|
Post by ikar on Sept 25, 2005 19:37:57 GMT
This is how the Tower Hill station would look if I would reconstruct it. 4 /------------------------------- =to Minores -/-*----*-------------------------+ \ / 3 / \ 2 -\---*---*------------------------+ \------------------------------- =from Minores 1 P.S. can you make a copy of it to the District line board too Better diagram of the above. Yes thank you TOK, the lower one is the mine proposed one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2005 0:31:33 GMT
Well this thread certainly has thrown-up some interesting ideas! Let me explain for those not 'in the know' that (during Mon-Fri peaks) the Metropolitan, Hammersmith & City, Circle, and District Lines all operate to a service pattern that repeats exactly during each 17 minute period. And during that period we have the following number of trains from each branch. On the Metropolitan: 1 from Amersham or Chesham 2 from Watford 3 from Uxbridge (1 each from Watford and Uxbridge terminate at Baker St) So, into the city on the Met side we have: 4 Mets 2 H&Cs 2 Circles On the District: 2 from Ealing Bdwy 2 from Richmond 1 from Olympia 4 from Wimbledon (2 from Wimbledon go to Edgware Rd and the 1 from Olympia goes to High St Ken) So, into the city on the District side we have: 6 Districts 2 Circles Unfortunately, with the present signalling and working arrangements, it doesn't seem possible to run more than 8 trains per 17 mins (28 tph) between Baker St and Liverpool St or between Gloucester Rd and Tower Hill without the service becoming very unreliable. Assuming that LUL will not pay-up for any major alterations to track layouts at junctions and reversing points, the only possiblity seems to be 1 extra train to/from High St Ken every 17 mins. So if the District does take over the Rayners Lane/Uxbridge branch (which I think will have to happen when T5 at Heathrow gets busy) then people SOMEWHERE are going to have their peak-hour train service reduced!! That extra train to/from High St Ken would provide for a TOTAL of 10 trains into Earls Court from the western branches every 17 mins: 3 from Rayners Lane/Uxbridge 2 from Richmond 1 from Olympia 4 from Wimbledon (Those 3 from Rayners Lane/Uxbridge should just about handle the loadings on that branch... and would fit in neatly with the Met service running at exactly the same frequency!) But only 6 of those 10 trains arriving at Earls Ct can go through to the city, and passengers from each branch are going to want ALL of them, so it could get very interesting! ;D Your ideas on which service pattern would be the fairest, and would cause the fewest arguments ??
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Sept 26, 2005 11:08:32 GMT
The only answer to increasing throughput from the District (and Met for that matter) into the City is to abolish the bloody Circles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2005 19:05:58 GMT
The only answer to increasing throughput from the District (and Met for that matter) into the City is to abolish the bloody Circles. Hmm....imagine the uproar around the Aldgate area if there were no Circles, getting from say, Moorgate to Tower Hill would be Mission Impossible!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2005 19:48:34 GMT
The only answer to increasing throughput from the District (and Met for that matter) into the City is to abolish the bloody Circles. Hmm....imagine the uproar around the Aldgate area if there were no Circles, getting from say, Moorgate to Tower Hill would be Mission Impossible! When the Circle is disrupted, people are quite happy to change at Aldgate East without complaint. The same happens at Earls Court when they want to go between South Ken and High St Ken.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2005 20:20:00 GMT
so are you saying we could have just big trains here in Uxbridge! whoo!!!! i bump my head getting onto 73TS now.... :-(
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2005 20:33:15 GMT
Hmm....imagine the uproar around the Aldgate area if there were no Circles, getting from say, Moorgate to Tower Hill would be Mission Impossible! When the Circle is disrupted, people are quite happy to change at Aldgate East without complaint. The same happens at Earls Court when they want to go between South Ken and High St Ken. hmm.....maybe it could work then? It would definately help the H&C, and provide extra city space for the District. Sounds good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2005 20:41:09 GMT
The only problem is that it would require an Act of Parliament - if I have read things correctly, the 1874 Act of Parliament that established the Metropolitan Railway Inner Circle Completion Company mandated the creation of the Circle Line. Removing these services would require the legislation to be changed, either to abolish it completely or to give TfL full control over its existence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2005 21:08:05 GMT
The Government needs to be involved now? Right, scratch that, Circle stays by the looks of it since Blair & Co. never do anything useful when it comes to transport. Look at Crossrail! (as well as the continuation of NR Privatisation and the now-not-happening integration of King's Cross Thameslink into King's Cross mainline station)
Great track record (pun half intended)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2005 21:44:10 GMT
The only problem is that it would require an Act of Parliament - if I have read things correctly, the 1874 Act of Parliament that established the Metropolitan Railway Inner Circle Completion Company mandated the creation of the Circle Line. Removing these services would require the legislation to be changed, either to abolish it completely or to give TfL full control over its existence. How about a one Circle train a day "sulky" service? I believe BR did that a few times when ancient acts of Parliament have cropped up.
|
|
|
Post by piccadillypilot on Sept 26, 2005 22:01:57 GMT
i bump my head getting onto 73TS now.... :-( I hear that in the interests of improved Health and Safety LU are considering fitting some new signs to the top edge of tube stock passenger doors, "Duck or Grouse". ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2005 0:27:16 GMT
The only problem is that it would require an Act of Parliament - if I have read things correctly, the 1874 Act of Parliament that established the Metropolitan Railway Inner Circle Completion Company mandated the creation of the Circle Line. Removing these services would require the legislation to be changed, either to abolish it completely or to give TfL full control over its existence. How about a one Circle train a day "sulky" service? I believe BR did that a few times when ancient acts of Parliament have cropped up. Yup, stuff like that has certainly been done on BR in the past... like retiming branch line services so they don't connect with trains on the main, and then saying "nobody's using them". With regard to the Circle Line I'm now wondering how much 'withdrawal' LUL could get away with. Like possibly no service during the peaks, which would solve the problems we are discussing in this thread, or only one train a day each way as adw has mentioned! (??)
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,359
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 27, 2005 0:52:40 GMT
My maths isn't good enough (particularly at 2 hours past when I should have been in bed) to work out the stock and line capacity issues, but would a sharing of the Uxbridge branch by the Picc and District work? From my understanding (which is highly likely to be wrong) the Picc haven't got enough trains to cover peak frequencies to T4, T5 and Uxbridge, but do have sufficient for T4, T5 and Ealing Broadway. Given that EBDY is a much shorter branch than Uxbridge, the number of trains not needed for the latter would be more than enough to cover T5 and Ealing. Could these trains then be used to provide say half the current tph to Uxbridge, with the other half provided by the District? This would mean the District giving EBDY to the Picc, but that doesn't (from what I read here) appear to be a particularly emotive issue.
A similar thought but on a smaller scale would be to share the Richmond branch - much shorter than Uxbridge and so requiring of less trains, but freeing up some DR trains for the new route. I don't know whehter this is possible given the current track layout though. Wether these trains would be Fast or Slow to Hammersmith I have no idea.
Chris
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2005 3:06:52 GMT
Regarding the last paragraph, Chris, this would never happen. There is no connection between the fast lines and the Richmond branch at Turnham Green, and to build some would require a vast amount of work, money and inconvenience! Apart from that, the 73s aren't approved for use on NR lines, so they'd have to go through the approval process. Then the drivers would have to recieve the same NR rules training as we do, thus adding more expense (training and assesment costs)... I think I've shot down your idea of using Richmond for the Picc!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,359
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 27, 2005 7:57:22 GMT
I think I've shot down your idea of using Richmond for the Picc! Fair enough! I I know nowhere near enough to do anything other than post the ideas I have for others to explain why the wont work. On the offchance that I come up with something that might, then others can see the ideas and run with them as far as htey will go (even if that isn't very far) or be inspired by them. I know the chancs of this happening are extremely slim, but you never know! Chris
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2005 21:59:50 GMT
Fair enough! I I know nowhere near enough to do anything other than post the ideas I have for others to explain why the wont work. On the offchance that I come up with something that might, then others can see the ideas and run with them as far as htey will go (even if that isn't very far) or be inspired by them. I know the chancs of this happening are extremely slim, but you never know! Chris OK Chris, and you're right, this whole thing is pretty complicated! The problem with Piccadilly services is that, with the present 5 min service from Rayners Lane/Uxbridge during the peaks, only a 5 min service can be run from Heathrow. No real problem at the moment, but when T5 opens it would only have a 10 min service -- with alternate trains serving T4 every 10 min. Even if T4 was cut to a 15 min service this would still only give an uneven 5-10 min service from T5 -- probably not enough when it comes into full operation. But if the Piccadilly serves Ealing Broadway instead of Rayners Lane/Uxbridge it would only require a 10 min service, thus increasing T5's service to every 5 mins. Problem solved.... except for the District, now lumbered with a much busier branch to serve!! Seriously though, if any Piccadilly trains have to serve the Rayners Lane branch it would be better to leave things as they are now. Let me throw an idea (or three) into the pot.... 1) Leave the Circles as they are! 2) Leave the District as it is, apart from diverting the Ealing Bdwy service to Ruislip/Uxbridge 3) Add a District train every 17 mins between Rayners Lane and High St Ken, to give a 5-6 min service between Rayners Lane and Ealing Common. *ducks behind wall*!! ;D
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,309
|
Post by Colin on Sept 28, 2005 9:51:05 GMT
2) Leave the District as it is, apart from diverting the Ealing Bdwy service to Ruislip/Uxbridge 3) Add a District train every 17 mins between Rayners Lane and High St Ken, to give a 5-6 min service between Rayners Lane and Ealing Common. Just to throw a spanner in the works, what if there's a problem in the city? By using both bay roads at High St (1x Olympia + 1x Uxbridge), we lose the facility to turn trains short. Also, the shortage of stock would still need addressing. Now I know why i'm glad i'm not a manager!!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,359
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 28, 2005 9:57:58 GMT
What would be the lag time on ordering more trains of an existing design?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2005 16:12:36 GMT
What would be the lag time on ordering more trains of an existing design? Heh, no real point since they're going to all be replaced in around 5 years anyway. Now if they were new-ish then it would be another story.....
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,860
|
Post by towerman on Sept 28, 2005 20:01:37 GMT
Talking to an Earl's Court DMT going home this morning,told me there's rumours going round that Silverlink are going to upgrade the NLL and increase the service to Richmond and it's been muted that the DR service to Richmond may be withdrawn if this happens.Hey presto! there's your extra stock for Rayner's Lane/Uxbridge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2005 20:21:09 GMT
hmmm Silverlink.... do someting right....
i apologise for my skeptism but those are 2 phrases that REALLY don't go together!
|
|
|
Post by russe on Sept 28, 2005 22:17:48 GMT
Talking to an Earl's Court DMT going home this morning, told me there's rumours going round that Silverlink are going to upgrade the NLL and increase the service to Richmond and it's been muted that the DR service to Richmond may be withdrawn if this happens. Hey presto! there's your extra stock for Rayner's Lane/Uxbridge. Hmmm, sounds like a pre-emptive sneaky move by Silversting to utilise its 3 (4?) 'spare' NLL 313s when Stratford to Woolwich closes in December... Will the hapless District passengers be turfed out at Chiswick Park and told to leg it to Gunnersbury? Russ (wiv a dodgy leg)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2005 0:37:44 GMT
Talking to an Earl's Court DMT going home this morning, told me there's rumours going round that Silverlink are going to upgrade the NLL and increase the service to Richmond and it's been muted that the DR service to Richmond may be withdrawn if this happens. Hey presto! there's your extra stock for Rayner's Lane/Uxbridge. Hmmm, sounds like a pre-emptive sneaky move by Silversting to utilise its 3 (4?) 'spare' NLL 313s when Stratford to Woolwich closes in December... Will the hapless District passengers be turfed out at Chiswick Park and told to leg it to Gunnersbury? Russ (wiv a dodgy leg)Well that just goes to show what sort of stuff is being planned on the quiet without letting the travelling public know!! I've done a few calculations while riding to/from work, and it looks as if 5 extra D-stock trains would be needed to divert and extend the Ealing Bdwy service to Ruislip/Uxbridge. Another 6 would be needed to provide a 17 min service between Rayners Lane and High St Ken, making a total of 11 in all. Anyone on this forum know if LUL have sufficient D-stock for this?? Especially if there are howls of protest at the prospect of Richmond losing it's DR service! ;D
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Sept 29, 2005 8:51:25 GMT
OK- let's get really creative. If the Silverlink thing doesn't materialise then by definition there will be some spare Cl 313s about. Now they can run on third rail (and hence fourth)... Can you see where my devious mind is going, to get the extra stock for DR to Rayners?
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,309
|
Post by Colin on Sept 29, 2005 10:33:21 GMT
OK- let's get really creative. If the Silverlink thing doesn't materialise then by definition there will be some spare Cl 313s about. Now they can run on third rail (and hence fourth)... Can you see where my devious mind is going, to get the extra stock for DR to Rayners? But as it is surface stock has restrictions when using the Rayners branch - then there's tunnel sections at Earls Court, as well as the fact that these trains wouldn't have the same capcity as a 73ts or D stock. I like the idea of losing the Richmond's though
|
|
|
Post by ikar on Sept 29, 2005 10:43:53 GMT
Hmmm, sounds like a pre-emptive sneaky move by Silversting to utilise its 3 (4?) 'spare' NLL 313s when Stratford to Woolwich closes in December... Will the hapless District passengers be turfed out at Chiswick Park and told to leg it to Gunnersbury? Russ (wiv a dodgy leg)Well that just goes to show what sort of stuff is being planned on the quiet without letting the travelling public know!! I've done a few calculations while riding to/from work, and it looks as if 5 extra D-stock trains would be needed to divert and extend the Ealing Bdwy service to Ruislip/Uxbridge. Another 6 would be needed to provide a 17 min service between Rayners Lane and High St Ken, making a total of 11 in all. Anyone on this forum know if LUL have sufficient D-stock for this?? Especially if there are howls of protest at the prospect of Richmond losing it's DR service! ;D The current D-stock numbers 75D-stock in current peak service 67D-stock if your callculations are right 78P.S. Is the closing of Statford-Nth Woolwich only for works or completly
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,309
|
Post by Colin on Sept 29, 2005 10:49:21 GMT
P.S. Is the closing of Statford-Nth Woolwich only for works or completly The Docklands Light Railway is taking over the Stratford - North Woolwich section.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,359
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 29, 2005 10:50:08 GMT
P.S. Is the closing of Statford-Nth Woolwich only for works or completly IIRC its becoming part of the DLR.
|
|
|
Post by ikar on Sept 29, 2005 10:56:57 GMT
P.S. Is the closing of Statford-Nth Woolwich only for works or completly The Docklands Light Railway is taking over the Stratford - North Woolwich section. On the every LU official map that I saw The new DLR extension was to be built not on the STF-NTH WOO but on a new part of the track from Canning Town via: West Silvertown, Pontoon Dock, London City Airport, King George V. Does any one has more info on this.
|
|
|
Post by russe on Sept 29, 2005 11:11:46 GMT
On the every LU official map that I saw The new DLR extension was to be built not on the STF-NTH WOO but on a new part of the track from Canning Town via: West Silvertown, Pontoon Dock, London City Airport, King George V. Does any one has more info on this. See my message here districtdave.proboards39.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=ell&thread=1126118971&page=1The DLR will take over the trackbed from Stratford Low Level to Canning Town, thereafter it diverges onto a new formation and will dive under the river to terminate at Woolwich Arsenal. I would imagine the full monty is available on the tfl site somewhere. Russ
|
|