Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 18, 2010 15:37:47 GMT
It wasn't actually a suggestion, merely a question as unlike pretty much every other depot on SSR lines I hadn't heard mention of it. Nevertheless you're response does answer the question.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jun 18, 2010 20:42:23 GMT
Lillie Bridge and Ruislip are both vast depots, and the stabling at the former is taking advantage of some "spare capacity." There is also some "spare capacity" at Ruislip, but I haven't heard it mentioned. I was informed by a very reliable source earlier that the ex-Thameslink lines still very much on the cards, along with some other very interesting trackworks that are in the pipeline over the coming months. I'm sure you will understand if I don't share them here and now - not wishing to annoy anyone by dangling such a carrot. Let's just say they wouldn't fit with the thread - and we do always try to stay on thread ;D ;D  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2010 21:51:46 GMT
Lillie Bridge and Ruislip are both vast depots Vast could go some way to describe Ruislip but certainly does not describe Lille Bridge. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Jun 18, 2010 22:55:49 GMT
Lillie Bridge and Ruislip are both vast depots Vast could go some way to describe Ruislip but certainly does not describe Lille Bridge. But Lille Bridge does has room for expansion under Earl's Court 2. Currently only a couple of the tracks use the full length of the space available south of the shed. |
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jun 19, 2010 8:40:59 GMT
Vast could go some way to describe Ruislip but certainly does not describe Lille Bridge. But Lille Bridge does has room for expansion under Earl's Court 2. Currently only a couple of the tracks use the full length of the space available south of the shed. Two of the roads that will be used are the long roads to which you refer - 1 and 10 - and each of these will stable three trains each. As for the rest (certainly between 2 and 9) IIRC they all come to a dead end against the concrete of EC2! I'm fairly certain of this - I've been over there so many times lately I''m sufferning from Lillie Bridge fatigue! Bear in mind though that EC2 and the surrounding area is all due for redevelopment - I think the plans are for a Westfield style shopping mall across the whole area - LU is to sell the air space above Lillie Bridge and I suppose it'll all be rafted over. Ashfield House will go too I understand. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Jun 19, 2010 17:00:09 GMT
But Lille Bridge does has room for expansion under Earl's Court 2. Currently only a couple of the tracks use the full length of the space available south of the shed. Two of the roads that will be used are the long roads to which you refer - 1 and 10 - and each of these will stable three trains each. As for the rest (certainly between 2 and 9) IIRC they all come to a dead end against the concrete of EC2! I'm fairly certain of this - I've been over there so many times lately I''m sufferning from Lillie Bridge fatigue! Bear in mind though that EC2 and the surrounding area is all due for redevelopment - I think the plans are for a Westfield style shopping mall across the whole area - LU is to sell the air space above Lillie Bridge and I suppose it'll all be rafted over. Ashfield House will go too I understand. My idea of the current Lille Bridge layout is that the shed roads all come together after passing through the shed and link into the headshunt at the end of road 10. Some of the rest of the space is filled with sidings branching out from roads 1 and 3 (to the east of the shed). This is based on the Quail track maps and looking onto the site from the West London Line. The space between the shed and the wall underneath EC2 could be converted in to dead end sidings, rather than the current layout. This would give room for stabling units south of the shed, mainly underneath EC2. As it stands at the moment, most of the space underneath EC2 isn't really used. The layout is fine for engineering trains, but not so good for stabling passenger stock. |
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jun 19, 2010 19:40:40 GMT
My idea of the current Lille Bridge layout is that the shed roads all come together after passing through the shed and link into the headshunt at the end of road 10. Some of the rest of the space is filled with sidings branching out from roads 1 and 3 (to the east of the shed). This is based on the Quail track maps and looking onto the site from the West London Line. The space between the shed and the wall underneath EC2 could be converted in to dead end sidings, rather than the current layout. This would give room for stabling units south of the shed, mainly underneath EC2. As it stands at the moment, most of the space underneath EC2 isn't really used. The layout is fine for engineering trains, but not so good for stabling passenger stock. With the greatest respect I think if you're basing your comments on Quail diagrams that are old and out of date; I suspect going back to before Earls Court 2 was constructed (or if later assumed there were no alterations to the layout when EC2 was built). At this time I can't post a schematic plan of the location but I will attempt to describe the layout as best I can; forgive me if this post becomes rather protracted! 