Broad Street (and for those who want the City the new Shoreditch
High St. station will be _just_ round the back of Liverpool Street
station); and in the late 70's / early 80's the demand for rail
services was fundamentally different from now - see the success of the
present-day North London Line and compare it to the ghost line it was
in the early 80's.

There are a couple of points here (happy to be corrected if my facts
aren't quite right). The NLL that exists now was two separate services
back in the late 70s. It was diesel operated out at North Woolwich and
through Hackney IIRC. You only got the third rail bit at Dalston. There
was no effective through link and the service was run with clapped out
stock with stations maintained to the lowest BR standard possible. Even
Broad Street was run in that way - it was distinctly uninviting. The GLC
spent a lot of cash on the NLL, electrified it and built / modernised
stations in Hackney. The ELLX will, from the looks of things, be a
further step change in quality and frequency. The stations and trains
will also offer far better security than the old 1980s BR services did.
The poor quality of the old services is what made them unattractive and
ELLX / Overground should reverse that in time.

The photos of Dalston Junction in the 80's on the Disused Stations
website help to illustrate your point...

http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...on/index.shtml
(see the bottom of the page for a link to many more photos)

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
You and many others are also scathing about the potential demand a
north/south link on the ELL - I hold a diametrically opposed view. In
addition to brand new A-B journey opportunities, many journeys that
might otherwise have taken a different central London route will
instead go via the ELL.

Indeed. To use just two examples of my own (I live at New Cross):

1. I have friends in Finsbury Park. I currently get train to London
Bridge, tube to King's Cross, tube to Finsbury Park. Once the ELL is
open, it'll be tube to Highbury, tube to Finsbury Park. Much easier,
and reduces congestion on central tubes.

2. I have friends in Walthamstow. Currently I get the tube to Canada
Water, change to Jubilee to Stratford, then get the 69 bus. Again,
once the ELL opens I'll be able to do the whole journey by tube with a
single change, making public transport a very attractive option.

Patrick

OK I can counter that by saying that I live in Watford and if I want to
get to SW London I have to use the once hourly Southern service or
crawl all the way to Willesden on the Metro then use the WLL. I think
that should spend hundreds of millions putting platforms on the county
lines at Willesden. My journey would be so much easier but would it be
cost effective when there is an alternative.
As a tax payer I have every right to be critical of something even if
it is agreed. If the ELLx is such a great idea why is the current ELL
so poorly used.

Kevin

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

Kev wrote:
OK I can counter that by saying that I live in Watford and if I want to
get to SW London I have to use the once hourly Southern service or
crawl all the way to Willesden on the Metro then use the WLL. I think
that should spend hundreds of millions putting platforms on the county
lines at Willesden. My journey would be so much easier but would it be
cost effective when there is an alternative.

It depends what the alternatives are. In the two cases I cited,
congestion in the central area is reduced and public transport becomes
a more attractive option, so there are benefits over and above simple
passenger numbers. You had claimed that there wouldn't be any current
journeys which would benefit from the ELLX; I just outlined a couple.

As a tax payer I have every right to be critical of something even if
it is agreed. If the ELLx is such a great idea why is the current ELL
so poorly used.

I don't recall anyone here claiming you didn't have that right! Some
of us are exercising our equally valid right to put forward another
opinion.

And I would disagree about the current ELL being poorly used; there are
always lots of people waiting for it at any time of day when I'm using
New Cross station. I used to use it regularly during the peaks when I
worked at Barbican (New Cross-Whitechapel-Barbican and back again) and
it was always full. Granted, not as full as the Northern Line, but you
often had to stand.

The ELLX probably won't be as immediately successful as Crossrail will
be, but IMHO it will offer a number of small benefits, not all of them
immediately and quantifiably measurable.

Patrick

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

On Oct 10, 12:15 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
There are a couple of points here (happy to be corrected if my facts
aren't quite right). The NLL that exists now was two separate services
back in the late 70s. It was diesel operated out at North Woolwich and
through Hackney IIRC. You only got the third rail bit at Dalston.

The two services were Broad Street to Richmond and Palace Gates to
North Woolwich.

There was no effective through link and the service was run with clapped out
stock with stations maintained to the lowest BR standard possible. Even
Broad Street was run in that way - it was distinctly uninviting. The GLC
spent a lot of cash on the NLL, electrified it and built / modernised
stations in Hackney. The ELLX will, from the looks of things, be a
further step change in quality and frequency. The stations and trains
will also offer far better security than the old 1980s BR services did.
The poor quality of the old services is what made them unattractive and
ELLX / Overground should reverse that in time.

Indeed. The biggest advantage I see is that Shoreditch High Street will
be literally right next to the new City offices being built near
Liverpool Street. I would not be shocked if pax numbers on the gateline
at London Bridge went into freefall after the ELLX opened to
Shoreditch.

If someone in Forest Hill wants to go to Stansted when ELLX is open will
they go into a central London terminal, slog a few stops by tube or by
bus to Liverpool St or will they catch ELLX to Highbury and then the Vic
Line to Tottenham Hale for the Stansted Express? Once people see how
the ELLX will link them with minimal changes into a whole pile of
services (tube and NR) then the potential of the line will be realised.

Exactly!

The biggest disadvantage I see is that the ELLX Phase 1 will stop at
Highbury & Islington. In my other thread on extending the Southern
service at Watford Junction to St. Albans Abbey, I stated that when the
new TfL LO stock comes on stream and displaces the 313s, they should be
cascaded onto the ECML to lengthen existing 313-served services. If the
ELLX is not extended to Finsbury Park, then the GN&CR service should be
enhanced using the 313s to permit low-stress connections between the
two lines, thereby opening up the entire ECML catchment area to the
ELLX and taking pressure off of KX and Moorgate.

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

On Oct 10, 12:02 pm, asdf wrote:
I bet if the were the WLL opening instead of the EELL, you'd be saying
that with only 4 stations, and no obvious reason why large flows of
people would want to travel between any of them, and an infrequent
service using grubby trains, the WLL will be a complete non-starter
and a waste of money.

The only problem with the WLL is that it is only useful for through
journeys from end to end, i.e. someone in Clapham who wants to go to
Watford, or someone in Harrow who wants to go to South London but
doesn't want to fight with the Underground. The cyclic nature of
Olympia doesn't make the WLL useful enough to encourage non-through
journeys IMO.

Once the new Shepherd's Bush station is opened, I feel that the WLL
will become a LOT more useful within its catchment area.

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

On Oct 10, 12:21 pm, wrote:
Or extend the northern extension (!) to Finsbury Park, Stroud Green,
Crouch End, Highgate, Finchley to end by taking over the Mill Hill East
branch of the Northern Line.

That would require expensive three-tracking between East Finchley and
Finchley Central, with a flyover of some kind to move the Northern Line
tracks around.

Besides, the ELLX is an _East_ London line. The services you're talking
about should be run out of the GN&CR, and I would upgrade the proposal
into the following:

- Construct a station on the GOBLIN where it crosses the Parkland
route, and tie it into the new station, which would be called Stroud
Green.

- Add more tracks between East Finchley and Finchley Central -
triple-tracking with a single line for the new services might suffice,
but ideally quadruple track ought to be built if the formation can be
widened enough.

- Extend beyond Mill Hill East to the Copthall stadium area, and
construct a terminus at the cessation of the old route near Page
Street.

This would get you a route with stations at Finsbury Park, Stroud
Green, Crouch End, Highgate HL, East Finchley, Finchley Central, Mill
Hill East, and Page Street. The route would be double track between
Finsbury Park and East Finchley, single track between East Finchley and
Finchley Central, and single track with a passing loop at Mill Hill
East and a two-track terminus at Page Street.

First of all, you get immediate relief for the Northern Line, as all of
the traffic to the City will immediately switch to the new route.
Secondly, you will open up an area that could have been served by the
Underground but wasn't, and thirdly, you can give the GN&CR a new
feeder that doesn't rely on the ECML.


