Last week saw an opportunity arise to see the work taking place on Phase 2 of the ELL Extension close up, as well as pay a brief visit to the new NLL control centre at Upminster.
On the ELL
As many readers will be aware, much of the Extension will utilise the Inner South London, with route clearing for the 378s now underway there. A short stretch of new line is required, however, on the disused alignment which runs from Surrey Quays to Old Kent Road Junction.
Once finished, the extension will link the ELL to Clapham Junction, where a new staggered platform layout is under construction, which will see the ELL and WLL platforms sit side-by-side. This will effectively see the current platform 2 split into a new platform 1 (serving Clapham Junction - Willesden Junction services) and platform 2, which will cater for Dalston Junction - Clapham Junction services.
As it stands, there will be no through passenger connection with the WLL, although stock movements will be possible. Indeed the complexity of the Clapham Junction layout had led to some discussion about skipping the station completely in favour of linking up with the WLL via the Ludgate Lines, but it was an idea that was ultimately discarded.
As the photos below show, work so far has focused on creating the cutting and raised embankment on which the new 1.3km track connection will sit. The existing viaducts that pass over the link are also being worked on, however, and it's also now possible to see what is being put in place with regards to passive provision for a future station at the Surrey Canal Road site.
The image below gives a good idea of the site as far as the viaducts as viewed from the roof of the site offices (with a bonus view of the backs of London Rail COO Howard Smith and Peter Richards, Director of London Overground Infrastructure).
The work taking place in the foreground to the right is on one of several new underpasses being put into place. This can be seen in close-up in the second image.
The SELCHP waste plant looms large over the site, and over the viaducts running across the extension into the centre of London. These viaducts need some work, but the brickwork appears to be in a relatively good condition. The two left-most arches will contain the up and down lines of the new connection, whilst the right-most will be returned to use as a public footpath.
Between the two viaducts sits the site of the Bermondsey dive-under. This will now take place to the left of the corrugated iron in the picture below, but was originally due to be sited further to the right. The layout was reworked in part due to the fact that delays to the Thameslink project have meant that ELLX Phase 2 has begun before work on the dive-under itself.
Further along the line, the third - currently disused - viaduct needs some reconstruction work. Look closely towards the top right in the picture below and you'll see elements of WW2 bombing damage that need to be repaired. The image beneath that gives an idea of some of the work underway beneath the various arches themselves. Mostly this is currently focused on removing existing concrete slabbing and putting new in. In this image, the presence of the workman at the end gives an idea of the scale, as well as the intended final level with track.
Moving further on (past the New Den) sees the line head up to embankment level. Here it needs to cross Surrey Canal Road, the site of the proposed (and much discussed on this site) station that now only has passive provision in the scheme.
Interestingly, provision for this station is greater than this author anticipated. Piling and preparatory work will take place for the platforms, and more importantly the provision includes the construction of a concourse box below the bridge slab on the southern side of the road. The site of this can be seen in the image below, with the photo beneath that looking back from the top of the embankment towards the New Den. The third image shows the platform sitings.
The diagram below gives a more detailed overview of the provision in place for Surrey Canal Road station.
Moving beyond the Surrey Canal Road site, the new section of line passes Bridgehouse Meadow. As can be seen, this is currently a demolition site as a portion has been reclaimed for railway use. Preparation of the land here saw the remains of New Cross Stadium (complete with asbestos roof remnants) uncovered - something that was known to have existed on the site, but which had been thought to have been removed from the site completely. This, along with the discovery of Knotweed at points along the alignment, has proven the biggest unexpected issue so far, although does not seem to have affected the delivery timescales.
Moving beyond this point, the work remains focused on excavation, as can be seen below. The final ELL image, courtesy of TfL, shows track slewing taking place at Old Kent Road.
The North London Line
Focusing briefly on the North London Line, upgrade work is now largely complete. Elsewhere along the line, Howard Smith was able to confirm that tentative explorations are now underway as to the possibility of re-opening the old, currently unoccupied, ticket hall at Hackney Central - although no funding for this is currently in place.
The first two pictures below, again courtesy of TfL, show some of the works that took place dismantling the signal box at Camden during the recent upgrade works.
Heading further afield, signals control for a good portion of the NLL is now at Upminster, where it can be found sitting alongside the same control for all of C2C's routes. As many readers will be aware, the NLL is a busy line in control terms - not only due to the large amount of freight that runs through it, but also due to the sheer number of fringes it shares with other lines.
At Upminster, NLL control is split over two desks, with that in the first picture below controlling signals west of Camden, and the desk in the second controlling signalling eastwards to Stratford.