1) 1 Road extends all the way under EC2 and comes to an end at the roadway which is off Empress Place. To give you an idea of its length, this is one of the roads on which we will stable three S Stock trains - each of which are over 117 metres long! There is currently a spur off 1 Road (1A Road) which extends up to the EC2 building - this is to be decommissioned 2) 10 Road is similar to 1 Road, excepting that there is no spur road - see later. 3) 2 Road Runs up as far as the EC2 building; at the top of this are pits which were built when the alterations associated to EC2 were done but apparently these were never used! There is also a spur from this road - 2A Road - as with 1A Road this is to be decommissioned. 4) 3 Road no longer exists - it was removed when the EC2 alterations were done. 5) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 Roads are the shed roads; all these run up to the EC2 building and trains can be shunted between roads from these and all give access to 10 Road. 6) 11 and 12 Roads are both accessed from 10 Road - there are connections at both the West Kensington and EC2 ends. 7) The Stores Road (unnumbered) is adjacent to 12 Road and is also accessed via 10 Road, also at the EC2 end; this road roughly goes about as far as the mid point of the sheds. I hope all that makes some sense and helps you visualise how it's all set up. Though I have been getting many photos whilst I've been working over there, these are more associated with the stuff I've been doing, rather than general views of the site; I'll see if it's possible to get some that may give an idea of what I'm describing! |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Jun 19, 2010 21:17:33 GMT
My idea of the current Lille Bridge layout is that the shed roads all come together after passing through the shed and link into the headshunt at the end of road 10. Some of the rest of the space is filled with sidings branching out from roads 1 and 3 (to the east of the shed). This is based on the Quail track maps and looking onto the site from the West London Line. The space between the shed and the wall underneath EC2 could be converted in to dead end sidings, rather than the current layout. This would give room for stabling units south of the shed, mainly underneath EC2. As it stands at the moment, most of the space underneath EC2 isn't really used. The layout is fine for engineering trains, but not so good for stabling passenger stock. With the greatest respect I think if you're basing your comments on Quail diagrams that are old and out of date; I suspect going back to before Earls Court 2 was constructed (or if later assumed there were no alterations to the layout when EC2 was built). At this time I can't post a schematic plan of the location but I will attempt to describe the layout as best I can; forgive me if this post becomes rather protracted! 1) 1 Road extends all the way under EC2 and comes to an end at the roadway which is off Empress Place. To give you an idea of its length, this is one of the roads on which we will stable three S Stock trains - each of which are over 117 metres long! There is currently a spur off 1 Road (1A Road) which extends up to the EC2 building - this is to be decommissioned 2) 10 Road is similar to 1 Road, excepting that there is no spur road - see later. 3) 2 Road Runs up as far as the EC2 building; at the top of this are pits which were built when the alterations associated to EC2 were done but apparently these were never used! There is also a spur from this road - 2A Road - as with 1A Road this is to be decommissioned. 4) 3 Road no longer exists - it was removed when the EC2 alterations were done. 5) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 Roads are the shed roads; all these run up to the EC2 building and trains can be shunted between roads from these and all give access to 10 Road. 6) 11 and 12 Roads are both accessed from 10 Road - there are connections at both the West Kensington and EC2 ends. 7) The Stores Road (unnumbered) is adjacent to 12 Road and is also accessed via 10 Road, also at the EC2 end; this road roughly goes about as far as the mid point of the sheds. I hope all that makes some sense and helps you visualise how it's all set up. Though I have been getting many photos whilst I've been working over there, these are more associated with the stuff I've been doing, rather than general views of the site; I'll see if it's possible to get some that may give an idea of what I'm describing! I think the only difference between that description and my view is that the shed roads (4 - 9) are not shown as running to the EC2 wall, but that they all come together into the road 10 headshunt. Quail (dated November 2008) shows this type of arrangement (not easy to do without a fixed font) for the southern end of the shed roads (and no. 10) (with = being the shed, | being the end of the shed / the wall of EC2, - and \ being the track and . being used as spacefillers.) =====|...................| 4 -----|----.............| 5 -----|----\............| 6 -----|-----\...........| 7 -----|------\..........| Earl's Court 2 Wall. 8 -----|-------\.........| 9 -----|--------\.......| =====|.............\......| 10--------------------| ...............................| Are you saying the roads 4-9 now all extend to the wall, whilst still retaining the access to the headshunt at the end of road 10? |
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jun 19, 2010 22:02:51 GMT
