"Adrian" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 27, 2:47 pm, "TheOneKEA" wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:02 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

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.

Hopefully Willesden Junction High Level is done first - nearly all of
the existing stations EXCEPT THIS ONE can handle six-car trains (or
maybe they can handle 2x313, which may be shorter than 2x375).

As for line enhancements, restoring full four-tracking in all places
where it used to exist and constructing new stations at radial route
interchanges (i.e. for the Piccadilly, Northern and Central lines)
should definitely be considered.

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.tr...31880267713b01

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.

The North London Line needs to function much like TfL's mass transit
lines.


Adrian

The 'freight arc' doesn't need to reach directly from Southampton to
Felixstowe, but simply to allow access from either port to WCML and ECML.
WCML from S'oton is already available via Reading West Curve, though a
flyover here would be useful to avoid conflicts. I don't believe there is
more than one train per day from S'oton to the ECML, and this traffic could
easily pass via Birmingham/Derby.
Felixstowe to the WCML/North could be served by gauge enhancements to the
routes from the Haven Ports to Peterborough via Ely, and thence via
Leicester/Nuneaton. There is other, non-container,traffic from West London
to East London/East Anglia, but this could travel via the Tottenham and
Hampstead, I believe.
Brian

BH Williams wrote:


The 'freight arc' doesn't need to reach directly from Southampton to
Felixstowe, but simply to allow access from either port to WCML and ECML.
WCML from S'oton is already available via Reading West Curve, though a
flyover here would be useful to avoid conflicts. I don't believe there is
more than one train per day from S'oton to the ECML, and this traffic could
easily pass via Birmingham/Derby.
Felixstowe to the WCML/North could be served by gauge enhancements to the
routes from the Haven Ports to Peterborough via Ely, and thence via
Leicester/Nuneaton. There is other, non-container,traffic from West London
to East London/East Anglia, but this could travel via the Tottenham and
Hampstead, I believe.

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.

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)

Jim Chisholm

On 28 Feb, 12:27, "J. Chisholm" wrote:
BH Williams wrote:
The 'freight arc' doesn't need to reach directly from Southampton to
Felixstowe, but simply to allow access from either port to WCML and ECML.
WCML from S'oton is already available via Reading West Curve, though a
flyover here would be useful to avoid conflicts. I don't believe there is
more than one train per day from S'oton to the ECML, and this traffic could
easily pass via Birmingham/Derby.
Felixstowe to the WCML/North could be served by gauge enhancements to the
routes from the Haven Ports to Peterborough via Ely, and thence via
Leicester/Nuneaton. There is other, non-container,traffic from West London
to East London/East Anglia, but this could travel via the Tottenham and
Hampstead, I believe.

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.

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)

Jim Chisholm

Felixstowe is increasingly busy. I think further double-tracking &c
that Hutchinson Ports wanted is subject to a public enquiry in March.

If Felixstowe traffic is to avoid London, wouldn't it reverse at
Ipswich? Avoiding this by adding a curve to the existing junction
would be nontrivial. At first glance there only seems to be room for a
*very* tight curve on the available land; any more and you have to
deal with the industrial park / residential area / supermarket to the
north... No?

"bobrayner" wrote

If Felixstowe traffic is to avoid London, wouldn't it reverse at
Ipswich? Avoiding this by adding a curve to the existing junction
would be nontrivial. At first glance there only seems to be room for a
*very* tight curve on the available land; any more and you have to
deal with the industrial park / residential area / supermarket to the
north... No?

Reversing at Ipswich isn't too much of a problem. After all, electrically
hauled freight that comes down the GEML has to recess and re-engine there.
As well as gauge clearance, loop lengths, and signalling improvements from
Ipswich to Birmingham via Peterborough and Leicester there will be a need
for doubling some or all of the Felixtowe branch, and some new connections
at Nuneaton so that freight from Felixtowe to the North West can easily take
advantage of the Trent Valley 4-tracking.

Peter

bobrayner wrote:

If Felixstowe traffic is to avoid London, wouldn't it reverse at
Ipswich? Avoiding this by adding a curve to the existing junction
would be nontrivial. At first glance there only seems to be room for a
*very* tight curve on the available land; any more and you have to
deal with the industrial park / residential area / supermarket to the
north... No?

You could always build a reversing loop south of Ipswich.

On Feb 28, 1:47 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
bobrayner wrote:

If Felixstowe traffic is to avoid London, wouldn't it reverse at
Ipswich? Avoiding this by adding a curve to the existing junction
would be nontrivial. At first glance there only seems to be room for a
*very* tight curve on the available land; any more and you have to
deal with the industrial park / residential area / supermarket to the
north... No?

You could always build a reversing loop south of Ipswich.

South? why? But I believe Ipswich Yard has recently been expanded to
allow for all the reversing there.

On 28 Feb, 13:52, wrote:
On Feb 28, 1:47 pm, "John Rowland"

wrote:
bobrayner wrote:

If Felixstowe traffic is to avoid London, wouldn't it reverse at
Ipswich? Avoiding this by adding a curve to the existing junction
would be nontrivial. At first glance there only seems to be room for a
*very* tight curve on the available land; any more and you have to
deal with the industrial park / residential area / supermarket to the
north... No?

You could always build a reversing loop south of Ipswich.

South? why? But I believe Ipswich Yard has recently been expanded to
allow for all the reversing there.

There are some interesting documents in the Planning Drawings section
he
http://www.portoffelixstowe.co.uk/fs.../documents.htm

"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.

Peter

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

"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