|
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On 22 Jan, 20:57, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote Having thought about it, I'm possibly even warming just a little (though only a little) to the notion that, given the seemingly inevitable downfall of the existing SLL service, an enhanced Vic- Dartford service plus the new ELL phase 2 service might not be such a bad result, and that the loss of the proposed 'SLL replacement' Vic- Bellingham service can be taken on the chin (a shame, and it would be nice to have it, but perhaps not a complete essential). Part of the problem is the way in which this has all been handled, i.e. in a rather furtive and underhand manner. Maybe stops at Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye could even be inserted on a few other trains that currently run fast along the Catford Loop to and from Victoria? One problem with using Victoria - Dartford trains to replace the Victoria - London Bridge SLL service, at least when the Battersea Park junction is severed, is that there is no route between the Chatham high level lines and the platforms at Wandsworth Road. It is possible to go via Stewarts Lane, though the layout at Battersea Pier Junction would complicate platforming at Victoria (the up low level route feeds into the Up Chatham Slow, so ideally routed into Victoria platforms 5-8, while the down low level feeds out of the Down Chatham Fast, so ideally out of platforms 1-4). If Battersea Park is retained, AIUI Networkers are barred from the route (though it may or may not take much to clear it for them). Sorry, should have read this first. Yes, it would be awkward, unless Mizter T's 4 tph happened, and they came in as stoppers and went out as non-stoppers and vice versa (only 2 tph stopping at Wandsworth Road). There is currently one up morning peak long distance train to Victoria which calls at Denmark Hill en route, and before the December timetable change there were three, so stops by fast trains here and/or at Peckham Rye are not out of the question. Indeed, during the period in the 1980s when the SLL service was peak hours only, and hourly off-peak Victoria - Maidstone East train called at Denmark Hill (and later, at Peckham Rye as well). Peter And as I was saying, the Dovers called at both all day on Sundays till ... early noughties? |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On 22 Jan, 22:21, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 22, 8:57*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Mizter T" wrote Having thought about it, I'm possibly even warming just a little (though only a little) to the notion that, given the seemingly inevitable downfall of the existing SLL service, an enhanced Vic- Dartford service plus the new ELL phase 2 service might not be such a bad result, and that the loss of the proposed 'SLL replacement' Vic- Bellingham service can be taken on the chin (a shame, and it would be nice to have it, but perhaps not a complete essential). Part of the problem is the way in which this has all been handled, i.e. in a rather furtive and underhand manner. Maybe stops at Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye could even be inserted on a few other trains that currently run fast along the Catford Loop to and from Victoria? One problem with using Victoria - Dartford trains to replace the Victoria - London Bridge SLL service, at least when the Battersea Park junction is severed, is that there is no route between the Chatham high level lines and the platforms at Wandsworth Road. It is possible to go via Stewarts Lane, though the layout at Battersea Pier Junction would complicate platforming at Victoria (the up low level route feeds into the Up Chatham Slow, so ideally routed into Victoria platforms 5-8, while the down low level feeds out of the Down Chatham Fast, so ideally out of platforms 1-4). If Battersea Park is retained, AIUI Networkers are barred from the route (though it may or may not take much to clear it for them). Yes, that's a very good point, I hadn't really thought about that issue. Hmm. Well, I suppose the brutal solution would be to simply give up on serving Wandsworth Road with Victoria trains altogether, and leave it for ELL phase 2 to serve, and tell pax that they can do one of four things... * get to Victoria by going to Clapham Jn on the ELL and changing (though the geographical daftness of that does offend me somewhat) * get the bus to Vauxhall and then tube (or another bus) to Victoria * walk to Clapham High Street and catch the train from there (AIUI the Vic-Dartford trains could serve Clapham HS, as there's a junction the name of which I forget that provides access to and from the Atlantic Line) * walk to Battersea Park and get a train (though the walk isn't all that direct as there's all this railway land in the middle! Plus they're not not the most appealing of streets to walk down.) Not ideal in any case though. If a portion of the Up low level line through Stewart's Lane could be made reversible where it joins the Chatham Slow, might that work? (I dare say that something like that is far far easier said than done!) Sorry, I'm really not keeping up. Two messages behind at all times. The Battersea Reversible came to mind, but that would interfere with Southern, so not much help. There is currently one up morning peak long distance train to Victoria which calls at Denmark Hill en route, and before the December timetable change there were three, so stops by fast trains here and/or at Peckham Rye are not out of the question. Indeed, during the period in the 1980s when the SLL service was peak hours only, and hourly off-peak Victoria - Maidstone East train called at Denmark Hill (and later, at Peckham Rye as well). I think that it's around there (Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye) where a lot of the opposition and campaigning has been been brewing (though I'm a bit out of the loop on the latest) - so putting in some extra stops might address matters somewhat. Though at Denmark Hill I think the loss of a through service to London Bridge is quite a big part of it (the almost adjacent King's College Hospital is part of the same Trust as Guy's Hospital next to London Bridge, and I think this arrangement manages to generate a certain degree of inter-hospital traffic of staff, patients and students, and so this is where some of the noise is coming from). I think that's true, and can't really be solved. The lack of crossovers on the route has always struck me, eg Catford to Atlantic. |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
"MIG" wrote I think that's true, and can't really be solved. The lack of crossovers on the route has always struck me, eg Catford to Atlantic. Until the 1980s Victoria resignalling the Atlantic (South London) line ran in glorious isolation all the way from Peckham Rye to Battersea Park with no crossovers at all (and it could not be accessed from the Catford Loop at Peckham Rye). Then four were put in (described for a journey to Victoria, though the reverse facility is also available) Crofton Road Junction (between Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill) : Catford Loop to Atlantic Shepherds Lane (between Brixton and Clapham High Street): Chatham to Atlantic Voltaire Road (between Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road): Atlantic to Chatham Factory (immediately north of Wandsworth Road): Atlantic to Ludgate or Stewarts Lane. Peter |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On Jan 22, 10:45*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote Yes, that's a very good point, I hadn't really thought about that issue. Hmm. Well, I suppose the brutal solution would be to simply give up on serving Wandsworth Road with Victoria trains altogether, and leave it for ELL phase 2 to serve, and tell pax that they can do one of four things... * get to Victoria by going to Clapham Jn on the ELL and changing (though the geographical daftness of that does offend me somewhat) * get the bus to Vauxhall and then tube (or another bus) to Victoria * walk to Clapham High Street and catch the train from there (AIUI the Vic-Dartford trains could serve Clapham HS, as there's a junction the name of which I forget that provides access to and from the Atlantic Line) * walk to Battersea Park and get a train (though the walk isn't all that direct as there's all this railway land in the middle! Plus they're not not the most appealing of streets to walk down.) Not ideal in any case though. If a portion of the Up low level line through Stewart's Lane could be made reversible where it joins the Chatham Slow, might that work? (I dare say that something like that is far far easier said than done!) I think that it's around there (Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye) where a lot of the opposition and campaigning has been been brewing (though I'm a bit out of the loop on the latest) - so putting in some extra stops might address matters somewhat. Though at Denmark Hill I think the loss of a through service to London Bridge is quite a big part of it (the almost adjacent King's College Hospital is part of the same Trust as Guy's Hospital next to London Bridge, and I think this arrangement manages to generate a certain degree of inter-hospital traffic of staff, patients and students, and so this is where some of the noise is coming from). The junction between Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road is Voltaire Road Junction. IMHO making the up low level line reversible is a non-starter - from Clapham High Street the Chatham side has effectively produced a 4-track approach to Victoria, using the low level route as the up slow, and the reversible slow between Battersea Pier Junction and Voltaire Road as effectively the down slow. So without significant track and signalling work I don't think serving Wandsworth Road with Victoria trains is practicable. And I don't think it's worth keeping Clapham High Street to Victoria trains. Apart from claustrophobics who want a surface