-
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!
Could an extra loop be created from Greenwich to Blackheath?
- Thread starter Arendt
- 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
Good luck reversing anything in the platforms at Woolwich.
As a former resident of the Woolwich-Plumstead area, I have to ask what would be the point of such an 'extra loop'?
As far as I am aware there is no cross-over at Woolwich, the nearest being at Plumstead.
An alternative is simply for passengers to change trains at Charlton, but I suspect a bus from Greenwich to Blackheath is likely to be faster?
As far as I am aware there is no cross-over at Woolwich, the nearest being at Plumstead.
An alternative is simply for passengers to change trains at Charlton, but I suspect a bus from Greenwich to Blackheath is likely to be faster?
brad465
Veteran Member
If you want to get between the two just user the DLR and change at Lewisham. I can't see why a particular service needs to loop round in that area.
To me, the benefit (besides the direct connection that is indeed small, yet still nice) would be to relieve pressure going back into London during rush hour.
Massive amount of developments in the whole area and train frequency has gone down instead of up. Like almost half hour gap at Greenwich, seriously?
It could function more like overground rather than sending back empty trains all the way to outside london.
It seems difficult with the current setup. Perhaps they could add a little junction near the charlton police station.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Massive amount of developments in the whole area and train frequency has gone down instead of up. Like almost half hour gap at Greenwich, seriously?
It could function more like overground rather than sending back empty trains all the way to outside london.
It seems difficult with the current setup. Perhaps they could add a little junction near the charlton police station.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Dlr+train, 386 bus, in practice always around the same as just walking across the park, around 40 mins. Its ok but not great
Last edited:
That's a problem with SE's timetabling, not track capacity. It was better before and it can be better again.
#bringbacktheGillinghamsemi-fasts
Quite simply, because: a) SE don't send empty trains from GRV/DFD: they run in passenger service and b) The cost of adding a bay platform at Woolwich Arsenal is much, much higher than SE doing a spot of retimetabling (not that they ever will).
Steve White, the SE Rail MD, posted on Twitter/X a while ago that the Greenwich line will revert back to a better spaced timetable come the June 24 timetable changes.
It'd never happen and thankfully the rather stupid changes made to the timetable in 2022 should be partly rectified this summer. Whoever thought taking away services but paying no attention to resulting long service intervals wasn't making a wise decision.
However as a bit of speculation, a third platform at Woolwich A isn't a goer but there's space between Woolwich A and Plumstead for extra tracks (not a platform).
What was this used for in the past? The cutting and bridges all appear designed for 3-4 tracks for some distance.
This section wasn't part of the sidings and goods yard east of Plumstead nor what I think used to be sidings on what is now WA car park. Presumably tracks to shunt goods without impacting main lines?
However as a bit of speculation, a third platform at Woolwich A isn't a goer but there's space between Woolwich A and Plumstead for extra tracks (not a platform).
What was this used for in the past? The cutting and bridges all appear designed for 3-4 tracks for some distance.
This section wasn't part of the sidings and goods yard east of Plumstead nor what I think used to be sidings on what is now WA car park. Presumably tracks to shunt goods without impacting main lines?
1897 and 1957 OS maps show additional tracks as far east as Maxey Road, presume as part of the sidings / headshunt arrangement at Woolwich Arsenal, as well as what appear to be bay platforms on both sides at the east end of Woolwich Arsenal Station.
I'm not sure about the bridges etc further east being designed for 3 / 4 tracks. It's hard to get on Street View, but this shows Ann Street bridge which doesn't look like it's got room for an extra track.
Plumstead had a bay platform on the south / up side, which according to Kent Rail was taken out of use when the suburban services were electrified in 1926 - it also mentions two sidings to the west of the station for loco stabling, taken out of use at the same time, but these don't show on any OS maps.
Did someone say central reversing siding?
Apart from the fact the curve would be extremely tight, there's a car pound and another rail line in the way, plus Lewisham can't handle any extra trains, yeah, sounds good to me...
The Angerstein branch line is in the way, as is a Met Police car pound. The land could well be developed in the coming years as well.
Plumstead does still have sidings and it is used sometimes for turning back when engineering work going on. It used to be much larger of course and lead into the Royal Arsenal site too in addition.
The Elizabeth line siding is nearby but I don't think on land that was ever previously sidings or a goods yard. Lots of vacant land now lies empty beside the Southeastern sidings last used as a Crossrail construction compound.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The Elizabeth line siding is nearby but I don't think on land that was ever previously sidings or a goods yard. Lots of vacant land now lies empty beside the Southeastern sidings last used as a Crossrail construction compound.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That's brilliant thank you. You're right it didn't extend each as much as I thought and only a couple of hundred metres.
Last edited:
Now, I'm not holding my breadth that this is going to happen, in a country where it is too expensive to open a station entrance,
but all the concerns mentioned so far are just minor hence not really worth the ridicule
-as the advanced technical analysis attached shows, the curve would be the same as at london bridge so doable,
- just buy out the police car pound/make a comprehensive plan during redevelopment.
The 2 arguments can not both be correct, it either is not possible because of the car pound that cant be bought out, or because development has already been planned.
- angerstein not used anymore for anything important
- Lewisham platform 4 sees no frequent trains at all. But if a problem just send every other train at current frequency back via this route. compensate with more london bound.
The question was on theoretical possibility and whether it would be useful; my conclusion is via woolwich probably too impractical but
just adding this junction it could work. Overground shows how much more popular the inner city lines are.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
might need to move the A102 a few meters, but hey - minor technicality
but all the concerns mentioned so far are just minor hence not really worth the ridicule
-as the advanced technical analysis attached shows, the curve would be the same as at london bridge so doable,
- just buy out the police car pound/make a comprehensive plan during redevelopment.
The 2 arguments can not both be correct, it either is not possible because of the car pound that cant be bought out, or because development has already been planned.
- angerstein not used anymore for anything important
- Lewisham platform 4 sees no frequent trains at all. But if a problem just send every other train at current frequency back via this route. compensate with more london bound.
The question was on theoretical possibility and whether it would be useful; my conclusion is via woolwich probably too impractical but
just adding this junction it could work. Overground shows how much more popular the inner city lines are.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
might need to move the A102 a few meters, but hey - minor technicality
Attachments
M'lud, this appeal does not contain any advanced technical analysis, so I shouldn't have to answer it. I do? Really? Fine... It's not too tight a curve, it's the fact that it would likely need a 15mph speed restriction and it's in a residential area - not many people like flange squeal at 5am - and I speak from experience.
If you can give them a suitably-sized (several hundred cars by the looks of it), then perhaps they'll budge.
Yes they can. Some of the land is empty, and can therefore be redeveloped. Also, can you buy out the car pound if the developer has beaten you to it?
Angerstein were not available for comment, but
It's not about Lewisham station; it's about its nearby Diamondland (crossover edition), which was at capacity (until SE simplified it in December 22) and is a single point of failure. It can't handle more trains.
So deprive Charlton, Woolwich, Plumstead, Abbey Wood and Slade Green of peak-time services? Not gonna go down well, I'm afraid.
As pointed out in post #13, there is non-railway land that would need to be purchased. (It was once a large railway depot for signals, established by the SER before it was sold off by BR.) The curvature is also too tight for passenger rolling stock to move at any useful speed.
There was no bay platform at Woolwich Arsenal station. On the south side of the line there was an extensive siding with cattle/horse unloading/loading facilities. Cattle were unloaded here for a Royal Arsenal Co-Op Society abattoir a couple of miles away near Plumstead Common. The horse usage was well-used in WW1 in particular for entraining horse artillery from the Royal Artillery barracks on Woolwich Common.
On the north side of the line, a siding ran along the back of the down platform into a large goods shed, but a wall along the platform back edge separated the platform from this siding.
The 1916 edition of the OS 25":1mile map shows both the bay platform and at the west end of the cutting two short sidings accessed from the bay line with a stage between them - I believe this is the loco servicing facility.
A comprehensive description of the line can be found in the Middleton Press publication "Charing Cross to Dartford" (ISBN 0 906520 75 4, published in 1990 - possible there is a more recent edition?)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's in use most days for aggregate movements which otherwise might end up on the roads.
- Status