On Dec 22, 3:34*pm, wrote:
On Dec 22, 2:35*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:





On 22 Dec, 13:30, Boltar wrote:

Quote why it needs 3 years to be converted to 3rd rail when the 3rd
rail is already there is anyones guess. Usual lazy british contractors
who take 2 weeks to change a lightbulb no doubt. The extensions to the
line shouldn't effect the bit in the middle so I can't see a good
reason to close it.

As I mentioned recently, the work isn't taking 3 years. London
Underground are being given 3 months to pack up their things and
leave, and it's expected to be ready for test running by June 2009. So
that's a little over one year of construction. Plus their optimistic
projection is currently November 2009, which would make it closed for
less than two years.

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

Bear in mind also that the existing stations (except Canada Water,
which is of recent construction) will require to be upgraded to be DDA
compliant, which at Shadwell, Wapping and Rotherhithe, for example,
will require new lifts and cross-passageways. (Surrey Quays is a
surface station in a cutting, but this will probably require lifts as
there is little space for ramps.) I also suspect that the narrow
platforms at Wapping will have to be widened, which will involve
widening the tunnel - a major civil engineering task in its own right.
In addition, platforms will require to be lengthend, which at
Rotherhithe and Wapping will require opening out the tunnels (the new
class 378s will, I presume, be 20m vehicles whereas the A stock is
noticeably shorter).

In the case of the power supply, there will be a requirement to ensure
that stray traction return currents do not cause corrosion of running
rails, buried services etc; this will require significant work in its
own right. In addition, what is happening to the power system? Does it
transfer to NR ownership or does it remain in the ownership of the
consortium that owns the rest of the LU power supply system? Does it
need upgrading to cope with longer, heavier and more frequent trains?
If nothing else, new substations and feeder cables will be required on
the northern extension; the additional loadings resulting from this
may require upgrading of the power supply elsewhere, and possible
negotiations with the public electricity suppliers.

Then there is resignalling; I presume the line will be resignalled to
NR standards to achieve compatibility with the lines to its north and
south and to avoid the 378s having to be fitted with LUL train stops
as well as TPWS. Does anyone know what has been specified for the
signalling?

Finally, a new flyover is to be built at New Cross Gate to allow
northbound trains from the Brighton Line to gain access to the ELL.
This will require significant works in its own right.

As you can see, there is a lot more to it than meets the eye - HTH!-

My objection would not be how long it takes, but that it's the wrong
project. I don't understand why an orbital railway is such an
important goal. Well, I do. It's a way for a politician to make his
mark an a more obvious way than any general improvement in transport.

An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them. I've mentioned many times that the
trains from the Forest Hill direction are appallingly overcrowded. I
can't see how it improves things to shorten them to fit the ELL and
divert them to Hackney. Even if changing at Canada Water is not
perceived as an extra burden, it doesn't resolve the issue of the
short trains.

MIG wrote:

My objection would not be how long it takes, but that it's the wrong
project. I don't understand why an orbital railway is such an
important goal. Well, I do. It's a way for a politician to make his
mark an a more obvious way than any general improvement in transport.

An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them.

An orbital route is a very good thing to have. London is teaming with
radial transport, there's very little that goes round!

The North London Line as it is at the moment is too infrequent and
passes too many radial tube lines without connecting to them

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Stuart wrote:

MIG wrote:

My objection would not be how long it takes, but that it's the wrong
project. I don't understand why an orbital railway is such an
important goal. Well, I do. It's a way for a politician to make his
mark an a more obvious way than any general improvement in transport.

An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them.

An orbital route is a very good thing to have. London is teaming with
radial transport,

Yes, but there *still* *isn't* *enough*! Look at where the most
overcrowded lines go - they're all radial!

there's very little that goes round!

Because there are very few people who go round.

I'm not saying there's no use for orbital services - quite clearly, there
is, and i look forward to the NLL having a frequency and last train time
which make it a viable option for me to travel between my friends in
Kilburn and Camden and my house in Islington instead of taking a tube via
the middle of town. But the simple fact is that the vast majority of the
demand is for radial travel, not orbital. We could, and in fact we will,
argue about how much the demand follows the existing provision until the
cows come home, but that's the situation now, and the situation that needs
addressing.

I should declare, to fend off counter-anti-orbitalist outrage, that i'm in
favour of the ELL and its X. It's pretty cheap, and the station at
Shoreditch High Street is close enough to the City that it functions as a
semi-radial line, so it will be a very useful commuting link for the inner
suburbs, as well as being a handy way to dodge between north- and
south-eastern suburbs. Indeed, when it opens up, i may even ask out that
nice girl who lives in Bexleyheath ...

