"tim....." wrote in message
...

"John Salmon" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote
"Peter Masson" wrote

Presumably bidirectional signalling, to make single line working
practicable while the other line is under maintenance.

Nice idea, except that HSE rules don't allow such operations.

No such rule applies between Northallerton and Newcastle, where
late-night passenger trains regularly run 'wrong line' under SIMBIDS.

I was referring to the bit about working on an adjacent line.

Which is exactly what happens on the ECML. Also, there was recently
(January) a two-week block of one track between Totnes and Plymouth for
relaying, whilst trains continued to run on the other track. I repeat,
there is NO overall prohibition of this practice.

On Mar 27, 7:26*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
I will take a look but I do cross over the line at least twice every day
at Tottenham Hale and I have specifically checked when going past on
GOBLIN and it looks extremely tight.

Go and stand on the southbound platform at Tottenham Hale and you'll
notice there's a massive gap between the back wall of the platform and
the boundary fence. I think the bridge carrying Ferry Lane is also
wide enough.

How on earth they'd construct extra
platforms at Tottenham hale for all 4 tracks without half demolishing
the tube station, bus station and car park I don't know.

By building them on the east side.

U

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
wrote:

On Mar 27, 7:26*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
I will take a look but I do cross over the line at least twice every day
at Tottenham Hale and I have specifically checked when going past on
GOBLIN and it looks extremely tight.

Go and stand on the southbound platform at Tottenham Hale and you'll
notice there's a massive gap between the back wall of the platform and
the boundary fence. I think the bridge carrying Ferry Lane is also
wide enough.

But hasn't the Ferry Lane estate just south of the bridge pinched some
of the old alignment?

On Mar 28, 11:04*am, Uncle Toby wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant

wrote:
On Mar 27, 7:26*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
I will take a look but I do cross over the line at least twice every day
at Tottenham Hale and I have specifically checked when going past on
GOBLIN and it looks extremely tight.

Go and stand on the southbound platform at Tottenham Hale and you'll
notice there's a massive gap between the back wall of the platform and
the boundary fence. I think the bridge carrying Ferry Lane is also
wide enough.

But hasn't the Ferry Lane estate just south of the bridge pinched some
of the old alignment?

I think that Jarrow Road has nicked the trackbed under the GOBLIN line
bridge, but otherwise the trackbed is still available, there is a
short tarmaced bit under the Ferry Lane bridge, but it doesn't look
like it is used for vehicles. . I would hope that Network Rail was
made sure that there is sufficient space for any needed platforms at
Tottenham Hale when other developments have been agreed.

See the satelite view he

http://maps.google.co.uk/?
ie=UTF8&ll=51.58803,-0.059776&spn=0.00222,0.003401&t=h&z=18

Paul Corfield wrote:

Well I've spent a few minutes with Google Maps and I'll agree with Mr
Thant that there is more space than I imagined there was.

Back in the pre-Google Maps era I explored the area IRL and came to the
conclusion that the only "structure" (which does not include the flat
surface of Jarrow Road) preventing 4 tracking from Coppermill Junction to
Broxbourne junction is the Eleanor Cross Road bridge. While it isn't
entirely surprising that the new bridge carrying Leeside Road over the
railway was built *long* enough to allow four tracks, amazingly the new
bridge to carry the railway over Mollison Avenue was built *wide* enough for
four tracks - I can't see how the COBA worked out for that one, with no
prospect of quadrupling in the air at the time.

On Mar 28, 4:57*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Back in the pre-Google Maps era I explored the area IRL and came to the
conclusion that the only "structure" (which does not include the flat
surface of Jarrow Road)

On closer inspection the bridge carrying the Goblin has a redundant
3rd span on the west side where the west-to-north curve used to be. So
there's enough space for four tracks without touching Jarrow Road or
doing any bridge works.

amazingly the new
bridge to carry the railway over Mollison Avenue was built *wide* enough for
four tracks - I can't see how the COBA worked out for that one, with no
prospect of quadrupling in the air at the time.

If it was paid for out of the road's budget, the only cost to BR (I
assume it was that era) was that of a stern letter.

U

On Mar 27, 7:26*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
Much of the scheme looks like a great big sop to
somehow cope with demand for air travel as a result of the government's
cockeyed aviation policy. *Not sure that is quite the right way to be
framing rail policy.

Indeed. There's an obsession with emissions (NOx and CO2) from surface
access to airports, but a total head in the sand approach to the real
problem of aviation's environmental impact, set to worsen under this
government's 'predict and provide' policy.

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Paul Corfield wrote:

I've just realised that was a north to east curve off the Lea Valley
line to the Chingford Line

Yup, this was called the Coppermill Curve.

so my demands have now increased to having a curve to both the north and
south at Coppermill Junction ;-) That would allow all sorts of
interesting services if it was coupled with what can be run via South
Tottenham and then the Enfield Town line. Chingford - Enfield by train
anyone? I suspect that might be quite popular.

Really? With who?

tom

--
The future will accost us with boob-slapping ferocity. -- H. G. Wells

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, plcd1 wrote:

On Mar 26, 10:55*pm, wrote:
Published today at:http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/ro...ityeasteng.pdf

* extension of London Overground services from Stratford to
Northumberland Park (or a shuttle service)

Not at all sure what that is supposed to achieve. While I would love
to see a service restored at places like Lea Bridge there is no talk
here about the obvious link which is the Coppermill Curve to the
Chingford Line - the alignment is still there and it would be a
marginal additional to any grade separation works.

It would be physically entirely separate from the grade separation works:
the report talks about grade separating the junction on the north side of
the complex, whereas restoring the Coppermill Curve would involve the
tracks to the east and south. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, just
that it's a bit mendacious to try and sell it as a cheap addition to
something that's going to be done anyway.

It would also allow far better local services to be created if coupled
with plans to add extra stations. I think a shuttle service would be far
better than extending the NLL from Richmond. That strikes me as making
the line extremely long and prone to even more delays as it would
interface with yet another set of lines.

That's a good point. I think the Lea Valley line offers quite a bit of
recovery capacity to buffer performance pollution coming from either
direction, particularly if the stop at Stratford is made nice and long.
Although then you might have problems with platform capacity - i'm not
sure which platforms a through service would use.

A frequent local shuttle would probably be better but they need to be
inventive with stations and interchanges - e.g. would they sort out
Angel Road given its promixity to IKEA or would they contemplate a Ferry
Lane station to give interchange on to GOBLIN but perhaps only with
local line platforms on the 4 track section? A station near Ruckholt
Road in Leyton to the north of the Olympics site would also be a good
idea. The Chingford Line could easily have 3 extra stations (Forest
Road, Winchester Road / North Circ, Chingford Hatch) added to improve
its coverage.

You're a hair's breadth away from mentioning your idea of running the DLR
up to Chingford now, i can tell .

tom

--
The future will accost us with boob-slapping ferocity. -- H. G. Wells

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Paul Corfield wrote:

I've just realised that was a north to east curve off the Lea Valley line
to the Chingford Line

Yup, this was called the Coppermill Curve.

Sorry, complete reading failure there. That's the exact opposite of the
Coppermill Curve!

tom

--
The future will accost us with boob-slapping ferocity. -- H. G. Wells