journey at the expense of frequency, anyone making this journey will do better by LUL from Clapham North via Stockwell. If the Victoria trains are to continue to serve Wandsworth Road, then one solution is to route them via the Up Stewarts Lane line followed by the Up Chatham Slow heading into Victoria and from Victoria route them via the Down Brighton slow and Battersea Reversible. Whilst this will limit the available platforms at Victoria, paths will have been released on the Down Brighton Slow when the SLL trains stop running. During the peaks, the Down Stewarts Lane could be used instead of the Brighton line, with diagrams intermixing with the other inner suburban services. Another option would be to resignal the Down Stewarts Lane line to be reversible and to run the service to / from the platform 1 side at Victoria (similar to what was planned for one of the many Battersea Power Station projects). The reduction from 4tph to 2tph between Victoria, Denmark Hill, and Peckham Rye might seem a retrograde step, but in practice the SLL and Dartford trains mostly run very close to each other, followed by a near 30 minute gap to the next pair. Ideally this is a flow that should be provided with the (ex-) Mayor of London's aim for at least a 15 minute clockface service on NR lines in London, though rather than a new service to Bellingham I'd rather see the Dartford via Bexleyheath service augmented with a Victoria to Sidcup service (which can avoid some of the worst conflicts on the flat crossing at Lewisham, especially if Cannon Street to Sidcup trains are run via Parks Bridge direct, as they wouldn't need to serve Lewisham). Timings on the Victoria - Peckham Rye section will have to change anyway, once the 4tph from the ELL starts; so just because the Southern and South Eastern trains run close together currently, doesn't mean that the same slots will be available in the future. While the loss of through trains between Denmark Hill and London Bridge is regrettable, passengers making this journey will be able to do it with a same-platform change (at Peckham Rye or Queens Road Peckham) and will have a new possibility of travelling to Blackfriars and using the new South Bank entrance. Peter |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On Jan 22, 10:21*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 22, 8:57*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Mizter T" wrote Having thought about it, I'm possibly even warming just a little (though only a little) to the notion that, given the seemingly inevitable downfall of the existing SLL service, an enhanced Vic- Dartford service plus the new ELL phase 2 service might not be such a bad result, and that the loss of the proposed 'SLL replacement' Vic- Bellingham service can be taken on the chin (a shame, and it would be nice to have it, but perhaps not a complete essential). Part of the problem is the way in which this has all been handled, i.e. in a rather furtive and underhand manner. Maybe stops at Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye could even be inserted on a few other trains that currently run fast along the Catford Loop to and from Victoria? One problem with using Victoria - Dartford trains to replace the Victoria - London Bridge SLL service, at least when the Battersea Park junction is severed, is that there is no route between the Chatham high level lines and the platforms at Wandsworth Road. It is possible to go via Stewarts Lane, though the layout at Battersea Pier Junction would complicate platforming at Victoria (the up low level route feeds into the Up Chatham Slow, so ideally routed into Victoria platforms 5-8, while the down low level feeds out of the Down Chatham Fast, so ideally out of platforms 1-4). If Battersea Park is retained, AIUI Networkers are barred from the route (though it may or may not take much to clear it for them). Yes, that's a very good point, I hadn't really thought about that issue. Hmm. Well, I suppose the brutal solution would be to simply give up on serving Wandsworth Road with Victoria trains altogether, and leave it for ELL phase 2 to serve, and tell pax that they can do one of four things... * get to Victoria by going to Clapham Jn on the ELL and changing (though the geographical daftness of that does offend me somewhat) * get the bus to Vauxhall and then tube (or another bus) to Victoria * walk to Clapham High Street and catch the train from there (AIUI the Vic-Dartford trains could serve Clapham HS, as there's a junction the name of which I forget that provides access to and from the Atlantic Line) The Victoria - Dartford services actually run through Clapham High Street platforms much of the time anyway; most switch to / from the Chatham Reversible at Voltaire Road Junction, although in the past many have gone via the low level lines. Since the loss of the Eurostar services, the trains via Stewarts Lane have been reduced to a few Up peak services. * walk to Battersea Park and get a train (though the walk isn't all that direct as there's all this railway land in the middle! Plus they're not not the most appealing of streets to walk down.) |
ELL Stock in Place
|
ELL Stock in Place
"Paul Scott" wrote in message ... "DW downunder" noname wrote in message ... Given FCC's track record, I suspect it's more a case of: we'll know when we see the trains actually running ... and for your further flung participants: ... and the news filters through. SIGH Thankfully, it is nothing at all to do with FCC... Paul S Perhaps missing my point - the timetable's one thing - what actually happens is the reality folk have to deal with. The timetable might be a wonderful political statement, but if it falls apart, what counts is the number of trains actually run - witness Thameslink of late, and likewise EMT on weekends. I wasn't suggesting that FCC was to operate the ELLX or other local services - but I guess that if they fail to deliver SoL, that would put more load onto the local operators' trains. DW downunder |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On 23 Jan, 01:05, Andy wrote:
On Jan 22, 10:21*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Jan 22, 8:57*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Mizter T" wrote Having thought about it, I'm possibly even warming just a little (though only a little) to the notion that, given the seemingly inevitable downfall of the existing SLL service, an enhanced Vic- Dartford service plus the new ELL phase 2 service might not be such a bad result, and that the loss of the proposed 'SLL replacement' Vic- Bellingham service can be taken on the chin (a shame, and it would be nice to have it, but perhaps not a complete essential). Part of the problem is the way in which this has all been handled, i.e. in a rather furtive and underhand manner. Maybe stops at Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye could even be inserted on a few other trains that currently run fast along the Catford Loop to and from Victoria? One problem with using Victoria - Dartford trains to replace the Victoria - London Bridge SLL service, at least when the Battersea Park junction is severed, is that there is no route between the Chatham high level lines and the platforms at Wandsworth Road. It is possible to go via Stewarts Lane, though the layout at Battersea Pier Junction would complicate platforming at Victoria (the up low level route feeds into the Up Chatham Slow, so ideally routed into Victoria platforms 5-8, while the down low level feeds out of the Down Chatham Fast, so ideally out of platforms 1-4). If Battersea Park is retained, AIUI Networkers are barred from the route (though it may or may not take much to clear it for them). Yes, that's a very good point, I hadn't really thought about that issue. Hmm. Well, I suppose the brutal solution would be to simply give up on serving Wandsworth Road with Victoria trains altogether, and leave it for ELL phase 2 to serve, and tell pax that they can do one of four things... * get to Victoria by going to Clapham Jn on the ELL and changing (though the geographical daftness of that does offend me somewhat) * get the bus to Vauxhall and then tube (or another bus) to Victoria * walk to Clapham High Street and catch the train from there (AIUI the Vic-Dartford trains could serve Clapham HS, as there's a junction the name of which I forget that provides access to and from the Atlantic Line) The Victoria - Dartford services actually run through Clapham High Street platforms much of the time anyway; most switch to / from the Chatham Reversible at Voltaire Road Junction, although in the past many have gone via the low level lines. Since the loss of the Eurostar services, the trains via Stewarts Lane have been reduced to a few Up peak services. I think that's pretty much all there ever was, even when Eurostar was there. The only time I ever saw the down Stewarts Lane being used was during engineering works on the viaduct. It's true that down services have tended to cross backwards and forwards, going through CHS platforms, then crossing back again before Peckham Rye. * walk to Battersea Park and get a train (though the walk isn't all that direct as there's all this railway land in the middle! Plus they're not not the most appealing of streets to walk down.)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On Jan 23, 10:15*am, MIG wrote:
On 23 Jan, 01:05, Andy wrote: On Jan 22, 10:21*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Jan 22, 8:57*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Mizter T" wrote Having thought about it, I'm possibly even warming just a little (though only a little) to the notion that, given the seemingly inevitable downfall of the existing SLL service, an enhanced Vic- Dartford service plus the new ELL phase 2 service might not be such a bad result, and that the loss of the proposed 'SLL replacement' Vic- Bellingham service can be taken on the chin (a shame, and it would be nice to have it, but perhaps not a complete essential). Part of the problem is the way in which this has all been handled, i.e. in a rather furtive and underhand manner. Maybe stops at Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye could even be inserted on a few other trains that currently run fast along the Catford Loop to and from Victoria? One problem with using Victoria - Dartford trains to replace the Victoria - London Bridge SLL service, at least when the Battersea Park junction is severed, is that there is no route between the Chatham high level lines and the platforms at Wandsworth Road. It is possible to go via Stewarts Lane, though the layout at Battersea Pier Junction would complicate platforming at Victoria (the up low level route feeds into the Up Chatham Slow, so ideally routed into Victoria platforms 5-8, while the down low level feeds out of the Down Chatham Fast, so ideally out of platforms 1-4). If Battersea Park is retained, AIUI Networkers are barred from the route (though it may or may not take much to clear it for them). Yes, that's a very good point, I hadn't really thought about that issue. Hmm. Well, I suppose the brutal solution would be to simply give up on serving Wandsworth Road with Victoria trains altogether, and leave it for ELL phase 2 to serve, and tell pax that they can do one of four things... * get to Victoria by going to Clapham Jn on the ELL and changing (though the geographical daftness of that does offend me somewhat) * get the bus to Vauxhall and then tube (or another bus) to Victoria * walk to Clapham High Street and catch the train from there (AIUI the Vic-Dartford trains could serve Clapham HS, as there's a junction the name of which I forget that provides access to and from the Atlantic Line) The Victoria - Dartford services actually run through Clapham High Street platforms much of the time anyway; most switch to / from the Chatham Reversible at Voltaire Road Junction, although in the past many have gone via the low level lines. Since the loss of the Eurostar services, the trains via Stewarts Lane have been reduced to a few Up peak services. I think that's pretty much all there ever was, even when Eurostar was there. *The only time I ever saw the down Stewarts Lane being used was during engineering works on the viaduct. The past goes back to the early - mid 1990s, when there were Down trains sent that way as well as Up. I don't know the last year that scheduled services used the Down route. It's true that down services have tended to cross backwards and forwards, going through CHS platforms, then crossing back again before Peckham Rye. Pretty much all the services heading for Nunhead and beyond from Victoria go via the Atlantic lines, although the Chatham lines (the northern pair) seem to be busier in recent years. |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Mizter T wrote:
(1) London Bridge won't have space to accommodate [the SLL service] as it'll have fewer terminating platforms as a result of the station's redevelopment for the Thameslink Programme and won't have the capacity to accommodate the SLL service - AIUI much of this redevelopment will happen in tandem with the construction of the Shard skyscraper, because the developers have to cough up x amount of money to contribute towards the redevelopment of LB station. (My understanding is that the space currently occupied by platforms 14-16 will become part of the Shard development around the base of the tower.) Huh. Is there somewhere i can read more about this? Will more platforms be added to replace them? How? tom -- I am become Life, destroyer of worlds |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message rth.li... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Mizter T wrote: (1) London Bridge won't have space to accommodate [the SLL service] as it'll have fewer terminating platforms as a result of the station's redevelopment for the Thameslink Programme and won't have the capacity to accommodate the SLL service - AIUI much of this redevelopment will happen in tandem with the construction of the Shard skyscraper, because the developers have to cough up x amount of money to contribute towards the redevelopment of LB station. (My understanding is that the space currently occupied by platforms 14-16 will become part of the Shard development around the base of the tower.) Huh. Is there somewhere i can read more about this? Will more platforms be added to replace them? How? London Bridge currently has 15 platforms and a through line 3 platforms on Cannon Street lines 3 platforms and a through line for Charing Cross and Thameslink trains 9 terminal platforms for Southern. Until the 1970s the through line did not exist, but there were 15 terminal platforms. Some were lost in creating the through line, and, IIRC later in extending the through platforms for 12 car trains, and others were lost in providing space for the new signalbox. The Thameslink proposals are for 9 through platforms and 6 terminal platforms 3 platforms for Cannon Street trains 2 platforms for Thameslink 4 platforms for Charing Cross trains Some trains which currently use the terminal platforms will run via Thameslink. AIUI it's not yet clear how much of the layout will be available during the construction period. Peter |
ELL Stock in Place
"DW downunder" noname wrote in message ... "Paul Scott" wrote in message ... "DW downunder" noname wrote in message ... Given FCC's track record, I suspect it's more a case of: we'll know when we see the trains actually running ... and for your further flung participants: ... and the news filters through. SIGH Thankfully, it is nothing at all to do with FCC... Paul S Perhaps missing my point - the timetable's one thing - what actually happens is the reality folk have to deal with. Ah, understood Paul S |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
"Peter Masson" wrote in message ... Some trains which currently use the terminal platforms will run via Thameslink. AIUI it's not yet clear how much of the layout will be available during the construction period. It gets discussed to a certain extent in yesterday's finalised Kent RUS. There will be times when groups of through platforms will be completey out of use and the relevant trains will pass straight through, but I only had a quick glance. Paul S |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message rth.li... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Mizter T wrote: (1) London Bridge won't have space to accommodate [the SLL service] as it'll have fewer terminating platforms as a result of the station's redevelopment for the Thameslink Programme and won't have the capacity to accommodate the SLL service - AIUI much of this redevelopment will happen in tandem with the construction of the Shard skyscraper, because the developers have to cough up x amount of money to contribute towards the redevelopment of LB station. (My understanding is that the space currently occupied by platforms 14-16 will become part of the Shard development around the base of the tower.) Huh. Is there somewhere i can read more about this? Will more platforms be added to replace them? How? The before and after drawings (part of the Thameslink [1] enquiry) for London Bridge station don't show any significant reduction in the current lengths of 14 -16. If anything, it is the other remaining terminating platforms (equivalent to 11 - 13) that will be shortened to roughly where the current footbridge is. However the eventual 6 terminating platforms (10 - 15 when renumbered), will be 3 twin track bays - the most southern platform will be against the building wall, in other words, not facing the wall as now. Separately, there seem to be proposals that all 6 terminating platforms should be made 12 car capable - that isn't currently the plan, it looks like the new P10 is relatively short because of the shape of the throat. [1] I haven't a current link to them unfortunately... Paul S |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On 23 Jan, 10:50, Andy wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:15*am, MIG wrote: On 23 Jan, 01:05, Andy wrote: On Jan 22, 10:21*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Jan 22, 8:57*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Mizter T" wrote Having thought about it, I'm possibly even warming just a little (though only a little) to the notion that, given the seemingly inevitable downfall of the existing SLL service, an enhanced Vic- Dartford service plus the new ELL phase 2 service might not be such a bad result, and that the loss of the proposed 'SLL replacement' Vic- Bellingham service can be taken on the chin (a shame, and it would be nice to have it, but perhaps not a complete essential). Part of the problem is the way in which this has all been handled, i.e. in a rather furtive and underhand manner. Maybe stops at Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye could even be inserted on a few other trains that currently run fast along the Catford Loop to and from Victoria? One problem with using Victoria - Dartford trains to replace the Victoria - London Bridge SLL service, at least when the Battersea Park junction is severed, is that there is no route between the Chatham high level lines and the platforms at Wandsworth Road. It is possible to go via Stewarts Lane, though the layout at Battersea Pier Junction would complicate platforming at Victoria (the up low level route feeds into the Up Chatham Slow, so ideally routed into Victoria platforms 5-8, while the down low level feeds out of the Down Chatham Fast, so ideally out of platforms 1-4). If Battersea Park is retained, AIUI Networkers are barred from the route (though it may or may not take much to clear it for them). Yes, that's a very good point, I hadn't really thought about that issue. Hmm. Well, I suppose the brutal solution would be to simply give up on serving Wandsworth Road with Victoria trains altogether, and leave it for ELL phase 2 to serve, and tell pax that they can do one of four things... * get to Victoria by going to Clapham Jn on the ELL and changing (though the geographical daftness of that does