Tottenham Hale Station

[Railwaysceptic]

#moderator note: split from this thread

Soham station progress updates | RailUK Forums (railforums.co.uk)

I watched the third platform being built at South Tottenham & believed the officially assurances from Network Rail that it would have passive provision for a fourth platform.

I haven't been to South Tottenham since the pandemic began. Are you referring to a new and very recent platform or the platform rebuilding of several years ago? If it is new, I'll go and have a look today.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I wonder if there is genuine passive provision at Soham for a second platform - on a line that needs double tracking throughout.

I watched the third platform being built at South Tottenham & believed the officially assurances from Network Rail that it would have passive provision for a fourth platform.

??????

South Tottenham has 2 platforms according to both Google Maps and the National Rail station map. Why on Earth would it need more than that?

 

[Glenn1969]

I haven't been to South Tottenham since the pandemic began. Are you referring to a new and very recent platform or the platform rebuilding of several years ago? If it is new, I'll go and have a look today.

RTT and Wiki both say South Tottenham only has 2 platforms

 

[swt_passenger]

I think South Tottenham is probably a mistype for Tottenham Hale, which did get a third platform for the Meridian Water shuttles, and is supposed to have room for a fourth for Crossrail 2?

 

[Starmill]

I think South Tottenham is probably a mistype for Tottenham Hale, which did get a third platform for the Meridian Water shuttles, and is supposed to have room for a fourth for Crossrail 2?

You beat me to it but I'm quite sure it will be Tottenham Hale. As it stands there's not exactly a realistic prospect of a return to work on Crossrail 2 however, so no prospect of a fourth platform.

 

[Ianno87]

You beat me to it but I'm quite sure it will be Tottenham Hale. As it stands there's not exactly a realistic prospect of a return to work on Crossrail 2 however, so no prospect of a fourth platform.

Also worth noting that "passive provision" does not necessarily mean "leave a great big gaping hole for it".

It actually means building it in such a way that coming back and changing it later is not totally impractical, without loading lots of (what could be) abortive costs into the here-and-now.

 

[tspaul26]

Also worth noting that "passive provision" does not necessarily mean "leave a great big gaping hole for it".

Positive passive provision.

It actually means building it in such a way that coming back and changing it later is not totally impractical, without loading lots of (what could be) abortive costs into the here-and-now.

Neutral passive provision.

 

[alf]

Thanks for correcting me. I meant Tottenham Hale. Apologies.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

You beat me to it but I'm quite sure it will be Tottenham Hale. As it stands there's not exactly a realistic prospect of a return to work on Crossrail 2 however, so no prospect of a fourth platform.

Also worth noting that "passive provision" does not necessarily mean "leave a great big gaping hole for it".

It actually means building it in such a way that coming back and changing it later is not totally impractical, without loading lots of (what could be) abortive costs into the here-and-now.

The curious thing about the passive provision left at Tottenham Hale is that where Platform 1 will be has several huge OLE masts and moving them will be an epic task while further along the route towards Lea Bridge, the masts are much slimmer. (For those unfamiliar with Tottenham Hale Station: Platform 4 is the down platform, 3 is the Up Liverpool Street platform, 2 is currently an up and down Stratford platform and there is no Platform 1)

 

[mr_jrt]

I got the impression the masts are where the new up line would go, the platform would be further back. So, presumably you would install new uprights as part of building the new platform, leaving the current masts in use whilst you do, and then you can take out the current uprights and put new horizontals during a possession. The only real issue would be the foundations for the current masts, though I guess they will have made them suitable to be well below the ballast level of the new line?

 

[Ianno87]

I got the impression the masts are where the new up line would go, the platform would be further back. So, presumably you would install new uprights as part of building the new platform, leaving the current masts in use whilst you do, and then you can take out the current uprights and put new horizontals during a possession. The only real issue would be the foundations for the current masts, though I guess they will have made them suitable to be well below the ballast level of the new line?

That's exactly what you would do. Shifting an OLE mast is not that big a deal - you just put new ones up first then take the old ones down.

 

[Bald Rick]

I watched the third platform being built at South Tottenham & believed the officially assurances from Network Rail that it would have passive provision for a fourth platform.

You may have been told that ‘officially’ by someone who didn’t know the full position.


Re Tottenham Hale. The above posts all asume that Crossrail 2 would lead to there being 4 platforms. It wouldn’t. It would have 5. To do this the whole lot would be razed to the ground (except the brand new station building), and all the tracks / platforms would be in a different position. So there is no need for passive provision, as what you can see there all goes.

The only real issue would be the foundations for the current masts, though I guess they will have made them suitable to be well below the ballast level of the new line?

In this event -if they are concrete you break them up to at least 4-500mm below rail level; if they are steel you either dig out around them and cut them off at the same depth, or potentially yank them out the same way they went in.

 

[sjoh]

You may have been told that ‘officially’ by someone who didn’t know the full position.


Re Tottenham Hale. The above posts all asume that Crossrail 2 would lead to there being 4 platforms. It doesn’t. It would have 5. To do this the whole lot would be razed to the ground (except the brand new station building), and all the tracks / platforms would be in a different position. So there is no need for passive provision, as what you can see there all goes.

Why 5, sorry? First I've heard of that!

 

[Bald Rick]

There’s no need for everything coming out of Crossrail 2 to head up to Broxbourne, and there’s still a need to retain the link to Stratford, therefore something needs to turn back at Tottenham. Two platforms for the ‘main line’, but two more isn’t enough to handle all the through ‘stopping’ services and the turn backs.

 

[mr_jrt]

Given the site constraints, do you know if any consideration was given to either moving the tunnel portal north of Tottenham Hale (solving the problem by having the CR2 platforms underground), or by sending some of those terminating services up to Chingford instead?

 

[Bald Rick]

Given the site constraints, do you know if any consideration was given to either moving the tunnel portal north of Tottenham Hale (solving the problem by having the CR2 platforms underground), or by sending some of those terminating services up to Chingford instead?

Yes to both, the former is more disruptive because the Victoria Line is in the way. The latter gets expensive - another big cavern to dig under north east London, another portal, more tunnel, etc), and results in a severe loss of service to Clapton (ie to almost none).

 

[mr_jrt]

I suppose you could conceivably start the northern branches further south at Dalston and run from there to Clapton and have the portal around Leyton Marshes, which would then give Clapton (or at least, the Clapton area if you took the opportunity to relocate the station) the full eastern branch's service provision. Might also increase WAML "fast line" capacity if you did away with stops on the 2-track surface lines at Clapton, too. As with pretty much anything CR2-related, all up in the air at this point, so I'll leave things there. Thanks for your input.

 

[Bald Rick]

Might also increase WAML "fast line" capacity if you did away with stops on the 2-track surface lines at Clapton, too

Fast line capacity is constrained by many things (Liverpool St - Bethnal Green, Liverpool St platforms, stopping patterns Cheshunt - Stortford, Cambridge platforms, Level Crossings north of Broxbourne, Stansted single line tunnel), but Clapton calls aren’t a big concern.

Also you don’t want a portal in Walthamstow Marshes; aside from it being a SSSI, the second word in their name gives it away!

 

[alf]

But if the new platform 2 had been lined up so that it, & a new platform 1, could get under the main road bridge outside Tottenham Hale there would be no need for massive caverns, station moves etc.

Passive provision was suggested officially, (go to the excellent forum search engine & put in “Tottenham Hale & meridian water” you will see many references to the fourth line from official sources & the forum’s helpful Network Rail poster)

But instead we have a single track concrete trackbed blocking a fourth track plus hefty power pylons & the recently built platform 2.

Not most people’s reading of passive provision for a fourth track.

I can’t remember the cost of the long single track siding & its 20 mph entry points near Lea Bridge we now have, but it may have been £150 million plus.

That is a lot of public money possibly to be literally thrown away as most of the work is not suitable for an entirely new four track layout.
The £150 million could have been spent prudently on something that would be used in a subsequent four tracking & cut its cost.

But such is the world of the railway’s new guiding mind- Network Rail.

 

[Bald Rick]

But if the new platform 2 had been lined up so that it, & a new platform 1, could get under the main road bridge outside Tottenham Hale there would be no need for massive caverns, station moves etc.

Passive provision was suggested officially, (go to the excellent forum search engine & put in “Tottenham Hale & meridian water” you will see many references to the fourth line from official sources & the forum’s helpful Network Rail poster)

But instead we have a single track concrete trackbed blocking a fourth track plus hefty power pylons & the recently built platform 2.

Not most people’s reading of passive provision for a fourth track.

I can’t remember the cost of the long single track siding & its 20 mph entry points near Lea Bridge we now have, but it may have been £150 million plus.

That is a lot of public money possibly to be literally thrown away as most of the work is not suitable for an entirely new four track layout.
The £150 million could have been spent prudently on something that would be used in a subsequent four tracking & cut its cost.

But such is the world of the railway’s new guiding mind- Network Rail.

Have you actually read post #12?

 

[alf]

I have read them all twice & then posted.

 

[Bald Rick]

I have read them all twice & then posted.

Ok, i’ll Quote myself then:

Re Tottenham Hale. The above posts all asume that Crossrail 2 would lead to there being 4 platforms. It wouldn’t. It would have 5. To do this the whole lot would be razed to the ground (except the brand new station building), and all the tracks / platforms would be in a different position. So there is no need for passive provision, as what you can see there all goes.

Ie there was no point in lining up tracks / platforms etc for the bridge to enable a 4th platform, as Crossrail 2 needs 5. And they are all on different alignment s(and the bridge has to be rebuilt).

The passive provision for Crossrail 2 is further south - where you can see a double track bridge span with only one track over it.

I know people who were in the meetings where the passive provision was decided - and what was done was exactly the right thing; particularly so given that Crossrail 2 is now paused and is unlikely to start construction anytime in the next decade.