rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Oct 23, 2020 6:58:51 GMT
The other concern is that in peak hours passengers wanting to board at inner stations like Tufnell Park & Kentish Town who often find arriving town bound services are so full that no one at all is able to board. A friend said things were so bad that they used to regularly travel north to Highgate to stand a chance of catching a southbound service into town. When am undergraduate lots of my lecturers were on the 10th floor of the university building, there were two lifts. Frequently the only way to secure a place in a lift was to climb the stairs one floor and catch a down lift. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 24, 2020 4:42:27 GMT
If the case for new trains on the Jubilee can be made, I think the Northern could achieve an austerity upgrade with current inter-working services. There would be no Camden Town station rebuild, no East Finchley trackworks, and no Morden line signalling enhancement. Before the abandoned order for 17 new trains, there was consideration of 5 more trains to provide 30tph peaks and 4 peak push-ins from Morden, without the economies required for only 17 trains. They might need 2 extra trains to reverse 6tph at Finchley Central platform 1 and north siding whilst the current 24tph service worked via platform 2 through to Mill Hill and Barnet. The current off-peak 20tph service might see an extra 4tph reverse in Archway siding or else be extended through to Mill Hill to replace the current shuttle. This would still need additional stabling for maybe 7 trains, the others fitting in existing spare roads. It was always planned to outstable at the termini for most of these. A new depot would be required to support the non-standard trains, perhaps at Highgate or Edgware.
East Finchley trackworks would be needed for 33tph or 36tph, which could maybe await a new larger fleet to replace all the trains within a further ten years. This proposal would leave 39 Jubilee trains for the Bakerloo, assuming the financial case for replacing 1972TS still cannot be made. This would postpone a new fleet for another ten years, perhaps again to be joined with the case for a Lewisham extension. The Jubilee line trains might possibly need the planned gap fillers at curved Bakerloo platforms, and some tight tunnels opened out to ease speed restrictions, as has been done on the Northern line for their trains. These improvements to Northern and Bakerloo lines could maybe help justify the new Jubilee fleet.
|
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Oct 24, 2020 11:40:56 GMT
I have probably missed something but does anyone know how would this stock cascade work in terms of who maintains what?
Currently Alstom(GEC) made both 95 and 96 stock - and at one time had some sort of rolling 10 year maintenance contract. Hopefully the two fleets are similar enough to allow the current arrangement to continue for any relocated to the Northern.
But if the plan is also that Jubilee will be getting brand new Siemens stock (like Piccaddily) that presumably means there will be quite an upheaval coming for the Jubilee maintenance team who will either need to relocate to follow wherever the Jubilee stock goes, or could be well placed to jump ship to Siemens who doubtless will need to recruit competent staff to maintain the Picaddily fleet and seemingly the Jubilee in due course.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Oct 24, 2020 11:43:31 GMT
Would 7 car 1996 stock fit in the Bakerloo platforms?
Another option could be to use spare four car 1996 stock trains on the Waterloo and City?
The Northern has historically operated a mix of rolling stock except when the 1938 stock and 1995 stock monopolised the line and although far from ideal it may be the best option?
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 24, 2020 13:29:31 GMT
Another option could be to use spare four car 1996 stock trains on the Waterloo and City? There are some tight curves on the Drain. Would the longer cars fit? Would the depot sidings accommodate the extra length? |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Oct 24, 2020 14:05:54 GMT
Another option could be to use spare four car 1996 stock trains on the Waterloo and City? There are some tight curves on the Drain. Would the longer cars fit? Would the depot sidings accommodate the extra length? Plus all the hassle of getting them there, access only by road and a monster mobile crane. (Check out Youtube to see how they were delivered) |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,781
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 24, 2020 15:11:31 GMT
Plus all the hassle of getting them there, access only by road and a monster mobile crane. (Check out Youtube to see how they were delivered) This is a constant - the costs, effort and disruption are the same whatever stock you put there. However these do mean you generally want to do it as few times as possible so the economics of a stop-gap fleet are going to be much worse than for other lines. As the 1992 stock on the Drain has a much easier life than their siblings on the Central it seems likely that they will be in less urgent need of replacement. For driver stock knowledge reasons there is also a good incentive for the line to run the same trains as run on the Central line. Indeed I suspect that if the W&C and Northern were to both going to be running ex-Jubilee line trains long term that a Northern line depot would take over W&C duties. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 24, 2020 16:17:41 GMT
There are some tight curves on the Drain. Would the longer cars fit? Would the depot sidings accommodate the extra length? Plus all the hassle of getting them there, access only by road and a monster mobile crane. (Check out Youtube to see how they were delivered) Would they even fit through the hole? Certainly the old (shorter) class 487 cars were such a tight fit on the Armstrong lift they had to have buffers and drawgear removed, but I'm not sure if the new hole is any bigger. Also, a 1995 stock train is, I understand, effectively two single-ended 3 car units. To make a 4-car train you would need to remove a car from each unit. Would it still work? |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,781
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 24, 2020 17:21:24 GMT
From Google air photos the hole looks to have a length of approximately 18-19 metres, 1996 stock are 17.76 metres long. So it would be tight but doable I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 24, 2020 18:55:24 GMT
Would 7 car 1996 stock fit in the Bakerloo platforms? Another option could be to use spare four car 1996 stock trains on the Waterloo and City? The Northern has historically operated a mix of rolling stock except when the 1938 stock and 1995 stock monopolised the line and although far from ideal it may be the best option? 1996 stock was delivered as 6 car, and later had a 'special trailer' inserted. That will be removed to match train length on the Northern line, and similarly for the Bakerloo where current trains are same length as previous generation Northern line trains. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 24, 2020 19:03:59 GMT
I have probably missed something but does anyone know how would this stock cascade work in terms of who maintains what? Currently Alstom(GEC) made both 95 and 96 stock - and at one time had some sort of rolling 10 year maintenance contract. Hopefully the two fleets are similar enough to allow the current arrangement to continue for any relocated to the Northern. But if the plan is also that Jubilee will be getting brand new Siemens stock (like Piccaddily) that presumably means there will be quite an upheaval coming for the Jubilee maintenance team who will either need to relocate to follow wherever the Jubilee stock goes, or could be well placed to jump ship to Siemens who doubtless will need to recruit competent staff to maintain the Picaddily fleet and seemingly the Jubilee in due course. Current policy is all new trains are maintained in-house. Northern trains are leased from Alstom with a maintenance deal as you say. Jubilee trains were bought and maintained in-house, then contracted for Alstom to maintain by Tube Lines, then reverted to in-house for resignalling. When 17 new trains were contemplated for Northern line back in 2017, maintenance was dependent on who got the contract. If Alstom won it was thought they might agree to look after the new trains as part of their current contract. Otherwise a new depot at Highgate was envisaged just to maintain the new trains which would only require 28 day checks. The Alstom contract provides for periodic reviews, and could always be dropped in the future before the extra trains arrive. However, since the Jubilee trains are so different technically, I believe a dedicated depot will be necessary, perhaps Golders Green or else a new one. |
|
vincenture
Quiz tryhard, and an advocate for simpler, less complicated rail routes
Posts: 885
|
Post by vincenture on Nov 2, 2020 1:49:54 GMT
If the case for new trains on the Jubilee can be made, I think the Northern could achieve an austerity upgrade with current inter-working services. There would be no Camden Town station rebuild, no East Finchley trackworks, and no Morden line signalling enhancement. Before the abandoned order for 17 new trains, there was consideration of 5 more trains to provide 30tph peaks and 4 peak push-ins from Morden, without the economies required for only 17 trains. They might need 2 extra trains to reverse 6tph at Finchley Central platform 1 and north siding whilst the current 24tph service worked via platform 2 through to Mill Hill and Barnet. The current off-peak 20tph service might see an extra 4tph reverse in Archway siding or else be extended through to Mill Hill to replace the current shuttle. This would still need additional stabling for maybe 7 trains, the others fitting in existing spare roads. It was always planned to outstable at the termini for most of these. A new depot would be required to support the non-standard trains, perhaps at Highgate or Edgware. East Finchley trackworks would be needed for 33tph or 36tph, which could maybe await a new larger fleet to replace all the trains within a further ten years. This proposal would leave 39 Jubilee trains for the Bakerloo, assuming the financial case for replacing 1972TS still cannot be made. This would postpone a new fleet for another ten years, perhaps again to be joined with the case for a Lewisham extension. The Jubilee line trains might possibly need the planned gap fillers at curved Bakerloo platforms, and some tight tunnels opened out to ease speed restrictions, as has been done on the Northern line for their trains. These improvements to Northern and Bakerloo lines could maybe help justify the new Jubilee fleet. Sorry to deviate a little, but are Bakerloo curves able to be smoothened? I doubt the Paddington curve is possible. Even then there are curved platforms at Regent's Park and Waterloo. The Piccadilly Circus curve may require a rebuild of the platforms. So I can't see the viability of redoing curves except at Elephant. I rather have the Embankment curve on the Northern be redone. Correct me if I'm wrong |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,781
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 2, 2020 2:02:44 GMT
Nearly anything is possible with enough money. Whether it would be worth the cost (and disruption), even if TfL had the money, is a different question. If the purpose of smoothing the curves is to make the line able to accommodate longer rolling stock then there is basically no point in spending money on it unless you are fixing the most restrictive curve as part of the project (or there are benefits to doing it as part of a different project). I don't know what the most restrictive curve on the Bakerloo is but a look at Carto Metro suggests it is probably Paddington or Piccadilly Circus.
If the purpose however is to straighten platforms for better accessibility, then obviously each platform improved is a good thing as it will open up additional journey possibilities even if the least accessible remains off limits to the mobility impaired.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 2, 2020 2:41:31 GMT
I have probably missed something but does anyone know how would this stock cascade work in terms of who maintains what? Currently Alstom(GEC) made both 95 and 96 stock - and at one time had some sort of rolling 10 year maintenance contract. Hopefully the two fleets are similar enough to allow the current arrangement to continue for any relocated to the Northern. But if the plan is also that Jubilee will be getting brand new Siemens stock (like Piccaddily) that presumably means there will be quite an upheaval coming for the Jubilee maintenance team who will either need to relocate to follow wherever the Jubilee stock goes, or could be well placed to jump ship to Siemens who doubtless will need to recruit competent staff to maintain the Picaddily fleet and seemingly the Jubilee in due course. Current policy is all new trains are maintained in-house. Northern trains are leased from Alstom with a maintenance deal as you say. Jubilee trains were bought and maintained in-house, then contracted for Alstom to maintain by Tube Lines, then reverted to in-house for resignalling. When 17 new trains were contemplated for Northern line back in 2017, maintenance was dependent on who got the contract. If Alstom won it was thought they might agree to look after the new trains as part of their current contract. Otherwise a new depot at Highgate was envisaged just to maintain the new trains which would only require 28 day checks. The Alstom contract provides for periodic reviews, and could always be dropped in the future before the extra trains arrive. However, since the Jubilee trains are so different technically, I believe a dedicated depot will be necessary, perhaps Golders Green or else a new one. In the Transport for London Settlement Letter of 31 October 2020, para 7 particularly mentions the Alstom maintenance contract. What does it mean, or anticipate?: HMG will continue to engage on and monitor the financing of Northern Line Train Services contract. If a Supervening Event occurs in accordance with clause 25A.1.1 of the Amended and Restated Usage Contract, HMG will work with TfL and take reasonable steps to assist TfL in meeting the contractual obligations set out in clause 25A of that contract and other associated provisions, or finding alternative forms of support acceptable to the relevant counterparties. |
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 2, 2020 8:00:53 GMT
I would not read too much into that paragraph in the settlement letter. Inherently it is probably only there to provide reassurance to Alstom that one way or another they will get paid even if the current bailout means TFL cannot.
It rather suggests that the parties already recognise that there is a risk the current settlement is not a long term fix. Whilst the virus continues to cause chaos, TFLs finances seems only likely to get worse and worse which also implies there is not a cats chance in hell of splitting the line happening any time soon.
|
|
