|
Post by stapler on Jun 22, 2015 9:12:23 GMT
So the 31 x 25kv only will presumably be for the Liv St-Chingford/Enfield/Cheshunt routes (plus Rom-Up)? I see from the TFL comment in the Railway Gazette article that some of the transferred 315/317s had not been in use recently. Which? Presumably the 5 car units could be coupled to a 4 to make up to 9 cars the WA services in the peak - which is what they ran with the 305s (3x3)?
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jun 22, 2015 10:55:07 GMT
www.networkrail.co.uk/long-term-planning-process/anglia-route-study/ West Anglia Route Study, Page 80: Table 5.7: Assessment of Options for Liverpool Street (And Bishopsgate Terminus?) 1: Additional platforms at London Liverpool Street (GECO1, GECO3). Summary of intervention: This option is to provide additional platforms at London Liverpool Street to support the increase in services from the GEML. Options for potential additional platform locations - New platform located within the shopping area to the west side of London Liverpool Street Station, but potentially requiring platform 1 to be shortened - Three new platforms between the existing platforms 10 and 11 , one adjacent to platform 10 and two within the taxi rank area - Remodelling of the existing platforms 1-10 within the westernmost train shed to allow provision of an additional three 12-car length platforms or an additional two 12-car and two 10-car platforms - Creation of an additional terminus station to the north of London Liverpool Street within the area of Network Rail owned land adjacent to Shoreditch High Street station on the East London Line. This would potentially be utilised by services from the West Anglia route. (P.Ridley Comment: This would need a Central Line platform at Shoreditch High Street. Linking to Metropolitan Line far more beneficial)
Output assessment: Current feasible capacity at London Liverpool Street is 24 passenger services from the GE Main Line in the high peak hour; beyond this an additional platform is required. Multiple platforms would allow for increased capacity requirements for the end of CP6 and up to 2043. This goes towards meeting requirements of GECO1, but in isolation would not allow for additional paths into the station. Option 3 would also be required. Option 2 is an alternative to providing additional platforms. Increased platform capacity will also help to improve performance. Affordability assessment: The Anticipated Final Cost (AFC) of additional platforms at London Liverpool Street is between £15m and £35m in 2023 prices.
(P.Ridley Comment: Why no additional tracks through the station throat to allow both W. Anglia lines free passage?)
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 22, 2015 12:12:40 GMT
The original tender said that it was an option to bring the fleet to a total of 249 cars (ie option for 69 cars), but apparently, a recent board paper suggests that TfL do in fact want to change the wording to give an option of 249 cars, which does seem incredibly unrealistic. The fact that no matter which way round it is, they wouldn't be able to lengthen all trains to 5 car, and have a whole number of 5 car units left (there would always be 1x 4 car train) does irk me though! Perhaps Snoggle might be able to enlighten us as to whether any board papers had anything on this. The paper to the Finance and Policy Committee refers to a total possible order of 249 cars. The precise wording is quoted below and I accept it is not pin point precise. I read it to mean a total of 249 cars and not 249 *EXTRA* cars. The base order is 180 cars. The increment is therefore 69 cars which can be cut in various ways depending on what of the 4 declared possible uses is selected. Those options are a possible 4 tph service on the Watford line, 5 tph on the GOBLIN, extending the West Anglia units to 5 cars, the Barking Riverside extension and units for the planned STAR service. There is no stated number of cars for these options but you can impute that 5 cars on WA needs 30 cars. Watford improvements might need 3 extra units meaning 12 cars. Increasing GOBLIN to 5 tph would probably need 2 extra units (8 cars). With running times not being clear for Riverside or STAR (we don't know if NR will raise line speeds to raise throughput on the line via Temple Mills) it is rather harder to know how many trains will be needed. I also don't know if a 5 car train could fit on Romford - Upminster. Adding the estimates above gives a total of 50 cars leaving a balance of 19. Hard to see how that pans out - possibly 1 unit for Riverside and 4 for STAR but that comes to 20 cars not 19. The simple answer is that the paper doesn't really give enough info to reach a definitive view about how the extra cars would be allocated to what initiative nor the likely timing of the options being used. We only know the options expire in late 2019.
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jun 22, 2015 12:31:45 GMT
Romford to Upminster could be an extension of the residual 4tph Crossrail from Liverpool Street to Gidea Park eventually? Why not have these run direct to Liverpool Street and have Upminster benefit from the residual service? This also provides the Romford to Upminster services the necessary four trains per hour for turn up and go. Eventually these could be extended east along the Estuary.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 22, 2015 12:39:33 GMT
- Remodelling of the existing platforms 1-10 within the westernmost train shed to allow provision of an additional three 12-car length platforms or an additional two 12-car and two 10-car platforms - I worry about some of these plans to squeeze more platforms in. This inevitably means narrower platforms, which in turn take longer to clear. Longer trains also result in longer clearance times (not only because there are more people, but some of them have to walk further). This in turn results in longer dwell times - there has to be sufficient time after the platform has cleared for people to board the outgoing service - unless the train is announced before it arrives, in which case the passengers waiting for it will further clog up the platform for the passengers leaving the train. A twelve car platform with an entrance only at one end is not a sensible arrangement. Liverpool Street really needs a second concourse giving access to the "country" end of the platforms. (So does Victoria and especially, Waterloo). Blackfriars is a good model to follow. (Waterloo East is in the "could do better" category!) Although chiefly of benefit to people working in the immediate hinterland (a country end concourse for Waterloo would be very handy for Westminster Bridge!), it is worth noting that country end of the platforms at Liverpool Street is about midway between Liverpool Street Underground and Shoreditch Overground stations. Likewise at Waterloo for Lambeth North (and not much further from Westminster). And if you are in the rear of a 12 -car train arriving at Victoria and want to go to the coach station, you have to walk 300m down the train to get out of the station, and then walk 300m back up the road to end up just 30m from where you started!
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 22, 2015 12:54:55 GMT
Romford to Upminster could be an extension of the residual 4tph Crossrail from Liverpool Street to Gidea Park eventually? Why not have these run direct to Liverpool Street and have Upminster benefit from the residual service? This also provides the Romford to Upminster services the necessary four trains per hour for turn up and go. Eventually these could be extended east along the Estuary. Unless I have misremembered the arrangement of tracks on the GEML, extension of local services over the Emerson Park line would require crossing the fast lines on the flat. (Similar problems at Grove Park prevent extension of the Bromley North branch) simple solution Probably the game is not worth the candle. I can't imagine Upminster would benefit hugely from a stopping service to Liverpool Street - it already has a fast service to Fenchurch Street, and connections at West Ham for a one-stop hop to Stratford. The reason Romford to Upminster doesn't already have 4tph is nothing to do with it being not part of a longer route. It's the same constraint as at Chesham - it's a single track line. Not only would you need a new passing loop, but there is a step-change in the signalling requirements as soon as a second train precludes the use of the "one engine in steam" principle. And I can't imagine that the numbers using the branch would justify a more frequent service. When I used it, a 2-car dmu was more than enough. A 4-car emu is excessive (but neither GE, TfL, or LOROL have anything smaller, unless they want to put a 172 on it).
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jun 22, 2015 13:21:36 GMT
Did not the Up-Rom service use to run to Grays? But I suppose that meant crossing the LTS tracks on the level.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,416
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 22, 2015 13:42:13 GMT
A twelve car platform with an entrance only at one end is not a sensible arrangement. Liverpool Street really needs a second concourse giving access to the "country" end of the platforms. I guess that building a country end ticket hall in Exchange Square (with a replacement public space on its roof) would be pretty simple engineering wise and relatively affordable as such schemes go, and there may even be scope for an entrance to the east end of the Central Line platforms (although this would of course be more expensive). There would be no shortage of catchment for an entrance in this area and would reduce pressure on the existing concourse.
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Jun 22, 2015 14:04:58 GMT
Correct, at the moment a tain from London would need to reverse through platform 2 (up main) to reach the branch.
I don't know when the flat junction at Upminster was removed. I have a, possibly imperfect, recollection of track crossing the District when I first used the branch over 50 years ago!
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 22, 2015 14:30:24 GMT
Did not the Up-Rom service use to run to Grays? It was built that way in the 1890s, but at least since electrification of the Upminster - Grays line in the late 1950s the services have been separate from each other, and the Romford line was essentially disconnected from the LTS main line in the 1960s (accoding to Carto Metro the only access at that end is now through the District Line depot, although Wikipedia suggests it was never actually completed - it was proposed as a way of removing scrap D stock from LU by rail. On Google Earth the space for a connection is visible, but there is no connection now. It is not clear whether there used to be one. The line remained a diesel island (along with the North Woolwich - Tottenham Hale service) until 1986. An interesting snippet from Wikipedia suggests that the loop at Emerson Park, removed in 1936, was not provided to allow two trains to pass but to allow a loco to run round there, in order to operate an Emerson/Upminster shuttle. (LTS obviously wanting Emerson Park passengers to travel to London via its own line at Upminster rather than feed them into its competitor at Romford. This would not have required signalling the branch - one-engine-in-steam allows running round. The loop was removed in 1936, following bthe introduction of push-pull (auto-train) operation.
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Jun 22, 2015 16:22:01 GMT
There has always been a buffer stop at the end of the branch platform at Upminster in my memory. I don't know what happened at the junction up to the early 60s.
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jun 22, 2015 16:30:11 GMT
A twelve car platform with an entrance only at one end is not a sensible arrangement. Liverpool Street really needs a second concourse giving access to the "country" end of the platforms. (So does Victoria and especially, Waterloo). Blackfriars is a good model to follow. (Waterloo East is in the "could do better" category!)
Quite agree. Would the tunnels of the PO railway to the EDO at Whitechapel help here? What diameter were they at this point? Probably not but just a thought; they must have lay in approx the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 22, 2015 17:11:19 GMT
The PO railway: What diameter were they at this point? they must have lay in approx the right direction. Almost certainly too small. The running tunnels are between 7 and 9 feet. Given how quickly headroom falls off to the sides, it would be difficult even for two people to stand side by side in them unless they were very good friends. The station tunnels are 25 feet in diameter, which is a bit more promising. But if this map is accurate they are at the existing concourse end of the station anyway
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,235
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jun 22, 2015 17:15:48 GMT
Eight trainsets would be used to operate the Gospel Oak – Barking route, currently operated with two-car diesel multiple-units. Electrification of this route is due to be completed in 2017. A further 30 would replace the fleet of Class 315 and Class 317 EMUs on the West Anglia routes from Liverpool Street, which were transferred to the Overground operating concession on May 31, and one would be used on the Romford – Upminster line. Six EMUs are to be put into service on the remaining Overground routes. My italicsDoes the last sentence here not allude to the new fleet being more Capitalstars? If not the same then certainly not far off, it would certainly fit the corporate image too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 17:51:08 GMT
Romford-Upminster: Now that LU and LO are in the same tent, what about an extension of the Overground service through the north side of the Upminster depot, with a terminus accessible on Front Lane? binged.it/1BHiwUb
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jun 22, 2015 18:02:28 GMT
Eight trainsets would be used to operate the Gospel Oak – Barking route, currently operated with two-car diesel multiple-units. Electrification of this route is due to be completed in 2017. A further 30 would replace the fleet of Class 315 and Class 317 EMUs on the West Anglia routes from Liverpool Street, which were transferred to the Overground operating concession on May 31, and one would be used on the Romford – Upminster line. Six EMUs are to be put into service on the remaining Overground routes. My italicsDoes the last sentence here not allude to the new fleet being more Capitalstars? If not the same then certainly not far off, it would certainly fit the corporate image too. It is widely accepted that those 6 trains will be moved onto the watford DC lines, and so being isolated from the rest of the LO network apart from Willesden depot means that they don't have to be Capitalstars (although they may well end up being that!)
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jun 22, 2015 18:11:15 GMT
Romford-Upminster: Now that LU and LO are in the same tent, what about an extension of the Overground service through the north side of the Upminster depot, with a terminus accessible on Front Lane? binged.it/1BHiwUbSimple really: What function would it serve: Reduce trip length to nearest station for a few residents around Upminster depot What tasks need doing: Giving over a fair amount of space at Upminster depot (which is being expanded to accommodate new S stock) Electrification of lines through Upminster depot with 25kV AC OHLE Would it cost a lot: Yes Do benefits outweigh costs: No Should it be done: Not at our own expense
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 20:32:05 GMT
Did not the Up-Rom service use to run to Grays? It was built that way in the 1890s, but at least since electrification of the Upminster - Grays line in the late 1950s the services have been separate from each other, and the Romford line was essentially disconnected from the LTS main line in the 1960s (accoding to Carto Metro the only access at that end is now through the District Line depot, although Wikipedia suggests it was never actually completed - it was proposed as a way of removing scrap D stock from LU by rail. On Google Earth the space for a connection is visible, but there is no connection now. It is not clear whether there used to be one. The line remained a diesel island (along with the North Woolwich - Tottenham Hale service) until 1986. An interesting snippet from Wikipedia suggests that the loop at Emerson Park, removed in 1936, was not provided to allow two trains to pass but to allow a loco to run round there, in order to operate an Emerson/Upminster shuttle. (LTS obviously wanting Emerson Park passengers to travel to London via its own line at Upminster rather than feed them into its competitor at Romford. This would not have required signalling the branch - one-engine-in-steam allows running round. The loop was removed in 1936, following bthe introduction of push-pull (auto-train) operation. Indeed, Romford-Upminster was built by the LTSR, and was identified on old OS maps (as here) as the Romford and Grays line. There was a separate LTS station at Romford (integrated into the GE station in the 1930s), with a goods station where the LTS & GE lines diverged (which, looking at the old OS maps, does not seem to have been there originally). The (original?) junction arrangements at Romford would have made through running off the GE to Upminster and Tilbury easy - I wonder as to the background to this. AIUI separation at Upminster, with new bay platform there, and 'reversal' of the branch, happened in the 1950s with the construction of the LTE District line depot, after the LTS section had become part of BR's Eastern Region (with the GE). The line used to be signalled, with a signal box at the intermediate loop (which was west of the actual Emerson Park halt), as well as at Romford. As regards an extension east from Upminster to Cranham/Front Lane, that strikes me as a miss that could usefully been built as a District Line extension at the same time as Upminster depot.
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jun 22, 2015 21:10:36 GMT
I'm sure the intention of BR throughout the 60s was to close Rom-Up altogether (as of course it was with GOBLIN, then Kentish Town - Barking). The LMS actually did close Poplar-Dalston Jc, and replaced it by the 208A bus, later 178. LO has shown how good management (sorry, Chingfordians!) and a huge injection of cash can revitalised old links and make them central to London transport needs. I counted 108 passengers alight from a mid morning ex Stratford at Hackney last week. Whoever'd have thought it?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 22, 2015 22:38:46 GMT
some of the transferred 315/317s had not been in use recently. Which? The class 317/7s had been in store. My italicsDoes the last sentence here not allude to the new fleet being more Capitalstars? If not the same then certainly not far off, it would certainly fit the corporate image too. Whether Bombardier builds more Capitalstars or an upgraded version remains to be seen
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 22, 2015 22:50:03 GMT
It is widely accepted that those 6 trains will be moved onto the watford DC lines, and so being isolated from the rest of the LO network apart from Willesden depot means that they don't have to be Capitalstars (although they may well end up being that!) Are you suggesting the DC lines can be worked with just six units? If not, they will have to work alongside some of the Capitalstars currently working that line.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 22, 2015 23:12:01 GMT
I'm sure the intention of BR throughout the 60s was to close Rom-Up altogether (as of course it was with GOBLIN, then Kentish Town - Barking). The LMS actually did close Poplar-Dalston Jc, and replaced it by the 208A bus, later 178. LO has shown how good management (sorry, Chingfordians!) and a huge injection of cash can revitalised old links and make them central to London transport needs. I counted 108 passengers alight from a mid morning ex Stratford at Hackney last week. Whoever'd have thought it? Surely it was the GLC in the 1980s that began the revival of decayed / defunct with the reopening of the North Woolwich line beyond Stratford and through Hackney to Camden Road? IIRC the GLC funded the re-opening of stations in Hackney and also got the line placed on the tube map. Clearly things have come a very long way since then despite the horrors of BR's funding issues in the 80s and 90s and then the "joys" (ahem) of Silverlink Metro. While doing some double checking for this post I fell across a London Assembly report about the NLL from 2006. Makes fascinating reading - especially about suppressed demand and needing 6 car trains by 2016. For once the politicians weren't wrong when they predicted that need.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jun 23, 2015 0:55:57 GMT
Snoggle, yes to the GLC, with Ken Livingstone at the helm.
TfL should have gone for 6 car trains now - or at least upgraded stations for these, as surely one set of platform extension works would end up being cheaper than two sets?
edit to add: I was at Chingford today and have some piccies of 315's in the new LO livery. They would already be on Flicker but its offline at present. Maybe tomorrow.
Simon
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 23, 2015 5:48:58 GMT
Whoever'd have thought it? Surely it was the GLC in the 1980s that began the revival of decayed / defunct with the reopening of the North Woolwich line beyond Stratford and through Hackney to Camden Road? [/quote] The GLC couldn't reopen the North Woolwich Line, because it wasn't closed. In the 1970s it ran North Woolwich - Stratford - Lea Bridge - Tottenham Hale 9and originally on to Palace Gates!) What the GLC did was to divert it at Stratford to run to Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury. promoted as the "Crossrtown Link Line", leaving a skeleton service between Stratford and Tottenham Hale . Following electrification to North Woolwich and the closure of Broad Street, the service became Richmond - North Woolwich - now cut back to Stratford.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 23, 2015 8:35:51 GMT
Surely it was the GLC in the 1980s that began the revival of decayed / defunct with the reopening of the North Woolwich line beyond Stratford and through Hackney to Camden Road? The GLC couldn't reopen the North Woolwich Line, because it wasn't closed. In the 1970s it ran North Woolwich - Stratford - Lea Bridge - Tottenham Hale 9and originally on to Palace Gates!) What the GLC did was to divert it at Stratford to run to Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury. promoted as the "Crossrtown Link Line", leaving a skeleton service between Stratford and Tottenham Hale . Following electrification to North Woolwich and the closure of Broad Street, the service became Richmond - North Woolwich - now cut back to Stratford. Read what I wrote - I said it reopened the line *beyond* Stratford to Camden Road through Hackney. I know the old route ran to Tottenham Hale.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jun 23, 2015 8:47:18 GMT
It is widely accepted that those 6 trains will be moved onto the watford DC lines, and so being isolated from the rest of the LO network apart from Willesden depot means that they don't have to be Capitalstars (although they may well end up being that!) Are you suggesting the DC lines can be worked with just six units? If not, they will have to work alongside some of the Capitalstars currently working that line. DC line is run with 6 units - certainly in the off-peak at least.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 23, 2015 8:54:57 GMT
Read what I wrote - I said it reopened the line *beyond* Stratford to Camden Road through Hackney. I know the old route ran to Tottenham Hale. Oh I see, I misread it as suggesting two separate reopenings: "1. the North Woolwich line beyond Stratford and 2. through Hackney to Camden Road "
|
|
|
Post by jukes on Jun 23, 2015 16:39:30 GMT
Are you suggesting the DC lines can be worked with just six units? If not, they will have to work alongside some of the Capitalstars currently working that line. DC line is run with 6 units - certainly in the off-peak at least. TfL confirmed in a fairly recent FOI response that a maximum of 6 units were required to run the DC line service at all times.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jun 23, 2015 20:19:10 GMT
Rumours now are that Bombardier has confirmed to press that it is offering a product from the Aventra family, and not a 378 clone. A press release confirming what they are offering (and possibly a rendering of the train) should be due in just under a week.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jun 23, 2015 20:54:29 GMT
Whoever'd have thought it? Surely it was the GLC in the 1980s that began the revival of decayed / defunct with the reopening of the North Woolwich line beyond Stratford and through Hackney to Camden Road? The GLC couldn't reopen the North Woolwich Line, because it wasn't closed. In the 1970s it ran North Woolwich - Stratford - Lea Bridge - Tottenham Hale 9and originally on to Palace Gates!) What the GLC did was to divert it at Stratford to run to Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury. promoted as the "Crossrtown Link Line", leaving a skeleton service between Stratford and Tottenham Hale . Following electrification to North Woolwich and the closure of Broad Street, the service became Richmond - North Woolwich - now cut back to Stratford.[/quote] Quoted messages above: ===================================== New message below: Palace Gates... another lost line (almost completely built over) which would have made an excellent Overground route - or even DLR extension. Alas, as with other closures, some of the people this line served are now at the mercy of buses stuck in slow traffic - and where the line passes through areas where the road speed limits have been slashed by 33% (from 30mph to 20mph) so the journeys are even slower. At all happened before I was born - I'm of the generation that suffers the consequences of the mistakes of the previous generation. Simon
|
|