Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Paul Scott wrote:

This map was pointed out recently on ORR site, gives a fair idea of
the impact of crossrail on the existing lines...

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...le_line_GW.pdf

Interesting!

Just west of the portal is a feature comprising a plethora of
crossovers, a two-track siding, through lines and a platform around
the whole lot. I assume this is the famous Westbourne Park turnback
siding. I read recently that it would be possible for passengers to
be turned off the train here; i assume that's what the platform's
for. However, the map makes it look like there will be platform faces
on the through lines as well.

Not necessarily. The map makes no distinction between a platform edge
facing the track and the back of a single platform bounded by a wall. Look
at platforms 1 and 12 at Paddington, for example.

However, one would expect a turnback siding with two tracks would have at
most an island platform bewteen the tracks. Perhaps there is an intention
to have platforms on the running lines here for emergency use.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Tom Anderson wrote:

Just west of the portal is a feature comprising a plethora of crossovers,
a two-track siding, through lines and a platform around the whole lot. I
assume this is the famous Westbourne Park turnback siding. I read recently
that it would be possible for passengers to be turned off the train here;
i assume that's what the platform's for. However, the map makes it look
like there will be platform faces on the through lines as well. Is this
then, in effect, a station? Just one where no trains will stop?

The environmental statement specifically states the sidings will have
four tracks/platforms, so I'm surprised to see there aren't two
running lines in addition. The northernmost platform appears to double
as the eastbound running line.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Sat, 4 Aug 2007, Mr Thant wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Just west of the portal is a feature comprising a plethora of
crossovers, a two-track siding, through lines and a platform around the
whole lot. I assume this is the famous Westbourne Park turnback siding.
I read recently that it would be possible for passengers to be turned
off the train here; i assume that's what the platform's for. However,
the map makes it look like there will be platform faces on the through
lines as well. Is this then, in effect, a station? Just one where no
trains will stop?

The environmental statement specifically states the sidings will have
four tracks/platforms, so I'm surprised to see there aren't two running
lines in addition. The northernmost platform appears to double as the
eastbound running line.

It says:

"8.3.6 A reversing facility will be constructed at Westbourne Park, to the
west of Royal Oak portal to enable Crossrail trains terminating at
Paddington to turn around. To meet safety requirements that all trains are
cleared of passengers before going out of service, Crossrail must provide
a facility where trains terminating at Paddington can be inspected. To
ensure that services following behind are not significantly delayed, the
facility needs to ensure that trains being inspected can be overtaken or
two trains can be inspected concurrently.

"8.3.7 The reversing facility will consist of:

- two 210 m length island platforms and four tracks; and
- emergency access to/from the street via footbridges."

The key phrase seems to me to be "trains being inspected can be overtaken
or two trains can be inspected concurrently"; the 'or' means that you need
to be able to have a through train overtake a single stopped train, or to
have two trains stopped at once. Two roads in either direction does that.
Now, this description, and the maps attatched, indicate that we've got an
Edgware Road-like setup, with all four roads going through around two
islands. The diagram i was commenting on above shows something different -
through lines at the edge, and terminating bays in the middle. I assume
that's just out of date.

tom

--
Love as a principle and order as the basis; progress as the goal.

In article , Paul Scott
writes
This map was pointed out recently on ORR site, gives a fair idea of the
impact of crossrail on the existing lines...

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...le_line_GW.pdf

It would appear that a turntable is going to be added to North Pole
Depot!

I also note that the new eastern access to North Pole is curiously
indirect.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
In article , Paul Scott
writes
This map was pointed out recently on ORR site, gives a fair idea of the
impact of crossrail on the existing lines...

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...le_line_GW.pdf

It would appear that a turntable is going to be added to North Pole Depot!

I also note that the new eastern access to North Pole is curiously
indirect.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:
The turntable is presumably a like-for-like replacement for the one at the
current Old Oak Common depot, which EWS seem to be ceding to Crossrail. The
access to North Pole seems indirect, but this is presumably to allow use of
the existing carriage line flyover towards the Relief lines, rather than
having a direct access to the Down Main, which would mean all light engine
workings etc having to cross the Up Main on the flat. How much use do EWS
make of their current depot at Old Oak at present- it seems to be largely a
repository for stored stock. The North Pole premises would seem to be
somewhat overspecified, unless the idea is also to transfer FGW HST
maintenance or servicing there.
Brian

In article , BH Williams
writes
The
access to North Pole seems indirect, but this is presumably to allow use of
the existing carriage line flyover towards the Relief lines, rather than
having a direct access to the Down Main, which would mean all light engine
workings etc having to cross the Up Main on the flat.

