On 16 Mar 2006 06:29:12 -0800, "TheOneKEA"
wrote:


Dave Arquati wrote:
In case anyone is interested, progress on this is now truly underway,
with work going on from the northbound carriageway of the West Cross
Route to clear the area below for the southbound platform, and what
looks like preparatory work to lower the embankment on the northbound side.

Is there any sign of extension to the OHLE? It has always been said
that the stop at Mitre Bridge Junction to change voltage eats paths.
Extending the OHLE to the new station and allowing the voltage change
to occur during station duties a la Farringdon would be sensible IMO.

The original thread about the new WLL line seems to have mostly
disappeared from my news service now, but I was passing the site today
and took a few pictures of how the excavations are going: see
http://www.ian-n.com/whitecity.

They're taken on my camera phone as that's all I had with me, but
they're not bad.

I also went round to the other side of the site, and grabbed a shot of
the new H&C line bridge, and peered over in to the Central Line tracks
and saw some new track work presumably something to do with the
revised depot layout.

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:

(also evidence of the very high demand for these inner orbital lines,
which I know some posters doubted a while ago!).

[shakes fist]

I'll get you next time, Arquati!

tom

--
If I want consciousness expansion, i go to my local tabernacle and i SING!

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:

(also evidence of the very high demand for these inner orbital lines,
which I know some posters doubted a while ago!).

[shakes fist]

I'll get you next time, Arquati!

tom

You shouldn't have said anything, I'd forgotten it was you!!

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:05:51 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote:

It's a shame the station work has started so late - I would have very
much liked to use it a couple of days ago, when instead I had to hurry
down to Olympia and cram myself on with everyone else there... (also
evidence of the very high demand for these inner orbital lines, which I
know some posters doubted a while ago!).

I've had cause to use some of the NLL recently and have been surprised
how busy it is. Even the dear old GOBLIN carries decent loads despite
the slow speed and poor frequency.

I happened to see one of Southern's trains at West Brompton (heading
south) mid afternoon and it was well loaded too. Similar comments apply
to one I saw in the evening peak waiting to depart from Watford. I was
surprised that it was as busy as it looked - especially as the DfT are
looking to reduce or curtail the Watford - Brighton service if my memory
serves.

I look forward to a TfL-managed WLL with through services to the NLL and
a new station at the Bush!

Well yes but I fear there are going to be huge issues to deal with -
most notably the willingness of Network Rail to co-operate at a price
that is affordable. The reliance placed on these lines for the Olympics
(and London's transport needs) gives a number of parties massive
leverage against TfL. You can detect where the issues may arise in this
very recent London Assembly report

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/re...ondon-line.pdf

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:05:51 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote:


Well yes but I fear there are going to be huge issues to deal with -
most notably the willingness of Network Rail to co-operate at a price
that is affordable. The reliance placed on these lines for the Olympics
(and London's transport needs) gives a number of parties massive
leverage against TfL. You can detect where the issues may arise in this
very recent London Assembly report

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/re...ondon-line.pdf

Interesting to see cross-party consensus about the development of these
lines emanating from this report. There are lots of big service issues
proposed (Barking-Clapham Junction with no wires?), even some that
align with the Cross-London RUS, but I'm going to pick on a small one.
Why does the report just endorse the Stratford-Queens Park service
proposals (once the Bakerloo runs back out to Watford Jn) and not
insist that these are extended to Willesden Junction LL bay platform?
Surely that would provide more "synergy" and easier integration with
ELL phase II services to Highbury?

THC

On 17 Mar 2006 11:18:46 -0800, "THC"
wrote:

Why does the report just endorse the Stratford-Queens Park service
proposals (once the Bakerloo runs back out to Watford Jn) and not
insist that these are extended to Willesden Junction LL bay platform?

At a guess, it's because that would involve the trains sharing tracks
with Bakerloo services, causing performance pollution. Also, the bay
at Willesden Jn is only just long enough for a 3-car train (the island
platform narrows considerably at the north end, so a fair bit of
rearranging might be needed to extend it to 6 cars, or even change the
layout to one like Arnos Grove).

THC wrote:
(Barking-Clapham Junction with no wires?)

I've always wondered about this too - it seems like a good fill-in
scheme that would be rather inexpensive. It would have the dual benefit
of releasing 150s from GoBLin duties and allowing through services as
listed from Barking, providing an alternate route for c2c users who
take the first train and change at West Ham for central London
destinations.

You might not even have to immunise the LU signalling either, which can
only help save money.

In article .com,
(TheOneKEA) wrote:

THC wrote:
(Barking-Clapham Junction with no wires?)

I've always wondered about this too - it seems like a good fill-in
scheme that would be rather inexpensive. It would have the dual
benefit of releasing 150s from GoBLin duties and allowing through
services as listed from Barking, providing an alternate route for c2c
users who take the first train and change at West Ham for central
London destinations.

You might not even have to immunise the LU signalling either, which
can only help save money.

The snag is shortage of 313 units, isn't it? They are using some 508s on
Euston-Watford because of it.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
GOBLIN electrification
I've always wondered about this too - it seems like a good fill-in
scheme that would be rather inexpensive. It would have the dual
benefit of releasing 150s from GoBLin duties and allowing through
services as listed from Barking, providing an alternate route for c2c
users who take the first train and change at West Ham for central
London destinations.

You might not even have to immunise the LU signalling either, which
can only help save money.

The snag is shortage of 313 units, isn't it? They are using some 508s on
Euston-Watford because of it.


One would hope that by the time any GOBLIN electrification happens, the
313s will have been replaced. Even if not, the LUL-ification of the DC
Lines ought to free up a few units.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org