|
|
Post by A60stock on Jul 6, 2019 14:50:30 GMT
Noticed a number of fast trains passing between harrow and moor park on the northbound today, any reason for this? Met seems to have a good service
Also got me thinking, has there been any confirmation as to whether off peak fast/semi fast trains will run after the signalling upgrade? What are peoples thoughts on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Jul 6, 2019 15:59:56 GMT
Whilst nothing was put up on the rainbow boards, that doesn’t mean that delays haven’t occurred. A few Fast or Semi-fast or short tripped services often doesn’t result in a change in service status as often its is taken as proportion of the entire service (or a perceived stubbornness from Palestra!).
I predict that the current practise of running Semi-fast and Fast services AM Southbound and PM Northbound is set to stay as it offers a competitive service to Chiltern who parallel a similar service. Not that London Underground won’t let recently upgraded infrastructure waste away *cough* Wembley Park sidings *cough*, but it would be advantageous for the current practise to continue in ATO.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jul 7, 2019 1:39:53 GMT
On the subject of Wembley Park sidings, and perhaps worthy of its own new thread, I read in Brent council's Local Plan that they plan to develop the site for new housing units.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jul 7, 2019 11:30:17 GMT
Ben you are certainly welcome to start a new thread on the future of the Wembley Park sidings. If you have the link to the planning application you could put that in too. Could be an interesting thread.
I’d like to see more off peak fast trains introduced especially between Harrow and Finchley Road. What is the proposed off peak frequency on each branch post ATO upgrade?
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Jul 7, 2019 20:06:09 GMT
metman , Interestingly, I just had a look on TfL's 4LM page and the mention of off peak enhancements to Metropolitan line services has vanished all together. I am predicting (based on nuggets of information that are a few years old) that the off peak frequencies will remain exactly the same. I would also predict that we may see 2-4 tph more reversing at Baker Street in favour of a marginally enhanced Circle / H&C service.
|
|
jimbo
Posts: 1,913
Member is Online
|
Post by jimbo on Jul 7, 2019 21:53:34 GMT
Any news of the promised 'Night Tube' service on SSR with resignalling?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 8, 2019 0:11:45 GMT
That's not going to happen before all the necessary night time closures are done with. Whether it's launched line-by-line or in one big bang, it can't happen until at least the entirety of one line, and all its interfaces with other lines, is complete at the earliest.
|
|
jimbo
Posts: 1,913
Member is Online
|
Post by jimbo on Jul 8, 2019 19:30:58 GMT
That's not going to happen before all the necessary night time closures are done with. Whether it's launched line-by-line or in one big bang, it can't happen until at least the entirety of one line, and all its interfaces with other lines, is complete at the earliest. This was posted to a thread: met timetable post signalling upgrade. The early Night Tube proposal was Met from Baker Street to Harrow/Hill, but Jubilee covers south from Wembley Park, and a Wembley to Harrow shuttle hardly seems worth the night shift setup. In the spirit of Night Tube, should a 6tph service split at Harrow for 3tph Uxbridge and 3tph Amersham/Chesham, but perhaps demand just isn't there. Early planning should be underway now for implementation with resignalling within next three years. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jul 8, 2019 21:01:23 GMT
I would expect to see 3tph Baker Street to Uxbridge. I suspect it will only be the Uxbridge branch which sees a Night Tube service.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jul 8, 2019 23:12:46 GMT
metman , Interestingly, I just had a look on TfL's 4LM page and the mention of off peak enhancements to Metropolitan line services has vanished all together. I am predicting (based on nuggets of information that are a few years old) that the off peak frequencies will remain exactly the same. I would also predict that we may see 2-4 tph more reversing at Baker Street in favour of a marginally enhanced Circle / H&C service. Off peak enhancements and especially restoration of fast trains canned? Oh why am I not surprised. What they should do is make Amersham interline with Chiltern to operate a simple 15 minute frequency plus run Cheshams as a separate fast service. All stations - Finchley Road - Harrow OTH - Moor Park - all stations. Even market it as a special service (high profile) to see if it attracts more punters. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jul 9, 2019 18:10:26 GMT
I remember reading that the Watford Extension was proposed to have a 6tph but whether that is still the case I don’t know. If that is the case I think there is scope to make either the Amersham or Chesham service fast between Moor Park and Harrow. I guess the Chesham service could be kept as the slower of the two as it is critical that the train gets to Chalfont at the correct time in each direction- something that a local becoming fast can (and currently) achieves.
|
|
|
|
Post by commuter on Jul 10, 2019 15:44:23 GMT
I’m sure I heard of a suggestion a few years ago that one way of addressing the need for increased capacity on the Jubilee line combined with lack of suitable reserving points and oversupply of capacity to Stanmore would be to divert some of the Jubilee line trains to Harrow on the hill, thus all Metropolitan line train services would effectively run as semifast (not sure how this would affect Wembley Park trains).