The North London Line as it is at the moment is too infrequent and
passes too many radial tube lines without connecting to them

Agreed, but i'm not aware of any plans to do anything about the latter.

tom

--
Ten years on, and there is still nothing like this bizarre tale of
biomechanical space madness.

Am Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:11:34 UTC, schrieb Tom Anderson
auf uk.railway :

I'm not saying there's no use for orbital services - quite clearly, there
is, and i look forward to the NLL having a frequency and last train time
which make it a viable option for me to travel between my friends in
Kilburn and Camden and my house in Islington instead of taking a tube via
the middle of town. But the simple fact is that the vast majority of the
demand is for radial travel, not orbital.

Are you sure that there are not more like you, who clog the radial
lines just to make a trip which could well be done by an orbital line?



Curious,
L.W.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, MIG wrote:

An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them. I've mentioned many times that the
trains from the Forest Hill direction are appallingly overcrowded. I
can't see how it improves things to shorten them to fit the ELL and
divert them to Hackney.

Because if they go to Hackney, no bugger'll get on them. SOLVED!

tom

--
Ten years on, and there is still nothing like this bizarre tale of
biomechanical space madness.

On Dec 23, 5:02*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, MIG wrote:
An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them. I've mentioned many times that the
trains from the Forest Hill direction are appallingly overcrowded. *I
can't see how it improves things to shorten them to fit the ELL and
divert them to Hackney.

Because if they go to Hackney, no bugger'll get on them. SOLVED!


Sadly not quite true if the supposed alternative route to London
Bridge is to change to the Jubilee at Canada Water.

So instead of overcrowded trains going direct to London Bridge, there
will be trains of half the length, and double the crowding, requiring
a longer journey and a change.

Nice and empty after Canada Water if one did go to Hackney though,
because anyone whose normal journey is from Surrey Quays to
Whitechapel won't be able to get on.

(Before anyone mentions it, I know that some people change to the
Jubilee anyway, so won't need an extra change, but certainly won't be
helped.)

On 23 Dec, 17:02, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, MIG wrote:
An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them. I've mentioned many times that the
trains from the Forest Hill direction are appallingly overcrowded. I
can't see how it improves things to shorten them to fit the ELL and
divert them to Hackney.

Because if they go to Hackney, no bugger'll get on them. SOLVED!

tom



I'm going to be revisiting this post later to set things straight!

MIG wrote in
:

An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them. I've mentioned many times that the
trains from the Forest Hill direction are appallingly overcrowded. I
can't see how it improves things to shorten them to fit the ELL and
divert them to Hackney. Even if changing at Canada Water is not
perceived as an extra burden, it doesn't resolve the issue of the
short trains.

Isn't the intention that these are extra trains south of New Cross Gate,
and not replacing the existing service?

David

On Dec 23, 9:46*pm, David Jackman pleasereplytogroup wrote:
MIG wrote :

An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them. *I've mentioned many times that the
trains from the Forest Hill direction are appallingly overcrowded. *I
can't see how it improves things to shorten them to fit the ELL and
divert them to Hackney. *Even if changing at Canada Water is not
perceived as an extra burden, it doesn't resolve the issue of the
short trains.

Isn't the intention that these are extra trains south of New Cross Gate,
and not replacing the existing service?


That would be nice, but if they can fit more trains in, I wonder why
they don't already, on such an overcrowded route.

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On Dec 23, 9:46 pm, David Jackman pleasereplytogroup wrote:
MIG wrote
:

An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them. I've mentioned many times that the
trains from the Forest Hill direction are appallingly overcrowded. I
can't see how it improves things to shorten them to fit the ELL and
divert them to Hackney. Even if changing at Canada Water is not
perceived as an extra burden, it doesn't resolve the issue of the
short trains.

Isn't the intention that these are extra trains south of New Cross Gate,
and not replacing the existing service?


That would be nice, but if they can fit more trains in, I wonder why
they don't already, on such an overcrowded route.


Probably not enough platforms/paths to deal with them at the various
existing termini, remember the recent discussions about the SLL, and how it
would have to be diverted anyway with the reduction in terminal platforms at
LB due to Thameslink. Dalston Junction and Highbury and Islington will
effectively become 4 additional terminating platforms for the Southeastern
network, notwithstanding being LO services.

Dave A attempted to summarise on his site a year or more ago:

http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/3

There's a table about 1/3 of the way down, suggests a couple of calls per
hour by existing trains might be lost.

Paul S