"Spyke" wrote in message

STOP PRESS... STOP PRESS...
I've just this morning read a thread on District Dave's internet
forum about the closure of the ELL - it looks like a 'special' train
of some sort was on the cards and was due to run this afternoon, but
this has seemingly been called off for reasons unknown (as is
explained on page 2 of the thread)...
http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...d=11972028 43

I believe the original plan was to run the 4-car 1938TS in public
service, but the unions refused to allow it and LU was unable to
persuade them.

Why did they object? Was it to be driven by a non-union member?

On 22 Dec, 21:29, Tom Page wrote:
On 22 Dec, 20:16, Mr Thant
wrote:


On 22 Dec, 19:50, wrote:

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.

My understanding is the works planned fall under "refreshment" type
rules and hence no new lifts etc will be provided at existing
stations. The various future maps consistently show them as remaining
non-accessible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/pdf/tube...www.campaignfo......

U

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

I'm not even sure that it's true that major works do need to be lift-
accessible. I thought the requirement was that a company had to make
reasonable efforts - if the cost was grossly disproportionate to the
benefits I thought a full-accessibility scheme was not required.
Anyway, as Mr Thant says, I don't think there's much work at all
happening at either Wapping or Rotherhithe stations - the bricks and
mortar of the stations (so I thought) will remain completely
unchanged. I'm sure signage will be replaced, and I imagine things
will be cleaned, but neither of these changes would be sufficient to
count as a refurb.

Tom


That's certainly my understanding. All this talk of the DDA is, I
think, a complete red-herring.

AIUI the issue at Rotherhithe and Wapping has been with safety as
opposed to accessibility (that's accessibility in the DDA sense, i.e.
for those whose mobility is impaired).

Both stations operated with a derogation order (or some such similar
bureaucratic device) from the Railway Inspectorate as they fell short
of the normal safety standards for underground stations. I believe the
specific issue was that there was no secondary exit or means of escape
from these stations (perhaps a particularly important issue given that
the existing starircases were a bit steep). This derogation order
could be revoked at any time should the Inspectorate have felt the
situation was dangerous enough to merit doing so.

So Wapping and Rotherhithe were originally not confirmed to be
stations on the new extended ELL. Then interestingly there was an
announcement that they would be included in ELLX phase 1, but their
future under ELLX phase 2 was uncertain. I don't quite understand the
logic behind this. Perhaps this was because the number of people using
these stations, or (and maybe this makes more sense) the number of
passengers aboard the ELLX trains that past through these stations,
was predicted to rise once phase 2 was completed (an bear in mind that
at this time the extension through to Highbury & Islington was part of
phase 2).

Then in August 2004 the Mayor announced that both Wapping and
Rotherhithe were to remain open:
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_...releaseid=4162

I'm sure I read somewhere of talk that keeping these stations open was
possible because new emergency exits (i.e. alternative staircases)
will be constructed at them both. I think I can see how this could be
done at Rotherhithe - by adding some stairs at the far end of the
platforms that would exit onto the pavement of the Rotherhithe tunnel
approach road, but I'm less sure of how it might be done at Wapping.

Perhaps my my understanding of the situation is a bit wonky - but I am
very certain that the DDA doesn't require TfL to install lifts at
these stations. Remember - when the ELLX opens, they will not be new
stations, they will simply be old stations that were temporarily
closed for a period. Legally as well as practically speaking, the East
London Line has not been permanently closed, it is temprarily closed
whilst it is extended. The only part of it that has been permanently
closed is Shoreditch station, and that happened last year.

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.

On 23 Dec, 13:16, "Recliner" wrote:
"Spyke" wrote:


STOP PRESS... STOP PRESS...
I've just this morning read a thread on District Dave's internet
forum about the closure of the ELL - it looks like a 'special' train
of some sort was on the cards and was due to run this afternoon, but
this has seemingly been called off for reasons unknown (as is
explained on page 2 of the thread)...
http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...&action=displa...

I believe the original plan was to run the 4-car 1938TS in public
service, but the unions refused to allow it and LU was unable to
persuade them.

Why did they object? Was it to be driven by a non-union member?


If you look elsewhere on that District Dave forum thread then you'll
read reports of how some 'enthusiasts' on the recent 1938TS tour of
the ELL behaved in what sounds like a pretty appallingly bad fashion.
Maybe some of the drivers didn't want to turn the last day into a
circus with such individuals clowning about.

I hasten to add that I'm not denigrating all transport enthusiasts by
any stretch. It is merely that several times I've read various tales
of the trouble that a significant (?) minority bring along to various
events, with behaviour that doesn't sound much different to a bunch of
unruly and overexcited nursery school children.

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).

On Dec 23, 2:36*pm, Mizter T wrote:
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

A lot of the stations, if not all, have an unused section of platform
beyond the current signals and stop signs at one end. I can't
remember if that's the case at Wapping though.

On Dec 23, 2:51*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 23 Dec, 13:16, "Recliner" wrote:





"Spyke" wrote:

STOP PRESS... STOP PRESS...
I've just this morning read a thread on District Dave's internet
forum about the closure of the ELL - it looks like a 'special' train
of some sort was on the cards and was due to run this afternoon, but
this has seemingly been called off for reasons unknown (as is
explained on page 2 of the thread)...
http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...&action=displa...

I believe the original plan was to run the 4-car 1938TS in public
service, but the unions refused to allow it and LU was unable to
persuade them.

Why did they object? *Was it to be driven by a non-union member?

I wonder if the union actually asked the drivers...

If you look elsewhere on that District Dave forum thread then you'll
read reports of how some 'enthusiasts' on the recent 1938TS tour of
the ELL behaved in what sounds like a pretty appallingly bad fashion.

Some people went past the platform barriers at Whitechapel, whilst
others used flash photography. Sadly, some of these were LUL/NR/TOC
staff. Clearly there should have been station staff and/or BTP there
from the start, to either prevent this or escort a couple of cranks at
a time past the barriers. Still, hardly 'appalling' by mainline
railtour standards e.g. a train full of loudmouth yobs with a poor
grasp of the concept of personal hygiene, who start drinking from
07:00.

Maybe some of the drivers didn't want to turn the last day into a
circus with such individuals clowning about.

I spotted an average of 1 well-behaved crank per station at about
17:00 last night, with a few more there for haulage.

EE507 wrote:

On Dec 23, 2:51�pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 23 Dec, 13:16, "Recliner" wrote:


"Spyke" wrote:

STOP PRESS... STOP PRESS...
I've just this morning read a thread on District Dave's internet
forum about the closure of the ELL - it looks like a 'special' train
of some sort was on the cards and was due to run this afternoon, but
this has seemingly been called off for reasons unknown (as is
explained on page 2 of the thread)...
http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...&action=displa...

I believe the original plan was to run the 4-car 1938TS in public
service, but the unions refused to allow it and LU was unable to
persuade them.

Why did they object? Was it to be driven by a non-union member?

I wonder if the union actually asked the drivers...

If you look elsewhere on that District Dave forum thread then you'll
read reports of how some 'enthusiasts' on the recent 1938TS tour of
the ELL behaved in what sounds like a pretty appallingly bad fashion.

Some people went past the platform barriers at Whitechapel, whilst
others used flash photography. Sadly, some of these were LUL/NR/TOC
staff. Clearly there should have been station staff and/or BTP there
from the start, to either prevent this or escort a couple of cranks at
a time past the barriers. Still, hardly 'appalling' by mainline
railtour standards e.g. a train full of loudmouth yobs with a poor
grasp of the concept of personal hygiene, who start drinking from
07:00.


I'm probably guilty of employing a bit of hyperbole by using the word
"appalling" - apols.

Truth is that I don't have much first-hand experience of such antics,
as I've never been on a railtour plus I've don't really go in for
'last days', it's more stuff that I've read on the internet. The
problem is that in a way I'd quite like to go on a railtour or two,
but I'm not sure I'd like to do it in the company of a few of these
bods. I went on an old style furnished Routemaster on the last day of
the 12 (one of the specials brought in for the day), and there was a
couple of guys on that who were total loonies - it was a real eye
opener to the sometimes bizarre world of the transport enthusiast. I
ended up getting off that bus and back on a regular 12 behind that was
populated by normal people.

Of course I am a transport enthusiast of sorts already, but some of
the stuff I've seen and heard about does make me think it's a somewhat
odd world out there that I'm not sure I really want to be part of!

Anyway, I wasn't planning on going along yesterday, but because my
plans for the day changed I did in fact have some time to make a
detour in the afternoon whilst on my normal travels to take a last
ride on the ELL (in part because I actually wanted to make a note of
the first and last ELL train times - by way of taking a photo of the
relevant posters - so that when the ELLX opens I'll be able to compare
them).


Maybe some of the drivers didn't want to turn the last day into a
circus with such individuals clowning about.

I spotted an average of 1 well-behaved crank per station at about
17:00 last night, with a few more there for haulage.


Yes, when I was there around then there wasn't anyone being stupid,
the only issue being the one guy who left the train having stunk the
whole carriage out with his general stinkiness - I felt sad for him to
be honest. There was a gregarious bunch at the north end of the
platform at Whitechapel who were having fun (were they the District
Dave forum mob I wonder?).

MIG wrote:

On Dec 23, 2:36pm, Mizter T wrote:
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

A lot of the stations, if not all, have an unused section of platform
beyond the current signals and stop signs at one end. I can't
remember if that's the case at Wapping though.


Indeed. When I actually think about it I know that this is the case -
I used the ELL quite often, but perhaps I wasn't as observant as I
could have been! But likewise I'm not sure about Wapping.

On 22 Dec, 13:46, "Paul Scott" wrote:

I noticed on Clive's line guides, that after the last closure, the power
supply was made switchable between third or fourth rail mode. Which seems to
be another reason to question the length of closure.


I'm somewhat surprised at that; AFAIK (and I used to draw the power
supply diagrams which the controller used) the ELL was no different
from any other tube line. It wouldn't be the first inaccuracy from
Clive when it comes to detail (and in the rail industry, the devil
really is the detail).

Certainly the signalling was not compatible with a third rail power
supply.