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

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

In case anyone is interested

Yes, thanks. Is there any progress on the Chelsea Harbour 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.

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

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.

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. "

The short-sightedness of the foregoing quote beggars belief!

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.

No - the crucial phrase is "the need for extensive immunisation of the
signalling equipment on the surrounding routes, including the lines
operated by London Underground"; pushing OHLE south of its current extent
would require masses of work on the other lines. Waiting until the H&C is
being resignalled anyway lets that get done at little additional cost.

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. 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.

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?

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,

Because (a) this allows the CTRL phase 2 to be built, increasing speed and
reducing congestion in the south London network, and (b) there are a lot
more people north of London than south. Give up!

tom

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

"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.

"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.

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

--

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: