"MIG" wrote in message

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.

Just following the LU tradition, whereby the Northern Line goes further
south than other lines and the Metropolitan Line goes further from the
metropolis than any other LU line.

On Apr 30, 11:59*am, "Recliner" wrote:

"MIG" wrote:

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

Just following the LU tradition, whereby the Northern Line goes further
south than other lines and the Metropolitan Line goes further from the
metropolis than any other LU line.

*Exactly* what I was going to say!

On Apr 30, 11:55*am, wrote:

(Mizter T) wrote:

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

(Mizter T) wrote:
[snip]
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.

No - what I meant was that this proposed solution is only possible
because of the (essentially unused) middle road / centre track between
platforms 2 and 3 - if it wasn't there, then the whole plan wouldn't
be feasible.


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".

I thought the potential show stopper w.r.t. reinstating platform 1 was
simply that the decking was in need of some major (and therefore
expensive) structural work to bring it up to scratch.

On 30 Apr, 12:15, Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 30, 11:59*am, "Recliner" wrote:

"MIG" wrote:

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

Just following the LU tradition, whereby the Northern Line goes further
south than other lines and the Metropolitan Line goes further from the
metropolis than any other LU line.

*Exactly* what I was going to say!

And what I should have said was that the NLL goes further W than the
WLL, further S than the SLL and further E than the ELL ...

MIG wrote on 30 April 2010 16:32:41 ...
On 30 Apr, 12:15, Mizter wrote:
On Apr 30, 11:59 am, wrote:

wrote:

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

Just following the LU tradition, whereby the Northern Line goes further
south than other lines and the Metropolitan Line goes further from the
metropolis than any other LU line.

*Exactly* what I was going to say!

And what I should have said was that the NLL goes further W than the
WLL, further S than the SLL and further E than the ELL ...

Further south than the SLL is a questionable claim. Based on Google
maps, I believe Richmond (the southernmost part of the NLL) is just
slightly further north than the southernmost part of the SLL (the
flyover over Brixton station) - by about 0.0004 degrees of latitude, or
around 50 metres.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On 30 Apr, 22:38, "Richard J." wrote:
MIG wrote on 30 April 2010 16:32:41 ...





On 30 Apr, 12:15, Mizter *wrote:
On Apr 30, 11:59 am, *wrote:

*wrote:

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

Just following the LU tradition, whereby the Northern Line goes further
south than other lines and the Metropolitan Line goes further from the
metropolis than any other LU line.

*Exactly* what I was going to say!

And what I should have said was that the NLL goes further W than the
WLL, further S than the SLL and further E than the ELL ...

Further south than the SLL is a questionable claim. *Based on Google
maps, I believe Richmond (the southernmost part of the NLL) is just
slightly further north than the southernmost part of the SLL (the
flyover over Brixton station) - by about 0.0004 degrees of latitude, or
around 50 metres.

Please don't spoil my claims with facts.

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

On Apr 30, 11:55*am, wrote:

(Mizter T) wrote:

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

(Mizter T) wrote:
[snip]
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.

No - what I meant was that this proposed solution is only possible
because of the (essentially unused) middle road / centre track between
platforms 2 and 3 - if it wasn't there, then the whole plan wouldn't
be feasible.

I vaguely recall wondering what was the point of it when I was a child. I
suspect it became mostly redundant at electrification.

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".

I thought the potential show stopper w.r.t. reinstating platform 1 was
simply that the decking was in need of some major (and therefore
expensive) structural work to bring it up to scratch.

News to me but then I've not followed the details of Clapham Junction for
many years. I have heard comments about signalling assets having been
placed in the platform 1 trackbed years ago which are now in the way.

The station is supposed to be having some serious money thrown at it soon,
isn't it?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message ,
writes

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

No - what I meant was that this proposed solution is only possible
because of the (essentially unused) middle road / centre track between
platforms 2 and 3 - if it wasn't there, then the whole plan wouldn't
be feasible.

I vaguely recall wondering what was the point of it when I was a child. I
suspect it became mostly redundant at electrification.

I think it was used for goods trains that needed to reverse into
Kensington sidings - mostly milk trains from the South West that came
via East Putney. The reversal was needed because there was no access to
Kensington sidings from the west and the central road allowed the
reversal to take place without blocking the passenger lines.

--
Paul Terry

On 1 May, 08:16, Paul Terry wrote:
In message ,
writes

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:
No - what I meant was that this proposed solution is only possible
because of the (essentially unused) middle road / centre track between
platforms 2 and 3 - if it wasn't there, then the whole plan wouldn't
be feasible.

I vaguely recall wondering what was the point of it when I was a child. I
suspect it became mostly redundant at electrification.

I think it was used for goods trains that needed to reverse into
Kensington sidings - mostly milk trains from the South West that came
via East Putney. The reversal was needed because there was no access to
Kensington sidings from the west and the central road allowed the
reversal to take place without blocking the passenger lines.

--
Paul Terry

And recently used for dumping some 31s in I recall.

In article ,
(Paul Terry) wrote:

In message ,
writes

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

No - what I meant was that this proposed solution is only possible
because of the (essentially unused) middle road / centre track
between platforms 2 and 3 - if it wasn't there, then the whole plan
wouldn't be feasible.

I vaguely recall wondering what was the point of it when I was a child.
I suspect it became mostly redundant at electrification.

I think it was used for goods trains that needed to reverse into
Kensington sidings - mostly milk trains from the South West that
came via East Putney. The reversal was needed because there was no
access to Kensington sidings from the west and the central road
allowed the reversal to take place without blocking the passenger
lines.

That would be consistent with my recollections, I agree. I'd forgotten
about freight. I recall milk trains in platform 1 at Vauxhall but maybe
they used to sit in Kensington sidings too.

--
Colin Rosenstiel