rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 7,120
|
Post by rincew1nd on Mar 15, 2017 23:58:27 GMT
At the end of this magic merry go round of trains there will be 58 S8s, 133 S7s, 1 S7+1 and one spare M2D car. Confused? Probably... Reminds me of this scene from Yes, Minister: Can they all carry passengers? |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,140
|
Post by North End on Mar 16, 2017 1:00:04 GMT
So do we presume 25384 will end up being the spare car? That would be logical, but this is the Underground! Well of course, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how things pan out. Presumably the trains could be reformed back to their proper formations (although would there be any actual benefit in doing this?), left alone, or left alone but renumbered to match to the original numbering system. |
|
MoreToJack
Global Moderator
Pulling levers in the land of OZ
Posts: 780
|
Post by MoreToJack on Mar 16, 2017 1:27:41 GMT
That would be logical, but this is the Underground! Well of course, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how things pan out. Presumably the trains could be reformed back to their proper formations (although would there be any actual benefit in doing this?), left alone, or left alone but renumbered to match to the original numbering system. The only benefit would be having two additional de-icing trains for the C, D & H, as originally intended, and less 'half' a de-icer for the Met (the S7+1 would retain one M2D car, its "own"). If Croxley goes ahead I would imagine an additional de-icer would be useful for the added flexibility, although likewise for the C, D & H anyway. Somebody who is paid far more than me to worry about these matters has obviously decided though that the de-icers can be spared! The two replacement cars are numbered as they would always have been for their respective units, just as a 'normal' M2 (23xxx) rather than an M2D (25xxx). Long term, the only one 'out of sync' will be the singular S7+1 - and as it's one car, and it's an 'oddball' train, it's probably best to just leave it (Imo!). I'm starting to confuse myself now... |
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 1,504
|
Post by DWS on Mar 16, 2017 6:38:23 GMT
Can some one explain why the D Stock rats can not be put to more use outside the leaf fall season, and be used as de-icer units in the winter season ? I know this may be off topic .
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 16, 2017 7:42:02 GMT
The only benefit would be having two additional de-icing trains for the C, D & H, as originally intended, and less 'half' a de-icer for the Met (the S7+1 would retain one M2D car, its "own"). Why "half" a de-icer? I thought deicing units had just one M2D car. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Mar 16, 2017 10:58:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Mar 16, 2017 22:49:45 GMT
Can some one explain why the D Stock rats can not be put to more use outside the leaf fall season, and be used as de-icer units in the winter season ? I know this may be off topic . What's a D Stock rat? It's not a rodent, I assume. |
|
MoreToJack
Global Moderator
Pulling levers in the land of OZ
Posts: 780
|
Post by MoreToJack on Mar 16, 2017 23:06:27 GMT
RAT = rail adhesion train, or 'sandite'.
|
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Mar 17, 2017 10:47:42 GMT
Can some one explain why the D Stock rats can not be put to more use outside the leaf fall season, and be used as de-icer units in the winter season ? I know this may be off topic . There is no real need, there are around S stocks to do the job, (only four are normally used at night) and to use the D stock would require D stock qualified to be available all winter. In extreme weather additional de-icing can be provided by transplant? (I think) who have equipment which can be used, powered by 2 loco's. (Very off topic)  |
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Mar 17, 2017 10:56:02 GMT
I would love to see the revenue projections and to know how much of a basket case the Croxley link is from a financial viewpoint. I suspect that the Watford branch, north of Harrow probably currently costs a mint to operate. Turn it into a line with a commuter base at each end and it would not surprise me if commuter revenues went up by a third. Leisure/shopping journeys would also increase. Watford High Street station is probably better located for shoppers than any other station on the met.
|
|
Chris M
chatter
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 13,951
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 17, 2017 11:21:46 GMT
I think at this point the main issue is not return on investment, but the cost of the initial investment and the inability and/or unwillingness of whomever to borrow money against the future returns - my understanding is that Herts county council don't have the legal powers to do that and (without getting political) this is not something that seems likely to change in the short term.
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Mar 17, 2017 12:16:04 GMT
There is also scope to run additional services via the north curve from Amersham and beyond.
I suspect TfL will try to get contractors to re-quote on the new type of fixed price contract they now prefer. They state the budget & scope and the contractor outlines what they will provide for the money.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 17, 2017 13:11:18 GMT
I suspect that the Watford branch, north of Harrow probably currently costs a mint to operate. Turn it into a line with a commuter base at each end and it would not surprise me if commuter revenues went up by a third. A third of not-very-much revenue is still a lot less than "a mint" though. Even if revenues do improve, would they do so by enough to pay the extra costs not only of building the thing, but also running an extra station (net), additional operating complications at Watford (particularly the junction at High Street and the interaction between the LO and LU signalling systems), the extra train mileage, etc? There may also be revenue lost as some passengers from Metropolitan Line stations will find it easier and cheaper to travel to Watford Junction to catch WCML trains (or to St Albans) rather than via Euston Sq or KX St Pancras. The Aylesbury/Amersham to Watford idea might have legs. If run as an NR (Chiltern) service it could be cheaper (no electrification, shorter trains - and therefore platforms). Harrow/Wembley etc already have direct services to Watford Junction on LO (and indeed LM). It would be interesting to know how many user of the Watford branch currently travel from the Amersham/Rickmansworth direction and change at Moor Park, who would benefit from a direct service - and conversely how many travel from the Harrow/Pinner direction and would have to change at Rickmansworth if such a service replaced the existing one. Cheaper still would be to build a new basic station on the Met where it crosses the canal, and reopen the LNWR line on the extant trackbed up to where the widening of Ascot Road has severed it, and advertise the five minute walk between them - about the same as at Hackney - as an interchange. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Mar 17, 2017 13:38:10 GMT
I would love to see the revenue projections and to know how much of a basket case the Croxley link is from a financial viewpoint. I suspect that the Watford branch, north of Harrow probably currently costs a mint to operate. Turn it into a line with a commuter base at each end and it would not surprise me if commuter revenues went up by a third. Leisure/shopping journeys would also increase. Watford High Street station is probably better located for shoppers than any other station on the met. HOTH? |
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Mar 17, 2017 15:35:24 GMT
I suspect that the Watford branch, north of Harrow probably currently costs a mint to operate. Turn it into a line with a commuter base at each end and it would not surprise me if commuter revenues went up by a third. A third of not-very-much revenue is still a lot less than "a mint" though. Even if revenues do improve, would they do so by enough to pay the extra costs not only of building the thing, but also running an extra station (net), additional operating complications at Watford (particularly the junction at High Street and the interaction between the LO and LU signalling systems), the extra train mileage, etc? There may also be revenue lost as some passengers from Metropolitan Line stations will find it easier and cheaper to travel to Watford Junction to catch WCML trains (or to St Albans) rather than via Euston Sq or KX St Pancras. The Aylesbury/Amersham to Watford idea might have legs. If run as an NR (Chiltern) service it could be cheaper (no electrification, shorter trains - and therefore platforms). Harrow/Wembley etc already have direct services to Watford Junction on LO (and indeed LM). It would be interesting to know how many user of the Watford branch currently travel from the Amersham/Rickmansworth direction and change at Moor Park, who would benefit from a direct service - and conversely how many travel from the Harrow/Pinner direction and would have to change at Rickmansworth if such a service replaced the existing one. Cheaper still would be to build a new basic station on the Met where it crosses the canal, and reopen the LNWR line on the extant trackbed up to where the widening of Ascot Road has severed it, and advertise the five minute walk between them - about the same as at Hackney - as an interchange. A third increase in Revenue is a lot, I feel sure it will be enough to switch the line from loss to profit. I cant imagine anyone travelling from the north end of the met to the west coast main line currently travelling via London, they would go to HOTH then bus to Harrow and Wealdstone or Northwick Park and walk to Kenton. The numbers travelling to St. Albans are negligible as the cross town connection involves a long uphill walk. There are passengers travelling between Watford, Rickmansworth though probably not more than 2/3 a train on average, both the location of Watford station and the 13 mins connection don't help to build the service. |
|
