London Bridge reconstruction works

[Bald Rick]

The reason the late night trains run via Cannon Street is due to a possession of the Dn Charing X & Up Cannon St. lines that goes on at 2355 each weekday night. Trains could call at plat 4 London Bridge but would need to be manually dispatched since all the CD & RA equipment has been removed.

They couldn't call there late at night, because as you say there is a possession in the way.

 

[Philip C]

The reason the late night trains run via Cannon Street is due to a possession of the Dn Charing X & Up Cannon St. lines that goes on at 2355 each weekday night. Trains could call at plat 4 London Bridge but would need to be manually dispatched since all the CD & RA equipment has been removed.

Thank you for correcting my appreciation of the situation.

 

[IanKR]

Yes, there'll be quite a significant slew. I found an aerial view taken from the Shard that shows the new 'shape' well:
https://c4.staticflickr.com/4/3717/9372293202_e6ca242e05_b.jpg

Spectacular picture

 

[mr_jrt]

Random thought.

That picture reminds me - were it not for that tower between the old and new viaducts, could we fit another pair of lines through there?

The main viaduct west of Metropolitan Junction is already has 5 tracks, 6 in places, and could easily be widened to 6 the whole way to Ewer Street Junction, IMHO. Obviously doesn't help you get more platform at London Bridge, but you could probably come up with something acceptable given the planned layout which gives CX 4 platforms with two of those essentially being loops. Promote them to full lines and job's a good'un.

 

[MikeWh]

The reason the late night trains run via Cannon Street is due to a possession of the Dn Charing X & Up Cannon St. lines that goes on at 2355 each weekday night.

I think the possession must have been a bit late this evening. Although NRE described delays of up to 20 minutes through London Bridge, one train, the 2322 from CHX arrived at WAE on time but passed through LBG 115 late!

The 2352 from CHX never seemed to arrive and must surely be cancelled while the 0022 was diverted to start from VIC. Plenty of delay repay tonight.

 

[Bald Rick]

Random thought.

That picture reminds me - were it not for that tower between the old and new viaducts, could we fit another pair of lines through there?

The main viaduct west of Metropolitan Junction is already has 5 tracks, 6 in places, and could easily be widened to 6 the whole way to Ewer Street Junction, IMHO. Obviously doesn't help you get more platform at London Bridge, but you could probably come up with something acceptable given the planned layout which gives CX 4 platforms with two of those essentially being loops. Promote them to full lines and job's a good'un.

But what's the point? You couldn't run any more trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the possession must have been a bit late this evening. Although NRE described delays of up to 20 minutes through London Bridge, one train, the 2322 from CHX arrived at WAE on time but passed through LBG 115 late!

The 2352 from CHX never seemed to arrive and must surely be cancelled while the 0022 was diverted to start from VIC. Plenty of delay repay tonight.

Power failure of the old signalling, combined with a number of passengers deciding to get off the train when not at the station.

 

[Chris125]

That picture reminds me - were it not for that tower between the old and new viaducts, could we fit another pair of lines through there?

This is completely the wrong way to think about railway infrastructure.

 

[mr_jrt]

This is completely the wrong way to think about railway infrastructure.

If you say so, it was just inviting a bit of discussion. I just musing that going from four tracks through Waterloo East down to two, then back to four through London Bridge and back down to three beyond strikes me as imposing additional constraints on the timetabling that result in the service being less robust than it could be.

 

[MikeWh]

If you say so, it was just inviting a bit of discussion. I just musing that going from four tracks through Waterloo East down to two, then back to four through London Bridge and back down to three beyond strikes me as imposing additional constraints on the timetabling that result in the service being less robust than it could be.

The four through London Bridge effectively allows one train to be departing at the same time as the next one arrives - the two tracks between there and Waterloo East can easily cope, especially as you won't have to close the down CX lines when a train departs up from the old platform 5.

 

[Peter Sarf]

If you say so, it was just inviting a bit of discussion. I just musing that going from four tracks through Waterloo East down to two, then back to four through London Bridge and back down to three beyond strikes me as imposing additional constraints on the timetabling that result in the service being less robust than it could be.

If all trains are stopping at London Bridge then you will need roughly twice as many platforms as there are tracks feeding them either end. More platforms if trains take longer to load/unload. Otherwise the platforms will be the restriction on capacity. The up through line next to the old platform 6 existed to alleviate the restriction caused by platform 6.

Mind you it worries me that Thameslink only has two platforms at London Bridge and Cannon Street only has three !.

 

[hwl]

If all trains are stopping at London Bridge then you will need roughly twice as many platforms as there are tracks feeding them either end. More platforms if trains take longer to load/unload. Otherwise the platforms will be the restriction on capacity. The up through line next to the old platform 6 existed to alleviate the restriction caused by platform 6.

Mind you it worries me that Thameslink only has two platforms at London Bridge and Cannon Street only has three !.

On the last point Cannon Street will be 22tph but Blackfriars will be 16tph hence circa 1/3 more capacity.

On the Charing Cross lines capacity will still be limited by the 6 platforms at CHX rather than anything else.

4 tracks all the way from LBG to CHX might actually make no difference (or make things worse) as there is a change from paired by direction to paired by use and the twin track section sorts this effectively.

 

[QueensCurve]

This is completely the wrong way to think about railway infrastructure.

Perhaps you could tell us what the right way to think about railway infrastructure is?

The picture is a very good view of the improvement to Borough Market viaduct which will allow an extra two lines to go through with the Thamelink lines secregated on the North side.

 

[67018]

Perhaps you could tell us what the right way to think about railway infrastructure is?

The picture is a very good view of the improvement to Borough Market viaduct which will allow an extra two lines to go through with the Thamelink lines secregated on the North side.

I think the suggestion is 'look at the requirement, then think about how it can be met'. As opposed to 'there's some space, let's build some track there'.

 

[neilm]

Do not forget the public enquires which I think limited what Railtrack and network rail could do...

 

[Chris125]

I think the suggestion is 'look at the requirement, then think about how it can be met'. As opposed to 'there's some space, let's build some track there'.

That's exactly what I mean.

 

[Jimini]

Spectacular picture

I only check this thread once every so often, but if anything significant changes drop me a PM, I work in the News Corp building (don't judge me please!) in the "baby shard", so if you need a Level 17 perspective I'd be happy to pop upstairs and take a photo or two for the forum. We get amazing views of the ongoing works around the building from our top floors.

 

[QueensCurve]

I think the suggestion is 'look at the requirement, then think about how it can be met'. As opposed to 'there's some space, let's build some track there'.

And this was the significant break from British Rail practice which was "let's see what we can afford an do that".

Rugby and Reading (Thameslink?) were based on seeing what was required and providing that.

 

[Philip C]

And this was the significant break from British Rail practice which was "let's see what we can afford an do that".

Rugby and Reading (Thameslink?) were based on seeing what was required and providing that.

And, in the case of Reading, letting architects intent on "leaving a message to future generations" in. What a pity that this means that, for the life of the station, most connections will take far longer than strictly necessary due to the decision to stick the connecting bridge "up in the clouds" presumably because it looks better! Under BR penny-pinching that feature of the station would have been less likely to have been afforded.

 

[NotATrainspott]

And, in the case of Reading, letting architects intent on "leaving a message to future generations" in. What a pity that this means that, for the life of the station, most connections will take far longer than strictly necessary due to the decision to stick the connecting bridge "up in the clouds" presumably because it looks better! Under BR penny-pinching that feature of the station would have been less likely to have been afforded.

How much higher is the bridge than it would actually need to be, with electrification clearances and all that?

 

[swt_passenger]

How much higher is the bridge than it would actually need to be, with electrification clearances and all that?

I don't think it is excessively high, certainly using the stairs seems very little different to say Coventry. It's what you get when you start with OHLE at its optimum height and then design a bridge over it, many existing stations have had the wiring added under an existing bridge with ensuing compromises to the installation and clearances. It doesn't mean everything has to take the same short cuts.

Digging a similarly dimensioned subway (in terms of length and width) under the existing station while still in use would have been nigh on impossible. I reckon any perceived extra time taken to interchange is much more to do with the much greater overall width of the station, nearly double what it was before, hardly surprising with nine through platforms as opposed to the original four.

 

[Taunton]

It was a sad day when architects were allowed to become dominant in station design. The rot really became noticeable with the Jubilee Line Extension. When the Victoria Line was done in the late 1960s great efforts were made in its alignment etc to minimise connecting time, it's full of cross-platform connections and the like. The JLE went to the opposite extreme and put the platforms, it seems, as far away from existing lines as they could, but the effectively separate station meant they could scoop up a whole raft of architectural design awards from their mates.

At West Ham the Jubilee platform (island) is effectively underneath the District platform (island). One set of stairs would be great. Instead it requires three separate sets of stairs, two with escalators, and big overlong interchange passages to do a Down-Along-Up-Along-Down between the two. Needless to say the architect scooped awards for their "wonderful" design :roll:

At Reading the new over-high bridge presumably allows for unimpeded catenary height suitable for 140 mph running underneath. Its design doubtless coincided with the progressive change in timetables over the years so that now virtually every service stops at Reading ...

I do believe the Treasury has given an ultimatum to DfT that they do NOT want to fund any more public transport infrastructure spending that becomes an architect's ego trip at the annual awards.

