|
|
Post by redsetter on Jun 17, 2011 19:31:46 GMT
hard to see the buddleia being allowed to take hold and becoming overgrown,interesting to see what the future uses bring.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 19:33:24 GMT
Nothing between Uxbridge/Northwood and Wembley Park. No mention on my paperwork of the shuttle operating. Should find out the finer details within the next couple of weeks, but if the shuttle did operate, not only would the bay have to be returned to service (after only just being decommissioned following a 6 month wait) but such a service would be a fair step backwards - especially seeing as by that time there will be a fair few S-stocks available. Can't see it myself, as it would be a huge waste of resources, but as you say, this is LUL and anything is possible from those who don't consult the ones who operate the service - WTT 331 is one such case. We'll revisit this nearer the time... there are Met line closures in Sep/Oct, that I presume are the ones the fat controller refers to, they were approved only last week if my memory serves me correctly, Wem Pk - Ricky I think I haven't studied them closely but do seem to remember reading minutes in respect to a shuttle operating (but have no knowledge of the state of the bay etc) wait and see I reckon! |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jun 18, 2011 9:59:02 GMT
There is also no budget for extending the bay platform, and certainly no budget for moving the pointwork. Harrow North Junction is due for renewal and budget setbacks have pushed this major project back. There is no way the layout at Chalfont would come anywhere near being considered for change. I think this was covered before...but I can't find it anywhere. Don't suppose you can shed any light on why the costs are so great for such a simple act as moving a set of points and building a simple platform extension? The platform itself at the most basic level just needs to be a old-school wooden affair that you'd be lucky to cost a couple of grand to throw together. Even a concrete affair wouldn't be much more. The track work surely couldn't be that much more expensive, after all, the points already exist, you're just cutting out a section of plain line to the west, moving the points, then adding in a pair of new sections of plain line to the east. Only iffy thing would be moving the signals, which is why I suggested leaving it until the next resignalling when this would be done regardless. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2011 18:36:45 GMT
There is also no budget for extending the bay platform, and certainly no budget for moving the pointwork. Harrow North Junction is due for renewal and budget setbacks have pushed this major project back. There is no way the layout at Chalfont would come anywhere near being considered for change. I think this was covered before...but I can't find it anywhere. Don't suppose you can shed any light on why the costs are so great for such a simple act as moving a set of points and building a simple platform extension? The platform itself at the most basic level just needs to be a old-school wooden affair that you'd be lucky to cost a couple of grand to throw together. Even a concrete affair wouldn't be much more. The track work surely couldn't be that much more expensive, after all, the points already exist, you're just cutting out a section of plain line to the west, moving the points, then adding in a pair of new sections of plain line to the east. Only iffy thing would be moving the signals, which is why I suggested leaving it until the next resignalling when this would be done regardless. Chiltern managed to install a new platform at High Wycombe a few years ago without a problem! Remember the floods in the North West of England a whole station eas built in days !I bet there was and is never any intention for for any platform extension at Chafont & Latimer. Money will be found for the paper and ink for the Chesham Branch closure notices when it happens! If I recall correctly Metronet were involved with the procurement etc of he S Stock and what a fantastic organisation they were. Railways in the UK have suffered years of political interference from ill informed Minsters and the like. The only consistency we have, is they get it wrong. most of the time. Ken and Boris have tried ion their own ways to make it better but have been thwarted by their political Masters. Who would of thought it labour introduced PPI and the Conservatives brought the Tube fully back into public ownership. How many platforms could have been purchased with the money wasted? I bet there are now more men with boats though! Xerces Fobe |
|
|
|
Post by redsetter on Jun 18, 2011 21:27:22 GMT
the subject of the chesham branch has been rumored for several decades'.there would be a large outcry if that was proposed.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jun 18, 2011 21:38:20 GMT
The thing is, the through service was introduced at basically zero cost. We have trains, we have drivers and we have the trackwork needed to run a through service. After a few problems to begin with, we're now running the through service much more reliably. It can sometimes cause a headache, but on the whole it works.
Even if some low-cost railway builder could do the works to make the bay suitable for S-Stock at, say, the ridiculously low price of £100, in business terms it would still be a waste of money that could be spent elsewhere.
As for closure, that's not going to happen. Too many people use it. That sunday where the tree came down saw a 3-hour suspension on the branch. The replacement taxi to/from Amersham had small queues at each end. And that's on a Sunday lunchtime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2011 22:25:27 GMT
One example of the Chesham branch in peak times is abit like the Uxbridge line soon after the morning peak.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2011 22:31:44 GMT
As for closure, that's not going to happen. Too many people use it. That sunday where the tree came down saw a 3-hour suspension on the branch. The replacement taxi to/from Amersham had small queues at each end. And that's on a Sunday lunchtime. I sincerely hope you are right  Xerces Fobe |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jun 19, 2011 18:35:52 GMT
The thing is, the through service was introduced at basically zero cost. We have trains, we have drivers and we have the trackwork needed to run a through service. After a few problems to begin with, we're now running the through service much more reliably. It can sometimes cause a headache, but on the whole it works. Even if some low-cost railway builder could do the works to make the bay suitable for S-Stock at, say, the ridiculously low price of £100, in business terms it would still be a waste of money that could be spent elsewhere. Perhaps. Just seems such a waste to cut service levels to Amersham given the line capacity between C&L and the next termination point (Ricky?) means more trains can't run if you have a through service...I'm always being told that branches are bad things in my proposals  |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jun 19, 2011 18:52:30 GMT
Its very interesting how times changed though for the idea of shuttle opperation. Though frowned upon now in favour of a through service, everyone always makes the assumption that it can only be one or the other. Its worth remembering though that electrification saw a bay put in at Chesham to allow both to happen simultaneously (albeit at peak times only).
Perhaps the best for Chesham has already occured.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsetter on Jun 19, 2011 19:08:12 GMT
the run in to the bay can be seen in this video,either the camera view is deceptive or it looks like a bit more work would be needed to extend the platform.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2011 21:52:28 GMT
Extending the bay wouldn't be as hard as people are making it out to be. I've made a diagram. i.imgur.com/kywXA.jpgRed = Existing platform Blue = Proposed track alignment change Green = Proposed new platform New platform extension would be Baker Street / North Harrow style - slightly out of the way of the southbound main line with a fence on the southbound side. Tracks could be moved easily without much landscaping work needed - the fence to the car park could be moved and the car park would only need to be made a couple of metres narrower. Points would not need to be moved - platform ends just before them. Train can go a few metres further towards the buffer stop than currently - not much work needed here. They did it to the Baker Street bay platforms, so they can do it to Chalfont. |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jun 20, 2011 13:20:59 GMT
Not so sure about the sharpness of the curve you've added in there...though admittedly, you'd hope the train would be travelling quite slowly by that point when traversing it |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jun 20, 2011 18:00:35 GMT
Much as it would work, and much as they did it at Baker Street, the latter was because it is a central London station that required the alteration so that the S-stock could operate much as the A-stock does (i.e. reversing). The former now has a regular through service to central London, and does not require the bay road.
We're going round in circles here surely? There is not the money or justification to create whatever is needed to run S-stock as a shuttle service. It's not going to happen. The future service plan for the Met is more or less set in stone (*) Chesham will have the through service operated by S-stock.
(*) Apart from maybe the changes in December which will be open to separate discussion once they are implemented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2011 14:16:49 GMT
Nothing between Uxbridge/Northwood and Wembley Park. No mention on my paperwork of the shuttle operating. Should find out the finer details within the next couple of weeks, but if the shuttle did operate, not only would the bay have to be returned to service (after only just being decommissioned following a 6 month wait) but such a service would be a fair step backwards - especially seeing as by that time there will be a fair few S-stocks available. Can't see it myself, as it would be a huge waste of resources, but as you say, this is LUL and anything is possible from those who don't consult the ones who operate the service - WTT 331 is one such case. We'll revisit this nearer the time... there are Met line closures in Sep/Oct, that I presume are the ones the fat controller refers to, they were approved only last week if my memory serves me correctly, Wem Pk - Ricky I think I haven't studied them closely but do seem to remember reading minutes in respect to a shuttle operating (but have no knowledge of the state of the bay etc) wait and see I reckon! Discovered a bit more with regards to the closures I referred to above The Sep/Oct closures don't require the use of the bay at C&L as the service reverses at Ricky all day There is an Aug BH weekend closure (reversing at Northwood) which I am lead to believe will use a 4 car shuttle and C&L bay, which I presume is the one the fat controller speaks of |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jun 30, 2011 21:05:18 GMT
There is an Aug BH weekend closure (reversing at Northwood) which I am lead to believe will use a 4 car shuttle and C&L bay, which I presume is the one the fat controller speaks of Ahh, the Met. A railway undergoing modernisation shows it's customers how it will keep moving forwards... by taking a step back. Perhaps management could at least market the weekend as something special with the return of the shuttle. Then at least it wouldn't look like so much of a cop-out. |
|
|
|
Post by trivran on Jul 2, 2011 17:15:15 GMT
I'm pretty sure they won't allow a heritage train to sit there because,
a) If, say, a runaway train needs the bay platform, and there's a great big A Stock in the way, it won't be pretty.
b) There are posters at C&L complaining about the vandalism that used to happen the shuttle, amongst other anti-social behaviour. The train would not survive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2011 17:36:25 GMT
I'm pretty sure they won't allow a heritage train to sit there because, a) If, say, a runaway train needs the bay platform, and there's a great big A Stock in the way, it won't be pretty. b) There are posters at C&L complaining about the vandalism that used to happen the shuttle, amongst other anti-social behaviour. The train would not survive. point a) you can only access the bay from the branch, so if the A stock was providng the branch shuttle, there would be no other (run away train) on the branch to divert ! point b) The vandals will have forgotten about the shuttle by now! It did survive for many a year so I doubt that would be a good reason not to put it back in as a one off! |
|
|
|
Post by trivran on Jul 2, 2011 18:07:02 GMT
I'm pretty sure they won't allow a heritage train to sit there because, a) If, say, a runaway train needs the bay platform, and there's a great big A Stock in the way, it won't be pretty. b) There are posters at C&L complaining about the vandalism that used to happen the shuttle, amongst other anti-social behaviour. The train would not survive. point a) you can only access the bay from the branch, so if the A stock was providng the branch shuttle, there would be no other (run away train) on the branch to divert ! point b) The vandals will have forgotten about the shuttle by now! It did survive for many a year so I doubt that would be a good reason not to put it back in as a one off! Yes, if it was operating as a shuttle, no need to worry about runaways. However, I was referring to somebody's suggestion to keep it sitting there for weeks at a time until somebody said "You know what, let's run a heritage train today!" For b) Once again, with a one-off, I agree, the vandals won't have a clue it's going to happen. But I was referring to it just sitting there etc. etc, so eventually they'd clock on and think 'wot's this den, an old train, lets 'ave a potshot.' |
|
|
|
Post by jmm on Jul 3, 2011 19:52:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jul 3, 2011 19:55:45 GMT
No, this is our internal system - Trackernet - which feeds such systems, interpreting the track appearing to be occupied (the track fuses have been pulled) as being a train being present. It doesn't (for some reason) predict this "train" all of the time - even though it is always "there" but sometimes it picks up on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by causton on Jul 3, 2011 20:18:34 GMT
On a related note, why does the "current location" field of trains sometimes report blank? Is it just because the track section has not been assigned a name? I assume these are all manually typed in (i.e. the one after Wembley Park would be "Leaving Wembley Park" etc)...
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jul 3, 2011 22:49:16 GMT
Indeed, it may be just that, or the train being followed may be "lost" for a period of time by the software driving it.
This website (and certain other things in and around the system) are reliant on Trackernet. Whilst it is a fairly impressive bit of kit - taking readings from signal cabins, control rooms, train radio, and thousands of other inputs dotted around the system - it is only a computer image which often has to "guess" what is happening.
It has another big problem. The people behind Trackernet are completely separate from those who run the railway, and those who maintain the railway. Overnight (as we've seen with the Jubilee Line changes) the inputs Trackernet looks for can change - but are not able to be updated by the Trackernet team. Therefore (as we're seeing on parts of the Jubilee / Metropolitan line interfaces) points appear to be set incorrectly, and trains disappear and reappear. These glitches also affect what the public may see on the external sites which use the Trackernet data.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsetter on Jul 22, 2011 17:10:57 GMT
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 22, 2011 17:44:34 GMT
Not if the bay platform is de-commissioned. If the line were suspended south of Chalfont, but then a taxi would probably be easier, if anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2011 17:49:55 GMT
It won't return once the entire S stock fleet is in service, unless you plan on doing some serious work to the station at Chalfont & Latimer; you might be lucky to get all 8 cars in with the platform extended. You can't extend past the buffers unless you plan on completely redeveloping the station, as you'd be taking out the 1-2 subway.
Chesham residents wanted a through service. There's no case for buying several S4s to do the job, and keeping a few A stock means keeping trained on that particular stock and you may find a lack of drivers.
You can't just buy one 4-car train. You'd need a spare unit, or the chesham service goes out the window altogether apart from outside of the peak, unless you plan on depriving Amersham's service, and it isn't all THAT empty SB in the peaks. You still have to run trains up that way even if they are near empty, and diverting 2tph to Chesham will halve the service to Amersham by the Met!
I'm sure this was all brought up in a thread before...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2011 17:58:48 GMT
I'm sure this was all brought up in a thread before... It was and it will ! I believe a shuttle is scheduled over Aug BH weekend (add usual disclaimer for change!) |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jul 22, 2011 18:08:48 GMT
I'm still open-minded on that particular event, given the way in which the bay has been taken out of commission. But, as they say, never say never.
As for any long-term return to operation of the Chesham shuttle, I can say with certainty that it will never happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2011 11:45:57 GMT
I believe a shuttle is scheduled over Aug BH weekend (add usual disclaimer for change!) Just seen this, and you're spot on! In traditional style it'll be train 407 but running a 40 minute service. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2011 11:57:33 GMT
Has the possibility been raised of reversing the service in platform 2 at chalfont? If the track closures are like they say, there won't be a very intensive train service running. Not sure whether the signals are in place for such a move, though...
|
|
