MIG wrote:

My objection would not be how long it takes, but that it's the wrong
project. I don't understand why an orbital railway is such an
important goal. Well, I do. It's a way for a politician to make his
mark an a more obvious way than any general improvement in transport.

An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them.

An orbital route is a very good thing to have. London is teaming with
radial transport, there's very little that goes round!

The North London Line as it is at the moment is too infrequent and
passes too many radial tube lines without connecting to them

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, MIG wrote:

An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them. I've mentioned many times that the
trains from the Forest Hill direction are appallingly overcrowded. I
can't see how it improves things to shorten them to fit the ELL and
divert them to Hackney.

Because if they go to Hackney, no bugger'll get on them. SOLVED!

tom

--
Ten years on, and there is still nothing like this bizarre tale of
biomechanical space madness.

MIG wrote in
:

An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them. I've mentioned many times that the
trains from the Forest Hill direction are appallingly overcrowded. I
can't see how it improves things to shorten them to fit the ELL and
divert them to Hackney. Even if changing at Canada Water is not
perceived as an extra burden, it doesn't resolve the issue of the
short trains.

Isn't the intention that these are extra trains south of New Cross Gate,
and not replacing the existing service?

David

On 22 Dec, 15:34, wrote:
which is of recent construction) will require to be upgraded to be DDA
compliant,

Why? And why does installing a lift require the whole station to close
anyway?

In addition, platforms will require to be lengthend, which at
Rotherhithe and Wapping will require opening out the tunnels (the new
class 378s will, I presume, be 20m vehicles whereas the A stock is
noticeably shorter).

You might have a point there.


In the case of the power supply, there will be a requirement to ensure
that stray traction return currents do not cause corrosion of running
rails, buried services etc; this will require significant work in its

Surely that was sorted when the line was closed last time?

Then there is resignalling; I presume the line will be resignalled to
NR standards to achieve compatibility with the lines to its north and
south and to avoid the 378s having to be fitted with LUL train stops
as well as TPWS. Does anyone know what has been specified for the
signalling?

Again ,. I don't see why the line would have to close for that. They
could just install the new system piece by piece until its ready to
be used.

Finally, a new flyover is to be built at New Cross Gate to allow
northbound trains from the Brighton Line to gain access to the ELL.
This will require significant works in its own right.

Again , I don't see why this would require closure of the line for 2
years.

As you can see, there is a lot more to it than meets the eye - HTH!

Seems to me they're just making their own life easier than actually
trying to accomodate the travelling public, who are after all, the
whole raison d'etre of the line in the first place!

B2003

Bear in mind also that the existing stations (except Canada Water,
which is of recent construction) will require to be upgraded to be DDA
compliant, which at Shadwell, Wapping and Rotherhithe, for example,
will require new lifts and cross-passageways. (Surrey Quays is a
surface station in a cutting, but this will probably require lifts as
there is little space for ramps.) I also suspect that the narrow
platforms at Wapping will have to be widened, which will involve
widening the tunnel - a major civil engineering task in its own right.
In addition, platforms will require to be lengthend, which at
Rotherhithe and Wapping will require opening out the tunnels (the new
class 378s will, I presume, be 20m vehicles whereas the A stock is
noticeably shorter).

Are lifts going in at these stations as you indicate? I was not aware
of such a plan. I also wasn't aware of any widening work, although
again I may be wrong.

Tom

"Tom Page" wrote in message
...

Bear in mind also that the existing stations (except Canada Water,
which is of recent construction) will require to be upgraded to be DDA
compliant, which at Shadwell, Wapping and Rotherhithe, for example,
will require new lifts and cross-passageways. (Surrey Quays is a
surface station in a cutting, but this will probably require lifts as
there is little space for ramps.) I also suspect that the narrow
platforms at Wapping will have to be widened, which will involve
widening the tunnel - a major civil engineering task in its own right.
In addition, platforms will require to be lengthend, which at
Rotherhithe and Wapping will require opening out the tunnels (the new
class 378s will, I presume, be 20m vehicles whereas the A stock is
noticeably shorter).

Are lifts going in at these stations as you indicate? I was not aware
of such a plan. I also wasn't aware of any widening work, although
again I may be wrong.


I don't think the improvements are that major either, indeed for a long time
a couple of the stations were expected to close as they couldn't be easily
made DDA compliant, and at least one station was reported to need SDO...

Paul S

On Dec 22, 5:15*pm, Tom Page wrote:
Bear in mind also that the existing stations (except Canada Water,
which is of recent construction) will require to be upgraded to be DDA
compliant, which at Shadwell, Wapping and Rotherhithe, for example,
will require new lifts and cross-passageways. (Surrey Quays is a
surface station in a cutting, but this will probably require lifts as
there is little space for ramps.) I also suspect that the narrow
platforms at Wapping will have to be widened, which will involve
widening the tunnel - a major civil engineering task in its own right.
In addition, platforms will require to be lengthend, which at
Rotherhithe and Wapping will require opening out the tunnels (the new
class 378s will, I presume, be 20m vehicles whereas the A stock is
noticeably shorter).

Are lifts going in at these stations as you indicate? I was not aware
of such a plan. I also wasn't aware of any widening work, although
again I may be wrong.

Tom

It is a legal requirement that new works and any sort of upgrade must
be DDA compliant (hence, for example, the tendency not to "refurbish"
rolling stock, which would require DDA compliance, but to "refresh"),
so something will have to be done to make the stations DDA compliant,
which with the exception of New Cross and Canada Water, they are
presently not. And Wapping, in particular, is very, very cramped, so
it would be very difficult to carry out these sorts of works and
maintain access to the station.

On the subject of the power supplies, and in particular the conversion
to 3rd rail, since the conversion of the New Line and NLL in the
1970s, the legal situation has changed considerably. The use of the
running rails for traction return does lead to stray currents, which
can and do corrode anything metallic, especially in damp areas like
tunnels. Under the EMC (Electro-magnetic compatibility) regulations
1992, the railway must demonstrate that following the conversion, the
EM emissions from it are no greater than those pertaining at present.
This will probably require the installation of additional conductors
in parallel with the running rails in order to reduce the resistance
of the return circuit (cf Farringdon, where an additional "fourth"
rail is laid in the four-foot and bonded to the running rails for this
purpose) and to "encourage" the return currents to flow via the rails
and not via earth. This can also be achieved by the replacement of
jointed bullhead rail (which is largely still used on the ELL) with
CWR using heavier flat bottom rail, which will have a significantly
lower resistance in its own right.

wrote in message

On Dec 22, 2:35 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 22 Dec, 13:30, Boltar wrote:

Quote why it needs 3 years to be converted to 3rd rail when the 3rd
rail is already there is anyones guess. Usual lazy british
contractors who take 2 weeks to change a lightbulb no doubt. The
extensions to the line shouldn't effect the bit in the middle so I
can't see a good reason to close it.

As I mentioned recently, the work isn't taking 3 years. London
Underground are being given 3 months to pack up their things and
leave, and it's expected to be ready for test running by June 2009.
So that's a little over one year of construction. Plus their
optimistic projection is currently November 2009, which would make
it closed for less than two years.

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

Bear in mind also that the existing stations (except Canada Water,
which is of recent construction) will require to be upgraded to be DDA
compliant, which at Shadwell, Wapping and Rotherhithe, for example,
will require new lifts and cross-passageways. (Surrey Quays is a
surface station in a cutting, but this will probably require lifts as
there is little space for ramps.) I also suspect that the narrow
platforms at Wapping will have to be widened, which will involve
widening the tunnel - a major civil engineering task in its own right.
In addition, platforms will require to be lengthend, which at
Rotherhithe and Wapping will require opening out the tunnels (the new
class 378s will, I presume, be 20m vehicles whereas the A stock is
noticeably shorter).

Yes, the A stock cars are only 16.2m long, but I doubt that any platform
extensions are planned.

Recliner wrote:

wrote:

On Dec 22, 2:35 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 22 Dec, 13:30, Boltar wrote:

Quote why it needs 3 years to be converted to 3rd rail when the 3rd
rail is already there is anyones guess. Usual lazy british
contractors who take 2 weeks to change a lightbulb no doubt. The
extensions to the line shouldn't effect the bit in the middle so I
can't see a good reason to close it.

As I mentioned recently, the work isn't taking 3 years. London
Underground are being given 3 months to pack up their things and
leave, and it's expected to be ready for test running by June 2009.
So that's a little over one year of construction. Plus their
optimistic projection is currently November 2009, which would make
it closed for less than two years.

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

Bear in mind also that the existing stations (except Canada Water,
which is of recent construction) will require to be upgraded to be DDA
compliant, which at Shadwell, Wapping and Rotherhithe, for example,
will require new lifts and cross-passageways. (Surrey Quays is a
surface station in a cutting, but this will probably require lifts as
there is little space for ramps.) I also suspect that the narrow
platforms at Wapping will have to be widened, which will involve
widening the tunnel - a major civil engineering task in its own right.
In addition, platforms will require to be lengthend, which at
Rotherhithe and Wapping will require opening out the tunnels (the new
class 378s will, I presume, be 20m vehicles whereas the A stock is
noticeably shorter).


Yes, the A stock cars are only 16.2m long, but I doubt that any platform
extensions are planned.


My understanding is that none of the existing ELL platforms are going
to be widened or lengthened. (And as I described elsewhere nor are any
of the stations subject to the DDA requirements as they ain't new
stations, not do I believe there is any plans to make them accessible
- though note that Shadwell was already accessible.)

I don't know what the deal is with regards to whether the new trains
will fit on the existing platforms - I think this might not be an
issue as the existing platforms are (from memory) a bit longer that a
4-car A stock train. However for arguments sake let's say the new 4-
car Electrostars won't fit on the existing ELL platforms - this could
be dealt with by stopping the leading and trailing cab-ends still in
the tunnel, and if that still doesn't solve the issue then selective
door opening (SDO) can be bought into play - and suddenly the problem
is no more.

wrote:

(snip)

In the case of the power supply, there will be a requirement to ensure
that stray traction return currents do not cause corrosion of running
rails, buried services etc; this will require significant work in its
own right. In addition, what is happening to the power system? Does it
transfer to NR ownership or does it remain in the ownership of the
consortium that owns the rest of the LU power supply system? Does it
need upgrading to cope with longer, heavier and more frequent trains?
If nothing else, new substations and feeder cables will be required on
the northern extension; the additional loadings resulting from this
may require upgrading of the power supply elsewhere, and possible
negotiations with the public electricity suppliers.

I understand that the existing power supply needs to be significantly
upgraded/uprated, but I don't know the details.

Nor do I know the details of whom will be responsible for provide the
power supply. However, the power supply won't be transferring to
Network Rail ownership, for the simple reason that the line isn't
transferring to Network Rail ownership.

Legally speaking I understand the infrastructure controller and owner
of the existing line plus the new northern extension up to Dalston
will be London Underground Limited (LUL). However in practice it will
be the responsibility of TfL's London Rail division, who will in turn
have to appoint maintenance contractor(s) and make some arrangements
for day-to-day operation of the running line (signalling, power etc).
They could of course bring in Network Rail as a contractor to do some
of these tasks.

The situation would thus appear to leave the possibility that EDF
Powerlink (the consortium of EDF, ABB and Balfour Beatty that provides
LUL with its electricity) will continue to provide the power for at
least the existing part of the ELL. Indeed LUL might be contractually
obliged, under the PFI deal, to continue taking electricity from EDF
Powerlink for the existing section at least.


Then there is resignalling; I presume the line will be resignalled to
NR standards to achieve compatibility with the lines to its north and
south and to avoid the 378s having to be fitted with LUL train stops
as well as TPWS. Does anyone know what has been specified for the
signalling?

Full National Rail standard signalling. All LUL signalling, including
train stops, will be no more.


Finally, a new flyover is to be built at New Cross Gate to allow
northbound trains from the Brighton Line to gain access to the ELL.
This will require significant works in its own right.

And these works have been commencing apace for some while. The mound
of earth that will form the ramp on the east side is already in
existence (though not finished) whilst on the west side of the line
there is a works site and preparatory work is ongoing, having cleared
the site of much detritus (including a rotting old railway wagon).