I took a Met train today that definitely had 8 cars, but it seemed to have the S7 seating layout, i.e. all side-ways seats and no forward backward facing pairs. It was really rather confusing, and I was most surprised by it. Does anyone know how this came to be?
The programme was always going to be a long running one. However with local London teams taking temporary residence at Wembley for this season and last, there have been more than expected Wembley events on Mon to Wed evenings, so there will now be some weekends where the work will also take place in order to catch up.
I see that the 36tph service alternates 1min50sec and 1min30sec headways at Brixton. This is pretty sensible as it allows additional time for the conflicting crossover move. The headway is adjusted in both directions at Stockwell.
That is called genius timetabling, which is forced by the track layout and the required tph, achieved by one of the best schedule compilers in the office. For some reason some signalling specialists fail to realise the importance of the way the terminus is signalled to the running of the high-intensity service.
I hope trains will still be able to arrive eastbound into platform 2, detrain, shunt forward and reverse back into platform 3. If not that could be a disaster. That move is used in the normal working timetable several times and I've just put in several more of them for the engineering works on first weekend in February.
The completion of the link would possibly give a reduced feed of traffic down the Overground service to Euston and the London Midland service to Euston, by providing alternative destinations for these passengers from Watford, thus allowing London passengers (those closer into the centre) to make use of the "vacated seats". It really is very nearsighted to claim that this project only helps Watford.
There is at least 1 booked move on the eastbound local in the WTT every day, early morning. I think there is one late night as well. In theory there's a reversing move possible by terminating an arriving train at Northfields in eastbound fast, it can then reverse into depot. Whilst doing this you may wish another train to run through, thus using the eastbound local line. When the Leaf Fall special timetable comes in and when the District engineering works cause the Piccadilly to run 6tph via the local lines between Acton Town and Hammersmith you can pretty sure there will be more booked moves via the eastbound local.
There are actually points east of Baker Street Junction allowing a reverse from east to west, for both Met and H&C. But using them in regular service would really muck things up. An H&C arrival at Baker Street would need to detrain all passengers (a couple of minutes), then shunt forward of the points, then driver walk back through the train, then shunt into Baker Street westbound. You are looking at at least 9 or 10 minutes for all of that. Not to mention blocking eastbound for most of that time.
A signal failure at Aldgate East was disrupting H'smith & City services until 19:15 between Moorgate and Barking. As is the classic case with the SSR, this gave the Met some grief and inevitably led to services being cut short. We can only assume that Harrow-On-The-Hill had a limitied reversing capacity at the time so Rayners Lane was chosen to squeeze an extra service in to reverse there.
What about Ruislip, given that Rayners is used as a normal reversing point for short-working Piccadilly Line trains on the Uxbridge branch?
If there's a Picc in the siding, there's the option of a platform reverse for both Met and Picc at Rayners Lane, very nice sensible layout that is.
If it were in London boroughs (as for example the Lewisham extension of the Bakerloo would be) funding would not be a problem as it would all fall within TfL and the Mayor's office, with a bit from DfT. The issue is that despite it being TfL's project now, and despite it extending a London Underground line, and despite TfL (LU) getting the increased receipts from its operation, the extension itself is wholly within Herts and more complex still links into junction with Network Rail managed tracks. TfL and Mayor's office refuse to commit any funds beyond those they already have said they will and are expecting the other interested parties, i.e. local government in Herts / Watford or DfT to cough up the extra cash. No more money will mean no forward movement on the project. A ridiculous state of affairs, given 1. How far its come and 2. the fact that every day waited adds more and more inflation to the final cost. The problem now is most likely is that the "pay-back" time from extra revenue is probably beyond the 5 year planning/loan limit, so no easy source of money available.
I'm curious that there is more smoke inside the carriage in the pictures than there is coming from underneath the carriage up the outside of the train. I always thought that passengers inside a carriage are relatively protected, and on the Bakerloo line the ?extractor fans are in the ceiling, and the vents above the seats. The floor must be 'fire resistant'. So how can there be more smoke inside the carriage than on the outside, if the problem was underneath the train? It would make sense for the smoke to find a way out around the outside of the train under the carriage, rather than directly into the passenger compartment?
It appears to be a fog of 'acrid smoke' rather than thick black clouds of smoke billowing up into the station, and there is no sign of fire in any of the pictures. Something electrical smouldering underneath?
My conjecture is it is worn wiring sparking somewhere beneath seats. There's a lot of clever stuff underneath the seats in the Bakerloo trains. Either way - scary scenes, since I use this line every day to get to work. I hope that this weekend the spare trains left in depots will get a very thorough wiring check.
What do you mean by "double lassoo"? Barking-King's Cross-HSK-Westminster-Tower Hill-King's Cross-Hammersmith and vice versa?
No something more complex than that. Roughly speaking you run everything from Wimbledon east via Tower Hill, round to Liverpool Steet, through Edgware Road to HSK then back to Wimbledon. You take Ealing/Richmond and run the reverse to HSK - Edgware Rd - Liverpool St, Tower Hill and back through Earl's Court from whence they came. That avoids all crossing conflictions at Earl's Court and massively smoothes the District service. The other lassoo is the Upminster/Barking trains split 50/50 to North and South sides and return to Upminster/Barking when they've completed a circuit and are at Tower Hill or Liverpool Street. The problem is the Hammersmith branch could then only be a shuttle to/from Edgware Rd in order to leave space for the Met's. Also might need to run half the Met's out to Barking to make up the numbers. As I say it is not a fully formed idea and it has its drawbacks, but there is an obvious benefit to giving a 50/50 split to Upminster branch onto North / South sides and the smoother operations at Earl's Court, as because of the routing you could deliberately schedule simultaneous arrival and departures on the two platforms at Earl's Court. Of course as with all these things it fixes 2 problems (in this case Earl's Court and District East end service) but probably causes another for someone else (in this case probably the Hammersmith branch). Could be fixed if only you could 1. get to Hammersmith branch from the clockwise circle route from HSK. 2. Up the Met from Baker Street clockwise. 3. The Met's 8 car trains were allowed all the way round the Circle. None of which is the case which is why I think realistically it probably won't work. On the other hand it might be thought that the current District service to Upminster/Barking is overly intense out of necessity for serving the South side of the circle and its multiple western branches, and that a reduction in this to leave room on the north side for Met trains, to run half of them through to Barking, along with some trains from Hammersmith may be a perfect solution. Anyway, can't help feeling I'm in danger of wandering off-topic.
The plan post-modernisation (4LM) is for 32 trains per hour on the northern half of the circle - 16 Met to Aldgate, 8 Circle and 8 H&C. This is a train every 7½ minutes, 33% more than today. If the Thales automatic signalling system works reliably, and there is no reason it shouldn't once it beds down, as on the now-exemplary Jubilee (and perhaps Northern, I don't use that frequently), then the service should be far better than now. 4LM is now due for completion around 2022, I believe, so only 5 years to wait.
Whitechapel to Liverpool Street / Moorgate, Farringdon and Paddington will of course be every 2½ mins peak, 3 mins off-peak, on the Elizabeth line from 2019. So plenty of alternatives.
Do you know the post modernisation frequency plan on the south/bottom (district) side and the eastern and western district branches?
Well if on the northern everything that was 6 is now 8, and what was 12 is now 16, you can probably guess the southside and its branches....Richmond can't go above 8tph because of sharing only 4 platforms with Overground, there will obviously be 8tph Circle, and therefore you need 8tph Ealing, 8tph Wimbledon to Edgware Road and 8tph Wimbledon to City. That makes up the central core. Tower Hill can just reverse 8tph, so that would leave Upminster with 16tph. It is simple maths, there is no other way to do it.
The only way to change the service east of Aldgate East into a more 50/50 split onto North / South sides is to adopt a double lassoo method to running these lines, rather like the Chicago Loop. I can't really see that happening.