I think the only difference between that description and my view is that the shed roads (4 - 9) are not shown as running to the EC2 wall, but that they all come together into the road 10 headshunt. Quail (dated November 2008) shows this type of arrangement (not easy to do without a fixed font) for the southern end of the shed roads (and no. 10) (with = being the shed, | being the end of the shed / the wall of EC2, - and \ being the track and . being used as spacefillers.) =====|...................| 4 -----|----.............| 5 -----|----\............| 6 -----|-----\...........| 7 -----|------\..........| Earl's Court 2 Wall. 8 -----|-------\.........| 9 -----|--------\.......| =====|.............\......| 10--------------------| ...............................| Are you saying the roads 4-9 now all extend to the wall, whilst still retaining the access to the headshunt at the end of road 10? I have to say I'm having to do this from memory as to be honest beyond the sheds I'm not interested - we will not operate service trains beyond the shed on 7, 8 and 9 Roads - they are the only shed roads we will be using. If the depot require trains shunted to the south of the shed (i.e. towards EC2) this will be done by depot staff. Thinking about it I think I am incorrect in saying those roads go as far as the EC2 wall and your interpretation is more correct; certainly they all converge towards and eventually join 10 Road. However if we go back to your previous thought 'As it stands at the moment, most of the space underneath EC2 isn't really used. The layout is fine for engineering trains, but not so good for stabling passenger stock.' I am sure that the shed roads couldn't be extended sufficiently that they would offer enough space to stable trains without fouling the points towards 10 Road because of the physical structure of EC2; again I'd have to have a look to confirm this for certain! |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Jun 19, 2010 22:26:18 GMT
I have to say I'm having to do this from memory as to be honest beyond the sheds I'm not interested - we will not operate service trains beyond the shed on 7, 8 and 9 Roads - they are the only shed roads we will be using. If the depot require trains shunted to the south of the shed (i.e. towards EC2) this will be done by depot staff. Thinking about it I think I am incorrect in saying those roads go as far as the EC2 wall and your interpretation is more correct; certainly they all converge towards and eventually join 10 Road. However if we go back to your previous thought 'As it stands at the moment, most of the space underneath EC2 isn't really used. The layout is fine for engineering trains, but not so good for stabling passenger stock.' I am sure that the shed roads couldn't be extended sufficiently that they would offer enough space to stable trains without fouling the points towards 10 Road because of the physical structure of EC2; again I'd have to have a look to confirm this for certain! I just remembered to have a look on Google Maps. There is a reasonable view (with a 2010 copyright date) of the layout of the sidings before they dive underneath EC2 here: maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Earls+Court&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=17.204076,27.421875&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Earls+Court,+Greater+London,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.48929,-0.20016&spn=0.001104,0.001674&t=h&z=19 Visually, from the West London Line, there doesn't seem to be much in the way between the buffers on road 1 and the other side of the space underneath EC2, but lengthening the shed roads to the end of the space would probably mean losing the connection to road 10. |
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jun 20, 2010 8:08:47 GMT
Visually, from the West London Line, there doesn't seem to be much in the way between the buffers on road 1 and the other side of the space underneath EC2, but lengthening the shed roads to the end of the space would probably mean losing the connection to road 10. When a train is stabled at that position on 1 Road - which will be known as '1 Bottom' (and the same applies for a train in a similar position on 10 Road) - they are pretty much tight up to the walls of EC2. There is just room for a walkway to the wall side of the train, but it is very restricted; they will not form part of our walking route. I'm almost certain that you are correct concerning the loss of the connection to 10 Road, but I will try to remember to have a look next time I'm over there. I will go through the photos I've accumulated over the last few weeks and if any help this discussion I'll post them up  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2010 12:36:12 GMT
Having also made several visits to Lillie Bridge, several with our leader District Dave. It can be hard to visualise eaxactly where the tracks go.
One point I'm not sure has been clear in the discussions is that whilst roads 1 and 10 go all the way under Earls Court 2, (some where about 1.5 S7 train lengths) the area inbetween those roads only goes under what is effectively an overhang of Earls Court 2, It only goes under the building about a car length and the supporting pillars are not all parallel but seem to have been angled to allow for the passage of the diagonal connection from the the shed roads to 10 road, the connecting road to 10 road running under the right (when facing it from the sheds) side of EC2, connecting to 10 road at the corner of the "overhang".
The track angles and the tracks fan out somewhat where they project from 1 and 2 roads, to form 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B which are the four tracks that run to the wall under the overhang, they have to fan out to fit between the supporting pillars (they fan to the right because they feed from 1 top and 2 roads), then comes the heavilly angled track that connects to 10 road.
Whilst it would be thoretically possible, at some cost, (there is no money!) to reallign the shed roads 4 to 7 to abut the present ends and buffers on 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B, this would not generate enough length to stable an additional train and would mean the connection into 10 road would have to go. Also there is some sort of semi-permenant building in the shed at the east end of 4 road which would have to be dismantled too.
I see where the suggestion was going, I suppose theoretically possible to do something with an awful lot of remodleing, a lot of cost, but no significant gain without also aligning the west end of the sheds too and theres not really room for that and you'd end up with trains half in and half out at each end of the sheds, which affects walkways.
|
|
|
|
Post by elo10538 on Jun 21, 2010 7:00:17 GMT
The required engineering works to the infrastructure to accommodate the S Stock seemed vast. I presume this was all costed out at the time the quote for the supply of the new Stock was being examined. Which begs the question is it worth it, rather than have the Stock designed to fit the existing infrastructure without all these extra works being necessary!!
|
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jun 21, 2010 9:01:32 GMT
The required engineering works to the infrastructure to accommodate the S Stock seemed vast. I presume this was all costed out at the time the quote for the supply of the new Stock was being examined. Which begs the question is it worth it, rather than have the Stock designed to fit the existing infrastructure without all these extra works being necessary!! Certainly the cost is included within the overall S Stock programme. It is not a question of the stock 'fitting' the depot; the works involved are principally to do with walkways, power supplies and track renovations and alterations etc. |
|
|
|
Post by elo10538 on Jun 21, 2010 9:22:47 GMT
Yes I'm sure the costs probably were taken into account as regards the extra stabling requirements for the S Stock, which from Tubeprune's reply, above are quite extensive. It's just a strange situation where Stock is being purchased which, as a consequence require extensive extra works to be carried out. Perhaps because of this, the Stock should have been designed to fit the infrastructure rather than the other way around, which all seems like the ' tail is wagging the dog ' in this case.
|
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
|
Post by DWS on Jun 21, 2010 10:21:59 GMT
Yes I'm sure the costs probably were taken into account as regards the extra stabling requirements for the S Stock, which from Tubeprune's reply, above are quite extensive. It's just a strange situation where Stock is being purchased which, as a consequence require extensive extra works to be carried out. Perhaps because of this, the Stock should have been designed to fit the infrastructure rather than the other way around, which all seems like the ' tail is wagging the dog ' in this case. Would this be the PPP dog ;D |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Jun 21, 2010 10:57:48 GMT
Bear in mind though that EC2 and the surrounding area is all due for redevelopment - I think the plans are for a Westfield style shopping mall across the whole area - LU is to sell the air space above Lillie Bridge and I suppose it'll all be rafted over. Ashfield House will go too I understand. This is interesting, I have always believed that LU has never owned Lillie Bridge and that it was a rented site, but perhaps my history is not up to date. Although Having said that I did always wonder why Ashfield House was built on the site if it was indeed still rented, then again LT/LU has always developed rented sites to suit its usage of them. Of course if Ashfield House goes then someone will have to build a new telephone exchange, during the 1980s the old Strowger exchange that existed in the lift shaft at Earls Court was replaced by the new Ericsson MD110 exchange in the then new Ashfield House, it serves a large portion of the District line auto telephone system as well as the Earls Court station and offices complex and also Pelham Street offices at South Kensington as well as parts of other lines and is also one of the main connection points to the BT network. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Jun 21, 2010 11:13:43 GMT
Yes I'm sure the costs probably were taken into account as regards the extra stabling requirements for the S Stock, which from Tubeprune's reply, above are quite extensive. It's just a strange situation where Stock is being purchased which, as a consequence require extensive extra works to be carried out. Perhaps because of this, the Stock should have been designed to fit the infrastructure rather than the other way around, which all seems like the ' tail is wagging the dog ' in this case. The problem with buying stock to fit the infrastructure is that it won't give any increase in capacity. Much of the work being undertaken will allow 7-car trains to be run in place of 6-car, especially at the Western side of the Circle and Hammersmith & City. This will immediately give an 17% increase for the Circle, District and Hammersmith & City line. The fact that the cars themselves are slightly longer leads to some additional work. There is also the consideration that there will be more S7 stock trains (I think 133 trains are planned) than the current C (46 trains) and D (75 trains) stock combined, so more stabling space would be needed anyway. (The A stock was originally 58 trains and will be replaced by 58 S8, so there is no increase in original fleet size on the Met.). |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Jun 21, 2010 11:27:28 GMT
Yes I'm sure the costs probably were taken into account as regards the extra stabling requirements for the S Stock, which from Tubeprune's reply, above are quite extensive. It's just a strange situation where Stock is being purchased which, as a consequence require extensive extra works to be carried out. Perhaps because of this, the Stock should have been designed to fit the infrastructure rather than the other way around, which all seems like the ' tail is wagging the dog ' in this case. But this has always been the LT/LU way! One thing that can be said about it is that there has never really been a single standard in any division or department of the organisation at any level in any discipline. Standardisation would bring cost benefits in so many ways but short termism over many decades has ensured that such could never be achieved because of the way that finance and budgets were/are arranged. So while your point would be common sense it is forced to be impossible but at the risk of going wildly off topic momentarily the same can be said for the national road network and transport infrastructure in general. So on the downside short term forward planning is the real issue which can never really be resolved because technology advances exponentially, finance comes in fits and starts and 'the combine' began as many separate standards. The upside to short termism has always been that the company has been at the forefront in terms of usage of new technology to a greater or lesser degree. S stock is an attempt at standardisation for sub surface stock and should have a knock on effect in other disciplines as well which is a good thing but which may at some time in the future hold back the usage of even newer technology. In my view it is swings and roundabouts so whether the dog wags the tail or vice versa is of little consequence. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2010 16:10:12 GMT
Thanks for the info Dave. So the option of anything at South Harrow has been ruled out, if ever considered? I have to say I've never heard any mention of anything involving South Harrow - certainly for the District (unless of course the old chestnut of the District reclaiming the Rayners Lane service appears again - as I'm sure it will!). I can't really comment about the state of South Harrow sidings, but I'd guess that a substantial amount of work would be required to bring them up to current standards in terms of walkways, security etc. I *think* the last I heard about the possibility of South Harrow being used was in the context of there being timetabled Piccadilly line trains (and then only a couple) stabling there over night, and I'm not aware that ever happened. Channeling COLIN: districtdave.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=newfuturetrains&action=display&thread=7424The stuff regarding South Harrow was probably from this thread, where I suggested refurbishing it for use by the 8-car S Stocks from the Metropolitan Line. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2010 20:59:04 GMT
Yes I'm sure the costs probably were taken into account as regards the extra stabling requirements for the S Stock, which from Tubeprune's reply, above are quite extensive. It's just a strange situation where Stock is being purchased which, as a consequence require extensive extra works to be carried out. Perhaps because of this, the Stock should have been designed to fit the infrastructure rather than the other way around, which all seems like the ' tail is wagging the dog ' in this case. I really think this must be seen as a bold and sensible decision which has some foresight and regard for the future. If the stock was purchased to fit the smallest available platform lengths (Bayswater being the main restrictor) you miss a golden opportunity to substantially (in the case of the Circle and H&C) increase the carrying capacity of those lines at what is a relatively modest (in construction terms) expense. If the decision had not been taken to do this you almost certainly condem the system to serious risk of overcrowding for the next 40 or so years, a decision that would no doubt be condemed in the future as a "lack of investment and foresight by our forefathers"! There are enough examples of that about! Whilst there are works being undertaken to accomodate S stock, they aren't exactly what one would describe as major engineering challenges, given that plans to rebuild such as Bayswater and Paddington are not proceeding. All seems like a good compromise of cost v benefit to me. |
|
|
|
Post by liamharrison72 on Jun 21, 2010 22:05:19 GMT
We know that there will be 13 more trains on the system when the S Stock is all delivered. As they're getting longer trains, they've already lost 13 existing stablng spaces, making 26 required in all. The 13 they lose are: 3 at Farringdon, 5 at Hammersmith, 2 at Triangle, 2 at Edgware Road, 1 at PG. I estimate that they could get 4 more in Neasden, 1 at Uxbridge, 1 more in Barking, 3 at Ealing Common, 3 Upminster, 10 Lillie Bridge, 1 in Moorgate, 1 at Edgware Rd Platform and 2 in Acton Town sidings. Other solutions (and there are others) would probably cost more. Anyone want to offer me odds?
