On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Mr Thant wrote:

On Mar 31, 11:21*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
But that doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me. I don't see how any
branch going to Spitalfields could have anything to do with Cambridge
Heath.

If you look on Google Maps just south of Selby Street (north of
Whitechapel station) there's a bit where the cutting widens to the east,
which was the junction for Spitalfields goods yard. If you scroll up a
bit you can see a chunky curve of disused viaduct that led the GER
depot.

Aha, yes, thanks. I've never looked at this area on an aerial photo
properly before - there's loads of viaduct. Must have been an amazing
sight when the Bishopsgate and Spitalfields goods yards were still going.

The definition of "Spitalfields" must have been wider in the past,

Quite!

though Spitalfields City Farm is not far from the goods yard site.

The so-called wikipedia says that the name Spitalfields comes from the
back end of 'St Mary's Hospital Fields' (St Mary's Hospital being a
12th-century priory):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitalfields

I assume the front end gave us St Mary's station, and latterly curve.
Anyway, i suppose for a long time Spitalfields would have meant all the
former land of that priory, which was probably quite a lot. These days, i
tend to think of it as just meaning the market.

tom

--
DO NOT WANT!

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, wrote:

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:07:02 +0100
"Jack Taylor" wrote:
That's why they were proposing Finsbury Park as a terminus for some ELLX
services at one time.

A missed opportunity if ever there was one. It could have provided a
cross platform link for FCC & ECML passengers to docklands and the south
london lines and vice verca.

I didn't think you could achieve cross-platform interchange with both
Moorgate and KX trains. I've just got round to digging out my copy of
Quail to find out, but am little the wiser.

If you ran Canonbury trains into Finsbury Park, i think you'd have to
bring back the closed outermost platforms to do it, with the Canonbury
trains using the outer edges (which would presumably be numbered 0 on the
up and 7 on the down, or possibly 0 and -1 and 7 and 8, given that each
has two faces). That would give you cross-platform interchange with trains
calling at platforms 1 and 6, which means Moorgate trains and trains going
into, but not out of, KX on the slows. Not ECML trains.

In access terms, you could also run Canonbury trains into platforms 1 and
6 themselves, giving cross-platform interchange with 2 and 5, which serve
the up fast and down slow, and so ECML trains into KX, but again not out
of it. However, you'd only need to add one crossover between the Canonbury
and Moorgate lines south of the station to let Canonbury trains reach the
track between platforms 4 and 5, from where there would be cross-platform
interchange to platform 3, which is the down fast, where there are ECML
trains coming out of KX.

However, this is where it gets a bit messy. There's no way to reverse from
any down track to its corresponding up track at FP, apart from the fasts,
so you'd have to reverse out of whichever platform you used (resignalling
the Up Canonbury to bidirectional in the process, and presumably calling
it the Down & Up Canonbury to avoid confusion). That's not compatible with
running a high-frequency service on those tracks, which are also needed by
the Moorgate trains, so if this was done at all, it could only be
off-peak.

Furthermore, whether you use 0/7 or 1/6 (or 1/4), a given train will only
call at one of the pair, so it will either be able to deliver passengers
to down trains, or receive them from up trains, but not both. I'd hope
that the platform used would be selected to match the tidal flow, with 0
in the morning peaks and 7 in the evening, but you never know, and god
knows what you'd do in the middle of the day - alternate?

Anyway, as others have mentioned, all this involves crossing three tracks
on the flat on the way to FP, and two on the way back. Plus, something
that hasn't been mentioned, i think, is that the Canonbury curve is
single-track - the tunnel there isn't high enough to take two full-height
freight trains, so it was converted from two tracks to one in the middle
(where the arch is highest) when it became an important freight link.

tom

--
DO NOT WANT!

On 6 Apr, 14:25, Tom Anderson wrote:
However, you'd only need to add one crossover between the Canonbury
and Moorgate lines south of the station to let Canonbury trains reach the
track between platforms 4 and 5, from where there would be cross-platform
interchange to platform 3, which is the down fast, where there are ECML
trains coming out of KX.

Only a few trains use platform 3. Most are routed into 4/5.

It's also worth mentioning that the Network Rail business plan
includes bringing platform 0 back into use so Hertford-Moorgate trains
are segregated all the way from Alexandra Palace. That would make 7
the most likely option if this ever happened.

(there was also a long term suggestion in the ECML RUS to run inner-
suburbans to Canonbury and beyond once Moorgate is saturated, though
with no discussion of the NLL's capacity issues)

U

"Mr Thant" wrote in message
...

It's also worth mentioning that the Network Rail business plan
includes bringing platform 0 back into use so Hertford-Moorgate trains
are segregated all the way from Alexandra Palace. That would make 7
the most likely option if this ever happened.

There are proposed dates for this work in the latest NR enhancement plan,
and both up and down direction improvements are included, and they're
presumably already allowed for in the ORR's CP4 cost settlement.
Construction not due to start until late 2013 though, handback early 2014.

Detailed scope and rationale is at pages 98-101 of:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%...hancements.pdf


Paul S

Tom Anderson wrote:
Anyway, as others have mentioned, all this involves crossing three tracks
on the flat on the way to FP, and two on the way back. Plus, something
that hasn't been mentioned, i think, is that the Canonbury curve is
single-track - the tunnel there isn't high enough to take two full-height
freight trains, so it was converted from two tracks to one in the middle
(where the arch is highest) when it became an important freight link.

If the signalling were being redone, this could be arranged by gauntletting
the track so that there's one tall track down the middle and two short
tracks half-overlapping the wide track:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauntlet_track

That would mean blocking the track in both directions for freight trains...
but that's no different to how it is now.

Gauntletted catenary could be interesting though...

Theo

Tom Anderson wrote:

Plus,
something that hasn't been mentioned, i think, is that the Canonbury
curve is single-track - the tunnel there isn't high enough to take
two full-height freight trains, so it was converted from two tracks
to one in the middle (where the arch is highest) when it became an
important freight link.

I was told by an engineer on the ELL project that the Canonbury Curve was
single tracked at electrification because the curved sides of the tunnel
roof were too low for catenary, not too low for freight trains.

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Theo Markettos wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
Anyway, as others have mentioned, all this involves crossing three tracks
on the flat on the way to FP, and two on the way back. Plus, something
that hasn't been mentioned, i think, is that the Canonbury curve is
single-track - the tunnel there isn't high enough to take two full-height
freight trains, so it was converted from two tracks to one in the middle
(where the arch is highest) when it became an important freight link.

If the signalling were being redone, this could be arranged by gauntletting
the track so that there's one tall track down the middle and two short
tracks half-overlapping the wide track:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauntlet_track

That would mean blocking the track in both directions for freight trains...
but that's no different to how it is now.

I think that would take substantially more work than just redoing the
signalling, but it is a fun idea. It'd also keep heavy freight trains off
the rails used for the passenger trains, which could be a safety
advantage, as they'd be less likely to be damaged.

Gauntletted catenary could be interesting though...

Easy - just have an unpowered section through the tunnel, and require
trains to build up enough speed before entering it!

tom

--
Argumentative and pedantic, oh, yes. Although it's properly called "correct" -- Huge

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Plus, something that hasn't been mentioned, i think, is that the
Canonbury curve is single-track - the tunnel there isn't high enough to
take two full-height freight trains, so it was converted from two
tracks to one in the middle (where the arch is highest) when it became
an important freight link.

I was told by an engineer on the ELL project that the Canonbury Curve
was single tracked at electrification because the curved sides of the
tunnel roof were too low for catenary, not too low for freight trains.

I stand corrected. I suppose if you were going to run the ELL up it, you
could (would have to?) make it third-rail, so that would stop being a
problem. Not sure how you maintain the OHLE for freight trains, though,
unless you adopt Theo's idea of gauntletted track ...

tom

--
Argumentative and pedantic, oh, yes. Although it's properly called "correct" -- Huge