|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 31, 2018 12:08:58 GMT
If the 332s go to Yorkshire to work alongside the 333s, replacing the 321s and 322s, what will happen to the new 331s currently being built for that task?
The only other electric classes Northern have are 323 (also to be displaced by 331s) and 319. Some of the latter (initially eight) are to be converted to electro-diesel and therefore can't be replaced by electric-only 331s or 332s.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 28, 2018 19:38:51 GMT
Are the 331s not being made by CAF, like the 332 and 333 are? So perhaps some (obscure) logic. There is little similarity between them though especially as the 332s are nearly twenty years old. And the 331s will have traction equipment from TSA (of Austria) rather than Siemens like the 332/333s. And if TOPs classification makes sense, why is 334 a Juniper, built by Alsthom? Why is the Transpennine variant being built by CAF classified 397? Shouldn't it have a 33x number - or maybe an 8xx?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 28, 2018 18:06:23 GMT
Northern operate the similar class 333 units on the Aire & Wharf Valley routes to the northwest of Leeds. Some cl321 are also used to boost capacity, IIRC some have just moved from Scotrail to Yorkshire to facilitate this. The ones that came from Scotland are actually class 322s, although modifications to them and Northern's 321/9s since they arrived in 2011 have rendered the two classes almost identical . The 322s started life on the Stansted Express and have found use in several other areas. Northern has a large fleet of 331s on order ( no relation to 332 or 333 - there is no logic to the classification system any more......) so it is doubtful there will be a home for the 333s there.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 28, 2018 16:11:56 GMT
Surplus GWR Class 387s will be used on the service once they have been modified to a more "luxurious" internal standard. What is to become of the 332s currently working the service?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 28, 2018 16:09:55 GMT
The FLU (Full Length Unit) Class 700's must be the longest trains in the U.K. to use ATO. Probably not unique once Crossrail is fully up and running. . Crossrail will only be nine cars - an FLU is twelve.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 28, 2018 15:06:25 GMT
Reliability, spares availability, desire of management to save face..... .......the fact that they are already forty years old, and that sea water getting in the gaps between the steel underframe and the aluminium superstructure will create a giant galvanic cell, which will cause corrosion.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 28, 2018 9:13:20 GMT
Ricky has a 15 minute service for most of the day, so blocking back would be unlikely. 6 tph both ways (two Chesham, two Amersham, two Aylesbury)
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 27, 2018 21:58:29 GMT
The conclusion was that PEP derived stock would fit. But, that raises the problem of how do you power them Classes 313, 507 and 508 all work off the same 3rd rail system as the 483s.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 27, 2018 13:00:17 GMT
Worth reading this report which, among other things, suggests that the existing track conditions, whilst adequate for what is effectively a light railway, are far below what would be needed for trams, which are less tolerant of poor track. And it would be difficult to fix, as the conditions relate partly to the way it was built back in the 1860s.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 27, 2018 9:42:25 GMT
I can't find anything more specific than 2020 for the opening date. . This article from last September suggests " the project remains on track to launch at the end of 2020".
