jimbo
Posts: 1,832
Member is Online
|
Post by jimbo on Feb 1, 2023 3:30:10 GMT
I always wondered if the proposed southern extension of the Bakerloo and the new stock would be an opportunity to extend back to Watford. It seems to me that whether the Bakerloo ever reaches Watford again depends on whether it ever reaches Hayes and Beckenham Junction. If passengers from those branches are on a Bakerloo service, they are likely to remain aboard until a convenient interchange for their destination. If the extension only reaches Lewisham, then passengers from those branches will have to decide whether to change trains there and descend to the new tube platforms. Almost certainly a smaller number would then use the new service into town. Current plans are for 27tph with the new trains, either from Elephant, or from the Lewisham extension. I believe the current line layout will cope with reversing that service. However, if demand grows to require 33 or 36tph, then resilient reversing may require the second Harrow siding to be relayed, or even a peak service to Watford. This thread is about the new trains, not the extension, but Watford would require a larger fleet, as would Hayes branch, and it is not clear where these would be stabled.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,664
|
Post by Chris M on Feb 1, 2023 12:02:41 GMT
This thread is about the new trains, not the extension, but Watford would require a larger fleet, as would Hayes branch, and it is not clear where these would be stabled. From my memory of one of the consultations, an extension to Hayes would include a new depot on what is currently a council depot beside the line. I don't recall the capacity of the depot being mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Feb 1, 2023 18:32:08 GMT
Indeed so, but to use your GWR analogy, why travel from Watford to London on a 710 calling at all stations when you can do it on a much faster LNWR service? To save money! Isn't Watford Junction - Euston cheaper on the Overground than on LNWR? To the south of London people who are 'watching the pennies' (and even the farthings!!) already choose slower routes to reduce travel fares eg: by tram from Croydon to Wimbledon and then the District line, instead of fast trains East Croydon - Victoria.
|
|
jimbo
Posts: 1,832
Member is Online
|
Post by jimbo on Feb 1, 2023 18:40:11 GMT
Chris M I think you recall the 2019 consultation, which had the new running tunnels extending through to the Wearside Road Council depot site in Lewisham, where empty trains would be stabled, and a connection to the Hayes line might be made. The 2017 proposal was to stable eight of nine new trains in deep-level overrun tunnels, but the new plan was to construct a sub-surface stabling area, perhaps in the style of White City sidings. I don't think this area is large enough to cope with trains for the Hayes extension, only to Lewisham.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Feb 1, 2023 18:54:20 GMT
As stated above, it was never planned to operate trains on the Bakerloo without a driver in the front cab, especially north of Queen's Park. If such operation ever came to the Piccadilly Line, it was required to fence the line from Barons Court to Acton Town to separate it from District Line trains. Wow, fenced in along that route! I never thought of that. Just another reason why Paris metro full driverless operation for existing London Underground trains is simply not feasible (new build would be a different story). That said, passengers spilling out on to the tracks if a train breaks down is no more likely if there is a member of staff onboard than if not. (eg: Lewisham area a few years ago when iced up conductor rails brought trains to a halt). However, maybe DLR style automation would be acceptable. After all, its a known entity to both UK safety people and passengers. re: converting Queens Park - Harrow & Wealdstone to DLR style of automation, there are two precedents for this within the NR environment - Stratford via Pudding Mill Lane and Limehouse - Shadwell - Tower Gateway. (Maybe these have grandfather rights and no new instances would be allowed?) Whilst the DLR trains are not physically on NR metals they are so close to them that they are still within the railway swept path and still under NR overhead wire portals. I must be careful here as both routes use alignments that were once part of our national railway system and some railway people may still feel aggrieved that these alignments were forcibly taken away from them. But that is a different issue.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Tom on Feb 1, 2023 22:28:39 GMT
To save money! Isn't Watford Junction - Euston cheaper on the Overground than on LNWR? No, same fare regardless of operator - same for Reading to Paddington. But we're going off topic now...
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Feb 1, 2023 23:08:40 GMT
To save money! Isn't Watford Junction - Euston cheaper on the Overground than on LNWR? No, same fare regardless of operator - same for Reading to Paddington. But we're going off topic now...If you have a staff oyster LO and LNWR Euston / Watford Junction are the same fare (free) but Padd / Reading is literally infinitely more expensive by GWR than Eliz. line. < runs for cover >
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Tom on Feb 2, 2023 9:35:24 GMT
Well, there is that...
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Feb 2, 2023 22:43:09 GMT
As part of the New Tube for London will the Watford DC Line get a line speed raise from 45mph to 60mph with ETCS and ATO? Would the Bakerloo section between Queens Park & Elephant & Castle get upgraded with a higher line speed and ETCS with ATO? The nature of the Bakerloo line in town sections would make speed improvements pointless. . I would still think you could save a few minutes with the higher top speed and acceleration rate. How would they pointless if they let you run more trains north of Queens Park?
|
|
jimbo
Posts: 1,832
Member is Online
|
Post by jimbo on Feb 3, 2023 0:16:35 GMT
The New Tube for London Feasibility Report appeared in October 2014 in conjunction with the Kings Cross exhibition to launch the new concept. The rolling stock invitation to tender was due in 2015, with the contract award in 2016. Resignalling on the Piccadilly Line would commence in 2019, with the first new train delivered for testing in 2022. The first train should enter service in 2023, with the whole fleet commissioned by 2025 when capacity enhancements could begin. Platform edge doors would also be fitted by 2025 to improve the customer platform experience and to allow full automatic operation when needed. The Bakerloo Line would follow on by 2027 but without platform edge doors and therefore no full automatic operation. The Central Line was promised the full package by 2032, along with the Waterloo & City Line if it was not used for earlier testing.
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Feb 3, 2023 8:22:23 GMT
The nature of the Bakerloo line in town sections would make speed improvements pointless. . I would still think you could save a few minutes with the higher top speed and acceleration rate. How would they pointless if they let you run more trains north of Queens Park? What impact would that have on the Overground operation? And would the extra maintenance and energy costs of running at higher speeds generate proportionate additional revenue?
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Feb 3, 2023 10:12:27 GMT
The nature of the Bakerloo line in town sections would make speed improvements pointless. . I would still think you could save a few minutes with the higher top speed and acceleration rate. How would they pointless if they let you run more trains north of Queens Park? I referred to the section between Elephant & Castle and Queens Park. Curves and short distance between stations.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,414
|
Post by metman on Feb 3, 2023 22:50:00 GMT
As with all these capacity upgrades it’s what you do at the end of the line. Stepping back can only achieve so much….
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Feb 4, 2023 0:06:37 GMT
I would still think you could save a few minutes with the higher top speed and acceleration rate. How would they pointless if they let you run more trains north of Queens Park? What impact would that have on the Overground operation? And would the extra maintenance and energy costs of running at higher speeds generate proportionate additional revenue? It would not really impact London Overground since all of London Overground trains are some what high accelerating and can easily do 60mph.
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Feb 4, 2023 0:09:08 GMT
I would still think you could save a few minutes with the higher top speed and acceleration rate. How would they pointless if they let you run more trains north of Queens Park? I referred to the section between Elephant & Castle and Queens Park. Curves and short distance between stations. Would you be able to get rid of the safety system at Elephant & Castle if it went over to ATO? I would think it might be possible to make most of the tunnel sections have a speed limit of between 30mph and 35mph.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Tom on Feb 4, 2023 8:30:07 GMT
It might be possible to increse the approach speed with a continuous ATP solution, but it would still be restricted by things like track geometry.
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Feb 4, 2023 11:19:05 GMT
It might be possible to increse the approach speed with a continuous ATP solution, but it would still be restricted by things like track geometry. Would it be only in the Section between Queen's Park and Elephant & Castle which would need a system like that? Would it get resignalled with one signalling system or would trains switch over part way through there journey between multiple signalling systems?
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Tom on Feb 4, 2023 22:28:06 GMT
It's not an easy question to answer. The ideal would be to implement it on the whole line, but only the Queen's Park to Elephant section is LU's to do with as they please - any more would need the agreement of Network Rail who own the DC lines.
In theory both the DC lines and Bakerloo line have signalling of a similar vintage and one was resignalled a few months before the other. In theory, this would mean they both get renewed again around the same time, but it may not work that way in practice, for various reasons.
A single system throughout the line on both organisations' infrastructure would be a great idea, but my gut feel is it wouldn't happen and it would be necessary to change modes at some point in the journey. This is, however, all conjecture.
Admin hat on You don't need to use the quote function when you're replying to the previous post - just replying is fine.
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Feb 6, 2023 17:45:00 GMT
Would TfL permit ETCS on there part of the Bakerloo Line?
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Feb 6, 2023 17:46:57 GMT
Oh yes. let's have yet another ATP incompatible with other LUL lines kit! So I suppose anything is possible.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Feb 6, 2023 17:55:32 GMT
It is likely that, at some point in the future, ETCS might become a de facto standard. But it currently has many gaps: It relies on 2g with gprs mobile technology (there are pland to fix this), although ATO has been implemented on some systems, it has not been adopted into the specification set yet (people have been working on this for years), and there are no interfaces for things like platform screen doors.
The thing about ETCS is that it defines in a very detailed way, the air gap rules, the nateure of messages and their meaning and action. This allows supplier A's equipment to run on supplier B's infrastructure. This is a 'good thing' but does limit flexibility. Some years a group of metros and suppliers proposed a metro version - UGTMS. I haven't heard about this system for ages.
In the meantime signalling suppliers continue to offer their tightly integrated but mutually incompatible systems that do work.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Feb 6, 2023 19:29:41 GMT
The thing about ETCS is that it defines in a very detailed way, the air gap rules, the nateure of messages and their meaning and action. This allows supplier A's equipment to run on supplier B's infrastructure. This is a 'good thing' but does limit flexibility. . How does allowing make A kit run on supplier B kit 'limit flexibility' ? A on A only or B with B only is a limit. A on B is not. Having visited the Network ETCS integration centre at Hitchin ***, they test that each of maker A and B and X and Y train borne kits work with maker A or B or X or Y track side kit and with maker A / B / X / Y central system kit in any combination. That is the flexibility that ETCS *allows* not limits. It forces makers to move away from kit with bespoke in house solutions that they then refuse to share code with other makers on grounds of IPR. *** ENIF but I've forgotten what it actually stands for (I'll wait some pedant to post it).
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Feb 6, 2023 19:35:37 GMT
As with all these capacity upgrades it’s what you do at the end of the line. Stepping back can only achieve so much…. Oft forgotten that a major key to the Jubilee Line post-TBTC timetable uplift was the third platform at Stanmore. The high TPH timetable don't work without at least 3 platforms at both Stratford and Stanmore; Stratford was already there of course. I would suggest that this consideration without the necessary civil engineering work at Elephant and Harrow (or Queens Park) would be a throttle on any ideas for such a high TPH service on the Bakerloo .
|
|
jimbo
Posts: 1,832
Member is Online
|
Post by jimbo on Feb 6, 2023 20:07:08 GMT
Although the Victoria Line seems to have done well with 36tph shuttling back and forward between two platform termini at both ends.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Feb 6, 2023 20:12:15 GMT
Although the Victoria Line seems to have done well with 36tph shuttling back and forward between two platform termini at both ends. hmmmmm good point It was very /definitely/ stated during JNUP that Jubilee TBTC for the timetable uplift to work needed 3 platforms at Stanmore. Do Vic Line train operators step back in peaks ? That is a question, not a statement, I have no idea myself. If yes, then this particular sub-discussion has gone full circle, as that's what I responded to.
|
|
|
Post by miff on Feb 6, 2023 20:27:39 GMT
How does allowing make A kit run on supplier B kit 'limit flexibility' ? A on A only or B with B only is a limit. A on B is not. Wouldn’t it prevent A from offering something good which B cannot do, or is not (yet) in the ETCS agreed spec?
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Feb 6, 2023 20:36:50 GMT
Oh yes. let's have yet another ATP incompatible with other LUL lines kit! So I suppose anything is possible. What is the difference from now since does it not require moving the trains through an incompatible signalling system anyway?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,664
|
Post by Chris M on Feb 6, 2023 21:07:55 GMT
Although the Victoria Line seems to have done well with 36tph shuttling back and forward between two platform termini at both ends. hmmmmm good point It was very /definitely/ stated during JNUP that Jubilee TBTC for the timetable uplift to work needed 3 platforms at Stanmore. In the current timetable, only two platforms are used at Stratford during most of the day, including peak times.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Feb 6, 2023 21:47:51 GMT
I will go away and see if I can dig out a document about JNUP TBTC and 3 platformed terminii. That's all I can say !
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Tom on Feb 6, 2023 21:49:17 GMT
Do Vic Line train operators step back in peaks ? I haven't checked the details for Fridays or Weekends, but Mondays to Thursdays, Train Operators step back 0641-2302 at Walthamstow and 0615-2337 at Brixton.
|
|