Highbury and Islington Platform 2 electrification

[jetblast787]

Hey all,

I was conducting a survey at HHY this morning and I noticed that the end of platform 2 has overhead electrification (from the end of the platform footbridge westwards), but nothing in the platform. Whilst there is no third rail I could see, any idea why this section is electrified whilst the rest of the platform and platform 1 isn't?

Is it to enable reversing moves from Caledonian Road?

[goldenarrow]

I think its just an overrun for the limit of overhead electrification. Because of the way the tracks used by London Overground tracks slew between Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury and H&I , theoretically a train would have to be taken out of service at Camden Rd and then proceed wrong road via Platform 2 at Cal Rd (the now Westbound Platform with P1 taken out of use in 2008).

About four years ago, I seem to remember that there was a ELL prefixed signal before P2 at H&I bagged up with a "378 UNITS PAN DOWN" sign at the bottom, if that is still the case, then there would be no protection for a reversing train so wouldn't be able to be used to reverse North London Line trains. Tracks at Platforms 2 & 1 are fitted with 3rd rail as they are the terminal platforms for East London Line services (to New X, Croydon, and Clapham etc.).

A simplified diagram of the track and signalling layouts of the area from Open Train Times. 2L87 at P3 at Cal Rd would be a service to Stratford, P2 is normally for the opposite direction although as shown, is signalled for bi-directional running from Camden Road. As it would happen, at the time this was taken, there is a broken down freight train blocking the line to Stratford and trains are reversing at Canonbury 

[norbitonflyer]

I think I've seen before that there's a short gap between the catenary and 3rd rail sections on that track. Is it short enough for a train to coast across if a stock transfer from NLL to ELL or vice versa were required? (It can of course be done more easily at Clapham Junction)

[goldenarrow]

Jun 5, 2019 19:05:56 GMT norbitonflyer said:

I think I've seen before that there's a short gap between the catenary and 3rd rail sections on that track. Is it short enough for a train to coast across if a stock transfer from NLL to ELL or vice versa were required? (It can of course be done more easily at Clapham Junction)

I had a look at some photos and yes, the 3rd on P2 ends halfway down the platforms. I think that the separation of power supplies from 3rd rail to 25kv overheads has been deliberately made as large as possible since the TfL manages the infrastructure for the East London Line and NR likewise for the NLL. Certainly trains heading to/from Willesden Jct to Clapham coast whilst changing power supplies for quite the distance, I don't no if any specific arrangements exist for this section of track however. From memory, I think that most of the East London Line units that were sent to Ilford where towed from New Cross Depot going the long way round.

[Chris M]

I thought the East London maintenance was contracted to NR by TfL?

[goldenarrow]

Jun 5, 2019 21:59:13 GMT Chris M said:

I thought the East London maintenance was contracted to NR by TfL?

That’s what I thought too but it’s an unconventional set up for what is a fairly unique set of circumstances. I bet there is a quirk in the overlap of safety regulations.

This is just a guess, perhaps whilst the ELL is worked to mirror operations on NR in-terms of signalling , the fact that TfL are the owners of the operational infrastructure means that there is a desire to keep the two systems isolated save for this tiny price of track which I can see no reason for other than the occasional emergency stock move. I’m not even sure what other classes are authorised onto ELL metals even if it’s just in the open section over the former Broad Street lines.

[North End]

Jun 5, 2019 22:45:33 GMT goldenarrow said:

Jun 5, 2019 21:59:13 GMT Chris M said:

I thought the East London maintenance was contracted to NR by TfL?

That’s what I thought too but it’s an unconventional set up for what is a fairly unique set of circumstances. I bet there is a quirk in the overlap of safety regulations.

This is just a guess, perhaps whilst the ELL is worked to mirror operations on NR in-terms of signalling , the fact that TfL are the owners of the operational infrastructure means that there is a desire to keep the two systems isolated save for this tiny price of track which I can see no reason for other than the occasional emergency stock move. I’m not even sure what other classes are authorised onto ELL metals even if it’s just in the open section over the former Broad Street lines.

My memory is hazy on this so I could be misremembering, however something tells me the TFL/NR boundary is actually at Kingsland Road, just north of Dalston Junction. If so then the Highbury connexion is entirely within NR infrastructure.

Something else tells me that a full AC/DC interface was planned but wasn’t fully completed. Modern requirements dictate special arrangements to separate the AC and DC sections, specifically the different earthing arrangements, normally achieved by means of isolation transformers, and unless something has changed fairly recently I don’t believe this was ever provided. I don’t claim to know much about this so I could be wide of the mark, but it does tie in with the mention upthread of bagged-up assets.

[35b]

Jun 6, 2019 0:56:47 GMT North End said:

Jun 5, 2019 22:45:33 GMT goldenarrow said:

That’s what I thought too but it’s an unconventional set up for what is a fairly unique set of circumstances. I bet there is a quirk in the overlap of safety regulations.

This is just a guess, perhaps whilst the ELL is worked to mirror operations on NR in-terms of signalling , the fact that TfL are the owners of the operational infrastructure means that there is a desire to keep the two systems isolated save for this tiny price of track which I can see no reason for other than the occasional emergency stock move. I’m not even sure what other classes are authorised onto ELL metals even if it’s just in the open section over the former Broad Street lines.

My memory is hazy on this so I could be misremembering, however something tells me the TFL/NR boundary is actually at Kingsland Road, just north of Dalston Junction. If so then the Highbury connexion is entirely within NR infrastructure.

Something else tells me that a full AC/DC interface was planned but wasn’t fully completed. Modern requirements dictate special arrangements to separate the AC and DC sections, specifically the different earthing arrangements, normally achieved by means of isolation transformers, and unless something has changed fairly recently I don’t believe this was ever provided. I don’t claim to know much about this so I could be wide of the mark, but it does tie in with the mention upthread of bagged-up assets.

That makes more sense than isolation of TfL/NR assets, given that the ELL connects with NR at the southern end.

[Deleted]

Jun 6, 2019 0:56:47 GMT North End said:

My memory is hazy on this so I could be misremembering, however something tells me the TFL/NR boundary is actually at Kingsland Road, just north of Dalston Junction. If so then the Highbury connexion is entirely within NR infrastructure.

I think this is the case, because when Night Overground was announced it was only originally Dalston Junction southwards, as TfL had to negotiate with NR for overnight track access between Dalston Junction and H&I (and I don't think this was because of potential maintenance on the neighbouring North London Line tracks, though happy to be wrong there).

[Chris M]

Jun 5, 2019 22:45:33 GMT goldenarrow said:

I’m not even sure what other classes are authorised onto ELL metals even if it’s just in the open section over the former Broad Street lines.

I think the limitation on what is authorised on the ELL is due to the gradient from Whitechapel to Shoreditch High Street rather than anything to do with tunnels (I don't think the Thames Tunnel requires end doors, but I could be wrong).

[phil]

Jun 6, 2019 0:56:47 GMT North End said:

Jun 5, 2019 22:45:33 GMT goldenarrow said:

That’s what I thought too but it’s an unconventional set up for what is a fairly unique set of circumstances. I bet there is a quirk in the overlap of safety regulations.

This is just a guess, perhaps whilst the ELL is worked to mirror operations on NR in-terms of signalling , the fact that TfL are the owners of the operational infrastructure means that there is a desire to keep the two systems isolated save for this tiny price of track which I can see no reason for other than the occasional emergency stock move. I’m not even sure what other classes are authorised onto ELL metals even if it’s just in the open section over the former Broad Street lines.

My memory is hazy on this so I could be misremembering, however something tells me the TFL/NR boundary is actually at Kingsland Road, just north of Dalston Junction. If so then the Highbury connexion is entirely within NR infrastructure.

Something else tells me that a full AC/DC interface was planned but wasn’t fully completed. Modern requirements dictate special arrangements to separate the AC and DC sections, specifically the different earthing arrangements, normally achieved by means of isolation transformers, and unless something has changed fairly recently I don’t believe this was ever provided. I don’t claim to know much about this so I could be wide of the mark, but it does tie in with the mention upthread of bagged-up assets.

The LAND boundary between TfL owned land and NR owned land is indeed just to the north of Dalston Junction.

Between that point and just to the West of Highbury, TfL effectively rent the land from NR to provide the ELL infrastructure - all of which remains the property of TfL.

NR retain ownership of the trackbed on this section and certain other things like Bridge structures.

The railway systems however (signalling, rails, electrification, etc) are separately controlled depending on the owner.

This is no different to the DLR who ‘rent’ part of the viaduct between Limehouseand Cannon Street Road Junction from NR.

Now in theory TfL could maintain all their property in the Dalston - Highbury section ‘in house’ house if they wished - but given the equipment is all of the type used on the National Rail Network, it makes perfect sense to contract out maintenance to NR.

[jukes]

Jun 7, 2019 12:54:13 GMT phil said:

Jun 6, 2019 0:56:47 GMT North End said:

My memory is hazy on this so I could be misremembering, however something tells me the TFL/NR boundary is actually at Kingsland Road, just north of Dalston Junction. If so then the Highbury connexion is entirely within NR infrastructure.

Something else tells me that a full AC/DC interface was planned but wasn’t fully completed. Modern requirements dictate special arrangements to separate the AC and DC sections, specifically the different earthing arrangements, normally achieved by means of isolation transformers, and unless something has changed fairly recently I don’t believe this was ever provided. I don’t claim to know much about this so I could be wide of the mark, but it does tie in with the mention upthread of bagged-up assets.

The LAND boundary between TfL owned land and NR owned land is indeed just to the north of Dalston Junction.

Between that point and just to the West of Highbury, TfL effectively rent the land from NR to provide the ELL infrastructure - all of which remains the property of TfL.

NR retain ownership of the trackbed on this section and certain other things like Bridge structures.

The railway systems however (signalling, rails, electrification, etc) are separately controlled depending on the owner.

This is no different to the DLR who ‘rent’ part of the viaduct between Limehouseand Cannon Street Road Junction from NR.

Now in theory TfL could maintain all their property in the Dalston - Highbury section ‘in house’ house if they wished - but given the equipment is all of the type used on the National Rail Network, it makes perfect sense to contract out maintenance to NR.

The section west of Dalston Junction is indeed NR property.  The signalling is controlled from NXG which is TfL BUT the signalling staff are provided by NR who also provide the electrical power, and own all the structures as well as the stations at H&I and Canonbury.  P2 at Highbury is still designated as the ELL/NLL connection line; however, it was never brought into use and at present there are no plans to do so, unless the DC line is diverted away from Euston then, as the legend has it, 2 of its trains might be routed to NX (via this connecting line) and 2 to Stratford.  Of course, to run such a service the DC line would need more than its intended 7 Class 710/2s.

[spsmiler]

Jun 7, 2019 16:34:21 GMT jukes said:

The section west of Dalston Junction is indeed NR property.  The signalling is controlled from NXG which is TfL BUT the signalling staff are provided by NR who also provide the electrical power, and own all the structures as well as the stations at H&I and Canonbury.  P2 at Highbury is still designated as the ELL/NLL connection line; however, it was never brought into use and at present there are no plans to do so, unless the DC line is diverted away from Euston then, as the legend has it, 2 of its trains might be routed to NX (via this connecting line) and 2 to Stratford.  Of course, to run such a service the DC line would need more than its intended 7 Class 710/2s.

I recall this topic being discussed some  years ago - when the present track layout was created. It was said at the time that 'someone' (I am not sure who) was concerned that if such a link was operable it would lead to calls for it to be used by frequent passenger trains.

This makes me think of British Railways, who apparently were 'very angry' when the Beeching plan to close the North London Line was thwarted by ordinary people campaigning to keep it open and even to provide a better service so as to attract more passengers! As history has proven, these campaigners were absolutely right and the professionals* who wanted the line closed were totally wrong.

(* in what industry they were professionals I have no idea - obviously it cannot have been in providing decent, attractive public transport which aims to meet the needs of the travelling public. Maybe it was [redacted])


There are some people (including me) who would see a through service from New Cross to Willesden Junction as a good idea that passengers would appreciate. Via a reopened Primrose Hill (its shorter than going via Hampstead Heath), and 'in addition to' the existing Euston service - not instead of.

The passengers who use the service into Euston very much want this to remain as it offers the fastest way to this part of London and the West End.

[phil]

Jun 9, 2019 22:09:33 GMT spsmiler said:

Jun 7, 2019 16:34:21 GMT jukes said:

The section west of Dalston Junction is indeed NR property.  The signalling is controlled from NXG which is TfL BUT the signalling staff are provided by NR who also provide the electrical power, and own all the structures as well as the stations at H&I and Canonbury.  P2 at Highbury is still designated as the ELL/NLL connection line; however, it was never brought into use and at present there are no plans to do so, unless the DC line is diverted away from Euston then, as the legend has it, 2 of its trains might be routed to NX (via this connecting line) and 2 to Stratford.  Of course, to run such a service the DC line would need more than its intended 7 Class 710/2s.

