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

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

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

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

"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

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.

"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

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

"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

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