On Dec 13, 6:36 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Paul Scott wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
th.li...
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Andy wrote:

On Dec 12, 6:21 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Andy wrote:

and there would be no connection back onto the LUL system for major
servicing anyway.

The St. Mary's curve to the District / Hammersmith & City lines is due to
be taken out early next year and so the line will be 'on its own' with no
connections to NR or LUL for a long time.

Why is this link being removed? Are platforms being extended over it or
something?

Its only purpose is for ELL trains to get back to their main depot -
Neasden is it? Once the ELL is rebuilt for main line spec trains, they
will have no requirement to enter the LU system, indeed they are
probably out of gauge for length anyway. The power supply and signalling
systems at either side of the curve will be incompatible, so the track
connection would appear irrelevant and unnecessary.

I smell circular reasoning! Why can't the ELL going to use A stock?
Because St Mary's curve is being taken out. Why is St Mary's curve being
taken out? Because the ELL isn't going to use A stock!

If the curve was left in, and other provisions made for continuing to run
tube trains, the line could reopen soon and carry on running as before
until the extensions are ready, at which point it could go over to NR
operation. Yes, this would be more difficult and expensive than the
current plan, but it would also mean that an entire line didn't have to
close for three years!

Apart from having a fourth rail, what would need to be done to make the
line tube-friendly? I imagine NR signals would be fine, you'd just have to
train drivers to read those instead of LU signals (do they do this already
towards Richmond and Amersham?). What's the situation with platform
height?

Interestingly, the Always Touch Out website says that the
infrastructure works were planned to be completed by May 2009 with
test running from there on as some stock would be available. However,
there appears to be some 'funny' dates in the construction section of
the link. http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/3. I've not been
able to find any other information about the timescale of the
infrastructure works. If this outline plan is correct, then I could
certainly see a much earlier reopening, providing that there are
enough Class 378s are available to run a service.

Another consideration with running A Stock on the route is how would
you deal with the interface between LUL and NR signalling on the St.
Mary's curve? The curve is only 450m junction to junction and the
standard National Rail overlap is 200 yards (185m). There are already
restrictions on the curve: only one train is allowed on the connection
at once due to clearance issues with a train going the otherway. You
would also need a trip cock tester on the curve or you would need to
install temporary tripcocks to allow the A-stock to run. On the other
shared lines, tripcocks are fitted to the signals and the NR trains
(Class 313 in all cases) are also fitted.

I also know that Always Touch Out says that the St. Mary's Curve will
be retained, but I think that this information has changed now.

On Dec 13, 3:34 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Paul Scott wrote:
"Lew 1" wrote in message
...
And it's still going to have NR-style frequencies, unlike the tube.

Surely that's only in the short-term though? I understood that the aim
was to create mass transit systems out of them, ala the current
Underground frequency. I may be wrong.

Achieving mass transit frequencies on a heavy rail route (say 24tph) is
the sort of thing provided by Crossrail or Thameslink, at a cost of
£billions. The Overground is a much more modest affair

Is there anything technical about the Overground that prohibits that sort
of frequency, in terms of rails and whatever? I thought it was just that
the demand does't (yet) justify spending money to achieve it. Plus, the
need for freight paths and working in with other NR services down south.


The main problem is the lack of paths on the section between Stratford
and Camden Road / Willesden Junction. Don't forget that there is only
4 tph at the moment, with an increase to about 6tph in the peaks (but
irregular intervals). There is no reason that the frequency can't
increase from the infrastructure, but the freight paths tend to block
things up in between Stratford and Dalston and at Camden Road, where
there are only two tracks. The central section between Dalston and
Camden Road has 3-4 tracks and so there is a bit more capacity. The
other problem at the moment is a lack of trains to run the service!!

On Dec 13, 6:58 pm, Mizter T wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

(snip)

I smell circular reasoning! Why can't the ELL going to use A stock?
Because St Mary's curve is being taken out. Why is St Mary's curve being
taken out? Because the ELL isn't going to use A stock!

(snip)

I haven't been following the rest of the discussion, however I saw the
above comments and will just add that I thought St. Mary's curve was
staying in.

I think that it was originally, but it would only have been as a
through siding, not as a fully signalled through route.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:13:54 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

You will only ever see NLL & WLL frequency increasing incrementally, up to
4, 6 or maybe 8 tph over overlapping sections of the line, because it is
also a goods line. When Ken talks about 'metro style frequencies' he seems
to mean better than 4 tph, which is when it is considered (by many) that you
don't need to worry about the timetable.

Indeed - what LO will become is probably something similar to
Merseyrail - decent quality, all stations staffed, good PIS, pretty
reliable (these days) but still only on 15-minute headways on the
branches.

I find that comment about timetables interesting, though; I personally
will wish to use one unless the frequency is better than every 5,
which on another note is why the lack of timetable information on
London bus routes gets right on my nerves.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:13:54 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

You will only ever see NLL & WLL frequency increasing incrementally, up to
4, 6 or maybe 8 tph over overlapping sections of the line, because it is
also a goods line. When Ken talks about 'metro style frequencies' he seems
to mean better than 4 tph, which is when it is considered (by many) that
you
don't need to worry about the timetable.

Aren't they planning to eventually send the goods trains over a different
route?

wrote in message
. uk...
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:13:54 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

You will only ever see NLL & WLL frequency increasing incrementally, up
to
4, 6 or maybe 8 tph over overlapping sections of the line, because it is
also a goods line. When Ken talks about 'metro style frequencies' he
seems
to mean better than 4 tph, which is when it is considered (by many) that
you
don't need to worry about the timetable.

Aren't they planning to eventually send the goods trains over a different
route?

Some may, but the line is really the only sensible way stuff like
construction aggregates can get from west to east for London's own
requirements, its not all just passing through...

Paul

Less welcome is the fact that passengers on the Stratford branch now
have no trains beyond Canary Wharf after 10am in the morning. Thanks!
And still the only branch with no service to the city.

On 14 Dec, 12:34, wrote:
Less welcome is the fact that passengers on the Stratford branch now
have no trains beyond Canary Wharf after 10am in the morning. Thanks!

The interchange isn't the world's most arduous.

And still the only branch with no service to the city.

Luckily, there are big blue trains with rainbows on the side, or small
white trains with red doors if you prefer, that will do that job for
you. I think it's fair to say that Stratford/City links are not a
major problem...

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

On 14 Dec, 12:42, John B wrote:
On 14 Dec, 12:34, wrote:

Less welcome is the fact that passengers on the Stratford branch now
have no trains beyond Canary Wharf after 10am in the morning. Thanks!

The interchange isn't the world's most arduous.

John, have you ever tried changing at Poplar? It's hard work...
there's at least 5 metres to walk across the island platform, plus the
trains often pull in to the platform at the same time...

Nonetheless direct services all the way from A to B will always be
attractive I suppose.


And still the only branch with no service to the city.

Luckily, there are big blue trains with rainbows on the side, or small
white trains with red doors if you prefer, that will do that job for
you. I think it's fair to say that Stratford/City links are not a
major problem...


Quite!

Though of course pax bound for the City from other stations on the
Stratford branch will indeed have to change at Poplar, though it ain't
hard.

Taking into account the posters email address... City-bound folk from
Bow Road could of course just get on the District line.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Andy wrote:

On Dec 13, 6:58 pm, Mizter T wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

(snip)

I smell circular reasoning! Why can't the ELL going to use A stock?
Because St Mary's curve is being taken out. Why is St Mary's curve being
taken out? Because the ELL isn't going to use A stock!

(snip)

I haven't been following the rest of the discussion, however I saw the
above comments and will just add that I thought St. Mary's curve was
staying in.

I think that it was originally, but it would only have been as a through
siding, not as a fully signalled through route.

What's a 'through siding'? Does that mean it's a through route, but
signalled differently - presumably, in a cheaper but lower-capacity way?
Since it'd only be used for stock transfers, that would have been fine, i
think.

tom

--
REMOVE AND DESTROY