|
Post by christopher125 on Feb 11, 2014 23:08:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Jan 23, 2014 16:05:36 GMT
CrossRail in my opinion is disaster in the making when it comes to the western end off the line for the following reasons Don't forget that a few years after Crossrail the western link at Heathrow, or 'WRATH', is expected to open allowing through services at around the same time as the rights to operate HEx expire - clearly this could see quite major changes to how Crossrail and semi-fast services operate on the GWML, and hopefully result in a better use of capacity in the longer term. Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Jan 19, 2014 2:19:39 GMT
With regard to the Heathrow Express service, people should be aware that nobody has any power to do anything to the current setup until the HEX rights expire in 2028 (I think) I'm pretty sure it's 2023, so close enough to be on the 'radar' and hence such a hot topic. Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Nov 5, 2013 0:40:14 GMT
Scrub that, it seems it's still going ahead after all.
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Nov 3, 2013 2:47:23 GMT
I too remember a story about the re-engine project for the Class 73... but it may have been I one of those magazines where wishful thinking plays a greater role than fact. I don't think it's just wishful thinking The GBRf project to fit new engines at Brush is underway, another loco has just gone up to Loughborough - however it seems the far more extensive rebuild being undertaken by RVEL is no longer being proceeded with. Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Jul 6, 2013 19:27:59 GMT
I'm no expert on the line either, but I don't recall any sharp bends and there aren't any obvious ones looking at a map. Curvature and it's impact on body length is a major issue and always has been - Ryde Tunnel is the culprit, a tight s-bend that along with the platform at Ryde Esplanade has always prevented modern mainland designs being used. Reducing it to single track was considered in an effort to ease the curvature and so allow the 58ft (17.68m) ex-Merseyside 503's to replace the Standard stock, but they persevered and were eventually replaced by the 1938 stock. Back in 2010 SWT were quoted in a webchat as saying "We will replace the rolling stock on the Island Line in the next five to seven years. The replacement stock will come from London Underground. We are planing to use Piccadilly line rolling stock" - how much work has actually been undertaken into the practicality and costs involved is unknown however. Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Jun 12, 2013 14:00:37 GMT
Unless you've managed to design a Tardis I really can't see how double decking works - it's been looked at time after time and loading gauge, platform height, interior space and station dwell times all conspire against it.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on May 24, 2013 22:04:20 GMT
Can anyone here elaborate on the reason for having both a Class 20 and Sarah on each run, when in the past only the one was needed at t'other end?
Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on May 24, 2013 15:57:34 GMT
I've only seen a few mentions in passing none of which I remember being particularly specific so there may well be a set doing tests at Wildenrath, it would certainly make sense.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on May 23, 2013 19:35:00 GMT
I think it's been reported that Siemens have a couple of vehicles built for testing purposes, perhaps when the lawyers finally sign it off we might get some photo's?
Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on May 20, 2013 22:03:59 GMT
All this assumes that, even if desirable (and what could be less desirable than a ride in a Pacer?), the Merseyside ones will be being released to any reasonable timescale; they still appear to be tied into a cascade that starts with the release of the 319s from TLK and that in turn depends on actually signing the deal with Siemens... Thankfully this issue should be addressed by news reported late last year - not only did Southern secure an add-on order of Dual Voltage 5-car units but are tendering on the DfT's behalf the equivalent of 54 DV units which could be used directly or indirectly to cascade sufficient 319's. That said, apparently the deal is in the process of being signed off by the lawyers so fingers crossed we don't have much longer to wait. Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on May 20, 2013 14:45:03 GMT
Couldn't they fit longitudinal seating to the current fleet as a stop-gap measure?
Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on May 20, 2013 14:38:39 GMT
The government has shown no interest in Euston Cross, nor are they likely to given the added expense and delay it would cause to the project. As for dead-end termini being a historic nonsense that simply isn't true - they are perfectly justifiable for long distance services, especially if there is minimal through traffic and they avoid the need for massive below-ground excavation and extra tunnelling.
The 'bottom line' is that the cost of a HS1-2 link has to correspond to the demand predicted to use it, your perfectly entitled to respond to the consultation with a completely different arrangement for Euston but don't be surprised if they don't rip up their current plan for a variation of something already discounted on cost, practicality and construction risk in the original station study.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on May 19, 2013 18:38:40 GMT
Sounds like a wind-up - apart from it offering little or no benefit, with all such units accounted for elsewhere anyway, I believe the various Pacer classes are banned from operating over the third rail which would surely prevent them accessing Willesden depot.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on May 19, 2013 18:21:43 GMT
I believe HS2 Ltd have already ruled out the Euston Cross proposal - if i remember correctly on the grounds that it didn't reflect passenger demand, there was much higher construction risk, it would take longer to build and would cost significantly more than the current proposal, around £5bn i think.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on May 16, 2013 16:00:51 GMT
The Consultation on Route Design Refinements includes changes to the HS1-2 connection, with a third track at Camden Road Jct allowing the link to be segregated from the NLL and the Primrose Hill line being divided into separate tracks for High Speed services and freight. Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on May 9, 2013 18:06:11 GMT
Was one ever in this livery? Not prior to the next Steam on the Met, that's for sure. Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on May 8, 2013 14:49:15 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if a decision about extra units is waiting for a decision on GOBLIN electrification.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Apr 28, 2013 20:04:21 GMT
I think you are correct with your assumption and the Bearded Knight already wants run his Coke Candolinos at 135 mph on the WCML so why bother with Huff & Splutter 2? Not only is the idea of 135mph Pendolino's dead in the water until the WCML receives cab signalling, but it does nothing to address the capacity crunch coming to the WCML. If HS2 was going to be scrapped or deferred it would've already happened, if anything completion will be brought forward. Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Apr 28, 2013 19:55:12 GMT
I was not aware that HS1 was approaching a capacity challenge. Nonetheless, the idea of allowing for up to seven platform tunnels for the proposed station is to allow terminating trains sufficient dwell time. Personally, I think it an inefficient use of a tunnel platform. If the dwell time is needed primarily for restocking catering, recharging water and so on, the trains could call at HS London Central ~ Euston Cross, then Stratford, then go to a depot line for victualling, before returning to form a passenger service. Passenger turn out would be done at Stratford. You can have as many platforms as you want, but you're still relying on a pair of running tunnels either end - some serious padding would be needed to stop delays from the WCML or Kent having knock-on effects elsewhere. As for the idea of so many underground platforms, is there room? This isn't a metro like Crossrail, a lot of the services being talked about for Euston Cross are long distance and relatively infrequent so passengers won't just walk off the street but turn up in advance. Putting so many different services together into one station is a neat idea and will always be suggested, but practical and cost effective? With so little demand for through services I don't believe it is. Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Apr 28, 2013 1:48:56 GMT
HS2 are now planning to tunnel between Old Oak Common and West Ruislip. Does this mean that the New North Main Line is saved? I am firmly of the opinion that HS2's plans for a dead-end terminal should be opposed. The Railway Lords' proposal is eminently superior in providing a through service station able to have domestic concourses co-located with Euston and KX/StP, and an international concourse co-located with StPanInt. The Kent HS commuter ex-Javelins could then provide a cross-city service rather than deposit their full load at one location. Through International trains could take on pax from StPan for Europe, and vv. Some space at StPan could then be relinquished for other domestic services. Redevelopment of Euston and its environs is not ruled out. It simply becomes disentangled from HS2 and could proceed at its own pace based on economic and political circumstances. Meanwhile, I note that plans to remove the WJ DC platforms remain, but nothing seems to have been resolved/declared about what happens to the service they currently provide. I'm so not persuaded - even if was possible from an engineering point of view, putting so many different services into the existing Euston station or just 4 underground platforms does not sound like a recipe for the kind of reliability HS2 needs for 18tph+ south of Brum. The idea that it could be 'cost neutral' is hard to believe too, especially in the wake of the new plans for Euston which simplify construction considerably with much less effect on the operational railway. Off the top of my head, these are just some the issues with no obvious answer - the need for separate platforms for International services due to border security; the lengthy dwell times with so few passengers likely to travel beyond the station in either direction; the capacity constraints on HS1 with the extra services needing to terminate at Stratford International or beyond; how an extra pair of running tunnels are meant to be bored into Stratford International; how the cost of providing Kent-WCML through services can be justified especially with 140mph (but non tilt) trains with high density interiors; how Euston is meant to accommodate 400m Classic Compatible trains without an expensive remodelling; what their solution is for the Watford DC... Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Apr 23, 2013 14:17:46 GMT
Does this mean that redevelopment at the front of the station to bring it into line with the rest of the Euston Road *can* go ahead as and when a proposal comes along? And that, at some time in the future, the potential exists to fully redevelop the domestic station; straighten the platforms, bring them forward, air rights, etc? Of course there is one big problem with how it is now envisioned.... It'll be a greater walk/poorer interchange between St. P Int amd Euston Int than before... The aim of the change was to remove the need to close, lower and rebuild the existing platforms so yes, such redevelopment can still take place as confirmed in the HS2 Ltd statement :- The revised proposal features:
- Potential opportunities for over-station development – with the possibility of being used for future homes, open space and businesses. - The capacity needed for high speed and conventional trains - New platforms and facilities for the high-speed trains - New, improved facilities for all passengers in a redeveloped, integrated station with a new, combined concourse and façade - Better connections with the Underground, including a new Underground ticket hall - A sub-surface pedestrian link between Euston and Euston Square Tube - East-west pedestrian routes across the station, helping to link communities on either side of the station.As for the interchange with St Pancras there's no change - while options for such a link have been considered, none has been confirmed and it's questionable whether one will with Crossrail 2 on the horizon. Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Apr 21, 2013 15:51:43 GMT
I suspect people have been misled by some of the media coverage - despite the HS2 platforms now being constructed separately alongside, the existing station is not being left untouched. A new larger concourse integrated with the adjacent HS2 station will still be built, but by refurbishing the existing platforms rather than closing and lowering them a very disruptive, risky and expensive phased rebuild has been avoided. From a passenger perspective this should produce the benefits of a new station without the years of disruption to the WCML. While a development over the existing platforms should still be possible, it makes sense to at least wait until HS2 is open while one can be built over the new HS2 platforms in the meantime. This has been on the cards for quite a while. If one chooses to believe the more negative rumours, HS2 is running 40% over budget so original plans are being scaled down to keep costs in check. It's been suggested that the previous plan for Euston was 40% over budget - not the entire HS2 project. This shouldn't come as a surprise given the considerable disruption and risk to both HS2 and the operational railway of a phased rebuilding. If this is whats causing the problems, then perhaps the trans-midlands section should be built first to enable some return. Without comprehensive redevelopment of Euston Station one of the best situations of potential is ignored. If anything the new plan could allow the first phase to open earlier as the phased rebuilding of the existing platforms was one of the projects dictating the construction timeline for phase 1. As capacity on the WCML, especially south of Rugby, is expected to be a major issue come the 2020's it really wouldn't make sense to delay the first phase especially with it being years ahead in the parliamentary process. Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Mar 26, 2013 23:24:10 GMT
I think I read somewhere that there was steam due for the weekend around the circle but it seems to have disappeared. Did I misread it or has it been cancelled? I can't recall seeing any concrete proposals for more steam on the circle, let alone any dates so i suspect you've misread something. Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Mar 12, 2013 17:10:48 GMT
I believe there were also some 6-car 313 workings at one time too, so unless a platform has been recently shortened they should be fine.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Mar 10, 2013 23:09:33 GMT
I can't see how that would make any sense, didn't the capacity upgrade specifically mention ordering extra units? The last thing TfL or LOROL would want is a small fleet of non-standard units approaching their 40th birthday. It sounds like the magazine are reporting of the suggestions BGOLUG have been making for operating Barking-Gospel Oak - there's some details of their 'alternative electrification proposal' in their latest bulletinChris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Mar 10, 2013 21:41:33 GMT
Hate to upset you,was reading in one of the railway mags yesterday that TfL was considering leasing some 508's for the Overground. They should lease some 150s to run more one-way crowd-busters between Woodgrange Park and Hampstead Heath (or Willesden Junction LL). That would go some way to relieving the Goblin problem without major investment. If there were any spare 150's, or indeed any other suitable DMU, i'm sure they would have - unfortunately they are all spoken for. As for the 508's, that's the first time i've heard of any suggestion that LO are considering them which really doesn't make much sense when TfL have already budgeted for increasing the capacity and size of the 378 fleet. Presumably the story comes from the GOBLIN user group BGOLUG who have been suggesting using older rolling stock. Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Mar 6, 2013 0:07:04 GMT
I would have thought it would have been a good idea to design Sstock to allow retro fitting of pantographs to be used instead 4th rail should Chiltern decide to electrify. Most modern stocks are built with duel voltage capability so why not these. It's hard to see the relatively sparse Chiltern service justifying a conversion of LU lines to OHLE, especially if the rest of LU won't be converted. Should the Chiltern services be electrified then the relevant Met lines can presumably adopt the same approach as the shared sections of the Wimbledon and Richmond branches, with Chiltern using conventional Dual Voltage units. Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Feb 18, 2013 2:15:38 GMT
Sounds like a rail grinder, as you can imagine sparks are rather inevitable!
Chris
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Feb 17, 2013 1:51:34 GMT
Are there any photo's of this tunnel on the internet? I can't recall ever seeing one.
Chris
|
|