|
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
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. Interestingly, the work seems to have uncovered what looks like the remains of an old platform on the northbound side, which I thought might be left over from the old Uxbridge Road station, but it's far too high for the trains. Was the WLL lowered significantly here in preparation for the West Cross Route and Holland Park Roundabout which it now passes underneath? 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 look forward to a TfL-managed WLL with through services to the NLL and a new station at the Bush! -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
... In case anyone is interested Yes, thanks. Is there any progress on the Chelsea Harbour station? |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
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. |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
On 16 Mar 2006 06:29:12 -0800, "TheOneKEA"
wrote: 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. From the draft Cross-London RUS: Assessment of Option 9 Description Move the AC/DC changeover on the WLL to Shepherds Bush station Issue The AC/DC changeover on the West London line is currently located between North Pole depot and Mitre Bridge Junction. This requires all electric services to stop in section to effect the changeover, costing around 2 minutes per train. The opportunity therefore exists to look at moving the changeover point to the planned station at Shepherds Bush. Recommendation The electrification engineer has advised that the cost of the alteration would be prohibitive, due to the need for extensive immunisation of the signalling equipment on the surrounding routes, including the lines operated by London Underground. However, it is understood that the Hammersmith & City line is due to be re-signalled in 2013, and this may give the opportunity for the issue to be revisited. The full draft RUS is available at: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/company...nsultation.htm |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
Paul Terry wrote: In message , Dave Arquati writes Interestingly, the work seems to have uncovered what looks like the remains of an old platform on the northbound side, which I thought might be left over from the old Uxbridge Road station, but it's far too high for the trains. Was the WLL lowered significantly here in preparation for the West Cross Route and Holland Park Roundabout which it now passes underneath? Its possible the WLL was lowered - old pictures of the station show a very shallow cutting. But the WLL crosses the Central Line at this point, which is already rising towards the surface, so I shouldn't have thought there was much room to go down. Is the old platform immediately adjacent to Uxbridge Road? If so, it would probably be Uxbridge Road station. But 100 yards further north is the site of the original (1844) Shepherd's Bush station - it closed within a year, so it would be quite a find if any of that came to light! -- Paul Terry |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
Recommendation
"The electrification engineer has advised that the cost of the alteration would be prohibitive, due to the need for extensive immunisation of the signalling equipment on the surrounding routes, including the lines operated by London Underground. However, it is understood that the Hammersmith & City line is due to be re-signalled in 2013, and this may give the opportunity for the issue to be revisited. " The short-sightedness of the foregoing quote beggars belief! OF COURSE the stop for the change-over North of Mitre Bridge "eats paths". Indeed, I remember the less than enthusiastic response of Railtrack to having new stations built at Shepherd's Bush and Imperial Wharf (of which - still no sign whatsoever!) because of "capacity issues", i.e. the additional stopping time would similarly "eat paths". That being so, with the work now going on at Shepherd's Bush, and the inevitable disruption that this will cause, NOW is the best time to move the change-over point to that location, so that at least the net loss will be minimised, with that station stop more-or-less equating to the time saved by no longer having the Mitre Bridge delay, And, surely it MUST be cheaper to do that work now, rather than in several years' time when service paths will have beeen settled, and a whole load of new disruption will be caused. Why oh why must our railway masters be sh short-sighted and mean-fisted? When compared to the mega costs of the nonsense at St. Pancras, where millions of domestic passengers have been and will continue to be inconvenienced by the move Northwards of the domestic terminal, in favour of holidaymakers and businessmen who want to get to or from Europe a few minutes faster than they already can via Waterloo, the cost of moving the Mitre Bridge changeover location would be a mere pimple. And I do not understand what the hell resignalling of the Hammersmith and City Line has to do with this at all! End of rant! Marc. |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
|
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
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! |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
"What might be sensible would be if preparatory work for the change was
