|
|
Post by sarah607 on Feb 25, 2009 15:04:17 GMT
Hi all
does any one have a diagram of the hammersmith depot or layout there? and how many trains are based there?
thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by londonse on Feb 25, 2009 15:09:00 GMT
If you go to one of the map sites then show ariel I'm sure that will give you the layout and the size will show how many trains can be stabled.
Paul
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2009 18:42:28 GMT
there are 12 roads about 19 trains stable there 3 each road 1 to 3 1 on 4 rd 2 on 5 rd and 1 on each 6 to 10,1 train on outside road 11 and 1 down side of shunters cabin on 17 points and even sometimes 1 will stable outside 1 of the short sheds(6 to 10)
|
|
|
|
Post by memorex on Jun 13, 2009 23:02:07 GMT
I apologize for 'bumping' the thread, but looking over the forum rules, (6f), I believe that I am adding something of value. I had a play in excel and drew up a rough diagram of the depot area with the SimSig font.  I have numbered the roads, so that you can follow 'circledriver's description of how many trains can stable where. Cheers.  |
|
|
|
Post by glasgowdriver on Jun 13, 2009 23:44:01 GMT
thats a pretty good diagram mate
|
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Jun 14, 2009 1:12:32 GMT
Are there any future plans to allow direct access between Goldhawk Rd and Hammersmith depot?
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,313
|
Post by Colin on Jun 14, 2009 1:22:47 GMT
Future plans are that Hammersmith depot will change drastically, owing to S stock, but what those changes are haven't been decided yet AFAIK.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jun 14, 2009 7:37:49 GMT
Are there any future plans to allow direct access between Goldhawk Rd and Hammersmith depot? Whilst there are lots of plans and proposals floating about, this particular one isn't on the cards. The line at Goldhawk Road / the east end of the depot is on a viaduct, which is somewhat higher than the depot itself. With houses and the like in the way, the cost to take a lead from the main line, drop it down and connect it to the depot would cost millions. The end result, whilst handy in some circumstances, would not be used enough to justify the huge cost. |
|
|
|
Post by memorex on Jun 14, 2009 10:50:28 GMT
thats a pretty good diagram mate Thank you Future plans are that Hammersmith depot will change drastically, owing to S stock, but what those changes are haven't been decided yet AFAIK. Is this another case, (as per Wembley Park Sidings), that the S stock won't fit properly? Also, regarding a connection between Goldhawk Road and the depot, (despite the previously explained problems in doing so), I don't quite see the need. The only thing I can think of is if you send a train out of service towards Edgware Road, or if a passenger train enters service without going to Hammersmith. At present trains going into the depot terminate at Hammersmith then go out of service into the depot, (and out of service trains either use a platform or road 24, the siding opposite platform 3 to reverse). If you take into account how much a new junction alone would cost, without looking at the problems of different heights and buildings obstructing it, I don't quite see the cost being justified, to save a few minutes in shunting a train via Hammersmith. Cheers. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,313
|
Post by Colin on Jun 14, 2009 12:09:04 GMT
Is this another case, (as per Wembley Park Sidings), that the S stock won't fit properly? Given that the current C stocks are six cars and the S stock will be 7 cars, the depot will not be able to stable trains as it does today. Wembley/Neasden is slightly different as the the trains are only 2m longer. In some cases that 2m is enough to cause issues, but it's certainly not in the same league as Hammersmith. |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,100 
|
Post by Tom on Jun 14, 2009 12:38:25 GMT
Future plans are that Hammersmith depot will change drastically, owing to S stock, but what those changes are haven't been decided yet AFAIK. Is this another case, (as per Wembley Park Sidings), that the S stock won't fit properly? Yes. At the moment the long shed holds 3 C Stocks per road and the short shed 2. This will not be possible with S Stock (though note that it will be S7 - you wouldn't be able to fit 7 car C stocks there either). The platform berths are also tight for C Stock and require extension for S stock. The current design for this is interesting, as it may well prohibit shunts between the two sheds via the shunting neck (24 road?) and Platform 3 and force them to go via Platform1 or 2. This will mean that OZ18 signal will have only two routes instead of the present 4. Pity really, as I did a lot of work with that signal a couple of years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by memorex on Jun 14, 2009 12:49:41 GMT
The current design for this is interesting, as it may well prohibit shunts between the two sheds via the shunting neck (24 road?) and Platform 3 and force them to go via Platform1 or 2. That is interesting, considering just the other day I was discussing with a signal operator the new proposed timetables, and he was commenting on how difficult things would be with a 5 minute frequency. Most of the time currently, you have a platform empty, meaning you have a bit of room when things go wrong. If you cant use the shunting neck, (you are correct BTW, it is 24 road  , you'd push more trains down into the platforms, meaning you have even less space, in addition to meaning you'd block the junction as you shunt trains from the depot to the platforms and back. |
|
, you'd push more trains down into the platforms, meaning you have even less space, in addition to meaning you'd block the junction as you shunt trains from the depot to the platforms and back.
