castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 29, 2011 8:15:27 GMT
Yes, of course, Oracle.
Unfortunately, that was so easy (London's greatest football club was a giveaway), it was not today's quiz question, so no prize for you.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 29, 2011 7:41:35 GMT
@ SE13 > > The A4 is very scenic at this time of year
Absolutely!! Well said! It gives an opportunity to see the floodlights of London's greatest football club as you go along the elevated section towards Osterley, whereas the nearest point on the Picc is Boston Manor.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 28, 2011 14:19:53 GMT
Re: LT-BR trip workings « Reply #16 Today at 2:20pm » connection was there until 1970's-ish.
THank you bassmike - l was fairly sure l was remembering things correctly. These workings did come up > Twickenham > Richmond > Gunnersbury for l can remember the northern chord of the Gunnersbury triangle being well rusted and unused even then. I also seem to remember that these had a LMS engine with a Cricklewood shed code.
The current layout at Richmond with a trailing juction into LUL territory is nothing like it was when l remember seeing it as a kid.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 28, 2011 11:56:39 GMT
Carriages with windows which passengers can open themselves!
Gosh!, what will they think of next?
How much money would that save through not needing "cooling systems" and the extra weight each carriage will have to lug around for the full 12 months of every year when "cooling systems" would not be necessary.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 28, 2011 10:12:19 GMT
@ Oracle "..............but I cannot imagine that there were any trains via Richmond as this would have required reversal in the platforms".
My memory is failing, but l still do believe that until the late 1950s, there was a connection from B.R. to L.T. at Richmond that did not require reversal. I understand from memory that there was a facing junction there then allowing through running from the Twickenham direction through Richmond to Gunnersbury junc. Please correct me if l'm wrong if such a connection never existed.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 27, 2011 20:08:12 GMT
Thank you reganorak. You have brought it all back to me now and of course, you are 100% correct. The steamers just used the Picc through Turnham Green, then I think there was a short holding loop just east of Turnham Green station that had a very short (12?) maximum wagon length that then continued on to join the e/b District.
Do you know if there was ever any record of Southern steam rather than LMS using the Richmond - Gunnersbury B.R./L.T. shared line?
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 27, 2011 18:29:01 GMT
Ah reanorak, I've never seen that pic. Again, a Midland and not a Southern engine. In the early 60's, steam was not uncommon Turnham Green-Barons Court, using the special ling W. of Turnham Green I think so that these workings would always use Piccadilly track. And even though these had come up from Richmond, always a Midland engine at the front.
I assume all the HAmmersmith & Chiswick coal workings always ran via S.Acton to get the facing junction to get into the coal yard, even though this required a much longer routing??
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 27, 2011 16:03:13 GMT
I can never remember seeing any steam loco being kept at Acton. I thought all these workings only ever were worked by Lillie Bridge based locos. Similarly, I can never remember any workings on the now lifted northern arc of the Gunnersbury triangle. All the workings I remember seeing for Hammersmith Coal (in Chiswick High Road, through South Acton), had come off the Southern at Richmond via the link that then existed there - always worked by Midland and not by Southern numbered steam locos if my memory is correct.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 27, 2011 10:51:15 GMT
Glyn . Very interesting
That means they'll have to restore Hanwell to how it used to be and re-open the southern entrance. That will cost them more than the station could ever take in revenue
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 26, 2011 14:43:14 GMT
It seems a very good idea, logical and common sense. Three of the things least likely to see it implemented. The thing most likely to see it implemented is for it to have been thought up by a civil servant living over 100 miles away, and agreed by a committee of professional politicians who only ever see election dates on the horizon.
How many marginal seats does the line run through?? Contact ALL the MPs and county councillors along the route.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 26, 2011 13:22:26 GMT
Is the background view a pic taken from a Central Line train in the Newbury Park - Hainault area?
The gate New Cross (Gate) ha ha
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 26, 2011 9:51:18 GMT
@ rationalplan
Surely smaller wheels would increase wheel wear and necessitate more regular replacement. Also with smaller wheels, wouldn't more power need to be generated to cover the same distance?
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 25, 2011 15:33:15 GMT
knap, of course you are right. But it seems to me that the apparatchiks who are responsible for so many "plans" going wrong or over buget are not prepared to TRY something new here. All we get is reasons "WHY NOT" and never reasons "WHY". To my simple mind, this seems a simple thing to have at least tried. Frankly, in my mind, the WLL (re-)opened 30 years too late because nobody was prepared to try.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 25, 2011 14:11:06 GMT
@ mjrt - need it really cost more?? If the stock already exists, and is already used on the Chesham??
I think it could actually save on ordering 2 x new 8 car units, IF these 4 car sets are dedicated only to be used Chesham - Watford and nowhere else. What modifications would be needed if the stock is already running on that line?? Hardly onerous work for otherwise redundant stock that would otherwise be scrapped and new 8 car trains being purchased in order to run a service to Chesham. It might also prove that a Chesham - Watford would be more popular than many people think and 2 x current units run as 4 car units would provide a brilliant peak service. Nothing is known for sure until its tried, but with railways, there always seems to be a fear of trying.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 25, 2011 7:05:31 GMT
The point l was making was that IMHO, there is now nowhere on the entire LUL system where short trains could/should operate - with the sole exception of the Chesham branch. That said, a Ricky Watford service could/would also justify a short unit, perhaps making much better use of it(them), and thus it makes some sense to combine the two into a Chesham - Ricky - Watford. This is not a plea for such a service, but a rational idea that would enable a continued Chesham service with minimal stock use and the possibility of new traffic as "added value", especially if the most modern stock was not allocated to it. It just seems to ba a "win/win" idea to me.
If you run full length trains to Chesham, you shouldn't be cosidering shorter off-peak trains for anywhere else for the reasons others have already eloquently given.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 24, 2011 21:37:32 GMT
Anything is better than no service.
Problem with Chesham is that its outside GLC, and a Chesham = Watford service, needs both Herts and Bucks County councils to get involved AND agree (little historical precedent for that). They might say let Amersham service run as normal and give Chesham - Watford to Chiltern who could run it with 2 car units - shorter than anything on L T since the South Acton shuttle ended.. The western's service out of Paddington to Greenford is always a 2 car unit, so does Chesham need as much as a 4 car? Lots of issues COULD get sorted with some joined up thinking from NOT the sort of people who planned the southern end of the M1 with just 2 lanes each way, and the same people who closed the West Draton to Staines railway along the back of Heathrow in order to build the M25 on it. We need planners who can think ahead - an ability always lacking with transport planners in this country.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 24, 2011 19:08:55 GMT
Well said! Hassan 16332
trivran asks: "I think a number of threads discuss Chesham-Ricky-Watford. It might promote a new service pattern, but just who wants it?" This is a thread about short trains, and my view is that if a Chesham-Ricky-Watford service were to be started, that woud solve the Chesham service issue, and could be run with a dedicated 4 car train service that actually needn't be the most modern stock. Who wants it? Well, in the 60s there was said to be no possibility of re-opening the W.L.L. because nobody wanted it, and similarly in the 50s people said there would be no Thameslink type service because "there was no demand". The same applies here. and a FOUR car Chesham-Ricky-Watford would negate and futher ideas for interfering with the Amersham service. Unfortunately, forward thinking often takes too many years to come to fruition in this country. Then, as is nearly always the case, someone will say "We underestimated the demand"
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 24, 2011 15:34:27 GMT
"Southern" are regularly coupling and uncoupling off-peak journeys (at Horsham) on the Arun Valley line. It works well in theory, and suits the passengers in the "fast" half of the train that have not been sitting about getting agitated because the other half of the train was delayed 30 miles away.
I cannot think of anywhere on the LUL system that coupling and uncoupling units would work during the working day.
Running four cars off peak on some outer LUL lines might be theoretically eco-efficient, but in practice, one four car stuck in the wrong place as the rush-hour approaches will be a disaster. A more useful approach COULD be to have a four car unit running Chesham-Rickmansworth-WATFORD using the northern chord of the triangle. Would/could dovetail in with Chiltern services from Aylesbury. Now, that would be a good use of a 4-car AND promote a new journey pattern. (Please consider your replies before you 'rubbish' the idea)
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 22, 2011 15:02:55 GMT
Yes, l thought that bit unlikely. More likely off the Greenford Loop via W Ealing to Clapham J. rather than of the loop via Hanwell then Staines. Until somebody can come up with a photo, l'll go with the W.Ealing > C Junction idea ATHOUGH, what year was the direct route Greenford, Perivale, N Acton Junction > Wood Lane > West London Line to C.J. closed? Was L.T stock transferred to B.R. both before and after that closure date?
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 22, 2011 14:16:40 GMT
plus innumerable "Elf 'n safety" outriders.
For each single carriage.
Yes, the most expensive way every time. It also keeps the unemployment figures down AND diverts the police away from catching muggers etc, (much nicer to get motor cycle escorting a convoy duties out in the country and being paid for it than sitting in a smelly cop shop, waiting for a 'shout').
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 22, 2011 13:36:57 GMT
L T stock for the Isle of Wight used to get to Eastleigh by > > RAIL!! I know one set to the Isle of Wight went - W.Ruislip to B.R. > Greenford Loop > (allegedly W. Drayton > Staines via old connection to the Southern, although l have doubts about this bit - l think it went via Clapham J.) > on to the Southern's S. W. division and then on to Eastleigh.
Allegedly, that is now more expensive than using low loaders with police escorts. IF it is more expensive, it shouldn't be.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 22, 2011 11:37:41 GMT
Hi TRC 666
Why Eastleigh?? Via which route would they get they have got there??
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 22, 2011 6:42:26 GMT
Hi, I don't know if there is any connection, or if this will help but there is a very good website devoted to L.T. Bus stop enamels. The same manufacturers may have been used. If you google "London Transport E Plates", you might get some info, and possibly some contacts via Alan Gryfe's site, as a lot of research has been and is still being done on bus stop enamel numbers, stop flags etc.
Hope this helps
Regards,
Castlebar
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 21, 2011 6:31:53 GMT
@ Ed Fox
Yes, it is true This is the function of the "Premier Peer of the Realm" who is the Duke of Norfolk. I am sure he has it sorted, and that for this, the Central Line and using the old British Museum station is not involved.
Like in the original question, there are loads of civil servants (allegedly) "planning" for all eventualities.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 20, 2011 21:40:54 GMT
Intersting article about Olympia in wiki, and thanks for the info.
However, l got my info 30 years ago from somebody (now deceased) who spent his whole life working in the Foreign Office. I strongly suspect that the "Ministry of Organising Such Things" would prefer the flexibility of coaching people to various locations than trying to stuff 1,000 civil servants onto one train at Olympia. - a highly obvious and expensive target. In such scenarios, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more expendible than others" Trying to get that number of people to Olympia whilst the roads are crammed with millions trying to flee London isn't really practical. Dedicated Central Line trains running non-stop from British Museum to say South Ruislip, all other C. Line services being suspended, is, l suggest, more "do-able". As this still might be a current plan, it is unlikely to appear in wiki
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 20, 2011 16:29:05 GMT
@ railtechnician
In the original posting it said the Wiltshire bunker. There are others around Britain, but you wouldn't use the A10 to get to Wiltshire (unless you were a cabbie with the meter running)
@ v52gc
This is/was a possibility, but the problem there was the distance between Olympia from Westminster. Roads to Olympia likely to be clogged in such a situation. Also, access to an airport needed and in the 1960s, Northolt is the obvious one. Agree that once at Olympia, subject to the necessary (rail) coaching stock being in place (not logistically easy), Olympia is good, BUT my undersatnding was road coaches stored at Northolt airport to collect passengers from a designated central line station. With C. Line services otherwise suspended, l still think this was the preferred answer. The 'authorities', wouldn't want half the civil service trapped on a train somewhere 'out in the sticks' because of a sabotaged line - don't forget, there were no mobile phones in the 60s
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 20, 2011 8:43:05 GMT
Oh and a sixth. > Easy loading of only those required to travel. Any 'open' station would be crowded with the general public trying to escape London. By using a 'closed' station, passenger control would be a 100 times easier. Trains would then run fast (ordinary Central Line services being suspended) to the designated disembarkation station. THAT'S more difficult to fathom, but my order of preference would be Greenford, or a station with easy access to Northolt airport as some top people would need to be flown out of the UK altogether
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 20, 2011 8:32:28 GMT
I understand it was "British Museum" on the Central Line
Five reasons:
1 - to get evacuated persons to Wiltshire, it would require a westbound direction of travel
2 - Central London location
3 - Deep (= bombproof & radiation proof)
4 - Easy access from Westminster (via the Holborn tram subway which is still kept "as was")
5 - Away from the eyes of the general public - work could be done there as the political climate detiorated.
No other station seems to tick all the necessary boxes
|
|