done now - for instance, stringing catenary to Shepherd's Bush, but not wiring it up to the mains." We can but live in hope, Tom! "Because (a) this allows the CTRL phase 2 to be built" Yes, I gather that... "increasing speed" .... by a few minutes.... "and reducing congestion in the south London network" Will removing (is it 2 or 3 per hour) a few Eurostar trains from the South of London will hardly cause such a dramatic change will it? And, as for the vacated terminal at Waterloo (itself built at vast expense and admitted reduction of Waterloo domestic handling capacity), I understand that rather than returning it to railway use, a shopping centre is being mooted! "(b) there are a lot more people north of London than south." Yes, but is that really the reason behind this move to St. Pancras? I thought it had something to do with the political goal of a high-speed link for its own sake rather than there actually being a pressing need for such. That, surely, must be the reason why all of St. Pancras' domestic passengers have been given the two-finger salute as they struggle alonng a dirty, narrow, unsafe and overcrowded passage that was Pancras Road, to a station so badly designed that its escalators actually face the wrong direction to the main traffic flow, and whose departure boards are hidden like State secrets well away from view! "Give up!" Indeed, so appalling do I find the new St. Pancras interchange that I will find ANY alternative changing arrangements when travelling North next time. Surely this travesty of a station should be called Pancras North or similar, and unsuspecting passengers who are so naive to believe they can get from Underground to mainline train in less than 15 minutes should be warned of what they can expect. Marc. |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message h.li... On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, wrote: Recommendation "The electrification engineer has advised that the cost of the alteration would be prohibitive, due to the need for extensive immunisation of the signalling equipment on the surrounding routes, including the lines operated by London Underground. However, it is understood that the Hammersmith & City line is due to be re-signalled in 2013, and this may give the opportunity for the issue to be revisited. " What might be sensible would be if preparatory work for the change was done now - for instance, stringing catenary to Shepherd's Bush, but not wiring it up to the mains. I can see the Evening Standard headline now. It would also make it easy for tinkers to pinch the catenary and sell it for scrap. |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
Tom Anderson wrote: On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, wrote: This, i have to admit, is a puzzle - how the hell is the H&C wired to the WLL? It's not. The important thing, however, is the electromagnetic interference caused by high voltages and alternating currents. This interference can work "at a distance", and can cause signalling circuits (amongst other things) to misbehave. I'm sure that we all agree that it's not a goot idea to mess with safety systems without suitable safeguards (that is, immunising them). PhilD -- |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
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! |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
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 |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Dave Arquati writes Interestingly, the work seems to have uncovered what looks like the remains of an old platform on the northbound side, which I thought might be left over from the old Uxbridge Road station, but it's far too high for the trains. Was the WLL lowered significantly here in preparation for the West Cross Route and Holland Park Roundabout which it now passes underneath? Its possible the WLL was lowered - old pictures of the station show a very shallow cutting. But the WLL crosses the Central Line at this point, which is already rising towards the surface, so I shouldn't have thought there was much room to go down. I should make clear that it's not a *huge* drop - about three metres I guess. It's also at the top of the current embankment - so I wondered if the railway had been shifted slightly eastwards too to allow it to drop downwards. Of course, it could just be something entirely uninteresting! It just looks a little platform-like. Is the old platform immediately adjacent to Uxbridge Road? If so, it would probably be Uxbridge Road station. But 100 yards further north is the site of the original (1844) Shepherd's Bush station - it closed within a year, so it would be quite a find if any of that came to light! The part I could see is not immediately adjacent to it. I was looking from the walkway alongside the roundabout, so it's a bit further north than where Uxbridge Road used to be. Here is where I was looking from: http://tinyurl.com/jzqdc -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
In message , Dave Arquati
writes I should make clear that it's not a *huge* drop - about three metres I guess. It's also at the top of the current embankment - so I wondered if the railway had been shifted slightly eastwards too to allow it to drop downwards. Of course, it could just be something entirely uninteresting! It just looks a little platform-like. There are some photos that might help at: http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...ad/index.shtml -- Paul Terry |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
Yes, but is that really the reason behind this move to St. Pancras? I
thought it had something to do with the political goal of a high-speed link for its own sake rather than there actually being a pressing need for such. That, surely, must be the reason why all of St. Pancras' domestic passengers have been given the two-finger salute as they struggle alonng a dirty, narrow, unsafe and overcrowded passage that was Pancras Road, to a station so badly designed that its escalators actually face the wrong direction to the main traffic flow, and whose departure boards are hidden like State secrets well away from view! "Give up!" Indeed, so appalling do I find the new St. Pancras interchange that I will find ANY alternative changing arrangements when travelling North next time. Surely this travesty of a station should be called Pancras North or similar, and unsuspecting passengers who are so naive to believe they can get from Underground to mainline train in less than 15 minutes should be warned of what they can expect. The current arrangement is temporary. When all the work is finished there will be direct indoor access from the new tube station ticket halls to the main line station, but you know this already. How are the departure boards hidden? They are straight in front of you as you walk in the main entrance. And 15 minutes is plenty of time, even with luggage. Seven minutes was my time today. -- Peter |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
whose departure boards are hidden like State secrets well away from view!
