Having looked at the plans, I can see that the Proctor St entrance would be a good place because there's not much going on at the surface there - not brilliant unless there's some pedestrianising work happens too.
Wider pavements and restriction of Procter Street to buses and cycles only is part of the plan at street level, according to the planning document
With Lincoln's Inn Fields sitting practically on top of the bit they're planning to do some tunnelling in, wouldn't it make sense to use the gardens there as a temporary work yard for the tunnelling and sinking of a new shaft, leaving a permanent surface / subway entrance there?
I'm fairly sure LIF has listed status, and plonking a station in the gardens (or in the surrounding buildings) would make the planning battles at Camden Town look like a walk in the park(!). Moreover, the plan shows that the south end of Procter Street is almost directly above the Central Line platforms, whereas even the closest corner of Lincolns Inn Fields is a good hundred yards away. A long walk, and a lot of tunnelling. And in the immediate vicinity of Holborn station, there are many more people travelling NE than SE, simply because of that large open space. Those going SE are going further, on average, and reducing a ten minute walk by 10% is, perceptually, less of a benefit than halving a two minute walk, even if the saving in absolute time is 60 seconds in both cases.
Surprised an additional entrance south along Kingsway (on same side as existing building) couldn’t be provided.
There used to be one - it was called Aldwych Station (in the sense that its closure increased the number of people needing to use the Kingsway entrance and escalators). Could a travelator be installed through the Aldwych tunnel to connect Holborn with Temple station? (Maybe not - it's at least eight times further than the Bank Travelator!)
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 22, 2017 9:08:03 GMT
although the distance between Holborn and Chancery Lane by train is only 400m (source: CULG), because of the direction the escalators slope, at street level it is 0.4 miles (about 650m - source Google maps). There is therefore a considerable area east of Holborn station before Chancery Lane becomes the preferable option, even if you are on the Central Line. Holborn is also served by buses heading into the tubeless area around Theobalds Road.
Several temporary S7+1 formations were used at various times to cover for S8s away for modifications, but there is also one permanent one. I believe this was because the Met's fleet was increased by one train in anticipation of the Watford Junction extension, but as this was decided after the production line for S8 seating had been closed down, the extra unit had to have an S7 type seating layout. For complicated reasons this S7+1 is not numerically the last unit.
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 21, 2017 21:17:31 GMT
The current fleet consists of 149 units, of which about a third date from 2007. Specifically, 23 x B90 stock, 47 x B92 stock, 24 x B2K stock, and 55 x B07 stock. (The numerical part of the type code indicates the date of introduction). The original P86 and P89 stock (21 units) were moved to Essen in the late 1990s.
I thought this was referred to as the Chesham Set or is that something else?
Something very different, although it too underwent conversion from hauled stock to e.m.u. It is a set of four Metropolitan Railway carriages built in 1898 and 1900. Two of them were converted to e.m.u driving cars (in 1908 and 1921 respectively), and converted back in 1940 for push-pull operation on the Chesham branch (hence the name), where they remained until electrification in 1960. Normally resident on the Bluebell Railway, they have been used for some "Steam On The Met" events.
I remember seeing photos of the Shepperton branch being used as a 'siding' for the new stock before the Victoria/Margate/Broadstairs/Ramsgate was fully electrified.
I wasn't aware of the Shepperton branch being used for that purpose, but the Ardingly to Horsted Keynes line was singled in 1958, and the redundant track used to hold both old and new stock during the Kent Coast changeover. The line closed in 1963
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 21, 2017 9:28:30 GMT
The 4TCs were never painted maroon in BR days - the only multiple unit stock so adorned were the class 309 Clacton units. All other multiple units in the BR era were originally green, switching to blue in the late 1960s (the VEPs and REP/TC units for the Bournemouth electrification being the first to be delivered new in those colours) with blue/grey later applied to multiple units with end gangways (from about 1970), and later (from about 1980) to all multiple units.
However, the 4TCs were converted from hauled stock. Most of them came from the Southern Region, and would have originally been painted green, but some came from other regions. The first class corridor coach in the preserved set started out on the LMR, and would therefore originally have been maroon.
Difficult to be sure as colour sensitivity of the camera, and ambient lighting, can vary, but the colour of that TC looks a shade pinker than BR maroon. Are there any photos of the set alongside a genuine BR maroon and/or LT red vehicle?
Two direct routes passing through different zones available between the same points, using the same barrier line at each end?
Well West Brompton to West Ham was one such route, before the North London Line was truncated at Stratford. I don't recall whether this journey was ever permissible using Oyster though..
It would have been - I've certainly used Oyster at North Woolwich. But I don't think there were ever any through trains to the West London Line from east of Stratford. West Ham to Richmond, however.............
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 20, 2017 15:14:54 GMT
I think if there is a direct route between two stations the system assumes you took that route, even if a faster route via Zone 1 exists involving a change (at Mile End in this case)
Not sure what happens if two direct routes passing through different zones are available between the same points, using the same barrier line at each end (so not Blackfriars to Wimbledon for example) Are there any such journeys in fact?
I was on a class 700 (8 car) on Saturday evening, the 1846 from luton airport parkway to sutton. I was travelling to west hampstead and what i noticed is that the train seemed to arrive at every stop along the way a good 2-3 mins early at every stop, resulting in longer dwell times, which probably slows ones journey down. Is there any reason they are timed to wait for so long at each stop?
I suspect this may be highly likely to do with the fact that the timetable is still produced to match the performance of the 319s, but any info would be helpful
Timetable still matching the less whizzy 319s may be one factor. Another may be that the point to point timings are the same throughout the day ("clockface" timetabling) in which case dwell times have to be allowed for the heaviest peak loadings, which are probably not travelling in to London in the evening.
So presumably some coils are for levitation and others for propulsion and braking.
The Hovertrain prototype was a tracked hovercraft, similar to the contemporary French Aerotrain. Both systems used air cushions for levitation, but Hovertrain used linear induction motors for propulsion whereas Aerotrain used turbofans. Maglev was being considered as a future development, but the projects were canned. when funding was withdrawn when the respective national rail operators' research departments APT and TGV projects started to challenge the received wisdom that the practical limit for conventional steel wheel /steel rail operation was about 140mph.
The Hovertrain test track in Cambridgeshire has been dismantled but the French one near Orleans can still be seen.
Railworld also has one of the cars of the world's first maglev system - the shuttle that connected Birmingham International station with the airport terminal half a mile away, at the not terribly exciting speed of 25mph. This ran between 1984 and 1995, but eventually closed as its electronics became unreliable and outdated, and because the limited capacity of its vehicles had been outsripped by demand. It was eventually replaced by a cable hauled system (!)
Last Edit: Sept 18, 2017 10:53:29 GMT by superteacher: Quote fixed
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 17, 2017 17:38:06 GMT
Problem is total incompatibility with existing network, so would need a totally new infrastructure. Also very difficult to see how junctions could be managed, so only really practical for simple shuttles such as the one at Shanghai.