Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2006 15:23:38 GMT
Are there still plans to rebuild Whitechapel with a three-platform center-loop layout?
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Oct 16, 2006 18:36:48 GMT
I thought the reversing point was going to be moved to West Ham?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2006 18:57:01 GMT
It still is. Last I checked, Whitechapel's theoretical reversal capacity would be diminished as a result of the rebuild; to compensate, West Ham was to gain a double-ended reversing siding to compensate.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Oct 16, 2006 21:21:04 GMT
So,will Whitechapel still be a booked reversing point or for service recovery only.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2006 21:56:17 GMT
I think it is intended to rebuild it into a layout similar to that at White City, with three through roads, the center one being reversible. I suspect that a scissors crossover may be provided on the west side and a trailing crossover on the east side, to allow the station to serve both as a booked terminus for the H&C and an emergency terminus for the District.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Oct 16, 2006 22:13:09 GMT
Won't Whitechapel be redundant as a reversing point if the plan to reverse the H & C at Aldgate goes ahead?As I read it the service east of Tower Hill/Aldgate will either be what's now the District Line and the new Met service from Uxbridge to Barking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2006 23:40:28 GMT
But where will you reverse the late-running Met service?  This is one reason why the siding at West Ham is to be provided - relying too much on the center loop at Whitechapel appears to be viewed as a weak point, especially when it is needed to reverse late-running Mets and/or late-running Districts. |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Oct 17, 2006 0:14:31 GMT
I can understand it being used for service recovery,but it would be redundant as a booked reversing point if the changes to SSL services go ahead.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Oct 17, 2006 8:22:54 GMT
I thought the reversing point was going to be moved to West Ham? This is one reason why the siding at West Ham is to be provided The subject of this thread is news to me - but I find the West Ham bit really intriuging. Where will this siding be - cos unless there are some serious re-building works, there's no free space!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2006 8:34:40 GMT
I think it's supposed to go in between the tracks on the east side of the station.
towerman: Perhaps you're right - I may be misremembering things with regards to how services were to be timetabled.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Oct 17, 2006 11:58:51 GMT
I also thought that the West Ham reversing siding was to replace the bay at Plaistow?
This would then stop the disruption to both east & westbound roads when a train departs the bay roads.
If Plaistow went, they could use the point work repositioned at West Ham- or is that too simple?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2006 16:34:09 GMT
Personally I'd keep the Plaistow bay - if you got rid of it, you would lose a turnaround point that doesn't require tipping-out, and I doubt any District T/Op wants to fight their way through a heaving platform with everybody and their sibling badgering them while they close up the train, fight their way back to the front and enter the siding.
Presumably, this is why the layout at Whitechapel was suggested in the first place - this way, the T/Ops only have to deal with the badgering :/
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Oct 18, 2006 8:38:18 GMT
I read a Barking 'team talk' bulletin last night whilst at Upminster - it stated that Plaistow's platform surface's will be renewed soon, at a cost of £2,000,000.
On the one hand I know LUL likes to waste money, but it hardly seems worth it if they plan to make alterations - does it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2006 16:56:34 GMT
I also thought that the West Ham reversing siding was to replace the bay at Plaistow? This would then stop the disruption to both east & westbound roads when a train departs the bay roads. Surely they won't take out the bay at Plaistow? Even if it loses all its scheduled moves it would be useful as a reversing point for late running trains, quicker to use than a reversing siding. Don't forget that trains can be reversed off the main at Plaistow too. Twice in my experience severe problems at Upton Park/ East Ham have led to both eastbound and bay platforms being used for reversing trains. |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196 
|
Post by Tom on Oct 26, 2006 23:26:09 GMT
Personally I'd keep the Plaistow bay - if you got rid of it, you would lose a turnaround point that doesn't require tipping-out But abolishing it would solve the SPAD problem at FC1 ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2006 0:17:02 GMT
HA! I wonder if anyone has used that as an excuse ;D
|
|
