On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Mizter T wrote:

On 15 Dec, 13:28, Tom Anderson wrote:

The cross-country route doesn't do anything about traffic generated by
the ports nearer London, around Tilbury etc. One plan there is to use
the Gospel Oak - Barking line for a lot more freight, possibly even
closing it to passenger trains, i think, which would relieve the North
London line between Stratford and Gospel Oak. If you could send all
through-London freight that way, i think you could in theory run a
tube-frequency service between Stratford and Gospel Oak.

I don't think I've ever read about a serious proposal to close GOBLIN
for passenger services and make it freight only. Certainly no such
notion appears to be on TfL's radar.

I remember it being in some sort of freight study a while ago. That
doesn't mean that it actually was!

The London East-West Study:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/80256B090053AF4C/Files/context16/$FILE/eastwest.pdf

Says upgrade it, use it for freight, but retain the current passenger
service.

The 2003 London Rail Freight Study:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...t_ReportPB.pdf

Says much the same (and refers to it, perhaps more accurately, as the
Tottenham and Hampstead Line).

So probably i imagined it. Hurrah!

Could any kind of serious case be made for this - i.e. a strong enough
argument to justify closing it for passenger services?

The only case i can imagine would be based on (a) closing it allowing huge
improvements to the NLL service and (b) providing a high-quality bus or
tram network in the area the GOBLin serves. Neither of those sound likely.

tom

--
The major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the
societies in which they occur. -- Alfred North Whitehead

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Peter Masson wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote

There are flows from kent, from the Tunnel and from the oil terminal at
the Isle of Grain mostly. They're much smaller than the Essex flows.

Also container traffic from Thamesport at the Isle of Grain.

Oops, forgot that one!

There is a case to be made for freight to use High Speed 1, both from
the Channel Tunnel (it is daft that the Ford parts train has to run all
round London on congested commuter lines when there is a convenient
connection from HS1 in teh Dagenham area.

I think this is a speed thing - the freight trains are presumably not
running at 186 mph, so they consume a lot of capacity on the high speed
link if they run to London. From the passenger operations point of view,
it makes sense to get them off the fast path as soon as possible.

There is a connection from the North Kent line to the HS1 tunnels under
the Thames, at something called Springheaad junction, plugging in just
down of Ebbsfleet; it would presumably be possible for freight trains to
come off HS1 at Folkestone, make it up to Gravesendish on normal tracks,
then hop back onto HS1 to cross the river, thus avoiding South London, but
also not clogging up the high speed link.

The one missing piece is a similar connection at Tilbury, so that freight
trains could get back onto filthy normal lines once they're across the
river, thus reducing the impact on high-speed trains still further. As it
is, they have to carry on to the connection in Dagenham.


This was discussed very recently on uk.railway - the solution is
simple. The freight trains would not run at the same time as high
speed trains - i.e. the freights would run at night. IIRC someone
stated that a high speed line in Germany already operates along these
lines.

I don't know what the maintenance regime is with regards to HS1, but
freight trains could perhaps run after the Eurostar (or potential
future alternative high speed Chunnel trains) finish for the night.


The Grain to Willesden container trainwould also have a better route via
the Thames Tunnel and the Barking to Gospel Oak line,

Agreed.

How expensive would electrifying the GOBLIN be? I guess the follow on
to that question is why does it cost as much as that?


though unless a diesel is allowed through the Thames Tunnel both Grain
to Hoo Junction and Barking to Gospel Oak would need to be electrified.

A good idea anyway!

Is the problem with diesel vehicles going through the tunnel at all, or
with them doing it under their own power? If it's the latter, you could
imagine a sort of shunting shuttle being used to move diesel trains from
the Hoo yards to Ripple lane. If the former, i suppose you could do the
same but actually remove the diesel engine; have a diesel shuttle from
Grain to Hoo, an electric one from Hoo to Ripple Lane, and then put on
your big engine for the trip up north from there. Probably simpler just to
electrify!

