|
|
Post by phillw48 on Jun 3, 2013 14:51:43 GMT
The pre-war 'Q' type side engined buses were so designated after the WW1 'Q' ships. Although it was designed as a motor bus there was 5 double deck trolleybus versions, one each went to Bradford and Southend Corporations and the other three went to Australia (IIRC Sydney). The Southend one was a low bridge version.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 3, 2013 16:08:15 GMT
dw54 - thanks for the three replies on differing points. I'm conscious we're at risk of thread drift so I'll keep this brief. I don't struggle with understanding the emerging technologies. My general concern is that we use technology in a pragmatic way which does not expose TfL or its customers to risk or cost impacts on what would be new and challenging infrastructure investments. If the technology was proven in service in conditions similar to London then I have no problems with it. We would need to try, if possible, to avoid "supplier lock in" to proprietary power technologies such as some of the "wireless" power supply technologies that are being used in environmentally sensitive City / Town centres on French tramways. If such systems can be maintained, extended or upgraded using a wide supplier base then again I've no issues. I think we are slowly realising that the UK has to strike the right balance between the constraints of its historical infrastructure innovation (being first!), the funding issues we have now and probably for decades plus how to harness the efficiencies and opportunies offered by technological development. This applies as much to Crossrail 2 as it does to any alternatives such as trolleybuses, trams or intermediate automated Metro lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 3, 2013 16:54:38 GMT
phillw48 - thanks for both those bits of info! Always learning something new. snoggle - I couldn't agree more about using open technology - just ask the mayors of Caen and one or two other places in France who were persuaded to showcase a guided trolleybus system a few years ago only to find (a) it didn't work and (b) the sole manufacturer had stopped supporting the technology. A similar story to be told about the Phileas electronically guided bus in Eindhoven (if I remember correctly). I spent a happy half day in Glasgow trying to convince a property developer there that it might be shiny and new but it didn't actually work...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2013 23:22:33 GMT
The pre-war 'Q' type side engined buses were so designated after the WW1 'Q' ships. Although it was designed as a motor bus there was 5 double deck trolleybus versions, one each went to Bradford and Southend Corporations and the other three went to Australia (IIRC Sydney). The Southend one was a low bridge version. Thanks Phil. I wasn't dreaming after all. I'd read up on Sydney's trams and trolleybuses, so probably noticed the Q-based trolleybus then. May I remind others that the issue was raised about bypassing the proposed Dalston stop in favour of Highbury & Islington. I was challenged on that about the heavy flow of buses on the A10. This subthread is about defining the nature of that traffic, and how it might be addressed if CR2 doesn't run between Seven Sisters and Dalston. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2013 14:14:57 GMT
Some Humble Pie time for me. Seems that the "proven and reliable" Li-ion batteries have not lived up to their reputation, at least not in the Boeing 787 Dreamliners.
Boeing are currently sending teams around the world to fix grounded aircraft, after a fire started in a Li-ion battery pack. Boeing's solution (which predates any final conclusions from the investigations) is very much belt and braces, and adds 150kg to the take-off weight. The graphs accompanying the report show the temperature rise under simulated fault conditions - consistent with the observed problem.
So, a little bit of caution and some solid wide ranging testing would be needed whatever battery system was adopted. Meanwhile, I haven't heard of any problems with KERS or the new inductive flywheels.
|
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Jun 6, 2013 8:15:56 GMT
fleetline - I very much agree about the neglect of depot issues; for much of the post war period, it didn't matter, but now with the expansion of the national fleet again, it will soon become a very serious constraint. What is really needed is a national depot strategy which looks at the competing demands of intercity and commuter operations and the opportunities for re-shuffling the pack - and the need to safeguard key potential sites. Bounds Green and Willesden are perhaps key sites in this respect, and safeguarding sites in the Lea valley, as one of the few remaining areas for substantial redevelopment in the right sector of London, are another (it may already be too late there, alas). But - as you imply - it's also as much about sites at the end of commuter runs that need to be safeguarded - Peterborough, for example. There ought to have been a depot RUS but I doubt if NR think it's their problem and the spread of "company" depots hardly helps. DfT will not admit to the point, of course, because they try not to believe that the rail system needs to be managed as a whole. GH , yes, depot space has become a hot topic. But there are ways around. Look at the work on SWT 455 which are now to have mode to allow them be need less depot time which in turn should allow for more trains to be applied. Sidings are somewhat easier to provide. Planning around the depot issue may end up affecting the routes chosen, to ensure easy access is always possible. But another issue is fixed formation units which of Crossrail 2 is expected use if the regional option is decided upon, (following Thameslink and Crossrail) then the type of site needed will need to be longer with, as you've pointed out before, at least one road capable of taking at least two full length units together. And access to stabling at the end is just as important as the main depot, no point racking up hundreds of miles of ECS which drains drivers diagram as well. Plumstead Crossrail sidings are an example of sensible planning. |
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 6, 2013 10:13:40 GMT
fleetline - couldn't agree more about the need for stabling sidings to be strategically-sited* ( and if the scope for using a "man with a van" could be extended at these locations, depot visits (and therefore size) could be further reduced. ) From an operational point of view that would be a clear win, but how much more work can actually be transferred to stabling points is a moot point. Emptying the loos has become a noticeable problem, although I note that the RhB has developed a mobile unit for this very satisfactorily. The 455 solution is elegant but presumably can be applied only to elements of the heritage fleet? I will take the opportunity of a visit to the RUS folk shortly to see whether NR are proposing to consider the issues. BTW my franchise spy tells me that NR are going round telling TLK bidders that ASLEF won't work with the Siemens design because there are no side cab windows and therefore the driver cannot assess his position vis-a-vis the stop marker sufficiently accurately. Had you come across this? Or is it just another NR canard? GH * the prize for expensive ecs movements in recent years probably went to Cross-Country who used to ship an HST ecs from York to Edinburgh every night at about 0300. The cost of that in fuel, track charges and crew must have been well into four figures...
|
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Jun 9, 2013 22:05:55 GMT
I know this is now an old thread but I was mulling over different things in relation to it, giving things extra thought is a dying art IMO. There are clearly 2 schemes in one here and the interested parties (TfL, NR et al) can't agree on it. I'm sure both options have been looked at a lot but evidently there are going to be key aims not met whatever is done. I think combining one or other option with more modest schemes could be the answer, and as much as I'd like it I can't see any hope for Parkland Walk being part of it. Wimbledon overload is a big problem and only partly remedied by NL extended to Clapham Junction. I agree with DW's alternative route for the NL split, perhaps a new depot is worthwhile or even a scheme to extend from Battersea to Wimbledon (and building the Chelney depot) which would also encourage more people to avoid overloading CR2. Certainly the Edgware branch could benefit from City connection more than WE (there is cross-platform, there is the in parts nearby Jubilee line and there are bus routes that are not too long into the WE) and the Barnet branch needs a WE destination (the City has the GN route nearby). I would like to propose a modest additional metro scheme for Chelsea - clearly outside of this consultation but in line with the general 'we should be doing more' bent of this discussion - which would allow CR2 to go direct between Clapham Jcn and Victoria and a core route via Dalston and Seven Sisters before splitting or via H&I instead of Dalston with the metro going via Dalston and possibly to Leytonstone as per the old Chelney (safeguarded) proposal and/or Chingford. The route could be Parsons Green-Chelsea-Vic as per Chelney, saving some tunnel mileage on the CR2 route and with one new station being on the metro (Chelsea Town Hall) instead of on CR2, then on to Waterloo, taking over the W&C north of Waterloo station or paralleling it to Bank then on to Liverpool Street and Shoreditch High Street then direct to Hackney (possibly via dalston Jcn). From then maybe to Enfield Town. I've been taken to task before for saying that the line should follow the Victoria Line from Euston to Tottenham Hale and avoid Hackney. To me, the freeing of capacity into Liverpool Street is more important than the gentrification (let's be honest) of Hackney. Also we run the risk of changing Hertford from two City services to two West End services if we transfer the Northern City Line Hertford North branch as well (I know people can change at Angel, but the Northern Line is more than a little busy). I'd vastly prefer to switch the Enfield Town service to Crossrail 2 than either Northern City Branch. That way Enfield has a City and a West End service. A solution could be to have CR2 head north to west of Gospel Oak and use an upgraded GOBLIN route up to Tottenham Hale. It's another possibility that could be considered alongside CR2 and affecting it or instead of the current routing north of Euston. The route could link to WAGN GN and Lea Valley services and can (I think) be quadded north of Crouch Hill and south of Upper Holloway, with a shortish tunnelled section between the 2 stations (neither of which would need to be served by the new scheme). Maybe if not part of CR2, the route south of Euston might suit a CR3 or a swing west via the WE to Paddington (and H&C/Wimbleware etc). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 2:16:14 GMT
I know this is now an old thread but I was mulling over different things in relation to it, giving things extra thought is a dying art IMO. There are clearly 2 schemes in one here .... [snip] Maybe if not part of CR2, the route south of Euston might suit a CR3 or a swing west via the WE to Paddington (and H&C/Wimbleware etc). I must say, Mike, I was feeling a lightish buzz in the head after reading that, swooping and swinging around so much - I got dizzy!  |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Jun 10, 2013 5:51:48 GMT
Can moderators split out the trolleybus chat into a separate thread. It's all gone a bit off topic! I'll see what I can do later tonight. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 8:09:45 GMT
Can moderators split out the trolleybus chat into a separate thread. It's all gone a bit off topic! I'll see what I can do later tonight. That one seems to have died down now. I think we've arrived at a point where enough ideas and concepts have been explored for the potentially missing link along the A10. |
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Jun 10, 2013 14:21:26 GMT
I must say, Mike, I was feeling a lightish buzz in the head after reading that, swooping and swinging around so much - I got dizzy! It was one of those posts which was difficult to put into words and had to be re-written to get points across. Hopefully it made sense which is the main aim. That's the problem with trying to deal with multiple needs/problems/targets and attempting to find solutions which involve more than one idea and where such ideas should be integrated. Anyway, I'll take your comment as a compliment! Let me know what you think. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2013 21:38:29 GMT
Just submitted my consultation, after wanting to wait until I had some time to write a proper detailed response. I don't know whether the people receiving my entry will really give my textwall much thought, but here's hoping they do  My main concerns are that the Metro option isn't really an ideal central london people mover - using properly automated rolling stock to get 40tph is a thumbs up, but even at 4 units length, if the units are the same size as on the DLR that's going to make the trains a bit short. With properly built straight platforms as per the JLE, surely the Bob Crow argument against having long driverless trains is void? In fact, with a complete new build, I don't even see why they'd need to limit the train length to the 130m or so maximum currently seen on LUL routes. Is there any reason why they couldn't go up to say, 160m, to tie in with 8-car NR stock length? Although I'm sure the West Anglia and SWT customers would welcome having a crossrail of their own without needing to change trains to get into stations like Piccadilly Circus and Euston, using a manually driven train on a brand new line built in 2030 just seems... wrong? I therefore raised the argument that given how long away this will be, they should give some serious thought into trying to integrate a service using ATO (even if they use drivers as per the Central/Jubilee/Victoria line) with NR routes. This is after all a joint NR and TfL project. It's not exactly going to be easy to pull off, and the ATO integration need not be ready by the time the line actually opens, but surely this would be a great opportunity to test something like this? I don't see any technological reason why within the next few decades the shorter (say, <30 mile) commuter routes out of london couldn't be brought up to ATO to increase the trains per hour, and therefore passengers per hour - ATO could be enabled on the new build section of Crossrail 2, and manual driver operation outside it, until the integration was actually ready. Any thoughts on this? Does seem like a big ask, but this is a pretty forward-thinking project, and if technology brought about by this project could introduce noticeable tph increases on almost every major commuter line into london, that'd make for a serious capacity improvement across the network - I don't really see anything else on the horizon to stem the tide of ever-increasing overcrowding on services. All told, either option would be a great addition to London's rail network, but I really feel like a needy child wanting to have both things at once - the 40tph, and more importantly, automation, from the metro route, but with the NR integration, and more importantly train length, from the regional route. Getting ATO running over NR track is the logical bridge between the two needs. If only it weren't a nightmare to build |
|
|
|
Post by malcolmffc on Jul 18, 2013 10:28:41 GMT
Can anyone explain why Piccadilly Circus is not part of the Regional scheme, but is in the Metro? Presumably it is due to space constraints? But why would a Metro station fit?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2013 13:05:36 GMT
Presumably because the specified train length for the metro option is only about 110m (going by the length of current DLR stock upon which it'll be based) - versus 200m for the regional option. I imagine that makes quite a difference to the size of the station. I didn't even spot this when doing the consultation myself, well spotted - another thorn in the side of the regional route.
|
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Nov 29, 2013 12:55:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Nov 29, 2013 17:32:39 GMT
In another place, there has been a good laugh at the detailed comments of the consultees - for example, those who think that the Kent Coast is somewhere near NE London, and the one who wants to see a Tooting-Wimbledon line via Roehampton. Then there's the major pocket of resistance to any sort of XR2 at Kings Road. (How do they think the cleaning staff will get to work?) And a metro option to serve the South Coast - "The next Bakerloo train is for Hove, calling at...." (Why not extend it to La Defense and have done with it?)
Forcibly reminded of the 1971 census results for Leeds that showed that one resident used the Underground as their main mode to get to work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2013 16:32:16 GMT
(...) (Why not extend it to La Defense and have done with it?) (...) Good idea, using the (2050 and later!) project of a new HS line to the North-West and the Tunnel and terminating in La Défense because going further to St Lazare station would be too difficult... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 16:32:36 GMT
So what effect is the consultation going to have on the plans then? I imagine Stoke Newington will get a look in, in terms of a new station (given the high number of respondents and the ludicrously long gap in Hackney) and a branch to Stansted, which would possibly strengthen the 'business case'?
|
|
