|
New DLR station opened today
On Dec 13, 6:36 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Paul Scott wrote: "Tom Anderson" wrote in message th.li... On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Andy wrote: On Dec 12, 6:21 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Andy wrote: and there would be no connection back onto the LUL system for major servicing anyway. The St. Mary's curve to the District / Hammersmith & City lines is due to be taken out early next year and so the line will be 'on its own' with no connections to NR or LUL for a long time. Why is this link being removed? Are platforms being extended over it or something? Its only purpose is for ELL trains to get back to their main depot - Neasden is it? Once the ELL is rebuilt for main line spec trains, they will have no requirement to enter the LU system, indeed they are probably out of gauge for length anyway. The power supply and signalling systems at either side of the curve will be incompatible, so the track connection would appear irrelevant and unnecessary. I smell circular reasoning! Why can't the ELL going to use A stock? Because St Mary's curve is being taken out. Why is St Mary's curve being taken out? Because the ELL isn't going to use A stock! If the curve was left in, and other provisions made for continuing to run tube trains, the line could reopen soon and carry on running as before until the extensions are ready, at which point it could go over to NR operation. Yes, this would be more difficult and expensive than the current plan, but it would also mean that an entire line didn't have to close for three years! Apart from having a fourth rail, what would need to be done to make the line tube-friendly? I imagine NR signals would be fine, you'd just have to train drivers to read those instead of LU signals (do they do this already towards Richmond and Amersham?). What's the situation with platform height? Interestingly, the Always Touch Out website says that the infrastructure works were planned to be completed by May 2009 with test running from there on as some stock would be available. However, there appears to be some 'funny' dates in the construction section of the link. http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/3. I've not been able to find any other information about the timescale of the infrastructure works. If this outline plan is correct, then I could certainly see a much earlier reopening, providing that there are enough Class 378s are available to run a service. Another consideration with running A Stock on the route is how would you deal with the interface between LUL and NR signalling on the St. Mary's curve? The curve is only 450m junction to junction and the standard National Rail overlap is 200 yards (185m). There are already restrictions on the curve: only one train is allowed on the connection at once due to clearance issues with a train going the otherway. You would also need a trip cock tester on the curve or you would need to install temporary tripcocks to allow the A-stock to run. On the other shared lines, tripcocks are fitted to the signals and the NR trains (Class 313 in all cases) are also fitted. I also know that Always Touch Out says that the St. Mary's Curve will be retained, but I think that this information has changed now. |
New DLR station opened today
On Dec 13, 3:34 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Paul Scott wrote: "Lew 1" wrote in message ... And it's still going to have NR-style frequencies, unlike the tube. Surely that's only in the short-term though? I understood that the aim was to create mass transit systems out of them, ala the current Underground frequency. I may be wrong. Achieving mass transit frequencies on a heavy rail route (say 24tph) is the sort of thing provided by Crossrail or Thameslink, at a cost of £billions. The Overground is a much more modest affair Is there anything technical about the Overground that prohibits that sort of frequency, in terms of rails and whatever? I thought it was just that the demand does't (yet) justify spending money to achieve it. Plus, the need for freight paths and working in with other NR services down south. The main problem is the lack of paths on the section between Stratford and Camden Road / Willesden Junction. Don't forget that there is only 4 tph at the moment, with an increase to about 6tph in the peaks (but irregular intervals). There is no reason that the frequency can't increase from the infrastructure, but the freight paths tend to block things up in between Stratford and Dalston and at Camden Road, where there are only two tracks. The central section between Dalston and Camden Road has 3-4 tracks and so there is a bit more capacity. The other problem at the moment is a lack of trains to run the service!! |
New DLR station opened today
On Dec 13, 6:58 pm, Mizter T wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: (snip) I smell circular reasoning! Why can't the ELL going to use A stock? Because St Mary's curve is being taken out. Why is St Mary's curve being taken out? Because the ELL isn't going to use A stock! (snip) I haven't been following the rest of the discussion, however I saw the above comments and will just add that I thought St. Mary's curve was staying in. I think that it was originally, but it would only have been as a through siding, not as a fully signalled through route. |
New DLR station opened today
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:13:54 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote: You will only ever see NLL & WLL frequency increasing incrementally, up to 4, 6 or maybe 8 tph over overlapping sections of the line, because it is also a goods line. When Ken talks about 'metro style frequencies' he seems to mean better than 4 tph, which is when it is considered (by many) that you don't need to worry about the timetable. Indeed - what LO will become is probably something similar to Merseyrail - decent quality, all stations staffed, good PIS, pretty reliable (these days) but still only on 15-minute headways on the branches. I find that comment about timetables interesting, though; I personally will wish to use one unless the frequency is better than every 5, which on another note is why the lack of timetable information on London bus routes gets right on my nerves. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
New DLR station opened today
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:13:54 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote: You will only ever see NLL & WLL frequency increasing incrementally, up to 4, 6 or maybe 8 tph over overlapping sections of the line, because it is also a goods line. When Ken talks about 'metro style frequencies' he seems to mean better than 4 tph, which is when it is considered (by many) that you don't need to worry about the timetable. Aren't they planning to eventually send the goods trains over a different route? |
New DLR station opened today
wrote in message . uk... On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:13:54 -0000, "Paul Scott" wrote: You will only ever see NLL & WLL frequency increasing incrementally, up to 4, 6 or maybe 8 tph over overlapping sections of the line, because it is also a goods line. When Ken talks about 'metro style frequencies' he seems to mean better than 4 tph, which is when it is considered (by many) that you don't need to worry about the timetable. Aren't they planning to eventually send the goods trains over a different route? Some may, but the line is really the only sensible way stuff like construction aggregates can get from west to east for London's own requirements, its not all just passing through... Paul |
New DLR station opened today
Less welcome is the fact that passengers on the Stratford branch now
have no trains beyond Canary Wharf after 10am in the morning. Thanks! And still the only branch with no service to the city. |
New DLR station opened today
On 14 Dec, 12:34, wrote:
Less welcome is the fact that passengers on the Stratford branch now have no trains beyond Canary Wharf after 10am in the morning. Thanks! The interchange isn't the world's most arduous. And still the only branch with no service to the city. Luckily, there are big blue trains with rainbows on the side, or small white trains with red doors if you prefer, that will do that job for you. I think it's fair to say that Stratford/City links are not a major problem... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
New DLR station opened today
On 14 Dec, 12:42, John B wrote:
On 14 Dec, 12:34, wrote: Less welcome is the fact that passengers on the Stratford branch now have no trains beyond Canary Wharf after 10am in the morning. Thanks! The interchange isn't the world's most arduous. John, have you ever tried changing at Poplar? It's hard work... there's at least 5 metres to walk across the island platform, plus the trains often pull in to the platform at the same time... Nonetheless direct services all the way from A to B will always be attractive I suppose. And still the only branch with no service to the city. Luckily, there are big blue trains with rainbows on the side, or small white trains with red doors if you prefer, that will do that job for you. I think it's fair to say that Stratford/City links are not a major problem... Quite! Though of course pax bound for the City from other stations on the Stratford branch will indeed have to change at Poplar, though it ain't hard. Taking into account the posters email address... City-bound folk from Bow Road could of course just get on the District line. |
New DLR station opened today
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Andy wrote:
On Dec 13, 6:58 pm, Mizter T wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: (snip) I smell circular reasoning! Why can't the ELL going to use A stock? Because St Mary's curve is being taken out. Why is St Mary's curve being taken out? Because the ELL isn't going to use A stock! (snip) I haven't been following the rest of the discussion, however I saw the above comments and will just add that I thought St. Mary's curve was staying in. I think that it was originally, but it would only have been as a through siding, not as a fully signalled through route. What's a 'through siding'? Does that mean it's a through route, but signalled differently - presumably, in a cheaper but lower-capacity way? Since it'd only be used for stock transfers, that would have been fine, i think. tom -- REMOVE AND DESTROY |
New DLR station opened today
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Andy wrote:
On Dec 13, 6:36 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Paul Scott wrote: "Tom Anderson" wrote in message h.li... On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Andy wrote: On Dec 12, 6:21 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Andy wrote: and there would be no connection back onto the LUL system for major servicing anyway. The St. Mary's curve to the District / Hammersmith & City lines is due to be taken out early next year and so the line will be 'on its own' with no connections to NR or LUL for a long time. Why is this link being removed? Are platforms being extended over it or something? Its only purpose is for ELL trains to get back to their main depot - Neasden is it? Once the ELL is rebuilt for main line spec trains, they will have no requirement to enter the LU system, indeed they are probably out of gauge for length anyway. The power supply and signalling systems at either side of the curve will be incompatible, so the track connection would appear irrelevant and unnecessary. I smell circular reasoning! Why can't the ELL going to use A stock? Because St Mary's curve is being taken out. Why is St Mary's curve being taken out? Because the ELL isn't going to use A stock! If the curve was left in, and other provisions made for continuing to run tube trains, the line could reopen soon and carry on running as before until the extensions are ready, at which point it could go over to NR operation. Yes, this would be more difficult and expensive than the current plan, but it would also mean that an entire line didn't have to close for three years! Apart from having a fourth rail, what would need to be done to make the line tube-friendly? I imagine NR signals would be fine, you'd just have to train drivers to read those instead of LU signals (do they do this already towards Richmond and Amersham?). What's the situation with platform height? Interestingly, the Always Touch Out website says that the infrastructure works were planned to be completed by May 2009 with test running from there on as some stock would be available. However, there appears to be some 'funny' dates in the construction section of the link. http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/3. I've not been able to find any other information about the timescale of the infrastructure works. If this outline plan is correct, then I could certainly see a much earlier reopening, providing that there are enough Class 378s are available to run a service. Aha. Let's hope! Another consideration with running A Stock on the route is how would you deal with the interface between LUL and NR signalling on the St. Mary's curve? The curve is only 450m junction to junction and the standard National Rail overlap is 200 yards (185m). There are already restrictions on the curve: only one train is allowed on the connection at once due to clearance issues with a train going the otherway. I think i'd run the whole thing as some sort of special-case token-based thing, where signallers have to manually lock the section the train is moving into, then order it to move, and then put the system back to automatic when it's in the right place. Assuming that's possible. It's a link that would see very little traffic, so this should be adequate. You would also need a trip cock tester on the curve or you would need to install temporary tripcocks to allow the A-stock to run. Good point. On the other shared lines, tripcocks are fitted to the signals and the NR trains (Class 313 in all cases) are also fitted. Interesting. Probably not appropriate in this case, as the use of LU stock would only be temporary. tom -- REMOVE AND DESTROY |
New DLR station opened today
In article , Tom
Anderson writes Apart from having a fourth rail, what would need to be done to make the line tube-friendly? I imagine NR signals would be fine, you'd just have to train drivers to read those instead of LU signals (do they do this already towards Richmond and Amersham?). Richmond, yes, but Amersham has LU signals. -- 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: |
New DLR station opened today
On 13 Dec, 18:36, Tom Anderson wrote: I smell circular reasoning! Why can't the ELL going to use A stock? Because it's over forty years old, built to a larger loading gauge than the NR surface lines, and can't cope with third rail power. But apart from that, it's perfect... |
New DLR station opened today
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, solar penguin wrote:
On 13 Dec, 18:36, Tom Anderson wrote: I smell circular reasoning! Why can't the ELL going to use A stock? Because it's over forty years old, Still seems to work alright. We're only talking about carrying on for a few years, until the extended ELL is ready to roll. ISTM that it's better than no trains at all. built to a larger loading gauge than the NR surface lines, But evidently quite happily squeezes through the existing ELL route, which is what i was demanding. and can't cope with third rail power. Earth^W Traction current return rail-bonded fourth rail, as at Richmond. But apart from that, it's perfect... Bit boxy for my personal taste, but commuters can't be choosers, eh? tom -- Linux is like a FreeBSD fork maintained by 10 year old retards. -- Encyclopedia Dramatica |
New DLR station opened today
On 13 Dec, 21:53, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:13:54 -0000, "Paul Scott" wrote: You will only ever see NLL & WLL frequency increasing incrementally, up to 4, 6 or maybe 8 tph over overlapping sections of the line, because it is also a goods line. When Ken talks about 'metro style frequencies' he seems to mean better than 4 tph, which is when it is considered (by many) that you don't need to worry about the timetable. Aren't they planning to eventually send the goods trains over a different route? As far as I remember, they wanted to send goods trains via the east london thames crossing, and a new rail link (or, more accurately, the resurrection of an old one) going from oxford to cambridge. |
New DLR station opened today
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Andy wrote: On Dec 12, 6:21 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Andy wrote: and there would be no connection back onto the LUL system for major servicing anyway. I hadn't realised that was happening. Is there a huge problem with doing occasional stock transfers over NR lines? Apart from the fact that the route would via Clapham Junction, some maneuvers out West, and the Dudden Hill branch ... And where would the connection onto National Rail be? At New Cross or New Cross Gate. UIVMM, there will be no connection at New Cross. |
New DLR station opened today
Less welcome is the fact that passengers on the Stratford branch now have no trains beyond Canary Wharf after 10am in the morning. Thanks! Also I'm amazed that new 5 minute service is only between 9:30 and 15:30 - which makes it totally useless since DLR Stratford service is usually overloaded during 7:00-9:00, 17:00-19:00 peaks... And still the only branch with no service to the city. Well, considering that National Rail to Liverpool Street and Central line to Liverpool Street and Bank is just a minute away via new convenient footbridge - this is the least issue of all possible. |
New DLR station opened today
"alex_t" wrote in message ... Less welcome is the fact that passengers on the Stratford branch now have no trains beyond Canary Wharf after 10am in the morning. Thanks! Also I'm amazed that new 5 minute service is only between 9:30 and 15:30 - which makes it totally useless since DLR Stratford service is usually overloaded during 7:00-9:00, 17:00-19:00 peaks... Is it possible that the timetable is temporary while awaiting additional stock to be delivered? Paul S |
New DLR station opened today
On 15 Dec, 11:11, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"alex_t" wrote: Less welcome is the fact that passengers on the Stratford branch now have no trains beyond Canary Wharf after 10am in the morning. Thanks! Also I'm amazed that new 5 minute service is only between 9:30 and 15:30 - which makes it totally useless since DLR Stratford service is usually overloaded during 7:00-9:00, 17:00-19:00 peaks... Is it possible that the timetable is temporary while awaiting additional stock to be delivered? Paul S I use the DLR fairly often, but I must admit I haven't followed the timetable changes closely. How long has the Stratford branch had this 10 minute frequency for? The Jubilee line obviously took much of the DLR's Stratford - Canary Wharf custom away, but given the long 'outerchange' between the Jubilee and DLR at Canary Wharf I expect that many passengers from Stratford heading for points south on the line to Lewisham would just take the DLR all the way. |
New DLR station opened today
The Jubilee line obviously took much of the DLR's Stratford - Canary
Wharf custom away, but given the long 'outerchange' between the Jubilee and DLR at Canary Wharf I expect that many passengers from Stratford heading for points south on the line to Lewisham would just take the DLR all the way. Why did they build Canary Wharf station like that? Couldn't they have put it on the western side of the dock instead of the eastern side, so that they could have a more direct connection? |
New DLR station opened today
On Dec 15, 11:21 am, Mizter T wrote:
On 15 Dec, 11:11, "Paul Scott" wrote: "alex_t" wrote: Less welcome is the fact that passengers on the Stratford branch now have no trains beyond Canary Wharf after 10am in the morning. Thanks! Also I'm amazed that new 5 minute service is only between 9:30 and 15:30 - which makes it totally useless since DLR Stratford service is usually overloaded during 7:00-9:00, 17:00-19:00 peaks... Is it possible that the timetable is temporary while awaiting additional stock to be delivered? Paul S I use the DLR fairly often, but I must admit I haven't followed the timetable changes closely. How long has the Stratford branch had this 10 minute frequency for? The Jubilee line obviously took much of the DLR's Stratford - Canary Wharf custom away, but given the long 'outerchange' between the Jubilee and DLR at Canary Wharf I expect that many passengers from Stratford heading for points south on the line to Lewisham would just take the DLR all the way. I have often travelled from the bottom part of the DLR to Bow. It's only Stratford itself for which there's an alternative, which is not a very good one as mentioned above. |
New DLR station opened today
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, lonelytraveller wrote:
On 13 Dec, 21:53, wrote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:13:54 -0000, "Paul Scott" wrote: You will only ever see NLL & WLL frequency increasing incrementally, up to 4, 6 or maybe 8 tph over overlapping sections of the line, because it is also a goods line. When Ken talks about 'metro style frequencies' he seems to mean better than 4 tph, which is when it is considered (by many) that you don't need to worry about the timetable. Aren't they planning to eventually send the goods trains over a different route? As far as I remember, they wanted to send goods trains via the east london thames crossing, and a new rail link (or, more accurately, the resurrection of an old one) going from oxford to cambridge. Most of the freight is coming from ports on the Essex bank of the Thames, either in the depths of Essex at Felixstowe (probably soon to be joined by an equally huge new container terminal at Harwich), or at the Gormandy end, smeared along the river around Purfleet, Thurrock and Tilbury, and a little bit further down at Coryton and another planned huge container terminal at Shell Haven. There's also the Ripple Lane freight yard and various work and docks in Dagenham, but i don't know how active those are these days. Anyway, a Thames crossing isn't really relevant to any of those ports. There are flows from kent, from the Tunnel and from the oil terminal at the Isle of Grain mostly. They're much smaller than the Essex flows. You're right about a cross-country link, but it's not Oxford to Cambridge, it's from Ipswich to Nuneaton. The tracks are there, but the route isn't suitable for freight trains. If it was, traffic between Felixstowe and the West Midlands (which is most of the traffic through Felixstowe) could go that way rather than via London. There is a plan to reopen Oxford-Cambridge, but it's not such an important freight axis. The cross-country route doesn't do anything about traffic generated by the ports nearer London, around Tilbury etc. One plan there is to use the Gospel Oak - Barking line for a lot more freight, possibly even closing it to passenger trains, i think, which would relieve the North London line between Stratford and Gospel Oak. If you could send all through-London freight that way, i think you could in theory run a tube-frequency service between Stratford and Gospel Oak. A long time ago, someone here proposed four-tracking the NLL all the way from Stratford to Camden Road, and argued that it was a practical thing to do. This would give you a route from the GEML and LTSR to the WCML, which is where freight wants to go, that would be completely segregated from the passenger tracks of the NLL. Skepticism about the possibility of the scheme has also been expressed, though. tom -- The most successful people are those who are good at plan B. -- James Yorke |
New DLR station opened today
"Tom Anderson" wrote There are flows from kent, from the Tunnel and from the oil terminal at the Isle of Grain mostly. They're much smaller than the Essex flows. Also container traffic from Thamesport at the Isle of Grain. There is a case to be made for freight to use High Speed 1, both from the Channel Tunnel (it is daft that the Ford parts train has to run all round London on congested commuter lines when there is a convenient connection from HS1 in teh Dagenham area. The Grain to Willesden container trainwould also have a better route via the Thames Tunnel and the Barking to Gospel Oak line, though unless a diesel is allowed through the Thames Tunnel both Grain to Hoo Junction and Barking to Gospel Oak would need to be electrified. The cross-country route doesn't do anything about traffic generated by the ports nearer London, around Tilbury etc. One plan there is to use the Gospel Oak - Barking line for a lot more freight, possibly even closing it to passenger trains, i think, which would relieve the North London line between Stratford and Gospel Oak. If you could send all through-London freight that way, i think you could in theory run a tube-frequency service between Stratford and Gospel Oak. Barking to Gospel Oak is going to get a 4 tph passenger service, but this still leaves 3 or 4 freight paths once the line is resignalled. It really needs electrifying as well. A long time ago, someone here proposed four-tracking the NLL all the way from Stratford to Camden Road, and argued that it was a practical thing to do. This would give you a route from the GEML and LTSR to the WCML, which is where freight wants to go, that would be completely segregated from the passenger tracks of the NLL. Skepticism about the possibility of the scheme has also been expressed, though. It is likely that 4 tracks will be reinstated the whole way from Dalston to Camden Road, but the East London Line extension will be given exclusive use of the southern pair between Dalston Junction and Highbury & Islington, so freight will still have to run between passenger trains between Stratford and Acton as well as between Barking and Gospel Oak. Peter |
New DLR station opened today
On 15 Dec, 11:52, lonelytraveller
