On Oct 26, 8:07*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
It could be done, but sounds disruptive and/or expensive. But what's the
point? There's no need for passenger trains to be able to overtake each
other on the WLL. There is occasionally a need to recess a freight to match
a path on the next stage of its journey. In many cases this can be done at
Willesden/Wembley, or between Culvert Road and Latchmere Junctions (even
when ELLX gets to Clapham Junction). The existing through line at Kensington
Olympia can be used in both directions.

True, but keep in mind that the narrow platforms at Shepherd's Bush
will eventually become a problem if the Westfield development
eventually reaches full utilization. IMHO there will eventually be a
need to substantially increase the local service on the WLL to better
serve Shepherd's Bush, and the restoration of the up loop at Kenny O
will make it substantially easier to path a frequent local passenger
service. Also keep in mind the clientele at Imperial Wharf station -
the people living near that station are likely to have an interest in
the higher-end shops at Westfield, and that will add a lot of local
traffic too.

There is also the fact that the WLL is still a good cross-London link
between the former Southern Region and the former Western and London
Midland (:P) Regions. Just because there's no XC link right now
doesn't mean that a new service, serving Shepherd's Bush, won't be
eventually restored.

If more flexibility is needed the pointwork at each end of Kensington Olympia
could be relaid to reduce conflicts between up and down train (at present a
southbound train using the through line conflicts with a northbound train at,
IIRC, both ends of the station). Or a new goods loop could be provided south
of the station.

You would need to add two additional crossovers on the inside of the
platform loop turnouts to accomplish that, and IMHO that would be
almost as good as restoring the up loop.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:09:06 -0700 (PDT), TheOneKEA
wrote:

There is also the fact that the WLL is still a good cross-London link
between the former Southern Region and the former Western and London
Midland (:P) Regions. Just because there's no XC link right now
doesn't mean that a new service, serving Shepherd's Bush, won't be
eventually restored.

Even now, the link from MKC to Clapham Jn and beyond is *very* heavily
used. While there would be an issue with making the LO service 8
cars, the Southern one could easily be made so given a few units, had
the short-sighted decision to build a 4-car platform at Imperial Wharf
not been made.

That said, given that said service is mainly about linking the WCML to
the SWML, it could I suppose be extended to 8 then not stop at
Imperial Wharf. How long is the platform at Shepherd's Bush?

I suppose Platform 17 at Clapham is also short, but if that was a
problem it could terminate there and use 2 or a reinstated 1 instead.
Or is 16 long enough, if a crossover was to be installed?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Oct 26, 9:17*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:09:06 -0700 (PDT), TheOneKEA

wrote:
There is also the fact that the WLL is still a good cross-London link
between the former Southern Region and the former Western and London
Midland (:P) Regions. Just because there's no XC link right now
doesn't mean that a new service, serving Shepherd's Bush, won't be
eventually restored.

Even now, the link from MKC to Clapham Jn and beyond is *very* heavily
used. *While there would be an issue with making the LO service 8
cars, the Southern one could easily be made so given a few units, had
the short-sighted decision to build a 4-car platform at Imperial Wharf
not been made.

The real issue is platforms 16 and 17 at CLJ. SDO can't be used with
the sort of loadings these trains experience, but straightening and
lengthening the platforms won't happen any time soon.

That said, given that said service is mainly about linking the WCML to
the SWML, it could I suppose be extended to 8 then not stop at
Imperial Wharf. * How long is the platform at Shepherd's Bush?

4! Same at West Brompton. I think the assumption has been made that
CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?

I suppose Platform 17 at Clapham is also short, but if that was a
problem it could terminate there and use 2 or a reinstated 1 instead.
Or is 16 long enough, if a crossover was to be installed?

Cross-Clapham traffic is heavy and interchange facilities on those
platforms are grossly inadequate. If the infrastructure is ever
modified to allow 8-car trains, it could then be sensible to run them
south of East Croydon once again.

In the short term I would prefer 2 tph of ECR-WFJ rather than 1 of ECR-
MKC, although the benefits would be greater if VT bothered to stop
more than 1 tph at WFJ.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:37:16 -0700 (PDT), EE507
wrote:

In the short term I would prefer 2 tph of ECR-WFJ rather than 1 of ECR-
MKC, although the benefits would be greater if VT bothered to stop
more than 1 tph at WFJ.

I'd agree, but *only* if the timetable was set up for good connections
with LM services in both directions, which they traditionally haven't
been.

But is there room for 2tph even if there are units for it?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On 26 Oct, 21:44, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:37:16 -0700 (PDT), EE507
wrote:

In the short term I would prefer 2 tph of ECR-WFJ rather than 1 of ECR-
MKC, although the benefits would be greater if VT bothered to stop
more than 1 tph at WFJ.

I'd agree, but *only* if the timetable was set up for good connections
with LM services in both directions, which they traditionally haven't
been.

But is there room for 2tph even if there are units for it?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

I was there last Sunday, getting a train from West Brompton to Clapham
Junction. The brand new Overground train arrived and was crush loaded,
thankfully a few minutes later the Southern service arrived which
still had spare seats.

I don't think I have ever seen so many mothers with prams waiting for
a train before - there must have been about ten of them at West
Brompton!

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:37:16 -0700 (PDT), EE507 wrote:

That said, given that said service is mainly about linking the WCML to
the SWML, it could I suppose be extended to 8 then not stop at
Imperial Wharf. * How long is the platform at Shepherd's Bush?

4! Same at West Brompton. I think the assumption has been made that
CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?

LOROL doesn't use 16/17 at CLJ...

I don't think building 4-car platforms was that big a mistake,
provided passive provision was made for extension to 8-car. Willesden
Junction (HL) is another limiting factor. Better to have 4-car
stations that get built than 8-car stations that don't because they're
too expensive. Once the service is running and demand is proven,
there's more of a case for extending to 8-car.

On Oct 26, 11:44*pm, asdf wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:37:16 -0700 (PDT), EE507 wrote:
That said, given that said service is mainly about linking the WCML to
the SWML, it could I suppose be extended to 8 then not stop at
Imperial Wharf. * How long is the platform at Shepherd's Bush?

4! Same at West Brompton. I think the assumption has been made that
CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?

LOROL doesn't use 16/17 at CLJ...

LOROL will be a 4-car railway. CLJ 16 and 17, served by SN, won't be
sorted out any time soon [1]. So all trains will be 4-car max for the
foreseeable and there is consequently no need for platforms of longer
than 4 coaches anywhere on the WLL.

I don't think building 4-car platforms was that big a mistake,
provided passive provision was made for extension to 8-car.

That hasn't happened.

Willesden
Junction (HL) is another limiting factor. Better to have 4-car
stations that get built than 8-car stations that don't because they're
too expensive. Once the service is running and demand is proven,
there's more of a case for extending to 8-car.

Have you seen peak loadings on the WLL? There is already a case for 8-
car trains, but the best we can hope for is a combined peak frequency
of 6 tph (all 4-car by 2012). Trains are so busy that LOROL's have
been designed for maximising standing crush loads.

[1] LOROL *does* use CLJ 17 on Sundays when there is engineering work
affecting access to 2.

On Oct 26, 9:37*pm, EE507 wrote:

The real issue is platforms 16 and 17 at CLJ. SDO can't be used with
the sort of loadings these trains experience, but straightening and
lengthening the platforms won't happen any time soon.

CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?


I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap. As
there would be no benefit to LO in 8car trains if Willesden Junycion
were never done, the entire cost of 8car works on WLL would be born by
the SN operation.


IMHO a fundamental flaw in the LO / WLL / NLL / ELL shceme is being
geared around 4car trains. At this period in 21st century we should be
talking *absolute mnimum* 8-car trains by 2015 with passive provision
for 12car, and I'd say even 15-car (300 m length).


Crossrail should certainly be passively provided for 300 m; I'd like
to have seen TL likewise too.

What is going on with these lengthening schemes is fixing yesterdays
after tomorrow has started; there is minimal provision for todays
problems, and none for tomorrows.

This is why NEW tube lines - be they tube size or main line size -
need to get under way now as they take 10 years to build even once
planning is done, and that takes years too.

--
Nick

On 28 Oct, 04:05, D7666 wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:37*pm, EE507 wrote:

The real issue is platforms 16 and 17 at CLJ. SDO can't be used with
the sort of loadings these trains experience, but straightening and
lengthening the platforms won't happen any time soon.
CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap. As
there would be no benefit to LO in 8car trains if Willesden Junycion
were never done, the entire cost of 8car works on WLL would be born by
the SN operation.

IMHO a fundamental flaw in the LO / WLL / NLL / ELL shceme is being
geared around 4car trains. At this period in 21st century we should be
talking *absolute mnimum* 8-car trains by 2015 with passive provision
for 12car, and I'd say even 15-car (300 m length).

Similar problem on the ELL, due to stringing together bits of old
infrastructure and then contaminating all the main routes that now
feed into them.

I can see the case for extending the ELL up the old viaduct to Dalston
and beyond, but Croydon to London Bridge is one of the most
ludicrously overcrowded stretches on the network. Taking up paths
with short trains diverted off to Dalston is insanity gone mad.

The ELL should terminate at NX/NXG, at least in the peaks. Maybe it
still will.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:49:50 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 28 Oct, 04:05, D7666 wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:37*pm, EE507 wrote:

The real issue is platforms 16 and 17 at CLJ. SDO can't be used with
the sort of loadings these trains experience, but straightening and
lengthening the platforms won't happen any time soon.
CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap. As
there would be no benefit to LO in 8car trains if Willesden Junycion
were never done, the entire cost of 8car works on WLL would be born by
the SN operation.

IMHO a fundamental flaw in the LO / WLL / NLL / ELL shceme is being
geared around 4car trains. At this period in 21st century we should be
talking *absolute mnimum* 8-car trains by 2015 with passive provision
for 12car, and I'd say even 15-car (300 m length).

Similar problem on the ELL, due to stringing together bits of old
infrastructure and then contaminating all the main routes that now
feed into them.

I can see the case for extending the ELL up the old viaduct to Dalston
and beyond, but Croydon to London Bridge is one of the most
ludicrously overcrowded stretches on the network. Taking up paths
with short trains diverted off to Dalston is insanity gone mad.

The ELL should terminate at NX/NXG, at least in the peaks. Maybe it
still will.

Or stop trains twice at the stations with short platforms (once for
the front half, then for the rear).