Left in taxis? |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
In article , Tom
Anderson writes What might be sensible would be if preparatory work for the change was done now - for instance, stringing catenary to Shepherd's Bush, but not wiring it up to the mains. Do you think it would still be there in 6 years time? With any luck, the changeover could then be done just by setting some jumpers in a cable cabinet somewhere, rather than having to get the permanent way gang out again. I would hope it would be deliberately made a lot harder than that. Do you really want an accident waiting to happen? And I do not understand what the hell resignalling of the Hammersmith and City Line has to do with this at all! This, i have to admit, is a puzzle - how the hell is the H&C wired to the WLL? It isn't, but there are such things as earth leakage and induction. I know someone involved in the electrification work on CTRL2. He has to worry about the fact that the Underground tube tunnels, the King's Cross station structure, the St.Pancras station structure, and the NLL all have different values for "earth". He reckons that if he gets things wrong, opening a breaker at Ashford could cause a lethal change in earth voltage at the KXSP complex. -- 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: |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
Paul Terry,
You are getting your developers confused! The developers of the Imperial Wharf scheme are St. George. At public meetings about 7 or 8 years ago, at which there was massive local opposition (which included Hammersmith & Fulham Council), St. George promised that the amounts required for the railway station were already ringfenced - this was one of the many bribes offered, which eventually resulted in the Council betraying the local residents and then supporting the scheme (no need for Prescott to overturn local opposition - our local political masters were quite happy to do so themselves!). That has nothing to do with Circadian, who are the Lots Road Power Station developers. Their scheme was a mere pipe dream at the time (Lots Road Power Station was still fully functioning then!) and they have only come onto the scene in the last few years, with, as we know, their chief cheerleader Prescott. So, let there be no doubt, (if St. George are to be believed), the money for the railway station is already in place, and also (if St. George are to be believed) the ONLY reason for the delay in the building of that station is Railtrack (or their successor's) reluctance - which they have expressed right from the beginning - to do anything that increases use of that line on which, so they say, they have severe capacity problems. Lastly, according to today's local newspapers, Kensington & Chelsea have abandoned any plans to judicially challenge Prescott's total denial of local wishes. Perhaps, rather than that expensive route, they should offer Prescott an IQ test and, just so as not to make things too difficult for him, allow him to keep his job if he can scrape double figures! Marc. |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
Peter Goodland,
Actually, I did not know that the present arrangements are temporary - indeed the staff seem not to know that either since, when I asked one of them, he agreed that this was a lamentable change and mentioned nothing about it being temporary either! The departure boards on the platform level is what I was referring to. I did not even see any at the entrance as I came in - I was too busy searching for the escalators! Seven minutes is hardly something to boast about! Why should domestic passengers have to be so inconvenienced (to say nothing of being denied the use of one of London's finest Gothic buildings) at all? Moreover, I'd suggest 7 minutes when going AGAINST the morning commuter flow, as I invariably would be, is rather optimistic! Marc. |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
|
TfL North London Railways issues paper
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 |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
On 17 Mar 2006 10:12:04 -0800, "
wrote: So, let there be no doubt, (if St. George are to be believed), the money for the railway station is already in place, and also (if St. George are to be believed) the ONLY reason for the delay in the building of that station is Railtrack (or their successor's) reluctance - which they have expressed right from the beginning - to do anything that increases use of that line on which, so they say, they have severe capacity problems. If only they'd also insisted they pay for the voltage changeover being moved to Shepherd's Bush, saying it was required to free up capacity for their new station... |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
In message . com,
" writes Paul Terry, You are getting your developers confused! I don't believe so. The developers of the Imperial Wharf scheme are St. George. Yes. That has nothing to do with Circadian, who are the Lots Road Power Station developers. Yes. So, let there be no doubt, (if St. George are to be believed), the money for the railway station is already in place So why does the West London Line Group say the following on ... http://www.westlondonlinegroup.org.uk/latest_news.htm There is a funding shortfall of £1.3 million for the proposed station at Imperial Wharf whose estimated cost is £3 million. The developer of the Lot's Road Power station site, St George, had pledged a capped contribution of £1.7 million. The remaining £1.3 will only be paid the house-builder Circadian if the 800 apartment project gets the go-ahead following the recent Public Inquiry. And why does Circadian's own publicity say the following on ... http://www.circadian-uk.com/ld_pdf_2/transport.pdf What are you doing to support the proposed West London Line in your current scheme? We have now allocated £1 million of the total £5 million package of transport measures to the new passenger service. If the proposed station doesn't go ahead by 2010 the money will go towards other transport measures such as more local bus or river bus services. And why might http://www.twocapitals.co.uk/CTG/June05.pdf say ... The cost of a station at Imperial Wharf would be £3 million and developer St George is offering a maximum of £1.7 million. House builder Circadian has offered to contribute subject to planning permission for tower blocks at Lots Road. So, sorry, but I think Circadian are very closely involved in the funding package. Lastly, according to today's local newspapers, Kensington & Chelsea have abandoned any plans to judicially challenge Prescott's total denial of local wishes. Perhaps, rather than that expensive route, they should offer Prescott an IQ test and, just so as not to make things too difficult for him, allow him to keep his job if he can scrape double figures! Well, I'd agree with that bit :) -- Paul Terry |
TfL North London Railways issues paper
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). |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
Paul,
Thanks for your detailed and interesting reply. Two things emerge. Firstly, although St. George in all of their rhetoric of the mid-1990s about "funding a new station" did not, as far as I can recall, mention anything about a cap. In any event, it was, I suppose, naive of me to believe anything they said. I remember standing up at a public meeting and predicting that the station would NEVER be built and, even if it was, it would hardly have any effect on the extra car traffic that would be generated, being on a line with a (then) twice-hourly service between two stations that were hardly likely to be greatly used by City commuter traffic. Secondly, presumably, the "capped" £1.7 million from St. George would have been sufficient to build the station had they done so 7 or 8 years ago when that figure first arose. It is hardly surprising that the costs have increased significantly since then. I am not for one moment defending St. George (I opposed their scheme then and still think it is an appalling blot on the landscape - far too many houses crammed into a small and inaccessible area) but to be fair to them, I think they genuinely wanted to have a railway station there, and I cannot see how the long delay has benefited them at all. Which leads me to conclude that there must be some truth in their protestations at the time that Railtrack were dragging their heels in allowing the station to be built. As revealed in the material you have quoted, it now seems that the costs have so escalated that Circadian are now involved. Which really is a scandalous dereliction of duty by Hammersmith & Fulham Council whose planning consent was given on condition that the railway station was built BEFORE phase 2 of the Imperial Wharf scheme was started! With years like 2010 now being quoted, not only will Imperial Wharf be complete but the Circadian nightmare will probably be complete long before the railway station is built. So, come on Adam Gray and others if you are reading this: do you remember me predicting that there would never be a railway station at Imperial Wharf. I'd say the jury was still very much out on that one wouldn't you?! Marc. |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
|
TfL North London Railways issues paper
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. |
TfL North London Railways issues paper
|
TfL North London Railways issues paper
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 |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Tom Anderson writes What might be sensible would be if preparatory work for the change was done now - for instance, stringing catenary to Shepherd's Bush, but not wiring it up to the mains. Do you think it would still be there in 6 years time? I have to admit that it had never occurred to me that people might steal it. Okay, scratch that - but could there be other bits of work that could be done cheaply now? With any luck, the changeover could then be done just by setting some jumpers in a cable cabinet somewhere, rather than having to get the permanent way gang out again. I would hope it would be deliberately made a lot harder than that. Do you really want an accident waiting to happen? You mean like maybe sticking some masking tape over it? Seems a bit paranoid, but if you insist. :) And I do not understand what the hell resignalling of the Hammersmith and City Line has to do with this at all! This, i have to admit, is a puzzle - how the hell is the H&C wired to the WLL? It isn't, but there are such things as earth leakage and induction. Righto. I hadn't realised these things were powerful enough that you could get coupling between two lines which simply cross one another on different levels at one point. I know someone involved in the electrification work on CTRL2. He has to worry about the fact that the Underground tube tunnels, the King's Cross station structure, the St.Pancras station structure, and the NLL all have different values for "earth". He reckons that if he gets things wrong, opening a breaker at Ashford could cause a lethal change in earth voltage at the KXSP complex. Eek. tom -- Why do we do it? - Exactly! |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
Tom Anderson writes What might be sensible would be if preparatory work for the change was done now - for instance, stringing catenary to Shepherd's Bush, but not wiring it up to the mains. Do you think it would still be there in 6 years time? Would the people who would otherwise steal it know whether it was switched off? With any luck, the changeover could then be done just by setting some jumpers in a cable cabinet somewhere, rather than having to get the permanent way gang out again. I would hope it would be deliberately made a lot harder than that. Do you really want an accident waiting to happen? That depends what "an accident waiting to happen" means. How much money is it worth spending to avoid the combination of two very unlikely events? And I do not understand what the hell resignalling of the Hammersmith and City Line has to do with this at all! This, i have to admit, is a puzzle - how the hell is the H&C wired to