|
|
Post by njr001 on Mar 31, 2016 20:00:17 GMT
A video showing part of the bridge replacement can be viewed via this linkSadly the track leading to the bay platform is now severed with a very permanent looking buffer stop prior to the bridge. |
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Apr 1, 2016 6:34:50 GMT
the bridge however looks to allow the en-statement of the bay platform if required
|
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
|
Post by DWS on Apr 1, 2016 7:48:07 GMT
the bridge however looks to allow the en-statement of the bay platform if required Why would this need to be done, it has no use to today's railway. |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Apr 1, 2016 11:40:04 GMT
The bay road was only used to outstable the T stock sleet train(ESL118A/ESL118B).This was scrapped years ago so the bay road was redundant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Apr 1, 2016 12:20:23 GMT
The bay road was only used to outstable the T stock sleet train(ESL118A/ESL118B).This was scrapped years ago so the bay road was redundant. Still around actually, recently moved from Spa Valley Railway to Quainton Road. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 1, 2016 13:19:22 GMT
the bridge however looks to allow the en-statement of the bay platform if required Why would this need to be done, it has no use to today's railway. But why remove the possibility of reinstating it if it is of use to tomorrow's railway? |
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
|
Post by DWS on Apr 1, 2016 17:14:09 GMT
Why would this need to be done, it has no use to today's railway. But why remove the possibility of reinstating it if it is of use to tomorrow's railway? Same reason as removing crossovers at Hornchurch and Bromley by Bow to save money on renewals. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 1, 2016 18:51:32 GMT
I suspect that the cost of maintaining the bridge is almost identical whether built to accommodate the bay road or not, and a like-for-like replacement will probably need less planning consents than a new design. A narrower bridge may also require additional work on the abutments.
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Apr 1, 2016 19:27:16 GMT
I suspect that the cost of maintaining the bridge is almost identical whether built to accommodate the bay road or not, and a like-for-like replacement will probably need less planning consents than a new design. A narrower bridge may also require additional work on the abutments. no real use as it is only a short bay that can't accommodate a service train. |
|
|
|
Post by rsdworker on Apr 1, 2016 19:29:07 GMT
i think bay platform should be replaced in full covered area like potted gardens or something because waste of empty space
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 1, 2016 19:50:28 GMT
I suspect that the cost of maintaining the bridge is almost identical whether built to accommodate the bay road or not, and a like-for-like replacement will probably need less planning consents than a new design. A narrower bridge may also require additional work on the abutments. no real use as it is only a short bay that can't accommodate a service train. Indeed, it isn't really of use to today's railway. But if the cost of keeping provision for it to be reinstated is at most only slightly more than not, it makes sense to include that provision in case it is useful in the future. The bridge has probably been designed with a 75+ year lifespan and who knows what technological changes will happen in that period. |
|
|
|
Post by banana99 on Jul 6, 2016 20:54:14 GMT
The short platform is no longer accessible from the mainline (or anywhere else). A set of buffer stops were added to the track before the point at which it used to cross the bridge that is the subject of this thread. Looks permanent to me. There is no track beyond the new stop apart from that which remains in the bay platform.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 6, 2016 22:49:53 GMT
If the formation is there, then it's not truly permanent. It sounds like there are no plans to use it in the foreseeable future, but how far ahead is that - almost certainly less than 75 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 7, 2016 6:22:27 GMT
If the formation is there, then it's not truly permanent. It sounds like there are no plans to use it in the foreseeable future, but how far ahead is that - almost certainly less than 75 years. I accept your point but what would be the use of a very short siding? |
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jul 7, 2016 10:10:41 GMT
If the formation is there, then it's not truly permanent. It sounds like there are no plans to use it in the foreseeable future, but how far ahead is that - almost certainly less than 75 years. I accept your point but what would be the use of a very short siding? Shuttle service to Watford Junction? (I wish) |
|
|
|
Post by banana99 on Jul 7, 2016 10:37:19 GMT
Nothing is truly permanent....
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 8, 2016 4:41:51 GMT
I accept your point but what would be the use of a very short siding? Shuttle service to Watford Junction? (I wish) there is not enough space to accommodate a train and no way of extending it without demolishing the station building. |
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jul 9, 2016 6:15:22 GMT
Shuttle service to Watford Junction? (I wish) there is not enough space to accommodate a train and no way of extending it without demolishing the station building. The platform could be extended south to the bridge, that would work nicely for Chiltern. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 9, 2016 6:36:43 GMT
there is not enough space to accommodate a train and no way of extending it without demolishing the station building. The platform could be extended south to the bridge, that would work nicely for Chiltern. for what purpose? |
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Jul 9, 2016 15:03:37 GMT
I believe that platform length at Ricky is what determines the maximum length of Chilterns services.
|
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jul 9, 2016 23:55:03 GMT
The platform could be extended south to the bridge, that would work nicely for Chiltern. for what purpose? Shuttle service to Watford Junction, to connect with Aylesbury service. |
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jul 9, 2016 23:55:50 GMT
I believe that platform length at Ricky is what determines the maximum length of Chilterns services. 5 car max |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 10, 2016 0:31:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Jul 10, 2016 6:07:14 GMT
Crusty, Chiltern 165s and 168s cars are much longer than an S8 car so a 5 car Chiltern train is only about 20 ft or so shorter than an S8. If they added a 6th car, they'd be too long for Rickmansworth platforms. It mentions on one of the articles that 6 car Chiltens don't stop at Rickmansworth for this reason. |
|
|
|
Post by banana99 on Jul 10, 2016 12:57:39 GMT
Yes, a number of Up trains don't stop at Rickmansworth in the morning peak hours, and vv in the evening.
|
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jul 10, 2016 14:39:44 GMT
You occasionally see a 6 car calling at Ricky with the rear car locked out.
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 10, 2016 16:28:22 GMT
Thanks whistlekiller.
The cost of a 20 metre platform extension would be very hard to justify given the fact that many if not most Chiltern trains are 2 or 3 cars.
As philthetube points out cars/doors can be locked out.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Jul 11, 2016 8:58:15 GMT
5 cars and rammed in the peaks.
How much you spend to cater for peak flows is another matter and I doubt if Chiltern would invest in additional stock that is only needed at LUL stations.
|
|
|
|
Post by banana99 on Jul 11, 2016 16:25:34 GMT
I've just seen a five car in the up platform. There is plenty of room for one (probably two) carriages. The rear most doors of the rear most carriage opened at the "white square" on the platform edge opposite the barriers....
|
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jul 11, 2016 18:14:31 GMT
Thanks whistlekiller. The cost of a 20 metre platform extension would be very hard to justify given the fact that many if not most Chiltern trains are 2 or 3 cars. As philthetube points out cars/doors can be locked out. To extend the northbound you would have to either build onto the bridge or demolish the signal cabin, possibly an option in the future but not at the moment. Southbound may be easier. |
|
