|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 23, 2017 20:05:57 GMT
A range of papers are going forward to next week's TfL Programmes and Investment Cttee. I'll put the LU ones here as they affect several asset or line programmes 1. Jubilee and Northern further capacity upgradesincludes an overview of the works expected to power, signalling, track and depot assets to increase frequencies on Jub and Northern lines. Also seeks authority to proceed with the placement of a contract for 27 extra trains. 2. tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/pic-20170628-item08-lu-stations.pdfan overview paper of works planned to a range of stations including Camden Town, Elephant and Castle and others. Also other asset issues for stations. 3. tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/pic-20170628-item09-lu-infrastructure-renewals.pdfAn overview paper for regular investment spend on LU infrastructure assets. Seems there has been a change of approach with a 5 year look ahead for asset group interventions and spend with annual amounts to be drawn on incremental adjustments to project authorities each year. There are other papers going to the meeting covering Surface Transport Asset investment, emission upgrades to the bus fleet, TfL growth fund (confirms Croxley Link costs now £355m!), taxi emissions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 8:58:47 GMT
Perhaps it was a missed opportunity to replace the elderly trains on the Bakerloo - the 27 trains on order could have been supplemented with just nine extra trains, in order to make up the 36 needed to run the (present) Bakerloo Timetable. The trains could have been initially placed on the Bakerloo, and then subsequently cascaded onto the Northern Line once the final fleet for the Bakerloo gets built with the main Central Line order. Just thinking that's all.....
|
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Jun 24, 2017 12:44:42 GMT
Perhaps it was a missed opportunity to replace the elderly trains on the Bakerloo - the 27 trains on order could have been supplemented with just nine extra trains, in order to make up the 36 needed to run the (present) Bakerloo Timetable. The trains could have been initially placed on the Bakerloo, and then subsequently cascaded onto the Northern Line once the final fleet for the Bakerloo gets built with the main Central Line order. Just thinking that's all..... Would the '96 stock fit on the Bakerloo? Considering the tight curves on the Bakerloo I think the extra length of a '96 car would foul the gauge line. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 15:44:37 GMT
I think that the 96 stock could just fit round the Bakerloo curves and stations (Six cars) instead of the former Seven Car Formation of the 72's. They are both Yerkes Tubes, designed to the same basic standards, in fact the Northern Bank Branch is slightly more restrictive, as it was the City and South London Railway small tunnel profile originally, but slightly enlarged a bit in around 1920's-ish.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jun 24, 2017 17:36:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jun 24, 2017 18:06:20 GMT
Perhaps it was a missed opportunity to replace the elderly trains on the Bakerloo - the 27 trains on order could have been supplemented with just nine extra trains, in order to make up the 36 needed to run the (present) Bakerloo Timetable. The trains could have been initially placed on the Bakerloo, and then subsequently cascaded onto the Northern Line once the final fleet for the Bakerloo gets built with the main Central Line order. Just thinking that's all..... except that Bakerloo line has real drivers and very old fashioned signalling. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2017 11:42:05 GMT
Perhaps it was a missed opportunity to replace the elderly trains on the Bakerloo - the 27 trains on order could have been supplemented with just nine extra trains, in order to make up the 36 needed to run the (present) Bakerloo Timetable. The trains could have been initially placed on the Bakerloo, and then subsequently cascaded onto the Northern Line once the final fleet for the Bakerloo gets built with the main Central Line order. Just thinking that's all..... Almost every possible permutation of new train order and cascade has been considered over the last few years including cascading 95 stock from Northern to Bakerloo and buying a whole new fleet for Northern. One of the difficulties is that the business case (i.e. the benefit to LU in terms of revenue f an improvement in service) is not that great for the Bakerloo. The case for Jubilee and Northern is much stronger hence the extra trains for those two lines. The drawdown of annual amounts I think indicates just how challenging the financial situation is for LU at the moment. Very few projects are getting the go ahead. |
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 480
|
Post by londoner on Jun 25, 2017 20:16:31 GMT
Two things I noticed in the second pdf.
1) It mentions improvements to Harrow, specifically a footbridge with lifts. At last!
2) It mentions improving station capacity at South Kensington by incorporating a second platform for eastbound district/circle line, but it does not mention the westbound service. I find this a bit worrisome. Maybe I've misunderstood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jun 25, 2017 20:54:49 GMT
It mentions improving station capacity at South Kensington by incorporating a second platform for eastbound district/circle line, but it does not mention the westbound service. I find this a bit worrisome. Maybe I've misunderstood the existing island platform will become exclusively for westbound passengers. the disused former eastbound Circle Line platform will be recommissioned and widened to meet the existing eastbound District track. A fence division will prevent eastbound trains opening their doors towards the current platform. Unfortunately eastbound passengers changing between Piccadilly & District lines will have great difficulty in doing so at South Kensington. |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Jun 25, 2017 21:41:20 GMT
It mentions improving station capacity at South Kensington by incorporating a second platform for eastbound district/circle line, but it does not mention the westbound service. I find this a bit worrisome. Maybe I've misunderstood the existing island platform will become exclusively for westbound passengers. the disused former eastbound Circle Line platform will be recommissioned and widened to meet the existing eastbound District track. A fence division will prevent eastbound trains opening their doors towards the current platform. Unfortunately eastbound passengers changing between Piccadilly & District lines will have great difficulty in doing so at South Kensington. What's it like to change at Gloucester Road? |
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
|
Post by DWS on Jun 25, 2017 22:38:05 GMT
It mentions improving station capacity at South Kensington by incorporating a second platform for eastbound district/circle line, but it does not mention the westbound service. I find this a bit worrisome. Maybe I've misunderstood the existing island platform will become exclusively for westbound passengers. the disused former eastbound Circle Line platform will be recommissioned and widened to meet the existing eastbound District track. A fence division will prevent eastbound trains opening their doors towards the current platform. Unfortunately eastbound passengers changing between Piccadilly & District lines will have great difficulty in doing so at South Kensington. The Piccadilly line will be non stopping at South Kensington when the escalators to the Piccadily line are being renewed. |
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
|
Post by DWS on Jun 25, 2017 22:39:42 GMT
the existing island platform will become exclusively for westbound passengers. the disused former eastbound Circle Line platform will be recommissioned and widened to meet the existing eastbound District track. A fence division will prevent eastbound trains opening their doors towards the current platform. Unfortunately eastbound passengers changing between Piccadilly & District lines will have great difficulty in doing so at South Kensington. What's it like to change at Gloucester Road? Gloucester Road has lifts to the Piccadily line, better to change at Earls Court. |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Jun 26, 2017 6:51:02 GMT
What's it like to change at Gloucester Road? Gloucester Road has lifts to the Piccadily line, better to change at Earls Court. Thanks for that. I always thought the best interchange was Barons Court, but of course thats no much use if you've used the Olympia or Wimbledon branches.  |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Jun 26, 2017 19:47:49 GMT
I think that the 96 stock could just fit round the Bakerloo curves and stations (Six cars) instead of the former Seven Car Formation of the 72's. They are both Yerkes Tubes, designed to the same basic standards, in fact the Northern Bank Branch is slightly more restrictive, as it was the City and South London Railway small tunnel profile originally, but slightly enlarged a bit in around 1920's-ish. And slightly enlarged again in the 1990s. However, the Northern line runs 1995 tube stock, not 1996, so this is entirely a moot point. |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Jun 26, 2017 19:49:43 GMT
Perhaps it was a missed opportunity to replace the elderly trains on the Bakerloo - the 27 trains on order could have been supplemented with just nine extra trains, in order to make up the 36 needed to run the (present) Bakerloo Timetable. The trains could have been initially placed on the Bakerloo, and then subsequently cascaded onto the Northern Line once the final fleet for the Bakerloo gets built with the main Central Line order. Just thinking that's all..... Would the '96 stock fit on the Bakerloo? Considering the tight curves on the Bakerloo I think the extra length of a '96 car would foul the gauge line. I'd be inclined to agree, but then again a 1983 stock train did run on the Bakerloo for testing purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jun 26, 2017 20:26:27 GMT
Yes, '83ts did go on the Bakerloo for testing. I was on it and it scraped the floodgate in London Road Depot! However.....
1) this was more than 30 years ago and done purely to ensure a train could be diverted there in an emergency
2) managing the steps and gaps at some of the curved platforms would be an issue
3) this is all very speculative and LU have a very clear plan; buying this old design for Bakerloo is not on the agenda.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 27, 2017 21:29:44 GMT
Ahhh!! Would that be why Appendix 11 eventually gave a categorical statement that 83ts must not be working into London Road Depot under any circumstances  |
|
