Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
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.


Not sure if the above is sarcastic or not, but I'll take it as serious.
Shap is in Cumbria; while this clearly isn't on the Felixstowe to
Nuneaton route itself, it's an important route to Scotland, which is
the destination/source for a lot of freight traffic that currently goes
through London.

A change of traction is an option, but makes everything more
complicated and adds more scope for things to go wrong, whereas in
order to compete with the roads the whole process needs to be
simplified.

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

TheOneKEA wrote:

For that matter, how will the tracks themselves be positioned? One
smart thing to do would be to run them down the centre of the
formation, so that in case patronage begins to pick up significantly, a
set of outside loops can be built at the stations and new platforms
added, to permit non-stopping of trains.

With regard to the possible build up of patronage see Today's Times
quote
The Times October 11, 2006


British Land considers new master plan for Broadgate
By Jenny Davey



BRITISH LAND, the FTSE 100 property group run by Stephen Hester, is
planning a radical revamp of its flagship Broadgate estate in the City
of London, in which five existing buildings could be demolished and
replaced with buildings of twenty storeys or more.



The group unveiled the plans to City analysts yesterday after a tour of
its London office developments. The estate is expected to benefit from
a move by Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, to redraw the so-called
viewing corridors in London, which are designed to protect views of St
Paul's Cathedral.

Under a plan titled Broadgate 20-20, British Land revealed that it was
preparing to redraw the estate master plan to demolish some low-rise
buildings that are seven-to-thirteen storeys high in favour of taller
buildings. This could expand the amount of office space by 1.2 million
sq ft.

Broadgate consists of 15 office buildings and a site on which the group
is developing two buildings, including the 35-storey Broadgate Tower.
Once these buildings are completed, the estate will have increased to
4.8 million sq ft. The new master plan could, in theory, increase that
space to six million sq ft if planning approvals are secured.

Buildings that have been earmarked for long-term redevelopment include
3 Finsbury Avenue, 4 Broadgate, 8-12 Broadgate, 100 Liverpool Street
and Broadwalk House. The earliest that leases expire on any of the
buildings is 2011, so implementing the plans remains some way off. Mr
Hester said yesterday that British Land would begin to look to work up
plans and designs next year.

unquote

Fit in nicely with the phase two expansion plan of the ELX.

In article .com,
(Andy) wrote:

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.

You've got the wrong single track section. Look at a map and you'll see
that the line from Ipswich and Bury St Edmund's to Ely doesn't pass
though Newmarket station but from Chippenham Junction to Ely Dock
Junction. It's also a bit busier now that you seem to think, with
freight as well as passenger services.

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

Ho, ho. Not that easy, I gather. And singling it to get the clearances
would hit capacity pretty hard.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article om,
(John B) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
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.

Not sure if the above is sarcastic or not, but I'll take it as
serious. Shap is in Cumbria; while this clearly isn't on the
Felixstowe to Nuneaton route itself, it's an important route to
Scotland, which is the destination/source for a lot of freight traffic
that currently goes through London.

A change of traction is an option, but makes everything more
complicated and adds more scope for things to go wrong, whereas in
order to compete with the roads the whole process needs to be
simplified.

I think you misunderstand the destinations of traffic from the Haven
ports. If they wanted to go to Scotland I'd expect them to use the ECML
and Settle-Carlisle.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 12 Oct 2006 11:17:24 -0700, Bob wrote:

Under a plan titled Broadgate 20-20, British Land revealed that it was
preparing to redraw the estate master plan to demolish some low-rise
buildings that are seven-to-thirteen storeys high in favour of taller
buildings. This could expand the amount of office space by 1.2 million
sq ft.

Broadgate consists of 15 office buildings and a site on which the group
is developing two buildings, including the 35-storey Broadgate Tower.
Once these buildings are completed, the estate will have increased to
4.8 million sq ft. The new master plan could, in theory, increase that
space to six million sq ft if planning approvals are secured.

Buildings that have been earmarked for long-term redevelopment include
3 Finsbury Avenue, 4 Broadgate, 8-12 Broadgate, 100 Liverpool Street
and Broadwalk House. The earliest that leases expire on any of the
buildings is 2011, so implementing the plans remains some way off. Mr
Hester said yesterday that British Land would begin to look to work up
plans and designs next year.

unquote

Fit in nicely with the phase two expansion plan of the ELX.

Especially if they build a new Broad Street station on the ground
floor...

Bob wrote:

British Land considers new master plan for Broadgate
By Jenny Davey

Buildings that have been earmarked for long-term redevelopment include
3 Finsbury Avenue, 4 Broadgate, 8-12 Broadgate, 100 Liverpool Street
and Broadwalk House. The earliest that leases expire on any of the
buildings is 2011, so implementing the plans remains some way off. Mr
Hester said yesterday that British Land would begin to look to work up
plans and designs next year.

unquote

Fit in nicely with the phase two expansion plan of the ELX.

These bulidings are nowhere near the ELLE. They will just make Liverpool
Street and Moorgate stations busier.

John Rowland wrote:

Bob wrote:

British Land considers new master plan for Broadgate
By Jenny Davey

Buildings that have been earmarked for long-term redevelopment include
3 Finsbury Avenue, 4 Broadgate, 8-12 Broadgate, 100 Liverpool Street
and Broadwalk House. The earliest that leases expire on any of the
buildings is 2011, so implementing the plans remains some way off. Mr
Hester said yesterday that British Land would begin to look to work up
plans and designs next year.

unquote

Fit in nicely with the phase two expansion plan of the ELX.

These bulidings are nowhere near the ELLE. They will just make Liverpool
Street and Moorgate stations busier.

The ELLX station at Shoreditch High Street will be 5/10 minutes walk
away up Bishopsgate/Norton Folgate - in my book that's near, not
"nowhere near". Or are you boycotting walking now John? ;-)

If those who work at these new developments want to go home to a
destination on the ELLX - or to destinations where using the ELLX is
more direct - they will surely use the ELLX, non?

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

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.

You've got the wrong single track section. Look at a map and you'll see
that the line from Ipswich and Bury St Edmund's to Ely doesn't pass
though Newmarket station but from Chippenham Junction to Ely Dock
Junction. It's also a bit busier now that you seem to think, with
freight as well as passenger services.


Acutally, I had the correct single track section for looking at the
map, but looked up the wrong bit of the timetable :P

This means the the section only has a two-hourly passenger service
instead of hourly. As I said, it is not very buzy from the passenger
point of view and the single track section is not very long at all. I
really think that the capacity problems are much more likely to be
between Ely Dock junction and Peterborough which is much more
intensively used. A few miles of single track line, which looks 'easy'
to double and with an infrequent passenger service (2 trains per 2
hours), compared to a longer stretch with I reckon ten passenger trains
per hour in total. Surely all the current freight through Soham also
has to deal with all this stretch of highly used line.


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

Ho, ho. Not that easy, I gather. And singling it to get the clearances
would hit capacity pretty hard.

In article .com,
(Andy) wrote:

Acutally, I had the correct single track section for looking at the
map, but looked up the wrong bit of the timetable :P

This means the the section only has a two-hourly passenger service
instead of hourly. As I said, it is not very buzy from the passenger
point of view and the single track section is not very long at all.

Yours is not the view of the County Council. The section nearest to Ely
Dick Junction is regarded as too expensive to double (Fen waterway
bridges near Ely) and the rest of it has always been single track. It is
a busy freight route already with the single track section a capacity
constraint, or so I am told.

I really think that the capacity problems are much more likely to be
between Ely Dock junction and Peterborough which is much more
intensively used. A few miles of single track line, which looks
'easy' to double and with an infrequent passenger service (2 trains
per 2 hours), compared to a longer stretch with I reckon ten passenger
trains per hour in total. Surely all the current freight through Soham
also has to deal with all this stretch of highly used line.

But it's double track which has been upgraded for greater loads and
higher speeds fairly recently.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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

Acutally, I had the correct single track section for looking at the
map, but looked up the wrong bit of the timetable :P

This means the the section only has a two-hourly passenger service
instead of hourly. As I said, it is not very buzy from the passenger
point of view and the single track section is not very long at all.

Yours is not the view of the County Council. The section nearest to Ely
Dick Junction is regarded as too expensive to double (Fen waterway
bridges near Ely) and the rest of it has always been single track. It is
a busy freight route already with the single track section a capacity
constraint, or so I am told.


Ok, done some research in the Draft Freight RUS (mostly on page 73, but
also other areas)

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%...ultation .pdf

It appears that the capacity constraint is signalling in the Kennett
area (i.e. not on the single track section, but the double track
section between Ipswich and Chippenham (?) Junction). It also mentions
capacity problems crossing from the Soham line to the main line at Ely.

The whole scheme of W10 enhancement seems to be costed at
GBP40-50million, and capacity seems to be fine for the 'extra' services
from Felixstow, but more would be needed if freight was diverted from
the NNL.

I really think that the capacity problems are much more likely to be
between Ely Dock junction and Peterborough which is much more
intensively used. A few miles of single track line, which looks
'easy' to double and with an infrequent passenger service (2 trains
per 2 hours), compared to a longer stretch with I reckon ten passenger
trains per hour in total. Surely all the current freight through Soham
also has to deal with all this stretch of highly used line.

But it's double track which has been upgraded for greater loads and
higher speeds fairly recently.


And Ely Dock junction is mentioned as a capacity constraint in the RUS.