"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
In article , Paul Scott
writes
This map was pointed out recently on ORR site, gives a fair idea of the
impact of crossrail on the existing lines...

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...le_line_GW.pdf

It would appear that a turntable is going to be added to North Pole Depot!

I also note that the new eastern access to North Pole is curiously
indirect.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:
The turntable is presumably a like-for-like replacement for the one at the
current Old Oak Common depot, which EWS seem to be ceding to Crossrail. The
access to North Pole seems indirect, but this is presumably to allow use of
the existing carriage line flyover towards the Relief lines, rather than
having a direct access to the Down Main, which would mean all light engine
workings etc having to cross the Up Main on the flat. How much use do EWS
make of their current depot at Old Oak at present- it seems to be largely a
repository for stored stock. The North Pole premises would seem to be
somewhat overspecified, unless the idea is also to transfer FGW HST
maintenance or servicing there.
Brian

In article , BH Williams
writes
The
access to North Pole seems indirect, but this is presumably to allow use of
the existing carriage line flyover towards the Relief lines, rather than
having a direct access to the Down Main, which would mean all light engine
workings etc having to cross the Up Main on the flat.

That's not what I mean. The plan shows an access from the Down Main at
Portobello Junction, but any train making that access will have to run
half way to the flyover, shunt backwards into a headshunt, then run
forwards into the depot. One additional crossover anywhere between
Portobello and the flyover would make things a lot simpler.

Obviously you want access off the flyover, and that will require use of
the headshunt. But why force the double reverse on anything coming out
of the south side of Paddy?

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Aug 6, 4:46 pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
Obviously you want access off the flyover, and that will require use of
the headshunt. But why force the double reverse on anything coming out
of the south side of Paddy?

The layout at Shenfield is equally curious:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...le_line_GE.pdf

Why is the Southend down diveunder connected solely to the Crossrail
up platform?

Also, no crossovers are shown in the central section:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...central_SE.pdf

Unless I've missed something, there should be one east of Farringdon.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On 6 Aug, 18:38, Mr Thant
wrote:
Also, no crossovers are shown in the central section:http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...ingle_line_cen...

Unless I've missed something, there should be one east of Farringdon.


ISTR this got dropped at some point during the consultation process,
because it would've been underneath something highly breakable.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Mr Thant wrote:

On Aug 6, 4:46 pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:

Obviously you want access off the flyover, and that will require use of
the headshunt. But why force the double reverse on anything coming out
of the south side of Paddy?

The layout at Shenfield is equally curious:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...le_line_GE.pdf

Why is the Southend down diveunder connected solely to the Crossrail
up platform?

It's not - look at the colours again; Crossrail only uses the northernmost
island, via the existing track to the south of it (in orange), plus a new
stub on the north side (in red). The down Southend is accessed from the
blue and black track which runs past the north side of the middle island.

Furthermore, if you look at the mess of pointwork to the west, it looks
like there's a way to get trains from the slows to the Crossrail platform
without conflicting with moves from the fasts to the non-Crossrail
platforms: trains coming in on the down slow take the westernmost slip
linking that line to the new loop that leads into the new northern
terminating track; leaving, they take the slip onto the current down slow
(resignalled for up trains), and then the westernmost new slip linking the
current up and down slows. That would mean no Crossrail train ever runs on
the current up slow east of the westernmost new slip, and so trains coming
along the down fast and bound for Southend can use this, reached via the
new slip linking the down fast to the current up slow, to get to the
middle island and the down Southend. The odd thing is that you can't reach
the southern face of the northern island that way: there would have to be
a crossover in place of the slip that leads from the current down slow to
the new Crossrail terminating track. This only creates conflict between
Crossrail trains arriving into the southern platform and those departing
the northern platform, though; there's no conflict with trains on the
fasts. If enough things are bidirectionally signalled, then such a
conflict could be smoothed over by working the departing train into the
new loop, passing the arriving train on the wrong side, then reaching the
up slow via two slips (one new, one old) in rapid succession. If there was
another train arriving at that point, it would hit it, but there won't be.

Also, no crossovers are shown in the central section:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...central_SE.pdf

That seems like a really bad idea. Any problem in the tunnel means
reversing everything at the portals.

tom

--
OK, mostly because of Tom, but not only because of his bloody irritating
character and songs.

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:38:08 -0700, Mr Thant
mangled uncounted
electrons thus:

On Aug 6, 4:46 pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
Obviously you want access off the flyover, and that will require use of
the headshunt. But why force the double reverse on anything coming out
of the south side of Paddy?

The layout at Shenfield is equally curious:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...le_line_GE.pdf

Why is the Southend down diveunder connected solely to the Crossrail
up platform?

Because Crossrail will start from Shenfield, with no direct
connections beyond that point? (Just a guess, please note!)

That's an interesting diagram, to be sure; Crossrail running on
the existing 'Metro' route, which currently timetables at a train
every 10 minutes between Shenfield and Liverpool Street. And it
should be interesting to see how they intend to add another
platform, given that the station is built on an embankment... I
make that what would presumably be platform 6 is built over the
station booking hall and the main road! (For those who don't know
Shenfield, it currently has 5 platforms; the new one is the one
at the top, nearest the 'Shenfield Station' label...)

Can you spell 'disruption'? ^_-

snip

Martin D. Pay
Fascinating... @_@

In article , Martin D. Pay
writes
And it
should be interesting to see how they intend to add another
platform, given that the station is built on an embankment... I
make that what would presumably be platform 6 is built over the
station booking hall and the main road!

Not so. If you look on Google Earth, you'll see that the existing
platform 5 extends 200m to the west of the present station canopy,
ending about 40m east of the point where the second crossover meets the
new loop line. Strengthening the embankment enough for a platform that
only extends to the canopy should be easy enough.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: