castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 3, 2011 10:47:27 GMT
@ abe
You may well be right. This (at Mansion House) would be a very expensive plan to implement, and l fail to see how it represents good value for money with so many other projects needing funding. This seems to me to be more destructive (as far as flexibility is concerned) rather than constructive.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Oct 3, 2011 12:55:57 GMT
But Mansion House had 4 platforms, coking stages and a couple of spurs at one point... how can it not have space to provide at least one middle bay? Or even leave the possibility open for later...
Is all of this to do with S stock introduction and length... surely not :S
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Oct 3, 2011 17:51:49 GMT
A plan I've heard about is to make the bay road at Tower Hill double-ended, so that trains can enter from the east. No problem with that - a bit more operational flexibility - but I'm not convinced that the other change is good. The middle platform at Mansion House will become the WB line, and the current WB platform will be abandoned. I think you mean that the current EB will be abandoned and the bay will become the new EB road? tinyurl.com/698pkcn |
|
|
|
Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Oct 3, 2011 20:05:40 GMT
Wait, what? Plans to move Tower Hill? (apparently more closely to Tower Gateway... or Tower Hill on the DLR)
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 3, 2011 20:22:48 GMT
Wait, what? Plans to move Tower Hill? (apparently more closely to Tower Gateway... or Tower Hill on the DLR) Don't think so - the "disused" Tower Hill shown there is the one originally known as Mark Lane, which closed in 1967, when the present station was opened on the pre-1884 site. The diagram mentions a "possible platform extension" [at Mansion House] "if track changes cannot be accommodated". Does this mean that the introduction of S7 stock is behind this? |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Oct 3, 2011 21:10:18 GMT
Only a couple of decades? It's closer to five decades ago now! I doubt that many of todays controllers were even alive at the time! We are being told that points are going back in. Also being taken out at Tower Hill and Mansion House - bay roads, Embankment moving to west of the station, and I'm sure someone mentioned taking Gloucester Road WB points out (they were handy the other day - being used all day owing to some failure at S Ken!) Any light on these Tom? I'm fairly sure Mansion house bay is going to be remodelled as the EB road (allowing the closure of the existing EB Platform) and Tower Hill bay is set to become a through road. Not sure about the rest though - but I'll do some investigating! |
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 4, 2011 6:53:41 GMT
The middle platform at Mansion House will become the WB line, and the current WB platform will be abandoned. I think you mean that the current EB will be abandoned and the bay will become the new EB road? tinyurl.com/698pkcnYes - my memory was playing up! Thanks for the correction.  |
|
|
|
Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Oct 4, 2011 15:58:57 GMT
Wait, what? Plans to move Tower Hill? (apparently more closely to Tower Gateway... or Tower Hill on the DLR) Don't think so - the "disused" Tower Hill shown there is the one originally known as Mark Lane, which closed in 1967, when the present station was opened on the pre-1884 site. The diagram mentions a "possible platform extension" [at Mansion House] "if track changes cannot be accommodated". Does this mean that the introduction of S7 stock is behind this? Oh. Current Tower Hill is actually Tower of London station. (though later on built) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2011 7:53:44 GMT
May I bring this back on topic again? With press reports that Chelsea want to leave the Bridge for a larger, Arsenal-type stadium (presumably so they can start to play as badly as the Gunners  ) possibly at Earl's Court or Olympia, the opportunity arises for TfL to lobby for planning gain to fund improvements to the Earl's Court area. If the tunnel between Earl's Court and Triangle Sidings could be double-tracked than Wimbledon services westbound could use Platform 1, Edgware Road trains platform 2 (which AIUI they could at present if the road were not signalled the other way and there was anywhere for them to go next!), and the remaining services the other island (platforms 3 and 4). The facility to provide platform berths for two Wimbledon-bound, or two Victoria-bound trains from Hammersmith simultaneously, which exists at present, would be lost - presumably a timetable could be written where this was no hardship. I have no idea of the cost of the tunnel widening, or how it might compare to the planning gain. Mind you, when you consider the extraordinary contortions the service achieves immediately west of Edgware Road (and which the Jeremiahs, of whom I was one, thought it could not) the notion arises of the possibility of working the present single-line tunnel at Triangle in both directions. We are looking at - what? - a section of 0.5 kilometres to carry 12 tph? That allows each train five minutes to enter and leave the section, surely more than twice the time needed. Please tell me that this idea has been investigated and rejected for a good reason... |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Oct 6, 2011 14:15:36 GMT
If the tunnel between Earl's Court and Triangle Sidings could be double-tracked than Wimbledon services westbound could use Platform 1, Edgware Road trains platform 2 (which AIUI they could at present if the road were not signalled the other way and there was anywhere for them to go next!), and the remaining services the other island (platforms 3 and 4). The facility to provide platform berths for two Wimbledon-bound, or two Victoria-bound trains from Hammersmith simultaneously, which exists at present, would be lost - presumably a timetable could be written where this was no hardship. I have no idea of the cost of the tunnel widening, or how it might compare to the planning gain. Mind you, when you consider the extraordinary contortions the service achieves immediately west of Edgware Road (and which the Jeremiahs, of whom I was one, thought it could not) the notion arises of the possibility of working the present single-line tunnel at Triangle in both directions. We are looking at - what? - a section of 0.5 kilometres to carry 12 tph? That allows each train five minutes to enter and leave the section, surely more than twice the time needed. Please tell me that this idea has been investigated and rejected for a good reason... If it was possible to rebuild the junctions at Earls Court, wouldn't it be better to keep the track layout to the east as it is, and have the EB line from Wimbledon cross over both lines to / from West Ken / Olympia instead of just the WB? Then Wimbledon - Edgware Road services could be kept separate if needed (using platforms 1 and 4), but it would still be possible to run to Wimbledon from the City without it conflicting with services to Edgware Road. However as the above idea is probably either impossible or too expensive, then some extra points so that, for example, all EB services could use either platform would reduce congestion slightly. Maybe once all District line services are run with S stock it would be possible to run a Edgware Road - Wimbledon - Tower Hill - Ealing Bdy - Edgware Road service in the peaks? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2011 16:51:12 GMT
Maybe once all District line services are run with S stock it would be possible to run a Edgware Road - Wimbledon - Tower Hill - Ealing Bdy - Edgware Road service in the peaks? I don't understand why that would increase capacity, or, if it would, why it couldn't be done with the current stock. Moderator comment: link tidied. |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Oct 6, 2011 17:56:39 GMT
If the tunnel between Earl's Court and Triangle Sidings could be double-tracked than Wimbledon services westbound could use Platform 1, Edgware Road trains platform 2 (which AIUI they could at present if the road were not signalled the other way and there was anywhere for them to go next!), and the remaining services the other island (platforms 3 and 4). The facility to provide platform berths for two Wimbledon-bound, or two Victoria-bound trains from Hammersmith simultaneously, which exists at present, would be lost - presumably a timetable could be written where this was no hardship. I have no idea of the cost of the tunnel widening, or how it might compare to the planning gain. Mind you, when you consider the extraordinary contortions the service achieves immediately west of Edgware Road (and which the Jeremiahs, of whom I was one, thought it could not) the notion arises of the possibility of working the present single-line tunnel at Triangle in both directions. We are looking at - what? - a section of 0.5 kilometres to carry 12 tph? That allows each train five minutes to enter and leave the section, surely more than twice the time needed. Please tell me that this idea has been investigated and rejected for a good reason... If it was possible to rebuild the junctions at Earls Court, wouldn't it be better to keep the track layout to the east as it is, and have the EB line from Wimbledon cross over both lines to / from West Ken / Olympia instead of just the WB? Then Wimbledon - Edgware Road services could be kept separate if needed (using platforms 1 and 4), but it would still be possible to run to Wimbledon from the City without it conflicting with services to Edgware Road. However as the above idea is probably either impossible or too expensive, then some extra points so that, for example, all EB services could use either platform would reduce congestion slightly. Maybe once all District line services are run with S stock it would be possible to run a Edgware Road - Wimbledon - Tower Hill - Ealing Bdy - Edgware Road service in the peaks? I've always assumed that the layout to the east of Earls Court was a problem given the layout to the west...but I looked into it a few days back and was surprised to see it's ideal...making the arrangement to the west all the stranger. I agree, extending the flyover makes so much sense. Cross-platform interchange between the services, non-conflicting movements between them, the only problem....is the Olympia services. With that layout they would have to share platforms with the mainline route. Conceivably, widening the flyover to accept 4 tracks and having the Olympia service run outside it before the northbound diving under the mainline would solve that - but that's a lot for the Olympia service as-is...let alone as-will-be. |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Oct 6, 2011 18:02:34 GMT
I don't understand why that would increase capacity, or, if it would, why it couldn't be done with the current stock. It would reduce the congestion at Earls Court as there would be no Wimbledon to Edgware Road service. All trains from Wimbledon would use platform 2, and run to the City. At the same time, an Ealing to Edgware Road train could use platform 1. Currently, the only time two EB trains can run through Earls Court without conflicting paths is a train from Wimbledon to the City, and the Olympia service. It can't be done with existing stock as D stock can't run to Edgware Road and there is not enough C stock. Also, using C stock would reduce the capacity of each train. It might me possible to do a similar service pattern with D stock, terminating at HSK, but this would reduce the frequency between there and Edgware Road. the only problem....is the Olympia services. With that layout they would have to share platforms with the mainline route. Conceivably, widening the flyover to accept 4 tracks and having the Olympia service run outside it before the northbound diving under the mainline would solve that - but that's a lot for the Olympia service as-is...let alone as-will-be. Trains from Olympia have to use the same track as services from Richmond / Ealing for a short distance approaching Earls Court at the moment, so I don't see why this would only be a problem if the flyover was rebuilt. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 6, 2011 22:10:44 GMT
If the tunnel between Earl's Court and Triangle Sidings could be double-tracked than Wimbledon services westbound could use Platform 1, Edgware Road trains platform 2 (which AIUI they could at present if the road were not signalled the other way and there was anywhere for them to go next!), and the remaining services the other island (platforms 3 and 4). The facility to provide platform berths for two Wimbledon-bound, or two Victoria-bound trains from Hammersmith simultaneously, which exists at present, would be lost - presumably a timetable could be written where this was no hardship. I don't see how City/Wimbledon services would operate on this layout. Of course if you make two quite independant lines (Wimbleware, and City to Richmond/Ealing) Earls Court would simply be a through station on each line, so no particular need to double up. Also, you would lose the cross-platform interchanges, the two w/b tracks would not use opposite faces of the same platform. One variant of this idea - how about if you run the extra diveunder from platform 3 (the e/b platform) instead of platform 2? As for the idea of Edgware Rd - Wimbledon - City - Ealing - Edgware Road routings, I assume the idea is to reduce conflicting moves, as such workings would never conflict with each other on the flat at Earls Court. (It couldn't be the completre service, as there need to be more City than Edgware Rd trains). |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Oct 6, 2011 23:21:09 GMT
As for the idea of Edgware Rd - Wimbledon - City - Ealing - Edgware Road routings, I assume the idea is to reduce conflicting moves, as such workings would never conflict with each other on the flat at Earls Court. (It couldn't be the completre service, as there need to be more City than Edgware Rd trains). Yes, you would still need to have Richmond and Wimbledon - Upminster, but it would mean that the only EB conflicting moves would be two trains both going towards the City, and that can't be avoided (well, apart from building the Deep Level District). |
|
|
|
Post by underground2010 on Oct 9, 2011 13:21:16 GMT
I heard on BBC news that a reason for the service being axed is to reduce delays. I fail to see how axing a small branch of a big line is going to make any difference to delays. The branch hardly gets used anyway, so what difference will it make to the service? A few extra trains?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2011 18:00:48 GMT
More likely because there will be less traffic going through Earl's Court. Which is a bottleneck what with it being a major junction and crew relief point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2011 19:00:27 GMT
It would also free up Olympia and HSK to be used (more frequently) as terminating points when the service is running bad, so the service can get quicker back on track. Or timetable, if you wish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Nov 20, 2011 23:50:54 GMT
Timetable from 11 December now available on the TfL website: tinyurl.com/bve6bnx6 passenger train departures each day M-F: 05.50 (C to ERd) Then the description "about every 8-9 minutes" between 6am-7am is stretching it a bit, with actual departures at: 06.06 (D to HSt) 06.15 (D to HSt) 06.24 (D to HSt) 06.32 (C to ERd), with nothing then until 19.58 (D to HSt) 20.38 (D to HSt) Just 2 passenger arrivals each day M-F: 19.48 (D ex-HSt) 20.28 (D ex-Hst) If an Event required trains to operate M-F then only an approximate 30min service would be provided (to High Street unless annotated) at: 10.28, 10.58, 11.28, 11.58, 12.28, 12.58, 13.28, 13.58, 14.28, 14.58, 15.28, 15.58, 16.33u, 16.49, 17.23e, 17.50, 18.23e, 18.55, 19.23e, 19.58, 20.18, 20.58, 21.28, 21.58, 22.28, 23.00. u= to Upminster e= to Edgware Road Some of these trips are the result of cancelling Wimbledon trains. |
|
|
|
Post by neilwatson on Nov 22, 2011 19:00:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by causton on Nov 23, 2011 0:10:09 GMT
A *lot* of the timetables say that, I think they aren't really set up for Tube timetables as they're based on bus timetable systems. For example, there are a lot of ones on the Bakerloo line where it would be e.g. 0619 a 0619 b a = Not mondays b = Mondays only Which is very confusing! PS: The PDFs are generated, stored for a limited while, then deleted from the server, so you won't be able to link to PDFs from it - you'll just have to tell us what line/direction/station to look for or host the PDFs yourself!  |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Nov 23, 2011 13:23:36 GMT
PS: The PDFs are generated, stored for a limited while, then deleted from the server, so you won't be able to link to PDFs from it - you'll just have to tell us what line/direction/station to look for or host the PDFs yourself! Thanks, link corrected and extra info added above. |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Nov 30, 2011 14:19:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 30, 2011 20:31:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Nov 30, 2011 23:24:01 GMT
A slight faux-pas with the leaflet is the: "Daily High Street Kensington to Kensington (Olympia) trains Due to the location of a nearby depot a small number of District line train services will continue to operate between High Street Kensington and Kensington (Olympia), via Earl’s Court, at the following times daily:" Unfortunately, the first passenger train on Sundays is at 07.35 . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2011 17:11:35 GMT
I am coming up to London on thursday after finding some very cheap fares on megabus so I hope to do the branch to Olympia before the service changes on sunday
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2011 17:58:28 GMT
As today is meant to be the last weekday working on the Olympia Branch in off peak thought I go have a look.
took a few video's of them coming and going
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Dec 9, 2011 18:05:06 GMT
The Exhibition only service is running Tuesday-Friday next week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2011 23:29:46 GMT
I have seen the December 2011 map and it has been updated to show the Olympia branch as running on weekends on special occasions.
Except that on the map it says "District weekends and some Olympia events blah blah". Was "Restricted Service" too succinct?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Dec 22, 2011 13:21:56 GMT
|
|
) possibly at Earl's Court or Olympia, the opportunity arises for TfL to lobby for planning gain to fund improvements to the Earl's Court area.
