My idea for AC conversion of Euston to Queen's Park

[snowball]

So much so that it was done in the 1960's.

... because for the last mile into Euston the Watford DC shares the WCML slow lines.

 

[Chris125]

So much so that it was done in the 1960's.

Sorry, I meant in the sense that the DC line would use the wires up Camden Bank and remove the need for the DC equipment perhaps when it comes up for renewal.

Chris

 

[Trog]

The conductor rails down Camden Bank were replaced with new 150lb rails in about 2000. There were still some of the original LNWR 105lb rails in use just a few years ago. So the rails are unlikely to wear out in our life times. The contents of the local substation may have a shorter working life.

 

[snowball]

Somebody was saying earlier this year that dual electrified lines are a pain for the electrical engineer because AC requires the running rails to be earthed and DC (with 3rd rail and no 4th) requires them not to be. How is that addressed here?

 

[tsr]

The lines through Sutton are still called the Portsmouth lines, even though Portsmouth services haven't gone that way in a very long time (possibly not since the early 1980s).

They still do so - rarely, though - on diversion. It's more common for services to/from Bognor Regis to go that way, on the other hand.

 

[Kneedown]

I really don't see any problems with dc third rail electrification. I take on board the arguments that equipment and installation works out more expensive than ac and accept that future electrification should be ac (with the exception of shortish extensions to existing dc) but for existing systems i really don't see any benefit unless you intend to increase operating speeds to over 100mph, unlikely on a commuter line.
I truly believe that we should be concentrating our efforts on expanding the electrified network as far as possible, rather than converting perfectly serviceable dc electrification.

 

[swt_passenger]

Somebody was saying earlier this year that dual electrified lines are a pain for the electrical engineer because AC requires the running rails to be earthed and DC (with 3rd rail and no 4th) requires them not to be. How is that addressed here?

It may not be thoroughly addressed to the standards that would be required for a brand new installation - standards would have been different when it was installed. You are quite right about the broad reasons for the difficulties in dual electrifying, but that doesn't mean the present system is inefficient or unsafe - it may just require far more routine maintenance than a new system would, particularly in the area of corrosion prevention.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm not aware that TfL have expressed any such ambition, certainly not in recent years, for there's no obvious business case - even if they had, it can't really be accommodated alongside the current plans for HS2.

Chris

Sorry for not replying earlier. I a while back I had read in a couple of documents from TfL of a desire to reroute the Euston-Watford line via Primrose Hill to Highbury and Islington. It would have been a couple of years ago, before the HS2 plans. However on searching, I can't offhand find anything, so I guess my memory is faulty

 

[tsr]

Sorry for not replying earlier. I a while back I had read in a couple of documents from TfL of a desire to reroute the Euston-Watford line via Primrose Hill to Highbury and Islington. It would have been a couple of years ago, before the HS2 plans. However on searching, I can't offhand find anything, so I guess my memory is faulty

I thought that could not be done because of freight use of the line and thus constraints through Camden Road, plus other capacity constraints?

 

[Nym]

Most radical idea I've seen for it is extending the Northern Line from Camden Town (New platforms) to Willesden Junction, Queens Park or Harrow & Weldstone as part of the Northern Line upgrade...

 

[jopsuk]

I thought that could not be done because of freight use of the line and thus constraints through Camden Road, plus other capacity constraints?

Aye, to route any more trains along the NLL, even widened (over the section in question) to four track, you'd need to find a way to remove the freight. A "Freight orbital" connecting the main lines would be ideal but hilariously expensive

 

[mr_jrt]

Aye, to route any more trains along the NLL, even widened (over the section in question) to four track, you'd need to find a way to remove the freight. A "Freight orbital" connecting the main lines would be ideal but hilariously expensive

Doesn't have to be that severe. A new east to north curve where the Goblin crosses the GEML would enable all the freight currently running via Stratford and Camden to be routed over it, leaving the NLL between Camden and Stratford free for passenger services. Sucks for users of the Goblin though, and you still have the constraint on the NLL west of Gospel Oak, so you'd probably have to run a Camden to Stratford shuttle of some sort to ensure there were enough free paths for the freight.

...though going off on one a bit, with the curve in place at South Tottenham you could run the freight up to Hertford that way, and with a reinstated link to the Hertford loop that would get it to the ECML and the proposed EWR freight spine route - all avoiding the NLL.

Still, stepping back, I think extending the ELL from H&I to Primrose Hill as a single contiguous DC railway makes perfect sense operationally, you just need to get that freight outta there.

 

[JGR]

The East-West rail link (Varsity line etc.), whenever it gets built, along with the new chord at Ipswich, ought to somewhat mitigate the need to send so much freight through North London.

 

[jopsuk]

...though going off on one a bit, with the curve in place at South Tottenham you could run the freight up to Hertford that way, and with a reinstated link to the Hertford loop that would get it to the ECML and the proposed EWR freight spine route - all avoiding the NLL.

Take freight from one line with capacity issues and put it on one with even more capacity issues? NR are already advocating a third track for north of Tottenham Hale, wth everything to be built in such a way that a fourth track can be added, just for the passenger services.

Still, stepping back, I think extending the ELL from H&I to Primrose Hill as a single contiguous DC railway makes perfect sense operationally, you just need to get that freight outta there.

Yup

 

[Eagle]

And actually install a working connection between the ELL and NLL (there is only one crossover between the two, at the west end of H&I platform 2, and it's secured out of use and has a very abrupt voltage changeover).

 

[mr_jrt]

Take freight from one line with capacity issues and put it on one with even more capacity issues? NR are already advocating a third track for north of Tottenham Hale, wth everything to be built in such a way that a fourth track can be added, just for the passenger services.

Yup

The curve from South Tottenham doesn't pass through Tottenham Hale - the routes rejoin at Cheshunt - the line is on the loop.

 

[jopsuk]

Oops. Though Cheshunt-Broxbourne remains a bottleneck.

 

[mr_jrt]

Oops. Though Cheshunt-Broxbourne remains a bottleneck.

Indeed.

I suspect the eventual full four-tracking of the WAML will help alleviate that bottleneck though. The plan in the most expansive scheme was 4 tracks to Broxbourne station, and 3 tracks onwards to Broxbourne Junction. I suspect if this bypass concept were taken up then you'd end up with 4 tracks to the Junction and a (partial?) doubling of the Hertford East line.