 

[NotATrainspott]

At Reading the new over-high bridge presumably allows for unimpeded catenary height suitable for 140 mph running underneath. Its design doubtless coincided with the progressive change in timetables over the years so that now virtually every service stops at Reading ...

I believe the maximum speed through the station is going to be 95mph, if I remember correctly. The building is high enough for the electrification underneath to be unimpeded, which is a good thing for reliability and maintenance.

 

[Philip C]

How much higher is the bridge than it would actually need to be, with electrification clearances and all that?

According to the National Rail Enquiries Plan of Reading Station there are 40 steps from platform level to the new overbridge level (44 from some platforms) and in terms of tread height they seem fairly standard.

When a train passes beneath this new retail opportunity/interchange bridge there appears a vast amount of excess height over and above that needed for wiring. Perhaps there is provision for future double/triple deck trains - though you'd need internal escalators to get the upper decks used!

Or is it all an optical illusion? Perhaps a member local to the area could comment?

For the present I remain of the opinion that Civic Pride / Liege Guillemins Envy has over-ridden passenger convenience. When I next miss a connection there, due to those stairs and/or endless escalators, I shall no doubt have time to swoon at the splendor that is Reading Station as I am intended to do.

 

[NotATrainspott]

According to the National Rail Enquiries Plan of Reading Station there are 40 steps from platform level to the new overbridge level (44 from some platforms) and in terms of tread height they seem fairly standard.

When a train passes beneath this new retail opportunity/interchange bridge there appears a vast amount of excess height over and above that needed for wiring. Perhaps there is provision for future double/triple deck trains - though you'd need internal escalators to get the upper decks used!

Or is it all an optical illusion? Perhaps a member local to the area could comment?

For the present I remain of the opinion that Civic Pride / Liege Guillemins Envy has over-ridden passenger convenience. When I next miss a connection there, due to those stairs and/or endless escalators, I shall no doubt have time to swoon at the splendor that is Reading Station as I am intended to do.

Isn't that why there are escalators and lifts? If your connection can be missed simply because the bridge is a few metres higher up than it used to be, then that isn't really NR's fault. The bridge will be at the height it is because it complies with the normal standards for new bridges over electrified mainline railways. Modified or pre-existing structures would be able to get away with less clearance but when they've completely rebuilt the station as they've done, they're going to take the opportunity to make sure there's more than enough space for completely standard equipment underneath. A comparable redevelopment is that of Haymarket station, where the existing overbridge was replaced by a brand new overbridge concourse, and it looks like the clearances aren't particularly different.

 

[Philip C]

Isn't that why there are escalators and lifts? If your connection can be missed simply because the bridge is a few metres higher up than it used to be, then that isn't really NR's fault. The bridge will be at the height it is because it complies with the normal standards for new bridges over electrified mainline railways. Modified or pre-existing structures would be able to get away with less clearance but when they've completely rebuilt the station as they've done, they're going to take the opportunity to make sure there's more than enough space for completely standard equipment underneath. A comparable redevelopment is that of Haymarket station, where the existing overbridge was replaced by a brand new overbridge concourse, and it looks like the clearances aren't particularly different.

The very wonderful NRE site gives an indication that Haymarket is 34 steps up from platform to overbridge. Now I'll not argue that 6 extra steps is some vast difference but, to my eyes, the bridge at Reading is far higher than necessary and it is all "architect's vanity". If the asset is to last, say 60 years, how many people will have "marched up to the top of the hill and marched down again" in that time. And for what?

PS. In digging out the number of steps on the computer I came across reference to the escalators being out of service (quelle surprise!). The fact that, as presently set up, these escalators have also been designed to allow passenger washing facilities in a south-westerly is another benefit of building for looks and not function.

I note that this Thread is about London Bridge and so shall now desist my rant about Reading!

 

[gtr driver]

It was a sad day when architects were allowed to become dominant in station design. The rot really became noticeable with the Jubilee Line Extension. When the Victoria Line was done in the late 1960s great efforts were made in its alignment etc to minimise connecting time, it's full of cross-platform connections and the like. The JLE went to the opposite extreme and put the platforms, it seems, as far away from existing lines as they could, but the effectively separate station meant they could scoop up a whole raft of architectural design awards from their mates.

At West Ham the Jubilee platform (island) is effectively underneath the District platform (island). One set of stairs would be great. Instead it requires three separate sets of stairs, two with escalators, and big overlong interchange passages to do a Down-Along-Up-Along-Down between the two. Needless to say the architect scooped awards for their "wonderful" design :roll:

At Reading the new over-high bridge presumably allows for unimpeded catenary height suitable for 140 mph running underneath. Its design doubtless coincided with the progressive change in timetables over the years so that now virtually every service stops at Reading ...

I do believe the Treasury has given an ultimatum to DfT that they do NOT want to fund any more public transport infrastructure spending that becomes an architect's ego trip at the annual awards.

Actually the Victoria Line was built on the cheap, during an age of naked car worship and an anti public transport stance from the top down. Platforms and passageways are narrow and thus cause frequent backups; the new tunnels were not built to mainline gauge so full size trains could not be used even when the fleet was renewed. It was very much on a grudging this or nothing basis. The original Jubilee Line was not exactly heavily resourced either. With the extension the stations were actually built to meet increased footfall - especially as they were serving new growth areas in and around the Docklands. Short narrow staircases equals people still trying to exit when the next train comes in and before long you're closing the station to anyone else until the crowds thin - we have seen at Victoria every day for years.

Stopping every train at Reading reflects changes in travelling. It's a major centre of employment now as well as a source of heavy commuting into London; and will presumably become more of a hub when Crossrail and the direct link to Heathrow go live.

The railway is slow enough to change as it is; let's be grateful that an attempt to adapt is actually being made.

 

[QueensCurve]

Actually the Victoria Line was built on the cheap, during an age of naked car worship and an anti public transport stance from the top down. Platforms and passageways are narrow and thus cause frequent backups; the new tunnels were not built to mainline gauge so full size trains could not be used even when the fleet was renewed. It was very much on a grudging this or nothing basis. The original Jubilee Line was not exactly heavily resourced either. With the extension the stations were actually built to meet increased footfall - especially as they were serving new growth areas in and around the Docklands. Short narrow staircases equals people still trying to exit when the next train comes in and before long you're closing the station to anyone else until the crowds thin - we have seen at Victoria every day for years.

Stopping every train at Reading reflects changes in travelling. It's a major centre of employment now as well as a source of heavy commuting into London; and will presumably become more of a hub when Crossrail and the direct link to Heathrow go live.

The railway is slow enough to change as it is; let's be grateful that an attempt to adapt is actually being made.

The Victoria Line, being a tube line, was built to a tube line gauge. In fact my understanding is that the tubes were bored at 11' diameter as against 10' for the earlier lines.

The Victoria Line makes a very elegant cross-platform interchange with the Piccadilly Line at Krapy Rubsniff. I think this was Taunton's point.

Reading allows for trains to pass non-stop at 100mph, not 140. This in an improvement on the previous speed limit of 80mph on the through lines.

 

[jopsuk]

The Victoria Line, being a tube line, was built to a tube line gauge. In fact my understanding is that the tubes were bored at 11' diameter as against 10' for the earlier lines.

Was it at any point proposed to be a larger gauge? eg Crossrail (and future Crossrail 2) are sort-of "Tube" lines.

 

[mr_jrt]

Was it at any point proposed to be a larger gauge? eg Crossrail (and future Crossrail 2) are sort-of "Tube" lines.

My understanding was that all of these schemes have undergone many revisions, and that the Victoria Line was something along the lines of an evolution of the express Northern Line concept originally. Rather than repeat things though, I'll just suggest you have a looksie here.

 

[Class377/5]

It was a sad day when architects were allowed to become dominant in station design. The rot really became noticeable with the Jubilee Line Extension. When the Victoria Line was done in the late 1960s great efforts were made in its alignment etc to minimise connecting time, it's full of cross-platform connections and the like. The JLE went to the opposite extreme and put the platforms, it seems, as far away from existing lines as they could, but the effectively separate station meant they could scoop up a whole raft of architectural design awards from their mates.

At West Ham the Jubilee platform (island) is effectively underneath the District platform (island). One set of stairs would be great. Instead it requires three separate sets of stairs, two with escalators, and big overlong interchange passages to do a Down-Along-Up-Along-Down between the two. Needless to say the architect scooped awards for their "wonderful" design :roll:

The Victoria Line was done on the cheap. It's why the platforms can barely cope with today's loading.

The JLE was actually planned to cope with passenger loadings for around 100 years. The Victoria Line failed to even reach 50 years before station closures became the norm to cope with passenger flows.

Add for West Ham, you have failed to notice the existing station being on one side of the road, moving it leaves NLL cut off the building from the local population. So than making everyone using the station walk even the was allow the District, Hammersmith and c2c passengers to exit easier while the JLE and NLL/DLR passengers go as had to happen due to the local layout. Also forgot that being your arrangement would require complete rebulding of the Fenchurch/District viaduct in the area, raising costs, timescales and likely have left South Essex facing major closures to accommodate a sub par so the interchange passengers benefit more that all those using the existing lines along with future users. Sorry but your view just makes the station much harder to use for all.

Was it at any point proposed to be a larger gauge? eg Crossrail (and future Crossrail 2) are sort-of "Tube" lines.

Crossrail 2 origins are shared by the Victoria Line back the late 30s, 40s.