Peter Masson wrote:
"Paul Scott" wrote

So exactly what is the extra work DfT are paying for at Camden - as
Peter suggested NR and TfL are happy with the descope, does that
mean 'happy for the time being' or 'four tracking completely
abandoned for ever'?
AIUI the only feature that's been lost in the descope which might be
of benefit for the planned train service is the turnback platform at
Camden Road. Instead, trains from Stratford which terminate there
will have to go on to the Primrose Hill line to reverse, where they
would block freight. However, at one time TfL were at least toying
with he idea of eventually extending some ELLX trains down the DC
line, at least as far as Queens Park (perhaps in conjunction with
extending the Bakerloo to Watford Junction and withdrawing the Euston
- Watford Junction DC service). This would presumably need 4-tracking
through Camden Road, and a different track layout between HI and
Camden Road.

What seems distinctly odd though is the idea that DfT come up with what, £40
odd million, and it isn't targeted at a definite scheme? If a normal project
came in under budget wouldn't any spare cash have to be re-bid for?

Regarding reversing in the Primrose Hill area though, it dis cross my mind
that this was the real reason for the station remains being demolished.
removal of the island would easily allow a centre turnback road. Maybe they
are still pondering what to do next...

Paul S

On 12 May, 22:08, Mizter T wrote:
Interesting, thanks - I'm obviously out-of-date on all this! So,
originally we had TfL planning to do up the bridges and quadruple the
line through Camden Road as part of the broader NLL upgrade works;

It was never "quadrupling" at Camden Road in any meaningful way. It
would have meant the eastbound freight loop starting slightly further
west (before rather than after the station) and providing a bay
platform for turning shuttles. A lot of money to spend for very little
benefit.

then TfL (and NR) discovering that this would all cost too much given
the fixed budget they had; then the DfT agreeing to fund it anyway
because it was really important work;

AIUI they had a fixed amount of money to play for the entire NLL
scheme and decided the Camden part of the scheme couldn't be done
within the budget. By not doing Camden, they're now significantly
under budget, and the debate is about whether the DfT gets the
remaining money back or whether TfL can spend it on something else.

satisfied with a less costly solution that doesn't involve 'quad-ing'
the track but instead relies on freight loops - is that a fair
summary?

It was always freight loops.

U

On 12 May, 22:08, Mizter T wrote:
On May 12, 8:41*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:





"Mizter T" wrote:

On May 12, 5:10 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

There was a paragraph about this on the Modern Railways site:

http://www.modern-railways.com/infra...ure/300309.php

Interesting. Are we to expect 'breezeblock-basic' work done on the
Camden bridges then?! The funding shortfall for GOBLIN electrification
would still seem to be substantial though.

AIUI TfL and NR are satisfied with the latest plan, i.e. up and down freight
loops between Highbury & Islington (exclusive) and Camden Road (exclusive(,
with the existing double track over the Camden Road bridge and through the
station. So the money which would have been needed for the earlier plan, and
which is belatedly available, could be used for Goblin electrification.

Peter

Interesting, thanks - I'm obviously out-of-date on all this! So,
originally we had TfL planning to do up the bridges and quadruple the
line through Camden Road as part of the broader NLL upgrade works;
then TfL (and NR) discovering that this would all cost too much given
the fixed budget they had; then the DfT agreeing to fund it anyway
because it was really important work; now we've got TfL and NR
satisfied with a less costly solution that doesn't involve 'quad-ing'
the track but instead relies on freight loops - is that a fair
summary?

If so, presumably the freight loop plan was devised as a plan B in
case the full works programme at Camden couldn't go ahead (or perhaps
it was devised after TfL realised they hadn't got enough money, but
before the DfT decided to open its chequebook?) - I wonder if it is
really regarded as a somewhat less than optimum solution, but it is
thought of as a necessary sacrifice so as to get the Goblin
electrification off the starting blocks? Of course the Camden Road
quadrupling could always happen at some later stage if it was deemed
necessary (though *if* Goblin electrification happened it would take
some of the pressure of freight traffic off the NLL through Camden
Road).

The original costings for the GOBLIN electrification, by TfL, was done
purely on the basis of freight usage. I assume to take this traffice
off the NLL at Camden and so allow less money to be spent here on the
freight capacity.

On May 12, 11:17*am, disgoftunwells
wrote:
On 6 May, 23:38, Tony Polson wrote:



"Recliner" wrote:
"Tim Fenton" wrote in message

My feeling is that Dave and his jolly good chums are set to visit on
us the same horrors that Thatcher did, having learned nothing from
the post 1979 record. They won't be the ones that have to go without..

They enjoyed 18 years of power after 1979, so maybe their post-179
record wasn't so unpopular after all.

I wonder how the alleged "horrors" of Thatcher's Tories compare with the
"achievements" of NuLabour? *Notably, the latter's two illegal wars, the
near-destruction of the British financial services industry thanks to
inept regulation (or a lack of it) and the massive and apparently
uncontrolled rises in public spending and taxation that show no kind of
return.

Not to mention the control freakery, the sleaze of individual MPs and
the corruption of the Labour Party as a whole. *It was the latter that
caused me to leave Labour, starting with the Ecclestone affair allowing
continuation of tobacco advertising in Formula 1 motor racing in return
for a bribe of £1 million paid to the Labour Party.

John Major's Tory government was accused of sleaze and incompetence but
nothing they did bears more than the slightest resemblance to the
institutionalised gross corruption and negligence of this NuLabour lot.

You need to recall how bad Britian was in 1979. Remember talk of
"managed decline" and the "sick man of Europe"? People wanted to leave
for a better life.

