On Mar 20, 7:15 pm, "Adrian" wrote:


does not spare Londonners the noise, dust and polution created by the
freight flows that should be routed elsewhere.


Why - if you wish to embrace environmental issues - do you think
diverting freights away from conurbations to green field railways is
better ?


--
Nick

On Mar 20, 1:25 pm, "D7666" wrote:
On Mar 20, 7:15 pm, "Adrian" wrote:

does not spare Londonners the noise, dust and polution created by the
freight flows that should be routed elsewhere.

Why - if you wish to embrace environmental issues - do you think
diverting freights away from conurbations to green field railways is
better ?

--
Nick

For the most part yes. Although I am sure there are exceptions.
However, I don't know many trees that object to train noises in the
night. I don't object to them either, but many folks do! :-)

Moreover, I am sure there are many more asthmatics and allergy
sufferers in metropolitan areas than rural.

Adrian

Adrian wrote:

Well that pretty much covers what I was looking for in my request for
statistics. It would seem that most freight utilizing the North
London Line is not bound for London. Some maybe terminating at
Willesden.

Just how much does Willesden Container Terminal handle, though? Whenever
I've been past it it always looks closed, there is rarely much change in the
train formations present and I haven't seen a train with a loco on the end
of it in there for two to three years. I'd have thought that it was pretty
redundant in the great scheme of things.

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:

Well that pretty much covers what I was looking for in my request for
statistics. It would seem that most freight utilizing the North
London Line is not bound for London. Some maybe terminating at
Willesden.

Just how much does Willesden Container Terminal handle, though? Whenever
I've been past it it always looks closed, there is rarely much change in
the train formations present and I haven't seen a train with a loco on the
end of it in there for two to three years. I'd have thought that it was
pretty redundant in the great scheme of things.

I believe there is a daily train from Thamesport, whilst GTS were loading
some traffic there until recently. There is also a cement terminal on part
of the site, with traffic from the Peak District.
Brian

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Adrian wrote:

On Mar 19, 3:53 pm, "TimB" wrote:
On Mar 19, 10:05 pm, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article . com,

(TimB) wrote:
On Mar 19, 6:35 pm, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

That is steady/declining, while container freight from the
ports is booming, which is the root of this problem.

The containers don't *all* go to the Midlands and "oop North".

I'd say most of the ones that go /by train/ do - London containers
are largely trucked in direct from Tilbury/Felixstowe, I'd assume.

How many rail container facilities are there in London, then?

Just Tilbury and Willesden, I guess - that's why I assume most
containers come by truck ie lorry.

Well that pretty much covers what I was looking for in my request for
statistics. It would seem that most freight utilizing the North
London Line is not bound for London. Some maybe terminating at
Willesden.

A four track NLL may well segregate the two traffic flows. But, it does
not spare Londonners the noise, dust and polution created by the freight
flows that should be routed elsewhere.

What noise, dust and pollution? Are you talking about trains or lorries?
Freight trains are certainly noisy, but no more so than any other train of
the same length, and, since the lines in question are electric, aren't
dusty or (locally) polluting.

What *would* improve the environment for Londoners would be if local
freight could be shifted from road to rail - not possible for everything,
of course, but things like construction materials and supermarket supplies
could be brought into town by train, then distributed by road, rather than
having to come all the way in on lorries. Mostly, this is a question of
having suitable transfer terminals and a lot more organisation and impetus
than at present, but a high-capacity freight route through London could
hardly hurt!

tom

--
I'm angry, but not Milk and Cheese angry. -- Mike Froggatt

Tom Anderson wrote:

What noise, dust and pollution? Are you talking about trains or lorries?
Freight trains are certainly noisy, but no more so than any other train of
the same length, and, since the lines in question are electric, aren't
dusty or (locally) polluting.

What about Gospel Oak to Barking? There's freight on that.

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

What noise, dust and pollution? Are you talking about trains or
lorries? Freight trains are certainly noisy, but no more so than
any other train of the same length, and, since the lines in
question are electric, aren't dusty or (locally) polluting.

What about Gospel Oak to Barking? There's freight on that.

