Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2008 10:18:51 GMT
|
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Nov 1, 2008 19:56:22 GMT
The other day,I did my occasional Clapham Jct to Camden Rd jaunt via LO,and was amazed at hw much quicker it was using the diverted service,than the normal plod either via Gospel Oak or through the centre of Town.Apart from the walk at Willesden Jct,it was easier all round.Do you suppose that,as my experience must be a common one,evidence gained might be used to include "via Primrose Hill" in the future services planned after the ELL re-opening?
And while n THAT subject,why,instead of cluttering up the NLL by terminating at Highbury & Islington,don't they send thse services smewhere useful,like Finsbury Park (and points North)?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 2, 2008 16:52:27 GMT
One of the ideas floating about is to for the Bakerloo to serve Watford Junc. and the Overground to run a Queens Park-Stratford service via Primrose Hill-but not serve Euston.
I actually used the service last night. Very good I have to say. I've always wanted to go to Primrose Hill and I finally did. It was strange that the branch leaves the Euston line in tunnel, never knew that!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2008 19:29:03 GMT
I'm wondering if the 313's till have Primrose Hill as a desto on the blinds!!! Perhaps they do, I assume North Woolwich would still be on them.
|
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Nov 2, 2008 19:32:05 GMT
Yes,I've tried to keep up with the details of the changes to the projected ELL and NLL services,and the Primrose Hill link seems to come into and out of favour.A recent article in the Camden Gazette said the Council there were in favour of re-opening Primrose Hill station as part of the re-jig of services.
It seems silly to terminate the service at Queen's Park,though.It must be a relatively tricky manoevre for LO trains,and must restrict the service interval and cross-platform interchange with the Bakerloo.
Especially when there's a lovely bay platform at Willesden Jct LL crying out to be used properly,with cross-platform access from the onward Bakerloo,and interchange with the NLL at HL station upstairs.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 2, 2008 19:48:40 GMT
Yes, I think projection to Willesden Junction would be the best plan, especially if the second bay could be recomissioned?
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz285 on Nov 2, 2008 21:44:00 GMT
Your all wasting your time. The 378's will become 4 car eventually and won't fit in the bay unless they do some serious remodeling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2008 22:43:38 GMT
Also, would it not create some conflicting movements and a capacity bottleneck between Queens Pk and Willesden Jct? I assume the LO services will terminate in the outer DC platforms with the Bakerloo going straight through the Inner platforms out of the tunnel portal and onwards toward Kensal Green, thus avoiding LO trains crossing in the path of Bakerloo trains and vice versa.
Can the LO trains reverse straight back out of the platforms towards Stratford or do they have to continue North to crossover?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 2, 2008 22:54:05 GMT
There is a crossover between Queens Park and Kilburn High Road. I suggest a scissors x-over would provide greater flexibility south of the station.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2008 1:11:31 GMT
I think the de-scoping of the Camden works pretty much kills any hope of having a Highbury-Primrose Hill-Queens Park service, or at any rate, of having one of any reasonable frequency. You'd want an off-peak capacity of 8tph through Camden Road so that 4 could go to each route.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2008 21:43:10 GMT
Your all wasting your time. The 378's will become 4 car eventually and won't fit in the bay unless they do some serious remodeling. Speaking to a manager the other day and he said the buildings towards the end of the bay platform are to be demolished to enable a 4 car train into the platform. |
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Nov 3, 2008 22:17:15 GMT
I think the de-scoping of the Camden works pretty much kills any hope of having a Highbury-Primrose Hill-Queens Park service This is yet another reason why this de-scoping is such a stupidly short-sighted idea.I think elsewhere on this board it has been said that,as usership rises,they will end up having to do the whole scheme in a few years anyway. What beats me,though,is why they don't keep the full segregation of passenger and goods all the way from Dalston Western Jct to west of Camden Rd,and drop the idea of terminating trains at High & I? BTW,in the FULL plan for Camden Rd,does anyone know what the plans were for the (probably) original 1850 E&WID&BJctRly bridge (BOK73) built of massive Cast-iron,with doric columns and painted light blue (and Ferodo adverts!),currently without decking,which springs over the junction of Camden Rd and Royal College str.It's a beautiful bit of railway heritage and really ought to be refurbished. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 3, 2008 22:29:09 GMT
Here, here! I would be in favour of a 4tph Willesden/Queens Park - Stratford Service
I don't think Highbury is a good place to terminate trains either!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2008 23:06:30 GMT
I think the de-scoping of the Camden works pretty much kills any hope of having a Highbury-Primrose Hill-Queens Park service This is yet another reason why this de-scoping is such a stupidly short-sighted idea.I think elsewhere on this board it has been said that,as usership rises,they will end up having to do the whole scheme in a few years anyway. What beats me,though,is why they don't keep the full segregation of passenger and goods all the way from Dalston Western Jct to west of Camden Rd,and drop the idea of terminating trains at High & I? BTW,in the FULL plan for Camden Rd,does anyone know what the plans were for the (probably) original 1850 E&WID&BJctRly bridge (BOK73) built of massive Cast-iron,with doric columns and painted light blue (and Ferodo adverts!),currently without decking,which springs over the junction of Camden Rd and Royal College str.It's a beautiful bit of railway heritage and really ought to be refurbished. Not forgetting the original 80's British Rail style sign... if it's still there... Notice when walking through the sabway at Camden Road to the e/b platform, that there is a boarded up entrance way to what was the far platform... the current e/b was originally an island platform, when you look through the gaps in the fencing, you can see all the detritus from many years of disuse... Also, stand near signal CR1102 and you can see the railings at the top of the abandoned stairwell, that is referred to. |
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Nov 4, 2008 0:08:31 GMT
What beats me,though,is why they don't keep the full segregation of passenger and goods all the way from Dalston Western Jct to west of Camden Rd,and drop the idea of terminating trains at High & I? The segregation east of Higbury is NLL trains plus freight vs ELL trains. The four tracks west of Highbury act as freight loops to allow NLL trains to overtake freight, or vice versa, so that the timetable still works. Passenger trains via Primrose Hill weren't included in the pre-descoping scheme, and I'm not sure it would have allowed them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2008 0:30:00 GMT
Passenger trains via Primrose Hill weren't included in the pre-descoping scheme, and I'm not sure it would have allowed them. What was included though were Camden Road reversals, which could easily have been extended via PH. I suspect the planners had this in mind as a future option. Maybe it would still be possible to reinstate the old platforms (or at least one of them) as bays connecting to the West (thus not requiring the expensive replacement/refurb of the three bridges) and reverse trains from PH to connect with the 'main' line there. Better still, run the bulk of the Stratford service via PH (to Watford?) and reverse the Gospel Oak-Willesden-Richmond service at Camden. |
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Nov 4, 2008 15:11:55 GMT
Passenger trains via Primrose Hill weren't included in the pre-descoping scheme, and I'm not sure it would have allowed them. What was included though were Camden Road reversals, which could easily have been extended via PH. I suspect the planners had this in mind as a future option. The main thing they've removed in the de-scoping is the terminating platform at Camden Road for those trains. Removing it doesn't make running trains through to Primrose Hill harder. If anything, it makes it more likely. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2008 14:25:40 GMT
The main thing they've removed in the de-scoping is the terminating platform at Camden Road for those trains. Removing it doesn't make running trains through to Primrose Hill harder. If anything, it makes it more likely. Is (was?) the extra platform the 'main thing'? - the 'main thing' is surely the four tracking across the bridges and through the station, allowing more capacity? Without this extra capacity 8tph off peak looks unlikely as the freight traffic will need the capacity through the station. Without capacity for 8tph off peak through CR a 'full' 4tph service via both Gospel Oak and Primrose Hill isn't at all likely. I guess LO *might* run a few peak hour trains via PH so they don't need to reverse at CR, but it's hard to see how a 'full' service would be possible without the extra capacity; and a peak only service might generate more confusion that it's worth. |
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Nov 29, 2008 22:31:15 GMT
The thing about capacity is [AFAIK] no scheme proposes to fix the two track bottleneck west of Camden Road. Therefore it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to overall train throughput if this bottleneck extends through the station as well. The exception is trains that don't run as far as the bottleneck, which was the original intention of the Camden Road-Stratford shuttle and CR four tracking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2008 14:09:19 GMT
Surely the "two track bottleneck" to the west is no more than 50 yards of crossover between the end of the platforms and the PH junction? More of a flat junction than a two track bottleneck I'd have thought? Surely a mile or so of two track through and east of the station has a significant impact on capacity regardless of this?
I agree that, ideally, the four tracking needs to continue to the west so that the northern tracks go to Gospel Oak and the Southerns to Primrose Hill, and someone suggested this in another thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Nov 30, 2008 15:36:48 GMT
Looking at the diagram of the original scheme, westbound freight and NLL trains merge just east of Camden Road anyway, and all go through the station on the southernmost track (even trains using the CR centre bay would have approached on the southernmost track). So functionally, westbound, there's no difference in capacity, or indeed operation. Eastbound is slightly different, as the freight loop starts before Camden Road, so a freight train from Primrose Hill can get past the station before a westbound passenger train has left, which will make the signaller's job a little easier. But ultimately, you're still limited by capacity across the two track section, and I don't see this hugely increasing throughput. That only really helps if you can provide a flyover somewhere so that trains don't conflict when they ultimately do have to cross. A quick bit of sketching says it needs to take the eastbound Primrose Hill over (or under) both Gospel Oak lines, and that gets you a full set of non-conflicting moves if you designate the southernmost track the westbound freight loop. It would have to be built somewhere between Camden Road and the vicinity of the ECML to still have long enough freight loops between it and the ELL infrastructure at Highbury & Islington. Major wonga though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2008 22:44:56 GMT
I guess if the 2 tracks East of Dalston can take 8tph plus freight then so can the 2 tracks through CR.
My suggestion was for 4tph via PH and 4tph via GO, on the basis of mixed traffic across all 4 tracks through Camden. I don't think grade separation would be essential for that.
If there's no capacity gain beyond a reversing platform, why was the 4 tracking included in the original scheme, and come to think of it, the original railway?
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Dec 1, 2008 0:10:42 GMT
The thing that's taking up the capacity is the terminating and reversing at Camden Road, so as I said originally, the works were all about creating a reversing bay. Putting in a fourth track as well as the bay is a marginal cost add on once you've refurbished the northern bridge spans.
But neither would four tracking through Camden Road West. But once you do get up to the kind of frequency where four tracking is useful, grade separation probably is essential.
You might equally ask, why was it the first thing to be dropped?
|
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Dec 6, 2008 21:45:02 GMT
Interesting discussion. More than the specifics of the trackwork the main disappointment with de-scoping works is the perceived restriction this places on the service. I can accept Cetacean's argument that this isn't necessarily the case. But can we envisage the 2 track section west of CR and the flat junction coping with say a 4tph Richmond and 4tph Watford service and the required freight traffic?
An alternative justification for the Camden works is that it could have provided a better terminating point for the ELL. However I see that it would have been at the expense of the freight loops.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on Dec 6, 2008 21:57:13 GMT
I have read in the latest issue of the RM, that the station is in the middle of being demolished.
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Dec 6, 2008 23:39:48 GMT
The fully scoped works would have only had 6 tph passenger trains west of Camden Road (4tph Richmond, 2 tph Clapham Junction, all via Gospel Oak). You might be stretching the limits of the flat junction with your 8tph plan. You'd also need to put a freight loop in the Primrose Hill station area, because currently it's used to hold freight trains between the two lines, which isn't especially compatible with a high frequency passenger service.
(which makes me wonder how they coped during the recent closure)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2008 11:13:22 GMT
I have read in the latest issue of the RM, that the station is in the middle of being demolished. Most of it went last weekend |
|
