As you will know, the line closes on 22 Dec 2007 until (at the earliest)
June 2010.

What I can't understand is why it needs to be down for so long. How long
was the Jubilee Line down during the JLE inauguration? Not that long, and
it seems to me that that is an even more complex scheme.

Two and a half years seems a long time to screw the good people of Wapping,
Rotherhithe, Surrey Quays and New Cross and stick them on rail replacement
buses. Could not the rest of the work be done while the ELL is running, and
then shut the ELL down for say just 8 months or so while they link it all
together? I mean, it seems such a long time for a line to be down.

On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 12:01:21 -0600, "Tristán White"
wrote:

As you will know, the line closes on 22 Dec 2007 until (at the earliest)
June 2010.

What I can't understand is why it needs to be down for so long. How long
was the Jubilee Line down during the JLE inauguration? Not that long, and
it seems to me that that is an even more complex scheme.

Two and a half years seems a long time to screw the good people of Wapping,
Rotherhithe, Surrey Quays and New Cross and stick them on rail replacement
buses. Could not the rest of the work be done while the ELL is running, and
then shut the ELL down for say just 8 months or so while they link it all
together? I mean, it seems such a long time for a line to be down.

AIUI the ELL is having its power supply, current rails and signalling
all changed to match National Rail standards. This is not a small or
quick job and would probably cost an awful lot more if attempted only in
engineering hours. There would also come a point where LU stock could
not run on third rail power supply so you'd end up with no service then
either. I don't know how much construction is going to be needed on the
current ELL itself to cope with the new standards but I imagine a fair
amount of supporting infrastructure will be needed.

The physical integration issue with other lines is different - the
northern section will be linked in on a section that is closed anyway so
no impact there. At the southern end I understand that a flyover is to
be constructed and I imagine there will not be a huge issue with linking
that in - a longish weekend possession could deal with that.

The bigger issues concern testing all of the signalling and control
systems and the new rolling stock and training the drivers on the larger
network. While there is a parallel here to the JLE it is important to
remember that the huge issues with the JLE arose when they joined the
new bit to the old bit. The interface at Green Park was (and to some
extent still is) a nightmare and caused huge delays and signalling
failures. Given the ability of the expanded ELL to spread delays all
over north and south London I imagine a lot of time and effort (probably
6 months if not longer) is going to be spent to try to ensure the new
line is reliable from day one. If not then TfL will be paying out a lot
of cash to FCC and Southern for delays to services between Central
London and Croydon.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...

AIUI the ELL is having its power supply, current rails and signalling
all changed to match National Rail standards.

On the face of it, there seems to be little reason why a power supply
upgrade can't allow for the 4th rail to remain while LU stock remains in use
on third rail power, like Putney-Wimbledon, Gunnersbury-Richmond. Isn't the
spec for the third rail position same as NR tracks, and isn't the track new
anyway, or is it only in the Thames tunnel?

The physical integration issue with other lines is different - the
northern section will be linked in on a section that is closed anyway so
no impact there. At the southern end I understand that a flyover is to
be constructed and I imagine there will not be a huge issue with linking
that in - a longish weekend possession could deal with that.

As you say, on the southern end it seems the major infrastructure works are
only on the New Cross Gate branch - so is a temporary Whitechapel - New
Cross only service really out of the question?

The bigger issues concern testing all of the signalling and control
systems and the new rolling stock and training the drivers on the larger
network.

I don't think the signalling in itself could take anything like 2 and a half
years though. The signalling complexity must compare with the current NR
resignalling scheme in the Portsmouth area, in terms of numbers of stations,
junctions, distances, and interfaces with other signalling areas. This is
requiring major closures for about 6 weeks if all goes to plan, although
preparatory work has obviously been done over normal overnight and some
weekend possessions.

Given the ability of the expanded ELL to spread delays all
over north and south London I imagine a lot of time and effort (probably
6 months if not longer) is going to be spent to try to ensure the new
line is reliable from day one. If not then TfL will be paying out a lot
of cash to FCC and Southern for delays to services between Central
London and Croydon.

Agree with this - one of the pitfalls of the line becoming so integrated
with the NR 'networks', given that ELL connects effectively seperate areas
of the NR system, to the north and south.

Paul S

On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:13:03 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 12:01:21 -0600, "Tristán White"
wrote:

As you will know, the line closes on 22 Dec 2007 until (at the earliest)
June 2010.

What I can't understand is why it needs to be down for so long. How long
was the Jubilee Line down during the JLE inauguration? Not that long, and
it seems to me that that is an even more complex scheme.

Two and a half years seems a long time to screw the good people of Wapping,
Rotherhithe, Surrey Quays and New Cross and stick them on rail replacement
buses. Could not the rest of the work be done while the ELL is running, and
then shut the ELL down for say just 8 months or so while they link it all
together? I mean, it seems such a long time for a line to be down.

AIUI the ELL is having its power supply, current rails and signalling
all changed to match National Rail standards. This is not a small or
quick job and would probably cost an awful lot more if attempted only in
engineering hours. There would also come a point where LU stock could
not run on third rail power supply so you'd end up with no service then
either.

Wasn't the ELL line completely closed for a few years leading up to
1999 or so, I think it was to line the Thames Tunnel?

Shame they didn't do any of this work then, but I suppose that
although the extension was well into planning by 1999, they probably
didn't know the full scope of works required.

Anyway, it is at least the second time the ELL users have been shafted
for several years in a row. Still, the finished line will probably be
worth it for them!

Paul Corfield wrote:
AIUI the ELL is having its power supply, current rails and signalling
all changed to match National Rail standards. This is not a small or
quick job and would probably cost an awful lot more if attempted only in
engineering hours. There would also come a point where LU stock could

Why will the current rails need to be changed? Drop the centre rail and
keep the outside rail. Done.

not run on third rail power supply so you'd end up with no service then
either. I don't know how much construction is going to be needed on the
current ELL itself to cope with the new standards but I imagine a fair
amount of supporting infrastructure will be needed.

Given that LU and NR trains run together on certain sections of track
already I can't see they'll need to change all that much. I suspect the
real reason they're closing it is that it makes their life a bit easier
, not because its really necessary (bit like the ELL extension as a
whole) and yet again the long suffering overcharged commuter gets
screwed.

line is reliable from day one. If not then TfL will be paying out a lot
of cash to FCC and Southern for delays to services between Central
London and Croydon.

More likely the other way around. FCC couldn't run the proverbial
****-up in a brewery without the beer being delayed going by what
they've done to Thameslink and WAGN.

B2003

Boltar wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
AIUI the ELL is having its power supply, current rails and signalling
all changed to match National Rail standards. This is not a small or
quick job and would probably cost an awful lot more if attempted only in
engineering hours. There would also come a point where LU stock could

Why will the current rails need to be changed? Drop the centre rail and
keep the outside rail. Done.


Are the existing running rails set up to current return? If not
they'll have to be adapted.

Given that LU and NR trains run together on certain sections of track
already I can't see they'll need to change all that much.

Track that's been specially configured to allow LU and NR trains to run
together. That isn't the case in the ELL.

In article . com,
(Boltar) wrote:

FCC couldn't run the proverbial ****-up in a brewery without the
beer being delayed going by what they've done to Thameslink and WAGN.

As a regular user of the former WAGN part of FCC's franchise my
experience since last April is that you are talking through your rear
orifice.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article . com,
(Boltar) wrote:

FCC couldn't run the proverbial ****-up in a brewery without the
beer being delayed going by what they've done to Thameslink and WAGN.

As a regular user of the former WAGN part of FCC's franchise my
experience since last April is that you are talking through your rear
orifice.

Oh look , its you again. Well as a regular user of Thameslink I can say
categorically that roughly 80% of the southbound trains in the morning
rush hour are late. Some by more than 15 minutes. This was not the case
when the thameslink company ran it. And my last experience of taking
the WAGN service from finsbury park 2 months back was not a pleasent
one - overcrowded trains and late.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article . com,
(Boltar) wrote:

FCC couldn't run the proverbial ****-up in a brewery without the
beer being delayed going by what they've done to Thameslink and WAGN.

As a regular user of the former WAGN part of FCC's franchise my
experience since last April is that you are talking through your rear
orifice.

Oh look , its you again. Well as a regular user of Thameslink I can say
categorically that roughly 80% of the southbound trains in the morning
rush hour are late. Some by more than 15 minutes. This was not the case
when the thameslink company ran it. And my last experience of taking
the WAGN service from finsbury park 2 months back was not a pleasent
one - overcrowded trains and late.

B2003

Yup, we in Cambridge were certainly better off with WAGN than with
First (and I use FGW too, so I can see the signs of the slippery slope).

Boltar wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

(snip)

line is reliable from day one. If not then TfL will be paying out a lot
of cash to FCC and Southern for delays to services between Central
London and Croydon.

More likely the other way around. FCC couldn't run the proverbial
****-up in a brewery without the beer being delayed going by what
they've done to Thameslink and WAGN.


The new ELLX trains will travel on the slow lines between Croydon and
New Cross Gate, and I believe they will _not_ need to cross the path of
the fast lines whatsoever - and it is the fast lines which the FCC
Thameslink trains take. That still leaves the possibility for the ELLX
to bog up Southern's services on the slow lines of course.