|
|
Post by Geoffram on Sept 19, 2009 6:33:50 GMT
Why and when was the Queensway Crossover installed? If it was put in when the line was opened, it's of a different form from the other intermediate reversing points which were either reversing sidings, such as at Marble Arch and British Museum, or scissors crossovers in one tunnel (such as at Bank, Liverpool Street and Shepherds Bush). But Queensway was a strange one: why is it in its own tunnel? If you needed to turn trains short of their destination a more logical (and equidistant) place would have been Notting Hill Gate, where people could detrain to other lines, but I suppose that the fact that at this station, the eastbound and westbound are on top of each other made that an impossible choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Sept 19, 2009 7:06:28 GMT
I think you answered your own question (why queensway Xover in own tunnel) as if lines are one above the other you would need a vertical crossover!
|
|
|
|
Post by Geoffram on Sept 19, 2009 7:48:12 GMT
No, the point I was making was that why is the crossover in its own tunnel as opposed to both east- and west-bound lines coming together into one big tunnel. Was it put in after the line opened, in which case why was it deemed necessary when it's only two stops away from Marble Arch?
|
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Sept 19, 2009 9:13:35 GMT
I believe the arrangement at Queensway arises because there originally was a central reversing siding there. Given the location of the current crossover and indeed the proximity of Marble Arch I assume the siding at Queensway would have faced the other way ie be most easily used for reversing trains from the west rather than the east. The connections between the running lines and the siding would most likely have been staggered as they still are elsewhere on the line and the current crossover therefore has to cross from one running line to the siding tunnel before immediately crossing to the siding tunnel to the other running line. Presumably this geography also dictates why it is a facing crossover rather than a trailing one.
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Sept 19, 2009 9:20:31 GMT
No, the point I was making was that why is the crossover in its own tunnel as opposed to both east- and west-bound lines coming together into one big tunnel. Was it put in after the line opened, in which case why was it deemed necessary when it's only two stops away from Marble Arch? I don't know if this is the reason, or if such moves are possible at Queensway, but a crossover gives simple reversing possibilities in both directions, whereas a dead-end siding only allows this in one direction. At Queensway, a train can reverse from westbound (WB) to eastbound (EB) in the EB platform; or from EB to WB on the WB running line (potentially having picked up a driver for the other end in the EB platform). Marble Arch gives easy reversal in the siding from WB to EB, but needs a triple reversal going the other direction. Also, Queensway is nearly as close to Marble Arch (2.1km) as Marble Arch is to the next reversal point at British Museum (2.43km) |
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Sept 19, 2009 9:55:48 GMT
I believe the arrangement at Queensway arises because there originally was a central reversing siding there. Given the location of the current crossover and indeed the proximity of Marble Arch I assume the siding at Queensway would have faced the other way ie be most easily used for reversing trains from the west rather than the east. The connections between the running lines and the siding would most likely have been staggered as they still are elsewhere on the line and the current crossover therefore has to cross from one running line to the siding tunnel before immediately crossing to the siding tunnel to the other running line. Presumably this geography also dictates why it is a facing crossover rather than a trailing one. shows what I mean. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Sept 19, 2009 17:48:07 GMT
There was a thread about Queensway crossover a while back. Trains can detrain in the EB platform, shunt over the crossover to the westbound main, change ends and proceed westbound. Also, a westbound train can leave Lancaster Gate and run over the crossover into the Queensway eastbound platform. The latter move is a passenger one, although not very common!
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Sept 19, 2009 18:21:06 GMT
According to the 1899 contract drawing I have for the signalling of the Central London, Queens Road/Queensway is a curious example of an installation that only (I think) existed vestigially on the surface (and more by chance) at Golders Green.
If you look at Harsig's upper drawing, but imagine the lower set of points to be a scissors crossover, so a train cold reverse from WB to the EB direct into the EB platform, without reversing in the siding. This arrangement seens to have been the original plan for all the reversing sites on the Central London.
I suspect that Queensway was built to the original design, which was then subsequently altered into the type of reversing sidings we are more generally accustomed to seeing on the network.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Sept 20, 2009 6:46:07 GMT
The siding was in use until, I think, either the 1970s or 80s. I seem to recall an incident when a 62 TS was reversed there and a tail lamp got broken as it went over the crossover. Someone then decided the route was actually out of gauge for 62TS and they were banned. Later the siding was removed. Can someone confirm the date?
|
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Sept 20, 2009 7:55:11 GMT
If you look at Harsig's upper drawing, but imagine the lower set of points to be a scissors crossover, so a train cold reverse from WB to the EB direct into the EB platform, without reversing in the siding. This arrangement seens to have been the original plan for all the reversing sites on the Central London. now modified. This actually answers a question that arose from the description given in 'Rails Through The Clay' where Queensway was referred to as having a siding and a crossover. The siding was in use until, I think, either the 1970s or 80s. I seem to recall an incident when a 62 TS was reversed there and a tail lamp got broken as it went over the crossover. Someone then decided the route was actually out of gauge for 62TS and they were banned. Later the siding was removed. Can someone confirm the date? I referred above to a note in 'Rails Through The Clay' by Desmond Croome and Alan Jackson. The relevant sentence reads: 'Track and signalling simplification were achieved by decommissioning the Bank crossover and closing the signal cabin in October 1970, and similarly by taking out the Queensway siding and crossover in July 1982' |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Sept 20, 2009 12:13:12 GMT
You surprise me that Bank crossover went that late.I started on the Central in the mid 60s and could've sworn there was no crossover there then.Also I think the EB loop at Leytonstone was removed in the 70s too.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196 
|
Post by Tom on Sept 20, 2009 12:35:08 GMT
The siding was in use until, I think, either the 1970s or 80s. I seem to recall an incident when a 62 TS was reversed there and a tail lamp got broken as it went over the crossover. I'm sure I've read something along those lines, I believe in Underground News. ISTR the siding was curved was well? Regrettably, when I had the chance to explore it I didn't. |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Sept 20, 2009 14:37:47 GMT
ISTR the siding was curved was well? I *think* that the layout of the sidiing is such that the twin 'S' curves of what would have been the two crossovers were merged into a more elongated 's' at the entrance to the siding, so there would be a noticeable 'kick' towards the WB when leaving towards the EB. |
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Sept 20, 2009 19:20:33 GMT
What are the reasons that crossovers get and continue to be taken out? As well as the ones mentioned here, others have been discussed on this board in the past, such as the eastbound crossover from the Wimbledon branch at Earl's Court (which would be soooo useful today), and the proposed removal of the points from the Central to the District at Ealing Broadway.
Surely the cost of maintaining rarely used points can't be that much compared to the cost of permanently decommissioning them.Then of course, it reduces your options during service disruption and/or special working trains, such as maintenance, etc. With the growth of LU since the 90s, surely as many options as possible are needed?
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Sept 20, 2009 21:19:04 GMT
The reasons vary. A number of crossovers were removed as part of resignalling with Programme Machines; the Programme Machines couln't handle the number of routes available with the old layout.
Specifically with regards to Ealing Broadway, it must be remembered that the original purpose of that particular crossover was to get Engineer's Trains from Lillie Bridge to the Central Line, and to get Central Line stock to Acton Works.
Since 1975 with the opening of the connection between the Met and Central at Ruislip Depot (and associated reallocation of some of the Engineering Fleet there), the Central Line's trains now come direct from Ruislip Depot. Similarly, now that rolling stock repairs and overhauls are mostly done by the individual lines, there is no reason to keep it. This is even more so now that the only stock that can traverse the crossover is 1962 TS (all two trains of it) and Engineer's Vehicles that are both Central Line ATP and Tripcock Fitted.
Or at least that was the argument we made at the time!
The irony is that since 7/7/05, there have been some serious proposals to reinstate certain long-gone crossovers, such as the other halves of the former scissors crossovers at Highbury and Victoria, as well as signalling the Royal Oak crossover and providing a second route from Wood Green siding back to the EB platform, for W-E reversing.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Sept 20, 2009 21:42:11 GMT
The reasons vary. A number of crossovers were removed as part of resignalling with Programme Machines; the Programme Machines couln't handle the number of routes available with the old layout. So that's a case of the tail wagging the dog  Thanks for the info - really interesting. Although one would think in theory that reinstating a crossover or signalling it so that it can be used at each end would be a simple enough task, I'd imagine it'd have to go through huge layers of bureaucracy to get it actually done, hence the proposals you mentioned not actually having been carried out. Have there been any recent examples of such works taking place? Without going into a 'what I would do if I ran the railways'-type discussion, are there any other crossovers currently on the cards or otherwise badly needed? I'd imagine Earl's Court, where if the platform were free a former Wimbledon train could get on the 'right' side of the platforms before, rather than after, ECT would be a prime contender? |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Sept 20, 2009 22:40:14 GMT
The reasons vary. A number of crossovers were removed as part of resignalling with Programme Machines; the Programme Machines couln't handle the number of routes available with the old layout. So that's a case of the tail wagging the dog  Not necessarily so; I've have to check my notes, but some of the crossovers were actually duplications (possibly) a hangover from the days of divided workings and 'proper' goods trains - but this is really off-topic. Remembering the before and after plans for various lines with the introduction of PMs, most of the rationalisation was due to goods train contraction; having said that (and dragging this back on-topic) that which *was* planned to be kept on the Central is quite an interesting selection! |
|
|
|
Post by Bighat on Sept 20, 2009 23:43:39 GMT
What are the reasons that crossovers get and continue to be taken out? As well as the ones mentioned here, others have been discussed on this board in the past, such as the eastbound crossover from the Wimbledon branch at Earl's Court (which would be soooo useful today), and the proposed removal of the points from the Central to the District at Ealing Broadway. Surely the cost of maintaining rarely used points can't be that much compared to the cost of permanently decommissioning them.Then of course, it reduces your options during service disruption and/or special working trains, such as maintenance, etc. With the growth of LU since the 90s, surely as many options as possible are needed? Probably something far more mundane.  It's likely down to whether Metronuts or Tube Loans would have to bear the cost of upkeep, no matter how miniscule!  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Sept 21, 2009 15:37:54 GMT
What are the reasons that crossovers get and continue to be taken out? As well as the ones mentioned here, others have been discussed on this board in the past, such as the eastbound crossover from the Wimbledon branch at Earl's Court (which would be soooo useful today), and the proposed removal of the points from the Central to the District at Ealing Broadway. Surely the cost of maintaining rarely used points can't be that much compared to the cost of permanently decommissioning them.Then of course, it reduces your options during service disruption and/or special working trains, such as maintenance, etc. With the growth of LU since the 90s, surely as many options as possible are needed? Probably something far more mundane. It's likely down to whether Metronuts or Tube Loans would have to bear the cost of upkeep, no matter how miniscule! ;D I think you have the cart before the horse! LUL would first have to pay to have a crossover installed (reinstatement or not). Then I expect an additional trading agreement would have to be in place for the maintenance which LUL would also have to pay for and that's not cheap points being maintained every six weeks requiring a technical officer and a point fitter. Normally they would maintain four ends or sets per shift maximum at a site but if there are only two ends to be done then it's probably the whole shift given the difficulties (line clear) of starting a second job elsewhere later in the shift! |
|
|
|
Post by Geoffram on Sept 21, 2009 22:39:38 GMT
Can I drag the thread kicking and screaming back to Queensway please? If the original siding has been removed, does the tunnel still exist, or has the entrance been blocked up?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2009 9:12:34 GMT
The disused tunel siding is still there but is gated, and can be seen briefly from a westbound train as you pass over the crossover.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2009 21:17:21 GMT
The reasons vary. A number of crossovers were removed as part of resignalling with Programme Machines; the Programme Machines couln't handle the number of routes available with the old layout. Without going into a 'what I would do if I ran the railways'-type discussion, are there any other crossovers currently on the cards or otherwise badly needed? I'd imagine Earl's Court, where if the platform were free a former Wimbledon train could get on the 'right' side of the platforms before, rather than after, ECT would be a prime contender? Earl's Court is getting its orignal design back when resignalling takes place as in peak times it can be a bottle neck |
|
Not necessarily so; I've have to check my notes, but some of the crossovers were actually duplications (possibly) a hangover from the days of divided workings and 'proper' goods trains - but this is really off-topic.
