"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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

In article ,
(Brian Watson) 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.

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.

There is some expensive bridgework in the way. One doubling proposal
would still leave a short single track section near Ely Dock Junction for
that reason. Unlike most recent doubling schemes this section has never
been double track.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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

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!