DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
|
Post by DWS on Nov 3, 2012 13:18:55 GMT
so it seems that most people here don't want the track and signals upgraded. Close the whole line every weekend? Alternative of adding a few stops and minutes to off peak journeys while work on the fast lines takes place seems more sensible How much work can be done on the fast lines during off-peak considering that the lines are still operational with 2tph Chiltern services? Surely not much? The answer is no work of the type needed to upgrade the track when trains are running over the section. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2012 15:26:55 GMT
so it seems that most people here don't want the track and signals upgraded. Close the whole line every weekend? Alternative of adding a few stops and minutes to off peak journeys while work on the fast lines takes place seems more sensible Haven't seen anything which says the all stations timetable is anything to do with upgrade works. If it is, LU have had plenty of opportunity to say so and say when fast trains will return. But they haven't and only say 'faster trains from 2018'. 'Faster'could mean anything compared to what we have now. LU management need to address the timetable quickly; their credibility is being damaged and they are looking increasingly out of touch with the standard expectations of public communications in 2012. If Mike Brown really thinks this is acceptable, then he's in the wrong job. |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196 
|
Post by Tom on Nov 3, 2012 22:53:42 GMT
so it seems that most people here don't want the track and signals upgraded. Close the whole line every weekend? Alternative of adding a few stops and minutes to off peak journeys while work on the fast lines takes place seems more sensible How much work can be done on the fast lines during off-peak considering that the lines are still operational with 2tph Chiltern services? Surely not much? Very little other than routine maintenance. Certainly you can't do any upgrade work, and from what I remember, most of the signalling equipment on that stretch is adjacent to the local lines anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Nov 3, 2012 23:00:25 GMT
Chiltern on their own tracks south of Harrow-on-the Hill
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 3, 2012 23:35:14 GMT
Yes Chiltern do own the permanent way just South of Harrow St Junction but that isn't really the point. They couldn't run any sort of service to that point!
Work to upgrade track and install the new signalling system needs to be carried out during engineering hours. The timetable doesn't really have much to do with this work.
For me, I don't see why Watford can't have 6tph with the Amersham/Chesham running fast 4tph. Uxbridge deserves to have 8tph, one needs to fit in how the Uxbridge/Watford stoppers mesh together - not easy!
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Nov 3, 2012 23:57:58 GMT
How much work can be done on the fast lines during off-peak considering that the lines are still operational with 2tph Chiltern services? Surely not much? Very little other than routine maintenance. Certainly you can't do any upgrade work, and from what I remember, most of the signalling equipment on that stretch is adjacent to the local lines anyway. As the replacement equipment will be the CityFlo system, which is transmission based, does it really matter where the existing equipment is? Doing some initial installations on the fast lines would allow testing of equipment, especially the interface with the Chiltern trains, without affecting the timetabled service. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Nov 4, 2012 0:22:57 GMT
Yes Chiltern do own the permanent way just South of Harrow St Junction but that isn't really the point. They couldn't run any sort of service to that point! No they don't, Network Rail own the permanent way. Also, there is little stopping Chiltern running services to/from Harrow-on-the-Hill, as is happening this weekend during the engineering work. Not if the tracks are separate, as they are on the Met. As mentioned above, it allows the fast tracks to be used for test purposes. Off-peak, do any of the branches really deserve such a high frequency? Amersham and stations south to Rickmansworth already have 2 tph fast (to Marylebone), so adjustment of the timings of the Chesham and Chiltern service would also give Chesham a fast service with a change. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 4, 2012 11:13:34 GMT
Yes Chiltern do own the permanent way just South of Harrow St Junction but that isn't really the point. They couldn't run any sort of service to that point! No they don't, Network Rail own the permanent way. Also, there is little stopping Chiltern running services to/from Harrow-on-the-Hill, as is happening this weekend during the engineering work. Not if the tracks are separate, as they are on the Met. As mentioned above, it allows the fast tracks to be used for test purposes. Off-peak, do any of the branches really deserve such a high frequency? Amersham and stations south to Rickmansworth already have 2 tph fast (to Marylebone), so adjustment of the timings of the Chesham and Chiltern service would also give Chesham a fast service with a change. Sorry I meant Network rail! The Uxbridge branch should have a higher frequency off peak as it is often quite busy. The fast tracks may be separate, but the point that was being made was that although it is ok to test of the fast lines, the prior leg work may need to be done during engineering hours. |
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Nov 4, 2012 16:16:04 GMT
Chiltern on their own tracks south of Harrow-on-the Hill But what about the shared fast lines north of Harrow? The off peak Met services are now routed onto the locals, but the 2tph Chiltern still use the fast lines, so it seems no upgrade work can be done to the fast lines during normal traffic hours. Thus, there probably will be a significant number of weekend closures. Yes Chiltern do own the permanent way just South of Harrow St Junction but that isn't really the point. They couldn't run any sort of service to that point! No they don't, Network Rail own the permanent way. Also, there is little stopping Chiltern running services to/from Harrow-on-the-Hill, as is happening this weekend during the engineering work. Chiltern are paid by LUL to run the 2tph Harrow - Marylebone shuttles, if the Met south of Harrow is closed. If LUL don't request the service, it doesn't run. A Marylebone - Harrow shuttle would never make any money and Chiltern's PPM would probably suffer by adding an additional 2tph between Neasden and Marylebone on the weekday. So I can't see it happening. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Nov 4, 2012 18:40:14 GMT
Chiltern on their own tracks south of Harrow-on-the Hill But what about the shared fast lines north of Harrow? The off peak Met services are now routed onto the locals, but the 2tph Chiltern still use the fast lines, so it seems no upgrade work can be done to the fast lines during normal traffic hours. Thus, there probably will be a significant number of weekend closures. Or the Chiltern services could be halted whilst upgrade works happen during the day. It wouldn't be the first time services are withdrawn during the week, at quiet times, to undertake upgrades. The point I was making is that Chiltern can still run to Harrow-on-the-Hill when there is engineering work, over track which is owned by Network Rail except for the last couple of hundred meters. If the fast lines north of Harrow are to be closed for upgrade works, then Chiltern would still need to run such a shuttle as they have no access to the slow lines. Off-peak, why should Chiltern's PPM suffer? They already run four trains per hour from the Met direction during the peaks. |
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Nov 4, 2012 21:07:28 GMT
In my experience, when the fast lines were blocked for planned weekend engineering works, Chiltern have run an Aylesbury - Amersham shuttle which connected with Met services over the local lines/replacement Met bus services. I don't remember them running a Harrow shuttle in addition to an Aylesbury-Amersham shuttle. However, they did run Aylesbury - Marylebone via High Wycombe trains and Amersham - Beaconsfield buses.
On the point about PPM - according to NR if a line is being utilised to 75% capacity reliability may suffer. At peaks the Neasden - Marylebone stretch is utilised at 80+% according to NR.
Off the top of my head, I guess there are about 25 services entering/leaving Marylebone at peak, and about 18 services entering and leaving Marylebone at off-peak. If you add 2tph off peak Harrow shuttle that add 4 to that 18 and you've got about 22 services entering and leaving Marylebone which I presume is very close to that magic 75%.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Nov 5, 2012 0:32:14 GMT
so it seems that most people here don't want the track and signals upgraded. Close the whole line every weekend? Alternative of adding a few stops and minutes to off peak journeys while work on the fast lines takes place seems more sensible I have seen no evidence to suggest the current Met timetable is connected to the upgrade. As others have said, the fast lines north of Harrow are still used by Chiltern trains throughout the traffic day, and in general the proximity of the fast lines to the slow/local lines is such that little useful work could take place. Apart from (maybe) being useful for testing, I cannot see how leaving the fast lines partly free of trains would really benefit any upgrade works. The track on most of the fast lines, particularly north of Harrow, has been largely totally renewed in recent years, so there should be no need for any large-scale track work. One would presume the Met line resignalling, when it happens, will be done in a similar fashion to the Jubilee and Northern Lines, with use made of engineering hours, late start-ups and occasional weekend or extended closures. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Nov 5, 2012 1:22:16 GMT
In my experience, when the fast lines were blocked for planned weekend engineering works, Chiltern have run an Aylesbury - Amersham shuttle which connected with Met services over the local lines/replacement Met bus services. I don't remember them running a Harrow shuttle in addition to an Aylesbury-Amersham shuttle. However, they did run Aylesbury - Marylebone via High Wycombe trains and Amersham - Beaconsfield buses. There has been at least one occasion when there was a 4 tph shuttle Marylebone to/from Harrow-on-the-Hill. I think it was when Harrow North Junction was being worked on. I think that there is something wrong with your 25 services per hour during the peaks, as you are forgetting the various ECS workings which are needed to run the 14-17 tph arriving (am) or leaving (pm) during the peak. Indeed, there are already more than 25 passenger tph in the evening; between 18.00 and 19.00 there are 13 arrivals (10 mainline and 3 via Harrow) and 16 departures (13 mainline plus 3 via Harrow) giving 29 tph (with one more via Harrow leaving at 17.59 which could be included by moving the goalposts). Off-peak there are 7 tph 'mainline' and 2 tph via Harrow to give the 18 tph you mention. Even 22 tph is still 24% less trains than run during the busiest peak time. There is also the nature of the services via 'main' line which are tightly bunched at the Marylebone, leaving room for non-conflicting services via Harrow. |
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Nov 5, 2012 14:38:26 GMT
I think that there is something wrong with your 25 services per hour during the peaks, as you are forgetting the various ECS workings which are needed to run the 14-17 tph arriving (am) or leaving (pm) during the peak. Indeed, there are already more than 25 passenger tph in the evening; between 18.00 and 19.00 there are 13 arrivals (10 mainline and 3 via Harrow) and 16 departures (13 mainline plus 3 via Harrow) giving 29 tph (with one more via Harrow leaving at 17.59 which could be included by moving the goalposts). Off-peak there are 7 tph 'mainline' and 2 tph via Harrow to give the 18 tph you mention. Even 22 tph is still 24% less trains than run during the busiest peak time. There is also the nature of the services via 'main' line which are tightly bunched at the Marylebone, leaving room for non-conflicting services via Harrow. I bow down to your superior knowledge. I was guestimating the number of trains at Marylebone but it seems I underestimated the number of peak arrivals/departures. So ignore my point about PPM. There has been at least one occasion when there was a 4 tph shuttle Marylebone to/from Harrow-on-the-Hill. I think it was when Harrow North Junction was being worked on. Interesting. I have never been offered the option of a shuttle when the fast lines were closed. Maybe I have been unlucky ;D On the topic of a shuttle, in this thread (initial post on page 5; discussion on page 10) there was talk of removing the crossover at Harrow which would prevent any Harrow shuttle running. Does anyone know when the crossover will go? I have seen no evidence to suggest the current Met timetable is connected to the upgrade. As others have said, the fast lines north of Harrow are still used by Chiltern trains throughout the traffic day, and in general the proximity of the fast lines to the slow/local lines is such that little useful work could take place. Apart from (maybe) being useful for testing, I cannot see how leaving the fast lines partly free of trains would really benefit any upgrade works. The track on most of the fast lines, particularly north of Harrow, has been largely totally renewed in recent years, so there should be no need for any large-scale track work. One would presume the Met line resignalling, when it happens, will be done in a similar fashion to the Jubilee and Northern Lines, with use made of engineering hours, late start-ups and occasional weekend or extended closures. So the reason is not upgrade works during off peak. I know Pinner demanded a better service and they are partly to blame but I suspect the temperamental points at Harrow North Junction are the main reason for the slow timetable. If the points are to blame what is stopping the Met running fasts down the locals as has happened in the past during adverse weather? |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Nov 5, 2012 16:08:22 GMT
That discussion is regarding the crossover at the north end of platform 2, allowing Met (or Chiltern) trains to reverse south to north. It is currently in use during the weekend works by Amersham trains. Its loss wouldn't affect any Chiltern shuttle to Marylebone, which reverses north to south in platform 1. |
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Nov 5, 2012 16:54:34 GMT
That discussion is regarding the crossover at the north end of platform 2, allowing Met (or Chiltern) trains to reverse south to north. It is currently in use during the weekend works by Amersham trains. Its loss wouldn't affect any Chiltern shuttle to Marylebone, which reverses north to south in platform 1. IIRC the only way Chilterns from Marylebone can reverse is shunting in the northbound direction from Platform 1 and then reversing over the crossover into Platform 2. Unless things have changed recently, there is a fixed red light at the southern end of Platform 1 and no crossover from Platform 1 to SB Chiltern. |
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Nov 5, 2012 17:01:39 GMT
That discussion is regarding the crossover at the north end of platform 2, allowing Met (or Chiltern) trains to reverse south to north. It is currently in use during the weekend works by Amersham trains. Its loss wouldn't affect any Chiltern shuttle to Marylebone, which reverses north to south in platform 1. IIRC the only way Chilterns from Marylebone can reverse is shunting in the northbound direction from Platform 1 and then reversing over the crossover into Platform 2. Unless things have changed recently, there is a fixed red light at the southern end of Platform 1 and no crossover from Platform 1 to SB Chiltern. Quite correct. The crossover (No 94) which would have allowed Chiltern trains to reverse in platform 1 was removed in the 1970s. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 5, 2012 18:17:50 GMT
The loss of the northern xover would be very ill advised....
|
|
|
|
Post by notverydeep on Nov 5, 2012 20:31:23 GMT
The loss of the northern xover would be very ill advised.... As I understand, the proposal is to replace 200 crossover, which links the northbound fast Met to platform 1 at HOTH - which currently crosses the 'up' line from platform 2 with a diamond crossing - with a ladder. This would then facilitate the N - S Chiltern reversing move or S - N Chiltern or Met reversing moves otherwise lost with the removal of 94 crossover. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Nov 7, 2012 20:44:09 GMT
The loss of the northern xover would be very ill advised.... As I understand, the proposal is to replace 200 crossover, which links the northbound fast Met to platform 1 at HOTH - which currently crosses the 'up' line from platform 2 with a diamond crossing - with a ladder. This would then facilitate the N - S Chiltern reversing move or S - N Chiltern or Met reversing moves otherwise lost with the removal of 94 crossover. That's what I thought was happening, although I should have checked that I'd said that in my reply! Basically moving the crossover to the other side of the station allowing any Chiltern shuttle for Marylebone to reverse in platform 1, but meaning that any reversals from S-N have to take place on the Up Chiltern track, so reversing the current situation but needing a bit less trackwork. |
|
|
|
Post by alholmes on Nov 7, 2012 21:57:41 GMT
But how will S-N Met trains reverse south of platform 2? I thought the current rails ended immediately at the southern end of the platform. Are there plans to electrify a short stretch of the Up Chiltern track (possibly as far as the LU / Network Rail boundary)?
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Nov 7, 2012 23:05:05 GMT
But how will S-N Met trains reverse south of platform 2? I thought the current rails ended immediately at the southern end of the platform. Are there plans to electrify a short stretch of the Up Chiltern track (possibly as far as the LU / Network Rail boundary)? At the moment, the current rails do stop at the southern end of platform 2, but their extension south would hardly be an expensive job if the track is being relaid anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Nov 8, 2012 16:50:27 GMT
But how will S-N Met trains reverse south of platform 2? I thought the current rails ended immediately at the southern end of the platform. Are there plans to electrify a short stretch of the Up Chiltern track (possibly as far as the LU / Network Rail boundary)? At the moment, the current rails do stop at the southern end of platform 2, but their extension south would hardly be an expensive job if the track is being relaid anyway. And indeed they did used to run further south than they do at present for this very reason. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2012 17:11:21 GMT
Work had already been done on the S/B track on 7th July. If the above is true then they will be altering the same section of track again. Clicky<<Rincew1nd edit: Image changed to link as just a tad larger than that stated in the Forum Rules.>> |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Nov 8, 2012 17:54:30 GMT
Work had already been done on the S/B track on 7th July. If the above is true then they will be altering the same section of track again. That picture doesn't show them altering the crossover though. Maybe there is passive provision for the required current rails in the new bit of track being laid there. I'll have to have a look next time I'm there. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 9, 2012 18:35:36 GMT
If I understand correctly then the moveable angles will be replaced by a pair of crossovers. This will allow an LU train to run south to a limit of shunt (perhaps adjcent to the class 66) and then return into platform 1?
It will limit speeds from the down fast into platform 1 (although they are hardly express now!).
|
|
|
|
Post by motorman on Nov 9, 2012 20:29:48 GMT
Is my memory correct that some years ago (up to the early 70's) the electrified track at HOTH extended southwards from platform 2 and continued south of the points beyond Peterborough Road bridge permitting an LUL train to reverse on the current Chiltern southbound line?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2012 13:13:21 GMT
Maybe there is passive provision for the required current rails in the new bit of track being laid there. I'll have to have a look next time I'm there. Just passed through Harrow: four neat holes drilled in centre and either side of running rails on sleepers. Passive provision in evidence! |
|
|
|
Post by greatcentral on Nov 23, 2012 16:15:33 GMT
Buckinghamshire Examiner today reports Chesham and District Transport Users Group are launching an e-petition to bring back the fast off service. Methinks 100000 signatures will be difficult to get but I'll sign it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2012 17:34:30 GMT
Buckinghamshire Examiner today reports Chesham and District Transport Users Group are launching an e-petition to bring back the fast off service. Methinks 100000 signatures will be difficult to get but I'll sign it. Yes, could be a tough one that! That said, a few thousand would be achievable and make the point. Seems its not just Amersham and Chesham who don't like the current arrangements. Anyone who used to change at Harrow or Moor Park has list their OP fasts as well which they could use and change to go further along their journey. |
|