offend me somewhat) * get the bus to Vauxhall and then tube (or another bus) to Victoria * walk to Clapham High Street and catch the train from there (AIUI the Vic-Dartford trains could serve Clapham HS, as there's a junction the name of which I forget that provides access to and from the Atlantic Line) The Victoria - Dartford services actually run through Clapham High Street platforms much of the time anyway; most switch to / from the Chatham Reversible at Voltaire Road Junction, although in the past many have gone via the low level lines. Since the loss of the Eurostar services, the trains via Stewarts Lane have been reduced to a few Up peak services. I think that's pretty much all there ever was, even when Eurostar was there. *The only time I ever saw the down Stewarts Lane being used was during engineering works on the viaduct. The past goes back to the early - mid 1990s, when there were Down trains sent that way as well as Up. I don't know the last year that scheduled services used the Down route. You could be right, but withdrawal from the down Stewarts Lane isn't down to withdrawal of Eurostar is what I meant. Also, I think it may be earlier than that. I was an immigrant to south London in about 1989, and I don't remember seeing the down Stewarts Lane used in the early 1990s. Could just always be there at the wrong time I suppose ... My assumption was that Stewarts Lane only really started being used much after Eurostar started sharing the tracks, the up track adding a fourth track to the viaduct. Definitely one for Peter Masson. |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On Jan 23, 10:15*am, MIG wrote: On 23 Jan, 01:05, Andy wrote: [snip] The Victoria - Dartford services actually run through Clapham High Street platforms much of the time anyway; most switch to / from the Chatham Reversible at Voltaire Road Junction, although in the past many have gone via the low level lines. Since the loss of the Eurostar services, the trains via Stewarts Lane have been reduced to a few Up peak services. I think that's pretty much all there ever was, even when Eurostar was there. *The only time I ever saw the down Stewarts Lane being used was during engineering works on the viaduct. The Up Stewart's Lane low level route (to Vic) was in regular use by the Vic-Dartford trains until recently - I think this is more or less no longer the case, I'm not sure though. The Down Stewart's Lane low level route (i.e. passing on the easternmost track next to Battersea Power station) was seemingly timetabled for use by a couple of later evening Dartford trains (19:16 and 19:46 ring a bell), but I recall reading somewhere (gensheet I suppose) about folk who were trying to 'score' this track (or whatever the phrase that's used!) who all seemed to think it never actually happened, something to do with how a rare set of circumstances where many planets had to align - an arriving train had to come at just the right point when a Eurostar was leaving or something like that - and only then would it happen. I was on a train that went that way once a few years back - 'twas dark and I was reading a book so I almost missed it, not that I'm really in the game of trying to 'score' such track or anything like that though! (Though is interesting and mildly satisfying to traverse a track that one sees and wonders whether it ever actually gets used... damn, looks like my secret life of being a not very committed rare track basher is out!) |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On Jan 23, 1:23*pm, MIG wrote:
On 23 Jan, 10:50, Andy wrote: On Jan 23, 10:15*am, MIG wrote: On 23 Jan, 01:05, Andy wrote: On Jan 22, 10:21*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Jan 22, 8:57*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Mizter T" wrote Having thought about it, I'm possibly even warming just a little (though only a little) to the notion that, given the seemingly inevitable downfall of the existing SLL service, an enhanced Vic- Dartford service plus the new ELL phase 2 service might not be such a bad result, and that the loss of the proposed 'SLL replacement' Vic- Bellingham service can be taken on the chin (a shame, and it would be nice to have it, but perhaps not a complete essential). Part of the problem is the way in which this has all been handled, i.e. in a rather furtive and underhand manner. Maybe stops at Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye could even be inserted on a few other trains that currently run fast along the Catford Loop to and from Victoria? One problem with using Victoria - Dartford trains to replace the Victoria - London Bridge SLL service, at least when the Battersea Park junction is severed, is that there is no route between the Chatham high level lines and the platforms at Wandsworth Road. It is possible to go via Stewarts Lane, though the layout at Battersea Pier Junction would complicate platforming at Victoria (the up low level route feeds into the Up Chatham Slow, so ideally routed into Victoria platforms 5-8, while the down low level feeds out of the Down Chatham Fast, so ideally out of platforms 1-4). If Battersea Park is retained, AIUI Networkers are barred from the route (though it may or may not take much to clear it for them). Yes, that's a very good point, I hadn't really thought about that issue. Hmm. Well, I suppose the brutal solution would be to simply give up on serving Wandsworth Road with Victoria trains altogether, and leave it for ELL phase 2 to serve, and tell pax that they can do one of four things... * get to Victoria by going to Clapham Jn on the ELL and changing (though the geographical daftness of that does offend me somewhat) * get the bus to Vauxhall and then tube (or another bus) to Victoria * walk to Clapham High Street and catch the train from there (AIUI the Vic-Dartford trains could serve Clapham HS, as there's a junction the name of which I forget that provides access to and from the Atlantic Line) The Victoria - Dartford services actually run through Clapham High Street platforms much of the time anyway; most switch to / from the Chatham Reversible at Voltaire Road Junction, although in the past many have gone via the low level lines. Since the loss of the Eurostar services, the trains via Stewarts Lane have been reduced to a few Up peak services. I think that's pretty much all there ever was, even when Eurostar was there. *The only time I ever saw the down Stewarts Lane being used was during engineering works on the viaduct. The past goes back to the early - mid 1990s, when there were Down trains sent that way as well as Up. I don't know the last year that scheduled services used the Down route. You could be right, but withdrawal from the down Stewarts Lane isn't down to withdrawal of Eurostar is what I meant. Also, I think it may be earlier than that. *I was an immigrant to south London in about 1989, and I don't remember seeing the down Stewarts Lane used in the early 1990s. *Could just always be there at the wrong time I suppose ... I don't think there were many services (just the odd one or two), as there were recently with the 19.16 and 19.46 Victoria - Dartford booked that way for several years (with a few other odd trains), at least until the last timetable change. My assumption was that Stewarts Lane only really started being used much after Eurostar started sharing the tracks, the up track adding a fourth track to the viaduct. *Definitely one for Peter Masson. I think the up track was used frequently before Eurostar started it is only recently that services have really been cut back. As you say it adds the fourth track to the high level route. |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On 23 Jan, 14:13, Andy wrote:
On Jan 23, 1:23*pm, MIG wrote: On 23 Jan, 10:50, Andy wrote: On Jan 23, 10:15*am, MIG wrote: On 23 Jan, 01:05, Andy wrote: On Jan 22, 10:21*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Jan 22, 8:57*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Mizter T" wrote Having thought about it, I'm possibly even warming just a little (though only a little) to the notion that, given the seemingly inevitable downfall of the existing SLL service, an enhanced Vic- Dartford service plus the new ELL phase 2 service might not be such a bad result, and that the loss of the proposed 'SLL replacement' Vic- Bellingham service can be taken on the chin (a shame, and it would be nice to have it, but perhaps not a complete essential). Part of the problem is the way in which this has all been handled, i.e. in a rather furtive and underhand manner. Maybe stops at Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye could even be inserted on a few other trains that currently run fast along the Catford Loop to and from Victoria? One problem with using Victoria - Dartford trains to replace the Victoria - London Bridge SLL service, at least when the Battersea Park junction is severed, is that there is no route between the Chatham high level lines and the platforms at Wandsworth Road. It is possible to go via Stewarts Lane, though the layout at Battersea Pier Junction would complicate platforming at Victoria (the up low level route feeds into the Up Chatham Slow, so ideally routed into Victoria platforms 5-8, while the down low level feeds out of the Down Chatham Fast, so ideally out of platforms 1-4). If Battersea Park is retained, AIUI Networkers are barred from the route (though it may or may not take much to clear it for them). Yes, that's a very good point, I hadn't really thought about that issue. Hmm. Well, I suppose the brutal solution would be to simply give up on serving Wandsworth Road with Victoria trains altogether, and leave it for ELL phase 2 to serve, and tell pax that they can do one of four things... * get to Victoria by going to Clapham Jn on the ELL and changing (though the geographical daftness of that does offend me somewhat) * get the bus to Vauxhall and then tube (or another bus) to Victoria * walk to Clapham High Street and catch the train from there (AIUI the Vic-Dartford trains could serve Clapham