The old route out of Broad Street to Dalston Junction is built for four
tracks throughout. Given that the ELLX is likely to only require two of
these tracks, does anyone know what the remaining formation will be
used for?

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.

In article . com,
(TheOneKEA) wrote:

The old route out of Broad Street to Dalston Junction is built for
four tracks throughout. Given that the ELLX is likely to only require
two of these tracks, does anyone know what the remaining formation
will be used for?

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.

It's two parallel double track viaducts though, isn't it? With space for
station platforms as islands on each viaduct?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Oct 8, 9:35 pm, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
It's two parallel double track viaducts though, isn't it? With space for
station platforms as islands on each viaduct?

According to Pendar's photos
(http://www.loveplums.co.uk/Tube/Broa...t_line_1.html), it appears
to be a four-track viaduct with the island being in between the track
pairings.

TheOneKEA wrote:
The old route out of Broad Street to Dalston Junction is built for four
tracks throughout. Given that the ELLX is likely to only require two of
these tracks, does anyone know what the remaining formation will be
used for?

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.

Won't it depend on the width of the replacement bridge decks being put
in place?

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.

Funniest thing that I have read in ages, the prospect of the Eat London
Line being so busy it will need to be quadrupled. You would still have
the double track bottleneck to the south.

Kevin

On Oct 9, 11:54 am, "Kev" wrote:
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.

Funniest thing that I have read in ages, the prospect of the Eat London
Line being so busy it will need to be quadrupled. You would still have
the double track bottleneck to the south.

True. I was thinking more in terms of offering branched services to the
north.

A bit of research shows that the Dalston area once enjoyed a triangular
junction with the NLL. If the four-track formation is cleared and kept
clear as far as Dalston Junction, then as long as the eastern side of
the triangle is not blocked, the ELLX could run onto the eastern NLL
and access some of the old Eastern Region suburban routes.

TheOneKEA wrote:

On Oct 9, 11:54 am, "Kev" wrote:
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.

Funniest thing that I have read in ages, the prospect of the Eat London
Line being so busy it will need to be quadrupled. You would still have
the double track bottleneck to the south.

True. I was thinking more in terms of offering branched services to the
north.

It certainly won't need quadrupling - as Kev says it would be a
nightmare anyway as there'd be a bottleneck.

If however the suggestion is the ELL is going to be a quiet line then
I'd offer the contrary prediction - I think it'll be a very successful
and well patronised line. I know this is contrary to what appears to be
the received wisdom in this group but I'm convinced it'll be a great
success.

A bit of research shows that the Dalston area once enjoyed a triangular
junction with the NLL. If the four-track formation is cleared and kept
clear as far as Dalston Junction, then as long as the eastern side of
the triangle is not blocked, the ELLX could run onto the eastern NLL
and access some of the old Eastern Region suburban routes.

The track formation on the eastern side of the triangle's is very much
blocked by the Dalston shopping centre, which isn't going anywhere
soon. I don't know whether it's luck or foresight which has resulted in
the trackbed on the western side of the triangle being available for
future use.

Mizter T wrote:
TheOneKEA wrote:

On Oct 9, 11:54 am, "Kev" wrote:
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.
Funniest thing that I have read in ages, the prospect of the Eat London
Line being so busy it will need to be quadrupled. You would still have
the double track bottleneck to the south.
True. I was thinking more in terms of offering branched services to the
north.

It certainly won't need quadrupling - as Kev says it would be a
nightmare anyway as there'd be a bottleneck.

If however the suggestion is the ELL is going to be a quiet line then
I'd offer the contrary prediction - I think it'll be a very successful
and well patronised line. I know this is contrary to what appears to be
the received wisdom in this group but I'm convinced it'll be a great
success.

Is it contrary to the received wisdom? The North London Line and
associated lines show that there is strong and increasing demand for
inner city orbital services. The ELL will pass through some
heavily-populated areas, with a reasonably large number of residents
within 15 minutes of stops along the line. Strong job growth is expected
in the inner city and suburbs in general, and suburban road congestion
means that the combined North London Railway orbital services will
provide competitive journey times between many pairs of
origins/destinations. I think all of that will inevitably (and fairly
logically) lead to strong demand for ELL services.

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

Dave Arquati wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
TheOneKEA wrote:

On Oct 9, 11:54 am, "Kev" wrote:
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.
Funniest thing that I have read in ages, the prospect of the Eat London
Line being so busy it will need to be quadrupled. You would still have
the double track bottleneck to the south.
True. I was thinking more in terms of offering branched services to the
north.

It certainly won't need quadrupling - as Kev says it would be a
nightmare anyway as there'd be a bottleneck.

If however the suggestion is the ELL is going to be a quiet line then
I'd offer the contrary prediction - I think it'll be a very successful
and well patronised line. I know this is contrary to what appears to be
the received wisdom in this group but I'm convinced it'll be a great
success.

Is it contrary to the received wisdom? The North London Line and
associated lines show that there is strong and increasing demand for
inner city orbital services. The ELL will pass through some
heavily-populated areas, with a reasonably large number of residents
within 15 minutes of stops along the line. Strong job growth is expected
in the inner city and suburbs in general, and suburban road congestion
means that the combined North London Railway orbital services will
provide competitive journey times between many pairs of
origins/destinations. I think all of that will inevitably (and fairly
logically) lead to strong demand for ELL services.


My earlier assessment of an anti-extended ELL bias in this group is
perhaps wide of the mark - note that my comments on the received wisdom
concerning it related to utl as opposed to the world at large.

Perhaps utl isn't as guilty as uk.railway - I can't remember where I've
read the many past ng posts that are (sometimes deeply) sceptical about
the project, but I certainly have. Whilst I'm a relative newcomer here
I have read several of the discussions from the archives (of both
newsgroups).

I recall reading several comments along the lines of "who wants to go
from Sydenham to Hoxton anyway", "the Croydon traveller wants to go to
central London not Whitechapel" and "do the people of Dalston really
want to go to Surrey Quays".

One 'alternative scheme' discussed poured scorn on the ELL project as
being a waste and stated all that was necessary was the the ELL be
funnelled into Liverpool Street, with the Broad St. - Dalston track
used for a tram.

I don't of course object to such fantasy schemes - after all every PT
project starts with an idea - the one I read did however very easily
dismiss the present scheme as poor, something that I very much disagree
with.

Hence my recieved wisdom statement! Of course Dave, even before
endorsement above, it's pretty clear that your wisdom was in the right
corner!

Like you I'm sure the extended ELL will be very successful. In the mid
80's it seemed people thought the NLL was dying, but it is - as you say
- a very well patronised (if horribly scruffy) route now.
Plus look at the example the West London Line and the "Two Junctions" /
"Junction to Junction" service (why does no-one ever call it either of
those!) from Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction which never existed
at all whatsoever before '94 (I think) - it's now a pretty popular
route on a day-to-day basis (as well as it's revived popularity for
Olympia exhibitions).

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, TheOneKEA wrote:

On Oct 9, 11:54 am, "Kev" wrote:
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.

Funniest thing that I have read in ages, the prospect of the Eat London
Line being so busy it will need to be quadrupled. You would still have
the double track bottleneck to the south.

How about some sort of freight use? The NLL isn't just for people, you
know. However, i'm not sure where the southern end would be; Bishopsgate
is hardly the freight hub it once was, and there's no obvious way beyond
it: the Great Eastern is too busy (and you can get there via Stratford
already), and the East London line itself is never going to be four-track
south of there. You could always go down into some point-defeatingly
expensive tubes, i suppose. The big London freight study a while ago did
say we needed a new Thames crossing to get freight from the Kent ports to
the north without faffing around on the south London commuter lines and
the WLL; might as well build it here as out at Tilbury (yes, i know, it'd
still play merry hell with the Dartford lines).

Alternatively, whack in a second portal or a flyover or whatever, and run
Shoreditch - Highbury & Islington - Willesden Junction as another
Crossrail branch!

While we're on the subject of the ELLX, two questions, slightly more
serious. Firstly, what happens between the Shoreditch High Street edge of
the old Bishopsgate yard and the old Broad Street viaduct? There's a
hundred metres or so which isn't on the viaduct, and is currently (?)
occupied by buildings. Secondly, what's going to happen to the stub of
viaduct south of the junction with the answer to the first question?

Oh, third question: what was on the Bishopsgate site between 1964, when i
understand it closed as a goods yard, and the time ELLX construction
started? It seems inconceivable that a site that size so close to Livepool
Street didn't get turned into an office block. I suppose this 'City
fringes' business is all quite new.

Fourth question! How did Broad Street once function as it apparently did
as a terminus of the Great Northern? How do you get from Finsbury Park to
Broad Street? Ah, no, i see - there's a curve from just below Drayton Park
to the NLL. Isn't that single-track, though?

Genuine fourth question: was anything of industrial archaeology salvaged
from Bishopsgate, and if so, where will it be put on display?

Fifth question: goods yards with two rail levels: who on earth thought of
that? Do they still do that anywhere? Madness!

tom

--
I really don't know what any of this **** means, but it looks
impressive. -- zerolives, on YVFC