|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 15, 2018 14:23:09 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.
And it's not as if there was a shortage of diesel units in 1967 - the Modernisation Plan meant most DMUs were less than twelve years old, and the Beeching cuts meant many of them were redundant. The entire fleet of "yellow diamond" dmus (273 cars), (built in 1955) had gone by 1969, as had the hundred cars of classes 112 and 113 (built in 1960). These types were selected for withdrawal because of their non-standard coupling codes, but that would not have been a problem on the island!
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 15, 2018 13:40:50 GMT
The bridge appears to be longer than necessary to span only two tracks, so I think it's on the Overground somewhere between New Cross Gate and Norwood Junction
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 15, 2018 10:47:16 GMT
was there not some discussion about TFL aiming to set up a sale and leaseback for some Overground or Elizabeth Line stock with one of the existing mainline ROSCO firms to free up funds to buy replacements for the deep tube lines. There was - it was the class 345s I think Is Island Line a freestanding TOC or are they part of SWT? The franchises were merged at renewal in 2007 (they were both managed by Stagecoach at the time) and it is now part of the SWR franchise. Unlike the situation on the mainland, the franchise includes maintenance of the infrastructure. Unlike the rest of the SWR franchise, there was no firm undertaking as to what future rolling stock would be used on the island. However, as the 1938 stock will be 86 years old by the end of the franchise in 2024, the "do nothing" option will surely become prohibitively expensive.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 14, 2018 18:58:19 GMT
I'd (mistakenly) thought that the NR services from Hayes that don't go via Lewisham would still run - it looks like they wouldn't. Although the other end of the Bakerloo has grandfather rights to mix Tube-sized and NR trains on the same tracks, it is most unlkely the practice would be allowed to be extended to any further lines!
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 14, 2018 9:01:41 GMT
Surely some withdrawn tube stock must become available within the next decade? . The "New Tube for London " should have seen new trains start to be delivered from 2022, but the timescale has already slipped. It would in any case be the most worn out trains which would be replaced first, so it would have been some time later before anything serviceable became available And it is doubtful the exiting IOW stock will last even until 2022 let alone a decade.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 13, 2018 23:53:09 GMT
Somewhere on the net is a picture of an M7 steam loco which went down the lift shaft. The lift was at the bottom at the time. The loco was shunting coal wagons on to the lift platform (which was at the top) so that they could be taken below to the W&C's power station (even in 1948 the W&C still used its own power supply, rather than using a feed from the later electrification scheme upstairs). The platform hadn't been locked in place and tilted, allowing the first wagon to fall and dragging the other wagons, and the loco, after it.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 13, 2018 20:07:34 GMT
. I just about remember watching the extra Q stock cars being attached at Ealing Broadway in the early 60s. I thought Q stock was always formed as 4 car units MTTM.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 13, 2018 14:18:25 GMT
Well, Great Eastern and North London both I think, but it was indeed the LNER by the time the agreement was torn up. The NLR became part of the LNWR and then the LMS. Many of the "New Works" projects were officially joint ventures with the main line companies, hence the "LNER" ownership plates in some 1938 stock on the Northern Line, and the occasional DMUs to Loughton well into the 1960s.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 13, 2018 10:34:09 GMT
I believe that service changes at Cannon Street are permanent (due to service segregation at London Bridge) - including Sunday services, so I’d expect LUL station to remain open on Sundays. The National Rail Journey Planner is showing trains running from Cannon Street on Sundays beyond the timetable change in May, although some very funny results are coming up on weekdays. Of course, some Greenwich line services will go from Blackfriars rather than Cannon Street.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 12, 2018 16:01:21 GMT
If Shepperton has a National Rail interchange symbol, Uxbridge should also be shown as an interchange. Both are dead end branches, and in both cases the only interchange possible is to turn round and go back the way you came. (Shepperton's only remaining NR service would be the currently-3-trains-per-day peak hour service to Waterloo via Richmond
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 11, 2018 17:31:55 GMT
A bit premature to be looking at potential rolling stock when there isn't, as yet, even funding for a feasibility study for the new infrastructure needed - even if the existing track and signalling are suitable, new stations cost serious money these days. I can't see this project seeing passenger services until the D stock is well past its 50th birthday.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 11, 2018 13:30:00 GMT
These actions by British forces in Russia are I believe the reason why some UK War Memorials bear the dates 1914 - 1919 (rather than 1914 - 1918). Also, perhaps, because the war did not officially end until June 28th 1919, (the 5th anniversary of the assassination in Sarejevo which set it off) with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. November 11th 1918 was "merely" a cease-fire or truce. (The Korean War was suspended since 1953, but has not officially ended!)
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 11, 2018 0:35:16 GMT
Why can't a 315 work in deep tunnels? It's got an emergency end door. Just like the 317s and 321s. 321s don't have end doors Of the mark 3 types, only classes 150/2, 317-319 and 455 had them as built and many have since lost them. The height of the PEP types (313-315) with pan down is surely irrelevant - it would have to be raised to operate anywhere on the Crossrail system.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 10, 2018 11:03:34 GMT
I stand corrected - I didn't know there had been so much Allied involvement in what was ostensibly a Civil War. All this was going on whilst World War 1 was still in progress of course, and the Allies wanted revolutionary Russia to stay on side. There was already one WW1 precedent for a country to change sides (or, rather, entered the war on the Allied side despite a formal alliance with the Central Powers).
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 10, 2018 7:22:09 GMT
There was a lot of civil war type strife in Russia between 1917 and 1919 - including Royal Naval gunboat actions in the Black Sea - let alone all the various White Russians vs. Bolsheviks battles. Do you mean "Royal"? The Czarist navy was surely "Imperial", and anyway would not have existed after the 1917 revolution.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 9, 2018 17:42:21 GMT
Accountants don't - or shouldn't - rule. But they would be failing in their professional duty if they failed to tell you of the financial risks of a particular course of action.
In the Isle of Wight case, as in any other, such assessment should also take account of the potential cost of the "do-nothing" option, which includes the possibility that the trains or infrastructure becomes unusable, and the costs involved in whatever the consequences of that would be (whether it is a "distress purchase" of whatever is available to replace it, or closure resulting in increased road traffic and/or damage to the island's economy)
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 8, 2018 22:21:10 GMT
As for Barking, why is there a diveunder east of the station but a flyover west of the station? Don't know, but the presence of the River Roding near the flyover site may suggest why a diveunder would have been impractical there.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 8, 2018 19:21:16 GMT
They are, but platform 7 (the southbound Stanmore branch platform) was not part of the 1979 scheme, having been added in 1939. My apologies, I had mistakenly thought there was new build at Baker Street. There was, but only platform 10 was new.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 8, 2018 16:48:31 GMT
Neither the Jubilee (1978 and 1999 sections) nor Crossrail have any-cross platform interchanges either I thought Baker Street southbound platforms 7 & 8 were cross-platform ? They are, but platform 7 (the southbound Stanmore branch platform) was not part of the 1979 scheme, having been added in 1939. The idea of having separate platforms on converging routes was so that a train waiting for its turn through the junction would be standing at a platform. In the diverging direction costs could be saved by having the divergence after the junction. The originally-intended layout at South Kensington (Piccadilly Line) used the same assymetric layout for the never-completed junction with the Deep Level District. However, the Jubilee's northbound platform 10 - which was the only one added in 1979 - is also at the same level as its corresponding Bakerloo platform (9), and has level interchange. This layout was possible because the two original Bakerloo platforms (now 8 and 9) were built one above the other, to fit within a narrow wayleave at street level.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 8, 2018 15:27:29 GMT
is cross-platform interchange no longer a Good Thing? how far has it been down-graded? is it just a nice-to-have now, or is it actively discouraged? Not sure about actively discouraged, but not worth having. Look at Abbey Wood, for example, where the paired-by-use arrangement was installed although it would have been just as easy to have paired-by-direction. Neither the Jubilee (1978 and 1999 sections) nor Crossrail have any-cross platform interchanges either. Cross platform interchange, and the associated track layouts, do make it harder to keep one of the routes open whilst the other is closed (e.g for maintenance). There can also be ticketing/Oyster issues if there is no simple boundary between operators.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 8, 2018 12:14:00 GMT
