|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 31, 2012 17:22:47 GMT
Weren't there some Saturday District workings round the north side of the Circle on football days?
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 30, 2012 9:12:46 GMT
It's not obvious what the Notting Hill crossover would have achieved - so far down the platform face, it would have shortened the length available for a conventional run round (assuming that there was a matching crossover at the other end).
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 29, 2012 11:53:18 GMT
Interesting. To get the thread going, here's a couple of points of transport interest:
- the traffic jams; it's a matter of record that traffic speeds in central London are now no better than in 1900. (The GPO kept records of horse-drawn van delivery speeds for many decades. so the comparison is reasonably sound).
- nice shots of Thames sailing barges fully rigged - none of this "entertainment" barge nonsense.
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 27, 2012 16:33:06 GMT
@stonesfan - by 1962, I guess there would have been plenty of opportunities for RFs to have become surplus through the service reductions elsewhere that took place after 1959 ( don't have any vehicle-to-route allocations before 1962, alas, so I can't pinpoint the sources of spares any more closley).
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 27, 2012 11:30:00 GMT
@puddytat - I think the TDs lingered on because of a shortage of single deckers rather than any preference as between TDs and RFs - the RFs had all entered service several years before the mass withdrawal of the TDs and presumably, there was nothing available to replace them until some double decking took place, or there had been service reductions releasing RFs from elsewhere (possibly the 80/80A).
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 22, 2012 15:01:59 GMT
The inset funicular looks a lot like the Festungsbahn* in Salzburg, just round the back of the cathedral.
GH
* That's the passenger one - there is a freight-only one round the back of the Festung (which has been running since 1521, I believe), and is extremely difficult to photograph..
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 22, 2012 10:23:25 GMT
Sorry. compsci, any such plans were some sort of journalistic fluff (I should know, I was in charge of BR planning at the time!) There was no spare capacity at either KX or Euston. There was a plan, inspired by Ferdinand Mount and Mrs Thatcher, in about 1987 to close Marylebone and substitute a busway for the GC mainline, but that is another story. We soon saw that one off...
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 21, 2012 18:07:12 GMT
Time to open up a new line of attack - Elstree.
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 17, 2012 12:04:41 GMT
GOBLIN is in fact the preferred route for freight leaving the various Thamesside yards etc. 2 paths an hour for this. I suspect the lack of progress on electrification is the result of a game of bluff between TfL, DfT and the freight operators as to who should pay for it. He who blinks first pays. Meanwhile, the rest of us lose...
Graham H
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 16, 2012 15:47:05 GMT
There was the case in pre-WW1 Germany, where a circus (probably for a stunt) took a young elephant on the Wuppertal monorail; the elephant leapt out and fell in the river. In the same vein, former BR colleague remembered having to accompany the collection of a an elephant from Heathrow and take it to Euston to be loaded; BR used a standard cattle lorry, with open, slatted sides, and animal spent the entire trip putting its trunk out of the vehicle and slapping passing cars - my colleague spent the entire time trying to lean out of the cab and restrain it...
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 14, 2012 8:51:34 GMT
In the same vein, I once had to review the loading charges at the London Docks and was shown the 1910 list of tariffs (a nicely printed book), which distinguished between large and small elephants - should have made for some interesting dockside arguments...
GH
BTW, you could have hired their largest floating crane for only 25 guineas a day - a snip.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 13, 2012 8:28:27 GMT
mikebuzz- and indeed, multiple unit operation came in here before NYC (W&C 1898, Central 1903 or the Liverpool Overhead in 1893). Graham H
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 9, 2012 8:39:41 GMT
A propos Amersham, just remember the graffiti I once saw in a pub loo there - Hitler was evil but the people of Amersham are worse - no explanation offered. castlebar - is Betjeman the only poet to have used the word trolleybus in verse? (Sorry, moderators, a bit of thread drift there) Graham H PS In terms of places to go, not quite the end of the line but why not try Osterley for the House/Park (and Syon House/Park within easy walking distance)? Bothparks evocative of Betjeman's lost elysium again...
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 25, 2012 15:47:36 GMT
Hi Dominiq
In these days, one cannot be choosy about an employer, but, if you can, everyone I know who has worked for a Virgin enterprise (rail/air/travel) complains about the control freakery and indifferent training. (Eg my niece who worked for Virgin Travel was told what lipstick to wear, how to have her hair done, etc etc). I suppose it depends on what you will actually be doing for them and whether it's on the front line or not. So far as train ops is concerned, senior staff complain bitterly about the level of financial interference in operational matters.
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 22, 2012 15:37:07 GMT
etr220 is correct -it's the conacity (if that's the right word) that steers the wheel. A long time ago - at the time of the APT - BR Research produced a terrifying film of what actually happened to the wheels at high speed. Quite often in the course of trip, the wheels ran on their flanges on one side relying on the depth of the tread and its degree of conacity on the other. More prosaicaally, the engineers demonstrated it to we lay people with a pair of coffee cups (empty).
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 15, 2012 11:41:55 GMT
@dalesman I quite agree that the much-vaunted RER is looking decidedly tired these days in terms of finishes and decor. We will do better than that in London?!
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 14, 2012 19:01:27 GMT
castlebar - the April 1986 WTT still showed two Picc trains reversing there. One (317D) started ecs from Northfields at 0449 and reversed at WK (0506/0511) continuing in service to Heathrow. The other (323D) had started as a staffer at Uxbridge at 04.46 to Acton, continued as ecs to West Ken (a 05.28 1/2) and then departed 05.33 all stations to Acton Town and Heathrow. These seemed to be the only two WK reversers that were scheduled by then. GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 14, 2012 18:48:05 GMT
DmitriSurprise! Moscow Metro's experience is the same as the rest of the world, and evildoers at the doors are present everywhere! I would add to your list, however, the time taken for one train to clear a junction , the points and signalling to be reset, and the time taken for the next train to clear the junction again. A propos rubber tyres, I believe the Paris Metro wanted to improve on the 1.2 m/s figure because of the close station spacing on line 1; I suspect that the other lines and systems with rubber tyres also have various sorts of adhesion problem. Some operators (including BR) were prepared to consider acceleration up to 1.5 m/s - above that figure and you decked the standing punters even if they were clinging on. Graham H
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 14, 2012 18:46:19 GMT
DmitriSurprise! Moscow Metro's experience is the same as the rest of the world, and evildoers at the doors are present everywhere! I would add to your list, however, the time taken for one train to clear a junction , the points and signalling to be reset, and the time taken for the next train to clear the junction again. A propos rubber tyres, I believe the Paris Metro wanted to improve on the 1.2 m/s figure because of the close station spacing on line 1; I suspect that the other lines and systems with rubber tyres also have various sorts of adhesion problem. Some operators (including BR) were prepared to consider acceleration up to 1.5 m/s - above that figure and you decked the standing punters even if they were clinging on. Graham H
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 13, 2012 15:20:55 GMT
chrisvandenkieboom - I believe that the mixed RER lines are staffed by RATP drivers for the relevant part of the trip, although I see from the trade press that that may change soon with drivers going right through. @stephenk - Thank you for the Moscow intervals. I see Ky'iv gets down - allegedly - to 90 secs, tho' whether it really does so i npractice, only returning footie fans can say. 40+ trams per hour today - there's a challenge! Maybe the Zuerich Bahnfofstrasse or Karlsruhe? Just off to poke around in paper mountain number 16A. GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 12, 2012 14:55:12 GMT
@redworker - in fact quite common on the mainline - Reading, Guildford and Redhill round here, for example, and a good many London termini have top train working.
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 11, 2012 8:32:31 GMT
@stephenk - yes, you are right, I had miscalculated 95 sec as 42 tph. The Moscow figure was based on observation rather than timetable (I have not seen a Moscow WTT - assume that such things are probably still state secrets). The 1970 Bakerloo t/t that I have is simply a summary of intervals, so 1 1/2-2 m headways covers a multitude of options [The 1977 WTT, ie after the introduction of the 1972 stock but before the Jubilee line, shows a consistent 2 minute peak interval in the central area].
The reference to the Berlin S-Bahn comes from Pierson's book "Dampfzuege auf Berlins Stadt-und Ringbahn" but he does not provide a supporting timetable. It is true that certain stretches of the S-Bahn are four track, and that may be the explanation, although even so 2 minutes per track with steam and slamdoor is till impressive.
The question as to whether 1 minute service intervals are impossible or not has been much debated recently in operating circles faced with Thameslink and CrossRail ( mainly in relation to Airport Junction ) issues - the general consensus has been that if station dwell times can be managed down - and that is a big if - the limiting factor is the speed with which a set of points can be moved after the previous train has cleared them and the signalling reset - something under 45 seconds may be achievable, followed by a delay while the next train starts and then clears the points. Although that suggests intervals close to 1 minute are theoretically possible, I can't imagine that anyone would want to offer a reliable service on that basis. Except - that a good many tram operations have had service intervals down to 30 seconds or less - the Embankment headway was 120 cars in each direction per hour and the 16/18 offered cars every minute - and it would interesting to know what was the critical factor here. Drive on sight? Slow speeds? (But then you'd think that would be a negative factor here). Manual movement of the points?
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 10, 2012 16:44:31 GMT
I was in fact referring to the 1880s! And all done with slam doors and steam traction! (I agree, Commie attitudes to customer handling can be characterised by the Moscow metro - shut the doors and go regardless. Also the lovely habit of the Petersburg metro where the stations are not only fitted with platform edge doors without windows but the gaps between the platform doors are blank, too. The stations there have no platform signage, so you stop seemingly in the tunnel, the doors open to reveal an anonymous lit space. You just have to count the stops and hope...)
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 8, 2012 16:06:25 GMT
slugabed - quite agree. In fact it was the Southern management's argument that a train could be emptied so quickly that kept airdoors away from SR for 40 years after everyone else had adopted them, but that applied to termini to minimise platform reoccupation times. Staff could then go round and shut the doors at "leisure". The puzzle with the Berlin S-Bahn was how that was done on through stations unless they had several platform staff per coach who would spring into action. You are quite right about the effect of safety on train dwell times - the audio/safety actions for the new Thameslink stock were identified as comprising 17 different activities to open and close the doors which in total occupied about 20 seconds between train stopping and brake release to start- and DfT were demanding no longer than 45 second dwell times in the central area. Perhaps they had in mind Japanese style white gloved pushers...? GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 8, 2012 15:06:58 GMT
A couple (maybe 2 1/2) of points on the thread so far:
- 12 car mainline suburban trains contain about 1450 people (that's, for example, what Bombardier were offering for Thameslink, and that required the odious 3+2 seating and assumed that trains were loaded to 115% of seats); that's probably about twice the crush load for a tube train (although I have seen figures approaching 1000 per 6 car for the sort of loads where the punters are carried past their stations unable to get off). In both cases, the maximum official load works out at about 7 punters per metre length; in the LU case, not many of them sit down, however. 12 car RER (and eg Zuerich S-Bahn) double-deckers can take up to about 1700 punters - not much of a gain because so much capacity is lost in the stair wells.
- I always understood that the use of rubber tyres by RATP reflected the close stop spacing on line 1 and the need to accelerate/brake faster (and spread to those other lines where adhesion was a problem, plus line 6 which has some elevated sections close to housing, where noise is an issue).
- In terms of headways, RATP say they rely on their countdown clocks at the platform ends to get down to 95 seconds (about 42/43 tph) with the drivers instructed to shut and go on the dot regardless (just love those train door edges). LU carried out an experiment some years ago on (I think) the Northern in which they achieved a similar result by throwing everything they could at it (stepping back, platform control etc) and with the then conventional signalling. Although they didn't think they could sustain this indefinitely, I see from my 1970 tube timetable that the Bakerloo offered a service interval of 1 1/2 - 2 minutes in the peaks which is presumably equivalent to something like 36-38tph. Pretty impressive.
Graham H
PS The Berlin S-Bahn claimed 60 tph with steam traction and conventional semaphores but how station dwell times were managed is anybody's guess as they were using slam door stock. The Moscow metro also claims 60 tph. Door control there is aggressive to put it mildly. But not a rubber tyre in sight...
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 7, 2012 13:30:49 GMT
Not radical enough!?
Why not transfer the whole of the Brum service to Paddington (journey times compared with Euston only about +15 after the next round of Evergreen, as fast, if electrified) and then use Chiltern to provide the local services beyond Rickmansworth? Frees up Euston and WC capacity, longer platforms than at Marylebone, solves Met problem etc etc...
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 7, 2012 8:52:20 GMT
In NSE days, we were quite clear - Crossrail + Thameslink was going to be - functionally, at least - the beginning of an RER for the London region. As Chris Green put it: "We shall put well over half the population in the region within one interchange (sc Farringdon) of each other, with most intra-regional journey times under two hours".
The reasons for the differences between the development of the Paris and London regional networks lie in the different histories of the two city regions. Paris and London are not strictly comparable - central Paris (within the old fortifications) is much denser than central London and even now still a primarily residential area. The original Metro lines (CMP and NS) were much more like underground tramways (shallow stations, close stop spacing) and deliberately terminated at the boundary of the heavily built up area. The RER was, if you like, as attempt to catch up with the post 1960 expansion of greater Paris into the surrounding countryside, and in particular, to serve the various new towns in the city region. In London, the tube quickly extended into the then outer suburbs as the Met and District had before it and the regional aspects ("Home Counties") were left to the main lines. This worked until the '80s when the volume of central London commuting, which had been 75% from places within Greater London, gradually switched to becoming about half and half as it is now. That led in turn to gross overcrowding at the interchanges between the main lines and the tube - CrossRail and Thameslink were the initial solution to that, as well as relieving overcrowding on the underground itself, especially the Central. (the problem was exacerbated by the collapse of of long distance commuting by bus and Greenline as a result of growing congestion - most of the long trunkhaul bus routes such as the 47 or the 21, for example, were cut up in the bus reshaping programme).
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 7, 2012 8:25:15 GMT
Apparently the real problem with transferring the Watford DC lines to the Bakerloo was not so much the technical issues (power and signalling north of Harrow) but the fate of Kilburn High Road which would have been left for closure at a time when Uncle Ken had promised that there would be no further station closures in London. TfL London Rail did look, briefly, at the scope for slewing in the slow lines out of Euston but presumably the cost was hardly worthwhile.
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 7, 2012 8:17:10 GMT
I haven't forgiven the C stock for replacing the O/P stock...
GH
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 1, 2012 12:37:53 GMT
The thread prompted me to dig out the 1986 (no 286) WTT (only 2 cu ft of stuff fell on me, mainly back numbers of the Lithuanian rail timetable...). Virtually no change at all (the 0005 had become 0004 MF/0006 Sa) - an amazing piece of timetable stability.
GH
|
|