S-Stock on SSL

Never say never, but there are no plans to change drivers current route knowledge. So it's possible, but extremely unlikely as things currently stand.

I would imagine it would be the same.

That could well happen when trains are re-formed after service disruption, or swapped about to get a defective train to a depot. Of course this type of action will be far easier with one common stock - today of course, you cannot simply swap a D with a C.

AFAIK there are no plans to timetable in mass changes to service patterns such that there'd be routine swapping of services between the District and Circle/H&C lines throughout the day, but S7's will undoubtedly be moved around the SSR stabling locations and depots as C stocks are done today simply by having them start at one location and finishing at another.

The "Wimblewares" are District line stock whilst they are operating that service, and are driven by District line drivers. In fact the C77 build is nominally owned by the District line!! The C stock fleet is of course routinely mixed for operational convenience.

Correct.

District service stock, supplied, maintained and regularly changed-over in the event of defects (often at the cost of our own service) by the Hammersmith & City Line ;D ;D

My understanding is that S7 and S8 will be exactly the same to drive, and in the event of service disruption it would be possible for any SSR driver to take any S stock train (along a route that they are trained on). So a H&C driver could shift a S8 with an incapacitated driver for example.

I wonder if a S7 could run in service on the Met main, or would this be considered a PTI risk?
Similarly, could a S8 run on the District/H&C, relying on selective door opening?

It would be sensible for all S trains (or at least all S7s) to have one line (or should I say lines) diagram: possibly with some rethink of how the lines/services are identified and distinguished. There seems no particularly good reason for Wimbleware to be green, in with the rest of the District, when the H&C and Circle are distinguished.

Also I wonder as to the merit of all S7 drivers having a common route knowledge (H&C&C & District), permitting more innovative service patterns, especially in times of disruption - not having the nonsense of trains reversing at a station from both directions (rather than running through) just because the drivers have different route knowledge.

There will be no need for the Wimbledon - Edgware Road service to be considered a seperate entity at all. Edgware Road trains would be equally capable of originating from Richmond, Ealing Broadway or Olympia or a mixture of all of these. No reason why a train can not be diagrammed to run; Upminster- Richmond- Edgware Road - Wimbledon - Upminster. (in which case it clearly needs to retain the green colour on the line diagram)

Can we keep in mind here that regardless of increased route knowledge (which don't forget costs plenty of time and money to teach and then keep up-to-date) the timetable won't be changing that much from the one we have now. There simply won't be a sudden introduction of Richmond-Moorgate services or Edgware Road-Ealing via Barking services.

The ability of the S-stock to go onto any part of the SSL, and having drivers able to go anywhere with that stock will be a bonus in the event of shutdowns - it gives you more options of where to send stuck trains. A signal failure at Tower Hill that can be avoided by sending westbound Districts via Kings Cross would mean less overall service disruption. That's the kind of thing that would come from this.

Actually I don't think thats a good reason at all! In fact you are sacrificing the service on a branch with no problems just because it happens to be paired with a completely remote destination that does! It must surely be better to share the disruption equally so it is of less note, than to lump it all on one route!

By self containing the services, you force some passengers to change trains to make a through trip, where they may prefer to await a through train (because of difficulties boarding and allighting etc).

Service disruption at one end may then cause substantial dificulties in later maintaining a service to somewhere at the other end of the line.

Hypothetically because off peak trains to Richmond commence at Upminster a service disruption at Becontree, can mean in an hour or so's time you get no trains to Richmond, and when trains do start running through, they are all late and there is a reluctance to curtail Richmond trains to put them to time, however had a third of the Richmond trains started at Tower Hill (instead of all the Tower Hill off peaks going to Ealing) then a service would have been maintained without quite so much of the (skillful) intervention of the Service Controller. The disruption would have been shared equally by all the branches.

Equally under the previous timetable when during the peak all the ex-Wimbledon trains didn't go to Upminster, a disruption at Hammersmith would leave large gaps to Upminster.

Plus self containing the services tends to result in a large chunk of the duties at each depot doing the same thing, which is exceedingly dull!

I'd much rather see all trains from Upminster rotate alternately; Richmond, Olympia, Ealing Bdy, Wimbledon!

From a drivers point of view, I can certainly appreciate what Aspect says in terms of the boredom factor, although I'd suggest that with the current timetable we are doing less Richmond's at Upminster these days. Just!

But I can also see that having everything following each other on the same pattern would be a nightmare when it comes to service recovery. During the off peak, with self contained services and a numbering system that makes sense, the job of service recovery is much easier and less delay is caused in getting decisions made and acted upon.

Having everything running around chasing it's arse with a random numbering system means the controller is going to get bogged down working out what's what and will most likely miss the best opportunities to make good inroads into recovering the service quickly after a shut down.

That being said, if you are a controller on the Met (well, the H&C side anyway), Bakerloo or Vic I suppose you'd be well used to working under such chaotic conditions.

Hmm....pros and cons aplenty!!....

I think about those drivers that used to work the ELL, or those on the old Circle! Both must have been utterly tedious. But I really feel for those on the W&C!

I know it is OTT but were there also crews that preferred the Aldwych shuttle to 'mainline' Picc work?

Possible. But is it really needed?

Plus 2 points spring to mind:
1) The Hammersmith-Barking service cannot, in turn, travel via Victoria, which means it will have to fit in with the additional District services.
2) If the Upminster-Ealing service runs via King's Cross, then what about Upminster and Ealing customers who travel on the south side? You cannot run both, and regular readers here will know what happens when you change a service dramatically and force people who have travelled direct for years to now have to change somewhere ;D

Descending further into the realms of the RIPS board, one possible pattern that occurred to me was Upminster - Victoria - HSK - Baker Street - Liverpool Street - Victoria - Richmond; and Hammersmith - Liverpool Street - Victoria - HSK - Baker Street - Liverpool Street - Barking, and vice versa both times. Both alternating with the straight through services as now.
This maintains all the links around the circle without the need for a separate Circle service, so would possibly release some of the rolling stock and operators needed to run the service.

All of this sounds like the plans of the original LPTB in the 1930's to integrate all the SSL's.