|
Post by Chris L on Sept 8, 2022 11:27:05 GMT
More practically, river bus services can convey large numbers of people to Greenwich, Canary Wharf, London Bridge and Westminster. For services towards Stratford there is a pier a short walk from East India DLR that has been served by replacement boat services on occasions before the dangleway was built (last time I was in the area the signs were even still there) Not enough boats (or pier capacity) for commuters and O2 crowds. Changing the doors and screens will not be a simple task. I witnessed the original installation. Significant work would be required. Mod edit [Antharro]: Quote partially removed. Please be selective about the part of a post you wish to quote rather than the whole post verbatim, particularly if you are replying to the previous post in the thread.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 8, 2022 11:36:01 GMT
I believe the E.Line platform screen doors took much longer than expected.
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Sept 8, 2022 12:14:32 GMT
They did but they incorporate lighting and customer information displays. However they were difficult to set up.
Mod edit [Antharro]: Quote removed. Please be selective about the part of a post you wish to quote rather than the whole post verbatim, particularly if you are replying to the previous post in the thread.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Sept 8, 2022 15:34:01 GMT
Driverless trains on London Underground, the Network Business Case dated August 2020 and leaked by ASLEF, suggested that current PEDs would be replaced when new trains are introduced. Presumably this is on the same basis that S8 dimensions did not follow A stock dimensions, limiting services for another 40 years by restricting them to the dimensions of the previous 40 years. I wonder if the recent closure of the Northern City branch for Bank reconstruction would provide a precedent for closure of the tunnel JLE stations for station modification to match a new fleet of trains. Hmmm. That sounds like one of those client requirement which are assumed to be deliverable once written on the sheet of paper. I don't recall the ASLEF leaked document but I'm assuming that it talked about new trains without describing them in detail. I think there are two basic choices: 1) replacing the trains. Assuming a replacement fleet is required to have the same properties as the new Piccadilly line trains, it will be impossible to lay out the doors to align with the existing PEDs. If the PEDs are to be replaced, this is a task that will take weeks, if not months and if laid out to suit the new trains they won't suit the old ones. The only viable option in my mind would be to close Westminster to North Greenwich, replace the PEDs whilst introducing the new trains on the other sections. This would be unpopular, I think (typical British understatement). 2) replace the PEDs like for like (I'd expect only the mechanisms and controls to need replacement/overhaul) and buy new trains in the with the same door layout as today (but with air con and gangways). This is straightforward and would require few if any closures. I've assumed that eliminating PEDs altogether wouldn't be acceptable. I know which option I'd choose.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Sept 8, 2022 15:38:26 GMT
Have you ever seen the size of the crowd at North Greenwich for an O2 event? Not a hope in hell of finding enough vehicles. To match the capacity possible on the Jubilee line after an O2 concert something over 400 buses would have to leave North Greenwich in the hour after the concert ended. Mod edit [Antharro]: Quote partially removed. Please be selective about the part of a post you wish to quote rather than the whole post verbatim, particularly if you are replying to the previous post in the thread.
|
|
|
Post by rapidtransitman on Sept 8, 2022 16:55:27 GMT
More practically, river bus services can convey large numbers of people to Greenwich, Canary Wharf, London Bridge and Westminster. For services towards Stratford there is a pier a short walk from East India DLR that has been served by replacement boat services on occasions before the dangleway was built (last time I was in the area the signs were even still there) This article at www.londonreconnections.com/2022/were-gonna-need-a-bigger-boat-londons-first-highway-part-4/, and its prequels linked therein, provide more detail on the River Bus network, piers, & capacity. As other commentators have mentioned, piers often have lines and catamarans are often full at peak times. More large boats and likely pier extensions would be needed for replacing Tube line capacity for a shutdown.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 8, 2022 20:27:22 GMT
I imagine a frequent North Greenwich to Stratford shuttle could operate with driver step-back at NG, retaining the third platform doors at NG to match old trains. When the central section was ready to reopen with new trains, that platform would not be used by trains in service until later conversion.
|
|
|
Post by antharro on Sept 8, 2022 20:42:45 GMT
Mod note: A number of posts in this thread have been edited to remove unnecessary quotes. Quote selectively - if you need to quote a specific portion of a previous post or posts you can do so, but please do not quote entire posts verbatim unless absolutely necessary.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,665
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 8, 2022 23:56:27 GMT
As other commentators have mentioned, piers often have lines and catamarans are often full at peak times. More large boats and likely pier extensions would be needed for replacing Tube line capacity for a shutdown. Indeed, but even if procurement of a new train fleet started tomorrow there would be ample time to procure and install larger piers. Larger boats might or might not be problematic (I guess it will depend in part how off-the-shelf they are). A shutdown timed for winter when tourist traffic is at its lowest would also facilitate pier space and river space.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 9, 2022 4:39:51 GMT
Driverless trains on London Underground, the Network Business Case dated August 2020 and leaked by ASLEF, suggested that current PEDs would be replaced when new trains are introduced. Presumably this is on the same basis that S8 dimensions did not follow A stock dimensions, limiting services for another 40 years by restricting them to the dimensions of the previous 40 years. I wonder if the recent closure of the Northern City branch for Bank reconstruction would provide a precedent for closure of the tunnel JLE stations for station modification to match a new fleet of trains. ..... I've assumed that eliminating PEDs altogether wouldn't be acceptable ..... I think evaluation of the option of removing all PEDs before progressive introduction of the new fleet, and later installation of new PEDs must be undertaken. After all, PEDs do not exist at most Jubilee Line stations, and are not claimed to serve a safety purpose. They are supposed to aid station ventilation systems. Perhaps a temporary reduction in train speeds around stations may be required. It might depend how easily it would be to remove current PEDs but leave a safe temporary surface, since a tripping hazard near the platform edge would be the worst possible option!
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Sept 9, 2022 7:02:13 GMT
They are an integral part of the platform. Removing them would be a difficult task and take time.
Doors in different positions would require considerable work not to mention altering the cabling.
Nowhere to safely store the doors/panels while trains are running.
I honestly believe it's a non starter.
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Sept 9, 2022 7:26:14 GMT
I honestly believe that PEDs are LUs biggest can of worms so far...
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Sept 9, 2022 23:00:21 GMT
Having to design a train and its door locations around PED's that were installed for older trains with different door spacings sounds like trying to get a tail to wag the dog!
Maybe it will be found possible to create a solution that only requires the replacement of the single PED leaf doors with twin leaf PED doors?
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Sept 10, 2022 4:00:29 GMT
Having to design a train and its door locations around PED's that were installed for older trains with different door spacings sounds like trying to get a tail to wag the dog! Maybe it will be found possible to create a solution that only requires the replacement of the single PED leaf doors with twin leaf PED doors? To dream the impossible dream. The problems are still the same. The PEDs are part of the platform. Considerable work still required.
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Sept 10, 2022 7:06:46 GMT
The best solution would be to deal with the ventilation problem a different way, and get rid of the doors completely. Talk about making a rod for your own back!
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Sept 10, 2022 7:39:46 GMT
The real issue with old PEDs and new trains is working out the most cost effective way to produce a workable solution, and how to manage the transition.
My money is you replace the old PEDs simply because by the time new trains are actually due to arrive the existing PEDs will be pretty beat up (some are already) and over time could become a major cause of delays and extended dwell times especially if PED doors open but refuse to shut. With a dodgy train door you just offload the passengers and run it empty to the depot for repair which minimises the service impact.
That option is not available for a defective PED so presumably you close the platform and run trains non-stopping until it is repaired.
Finally by the time TFL have funds for new Jubillee trains probably someone would have downsized that automated PED installation kit used to install the PEDs on the Elizabeth Line central stations which should speed things up and reduce switchout costs. Inherently what can be done with the line operational is massively constrained by risk assessments. So I feel sure removal/replacement of the old PEDs will mean a full route closure (or at least the section from Stratford to Green Park. (Perhaps they could briefly reopen Charing Cross?)
For the transition I guess after a period for training, mixed fleet operation might be possible on the Stanmore to Green Park section - as a door is a door even if it is slightly further along the platform. The big challenge will be to ensure the new trains can be fitted to speak the same (now relatively ancient) train control system - if not the transition cost and timeline will soar.
Which begs the question which variant of TBTC is best suited to LUL lines. I assume the SSL line variant is the best choice and reflects lessons learned from the eralier installs. In which case we would probably need a major signalling switchover too which is not easy, quick, or cheap.
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Sept 10, 2022 9:15:38 GMT
The best solution would be to deal with the ventilation problem a different way, and get rid of the doors completely. Talk about making a rod for your own back! They have a safety role and help by showing where the doors are. Important on these busy stations.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,665
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 10, 2022 10:54:46 GMT
So I feel sure removal/replacement of the old PEDs will mean a full route closure (or at least the section from Stratford to Green Park. Closure would only be required between Westminster and North Greenwich as trains can reverse at both Green Park and Canning Town. When North Greenwich is completed trains can also reverse there. Similarly when Westminster is completed it might be possible to run a service from Green Park to there using the crossover west of Waterloo (whether they do will depend in part on whether they can reverse enough trains to provide a useful service) - ditto with the Crossover west of Canary Wharf. After that its possible one or both of Bermondsey and Southwark are non-stopped with replacement being done in (extended) engineering hours or at weekends while providing a service to all the other stations. A major factor in the plan will be how long the PEDs on a single platform need to be out of service (its not impossible that some preparatory work and/or finishing work can be done in engineering hours), and how much platform space the works need (so only one platform needs to be taken out of use at a time). The first question will of course depend on how much work can be done with trains running, how much can be done in engineering hours and how much requires no trains. Electricity isolation sections will also impact what partial services can be run. (Perhaps they could briefly reopen Charing Cross?) AIUI the issue at Charing Cross is access - the platforms are fully accessible (when there is no filming going on at least) but access to them is via a single small doorway at the top of a set of fixed stairs. This is fine for film crew access but would be completely unable to handle the volume of passengers from even a single service train. This could be fixed of course, but would require knocking down a wall and reinstating escalators - both expensive, disruptive and time consuming jobs that would not be I suspect worth it. The big challenge will be to ensure the new trains can be fitted to speak the same (now relatively ancient) train control system - if not the transition cost and timeline will soar. New trains talking to an old control system or old trains talking to a new control system are both options. This sort of transition was made to work on the Victoria line where the generation gap was much larger, so I don't see this as being the biggest challenge. For the transition I guess after a period for training, mixed fleet operation might be possible on the Stanmore to Green Park section - as a door is a door even if it is slightly further along the platform. Yes, mixed fleet operation will be possible Stanmore to Green Park and Stratford to Canning Town - it may be possible to do PED replacement in such a way that for a time old trains run the through service while new trains run Stratford-North Greenwich centre platform shuttles. I suspect that the first public services on the line will be at the east end given Stratford Market Depot is the primary depot for the line
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Sept 10, 2022 15:04:24 GMT
The best solution would be to deal with the ventilation problem a different way, and get rid of the doors completely. Talk about making a rod for your own back! Don't take the publicity (solely to manage wind speeds on platforms) at face value. They have provided and were always intended to provide safety benefits. The original publicity was intended to help manage pressure to retrofit the rest of the tube.
|
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,472
|
Post by DWS on Sept 11, 2022 10:49:42 GMT
So I feel sure removal/replacement of the old PEDs will mean a full route closure (or at least the section from Stratford to Green Park. Closure would only be required between Westminster and North Greenwich as trains can reverse at both Green Park and Canning Town. Trains can’t reverse at Canning Town as it has no crossover.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,665
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 11, 2022 17:13:11 GMT
Hmm, I was sure that was one of the first operating sections of the extension, but maybe I was mistaken. Anyway they could run out of service from there to reverse at North Greenwich.
|
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,472
|
Post by DWS on Sept 11, 2022 19:42:16 GMT
The first section of that end of the Jubilee Line was Stratford to North Greenwich as you say trains could run empty from Canning Town to reverse at North Greenwich. The stations West Ham and Canning Town can also be reached by the DLR from Stratford.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 16, 2022 0:55:08 GMT
The latest Government funding for TfL runs to 2024 and includes funding for the new Piccadilly and DLR trains, so they are pretty certain to be delivered as planned. However, there is no mention of new trains for the Bakerloo, although the option for a further run of trains has to be exercised this year. What will become of the new Goole factory without it? When a Bakerloo order is made, for delivery around 2030 now, will it need to go for tender again or can they stick with Siemens? Placed say 2027 for only 33-36 trains, it will probably not be economic for its own design. There was intended to be a further build of trains for the Piccadilly of 7 or 15 identical trains for resignalling to 33 - 36 tph in the mid-2030s, which surely must go to Siemens. Possible completion of the Lewisham extension in the 2030s with funding would require another batch of similar Bakerloo trains. Experience with the tender for extra trains for the Northern and Jubilee Lines suggests that small quantities are uneconomic. I can understand a later new tender for Central line trains, which could be of a different design some ten years on from the Picc trains and won't need to inter-work with them. The design might also suit the Jubilee line, although the latter could fit larger trains with its enlarged tunnels and gentle curves. The timing of new trains for the W&C depends on plans for driverless trains there, although perhaps the new PM is not so obsessed! Has the new PM or Minister made any statements in the past revealing their views on this? As mentioned, an increased service after resignalling will require more trains for the Piccadilly. I have just learnt that the TfL business case for resignalling mentions this in conjunction with new trains for the Bakerloo and perhaps also Lewisham extension. Apparently TfL have agreed with Siemens a late 2026 backstop date for further orders, which would be when the Piccadilly production line closes. There is no mention of a build for the Central or W&C lines, which perhaps could follow on from a Bakerloo build. Any service boost from resignalling would be limited by overcrowding without reconstruction at Holborn station, with both projects now linked.
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Sept 16, 2022 7:30:48 GMT
So the 'ventilation' story was jut a damage-limitation exercise?
The planners got star-struck by the glitzy new 'Century Twenty-One' architecture, and didn't notice the plank!
That's the trouble with worms; they just won't get back into the can!
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Sept 17, 2022 15:10:22 GMT
And we can't expect replacements for the 92TS until about 2035? Perhaps by then they will at least procure new gaffer tape?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,665
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 17, 2022 22:42:22 GMT
Well, at least according to this old thread there is already less tape than there used to be
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Sept 18, 2022 7:08:34 GMT
Well, at least according to this old thread there is already less tape than there used to be Thanks for that; before I joined the forum. Interesting the grab poles were balding even 11 yrs ago....
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 24, 2022 1:29:38 GMT
It amazes me how progress regularly takes us back, and so it seems that the New Tube for London promises to bring the shortest tube cars, the wheel-less intermediate bridge cars, since the first tube line, the City & South London Railway, which last saw service a century back! There will, of course, be only longitudinal seats as on the C&SLR. And these short cars must, somehow, spread their load on the bogies either side. Just as the gate platforms did on the C&SLR (see Underground News Sept/October 2019). They were not part of the cars but hung between adjacent pairs. Sounds like the new NTfL innovation!
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Sept 24, 2022 6:42:34 GMT
And Siemens made at least some of the C&SLR locos.
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Sept 24, 2022 7:38:40 GMT
Time to stop wasting money on windows!
|
|