On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:52:56AM -0800, Mizter T wrote:

Running longer trains on the NLL would require a number of stations to
have their platforms extended, which is easy in places but much harder
in others (such as at Kentish Town West).

So extend them where it's easy at least. People elsewhere don't seem
to have any difficulty with "passengers for Battersea Park must join
the front seven coaches only".

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

Computer Science is about lofty design goals and careful algorithmic
optimisation. Sysadminning is about cleaning up the resulting mess.

Angel Road, however, now only gets a handful of trains in the peaks...and
those go to Stratford. Can you say, "Closure by stealth"?

Madness when you consider that Angel Road is virtually opposite Ikea and
Tesco Extra! (Though the access to the station is now from a road
overbridge a short distance off the *country* end of the platforms, rather
than the London end, thanks to the widening of the A406).

I've never actually used Angel Road station but I have to say it doesn't
look very inviting having to find your way to the top of the overbridge,
which isn't exactly the most accessible of places, and then walk under the
bridge and along a rather enclosed footpath to get to the platforms, and
then if you want the other platform you need to use a footbridge. I can't
say I fancy that much.

The other thing the A406 widening did was to remove the pavements which
isn't very helpful to pedestrians. I used to walk from the Angel to Wickes
etc but that put a stop to that.

You would have thought there was a better way of providing access to the
station. It seems to me it has been provided on the wrong side of the road.

G.

BH Williams wrote:


The 'freight arc' doesn't need to reach directly from Southampton to
Felixstowe, but simply to allow access from either port to WCML and ECML.
WCML from S'oton is already available via Reading West Curve, though a
flyover here would be useful to avoid conflicts. I don't believe there is
more than one train per day from S'oton to the ECML, and this traffic could
easily pass via Birmingham/Derby.
Felixstowe to the WCML/North could be served by gauge enhancements to the
routes from the Haven Ports to Peterborough via Ely, and thence via
Leicester/Nuneaton. There is other, non-container,traffic from West London
to East London/East Anglia, but this could travel via the Tottenham and
Hampstead, I believe.

I believe as part of S106 agreements improvements to signaling, gauge
enhancements, loop lengths are already COMMITED from Haven Ports to P'bro
From P'bro to Nuneaton is supposed to being investigated, I believe.

Perhaps Ken can help with a pot of money as it is almost certainly the
cheapest way of creating extra space on North London Line(s)

Jim Chisholm

On 28 Feb, 12:27, "J. Chisholm" wrote:
BH Williams wrote:
The 'freight arc' doesn't need to reach directly from Southampton to
Felixstowe, but simply to allow access from either port to WCML and ECML.
WCML from S'oton is already available via Reading West Curve, though a
flyover here would be useful to avoid conflicts. I don't believe there is
more than one train per day from S'oton to the ECML, and this traffic could
easily pass via Birmingham/Derby.
Felixstowe to the WCML/North could be served by gauge enhancements to the
routes from the Haven Ports to Peterborough via Ely, and thence via
Leicester/Nuneaton. There is other, non-container,traffic from West London
to East London/East Anglia, but this could travel via the Tottenham and
Hampstead, I believe.

I believe as part of S106 agreements improvements to signaling, gauge
enhancements, loop lengths are already COMMITED from Haven Ports to P'bro
From P'bro to Nuneaton is supposed to being investigated, I believe.

Perhaps Ken can help with a pot of money as it is almost certainly the
cheapest way of creating extra space on North London Line(s)

Jim Chisholm

Felixstowe is increasingly busy. I think further double-tracking &c
that Hutchinson Ports wanted is subject to a public enquiry in March.

If Felixstowe traffic is to avoid London, wouldn't it reverse at
Ipswich? Avoiding this by adding a curve to the existing junction
would be nontrivial. At first glance there only seems to be room for a
*very* tight curve on the available land; any more and you have to
deal with the industrial park / residential area / supermarket to the
north... No?

"J. Chisholm" wrote

Perhaps Ken can help with a pot of money as it is almost certainly the
cheapest way of creating extra space on North London Line(s)

There must at least be synergy between upgrading NLL for passengers and for
freight. For example, there ought to be a good case for electrifying Barking
to Gospel Oak for either passengers or freight, and it doesn't need doing
twice.

Peter

"bobrayner" wrote

If Felixstowe traffic is to avoid London, wouldn't it reverse at
Ipswich? Avoiding this by adding a curve to the existing junction
would be nontrivial. At first glance there only seems to be room for a
*very* tight curve on the available land; any more and you have to
deal with the industrial park / residential area / supermarket to the
north... No?

Reversing at Ipswich isn't too much of a problem. After all, electrically
hauled freight that comes down the GEML has to recess and re-engine there.
As well as gauge clearance, loop lengths, and signalling improvements from
Ipswich to Birmingham via Peterborough and Leicester there will be a need
for doubling some or all of the Felixtowe branch, and some new connections
at Nuneaton so that freight from Felixtowe to the North West can easily take
advantage of the Trent Valley 4-tracking.

Peter

bobrayner wrote:

If Felixstowe traffic is to avoid London, wouldn't it reverse at
Ipswich? Avoiding this by adding a curve to the existing junction
would be nontrivial. At first glance there only seems to be room for a
*very* tight curve on the available land; any more and you have to
deal with the industrial park / residential area / supermarket to the
north... No?

You could always build a reversing loop south of Ipswich.

On Feb 28, 1:47 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
bobrayner wrote:

If Felixstowe traffic is to avoid London, wouldn't it reverse at
Ipswich? Avoiding this by adding a curve to the existing junction
would be nontrivial. At first glance there only seems to be room for a
*very* tight curve on the available land; any more and you have to
deal with the industrial park / residential area / supermarket to the
north... No?

You could always build a reversing loop south of Ipswich.

South? why? But I believe Ipswich Yard has recently been expanded to
allow for all the reversing there.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, David Cantrell wrote:

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:52:56AM -0800, Mizter T wrote:

Running longer trains on the NLL would require a number of stations to
have their platforms extended, which is easy in places but much harder
in others (such as at Kentish Town West).

So extend them where it's easy at least.

What's so tough about extending Kentish Town West anyway? From a quick
look at an aerial photo, it looks quite easy. What am i missing?

tom

--
packaheomg sogma's

On 28 Feb, 13:52, wrote:
On Feb 28, 1:47 pm, "John Rowland"

wrote:
bobrayner wrote:

If Felixstowe traffic is to avoid London, wouldn't it reverse at
Ipswich? Avoiding this by adding a curve to the existing junction
would be nontrivial. At first glance there only seems to be room for a
*very* tight curve on the available land; any more and you have to
deal with the industrial park / residential area / supermarket to the
north... No?

You could always build a reversing loop south of Ipswich.

South? why? But I believe Ipswich Yard has recently been expanded to
allow for all the reversing there.

There are some interesting documents in the Planning Drawings section
he
http://www.portoffelixstowe.co.uk/fs.../documents.htm