East London Line

[unravelled]

My take on the lighting is that it's the way it is to prevent light pollution. Multiple lights mounted on short posts put the light where it's needed. They are also much easier to maintain. Night shots are often deceptive, but on the side view from above there is a clear difference between the yard lighting and the lights at each end of the picture which are producing much more apparent flare, with significant amounts reaching the camera. Also, unless taken before things were fully commissioned, that picture suggests that overhead lighting on individual sidings can be illuminated separately, as some of them seem dark.  In the departing train image the headlights (?) are producing a lot of flare while the yard lights are not spilling any light towards the camera.

 

Thanks

 

Dave

[jim.snowdon]

It's the aerial shot that is most telling, in showing just how much brighter the sidings are compared to anything around them. To look at, the brightness is comparable to stations equipped for DOO operation, judging by what you could see when flying in over London. For a set of stabling sidings, it severely over lit.

Oddly enough, we had the same problem with TfL's predecessors with the lighting levels on the Croydon tramstops. Off street, the drivers have difficulty seeing beyond them, and on street, they were brighter than the street lighting.

 

Jim

[phil-b259]

I am intrigued by the picture of the plain-lined "passive" point. Thinking back several decades when the Southern looked seriously at the cost of its existing crossover provision in the post local freight train situation, quite a lot ended up being taken out altogether, but some others were plain lined in a similar way but with the important difference that the point blades were retained but the crossing was removed and an equivalent length of plain rail substituted. I remember being told that the crossing, even in a trailing situation, wore much more quickly than the blades and was therefore the most significant maintenance cost item. It may have been the case also, although it wasn't actually said at the time, that reinstating a crossing that had been plain lined was much simpler than reinstating blades and stock rails, making it practical to reinstate the crossing temporarily for operating purposes during engineering works if required.

 

I think that, in practice, the latter never (or rarely) happened because it wasn't long before all the retained plain-lined crossovers of that era were taken out altogether.

 

If you remove the point blades then that can require quite a lot of messing round with S&T equip,equipment / circuitry to fool the interlocking they are still in place. Far easier to simply remove the fuses relating to the actual movement of the points and clip the blades up instead.

 

Also plain lining of said crossover is a much simpler thing to do later on if someone wants to use said crossover - REMEMBER ALL trackwork NR want to remove has to get approval of all TOCs / FOCs through the time consuming and expensive "Network Change" procedure put in place upon privatisation to protect users from arbitrary decisions by Railtrack that would damage their ability to do business

[jim.snowdon]

Also plain lining of said crossover is a much simpler thing to do later on if someone wants to use said crossover - REMEMBER ALL trackwork NR want to remove has to get approval of all TOCs / FOCs through the time consuming and expensive "Network Change" procedure put in place upon privatisation to protect users from arbitrary decisions by Railtrack that would damage their ability to do business

True. However, whilst the Network Change process will flag up any that the TOCs/FOCs find useful, it leaves a residue that they have no real use for but which can be useful during track engineering works for such purposes as getting material trains and tamping machines from one track to another. Their usefulness is frequently lost on the younger generation of project engineers who deal with the major resignalling projects who have limited practical experience of how you undertake track works.

 

Jim

[iands]

I thought I'd include a few shots from within the Maintenance Facility Building at New Cross Gate. Maintenance access to the units is "required all areas" as per usual, but in today's railways as much 'fixed access' as possible is provided (I know we all go on about Health & Safety being "over cautious" these days, but I think making access to the units as easy, and safe, as possible is no bad thing). These photos show the different levels of safe access available;

 

there is the 'below' rail level - from the side and underneath

 

 

 

... a 'normal' access at platform level

 

 

... and 'high level' for access to roof areas

 

 

... another general view of the access levels

 

 

And another view of the depot area, with the Wash Plant in the centre of the photo, the Wheel Lathe, Heavy Clean buildings and the Up Line viaduct. Apologies for the quality, but it was raining heavily and I wasn't going on the roof that day. So I took the photo looking out of the OBC Signalling Panel room window - complete with rain on the window.