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 26, 2018 13:08:01 GMT
Thanks for the replies! Biggest thing that stands out to me is the way units are referred to as “wrong way round.” Why does this matter if there are cabs on either end? Many older stock had couplers which were handed. They only worked one way round. Also connections for auxiliaries and stuff, sockets only on one side, that kind of thing. This is very easily seen on Standard stock. here is a D-end www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/Standard%20Stock%20Photos.htmNote the positions of the three square box-like structures low down on the cab front - two on the driver's side and one under the destination plate. These house various connections needed to work the cars together. And here is an A end www.flickr.com/photos/norfolkboy1/17562823116/in/photostream/It should be evident that coupling two A ends or two D ends together would be problematic. On the main line the problem was solved either by duplicating the connections in each side, or by arranging them vertically in the middle of the cab front. Space is too limited for this on Tube stock, and since on most lines it could never by turned round anyway the asymmetric solutoin was simpler and cheaper. Assymetric coupling arrangements could also include, for example, a plug on one car engaging a socket in the other. At least two lines made use of the fact trains were locked into facing one way to provide assymetric electric current delivery systems. The GN&C had a four-rail system with the positive rail on one side and the negative on the other (no centre rail). The C&SLR had an off-centre live rail - this was necessary because the tiny dimensions of the trains left inadequate clearance below the centre couplings for a live rail.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 25, 2018 21:24:36 GMT
I wonder what happened to the 3 car units from the 1972mk1 stock when the four car sets were inserted into the 1967 stock? Most Mark 1s were scrapped. Only a handful (7?) Of four car units went to the Victoria Line, and two complete trains went to strengthen the Bakerloo's fleet of Mark 2s. Another unit lives on the Aldwych branch for filming purposes.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 25, 2018 17:46:00 GMT
When the 1972 Mk1 stock was withdrawn from the Northern Line, a number of 4 car units were used to increase the available fleet on the Victoria Line. Because they were not fitted with ATO, the DMs could only be formed in the middle of trains, so a similar number of 1967 stock units were split, each half being paired with half a 1972 stock unit. The ex-1972 cars were difficult to identify, as they were renumbered to match the 1967 DMs they were paired with (some 1967 DMs were themselves renumbered as their numbers had been taken by the renumbered 1972 cars, if you see what I mean) I don't know it was a deliberate choice to use two 1972 cars for the TCU, but the fact that they went to the trouble of converting one of them from D to A, resulting in both end cars of the TCU being 1972 cars, is suggestive.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 24, 2018 17:48:30 GMT
The R stock reforms did not affect the DMs or UNDMs - it simply involved transferring intermediate NDMs from some four car units (making them three car) and adding them to other four car units (making them five car). Thus instead of having 6-car (2+4) or 8 car (2+2=4) trains, they could all be seven car (2+5 or 2+2+3)
Not sure if all Tube stock had emergency-only couplers at ends which would never be formed in the middle in normal service, but the DMs of 3-car 1972 stock and single-ended 1973 stock do, as it is only the other (UNDM) end which will ever couple to anything.
Q stock, (and standard stock, and all older stocks) were not formed in units (with permanent couplings between cars) but the cars could be marshalled any way you liked. MTTMMTTM was normal for Q stock. Standard stock was usually M-T-T-M+CT-T-M but had many variations - a common one was marshalling a control trailer where a normal trailer could have been - in fact some of trailers in the IOW stock were actually control trailers with the cabs disabled. I read somewhere that on the Bakerloo two of the three DMs needed in a 7 car train would be marshalled together at the north end, to maximise the passenger space at the south end of the train which got busier because of where station entrances were on that line
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 24, 2018 14:02:30 GMT
If I recall correctly, the true 1938 stock included no UNDMs - they were built as part of the additional 1949 stock.
On some lines with 3- and 4-car units, the DMs that would be usually to be found at the end of a train (i.e west end of 4-car, east end of 3-car) only had emergency couplers. (The middle cabs could be used if the train ran as a single unit e.g on the East London, Ongar and Aldwych shuttles). Some cabs were identified as "middle" because they had been rendered unusable, either because some part had failed, or parts had been robbed to repair other cabs, or because they had not been upgraded (e.g for OPO conversion), and could hence only be used in the middle of trains after that.
Because of the Watford triangle, A stock could get reversed and thus was designed to couple either way round (A-D, A-A or D-D). Although in normal service it would appear that couldn't happen with C stock, certain workings ran by the "wrong" side of the Minories or Kensington triangles, (thus switching identity from Circle to H&C or "Wimbleware") specifically to turn them round. Thus was done to even out wheel wear on the Circle Line trains. C stock was all of one type, (single ended 2-car units, formed into six car trains, in which the middle unit could be either way round).
D stock could not be turned round, and thus had conventional handed couplings. A few "double enders" were included in the fleet, mainly for operating flexibility although they proved useful on the East London line during a temporary shortage of A stock during OPO conversion. The cabs of double enders had autocouplings, to couple to the UNDM of a single ender, but the can ends of single enders only had emergency couplers.
the 1973 stock has essentially the same layout as the D stock. When it was built there was no way it could get turned round in service, but after the T4 loop opened that ceased to be the case and at any one time half the fleet have the A end at the west and the other half have D end to the west.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 24, 2018 9:10:35 GMT
Between Putney Bridge and East Putney, taken from the railway bridge (variously known as Hurlingham/Fulham/Putney). It must be looking downstream (as the pedestrian walkway can be seen). The University Boat Race is today, and rowing from Putney (road) bridge, just upstream of the railway bridge, to Chiswick Bridge.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 23, 2018 17:13:37 GMT
So what do you do? You order double-ended units instead of single-ended ones. Then every way is the right way. "Double ended" in this context meaning ambidextrous, I assume - since all 4-car 1972 stock units are double-cabbed and all 3-car single cabbed.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 23, 2018 17:12:00 GMT
Note that every train on the Bakerloo is technically wrong-way round, as by convention the 32XX units should face north. However, the Bakerloo works like this because Stonebridge Park Depot faces south, and it allows the majority of shunting movements in the depot to be carried out from a 33XX car which has a full cab. If the trains were right way round then there would be a lot more shunting from the 34XX UNDM cars which don't have a full cab, which is less desirable for obvious reasons. Didn't the "wrong way round" convention originally arise because of the practice of detaching single-cabbed units of 1938 stock at Watford Junction in the off peak, and working them to Croxley Green depot? This was a long way to drive using just a shunters panel. Hence the trains were turned the other way round so they could be driven from the cab.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 23, 2018 15:08:03 GMT
Many trains on the Underground are made up of two or more shorter units coupled together. This means that a fault on one car only puts out of action the other cars in that unit, and the good unit(s) can be kept running if another good unit is available to replace the casualty. (i.e two faulty trains only means one train lost from service, because you can make one good train out of the two faulty ones)
Bakerloo trains (1972 stock) are made up of a three-car unit and a four-car unit. They were originally built for the Northern Line, where trains can end up back-to-front thanks to the Kennington loop. In order to keep flexibility regardless of which way round it is, the cabless end of a three-car unit could couple to either end of a four car unit. Thus either end of a four car unit could be at the end of a train, so both ends needed cabs. On the Bakerloo there is no way a train can be turned round, so the middle cabs are redundant and many of them have had equipment removed to be used as spares.
Central line trains (1992 stock) are actually made up of four two-car units. Some units have a cab at one end, others are cabless. Again, because of the Hainault Loop, trains can end up either way round, and any unit can couple either way round to any other. A cabless unit can obviously only be coupled as one of the middle two units in the train, but a cabbed unit can be marshalled in any position. Because of this extra flexibility, slightly more cabbed units were built than cabless ones, and the surplus cabbed units can sometimes be seen in the middle of trains. It also means that a unit with a fault in the cab equipment (a missing windscreen wiper or damaged driver's seat, for example) can still be used whilst awaiting repair. There is, of course, a small loss of passenger space in a train so formed, as well as one fewer passenger door each side.
You can see the same thing on the Piccadilly Line, whose six-car trains are each made up of two three-car units, some of which are "double ended". One double-ender also operated the Aldwych shuttle when that was a thing. Middle cabs were the norm in all older surface and Tube stocks, and single 4-car units of some stocks were occasoinally used, for instance to Ongar and to Chesham.
More modern stock may still be made up of two units, but they are single-ended so it is not so obvious where the join is.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 23, 2018 7:53:48 GMT
It would cost a fortune to change the name of that section of the Northern line. It's not as simple in real life as just changing the colour and name on the map. If it is split, I think the money will have to be spent - it would make no sense to have two separate lines with the same name and colour. Renaming stretches of line is nothing new - see the Hammersnmith & City (split from the Met, although it's not a complete split as they share tracks for some distance), or the renaming of the Hammersmith branch as joint H&C/Circle. In 1979 the Bakerloo was split when a short new branch was added - a close analogy with what is about to happen at Kennington.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 22, 2018 10:23:23 GMT
The western Northern line will likely have its own name: the most rational option in my opinion is the lilac-coloured Hampstead line, after the Hampstead Tube. The eastern one would likely keep the old name for ease of recognition. Maybe the Power Line, in view of its new southern terminus? However, I thought all new line names now have to have royal associations (Victoria, Jubilee, Elizabeth.....) It was a missed opportunity when the H&C was not called the Regency Line, passing as it does Nash Crescent, Regents Park, etc. Given its close association with the Victoria Line, maybe the Albert Line? Or, name it after Princess Charlotte, as the first female in the line of succession - the Lottie Line would go quite well with the Lizzie Line!
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 20, 2018 19:11:18 GMT
Surely Ilfordians already have their train service provided by a mass transit operator? - MTR Crossrail ) It's a question of definitions. I was considering the existing Shenfield services, so far unchanged except for branding, to still be a suburban operation. When the core opens it will become mass transit.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 20, 2018 8:19:51 GMT
suburban service provided by a mass transit operator, just as suburbs like Plaistow, ...........etc did when their local services were handed over to the Underground Plaistow's local services on BR weren't handed over to LRT; they were just eliminated entirely when electrification occurred. It was only Plaistow's limited express services to Fenchurch Street that were eliminated in 1962, when the fast lines were electrified. However, far from having been eliminated, Plaistow's local service continues to this day: provided by the Underground, as it has been since 4th-rail electrification of the slow lines in 1908. Thameslink is two suburban/regional railways joined together by a reopened tunnel through Central London. For Crossrail, the tunnels are newly built. So are the Canal Tunnels on Thameslink. Both TL and XR use a mixture of new and existing infrastructure. Extension of suburban services through tunnels under central London has been going on since the 1860s. They are so well-integrated into the warp and weave of London that people don't notice. - The original Metropolitan Railway was designed and built to carry GWR services to Moorgate. It still does - over the former GWR Hammersmith branch. - Likewise the District Line carries traffic over former LSWR lines (Wimbledon - Putney, Richmond - Hammersmith) right through the City and out the other side over former LTSR tracks to Upminster. - The LNWR's local services to Harrow & Wealdstone have been operated by the Underground for over 100 years. - In 1933 the South Harrow to Acton Town shuttle service, and the one from Hounslow Barracks to Acton Town were both extended to Hammersmith to join up with the Piccadilly. - The Bakerloo (now Jubilee) took over local services between Baker Street and Wembley Park from the Metropolitan in 1938. - The ex-Great Northern Railway's High Barnet Branch has been part of the Northern Line since 1940. - The ex-Great Eastern Railway's Epping and Hainault branches have been part of the Central Line since 1946. So have local services on the former GWR line between Acton and West Ruislip - The ex-Great Northern Railway's Welwyn and Hertford services were connected to the Underground's Northern City line in 1975 - Crossrail is just the latest example. - Thameslink has existed, in one form or another, since the Metropolitan Railway was built in 1863 to allow GNR, and later Midland Railway, trains to reach Farringdon. The connection to Blackfriars followed in 1868.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 19, 2018 13:11:39 GMT
I don't think you can always pigeonhole railway services like that. Many railways have to perform different functions at different points along their line of route. Some local services in Cornwall are operated by Sprinters, others by HSTs. For a passenger from Hayle to Truro it is irrelevant whether the train is only going to Plymouth, or all the way to Paddington. In an extreme case, should the timings suit their working hours, residents of the Spean Valley could use the Caledonian Sleeper as a commuter service into Fort William, as it provides seating accommodation to and from local stations on the West Highland Line.
The Metropolitan, despite its predecessor actively cultivating development in suburban Middlesex and Hertfordshire, still has to provide part of the deceidedly urban-mass-transit operation between the City and Baker Street. The seating layout on the S8 stock is the resulting compromise. Similarly, Ilfordians etc will, perforce, shortly find their suburban service provided by a mass transit operator, just as suburbs like Plaistow, Finchley, Woodford etc did when their local services were handed over to the Underground (and Kingston et al will if XR2 ever happens)
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 19, 2018 10:55:48 GMT
Thameslink is a regional distance railway that happens to serve the urban core on it's way through. Crossrail is an urban transit railway that happens to extend a long way outside the urban area at each end. They are completely different animals, neither of which is or is trying to be a suburban network, let alone unify anything. Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Suburban services such as St Albans to Sutton, Welwyn to Sevenoaks, and Luton to Orpington, are as much a part of Thameslink as the longer distance services with which they are forced to share the core. The complaints from longer distance passengers about the Class 700s reflect the unhappy compromises that have had to be made. As for Crossrail, are Ilford, Romford, Abbey Wood, Ealing and Southall not suburbs?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 19, 2018 10:46:37 GMT
I live in Reading and have the opposite problem. Currently I can use my Senior Railcard on the RailAir Heathrow bus and London Travelcards - a return train fare to London and unlimited travel in U1-U6. What will be happening with the Elizabeth line when it comes to Reading? It will accept railcards, as it's a National Rail service.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 19, 2018 7:44:49 GMT
Re Crossrail2. I didn't read it was calling at Warren St, and also it is a double ended connection to Euston and KX (rather than 2 separate stops as the map indicates). Are you looking at the same map as me? Or have you confused the Victoria Line with CR2?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 18, 2018 22:17:02 GMT
you could really do with Tottenham Court Road being renamed something really short........ If, as reported elsewhere, renaming a whole line only costs £5000, it might be the easiest solution. Tottenham Court Road is ambiguous as a name anyway - Goodge Street and Warren St stations are also on that thoroughfare, and between them are closer to 75% of it. How about St Giles or Centre Point? As the future interchange between Crossrails 1 and 2 what could be more appropriate?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 15, 2018 18:07:43 GMT
Beeching worked on the basis of tickets sold, not considering where the purchasers went (and came back from). So lots of destinations had low sales and so got the chop. Holiday destinations suffered particularly from this - most people would have used return tickets bought elsewhere. The figures were supposed to have been validated by a census of travel patterns, but it was taken on one week in February...... But to suggest that this was a failure by Beeching is to assume he didn't know exactly what he was doing, and Beeching was nobody's fool.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 15, 2018 16:19:16 GMT
It's always been a mystery to me why the Island line was electrified in the first place. The nearest existing electrified line was (and still is) less than five miles away but there is almost no chance of them ever being connected (and the raised floor of Ryde Tunnel would prevent through running anyway). Surely a higher priority would have been the Portsmouth-Southampton route, but that was not electrified until 1990. IIRC British Rail opted for standard stock vehicles early on, either fitted with bus engines (to be maintained by the local bus company, Southern Vectis) or push-pulled by a locomotive. However according to Brian Hardy's 'Tube Trains on the Isle of Wight' the minister came down on the side of the local authorities who favoured electrification - supposedly similar in upfront cost to diesel traction, but cheaper in the long run. Conventional mainland rolling stock doesn't fit - hence why short bodied, low-roofed LBSCR and SECR carriages survived to the end of steam. How short? The "lightweights" (but not the 112/113s) were built on "short" 56 foot frames. There were also these - about 40 feet long and less than 12 feet high. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Waggon_and_Maschinenbau_Railbus_on_North_Norfolk_Railway_(23397970065).jpg A total of 22 were built, of five different designs, in 1958, but Beeching made them redundant and they were all withdrawn around 1967
|
|