HS, as there's a junction the name of which I forget that provides access to and from the Atlantic Line) The Victoria - Dartford services actually run through Clapham High Street platforms much of the time anyway; most switch to / from the Chatham Reversible at Voltaire Road Junction, although in the past many have gone via the low level lines. Since the loss of the Eurostar services, the trains via Stewarts Lane have been reduced to a few Up peak services. I think that's pretty much all there ever was, even when Eurostar was there. *The only time I ever saw the down Stewarts Lane being used was during engineering works on the viaduct. The past goes back to the early - mid 1990s, when there were Down trains sent that way as well as Up. I don't know the last year that scheduled services used the Down route. You could be right, but withdrawal from the down Stewarts Lane isn't down to withdrawal of Eurostar is what I meant. Also, I think it may be earlier than that. *I was an immigrant to south London in about 1989, and I don't remember seeing the down Stewarts Lane used in the early 1990s. *Could just always be there at the wrong time I suppose ... I don't think there were many services (just the odd one or two), as there were recently with the 19.16 and 19.46 Victoria - Dartford booked that way for several years (with a few other odd trains), at least until the last timetable change. Mizter T mentioned the same services. I used both of those too many times to count, and never travelled on the down Stewarts Lane except that one engineering weekend. So I had no idea they were meant to. I guess the planets never aligned. My assumption was that Stewarts Lane only really started being used much after Eurostar started sharing the tracks, the up track adding a fourth track to the viaduct. *Definitely one for Peter Masson. I think the up track was used frequently before Eurostar started it is only recently that services have really been cut back. As you say it adds the fourth track to the high level route.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On Jan 23, 10:50*am, Andy wrote: On Jan 23, 10:15*am, MIG wrote: On 23 Jan, 01:05, Andy wrote: [snip] The Victoria - Dartford services actually run through Clapham High Street platforms much of the time anyway; most switch to / from the Chatham Reversible at Voltaire Road Junction, although in the past many have gone via the low level lines. Since the loss of the Eurostar services, the trains via Stewarts Lane have been reduced to a few Up peak services. I think that's pretty much all there ever was, even when Eurostar was there. *The only time I ever saw the down Stewarts Lane being used was during engineering works on the viaduct. The past goes back to the early - mid 1990s, when there were Down trains sent that way as well as Up. I don't know the last year that scheduled services used the Down route. See my reply to MIG - a couple of trains were I believe scheduled to do this until recently, but apparently hardly ever actually did do so in reality. It's true that down services have tended to cross backwards and forwards, going through CHS platforms, then crossing back again before Peckham Rye. Pretty much all the services heading for Nunhead and beyond from Victoria go via the Atlantic lines, although the Chatham lines (the northern pair) seem to be busier in recent years. At weekends the diverted Sevenoaks trains (via Nunhead) that would otherwise be Blackfriars/ Thameslink services go to and from Victoria - these seem to use the Chatham lines as opposed to the Atlantic lines. See the LDB for Denmark Hill, in particular the platforming - platforms 1&2 serve the Atlantic lines (the southernmost pair), platforms 3&4 serve the Chatham lines (the northernmost): http://realtime.nationalrail.co.uk/ldb/station.aspx?T=DMK At the moment (i.e. as it's a weekend) the Dartford trains and the SLL are on the Atlantic lines, the Sevenoaks trains are on the Chatham lines. I've been there a few times recently-ish when there's been some appallingly late platform changes, but off the top of my head I can't remember what the particular scenarios were (I do remember helping people up and down staircases with bags, and also once blocking the doorway of a train as the driver shouted at me, the intention being to hold it to allow an elderly-ish couple to get down the stairs and board.) |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
"MIG" wrote Also, I think it may be earlier than that. I was an immigrant to south London in about 1989, and I don't remember seeing the down Stewarts Lane used in the early 1990s. Could just always be there at the wrong time I suppose ... My assumption was that Stewarts Lane only really started being used much after Eurostar started sharing the tracks, the up track adding a fourth track to the viaduct. Definitely one for Peter Masson. Until the Victoria resignalling in the 1980s the high level route to Victoria consisted of two up lines (from Shepherds Lane) and one down line, with a 4-track approach only from Battersea Pier Junction. The Stewarts Lane route was never used by passenger trains, unless there was an engineering blockade or other problem on the high level route. I think people are right in suggesting that use of the up Stewarts Lane route only began when Eurostar started, and that use of the down Stewarts Lane route was very rare - the only time I've used it was when there was a Victoria - Redhill - Tonbridge service run by South Eastern, which ran from Chatham side, crossing to the Battersea eversible at Stewarts Lane, and joining the Brighton Main line at Pouparts Junction. With the Victoria resignalling what had been the Up Slow on the high level viaduct became a reversible line, and during the Eurostar era was mainly used as a Down Slow (the up slow being the Stewarts Lane route). Peter |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On Jan 23, 1:03*pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: "Tom Anderson" wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Mizter T wrote: (1) London Bridge won't have space to accommodate [the SLL service] as it'll have fewer terminating platforms as a result of the station's redevelopment for the Thameslink Programme and won't have the capacity to accommodate the SLL service - AIUI much of this redevelopment will happen in tandem with the construction of the Shard skyscraper, because the developers have to cough up x amount of money to contribute towards the redevelopment of LB station. (My understanding is that the space currently occupied by platforms 14-16 will become part of the Shard development around the base of the tower.) Huh. Is there somewhere i can read more about this? Will more platforms be added to replace them? How? The before and after drawings *(part of the Thameslink [1] enquiry) *for London Bridge station don't show any significant reduction in the current lengths of 14 -16. *If anything, it is the other remaining *terminating platforms (equivalent to 11 - 13) that will be shortened to roughly where the current footbridge is. However the eventual 6 terminating platforms (10 - 15 when renumbered), will be 3 twin track bays - the most southern platform will be against the building wall, in other words, not facing the wall as now. Separately, there seem to be proposals that all 6 terminating platforms should be made 12 car capable - that isn't currently the plan, it looks like the new P10 is relatively short because of the shape of the throat. [1] I haven't a current link to them unfortunately... Thanks Paul, sorry for spreading any misinformation about the fate of the current platforms 14-16, I'd obviously got a wrong idea about the eventual layout at LB. Simple question - is the Shard development inherently responsible for killing off any of the terminating platforms, or is all it might do to make the remaining terminating platforms to be located a bit further away from the current concourse i.e. push the buffer stops a little way further towards the 'country end' of the station? (For some reason I'd had this vague idea that the Shard was actually going to be responsible for eating some of the platforms, but I think I see now that I got that wrong - instead the most it'll do is shift them further out a little bit, but all that's really happening is that space in the station is simply being reallocated from the terminating platforms over to expanding the number through platforms - right? If so, the Shard itself isn't to blame for the SLL service being kicked out of LB due to lack of space to accommodate it - as I'm sure I've heard being suggested - but it's just the whole redevelopment of LB for Thameslink that's behind it.) |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
"Mizter T" wrote Simple question - is the Shard development inherently responsible for killing off any of the terminating platforms, or is all it might do to make the remaining terminating platforms to be located a bit further away from the current concourse i.e. push the buffer stops a little way further towards the 'country end' of the station? (For some reason I'd had this vague idea that the Shard was actually going to be responsible for eating some of the platforms, but I think I see now that I got that wrong - instead the most it'll do is shift them further out a little bit, but all that's really happening is that space in the station is simply being reallocated from the terminating platforms over to expanding the number through platforms - right? If so, the Shard itself isn't to blame for the SLL service being kicked out of LB due to lack of space to accommodate it - as I'm sure I've heard being suggested - but it's just the whole redevelopment of LB for Thameslink that's behind it.) London Bridge has 15 platforms now, and will have 15 platforms when all is finished. But the Thameslink platforms will be more or less where the Charing Cross platforms are now, and the Charing Cross platforms will be more or less on the site of the old South Eastern low level station, extending a little way into the Brighton train shed. AIUI the Shard wo't ake any operational space from the station. Peter |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On Jan 23, 2:22*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:50*am, Andy wrote: On Jan 23, 10:15*am, MIG wrote: On 23 Jan, 01:05, Andy wrote: [snip] The Victoria - Dartford services actually run through Clapham High Street platforms much of the time anyway; most switch to / from the Chatham Reversible at Voltaire Road Junction, although in the past many have gone via the low level lines. Since the loss of the Eurostar services, the trains via Stewarts Lane have been reduced to a few Up peak services. I think that's pretty much all there ever was, even when Eurostar was there. *The only time I ever saw the down Stewarts Lane being used was during engineering works on the viaduct. The past goes back to the early - mid 1990s, when there were Down trains sent that way as well as Up. I don't know the last year that scheduled services used the Down route. See my reply to MIG - a couple of trains were I believe scheduled to do this until recently, but apparently hardly ever actually did do so in reality. They were much more reliable when the conflicting trains were Eurostars (the 19.13 and 19.43 from Waterloo), but once the Eurostars disappeared in November 2007, there was less need. Most of the reports on gensheet were after Eurostar finished. It's true that down services have tended to cross backwards and forwards, going through CHS platforms, then crossing back again before Peckham Rye. Pretty much all the services heading for Nunhead and beyond from Victoria go via the Atlantic lines, although the Chatham lines (the northern pair) seem to be busier in recent years. At weekends the diverted Sevenoaks trains (via Nunhead) that would otherwise be Blackfriars/ Thameslink services go to and from Victoria - these seem to use the Chatham lines as opposed to the Atlantic lines. See the LDB for Denmark Hill, in particular the platforming - platforms 1&2 serve the Atlantic lines (the southernmost pair), platforms 3&4 serve the Chatham lines (the northernmost): http://realtime.nationalrail.co.uk/ldb/station.aspx?T=DMK At the moment (i.e. as it's a weekend) the Dartford trains and the SLL are on the Atlantic lines, the Sevenoaks trains are on the Chatham lines. I've been there a few times recently-ish when there's been some appallingly late platform changes, but off the top of my head I can't remember what the particular scenarios were (I do remember helping people up and down staircases with bags, and also once blocking the doorway of a train as the driver shouted at me, the intention being to hold it to allow an elderly-ish couple to get down the stairs and board.) PSUL (http://www.avoe05.dsl.pipex.com/2010.htm) is a better guide as to what is supposed to happen ;) Sevenoaks services now seem to be booked that way all days of the week, although only in the evenings on weekdays (as you say diverted from Blackfriars) and with more Down trains than Up. Sundays seem to be the busiest, but will be engineering work dependant. |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On Jan 23, 2:32*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"MIG" wrote Also, I think it may be earlier than that. *I was an immigrant to south London in about 1989, and I don't remember seeing the down Stewarts Lane used in the early 1990s. *Could just always be there at the wrong time I suppose ... My assumption was that Stewarts Lane only really started being used much after Eurostar started sharing the tracks, the up track adding a fourth track to the viaduct. *Definitely one for Peter Masson. Until the Victoria resignalling in the 1980s the high level route to Victoria consisted of two up lines (from Shepherds Lane) and one down line, with a 4-track approach only from Battersea Pier Junction. The Stewarts Lane route was never used by passenger trains, unless there was an engineering blockade or other problem on the high level route. I think people are right in suggesting that use of the up Stewarts Lane route only began when Eurostar started, and that use of the down Stewarts Lane route was very rare - the only time I've used it was when there was a Victoria - Redhill - Tonbridge service run by South Eastern, which ran from Chatham side, crossing to the Battersea eversible at Stewarts Lane, and joining the Brighton Main line at Pouparts Junction. With the Victoria resignalling what had been the Up Slow on the high level viaduct became a reversible line, and during the Eurostar era was mainly used as a Down Slow (the up slow being the Stewarts Lane route). PSUL has an archive file, from 1992, showing Up (and a few Down on Sundays) services running via Stewarts Lane. This was, of course, several years before Eurostar started. |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On 23 Jan, 14:59, Andy wrote: On Jan 23, 2:22*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Jan 23, 10:50*am, Andy wrote: [snip] The past goes back to the early - mid 1990s, when there were Down trains sent that way as well as Up. I don't know the last year that scheduled services used the Down route. See my reply to MIG - a couple of trains were I believe scheduled to do this until recently, but apparently hardly ever actually did do so in reality. They were much more reliable when the conflicting trains were Eurostars (the 19.13 and 19.43 from Waterloo), but once the Eurostars disappeared in November 2007, there was less need. Most of the reports on gensheet were after Eurostar finished. I don't understand that - if the (theoretical) need for them to use the Down Stewarts Lane line was conflicting Eurostars, why were there more reports of trains actually it after Nov '07 when the Eurostars weren't around any more? It's true that down services have tended to cross backwards and forwards, going through CHS platforms, then crossing back again before Peckham Rye. Pretty much all the services heading for Nunhead and beyond from Victoria go via the Atlantic lines, although the Chatham lines (the northern pair) seem to be busier in recent years. At weekends the diverted Sevenoaks trains (via Nunhead) that would otherwise be Blackfriars/ Thameslink services go to and from Victoria - these seem to use the Chatham lines as opposed to the Atlantic lines. See the LDB for Denmark Hill, in particular the platforming - platforms 1&2 serve the Atlantic lines (the southernmost pair), platforms 3&4 serve the Chatham lines (the northernmost): http://realtime.nationalrail.co.uk/ldb/station.aspx?T=DMK At the moment (i.e. as it's a weekend) the Dartford trains and the SLL are on the Atlantic lines, the Sevenoaks trains are on the Chatham lines. I've been there a few times recently-ish when there's been some appallingly late platform changes, but off the top of my head I can't remember what the particular scenarios were (I do remember helping people up and down staircases with bags, and also once blocking the doorway of a train as the driver shouted at me, the intention being to hold it to allow an elderly-ish couple to get down the stairs and board.) PSUL (http://www.avoe05.dsl.pipex.com/2010.htm) is a better guide as to what is supposed to happen ;) Sevenoaks services now seem to be booked that way all days of the week, although only in the evenings on weekdays (as you say diverted from Blackfriars) and with more Down trains than Up. Sundays seem to be the busiest, but will be engineering work dependant. Yes, to be honest I was only really thinking about the stopping services! |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On 23 Jan, 14:51, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Mizter T" wrote Simple question - is the Shard development inherently responsible for killing off any of the terminating platforms, or is all it might do to make the remaining terminating platforms to be located a bit further away from the current concourse i.e. push the buffer stops a little way further towards the 'country end' of the station? (For some reason I'd had this vague idea that the Shard was actually going to be responsible for eating some of the platforms, but I think I see now that I got that wrong - instead the most it'll do is shift them further out a little bit, but all that's really happening is that space in the station is simply being reallocated from the terminating platforms over to expanding the number through platforms - right? If so, the Shard itself isn't to blame for the SLL service being kicked out of LB due to lack of space to accommodate it - as I'm sure I've heard being suggested - but it's just the whole redevelopment of LB for Thameslink that's behind it.) London Bridge has 15 platforms now, and will have 15 platforms when all is finished. But the Thameslink platforms will be more or less where the Charing Cross platforms are now, and the Charing Cross platforms will be more or less on the site of the old South Eastern low level station, extending a little way into the Brighton train shed. AIUI the Shard wo't ake any operational space from the station. Thanks Peter (though I dunno why I didn't just count the total number of platforms that you said the redeveloped station will have in earlier posts - d'oh!). Anyhow that firmly puts to bed a misapprehension that I'd somehow picked up from somewhere. |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On Jan 23, 4:01*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 23 Jan, 14:59, Andy wrote: On Jan 23, 2:22*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Jan 23, 10:50*am, Andy wrote: [snip] The past goes back to the early - mid 1990s, when there were Down trains sent that way as well as Up. I don't know the last year that scheduled services used the Down route. See my reply to MIG - a couple of trains were I believe scheduled to do this until recently, but apparently hardly ever actually did do so in reality. They were much more reliable when the conflicting trains were Eurostars (the 19.13 and 19.43 from Waterloo), but once the Eurostars disappeared in November 2007, there was less need. Most of the reports on gensheet were after Eurostar finished. I don't understand that - if the (theoretical) need for them to use the Down Stewarts Lane line was conflicting Eurostars, why were there more reports of trains actually it after Nov '07 when the Eurostars weren't around any more? PSUL also listed conflicts with the 19.18 and 19.48 Victoria - Ashford International services which continued after Eurostar ended. Of course these South Eastern trains would cause much less of a conflict, being considerably shorter, but there would still be the potential depending on which platforms and tracks were used by the relevant services. |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On 23 Jan, 16:11, Andy wrote:
On Jan 23, 4:01*pm, Mizter T wrote: On 23 Jan, 14:59, Andy wrote: On Jan 23, 2:22*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Jan 23, 10:50*am, Andy wrote: [snip] The past goes back to the early - mid 1990s, when there were Down trains sent that way as well as Up. I don't know the last year that scheduled services used the Down route. See my reply to MIG - a couple of trains were I believe scheduled to do this until recently, but apparently hardly ever actually did do so in reality. They were much more reliable when the conflicting trains were Eurostars (the 19.13 and 19.43 from Waterloo), but once the Eurostars disappeared in November 2007, there was less need. Most of the reports on gensheet were after Eurostar finished. I don't understand that - if the (theoretical) need for them to use the Down Stewarts Lane line was conflicting Eurostars, why were there more reports of trains actually it after Nov '07 when the Eurostars weren't around any more? PSUL also listed conflicts with the 19.18 and 19.48 Victoria - Ashford International services which continued after Eurostar ended. Of course these South Eastern trains would cause much less of a conflict, being considerably shorter, but there would still be the potential depending on which platforms and tracks were used by the relevant services.- 1916 and 1946 tended to use 7 or 8 as I recall, and the Ashfords something to the lower numbers, like 3. |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On Jan 22, 8:25*pm, Mizter T wrote: [snip] [...] The reasons for the SLL service being dropped are twofold: (1) London Bridge won't have space to accommodate it as it'll have fewer terminating platforms as a result of the station's redevelopment for the Thameslink Programme and won't have the capacity to accommodate the SLL service - AIUI much of this redevelopment will happen in tandem with the construction of the Shard skyscraper, because the developers have to cough up x amount of money to contribute towards the redevelopment of LB station. (My understanding is that the space currently occupied by platforms 14-16 will become part of the Shard development around the base of the tower.) I should just clarify something here. I had been operating under a sort of vague and muddled misapprehension that the Shard development might actually end up permanently 'stealing' some platforms from LB - this is not the case, as has since been made clear to me (by Peter Masson downthread) - the old LB has 15 platforms, the new LB will also have 15 platforms, there will simply be a shift to there being more through platforms (though given the construction undertaking that requires, saying 'simply' is a bit of an understatement there!). (I think I'd somehow picked up on this notion of the Shard gobbling up platform space by reading a blog comment on the London Connections blog while back, which is not necessarily a great venue for reliable information - the comment that is, not Mr Thant's great, late and lamented blog itself!) |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On Jan 23, 4:11*pm, Andy wrote: On Jan 23, 4:01*pm, Mizter T wrote: On 23 Jan, 14:59, Andy wrote: On Jan 23, 2:22*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Jan 23, 10:50*am, Andy wrote: [snip] The past goes back to the early - mid 1990s, when there were Down trains sent that way as well as Up. I don't know the last year that scheduled services used the Down route. See my reply to MIG - a couple of trains were I believe scheduled to do this until recently, but apparently hardly ever actually did do so in reality. They were much more reliable when the conflicting trains were Eurostars (the 19.13 and 19.43 from Waterloo), but once the Eurostars disappeared in November 2007, there was less need. Most of the reports on gensheet were after Eurostar finished. I don't understand that - if the (theoretical) need for them to use the Down Stewarts Lane line was conflicting Eurostars, why were there more reports of trains actually it after Nov '07 when the Eurostars weren't around any more? PSUL also listed conflicts with the 19.18 and 19.48 Victoria - Ashford International services which continued after Eurostar ended. Of course these South Eastern trains would cause much less of a conflict, being considerably shorter, but there would still be the potential depending on which platforms and tracks were used by the relevant services. OK, thanks, understood. |
ELL Stock in Place
On 22/01/2010 02:30, Mizter T wrote:
(And West Croydon will be - actually, already is - a London Overground managed station, so there's perhaps a bit more likelihood that they'd ensure it's a pleasant enough place to wait for, say, eight minutes.) Well, it has gained a coffee shop in the past year or so, and they even fixed the leaking roof on platform 4. Ideally they would give up on it and start again with a new station, this time providing integration with the tram stop and bus station, some bogs, step-free access, more seats, etc. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
Mizter T wrote:
On 23 Jan, 14:51, "Peter Masson" wrote: London Bridge has 15 platforms now, and will have 15 platforms when all is finished. But the Thameslink platforms will be more or less where the Charing Cross platforms are now, and the Charing Cross platforms will be more or less on the site of the old South Eastern low level station, extending a little way into the Brighton train shed. AIUI the Shard wo't ake any operational space from the station. Thanks Peter (though I dunno why I didn't just count the total number of platforms that you said the redeveloped station will have in earlier posts - d'oh!). Anyhow that firmly puts to bed a misapprehension that I'd somehow picked up from somewhere. Found the drawings I was referring to again - they are right at the back of this pdf on the DfT's 'Thameslink closures' site. What would be helpful is an overlay showing the exact footprint of the Shard, but you should get the general layout the new station anyway. http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/tl...easons2005.pdf Paul S |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
Not entirely relevant, but I was surprised to notice my usual 7.08
BMS-VIC (running to time with no apparent disruptions) taking the Stewarts Lane Up route on Thursday morning. The last time I went that way, as suggested upthread, was on an Up Dartford train. This morning I had a close look at the Down connection where it leaves the Chatham lines on the south side of the bridge. It looks polished and well used - is this just VSOE/GatEx empty stock workings? -- Current nearest station: Pimlico |
ELL Stock in Place
On 23 Jan, 19:58, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 22/01/2010 02:30, Mizter T wrote: * (And West Croydon will be - actually, already is - a LondonOverground managed station, so there's perhaps a bit more likelihood that they'd ensure it's a pleasant enough place to wait for, say, eight minutes.) Well, it has gained a coffee shop in the past year or so, and they even fixed the leaking roof on platform 4. Ideally they would give up on it and start again with a new station, this time providing integration with the tram stop and bus station, some bogs, step-free access, more seats, etc. As an aside from this, it has often been commented how useless it can be to clutter announcements with TOC names, but with LO supposedly managing the stations, this has been doubled up: "Southern Railway on behalf of London Overground ..." now preceding announcements (probably useless anyway, to do with personal possessions). The main change at Brockley is that the accessible side exit from the down platform (which has an Oyster pad) is now locked quite early in the evening, forcing crowds of people to go up the stairs to the bridge, where they are then trapped as they queue for a single barrier. I doubt if it's healthy and safe. |
ELL Stock in Place
On Feb 6, 12:30*pm, MIG wrote: On 23 Jan, 19:58, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 22/01/2010 02:30, Mizter T wrote: * (And West Croydon will be - actually, already is - a LondonOverground managed station, so there's perhaps a bit more likelihood that they'd ensure it's a pleasant enough place to wait for, say, eight minutes.) Well, it has gained a coffee shop in the past year or so, and they even fixed the leaking roof on platform 4. Ideally they would give up on it and start again with a new station, this time providing integration with the tram stop and bus station, some bogs, step-free access, more seats, etc. As an aside from this, it has often been commented how useless it can be to clutter announcements with TOC names, but with LO supposedly managing the stations, this has been doubled up: "Southern Railway on behalf of London Overground ..." now preceding announcements (probably useless anyway, to do with personal possessions). The main change at Brockley is that the accessible side exit from the down platform (which has an Oyster pad) is now locked quite early in the evening, forcing crowds of people to go up the stairs to the bridge, where they are then trapped as they queue for a single barrier. *I doubt if it's healthy and safe. Bah, humbug. |
ELL Stock in Place
On 6 Feb, 13:35, Mizter T wrote:
On Feb 6, 12:30*pm, MIG wrote: On 23 Jan, 19:58, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 22/01/2010 02:30, Mizter T wrote: * (And West Croydon will be - actually, already is - a LondonOverground managed station, so there's perhaps a bit more likelihood that they'd ensure it's a pleasant enough place to wait for, say, eight minutes..) Well, it has gained a coffee shop in the past year or so, and they even fixed the leaking roof on platform 4. Ideally they would give up on it and start again with a new station, this time providing integration with the tram stop and bus station, some bogs, step-free access, more seats, etc. As an aside from this, it has often been commented how useless it can be to clutter announcements with TOC names, but with LO supposedly managing the stations, this has been doubled up: "Southern Railway on behalf of London Overground ..." now preceding announcements (probably useless anyway, to do with personal possessions). The main change at Brockley is that the accessible side exit from the down platform (which has an Oyster pad) is now locked quite early in the evening, forcing crowds of people to go up the stairs to the bridge, where they are then trapped as they queue for a single barrier. *I doubt if it's healthy and safe. Bah, humbug. I'm not saying that I'm definitely planning to cancel Christmas over this, but it is the opposite of what we'd expect from improved accessibility with LO. Providing a lift that one or two people can use at a time doesn't really justify sending a couple of hundred people up the stairs when they used to use a side gate. |
ELL Stock in Place
On 06/02/2010 12:30, MIG wrote:
On 23 Jan, 19:58, Arthur wrote: On 22/01/2010 02:30, Mizter T wrote: (And West Croydon will be - actually, already is - a LondonOverground managed station, so there's perhaps a bit more likelihood that they'd ensure it's a pleasant enough place to wait for, say, eight minutes.) Well, it has gained a coffee shop in the past year or so, and they even fixed the leaking roof on platform 4. Ideally they would give up on it and start again with a new station, this time providing integration with the tram stop and bus station, some bogs, step-free access, more seats, etc. As an aside from this, it has often been commented how useless it can be to clutter announcements with TOC names, but with LO supposedly managing the stations, this has been doubled up: "Southern Railway on behalf of London Overground ..." now preceding announcements (probably useless anyway, to do with personal possessions). I saw on London Reconnections that West Croydon might get "a suite of new station signage". Yes, that's what it really needs. The current signs have been there, what, whole months now? Maybe it need some more of the posh-looking but useless to the point of misleading diagramtic maps, some of which at Sutton show the lines going the wrong way! And next train indicators. Um, it's got some already. But will they renumber the platforms, laying to rest the ghost of Platform 2? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
ELL Stock in Place
MIG wrote:
On 22 Jan, 09:42, "Paul Scott" wrote: Looking at all the evidence so far, the 'battering' of the service only seems to be off peak. Assuming a reduction of 5 to 4 tph meets the definition... It does sound good (although not mentioning connections south) but I suspect that it is sufficiently out of date not to be worth paying too much attention to. A lot has happened in "a couple of years", not least the election of a new Mayor, a major recession and some dodgy deals*. I don't simply take the word of the local campaigners either, who mention the reduction in service to LB (and Charing Cross) and lack of connections south, but don't mention the ELL, but I recognise that they have some justification for cynicism. I guess we'll know soon enough when the timetable comes out. The timetables for Mon 24th May are starting to creep into the various journey planners now. A search for times from Sydenham to New Cross gate on SN's website produced these, continuing to either London Bridge (SN) or Dalston Junction (LO): Typical Peak Hour: 08:01 08:11 LO starts Crystal Palace 08:06 08:16 LO starts West Croydon 08:09 08:19 SN starts ??? via Norwood Jn 08:14 08:24 LO starts Crystal Palace 08:18 08:28 SN starts Victoria, via Crystal Palace 08:22 08:32 LO starts West Croydon 08:28 08:38 SN starts ??? via Crystal Palace 08:31 08:41 LO starts Crystal Palace 08:36 08:46 LO starts West Croydon 08:39 08:49 SN starts ??? via Norwood Jn 08:44 08:54 LO starts Crystal Palace 08:47 08:57 SN starts ??? via Crystal Palace 08:51 09:01 LO starts West Croydon 08:54 09:04 SN starts Victoria, via Crystal Palace Typical Off Peak Hour, LO origins alternate as befo 10:01 10:11 LO 10:06 10:16 LO 10:12 10:22 SN starts ??? via Norwood Jn 10:16 10:26 LO 10:21 10:31 LO 10:24 10:34 SN starts Victoria, via Crystal Palace 10:31 10:41 LO 10:36 10:46 LO 10:42 10:52 SN starts ??? via Norwood Jn 10:46 10:56 LO 10:51 11:01 LO 10:54 11:04 SN starts Victoria, via Crystal Palace I'm having dificulty pinning down where some of the SN services start from unfortunately, maybe they just start at Norwood Jn? Thought the times so far might be useful in the context of this thread though... Paul S |
ELL Stock in Place
"Paul Scott" wrote in message
... MIG wrote: On 22 Jan, 09:42, "Paul Scott" wrote: Looking at all the evidence so far, the 'battering' of the service only seems to be off peak. Assuming a reduction of 5 to 4 tph meets the definition... It does sound good (although not mentioning connections south) but I suspect that it is sufficiently out of date not to be worth paying too much attention to. A lot has happened in "a couple of years", not least the election of a new Mayor, a major recession and some dodgy deals*. I don't simply take the word of the local campaigners either, who mention the reduction in service to LB (and Charing Cross) and lack of connections south, but don't mention the ELL, but I recognise that they have some justification for cynicism. I guess we'll know soon enough when the timetable comes out. The timetables for Mon 24th May are starting to creep into the various journey planners now. A search for times from Sydenham to New Cross gate on SN's website produced these, continuing to either London Bridge (SN) or Dalston Junction (LO): Typical Peak Hour: 08:01 08:11 LO starts Crystal Palace 08:06 08:16 LO starts West Croydon 08:09 08:19 SN starts ??? via Norwood Jn 08:14 08:24 LO starts Crystal Palace 08:18 08:28 SN starts Victoria, via Crystal Palace 08:22 08:32 LO starts West Croydon 08:28 08:38 SN starts ??? via Crystal Palace 08:31 08:41 LO starts Crystal Palace 08:36 08:46 LO starts West Croydon 08:39 08:49 SN starts ??? via Norwood Jn 08:44 08:54 LO starts Crystal Palace 08:47 08:57 SN starts ??? via Crystal Palace 08:51 09:01 LO starts West Croydon 08:54 09:04 SN starts Victoria, via Crystal Palace Typical Off Peak Hour, LO origins alternate as befo 10:01 10:11 LO 10:06 10:16 LO 10:12 10:22 SN starts ??? via Norwood Jn 10:16 10:26 LO 10:21 10:31 LO 10:24 10:34 SN starts Victoria, via Crystal Palace 10:31 10:41 LO 10:36 10:46 LO 10:42 10:52 SN starts ??? via Norwood Jn 10:46 10:56 LO 10:51 11:01 LO 10:54 11:04 SN starts Victoria, via Crystal Palace I'm having dificulty pinning down where some of the SN services start from unfortunately, maybe they just start at Norwood Jn? Caterham? |
ELL Stock in Place
"Paul Scott" wrote in message ... MIG wrote: On 22 Jan, 09:42, "Paul Scott" wrote: Looking at all the evidence so far, the 'battering' of the service only seems to be off peak. Assuming a reduction of 5 to 4 tph meets the definition... It does sound good (although not mentioning connections south) but I suspect that it is sufficiently out of date not to be worth paying too much attention to. A lot has happened in "a couple of years", not least the election of a new Mayor, a major recession and some dodgy deals*. I don't simply take the word of the local campaigners either, who mention the reduction in service to LB (and Charing Cross) and lack of connections south, but don't mention the ELL, but I recognise that they have some justification for cynicism. I guess we'll know soon enough when the timetable comes out. The timetables for Mon 24th May are starting to creep into the various journey planners now. A search for times from Sydenham to New Cross gate on SN's website produced these, continuing to either London Bridge (SN) or Dalston Junction (LO): Typical Peak Hour: 08:01 08:11 LO starts Crystal Palace 08:06 08:16 LO starts West Croydon 08:09 08:19 SN starts ??? via Norwood Jn 08:14 08:24 LO starts Crystal Palace 08:18 08:28 SN starts Victoria, via Crystal Palace 08:22 08:32 LO starts West Croydon 08:28 08:38 SN starts ??? via Crystal Palace 08:31 08:41 LO starts Crystal Palace 08:36 08:46 LO starts West Croydon 08:39 08:49 SN starts ??? via Norwood Jn 08:44 08:54 LO starts Crystal Palace 08:47 08:57 SN starts ??? via Crystal Palace 08:51 09:01 LO starts West Croydon 08:54 09:04 SN starts Victoria, via Crystal Palace Typical Off Peak Hour, LO origins alternate as befo 10:01 10:11 LO 10:06 10:16 LO 10:12 10:22 SN starts ??? via Norwood Jn 10:16 10:26 LO 10:21 10:31 LO 10:24 10:34 SN starts Victoria, via Crystal Palace 10:31 10:41 LO 10:36 10:46 LO 10:42 10:52 SN starts ??? via Norwood Jn 10:46 10:56 LO 10:51 11:01 LO 10:54 11:04 SN starts Victoria, via Crystal Palace I'm having dificulty pinning down where some of the SN services start from unfortunately, maybe they just start at Norwood Jn? Thought the times so far might be useful in the context of this thread though... The off-peak Southern service will be 2tph London Bridge - London Victoria (via Crystal Palace) 2tph London Bridge - Caterham The current 2tph London Bridge - Sutton is replaced by a combination of the 4tph LO Dalston Jn - West Croydon and extending the current 2tph London Victoria - West Croydon (via Crystal Palace) to Sutton. Peter Smyth |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk