|
|
Post by orienteer on Jan 1, 2014 22:30:09 GMT
Over on londonreconnections there is talk of some Jubilee trains going to HOH, to help increase the total TPH.
Could this be an opportunity to send all, or most, Met trains on the fast lines to/from Wembley, and thus increase Met capacity by speeding up the service?
(Retires, having lit blue touch paper....)
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jan 1, 2014 23:23:31 GMT
A train may be saved but combining the routes to operate to all sorts of destinations seems to be asking for trouble.
The Jubilee won't run to Harrow, there is no need for increased services between Wembley-Harrow and the 1996 stock is needed to operate the whole Jubilee Line service.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jan 1, 2014 23:54:15 GMT
A train may be saved but combining the routes to operate to all sorts of destinations seems to be asking for trouble. The Jubilee won't run to Harrow, there is no need for increased services between Wembley-Harrow and the 1996 stock is needed to operate the whole Jubilee Line service. Stanmore gets an extremely generous service, so they could divert 1 in 3 or 4 trains to Harrow without affecting the core frequency of the Jubilee. They would take over the current slow lines and would serve Preston Road and Northwick Park. All met trains would run via the fast lines. I don't see it happening either. it would also mean new connections being built at Wembley, and would need revisions at Harrow, without which all of the Jubilee trains would have to reverse via the siding. The Met would also lose access to the siding, which would cause operational difficulties, especially for trains that reverse at Harrow prior to returning to Neasden depot. All such trains would have to reverse at Wembley, which would cause delays to the through service. Verdict - a lot of hassle for very little benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by geriatrix on Jan 4, 2014 23:03:46 GMT
Travelled from Amersham to London Bridge via Baker Street today. The Amersham-Baker St. leg was on an S class without any transverse seating - presumably an S7. This is really not very suitable for long SLOW journeys. Without transverse seating it's difficult to see what's up when passing Neasden depot. :-) Do S7s often get used on the Met mainline?
And is the synchronised closing of the Jubilee doors with the opening of the Met doors at Finchley Road a regular thing. So annoying.
|
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jan 5, 2014 0:56:32 GMT
Sounds like you were on of the S7 +1s. These are 3 s7s with an extra carriage inserted to cover for the s8s that go back to Derby for modifications. When they were first used, there was an effort to keep them of the long runs, but seemingly not as much of an effort now
|
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Jan 5, 2014 4:22:19 GMT
And is the synchronised closing of the Jubilee doors with the opening of the Met doors at Finchley Road a regular thing. So annoying. This does tend to happen in some places, I know at Canning Town upper level DLR it happens between both Bank & Beckton and Woolwich & Tower services. While at Canary Wharf DLR when changing to/from a Stratford service and a Lewisham/Bank one you have to run if you are to have any chance of getting on the train. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 10:21:31 GMT
And is the synchronised closing of the Jubilee doors with the opening of the Met doors at Finchley Road a regular thing. So annoying. Surely the best the best solution otherwise cries of the Met or the Jubilee passengers take preference will be heard. With the high frequency of services on thes lines having to wait for the next train is exactly the end of the World! XF |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jan 5, 2014 10:39:31 GMT
And that's why policy appears to have changed over the years as frequencies on both lines have increased somewhat, unless you want to go to Watford that is....
|
|
|
|
Post by orienteer on Jan 5, 2014 16:13:09 GMT
It's not in the best interests of safety to close the doors in passengers' faces, I've see many trip up in their haste to cross the platform, as they know the doors are likely to close on them.
The worst case I saw, and it must have been malicious, was when Amersham trains were starting from Wembley Park while the Baker Street platforms were being extended for S stock. Passengers were advised to take any train from Baker St and change at Harrow. I was on an Uxbridge train that pulled in to platform 4 while an Amersham train pulled into platform 3. Nevertheless the Amersham operator managed to stop, open and close the doors and depart before anyone could cross the platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jan 5, 2014 16:38:45 GMT
It's not in the best interests of safety to close the doors in passengers' faces, I've see many trip up in their haste to cross the platform, as they know the doors are likely to close on them. The worst case I saw, and it must have been malicious, was when Amersham trains were starting from Wembley Park while the Baker Street platforms were being extended for S stock. Passengers were advised to take any train from Baker St and change at Harrow. I was on an Uxbridge train that pulled in to platform 4 while an Amersham train pulled into platform 3. Nevertheless the Amersham operator managed to stop, open and close the doors and depart before anyone could cross the platform. Yes, but they shouldn't be running, so if they trip up that's entirely their own fault. I have no sympathy for such people. There seems to be a belief amongst many passengers that they have a right to board any train, regardless of the time that the train is due to leave at. Most drivers do not maliciously close doors in the face of passengers. But often, the driver begins to close the doors, the chimes then sound which then leads to passengers sprinting for the train before the doors close. Do these people not know what the chimes mean? As was mentioned earlier, most underground services are frequent enough nowadays so that cross platform interchanges need not be guaranteed. I do take your point about the Amersham train though. I'm not sure if they were guaranteeing connections at Harrow, so the driver may not have been aware of the Uxbridge train pulling in. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 5, 2014 23:07:36 GMT
It's not in the best interests of safety to close the doors in passengers' faces, I've see many trip up in their haste to cross the platform, as they know the doors are likely to close on them. The worst case I saw, and it must have been malicious, was when Amersham trains were starting from Wembley Park while the Baker Street platforms were being extended for S stock. Passengers were advised to take any train from Baker St and change at Harrow. I was on an Uxbridge train that pulled in to platform 4 while an Amersham train pulled into platform 3. Nevertheless the Amersham operator managed to stop, open and close the doors and depart before anyone could cross the platform. One must remember that, apart from a very few locations where illuminating signs are provided, the Train Operator generally has no means of knowing that a train is coming alongside at an adjacent platform. Especially in open-air platforms, the first indication that another train has arrived alongside may well be after closing the doors, and then seeing the platform quickly fill up. By this time, re-opening the doors and waiting for a load of people to join (and for some to spend ages choosing which car they are going to travel in, amble along the platform to the chosen car, and then get caught when the driver's patience runs out!) can cause a significant delay to the train. Generally Train Operators will not maliciously avoid connections, however they must consider whether to wait will cause a delay to their train, and what the effect of that delay could be to the rest of the railway. There are times at places like Kennington and Stockwell where drivers will deliberately *not* wait if it will cause a negative effect on the service overall. Holding for a few seconds to wait for the terminating Charing Cross train at Kennington can end up costing 2 extra minutes, meaning one or two extra Victoria Line trains have now come and gone at Stockwell, causing a massively extended dwell there too, and you now have a massive gap in front and you're now running 4 minutes late on a 3-minute-interval service. It may seem bloody minded to leave a crowd of people on a platform for a couple of minutes whilst they wait for the next train, but it's often a price worth paying for the greater good of all the other people using the service. Obviously in outlying areas where the service is less frequent then this is less of an issue. |
|
|
|
Post by geriatrix on Jan 6, 2014 10:52:01 GMT
OK perhaps some focus needs to be directed at passenger needs and feelings here, and at the same time get some benefits for the infrastructure as a whole. TFL journey planner for the journey Amersham-London Bridge suggests changing at Finchley Road, rather than Baker Street. The passengers intending to make the change got off the Met train and started crossing the platform to the Jubilee train, whose doors promptly closed. Did the passengers decide to wait until the next Jubilee train arrived? No, of course not, they simply re-boarded the Met train, muttering, and carried on to Baker Street. If you're quick, and know the way it is then possible to catch the same train that you were denied boarding at Finchley Road. Which is what I did. But in doing so, I contributed to the general crowding and over use at Baker Street. It would make sense if passengers were encouraged to change at Finchley Road, a simple cross platform interchange, rather than at Baker Street.
|
|
|
|
Post by tjw on Jan 6, 2014 14:31:30 GMT
Reading the complaints about Finchley Road... a few questions,
1. Can the Motorman of 'eastbound' Jubilee line train see if the Met platform is occupied?
( I am sure that the stairs are in the way, and the curve in the platform reduces sight lines)
2. Is the monitor in the cab for the door controls facing towards the Met line?
(I would hope the Motorman was looking at the monitor, not out the sidelight when he closes the doors)
3. Are the cameras set up to see if anything is obstructing the doors?
(I presume that they are not set to see across the island platform)
4. How many fewer trains could run on the central section of the Jubilee, if all Eastbound trains had to wait for Met trains, and their passengers to amble across the platform?
(Is that 1 tph or is it 2?)
5. Is the wait for the next Jubilee train 1 min or 2?
(they seem pretty close as my Met train passes them!)
|
|
|
|
Post by orienteer on Jan 6, 2014 17:01:45 GMT
It is human nature to want to catch the train that is standing across the platform, and the attitude that people should not try is totally unrealistic, and frankly rather callous to blame them for tripping up. There is too much hectoring of passengers in my view. Treating passengers in this way only increases the animosity towards LU and its staff and is therefore counter productive. I know staff have to put up with a lot, but I suggest it would be less if the passengers were treated better in the first place.
By adapting the monitoring equipment at Finchley Road, it could be arranged that if a Met train opens its doors before the Jubilee closes its doors, the latter should hold its doors open for around 10 seconds to allow people to change. This wouldn't have any measurable effect on Jubilee timekeeping, it is only at one station. And of course the converse for passengers changing from Jubilee to Met.
In the case of the Amersham train at Harrow, it had overtaken the Uxbridge train by two or three cars on entering the station, so the operator knew full well of its presence.
|
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Jan 6, 2014 18:17:58 GMT
It is human nature to want to catch the train that is standing across the platform, and the attitude that people should not try is totally unrealistic, and frankly rather callous to blame them for tripping up. There is too much hectoring of passengers in my view. Treating passengers in this way only increases the animosity towards LU and its staff and is therefore counter productive. I know staff have to put up with a lot, but I suggest it would be less if the passengers were treated better in the first place. By adapting the monitoring equipment at Finchley Road, it could be arranged that if a Met train opens its doors before the Jubilee closes its doors, the latter should hold its doors open for around 10 seconds to allow people to change. This wouldn't have any measurable effect on Jubilee timekeeping, it is only at one station. And of course the converse for passengers changing from Jubilee to Met. In the case of the Amersham train at Harrow, it had overtaken the Uxbridge train by two or three cars on entering the station, so the operator knew full well of its presence. What is the peak frequency of Jubilee and Metroplitan Line trains at Finchley Road? |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jan 6, 2014 19:07:50 GMT
It is human nature to want to catch the train that is standing across the platform, and the attitude that people should not try is totally unrealistic, and frankly rather callous to blame them for tripping up. There is too much hectoring of passengers in my view. Treating passengers in this way only increases the animosity towards LU and its staff and is therefore counter productive. I know staff have to put up with a lot, but I suggest it would be less if the passengers were treated better in the first place. By adapting the monitoring equipment at Finchley Road, it could be arranged that if a Met train opens its doors before the Jubilee closes its doors, the latter should hold its doors open for around 10 seconds to allow people to change. This wouldn't have any measurable effect on Jubilee timekeeping, it is only at one station. And of course the converse for passengers changing from Jubilee to Met. In the case of the Amersham train at Harrow, it had overtaken the Uxbridge train by two or three cars on entering the station, so the operator knew full well of its presence. Trying to board the train is fine. But running across a platform is downright dangerous. If you are running and fall over, that is YOUR fault. End of. The problem with today's society is that any accident has to be someone else's fault, and this is fuelled by the jobsworth health and safety people. Jubilee trains are very frequent at Finchley Road for much of the day. if people moan about missing a train and having to wait for the amazingly long time of 2 minutes, then they really need to have a long hard look at themselves and think about what is important in life. As another poster has mentioned, guaranteeing connections on high frequency services will reduce the capacity of the line, and the fewer trains resulting will be more crowded. I suppose that you'd be even quicker to moan if you didn't get a seat. EDIT: The Met and Jubilee lines run at different frequencies, so it would only be by chance that there were two trains in the platforms at the same time. There is also the cost of adapting the equipment you referred to. For low frequency services, I would have no problems with guaranteeing connections between trains. |
|
|
|
Post by tjw on Jan 7, 2014 9:24:29 GMT
"In the case of the Amersham train at Harrow, it had overtaken the Uxbridge train by two or three cars on entering the station, so the operator knew full well of its presence."
We don't know what the Motorman saw, we cannot ask him. I would expect a Motorman coming into a platform to thinking about other things than trains moving on adjacent lines. It is not like driving a car, where you can watch the world go by, drink coffee, check make-up etc. There are MAJOR penalties for not following the Rulebook.
On the more than few occasions that I have been through Harrow on the Hill, the Motormen have been more than helpful with information as to which train is going to depart first and any delays. I presume that on the occasions when we have not had any information there was no information available to the Motorman to pass on.
I do not believe that LU staff go out of their way to delay your journey.
I also wonder how many accidents need to occur at Finchley Road of people running between trains, before safety measures need to be put in place to prevent accidents!
|
|
|
|
Post by geriatrix on Jan 7, 2014 10:29:34 GMT
Last Saturday there was no need to run, as the Jubilee train closed it's doors a few milliseconds after the Met train opened it's doors. Phew! No accidents! Just miffed passengers, so that's alright then. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jan 7, 2014 19:06:42 GMT
Last Saturday there was no need to run, as the Jubilee train closed it's doors a few milliseconds after the Met train opened it's doors. Phew! No accidents! Just miffed passengers, so that's alright then. :-) I don't get the point you're trying to make. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jan 7, 2014 20:58:54 GMT
Was surprised to see in the January issue of Underground News that there is a study into running Jubilee trains to Harrow-on-the-Hill as part of a further line upgrade and even an option of extending the trains to Uxbridge instead of S stock so that level platform access is created by raising the track and share it with the Piccadilly Line.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrider on Jan 7, 2014 21:36:35 GMT
Was surprised to see in the January issue of Underground News that there is a study into running Jubilee trains to Harrow-on-the-Hill as part of a further line upgrade and even an option of extending the trains to Uxbridge instead of S stock so that level platform access is created by raising the track and share it with the Piccadilly Line. Hmmm... Something in conjunction with this maybe? London connections: Pic getting radical upgrade?. It would certainly be a solution to the PTI issue and open the possibility of platform edge doors... (Maybe these posts should be split off into a different thread? - we're a bit off topic and this discussion could run on!)
Link fixed! (whoops!) |
|
|
|
Post by rsdworker on Jan 7, 2014 21:48:35 GMT
Was surprised to see in the January issue of Underground News that there is a study into running Jubilee trains to Harrow-on-the-Hill as part of a further line upgrade and even an option of extending the trains to Uxbridge instead of S stock so that level platform access is created by raising the track and share it with the Piccadilly Line. Hmmm... Something in conjunction with this maybe? London connections: Pic getting radical upgrade?. It would certainly be a solution to the PTI issue and open the possibility of platform edge doors... (Maybe these posts should be split off into a different thread? - we're a bit off topic and this discussion could run on!)
link is broken - its leads to error page |
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Jan 7, 2014 23:42:17 GMT
I've put the posts related to possible changes to the Metropolitan line in this new thread as requested: it's certainly an interesting topic. Just to keep it out of the RIPaS area if we could keep to the realistic, that'd be grand. Thanks 
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jan 8, 2014 1:30:51 GMT
That any of this is an issue is testament to the fragmented nature of the tube nowadays compared to what LT tried to achieve - standardisation and flexibility. It is very good that TfL is trying so earnestly to alter and adapt infrastructure to accomodate MIPs that for the most part was built entirely without thought to their own unaided journies. But should it really be at the expense of, say, the majority of *all* passengers (including MIPs) that these changes take place?
I can understand why Jubilee trains being diverted to Harrow might be desireable from an operational perspective as it take pressure off Stanmore having to accomodate 36tph, or whatever the aim is. A scissors between the up and down slow just to the south of HotH would probably allow additional terinators to not present too much of a problem. But to talk of replacing an Uxbridge service is disingenious.
One further point on compromise height platforms - getting rid of them is a bad idea because once theyre gone, theyre gone for good. At the moment the can receive derrogations because the practice is established. And, mobility impaired persons can be accomodated with boarding ramps, though admittedly require the aid of a staff member. To lead on from this, wrt the District/Pic changes proposed - how can it be cheaper to build and maintain a new station at Chiswick Park than to ensure platform staff are available at Ealing Common during traffic hours?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 19:41:19 GMT
Was surprised to see in the January issue of Underground News that there is a study into running Jubilee trains to Harrow-on-the-Hill as part of a further line upgrade and even an option of extending the trains to Uxbridge instead of S stock so that level platform access is created by raising the track and share it with the Piccadilly Line. The extension to Harrow was being discussed as part of Upgrade 2 for the Jubilee line (eta 2017-18) but has now been discounted. Uxbridge was never on the agenda for the Jubilee. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2014 12:27:17 GMT
Jubilee trains are very frequent at Finchley Road for much of the day. if people moan about missing a train and having to wait for the amazingly long time of 2 minutes, then they really need to have a long hard look at themselves and think about what is important in life. As another poster has mentioned, guaranteeing connections on high frequency services will reduce the capacity of the line, and the fewer trains resulting will be more crowded. I suppose that you'd be even quicker to moan if you didn't get a seat. EDIT: The Met and Jubilee lines run at different frequencies, so it would only be by chance that there were two trains in the platforms at the same time. There is also the cost of adapting the equipment you referred to. For low frequency services, I would have no problems with guaranteeing connections between trains. Maybe a factor for people running like hell to the train on the platform opposite is that they've been shafted before by some infrastructure failure moments after the train they could have caught left the platform? Happened to me at Wembley Park twice this year. Had I been more pushy it wouldn't have meant waiting around for half an hour whilst the problem was resolved. |
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Jan 18, 2014 13:21:36 GMT
That any of this is an issue is testament to the fragmented nature of the tube nowadays compared to what LT tried to achieve - standardisation and flexibility. It is very good that TfL is trying so earnestly to alter and adapt infrastructure to accomodate MIPs that for the most part was built entirely without thought to their own unaided journies. But should it really be at the expense of, say, the majority of *all* passengers (including MIPs) that these changes take place? I can understand why Jubilee trains being diverted to Harrow might be desireable from an operational perspective as it take pressure off Stanmore having to accomodate 36tph, or whatever the aim is. A scissors between the up and down slow just to the south of HotH would probably allow additional terinators to not present too much of a problem. But to talk of replacing an Uxbridge service is disingenious. Proposals to change lines should consider the impact on the network as a whole. Ditto for those who resist change and want to maintain the status quo. Within reason, the network should evolve to meet modern challenges. Jubilee to HOTH not only improves the Jubilee service (increases core frequency, removes delays from platform terminators and prevents over-provision at Stanmore) but would also cut times on Met services by allowing fast running HOTH to WP (perhaps even Finchley Rd). Tridentalx - has this been discounted completely or just delayed? As an aside things aligned perfectly on an Uxbridge-Oxford circus run one evening last week. After getting the Uxbridge train I caught a fast Met from HotH which only stopped at Finchley Rd where a Jubilee was waiting to take me to Baker St, where a Bakerloo immediately arrived. |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Jan 18, 2014 15:07:50 GMT
Even though I often find it amusing reading the indignation about curtailment or extension of services on various lines, I often wonder whether, in the real world, this is due to lack/excess of funds or lack/saturation of customers. I have difficulty believing anything I'm told because a) I'm a confirmed cynic and b) there's a preponderance of enthusiast angled opinion who would keep everything open and extend the Central Line to Skegness given half the chance, on here and on other transport fora.
Is it conceivable that the people actually running the railways, considering their job descriptions, probably know more than a rag tag bunch of amateurs and retired employees on the internet and are consequently better qualified to do the job than we are?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jan 23, 2014 0:08:24 GMT
...apologies as it's somewhat RIPAS...but please indulge me - in a similar vein to the Jubilee going to HotH, I can't help but keep pointing out the synergy that could come from a new Jubilee branch at Neasden along the Chiltern line (using the former 4-track formation that existed out to Sudbury) - but with the proviso that it only really is worth doing if the Dudding Hill line gets regular passenger services reinstated (probably by LO). You get the same benefits as the proposed Jubilee to HotH, but if you then move the Met interchange south to a rebuilt Neasden (slightly closer to the Dudding Hill line) you also gain a 6 line interchange (slow Met to Uxbridge, fast Met to Watford/Bucks, Jubilee to Chiltern line, Jubilee to Stanmore and Dudding Hill LO). Given the existing spare capacity that goes into Wembley Park terminators you already have trains to service it with, they will continue to serve Wembley (abet via Wembley Stadium instead of Wembley Park), and reducing the service on the Stanmore branch (sorry platform 3!) to rebalance things would probably be a useful arrangement there. The branch really doesn't need the service it gets...hence the HotH proposal when even more trains will need turning.
Anyway. Just thought I'd throw that into the discussion...
|
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jan 23, 2014 10:32:58 GMT
mrjrtEven if money were no object, which it is, what possible market(s) would this set of changes serve? There are at least two very good reasons why Chiltern doesn't focus on its inner London stations; likely demand and potential alternatives. The Sudburys are already catered for by the Piccadilly line and the Ruislips by the Central line. Northolt Park and surrounds are the only potential beneficiaries of such a service and the area is hardly isolated as it stands. And you would spend hundreds of millions to, in effect, do nothing more than divert some Jubblies? I sense some merit in diverting the Wembley Park terminators to HotH and splitting out the local Met service as i) there is an established market at intermediate stations and ii) the Met might see a concomitant increase in reliability and speed, but this delivers fewer benefits for infinitely greater spend. Ain't never gonna happen. THC
|
|
