In article . com,
Boltar writes
Seems to me all it requires is some pen pusher to rubber
stamp it and a team of workers to spend a weekend putting some
connecting
track in at new cross and thats that.

Not as simple as that: the line is four track paired by direction, so
northbound trains would have to cross the other three running lines to
reach the ELL alignment. That direction is going to require a new
flyover.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

Northbound trains would have to cross the other three running lines to
reach the ELL alignment. That direction is going to require a new
flyover.

Correct. At the Infrarail O5 RCEA seminar in Manchester last week
Parsons Brinkerhof, the project managers for ELL briefed on the project
status. Major works on the phase 1 line include turn back facilities at
West Croydon, restoration of the bay(s) at Crystal Palace - (some
ongoing discusion concerning restoration of the ticket hall0,
construction of a grade separated junction north of New Cross Gate
linking the LBSCR up slow to the north bound ELL - possibly beginning
on the old carriage road alignment. Extensive stabling north of New
Cross Gate - New Cross LUL depot to close. Resignalling to Network Rail
standards and slab track installation on the old ELL. North of
Whitechapel a 1 in 30 gradient over a Warren truss girder bridge at
GE19 just east of Liverpool Street. This will be installed during an 8
day Christmas Blockade of Liverpool Street. Shades of the City
Thameslink - Blackfriars ski jump ramp. Crossing Bishopsgate goods yard
on to the North London arches to Dalston. Taylor Woodrow are
refurbishing the arches.Bridges have been removed and bridge bash
barriers installed to stop heavy goods vehicles and buses using side
roads that will eventually have new rail bridges installed. Some
ongoing debate about who will own the infrastructure Network Rail or
TfL - HMRI may well have views on split ownership of the line. Phase 2
timing not yet finalised but probably after Olympics as Crystal Palace
is IIRC an Olympic venue.

regards
Bob

IMO tho extending the ELL south is a bad
idea anyway. It should have been kept as
a self contained LUL line with a northern extension

Except that the new large depot will be at Selhurst.

Well if it had been kept as an LUL line they wouldn't
have needed a new large depot would they?

B2003

On 16 Sep 2005 15:31:45 -0700, wrote:

Exactly, having multiple southern end destinations all with varying
journey times is a nightmare for timetable compilation and reliability
and will prevent 'tube' levels of frequency on the individual branches.

I thought the frequencies on the ELLX branches were going to be every 10
minutes peaks and daytimes? This is the same frequency as offered on a
number of Tube services such as the Met to Watford, Uxbridge, Rayners
Lane branch of the Picc, Mill Hill East branch.

Providing the schedule is robust and the need for conflicting moves is
reduced I don't see that there should be too much to worry about. I
obviously recognise that Network Rail will control part of the
infrastructure and there is some risk of delays from other services but
I think TfL will apply a lot of pressure to make the service work
properly. It is too important for the investment to be allowed to fail
through inadequate operation.

It was bad enough when the individual ELL termini had a 20 min evening
service, if you just missed a train at the 'Cross' at night, you could
walk to the 'Gate' only to just miss that departure too 10 mins' later!
Far better a combined service running to one or other only but then no
good for the BR interchange.

This simply reduces the utility of the rail network and certainly does
nothing to improve the lot of people needing to travel into Docklands
and East London from South London. The DLR has shown that a properly run
cross river link will be immensely popular. Anyway, imagine you are in
control, which branch would you opt not to serve and why?
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:03:47 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

Exactly, having multiple southern end destinations all with varying
journey times is a nightmare for timetable compilation and reliability
and will prevent 'tube' levels of frequency on the individual branches.

I thought the frequencies on the ELLX branches were going to be every 10
minutes peaks and daytimes?

Every 15, according to the TfL website:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/initiativ...services.shtml

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

] IMO tho extending the ELL south is a bad
idea anyway. It should have been kept as
a self contained LUL line with a northern extension

Except that the new large depot will be at Selhurst.

Well if it had been kept as an LUL line they wouldn't
have needed a new large depot would they?

Yes they would, the northern extension plus the increased frequency
necessitate (off the top of my head) a quadrupling of the fleet size.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Paul Corfield wrote:

On 16 Sep 2005 15:31:45 -0700, wrote:

Exactly, having multiple southern end destinations all with varying
journey times is a nightmare for timetable compilation and reliability
and will prevent 'tube' levels of frequency on the individual branches.

I thought the frequencies on the ELLX branches were going to be every 10
minutes peaks and daytimes? This is the same frequency as offered on a
number of Tube services such as the Met to Watford, Uxbridge, Rayners
Lane branch of the Picc, Mill Hill East branch.

Yes, all of which are pitiful services. Even so, they are perhaps
appropriate to the places those line serve: Watford and Uxbridge are
essentially outside London, the Rayner's branch of the Picc also has the
Met, and Mill Hill East isn't exactly a dense hub of population.

The ELLX, on the other hand, is going to be serving some extremely densely
populated parts of south and east London, areas which really deserve and
currently lack high-frequency tube-style services.

It was bad enough when the individual ELL termini had a 20 min evening
service, if you just missed a train at the 'Cross' at night, you could
walk to the 'Gate' only to just miss that departure too 10 mins' later!
Far better a combined service running to one or other only but then no
good for the BR interchange.

This simply reduces the utility of the rail network and certainly does
nothing to improve the lot of people needing to travel into Docklands
and East London from South London.

What? Would you care to explain the reasoning behind that?

The DLR has shown that a properly run cross river link will be immensely
popular.

Absolutely - which is why it needs high frequencies.

Anyway, imagine you are in control, which branch would you opt not to
serve and why?

New Cross. If you're near New Cross and need the ELL, walk to New Cross
Gate; if you're on a NR train coming into New Cross and need the ELL,
change at the Surrey Canal Road/Deptford Park station various people have
proposed.

tom

--
the logical extension of a zero-infinity nightmare topology

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:02:32 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Paul Corfield wrote:

On 16 Sep 2005 15:31:45 -0700, wrote:

Exactly, having multiple southern end destinations all with varying
journey times is a nightmare for timetable compilation and reliability
and will prevent 'tube' levels of frequency on the individual branches.

I thought the frequencies on the ELLX branches were going to be every 10
minutes peaks and daytimes? This is the same frequency as offered on a
number of Tube services such as the Met to Watford, Uxbridge, Rayners
Lane branch of the Picc, Mill Hill East branch.

Yes, all of which are pitiful services. Even so, they are perhaps
appropriate to the places those line serve: Watford and Uxbridge are
essentially outside London, the Rayner's branch of the Picc also has the
Met, and Mill Hill East isn't exactly a dense hub of population.

The service via South Harrow, Sudbury etc (which is what I meant when I
referred to the Rayners Lane branch) is only served by the Picc Line. I
think we will simply have to disagree about a 10 minute service being
pitiful. 20 minute headways - fairly typical for NR - is what I would
call pitiful.

The ELLX, on the other hand, is going to be serving some extremely densely
populated parts of south and east London, areas which really deserve and
currently lack high-frequency tube-style services.

Having looked again there will be 8 trains an hour north of Sydenham and
then a train every 5 minutes north of Surrey Quays to Dalston. I think
that is pretty good really.

It was bad enough when the individual ELL termini had a 20 min evening
service, if you just missed a train at the 'Cross' at night, you could
walk to the 'Gate' only to just miss that departure too 10 mins' later!
Far better a combined service running to one or other only but then no
good for the BR interchange.

This simply reduces the utility of the rail network and certainly does
nothing to improve the lot of people needing to travel into Docklands
and East London from South London.

What? Would you care to explain the reasoning behind that?

The person I was responding to suggested that either NX or NXG branch be
closed. I was disagreeing and saying that to shut one of them reduces
the potential for people to make sensible connections with NR services.
Not every train via NX stops at Lewisham for the DLR so therefore there
will be people wishing to use the ELL to get to Canada Water or Shadwell
for connections into Docklands. Forcing people to wander round the
streets of New Cross or go via London Bridge and Zone 1 to change onto a
tube service doesn't strike me as very sensible.

The DLR has shown that a properly run cross river link will be immensely
popular.

Absolutely - which is why it needs high frequencies.

Anyway, imagine you are in control, which branch would you opt not to
serve and why?

New Cross. If you're near New Cross and need the ELL, walk to New Cross
Gate; if you're on a NR train coming into New Cross and need the ELL,
change at the Surrey Canal Road/Deptford Park station various people have
proposed.

This proposed station is part of Phase 2 and does not seem to have any
connection whatsoever with any National Rail services. Having looked at
a map it is also a very long walk from New Cross. I don't think this is
a sensible option at all.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Bob Robinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

At the Infrarail O5 RCEA seminar in Manchester last week
Parsons Brinkerhof, the project managers for ELL briefed
on the project status. Extensive stabling north of New
Cross Gate - New Cross LUL depot to close.

Oh! So the Selhurst depot is no longer part of the plan. I wonder why the
change? Is this because the planned frequency has dropped from 18tph to
12tph, so the depot requirement has shrunk?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Rowland wrote:
"Bob Robinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

At the Infrarail O5 RCEA seminar in Manchester last week
Parsons Brinkerhof, the project managers for ELL briefed
on the project status. Extensive stabling north of New
Cross Gate - New Cross LUL depot to close.

Oh! So the Selhurst depot is no longer part of the plan. I wonder why the
change? Is this because the planned frequency has dropped from 18tph to
12tph, so the depot requirement has shrunk?

I also wonder at the closure of New Cross Depot - if Wapping and
Rotherhithe are to remain open for Phase 1, New Cross is well suited
for maintaining the stock that could be used for the 'short train'
service for these two stations.

In this way you could run a Dalston-New Cross service using the
four-car 'short train' stock and the normal Dalston-Croydon services
using normal-length trains that skip the two stations on either side of
the tunnel.

It sounds sensible, which means that it will be deemed too
hard/expensive/confusing/difficult and thus discarded.