It would be interesting to see the reaction from the Crouch Endites
were this to be seriously proposed. They've wanted a tube for ages,
yet this route would mean the loss of the Parkland Walk. When I lived
in Crouch End in the late 90s, there was a proposal to turn the
Parkland Walk into a road and the opposition was immense. A railway
wouldn't be able to generate the same amount of moral outrage, yet the
Parkland Walk would still be lost. I can imagine a lot of heads
exploding with contradictions!

Indeed. It's a shame that the route to Alexandra Palace is blocked, as
building a double-track branch to Alexandra Palace and running services
from there to Moorgate would be especially Nice to Have.

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

Kev wrote:

wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
You and many others are also scathing about the potential demand a
north/south link on the ELL - I hold a diametrically opposed view. In
addition to brand new A-B journey opportunities, many journeys that
might otherwise have taken a different central London route will
instead go via the ELL.

Indeed. To use just two examples of my own (I live at New Cross):

1. I have friends in Finsbury Park. I currently get train to London
Bridge, tube to King's Cross, tube to Finsbury Park. Once the ELL is
open, it'll be tube to Highbury, tube to Finsbury Park. Much easier,
and reduces congestion on central tubes.

2. I have friends in Walthamstow. Currently I get the tube to Canada
Water, change to Jubilee to Stratford, then get the 69 bus. Again,
once the ELL opens I'll be able to do the whole journey by tube with a
single change, making public transport a very attractive option.

Patrick

OK I can counter that by saying that I live in Watford and if I want to
get to SW London I have to use the once hourly Southern service or
crawl all the way to Willesden on the Metro then use the WLL. I think
that should spend hundreds of millions putting platforms on the county
lines at Willesden. My journey would be so much easier but would it be
cost effective when there is an alternative.
As a tax payer I have every right to be critical of something even if
it is agreed. If the ELLx is such a great idea why is the current ELL
so poorly used.

Kevin

I absolutely agree that, connections wise, it'd be very useful if there
were mainline (i.e. WCML) platforms at Willesden Junction. It would
very effectively link people route north of Willesden Junction to the
West London Line and North London Line, as well as the
Bakerloo/Silverlink Metro stopping service. I don't know the history of
why these platforms were razed, I'll read up on it.

Whether it would be cost effective I guess depends in part on how you
measured the benefits - the benefits of the ELLX have obviously been
deemed to justify the cost. The ELLX website [1] will give you some
idea of the thinking that has gone on with regard to this.

With regards to your comments regarding your right to be critical, I
absolutely agree - of course you have the right to be critical, no-one
has suggested otherwise. On this occasion the decision that has been
made is not one you agree with - c'est la vie.

Concerning what you say about the poor usage on the current East London
Line, I'm afraid I can only disagree again. I'm a fairly frequent user
of the ELL, and whilst it's certainly not as hectic as other LU lines,
it's definitely not poorly used. In the middle of the day trains can be
fairly lightly loaded, yet during the peaks it can be standing room
only, and is quite well patronised during the evenings and weekends.

In it's own right I'd definitely say it justifies it's existence, but
however it definitely has potential to do more - it's that potential
that the ELLX will exploit. I could almost compare it to a small scale
Thameslink, but I won't as I've written enough on this for now.

-----
[1] http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/initiativ...oduction.shtml

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

On 10 Oct 2006 12:01:17 -0700, TheOneKEA wrote:

There are a couple of points here (happy to be corrected if my facts
aren't quite right). The NLL that exists now was two separate services
back in the late 70s. It was diesel operated out at North Woolwich and
through Hackney IIRC. You only got the third rail bit at Dalston.

The two services were Broad Street to Richmond and Palace Gates to
North Woolwich.

IIRC the Palace Gates branch closed in the 60s. Paul C is referring to
the situation in the years leading up to the closure of Broad Street,
when IIRC there were electric services from Richmond to Broad Street
and Watford to Broad Street, and diesel services from North Woolwich
to Camden Road.

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

The big London freight study a while ago did say we needed a new Thames
crossing to get freight from the Kent ports to the north without
faffing around on the south London commuter lines and the WLL; might as
well build it here as out at Tilbury (yes, i know, it'd still play
merry hell with the Dartford lines).