In any case many freight trains on the electrified lines are
diesel-hauled. Currently, on the lines through Willesden Junction, all
of which are electrified, about three-quarters of the timetabled
freights Mon-Fri are diesel-hauled.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Mar 21, 8:39 am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Adrian wrote:
On Mar 19, 3:53 pm, "TimB" wrote:
On Mar 19, 10:05 pm, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article . com,

(TimB) wrote:
On Mar 19, 6:35 pm, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

That is steady/declining, while container freight from the
ports is booming, which is the root of this problem.

The containers don't *all* go to the Midlands and "oop North".

I'd say most of the ones that go /by train/ do - London containers
are largely trucked in direct from Tilbury/Felixstowe, I'd assume.

How many rail container facilities are there in London, then?

Just Tilbury and Willesden, I guess - that's why I assume most
containers come by truck ie lorry.

Well that pretty much covers what I was looking for in my request for
statistics. It would seem that most freight utilizing the North
London Line is not bound for London. Some maybe terminating at
Willesden.

A four track NLL may well segregate the two traffic flows. But, it does
not spare Londonners the noise, dust and polution created by the freight
flows that should be routed elsewhere.

What noise, dust and pollution? Are you talking about trains or lorries?
Freight trains are certainly noisy, but no more so than any other train of
the same length, and, since the lines in question are electric, aren't
dusty or (locally) polluting.

What *would* improve the environment for Londoners would be if local
freight could be shifted from road to rail - not possible for everything,
of course, but things like construction materials and supermarket supplies
could be brought into town by train, then distributed by road, rather than
having to come all the way in on lorries. Mostly, this is a question of
having suitable transfer terminals and a lot more organisation and impetus
than at present, but a high-capacity freight route through London could
hardly hurt!

tom

--
I'm angry, but not Milk and Cheese angry. -- Mike Froggatt- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well in this instance I am talking about trains, specifically freight
trains. If we are discussing Felixstowe to the midlands and north
trains running by way of the North London Line, they are 1. Taking
paths that could very usefully be utilized by a more intense passenger
service.

2. They bring noise to a densely populated urban area. 3. Where they
are diesel hauled they add to the local air pollution. I would agree
that this is a small problem relative pollution from trucks.

3. They are raising some dust. Not much dust, but they do create
some by the interaction between the track and ballast. But, worse
they produce particulates when braking. At one time the dust from
brake blocks was carcinogenic. I don't know if that is still so.

Where these freight workings unavoidable I would consider this
situation acceptable. As it is these workings need to be routed
outside of the metropolis. As I understand it, the Ipswich to
Nuneaton route is being upgraded with this in mind.

You are correct in stating that there would be enormous environmental
benefit to be gained by moving freight from road to rail. However,
there is NO economic case for short haul rail freight. Unless city
dwellers are prepared to pay the cost involved in local rail freight
haulage, and persuade their politicians that they are so willing, this
is not going to happen.

Adrian

In article . com,
(Adrian) wrote:

Well in this instance I am talking about trains, specifically
freight trains. If we are discussing Felixstowe to the midlands and
north trains running by way of the North London Line, they are 1.
Taking
paths that could very usefully be utilized by a more intense passenger
service.

[snip]

Where these freight workings unavoidable I would consider this
situation acceptable. As it is these workings need to be routed
outside of the metropolis. As I understand it, the Ipswich to
Nuneaton route is being upgraded with this in mind.

They are using a wholly electrified route and will have to switch to
diesels if they get gauge enhancement via Ipswich-Nuneaton. There are a
number of advantages in electric traction.

There is no doubt in my mind that running only three-car passenger trains
on that route is the approach that is casual with precious capacity.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , Edward Cowling
London UK writes

So come on Ken, if you want a third term, give London some decent
transport. Filling the roads with busses isn't good enough.


Maybe Silverlink read newsgroups....

We've had guards on about 90% of the trains this week, and they've been
shooing away bikes from crowded trains.

The shouting in people ears at Highbury & Islington has stopped.

Every little helps.


--
Edward Cowling London UK