|
Post by melikepie on Jul 20, 2014 16:24:14 GMT
Since the introduction of S8, the bay platform has been taken out of use due to ythem not being able to fit. What is the future of this platform?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 16:40:11 GMT
Well I'm not "in the know", but judging by the one at Ricky I can't honestly see them wasting time and money doing something about it. Perhaps it'll get converted into a garden like they've done up at Chesham.
By the way, is the bay road ever used by engineer's trains or anything or is it permanently out of use?
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 20, 2014 16:46:00 GMT
not a lot can happen with the platform, the new trains don't fit and no space to extend it.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jul 20, 2014 19:03:15 GMT
It sometimes used to house short engineering trains like a rail grinder.
|
|
|
Post by edb on Jul 28, 2014 5:43:24 GMT
It sometimes used to house short engineering trains like a rail grinder. Indeed, I have a picture of a SCHWEERbau in that platform. In terms of there not being enough space I was looking at this the other day. Given the tracks all run parallel for about 1/2 a mile, with some work I'm sure you could extent the bay platform with a shield similar to Baker Street bays.
|
|
|
Post by aldenham on Jul 28, 2014 16:38:29 GMT
It sometimes used to house short engineering trains like a rail grinder. Indeed, I have a picture of a SCHWEERbau in that platform. In terms of there not being enough space I was looking at this the other day. Given the tracks all run parallel for about 1/2 a mile, with some work I'm sure you could extent the bay platform with a shield similar to Baker Street bays. Why would there be any real desire to do so, by and large the service works ok as it is now. Going back to a shuttle, coupled with the current off peak off peak slow trains would make the service worse than it has ever been. What I've always wondered is, could a crossover closer to where the branch diverges from the main to the s/b line, allowing a Chesham bound train to clear the main line and wait on the branch until the train coming off the branch crossed over in front of it be built, or is there not enough room. This would give increased flexibility, with a late running ex Chesham train not delaying the next Chesham ( and subsequent n/b Amersham)train by stopping it getting onto the branch.
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Jul 28, 2014 23:40:07 GMT
I have always thought that there was enough room for an arrangement like this which quite separately occurred to me and no doubt to others on watching a northbound Chesham waiting at Chalfont and Latimer for the branch to clear. I imagine that the main problem is probably just a matter of £££
|
|
|
Post by edb on Jul 29, 2014 7:29:16 GMT
I have always thought that there was enough room for an arrangement like this which quite separately occurred to me and no doubt to others on watching a northbound Chesham waiting at Chalfont and Latimer for the branch to clear. I imagine that the main problem is probably just a matter of £££ I agree, I may be naive but surely a shuttle utilising both bay platforms in the gaps between through trains would be relatively easy to schedule and frankly as a resident of Chesham would make a massive difference in terms of flexibility. A few times there is a good service on the line yet a Chesham train goes missing. This means an hour without a train. Not awfully good. As people move out of overpriced London I think things will change. In terms of demographic and actually political pressure may increase to a point that something (no idea what) will need to be done.
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Jul 29, 2014 13:16:29 GMT
2thp in each direction has trains moving on the branch for 36 minutes in the hour which leaves little capacity for extras.
With the bay platform at Chesham relayed and the necessary signalling you could only fit in the extra round trips by running the through service and shuttle a couple of minutes apart. With a passing loop you could have 4thp, perhaps with alternate trains to London and Watford but without new housing built over all the town's green belt and even on some of the AONB I can't see the area having the population to justify it.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 30, 2014 2:03:41 GMT
Improving earthworks on the line, increasing rail cant, and allowing faster running would shave off a minute or so. Combine that with moving the junction roughly half a mile north to the actual point of divergance and *maybe* 3/4tph could be achieved.
Some earthworks have happened recently? No doubt the rail will need relaying at some point soon, and moving the junction could be specified as part of the upgrade plan.
Might be easier upon resignalling to bring Chesham bay back into use and hire a turbostar for peak demand! However first LUL would have to be made to accept seats/hour as its capacity metric.
|
|
|
Post by edb on Jul 30, 2014 7:27:38 GMT
Some earthworks have happened recently? Quite a lot in the area as it happens. I presume it's to reduce the risk of land slip and related track movement as well as using it as a good time to remove various trees to reduce leaf fall.
|
|
|
Post by aldenham on Jul 30, 2014 7:52:49 GMT
Improving earthworks on the line, increasing rail cant, and allowing faster running would shave off a minute or so. Combine that with moving the junction roughly half a mile north to the actual point of divergance and *maybe* 3/4tph could be achieved. Some earthworks have happened recently? No doubt the rail will need relaying at some point soon, and moving the junction could be specified as part of the upgrade plan. Might be easier upon resignalling to bring Chesham bay back into use and hire a turbostar for peak demand! However first LUL would have to be made to accept seats/hour as its capacity metric. I think I'm right in saying that the track has only been replaced in the last 5-6 years, as until recently it was still short sections of jointed track, and very bumpy! I think the earth works are to maintain the stability of the cuttings/embankments. Using Turbostars with the bay at Chalfont re-instated has often been suggested, one additional consideration is with some of the tight curvature on the branch might the individual coaches be too long, both for the loading gauge, and the curvature of the platform at Chesham. Much as I would love to see 3-4tph, especially as I often miss a Chesham train by seconds, and have to wait half an hour, even I would agree a massive amount of capital expenditure on the branch and it's one station would be hard to justify.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 30, 2014 10:34:12 GMT
Using Turbostars with the bay at Chalfont re-instated has often been suggested, one additional consideration is with some of the tight curvature on the branch might the individual coaches be too long, both for the loading gauge, and the curvature of the platform at Chesham. I'd have thought if A stock fitted, a 165 Networker Turbo would fit too, never mind a 168/172 Turbostar which was built to a rather less generous loading gauge than the 165s. And always assuming Chiltern have a Turbostar to spare - but maybe the redundant Cardiff Bay "Bubble Car" could find a new use: Chiltern already uses one on the Aylesbury/Risborough route.
|
|
|
Post by geriatrix on Jul 30, 2014 13:24:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by edb on Jul 30, 2014 19:18:20 GMT
It would certainly be far too small. There is quite a load on the early and late commuter trains...
|
|
|
Post by aldenham on Jul 31, 2014 16:00:28 GMT
Bet the seats are more comfortable than an S stock though!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jul 31, 2014 16:49:40 GMT
A 3 car light weight rail set was used in the early 50s with poor riding qualities!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Aug 2, 2014 1:48:39 GMT
One of the BUT/AEC railcar trains - they were four wheeled cars which might go some way to explaining the ride quality.
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Aug 3, 2014 13:34:08 GMT
Using Turbostars with the bay at Chalfont re-instated has often been suggested, one additional consideration is with some of the tight curvature on the branch might the individual coaches be too long, both for the loading gauge, and the curvature of the platform at Chesham. I'd have thought if A stock fitted, a 165 Networker Turbo would fit too, never mind a 168/172 Turbostar which was built to a rather less generous loading gauge than the 165s. And always assuming Chiltern have a Turbostar to spare - but maybe the redundant Cardiff Bay "Bubble Car" could find a new use: Chiltern already uses one on the Aylesbury/Risborough route. Before LU had the TRT, various BR stock were used for track inspection on the branch. Class 121 'bubble' cars have operated on the branch in the past. L123 was used to carry normal passengers as well as enthusiasts in 1994 during steam on the Met. I'm sure in the BR era, railtours using various stock worked the branch. Of course the 4TC has been hauled to and from the branch as well.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Aug 3, 2014 16:34:36 GMT
Passenger benefits?
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 13, 2014 8:09:06 GMT
I'm sure that part of the reason for not lengthening the bay platform is a reluctance from TfL to spend money on a service that isn't in London; see, for example, the similar reluctance to introduce a Chesham - Watford Junction shuttle once the Croxley Rail Link is completed. There are plans to move the junction closer to the point where the track to Chesham diverges from the main line, but this would involve removing the existing line as far as Chalfont (as well as the junction there), thus reducing flexibility rather than increasing it as suggested above.
Any passing loop would be needed near the mid-point of the branch, which would place it near Holloway Lane. The line is on an embankment here, so considerable earthworks would be needed. To confirm a point above, there has been a lot of work stabilizing the embankments here in recent months.
The residents of Chesham (or at least, the local newspaper) campaigned for years to have through trains rather than shuttles, without realizing that there would be a significant impact on their service at times of disruption. At least with the shuttle service there was usually the ability to reach Chalfont, where Chiltern trains were available. I believe that experience of the through service has now made Cheshamites reconsider; however, the new rolling stock means that there is no way back to a shuttle service. The original requests were used by TfL in their 'consultation', which allowed them to rearrange the services at the northern end of the line, and avoid spending on bay platform works, whilst being able to claim that they were responding to passenger requests.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 13, 2014 9:50:37 GMT
Any passing loop would be needed near the mid-point of the branch, which would place it near Holloway Lane. . That is the optimum for service frequency, but provided you are prepared to accept a longer layover at one end than the other the passing loop can be wherever you like.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Aug 13, 2014 18:38:17 GMT
It sometimes used to house short engineering trains like a rail grinder. I visited on Monday as part of my #BirthdayTour and the bay was occupied by a very queer contraption; the Strabag rail grinder. From the front it almost looks like any other MAN articulated waggon, come to think of it - it is, complete with German registrations plates.
|
|
|
Post by greatcentral on Aug 15, 2014 8:11:06 GMT
It sometimes used to house short engineering trains like a rail grinder. I visited on Monday as part of my #BirthdayTour and the bay was occupied by a very queer contraption; the Strabag rail grinder. From the front it almost looks like any other MAN articulated waggon, come to think of it - it is, complete with German registrations plates. Still there on Thursday. It is as you say German but (pedantry alert) the registration plates have B for Belgium on them.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 15, 2014 9:44:23 GMT
the registration plates have B for Belgium on them. Are you sure that's not B for Berlin? All the photos I have seen of this machine in the UK show a Berlin registration B-RS 5421. There are publicity shots with a Gmunden (Austria) registration one GM-880EG - Strabag is an Austrian company. Belgian plates are quite distinctive as they have red lettering. The country code (A for Austria, B for Belgium, D for Germany) is yellow on blue in a small panel at the left end of the plate.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Aug 15, 2014 15:55:57 GMT
German plate with D on the Euro panel, reg number B RS 5423.
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Aug 15, 2014 20:03:31 GMT
German plate with D on the Euro panel, reg number B RS 5423. Has anybody got a pic of this machine please?
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Aug 15, 2014 21:33:36 GMT
Here it is at Hillingdon the other week:
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Aug 16, 2014 8:21:21 GMT
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Aug 16, 2014 23:32:20 GMT
Still there today - no doubt many, many photographs will be appearing over the next few days as it was nearly as much attention as the steam train.
|
|