CTRL has freight facilities.

True, but IIRC, the freight study says it doesn't solve the problem - i
think because there aren't enough freight paths or something. I can't find
the study right now, though, so i'm afraid i can't be more authoritative.

tom

--
Who would you help in a fight, Peter van der Linden or Bill Gates?

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, asdf wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 01:32:18 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

Alternatively, whack in a second portal or a flyover or whatever, and
run Shoreditch - Highbury & Islington - Willesden Junction as another
Crossrail branch!

I'll throw in this idea: it could be used by a future high speed
inter-city line, as part of its route from the city to the outskirts,
saving lots of expensive tunnelling.

Broad Street to Glasgow! The thing is, it would only save a few miles of
tunnelling, and would make the portal arrangements more complicated, so it
probably doesn't work out worth doing.

I'm trying to think of a way to connect it to the soon-to-be-abandoned
Farringdon - Moorgate stretch of the Widened Lines. Oh, and a reason to do
so!

tom

--
Who would you help in a fight, Peter van der Linden or Bill Gates?

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:18:53 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

I'll throw in this idea: it could be used by a future high speed
inter-city line, as part of its route from the city to the outskirts,
saving lots of expensive tunnelling.

Broad Street to Glasgow! The thing is, it would only save a few miles of
tunnelling, and would make the portal arrangements more complicated, so it
probably doesn't work out worth doing.

I'm trying to think of a way to connect it to the soon-to-be-abandoned
Farringdon - Moorgate stretch of the Widened Lines. Oh, and a reason to do
so!

Bonus points for including the Aldwych branch, the Waterloo & City,
Charing Cross Jubilee, and the Kingsway tram tunnel. ;-)

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

Mizter T wrote:
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".

Actually Hoxton is a very trendy place these days, and I have on many
occassions had to direct people on the train from Sydenham and
thereabouts to LB how to get to Hoxton Square via Old Street, a direct
connection would be popular. Also Whitechapel is a very handy place for
getting to all parts of East London, it is exceptionally well connected
for buses as well as the District Line and not having to go via LB is a
great bonus.

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

It will indeed, the ELL has become a lot busier since the JLE arrived at
Canada Water, not to mention all the developemnts at Wapping and
Rotherhithe.
I have been using the ELL for over 25 years, I have a lot of friends in
Hackney, Stoke Newington and similar places, a direct train from New
Cross Gate, my local station, to Dalston will be a real bonus, less
changes, less hassle.
I hope, however that it will come in closer to time than the last time
it was closed, for works on the tunnel, this was originally scheduled to
be 9 months, but ended up at close on 3 years with a dreadful bus
replacement service which did not even serve NXG directly.
I am looking forward to it.

- 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).

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Mizter T wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, TheOneKEA wrote:

On Oct 9, 11:54 am, "Kev" wrote:
TheOneKEA wrote:

For that matter, how will the tracks themselves be positioned?

Funniest thing that I have read in ages, the prospect of the Eat London
Line being so busy it will need to be quadrupled.

The big London freight study a while ago did say we needed a new Thames
crossing to get freight from the Kent ports to the north without
faffing around on the south London commuter lines and the WLL; might as
well build it here as out at Tilbury (yes, i know, it'd still play
merry hell with the Dartford lines).

I think it'd be far preferable to get as much rail freight traffic as
possible on routes that avoid going through London.

Not only preferable, but absolutely necessary. There's a Felixstowe -
Nuneaton (IIRC) route that is the great white hope here; it needs various
bits of fiddling about, but would allow Felixstowe's traffic to the north,
which is rather substantial, to bypass London completely.

I've not read the freight study but an out of town link across the
Thames, such as at Tilbury, sounds good.

That doesn't help you avoid London, though - from Tilbury, it's the Goblin
or the NLL to Willesden and up north from there. It does keep trains off
the south London suburban network, though.

In fact, with stuff coming up from the channel tunnel, Thamesport and
Sheerness in Kent, and Purfleet, Tilbury and soon Shellhaven in Essex,
there's quite a lot of freight with no current way to avoid London.
Someone suggested here a while ago that it might be possible to make the
NLL four-track throughout, which would allow for a dedicated freight route
from Stratford to Willesden, which would help a lot (although getting from
the ports to Stratford is still a bottleneck). Ideally, i suppose, there'd
be a freight railway running alongside the M25 from Upminsterish to Hemel
Hempstead, to avoid London completely, but i'd say that was really rather
unlikely to come about!

Secondly, what's going to happen to the stub of viaduct south of the
junction with the answer to the first question?

Re your second question - the stub of the viaduct might contain business
premises in the arches, I don't know, I'll take a look next time I'm
around there. Presumably it could be knocked down and built on, though
I'd imagine such a redevelopment would be expensive given the difficulty
of demolition so close to the busy tracks out of Liverpool Street (look
at an aerial photo [1] to see this for yourself)

I was wondering if something could be put on top of the viaduct, which is
currently just grass. I thought it would be rather fun to have a new park
right in the middle of the City - about half the size of the HAC grounds
at Bunhill Fields, or twice the size of Finsbury Square. And up in the
air!

Oh, third question: what was on the Bishopsgate site between 1964, when i
understand it closed as a goods yard, and the time ELLX construction
started?

The Sub Brit website has several fascinating pages and photos
concerning Bishopsgate Goods Yard [4]. On it Nick Catford says:

Interesting stuff!

tom

--
Who would you help in a fight, Peter van der Linden or Bill Gates?

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

asdf wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:18:53 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

I'll throw in this idea: it could be used by a future high speed
inter-city line, as part of its route from the city to the outskirts,
saving lots of expensive tunnelling.

Broad Street to Glasgow! The thing is, it would only save a few miles of
tunnelling, and would make the portal arrangements more complicated, so it
probably doesn't work out worth doing.

I'm trying to think of a way to connect it to the soon-to-be-abandoned
Farringdon - Moorgate stretch of the Widened Lines. Oh, and a reason to do
so!

Bonus points for including the Aldwych branch, the Waterloo & City,
Charing Cross Jubilee, and the Kingsway tram tunnel. ;-)

And King William Street for a rollercoaster ride.

Or how about retaining the Moorgate tracks it and reinstating the
railway and goods station under Smithfields Meat Market for use in
delivering fresh carcasses, just like they used to do. - there's an
awful lots of HGVs that arrive there at night and it'd take them off
the road. The Moorgate tracks could be used by freight trains queueing
to enter the Smithfields goods station - some reversing necessary so
each train would need to be topped and tailed by loco on each end,
unless you could somehow add a few shunters into the mix - no, I don't
think that would work out. Why can't the loco go on one end and a
driving carriage on the other end, so the loco can either push or pull,
a bit like the one Anglia intercity trains or the old Gatwick Express
do it. I'm way out of my depth here on this loco business, I think the
bods at uk.railway would rip me to shreds!

The Met & Circle line platforms at Moorgate might have a certain whiff
about them in the morning though!

See http://www.loveplums.co.uk/Tube/Holborn_Viaduct_station.html for
a map of the Smithfield route. There is a better page somewhere on the
web that at least has a photo of the entrance to the underground goods
yard turned car park, but I can't find it, and you can see that with
your own eyes if you go there. There have been past discussions on
uk.railway and/or utl that have mentioned it.

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

Martin Smith wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

(snip)

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".

Actually Hoxton is a very trendy place these days, and I have on many
occassions had to direct people on the train from Sydenham and
thereabouts to LB how to get to Hoxton Square via Old Street, a direct
connection would be popular. Also Whitechapel is a very handy place for
getting to all parts of East London, it is exceptionally well connected
for buses as well as the District Line and not having to go via LB is a
great bonus.