Even if this doesn’t happen would be great to see more services omit Preston Road + Northwick Park, the fact that all services are timetabled to call here off peak leads to the perverse situation that these stations have a higher service frequency off peak compared to at peak hours.
|
|
jimbo
Posts: 1,913
Member is Online
|
Post by jimbo on Jul 10, 2019 20:54:25 GMT
I’m sure I heard of a suggestion a few years ago that one way of addressing the need for increased capacity on the Jubilee line combined with lack of suitable reserving points and oversupply of capacity to Stanmore would be to divert some of the Jubilee line trains to Harrow on the hill, thus all Metropolitan line train services would effectively run as semifast (not sure how this would affect Wembley Park trains). Even if this doesn’t happen would be great to see more services omit Preston Road + Northwick Park, the fact that all services are timetabled to call here off peak leads to the perverse situation that these stations have a higher service frequency off peak compared to at peak hours. Jubilee Line World Class Capacity Project Feasibility report - April 2014 said Harrow-on-the-Hill was found to lack a business case with its high costs. The local roads and intermediate stations would have been served by the Jubilee line, with the Metropolitan line confined to the fast lines from Wembley Park. Jubilee line signalling would have been installed and the Metropolitan line signalling plans modified. Significant track works would be required to separate the lines. It was estimated that the Metropolitan line service would need to be suspended for two weeks at Christmas and one week at Easter to achieve this, whilst the local lines would be without a service for three months during conversion. This was a proposal to provide additional reversing capacity, but would have required more trains and therefore stabling capacity. Platforms would have needed alteration to meet modern accessibility regulations. The whole project was estimated to take over six years. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jul 10, 2019 21:12:46 GMT
I’m sure I heard of a suggestion a few years ago that one way of addressing the need for increased capacity on the Jubilee line combined with lack of suitable reserving points and oversupply of capacity to Stanmore would be to divert some of the Jubilee line trains to Harrow on the hill, thus all Metropolitan line train services would effectively run as semifast (not sure how this would affect Wembley Park trains). Even if this doesn’t happen would be great to see more services omit Preston Road + Northwick Park, the fact that all services are timetabled to call here off peak leads to the perverse situation that these stations have a higher service frequency off peak compared to at peak hours. Jubilee Line World Class Capacity Project Feasibility report - April 2014 said Harrow-on-the-Hill was found to lack a business case with its high costs. The local roads and intermediate stations would have been served by the Jubilee line, with the Metropolitan line confined to the fast lines from Wembley Park. Jubilee line signalling would have been installed and the Metropolitan line signalling plans modified. Significant track works would be required to separate the lines. It was estimated that the Metropolitan line service would need to be suspended for two weeks at Christmas and one week at Easter to achieve this, whilst the local lines would be without a service for three months during conversion. This was a proposal to provide additional reversing capacity, but would have required more trains and therefore stabling capacity. Platforms would have needed alteration to meet modern accessibility regulations. The whole project was estimated to take over six years. That’s the problem with today’s stringent standards and the non-compatibility of systems. 30 years ago, it would have been relatively easy. |
|
jimbo
Posts: 1,913
Member is Online
|
Post by jimbo on Jul 11, 2019 5:07:39 GMT
Jubilee Line World Class Capacity Project Feasibility report - April 2014 said Harrow-on-the-Hill was found to lack a business case with its high costs. The local roads and intermediate stations would have been served by the Jubilee line, with the Metropolitan line confined to the fast lines from Wembley Park. Jubilee line signalling would have been installed and the Metropolitan line signalling plans modified. Significant track works would be required to separate the lines. It was estimated that the Metropolitan line service would need to be suspended for two weeks at Christmas and one week at Easter to achieve this, whilst the local lines would be without a service for three months during conversion. This was a proposal to provide additional reversing capacity, but would have required more trains and therefore stabling capacity. Platforms would have needed alteration to meet modern accessibility regulations. The whole project was estimated to take over six years. That’s the problem with today’s stringent standards and the non-compatibility of systems. 30 years ago, it would have been relatively easy. True, but to retain cross-platform interchange at Wembley Park the northbound local would need to cross to the fast line north of the platform, and then the Jubilee would need a crossover to link to the local line. Similarly southbound, and all to be signalled. Also at Harrow to retain cross-platform interchange, the Jubilee would need to reverse north of the station. To provide more than the current single reversing siding, maybe using one or both local running lines would need appropriate points, and also the moving of current crossover connections further north to keep the Met on the fast lines clear of Jubilee reversing. New points and signalling all very expensive. Perhaps at the next generation of upgrades the Jubilee could reach Uxbridge, avoiding compromise height platforms on that branch. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 7:59:23 GMT
Jubilee Line World Class Capacity Project Feasibility report - April 2014 said Harrow-on-the-Hill was found to lack a business case with its high costs. The local roads and intermediate stations would have been served by the Jubilee line, with the Metropolitan line confined to the fast lines from Wembley Park. Jubilee line signalling would have been installed and the Metropolitan line signalling plans modified. Significant track works would be required to separate the lines. It was estimated that the Metropolitan line service would need to be suspended for two weeks at Christmas and one week at Easter to achieve this, whilst the local lines would be without a service for three months during conversion. This was a proposal to provide additional reversing capacity, but would have required more trains and therefore stabling capacity. Platforms would have needed alteration to meet modern accessibility regulations. The whole project was estimated to take over six years.
I've mused for a few weeks about whether the Jubilee could provide a Night Tube service in lieu of the Met by heading to at least Harrow-on-the-Hill (so splitting at Wembley), and maybe Uxbridge if demand was warranted. Would save carting empty air on the fasts from Baker St to Wembley Park and cost less overall to run for having fewer train operators. But as soon as I thought of it, the issue of incompatible signalling came to mind making it a non-starter  |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jul 11, 2019 17:47:41 GMT
Whilst interesting, we are drifting into RIPAS territory here. Back on topic please.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jul 11, 2019 18:06:25 GMT
A new connection would need to be made at Wembley Park which is probably not the critical factor compared with all the other potential issues!
Anyway back on topic......
Mention has been made of the current frequency between Harrow and Wembley. There are currently 16tph in each direction. I can’t imagine any increase is actually needed? What do regular users of these stations think?
|
|
|
|
Post by commuter on Jul 12, 2019 6:40:59 GMT
Whilst interesting, we are drifting into RIPAS territory here. Back on topic please. What does RIPAS mean? A google search is no help here. |
|
|
|
Post by countryman on Jul 12, 2019 7:05:15 GMT
Whilst interesting, we are drifting into RIPAS territory here. Back on topic please. What does RIPAS mean? A google search is no help here. Realistic Railway Ideas, Proposals and Suggestions. It is the second to last topic on the home page. |
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 12, 2019 13:32:24 GMT
@ jimbo
Local residents would prefer the Central Line to reach Uxbridge (already proposed by local council) than the Jubilee
No purpose in Jub serving Uxbridge, but Central Line definitely via Ruislip Gdns etc
Met & Central to Uxbridge would make a good combination, releasing Piccs for Heathrow
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Jul 12, 2019 14:05:59 GMT
@ jimbo Local residents would prefer the Central Line to reach Uxbridge (already proposed by local council) than the Jubilee No purpose in Jub serving Uxbridge, but Central Line definitely via Ruislip Gdns etc Met & Central to Uxbridge would make a good combination, releasing Piccs for Heathrow You could say it did,sort of, 'til 1964, when the GWR ran to Uxbridge High Street Station.  |
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Jul 12, 2019 14:22:53 GMT
@ jimbo Local residents would prefer the Central Line to reach Uxbridge (already proposed by local council) than the Jubilee No purpose in Jub serving Uxbridge, but Central Line definitely via Ruislip Gdns etc Met & Central to Uxbridge would make a good combination, releasing Piccs for Heathrow I’ll be throwing you in the FRIPAS slammer if you’re not careful, castlebar |
|
|
|
Post by commuter on Jul 12, 2019 21:30:41 GMT
@ jimbo Local residents would prefer the Central Line to reach Uxbridge (already proposed by local council) than the Jubilee No purpose in Jub serving Uxbridge, but Central Line definitely via Ruislip Gdns etc Met & Central to Uxbridge would make a good combination, releasing Piccs for Heathrow Wouldnt be so useful for West Ruislip though! |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jul 12, 2019 23:07:17 GMT
As already requested, can we keep discussion in this thread to the Met line timetable changes. Please use the RIPAS board to discuss changes to the structure of lines etc. Thanks.
|
|