wrote: The Jubilee line obviously took much of the DLR's Stratford - Canary Wharf custom away, but given the long 'outerchange' between the Jubilee and DLR at Canary Wharf I expect that many passengers from Stratford heading for points south on the line to Lewisham would just take the DLR all the way. Why did they build Canary Wharf station like that? Couldn't they have put it on the western side of the dock instead of the eastern side, so that they could have a more direct connection? I don't know the details of the engineering considerations with regards to Canary Wharf Jubilee line station, but it was all a bit of a tight fit - the station box is a bit like a big dry dock. I don't think creating a perfect transport interchange with the DLR was at the top of the priority list here - the Jubilee line to the Wharf is all about getting people in and out. I find that the easiest change here is actually between Heron Quays DLR and Canary Wharf Jubilee, as getting from the Jubilee up to the Canary Wharf DLR platforms involves a little bit more faffing about However, some northbound DLR trains start from the middle platform at Canary Wharf (can't remember exactly which ones do, and what the pattern is throughout the day), so northbound passengers are perhaps best heading up there, though of course starting from Heron Quays might offer a better opportunity of a seat at busy times. Southbound passengers are of course best off heading to Heron Quays, unless again they wanted to try and get a seat at Canary Wharf - though I think this tactic would be less likely to succeed here. |
New DLR station opened today
On 15 Dec, 13:28, Tom Anderson wrote:
(snip) The cross-country route doesn't do anything about traffic generated by the ports nearer London, around Tilbury etc. One plan there is to use the Gospel Oak - Barking line for a lot more freight, possibly even closing it to passenger trains, i think, which would relieve the North London line between Stratford and Gospel Oak. If you could send all through-London freight that way, i think you could in theory run a tube-frequency service between Stratford and Gospel Oak. I don't think I've ever read about a serious proposal to close GOBLIN for passenger services and make it freight only. Certainly no such notion appears to be on TfL's radar. Could any kind of serious case be made for this - i.e. a strong enough argument to justify closing it for passenger services? (My gut instinct is that any such move would be a distinctly retrograde step, but I'm interested in the arguments.) |
New DLR station opened today
How long has the Stratford branch had this 10 minute frequency for? Since construction of Langdon Park started (some time during this summer). |
New DLR station opened today
|
New DLR station opened today
|
New DLR station opened today
|
New DLR station opened today
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Peter Masson wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote There are flows from kent, from the Tunnel and from the oil terminal at the Isle of Grain mostly. They're much smaller than the Essex flows. Also container traffic from Thamesport at the Isle of Grain. Oops, forgot that one! There is a case to be made for freight to use High Speed 1, both from the Channel Tunnel (it is daft that the Ford parts train has to run all round London on congested commuter lines when there is a convenient connection from HS1 in teh Dagenham area. I think this is a speed thing - the freight trains are presumably not running at 186 mph, so they consume a lot of capacity on the high speed link if they run to London. From the passenger operations point of view, it makes sense to get them off the fast path as soon as possible. There is a connection from the North Kent line to the HS1 tunnels under the Thames, at something called Springheaad junction, plugging in just down of Ebbsfleet; it would presumably be possible for freight trains to come off HS1 at Folkestone, make it up to Gravesendish on normal tracks, then hop back onto HS1 to cross the river, thus avoiding South London, but also not clogging up the high speed link. The one missing piece is a similar connection at Tilbury, so that freight trains could get back onto filthy normal lines once they're across the river, thus reducing the impact on high-speed trains still further. As it is, they have to carry on to the connection in Dagenham. The Grain to Willesden container trainwould also have a better route via the Thames Tunnel and the Barking to Gospel Oak line, Agreed. though unless a diesel is allowed through the Thames Tunnel both Grain to Hoo Junction and Barking to Gospel Oak would need to be electrified. A good idea anyway! Is the problem with diesel vehicles going through the tunnel at all, or with them doing it under their own power? If it's the latter, you could imagine a sort of shunting shuttle being used to move diesel trains from the Hoo yards to Ripple lane. If the former, i suppose you could do the same but actually remove the diesel engine; have a diesel shuttle from Grain to Hoo, an electric one from Hoo to Ripple Lane, and then put on your big engine for the trip up north from there. Probably simpler just to electrify! A long time ago, someone here proposed four-tracking the NLL all the way from Stratford to Camden Road, and argued that it was a practical thing to do. This would give you a route from the GEML and LTSR to the WCML, which is where freight wants to go, that would be completely segregated from the passenger tracks of the NLL. Skepticism about the possibility of the scheme has also been expressed, though. It is likely that 4 tracks will be reinstated the whole way from Dalston to Camden Road, but the East London Line extension will be given exclusive use of the southern pair between Dalston Junction and Highbury & Islington, so freight will still have to run between passenger trains between Stratford and Acton as well as between Barking and Gospel Oak. I think we went over the reasons for this, but it still seems funny. The ELL and NLL will both run at 8 tph between Dalston and H&I or Barnsbury, for 16 tph combined; this is easily accommodated on a single pair of tracks, even with a flat junction at Barnsbury. If that was done, you'd have a freight-only pair from Dalston to Camden Road. I suppose the freight still has to share with the planned Stratford - Queen's Park services west of there, and NLL services to the east, so perhaps this wouldn't actually be so great. If there were four tracks to Stratford, though, it would be a very big deal. Oh well. tom [1] http://www.alwaystouchout.com/projec...ceImprovements -- The major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the societies in which they occur. -- Alfred North Whitehead |
New DLR station opened today
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Mizter T wrote:
