"Mizter T" wrote

TOT - just noticed what an odd word freight is, no "i before e except
after c" rule for this rebel rule-breaker. I think I should go to bed!

But I thought that rule had an extra bit on the end: when the *sound* is
"ee".

I'll keep off apostrophes this time, ignoring the your/you're and its/it's
confusion!

TheOneKEA wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:02 pm, asdf wrote:
I bet if the were the WLL opening instead of the EELL, you'd be saying
that with only 4 stations, and no obvious reason why large flows of
people would want to travel between any of them, and an infrequent
service using grubby trains, the WLL will be a complete non-starter
and a waste of money.

The only problem with the WLL is that it is only useful for through
journeys from end to end, i.e. someone in Clapham who wants to go to
Watford, or someone in Harrow who wants to go to South London but
doesn't want to fight with the Underground. The cyclic nature of
Olympia doesn't make the WLL useful enough to encourage non-through
journeys IMO.

You're forgetting that there are actually other destinations in the
catchment of the line. There are various offices around Olympia, and
Kensington High St, Shepherd's Bush and Hammersmith are all within
reasonable walking distance or short bus rides. Similarly, demand at
West Brompton has risen noticeable since the Empress State Building was
opened, and Fulham Broadway isn't far away.

It's also worth noting that the BBC (I think) provides a shuttle bus to
link its White City offices with trains to and from Olympia - not
something you'd know unless you use the station or work for the BBC.

I've certainly experienced the strong demand at Olympia itself for
southbound trains in the evening peak.

Once the new Shepherd's Bush station is opened, I feel that the WLL
will become a LOT more useful within its catchment area.

That is undoubtably true. I think provision of regular through services
to the NLL will also strongly encourage usage.

The number of new homes being created around Imperial Wharf is also
likely to create strong additional demand for WLL services - albeit
mainly for interchange to radial services elsewhere along the line,
rather than specifically to WLL destinations.


--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

TheOneKEA wrote:
On Oct 11, 9:27 am, "Mizter T" wrote:
I definitely wouldn't say the passenger numbers at London Bridge would
go into freefall after the ELLX has opened: it's a very busy station
for city commuters; the ELLX will only run down the line to Croydon -
true, some pax from the Dartford lines could change at New Cross, but
people often prefer not to change trains (esp. during rush hour) and
there will probably be a time penalty in doing this; most importantly
going via Shoreditch High Street will deliver them to the north of the
City - for many, London Bridge and Cannon Street will remain more
convenient termini.

True - I suppose it was a bit much to say that they would go into
freefall, but I would have expected that the provision of bus services
headed directly into the northern and eastern City quadrants from the
ELLX would make it attractive for a significant portion of City
commuters. Earlier comments about new construction spreading the City
to the north and east would seem to add to this.

Although it's not to do with the City, a new bus interchange at Dalston
Junction will also be feeding passengers from across northern Hackney
into the ELL.

Related to the new construction mentioned, I think a point that has been
much overlooked is that the ELL is also intended to *encourage* new
development around inner city nodes (such as Dalston, Whitechapel and
Canada Water) in itself, in the style of the DLR, which gets built into
the middle of brownfield-nowhere so that it sparks off development and
generates its own passengers. The ELL will also do this, and indeed
Canada Water is being highlighted in the forthcoming revised London Plan
as a place for intensification where it wasn't so before.

The intensification of Whitechapel will certainly take off if a
Crossrail goes ahead.

Some will switch to the ELLX to Shoreditch, but (obviously) only if
it's more convenient. So instead I'd say a bit of pressure could be
taken off London Bridge. The CTRL-DS will also take a further bit of
pressure off London Bridge (probably), though the jury is till very
much out on what effect these new fast train services from Kent will
have on travelling patterns.

True. I doubt even the people of Kent know what effect the CTRL-DS will
have on traveling patterns.

I seem to recall congestion relief of about 5,000 passengers per peak
hour from each of Waterloo and London Bridge being quoted as the result
of the full ELL project.

--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

In article ,
lid (asdf) wrote:

On 10 Oct 2006 12:01:17 -0700, TheOneKEA wrote:

There are a couple of points here (happy to be corrected if my
facts aren't quite right). The NLL that exists now was two separate
services back in the late 70s. It was diesel operated out at North
Woolwich and through Hackney IIRC. You only got the third rail bit
at Dalston.

The two services were Broad Street to Richmond and Palace Gates to
North Woolwich.

IIRC the Palace Gates branch closed in the 60s. Paul C is referring
to the situation in the years leading up to the closure of Broad
Street, when IIRC there were electric services from Richmond to Broad
Street and Watford to Broad Street, and diesel services from North
Woolwich to Camden Road.

The diesel services from North Woolwich to Camden Road came much later,
after I left London in 1968. They did not exist when I went on the
London Orbital promotional railtour starting from Broad St in the 1970s.
The Broad Street services to Richmond and Watford go back to the rise of
the North London Railway in the 19th century.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

I think it'd be far preferable to get as much rail freight
traffic as possible on routes that avoid going through London.

Not only preferable, but absolutely necessary. There's a Felixstowe
- Nuneaton (IIRC) route that is the great white hope here; it needs
various bits of fiddling about, but would allow Felixstowe's
traffic to the north, which is rather substantial, to bypass London
completely.

I is *not* that simple. The Felixstowe - Nuneaton route is not
electrified and has significant capacity constraints for which there are
no enhancement proposals. The single track section from Soham to Ely
limits capacity and would not easily be doubled. Manton tunnel will be
an interesting W10 gauge challenge. Then there is how all this container
traffic is supposed to get through bottlenecks at Peterborough and
Leicester. Crossing two of the busiest North-South main lines on the
flat is not a recipe for reliability.

And rather greater loads can be hauled using electric traction through
London than by diesels.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

I is *not* that simple. The Felixstowe - Nuneaton route is not
electrified and has significant capacity constraints for which there are
no enhancement proposals. The single track section from Soham to Ely
limits capacity and would not easily be doubled. Manton tunnel will be
an interesting W10 gauge challenge. Then there is how all this container
traffic is supposed to get through bottlenecks at Peterborough and
Leicester. Crossing two of the busiest North-South main lines on the
flat is not a recipe for reliability.

And rather greater loads can be hauled using electric traction through
London than by diesels.


Most of the above is true, but the line from Ely to Peterborough dives
under the ECML and comes up on the correct side for the Leicester line,
passing the end of the Nene Valley Railway on the way.

Also, the Midland Mainline won't be crossed on the Flat, as trains
would pass along it for quite a few miles. Although, I daresay that a
flying junction or two would make regulation much easier. There is
quite a lot of 'spare' railway land around Leicester, I think that most
of the formation is four track, even where there are only two or three
lines in use at the moment.

In article .com,
(Andy) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

I is *not* that simple. The Felixstowe - Nuneaton route is not
electrified and has significant capacity constraints for which
there are no enhancement proposals. The single track section from
Soham to Ely limits capacity and would not easily be doubled. Manton
tunnel will be an interesting W10 gauge challenge. Then there is how
all this container traffic is supposed to get through bottlenecks at
Peterborough and Leicester. Crossing two of the busiest North-South
main lines on the flat is not a recipe for reliability.

And rather greater loads can be hauled using electric traction
through London than by diesels.

Most of the above is true, but the line from Ely to Peterborough
dives under the ECML and comes up on the correct side for the Leicester
line, passing the end of the Nene Valley Railway on the way.

True but it's still pretty congested.

Also, the Midland Mainline won't be crossed on the Flat, as trains
would pass along it for quite a few miles. Although, I daresay that
a flying junction or two would make regulation much easier. There is
quite a lot of 'spare' railway land around Leicester, I think that
most of the formation is four track, even where there are only two or
three lines in use at the moment.

I'm not aware that's in the current scheme.

And what about Manton tunnel and Soham to Ely?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
I is *not* that simple.

Is it because I is simple? ;-)

The Felixstowe - Nuneaton route is not
electrified and has significant capacity constraints for which there are
no enhancement proposals. The single track section from Soham to Ely
limits capacity and would not easily be doubled. Manton tunnel will be
an interesting W10 gauge challenge. Then there is how all this container
traffic is supposed to get through bottlenecks at Peterborough and
Leicester. Crossing two of the busiest North-South main lines on the
flat is not a recipe for reliability.

And rather greater loads can be hauled using electric traction through
London than by diesels.

Also, NR doesn't like having diesels go up Shap on the northern WCML -
apparently the poor things get tired out by the climb...

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

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article .com,
(Andy) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

I is *not* that simple. The Felixstowe - Nuneaton route is not
electrified and has significant capacity constraints for which
there are no enhancement proposals. The single track section from
Soham to Ely limits capacity and would not easily be doubled. Manton
tunnel will be an interesting W10 gauge challenge. Then there is how
all this container traffic is supposed to get through bottlenecks at
Peterborough and Leicester. Crossing two of the busiest North-South
main lines on the flat is not a recipe for reliability.

And rather greater loads can be hauled using electric traction
through London than by diesels.

Most of the above is true, but the line from Ely to Peterborough
dives under the ECML and comes up on the correct side for the Leicester
line, passing the end of the Nene Valley Railway on the way.

True but it's still pretty congested.


I won't argue with that!!

Also, the Midland Mainline won't be crossed on the Flat, as trains
would pass along it for quite a few miles. Although, I daresay that
a flying junction or two would make regulation much easier. There is
quite a lot of 'spare' railway land around Leicester, I think that
most of the formation is four track, even where there are only two or
three lines in use at the moment.

I'm not aware that's in the current scheme.

I wasn't saying that it is in the current scheme, only that there would
be space for grade separated junctions or more tracks if the capacity
is needed. I would think that there is some spare capacity on the
existing route through Leicester as there are some resonable length
gaps in the passenger services, as well as some space near the two
junctions for freights to hang about waiting for paths.


And what about Manton tunnel and Soham to Ely?

There is only one passenger service an hour each way from Newmarket to
Cambridge (and these services don't occupy the single track section for
more than 15 mins looking at their timings) , so I'd think that there
is spare capacity for a freight service, possibly only one way each
hour though. I think that most of the route could be easily doubled,
except for the river bridge. It mainly seems to pass through fields.

And Manton tunnel could be dealt with in the same way as other gauge
enhanced tunnels, by digging out the invert and using slab track. Of
course, all this will cost money and probably quite a bit of it too.
If all this work is going on, a spot of electrification could be
undertaken too


--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article .com,
(John B) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
I is *not* that simple.

Is it because I is simple? ;-)

The Felixstowe - Nuneaton route is not electrified and has
significant capacity constraints for which there are no enhancement
proposals. The single track section from Soham to Ely limits capacity
and would not easily be doubled. Manton tunnel will be an interesting
W10 gauge challenge. Then there is how all this container traffic is
supposed to get through bottlenecks at Peterborough and Leicester.
Crossing two of the busiest North-South main lines on the flat is
not a recipe for reliability.

And rather greater loads can be hauled using electric traction
through London than by diesels.

Also, NR doesn't like having diesels go up Shap on the northern
WCML - apparently the poor things get tired out by the climb...

Which part of the Felixstowe-Nuneaton route does Shap lie on then? They
could of course change traction at the latter location.

--
Colin Rosenstiel