|
|
Post by Colin D on Mar 7, 2018 0:32:22 GMT
Question:  (click image for a larger version) |
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,424
|
Post by DWS on Mar 7, 2018 2:32:21 GMT
Barking , where the westbound District line goes under the c2c line.
|
|
bigvern
Posts: 1,038 
Member is Online
|
Post by bigvern on Mar 7, 2018 18:18:52 GMT
Flyunder WB district line, under the C2C lines from Upminster between Barking Sidings and Barking Station, view of the eastern side flyunder portal from the C2C lines, the WB district runs below.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colin D on Mar 8, 2018 0:22:41 GMT
Answer: Between Barking and Upney - S stock entering Barking diveunder  (click image for a larger version) |
|
|
|
Post by blackhorsesteve on Mar 8, 2018 11:01:41 GMT
I've always been intrigued as to why this exists - there's the flyunder to the east of the station and then a flyover west of the station to reset the tracks back - why were platforms not just reassigned?
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 8, 2018 12:14:00 GMT
I've always been intrigued as to why this exists - It was built back in the day when cross-platform interchange (in this case with the LTS services) was seen as a Good Thing. See also the reassignment of platforms at Finsbury Park, H&I, Euston, and Oxford Circus on the Victoria Line, on the Central Line at Stratford and Mile End, and on the District at Earls Court and Hammersmith. |
|
|
|
Post by ducatisti on Mar 8, 2018 14:23:01 GMT
is cross-platform interchange no longer a Good Thing? how far has it been down-graded? is it just a nice-to-have now, or is it actively discouraged?
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 8, 2018 15:27:29 GMT
is cross-platform interchange no longer a Good Thing? how far has it been down-graded? is it just a nice-to-have now, or is it actively discouraged? Not sure about actively discouraged, but not worth having. Look at Abbey Wood, for example, where the paired-by-use arrangement was installed although it would have been just as easy to have paired-by-direction. Neither the Jubilee (1978 and 1999 sections) nor Crossrail have any-cross platform interchanges either. Cross platform interchange, and the associated track layouts, do make it harder to keep one of the routes open whilst the other is closed (e.g for maintenance). There can also be ticketing/Oyster issues if there is no simple boundary between operators. |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Mar 8, 2018 16:23:44 GMT
Neither the Jubilee (1978 and 1999 sections) nor Crossrail have any-cross platform interchanges either I thought Baker Street southbound platforms 7 & 8 were cross-platform ? |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 8, 2018 16:48:31 GMT
Neither the Jubilee (1978 and 1999 sections) nor Crossrail have any-cross platform interchanges either I thought Baker Street southbound platforms 7 & 8 were cross-platform ? They are, but platform 7 (the southbound Stanmore branch platform) was not part of the 1979 scheme, having been added in 1939. The idea of having separate platforms on converging routes was so that a train waiting for its turn through the junction would be standing at a platform. In the diverging direction costs could be saved by having the divergence after the junction. The originally-intended layout at South Kensington (Piccadilly Line) used the same assymetric layout for the never-completed junction with the Deep Level District. However, the Jubilee's northbound platform 10 - which was the only one added in 1979 - is also at the same level as its corresponding Bakerloo platform (9), and has level interchange. This layout was possible because the two original Bakerloo platforms (now 8 and 9) were built one above the other, to fit within a narrow wayleave at street level. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Mar 8, 2018 17:27:53 GMT
is cross-platform interchange no longer a Good Thing? how far has it been down-graded? is it just a nice-to-have now, or is it actively discouraged? Not sure about actively discouraged, but not worth having. Look at Abbey Wood, for example, where the paired-by-use arrangement was installed although it would have been just as easy to have paired-by-direction. Neither the Jubilee (1978 and 1999 sections) nor Crossrail have any-cross platform interchanges either. Cross platform interchange, and the associated track layouts, do make it harder to keep one of the routes open whilst the other is closed (e.g for maintenance). There can also be ticketing/Oyster issues if there is no simple boundary between operators. I'd say a lot of the issue with Abbey Wood is the uncertainty over whether Crossrail will ever be extended further, and what effect that could have on the Southeastern service - i.e. would Crossrail become the through service or would both services continue together, and if so would they share the same tracks or be segregated to somewhere further out? Something like the layout found at Dalston Junction would have been ideal for Abbey Wood, but much more challenging to design in practice with the much longer Crossrail trains and uncertainty over what the future might hold. |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Mar 8, 2018 17:51:56 GMT
They are, but platform 7 (the southbound Stanmore branch platform) was not part of the 1979 scheme, having been added in 1939. My apologies, I had mistakenly thought there was new build at Baker Street. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 8, 2018 19:21:16 GMT
They are, but platform 7 (the southbound Stanmore branch platform) was not part of the 1979 scheme, having been added in 1939. My apologies, I had mistakenly thought there was new build at Baker Street. There was, but only platform 10 was new. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,442
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 8, 2018 22:10:40 GMT
I thought Baker Street southbound platforms 7 & 8 were cross-platform ? They are, but platform 7 (the southbound Stanmore branch platform) was not part of the 1979 scheme, having been added in 1939. The idea of having separate platforms on converging routes was so that a train waiting for its turn through the junction would be standing at a platform. In the diverging direction costs could be saved by having the divergence after the junction. The originally-intended layout at South Kensington (Piccadilly Line) used the same assymetric layout for the never-completed junction with the Deep Level District. However, the Jubilee's northbound platform 10 - which was the only one added in 1979 - is also at the same level as its corresponding Bakerloo platform (9), and has level interchange. This layout was possible because the two original Bakerloo platforms (now 8 and 9) were built one above the other, to fit within a narrow wayleave at street level. And a very useful interchange it is too! Especially when making a Paddington-Canary Wharf journey while knackered from walking the best part of 7 miles unplanned as I did this evening! As for Barking, why is there a diveunder east of the station but a flyover west of the station? |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 8, 2018 22:21:10 GMT
As for Barking, why is there a diveunder east of the station but a flyover west of the station? Don't know, but the presence of the River Roding near the flyover site may suggest why a diveunder would have been impractical there. |
|
