Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Dec 23, 2009 2:13:43 GMT
I see today's ES devotes a whole two-page spread about Edgware Road, "The Interchange From Hell". Written in semi-humorous style and quite well researched, It wasn't that well researched - I stopped reading it at the bit where the writer said an outer rail Circle was reformed into a Wimbledon train on platform 1. That told me how well researched it was! |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 23, 2009 8:10:43 GMT
Have you tied using TfL's Live Departure boards for the sections Paddington (Circle) - Notting Hill Gate and/or Paddington (Suburban) - Hammersmith? If you did, you'll get the following message: There are currently no details for this platform. . The Edgware Road departure board tells me that, as I type, the next train from that direction has just left NHG*. HSK tells me there is another at Putney Bridge, and South Ken tells me there is a Circle there, and another at Victoria. But whether the information is available is not really the point. It should be available. As a passenger, it is somewhat worrying that the line controllers can be unaware of the whereabouts of some of their trains. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Dec 23, 2009 10:58:24 GMT
But whether the information is available is not really the point. It should be available. As a passenger, it is somewhat worrying that the line controllers can be unaware of the whereabouts of some of their trains. There was a time, in the not too distant past, when all you needed as a controller was a log book, a timetable, a sharpened pencil and a telephone. The only people who could "see" the trains from a Service Control point of view were the signallers. Even today with Trackernet "predicting" where it thinks trains are by using Connect data, there are still large gaps in what we can see. As for knowing where our trains our, it is simple. To begin with, you assume that everything is running to time. This gives you an "idea" where the train should be. Subtract from this your cancellations. Then add on to this any late-running signallers pass to you, and you begin to build a mental picture of where everything is - or should be. For more precise information, your either contact a signaller or a train via the radio. So, don't worry, it's simple ;D |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Dec 23, 2009 11:21:39 GMT
I have just typed out a massive post explaining many things, but it's actually dead simple - the signalling system on most of LU is very old.
It's as simple as that.
Until it's all fully renewed, places like Edgware Road will never see any improvement beyond what it has now.
|
|
|
|
Post by messiah on Dec 23, 2009 11:58:10 GMT
GPS exists as an off the shelf product. (Think of the technology for cars to have tracking devices). I am not sure exactly how accurate this is but I'd guess to within a hundred metres (probably less).
Mobile phones can be tracked to within 100m or so when evidence of movements is required in court cases.
Could either of these solutions be used?
It wouldn't be free, and these off the shelf products are not the most suited to LUs needs, however I would have thought the investment to get something reasonable working would be neglgible in the scheme of the underground budget.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Dec 23, 2009 12:05:44 GMT
GPS would only work above ground (and is used already - as part of the DVA set up on D stocks). Connect radio works on the same principle as mobile phone technology.
However....
The only way to seriously improve information on train locations is to fully resignal lines.
Admin comment:
Folks we have seriously wandered off the thread subject - even I am guilty of being a part of that - can we please move back to the subject of the new Circle and discuss information provision in a new thread if anyone thinks there's any more mileage in it?
|
|
|
|
Post by messiah on Dec 23, 2009 12:11:53 GMT
GPS would only work above ground (and is used already - as part of the DVA set up on D stocks). Connect radio works on the same principle as mobile phone technology. However.... The only way to seriously improve information on train locations is to fully resignal lines. Admin comment:
Folks we have seriously wandered off the thread subject - even I am guilty of being a part of that - can we please move back to the subject of the new Circle and discuss information provision in a new thread if anyone thinks there's any more mileage in it?Apologies for the thread drift - can this be split by the mods/admins? Anyway I thought the Hammersmith to Paddington line was overground? |
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Dec 23, 2009 12:54:24 GMT
No, we can't split threads on Proboards, but apparently this technology will reach us soon.
Meanwhile........
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 23, 2009 13:50:15 GMT
Anyway I thought the Hammersmith to Paddington line was overground? The Hammersmith to Paddington line is overground as far as Paddington H&C station. The HSK to Paddington line is in tunnel. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jan 25, 2010 23:15:52 GMT
Various propsals have been made to excavate large chunks out of the Marylebone Road to improve Praed Street junction, but what could be done within the existing tunnels?
The problem, of course, is conflicts between trains passing through Bishops Road and those passing through Praed Street station. We could remodel the junction, within the existing tunnels, to completely segregate these routes. How? By moving it to east of Edgware Road station.
East of the station the junction would be remodelled to allow westbound trains from Baker Street to use platform 2. Platforms 3 and 4 would be normally used as terminal platforms, but with connections still available to/from the east when needed.
Now, here's the clever bit: between Edgware Road station and the site of Praed Street Junction there would be two single tracks - one from platforms 1&2 to/from Bishops Road, and the other from platforms 3&4 to/from Praed Street. Thus, at the cost of a short single track section on each route, they are completely segregated. Would the conflicts between e/b and w/b be any less than those between the two branches on the present configuration?
If you want more flexibility, you could of course retain the capability for parallel moves by retaining the junction, but making both tracks bidirectional between E Rd and Praed St junction.
It has been remarked how old the signalling is at E Rd. When is it due for replacement? That would be the time to do this.
I read a suggestion somewhere that the situation at Bishops Road could be improved by taking a platform (14) back from National Rail. This would become the westbound platform - relieving the pressure on the existing island platform 15/16, which would then normally see only e/b trains using platform 16.
The present w/b platform 15 would be available as a reversing platform, allowing trains from Hammersmith to reverse at Paddington when there is work further east, or trains from the east to reverse there if they cannot go further west.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on Jan 26, 2010 0:55:03 GMT
I might have been me that suggested the third platform or LU at Paddington, but from memory the comments weren't favourable, suggesting that NR needs the platform space (and even if they don't at this moment they would be loathe to give it up in case they do in future).
I also remember a suggestion for parallel bidirectional single lines between Edgware Road and Praed Street Junction. I'm not sure if it was the same as your scheme above or not, but I recall that the controllers were of the opinion the present layout is better than single lines..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 1:12:04 GMT
Various propsals have been made to excavate large chunks out of the Marylebone Road to improve Praed Street junction, but what could be done within the existing tunnels? The problem, of course, is conflicts between trains passing through Bishops Road and those passing through Praed Street station. We could remodel the junction, within the existing tunnels, to completely segregate these routes. How? By moving it to east of Edgware Road station. East of the station the junction would be remodelled to allow westbound trains from Baker Street to use platform 2. Platforms 3 and 4 would be normally used as terminal platforms, but with connections still available to/from the east when needed. Now, here's the clever bit: between Edgware Road station and the site of Praed Street Junction there would be two single tracks - one from platforms 1&2 to/from Bishops Road, and the other from platforms 3&4 to/from Praed Street. Thus, at the cost of a short single track section on each route, they are completely segregated. Would the conflicts between e/b and w/b be any less than those between the two branches on the present configuration? If you want more flexibility, you could of course retain the capability for parallel moves by retaining the junction, but making both tracks bidirectional between E Rd and Praed St junction. It has been remarked how old the signalling is at E Rd. When is it due for replacement? That would be the time to do this. Your idea is intriguing. My alternate idea would be to modify the layout between Praed Street Junction and Edgware Road to be similar to the layout that once existed between Gloucester Road Junction and South Kensington. This layout would have three tracks between the junction and the platform: - a new segregated e/b line that allows trains ex-Paddington direct access to platforms 1and 2 - the existing e/b line, also allowing direct access to platforms 1 and 2 without blocking the ex-Paddington line - the existing w/b line, shared by w/b traffic as far as the junction This layout would allow a train from Hammersmith and a train from HSK to simultaneously be signalled into Edgware Road without blocking the e/b line, and retains the ability to perform parallel 'flat moves' by signalling paired C&H services to and from HSK or to and from Hammersmith across the remaining flat crossing. The biggest advantage gained would be during the peaks, when the signalman is trying to fit the terminating Wimblewares, terminating C&H and through C&H services along a single e/b line into three separate platforms. fx: stampede of SCC signallers...To answer your other question, Edgware Road was resignalled and the existing frame installed in the 1920s, and further modified in the 1990s to shrink all of the platform berths to 300ft. Rumour has it that MetControl knows the provenance of the frame at Edgware Road and that the frame itself is second-hand. I read a suggestion somewhere that the situation at Bishops Road could be improved by taking a platform (14) back from National Rail. This would become the westbound platform - relieving the pressure on the existing island platform 15/16, which would then normally see only e/b trains using platform 16. The present w/b platform 15 would be available as a reversing platform, allowing trains from Hammersmith to reverse at Paddington when there is work further east, or trains from the east to reverse there if they cannot go further west. The better option would be to simply take back all four platforms after Crossrail opens, providing two bay roads (or two through lines) to reverse the H&C service in either direction. Given the current, parlous state of Bishops Road station such a move may result in wholesale demolition and replacement with a three-platform, four-road layout with the center roads served by an island. |
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Jan 26, 2010 6:50:33 GMT
Admin: This thread has developed RIPAS symptoms  as so many have done recently. In this case though we'll let it run. but don't anyone say we didn't notice it ;D ;D ;D
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jan 26, 2010 7:25:24 GMT
In this case though we'll let it run. [/size][/quote] If it weren't for the Judge invariably saying something remarkably similar, Perry Mason would have won far fewer cases... |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jan 26, 2010 20:37:42 GMT
My mistake - I read the OP on the "changes in operation" thread wghich said anyting else could be posted here and took it a bit too literally.
OneKEA's suggestion would cerainly be easier to operate than mine, but despite the broad gauge origins I doubt if there's room for three tracks between ERD and Praed St Junction without enlarging the tunnel
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 22:22:26 GMT
Returning to what's actually happening (as opposed to what might as and when pigs grow wings ;D) I should say - as one who was thoroughly sceptical of the whole idea of the T-cup - that it seems to work well off-peak. Whether the notion of placing the Wimblewares "at the back of the queue" so to speak will survive Justine Greening's re-election campaign remains to be seen, of course.
The evening peak is a different matter. I suspect what's happened is that those who previously changed from Circle to Wimbleware at HSK are now (perforce) doing so at Edgware Road. This means the train has standees as it leaves the terminus, and I suspect those who can will soon start boarding it at Praed Street e/b in order to secure a seat!
I wonder if the load could not be better distributed by running Wimbledon-HSK and Edgware Road-Olympia in the evening peak? It would have the added advantage of potentially annoying Ms Greening...
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jan 26, 2010 23:39:40 GMT
The service runs very well - from an operational point of view - throughout the day.
For example, taking the past week, the punctuality on both Circle roads at Aldgate has been very near 100% throughout (hitting that figure for large chunks of the day, and only suffering a minute or two during the peaks.) This has not been achieved for many many years. The H&C is performing very close to that figure as well. Us the operators find it a very strange experience to run through the peak, with little or no delay, and end up right time post-peak.
Interesting to see the changing habits of the regulars. If the District service were changed (unlikely I feel) then you would simply be hurting many of those you have hurt once already with the changes. Where, for instance, were the majority heading? Just Earl's Court or beyond? If it's the former, then no real change in loadings. If it's the latter, then you are forcing an additional change of trains on a fair few people.
It's not ideal to have to stand, but let's face it, I wouldn't guarantee anyone getting a seat in the peak. But surely the improvement is that the train turns up and you can actually get on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2010 10:01:01 GMT
It wasn't a wholly serious suggestion. Very few of us detrain at Earl's Court - and if there's a Chelsea match on we are very lucky to get out alive!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2010 10:46:19 GMT
I arrived at Edgware Road at approx 17.30 yesterday on a outer rail Circle Line train which pulled into platform 2, so far so good. However platform 1 was already packed and it was announced that the next e/b train was in the Ladbrooke Grove area and would arrive within 10 minutes (so much for a x5min service!), not suprisingly when it did arrive it was packed and very few people got on.
Meanwhile the train I'd got off was filling up before it was announced that the next Circle Line train to High St Ken etc would leave from platform 4 which resulted in a stampede across the footbridge, presumably this was a Hammersmith bound train which had been rerouted via the Circle Line?
Back on platform 1 it was announced that a Barking bound train was due shortly although by the time it did arrive the destination had changed to Whitechapel, this left jam packed full again with people left behind.
Is the service always this bad or was this exceptional? A "good service" was being advertised!
|
|
|
|
Post by plasmid on Feb 5, 2010 11:29:27 GMT
I've yet to try the service, though at Edgeware Road it should be a train every 5 minutes. as for the loop 6tph = LoL fAiL.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Feb 5, 2010 17:09:22 GMT
I arrived at Edgware Road at approx 17.30 yesterday on a outer rail Circle Line train which pulled into platform 2, so far so good. However platform 1 was already packed and it was announced that the next e/b train was in the Ladbrooke Grove area and would arrive within 10 minutes (so much for a x5min service!), not suprisingly when it did arrive it was packed and very few people got on. Meanwhile the train I'd got off was filling up before it was announced that the next Circle Line train to High St Ken etc would leave from platform 4 which resulted in a stampede across the footbridge, presumably this was a Hammersmith bound train which had been rerouted via the Circle Line? Back on platform 1 it was announced that a Barking bound train was due shortly although by the time it did arrive the destination had changed to Whitechapel, this left jam packed full again with people left behind. Is the service always this bad or was this exceptional? A "good service" was being advertised! Probably not long after your journey, the good service was changed to "delays." The service was hit by a number of smaller delays, then to cap it all it was caught up with conjestion in the city caused by a person under train incident at Finchley Road. Many here will already understand that although Finchley Road isn't on the Circle, the Met trains that could not get further than (initially Great Portland Street) Baker Street, were stuck in the city area and had nowhere to go. Moving them around is always going to impact on the H&C and Circle. So I think on this occasion, after a few weeks of more or less trouble-free evening services (and I should know as I've been on for many of them) you've got to let us have this one. It wasn't the timetable's fault that the service was disrupted (and I don't mean that to come across in the non-sensitive way it may seem towards the PUT.) |
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Feb 5, 2010 19:49:23 GMT
So I think on this occasion, after a few weeks of more or less trouble-free I waited a month before comment as I wanted to see things bed in a bit. I am writing from a passenger viewpoint. Probably no-one remembers who posts what but I did remark a while back that H&C travel is relatively new for me and only since May 2009 - and that 3-4 times a week I have been doing Baker Street [off the SB Jubilee in am peak but to Nb Met in evening peak] to Wood Lane, and that I was getting more than a little ****d at every day getting to Baker Street and seeing CIRCLE CIRLE CIRCLE or CIRCLE 4 MIN CIRCLE 6 MIN HAMMERSMITH 11 MIN etc (OK ok I made them upo this time). I was primarily looking forward to this new service because - purely selfishly - in simple terms it doubles the service where *I* want it. And I have to say it is working. I was sceptical that simpling dis-connecting the Circle would actually result in any delay reduction and I - like may other I think - was dubious about platform occupation at Edgware Road. But it seems to work. I have a more reliable journey each way - and its not just down to more trains - it is down to time keeping. I did run into a 12 min gap WB one day earlier this week but when I got to my desk I investigated it (for myself, not for work purposes) using Trackernet and - as posted upthread - there seemed to be rather too many Met trains in the way, possibly a knock on effect from an earlier issue. The only possible downside I have noted is passenger flow conflicts on Edgware Road platforms and bridges. Edgware Road is the other location I go to when not at Wood Lane, so thats based on a low sample of 1-2 trips each week. A bit more subjective comment that I can't back up - I sense there must be more passengers heading towards Hammersmith as an alternative route. The H&C is effectively doubled, yet west of Royal Oak / Westbourne Park I'd estimate there are more passengers on most trains I've been on than before, and they ain't getting off at Wood Lane. Despite the hassle of the pedestrain road crossngs at Hammersmith I wonder if regulars are already settling on a new route ? -- Nick |
|
as so many have done recently. In this case though we'll let it run.
