Northern line then and now - track changes

[Nortube]

Following some revision, I've made some update changes to my posts on London Bridge - see my yellow 'edit' comments. I've also updated the London Bridge diagram to very roughly show the position of the larger tunnels and platform exits.

edit 200313
I should really read check before I post! the London Bridge diagram has been updated.

[Nortube]

Mar 28, 2013 14:56:27 GMT hellocontrol said:

The cross over at Totteridge was not in the upgrade although I understand they asked for it to be included but it was declined.

At High Barnet I think there are some unused sidings again when asked it was declined to include them. The left hand not taliking to the right.

There was talk of including Clapham Common and re-instating the cross over, 1995 TS can display Clapham Common as a destination.

High Barnet had three extra sidings installed in the gap between the platforms and the depot (numbered 34, 35, and 36 sidings). There was also a second shunting neck added (33 road). The purpose of these additional roads was for stock storage if required as the 95 stock came onto the line. As High Barnet is a controlled depot, I assume that it was far too expensive to make the additional signalling changes to accommodate the extra four roads as TBTC would be arriving in the (fairly) near future.

For some reason that I'm not sure of, the shunt signals were relocated from two of the existing sidings to two of the new ones and the shunt signal was transferred from the old shunting neck to the new one. The unsignalled sidings were then 25, 27, 34 and also 32 road (the old shunting neck). Diagrams were updated as necessary, but at Cobourg Street, the wall diagram still showed the original layout, just with different numbers pasted over them. It didn't matter to the Signalman because as far as they were concerned, they still only had eight sidings and one shunting neck under their control.

Clapham Common  was added to the PTI list for the new trains, as was Kings Cross NB Kennington platform 1 and Kennington platform 3. Clapham Common could be set up on the PTI, as you say, and indeed I have a photo of a Clapham Common train destination display I set up in Golders Green sidings. Clapham Common was not picked up by the PTI system and not displayed by the platform dot matrix displays.

Kings Cross NB is a valid description as although trains didn't reverse there, NB trains reversing N-S at Euston via the Euston loop were normally detrained at Kings Cross rather than the passengers ending up on the SB platform at Euston. Also, a train may be held in the Euston loop. I have taken passengers this way, when my train was reversing at Euston on a Boxing Day and the next NB train was 20+ minutes away. I asked the Controller if this could be doe thus allowing passengers who wanted Euston to get there  lot quicker and it would also give passengers the option if they wanted to go north from the CX branch.

Kennington NB platform 3 (City branch) is technically a valid description as trains can reverse N-N at platform 3 via the siding and go to platform 1.

Kennington NB platform 1 (CX) is currently not a valid description as there is no signalled reversing move available from platform 1.

A PTI code list is below:



 

[hellocontrol]

The point I was making is that the upgrade team were fully aware but did not include those sidings at High Barnet there are a great deal more things which were supposed to be included but again will not be.

The use of Kings Cross NB perfectly okay but like you say there are times when the full destination in this case Euston would be better.

[Nortube]

I think that in many cases people who are involved with the decision making process don't have the experience of those at the sharp end, or don't involve with those that do. As a consequence they don't always realise the significance of something.

Crossovers are an example. On paper, it may seem that a crossover is useless, rarely used, and expensive to maintain. Yet, when every delay is reduced to how much it costs per second (so that a driver can be told on their bollocking "your 2 minute delay cost £XXX" or "your SPAD cost £YYYY (I forget the term used for working it all out)), how much is a crossover then worth if it means that a service can be run to more stations during a shut down?. Plus, of course, the benefit to passengers. I'm sure that the end result means that a crossover is worth keeping.

Then, of course, there are the instances when emergency crossovers aren't used because the Controller doesn't want to risk the crossover failing because it is a rarely used / less maintained crossover. As a consequence, this adds to the "we never use it, get rid of it", even though it could be a perfectly useful piece of track.

Quite some time ago, I heard rumours that whoever is contracted to do the upgrades wanted to simplify / remove some of the existing moves (easier for them I suppose). I don't know if it's true, but I heard that they wanted to remove the facility for NB trains to go directly from Hampstead to GG depot. If that was the case, then it shows how little they understand the working of the line and how important that move can be.

On a slightly separate note, I was disappointed to see 16 sidings at Edgware disappear. Whilst it was only accessible from one platform and may not have been used for normal stabling in the end, it was still a useful place to stick a dud train in the peak hours.

[Nortube]

Moorgate
Moorgate, like Angel, was a temporary terminus when the C&SLRly was extended to Euston.
There was a scissors crossover at the south end of the station and a 17 feet loco siding at the south end of the SB platform. The site of the siding can be easily seen because it was in the gap between the curve of the track and the trackside wall.

The station tunnels were extended north and an emergency crossover was built at the north end. The scissors crossover at the south end were no longer needed and were removed.

[Nortube]

Old Street
Old Street originally had a 291 feet long stabling siding, accessed from the SB track.  One train and one loco used to enter service from there in the morning peak and stable in the siding after the evening peak.

As part of the station tunnel lengthening, the station was extended southwards over part of the siding.

The next NB station was City Road. This closed in 1922 and so the station tunnel was never extended and still remains its original length.

[railtechnician]

Mar 29, 2013 11:38:15 GMT Nortube said:

I think that in many cases people who are involved with the decision making process don't have the experience of those at the sharp end, or don't involve with those that do. As a consequence they don't always realise the significance of something.

Crossovers are an example. On paper, it may seem that a crossover is useless, rarely used, and expensive to maintain. Yet, when every delay is reduced to how much it costs per second (so that a driver can be told on their bollocking "your 2 minute delay cost £XXX" or "your SPAD cost £YYYY (I forget the term used for working it all out)), how much is a crossover then worth if it means that a service can be run to more stations during a shut down?. Plus, of course, the benefit to passengers. I'm sure that the end result means that a crossover is worth keeping.

Then, of course, there are the instances when emergency crossovers aren't used because the Controller doesn't want to risk the crossover failing because it is a rarely used / less maintained crossover. As a consequence, this adds to the "we never use it, get rid of it", even though it could be a perfectly useful piece of track.

Quite some time ago, I heard rumours that whoever is contracted to do the upgrades wanted to simplify / remove some of the existing moves (easier for them I suppose). I don't know if it's true, but I heard that they wanted to remove the facility for NB trains to go directly from Hampstead to GG depot. If that was the case, then it shows how little they understand the working of the line and how important that move can be.

On a slightly separate note, I was disappointed to see 16 sidings at Edgware disappear. Whilst it was only accessible from one platform and may not have been used for normal stabling in the end, it was still a useful place to stick a dud train in the peak hours.

Unless things have changed significantly since my days as a signal lineman there is no such thing as a less maintained crossover. All turnouts were maintained every 12 weeks if they were 'in commission'. Basically all turnouts would be in commission unless clipped and scotched 'out of use' either temporarily due to failure or permanently awaiting removal. Crossovers used generally only in times of failure as reversing facilities had 'rusty rail' moves written into the timetable usually performed by first and/or last trains to ensure that they were proved to be working correctly on a daily basis. Thus a decision by a service controller not to want to use them in emergency seems rather irrational in my view!

[Nortube]

The 'less maintained' seems to be one of those urban myths that everyone uses. I think that the biggest problems with some emergency crossovers is that they're not used regularly. I.e. they're not reversed / normalised a few times now and again. On the Northern line at least, rusty rail moves didn't apply to tunnel sections and so the points at Stockwell, Moorgate, Charing Cross, Mornington Crescent and Hampstead were never reversed.

Euston / Kings Cross loop tends to get used on occasions, as does 23 crossover at East Finchley. Stockwell gets used on occasions and is a favourite reversing point during strikes.

I assume that the points are actually thrown during the 12 week maintenance. That might be the only time they are until the next 12 weeks. I think the problem lies in that if a fault develops, it might not be noticed until the points are reversed. E.g., I was reversing S-N at Mornington Crescent and each time the points were reversed there was a large air escape and the Signalman didn't get the points reversed indication. In the end we gave up and carried on to Kennington. Similar things have happened in the past. I think that's why Controllers often don't want to risk using these crossovers. They don't want to risk an even bigger delay or shut down to the one they have at present. Personally, as a Controller, I'd still go for reversing and if it fails, it wouldn't be my fault if it failed. However these days I assume the blame culture is the same for Controllers is the same as it is for drivers and they'll get a bollicking anyway - "you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't"!, so they just go for the easiest option.

[railtechnician]

Mar 30, 2013 12:20:30 GMT Nortube said:

The 'less maintained' seems to be one of those urban myths that everyone uses. I think that the biggest problems with some emergency crossovers is that they're not used regularly. I.e. they're not reversed / normalised a few times now and again. On the Northern line at least, rusty rail moves didn't apply to tunnel sections and so the points at Stockwell, Moorgate, Charing Cross, Mornington Crescent and Hampstead were never reversed.

Euston / Kings Cross loop tends to get used on occasions, as does 23 crossover at East Finchley. Stockwell gets used on occasions and is a favourite reversing point during strikes.

I assume that the points are actually thrown during the 12 week maintenance. That might be the only time they are until the next 12 weeks. I think the problem lies in that if a fault develops, it might not be noticed until the points are reversed. E.g., I was reversing S-N at Mornington Crescent and each time the points were reversed there was a large air escape and the Signalman didn't get the points reversed indication. In the end we gave up and carried on to Kennington. Similar things have happened in the past. I think that's why Controllers often don't want to risk using these crossovers. They don't want to risk an even bigger delay or shut down to the one they have at present. Personally, as a Controller, I'd still go for reversing and if it fails, it wouldn't be my fault if it failed. However these days I assume the blame culture is the same for Controllers is the same as it is for drivers and they'll get a bollicking anyway - "you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't"!, so they just go for the easiest option.

Of course the points get thrown when they are maintained, manually with a point bar to check the mechanical action and locking, pneumatically on the ground by manual operation of the D valve to check proper operation at minimum air pressure, then on the lever in the IMR to check operation and correct indications followed by a remote test from the signal operator desk assuming that the routine is followed. Locks and openings are gauged and adjusted where necessary to meet the specification appropriate to the type, lubricant is pumped into all the grease nipples, all electrical connections are checked for integrity and mechanically operated contacts gauged and adjusted, worn and defective parts are replaced or noted as appropriate. A signal lineman signs a Safety AWC which is his guarantee that the points have been maintained in accordance with the specification and fully tested before being replaced into commission. It is not just the points that are tested but all routes reading over them are also tested both locally and remotely too.

If trains are not used to test points on a daily basis I'd have thought the service controller would want the signal operator to at least check that s/he can clear routes over points at the end of service and before signalling that traction can be discharged so that they are known to be working at least once a day and to be able to report a fault if they are not.

As I see it very few grades at LU these days are willing to take the responsibility which they are paid to take, preferring instead to pass the buck at every opportunity. Those whose job it is to make positive decisions should be able to do so, there have always been and will always be situations on the railway where one feels damned either way but that should not discourage anyone from doing the right thing. Sometimes one has to stick one's neck on the line and be prepared to have one's head severed, that's how it used to be when I joined LT. One quickly learned the right way because the wrong way meant being dropped with loss of earnings for at least six months or sacked for gross misconduct. It was a good system, regrettably replaced by the corporate PC environment in which people at many levels seem content to play the system rather than do the job because no-one can criticise them for fear of being accused of abuse of one kind or another and the disciplinary system no longer has the teeth that it once had.

 

[Nortube]

Bank
Bank station had a 17 feet loco siding at the south end of the NB platform. When the station tunnel was extended southwards, the platform was extended over the site of the siding.

Exit from the Northern line was from stairs at the north end of the platform and the lifts which lead to the Northern line concourse at street level. The lifts are still in use today, although there are additional exits via the main concourse at Mansion House Street / Cornhill, and also via the escalators to the District line station at Monument.

[Nortube]

Euston
Euston was the Northern terminus of the C&SLRly when it extended up from Borough and left King William Street station behind.
The layout was almost the same as the temporary terminus at Angel and the southern terminus at Clapham Common, with an island platform and siding. There was a 210 feet long pit siding used for maintenance that could comfortably hold a train and loco and the continuation of the running lines north of the station formed two 227 feet long stabling sidings.

In 1916, five trains and five locos entered service from Euston in the morning peak. Three trains and three locos stabled after the morning peak to enter service again for the evening peak.  Five trains and five locos, stabled in the evening, including the last NB train at 23:37½


When the line was extended up to join the Charing Cross line at Camden Town, the station tunnels were extended southwards over the existing terminus and most of the siding. A new crossover and siding were built south of the station. Shortly afterwards, the Kings Cross loop was constructed to allow the movement of stock between the Northern line and any other line via the Piccadilly line. The Northern line was now isolated on its own.


As part of the station works for the new Victoria line, the NB track was diverted to a new platform. This allowed cross-platform interchange between the Northern and Victoria lines. The SB track area of the platform was filled in except for the short overrun stub and sand drag at the south end. A wall was later built on the platform to shield this.

The NB track south of the station, now known as the Euston loop, remained in place and is used for reversing trains N-S (usually detraining at KX, although it is a passenger move and passengers can be taken to Euston if required). More commonly, it is used for trains reversing S-N at Euston. The train departs Euston and goes into the Kings Cross loop where the driver stops and changes ends. The train then goes onto the NB line to Euston. SB trains reversing at Euston will normally be shown as 'Euston, not stopping at Mornington Crescent' on the platform describers.

 

This is the last of the diagrams for the C&SLRly. As I said in n earlier post, the diagrams are basic and are drawn purely to show the track layout changes.