the WLL? It isn't, but there are such things as earth leakage and induction. I know someone involved in the electrification work on CTRL2. He has to worry about the fact that the Underground tube tunnels, the King's Cross station structure, the St.Pancras station structure, and the NLL all have different values for "earth". He reckons that if he gets things wrong, opening a breaker at Ashford could cause a lethal change in earth voltage at the KXSP complex. Why would a change in earth voltage be lethal? If extending the wires is such a problem, why don't they just extend the third rail instead? The local passenger trains would no longer need to be dual voltage, and would therefore be cheaper. The longer distance electric trains may still have to stop, but as they could do so while the local trains are in the station, pathing would no longer be such a problem! -- Aidan Stanger http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
In article , Aidan Stanger
writes Do you think it would still be there in 6 years time? Would the people who would otherwise steal it know whether it was switched off? They tend to find out. With any luck, the changeover could then be done just by setting some jumpers in a cable cabinet somewhere, rather than having to get the permanent way gang out again. I would hope it would be deliberately made a lot harder than that. Do you really want an accident waiting to happen? That depends what "an accident waiting to happen" means. How much money is it worth spending to avoid the combination of two very unlikely events? I'd want it to require two separate highly non-trivial actions in different places (e.g. installing several metres of cable) to energise. This shouldn't require spending extra money. And, in any case, you'd need to get the gang out to check all was okay before energising - how would you know a wire hasn't come lose and is touching another? I know someone involved in the electrification work on CTRL2. He has to worry about the fact that the Underground tube tunnels, the King's Cross station structure, the St.Pancras station structure, and the NLL all have different values for "earth". He reckons that if he gets things wrong, opening a breaker at Ashford could cause a lethal change in earth voltage at the KXSP complex. Why would a change in earth voltage be lethal? Because when one "earth" is 90V from another "earth", anyone bridging the two is going to get a nasty shock. 25000 V AC and 5000 A in complex combinations is hard to get right. If extending the wires is such a problem, why don't they just extend the third rail instead? Because it's even more expensive - you need substations every few km and there are severe limits on power. -- 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: |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
|
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:44:19 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote: In message , Dave Arquati writes I should make clear that it's not a *huge* drop - about three metres I guess. It's also at the top of the current embankment - so I wondered if the railway had been shifted slightly eastwards too to allow it to drop downwards. Of course, it could just be something entirely uninteresting! It just looks a little platform-like. There are some photos that might help at: http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...ad/index.shtml Wow. It's hard to imagine that area *without* the Shepherd's Bush Roundabout, as those pics and map show. It having been there the whole of the time I've lived in London (20 years) and being so big and important, you kind of imagine it's always been there! |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
Peter Frimberly wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:44:19 +0000, Paul Terry wrote: In message , Dave Arquati writes I should make clear that it's not a *huge* drop - about three metres I guess. It's also at the top of the current embankment - so I wondered if the railway had been shifted slightly eastwards too to allow it to drop downwards. Of course, it could just be something entirely uninteresting! It just looks a little platform-like. There are some photos that might help at: http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...ad/index.shtml Wow. It's hard to imagine that area *without* the Shepherd's Bush Roundabout, as those pics and map show. It having been there the whole of the time I've lived in London (20 years) and being so big and important, you kind of imagine it's always been there! I remember that roundabout being built in the early 70s. I don't see any reason why the railway would have needed to be lowered or shifted east. The whole area was cleared apart from the existing roads, and the roundabout constructed from scratch, including two new bridges over the railway either side of the Uxbridge Road. The roundabout is quite a bit higher than the Uxbridge Road towards Shepherds Bush, and I particularly remember the slope between the two being constructed, apparently by laying huge thicknesses of tarmac on top of the existing road. It's possible of course that the new bridges were built with enough headroom for OHLE in the future. It was only a few years after the WCML electrification, and I don't think the WLL had the DC third rail in those days, so OHLE would have seemed the logical way forward. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
|
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
Peter Frimberly wrote:
When I lived in Newcastle (admittedly 15 years ago) it was a fairly standard occurence that the Metro line would be closed for a few days on one of the sections around Longbenton, Wallsend, or Pelaw, because someone had hooked a landrover to the signal cabling in the troughs or the catenary and pulled massive lengths of it out/down in order to steal it for scrap. I don't live there any more so don't know if it still goes on. Presumably not, in those days scrap metal was worth something! |
Shepherd's Bush WLL station
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk