|
North London Line
"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message ... I believe as part of S106 agreements improvements to signaling, gauge enhancements, loop lengths are already COMMITED from Haven Ports to P'bro From P'bro to Nuneaton is supposed to being investigated, I believe. Crumbs (he says, putting on Parish Council hat), I didn't know S106 money stretched to that size of project. Perhaps Ken can help with a pot of money as it is almost certainly the cheapest way of creating extra space on North London Line(s) The route across the Fens would need electrification and then there is the single track section from Soham to Ely to be sorted out. Driving past/near the line between Soham and Newmarket today, I can't see why they don't get serious about that route. I think passenger income would be negligible from new stations at Soham or Fordham/Burwell, but I can't see why they don't double that stretch to help capacity. -- Brian |
North London Line
Dan Gravell wrote:
Mizter T wrote: TfL have ambitious plans for the NLL once they take over in November, but as yet I don't think there's been any talk of lengthened trains, just some plans for more frequent trains though I don't think there's anything concrete yet. Frequency, frequency, frequency, it's all about frequency. Frequency improves availability as well as increasing capacity, and of course is far more convenient. If you want to discourage people from driving you have to remove the perceived extra cost of trains in terms of loss of convenience. People aren't going to put up with 4tph. Clearly, as many people as can fit on the train right now are. -- Michael Hoffman |
North London Line
"Brian Watson" wrote in message ... "Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message ... I believe as part of S106 agreements improvements to signaling, gauge enhancements, loop lengths are already COMMITED from Haven Ports to P'bro From P'bro to Nuneaton is supposed to being investigated, I believe. Crumbs (he says, putting on Parish Council hat), I didn't know S106 money stretched to that size of project. It will be interesting to see if TfL can/will spend money directly in the Midlands for the greater good of the London area. Paul |
North London Line
On Feb 28, 10:31 am, "Adrian" wrote:
part, the track beds of the DN&S and LNWR Oxford to Cambridge routes. route. Utilizing the DN&S bypasses all these choke points and gives freight trains their own path. Unless you add flying junctions you will only succeed in moving a conflict at Reading to Didcot, at Basingstoke to Shawford, and I'm not sure what you mean at Winchester (other than its plain double track). At the moment a northbound freight does not conflict with Down SWML traffic at Basingstoke, but s/b freight has to cross the path up the Up SWML. If you divert freight via the DNS suggestion, you remove this conflict at Basingstoke, but introduce a new one at Shawford, because now northbound freight will conflict with Down SWML . Likewise, avoiding Reading by reinstating DNS simply shifts the problem of crossing the GWML to Didcot. Given that the railway is unable to get essential flyovers like Woking built, there is not one hope of getting them at either Shawford or Didcot. I do like the DNS idea - if you search back in uk.railway I suggested it myself - the last time was 3 months ago - and I'm sure its been commented on before. But it is no way a simple reinstatement of an old route. I think it might be of value as a relief route in general, but wholly eliminate conflicts, no. And does it not have a road built along it for some way ? -- Nick |
North London Line
On Feb 28, 1:35 pm, "D7666" wrote:
avoiding Reading by reinstating DNS simply shifts the problem of crossing the GWML to Didcot. And a new conflict at Newbury. I agree theres less traffic there, but its a double one - as freight will have to cross the entire route. built, there is not one hope of getting them at either Shawford or Didcot. So add Newbury to that. -- Nick |
North London Line
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:55:02 +0000, Dan Gravell wrote: Adrian wrote: Much of the freight traffic on the North London Line does not even need to be in London. I am convinced that the UK needs a freight arc from Felixstowe to Southampton. This could be constructed using, in part, the track beds of the DN&S and LNWR Oxford to Cambridge routes. This is not something I actually expect to happen! But such a route could keep a substantial portion of the NL Line's freight load away from London. Sorry - I'm not so clued up about this but I am interested. You're saying that a significant amount of capacity on London's railways are taken with freight? Freight which has no relation to London and is just travelling through? So London's crowded passenger network (not to mention my miserable journey each morning) is partly caused by trains which shouldn't even be on the (London) network? Freight from Tilbury Docks as well as the various industries (e.g Fords and petrochemicals) along the northern banks of the Thames Estuary is taken both via the Gospel Oak and North London Lines as well as the Great Eastern line to Stratford and then onto the North London Line from there. Short of taking it half way round the country via Essex and Suffolk there is no other way (that I can think of but I'm not an expert) to get that freight onto the East Coast, West Coast, Midland or Great Western Lines. [Happy to be corrected by those who know far more about freight traffics.] AFIAK the freight traffics are well established and did not present too much of an issue when the NLL and GOBLIN were not as busy. Trains could be pathed with relative ease. We are now in a different situation with both the development of orbital rail services as well as the potential development of Crossrail which must have an impact on track capacity on the Great Eastern lines east of Stratford. There is also a growth in demand for freight services as well as the moderate levels of competition between the freight companies seems to be helping to grow the market. The other issue is the planned development of the Thames Gateway. I have seen nothing at all that shows how main line rail services will cope with the huge increase in population that is planned for the area. Crossrail won't really help, DLR to Dagenham is but a small contribution but nothing seems to be planned for the C2C network. I understand that is pretty much crammed to capacity now and it's only a 2 track line into London. If we are not to have a 12 lane A13 highway into London something has to be done with rail capacity IMO. Rail 2025 / T2025 call for lengthening of trains on the c2c network. The combination of DLR to Dagenham and Crossrail at Custom House should provide the quickest and highest capacity corridor into central London for several tens of thousands of the new homes in the inner Thames Gateway (the Royal Docks and Barking Reach). I think that's easy to underestimate - DLR to Dagenham will be situated ideally for the whole swathe of development from Beckton to Dagenham, and will feed into Custom House in about 15 mins, from which it will be a very rapid journey into the City (+10 mins) and the West End (+20 mins). Thames Gateway Transit will also act as a feeder into both eastern Crossrail branches. -- Dave Arquati www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
North London Line
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:01:20 +0000, Edward Cowling London UK wrote: I used the North London Line to get from Highbury and Islington the last two days there were enough people to fill 8 carriages, but only 3 on the train. It must be common, because there was no hesitancy getting on board, everyone runs and crams into every available inch of space. Is this cattle truck scenario the norm ?? Apparently it is awful M-F peaks. I've not used it then but I have used it on Saturdays - standing room only west from Gospel Oak and the same back from Willesden Junction. I was genuinely surprised (but pleased) as to how busy it was. Even on a Sunday when it's only every 30 mins it's pretty busy with almost all seats taken - it was a pleasant day so a lot of people seemed to be heading for Kew and Richmond. Thinking back there were LU engineering works on the District and Picc that day so that might have skewed the numbers. I'm pretty convinced that once orbital rail improvements start to materialise that there will be a surge in demand that is currently suppressed by relatively poor service levels and / or concerns about station facilities and security. I've slightly lost track as to what improvements are due when - as TfL and Network Rail have different views as to what is needed - but I think TfL will be exercising its option for new trains and asking for signal and platform enhancements within 18-24 months of Overground starting this November. I think the publication time of the Cross London RUS and TfL's plans were badly timed against each other, and the situation now is progressing much better. I've had some dealings with this recently - plans for the stations are advancing at quite a pace and Network Rail will be doing some batches of large-scale infrastructure works on the NLL and GOBLIN over three summers from 2009. The idea is to be ready to run the high-frequency service before 2012, and those infrastructure works will allow that. I'm not privy to the details of what exactly is planned, but that's how I understand it. -- Dave Arquati www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
North London Line
|
North London Line
Graham J wrote:
I've never actually used Angel Road station but I have to say it doesn't look very inviting having to find your way to the top of the overbridge, which isn't exactly the most accessible of places, and then walk under the bridge and along a rather enclosed footpath to get to the platforms, and then if you want the other platform you need to use a footbridge. I can't say I fancy that much. I've used it. It isn't pleasant, not least because it's unstaffed and, the one time I did use it, the light underneath the road overbridge was broken, which wasn't fun even during the day. The other thing the A406 widening did was to remove the pavements which isn't very helpful to pedestrians. I used to walk from the Angel to Wickes etc but that put a stop to that. I think there's some sort of subway type arrangement at the Montagu Road junction, but I can't remember. In any case, if you want to do that walk now you have to start out walking along the Montagu Road side of Angel Road, then cross over, and continue down and over one of the "side" flyovers (the one nearest Tesco) to get to Wickes. Either that or get a bus down to MFI and then cross possibly *the* scariest footbridge in London as you cross at least eight lanes of traffic, possibly ten (Advent Way, the North Circ and Argon Road) on a high metal footbridge. Not one for anyone suffering vertigo! You would have thought there was a better way of providing access to the station. It seems to me it has been provided on the wrong side of the road. Indeed...But then people might actually *want* to use the station to get to, ooh, Tesco and Ikea, which are conveniently located right next to the A406, so "one" would actually have to provide a half-decent service. Cynic, me? Cheers, Barry |
North London Line
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:14:48 +0000, Barry Salter
wrote: Graham J wrote: I've never actually used Angel Road station but I have to say it doesn't look very inviting having to find your way to the top of the overbridge, which isn't exactly the most accessible of places, and then walk under the bridge and along a rather enclosed footpath to get to the platforms, and then if you want the other platform you need to use a footbridge. I can't say I fancy that much. I've used it. It isn't pleasant, not least because it's unstaffed and, the one time I did use it, the light underneath the road overbridge was broken, which wasn't fun even during the day. It certainly doesn't look inviting. I've tried to fathom how to access the place when I've gone past on a 192 bus but it doesn't look easy. The surrounding environment / pavement access is, as you say, unhelpful at best and a distinct deterrent at worst. Either that or get a bus down to MFI and then cross possibly *the* scariest footbridge in London as you cross at least eight lanes of traffic, possibly ten (Advent Way, the North Circ and Argon Road) on a high metal footbridge. Not one for anyone suffering vertigo! I'm not good with heights and I have crossed that bridge a few times to get from Ikea / Tesco to the 34 stop back towards Walthamstow. While you can clearly get from one side of the road to the other it is very unfriendly and just shows that minimal thought was given to possible usage of that link. It's truly awful if you are carrying bags and how people with buggies cope I don't know. I can understand why subways are no longer the choice for getting people across major highways but making the bridge easier to use and weather proof / protected would be a start. More people now use that link - especially since Ikea popped up and yet no one seems to understand that it's bloody awful to use. Exactly the same issues apply at Neasden Ikea where there is a similar horrible walk from the tube station and another mountainous bridge to use even if you catch a 232 bus. Similarly the return stop for the 232 is tucked out of sight towards St Raphaels or else means two flights of stairs to scale a fence. Quite why a gate could not be constructed I don't know or even better a proper bus lay-by with a decent well lit shelter with a clear walking route from the store to the stop. Oh yes - I forgot. Everyone goes to Ikea by car (not!). You would have thought there was a better way of providing access to the station. It seems to me it has been provided on the wrong side of the road. Indeed...But then people might actually *want* to use the station to get to, ooh, Tesco and Ikea, which are conveniently located right next to the A406, so "one" would actually have to provide a half-decent service. The station is clearly in the "wrong" place in the context of the recent retail developments. It's probably in the "right" place if the aim was to provide access to housing in the Montagu Road area. The real evidence for me that the station really serves none of these areas at all well is the popularity of the 192 bus. It is often full on leaving Tottenham Hale and carries a decent volume of people to Tesco / Ikea. However plenty of people travel further on to the Montagu Road area and then you get the flows to and from Edmonton Green / Enfield. The fact that it darts round the back streets of Bush Hill Park makes it difficult to use bigger vehicles (too many tight turns) or run a more frequent service (too much risk of buses meeting head on on narrow residential streets). If Angel Road was more convenient and safer to use and had a much better service then I expect the 192 would not be as oversubscribed as it is. Cynic, me? Oh just possibly. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
North London Line
Exactly the same issues apply at Neasden Ikea where there is a similar
horrible walk from the tube station and another mountainous bridge to use even if you catch a 232 bus. Croydon Ikea is fortunately much easier to get to on foot from the tram stop. However to get to it one has to cross the entrance road to the car park which has a small traffic island in the middle. They clearly expect you to go a few yards to your right, cross, and then walk to the left again but the natural thing to do is to walk straight across from pavement to pavement. Unfortunately the entrance to the car park is protected by large suspended barrier which they have chosen to put alongside the island on this direct route and it ends up about six feet above the ground. Fortunately I'm not a six footer or I'd have been hospitalised on several occasions. G. |
North London Line
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:35:16 -0000, "Peter Masson"
wrote: "J. Chisholm" wrote Perhaps Ken can help with a pot of money as it is almost certainly the cheapest way of creating extra space on North London Line(s) There must at least be synergy between upgrading NLL for passengers and for freight. For example, there ought to be a good case for electrifying Barking to Gospel Oak for either passengers or freight, and it doesn't need doing twice. But freights using GO-Barking cannot get on to the GE main line (except with a double reversal). Is there any possibilty of a North to East link where the lines cross? -- Peter Lawrence |
North London Line
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
The route across the Fens would need electrification and then there is the single track section from Soham to Ely to be sorted out. ISTR Virgin XC offering to electrify it in exchange for being able to run to Stansted. Instead it got lumbered with CT, and now son-of-Virgin is going to take it over anyway... Theo |
North London Line
"Peter Lawrence" wrote But freights using GO-Barking cannot get on to the GE main line (except with a double reversal). Is there any possibilty of a North to East link where the lines cross? Manor Park Cemetery is in the angle between the two lines. However, AIUI, a significant proportion of the freight which comes up the GEML goes via the NLL and WCML to the West Midlands or North West. This could all go via Peterborough and Leicester when that route is upgraded. Freight from the LTSR (which will increase considerably if/when the Shellhaven port development goes ahead, and could in the future include fast freight from Mainland Europe via Channel Tunnel and CTRL), if electrically hauled, currently has to get across the whole of the GEML to access the NLL. Upgrading and electrification of the Barking - Gospel Oak route for freight could make a big difference to the GEML and the congested Stratford - Camden Road part of the NLL. Peter |
North London Line
On Feb 28, 9:12 am, Graeme Wall wrote:
In message .com "Adrian" wrote: On Feb 28, 12:56 am, Graeme Wall wrote: In message .com "Adrian" wrote: [snip] Much of the freight traffic on the North London Line does not even need to be in London. I am convinced that the UK needs a freight arc from Felixstowe to Southampton. This could be constructed using, in part, the track beds of the DN&S and LNWR Oxford to Cambridge routes. What would be the logic of a freight connection between Southampton and Felixstowe? I would have thought that there would be little or no traffic actually between those points. Both are major container ports with traffic to and from the major manufacturing centres of Britain. Those connections could certainly do with upgrading. The two ports are too close together by sea for there to be any advantage in unloading containers at one port, railing them across country and reembarking them at the other. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html There would be zero containers, one would guess, running between the two ports. However, this arc would cross every main line running west and north from London and therefore allow container, and other freight, trains to access the network without entering the conurbation. I thought you were implying the ports needed connecting. Certainly there is a pressing need to improve the rail access to both ports. There is a certain arguement that such improvements should take preference over improvements to passenger services, at least outside the major conurbations. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Indeed not! My point is that there would be a very significant freight source at both ends of the 'arc'. It is my view that passenger and freight traffic do much better when they are segregated. If I recall correctly, north of Bedford the Midland main line was a passenger pair and a freight pair. Furthermore I seem to remember British Rail reduced the freight pair to a single track. In the unlikely event that my freight arc is ever built I would suggest that the Midland freight pair would be the natural route for development as a freight mainline to the English East Midlands and North. There would need to be some conflict free junctions in the Bedford area. How one would feed Tilbury and Channel Tunnel freight trains into this network I don't know. I do believe that said trains have the potential to keep limiting the availability of the North London Line for passenger movement. Adrian |
North London Line
On Mar 1, 5:42 am, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:14:48 +0000, Barry Salter wrote: Graham J wrote: I've never actually used Angel Road station but I have to say it doesn't look very inviting having to find your way to the top of the overbridge, which isn't exactly the most accessible of places, and then walk under the bridge and along a rather enclosed footpath to get to the platforms, and then if you want the other platform you need to use a footbridge. I can't say I fancy that much. I've used it. It isn't pleasant, not least because it's unstaffed and, the one time I did use it, the light underneath the road overbridge was broken, which wasn't fun even during the day. It certainly doesn't look inviting. I've tried to fathom how to access the place when I've gone past on a 192 bus but it doesn't look easy. The surrounding environment / pavement access is, as you say, unhelpful at best and a distinct deterrent at worst. Either that or get a bus down to MFI and then cross possibly *the* scariest footbridge in London as you cross at least eight lanes of traffic, possibly ten (Advent Way, the North Circ and Argon Road) on a high metal footbridge. Not one for anyone suffering vertigo! I'm not good with heights and I have crossed that bridge a few times to get from Ikea / Tesco to the 34 stop back towards Walthamstow. While you can clearly get from one side of the road to the other it is very unfriendly and just shows that minimal thought was given to possible usage of that link. It's truly awful if you are carrying bags and how people with buggies cope I don't know. I can understand why subways are no longer the choice for getting people across major highways but making the bridge easier to use and weather proof / protected would be a start. More people now use that link - especially since Ikea popped up and yet no one seems to understand that it's bloody awful to use. Exactly the same issues apply at Neasden Ikea where there is a similar horrible walk from the tube station and another mountainous bridge to use even if you catch a 232 bus. Similarly the return stop for the 232 is tucked out of sight towards St Raphaels or else means two flights of stairs to scale a fence. Quite why a gate could not be constructed I don't know or even better a proper bus lay-by with a decent well lit shelter with a clear walking route from the store to the stop. Oh yes - I forgot. Everyone goes to Ikea by car (not!). You would have thought there was a better way of providing access to the station. It seems to me it has been provided on the wrong side of the road. Indeed...But then people might actually *want* to use the station to get to, ooh, Tesco and Ikea, which are conveniently located right next to the A406, so "one" would actually have to provide a half-decent service. The station is clearly in the "wrong" place in the context of the recent retail developments. It's probably in the "right" place if the aim was to provide access to housing in the Montagu Road area. The real evidence for me that the station really serves none of these areas at all well is the popularity of the 192 bus. It is often full on leaving Tottenham Hale and carries a decent volume of people to Tesco / Ikea. However plenty of people travel further on to the Montagu Road area and then you get the flows to and from Edmonton Green / Enfield. The fact that it darts round the back streets of Bush Hill Park makes it difficult to use bigger vehicles (too many tight turns) or run a more frequent service (too much risk of buses meeting head on on narrow residential streets). If Angel Road was more convenient and safer to use and had a much better service then I expect the 192 would not be as oversubscribed as it is. -- Paul C Whatever happened to the concept of "Town Planning"? Adrian |
North London Line
On Feb 28, 1:35 pm, "D7666" wrote:
On Feb 28, 10:31 am, "Adrian" wrote: part, the track beds of the DN&S and LNWR Oxford to Cambridge routes. route. Utilizing the DN&S bypasses all these choke points and gives freight trains their own path. Unless you add flying junctions you will only succeed in moving a conflict at Reading to Didcot, at Basingstoke to Shawford, and I'm not sure what you mean at Winchester (other than its plain double track). Flying junctions are a given. Te point of this exercise would be to keep freight and passenger traffic out of each other's way. By Winchester, I mean the stretch between Worting Junction and Shawford is double track. South of Shawford there is/was an extra pair. I agree there would need to be some means of rationally segregating the traffic with conflicting movement between Shawford and Southampton. At the moment a northbound freight does not conflict with Down SWML traffic at Basingstoke, but s/b freight has to cross the path up the Up SWML. If you divert freight via the DNS suggestion, you remove this conflict at Basingstoke, but introduce a new one at Shawford, because now northbound freight will conflict with Down SWML . Likewise, avoiding Reading by reinstating DNS simply shifts the problem of crossing the GWML to Didcot. Wasn't the DNS grade separated from the Bristol route in its day? Either way the 'new' version would need non conflicting junctions. Given that the railway is unable to get essential flyovers like Woking built, there is not one hope of getting them at either Shawford or Didcot. The situation at Woking is pitiful. I do like the DNS idea - if you search back in uk.railway I suggested it myself - the last time was 3 months ago - and I'm sure its been commented on before. But it is no way a simple reinstatement of an old route. I think it might be of value as a relief route in general, but wholly eliminate conflicts, no. And does it not have a road built along it for some way ? There would be a need for some land take. Adrian |
North London Line
"Adrian" wrote in message oups.com... On Feb 28, 1:35 pm, "D7666" wrote: At the moment a northbound freight does not conflict with Down SWML traffic at Basingstoke, but s/b freight has to cross the path up the Up SWML. If you divert freight via the DNS suggestion, you remove this conflict at Basingstoke, but introduce a new one at Shawford, because now northbound freight will conflict with Down SWML . Likewise, avoiding Reading by reinstating DNS simply shifts the problem of crossing the GWML to Didcot. Wasn't the DNS grade separated from the Bristol route in its day? Either way the 'new' version would need non conflicting junctions. Given that the railway is unable to get essential flyovers like Woking built, there is not one hope of getting them at either Shawford or Didcot. The situation at Woking is pitiful. I do like the DNS idea - if you search back in uk.railway I suggested it myself - the last time was 3 months ago - and I'm sure its been commented on before. But it is no way a simple reinstatement of an old route. I think it might be of value as a relief route in general, but wholly eliminate conflicts, no. And does it not have a road built along it for some way ? There would be a need for some land take. There was a wartime spur from the SWML to the DNS northbound at Winchester Junction, so Shawford needn't be a problem - just run southbound freights via Chesil but northbound via Winchester City. However, Didcot was always a flat junction, though as the DNS approached via a fairly steep gradient a flyover might be possible. However, I can't see it happening. Much of the freight originates from the more western parts of the docks at Southampton, even though the Dibden Bay proposals have been rejected. So a freight route can be developed via Romsey, Lavernock Spur, Andover, Basingstoke, Reading and Didcot. Track and signalling alterations at Basingstoke could reduce (but not eliminate) conflicts. A diveunder from Reading West Spur to the Relief Lines towards Tilehurst would remove most of the more serious conflicts in the Reading area. More use could probably also be made of the MML, accessed via Byfleet, Chertsey, the Kew Junctions, Acton Wells and Hendon, the flying junctions at Byfleet and Hendon being particularly useful. The MML would need requadrupling between Bedford and Kettering. Peter |
North London Line
"Adrian" wrote It is my view that passenger and freight traffic do much better when they are segregated. If I recall correctly, north of Bedford the Midland main line was a passenger pair and a freight pair. Furthermore I seem to remember British Rail reduced the freight pair to a single track. In the unlikely event that my freight arc is ever built I would suggest that the Midland freight pair would be the natural route for development as a freight mainline to the English East Midlands and North. There would need to be some conflict free junctions in the Bedford area. How one would feed Tilbury and Channel Tunnel freight trains into this network I don't know. I do believe that said trains have the potential to keep limiting the availability of the North London Line for passenger movement. Tilbury, and any Channel Tunnel Freight allowed to use the CTRL to the connections at Rainham, could use the Barking - Gospel Oak line (now thought of as part of the NLL, but much less intensively used than the Stratford - Camden Road section. It can then join the MML via the spur from Junction Road Junction. Peter |
North London Line
Very much so.
"Graham J" wrote in message ... I used the North London Line to get from Highbury and Islington the last two days there were enough people to fill 8 carriages, but only 3 on the train. It must be common, because there was no hesitancy getting on board, everyone runs and crams into every available inch of space. Is this cattle truck scenario the norm ?? |
North London Line
I notice that there is a track that curves up north just east of Highbury &
Islington. Any idea where that one goes? "d" wrote in message k... "sweek" wrote in message ups.com... Does anyone have a line diagram, or maybe even one showing where it used to be quad-tracked? If you fancy staring at a screen working it out, you can see most of it on Google Maps, including the old spur where two of the tracks left between Canonbury (or, at the time the now dead Mildmay Park) and Dalston Junction and headed on down to broad street. dave |
North London Line
On 1 Mar, 20:55, "Adrian" wrote:
How one would feed Tilbury and Channel Tunnel freight trains into this network I don't know. *I do believe that said trains have the potential to keep limiting the availability of the North London Line for passenger movement. Some of us would say that the said passenger trains have the potential to keep limiting the availability of the North London Line for freight movement. :-) George |
North London Line
Through Canonbury Tunnel, & up to Finsbury Park.
-- David Biddulph wrote in message . uk... I notice that there is a track that curves up north just east of Highbury & Islington. Any idea where that one goes? "d" wrote in message k... "sweek" wrote in message ups.com... Does anyone have a line diagram, or maybe even one showing where it used to be quad-tracked? If you fancy staring at a screen working it out, you can see most of it on Google Maps, including the old spur where two of the tracks left between Canonbury (or, at the time the now dead Mildmay Park) and Dalston Junction and headed on down to broad street. dave |
North London Line
In message
"Peter Masson" wrote: There was a wartime spur from the SWML to the DNS northbound at Winchester Junction, so Shawford needn't be a problem - just run southbound freights via Chesil but northbound via Winchester City. Not possible, there's a multi-story car park on the station site and a road on the formation south of Chesil to the edge of the city. Then. assuming you could reinstate the viaduct, the route is severed by the access roads to the M3 and possibly the M3 itself. However, Didcot was always a flat junction, though as the DNS approached via a fairly steep gradient a flyover might be possible. However, I can't see it happening. Much of the freight originates from the more western parts of the docks at Southampton, even though the Dibden Bay proposals have been rejected. Very little originates from the Eastern Docks these days. There used to be a regular traffic (2 trains a week) of new Fiats but I haven't seen them operate recently. So a freight route can be developed via Romsey, Lavernock Spur, Andover, Basingstoke, Reading and Didcot. Can trains leave the container port heading west? Track and signalling alterations at Basingstoke could reduce (but not eliminate) conflicts. A diveunder from Reading West Spur to the Relief Lines towards Tilehurst would remove most of the more serious conflicts in the Reading area. Would involve going through the depot at Reading, not sure what the knock-on effects of that would be. Also there's a housing estate and industrial area north of the GWML about there. More use could probably also be made of the MML, accessed via Byfleet, Chertsey, the Kew Junctions, Acton Wells and Hendon, the flying junctions at Byfleet and Hendon being particularly useful. The MML would need requadrupling between Bedford and Kettering. Peter -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
North London Line
"Graeme Wall" wrote in message ... In message "Peter Masson" wrote: Track and signalling alterations at Basingstoke could reduce (but not eliminate) conflicts. A diveunder from Reading West Spur to the Relief Lines towards Tilehurst would remove most of the more serious conflicts in the Reading area. Would involve going through the depot at Reading, not sure what the knock-on effects of that would be. Also there's a housing estate and industrial area north of the GWML about there. Might require changes to the access to the depot, but I'm sure that's possible. What I envisage is lowering the level of the West Spur to take it under the Up and Down Main and Down Relief, and surface between the Down and Up Reliefs, with the Up RFelief realigned. IIRC there are some comparatively little used sidings on the north of the GWML at this point which would allow space for the diveunder - after all, a diveunder was recently constructed at Shortlands Junction at a much more restricted site. Peter |
North London Line
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:18:02 GMT, Peter Lawrence wrote:
Perhaps Ken can help with a pot of money as it is almost certainly the cheapest way of creating extra space on North London Line(s) There must at least be synergy between upgrading NLL for passengers and for freight. For example, there ought to be a good case for electrifying Barking to Gospel Oak for either passengers or freight, and it doesn't need doing twice. But freights using GO-Barking cannot get on to the GE main line (except with a double reversal). They can via Lea Bridge and Stratford. |
North London Line
"asdf" wrote But freights using GO-Barking cannot get on to the GE main line (except with a double reversal). They can via Lea Bridge and Stratford. Is the route from Lea Bridge via Channelsea Junction on to the GEML facing towards Chelmsford available at present, andf if not, is it going to be restored? I've lost track of which routes in the Stratford area still exist and which don't. Peter |
North London Line
In message
"Peter Masson" wrote: "Graeme Wall" wrote in message ... In message "Peter Masson" wrote: Track and signalling alterations at Basingstoke could reduce (but not eliminate) conflicts. A diveunder from Reading West Spur to the Relief Lines towards Tilehurst would remove most of the more serious conflicts in the Reading area. Would involve going through the depot at Reading, not sure what the knock-on effects of that would be. Also there's a housing estate and industrial area north of the GWML about there. Might require changes to the access to the depot, but I'm sure that's possible. What I envisage is lowering the level of the West Spur to take it under the Up and Down Main and Down Relief, and surface between the Down and Up Reliefs, with the Up RFelief realigned. I'd visualised it as going under the complete formation, that is possible from an engineering point of view without interrupting traffic on the GWML. Trying to bring it up in the middle of the formation, while a more elegant solution, would probably entail an unacceptable period of closure. Looking at Google Earth, the housing/industrial area doesn't extend that far west. Taking the line right across would bring it up just before the sidings on the north side of the line. What I hadn't realised is that there is a single lead connection to the west spur from the depot. It would seem to be a simple matter to rearrange that. One problem with lowering the West Curve os that there is a road that goes through the triangle from north to south which goes under the spur, The question is then, how feasible will it be to take the West Curve out of commission for an extended period? If you had to reverse all the container trains in the station it would be an operating nightmare, even using the freight avoiding line at the back of the station. You can't build a seperate west spur as there is no place to put it, there is a large factory immediately to the east of the curve. IIRC there are some comparatively little used sidings on the north of the GWML at this point which would allow space for the diveunder - There are two sets of sidings, one immediately to the north of the triangle and west of the access road and then another set further west. The logical route for the diveunder would actually surface between the two. after all, a diveunder was recently constructed at Shortlands Junction at a much more restricted site. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
North London Line
"Graeme Wall" wrote The question is then, how feasible will it be to take the West Curve out of commission for an extended period? If you had to reverse all the container trains in the station it would be an operating nightmare, even using the freight avoiding line at the back of the station. It would probably be possible to develop a temporary route from Basingstoke via Woking, Byfleet (flying junction), Chertsey, Staines, Fekltham, Kew Junctions, Acton Wells, the spur at Neasden, and the Chiltern Line to Banbury. Good job Chiltern have doubled Princes Risborough to Aynho. Presumably we are talking about one path per hour each way, with the possibility of barring peak hours. May need to reinstate a loop somewhere between Neasden and Princes Risborough. Peter |
North London Line
In message
"Peter Masson" wrote: "Graeme Wall" wrote The question is then, how feasible will it be to take the West Curve out of commission for an extended period? If you had to reverse all the container trains in the station it would be an operating nightmare, even using the freight avoiding line at the back of the station. It would probably be possible to develop a temporary route from Basingstoke via Woking, Byfleet (flying junction), Chertsey, Staines, Fekltham, Kew Junctions, Acton Wells, the spur at Neasden, and the Chiltern Line to Banbury. Good job Chiltern have doubled Princes Risborough to Aynho. Presumably we are talking about one path per hour each way, with the possibility of barring peak hours. May need to reinstate a loop somewhere between Neasden and Princes Risborough. Two paths an hour each way I believe, there is a lot of traffic comes out of Southampton. And the object of the exercise is to keep the trains away from the London area. I suspect the extra hassle involved in reversing at Reading will be a lot less than trying to thread the trains through the intensively worked suburban lines on the route you suggest. I've now been examining the track layout at Reading fairly closely on GE and VE and it should be feasible to change locos on the freight avoiding line without too many problems, There are sidings avaible for the new loco to wait in wesy of the station. Using GE I've answered one of my earlier questions, it is very easy to reverse the traffic flow at Southampton Container Port so that the trains arrive and depart from the west. I'm surprised they are not doing it already. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
North London Line
"Peter Masson" wrote in message ... There would be a need for some land take. There was a wartime spur from the SWML to the DNS northbound at Winchester Junction, so Shawford needn't be a problem - just run southbound freights via Chesil but northbound via Winchester City. I suspect you may not have been near the sites of Chesil, or Kingsworthy, or Shawford junction recently, the railway would need to resite the entire A34/A33 flyover junction at Kingsworthy, remove a large proportion of WInchester's multi story car park and park and ride facilities at Chesil, and the southern end of the viaduct leads directly to Junction 11 of the M27, where the railway and a sliproad are under the motorway. I can't be sure of the formation between the north end of Chesil tunnel through Winnall and the various trading estates to the north, and I can just imagine the Nimbys reaction to a regular container train through the watermeadows, Chesil, and the WInnall housing estates as well. Thats before you look at the many miles of A34 on the formation, especially just to the north of Whitchurch, and the southern end of the Newbury bypass. Paul |
North London Line
"Graeme Wall" wrote in message ... Using GE I've answered one of my earlier questions, it is very easy to reverse the traffic flow at Southampton Container Port so that the trains arrive and depart from the west. I'm surprised they are not doing it already. On the face of it it seems possible, but it might be due to so many of the drivers being based at Eastleigh. About half of the trains do their crew changes in the platforms there, indeed they regular cause short notice platform alterations or delays. Aso, they are able to recess the trains in the north yard sidings to await their paths and keep them out of the way during the peaks, apparently there isn't room to do this down at the docks. Paul |