 

 

This is a shot of the signallers screen showing the depot area with the above buildings shown on the diagram.

 

 

Finally for today, a shot inside the 378s. As I mentioned earlier in the post we were fortunate to have access to the units and ELL as a 1:1 scale "train set" to play with for a few months. However, we had to take care of the units and make sure they were as "new looking" as possible for the start of public service - hence the plastic sheeting on the floor to stop it getting marked. Also some additional test/monitoring gear was installed now and then, indicated by the temporary cable strung up inside the carriage.

 

 

If I don't get chance to post again before Monday, may I take this opportunity to wish you all a Merry Christmas and peace, happiness and good health for 2018.

 

Regards, Ian.

Edited December 22, 2017 by iands

[iands]

I thought I'd include a few shots from within the Maintenance Facility Building at New Cross Gate. Maintenance access to the units is "required all areas" as per usual, but in today's railways as much 'fixed access' as possible is provided (I know we all go on about Health & Safety being "over cautious" these days, but I think making access to the units as easy, and safe, as possible is no bad thing). These photos show the different levels of safe access available;

 

there is the 'below' rail level - from the side and underneath

DSC00819.JPG

DSC00828.JPG

 

... a 'normal' access at platform level

DSC00809.JPG

 

... and 'high level' for access to roof areas

DSC00855.JPG

 

... another general view of the access levels

378137 External End View_01_(IS 071009).JPG

 

And another view of the depot area, with the Wash Plant in the centre of the photo, the Wheel Lathe, Heavy Clean buildings and the Up Line viaduct. Apologies for the quality, but it was raining heavily and I wasn't going on the roof that day. So I took the photo looking out of the OBC Signalling Panel room window - complete with rain on the window.

View from NXG OBC_1_(IS 071009).JPG

 

This is a shot of the signallers screen showing the depot area with the above buildings shown on the diagram.

DSC00926.JPG

 

Finally for today, a shot inside the 378s. As I mentioned earlier in the post we were fortunate to have access to the units and ELL as a 1:1 scale "train set" to play with for a few months. However, we had to take care of the units and make sure they were as "new looking" as possible for the start of public service - hence the plastic sheeting on the floor to stop it getting marked. Also some additional test/monitoring gear was installed now and then, indicated by the temporary cable strung up inside the carriage.

DSC00807.JPG

 

If I don't get chance to post again before Monday, may I take this opportunity to wish you all a Merry Christmas and peace, happiness and good health for 2018.

 

Regards, Ian.

[iands]

 

I thought I'd include a few shots from within the Maintenance Facility Building at New Cross Gate. Maintenance access to the units is "required all areas" as per usual, but in today's railways as much 'fixed access' as possible is provided (I know we all go on about Health & Safety being "over cautious" these days, but I think making access to the units as easy, and safe, as possible is no bad thing). These photos show the different levels of safe access available;

 

there is the 'below' rail level - from the side and underneath

DSC00819.JPG

DSC00828.JPG

 

... a 'normal' access at platform level

DSC00809.JPG

 

... and 'high level' for access to roof areas

DSC00855.JPG

 

... another general view of the access levels

378137 External End View_01_(IS 071009).JPG

 

And another view of the depot area, with the Wash Plant in the centre of the photo, the Wheel Lathe, Heavy Clean buildings and the Up Line viaduct. Apologies for the quality, but it was raining heavily and I wasn't going on the roof that day. So I took the photo looking out of the OBC Signalling Panel room window - complete with rain on the window.

View from NXG OBC_1_(IS 071009).JPG

 

This is a shot of the signallers screen showing the depot area with the above buildings shown on the diagram.

DSC00926.JPG

 

Finally for today, a shot inside the 378s. As I mentioned earlier in the post we were fortunate to have access to the units and ELL as a 1:1 scale "train set" to play with for a few months. However, we had to take care of the units and make sure they were as "new looking" as possible for the start of public service - hence the plastic sheeting on the floor to stop it getting marked. Also some additional test/monitoring gear was installed now and then, indicated by the temporary cable strung up inside the carriage.

DSC00807.JPG

 

If I don't get chance to post again before Monday, may I take this opportunity to wish you all a Merry Christmas and peace, happiness and good health for 2018.

 

Regards, Ian.

 

Well, I managed to spectacularly screw that post up somehow. The photos were there - honest! Anyway, hopefully they can be accessed from the links above. If anyone can't access the photos, let me know and I'll post them all again.

 

Regards, Ian.

[johnb]

Hi Ian

Links don't work on any of the posts, suggest you have word with Andy Y

Merry Christmas

John

[iands]

Hi Ian

Links don't work on any of the posts, suggest you have word with Andy Y

Merry Christmas

John

Hi John,

 

Thanks for your feedback. However, I logged off and back on again and I can open the photo links in both posts. Would you like to try again? I don't know if I'm the only one that can access them because I posted them, or if there is a genuine problem to everyone else?

 

If you or anyone else can let me know then I'll try and get any problem rectified.

 

Regards, Ian.

[Budgie]

Hi, Ian

 

I get "Sorry, you don't have permission for that!" when I try to access the pictures.

[jim.snowdon]

Ian,

 

The links don't appear in your original post, but they do in a subsequent post where someone has quoted yours. However, clicking on the links in that post brings up a "you do not have permission to veiw" screen.

 

Jim

[Siberian Snooper]

I'm getting, sorry we couldn't find that.

[iands]

Apologies to all. Not sure what happened with the original post regarding the photos, very strange they went missing but the text was okay? I'll re-compose the post and send again shortly.

 

Regards, Ian.

[iands]

"Take 2" - hopefully all works okay this time!

 

I thought I'd include a few shots from within the Maintenance Facility Building at New Cross Gate. Maintenance access to the units is "required all areas" as per usual, but in today's railways as much 'fixed access' as possible is provided (I know we all go on about Health & Safety being "over cautious" these days, but I think making access to the units as easy, and safe, as possible is no bad thing). These photos show the different levels of safe access available;

 

 

 

there is the 'below' rail level - from the side and underneath

 

... a 'normal' access at platform level

 

... and 'high level' for access to roof areas

 

... another general view of the access levels

 

And another view of the depot area, with the Wash Plant in the centre of the photo, the Wheel Lathe, Heavy Clean buildings and the Up Line viaduct. Apologies for the quality, but it was raining heavily and I wasn't going on the roof that day. So I took the photo looking out of the OBC Signalling Panel room window - complete with rain on the window.

 

This is a shot of the signallers screen showing the depot area with the above buildings shown on the diagram.

 

Finally for today, a shot inside the 378s. As I mentioned earlier in the post we were fortunate to have access to the units and ELL as a 1:1 scale "train set" to play with for a few months. However, we had to take care of the units and make sure they were as "new looking" as possible for the start of public service - hence the plastic sheeting on the floor to stop it getting marked. Also some additional test/monitoring gear was installed now and then, indicated by the temporary cable strung up inside the carriage.

 

 

If I don't get chance to post again before Monday, may I take this opportunity to wish you all a Merry Christmas and peace, happiness and good health for 2018.

 

 

Regards, Ian.

[Siberian Snooper]

Hurrah, nice photos, thanks for finally getting them posted.

 

Merry Christmas.

[iands]

Hurrah, nice photos, thanks for finally getting them posted.

Merry Christmas.

Many thanks for the feedback 'snooper', glad it worked this time. A bit of a marathon effort at this end today, not sure if there is an issue with the RMweb site or an ISP network problem but accessing "RMweb" this morning is like 'pulling teeth'. Merry Christmas.

 

Regards, Ian.

[johnb]

Internet is temperamental here this morning, looks like overload on the local 'net.

 

Anyway, a great set of photos Ian, many thanks for persisting to get them working, well worth the short wait to see them!!

 

It's very good to see what happens behind the nice shiny new trains.

 

All the best

 

John

[Mike Storey]

Interesting how the philosophy of train stabling sidings has changed, either over time, or between TfL and those of TOCs/NR.

 

The last set of stabling sidings I was part of creating, in 2007/9, was up the Lea Valley line, called Orient Way (to replace a set of sidings we needed for the Olympic Park. The name of the original sidings have slid from my memory.) Whilst the older requirement of providing a door level narrow platform throughout the length of each siding had disappeared, we had still to provide an access platform to that level at each end of each unit. These were for 12 car, 3x4 car units, not just single 5 car, so not strictly comparable. But one of our key client requirements was to provide as unobstructed a space between the units as possible, so no multiple light standards (apart from low level posts to one side of each walkway) to enable equipment and personnel to be moved along between them. More general lighting was provided from tall floodlights, but primarily for the areas in which shunters and train crew would have to walk.

 

I attach a Google maps link which may help explain that better - https://www.google.fr/maps/place/London,+UK/@51.5631516,-0.0305225,86m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x25a3b1142c791a9:0xc4f8a0433288257a!2sUnited+Kingdom!3b1!8m2!3d55.378051!4d-3.435973!3m4!1s0x47d8a00baf21de75:0x52963a5addd52a99!8m2!3d51.5087425!4d-0.1318359

 

That seems to be a very different specification to the TfL Overground design requirements, providing door level access at only one end of each unit, and highly obstructed walking routes along each walkway. I also wonder what on earth the intensive level of high level lighting is needed for? 

[iands]

Interesting how the philosophy of train stabling sidings has changed, either over time, or between TfL and those of TOCs/NR.

 

The last set of stabling sidings I was part of creating, in 2007/9, was up the Lea Valley line, called Orient Way (to replace a set of sidings we needed for the Olympic Park. The name of the original sidings have slid from my memory.) Whilst the older requirement of providing a door level narrow platform throughout the length of each siding had disappeared, we had still to provide an access platform to that level at each end of each unit. These were for 12 car, 3x4 car units, not just single 5 car, so not strictly comparable. But one of our key client requirements was to provide as unobstructed a space between the units as possible, so no multiple light standards (apart from low level posts to one side of each walkway) to enable equipment and personnel to be moved along between them. More general lighting was provided from tall floodlights, but primarily for the areas in which shunters and train crew would have to walk.

 

I attach a Google maps link which may help explain that better - https://www.google.fr/maps/place/London,+UK/@51.5631516,-0.0305225,86m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x25a3b1142c791a9:0xc4f8a0433288257a!2sUnited+Kingdom!3b1!8m2!3d55.378051!4d-3.435973!3m4!1s0x47d8a00baf21de75:0x52963a5addd52a99!8m2!3d51.5087425!4d-0.1318359

 

That seems to be a very different specification to the TfL Overground design requirements, providing door level access at only one end of each unit, and highly obstructed walking routes along each walkway. I also wonder what on earth the intensive level of high level lighting is needed for?

Hi Mike,

 

The requirement for TfL (or more accurately for LOROL - the TOC) was to provide in each siding road a "hop-up" at each end of the unit (first 4-car, then 5-car) so that drivers and cleaning staff can access the unit. This was at New Cross Gate depot, Silwood Sidings and Willesden C Sidings for the NLL stock. As I commented somewhere above, the level of lighting provided was to assist maintenance staff accessing the various bits of kit on the units (between the bogies) without the need to provide hand-lamps and/or portable lighting rigs - and not just for illuminating the walkways.

 

BTW, were the sidings you refer to "Thornton Fields"?

 

Regards, Ian.

[Mike Storey]

Hi Mike,

 

The requirement for TfL (or more accurately for LOROL - the TOC) was to provide in each siding road a "hop-up" at each end of the unit (first 4-car, then 5-car) so that drivers and cleaning staff can access the unit. This was at New Cross Gate depot, Silwood Sidings and Willesden C Sidings for the NLL stock. As I commented somewhere above, the level of lighting provided was to assist maintenance staff accessing the various bits of kit on the units (between the bogies) without the need to provide hand-lamps and/or portable lighting rigs - and not just for illuminating the walkways.

 

BTW, were the sidings you refer to "Thornton Fields"?

 

Regards, Ian.

 

Yes, Thornton or Thornton's Field or Fields. Local interpretation varied, as did the track, electrics, actual legal boundaries and everything else about the place. The staff could not believe what we were going to build them at Orient Way.... Japanese knotweed turned out to be the least of our problems. We had to provide an extra ringmain, because they would not believe that one kettle would be sufficient for their and train crew needs at peak times, having previously used a gas ring for one of the most enormous kettles I have ever seen, and that included the very demanding, Ramsgate shunters' lobby, which also doubled up as the local CM&EE betting concern, as well as the rest room of choice for the excluded 1955 and green-carded drivers. It used to go very quiet when I walked in there on my daily visit as Traffic Manager. But I always got offered an extremely well made cuppa.

 

I understand the low level lighting for the ease of C&W examination (although I still maintain a powerful handheld torch is more effective). What I do not understand is the LOROL requirement for the standard, high level lighting posts at such frequent intervals along each walkway, on your schemes.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Mike Storey

[iands]

Yes, Thornton or Thornton's Field or Fields. Local interpretation varied, as did the track, electrics, actual legal boundaries and everything else about the place. The staff could not believe what we were going to build them at Orient Way.... Japanese knotweed turned out to be the least of our problems. We had to provide an extra ringmain, because they would not believe that one kettle would be sufficient for their and train crew needs at peak times, having previously used a gas ring for one of the most enormous kettles I have ever seen, and that included the very demanding, Ramsgate shunters' lobby, which also doubled up as the local CM&EE betting concern, as well as the rest room of choice for the excluded 1955 and green-carded drivers. It used to go very quiet when I walked in there on my daily visit as Traffic Manager. But I always got offered an extremely well made cuppa.

 

I understand the low level lighting for the ease of C&W examination (although I still maintain a powerful handheld torch is more effective). What I do not understand is the LOROL requirement for the standard, high level lighting posts at such frequent intervals along each walkway, on your schemes.

The requirements for the level of lighting at Silwood (and later at Willesden) had been set by the project (TfL) at the New Cross Gate depot before the TOC (or more accurately the "concessionaire") had been appointed, so a precedent for the lighting had been set so not surprisingly LOROL wanted the same at all sites.

 

The other thing to remember is that a "concession" operates a bit different to a TOC franchise. I don't know the exact details but I think that if handheld torches were to be provided, LOROL might have been able to "claim" (at least in part) for batteries. So the most cost-effective for TfL was to "up" the spec for the lighting.

 

Regards, Ian.

[jim.snowdon]

The requirements for the level of lighting at Silwood (and later at Willesden) had been set by the project (TfL) at the New Cross Gate depot before the TOC (or more accurately the "concessionaire") had been appointed, so a precedent for the lighting had been set so not surprisingly LOROL wanted the same at all sites.

 

The other thing to remember is that a "concession" operates a bit different to a TOC franchise. I don't know the exact details but I think that if handheld torches were to be provided, LOROL might have been able to "claim" (at least in part) for batteries. So the most cost-effective for TfL was to "up" the spec for the lighting.

 

Regards, Ian.

I found that elsewhere, TfL/LOROL had a tendency to gold-plate requirements, over and above the standards that NR used for other TOCs. The West London Line was interesting, with its mix of stations controlled by LOROL, LU and SWT.

 

Jim

[iands]

I found that elsewhere, TfL/LOROL had a tendency to gold-plate requirements, over and above the standards that NR used for other TOCs. The West London Line was interesting, with its mix of stations controlled by LOROL, LU and SWT.

 

Jim

I'm not sure we "gold-plated" the requirements. Don't forget, the standards are a "minimum" requirement. If an IM (Infrastructure Manager - e.g. London Overground in this case) felt it was beneficial to enhance something for very little extra cost, then they are perfectly entitled to.

 

During the life of the "project", the IM changed three times; LU, then NR, then LO. The ELL was always going to be designed/built to Railway Group and NR Company standards, with the exception that some LU standards would apply to "Section 12" stations as they were considered to be more stringent for sub-surface stations. Perhaps the only bit of "gold-plating" that was applied was to designate ALL stations Dalston to Surrey Quays (inclusive) as Section 12 stations regardless of being sub-surface or not (it made it easier and more straightforward from a design/build and operational perspective).