On 15 Dec, 13:28, Tom Anderson wrote: The cross-country route doesn't do anything about traffic generated by the ports nearer London, around Tilbury etc. One plan there is to use the Gospel Oak - Barking line for a lot more freight, possibly even closing it to passenger trains, i think, which would relieve the North London line between Stratford and Gospel Oak. If you could send all through-London freight that way, i think you could in theory run a tube-frequency service between Stratford and Gospel Oak. I don't think I've ever read about a serious proposal to close GOBLIN for passenger services and make it freight only. Certainly no such notion appears to be on TfL's radar. I remember it being in some sort of freight study a while ago. That doesn't mean that it actually was! The London East-West Study: http://www.crossrail.co.uk/80256B090053AF4C/Files/context16/$FILE/eastwest.pdf Says upgrade it, use it for freight, but retain the current passenger service. The 2003 London Rail Freight Study: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...t_ReportPB.pdf Says much the same (and refers to it, perhaps more accurately, as the Tottenham and Hampstead Line). So probably i imagined it. Hurrah! Could any kind of serious case be made for this - i.e. a strong enough argument to justify closing it for passenger services? The only case i can imagine would be based on (a) closing it allowing huge improvements to the NLL service and (b) providing a high-quality bus or tram network in the area the GOBLin serves. Neither of those sound likely. tom -- The major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the societies in which they occur. -- Alfred North Whitehead |
New DLR station opened today
Tom Anderson wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Peter Masson wrote: "Tom Anderson" wrote There are flows from kent, from the Tunnel and from the oil terminal at the Isle of Grain mostly. They're much smaller than the Essex flows. Also container traffic from Thamesport at the Isle of Grain. Oops, forgot that one! There is a case to be made for freight to use High Speed 1, both from the Channel Tunnel (it is daft that the Ford parts train has to run all round London on congested commuter lines when there is a convenient connection from HS1 in teh Dagenham area. I think this is a speed thing - the freight trains are presumably not running at 186 mph, so they consume a lot of capacity on the high speed link if they run to London. From the passenger operations point of view, it makes sense to get them off the fast path as soon as possible. There is a connection from the North Kent line to the HS1 tunnels under the Thames, at something called Springheaad junction, plugging in just down of Ebbsfleet; it would presumably be possible for freight trains to come off HS1 at Folkestone, make it up to Gravesendish on normal tracks, then hop back onto HS1 to cross the river, thus avoiding South London, but also not clogging up the high speed link. The one missing piece is a similar connection at Tilbury, so that freight trains could get back onto filthy normal lines once they're across the river, thus reducing the impact on high-speed trains still further. As it is, they have to carry on to the connection in Dagenham. This was discussed very recently on uk.railway - the solution is simple. The freight trains would not run at the same time as high speed trains - i.e. the freights would run at night. IIRC someone stated that a high speed line in Germany already operates along these lines. I don't know what the maintenance regime is with regards to HS1, but freight trains could perhaps run after the Eurostar (or potential future alternative high speed Chunnel trains) finish for the night. The Grain to Willesden container trainwould also have a better route via the Thames Tunnel and the Barking to Gospel Oak line, Agreed. How expensive would electrifying the GOBLIN be? I guess the follow on to that question is why does it cost as much as that? though unless a diesel is allowed through the Thames Tunnel both Grain to Hoo Junction and Barking to Gospel Oak would need to be electrified. A good idea anyway! Is the problem with diesel vehicles going through the tunnel at all, or with them doing it under their own power? If it's the latter, you could imagine a sort of shunting shuttle being used to move diesel trains from the Hoo yards to Ripple lane. If the former, i suppose you could do the same but actually remove the diesel engine; have a diesel shuttle from Grain to Hoo, an electric one from Hoo to Ripple Lane, and then put on your big engine for the trip up north from there. Probably simpler just to electrify! A long time ago, someone here proposed four-tracking the NLL all the way from Stratford to Camden Road, and argued that it was a practical thing to do. This would give you a route from the GEML and LTSR to the WCML, which is where freight wants to go, that would be completely segregated from the passenger tracks of the NLL. Skepticism about the possibility of the scheme has also been expressed, though. It is likely that 4 tracks will be reinstated the whole way from Dalston to Camden Road, but the East London Line extension will be given exclusive use of the southern pair between Dalston Junction and Highbury & Islington, so freight will still have to run between passenger trains between Stratford and Acton as well as between Barking and Gospel Oak. I think we went over the reasons for this, but it still seems funny. The ELL and NLL will both run at 8 tph between Dalston and H&I or Barnsbury, for 16 tph combined; this is easily accommodated on a single pair of tracks, even with a flat junction at Barnsbury. If that was done, you'd have a freight-only pair from Dalston to Camden Road. I suppose the freight still has to share with the planned Stratford - Queen's Park services west of there, and NLL services to the east, so perhaps this wouldn't actually be so great. If there were four tracks to Stratford, though, it would be a very big deal. Oh well. tom OK, excuse me for being a bit dense, I haven't entirely got my head around these new post-ELLX arrangements on the NLL yet. Peter has previously explained that there will be two pairs of tracks from the junction just west of Dalston[*] to Camden Rd, and ELLX will have exclusive use as far as H&I. So Canonbury station will have four platform faces, one for each track - and there will be separate platforms there for NLL and ELLX trains. What is to happen at H&I - are there to be separate platforms as well - and also what happens at Caledonian Road & Barnsbury, are the ELLX trains not actually going to terminate there - or are they going to turf everyone out at H&I and then reverse somewhere between H&I and Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury? Is there going to be any same platform interchange between NLL and ELLX at either H&I or Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury? This would have obvious benefits for the passenger, but I guess it would also have the consequence of meaning extended dwell times at whichever station the ELLX trains turf everyone out at - thus clogging the whole line up. AIUI lifts are in the pipeline at H&I - for the existing platforms at least - and one presumes that lifts would be provided for any new platforms, so the station would at least offer accessible level interchange for passengers to change platforms between ELLX and NLL. -----[*] Does anyone know what this junction west of Dalston, where the ELLX will join the NLL, will be called - presumably the same as what was it called back when it was open? I guess the blindingly obvious answer is Dalston Junction - however Loughborough Junction has a similar layout to that which used to exist in Dalston, and the two junctions from the curves onto the Chatham lines are called Canterbury Rd Jn and Cambria Jn - is the junction on the line to Elephant & Castle actually called Loughborough Junction? I presume it is - but then again it could be like the situation at Clapham Junction, where there isn't actually any railway junction that bears that name. All that said, if the southern pair of tracks are being used exclusively by ELLX services as far as H&I (at least) then there doesn't have to be a railway junction here at all, I suppose. |
New DLR station opened today
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:38:55 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote: I guess the blindingly obvious answer is Dalston Junction Well that's the name of the "new" station - same as the old one of course. On the OS map there are two curves joining what is now the NLL, east & west and no indication of any north route (i.e. to the main line c. Stoke Newington). |
New DLR station opened today
On 15 Dec, 20:19, G wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:38:55 -0800 (PST), Mizter T wrote: I guess the blindingly obvious answer is Dalston Junction Well that's the name of the "new" station - same as the old one of course. On the OS map there are two curves joining what is now the NLL, east & west and no indication of any north route (i.e. to the main line c. Stoke Newington). Yes, I was aware of that - I was really thinking about the actual name of the railway junction. AIUI each and every railway junction - and this includes a mere set of points - has an official name. There wasn't ever any north route from Dalston Jn towards Stoke Newington, so in that sense the situation at Dalston Jn isn't similar to the arrangement at at Loughborough Junction (and there are of course loads of other differences as well). This entry on Disused Stations includes an old map showing both curves: http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...on/index.shtml There were eastern and western curves from Dalston Jn went to what is now described as the North London Line. The western curve is the one that will be reinstated, the eastern curve meanwhile hosts part of the car park of the Kingsland Shopping Centre. None of the alignment of the eastern curve has been built over (tarmac for a car park doesn't count) so AFAICS it could be recovered - these photos illustrate that point (note that they weren't taken by me!): http://www.flickr.com/photos/albedo/273113135/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/albedo/273112797/ As the photographer speculates, perhaps both the eastern and western curves were safeguarded from development? The eastern curve potentially could come in useful in the future, so it'd might well be a good idea to ensure it doesn't get built over in the coming years (especially when Dalston gets popular with the arrival of the ELLX). Of course passengers from the east who want the ELLX will find that getting off their NLL train at Dalston Kingsland and walking the short distance to Dalston Junction station will also do the job. Going back to something you said - I had never considered the possibility of a line north from Dalston Jn towards Stoke Newington, meeting the Great Eastern line there. Of course now it ain't possible, given all the stuff in the way, but I wonder if it was ever considered. Probably not, given that the Stoke Newington line leads down to Liverpool Street which was bang slap next door to the now demolished Broad Street, terminus of the line from Dalston Jn. Nonetheless it would have been a shorter and hence quicker route into the City, avoiding the detour via Hackney and Bethnal Green that the Great Eastern route takes. |
New DLR station opened today
"Mizter T" wrote OK, excuse me for being a bit dense, I haven't entirely got my head around these new post-ELLX arrangements on the NLL yet. Peter has previously explained that there will be two pairs of tracks from the junction just west of Dalston[*] to Camden Rd, and ELLX will have exclusive use as far as H&I. So Canonbury station will have four platform faces, one for each track - and there will be separate platforms there for NLL and ELLX trains. What is to happen at H&I - are there to be separate platforms as well - and also what happens at Caledonian Road & Barnsbury, are the ELLX trains not actually going to terminate there - or are they going to turf everyone out at H&I and then reverse somewhere between H&I and Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury? Is there going to be any same platform interchange between NLL and ELLX at either H&I or Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury? This would have obvious benefits for the passenger, but I guess it would also have the consequence of meaning extended dwell times at whichever station the ELLX trains turf everyone out at - thus clogging the whole line up. AIUI lifts are in the pipeline at H&I - for the existing platforms at least - and one presumes that lifts would be provided for any new platforms, so the station would at least offer accessible level interchange for passengers to change platforms between ELLX and NLL. December Modern Railways suggests: Dalston to Highbury & Islington ELLX will have the southern pair and NLL the northern pair (doubled from Canonbury) with 4 platforms at each of Canonbury and H&I. ELLX will terminate in the platforms at H&I, though Dalston Junction will have 4 platforms, with the outer tracks for through trains to/from H&I and the inner pair for trains that terminate at Dalston Junction. From H&I to Camden Road the NLL will have 4 tracks, the southern pair westbound and the northern pair eastbound (though two tracks will have reversible signalling, presumably to allow service to continue if one pair is blocked for maintenance). Canonbury is shown as having three platforms (no platform face on the northernmost line, so this will presumably be mainly used for eastbound freight). Camden Road is also shown as having three platforms - from the south a westbound platform, a west-facing bay, an eastbound platform, and an eastbound line without a platform face. There will be a single track connection west of H&I between the ELLX and the NLL, presumably for stock transfer and maintenance trains - the ELLX and its trains will be DC only and presumably the NLL will become AC only west of Primrose Hill/Acton (though will still need dual voltage stock Peter |