Looking back over the rest of the signals floor, C2C control can be seen. As can be seen in the final image, this includes a Crossings desk, which carries cameras (and manual control, where required) for many of the major crossings covered by the C2C network.
As many a signalman can attest, crossing desks such as this can sometimes provide a disappointing demonstration of the inability of some people to gauge risk. This is something that is depressingly evident in the video at the end of this post, which happened at Rainham - a crossing covered by this desk - back in 2008.
Fascinating photos of what's going on beneath the mainlines into London Bridge! It's the New Den rather than New Dell, btw - you're getting Millwall and Southampton mixed up.
ReplyDeleteDidn't realise bits of the old New Cross Stadium had stubbornly hung on - I remember hearing there were still bits around in the 90s, but that it had all been wiped out more recently.
I am indeed - well spotted.
ReplyDeleteNice find on the New Cross Stadium link - I'd been looking for something to link to! Updated.
And yes, apparently it turned out that the demolition hadn't been quite as thorough as everyone thought (or indeed as much as the firm carrying it out probably got paid to do).
According to the site manager I was chatting to, they basically found that a significant amount of it remained, and had just been covered up with a foot or so of topsoil.
There's an article on Transport Briefing about TfL's future LO upgrade plans and 5 car 378's. Any insight John? I can't afford the £2million subscription sadly!
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested in seeing plans of the Bermondsey Diveunder, other than the sketch on the old London Connections site. Are any available online?
ReplyDeleteAlso, as passenger loadings increase, are there plans to relay track on Platform 1 at Clapham Junction?
Those unfamiliar with the layout around Surrey Quays might be interested in the RCH diagram.
The amount of passive provision at SCR is surprising and it makes me rather happy! I've also been musing about what LO extension could come next.
ReplyDeleteI think the Blackfriars to Loughborough Junction section is rather like Shoreditch to Dalston. It would require new stations on a viaduct (Walworth, Camberwell). I suspect the main problem would be how to connect to the extended ELLX (with Peckham/Dalston or Clapham being the obvious destinations from Blackfriars to avoid the Herne Hill junction).
I also wonder how hard it would be to extend from Clapham Junction to East Putney. This would relieve pressure on Wandsworth Town and the southern District line. I believe there is enough slow line capacity. It would require an easy flyover rebuild at East Putney and a new flyover at Clapham Junction, but it would seem similar in scale to ELLX phase 2 and a very useful link.
Any more about what is happening at Clapham Junction – platform 2? Or am I assuming more is happening than really is?
ReplyDeletePlatform 1 @ CJ would be the sensible idea - but it's "too difficult"
ReplyDeleteTRANLSATION: a] Expensive & b] We can't be arsed.
They would have to move two/three signalling "cabinets" (oh the difficulty!) and it is rumoured (how convenient) that shoring up the supposedly-weak outside supports for (slow-moving electric units) would also cost, so they're going for the cheap, shoddy option, with less operational flexibility.
Completely off-topic (perhpas I should have posted to the "borisaghast" thread) but of futire interest is this piece which means that after 2012, I may be able to give up flying again ....
Finally, Idd like to echo Lemmo's request, that if possible a more detailed picture of the actual layouts envisaged after all the dive/over/unders are built would be really nice.
@Greg
ReplyDeleteIf they're planning to use use "Front coaches"/"Rear coaches" off the same track on the same platform face, then yes that would lead to "less operational flexibility."
But AIUI the plans are for building out one end of the island towards the old non-platform through line, effectively turning the existing platform into a new bay. Operationally there's not much difference that if the platforms just happened to be on opposite sides of the island.
(It might lead to a few challenges for pathing the occasional steam excursion that happens to use that through line, but it's nothing that can't be fixed by starting Windsor-line excursions at Waterloo instead of Victoria - it's not like there's a shortage of unused platforms at Waterloo!)
Sorting out platform 1 proper at Clapham Junction was looked at, but yes - it was decided that it was too complex/expensive to do within the time and budget constraints associated with ELLX2. Apparently the arches are in a shocking state.
ReplyDeleteI know in my head how the new platform configuration there will look. If it's useful to people I can sketch it out and scan it in - can't guarantee it'll be high art, but it'll give you an idea!
With regards to the dive-under, I'll see if Network Rail can give us an updated diagram.
On the subject of lengthening the 378s, I had some interesting conversations with Howard Smith about this. They are indeed designed for it, but its a tricky subject that goes beyond that. On the NLL there's the issue of platform lengths at places like Dalston Kingsland, as well as stabling the extended trains. There's a lot of infrastructure crammed into not-a-lot of space on that line, and I think there's a real reluctance to do too much more to it for a while unless they really have to. Plus, there's a genuine question over whether lengthening the trains is the best action to take first anyway - the signalling will support more services on the line, so an increased effort to move freight away from the NLL along with more services might be the better solution.
On the ELL, the issue of platforms becomes even more of an issue when it comes to lengthening the trains (think about Wapping and Rotherhithe, for example).
Here again, more services is what TfL are looking at as a more likely path right now, and there is talk of running the new Clapham services as soon as its technically possible to do so, even if this means they actually run empty (and out of passenger service) up until Surrey Quays for now.
One thing they're still waiting for on the ELL, though, is for the peak spread to settle down. This is the idea that, once a service hits a certain frequency (with the ELL now has), people stop targetting a specific train as much (e.g. the 8:03) and start taking a more turn-up-and-go approach. This is the point the ELL is now at, and passenger flows are thus likely to change slightly over the coming months. No point increasing (or planning new) services until you know WHERE these should go.
In terms of the future of the Overground, I got some good info on TfL's current thinking and some food for thought from Smith as well. I didn't want to weigh this post down further with it though, as there's enough to do a proper "What Next for the Overground?" post out of it.
The trouble is finding the time - unfortunately my "paying" projects (like publishing the online version of The Dark Side) don't yet pay me enough to go part time!
As it stands, I've got some time blocked out tonight and tomorrow evening for writing though. I was planning on exploring some interesting Crossrail 2/Chelney developments & semantics (as Mwmbwls hinted at in his Borisaghast piece), but if people would prefer me to write that Overground piece first then I'll happily do so.
My vote goes to the Overground piece John.
ReplyDeleteyep overground!
ReplyDeleteHere is the TfL document on Recommendations for the High Level Output Specification for 2014-2019
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/Item05-RUP-12-July-2011-HLOS2-recommendations.pdf
My understanding is that ELL will go to 16 trains/h from December, with the current 4 each from West Croydon, Crystal Palace and New Cross being joined by four embryo SLL trains between Highbury and Surrey Quays. They will run empty to and from Silverwood depot to reverse for now, although LO is looking at whether there is capacity to turn them back in P1 at New Cross Gate.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting article.
ReplyDeletere: increasing train lengths on the ELL, when first built the stations were capable of taking 6 carriage trains, its only because passenger demand did not warrent it and single unit A stock trains already were 4 cars in length that it is many years since longer trains served this line. (Possibly not since through Hammersmith trains were withdrawn in WW2).
AIUI the real complication is Canada Water, the station added in the 1990's and which was built with short 4 car platforms. Resolving this would require yet another closure, which would be deeply unpopular. Far better to increase service frequencies, which of course is something you refer to in your article. btw, I thought that Clapham Junction trains will reverse at Dalston Junction, not Hightbury & Islington. Apart from the issue of platform capacity (at H&I) it will also encourage people going to CJ to travel via the NLL and WLL, which is wholly outside zone 1. The significance of this is that going via the ELL and SLL passes through a station in zone 1, so will attract a much higher fare.
Simon (citytransport.info)
I'll vote Overground too.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point on Canada Water restricting the ELL trains. To be fair in my experience if they keep the trains running through under 4 minutes apart there isn't a need for longer trains.
The exception is the West Croydon trains which seem to be fuller than most.
Presumably at Canada Water they could set 6 coach trains up so that the first and last coaches don't stop in the platform using selective door opening.
I'm also interested why they don't do the Bermondsey fly under now whilst they are working in the area anyway as this would save costs of setting up offices, stores etc. Plus during the main rebuilding it would be of extra help as it would mean that Thameslink Trains do not have to cross on a flat junction in front of Charing Cross and terminating trains when there are restricted platform faces at London Bridge.
Whilst on "Overground" and touching on a previous subject ...
ReplyDeleteDid you realise that there used to be a direct Hackney Downs - Hackney Central connection, prior to the latters' wartime closure?
Restoring that, and shortening the distance from platform-to-platform from approx 350 metres to 105, and without going down some very dodgy streets, would be a really good idea!
I'm also interested why they don't do the Bermondsey fly under now
ReplyDeleteI asked the same question on site. As one project manager (who will go unnamed) replied:
"Because this is Network Rail we're talking about."
JB 15:59
ReplyDeletePresumably because NR promised they weren't going to do anything to London Bridge or further south on Thameslink till after the Olympics and focus on getting the Farringdon to Borough Market section done without distractions? (i.e. no works scheduled works going on during the Olympics) EEL phase 2 extension is bit different as it isn't NR and should in in the testing phase at that point .
@Greg
ReplyDeleteThe Hackney stations link is back in TfL's HLOS2 recommendations.
More on those recommendations in the Overground post that I'll now do!
@Anon 17:46
Actually I believe ELLX2 goes onto a development embargo then too (due to the connections to Old Kent Road Junction), although if they really needed to do work I think they'd probably be allowed to.
If they are going to run a 16 tph service from December 2011 then I don't see why they couldn't temporarily have 8 tph to New Cross if they can't terminate them at NXG. If my memory serves me correctly the East London line managed this level of service when it was part of the underground.
ReplyDeleteRe: Old Kent Road Junction - are you able to confirm that this will be a flat junction between the SLL and the ELLX?
ReplyDeleteIs it correct to say that the third viaduct on the new ELL line is disused?
ReplyDeleteDisused in respect of the line underneath the viaduct maybe. But the top of the viaduct is one of the main lines into London Bridge isn't it?
Good article.
Thanks
@ zin92, you are partly correct. This viaduct carries the Brighton mainline tracks, but the southernmost part (on The Den side) carried the chord down to the Bricklayers Arms branch, now disused.
ReplyDeleteI've wondered whether the old routes to the Bricklayers Arms branch could not be used for a future Crossrail? But it seems that this option will be lost with the Bermondsey Diveunder.
On Canada Water and platform, is this definitely true that the ELL has capacity for 6-car trains, except Canada Water? If so, what was the design rationale behind that? Also, do the new stations north (Shoreditch etc.) have 6-car platforms or 4-car?
On the new section of the East London line I believe that the platforms are only four cars long but passive provision was made for up to eight. There is a good diagram in the document referenced bt Matt-Z (figure A.1) showing TfL's preferred platform lengthening scheme. Canada Water, Rotherhithe, Wapping and Shadwell stay as four car with SDO. I can understand the first three but I thought there was space at Shadwell to extend into the very deep open cutting there.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to find out if anybody ever did any research into an interchange in the area of the fly-unders? as especially the one under the line out to Grenwich and beyond would seem feasible to do - it would clearly require a platform hung each side of the viaduct, and steps down to platforms on the ell on one side of the viaduct, but it would seem a much better way of spending money that SCR! (although I admit it may well be much more expensive) but this would be beneficial to a lot of people in the rotherhithe area heading out that way (which looking at the way Evelyn street and the surrounding area is always build up with traffic (again I admit much of this is usually caused by the blackwall or rotherhith tunnels being closed for some protracted amount of time while 'recovey' (or massive police investigation into a minor tragic collision) takes place....)
ReplyDeleteAfter all what the residents of south east London really want and need is an integrated north to south & east to west transport system that does not require a half mile hike to get between distant interconnections, or just lots of up/down lines taking us all to London bridge and back......... (again I admit this is the most profitable model to run - but has the least impact of the local population through whos nabourhood the trains run!
Interesting that they've chosen Upminster as the signalling centre for the NLL. How do they get past the 25-year time lag between Upminster and the rest of London?
ReplyDeleteGreat pictures, and interesting to see how much progress is being made. Howeever, I'm having trouble orienting myself to the pictures of the ELL link. How many viaducts does it pass under? (there seem to be at least three, since we can see two round-arched viaducts in some views, and another one with square arches (if that's not an oxymoron). It would be easier to understand if we knew
ReplyDelete1. what tracks the viaduct in each view carries
2. which way the view is facing (towards Surrey Quays / towards Peckham)
I agree with anonymous that I think that replacing the waste plant with a massive rail hub would be an excellent idea. A station there could massively relieve London Bridge and offer something that London Bridge could never do - an interchange with the orbital LO route.
ReplyDeleteAt a stroke it becomes viable for all those on the fast services into London Bridge to hop on LO at "Surrey Canal Junction" and dispersing along that route rather than clogging up zone 1.
...a Clapham Junction of the East, if you will.
The rail hub idea - a "Clapham Junction of the East" Don't New Cross and New Cross Gate already give access to LO for the SE and Brighton main lines? Yes, not everything stops there, but not everything stops at Clapham Junction. If there were a demand for more interchange with LO, stopping more trains at NX/NXG would be a much cheaper solution.
ReplyDeleteThe "Clapham Junction of the East"/"Deptford Park" has seemed to me to be a good idea for a while and I'm surprised there seems to have been little visible consideration of it. If built it would seem clear that New Cross would cease to receive LO trains, allowing a higher frequency to Peckham or Sydenham. I assume the main argument against is that a large housing development next to a large power station wouldn't be popular (and the development would be needed to fund/justify the station).
ReplyDeleteYeah, it would be cheaper...but not much use for those wanting to head west along the SLL route, unless they want to change again at Surrey Quays, anyway. Few non-all stations services stop at New Cross and New Cross Gate because...well...what would be the point? What interchange opportunities do they give you?