A long time ago, someone here proposed four-tracking the NLL all the
way from Stratford to Camden Road, and argued that it was a practical
thing to do. This would give you a route from the GEML and LTSR to the
WCML, which is where freight wants to go, that would be completely
segregated from the passenger tracks of the NLL. Skepticism about the
possibility of the scheme has also been expressed, though.

It is likely that 4 tracks will be reinstated the whole way from Dalston
to Camden Road, but the East London Line extension will be given
exclusive use of the southern pair between Dalston Junction and Highbury
& Islington, so freight will still have to run between passenger trains
between Stratford and Acton as well as between Barking and Gospel Oak.

I think we went over the reasons for this, but it still seems funny. The
ELL and NLL will both run at 8 tph between Dalston and H&I or Barnsbury,
for 16 tph combined; this is easily accommodated on a single pair of
tracks, even with a flat junction at Barnsbury. If that was done, you'd
have a freight-only pair from Dalston to Camden Road. I suppose the
freight still has to share with the planned Stratford - Queen's Park
services west of there, and NLL services to the east, so perhaps this
wouldn't actually be so great. If there were four tracks to Stratford,
though, it would be a very big deal. Oh well.

tom


OK, excuse me for being a bit dense, I haven't entirely got my head
around these new post-ELLX arrangements on the NLL yet. Peter has
previously explained that there will be two pairs of tracks from the
junction just west of Dalston[*] to Camden Rd, and ELLX will have
exclusive use as far as H&I.

So Canonbury station will have four platform faces, one for each track
- and there will be separate platforms there for NLL and ELLX trains.
What is to happen at H&I - are there to be separate platforms as well
- and also what happens at Caledonian Road & Barnsbury, are the ELLX
trains not actually going to terminate there - or are they going to
turf everyone out at H&I and then reverse somewhere between H&I and
Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury?

Is there going to be any same platform interchange between NLL and
ELLX at either H&I or Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury? This would have
obvious benefits for the passenger, but I guess it would also have the
consequence of meaning extended dwell times at whichever station the
ELLX trains turf everyone out at - thus clogging the whole line up.
AIUI lifts are in the pipeline at H&I - for the existing platforms at
least - and one presumes that lifts would be provided for any new
platforms, so the station would at least offer accessible level
interchange for passengers to change platforms between ELLX and NLL.


-----[*] Does anyone know what this junction west of Dalston, where the
ELLX will join the NLL, will be called - presumably the same as what
was it called back when it was open?

I guess the blindingly obvious answer is Dalston Junction - however
Loughborough Junction has a similar layout to that which used to exist
in Dalston, and the two junctions from the curves onto the Chatham
lines are called Canterbury Rd Jn and Cambria Jn - is the junction on
the line to Elephant & Castle actually called Loughborough Junction? I
presume it is - but then again it could be like the situation at
Clapham Junction, where there isn't actually any railway junction that
bears that name.

All that said, if the southern pair of tracks are being used
exclusively by ELLX services as far as H&I (at least) then there
doesn't have to be a railway junction here at all, I suppose.

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:38:55 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

I guess the blindingly obvious answer is Dalston Junction

Well that's the name of the "new" station - same as the old one of
course. On the OS map there are two curves joining what is now the
NLL, east & west and no indication of any north route (i.e. to the
main line c. Stoke Newington).

On 15 Dec, 20:19, G wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:38:55 -0800 (PST), Mizter T

wrote:
I guess the blindingly obvious answer is Dalston Junction

Well that's the name of the "new" station - same as the old one of
course. On the OS map there are two curves joining what is now the
NLL, east & west and no indication of any north route (i.e. to the
main line c. Stoke Newington).


Yes, I was aware of that - I was really thinking about the actual name
of the railway junction. AIUI each and every railway junction - and
this includes a mere set of points - has an official name.

There wasn't ever any north route from Dalston Jn towards Stoke
Newington, so in that sense the situation at Dalston Jn isn't similar
to the arrangement at at Loughborough Junction (and there are of
course loads of other differences as well).

This entry on Disused Stations includes an old map showing both
curves:
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...on/index.shtml

There were eastern and western curves from Dalston Jn went to what is
now described as the North London Line. The western curve is the one
that will be reinstated, the eastern curve meanwhile hosts part of the
car park of the Kingsland Shopping Centre. None of the alignment of
the eastern curve has been built over (tarmac for a car park doesn't
count) so AFAICS it could be recovered - these photos illustrate that
point (note that they weren't taken by me!):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/albedo/273113135/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/albedo/273112797/


As the photographer speculates, perhaps both the eastern and western
curves were safeguarded from development? The eastern curve
potentially could come in useful in the future, so it'd might well be
a good idea to ensure it doesn't get built over in the coming years
(especially when Dalston gets popular with the arrival of the ELLX).
Of course passengers from the east who want the ELLX will find that
getting off their NLL train at Dalston Kingsland and walking the short
distance to Dalston Junction station will also do the job.

Going back to something you said - I had never considered the
possibility of a line north from Dalston Jn towards Stoke Newington,
meeting the Great Eastern line there. Of course now it ain't possible,
given all the stuff in the way, but I wonder if it was ever
considered. Probably not, given that the Stoke Newington line leads
down to Liverpool Street which was bang slap next door to the now
demolished Broad Street, terminus of the line from Dalston Jn.
Nonetheless it would have been a shorter and hence quicker route into
the City, avoiding the detour via Hackney and Bethnal Green that the
Great Eastern route takes.

"Mizter T" wrote

OK, excuse me for being a bit dense, I haven't entirely got my head
around these new post-ELLX arrangements on the NLL yet. Peter has
previously explained that there will be two pairs of tracks from the
junction just west of Dalston[*] to Camden Rd, and ELLX will have
exclusive use as far as H&I.

So Canonbury station will have four platform faces, one for each track
- and there will be separate platforms there for NLL and ELLX trains.
What is to happen at H&I - are there to be separate platforms as well
- and also what happens at Caledonian Road & Barnsbury, are the ELLX
trains not actually going to terminate there - or are they going to
turf everyone out at H&I and then reverse somewhere between H&I and
Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury?

Is there going to be any same platform interchange between NLL and
ELLX at either H&I or Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury? This would have
obvious benefits for the passenger, but I guess it would also have the
consequence of meaning extended dwell times at whichever station the
ELLX trains turf everyone out at - thus clogging the whole line up.
AIUI lifts are in the pipeline at H&I - for the existing platforms at
least - and one presumes that lifts would be provided for any new
platforms, so the station would at least offer accessible level
interchange for passengers to change platforms between ELLX and NLL.

December Modern Railways suggests:
Dalston to Highbury & Islington ELLX will have the southern pair and NLL the
northern pair (doubled from Canonbury) with 4 platforms at each of Canonbury
and H&I. ELLX will terminate in the platforms at H&I, though Dalston
Junction will have 4 platforms, with the outer tracks for through trains
to/from H&I and the inner pair for trains that terminate at Dalston
Junction.
From H&I to Camden Road the NLL will have 4 tracks, the southern pair
westbound and the northern pair eastbound (though two tracks will have
reversible signalling, presumably to allow service to continue if one pair
is blocked for maintenance). Canonbury is shown as having three platforms
(no platform face on the northernmost line, so this will presumably be
mainly used for eastbound freight). Camden Road is also shown as having
three platforms - from the south a westbound platform, a west-facing bay, an
eastbound platform, and an eastbound line without a platform face.
There will be a single track connection west of H&I between the ELLX and the
NLL, presumably for stock transfer and maintenance trains - the ELLX and its
trains will be DC only and presumably the NLL will become AC only west of
Primrose Hill/Acton (though will still need dual voltage stock

Peter

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

"Mizter T" wrote

OK, excuse me for being a bit dense, I haven't entirely got my head
around these new post-ELLX arrangements on the NLL yet. Peter has
previously explained that there will be two pairs of tracks from the
junction just west of Dalston[*] to Camden Rd, and ELLX will have
exclusive use as far as H&I.

So Canonbury station will have four platform faces, one for each track
- and there will be separate platforms there for NLL and ELLX trains.
What is to happen at H&I - are there to be separate platforms as well
- and also what happens at Caledonian Road & Barnsbury, are the ELLX
trains not actually going to terminate there - or are they going to
turf everyone out at H&I and then reverse somewhere between H&I and
Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury?

Is there going to be any same platform interchange between NLL and
ELLX at either H&I or Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury? This would have
obvious benefits for the passenger, but I guess it would also have the
consequence of meaning extended dwell times at whichever station the
ELLX trains turf everyone out at - thus clogging the whole line up.
AIUI lifts are in the pipeline at H&I - for the existing platforms at
least - and one presumes that lifts would be provided for any new
platforms, so the station would at least offer accessible level
interchange for passengers to change platforms between ELLX and NLL.

December Modern Railways suggests:
Dalston to Highbury & Islington ELLX will have the southern pair and NLL
the
northern pair (doubled from Canonbury) with 4 platforms at each of
Canonbury
and H&I. ELLX will terminate in the platforms at H&I, though Dalston
Junction will have 4 platforms, with the outer tracks for through trains
to/from H&I and the inner pair for trains that terminate at Dalston
Junction.

Having 4 platform faces at Dalston Junction seems a bit of an extravagance
now that there will be dedicated tracks for the ELLX as far as H&I. How
about a single centre turnback platform, save a bit on the station costs,
and run more of the trains to H&I?

I'm assuming here that the published proportion terminating at DJ possibly
pre-dates the recent decision to four track to H&I allowing pairing by
use...

Paul S

In article
,
Mizter T writes
[*] Does anyone know what this junction west of Dalston, where the
ELLX will join the NLL, will be called - presumably the same as what
was it called back when it was open?

It was called Dalston Western Junction. The other junction on the NLL
was Dalston Eastern Junction. Dalston Junction signal box was at the
south end of the station, where the two curves met. In diagram form
(east at the top):

|
* Dalston Eastern Jn
|\
| \ Dalston Junction (# = station)
| \--###\
| /--###*------ to Haggerston
| //--###*------
|//
** Dalston Western Jn
||

From west to east, the six tracks through the station we
platform 1: Down No. 2 (Electric)
platform 2: Up No. 2 (Electric)
platform 3: Down No. 1 (Steam)
platform 4: Up No. 1 (Steam)
platform 5: Down Poplar
platform 6: Up Poplar

--
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:

In article ,
Mizter T wrote:
How expensive would electrifying the GOBLIN be? I guess the follow on
to that question is why does it cost as much as that?

TfL have suggested to the line's user group[1] that it would cost up
to 40 million quid. They are not belived.


[1] http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

On 15 Dec, 18:42, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article
,

(lonelytraveller) wrote:
As far as I remember, they wanted to send goods trains via the east
london thames crossing, and a new rail link (or, more accurately, the
resurrection of an old one) going from oxford to cambridge.

Hollow laugh There has never been any central government support for
re-opening Cambridge to Oxford and the consortium of local authorities
has only ever promoted a passenger-only scheme. Not that Cambridge to
Oxford ever had much through freight even before it closed in 1968.

Its a major part of the East-West Rail plan. http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/
Its at GRIP stage 2, and currently has governmental support.
And it includes freight.

"lonelytraveller" wrote in
message
...
On 15 Dec, 18:42, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article
,

(lonelytraveller) wrote:
As far as I remember, they wanted to send goods trains via the east
london thames crossing, and a new rail link (or, more accurately, the
resurrection of an old one) going from oxford to cambridge.

Hollow laugh There has never been any central government support for
re-opening Cambridge to Oxford and the consortium of local authorities
has only ever promoted a passenger-only scheme. Not that Cambridge to
Oxford ever had much through freight even before it closed in 1968.

Its a major part of the East-West Rail plan.
http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/
Its at GRIP stage 2, and currently has governmental support.
And it includes freight.

The current plan only includes _track_ as far as Bletchley. That allows for
an additional freight route from the WCML at Bletchley towards Oxford,
relieving the Nuneaton - Coventry - Leamington Spa - Banbury section of the
existing route.

Any extension towards Cambridge is on a totally separate timescale, and
practically irrelevant as far as freight on the NLL/GOB is concerned.

Paul