|
|
Post by spsmiler on Sept 5, 2023 21:43:05 GMT
There is one other possibility - a long shot however - New depot as part of Lewisham extension, afterwards sell London Road for housing.
Retain Stonebridge Park, for lighter duties and because service run better when a line has a depot at both ends.
|
|
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 Sept 6, 2023 0:02:37 GMT
If/when it is built the Lewisham extension will come with a depot as the existing two are not large enough to stable the entire fleet of trains that would be needed to run the service. The issue is that even if it were authorised tomorrow it would be several years (probably 5-10) before the depot could start servicing the line, even if you prioritise getting a single running tunnel to the state it can be used by empty trains above all else.
|
|
jimbo
Posts: 1,913
Member is Online
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 6, 2023 1:15:43 GMT
One thing if Bakerloo went "dark" for a few months- if the ventilation was kept up it's overall temperature might drop a few degrees. Most of the ventilation in the tube tunnels is achieved by moving trains. If the service is suspended for a while, the air may tend to stagnate in places. It may be necessary to send through a battery loco from time to time to stir it up. |
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Sept 6, 2023 7:11:53 GMT
Oh, yes. Many (most? all?) of the early systems depended on the trains to move the air. OTOH, don't at least some of the stations have fans? It would certainly be possible to temporarily add some. Not much comment on the costs, but I'd imagine that a few months of operation would not be cheap, and I'm not going to do the research and calculations of how much air must be moved to gain any appreciable cooling.
With a battery loco, to do this right someone would have to fit a battery loco with a baffle of a train profile (which would add air resistance and use more energy, shortening the available driving time).
Much would depend on what work is happening in the tunnels themselves.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196 
|
Post by Tom on Sept 6, 2023 7:27:09 GMT
If you think the Bakerloo line gets hot during the day, you should experience it overnight with no trains moving and no air movement. It is unpleasantly hot.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Sept 6, 2023 7:31:54 GMT
Could either of these be adapted to accommodate exams and shed days whilst the current depot is closed for reconstruction? That would leave only the programme lift which may be one train a fortnight, and need to move between battery locos over TBTC signalling to Neasden, Ruislip or Acton Works. Neither is really suitable - Queen's Park has no road access, no crane, and current rails at ground level. Think of it more as covered sidings than anything else. London Road is arguably better but again has very poor road access (it's a tight turn and narrow access from London Road, possibly only achieveable from one direction) and is unsuitable for anything larger than a Transit van. The existing depot buildings would need to be demolished and the stores facilities inside would need relocating. |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by towerman on Sept 6, 2023 9:02:49 GMT
The original pit roads are still in situ at London Rd but are useless as anyone over 5ft has to bend double to get under a train.
|
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Sept 6, 2023 11:48:26 GMT
Thanks Tom, I'll pass. I know what Hot is- grew up in the Washington DC area where it regularly hits 35c in the summer with 70%+ humidity.
That aside, are there any plans to attempt mitigating the heat? Granted that having dumped probably a couple of megawatts into the tunnels every day for a hundred years, it'll take a while to cool down. (Somewhere I read about the temperature gradient outside the tunnel walls through the clay, but wouldn't be able to find that now.)
Reference- on average a human body dissipates about 100w, so think of a crowded carriage as having a 6-7KW heater in it.
|
|
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 Sept 6, 2023 21:47:57 GMT
If you google "cooling the tube" you'll find there have been many trials of ways to achieve this over the years but none has yet achieved the sweet spot of performance, price and widespread practicality.
The last I remember reading about the topic, there was a system designed in-house that transferred heat using a mixture of air and water cooling, that had been successful in initial trials on the disused platform at Holborn and was pending both the outcome of extended trials there and funding to trial it at an operational station (somewhere on the Picc I think).
|
|
jimbo
Posts: 1,913
Member is Online
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 7, 2023 9:49:41 GMT
..... With a battery loco, to do this right someone would have to fit a battery loco with a baffle of a train profile (which would add air resistance and use more energy, shortening the available driving time)..... Tube train profile doesn't leave any room to spare! This photo shows a passenger train being transferred by battery loco. www.pinterest.com.au/pin/565975878153622155/ |
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Sept 7, 2023 15:38:22 GMT
In that case, it wouldn't need one. I may be mistaken, aren't some of the BL's smaller than the stock they pull? Of course, if they're not moving at any appreciable speed, it also won't help much
Chris- I've read some of the past projects but aren't aware of anything ongoing.
On the side- I often find that the link redirect thing that ProBoards puts into the messages just doesn't work. It would be helpful to put the link URL as the link text instead of "this photo".
|
|
brigham
Posts: 2,531
Member is Online
|
Post by brigham on Sept 8, 2023 7:31:40 GMT
I've always thought that the battery locos look diminutive. It's probably because they are more often seen coupled to surface-gauge stock, where they have a definite 'Hayling Island' look.
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Sept 8, 2023 13:02:14 GMT
Why oh why wasn't all this thought of years ago? It seems ridiculous that TfL should have ordered a fleet of trains that don't fit any of the existing infrastructure, having to rebuild depots to fit the trains rather than trains to fit the depots, and trains that are too long for a lot of the platforms. I wonder if the economy of having a shorter traditional "stock" train would be cheaper than rebuilding entire lines to take what some bean counter reckons to be a cheaper long-term option.
|
|
jimbo
Posts: 1,913
Member is Online
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 8, 2023 21:07:50 GMT
1972 stock is 113.5 metres over body ends, 2024 stock is 113 metres. After 50+ years a systems upgrade to meet modern train requirements is a big job, but the alternative is a like for like replacement to continue living in the past. And if similar changes hadn't been made in the past, the Bakerloo would still be running to 1906 standards! These trains will provide service for another 50 years, maybe as far as 2078, by which time our innovations will be old-fashioned. The new trains will offer many advantages over the current ones, including air conditioning due to the unwheeled cars offering lots of underfloor space.
|
|
brigham
Posts: 2,531
Member is Online
|
Post by brigham on Sept 9, 2023 7:18:33 GMT
Air conditioning?
For the trains, or for the tunnels?
|
|
jimbo
Posts: 1,913
Member is Online
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 9, 2023 8:04:10 GMT
The new Picc trains have air conditioning like S stock. Of course, the doors all open at each station to mix air with platform air, but it makes some difference. In tube tunnels the expelled heat from the train will be restricted to a small volume of air in the tunnel, which is why tunnel ventilation must also be improved. Lessons learnt on the Piccadilly will be transferred to the Bakerloo upgrade.
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Sept 9, 2023 11:23:00 GMT
The new Picc trains have air conditioning like S stock. Of course, the doors all open at each station to mix air with platform air, but it makes some difference. In tube tunnels the expelled heat from the train will be restricted to a small volume of air in the tunnel, which is why tunnel ventilation must also be improved. Lessons learnt on the Piccadilly will be transferred to the Bakerloo upgrade. According to a recent FOI 2024TS will have "air cooling" rather than "air conditioning" using "vapour-compression refrigeration with temperature control but without the humidity control". Not sure if that's the same as on the S Stock but I assume that somewhat reduces the problem of expelling excess heat from the trains into the tunnels www.mylondon.news/news/transport/tfl-explains-new-london-underground-27608366 |
|
|
|
Post by burkitt on Sept 9, 2023 11:39:21 GMT
Why oh why wasn't all this thought of years ago? It was thought of years ago (the Deep Tube Upgrade Programme has been running in various forms since about 2010), but the imposition and collapse of PPP, ending of any central government funding etc have left TfL unable to act on those thoughts for many years now. It seems ridiculous that TfL should have ordered a fleet of trains that don't fit any of the existing infrastructure, having to rebuild depots to fit the trains rather than trains to fit the depots, and trains that are too long for a lot of the platforms. As Jimbo says, there's no sense in new trains being hamstrung by existing depots, or we'd still be subject to 1906 specs. I wonder if the economy of having a shorter traditional "stock" train would be cheaper than rebuilding entire lines to take what some bean counter reckons to be a cheaper long-term option. That's exactly the kind of short term economy that "bean counters" love. London Underground was developing the Space Train, a low floor, walk through tube train for the Victoria line and very much the predecessor to the 24TS, back in the 1990s. It got cancelled as soon as Metronet took over in favour of the conventional, conservative 09TS, because it was cheaper in the short term. Thankfully TfL can now design a train for its whole life benefits. |
|
jimbo
Posts: 1,913
Member is Online
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 9, 2023 20:06:33 GMT
For the air-con enthusiast, TfL has just released a series of FoI requests:
New Tube for London air cooling systems Request ID: FOI-1664-2324
Sub Surface lines AC systems Request ID: FOI-1665-2324
Elizabeth line AC systems Request ID: FOI-1666-2324
Class 378 AC systems Request ID: FOI-1667-2324
Class 710 AC systems Request ID: FOI-1668-2324
Can someone do a 'compare and contrast'?
|
|
|
|
Post by ijmad on Sept 10, 2023 1:14:49 GMT
I believe the tl;dr is that the 345s and 710s both have full air conditioning systems whereas the NTfL trains will have air temperature control but not humidity control, which is more correctly described as 'air cooling' but is frequently also called 'air conditioning' especially when it's used in other vehicles with space constraints such as busses, cars and trucks.
The short answer is that even with the bold design choices to have the bogieless cars there's still not enough space for a full HVAC system underslung on the cars, but it should be very significant improvement compared to the current trains running in the deep level tunnels.
|
|
jimbo
Posts: 1,913
Member is Online
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 10, 2023 21:03:58 GMT
Well, my analysis is that only the class 378 has humidity control, the others only air cooling. Interesting that four different manufacturers are mentioned, S stock not being shown. Power consumption of the new Picc (and Bakerloo?) train system is not known, still under test. S stock power consumption is far above the others shown, at 21-31Kwh per car, compared to 13-15Kwh on class 710 (and 345?). The S stock failure rate is high. Of course, all but the Picc trains have roof-mounted units. I hope the underfloor units keep clean enough!
|
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Sept 12, 2023 9:35:34 GMT
Well, my analysis is that only the class 378 has humidity control, the others only air cooling. Interesting that four different manufacturers are mentioned, S stock not being shown. Power consumption of the new Picc (and Bakerloo?) train system is not known, still under test. S stock power consumption is far above the others shown, at 21-31Kwh per car, compared to 13-15Kwh on class 710 (and 345?). The S stock failure rate is high. Of course, all but the Picc trains have roof-mounted units. I hope the underfloor units keep clean enough! Having looked at the FOIs, I doubt they were all compiled by the same person, and I strongly doubt that 17m car (S stock) is consuming twice as much energy per air conditioning unit as a 20m long class 710 or 23m long class 345. There haven't been any significant improvements in air conditioning system technology between S stock and the Aventra platform so a twice the energy consumption is unlikely. But happy to be proved wrong! |
|
jimbo
Posts: 1,913
Member is Online
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 13, 2023 5:02:56 GMT
Closing the Bakerloo Line for more than two years in order to reconstruct the depot recalls fears of a couple of years back: link If London can do without the Bakerloo line for that long, maybe 2.5 years slipping to 3 years, couldn't it get by a couple more years, say 5 years? That would postpone the cost of new trains, and await a buildup of demand to justify reopening. The Jubilee duplicates the Bakerloo route between Baker Street and Waterloo. The Jubilee originally took over the Stanmore branch mainly to relieve demand between Paddington and Oxford Circus. Today that would go by Elizabeth Line to Bond Street - Hanover Square end, one stop instead of five! The Bakerloo was to be closed south of Waterloo to connect in the Lewisham extension tunnels, so preliminary works for that could also be done at the same time. By reopening nearer the Lewisham extension, a new signalling system throughout the line and a new larger fleet build could become economic. Building on from the Picc line trains now would require a costly restart to build 7 identical trains for the Lewisham extension later. Is there space for a new maintenance depot on the Hayes branch, with Stonebridge Park then becoming just stabling roads? There was talk of only stabling roads south of a Lewisham terminus in the Wearside Road council depot, but no reported consideration of stabling for the Hayes branch. |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Sept 13, 2023 9:52:47 GMT
Small bit for comparison re talk of closing the line:
The City & South London from Euston to Moorgate was closed from August 1922-April 1924 & the Moorgate-Clapham Common section from November 1923 to December 1924-major re-boring of tunnel widths et al.