I've always been intrigued as to why this exists - It was built back in the day when cross-platform interchange (in this case with the LTS services) was seen as a Good Thing. See also the reassignment of platforms at Finsbury Park, H&I, Euston, and Oxford Circus on the Victoria Line, on the Central Line at Stratford and Mile End, and on the District at Earls Court and Hammersmith.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 7, 2018 22:41:28 GMT
Then in the early 2030s there will be Crossrail Mk 2.... north - south / south - north !! Will there be a... Crossrail #3.... north east - south west / south west - north east !! The north-south one is already thirty years old, and is nearing completion of a massive expansion. And now with longer trains than Crossrail's! "Crossrail 2" will be Northeast to South West
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 7, 2018 13:45:32 GMT
I would hazard a guess at West Ruislip Makes sense! I was trying to find somewhere at the east end of the line! Then he would have said "and some other sites...." rather than "and some of the sites......"
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 7, 2018 9:26:58 GMT
There were a few - WER and some of the sites in the east which had early M63 replacements Sorry, I know these acronyms are generally station codes and I can usually figure them out, but I can't get WER! I would hazard a guess at West Ruislip
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 6, 2018 16:37:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 3, 2018 23:51:15 GMT
Much easier to fit and operate on a line where everything is electric and all the trains have similar operating characteristics. A mechanical tripcock wouldn't work very well at 125mph, and in any case it would be unlikely to stop a train passing a red signal at full speed in time to make much difference. Which is why ATC/AWS (which has actually been around since the GWR introduced it in 1908) was primarily installed at distant signals. That in itself immediately adds a complication, as the train has to pass the distant signal and whatever transponder is associated with it. Moreover, the home signal associated with the distant may have cleared before the train reaches it, and the system has to be designed to allow the train to proceed if that happens.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 3, 2018 13:40:46 GMT
Quite - if there is a difference between how long the passengers consider it reasonable to wait on a stalled train and how long the railway management do, something has to give.
The only time I was on a train where people took it upon themselves to abandon ship, we had been stuck in snow maybe 100 yards from a south London station on non-corridor slam door stock for nearly an hour. The train was a refurbished EPB with a "talking ceiling" but it was not used. Everyone seemed to be well aware of the existence of, and potential hazard of, the live rail.
Reports of the recent case say people had no access to the toilets. The unit shown in the photos was a 376, so had no toilets in the first place.
I am never slow to criticise SWR, but they have been very good at getting me to and from work through the snow the last few days. Not necessarily on time, but in this weather getting there at all is an achievement.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 3, 2018 8:37:55 GMT
Curious... does Armstrong refer to the location, a person, or that it was operated by strong arms Assume it was the company that built it. William Armstrong, the inventor of the hydraulic accumulator, and founder of the famous heavy engineering company (later Armstrong-Whitworth, later still Vickers-Armstrong) built many specialised lifting equipment, notably the moving parts of Tower Bridge.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 3, 2018 7:26:35 GMT
Realtime trains has also lettered platforms on the Crossrail core. I'm guessing this would aid the identification of the Crossrail platforms that straddle two tube stations or those such as Paddington which are faux interchanges. You have that at St Pancras for the Thameslink platforms (and at Kings Cross Thameslink before that). Also at Waterloo East and New Cross, again to avoid confusion (particularly for the emergency services). However, Tube and NR platform numbering is duplicated at most stations, but in general the Tube ones are known by their direction rather than their numbers.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 2, 2018 20:58:00 GMT
King's Cross is a fair comment for the parallels between cost and corner cutting of the two incidents, but again it's not the same. In particular, the station was not named after the disaster but had already been there for over 140 years. (It is actually named after a long-gone statue of George IV)
|
|