Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2010 21:11:21 GMT
Is it possible to widen the line. Maybe piecemeal, one ring a night, three or four rings each weekend. To take sub-surface sized trains?
Its just that its so busy in the day, and wider trains would make it less packed.
Maybe they could shotcrete it this time too, so that it doesn't smell as damp down there.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 27, 2010 21:44:34 GMT
Would larger tunnels fit at Waterloo without significant work to provide alternative support to the mainline station above?
Also, wasn't the widening one ring at a time while trains were running tried when the former CSLR was expanded to it's present size? IIRC that resulted in a partial collapse and the line being suspended until work was complete?Okay, technology has advanced in the intervening years, but I can't see the HSE being too happy at the prospect.
Perhaps it might be better to build a parallel line of the same size (so that a common fleet of trains can be used). This would double the capacity of the route and if they were only connected at the depot, a problem on one would mean the other could keep running (50% capacity being better than 0%).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2010 22:01:41 GMT
Failing that idea, how about lengthening the platforms to take longer trains when required like during peaks? I would have thought that would be cheaper although there'll no doubt be an engineering reason why it can't be done knowing me not thinking things through properly! ;D
Hang on, that would mean lengthening the depot as well wouldn't it. Damn. See what I mean?
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Aug 27, 2010 22:15:29 GMT
Bung in a connection to the Bakerloo and use London Road...
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 27, 2010 22:18:08 GMT
You'd probably run into problems with the crossover at Bank before you hit problems with the depot.
|
|
|
|
Post by ianvisits on Aug 28, 2010 14:12:29 GMT
Replacing the tunnel lining one ring at a time was successfully carried out on the Northern Line by Old Street in the 1980s (rusting rings), but it was a slow process, albeit assisted by the presence of an abandoned tunnel they used for access.
I'd be surprised if the cost/benefit added up to much though, especially in the current economic climate.
Reinstating the old Waterloo Mainline link to Waterloo East and running overland trains to Cannon Street might be a cheaper option.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 28, 2010 14:19:07 GMT
That link crossed the concourse on the level and so wouldn't be even remotely acceptable to today's H&S guardians.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2010 16:09:57 GMT
Why not take up the tracks and put a travelator in instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Aug 28, 2010 16:37:42 GMT
Replacing the tunnel lining one ring at a time was successfully carried out on the Northern Line by Old Street in the 1980s (rusting rings), but it was a slow process, albeit assisted by the presence of an abandoned tunnel they used for access. I'd be surprised if the cost/benefit added up to much though, especially in the current economic climate. Reinstating the old Waterloo Mainline link to Waterloo East and running overland trains to Cannon Street might be a cheaper option. Ah yes, I was involved in that job, I did all the comms cable diversions. All the cables and the air main had to be diverted from the affected tunnel into the other between two cross passages, one close to Old Street and the other close to Moorgate, about 200-250 metres apart as I recall, so that the existing tunnel could be broken out into the new one constructed around it. It is strangely eerie working in a dim tunnel and seeing shafts of light through the odd small hole in a segment and hearing voices from behind it. Even more eerie when the first few segments of the first few rings are unbolted and removed. My recollection of the Old Street job was that a shaft had initially to be sunk from I believe a school playground or similar flat area. The technique of constructing a tunnel around an existing one is tried and tested and used often, for instance at another job I worked on when the new Angel station and platform was built and a step plate around the existing running tunnel. Similar was done at other places where I diverted cables such as London Bridge where the existing line was simply closed, the tunnel completely gutted while it was built around and bulldozers dropped in via a shaft from above to move earth around as the old segments were dismantled. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2010 22:36:19 GMT
The Drain isn't anywhere near as bad as it used to be before the upgrade a couple of years back.
Even at peak times in the morning, if you have to let one train go at Waterloo because it's full, you'll be able to get on the next one. (The advantage being that trains are always empty when they arrive at the platform).
However, this only works when all 5 trains are available.
Rather than widening the tunnels, a better investment would be a 6th train (and somewhere to stable it).
Alternatively, there is actually quite a lot of unusued length on the platforms at both Bank and Waterloo. In fact, I think the old 1940 stock could run as 5 car sets (as opposed to the current 4 car 92TS).
You could perhaps therefore lengthen the trains without having to do too much to the platforms or depot (though I'm not sure a full 92TS car would fit, maybe a new-build half-length trailer could be added).
Honestly though, even as a daily user of the line, I think the money would probably be better spent elsewhere on LU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2010 3:33:18 GMT
Precisely. It is not worth spending silly amounts of money on the line which is only overcrowded for a short period of time each day. Whilst I haven't lived in London for a few years, I'm sure the significant capacity increase from running 5 trains (? 17tph to 23tph) would have reduced the overcrowding situation.
Cheaper capacity enhancements could be performed if and when required, such as the tried and tested Japanese method of removing seats, or even automation if it allowed for slightly faster terminus approach speeds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2010 3:54:30 GMT
Precisely. It is not worth spending silly amounts of money on the line which is only overcrowded for a short period of time each day. Whilst I haven't lived in London for a few years, I'm sure the significant capacity increase from running 5 trains (? 17tph to 23tph) would have reduced the overcrowding situation. Cheaper capacity enhancements could be performed if and when required, such as the tried and tested Japanese method of removing seats, or even automation if it allowed for slightly faster terminus approach speeds. How about 5-cars? IIRC only one end has to be in, since it's OPO, and at one end, they swap motorman. Yes, do a Japanese one and take out the centre section seats, between the double doors. More cramming space, but wouldn't the space be too low?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2010 8:56:33 GMT
or even automation if it allowed for slightly faster terminus approach speeds. Given the fact that the buffer stop at Bank is a few feet past the normal stopping point, and ATO isn't always accurate (then again neither is a driver) I doubt they'll allow any faster an approach. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Aug 30, 2010 22:38:48 GMT
Its possible that the buffer stops at stations may have been moved since the line went into LUL hands. Certainly a 5 car cl487 train was about 240' long, or 73m, whereas the 4car 92ts consists are 65m, or 214ft. A 4car 95/6 stock unit would be 71m, or 234ft.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 31, 2010 2:13:25 GMT
Given the work on buffer stops required for the S stock, it seems plausible that similar work was undertaken on the W&C in preparation the 1992 stocks.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Aug 31, 2010 4:14:44 GMT
Undoubtedly. Read something somewhere on the reconfiguration (possibly resignalling) of the depot. Roads were shortened by the need to provide somthing more than just a brick wall to stop a runaway...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2010 9:20:17 GMT
Well here's a miserable failure of a photograph of the buffer stops at Bank, can't remember which platform...  EDIT: This was when I was just getting used to my camera having bought it the day before! |
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Sept 2, 2010 21:31:27 GMT
In my days on the W&C we did indeed run a 5 train service, all with 5 car units.
It it probably not possible to widen the line as it runs very close to the piers of Blackfriars Bridge, hence the sharp curves once it leaves the alignment of Stamford street.
Lengthening the platforms is unlikely as the former overrun tunnels at Bank are used for the Travolator and subway to the DLR. A long travolator is not possible as they only work in straight lines!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 3, 2010 12:37:06 GMT
I would be surprised if a curved travelator wasn't possible. Curved escalators are in existence these days and airport baggage return things have been negotiating very tight corners for decades.
This isn't to say it would necessarily be practical though!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2010 15:10:24 GMT
I would be surprised if a curved travelator wasn't possible. Curved escalators are in existence these days and airport baggage return things have been negotiating very tight corners for decades. This isn't to say it would necessarily be practical though! Possible, yes, but there are a number of issues. Curve escalators curve along an arc of a circle. I doubt if the foot tunnels are a perfect arc anywhere, so that wouldn't work. Secondly, curving them means that the costs go up. Lastly, the airport luggage things are quite possible. But then, they'll need to be upgraded to handle people, and people like me need the exercise!! |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Sept 4, 2010 3:55:46 GMT
I would be surprised if a curved travelator wasn't possible. Curved escalators are in existence these days and airport baggage return things have been negotiating very tight corners for decades. This isn't to say it would necessarily be practical though! Possible, yes, but there are a number of issues. Curve escalators curve along an arc of a circle. I doubt if the foot tunnels are a perfect arc anywhere, so that wouldn't work. Secondly, curving them means that the costs go up. Lastly, the airport luggage things are quite possible. But then, they'll need to be upgraded to handle people, and people like me need the exercise!! Yep, actually it's not a bad walk from Waterloo to Bank and back but it would be much easier without the track! A brisk walk through the tunnels would be excellent exercise, I wonder if anyone has considered turning the W&C into a pair of foot tunnels? Much cheaper to install decent lighting and ventilation than operating a train service and an excellent way to keep commuters fit and insulated from the weather! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2010 5:42:07 GMT
Yeah, use the luggage thingy ChrisM mentioned, you can walk/run along the left side for exercise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2010 8:39:26 GMT
I would be surprised if a curved travelator wasn't possible. Curved escalators are in existence these days and airport baggage return things have been negotiating very tight corners for decades. This isn't to say it would necessarily be practical though! Considering the inebriated state of some passengers on the system I would have thought this idea most dangerous Chris, although in some respects entertaining to watch, as the sozzled individuals forget to adjust their stance and do the (involuntary) splits round the bends. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Sept 4, 2010 16:46:21 GMT
I thought the travolators were instaled in the 60s when 5 car trains did run? And certainly Bank DLR opened in '91, so surely the overrun tunnels were occupied before the end of 5 car opperation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2010 18:25:55 GMT
Yep, actually it's not a bad walk from Waterloo to Bank and back but it would be much easier without the track! A brisk walk through the tunnels would be excellent exercise, I wonder if anyone has considered turning the W&C into a pair of foot tunnels? Much cheaper to install decent lighting and ventilation than operating a train service and an excellent way to keep commuters fit and insulated from the weather! I'm sure I heard that there was an April Fool's joke saying the W&C was to become a foot tunnel. Aah yes, here it is: walkit.com/2010/04/londons-waterloo-and-city-tube-line-to-be-pedestrianised/ |
|
|
|
Post by harlesden on Sept 18, 2010 20:31:38 GMT
Robert's article refers to an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions but makes no mention of an increase in the emission of certain gases inevitable when commuters gather together in large numbers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2010 18:01:42 GMT
I'm sorry for resurrecting a thread from a few weeks back, but I found this in another thread by a chance encounter on Google: I never found Old St. eerie at all, the last time I worked there was when the tunnel was being relined, replacing corroded segments, in the early 1990s.....it was odd hearing civil contractors working behind the segments and ....strangest of all was when the first segment was removed a few yards from where I was working to reveal the new tunnel built around the existing one! which suggests to me that it is possible to widen a line while it is in use, and that such activity has actually taken place on the tube in the last few decades. So maybe its not as difficult as some people might have thought? It it probably not possible to widen the line as it runs very close to the piers of Blackfriars Bridge, hence the sharp curves once it leaves the alignment of Stamford street. Is that why they always any suggestion that there should be a station at Blackfriars is always immediately rejected? |
|
|
|
Post by ianvisits on Sept 25, 2010 8:32:53 GMT
More due to the fact that each additional station on a line slows down the trains considerably as you have less track for acceleration/braking and you have to stop for passengers.
The net effect is a reduction in theoretical carrying capacity on the train line - which is the exact opposite of what people want.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2010 11:40:24 GMT
More due to the fact that each additional station on a line slows down the trains considerably as you have less track for acceleration/braking and you have to stop for passengers. The net effect is a reduction in theoretical carrying capacity on the train line - which is the exact opposite of what people want. But following that line of argument, Crossrail wouldn't have any stations between Paddington and Liverpool Street. Yet it does, so wouldn't whatever the reason for those stations is apply similarly to the Waterloo & City too? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2010 12:25:28 GMT
More due to the fact that each additional station on a line slows down the trains considerably as you have less track for acceleration/braking and you have to stop for passengers. The net effect is a reduction in theoretical carrying capacity on the train line - which is the exact opposite of what people want. But following that line of argument, Crossrail wouldn't have any stations between Paddington and Liverpool Street. Yet it does, so wouldn't whatever the reason for those stations is apply similarly to the Waterloo & City too? It is essentially a trade off between having a fast connection and having a station close to where you to get on or off. It is one or the other. You'll notice that Crossrail 1 has far fewer stations than the Central Line which it is intended to replace for many people's journeys. Imagine working in Bond Street and living in Leytonstone as a friend of mine does. Crossrail 1 will probably make her commute three times as fast. For instance, the Central Line would greatly increase its capacity and speed if all stations in Zones 1 and 2 that do not provide an interchange with other lines were closed. And frankly, if it weren't for Crossrail 1 now happening I would actually be in favour of that. Even if it means that my nearest station would be closed too. London Underground currently suffers from having far too many stations making journeys that are short in other cities tediously long and convoluted. On my daily commute I pass 12 stations that I don't have to get off and serve me no purpose, just delays. 45 minutes underground to travel 12KM as the crow flies. Now, the problem is that someone else will have 12 different stations that serve them no purpose so there is a trade off between users as well. It works towards some sort of average. For the Waterloo & City I don't see why you would sacrifice the line's greatest appeal, its speed and direct connection, for a station that would provide hardly any benefit, just annoyance. The W&C gets people coming into Waterloo in the morning into the City where they work and vice versa at night. Few people that come into Waterloo will want to go to Blackfriars. People that come into Blackfriars will not take the W&C to get to bank (easier to walk). Few people that come into Blackfriars will want to go to Waterloo, they will just get a train there in the first place. I think these obsessions with changing the W&C come from people who only look at the Tube map and think that it would be nice to draw new lines on it. They essentially ignore that the Tube map is not an actual representation of the network but just an easy way to display it by hiding the actual complexity. Complexity that does play a role when you are looking at real world business cases for changing the real network. |
|