That all cost City Road station its' life, as it were, and cleared the way for extensions onwards both ways.
The big question now would be whether people forced to find alternative routes would return,because there may be more other ways than there were 100 years ago.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Sept 13, 2023 16:53:08 GMT
Closing the Bakerloo Line for more than two years in order to reconstruct the depot recalls fears of a couple of years back My big fear is that we would have a repeat of a different experience from a couple of years back. The reconstruction of South Harrow sidings was originally planned to take nine months, but ended up taking more than two years. |
|
|
|
Post by exwatfordian on Sept 15, 2023 9:11:43 GMT
If only there was a small bit of land near Watford that previously housed Bakerloo line stock that hasn't ended up being redeveloped...
|
|
jimbo
Posts: 1,913
Member is Online
|
Post by jimbo on Sept 20, 2023 5:55:07 GMT
Does such a long closure risk loss of grandfather rights? I recall that closure of the East London Line 1995-98 for Brunel tunnel refurbishment led to unexpected inspection of the whole line before reopening, with unconnected modifications being required to meet modern rail standards, such as bridge protection. Would tube trains be allowed to serve Overground platforms again? After over two years with no through trains to the Bakerloo, could they be required to work empty to and from Depot with Overground continuing to meet all demand north of Queen's Park, perhaps with extra Harrow reversers? What about starting operation again in a small tube tunnel without an escape walkway?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Sept 20, 2023 17:48:10 GMT
Good question. Hard to say really but if that was the case the management couldn’t really afford to close the line!
I think the Overground service solely working north of Queens Park would be a return to the dark ages! I can’t see there being sufficient resources available to meet demand on the line now and I’d question if there is enough capacity at Euston for a more frequent service?
|
|
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 Sept 20, 2023 20:53:03 GMT
In terms of service provision north of Queen's Park, if there aren't paths into Euston, then extra services could reverse at Kilburn High Road. That would only be a useful service if most of the passengers aren't heading to Euston (which I doubt) and would require more rolling stock (I don't know if this is available). Additional services calling at platforms 5 and 6 and/or reconstruction of at Willesden Junction would be a benefit
Another option might be to run the services onto the North London Line, but paths there are also a scarce resource. Some might be able to be created by terminating the Clapham Junction service at Willesden Junction and running services from the DC line in their place. With enough notice timetables could probably be adjusted to enable this if required. If paths to Watford are not available then services could reverse at Harrow and Wealdstone, this might require modifications to the reversing siding to make it suitable for mainline stock but that is almost certainly trivial in the context of project as large as this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Sept 20, 2023 22:22:08 GMT
Do we know /precisely/ what the alleged Stonebridge Park depot is ? Lots of statements 'it needs 2 years to rebuild' but nothing says exactly what they need to build.
Does Stonebridge Park routinely split 72TS for maintenance ? If not, then length of an unsplit Inspiro can't be the issue; the 4LM depots have only one road each at Upminster + Ealing Common + Neasden where a complete unsplit train can be lifted. And pretty sure, well, I know, none of that was needed from Day One of S-stock in service, you need it later, not at T0. The rest of the 4lM depots are pretty conventional apart from the road with high level side platforms to get at the air con kit.
Before anyone comments S-stock is not articulated and Inspiro are, I'll point out S-stock is not split at depots, and, dealing with a single entity coupled but non-articulated train is logistically the same as dealing with a single entity articulated train .
Before S-stock arrived, none of the SSL depots could deal with trains of that length.
And how is it Northfields and Cockfosters (and in turn Hainault and Ruislip) can deal but Stonebridge can't - what ARE the differences driving the alleged difficulty ? What *is* the issue if not length ?
Another point is these modern trains require far less down time for maintenance - and AC motor trains even less than DC motor trains.
IMHO this will be resolved; there will be a work around; the blocking point is not can the engineers (civil, buildings etc) do it - but can the bean counters find the funds.
What? Me? Cynical? this could be a deliberate ploy to prove a point about funding rather then reality. I am reminded of a famous engineer definition - "an engineer is someone who can do for £1 what any damn fool can do for £10"; the problem is it is the damn fools holding the purse strings as well as the fools who vote for the fool to hold the purse.
|
|
