In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

I just hope the contract prices come in within the budget and we
don't get an excuse arise for it to be chopped
given today's budgetary announcements.

What did I miss there?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 03:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter T wrote:
to the north of the NLL alignment - if ELLX trains were to run up to
Canonbury they'd have to cross the NLL passenger and freight tracks on
the level, i.e. a massively conflicting movement.

Last time I used the NLL I didn't notice trains queuing up on the tracks.
More like people queueing up waiting for anything to show up so I can't
see how a train once every 10 or 15 minutes or so crossing a few other
tracks would cause much if any conflict. Even if the full service couldn't
have run as far as finsbury I don't see why a reduced service couldn't have
continued from highbury. Surely better than the inevitable sardine
situation thats going to happen on the Moorgate and Victoria lines once the
northern ELLX opens.

Anyway, you speak about it being "utterly absurd this wasn't forced
through" - well the fact the whole ELLX project has actually happened
is amazing enough. Trying to add a very expensive extra such as a

True, it does seem to be one occasion when the tight fisted bean counters
at the treasury weren't paying attention for once and this project slipped
through.

B2003

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote:
"zen83237" wrote in message
...

And what about the trains that used to come from the Great Northern
lines.

These were removed before my time. My Baker from the period just
before BS was closed, shows this route as not possible at that time.

Really? It would still be possible today. Head up the GN, turn left at
Finsbury Park, up Canonbury curve, then east down the North London line
and branch off at Dalston up to Broad Street.

According to my map, the road from Canonbury Curve had no connection to the
NLL until beyond Dalston Junction.

It could still be like that today (as there is no Dalston Junction to check
against)

That's why they were proposing Finsbury Park as a terminus for some ELLX
services at one time.

This line is a complete rebuild (albeit on an old right of way), any
suggested service for this new build proves nothing about what was there
before

tim

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 03:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter T wrote:
to the north of the NLL alignment - if ELLX trains were to run up to
Canonbury they'd have to cross the NLL passenger and freight tracks on
the level, i.e. a massively conflicting movement.

Last time I used the NLL I didn't notice trains queuing up on the tracks.

you might not have noticed it, but there are few spare paths.

Certainly not enough to "waste" 4 each hour making a conflicting movement

tim

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

wrote in message ...

Last time I used the NLL I didn't notice trains queuing up on the tracks.

you might not have noticed it, but there are few spare paths.

Certainly not enough to "waste" 4 each hour making a conflicting movement


And of course the situation on the 2010/11 NLL pair of tracks will be
somewhat different with 8tph plus freight, whereas now it is 4 tph plus
freight on 3 or 4 tracks.

Paul S

On 1 Apr, 12:38, wrote:
Last time I used the NLL I didn't notice trains queuing up on the tracks.
More like people queueing up waiting for anything to show up so I can't
see how a train once every 10 or 15 minutes or so crossing a few other
tracks would cause much if any conflict.

Trains in both directions need to cross each track, so it's 8
timetable slots per hour on each track, and you the gap on each NLL
tracks has to occur at the same moment to let the ELL train cross. NLL
peak frequency will son be 8 trains per hour in each direction, and I
believe freight slots will still be required during peak hours. So
that's a massive timetabling and reliability nightmare. Not
impossible, but the alternative it had to compete against (and the one
they chose) was an ELL that's completely segregated at its northern
end, which is going to make it and the NLL much more reliable.

(and I can't see it could have been made cross-platform at Finsbury
Park, at least not in both directions)

Surely better than the inevitable sardine
situation thats going to happen on the Moorgate and Victoria lines once the
northern ELLX opens.

I think you're overestimating its appeal.

U

On 31 Mar, 12:48, wrote:
Nick Catford seems to have added a shed load more photos of broad street
as was. Quite interesting not just for the railway itself but because you
can see the slow change in the City as the towers go up during the 70s.

If Broad street was still open today would it be a useful way of relieving
passenger and train congestion on other lines and termini? I assume when it
was demonlished it wasn't serving much useful purpose but then back then
the city had less people working in it. Would they be able to get away with
demolishing it today?

B2003

I've mentioned this idea before elsewhere, but as a tangent for the
discussion, what I think would've been a good use of the site would've
been to demolish Broad St. (sadly, it was pretty redundant), but to
use the site to expand Liverpool Street eastwards, offering more
platforms. by using the right of way north and that of the Bishopsgate
site, you could have fitted at least another pair of tracks at least
to Bethnal Green Junction, giving the WAML route it's own dedicated
set of lines and platforms.

Running with that idea, with dedicated slow lines to Bethnal Green,
resurrecting the old link to the Metropolitan (probably doubling it)
could be possible, with the H&C taking over the WAML urban services,
further increasing the platforms available for suburban and intercity
services both on the WAML and GEML.

The tower blocks could then still have been built using the air rights
of the station site and right of way, and the site would still have
been able to offer a valuable transport service. This would've been
much more impractical with Broad Street's old layout due to it's
elevation.

In article
,
(Jamie Thompson) wrote:

I've mentioned this idea before elsewhere, but as a tangent for the
discussion, what I think would've been a good use of the site would've
been to demolish Broad St. (sadly, it was pretty redundant), but to
use the site to expand Liverpool Street eastwards, offering more
platforms. by using the right of way north and that of the Bishopsgate
site, you could have fitted at least another pair of tracks at least
to Bethnal Green Junction, giving the WAML route it's own dedicated
set of lines and platforms.

Running with that idea, with dedicated slow lines to Bethnal Green,
resurrecting the old link to the Metropolitan (probably doubling it)
could be possible, with the H&C taking over the WAML urban services,
further increasing the platforms available for suburban and intercity
services both on the WAML and GEML.

The tower blocks could then still have been built using the air rights
of the station site and right of way, and the site would still have
been able to offer a valuable transport service. This would've been
much more impractical with Broad Street's old layout due to it's
elevation.

Isn't the problem that Broad St was on a viaduct while Liverpool St is in
a cutting? The approaches are also in rather different directions.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

BTW, I meant westwards, not eastwards

Isn't the problem that Broad St was on a viaduct while Liverpool St is in
a cutting? The approaches are also in rather different directions.

....firstly, yes, which is why demolition was required.

....secondly, yes, but for a few hundred metres or so they are both
heading north until the eastern line turn east, easily enough for the
throat required for the new platforms.

On Apr 1, 1:03*pm, "tim....." wrote:
"Jack Taylor" wrote in message

...

tim..... wrote:
"zen83237" wrote in message
.. .

And what about the trains that used to come from the Great Northern
lines.

These were removed before my time. *My Baker from the period just
before BS was closed, shows this route as not possible at that time.

Really? It would still be possible today. Head up the GN, turn left at
Finsbury Park, up Canonbury curve, then east down the North London line
and branch off at Dalston up to Broad Street.

According to my map, the road from Canonbury Curve had no connection to the
NLL until beyond Dalston Junction.

It could still be like that today (as there is no Dalston Junction to check
against)

That's why they were proposing Finsbury Park as a terminus for some ELLX
services at one time.

This line is a complete rebuild (albeit on an old right of way), any
suggested service for this new build proves nothing about what was there
before

tim

My 1975 London's Railways map shows services from Broad Street to
Finsbury Park via Dalston Junction.