« Last Edit: Jun 16, 2010, 8:33pm by tubeprune »
I thought all of triangle sidings will be lost, not just two??? Will there space on the 3 side for the new stock trains or will development have to be done in order to fit 3 trains there?
This may just be rumour but I have heard the space on the 2 side will be used as offices. is this true? If not what will be made of this space once stabling has been permanently seized here?
|
|
|
|
Post by liamharrison72 on Jun 21, 2010 22:09:16 GMT
Sorry to go off topic there. Going back to lillie bridge. If road 1 will stable 3 trains in a row on the same track wont that be alot of hassle if the train closest to olympia station end is defective? That will leave 2 trains stuck behind until the first train has been moved or the same if the middle train is defective.
|
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jun 22, 2010 10:24:01 GMT
Sorry to go off topic there. Going back to lillie bridge. If road 1 will stable 3 trains in a row on the same track wont that be alot of hassle if the train closest to olympia station end is defective? That will leave 2 trains stuck behind until the first train has been moved or the same if the middle train is defective. Not off topic at all! You may be aware that adjacent to the reception/outlet road towards Olympia is a siding - known as Whitely's siding. At the present time this is decommissioned but we have learnt that the plan is for this to be electrified and it will be long enough to accomodate an S7 train. So the plan is that should a train fail at the outlet signal (and therefore I presume this will be extended to 1 Road) it can be rerouted to the siding to get it out of the way. This of course assumes that it is possible to move the train at all - either under its own power or by means of an assisting train. This stabling arrangemet though is not new; Hammersmith depot for example have been stabling three trains on one road for many years. |
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jun 22, 2010 10:28:36 GMT
I thought all of triangle sidings will be lost, not just two??? Will there space on the 3 side for the new stock trains or will development have to be done in order to fit 3 trains there? This may just be rumour but I have heard the space on the 2 side will be used as offices. is this true? If not what will be made of this space once stabling has been permanently seized here? No - the works will allow for three trains as described. Where 37 and 38 Roads are now, this will reduce to one road and the other two (on the east side of thesidings) will be relaid to accomodate two S7's. There is already an accomodation block at Triangle sidings. I know of no plans that this will be altered. Your question about it's future if stabling ceases herefore becomes academic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2010 0:30:52 GMT
Btw, is the entrance to lillie bridge (off the eastbound at west ken) suitable for SSL stock? I've only ever seen battery locos using it. I always thought that there wasnt enough clearence for the SSL's (height wise).
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,347
|
Post by Colin on Jul 6, 2010 1:27:44 GMT
Looks like I've finally been beaten - there is a recent thread on the forum that answers your question though I'm blowed if I can find it. Perhaps it's cos I've not long got in from work  ;D ;D Anyway, the answer is yes, D stocks can access Lillie Bridge from West Kensington eastbound. The proof is that one went that way into Lillie Bridge on 7th July 2005 as a result of the events that day. EDIT: just noticed something no one else seems to have noticed....4 pages in and the thread title still suggests we're in France!! |
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jul 8, 2010 10:23:02 GMT
EDIT: just noticed something no one else seems to have noticed....4 pages in and the thread title still suggests we're in France!! Oh yes - never noticed that ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2010 12:48:51 GMT
But Lille Bridge does has room for expansion under Earl's Court 2. Currently only a couple of the tracks use the full length of the space available south of the shed. Bear in mind though that EC2 and the surrounding area is all due for redevelopment - I think the plans are for a Westfield style shopping mall across the whole area - LU is to sell the air space above Lillie Bridge and I suppose it'll all be rafted over. Ashfield House will go too I understand. Living 5mins away from the Depot, I never heard anything about the Shopping mall. All I know is that they want to build houses on the site |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2010 15:27:19 GMT
EDIT: just noticed something no one else seems to have noticed....4 pages in and the thread title still suggests we're in France!! Oh yes - never noticed that ;D Only testing.............medicals arranged for all above. |
|
;D ;D
