Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2005 20:16:38 GMT
Whilst trawling through u.t.l. I cam across the following lever lists for Westbourne Park and Ladbroke Grove:
Westbourne Park (OS)
OS2A W/B outer home
OS2B W/B inner home, last signal before 7 points
OS3 Shunt from Crystal Palace loop to w/b platform
OS4 W/B starter
OS6 Shunt from e/b platform to w/b line via 11 crossover
OS8 Shunt from Crimea sidings to Portobello sidings
OS10 Shunt from Portobello sidings to Crimea sidings
OS12 Shunt from w/b line to e/b platform via 11 crossover
OS15A E/B outer home
OS15B E/B inner home, last signal before 11B points
Ladbroke Grove (OU)
OU2A W/B outer home
OU2B W/B inner home, last signal before 7A points
OU3 W/B starter, last signal before 10B points
OU4 Shunt from siding to w/b platform
OU8 Shunt from w/b platform to siding
OU9 Shunt from e/b platform to w/b line via 10 crossover
OU11 Shunt from w/b line to e/b platform via 10 crossover
OU12 Shunt from OU13 to siding
OU13 E/B starter
OU14 E/B home, last signal before 10A points
Does anyone have any diagrams of these layouts? I can see traces of the sidings on the ground but I can't visualize them well enough in my head, even with this info available.
I'm also curious as to why these sidings were removed in the first place - considering how small Hammersmith Depot is, and the relatively low number of sidings on the SSL that are routinely used for C stock, having these sidings available would appear to be very useful...
|
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Sept 11, 2005 14:02:37 GMT
Does anyone have any diagrams of these layouts? I can see traces of the sidings on the ground but I can't visualize them well enough in my head, even with this info available. Here you go Diagram of Ladbroke Grove & Westbourne Park |
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
Member is Online
|
Post by DWS on Sept 11, 2005 15:52:35 GMT
[quote author=theonekea
I'm also curious as to why these sidings were removed in the first place - considering how small Hammersmith Depot is, and the relatively low number of sidings on the SSL that are routinely used for C stock, having these sidings available would appear to be very useful...[/quote]
The sidings at Westbourne Park were only for Western Region Goods Trains.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2005 17:57:15 GMT
What about the siding(s) at Ladbroke Grove? Would they be useful today as an outstabling point for helping in starting up the service on the Hammersmith branch?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2005 7:36:03 GMT
EDIT:
Whilst looking at the diagram for Westbourne Park, I noticed something really odd that was bugging me for a bit until I realized what it was.
On the western side of the station there is a crossover that appears to run right across both tracks, from Portobello Sdgs to Crimea Sdgs, without any sign of a link to the H&C. After puzzling over this for a bit I realized that it was a flat crossing.
Neither sidings were used by the H&C, were they?
|
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Sept 12, 2005 7:43:59 GMT
I seem to recall that there were plans to install new sidings at Hammersmith beside the eastbound road and opposite the shed. Are they still extant?
|
|
|
|
Post by piccadillypilot on Sept 12, 2005 8:03:58 GMT
Neither sidings were used by the H&C, were they? That's correct. They were solely for use by the GWR/BR(WR). |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Sept 12, 2005 12:56:53 GMT
I seem to recall that there were plans to install new sidings at Hammersmith beside the eastbound road and opposite the shed. Are they still extant? Now that the church has released it's pressure slightly on the land the depot sits on, this plan has been consigned to the back of filing cabinet. There were rumours that they wanted the land back in 2002, but these proved to be false. Whoever started them, should know better than to mess with the church, and may already have been struck down ;D As for the service now requiring any of the old sidings, in a word, no. Outstabling attracts artists, and the cost of cleaning up a train each day far out-weighs the minimal service start-up that could be provided. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2005 18:11:29 GMT
As for the service now requiring any of the old sidings, in a word, no. Outstabling attracts artists, and the cost of cleaning up a train each day far out-weighs the minimal service start-up that could be provided. Ugh - I had forgotten about that... Would the siding at Ladbroke Grove still be useful for short-tripping during disruptions on the SSL, and/or increasing frequency during busy times? |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Sept 14, 2005 9:28:42 GMT
I suppose you could recover some lost time by short-tripping there. Of course if the layout would require the odd change to make it flexible enough to be worthwhile. For example, making OU8 a running signal rather than just a shunt would mean you could reverse straight off the platform without the need for de-training.
Other than during a shutdown, I doubt it would be used for eastbound trains. If a train is that late leaving Hammersmith that it would be right time after reversing at Ladbroke Grove, chances are it will wait at Hammersmith for it's next trip.
Generally, large shutdowns in the city area are overcome by using the manual crossover at Royal Oak. Why they never fully signalled that is beyond me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2005 10:23:06 GMT
Indeed - why exactly _is_ that crossover still loose and unsignalled? Was it always there in that form, or was it put there after the segregation of the GWML and the H&C at Paddington Suburban?
|
|
solidbond
Staff Emeritus
'Give me 118 reasons for an Audible Warning on a C Stock'
Posts: 1,215
|
Post by solidbond on Sept 14, 2005 20:22:29 GMT
It was originally put in during the 90's, purely to assist during an engineering possession to be used by engineering trains only (I forget exactly what work took place). The intention was to remove the x-over after the work finished, however, it was then suggested that it could be used to assist in major service disruption. The only thing that needed to be done was to come up with a suitable plan for its use, ensuring the procedures were safe. Once these had been put in place then it was deemed to be usable. It was never signalled as it was only ever intended to be used during major disruption.
|
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Sept 14, 2005 20:26:42 GMT
I suppose you could recover some lost time by short-tripping there. Of course if the layout would require the odd change to make it flexible enough to be worthwhile. For example, making OU8 a running signal rather than just a shunt would mean you could reverse straight off the platform without the need for de-training. Other than during a shutdown, I doubt it would be used for eastbound trains. If a train is that late leaving Hammersmith that it would be right time after reversing at Ladbroke Grove, chances are it will wait at Hammersmith for it's next trip. Generally, large shutdowns in the city area are overcome by using the manual crossover at Royal Oak. Why they never fully signalled that is beyond me. When I was working in the Control Room after the bombings he said that there was a plan to take the Royal Oak Crossover out a couple of months before. Bet they're glad they didn't |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Sept 16, 2005 8:32:21 GMT
It was never signalled as it was only ever intended to be used during major disruption. Although, a small panel did arrive in Edgware Road cabin, and waited for the arrival of accompanying equipment before disappearing again. Rumour had it that it was intended to install some control over the crossover, but, as usual, money overtook sense. As C5 will know, it is unusual that it isn't still in the cabin somewhere. Must be one of the few items of junk that have arrived and then been taken away from the cabin once it was decided it was not needed ;D |
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
Member is Online
|
Post by DWS on Sept 16, 2005 17:21:13 GMT
[quote author=theonekea
Would the siding at Ladbroke Grove still be useful for short-tripping during disruptions on the SSL, and/or increasing frequency during busy times?
The Signal Box at Ladbroke Grove had full size levers, the points were linked to the box by rodding, with facing point locks, the cabin was only manned when a train was put in the siding.
The equipment was passed its sell by date, staff could not be found to operate it, in short it was not used much ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2005 17:46:54 GMT
It was never signalled as it was only ever intended to be used during major disruption. Although, a small panel did arrive in Edgware Road cabin, and waited for the arrival of accompanying equipment before disappearing again. Rumour had it that it was intended to install some control over the crossover, but, as usual, money overtook sense. As C5 will know, it is unusual that it isn't still in the cabin somewhere. Must be one of the few items of junk that have arrived and then been taken away from the cabin once it was decided it was not needed ;D I suppose then that the cabin is littered with refuse, junk and unwanted tea bags then, right?  If/when the track between Praed Street Junction and Westbourne Park comes up for renewal and relaying, will the issue of the unsignalled crossover be brought to the fore again? The Signal Box at Ladbroke Grove had full size levers, the points were linked to the box by rodding, with facing point locks, the cabin was only manned when a train was put in the siding. The equipment was passed its sell by date, staff could not be found to operate it, in short it was not used much ;D Heh, I see what you mean Still though, the reinstallation of an ordinary, properly signalled trailing crossover controlled from a small interlocking at the station, with provision for easy takeover by Hammersmith or Edgware Road, doesn't sound too bad. How much would such a mini-project cost, and how much of a "quick win" would it deliver? |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196 
|
Post by Tom on Sept 16, 2005 17:54:35 GMT
It wouldn't be a mini-project. Adding or changing an interlocking is almost always very involved and more often than not expensive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2005 18:34:16 GMT
It wouldn't be a mini-project. Adding or changing an interlocking is almost always very involved and more often than not expensive. Oh, I see. I figured that because it was in an isolated location and could almost be done with only one or two possessions (one for installing the crossover, the other for knocking down the autos and bringing the interlocked signals online), it would be relatively simple. Why is it so expensive, though? Does it depend on the location? |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Sept 16, 2005 19:12:24 GMT
Space for an SER, remote control with either Hammersmith and Edgware Road Cabins, possible additional track circuits, modifiying the existing auto signals to make them controlled, adding additional signals, etc etc... Pretty much the same work as mods to any other interlocking but on a smaller scale.
It could be a possibility as part of the SSL Upgrade but not as an isolated site.
|
|