New DLR station opened today
"Peter Masson" wrote in message ... "Mizter T" wrote OK, excuse me for being a bit dense, I haven't entirely got my head around these new post-ELLX arrangements on the NLL yet. Peter has previously explained that there will be two pairs of tracks from the junction just west of Dalston[*] to Camden Rd, and ELLX will have exclusive use as far as H&I. So Canonbury station will have four platform faces, one for each track - and there will be separate platforms there for NLL and ELLX trains. What is to happen at H&I - are there to be separate platforms as well - and also what happens at Caledonian Road & Barnsbury, are the ELLX trains not actually going to terminate there - or are they going to turf everyone out at H&I and then reverse somewhere between H&I and Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury? Is there going to be any same platform interchange between NLL and ELLX at either H&I or Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury? This would have obvious benefits for the passenger, but I guess it would also have the consequence of meaning extended dwell times at whichever station the ELLX trains turf everyone out at - thus clogging the whole line up. AIUI lifts are in the pipeline at H&I - for the existing platforms at least - and one presumes that lifts would be provided for any new platforms, so the station would at least offer accessible level interchange for passengers to change platforms between ELLX and NLL. December Modern Railways suggests: Dalston to Highbury & Islington ELLX will have the southern pair and NLL the northern pair (doubled from Canonbury) with 4 platforms at each of Canonbury and H&I. ELLX will terminate in the platforms at H&I, though Dalston Junction will have 4 platforms, with the outer tracks for through trains to/from H&I and the inner pair for trains that terminate at Dalston Junction. Having 4 platform faces at Dalston Junction seems a bit of an extravagance now that there will be dedicated tracks for the ELLX as far as H&I. How about a single centre turnback platform, save a bit on the station costs, and run more of the trains to H&I? I'm assuming here that the published proportion terminating at DJ possibly pre-dates the recent decision to four track to H&I allowing pairing by use... Paul S |
New DLR station opened today
In article
, Mizter T writes [*] Does anyone know what this junction west of Dalston, where the ELLX will join the NLL, will be called - presumably the same as what was it called back when it was open? It was called Dalston Western Junction. The other junction on the NLL was Dalston Eastern Junction. Dalston Junction signal box was at the south end of the station, where the two curves met. In diagram form (east at the top): | * Dalston Eastern Jn |\ | \ Dalston Junction (# = station) | \--###\ | /--###*------ to Haggerston | //--###*------ |// ** Dalston Western Jn || From west to east, the six tracks through the station we platform 1: Down No. 2 (Electric) platform 2: Up No. 2 (Electric) platform 3: Down No. 1 (Steam) platform 4: Up No. 1 (Steam) platform 5: Down Poplar platform 6: Up Poplar -- 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: |
New DLR station opened today
In article ,
Mizter T wrote: How expensive would electrifying the GOBLIN be? I guess the follow on to that question is why does it cost as much as that? TfL have suggested to the line's user group[1] that it would cost up to 40 million quid. They are not belived. [1] http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/ -- Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3! -- Flash |
New DLR station opened today
On 15 Dec, 18:42, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article , (lonelytraveller) wrote: As far as I remember, they wanted to send goods trains via the east london thames crossing, and a new rail link (or, more accurately, the resurrection of an old one) going from oxford to cambridge. Hollow laugh There has never been any central government support for re-opening Cambridge to Oxford and the consortium of local authorities has only ever promoted a passenger-only scheme. Not that Cambridge to Oxford ever had much through freight even before it closed in 1968. Its a major part of the East-West Rail plan. http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/ Its at GRIP stage 2, and currently has governmental support. And it includes freight. |
New DLR station opened today
"lonelytraveller" wrote in message ... On 15 Dec, 18:42, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote: In article , (lonelytraveller) wrote: As far as I remember, they wanted to send goods trains via the east london thames crossing, and a new rail link (or, more accurately, the resurrection of an old one) going from oxford to cambridge. Hollow laugh There has never been any central government support for re-opening Cambridge to Oxford and the consortium of local authorities has only ever promoted a passenger-only scheme. Not that Cambridge to Oxford ever had much through freight even before it closed in 1968. Its a major part of the East-West Rail plan. http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/ Its at GRIP stage 2, and currently has governmental support. And it includes freight. The current plan only includes _track_ as far as Bletchley. That allows for an additional freight route from the WCML at Bletchley towards Oxford, relieving the Nuneaton - Coventry - Leamington Spa - Banbury section of the existing route. Any extension towards Cambridge is on a totally separate timescale, and practically irrelevant as far as freight on the NLL/GOB is concerned. Paul |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk