On 2015-03-07 20:31:41 +0000, said:

On 07.03.15 10:53, eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-06 20:06:01 +0000, Mizter T said:

On 06/03/2015 18:33, wrote:

On 06.03.15 18:10, eastender wrote:
[...]
One faulty train at Hoxton has knocked out the entire Highbury-New
Cross-Clapham-West Croydon-Crystal Place network.

Whinge, whinge, whinge.

BTW, there is additional weekend engineering works on the ELL this
weekend. Perhaps you would want to take a minute to find out the
details this time round, rather than complaining on this forum.

Clearly you've got nothing to do other than troll about on the
internet.
Me - I just want to get from A to B.

Harsh words!

You have no idea what I am doing on this forum, so why don't you not
jump to conclusions and go whinge elsewhere and contact TfL for travel
information?

Easy... we don't need to be like that on here.

I don't see why posting about a failed train and the knock-on effects
is out of scope of this newsgroup.

Well exactly. In fact the earler post he (I presume it's a he) was
moaning about wasn't explicit - the NCG to West Croydon closure was
decribed as a Southern Services closure and didn't mention the ELL at
all. You'd have to know they run on the same tracks.

E.

Actually, I have been on all of the ELL, okay? So don't tell me what I
know and don't know.

Er, I was referring to the information on the TFL site. You do seem to
be awfully touchy.

E.

On 2015-03-07 21:25:52 +0000, Recliner said:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 20:06:01 +0000, Mizter T
wrote:

Easy... we don't need to be like that on here.

I don't see why posting about a failed train and the knock-on effects is
out of scope of this newsgroup.

I agree - I really don't understand what has triggered this bout of
"posting rage" from two normally very "placid" and polite posters.
Most odd.

And no one has to reply to try to justify their respective positions
as I don't want to read yet more backbiting.

One question about the actual incident: do you know how long the ELL was
completely shut down? If it was for just a matter of minutes, then it's
not surprising they didn't reverse the services at a crossover, but if it
was hours, then that's a different matter.

I believe it was a few hours. I checked and it was at about three hours
before the status changed to part-suspended. I flagged this up becuase
I walked through Dalston Junction and found the station shut.

E.

On 2015-03-07 23:38:01 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

I'm obviously guessing here but there are not many refuge sidings on
the ELL core section so you really need to get trains beyond Surrey
Quays to be able to hide them away somewhere.

I was wondering when watching it being built what they would do for
contingency - it seems very little. The elevated section down to
Shoreditch used to carry four tracks and one would have thought a
siding could have been put in there.

E.

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-07 23:38:01 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

I'm obviously guessing here but there are not many refuge sidings on
the ELL core section so you really need to get trains beyond Surrey
Quays to be able to hide them away somewhere.

I was wondering when watching it being built what they would do for
contingency - it seems very little. The elevated section down to
Shoreditch used to carry four tracks and one would have thought a siding
could have been put in there.

Yes, they used the wider embankment for the new stations, but could have
put a reversing siding between stations. But it does seem to be the modern
policy to keep tracks as simple as possible, as points and crossovers are
themselves vulnerable to failures. For this reason, I think many tube lines
now have fewer crossovers than before.

On 2015-03-08 10:45:02 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-07 23:38:01 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

I'm obviously guessing here but there are not many refuge sidings on
the ELL core section so you really need to get trains beyond Surrey
Quays to be able to hide them away somewhere.

I was wondering when watching it being built what they would do for
contingency - it seems very little. The elevated section down to
Shoreditch used to carry four tracks and one would have thought a siding
could have been put in there.

Yes, they used the wider embankment for the new stations, but could have
put a reversing siding between stations. But it does seem to be the modern
policy to keep tracks as simple as possible, as points and crossovers are
themselves vulnerable to failures. For this reason, I think many tube lines
now have fewer crossovers than before.

By extension, I was reading this piece in the Guardian the other day:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...y-into-the-air


The sell-off of Broad Street station and space is one example of
dreadfully short-sighted and cut price deals for developers. Imagine
how the railway would look now with a modern spur down to Broad Street.

E.

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 10:45:02 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-07 23:38:01 +0000, Paul Corfield said:
I'm obviously guessing here but there are not many refuge sidings on
the ELL core section so you really need to get trains beyond Surrey
Quays to be able to hide them away somewhere.
I was wondering when watching it being built what they would do for
contingency - it seems very little. The elevated section down to
Shoreditch used to carry four tracks and one would have thought a siding
could have been put in there.
Yes, they used the wider embankment for the new stations, but could have
put a reversing siding between stations. But it does seem to be the modern
policy to keep tracks as simple as possible, as points and crossovers are
themselves vulnerable to failures. For this reason, I think many tube lines
now have fewer crossovers than before.

By extension, I was reading this piece in the Guardian the other day:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...y-into-the-air


The sell-off of Broad Street station and space is one example of
dreadfully short-sighted and cut price deals for developers. Imagine how
the railway would look now with a modern spur down to Broad Street.

I'd have though the Broadgate office development is far more usefu. And if
Broad St station was still open, the amazingly successful conversion of the
ELL to the Overground, with the link to H&I, would never have happened.

On 2015\03\08 10:45, Recliner wrote:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-07 23:38:01 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

I'm obviously guessing here but there are not many refuge sidings on
the ELL core section so you really need to get trains beyond Surrey
Quays to be able to hide them away somewhere.

I was wondering when watching it being built what they would do for
contingency - it seems very little. The elevated section down to
Shoreditch used to carry four tracks and one would have thought a siding
could have been put in there.

Yes, they used the wider embankment for the new stations, but could have
put a reversing siding between stations. But it does seem to be the modern
policy to keep tracks as simple as possible, as points and crossovers are
themselves vulnerable to failures. For this reason, I think many tube lines
now have fewer crossovers than before.

Do you mean crossovers suffer failures which prevent them from being
used as crossovers, or that they suffer failures which prevent the
straight railway from being used at all? If the former, that is no
reason to get rid of crossovers, no matter how often they fail.

But here it seems the crossovers were all there, they just preferred to
shut the whole railway rather than use them.

On 2015-03-08 15:02:01 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 10:45:02 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-07 23:38:01 +0000, Paul Corfield said:
I'm obviously guessing here but there are not many refuge sidings on
the ELL core section so you really need to get trains beyond Surrey
Quays to be able to hide them away somewhere.
I was wondering when watching it being built what they would do for
contingency - it seems very little. The elevated section down to
Shoreditch used to carry four tracks and one would have thought a siding
could have been put in there.
Yes, they used the wider embankment for the new stations, but could have
put a reversing siding between stations. But it does seem to be the modern
policy to keep tracks as simple as possible, as points and crossovers are
themselves vulnerable to failures. For this reason, I think many tube lines
now have fewer crossovers than before.

By extension, I was reading this piece in the Guardian the other day:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...y-into-the-air



The sell-off of Broad Street station and space is one example of
dreadfully short-sighted and cut price deals for developers. Imagine how
the railway would look now with a modern spur down to Broad Street.

I'd have though the Broadgate office development is far more usefu. And if
Broad St station was still open, the amazingly successful conversion of the
ELL to the Overground, with the link to H&I, would never have happened.

I think closing a London terminus given what we now know about
population growth and demand for travel was not a good decision. But
you can say that about a lot of railway closures.

E.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\03\08 10:45, Recliner wrote:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-07 23:38:01 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

I'm obviously guessing here but there are not many refuge sidings on
the ELL core section so you really need to get trains beyond Surrey
Quays to be able to hide them away somewhere.

I was wondering when watching it being built what they would do for
contingency - it seems very little. The elevated section down to
Shoreditch used to carry four tracks and one would have thought a siding
could have been put in there.

Yes, they used the wider embankment for the new stations, but could have
put a reversing siding between stations. But it does seem to be the modern
policy to keep tracks as simple as possible, as points and crossovers are
themselves vulnerable to failures. For this reason, I think many tube lines
now have fewer crossovers than before.

Do you mean crossovers suffer failures which prevent them from being used
as crossovers, or that they suffer failures which prevent the straight
railway from being used at all? If the former, that is no reason to get
rid of crossovers, no matter how often they fail.

They're more points to inspect, maintain, and which could wear and fail. At
the least, they add to the capital and maintenance costs, and can lead to
track failures.


But here it seems the crossovers were all there, they just preferred to
shut the whole railway rather than use them.

The crossovers are on the old ELL, not the new Overground section between
Whitechapel and Dalston Junction. And there aren't any reversing sidings on
the new section, either, apart from the bays in Dalston Junction, even
though there's room for them on the old Broad St line's wider embankment.

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 15:02:01 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 10:45:02 +0000, Recliner said:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-07 23:38:01 +0000, Paul Corfield said:
I'm obviously guessing here but there are not many refuge sidings on
the ELL core section so you really need to get trains beyond Surrey
Quays to be able to hide them away somewhere.
I was wondering when watching it being built what they would do for
contingency - it seems very little. The elevated section down to
Shoreditch used to carry four tracks and one would have thought a siding
could have been put in there.
Yes, they used the wider embankment for the new stations, but could have
put a reversing siding between stations. But it does seem to be the modern
policy to keep tracks as simple as possible, as points and crossovers are
themselves vulnerable to failures. For this reason, I think many tube lines
now have fewer crossovers than before.
By extension, I was reading this piece in the Guardian the other day:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...y-into-the-air
The sell-off of Broad Street station and space is one example of
dreadfully short-sighted and cut price deals for developers. Imagine how
the railway would look now with a modern spur down to Broad Street.
I'd have though the Broadgate office development is far more usefu. And if
Broad St station was still open, the amazingly successful conversion of the
ELL to the Overground, with the link to H&I, would never have happened.

I think closing a London terminus given what we now know about population
growth and demand for travel was not a good decision. But you can say
that about a lot of railway closures.


The new Overground line adds a lot more capacity than was lost when that
little-used terminal finally closed.