Fast / Slow Line Layout

"John Salmon" <john.e.sal...@gensheet.com> wrote

> Other than Slade Lane (already mentioned), the only place I can think of
> where the pairing changes without the benefit of a flyover is Skelton
Bridge
> Junction, just north of York. Are there any others?

At Wigston North Junction the Midland Main Line used to change from
paired by use (North to Leicester) to paired by Direction (South)
until the four tracks were reduced.


Peter

"Cats" <ramwater@uk2.net> wrote in message
news:3063ed18-f722-46ea-8507-49bcc0af922a@x41g2000hsb.************.com...
On Jul 17, 12:01 pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" <cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
>> Finally, the Metropolitan Line from Finchley Road to Harrow-on-the-Hill
>> is arranged UF, US, DS, DF, UM, DM. The Marylebone pair are to one side
>> for obvious reasons, but I'm not clear why they put the slows inside the
>> fasts.

>Possibly the slows came first and the fasts were added later, but
>having the slows on the inside means just one island platform and one
>set of access stairs is needed. I can't remember, though, if that's
>what the arrangements are!

It certainly is at West Hampstead, Kilburn, Willesden Green and Dollis
Hill - all of which have single islands on (what is now) the Jubilee.
Neasden IIRC is slightly different - I think it has a platform on the Up
Met, though it's not often used as in theory the Met doesn't serve Neasden.
These are in very typical and rather attractive 1930s LU style presumably
dating from the quadrupling. Finchley Road of course has Met platforms, so
the layout here is up and down islands. Again, this dates from the new
construction in the '30s(??) when the Bakerloo was extended north from Baker
Street to Finchley Road via new stations at St John's Wood and Swiss Cottage
(taking over the slow tracks north of Finchley Road as far as Wembley Park,
plus the Stanmore branch), allowing the intermediate stations between Baker
Street and Finchley Road on the Met to be closed. Consequently the whole
line from Finchley Road to Harrow-on-the-Hill is very well laid out,
allowing some Met trains to run non-stop Harrow-FR. Coupled with a dive
across the platform into a Jubilee train, it's a good route to the West End.

North of Harrow it's not quite so good - as has been mentioned above.

Regards

Jonathan

"John Salmon" <john.e.salmon@gensheet.com> wrote in message
news:8ZadnZfXV-dH9eLVnZ2dnUVZ8sPinZ2d@bt.com...
> "Chris Johns" <cmj@eh.org.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0807171559250.2790@avalonia.loc al...
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
>>
>>> The GER (Liverpool Street), the MR (St.Pancras), and the GWR
>>> (Paddington) went for paired by use. The GNR (King's Cross) and the LSWR
>>> (Waterloo) pair
>>
>> The GER also swaps the pairs just south of Ilford with a flyover.
>
> Other than Slade Lane (already mentioned), the only place I can think of
> where the pairing changes without the benefit of a flyover is Skelton
> Bridge Junction, just north of York. Are there any others?

Kings Norton - the Camp Hill and West Suburban lines come together at the
station as two routes, and then to the south the two inner tracks cross over
to give DS, DF, UF, US. The layout through the station is (in effect) DS,
US, DF, UF - except that the only platforms used are the DS and UF. I'm not
sure what the Up platform line is actually designated. But it's a right
mess, that couldn't be sorted out cheaply.

Regards

Jonathan

<rob499@************> wrote in message
news:8081db85-a836-43ca-afc5-a584d9640671@k30g2000hse.************.com...
On 17 Jul, 14:28, Sam Wilson <Sam.Wil...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <431247c04f%R...@greywall.demon.co.uk>,
> Graeme Wall <R...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In message <tmr88jrp7n00.yzx4cobed7a4....@40tude.net>
> > Chris Tolley <cj...@supanet.com> wrote:
>
> > > IRL, of course, things are rarely as black and white as that, so the
> > > layout will be designed to optimise the number of conflicting
> > > movements,
> > > which is one reason why rail layouts are sometimes redesigned when
> > > service patterns change.
>
> > While I'm sure we all suspect there are layouts specifically designed to
> > optimise conflicting movements the intention is usually to minimise them
> > :-)
>
> The pedant in me has to point out that "optimise" does not necessarily
> mean "maximise"... :-)
>
> Sam

>What nobody has pointed out yet is that when a main line is built as a
>2-track railway and then widened to a 4-track (as happened on the
>Great Western, for example), pairing by use is much easier than
>pairing by direction.

Well, it's certainly much cheaper - and usually nastier. Also, we tend these
days to think in terms of passenger traffic but many of the dedicated slow
lines (the Midland south of Wellingborough springs to mind) were almost
completely self-contained freight railways, where pairing by use did make
sense.

But I still think in modern conditions pairing by direction makes more
sense - who would build a motorway with DS, US, DF, UF? The southern part of
the WCML has now missed two chances to put its layout right - particularly
in the 1960s. Yes, it would need a flyover for the Northampton line, of
course.

Regards

Jonathan

Chris Tolley wrote:
> Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
>
>> At a terminus, you want the fast lines on one side and the slow
>> lines on the other, so that you keep the two groups of services
>> separate from each other.
>
> That wasn't always so, though, was it - some termini had arrival sides
> and departure sides. When did Euston change?
>
> I also half-recall reading something about station layouts that
> asserted that the terminus layout with the greatest throughput would
> be such an arrangement with a reversing siding (or loop, though that
> would turn the trains) beyond the arrival and departure platforms.

Doesn't the Heathrow T5 terminal have examples of different layouts? IIRC
the Central Line has a reversing siding beyond the platforms, unlike some
other LU terminal stations, such as Brixton, and Elephant etc. OTOH HEx has
the normal crossovers outside the station...

Paul

"Chris Tolley" <cjt.7@supanet.com> wrote
>
> That wasn't always so, though, was it - some termini had arrival sides
> and departure sides. When did Euston change?
>
> I also half-recall reading something about station layouts that asserted
> that the terminus layout with the greatest throughput would be such an
> arrangement with a reversing siding (or loop, though that would turn the
> trains) beyond the arrival and departure platforms.
>
Paddington didn't really change until 1967. It was designed on the basis
that all main line trains would be taken out to Old Oak Common for
servicing, although locos could be watered and turned at Ranelagh Bridge.
This meant that there had to be up (via the flyover) and down engine and
carriage lines between the terminus and Old Oak Common.

Peter

On 18 Jul, 10:46, Graeme Wall <R...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <41n084p1hgiqoujs8kgmbd5qc35e5m2...@********>
>           David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:07:05 GMT someone who may be Chris  Tolley
> > <cj...@supanet.com> wrote this:-
>
> > >That wasn't always so, though, was it - some termini had arrival sides
> > >and departure sides.
>
> > I imagine most did. Firstly an arrival platform and a departure
> > platform, which was then repeated in larger form with subsequent
> > rebuilding. Of course in those days trains had/needed a fair amount
> > of attention and it was also useful to release the locomotive ASAP.
> > This led to the typical arrangement of an arrival side, departure
> > side, empty stock lines and locomotive/carriage facilities in
> > cheaper locations to the station itself. This was only changed from
> > the 1960s onwards.
>
> > >I also half-recall reading something about station layouts that asserted
> > >that the terminus layout with the greatest throughput would be such an
> > >arrangement with a reversing siding (or loop, though that would turn the
> > >trains) beyond the arrival and departure platforms.
>
> > Such a loop was proposed in a number of instances from about 100
> > years ago, particularly in London. I have vague recollections of
> > Euston and Waterloo, but may well be wrong. One was built on one of
> > the tube lines, I forget which (Charing Cross perhaps), but later
> > abandoned as part of an extension.
>
> The Piccadilly Heathrow extension involves a loop.
>
> IIRC the Central Line had a loop at White City.

It did once upon a time.

The current loop referred to is at Kennington on the Northern line
(from the Charing Cross direction).

With driverless trains like on the DLR, the reversing siding at Bank
works just as well as a loop.

On 18 Jul, 12:44, Graeme Wall <R...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <84a3ac49-ad62-4dc6-9ea6-95446e022...@t12g2000prg.************..com>
>           MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18 Jul, 10:46, Graeme Wall <R...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In message <41n084p1hgiqoujs8kgmbd5qc35e5m2...@********>
> > >           David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:07:05 GMT someone who may be Chris  Tolley
> > > > <cj...@supanet.com> wrote this:-
>
> > > > >That wasn't always so, though, was it - some termini had arrival sides
> > > > >and departure sides.
>
> > > > I imagine most did. Firstly an arrival platform and a departure
> > > > platform, which was then repeated in larger form with subsequent
> > > > rebuilding. Of course in those days trains had/needed a fair amount
> > > > of attention and it was also useful to release the locomotive ASAP.
> > > > This led to the typical arrangement of an arrival side, departure
> > > > side, empty stock lines and locomotive/carriage facilities in
> > > > cheaper locations to the station itself. This was only changed from
> > > > the 1960s onwards.
>
> > > > >I also half-recall reading something about station layouts that asserted
> > > > >that the terminus layout with the greatest throughput would be such an
> > > > > arrangement with a reversing siding (or loop, though that would turn
> > > > > the trains) beyond the arrival and departure platforms.
>
> > > > Such a loop was proposed in a number of instances from about 100
> > > > years ago, particularly in London. I have vague recollections of
> > > > Euston and Waterloo, but may well be wrong. One was built on one of
> > > > the tube lines, I forget which (Charing Cross perhaps), but later
> > > > abandoned as part of an extension.
>
> > > The Piccadilly Heathrow extension involves a loop.
>
> > > IIRC the Central Line had a loop at White City.
>
> > It did once upon a time.
>
> > The current loop referred to is at Kennington on the Northern line
> > (from the Charing Cross direction).
>
> Can't find a reference to one at Kennington but David is correct about there
> being one at Charing Cross, it opened 6th April 1914 and continued in use
> until the opening of the extension to Kennington in 1926.


Yes, and I think it went under the Thames for part of its length. The
Bakerloo must have already crossed the Thames, so that section must
have been quite crowded with crossing tunnels.

I wonder if avoiding the loop has anything to do with why the Northern
Line platforms are above each other at Embankment and the Bakerloo
platforms are above each other at Waterloo?

On Jul 17, 10:18 pm, "Jonathan Morton"
<jonat...@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> wrote:

> It certainly is at West Hampstead, Kilburn, Willesden Green and Dollis
> Hill - all of which have single islands on (what is now) the Jubilee.

Willesden Green has platforms on both Met. lines, always has had.

> Neasden IIRC is slightly different - I think it has a platform on the Up
> Met, though it's not often used as in theory the Met doesn't serve Neasden.

Neasden also has platforms on both NB and SB Met.


--
Nick

On Jul 18, 12:18 am, Andy <andyp...@**********> wrote:

> Both Willesden Green and Neasden have platforms on the Met tracks.
> These used to be used by trains at the start and end of the service,
> but I'm not sure if this is still the case. Met trains do sometimes
> stop when the Jubilee line has planned engineering work though.

Not these days, well at least not Willesden Green, lighting and
signing is to standard only for emergencies not for routine calls.

Earlier this year there were a few weekends when Willesden Green only
was closed for station works; no trains called at all.


--
Nick