On 16 Sep, 22:25, Jamie Thompson
gmail.com> wrote:
> Thought I posted this earlier but it doesn't seem to have
> appearred.....
>
> On 16 Sep, 18:55, "Paul Scott"
btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> somersetchris wrote:
>>> Not quadrupling through Camden Rd will create a very nasty pinch
>>> point. As soon as trains get west of Camden Rd they are effectively on
>>> four track anyway (2 via Gospel Oak and 2 via Primrose Hill). With it
>>> also effectively going to be 4 tracks east of Dalston (2 to New Cross
>>> and 2 to Stratford) what is needed is 4 tracks between Dalston and
>>> Camden Rd. This is going to remove a lot of pathways for freight and
>>> non LOROL trains from the NLL.
>
>> There would still have been a 2 track junction (pinch point) at the west end
>> of Camden Rd anyway.
>
> Given the works to be/being performed to enlarge the Hampstead tunnel
> and bridges on the Gospel Oak routes to enable more freight to reach
> the WCML without crossing the GEML or using the NLL, could the NLL not
> have effectively become a two track railway from Stratford to Gospel
> Oak (all OLE), with the ELL being a segregated (all DC) two track
> railway from Dalston to Queens Park/Watford? (ignoring the Bakerloo
> reextension) В All that would have been required is for the pinch point
> to the west of Camden Road that was to remain in the original works to
> be upgraded by widening the viaduct for 10-odd metres or so, and a
> crossover would have enabled any remaining NLL freight to access
> Primrose Hill as required. Said freight wouldn't have dedicated refuge
> loops, but then most of it'd probably be running via the far quieter
> Gospel Oak route instead.
>
That's an interesting idea, one I've not come across before (at least
not in that exact form). We've certainly discussed four tracking to
the west of Camden Road before (actually in the context of sending
Eurostars from the CTRL/HS1 along the NLL then via Primrose Hill and
up the WCML), which would require minimal acquisition of land and
demolition of property (it'd cause considerable disruption whilst it
was being constructed, but you can't make an omelette... etc).
Possible problems are freight blocking up the GOBLIN route - the LO
passenger services are set to become more frequent - and also the
freight crossing at the junction onto the Primrose Hill route.
Arguably the problem here is the freight trains - without them then
the DC lines to Watford would more or less become an extension of the
ELL with some Bakerloo trains along for the ride as well, especially
if one sacrificed the DC line service to Euston - and arguably one
could ditch the Bakerloo line service as well, as the frequent LO
service could possibly be sufficient. But add in the freight trains
and the potential for delays increases - though the voice of reality
in the back of my head is saying that even without freights, there's
more than enough that might go wrong. The absolutely critical thing
for ELL trains is that they hit their slot on the mainline to Croydon
- if they don't, then they put a spanner in the works for the rest of
the Southern Region (well, the south central division at least).
>
> If they do decide to revisit Camden to finish the job, I do hope they
> consider the benefits of doing as much as they can at once given the
> disruption it'll cause to the line.
>
I absolutely agree. The other problem with saying things like 'well
one day they can revisit this should the need for it grow' (as I did
upthread) is that the momentum gets lost and nothing ever happens...
I'm just hoping that ELLX phase 2 doesn't wither and die in this
manner. (The cynic in me says that, despite Boris' pronouncements of
its importance, the electoral landscape of this part of south London
might mean that pushing this through is not a top priority, though of
course it is the Treasury that holds the purse strings on this one -
make it happen, Darling!).
