|
Post by grahamhewett on Aug 22, 2016 9:37:58 GMT
Like First generation DMUs, Underground stock up to Standard Tube stock and Q stock were not in fixed units but could be formed in almost any combination of vehicles (as long as there was a cab at each end of the train!) In modern units, the individual cars are much more inter-dependent, and it is not usually possible to mix vehicles of different builds in the same train. To the dismay /joy of those trying to clear the entire fleet of Q and post-1927 stock....
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Aug 21, 2016 19:47:17 GMT
whistlekiller2000 - I had a very soft spot for the ragged District formations in Q stock days, with the flared Q38s marshalled along with the antiquated Q27s. I guess the answer to your implied question is that the technology was much more basic -no problems of incompatible software, very simple control systems, and so on. [More strategically, one does sometimes wonder what the advantages of sixty years of radical technological change in the rolling stock field really are, and more importantly,whether they have been worthwhile - alittle while ago, when I dealt with such things, and NSE was contemplating buying a large programme of Networkers, the Board Chairman asked me to look at the cost of buying their predecessors. In the '50s. we bought a 4 car suburban unit for £125k (about £500k at '90s prices); in the '90s, their replacement cost around £ 4m. Same capacity, somewhat better performance, more complex and therefore more expensive to maintain, aircon (maybe),same life. As he said when I showed him the figures - "What have we bought that is worth 8 times as much?"
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Aug 21, 2016 14:39:23 GMT
Before the F stock was sent to the ELL ex district railway C/D/E stock (H stock) was used and it was joined by the remains of the ex Met rly S train which where were prototype T stock motor cars. When the F stock was withdrawn it was initially replaced by Q stock but at times CP stock was used. This finally replaced the Q stock in 1971. An industrial dispute at Acton and wheel issues led to the replacement of CO/CP stock with 1938 tube stock until the A stock took over. Vic Mitchell's book on the ELL gives 1963 as the end of the F stock there. (Can't find any more detail but that must be close to the final withdrawal date for the stock). Apparently 10x 4 car sets were allocated but with only 5 in service and one spare - not clear what the other four did, although out on the far reaches of the |Met, we sometimes saw F stock even when not normally scheduled, especially to Uxbridge.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Aug 4, 2016 10:30:42 GMT
North End - to move onto safer ground, the key driver of London commuting is employment in the CAZ, rather than population per se, so to relieve overcrowding on trains, we'd need to see employment growth stall (or decline) rather than population growth. [That's not to say that population growth doesn't cause many other problems, of course, but that's probably not a thing that the moderators want to hear about...] The second order growth factor - embarrassingly - is the volume of train service offered; not something we like to talk about.... A long way back in third place is traffic congestion.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Aug 3, 2016 10:56:45 GMT
snoggle - "I fear that anyone wishing to remain in the 1970s with seats for everyone (that ridiculous campaign slogan of the Evening Standard) is going to be sorely disappointed." At the risk of being controversial, I believe we have collectively voted to do just that (and I look forward to being slimmer with more hair, too...)
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Aug 2, 2016 17:49:22 GMT
From an operator's point of view, too much transverse seating does prevent loading the trains to the maximum possible permitted by the floor space (or extends dwell times); more, the argument in favour of 3+2 is alas, seventy years out of date - everyone has got fatter over that period, which is why so much suburban stock is now delivered with 2+2.
The question of whether the Elizabeth Line is a tube or something else is irrelevant. What determines the characteristics of the stock design is not the existence of track access agreements, nor its frequency, nor the presence or absence of freight, but the function of the service. In the EL case, it provides both a longer distance service and also acts as a distributor within the CAZ, so it has to do two things simultaneously. This inevitably means a compromise between different seating arrangements. A somewhat different compromise has been struck with TLK stock but it's still a compromise.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 23, 2016 10:55:07 GMT
theblackferret - I recall having the same sort of difficulty with the term "public house"...
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 23, 2016 8:46:30 GMT
Could indeed be one-man oppo, but not as we know it, Jim-looks like a lady guard there to me. I don't think LU had ladies as train crew in 1959, or indeed until the Equal Opportunities Act of 1976. There were certainly no female drivers until Hannah Dodds in 1980, and since the normal career progression was from guard to driver it would have been odd if there had been female guards twenty years before there were female drivers. The second man was definitely a man but whether he was a guard or merely the driver's helpful friend is something that at the age of 10 I wouldn't have been able to tell...
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 22, 2016 14:40:30 GMT
To be profitable, the Underground would - like any other business - have to cover not only its operating costs but also its capital costs. It falls well short of that, however you like to define the correct capitalisation of its assets. In a word the answer to the original question is "no"!.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 22, 2016 9:58:05 GMT
I can't claim the Central beyond Leytonstone (those of us who live in NW London had merely heard rumours about NE London), but I did ride the S Acton shuttle in its final week (much to the astonishment of the crew, who clearly didn't expect much trade; the guard's bicycle that was also being conveyed wasless astonished).
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 8, 2016 16:18:33 GMT
No doubt, the debate will never satisfy everyone but what often seems to be overlooked is the viewpoint of the punter, who TBH couldn't care less about the operator, whether the line is franchised, or the infrastructure is owned by NR or not. What they want to know is the commercial and quality offer. "Underground" as a brand does that - as we have seen with the cry for LO to "extend the Underground into SE London". I see no harm in treating the CrossRail lines as extensions of the Underground network - as has already been pointed out, several Underground lines have CrossRail functional characteristics - although it would be even better if the network of everyone's lines (including all the suburban lines, whether controlled by TfL or not) were subject to a rigorous allocation of names indicating function. That would draw TLK - is it a metro, is it a CrossRail, is it a bird (oh no, that's something else) into the programme neatly; as matters stand, we shall have the worst of all worlds - names (and branding) for the tube and CrossRail lines, which have different but overlapping functions, merely a network name and branding for LO, which is hardly a network at all, and TLK sitting in a corner all on its own.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on May 22, 2016 18:01:52 GMT
superteacher - is there a contractual point behind this, do you think, where using new stock would hasten the day when mileage related maintenance had to be undertaken (no such requirement for stock on the way out)?
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Mar 20, 2016 22:02:58 GMT
How we were all shocked by the bouncy ride (eg between S Harrow and Sudbury Town) compared with the post-23 stock. And the lighting - suddenly the gloom lifted compared even to the 38ts.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Mar 4, 2016 18:14:58 GMT
This is a major breakthrough for Stadler both in terms of the UK market and the urban transit sector in particular. I doubt that they will be built in the UK because Stadler has no existing works here and the order wouldn't justify opening a manufacturing base just for 17 sets. Might be built in Switzerland (unlikely) or one of Stadler's other bases such as Poland or Hungary. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Feb 21, 2016 15:35:32 GMT
crusty54 - one could make a start with numbering the routes on the map, tho' norbitonflyer - I've often wondered how the tram routes escaped LT's passion for order - perhaps the survival of TE Thomas as the relevant MD explains it? It's a very common thing in ex-Commie countries, however - when I was in Tallinn, they had route 1 buses, trams and trolleybuses all with quite different routeings. The prize for stupid - as in really stupid - duplicate numbering probably goes to the Basingstoke of c2000, which managed to have three routes 1, a Premier route and a First route (all different operators, of course). [Then there was the first generation of Athens tramways which managed to have two routes 3 (as I recall), going to the same outer termini but by quite different routes; their only distinguishing feature was different electrical control equipment - presumably the punters checked the equipment cabinets on boarding...]
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jan 17, 2016 19:42:29 GMT
Thank you for that! I have duly added suitable pencil footnotes (something I'd normally condemn in others... ) to the books by Snowdon and Bruce.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jan 17, 2016 11:18:17 GMT
Does anyone know whether the Rothschild salon that LT inherited from the Met had a number (it would have been most unusual for LT not to number a vehicle!)?
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 15, 2015 21:45:16 GMT
norbitonflyer - interesting - is it recorded anywhere how the MDR locos were attached/detached from their Outer Circle trains? At Earls Court, presumably but I wasn't aware that there was a refuge siding for locos. [Must have been a slick operation if it wasn't allowed to hold up the regular services]
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 10, 2015 19:00:51 GMT
The Cobb Atlas shows the junction as "Wembley Park Junction"
@chris M - not to mention the well-known Junction Road Junction...
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Sept 29, 2015 18:05:59 GMT
@chris W - Lovely photos - now why did I miss that museum when I visited Budapest/? BTW, the tram and trolleybus networks are good fun, too.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Aug 15, 2015 16:55:11 GMT
I have read extensively about this since first seeing the "guaranteed" 10 year access for Blackpool to Queen's Park. As everyone else says, Queen's Park WCML slow line platforms are dire, access is poor and no one in his right mind would start or finish a train service from there. However, for a while a few years ago, due to works for the WCML route modernisation, some Silverlink services did start from and finish at Queen's Park. It can be done, but is not ideal. However, the meaning of the letter is that the Blackpool trains will run to Euston. What is not approved yet is any guarantee that those paths will be available whilst HS2 is rebuilding Euston. There's lots of work ahead, including refranchising both the current LM and Virgin franchises, and there's lots that can be done to optimise platform occupation time (I would vote for not coupling/uncoupling in the platforms. Those things might cost money, but might also deliver a better service. There are 18 platforms at Euston. After all they manage to reserve one/two specific platform(s) for the sleeper trains during the morning peak. Off peak, the current pattern is about 18 trains per hour (I might be a train or two out as I haven't examined the timetable. That's not a lot of trains when there are 18 platforms. I know that this number may be reduced for HS 2 works, but if everyone got a proper "time and motion study" to agree the turnaround times for trains - I'd suggest no more than 10 mins for LM and no more than 20 mins for Virgin - then it's all do-able. Significant changes of working practice would be necessary, but it's do-able - just visit Victoria Station to see what's possible. Also a Thameslink approach to punctuality will be required - on time every time!!! (I have resisted the temptation to compare with Brixton where - as all DD members know - 34 trains are reversed in an hour off two platforms! @onehundredand30 - yes, I used to think that, too - just, O foolish Virgins - look at what is achieved is achieved at StP domestic. However, I have now come to believe that the long platform occupation times are a symptom rather than the disease. Probing a little deeper, I find that (a) VT are very very tightly scheduled with no spare sets at all much of the time, and (b) the sets have to go for maintenance in a fixed order at a fixed time. Put these together, and we see that the VT schedulers leave themselves plenty of spare time in case they have to step up a set/crew (and given constraint b, it can't be any old set or crew, so they need to reshuffle diagrams if something goes wrong.) In effect, Euston is used as a buffer store and the sets are tightly scheduled only in so far as they are all allocated to a live diagram. Now if they had some more flexibility and took the slack "off-diagram"- say, a "Dispozug" parked up somewhere away from the Euston platforms - they could turn round sets PDQ. As it is, they have left themselves with no room for manoeuvre. And yes, turning a train ought to take - even an IC train - no more than 20. Attention to detail such providing water stand pipes alongside each coach instead of waiting for a tug and bowsers to wend its weary way along the length of the train.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 30, 2015 15:46:33 GMT
theblackferret - now I suspect you didn't spend your youth in RT-land; the RTLs were always easily distinguished, even before they hoved into sight, from the AEC fleet by their gutsy roar, compared with the AEC purr. back on topic, I think the biggest collapse in off peak service in the '70s and '80s was on the Euston-Watford dc services. At one time, punters north of Willesden had 4 tph o/p on each of the Euston, Broad Street and Bakerloo services. Now, north of Harrow, a measly 3 tph.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 30, 2015 8:29:22 GMT
theblackferret - "Uxbridge, not 50 yards from the Tube, but with an all-night bus garage in between-fine, once we'd mastered night one & the fact that buses now reverse with a noise approximate to a demented seagull desperately searching out a chippy." Yes, once made the mistake of booking into a hotel in St Enoch's Square Glasgow. Nice and quiet when i went to bed, but then the noise started - it turned out that St Enoch's Square was then the centre of the night bus network so every half hour, we had Leyland engines, with their throaty roar, being revved ready for the trip to Hillhead or whatever. BTW I notice a Holiday Inn in Croydon - do many, do you think, have their holidays there?
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 29, 2015 17:44:57 GMT
theblackferret - and one can see how one's children are under all sorts of work pressures that one never encountered a generation ago but without the job security. The lengthening of the peak in the morning is making services with very long recycling times such as TLK a nightmare - no sooner have you started to get the first of the peaks back to a maintenance site, c 10.30 (last c11.30) than you are beginning to think about running out the first of the evening peaks c14.30/15.00 - a very short maintenance window. A propos suburban Travllodges and similar, we made the mistake once of thinking that we could gain an hour or two in bed when leaving LHR on an early flight by staying the night before in a travel Lodge near the airport. Not only do you gain nothing as the airport shuttles don't start that early, but you have all the unexcitement of staying in a grotty hotel beforehand - not to be repeated - known in our household as the holiday in Hounslow ...
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 29, 2015 11:58:05 GMT
superteacher - not only has the interpeak filled up somewhat but the morning peak starts so much earlier, and as you say, people work later. Until Big Bang in the City, the morning peak covered a fairly gentlemanly 0730- 0930, now even the very early trains from further out are full to standing after about 06.30 (For example, on our line, there are no seats available south of Godalming after 06.45). Run faster, rats! Glad to have retired...
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 29, 2015 11:04:18 GMT
(I did once see a ticket check on a T stock train - a fearsome sight as dozens of inspectors simultaneously boarded the train). Sounds similar to Manchester Metrolink, where the policy seems to be have a large group of Inspectors pounce on a tram or tram stop at random and check everyone. For the real reign of terror, I recommend (not) ticket inspections in Kaunas, Lithuania, where the trolleybus is locked down on arrival at the stop, and a crew of heavily armoured thugs - seemingly employed by the Lithuanian equivalent of Group4 board the bus - and go through it with a tooth comb. Delinquents are frogmarched off the bus (and quite possibly killed and placed in shallow graves at the terminus) and the trolleybus is then released to allow normal disembarkation and boarding... We made sure we bought our tickets for our return trip...
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 28, 2015 20:54:34 GMT
@the Tram Man - - you are excused! If you look at the earlier version of the RIPAS thread, you'll see it's loaded with plans to extend the W&C (Southend was the most extravagant noted) and the perennial proposals of that ilk led to the present arrangement on this forum of having a section clearly marked fantasy projects - the result has been very successful so far. On another forum - - London Reconnections - matters had become so bad that the moderators produced an article about crayonistas (people who doodle bizarre/expensive/stupid plans for new tube lines) and extendadors - people who cannot resist the idea of grandiose extensions to the W&C and the GN&C. That also produced the desired self-restraint... I've always felt pidgin Spanish is a bit odd for describing rail fantasists. Wouldn't the more correct terms be "Usuarios Crayón" and "Extensores" on Londres Reconexiones? I do enjoy a spot of pedantry after a glass of wine or two Graham so please take no notice........ I think you should tell us more about the wine. BTW if a conquistador is one who conquers and an estufador is one who "stuffs" goods onto a ship, why isn't an extendador one who extends ? Or should it be "extensador"?
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 28, 2015 14:01:11 GMT
.. and then there were women's only compartments....
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 28, 2015 8:27:42 GMT
@the Tram Man - - you are excused! If you look at the earlier version of the RIPAS thread, you'll see it's loaded with plans to extend the W&C (Southend was the most extravagant noted) and the perennial proposals of that ilk led to the present arrangement on this forum of having a section clearly marked fantasy projects - the result has been very successful so far. On another forum - - London Reconnections - matters had become so bad that the moderators produced an article about crayonistas (people who doodle bizarre/expensive/stupid plans for new tube lines) and extendadors - people who cannot resist the idea of grandiose extensions to the W&C and the GN&C. That also produced the desired self-restraint...
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 27, 2015 16:24:26 GMT
From an operator's point of view, compartment stock was a real bind - making sure all the doors were closed before departure and then there was the problem of ticket checks ... (I did once see a ticket check on a T stock train - a fearsome sight as dozens of inspectors simultaneously boarded the train).
|
|