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.

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

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

"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

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

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

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

"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

"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

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 ??