Platform use at Edgware Road

This is what I expected to be the case, but I'm curious about the long turnaround time for the train. As mentioned in the OP I would have expected that leaving a train in platform 3 for that long would have caused the Wimbleware service to back up due to the lack of availability of both platforms. Is this not the case?

What about the timetables you always take home?

Passengers were exceptionally confused over which services were departing from which platform, despite the temporary signs clearly depicting what service departed from each platform. The District I was on departed platform 2 for Wimbledon with the driver announcing the destination then very quickly closing the doors. The family who were also on the train decided they would "stay on this one and see where it would take" them. Next station...Paddington. I presumed they wanted to go to Paddington Bishops Road, so before the doors opened to Paddington (Praed St), I asked them if they were trying to get to "the other Paddington"....They wanted to go to Euston.

Indeed. However they were looking at the maps inside the car and could have easily walked a few steps to see the platform DMI. The parents were angry people. Very angry.

I took out the swearing

Yes. The fact that it would cause more confusion - amongst both staff and customers - than simply saying "For 3 weeks your Wimbledon train will arrive and depart from platform 2."

I'll give you a simple peak-hour with mild late running example.

Train 220 ex-Whitechapel arrives at Edgware Road platform 3 on time. It reforms to District Train 70 for Wimbledon. The train operator for 70 is on the inbound service, but is only at Notting Hill Gate. By the time he arrives, changes platform and departs, the train is even later and 221 ex-Whitechapel is waiting to get into Edgware Road platform 3 (and is also delaying the next westbound Circle).

The "new" 220 (reformed from 70) now departs late as well, because although the train operator was ready and waiting, the stock arrived late. So now we have 2 trains, on 2 different services running late.

Those who can remember the first covered way works in the mid 1990s will remember what happens when you timetable trains to be swapped between 2 sets of train operators running different services. From starting with a fairly minor delay somewhere, you end up with trains without drivers and vice versa, and very soon you end up with nothing moving. It is why that particular timetable didn't survive for very long, and it's why the extended Circle Line didn't include the Wimbledon branch.

With the Circle running as a Circle, those requiring cross-platform interchange can get better than that at Paddington. A typical King's Cross to Wimbledon journey can be achieved by boarding a Circle and dropping back onto a District at Paddington. The return of course offers the same sort of opportunity - and also the cross-platform interchange at Edgware Road.

Stepping back is not being used.

;D You mean when will everyone have their beloved Extended Circle timetable back ;D

If all goes to plan (as it has so far) Monday 16th August.

Am I right in thinking that it was scrapped around the time the whole timetable was recast (by someone who went on to move over to us and then bring about the new Circle Line?)

Stepping back only works where you have simple end to end services, with no branches, and everything stays in the correct order. So that's basically the Waterloo and City line then ;D

Everywhere else, the disadvantages tend to outweigh the advantages.

I'll have to check with the man himself, but I think he arrived a short while after it had already been put in, and left a while after the new timetable (minus stepping-back) proved a "success."

Certain "Putney" Locals would extend to Liverpool St., Moorgate and Aldgate; in fact I'm looking this very moment at a set of times for a Wimbo - Liverpool St (Bay) R stock working; not to mention CP stock to Moorgate bay.

The column heading TD for these trains in the Met WTT was 'DL', once these trains had truncled onto the Met. then they had to make their way back again.

No. It was a complete recast of the timetable - I suppose the last major recasts to such a degree were when the Uxbridge/Barking services were withdrawn in October 1941; the through ELL service withdrawn in November 1940 and the alterations to the Met. services after November 1939 when the Bakerloo opened.

By the same yardstick the loss of the Stanmore branch to the Jubilee is comparably only a TT adjustment (and the extension of the Putney locals to Liverpool Street/Aldgate/Barking at various points in history) . The Extended Circle brought in a review of station-station times and the application of stand time - some might say (and operating experience tends to bear this out) that the stand time allowances are now a bit too generous.

If it were just a timetable adjustment then there would have been no need for either the huge hype or the interminable internal briefing sessions.

If you mean can a "District" service, shown on the Dot Matrix as a District destination run through the northern part of the Circle, still be possible, then the answer is yes.

There are occasions where we organise a changeover of stock at Edgware Road (say between a Hammersmith and District service - to get the original District stock back to Hammersmith Depot). The terminating District service gets shown as a Hammersmith train at Edgware Road. Then the "new" District train can be shown on Dot Matrix equipment from Farringdon (as far Parsons Green descriptions) or Euston Square (as far as Putney Bridge descriptions) or Baker Street (as far as Wimbledon).

However, it should be noted that both trains are formed of C-stock, and both trains require the respective District/H&C drivers to take over at Edgware Road.

So you could still travel from GPS to Wimbledon - but it would be by sheer chance and is not a timetabled train.

<sigh> I suppose it gives more chance for the needless and nasty to listen for the 'we are being held at a red signal' faff.

Why? Is it a fear that the WTT just won't be as robust without all the extra stand time at Acton or High St? Or is it an effort to offset the outstanding mitigation works for the new toys: more stand time, less need to hammer the units up to the sticks - less risk of spads?

Perhaps I'm being too overtly cynical, perhaps I'm thinking about the present seeming 'cut and paste' method of TT production, perhaps I'm just bemused that one area where LT/LU were truly the world leaders [1] are just content to rest on their laurels.

I suppose that humming noise in the background is JP Thomas spinning slightly faster in his grave.

[1]oh yes - I'm not one to lionise organisations but the operational information/timetable matching and timetable production coming out of either the 4th floor at Broadway or the TTO in general has been second to none.