"Mizter T" wrote in message

On Apr 29, 1:52 pm, TimB wrote:

On Apr 29, 8:16 am, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Apr 28, 9:31 pm, Ivor The Engine
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:01:26 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

Are there actually plans for WLL trains to go that far east?

No. The NLL and ELL overlap between Canonbury and Highbury.

Oops. Never was good at geography! Or decrypting TLAs.

Well to be fair it all depends how you categorise things. It depends
on whether you describe the infrastructure or the service. Mr Scott
and others are quite correct that trains from the WLL will run
through to Stratford from Clapham Junction. However is it still a
WLL service when it reaches Canonbury or is it a NLL service?

I tend to think of the bits of railway as being distinct when it
comes to the Overground. This is reinforced by the fact that the
ELL and NLL will run side by side but with no through running in
normal circumstances due to the track design at Highbury. Something
similar applies at Clapham Junction as there are real practical
problems there about how a ELL train would reverse and then head
north up the WLL without causing all sorts of issues.

I thought they were expected to use the same platform (2?) at Clapham
Jn?

Platform 1 is to be reinstated (across the island from platform 2).

I thought Ih ad read that this plan had been abandoned?

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"Mizter T" wrote in message

On Apr 29, 1:52 pm, TimB wrote:

I thought they were expected to use the same platform (2?) at Clapham
Jn?

Platform 1 is to be reinstated (across the island from platform 2).

I thought Ih ad read that this plan had been abandoned?
AIUI the current plan is to use platform 2 in two halves. Presumably WLL
trains will use the eastern half of the platform, and ELL trains will use
the western half via a new mid-platform crossover.

Actually, with the confusion about WLL trains running through to Stratford
via the NLL, there will be a similar confusion with ELL trains using the
South London Line between Old Kent Road and Factory Junction, though of
course the SLL terminology has already been abandoned between Peckham Rye
and Factory Junction, where the line that goes over the top of Brixton
Station is known as the Atlantic Lines, Perhaps the trains should be hauled
by 4-4-2 locos. ;-)

Peter

On Apr 29, 2:48*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message

"Mizter T"

On Apr 29, 1:52 pm, TimB wrote:
I thought they were expected to use the same platform (2?) at Clapham
Jn?

Platform 1 is to be reinstated (across the island from platform 2).

I thought Ih ad read that this plan had been abandoned?

AIUI the current plan is to use platform 2 in two halves. Presumably WLL
trains will use the eastern half of the platform, and ELL trains will use
the western half via a new mid-platform crossover.

That's very interesting - first time I've come across that. That plan
makes the notion of sharing a platform face actually workable (having
the WLL and ELL services actually share the very same operational
platform would be a recipe for total disaster, which is why I'd
dismissed it previously - never thought of what you've mentioned
though). It's possible of course because there's a centre track in
between those on platforms 2 and 3.

Actually quite ingenious. I knew that the decking beneath the track
space of platform 1 wasn't in a very healthy state - I guess that some
time in the future that might have to be dealt with properly, then
again maybe it's fine and can continue to be patched up so long as it
doesn't need to take the weight of a train or two.


Actually, with the confusion about WLL trains running through to Stratford
via the NLL, there will be a similar confusion with ELL trains using the
South London Line between Old Kent Road and Factory Junction, though of
course the SLL terminology has already been abandoned between Peckham Rye
and Factory Junction, where the line that goes over the top of Brixton
Station is known as the Atlantic Lines, Perhaps the trains should be hauled
by 4-4-2 locos. *;-)

Though from a passenger perspective, there wouldn't really be
confusion - the "South London Line" is the Victoria-London Bridge
service, which would be displaced by ELL phase 2 (and a number of
other factors). Some annoyance seems likely though! Indeed the SLL
name isn't actually used in any pax facing communications from the
railway these days (it's just another of Southern's "Metro" routes in
south London), but the various campaigners certainly use it.

For that matter, I've just remembered about the West London Line
Group, a users group who evidently make use of the WLL name.

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

On Apr 29, 2:48*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message

"Mizter T"

On Apr 29, 1:52 pm, TimB wrote:
I thought they were expected to use the same platform (2?) at
Clapham Jn?

Platform 1 is to be reinstated (across the island from platform 2).

I thought Ih ad read that this plan had been abandoned?

AIUI the current plan is to use platform 2 in two halves. Presumably
WLL trains will use the eastern half of the platform, and ELL trains
will use the western half via a new mid-platform crossover.

Described in this month's Modern Railways (IIRC) as the "Cambridge
solution". :-))

That's very interesting - first time I've come across that. That plan
makes the notion of sharing a platform face actually workable (having
the WLL and ELL services actually share the very same operational
platform would be a recipe for total disaster, which is why I'd
dismissed it previously - never thought of what you've mentioned
though). It's possible of course because there's a centre track in
between those on platforms 2 and 3.

Isn't there a middle road between 2 and 3 at Clapham Junction?

Actually quite ingenious. I knew that the decking beneath the track
space of platform 1 wasn't in a very healthy state - I guess that some
time in the future that might have to be dealt with properly, then
again maybe it's fine and can continue to be patched up so long as it
doesn't need to take the weight of a train or two.

I think the other problem with the original platform 1 is the signalling
or other hardware that would have to be moved.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 29 Apr, 18:25, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:44:05 +0100, "Paul Scott"

wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:

Well to be fair it all depends how you categorise things. It depends
on whether you describe the infrastructure or the service. *Mr Scott
and others are quite correct that trains from the WLL will run through
to Stratford from Clapham Junction. However is it still a WLL service
when it reaches Canonbury or is it a NLL service?

Good points. Just shows how the same question can be interpreted in
different ways. *I suppose I was answering 'will trains originating on the
WLL reach as far as the overlap with the ELL at Highbury etc. Incidentally a
post in District Dave's a couple of weeks back firmly supported the view
that London Rail aren't keen on using the line names, everthing being
described in terms of 'origin and destination' in timetables etc...

It does indeed show that. It is a pity in some respects that so many
colours have already been used up for tube lines as there would be some
merit in colour coding the various Overground lines. *Perhaps the final
map will be a bit like DLR where they show the service pattern as lines
to illustrate where there are through services?

I did see the District Dave post - ISTR that it was rather vociferous
and was "telling everybody off" for using the wrong terms despite TfL
not having (AFAIK) any jurisdiction over the DD board ;-)

If you extend the question to empty stock moves though, LO trains from the
WLL will also reach the ELL (and the depot) via all sorts of routes through
South London. :-)

I think you're pushing the limits of comparison perhaps just a little
too far.
--
Paul C

Seems to me that the NLL goes further W and S than both the WLL and
the SLL.

Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 29, 2:48 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message

"Mizter T"

On Apr 29, 1:52 pm, TimB wrote:
I thought they were expected to use the same platform (2?) at
Clapham Jn?

Platform 1 is to be reinstated (across the island from platform 2).

I thought Ih ad read that this plan had been abandoned?

AIUI the current plan is to use platform 2 in two halves. Presumably
WLL trains will use the eastern half of the platform, and ELL trains
will use the western half via a new mid-platform crossover.

That's very interesting - first time I've come across that. That plan
makes the notion of sharing a platform face actually workable (having
the WLL and ELL services actually share the very same operational
platform would be a recipe for total disaster, which is why I'd
dismissed it previously - never thought of what you've mentioned
though). It's possible of course because there's a centre track in
between those on platforms 2 and 3.

Actually quite ingenious. I knew that the decking beneath the track
space of platform 1 wasn't in a very healthy state - I guess that some
time in the future that might have to be dealt with properly, then
again maybe it's fine and can continue to be patched up so long as it
doesn't need to take the weight of a train or two.

I suggested a few weeks ago somewhere (uk.transport.london?) that perhaps
they should build out the western half of the current P2 over the track bed,
which would leave a roughly 6 car long bay for the current service (to be
renumbered P1), followed by a second 6 car platform face for a new P2. That
way you'd avoid the need for points half way along the platform, and there
would be a much more obvious separation between the two platforms for
passengers, as well as more circulation space.

AIUI there are still track alterations needed such as doubling the Latchmere
Reversible to aid the higher frequency, I'm not sure about the track layout
leading to the up and down Ludgate lines, but I suspect there is additional
S&C to fit to allow completely independent operation of the two future LO
routes.

What seems noteworthy is that the current P2 is under the control of
Wimbledon ASC, and there are boundaries with Victoria Central for the WLL
and Victoria Southeastern for the Ludgate lines - surely there's scope for a
change of control responsibilities there? Although I'm not writing with any
real signalling knowledge, it doesn't seem designed for streamlined
operations...

Paul S

On Apr 29, 10:29*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

On Apr 29, 2:48 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
[snip]
AIUI the current plan is to use platform 2 in two halves. Presumably
WLL trains will use the eastern half of the platform, and ELL trains
will use the western half via a new mid-platform crossover.

That's very interesting - first time I've come across that. That plan
makes the notion of sharing a platform face actually workable (having
the WLL and ELL services actually share the very same operational
platform would be a recipe for total disaster, which is why I'd
dismissed it previously - never thought of what you've mentioned
though). It's possible of course because there's a centre track in
between those on platforms 2 and 3.

Actually quite ingenious. I knew that the decking beneath the track
space of platform 1 wasn't in a very healthy state - I guess that some
time in the future that might have to be dealt with properly, then
again maybe it's fine and can continue to be patched up so long as it
doesn't need to take the weight of a train or two.

I suggested a few weeks ago somewhere (uk.transport.london?) that perhaps
they should build out the western half of the current P2 over the track bed,
which would leave a roughly 6 car long bay for the current service (to be
renumbered P1), followed by a second 6 car platform face for a new P2. That
way you'd avoid the need for points half way along the platform, and there
would be a much more obvious separation between the two platforms for
passengers, as well as more circulation space.

OK, I'd missed that, but that seems like a good solution too - it
would block access to the currently disused Kensington sidings (?) -
well, from that centre track at least - but if they're not needed then
that's no bother really. We shall see what they come up with.


AIUI there are still track alterations needed such as doubling the Latchmere
Reversible to aid the higher frequency, I'm not sure about the track layout
leading to the up and down Ludgate lines, but I suspect *there is additional
S&C to fit to allow completely independent operation of the two future LO
routes.

What seems noteworthy is that the current P2 is under the control of
Wimbledon ASC, and there are boundaries with Victoria Central for the WLL
and Victoria Southeastern for the Ludgate lines - surely there's scope for a
change of control responsibilities there? *Although I'm not writing with any
real signalling knowledge, it doesn't seem designed for streamlined
operations...

Sounds like some changes might be in order - a good example of the
hidden expenses of such projects I suppose.

On Apr 29, 9:45*pm, wrote:

(Mizter T) wrote:
On Apr 29, 2:48*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
[snip]
AIUI the current plan is to use platform 2 in two halves. Presumably
WLL trains will use the eastern half of the platform, and ELL trains
will use the western half via a new mid-platform crossover.

Described in this month's Modern Railways (IIRC) as the "Cambridge
solution". :-))

Well that'll show me for not having read it this month!


That's very interesting - first time I've come across that. That plan
makes the notion of sharing a platform face actually workable (having
the WLL and ELL services actually share the very same operational
platform would be a recipe for total disaster, which is why I'd
dismissed it previously - never thought of what you've mentioned
though). It's possible of course because there's a centre track in
between those on platforms 2 and 3.

Isn't there a middle road between 2 and 3 at Clapham Junction?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean above when I said there was a centre
track.


Actually quite ingenious. I knew that the decking beneath the track
space of platform 1 wasn't in a very healthy state - I guess that some
time in the future that might have to be dealt with properly, then
again maybe it's fine and can continue to be patched up so long as it
doesn't need to take the weight of a train or two.

I think the other problem with the original platform 1 is the signalling
or other hardware that would have to be moved.

My memory is that there track bed space isn't used for anything
critical like that, BICBW.

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

On Apr 29, 10:29*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

On Apr 29, 2:48 pm, "Peter Masson"
wrote:
[snip]
AIUI the current plan is to use platform 2 in two halves.
Presumably WLL trains will use the eastern half of the platform,
and ELL trainswill use the western half via a new mid-platform
crossover.

That's very interesting - first time I've come across that. That
plan makes the notion of sharing a platform face actually workable
(having the WLL and ELL services actually share the very same
operational platform would be a recipe for total disaster, which is
why I'd dismissed it previously - never thought of what you've
mentioned though). It's possible of course because there's a centre
track in between those on platforms 2 and 3.

Actually quite ingenious. I knew that the decking beneath the track
space of platform 1 wasn't in a very healthy state - I guess that
some time in the future that might have to be dealt with properly,
then again maybe it's fine and can continue to be patched up so
long as it doesn't need to take the weight of a train or two.

I suggested a few weeks ago somewhere (uk.transport.london?) that
perhaps they should build out the western half of the current P2 over
the track bed, which would leave a roughly 6 car long bay for the
current service (to be renumbered P1), followed by a second 6 car
platform face for a new P2. That way you'd avoid the need for points
half way along the platform, and there would be a much more obvious
separation between the two platforms for passengers, as well as more
circulation space.

OK, I'd missed that, but that seems like a good solution too - it
would block access to the currently disused Kensington sidings (?) -
well, from that centre track at least - but if they're not needed
then
that's no bother really. We shall see what they come up with.

When were those sidings last used? I remember them from my childhood but I
don't remember them being used to any extent even then, 40-50 years ago!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

On Apr 29, 9:45*pm, wrote:

(Mizter T) wrote:
On Apr 29, 2:48*pm, "Peter Masson"
wrote:
[snip]
AIUI the current plan is to use platform 2 in two halves.
Presumably WLL trains will use the eastern half of the platform,
and ELL trains will use the western half via a new mid-platform
crossover.

Described in this month's Modern Railways (IIRC) as the "Cambridge
solution". :-))

Well that'll show me for not having read it this month!

:-)

That's very interesting - first time I've come across that. That
plan makes the notion of sharing a platform face actually workable
(having the WLL and ELL services actually share the very same
operational platform would be a recipe for total disaster, which is
why I'd dismissed it previously - never thought of what you've
mentioned though). It's possible of course because there's a centre
track in between those on platforms 2 and 3.

Isn't there a middle road between 2 and 3 at Clapham Junction?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean above when I said there was a centre
track.

Indeed. You seemed unsure.

Actually quite ingenious. I knew that the decking beneath the track
space of platform 1 wasn't in a very healthy state - I guess that
some time in the future that might have to be dealt with properly,
then again maybe it's fine and can continue to be patched up so
long as it doesn't need to take the weight of a train or two.

I think the other problem with the original platform 1 is the
signalling or other hardware that would have to be moved.

My memory is that there track bed space isn't used for anything
critical like that, BICBW.

It's in the ELL article on page 54 of MR. It just says that "bringing
platform 1 back into use is technically difficult".

--
Colin Rosenstiel