North London Line
In article ,
(Theo Markettos) wrote: Colin Rosenstiel wrote: The route across the Fens would need electrification and then there is the single track section from Soham to Ely to be sorted out. ISTR Virgin XC offering to electrify it in exchange for being able to run to Stansted. Instead it got lumbered with CT, and now son-of-Virgin is going to take it over anyway... Not Ely to Newmarket (via Soham), though. That's in the 'one' franchise. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
North London Line
In message
"Paul Scott" wrote: "Graeme Wall" wrote in message ... Using GE I've answered one of my earlier questions, it is very easy to reverse the traffic flow at Southampton Container Port so that the trains arrive and depart from the west. I'm surprised they are not doing it already. On the face of it it seems possible, but it might be due to so many of the drivers being based at Eastleigh. About half of the trains do their crew changes in the platforms there, indeed they regular cause short notice platform alterations or delays. That's a good point I'd forgotten that aspect of the operation. Aso, they are able to recess the trains in the north yard sidings to await their paths and keep them out of the way during the peaks, apparently there isn't room to do this down at the docks. That's to get them through the Northam Junction and Park Tunnel two track section. I would have thought it would be easier from the western end, there seem to be several reception sidings between Redbridge Junction and the container port proper. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
North London Line
"Graeme Wall" wrote in message ... On the face of it it seems possible, but it might be due to so many of the drivers being based at Eastleigh. About half of the trains do their crew changes in the platforms there, indeed they regular cause short notice platform alterations or delays. That's a good point I'd forgotten that aspect of the operation. I suspect it would be very difficult to get the workforce to agree to be based down in Millbrook, after all it must be all of 5 miles away... Paul |
North London Line
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:23:34 +0000, Michael Hoffman
wrote: Clearly, as many people as can fit on the train right now are. And they do on Merseyrail in pretty big numbers, given that driving in Liverpool isn't half as bad as it is in London. What I would say is that 4tph is the bare minimum that's going to attract "turn up and go" pax, and there are many people who, if they have to go in the drawer for a timetable, will instead pull out their car keys. Neil |
North London Line
In message
"Paul Scott" wrote: "Graeme Wall" wrote in message ... On the face of it it seems possible, but it might be due to so many of the drivers being based at Eastleigh. About half of the trains do their crew changes in the platforms there, indeed they regular cause short notice platform alterations or delays. That's a good point I'd forgotten that aspect of the operation. I suspect it would be very difficult to get the workforce to agree to be based down in Millbrook, after all it must be all of 5 miles away... They could always get the train... -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
North London Line
On 28 Feb 2007 10:31:12 -0800, "Adrian"
wrote: Agreed, and my arc does nothing for Channel tunnel freight coming from the CTRL. Tonbridge - Redhill - Guildford - Reading? Issues: 1. New flyover (across A23 in Redhill) between Nutfield and Reigate if reversing in Redhill station is to be avoided. 2. Reigate level crossing (increased freight traffic will cause this to be closed more often to road traffic, but it's a major road - an M25 feeder). A new bridge would, I think, require significant land take - possibly including demolition of my home! 3.Portsmouth line conflict from Shalford junction - Guildford. 4. Can it be connected to the SWML at Farnborough? Peter. |
North London Line
Agreed, and my arc does nothing for Channel tunnel freight coming from
the CTRL. First we need some *significant* channel tunnel freight. There simply is not the traffic for any route - never mind CTRL. We really can't talk about proposals for domestic freight flows to/ from the tunnel and the need to divert from classic routes or upgrade corridors until traffic is at a sustainable and significantly higher level. It is not even doubling or quadrupling present traffic, but about two orders of magnitude before any infrastructure work is justifiable. One we have got to the minimum situation of about 10-12 trains per day *each* via CTR1 and CTR2 and CTRL i.e. 30-40 long term flows of freight every day, through the tunnel, every year, on long contracts. Releif routes, junctions, flyoevers, diveunders, catenary, and what not will never ever get built for one or two trains a day -- Nick |
North London Line
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:09:35 +0000, Peter
wrote: On 28 Feb 2007 10:31:12 -0800, "Adrian" wrote: Agreed, and my arc does nothing for Channel tunnel freight coming from the CTRL. Tonbridge - Redhill - Guildford - Reading? Issues: 1. New flyover (across A23 in Redhill) between Nutfield and Reigate if reversing in Redhill station is to be avoided. This would need to be on a substantial viaduct. 2. Reigate level crossing (increased freight traffic will cause this to be closed more often to road traffic, but it's a major road - an M25 feeder). A new bridge would, I think, require significant land take - possibly including demolition of my home! What about taking the road beneath the railway? It's quite a rise from the roundabout to the level crossing. 3.Portsmouth line conflict from Shalford junction - Guildford. A flyover would sort this out, and avoid conflict between passenger trains as well. 4. Can it be connected to the SWML at Farnborough? Pass. My old 1 inch OS Map 169 shows an embankment between the two from Southbound to Eastbound, south of Farnborough North Station. I bet most of the spare land of 1959 has been built on nowadays. -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk