|
|
Post by graeme186 on Oct 14, 2011 11:37:17 GMT
So, realistically, that turning move will have to happen tomorrow - and on previous weeks it would have happened by today (the previous Thursday.) Leads me to think that, as I said earlier, this unit has gained a reprieve. I'm sure we will find that 5187 has been withdrawn. It has certainly been uncoupled from 5046 and I've not noted it in passenger service. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2011 17:24:33 GMT
5187 was stripped today, and coupled to 5032
|
|
a60
I will make the 8100 Class DART my new A Stock.
Posts: 745
|
Post by a60 on Oct 14, 2011 20:57:56 GMT
You know what, I'm worried now. All but one of the three units to have six HOs are withdrawn, 5004 and 5026 are gone, does this mean an early exit for 5130 as well? It's probably me getting the wrong end of a long and slightly trivial stick....
If anyone can confirm my fears, or allay them, I'd be grateful....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2011 14:27:56 GMT
5042 and 5185 are.penciled in for.next wek. Closely followed by 5030
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 19, 2011 17:11:09 GMT
Aww, I was on 5042 on Monday  |
|
a60
I will make the 8100 Class DART my new A Stock.
Posts: 745
|
Post by a60 on Oct 19, 2011 17:43:21 GMT
Admittedly, 5030 doesn't have the most quiet of motors.
|
|
|
|
Post by graeme186 on Oct 19, 2011 18:14:48 GMT
5042 and 5185 are.penciled in for.next wek. Closely followed by 5030 Thank you underground driver for the advice. 5042 is still in service this evening formed up with 5219 on T426. This train is due to finish at Neasden tonight when I guess 5042 will be withdrawn. Saw 5016+5185 in service this morning whilst on the way up to town. 5030 was uncoupled from 5229 overnight. That may have been as a result of a defect on 5030 (?) and so 5030 may have been withdrawn last night. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 19, 2011 21:07:11 GMT
Bit of a "blip" in S-stock availability at present, so without wishing to get your hopes up, there may be late reprieves on the cards.
We actually had a peak-hour cancellation this evening due to stock non-availability...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2011 22:43:17 GMT
Lets hops 5030 stays, me and another member are definitely a fan of its motors!
|
|
|
|
Post by graeme186 on Oct 20, 2011 8:00:28 GMT
5042+5219 in service this morning as T427.
Might have been my imagination but on run from Watford to Liverpool Street this morning, 'S' Stock availability seemed improved. As well as observing 057 for the first time, 017, 019 and 043 all sighted for the first time this week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2011 11:46:02 GMT
Had a nice ride on 017 last night from Ickenham going to a gig and was great and comfortable ride. Still havn't seen my favourite 5000 yet :-( used to always see and catch it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2011 15:34:42 GMT
5030 was stripped of useable parts today. it will form the south end unit.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 20, 2011 22:50:04 GMT
So it looks as if 5042 will survive this week. 5185 will join 5030 then?
|
|
|
|
Post by graeme186 on Oct 21, 2011 19:55:21 GMT
5185 was shunting at the north end of the depot as I passed about 1710. Presumably was about to be coupled up to 5030 for Monday's run of T717. 5185 has obviously been turned either today or yesterday as it was showing T715. It is now the right way round for forming the north end unit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2011 20:19:26 GMT
5185 is the other unit. the racks were taken out today.
|
|
|
|
Post by A60stock on Oct 24, 2011 11:25:27 GMT
5030 just went past pinner, think it was the scrap train
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 11:34:51 GMT
Yep. It should have had unit 5185 with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 12:46:45 GMT
Video of 5030+5185 arriving in the Northwood Scrap siding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 18:08:45 GMT
How ironic that just as the A-Stock pulls into the scrap siding on it's final journey an S-Stock blasts past on the fast lines just starting it's very long life on the rails...
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Oct 24, 2011 18:36:12 GMT
How ironic that just as the A-Stock pulls into the scrap siding on it's final journey an S-Stock blasts past on the fast lines just starting it's very long life on the rails... That irony wasn't missed by me either  Sad to see another the A Stock number go... but that's the price of progress  |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 24, 2011 21:11:33 GMT
Not as ironic as the fact that this evening's service was pretty much decimated by a couple of S-stocks. Perhaps we should have shunted the A-stock back out and run one of the S-stocks in. Many will know I've often defended the new stock, and stuck up for its odd teething problems. This evening has certainly tested any loyalty I had for them  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2011 7:14:23 GMT
Not as ironic as the fact that this evening's service was pretty much decimated by a couple of S-stocks. Perhaps we should have shunted the A-stock back out and run one of the S-stocks in. Many will know I've often defended the new stock, and stuck up for its odd teething problems. This evening has certainly tested any loyalty I had for them Why does it seem like these problems all pop up together at the same time? Is it the same problem? |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Oct 25, 2011 8:29:23 GMT
Not as ironic as the fact that this evening's service was pretty much decimated by a couple of S-stocks. Perhaps we should have shunted the A-stock back out and run one of the S-stocks in. Many will know I've often defended the new stock, and stuck up for its odd teething problems. This evening has certainly tested any loyalty I had for them I saw T427 in platform 3 at Baker Street - not sure what unit number it was. A question - why did it have to be reversed via the outer rail Circle then into platform 2 as opposed to just reversing it in platform 3? I daresay there was a good reason, but this move also held up the Circle and H&C for well over five minutes at the height of the evening peak. There seemed to be a lot of switching of stock yesterday - T427 certainly wasn't an S stock earlier in the day. Also, T433 went defective (A stock) earlier. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2011 9:07:36 GMT
When I was out on sunday, there were alot of problems around Moor Park, as an S stock had a door failure.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 25, 2011 9:53:43 GMT
I saw T427 in platform 3 at Baker Street - not sure what unit number it was. A question - why did it have to be reversed via the outer rail Circle then into platform 2 as opposed to just reversing it in platform 3? I daresay there was a good reason, but this move also held up the Circle and H&C for well over five minutes at the height of the evening peak. There seemed to be a lot of switching of stock yesterday - T427 certainly wasn't an S stock earlier in the day. Also, T433 went defective (A stock) earlier. T427 at the time of the failure was formed of 21013 (ironically). We cannot reverse trains direct from platform 3 back northbound, due to the fact the pointwork has been removed. When the decision to remove it was made, scenarios such as this failure were raised. You may have witnessed just a 5 minute delay, but overall the delay had a much larger impact. The movement / changeover of stock on my shift was due to the delays caused by the shutdown, and subsequent service reformation, and also due to defective stock. I cannot speak for earlier in the day. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Oct 25, 2011 11:48:48 GMT
I saw T427 in platform 3 at Baker Street - not sure what unit number it was. A question - why did it have to be reversed via the outer rail Circle then into platform 2 as opposed to just reversing it in platform 3? I daresay there was a good reason, but this move also held up the Circle and H&C for well over five minutes at the height of the evening peak. There seemed to be a lot of switching of stock yesterday - T427 certainly wasn't an S stock earlier in the day. Also, T433 went defective (A stock) earlier. T427 at the time of the failure was formed of 21013 (ironically). We cannot reverse trains direct from platform 3 back northbound, due to the fact the pointwork has been removed. When the decision to remove it was made, scenarios such as this failure were raised. You may have witnessed just a 5 minute delay, but overall the delay had a much larger impact. The movement / changeover of stock on my shift was due to the delays caused by the shutdown, and subsequent service reformation, and also due to defective stock. I cannot speak for earlier in the day. No I appreciate that the observed 5 min delay caused much wider problems. The train I was on (T430 - also an S stock)) was delayed between Finchley Road and Baker Street due to the blocking back caused by T427. I daresay this blocking back quickly extended much further back. I cannot believe that the decision was taken to remove the pointwork allowing trains to reverse in platform 3. As I'm sure I don't need to tell you MetControl, this would have drastically minimised the delays caused to the service. Was any thought given to running T427 empty to Moorgate to reverse there? At least this option would have caused less delays than doing a main line shunt at Baker Street? Or maybe the risk of the S stock breaking down on the outer rail circle was too great to allow it to run to Moorgate? So why was the pointwork at Baker Street removed? |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 25, 2011 12:32:01 GMT
The original plan when movement was gained was to have it run to Moorgate and stay there until much later. However, when it was found that the train would run at very reduced speed in either direction, I decided to have it shunt at Baker Street.
It did indeed delay some northbound trains, and also the H&C for a few minutes whilst the shunt was carried out, but it would have caused even more carnage if we'd let it trundle along at 10mph to Moorgate at that time of the day. The H&C, Circle and Met would all have been hit by heavy delays.
|
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Oct 25, 2011 18:44:09 GMT
The original plan when movement was gained was to have it run to Moorgate and stay there until much later. However, when it was found that the train would run at very reduced speed in either direction, I decided to have it shunt at Baker Street. It did indeed delay some northbound trains, and also the H&C for a few minutes whilst the shunt was carried out, but it would have caused even more carnage if we'd let it trundle along at 10mph to Moorgate at that time of the day. The H&C, Circle and Met would all have been hit by heavy delays. Well handled. Could have been a lot worse. Presumably there isn't a signalled move from the NB Met back into platform 1 at Baker St which would have been a useful bolt hole for it in the peak? |
|
|
|
Post by graeme186 on Oct 25, 2011 19:51:38 GMT
The original plan when movement was gained was to have it run to Moorgate and stay there until much later. However, when it was found that the train would run at very reduced speed in either direction, I decided to have it shunt at Baker Street. It did indeed delay some northbound trains, and also the H&C for a few minutes whilst the shunt was carried out, but it would have caused even more carnage if we'd let it trundle along at 10mph to Moorgate at that time of the day. The H&C, Circle and Met would all have been hit by heavy delays. Well handled. Could have been a lot worse. Presumably there isn't a signalled move from the NB Met back into platform 1 at Baker St which would have been a useful bolt hole for it in the peak? There is no such signalled move. I was thinking only the exact same thing earlier. I just wonder whether that as part of the sub-surface lines signalling upgrade, consideration should be given to the provision of a shunt move off the NB Met back into platform 1 at Bk St. If a defective train originating from the City can only go at reduced speed all the way to Wembley Park in order to access the depot, it would as you say be a useful bolt hole. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 25, 2011 22:01:15 GMT
The crossover from Platform 3 to the northbound will be back at some stage in the future. As for the "missing" shunt, it would make sense to create such a signal, with access to all 4 platforms. There are lots of proposals kicking around for before and after re-signalling and maybe it's on the list somewhere.
|
|