That's not what I mean. The plan shows an access from the Down Main at
Portobello Junction, but any train making that access will have to run
half way to the flyover, shunt backwards into a headshunt, then run
forwards into the depot. One additional crossover anywhere between
Portobello and the flyover would make things a lot simpler.

Obviously you want access off the flyover, and that will require use of
the headshunt. But why force the double reverse on anything coming out
of the south side of Paddy?

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Aug 6, 4:46 pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
Obviously you want access off the flyover, and that will require use of
the headshunt. But why force the double reverse on anything coming out
of the south side of Paddy?

The layout at Shenfield is equally curious:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...le_line_GE.pdf

Why is the Southend down diveunder connected solely to the Crossrail
up platform?

Also, no crossovers are shown in the central section:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...central_SE.pdf

Unless I've missed something, there should be one east of Farringdon.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:11:55 -0700, W14_Fishbourne
wrote:

On Aug 2, 6:58 pm, Neal wrote:


This is certainly my favourite option! I think they should be given
control of the entire London suburban rail network and run it as part
of the Overground as franchises expire..

It may have escaped your notice but Maidenhead and Shenfield are not
part of London, so why should Ken or Boris run the trains that serve
them? Fine by me if London ratepayers pick up the tab, but I somehow
suspect that that's not the intention.

To put it another way, if Ken or Boris should run those trains, why
shouldn't they run all the trains that serve London? I somehow think
that the people of Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, etc, might have
something to say about their trains to London being run by the MoL.
Even if you exclude those trains, the London commuter-belt goes out a
long way these days: Bournemouth, Bristol, Northampton, Grantham,
Cambridge, Norwich, Southend.

In New York, the Connecticut commuter trains are run jointly by the
Connecticut Dept. of Transportation and the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority. They pay for the line in accordance with the proportion of trackage
in each state.

No reason why TfL shouldn't run Crossrail with Essex along the same lines.
--
Chris Hansen | chrishansenhome at btinternet dot com
| http://www.christianphansen.com
| http://chrishansenhome.livejournal.com

On 6 Aug, 18:38, Mr Thant
wrote:
Also, no crossovers are shown in the central section:http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...ingle_line_cen...

Unless I've missed something, there should be one east of Farringdon.


ISTR this got dropped at some point during the consultation process,
because it would've been underneath something highly breakable.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Mr Thant wrote:

On Aug 6, 4:46 pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:

Obviously you want access off the flyover, and that will require use of
the headshunt. But why force the double reverse on anything coming out
of the south side of Paddy?

The layout at Shenfield is equally curious:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...le_line_GE.pdf

Why is the Southend down diveunder connected solely to the Crossrail
up platform?

It's not - look at the colours again; Crossrail only uses the northernmost
island, via the existing track to the south of it (in orange), plus a new
stub on the north side (in red). The down Southend is accessed from the
blue and black track which runs past the north side of the middle island.

Furthermore, if you look at the mess of pointwork to the west, it looks
like there's a way to get trains from the slows to the Crossrail platform
without conflicting with moves from the fasts to the non-Crossrail
platforms: trains coming in on the down slow take the westernmost slip
linking that line to the new loop that leads into the new northern
terminating track; leaving, they take the slip onto the current down slow
(resignalled for up trains), and then the westernmost new slip linking the
current up and down slows. That would mean no Crossrail train ever runs on
the current up slow east of the westernmost new slip, and so trains coming
along the down fast and bound for Southend can use this, reached via the
new slip linking the down fast to the current up slow, to get to the
middle island and the down Southend. The odd thing is that you can't reach
the southern face of the northern island that way: there would have to be
a crossover in place of the slip that leads from the current down slow to
the new Crossrail terminating track. This only creates conflict between
Crossrail trains arriving into the southern platform and those departing
the northern platform, though; there's no conflict with trains on the
fasts. If enough things are bidirectionally signalled, then such a
conflict could be smoothed over by working the departing train into the
new loop, passing the arriving train on the wrong side, then reaching the
up slow via two slips (one new, one old) in rapid succession. If there was
another train arriving at that point, it would hit it, but there won't be.

Also, no crossovers are shown in the central section:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...central_SE.pdf

That seems like a really bad idea. Any problem in the tunnel means
reversing everything at the portals.

tom

--
OK, mostly because of Tom, but not only because of his bloody irritating
character and songs.