kabsonline
Best SSL Train: S Stock Best Tube Train: 92 Stock
Posts: 686
|
Post by kabsonline on Oct 11, 2011 20:52:46 GMT
According to Wikipedia the Met may be extended to Barking when the S Stock have been fully introduced with the H&C terminating at Aldgate instead. What are people's thoughts and how likely is this to happen?  |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 11, 2011 21:01:34 GMT
Won't happen, it was canned. Stupid idea for me as it just increases the journey time and hence leads to more delays - more flat junctions and is difficult to add in breaks for t/ops.
Glad its been binned!
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Oct 12, 2011 13:28:35 GMT
...but you'd have more suitable (higher-capacity) S8 stock running out to Barking, so I think it'd be a good idea.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 12, 2011 16:02:24 GMT
It wouldn't be suitable if the route made the service unreliable.
The original plan back in 2006 was to run the Uxbridge service every 7-8 minutes through to Barking. The trouble with that is any delays will lead to serious bunching and late running causing knock on delays to the entire SSL. Barking trains will have to cross 3 flat junctions between Baker Street and Aldagte East which I don't see as wise. If the H&C is cut back to Aldgate only there's no point having it. This will reduce the capacity over the Northern half of the Circle as any delays will cause the Met to be suspended between Baker Street-Barking will only a 10 min Circle Line service picking up the slack!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Oct 12, 2011 16:43:42 GMT
Don't they already  Though I know this has been done to death on the forum, I still don't fully see why all the reasons touted as problems for such a service apply here, yet not to other lines or routings. The H&C currently runs over 4 flat junctions, Amersham-Aldgate slow 4, Richmond-Upminster does... 5(?), the Circle 7. There are longer end to end journeys on the tube aswell. Everyone always makes point of the fact that it was tried before and didn't work too. Hardly suprising; it coincided with the introduction of 2 new types of stock within 7 years of bitter rivals being forced to merge; the route also needing to share with at least 10 different types of other stocks, and not forgetting the fact that a world war was starting. as a seperate brand, maybe, but as a strengthening of the northern circles service definitely not |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 12, 2011 17:15:20 GMT
The problem for the Met is it's a long way from home! By that I mean if there is a problem along the route, many of the sidings and stabling points are too short for 8 car trains. The district of course does cross many junctions but it may stable in the East, West and in the Central area (a few trains!). The Met must return to Neasden. The main issue was for crew relief too. The whole system would need to be changed and I just dont think there is the will....
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 12, 2011 20:06:31 GMT
Though I know this has been done to death on the forum, I still don't fully see why all the reasons touted as problems for such a service apply here, yet not to other lines or routings. The H&C currently runs over 4 flat junctions, Amersham-Aldgate slow 4, Richmond-Upminster does... 5(?), the Circle 7. There are longer end to end journeys on the tube aswell. Everyone always makes point of the fact that it was tried before and didn't work too. Hardly suprising; it coincided with the introduction of 2 new types of stock within 7 years of bitter rivals being forced to merge; the route also needing to share with at least 10 different types of other stocks, and not forgetting the fact that a world war was starting. as a seperate brand, maybe, but as a strengthening of the northern circles service definitely not This (and a couple of other) proposal has indeed been done to death on here. There are longer journeys on the tube, but they are generally self-contained services on 1 line, and generally suffer far fewer potential conflicts. An Uxbridge-Barking service will have to interface with more than 1 line, and will suffer umpteen potential conflicts. Let's not forget also that Barking has only 1 bay road. Any delay there quickly knocks on to all services in that area. If the bay is lost, trains need to detrain on the through line - causing more delays to the service trying to run further east. The District is ultimately the supplier of services east of Aldgate East. The H&C operate a "complimentary" service over the same stretch. If Whitechapel hadn't been lost, we would still be reversing 50% of our service there. It's unlikely to ever happen - we'd need to order more S8s for a start to cover the extended service. The District supplies the East and West extremities of London. The H&C and Circle supply the central area. The Met is still more of a commuter line, carrying people from the north/west suburbs, to the city of London. Each line has it's own purpose, with services written to match. |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Oct 13, 2011 1:41:07 GMT
Though I know this has been done to death on the forum, I still don't fully see why all the reasons touted as problems for such a service apply here, yet not to other lines or routings. The H&C currently runs over 4 flat junctions, Amersham-Aldgate slow 4, Richmond-Upminster does... 5(?), the Circle 7. There are longer end to end journeys on the tube aswell. Everyone always makes point of the fact that it was tried before and didn't work too. Hardly suprising; it coincided with the introduction of 2 new types of stock within 7 years of bitter rivals being forced to merge; the route also needing to share with at least 10 different types of other stocks, and not forgetting the fact that a world war was starting. as a seperate brand, maybe, but as a strengthening of the northern circles service definitely not This (and a couple of other) proposal has indeed been done to death on here. There are longer journeys on the tube, but they are generally self-contained services on 1 line, and generally suffer far fewer potential conflicts. An Uxbridge-Barking service will have to interface with more than 1 line, and will suffer umpteen potential conflicts. Now then, young padawan.... Lest it be forgotten: the 1946 resignalling of Aldgate was helped and abetted by the experiment of the Met going out to the LT&S - it turned the whole thing into a 'proper' triangle - something more than terminating 'City' trains and Circles whizzing past Districts. Unfortunately, in the computer control/gadarene rush of 1988 a lot of the flexibility of 1946 has, sadly been lost. Restore the control lengths back to the 1946 state at Aldgate - learnt from the experiences and the acceleration curves through the junctions and you might be pleasantly suprised. I was. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 13, 2011 12:10:27 GMT
So we may get them through Aldgate, but that is just one area to be solved.
I'm already sat in occasional meetings concerning the reliability of the new timetable - in particular the all stations Chesham-Aldgates. Longer services, as you know, do not become more reliable unless you pad them with huge chunks of recovery. You then end up with so much slack the journey is unappealing. Then, to marry everything up around it, every other service has to be given similar chunks of slack to stop everything grinding to a halt.
So bring back a faster Aldgate - I'm with you there - but do it for the services that currently pass through. We don't need (and most of us don't want) the Met going out East.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 13, 2011 12:26:18 GMT
"The Met" and "out East" are not natural bedfellows. South Essex is NOT Metroland, and never can be.
There has to be a more sensible 'out of the box' way of even-ing up services without what seems to be the simplest solution of just extending the Met line on a map. Perhaps even running some Districts via Kings Cross. Apparantly, this happened in the '50s on some bank holiday workings which I think were from Richmond. (Probably to Aldgate) I'm sure I have a picture of one of these somewhere. Does anyone have more details of these?? I'd even consider Richmond - Richmond clockwise around the Circle and Ealing - Ealing anti clockwise as a radical plan. Similarly Upminster-Dagenham clockwise around and then Dagenham-Upminster anti-clockwise around. That sorts out all Circle services.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 13, 2011 13:41:53 GMT
................ running some Districts via Kings Cross. Apparantly, this happened in the '50s on some bank holiday workings which I think were from Richmond. (Probably to Aldgate) I'm sure I have a picture of one of these somewhere. Does anyone have more details of these?? . Accordig to CULG: "For many years some of the trains on the Edgware Road service were extended over the Circle Line to Moorgate, Liverpool Street, or Aldgate (usually the latter): on Bank Holidays from 1945 to 1953, and again in 1968 and 1969; on Maundy Thursdays, Christmas Eve, and the Fridays before Monday Bank Holidays, from 1945 or 1946 to 1953; on Saturday during lunchtime (usually to Liverpool Street) and the early evening, from 1968-10-19 to 1972-02-05." ................ I'd even consider Richmond - Richmond clockwise around the Circle and Ealing - Ealing anti clockwise as a radical plan. How about Wimbledon - Wimbledon anticlockwise: and Ricmond/Ealing - Richmond/Ealing clockwise. Solves all the conflicts at Earls Court |
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 13, 2011 13:50:45 GMT
@ norbitonflyer: Yes- good idea. I'd be happy with that.
And what about my idea for the Essex end?
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Oct 13, 2011 14:09:24 GMT
We don't need (and most of us don't want) the Met going out East. Are you speaking as a passenger there? 'don't want' - Hate to say it, but despite all the reasons being put up to rubbish the idea of such a service, this one seems to be the nub of it. Can't be done, won't be done.  If the Met did already run to Barking, and you worked with people who were more positive about it doing so, but the technicalities of it were the same as now; is this a conclusion you would have jumped to naturally? What other parts of operations would you simplify? The opposition to this seems to be just too ingrained, and it only ever seems to be people outside of the company who even acknowlege some potential benefits it would bring; such as an instant ~12% increase in capacity per train. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 13, 2011 20:59:59 GMT
I'm speaking as both a member of Service Control and as a potential customer.
Take the customer angle first. I cannot believe there is sufficient demand for such services. Yes there will be people that want to do, for instance, Wembley to Mile End. But how many people will there realistically be to fill trains from Uxbridge all the way to Barking? Not that many.
From a Service Control angle now. Sometimes I do despair at the never ending array of ideas and suggestions on here. Ok, so admittedly some appear to be very reasonable suggestions. But others just dabble around in history or, worse, fantasty land.
The reasons many of the services we used to run have now vanished are generally a)They were difficult to manage b)They were unreliable c)There was insufficient demand d)They do not mesh easily with the increased paths we now operate. We didn't operate as many trains back then.
The service patterns we run on SSR have seen changes very recently - and indeed one further change will occur in December. In their own right they have been / will be quite radical changes, which have caused a great deal of discussion. But at the end of the day, they are centred around the core service structure that is most easy to manage - District, Circle & H&C, Met.
Sit in my seat for a few days (or, of course, in that of my colleagues on the Green Railway) and you may begin to realise why the service model we have is all we need to get people easily and - most importantly - reliably from A to B. Once you start mixing and matching and start being "clever" with new services, you start to increase the complexity to run the core service.
Anyone who was around for the first "Covered Way" timetable years ago, will be only too aware of what happens when someone with a large scribbling pad and a big pencil starts thinking "what if?"
The SSR might be fully joined up and easily traversed by all stock from any location to the next, but that does not mean we should run a spiderweb of services all over it. The tube lines are just as joined-up, but nobody suggests running Heathrow to Walthamstow or Mordern to Cockfosters (well, maybe they do knowing you lot on here ;D )
What we have works doesn't it?
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 13, 2011 21:35:39 GMT
MetControl > I am in general agreement with all you said, but note "c"
c)There was insufficient demand
You used the word "WAS", but London has changed SO much. I remember saying to somebody about 45 years ago, regarding re-opening the WLL to passenger traffic, He said exactly the same words, "There was insufficient demand". I do agree with you about the Met east of Aldgate, the subject of this thread. But I am certain that a couple of other proposals would amaze, they would be so heavily used,
My 3 are:
1 Greenford Ealing line extended to Clapham Junction, ALL over existing tracks
2 Re-opening the Watford North curve for regular passenger use (Perhaps running Chiltern services from Aylesbury (or Ayl. Parkway). OR from Chesham! Again, ALL over existing track
3 Linking the Central to Uxbridge from Ruislip Gdns. Reduce services to W. Ruislip (stop more Chilterns there) and cut some UXB Picc services back to Ruislip. For this one, a few hundred metres of new track required.
Result = Thousands of happy (fare paying) travellers, and traffic taken off busy roads. SO LITTLE expenditure required to implement these.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 13, 2011 21:52:03 GMT
The WLL provided "new" journey opportunities. Short-cuts for people who previously had to use buses or travel on other lines to get from A to B - often going miles out of their way to do so. The difference here is that someone from Uxbridge can get to Barking through a "same platform" interchange - with a generally frequent service. Met to Great Portland Street, then H&C from there. As for your other ideas: the north curve was explored, but capacity at Watford is currently limited - maybe when we get the Croxley Link. The Central operating to Uxbridge  Don't get me started on that one  |
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 14, 2011 7:48:56 GMT
3 Linking the Central to Uxbridge from Ruislip Gdns. Reduce services to W. Ruislip (stop more Chilterns there) and cut some UXB Picc services back to Ruislip. For this one, a few hundred metres of new track required. Given Chiltern's recent focus on providing a second main line to Birmingham, with significant speed increases to give journey time reductions, I can't see the idea of them adding extra stops anywhere (even though West Ruislip has an extra track though, I don't think this helps enough). |
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 14, 2011 9:02:24 GMT
@ Metcontrol. I am in total agreement with you regarding (not) extending the Met to Barking, which is the title of this thread. I am also pleased to see that proper use of the Watford north chord is a possibility for the future, for as you said about the WLL, it has provided new journey opportunities. As will this.
But you also said "not to start you" on the Central to Uxbridge. I'd like to do just that and I would value your opinion. Uxbridge is no longer the rural market town that it was when the Central was planned to extend to W. Ruislip in the 1930s in the New Works Programme . This deserves (and requires) a separate thread, and if I can be tempted to start you, I will happily contribute to it. I have spent my entire working life arguing against people who have looked for "reasons why not" whereas I've always argued for "reasons why". I think there are many and it could become a very interesting new thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Oct 15, 2011 18:12:59 GMT
3 Linking the Central to Uxbridge from Ruislip Gdns. Reduce services to W. Ruislip (stop more Chilterns there) and cut some UXB Picc services back to Ruislip. For this one, a few hundred metres of new track required. Result = Thousands of happy (fare paying) travellers, and traffic taken off busy roads. SO LITTLE expenditure required to implement these. I imagine this would imply building a new w/b platform at Ruislip with all that vacant space to the south of the current one? And this could also be balanced by making the current w/b available for reversing Piccies west to east. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 15, 2011 19:24:17 GMT
Sadly trains would have to travel back on themselves to reach Ruislip. The next station from Ruislip gardens would be Ickenham.
|
|