I recall this topic being discussed some  years ago - when the present track layout was created. It was said at the time that 'someone' (I am not sure who) was concerned that if such a link was operable it would lead to calls for it to be used by frequent passenger trains.

This makes me think of British Railways, who apparently were 'very angry' when the Beeching plan to close the North London Line was thwarted by ordinary people campaigning to keep it open and even to provide a better service so as to attract more passengers! As history has proven, these campaigners were absolutely right and the professionals* who wanted the line closed were totally wrong.

(* in what industry they were professionals I have no idea - obviously it cannot have been in providing decent, attractive public transport which aims to meet the needs of the travelling public. Maybe it was [redacted])

You are trying to judge history by modern ideals - not as the prevailing attitudes were at the time.

Such a 'revisionist' approach to the past does no favours and can blind future generations to the REAL causes of the continued attempts to remove railway services in the past.

You need to remember that throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, the view of HM Government (i.e. the people who gave BR cash and set the priorities) was that railways were done for - British Rail was merely there to facilitate a managed decline of the UK rail network in favour of the private car.

British Railways WAS part of UK Government machine - and although it acted as a sort of firebreak against Politicians meddling too much in operational matters (something which is sorely missed today), like any Government department it was expected that British Rail organisation would toes the party line and absorb a lot of the criticism which really should have been laid at the door of Westminster.

In such a situation the 'professionals' as you put it, actually were indeed professional - they did what their political masters demanded and progressively tried to kill off passenger services that required lots of Treasury support. It was no doubt most frustrating to the Bean counters in Whitehall that the professionals in British Rail were unsuccessfully in this aim as regards the NLL, though they would be consoled by successes outside London which saw several routes not even mentioned the Beeching report closed. 

[phil]

Jun 9, 2019 22:09:33 GMT spsmiler said:

Jun 7, 2019 16:34:21 GMT jukes said:

The section west of Dalston Junction is indeed NR property.  The signalling is controlled from NXG which is TfL BUT the signalling staff are provided by NR who also provide the electrical power, and own all the structures as well as the stations at H&I and Canonbury.  P2 at Highbury is still designated as the ELL/NLL connection line; however, it was never brought into use and at present there are no plans to do so, unless the DC line is diverted away from Euston then, as the legend has it, 2 of its trains might be routed to NX (via this connecting line) and 2 to Stratford.  Of course, to run such a service the DC line would need more than its intended 7 Class 710/2s.

There are some people (including me) who would see a through service from New Cross to Willesden Junction as a good idea that passengers would appreciate. Via a reopened Primrose Hill (its shorter than going via Hampstead Heath), and 'in addition to' the existing Euston service - not instead of.

The passengers who use the service into Euston very much want this to remain as it offers the fastest way to this part of London and the West End.

Yes passengers may well welcome such a link - but the National Rail Network in London is not there to be the sole plaything of TfL / Overground services! Just because something can be physically done doesn't mean it is a good idea once you start looking beyond the London centric / passenger only / tube aping mindset and consider the wider situation.

Firstly the NLL is a key freight artery round London linking several radial main lines each with a different timetable which may well require freights to be recessed out the way awaiting suitable slots. As has been noted the Primrose Hill line is one such place where freights (or other departmental workings) can be recessed clear of the busy NLL or WCML which helps ensure passenger services are not held up. Yes it is possible to sometimes mitigate the issue with careful timetabling but it should not be assumed there are any easy solutions or that expensive new infrastructure would not be needed (particularly bearing in mind the next paragraph).

The second thing to consider is the problem of 'performance pollution' where delays on one route get rapidly transferred to another. Thameslink is perhaps the best example of this problem where the ECML, the MML and the BML (plus various Kent routes and the Wimbledon Loop) are all tied together and where a points failure at Windmill Bridge Junction (just to the north of East Croydon) could delay trains as far away as Derby, Leeds or Edinburgh! At present the ELL is basically an extension of the Southern suburban network - if something goes wrong on that section then the NLL is completely unaffected. If you link the ELL to the NLL then you potentially screw up the NLL - which in turn could screw up the GEML and WCML if freights get caught up in the mess......

[spsmiler]

I've seen both replies to my comment (above) and have added a reply on the new thread "Watford to New Cross and Stratford" as my comment is more relevant to that thread than this thread which is primarily about the unused connection at Highbury & Islington.

districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/30680/watford-new-cross-stratford?page=1&scrollTo=480662

Simon