Compare that with 1997: Britain was the fastest growing major economy
in Western Europe, running a major budget surplus, with some of the
most enterprising companies in Europe. People wanted to leave for a
slower life.

Fast forward to 2009: Largest deficit in Western Europe, unemployment
up, confidence down. People once again leaving for a better life.

What, to Dubai? To Iceland? To the ****ing USA? Hardly.

And
we still have one of the worst health services in Europe,

You misspelt 'best', according to all comparator data.

and some of
the worst transport, and schools are only looking better because exams
are getting easier.

....despite the fact that the only evidence exams are getting easier is
the grumblings of old gets.

And our bus and rail network is far better than that of, say, France.

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

In uk.transport.london message
om, Tue, 12 May 2009 20:33:14, Tony Polson
posted:
Dr J R Stockton wrote:

Wiki Electric locomotive indicates that ordinary engine powers are in
the 5 MW range. Therefore, significantly more than a ton of SCs would
be needed to approach ordinary performance levels And a ton of SCs
would give 0.03 MWh, corresponding to less than half a minute of 5MW.


Looking at those data another way, 5.0 tonnes of SCs (say) would provide
two and a half minutes of 5.0 MW. That's about 208 kWh.

All of that 208 kWh could come for free, from regenerative braking - in
other words saving about £20 each and every time it gets used.

But you have to add the cost of transporting that five tons, plus the
weight of the gear required to mount and use it - and you have to
compare it with regenerative braking by (in principle, it will not be
that simple) reversing the motors and putting the energy back into the
wires.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036)

GazK wrote:
1506 wrote:
On May 8, 6:31 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
07:52:16 on Thu, 7 May 2009,
remarked:

"It is proposed that the OHLE over Maidenhead railway bridge will use
masts with wires suspended from cantilevers, since these will be
visually lighter structures than the gantries to be used along other
parts of the route. The masts will however, have a significant adverse
landscape impact: they will affect important views along the river and
the character of the river corridor; they will affect the setting
of the
Riverside Conservation Area; and they will affect the setting of the
listed railway bridge and the setting of the adjacent Grade I listed
road bridge.
This is a railway, not a national park - who cares what it looks like
Would you say the same about electricity pylons through a National Park?
--
Roland Perry

IMHO It is very likely that I Kingdom Brunel would welcome
electrification. He seemed very keen to find a better, cleaner form
of motive power.

He would have insisted on using 3 phase 37.278kV* electrification at
16.25Hz fed through side contact 3rd and 4th rail - and bugger the
through running!

* there is a logic behind this number. See if you can work it out!

OK, No one got it, so I'll explain: 7"0.25"" divided by 4"8.5"
multiplied by 25kV = 37.278kV.


Well I thought it was funny. Mine's the one with the HV flashes on the
pockets...

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

In uk.transport.london message
om, Tue, 12 May 2009 20:33:14, Tony Polson
posted:
Dr J R Stockton wrote:

Wiki Electric locomotive indicates that ordinary engine powers are in
the 5 MW range. Therefore, significantly more than a ton of SCs would
be needed to approach ordinary performance levels And a ton of SCs
would give 0.03 MWh, corresponding to less than half a minute of 5MW.


Looking at those data another way, 5.0 tonnes of SCs (say) would provide
two and a half minutes of 5.0 MW. That's about 208 kWh.

All of that 208 kWh could come for free, from regenerative braking - in
other words saving about £20 each and every time it gets used.

But you have to add the cost of transporting that five tons, plus the
weight of the gear required to mount and use it - and you have to
compare it with regenerative braking by (in principle, it will not be
that simple) reversing the motors and putting the energy back into the
wires.


That's all true. But it might still be worth it.

Rather than you throwing up a smokescreen because you don't like the
idea, it would be nice to hear from someone with a little more knowledge
and an understanding of the figures behind the principle.

On Wed, 13 May 2009, GazK wrote:

GazK wrote:
1506 wrote:

IMHO It is very likely that I Kingdom Brunel would welcome
electrification. He seemed very keen to find a better, cleaner form
of motive power.

He would have insisted on using 3 phase 37.278kV* electrification at
16.25Hz fed through side contact 3rd and 4th rail - and bugger the
through running!

* there is a logic behind this number. See if you can work it out!

OK, No one got it, so I'll explain: 7"0.25"" divided by 4"8.5" multiplied by
25kV = 37.278kV.

Oh, very good!

Well I thought it was funny. Mine's the one with the HV flashes on the
pockets...

And make sure you don't forget your Miss Nerd UTL tiara.

tom

--
If it ain't broke, open it up and see what makes it so bloody special.

On Wed, 13 May 2009, wrote:

On May 12, 11:17*am, disgoftunwells
wrote:

and some of the worst transport, and schools are only looking better
because exams are getting easier.

...despite the fact that the only evidence exams are getting easier is
the grumblings of old gets.

And the opinion of every university lecturer or teacher you ask. I'm with
you on the economy, John, but pick your battles, old chap.

tom

--
If it ain't broke, open it up and see what makes it so bloody special.

What exactly needs to be safeguarded anyway?

I assume that if a four track main line is good enough for Crossrail
between Paddington and Maidenhead, then the continuation of the same
four track main line is good enough between Maidenhead and Reading. So
no additional land neeeding to be safeguarded?

As to clearances for knitting. Aren't all new structures built above
railway lines supposed to allow for a hypothetical future
electrification anyway? And whether that electrification is being done
for Crossrail or as a part of a more extensive GWML electrification
shouldn't surely make any difference to the physical clearances
needing to safeguarded above the line.

Possibly Crossrail might need additional platform capacity or
arrangements at Reading. But surely the Reading remodeling is being
projected with that in mind anyway?