 

There is also a mix of "station operators" on ELL too; LU operate Highbury & Islington, Whitechapel and Canada Water, the rest are operated by LOROL (now Arriva) as far as Surrey Quays. New Cross/New Cross Gate etc., are operated by the incumbent TOC.

 

Regards, Ian

[iands]

Hoping you all had a very enjoyable Christmas and that Santa didn't disappoint (personally, Santa delivered yet again all that was desired!).

 

Today's photos are a miscellany of shots from all over the ELL, again the majority were taken during the construction phase so things might look a bit different to what might be expected in a proper operational state.

 

As their name would suggest, Signal Post Telephones (SPT) were for many years actually mounted on to the signal post they related to. However, to aid the reduction in SPADs, SPTs have for a few years now been located approximately 15 - 20 metres on the approach to the related signal (some might be a little closer depending on "local" conditions). This aims to help drivers pull up short of a signal displaying a red aspect (Defensive Driving) and negates the driver having to tramp 20-odd metres to the signal to use the 'phone. Also provided at the 'phone is a "walkway" of approximately 8 metres in length.

As mentioned somewhere above, we were able to run numerous trains to check the infrastructure (as well as driver route learning) before all the infrastructure installation had been completed. An example of this is at signal EL215. The SPT for this signal is located on an unusually tall post, normally they are approx. 1.5 metres high but this one is approx. 3 metres tall. Why you may ask? The clue is the bridge parapet on the left - it does not yet have a guardrail fitted atop the parapet. So as a safety measure to prevent any drivers having to use the SPT from ground-level accidentally falling over the parapet to the street below, this arrangement was temporarily provided so the driver could access the SPT without getting down from the unit (in theory!). For the sharp-eyed, you will have noticed the top of a ladder propped against the parapet from the street below - not provided for any driver that may have fallen off the bridge to get back, but for the "works staff" who were still working on the infrastructure. To give you an idea of where this is, it is bridge 291 over Middleton Road.

 

A little further along the line on the approach to Shoreditch High Street station at signal EL231. Nothing particularly interesting or unusual with this signal per se, but for those interested, looking ahead and slightly to the right can be seen the redundant LU stock mounted on part of the abandoned viaduct that served Broad Street station.

 

A jump down to NXG depot. Looking north out of the stabling sidings, complete with traps.


One of only 3 signals on the ELL not capable of displaying a red aspect. This is signal EL270 on the incline from New Cross Gate station to the flyover on the Up ELL.


Into the tunnels again. Just to the north of Wapping station looking towards Shadwell station.


At New Cross Gate station, platform 1 (for services south towards West Croydon/Crystal Palace). The ELL was a few months ahead of NR in commissioning the GSMR first (to be fair, NR did have a vastly greater area to cover with GSMR than ELL did). For a short period this required ELL trains requiring to go to West Croydon or Crystal Palace to changeover from GSMR to CSR. This is denoted by the signage on signal L563. Additional "dwell time" was built into the timetable to enable this changeover.


A view of the Silwood Junction area from the Trundleys Terrace/Oldfield Grove footbridge. Again nothing spectacular except to show how "messy" the rail greasers (or to use the Project description "Rail Friction Modifiers") can be. The spread of grease is not contained just to the rails! 

 

From the Up ELL looking back towards NXG depot (out of shot, the New Cross branch diverges here to the left). For location reference, the bridge takes the railway over Surrey Canal Road.

 

That's all for today, hope they provide some interest.

 

Regards, Ian.

 

 

[St. Simon]

From the Up ELL looking back towards NXG depot (out of shot, the New Cross branch diverges here to the left). For location reference, the bridge takes the railway over Surrey Canal Road.

DSC02770.JPG

 

That's all for today, hope they provide some interest.

 

Regards, Ian.

 

Interesting use of a Standard Route Indicator with a Ground Position Light, I haven't seen that before, it's technically banned under standards.

 

Would you happen to know why this was used?

 

Simon