-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Dudding Hill Junction
- Thread starter flappy8
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Ah, that crossover.
The whole of Dudding Hill junction was renewed over Christmas 2003. The weather was awful and everything that could go wrong did go wrong. The job overran by a whole week (not that anyone noticed). Even then that crossover wasn't done, and we had to go back a few weeks later to finish it.
As I was explaining all this to the (very bored) signaller, I asked him what used that crossover, as it would be out of use until we finished it.
"I've been here two years and never used it" was his reply. Therein started my crusade to challenge the use of every set of points in the renewal programme, as we had spent over £1m on renewing something that evidently wasn't needed.
I gather it was occasionally used to turn HSTs, and presumably could be used to get steam locos the right way in the event that one of them ever needed turning at St Pancras. I would imagine the points are swung more for maintenance checks than any service.
Thinking like yours means we don't have enough cross overs past Preston to allow proper single line working when something goes wrong (ie failed engineering train at oxenholme).
The point of those crossovers is for perturbation, just because it's not used for a couple of years doesn't mean it won't be needed...
"Challenging" the purpose of a crossover does not automatically equate to removing it...
DerekC
Established Member
Yes, but every extra crossover adds cost and unreliability, not to mention complexity in the signalling. We should be aiming for the reliable railway that only needs crossovers for operational and planned maintenance reasons, not "just in case" ones.
But it's a different railway now. Firstly, complete train failures are thankfully relatively rare now, and much less common than even a decade ago; distributed traction / engines, multiple pantographs, better on board / remote monitoring etc. Freight locos are still a problem, but not like they were.
Lines are much busier. Putting in SLW can cause huge delays, not least whilst it is arranged and the right people are got to the right places. Even with bi-di it is not unusual for trains to be delayed 2hrs in a queue waiting to get past the problem. And in that time, the failure (or whatever the problem) can usually be got out of the way.
As has been said, such crossovers are a source of unreliability, particularly when used rarely. They also cost (now) well over £1m to renew, another £1m extra when the line is resignalled, and several hundred thousand to electrify / re-electrify (in AC). Then there's ongoing maintenance. It's a awful lot of cash to spend as an insurance policy for something that rarely happens, and doesn't help much when it does.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,682
Someone needs to tell the FOCs that then, they get proper aggrieved when one is proposed to be taken out.
Having said that, they seem to normally agree to the Network Change in the end, subject to sufficient compensation being on offer to make up for the loss of a facility they haven't used in years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And which can be a source of failure in itself.
Tell me about it. But it has been the same individual in one of the FOCs for twenty years who gets uppity!
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,682
Doesn't work like that, that don't get "bunged" to accept.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Ha, but he has forgotten more than a lot of people will ever learn if it is the person I think you mean!
Oh, I know. It's just that the phrase "...should be entitled to compensation from Network Rail for the consequences of..." always seems to be in their acceptance letter.
I didn't mean to imply that they were being bought off.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
To get back to the original question, in general terms the provision of crossovers associated with the double junctions at each apex of a double-track triangle allows a train to be reversed and 'turned round'. This can be necessary for many reasons such as defective cab equipment or simply 'escaping' a points failure that has left a set of facing point lying the 'wrong' way for the next move.
It is fair to say that the process of reversing is rather time consuming, allowing for changing ends and also depends on adequate route knowledge that is difficult to maintain. Not too much of a problem for the odd light locomotive or on-track plant in a possession but of relatively little use on busy through routes.
In the particular case of Dudding Hill the lines are basically freight only (apart from occasional charters) and the number of trains that might benefit is relatively small. However, the line is the only link from the Midland Main Line to cross-London links to the south and west and arguably deserves a fair degree of resilience.
An alternative crossover exists only about a mile further west, at Neasden.
It is fair to say that the process of reversing is rather time consuming, allowing for changing ends and also depends on adequate route knowledge that is difficult to maintain. Not too much of a problem for the odd light locomotive or on-track plant in a possession but of relatively little use on busy through routes.
In the particular case of Dudding Hill the lines are basically freight only (apart from occasional charters) and the number of trains that might benefit is relatively small. However, the line is the only link from the Midland Main Line to cross-London links to the south and west and arguably deserves a fair degree of resilience.
An alternative crossover exists only about a mile further west, at Neasden.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,272
Those letters from one of the FOCs do seem to have a bit of a 'cut and pasted' look about them.
But I suppose, for example, that it must cost a bomb to officially remind every driver in the country that they won't be going to Weymouth Quay in future...
MatthewRead
On Moderation
Will passenger services ever be reinstated on this line?
Having sat in on some of the network optimisation meetings NR OPs are similarly hesitant to remove such cross overs. Although I'm sure there has been more than instance just in the area I cover of maintainence plain lining a cross over without telling any one!
It's not just times of perturbation though, there have been issues with getting engineering trains/ tampers into the right place (in a sensible amount of time) due to the lack of cross overs.
RichmondCommu
Established Member
No reason to when you have the North London Line. Bear in mind that the two stations on the route closed in 1902.
Last edited:
Mutant Lemming
Established Member
The areas it runs through have changed a little since then. A passenger service would be well patronised as it would take a lot of traffic off the very busy and exceedingly slow 266 bus route as well as create potential for links or through services to Heathrow from North West London, Herts, Beds etc as well as an inter airport link between Heathrow and Luton.
I think that passenger transport demand has changed a little in 118 years. There has been occasional mention on here of the London Overground somehow making use of the Dudding Hill line. It would relieve the busiest part of the NLL and possibly provide another route from the Thameslink corridor towards Old Oak Common which is destined to become the major transport hub west of London. There is room to provide two additional platforms at either Cricklewood and/or Hendon independent of the MML/Thamelinlk traffic.
If there was a will, with forthcoming electrification of the GOBlin including the link at Carlton Road junction, could be supplemented with a further pair of lines through to West Hampstead, (I know, expensive boring through Hampstead Heath), the relief/goods lines could then fully relieve Gospel Oak to Willesden of much GW and possibly SWML freight.
Fanciful maybe, but bigger schemes have and probably will be seriously considered.
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
Class 170101
On Moderation
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 8,661
Disagree with this comment. There are links at Carlton Road Jn to Anglia and also the WCML via the Bedford to Bletchley line. Arguably it would be Chiltern lines that would become more isolated as the Neasden Link would lost if the line closed.
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
There was a Cricklewood - Victoria service - which ended a century ago - not just though it being unable to compete with direct buses and trams down the Edgware Road - but the route was key to providing freight services to and from the Channel ports for WW1. The same "cuts" package took off a lot of odd services via Blackfriars and the Widened lines (Woolwich - Moorgate for example)
Useless fact - but cavalry horses were moved from St Albans - Dover etc via this route - the (valuable) horses being fed and rested on open / common land near to where I am typing this and despatched by rail (which would have been a journey of about 5 / 6 hours and tolerable to the livestock.
Useless fact - but cavalry horses were moved from St Albans - Dover etc via this route - the (valuable) horses being fed and rested on open / common land near to where I am typing this and despatched by rail (which would have been a journey of about 5 / 6 hours and tolerable to the livestock.
Almost certainly in the Railtrack years, when there was a nationwide programme to provide half decent (i.e. some) welfare facilities. Toilets, that sort of thing.
I've proposed the same thing for years, abet with underground platforms at Belsize Park for Northern Line Edgware branch interchange, (which, if coupled with a LO interchange at Tufnell Park/Junction Road, would go some way to relieving Camden Town station).
Supercoss
Member
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2016
- Messages
- 461
An EMT meridian set was turned on the down Cricklewood Curve-change ends-Dudding Hill Jcn- up Brent Curve ' Triangle' using this crossover on 18/07/2015 (5F81). The reason the cross over still exists is to facilitate these turning moves, mainly as the 'diamond' crossover on the main junction prevents some routes being taken. So you could also go Down Brent Curve - Dudding Hill Jcn-change ends-up Cricklewood Curve but you would have to use crossover to gain up Cricklewood line before diamond crossing.
http://bed-pan.homestead.com/73119-73213.JPG
http://bed-pan.homestead.com/DuddingHillDiagram.JPG
http://bed-pan.homestead.com/73119-73213.JPG
http://bed-pan.homestead.com/DuddingHillDiagram.JPG
On a slightly more cheerful note...
While learning one of my first boxes a relief Inspector visited. During the general chat he asked Alf (my signalman/instructor) if he still wanted number 5 crossover. Alf said "No, take it out". I thought it a bit odd but Alf gave me a look that kept me quiet. A few days later Alf held the phone away from his ear and I could hear the Inspector ranting about the crossover being still in frequent use (i.e. at least twice an hour for turn-backs). Alf (who could be ever-so-slightly cantankerous) protested that the Relief Inspector hadn't asked him if the crossover was in use but whether he wanted it.
I guess that similar tales might have been told apocryphally - but I was there for this one... It gave Alf immense pleasure.
Happy days
While learning one of my first boxes a relief Inspector visited. During the general chat he asked Alf (my signalman/instructor) if he still wanted number 5 crossover. Alf said "No, take it out". I thought it a bit odd but Alf gave me a look that kept me quiet. A few days later Alf held the phone away from his ear and I could hear the Inspector ranting about the crossover being still in frequent use (i.e. at least twice an hour for turn-backs). Alf (who could be ever-so-slightly cantankerous) protested that the Relief Inspector hadn't asked him if the crossover was in use but whether he wanted it.
I guess that similar tales might have been told apocryphally - but I was there for this one... It gave Alf immense pleasure.
Happy days
RichmondCommu
Established Member
Just out of interest what was the reason for turning the Meridian?
Class 170101
On Moderation
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 8,661
1st Class at country end instead of London End perhaps?
nom de guerre
Member
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 801
On a slightly more cheerful note...
While learning one of my first boxes a relief Inspector visited. During the general chat he asked Alf (my signalman/instructor) if he still wanted number 5 crossover. Alf said "No, take it out". I thought it a bit odd but Alf gave me a look that kept me quiet. A few days later Alf held the phone away from his ear and I could hear the Inspector ranting about the crossover being still in frequent use (i.e. at least twice an hour for turn-backs). Alf (who could be ever-so-slightly cantankerous) protested that the Relief Inspector hadn't asked him if the crossover was in use but whether he wanted it.
I guess that similar tales might have been told apocryphally - but I was there for this one... It gave Alf immense pleasure.
Happy days
Signallers, ever-so-slightly cantankerous? Surely not...
- Status