Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 13:27:52 GMT
Hi everyone! Tube enthusiast here! I’ve noticed that when on a WB train approaching liverpool st, the train slows considerably as it crosses over a set of switches which I’m assuming allow access to the sidings between the tunnels. It doesn’t make sense to me because out at woodford, the trains fly over the various switches there. Is it to do with easier maintenance above ground compared to in tunnels? Or just in tunnel safety reasons?
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Mar 12, 2018 13:34:13 GMT
Hi everyone! Tube enthusiast here! I’ve noticed that when on a WB train approaching liverpool st, the train slows considerably as it crosses over a set of switches which I’m assuming allow access to the sidings between the tunnels. It doesn’t make sense to me because out at woodford, the trains fly over the various switches there. Is it to do with easier maintenance above ground compared to in tunnels? Or just in tunnel safety reasons? Every set of points is different, but the approach to Liverpool Street is very slow. I remember the old 1962 stock trains used to clatter over them! Another place you can experience a similar slowing down is between Tottenham Court Road and Holborn where the points controlling access from the former British Museum siding were. However, now that they have been removed, it’s a mystery why the speed limit still exists. When the line was upgraded, I think that the plan was to renew a lot more track than was actually done. So places like Woodford we’re probably done, whereas others weren’t.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Mar 12, 2018 14:48:35 GMT
Hi everyone! Tube enthusiast here! I’ve noticed that when on a WB train approaching liverpool st, the train slows considerably as it crosses over a set of switches which I’m assuming allow access to the sidings between the tunnels. It doesn’t make sense to me because out at woodford, the trains fly over the various switches there. Is it to do with easier maintenance above ground compared to in tunnels? Or just in tunnel safety reasons? Without looking at the diagrams, remember that Liverpool Street westbound is one of the platforms with the longest potential dwell times, along with a slow departure due to the numerous curves towards Bank. Although the Central Line signalling most certainly has the capability for a high speed or low speed approach (most noticeable at Woodford westbound), perhaps the slow approach is more to do with signalling headways than the presence of points? It's noticeable how the lines from/to Bethnal Green are very much straight at Liverpool Street; at opening when there were just the two sidings the tunnels curved to/from the sidings allowing the sidings to be directly adjacent to each other. One wonders if it was designed like this on purpose to allow an extension with provision for two centre sidings, or whether it was simply fortunate? Presumably there was a lot of rebuilding associated with the platform extensions - the sidings for example now stretch about 100m further east then when first opened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 14:54:44 GMT
Wasn't there an agreement between the CLR (Central London Railway) and the LNER (I think it was the LNER at that time?) precluding extension beyond Liverpool Street and Broad Street?
Of course that doesn't mean someone wasn't thinking/hoping an extension could happen in the future.
|
|
|
Post by rtt1928 on Mar 13, 2018 12:58:43 GMT
Wasn't there an agreement between the CLR (Central London Railway) and the LNER (I think it was the LNER at that time?) precluding extension beyond Liverpool Street and Broad Street?
Of course that doesn't mean someone wasn't thinking/hoping an extension could happen in the future.
Would the agreement not have been between the Central London Railway and the Great Eastern Railway given the extension from Bank to Liverpool Street opened in 1912
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2018 13:06:21 GMT
Wasn't there an agreement between the CLR (Central London Railway) and the LNER (I think it was the LNER at that time?) precluding extension beyond Liverpool Street and Broad Street?
Of course that doesn't mean someone wasn't thinking/hoping an extension could happen in the future.
Would the agreement not have been between the Central London Railway and the Great Eastern Railway given the extension from Bank to Liverpool Street opened in 1912 D'oh! Spot on You're right Well, Great Eastern and North London both I think, but it was indeed the LNER by the time the agreement was torn up.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 13, 2018 14:18:25 GMT
Well, Great Eastern and North London both I think, but it was indeed the LNER by the time the agreement was torn up. The NLR became part of the LNWR and then the LMS. Many of the "New Works" projects were officially joint ventures with the main line companies, hence the "LNER" ownership plates in some 1938 stock on the Northern Line, and the occasional DMUs to Loughton well into the 1960s.
|
|