ReplyDeleteA single station though...that makes it worthwhile as you can get to all the locations on the South Eastern network from all of those heading up the L&C branch of the BML. The fact that the ideal place for that to happen is where the orbital LO line to Peckham (which is severing it's services to London Bridge lets not forget)) passes seals the deal.
The London Bridge- Peckham axis wiull not be completely severed, there will still be gtrains on the Londion Bridge - Peckham - Tulse Hill route. And SLL stations to South Eastern destinations is already possible using the Victoria - Lewisham services via Nunhead. None of these seem to be particularly heavily used.
ReplyDeleteOf course if a large housing development or business park generated more local traffic that would change things completely. But if such a thing would be needed to justify a new station, existing demand for interchange here can't be very strong.
It is of course possible to change at London Bridge between all these routes
There is already a 'Clapham Junction' to the east of London, however its also north of the river!
ReplyDeleteIts called "Stratford"
It has 18 platforms, but if you include 3a and 10a plus remember that the DLR's platform 4 is really two platforms then the tally rises to 21.
What I think is meant on this page is a CJ of south-east London...
Simon
Do we know if there was ever any consideration given to running the Crystal Palace ELL services on to Clapham Junction via Streatham Hill, replacing the Outer South London Line? That would have made it easy to run them through CJ platform 17 on to the WLL, like Southern's South Croydon-Milton Keynes services, solving the problem of not being able to run a through orbital service while still calling at Clapham Junction.
ReplyDeleteThe downside to that is that it's a much longer journey from Clapham Junction to the core ELL corridor, which I suppose is one of the main purposes of the extension. But maybe eventually you could take over both the Inner and Outer SLL services?
...ah yes, I'd forgotten about the Lewisham-Nunhead services...an excellent point.
ReplyDeleteThere's all sorts of monkeying-about you could do that would negate those, but I'll just concede the point for now.
...and I do believe taking over the outer SLL was looked at at some point, to be operated as an extension of the WLL services to Crystal Palace. Personally, I think it's a great idea, even better than the considered phase 2 option of East Dulwich to Wimbledon.
...now, West Croydon to Wimbledon via Sutton then up to East Putney and back to Clapham Junction...that's something I haven't heard about, but would like to see...
@ Anon 16 July 2011 23:12
ReplyDeleteOuter SLL overground - They would not be allowed to for overcrowding reasons. In the future 10 carriage trains with SDO for 4 for a chunk of the route!???
Those trains are often 8 carriages at the moment are usually very full (lots standing) with lots of people getting off at London Bridge or Victoria would would be hacked off at having to change on to few more crowded remaining trains. Given that NR are extending platforms to 10 cars shortly because of over crowding 4 may be 5 carriages will not cut the mustard as there are large chunks of the line that have no more available paths so over crowding would increase. Multiple flat junctions (South of Clapham J, South of Balham, Streatham Hill - Tulse Hill - West Norwood triangle, North of Crystal Palace) and the need to fit in with services on other lines (or even Thameslink which runs through Norwood J - Tulse hill non stop, or freight paths to WLL means this is a non starter. The service would also be likely be every unreliable due to the number of interactions with different routes.
Also no ELL interaction with the future Crossrail 1 limit usefuless of the route.
Existing setup provides the same routes (with changes) but more capacity
"In the future 10 carriage trains with SDO for 4 for a chunk of the route!???"
ReplyDeleteLets not be silly.
(snip good but slightly ranty-formatted points)
Paths over the junctions wouldn't be an issue as you'd be replacing existing services. You'd just be diverting them away from the terminals (freeing up capacity for longer-distance semi-fast services) and spreading the load between each of the orbital route's interchanges with the system rather than concentrating them all at London Bridge and Victoria.
Give the high-capacity nature of the 378s, I suspect 5 cars of that would be at least equivalent to the 6 cars of the 455/456 combos that currently haunt these routes.
IIRC, Crystal Palace currently has 6 TPH eastbound, 2 to LB, 2 to West Croydon, and 2 to Beckenham Junction. I'm only proposing to replace the 2tph to London Bridge, not the other four. Besides, whilst line capacity is constrained, in a few years time there will be a lot more due to all of the Thameslink works removing those non-stopping trains from this route (and changing the operation of the services on the Sutton Loop), perhaps enabling more frequent services to operate. It would of course interact with no more number of services than the current service, so reliability is a non-issue, likewise the paths.
...and of course it would interchange with Crossrail actually, at Whitechapel...and if they ever pull their fingers out - at OOC(east).
Come on.
ReplyDeleteExtending all the ELL platforms, including Canada Water etc is a MONEY problem, not an engineering one. If you think it's worth it, it can be done.
Will Battersea PArk - Wandsworth Town (the Atlantic Lines) close completely? Seems a stupid waste of capacity if so.
Clapham junction?
Oh really!
There was another Clapham junction - between Skipton and Wennington or Low Gill/Tebay as the case may be.
It is no longer a junction, but Clapham is still open.
6 trains a day!
Do you actually live along the outer SLL route, mr_jrt?
ReplyDeleteJust with your wonderful plan of both removing services to London terminals and forcing more people to stand on the "high-capacity" 378s I can only think you are less of a local commuter and more of a drawing-lines- on-a-map fantasist.
Reducing the Victoria to Crystal Palace service to half-hourly is truly a backwards step.
simon said... "Stratford" .. has 18 platforms, but if you include 3a and 10a plus remember that the DLR's platform 4 is really two platforms then the tally rises to 21. ... 16 July 2011 22:43
ReplyDeleteNot quite 21 but only 19 when the through DLR platforms 16 & 17 open to & from SI. There are gaps in the sequence.
Some of us would like to see the confusion rationalised by re-numbering platforms north to south through Stratford station as follows
12 (Lea Valley) to 3
11 (Lea Valley to 4
10a (Mainline freight loop) to 5
10 (Mainline reversible) to 6
9 (Mainline) to 7
8 (Shenfield / Crossrail) to 8!
6 (Central Line) to 9
5 (Crossrail) to 10
3 (Central Line) to 11
3a (Central Line) to 12
4a & 4b (DLR terminus) to 18 & 19
Problems remain for passengers at Stratford station, now that the contracted upgrade works are finished:
> no destination signs on platform 10a
> no names on the three subways (they are lettered on the National Rail enquiries website)
> no names on any of the multiple concourses
It is hardly possible to pass through Stratford station without being asked the way around. This doesn't seem to have sunk in with key LU, NR and NXEA people. I predict a flood of complaints after Stratford City opens on 13 September.
No, you're quite right that I don't live on the outer SLL route, nor am I a lines on a map chap. I'm just interested in improving the operation of the network, and to me that means both more useful interchanges as well as relieving the major London termini where metro services have no place clogging up limited platform capacity. Not to mention limited platform capacity at Clapham Junction...sending the trains up the WLL removes the corresponding LO services from platforms 1&2, leaving those for more services from Wandsworth Road.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how people so vehemently react to the notion of losing direct services, when the replacement indirect services would take roughly the same amount of time if you genuinely wanted Victoria.
...anyway, I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree on the utility of these things.
Here is a cheap-to-implement suggestion. Rather than extending from Crystal Palace, why not from West Croydon to Sutton and Wimbledon, joining up with the Phase 2 plan there.
ReplyDeleteDirect trains from Wimbledon to Blackfriars and beyond via Herne Hill are a waste of capacity - it's always quicket to go via Waterloo (even though the PT options between Wlo and Bfrs are so poor it's quicker to walk that last bit).
...yeah, I suggested that above, actually. I think it'd make sense once Thameslink dumps the Sutton Loop. Haydon's Road and Tooting would be the big losers though, as the rest of the loop could be handled by increased services from other routes, but there's no sensible route to serve them if LO services meandered off up towards East Putney instead. Perhaps something for Tramlink to look into.
ReplyDelete"...solving the problem of not being able to run a through orbital service while still calling at Clapham Junction."
ReplyDeleteIts not a problem at all; its prevents disruption on the WLL/NLL from affecting the ELL and SLL and vice versa.
...and by the same measure, removing those local services from Victoria removes the opportunity for all the interactions that route has from screwing up the Victoria and London Bridge station throats during disruptions ;)
ReplyDeleteCan anyone explain why there are no SLL platforms at Brixton? That would look like a serious interchange opportunity for LO with the Victoria Line plus multitudes of buses.
ReplyDeleteThis is why they're not building them. Whilst I firmly agree with you that the interchange would be fantastic, it would also be hugely expensive. I'd like to see it though.
ReplyDelete...as to why they're not there already...that's probably because East Brixton used to be good enough, and the existing Brixton platforms are on the "wrong" line.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI was wondering whether someone would pick me up on my platform numbering of Stratford station.
It is true that I included the track-less platforms between platforms 3+5 plus 6+8. But then CJ also has platforms without tracks!
I have no problem finding my way around Stratford, but then I've been using it since the 1970's and have seen (& understand) its incremental growth and changing layout.
Yes the numbering is best described as a 4 letter word (mess) but funding to sort it out seems to be unavailable. They should at least put up many large maps showing where each platform is.
Whats also bad are that when using the new passageway below the tracks at the eastern end of the station...
1) passengers climbing the stairs to eastbound platforms 6+8 will see a train describer right in front of them on the Central Line side of the island platform which is for mainline trains using the other side of the same platform! How soon will it be before people who dont know the difference between Underground and mainline trains start ending up in Epping when they wanted Brentwood?
2) The only 'next train' describer for eastbound Central Line trains is invisible to people arriving on the platform from that passageway, so I now have to either listen out for 'Sonya' or ask passengers on Central Line trains where they are going (as we know, the destination displays are near impossible to read).
3) the passageway ends at platforms 3+5, rather than the station concourse, so people wanting the 'old' station exit have to wait for a westbound Central Line train to arrive and when it opens its doors on both sides walk though it!
4) There are no Oyster pink validators near the passageway exit on platform 12 which also serves the NLL platforms...
Simon
On Brixton, the fact that the SLL/ELL misses this hub does not fit with the Mayor's and TfL's policy of strategic interchanges. However, Brixton is already at capacity with people switching to the Victoria Line. There's little benefit investing in interchange here without improved service options.
ReplyDeleteRather than an expensive station build on the SLL viaduct, I think this route should be recast as an express or a freight route. The fact that it misses the junctions at Brixton and the LCD mainline around Loughborough Jn could be an advantage.
The major investment should go on the junctions west of Brixton, and grade-separating the Victoria route from the ELL route to Clapham Jn. ELL trains would then use the existing platforms, and platforms would be reinstated on the Victoria mainline.
A Victoria Line extension on a loop to Herne Hill will improve capacity a little, as the existing platforms and turnaround at Brixton are a pinchpoint. Shame they are pushing the Northern to Battersea, it could have gone to Brixton. But how about an overground service WLL to Blackfriars?
Shame they are pushing the Northern to Battersea, it could have gone to Brixton.
ReplyDeleteI always thought that that would be the logical thing to do to relieve the Victoria line and have a sensible segregation of the Northern line central branches. Less than two miles with a possible station at Oval as well. I can see the downside is that the local buses would then have to cope with two tube lines terminating and discharging their passengers. It would be reminiscent of the well-documented problems at Finsbury Park in the 1920's and 1930's when it was the terminus for two tube lines.
I suppose another problem is that we know from the building of the Victoria line to Brixton that geological conditions in this part of London are not conducive to tunnelling. Nevertheless, for a long time I have thought this would be worth further investigation.
No jrt - my suggestion was to link the Sutton - Wimbledon route with the once-proposed route for the Overground branching off the SLL at Peckham to take the Tulse Hill route to Wimbledon. No expensive civil engineering (which would be needed for East Putney) and gives Wimbledon, Haydons Road and Tooting direct services to somewhere useful. (Wimbledon to Blackfriars/St Pancras is not useful - it's quicker via Waterloo)
ReplyDeleteTooting direct to Blackfriars/CTK is useful for me! (Both due to proximity and cheaper than the tube from Tooting Broadway.)
ReplyDelete...as mentioned above, it's somewhat offtopic, but I agree that there are far better options for the Northern Line than Battersea...
ReplyDeleteI think the geology issue is also pretty much moot given modern technology too.
I am intrigued by lemmo's idea of switching the lines around to avoid the need for platform works. It'd be nice to get rid of some of those flat junctions...but I suspect platforms on the Victoria Lines would be even more useful once the LO ones came about.
I don't know where to start with the problems of the "far better options". The idea of "Birkbeck tube station" takes some getting used to. The existing station is one of the quietest stations in South London. Probably not helped by the fact that the immediate catchment area is dominated by a cemetery. And I cannot see the middle-class citizens of West Wickham and Hayes being too happy about their ten-carriage (soon to be 12) mainline-size trains being replaced by 6-car tiddlers on the Northern line and no direct service to the city where the majority of them work.
ReplyDeleteAnd how deep are these stations going to be ? The topography around Crystal Palace means that you would need extremely deep lifts at that proposed station.
Lets not get into the cost and how the money could be better spent.
@Pedantic of Purley
ReplyDeleteI'd appreciate informed comment actually...but not here, as it's waaaay off-topic. You should be able to comment on the map itself.
I vote for an Overground article. Mike Brown & Geoff Hobbs of TfL put out a call for TfL takeover of all London's railways at the NCE's recent London's Rail Conference. I guess that's not a new idea, but the success of the London Overground concept must have made a few Government politicos sit up and take notice. If TfL are serious, then the whole LO beast would have to be rethought. It's obvious that getting more out of the existing surface railway is likely to give better value for money than more tubes. Pushing Oystercard out to all London routes has already increased inner London rail usage. The more integrated the system is, (in appearance and presentation as well as in services)the more comfortable potential passengers will be. A few more Crossrail/Thameslink style links (and interchanges) may be needed tho' to bypass all those termini. (Who would volunteer to redraw the London Rail map to make it user-friendly? Route number suggestions anyone?)
ReplyDeletesimple simon said...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
You and I are almost on the same wavelength. I wasn't suggesting that everybody found Stratford station difficult to get around. Almost every time I go there I overhear people asking for directions. The numbers that are not familiar with the place will increase sharply in September 2011 and again in July 2012.
@lemmo: I think the old Bricklayers Arms branch is the southern part of the first viaduct not the third. I think that the third viaduct is fully utilised. Regards
ReplyDeleteI thought he was going from north to south? Whatever, I put a link above to the old Railway Clearing House diagram which may help.
ReplyDelete@ Fandroid
ReplyDeleteAlthough I prefer our naming of lines to numbering, and that we wouldn't need it at the moment, if the LO continues to grow with new lines under the same branding then numbering may be the best way - just so long as it isn't every single route has another number. Just something simple like;
Overground Line 1: Crossrail
Overground Line 2: Former Thameslink services
Overground Line 3: North and West London Lines
Overground Line 3a: Gospel Oak to Barking line
Overground Line 4: East London Line services
Overground Line 5: Watford DC Line
RE Stratford: I don't think anyone usually navigates by platform numbers, but Stratford does need better signage overall. Especially once the new DLR platforms open. With the large Olympic crowds, we can't afford to have all those tourists stopping to check maps, ask questions and look around bemused at peak time.
Re viaducts and numbering:
ReplyDeleteThere are 4 viaducts.
From the south:
1. higher level 4 tracks turning into 6 tracks Southern lines from croydon so track go on to join SLL tracks before LBG
60m gap between viaduct along EEL phase 2 alignment (incinerator in gap)
2. higher level 2 tracks Southeastern via new cross
25m gap between viaduct along EEL phase 2 alignment
3. middle level 2 tracks (disused) to bricklayers arms depot join the southern most tracks on viaduct 4 towards new cross and the alignment goes underneath the tracks on viaducts 1 and 2 (and SLL) closer to LBG where the skip yards are.
tiny gap then
4. higher level 4 tracks southeastern to New Cross and Greenwich
Assumes "lower" level is EEL alignment
Suggest using bing maps birdeye to projection to have a look
Birse one of the contractors have website with even more photos:
Birse project website (link disappeared last time.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.overgroundextension.co.uk/
AIUI the problem with Stratford renumbering is that the NR signalling displays platform numbers to drivers at various running junctions, so changes involve expensive changes to the signalling system.
ReplyDeleteA couple of years ago I came up with a renumbering scheme that ran logically from south to north with minimal changes to NR numbering, but in my scheme the low level platforms would be 'lettered' specifically to differentiate them from the high level - so A,B,C for Jubilee and D,E for the new DLR.
Then:
1,2 DLR to Poplar
3,4 Central Line westbound
5 NR westbound as now
6 Central Line eastbound
7 unused
8 NR eastbound as now
9, 10, 10A, 11, 12 NR all as now
13, 14 new LO - this was the only change to NR numbering, confined to the LO routes which were being resignalled anyway at the time.
If additional funding allowed, renumbering 8 to 10A as 7 to 10 would be an optional improvement.
Anonymous, I've said something a bit similar in a comment on the Overground article. From experience, and considering visitors (even those from another part of London) I believe that each Overground service should be numbered, just like the buses are. Then you could stand on the platform at say Canada Water and know immediately that you want service O6 or O7 for Norwood Junction say (I just made those numbers up off the top of my head) When I get to the bus stop outside Waterloo, I now know instinctively that I need either route 59, 68 or 168 to get me to the stop before Euston. I can happily ignore the multitude of other buses passing by. A complex system, as Overground is becoming, needs to differentiate between services, especially those running on the same tracks. Back in the days, there was a mighty rumpus as trains on the old Southern suburban routes abandoned headcodes. That was because commuters had memorised them and didn't need to know anything else to ensure they had the right train. With programmable digital indicators on the front and sides of trains, it would be a piece of cake to bring them back.
ReplyDeleteThe distinct lines could be differentiated by use of different prefix letters - C for Crossrail, T for Thameslink ?
On district dave one poster has said that they are recruiting drivers to "run the new service starting Dec 12 via Denmark Hill"
ReplyDeleteanyone else heard that it might open this year?
Interesting. Looking at the photos of the arches beneath the line into London Bridge, I found it hard to visualise tracks with trains running over them, so I was fascinated to find pictures of the lines in situ whilst leafing through 'London Suburban Railways, East London Line by Vic Mitchell and Keith Smith (Middleton Press).
ReplyDelete