If I was part of the achingly 1990's Hoxton YBA clique then I might say
that your comment about Hoxton being "a very trendy place" was so
out-of-date as it's now gone mainstream, and the old squats and
warehouses have now been converted into studios inhabited by affluent
young city professionals city trying to be trendy. However I'm not so I
won't! Well, maybe the bit about city types taking up residence &
changing the ambiance of the area is something I might well go-along
with with, but I'm not an achingly hip ex-Hoxtonite so I don't feel
qualified to have a firm belief one way or the other. Not least because
the supposedly legendary Hoxton of yesteryear might just be a
convenient myth for those who wish to appear as though they're always
running away from the run of the mill to be the avant garde - after
all, Mr Saatchi wouldn't pay top-dollar for pieces from a common or
garden artist.

Right, now I've got that out of my system (!) I'll instead say that I
often go, along with the masses (of which I am one I hasten to add!)
for a night out in Hoxton/Shoreditch, the two names for these adjacent
places popularly being muddled together - quite understandably IMO
considering their proximity, and the fact that many people's memory of
the area is somewhat tainted by intoxication!

We shouldn't presume that a SE London - Hoxton link for those seeking a
night out is what the ELLX is for though. Because it's not. Though it
will be most useful for this purpose!

But after writing all that I realise that you were responding to my
paraphrased pseudo-quote (pseudo in the sense that I hadn't actually
looked it up before I wrote the posting) from an old post. I've just
searched for it and found two posts in particular from a September 2005
thread on utl - one of which reads:

'I can't believe Sydenham is _really_ that full of people all saying "I
wish we could get to Hoxton more easily" '

Before I get accused of taking the comments out of context I'll link to
the Google Groups archive so you can make you're own mind up.
The post quoted above is at http://tinyurl.com/kryuh, and another
post of interest is at http://tinyurl.com/jlp4q.


(snip)

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

It will indeed, the ELL has become a lot busier since the JLE arrived at
Canada Water, not to mention all the developemnts at Wapping and
Rotherhithe.
I have been using the ELL for over 25 years, I have a lot of friends in
Hackney, Stoke Newington and similar places, a direct train from New
Cross Gate, my local station, to Dalston will be a real bonus, less
changes, less hassle.
I hope, however that it will come in closer to time than the last time
it was closed, for works on the tunnel, this was originally scheduled to
be 9 months, but ended up at close on 3 years with a dreadful bus
replacement service which did not even serve NXG directly.
I am looking forward to it.


I'm in agreement with you on those points. Of course you and many
others will find it useful for visiting friends, but once up and
running it'll also open up the eyes of many to new opportunities
recreation, studying, and - critically - employment as well as much
else.

I can't recall all the details about the messy extended closure of the
line in the 90's, but at least there's a definite deadline - it all has
to be up and running for 2012!

However you probably won't be over-the-moon to read this:
(from page 4 of the Spring 2006 ELL brochure [1])
" [...] Additionally, there will be a need to close the existing East
London Line for approximately 18 months to replace existing track and
signalling. This is currently scheduled to begin winter 2007 / spring
2008."

Note that the file name of this document actually reads "...Spring 07
(Final)(1)...", so maybe the project team has taken to heart the
concept that it has to be finished on time and advanced their diaries
by a year! However that would mean the ELL closing this winter... all
I'm saying is don't be surprised to arrive one day to find no ELL
trains...


-----
[1]
http://ellp.tfl.gov.uk/UserFiles/Fil...(Final)(1).pdf
or via shortURL http://tinyurl.com/mwdp3

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

Mizter T wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

Fourth question! How did Broad Street once function as it apparently
did as a terminus of the Great Northern? How do you get from
Finsbury Park to Broad Street? Ah, no, i see - there's a curve from
just below Drayton Park to the NLL. Isn't that single-track, though?


The "Canonbury Curve" (search for it on uk.railway) used to be a two
track railway. If you look through the fence opposite of Drayton Park
station you'll see that the trackbed and tunnel do have space for two
tracks.

The Canonbury Curve was singled when electrified, I think because there
wasn't enough room for two lines with overhead.

ELLX uses for Broad Street route
 

Mizter T wrote:

I can't recall all the details about the messy extended closure of the
line in the 90's,

Wasn't it a combination of upgrading the tunnel under the Thames, combined
with building Canada Water?