|
North London Line
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 ?? -- Edward Cowling London UK |
North London Line
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 ?? Yes. |
North London Line
"Edward Cowling London UK" 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 ?? The answer is to either extend all the platforms and buy longer trains, or cancel all the freight trains, buy more trains, and run them more often. Don't make any plans based on it happening soon. Paul |
North London Line
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 ?? On 27 Feb, 19:01, 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 ?? -- Edward Cowling London UK You didn't say where and when you were going but yes, in my experience at peak times the North London Line between Stratford and Willesden Junction can be very busy in both directions, though I think it's slightly less rammed west of West Hampstead. I don''t have a lot of experience of the NLL south from Willesden Junction to Richmond but I don't think it's quite so packed. 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. The NLL isn't getting new trains until 2009 - there's 24 three car trains on order for the NLL but I'm not sure how many old trains are in the fleet now, nor am I sure how intensive a service the new fleet (or the old one for that matter) could provide. Another major issue with the NLL is that it's an important cross-London freight link which has no real alternative, for some stretches at least. Running longer trains on the NLL would require a number of stations to have their platforms extended, which is easy in places but much harder in others (such as at Kentish Town West). I have read somewhere (either here on uk.railway) that Network Rail's Route Utilisation Strategy doesn't anticipate the NLL needing longer trains for the next few years - which is a bit of a surprise when you've seen it in cattle transportation mode! The NLL has seemingly turned from a forgotten backwater of London's rail system to become a very popular orbital link, but it's now almost too popular for it's own good. There's a lot more about plans for the NLL on alwaystouchout: http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/43 |
North London Line
The 8 trains per hour that wil run from Highbury and Islington down to
Crystal Palace and West Croydon using the extended East London Line might help a bit, but those are going to be 4-car trains as well... The new trains should also be more tube-like, and in the end the service should look something like this: http://www.alwaystouchout.com/img/pr...il-phase-1.png http://www.alwaystouchout.com/img/pr...il-phase-2.png |
North London Line
In message .com,
Mizter T writes 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. Nice to hear TFL are going to do something with the congestion charge money, other than filling the streets with buses. Pity they didn't start the project in 2003, but better late than never :-) -- Edward Cowling London UK |
North London Line
On 27 Feb 2007 11:52:56 -0800, Mizter T wrote:
You didn't say where and when you were going but yes, in my experience at peak times the North London Line between Stratford and Willesden Junction can be very busy in both directions, though I think it's slightly less rammed west of West Hampstead. I don''t have a lot of experience of the NLL south from Willesden Junction to Richmond but I don't think it's quite so packed. It is indeed not quite so packed, in the sense that you can actually get on the train. The NLL isn't getting new trains until 2009 - there's 24 three car trains on order for the NLL but I'm not sure how many old trains are in the fleet now, nor am I sure how intensive a service the new fleet (or the old one for that matter) could provide. The current fleet consists of 23 3-car 313s and 3 3-car 508s. These cover the NLL, WLL, Watford DC line, and St Albans Abbey branch. The 24 new trains will cover NLL and WLL services (not sure about the St Albans Abbey branch). (The Euston-Watford service will most likely be binned, and there will be a separate fleet of 20 4-car third-rail-only trains for the extended ELL.) |
North London Line
On 27 Feb, 20:07, "sweek" wrote:
The 8 trains per hour that wil run from Highbury and Islington down to Crystal Palace and West Croydon using the extended East London Line might help a bit, but those are going to be 4-car trains as well... You mean the ELLX trains will be four car - the replacement NLL trains will still be three car. The new trains should also be more tube-like, and in the end the service should look something like this: http://www.alwaystouchout.com/img/pr...il-phase-1.png http://www.alwaystouchout.com/img/pr...il-phase-2.png You rightly point out that the new Electrostar trains will be of a more suitable design, which will of course help, but they won't cure the problem. More capacity is needed. I should of course have consulted the alwaystouchout page I referred to in my first post and taken a proper look at those maps before posting, so thanks for providing the direct link. I'm not quite sure how the 8tph between Willesden Junction and Stratford will get fitted in with all the freight, but that is indeed the plan - though not until 2010 at the earliest. |
North London Line
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. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
North London Line
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 ?? Drifting off from the original subject. I am always amused when I hear the whining and complaining at East Croydon about supposedly crowded trains in the morning peaks. Yes they can be extremely crowded but they are as nothing compared to those I used to encounter in the peaks from Edmonton Green. They'd have been regarded as half empty there :-) |
North London Line
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. |
North London Line
Does anyone have a line diagram, or maybe even one showing where it
used to be quad-tracked? |
North London Line
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 |
North London Line
In message , Graham J
writes 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 ?? Drifting off from the original subject. I am always amused when I hear the whining and complaining at East Croydon about supposedly crowded trains in the morning peaks. Yes they can be extremely crowded but they are as nothing compared to those I used to encounter in the peaks from Edmonton Green. They'd have been regarded as half empty there :-) Similarly I used to complain about crowding from Palmers Green to Moorgate...... luxury. This morning I managed to get about 2 inches of space up against the door all the way from Highbury & Islington to Brondesbury on the NLL. I have to say that a lot of the problem seems to school kids filling the thing up. I can remember when everyone went to the local school, and walked there. In fact I can't remember using a bus or train once in all my school days. -- Edward Cowling London UK |
North London Line
Graham J wrote:
Drifting off from the original subject. I am always amused when I hear the whining and complaining at East Croydon about supposedly crowded trains in the morning peaks. Yes they can be extremely crowded but they are as nothing compared to those I used to encounter in the peaks from Edmonton Green. They'd have been regarded as half empty there :-) Commuting from Edmonton Green is somewhat more bearable now there are 6 trains an hour during the peak (though it annoys the good folk of Southbury, Turkey Street and Theobalds Grove no end that their semi-fasts, which are all of five minutes quicker than the stoppers, now stop everywhere!) between Edmonton Green and Liverpool Street. Angel Road, however, now only gets a handful of trains in the peaks...and those go to Stratford. Can you say, "Closure by stealth"? Madness when you consider that Angel Road is virtually opposite Ikea and Tesco Extra! (Though the access to the station is now from a road overbridge a short distance off the *country* end of the platforms, rather than the London end, thanks to the widening of the A406). Cheers, Barry |
North London Line
On Feb 27, 10:47 pm, "TheOneKEA" wrote:
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). Not "nearly all" by any stretch of the imagination. According to ye Quail (*** for too short for 2x313): Richmond P3-5: 6; P6-7: 7 (through platforms are 8 if anyone wants to send the NLL to Kingston!) Kew Gdns 6 Up (to Camden Rd), 8 Dn Gunnersbury 7 Up, 6 Dn *** S Acton 4 *** Acton Cen 4 *** Willy J 3 Up, 4 Dn *** Kensal Rise 3 *** Brondesbury Pk 3 *** Brondesbury 3 *** W Hampstead 3 *** Finchley Rd & Frognal 3 *** Hampstead Heath 3 *** Gospel Oak 5 Up, 3 Dn *** Kentish Tn W 3 *** Camden Rd 5 (directions change) Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury 6 Highbury & Islington 6 Canonbury 6 *** Dalston Kingsland 3 Hackney Cen 6 *** Homerton 3 Hackney Wick 6 *** Stratford LL 5 (but P10A: 10; P11-12: 8) Hope this shows the scale of the platform lengthening job. James. |
North London Line
Mizter T wrote:
The NLL has seemingly turned from a forgotten backwater of London's rail system to become a very popular orbital link, but it's now almost too popular for it's own good. I put much of its popularity down to lack of proper 'revenue protection'. When teams of grippers are in action those packed NLL carriages can empty rather rapidly with people abandoning the train ASAP or flitting between carriages. The forthcoming station developments, gates et al, may help clamp down on this and so the three car trains could prove sufficient for a while longer. ESB |
North London Line
"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 |
North London Line
On 27 Feb 2007 13:56:41 -0800, Mizter T wrote:
The new trains should also be more tube-like, and in the end the service should look something like this: http://www.alwaystouchout.com/img/pr...il-phase-1.png http://www.alwaystouchout.com/img/pr...il-phase-2.png You rightly point out that the new Electrostar trains will be of a more suitable design, which will of course help, but they won't cure the problem. More capacity is needed. I should of course have consulted the alwaystouchout page I referred to in my first post and taken a proper look at those maps before posting, so thanks for providing the direct link. I'm not quite sure how the 8tph between Willesden Junction and Stratford will get fitted in with all the freight, but that is indeed the plan - though not until 2010 at the earliest. It seems to be more of an aspiration than a plan. Network Rail pour cold water on it in their Cross-London Route Utilisation Strategy: "Beyond 2014: It has not been possible to identify infrastructure deliverable within the scope and timeframe of this RUS that would accommodate TfL's ultimate aspiration of four trains per hour on each of a number of overlapping routes as well as existing freight traffic." Briefly, the recommendations of the RUS a -extend NLL and WLL platforms and services to 4 car -cut existing Southern WLL service back to Croydon and add 1tph Shepherds Bush - Croydon -extend existing 2tph Silverlink WLL services along the Goblin to Barking (using Class 170 units reconfigured to Class 376 standard) -add 2tph Stratford to Queen's Park -signalling improvements to improve headways on the NLL and Goblin -4-tracking Camden to Dalston (formerly 4-track but currently 3-track) -provision of through platforms on the Goblin at Gospel Oak -NLL power supply upgrade -freight loop at Camden Road |
North London Line
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 |
North London Line
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:52:56AM -0800, Mizter T wrote:
Running longer trains on the NLL would require a number of stations to have their platforms extended, which is easy in places but much harder in others (such as at Kentish Town West). So extend them where it's easy at least. People elsewhere don't seem to have any difficulty with "passengers for Battersea Park must join the front seven coaches only". -- David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive Computer Science is about lofty design goals and careful algorithmic optimisation. Sysadminning is about cleaning up the resulting mess. |
North London Line
Angel Road, however, now only gets a handful of trains in the peaks...and
those go to Stratford. Can you say, "Closure by stealth"? Madness when you consider that Angel Road is virtually opposite Ikea and Tesco Extra! (Though the access to the station is now from a road overbridge a short distance off the *country* end of the platforms, rather than the London end, thanks to the widening of the A406). 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. 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. 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. G. |
North London Line
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 |
North London Line
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? |
North London Line
"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 |
North London Line
"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 |
North London Line
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. |
North London Line
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. |
North London Line
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:52:56AM -0800, Mizter T wrote: Running longer trains on the NLL would require a number of stations to have their platforms extended, which is easy in places but much harder in others (such as at Kentish Town West). So extend them where it's easy at least. What's so tough about extending Kentish Town West anyway? From a quick look at an aerial photo, it looks quite easy. What am i missing? tom -- packaheomg sogma's |
North London Line
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 |
North London Line
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. Adrian. |
North London Line
"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 .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 |
North London Line
On Feb 27, 11:58 pm, "BH Williams" wrote:
"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...se_thread/thre... 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. There are bottlenecks at Winchester, Basingstoke and Reading. Between Southampton and Basingstoke the railway is primarily a commuter route. Utilizing the DN&S bypasses all these choke points and gives freight trains their own path. 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. Agreed, and my arc does nothing for Channel tunnel freight coming from the CTRL. But I think for relieving the London commuter network it is worthwhile idea. Adrian |
North London Line
|
North London Line
Mizter T wrote:
Edward Cowling London UK wrote: Is this cattle truck scenario the norm ?? Er, yeah. It's a London commuter train, I don't know many un-bovinified. 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. It has to be tube frequencies. Running longer trains on the NLL would require a number of stations to have their platforms extended, which is easy in places but much harder in others (such as at Kentish Town West). I have read somewhere (either here on uk.railway) that Network Rail's Route Utilisation Strategy doesn't anticipate the NLL needing longer trains for the next few years - which is a bit of a surprise when you've seen it in cattle transportation mode! How much would they be extended? I just muse that it doesn't seem to effect the Clapham tube stations or any of the other horizontally challenged platforms on the tube... The NLL has seemingly turned from a forgotten backwater of London's rail system to become a very popular orbital link, but it's now almost too popular for it's own good. I'm not sure if there's really any such thing as unpopular PT in London. Ultimately the demand is always there. Saying it isn't because the satisfaction of that demand does not exist seems disingenuous. Dan |
North London Line
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? I can't get my head around why freight trains would run on the NLL. There're some industrial areas to the east and the north west I guess, but does that justify taking capacity from the movement of people around the capital? The North London Line needs to function much like TfL's mass transit lines. Agree! |
North London Line
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. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
North London Line
On Feb 28, 11:12 am, 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.] Post Beeching there are very few links between the main lines leaving London. Not only Tilbury traffic, but also Felixstowe, 'comes in' to the North London Line in order to access the rest of the network. When one considers electrification the choice of the NLL becomes more emphatic. If a freight train is electrically hauled throughout and needs to pass from East Anglia or Essex to the English Midlands, the North, or Scotland it must utilize the NLL. 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. -- Indeed, there is a pitiful amount of planning for mobility. A road only solution is no solution. Take a look at Los Angeles a metropolis literally grinding to a halt. Adrian |
North London Line
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? It's currently the only route from Felixstowe which can permit the passage of 9'6" high containers [1] on normal height wagons to the West Coast Main Line. When [2] they finally finish converting the Felixstowe - Nuneaton route this will no longer be the case. [1] The current world standard. [2] If -- Regards Mike |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk