|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 11, 2023 19:05:22 GMT
During recent engineering works, the restricted service south from Queen's Park used only 18 trains, which with 10% spares would need 20. With one at Northfields, the balance might be stabled without use of Stonebridge Park depot, leaving it clear for rebuilding. The Elephant sidings could again be used with a short staff platform in the present crossover tunnel, all that remains of the original alignment here. Elsewhere terminal overrun stabling does not have a crossover provided.
The new trains will not require daily attention (see FOI-2436-2324 of 08 November 2023 “the 24TS maintenance regime does not include an activity called train prep”) but maybe weekly, which would have to be done at London Road, or maybe Queen's Park shed, in the absence of Stonebridge Park. London Road depot was to be provided with three pitted roads for light maintenance of the new trains, according to a heavily redacted 320-page report headed NTfL Operations and Maintenance Concept issue 3 dated 20 July 2016 released under FoI a year later. This would probably be much easier than current 1972 stock servicing, with a 50-year advance in methods and materials!
A nightly transfer to Northfields could get through a fleet of 20 trains in three weeks if required. The Picc depots will accommodate 112 trains after reconstruction, but only 94 in the initial order so 18 spare spaces. With 20 trains to operate a local service on the Bakerloo, there would be space for the balance of the 36-train initial Bakerloo order to be stored on the Picc, perhaps used in rotation to keep them serviceable.
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Nov 11, 2023 19:34:35 GMT
.......... which would have to be done at London Road, or maybe Queen's Park shed, in the absence of Stonebridge Park. London Road depot was to be provided with three pitted roads for light maintenance of the new trains, . Question - not a statement - do Queens Park and London Road have road access to move in and out parts, or, if not, new road access to be provided ? This means road access sufficient for trucks large enough to carry both the occasional large heavy single item that may be needed for unclassified work, as well as multiple small items and consumables for routine classified jobs, and space for handling - even a fork lift truck needs space - as does a trcuk with its own crane - as well as all the materials for cleaning and so on. And stores space. And so on. If someone suggests supply parts by battery loco stores train, you still need to unload and load it, and I'd suggest the amount of work needed to provision for doing that by train would be bigger and more costly than doing this by road. I'm only asking the questions, not saying any of this is a blocking point. I'm sure that those in fleet have thought about these things. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 11, 2023 20:02:21 GMT
I didn’t think either ‘depot’ had decent road access. Queens Park is marooned between a host of railway lines and London Road is in a hole in the ground!
I expect trying to provide heavy road access would not be straightforward unless anyone with more local knowledge knows better?
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Nov 11, 2023 20:31:35 GMT
I didn’t think either ‘depot’ had decent road access. Queens Park is marooned between a host of railway lines and London Road is in a hole in the ground! I expect trying to provide heavy road access would not be straightforward unless anyone with more local knowledge knows better? Well, I did put it as a question, but now you said it, AFAIK Queens Park has no roads access suitable for this purpose; London Road I do not know about but from what I have heard I tend to agree with your description. Speaking as a life long maintainer of somewhat smaller assets, even getting a 20 kg load (such as a populated server or san array) on to sites that do have roads into buildings that do have loading bays is bad enough. Pretty sure that lumps of train hardware a f-ff-fff-fairly sight more difficult to deal with. If anything, I'd have said both those 2 locations are rather more constrained than ever Stonebridge Park is. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 11, 2023 20:41:20 GMT
Queens Park was supported by battery loco trains when operating as a depot. London Road has poor road access, but this was known when the 2016 proposal for three pit roads was made. Perhaps some upgrade is proposed? I imagined most maintenance could be done at Northfields until Stonebridge Park is reconstructed, rather than the official proposal to close the line completely for a couple of years (see initial post that started this thread!).
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by towerman on Nov 11, 2023 22:42:21 GMT
London Rd pits would need to be deepened and lengthened at the moment you’ve got to crawl on your hands and knees under a train as I found out one night when a train came o/s with locked wheels.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by towerman on Nov 11, 2023 22:42:53 GMT
London Rd pits would need to be deepened and lengthened at the moment you’ve got to crawl on your hands and knees under a train as I found out one night when a train came o/s with locked wheels.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 12, 2023 2:10:49 GMT
Are there three pit roads in London Road Depot currently? If not, this must be a proposal to build some to modern standards, and presumably modify the present one to match.
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Nov 12, 2023 3:16:02 GMT
I didn’t think either ‘depot’ had decent road access. Queens Park is marooned between a host of railway lines and London Road is in a hole in the ground! I expect trying to provide heavy road access would not be straightforward unless anyone with more local knowledge knows better? Well, I did put it as a question, but now you said it, AFAIK Queens Park has no roads access suitable for this purpose; London Road I do not know about but from what I have heard I tend to agree with your description. Speaking as a life long maintainer of somewhat smaller assets, even getting a 20 kg load (such as a populated server or san array) on to sites that do have roads into buildings that do have loading bays is bad enough. Pretty sure that lumps of train hardware a f-ff-fff-fairly sight more difficult to deal with. If anything, I'd have said both those 2 locations are rather more constrained than ever Stonebridge Park is. I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'decent'. London Road depot does have road access sufficient for medium size vans as you can see several vans on Google Maps' satellite view of the car park. The car park is at road level, but there is a ramp down to the shed area. The tracks / buildings are not that far below street level, so access over the wall could also be possible with suitable arrangements. Storage of parts may be more difficult and I don't know is if the larger building on London Road itself has access to the track level, because it is hidden behind the shed in the pictures I can find. I suppose a question would be: Do you get London Road depot adapted for any light work on new stock before you start on Stonebridge Park? |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by towerman on Nov 12, 2023 11:34:53 GMT
Are there three pit roads in London Road Depot currently? If not, this must be a proposal to build some to modern standards, and presumably modify the present one to match. If memory serves,think there are 4 or 5 pit roads undercover. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 17, 2023 2:39:10 GMT
I note that the TfL Finance Report Period 7, 2023/24 Management results from 1 April 2023 – 14 October 2023, on the capital enhancements page, has a new line for 'Bakerloo Line Trains' with nothing in it! This title sounds a little less impressive than the 'Piccadilly Line Upgrade' and 'Four Lines Modernisation' projects. link |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 20, 2023 23:47:26 GMT
The November Underground News mentions a proposal to boost reversal capacity to the north of the Bakerloo line by improving the layout of the crossover south of Queen's Park platforms. Reversing some trains from Queen's Park northbound platform, with crew stepping back, would allow more service recovery time in sidings, but these trains would have no recovery time so would need to reach a siding on their next trip. It would be necessary for a train from the sidings to meet every southbound Overground train to allow for cross-platform interchange. I think a second Willesden bay-road would be more useful for regular use, rather than this cheap alternative. The report mentions that modification and use of the current bay-road is being considered.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 21, 2023 15:52:48 GMT
More reversing capacity at Harrow & Wealdstone (reinstating second reversing bay) might be easier
The second Willesden bay has been lost to customer passenger amenities - food outlet, toilets
Which other station could have a bay (ideally centrally located) added? The proximity of the four AC tracks alongside the DC New lines makes life awkward
btw, if the second bay platform at Willesden Junction was reinstated then a better option would to rebuild the platforms to make all four of them suitable for through trains, with one each per direction dedicated to each of the services (Overground / Underground). The track heights could then be adapted to facilitate full accessibility (perhaps only at certain doors on services that use the outer pair of platforms).
Its a shame that the proximity of the AC tracks prevents more shared stations being made accessible in this way
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Nov 21, 2023 21:31:27 GMT
More reversing capacity at Harrow & Wealdstone (reinstating second reversing bay) might be easier The second Willesden bay has been lost to customer passenger amenities - food outlet, toilets Which other station could have a bay (ideally centrally located) added? The proximity of the four AC tracks alongside the DC New lines makes life awkward btw, if the second bay platform at Willesden Junction was reinstated then a better option would to rebuild the platforms to make all four of them suitable for through trains, with one each per direction dedicated to each of the services (Overground / Underground). The track heights could then be adapted to facilitate full accessibility (perhaps only at certain doors on services that use the outer pair of platforms). Its a shame that the proximity of the AC tracks prevents more shared stations being made accessible in this way Not sure if the second siding can be reinstated at Harrow any more as the access to the remaining siding was relaid and so there would be less space available than the old arrangement before hitting the OHLE support at the north end (which was the old limit of this lifted siding). What would improve capacity, for service recovery, would be to allow terminating trains from the south to access platform 2, maybe together with making both platforms fully reversible allowing London Overground trains work around any Bakerloo line services in the platforms (might help with the delays whilst Bakerloo trains are checked empty before going to the siding). For the compromise height platforms, it should be possible to have improved access at both heights for at least one vehicle/doorway per train type (would be easier where the platforms are longer) |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 24, 2023 23:13:44 GMT
I wonder if a crossover to the north of the current siding at Harrow would work? With a 15 min interval between trains heading north towards Watford Junction there might be capacity to do some relief moves this way? It would mean extending the fourth rail north a little but in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t sound so bad.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by xtmw on Nov 25, 2023 13:43:10 GMT
Is there a reason there isn't a scissors crossover just south of the station? Looking at carto metro, there is just 1 crossover.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 26, 2023 16:23:10 GMT
I assume the lack of scissors is due to practicality. The wrong road reverse back south from Platform 1 to save time is sufficient within the flexibility of the layout at Harrow and Wealdstone.
It is difficult to say what operational benefit the scissors would provide as a Northbound terminating train arriving on Platform 2 would conflict with southbound Overground trains from Watford and Bakerloo trains exiting the siding. It would also lead to confusion with passengers having to move platforms via the footbridge or lifts.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 26, 2023 19:27:25 GMT
Renewal of the crossover south of Queen's Park would come from the maintenance budget, an accepted cost of LU. New reversal facilities have to make a case as new capital infrastructure, funding for which is scarce. Reversing at Willesden Junction instead of Stonebridge Park would save 9 minutes running time, and so save some new trains at some £16 million each (94 Picc train contract cost £1.5 billion). More trains reversing at Harrow & Wealdstone would require more of these expensive trains, along with their staffing and operating costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by taylor on Nov 26, 2023 20:36:18 GMT
In my youth at South Kenton, trains to Broad Street via both Primrose Hill and Hampstead and to Euston, Elephant, and Watford were commonplace. As the those first two destinations are no longer directly served, I ask myself a. why is retention of interworking with the rest of the NR network necessary and b. couldn’t Euston/Elephant to Watford be handled by one kind of stock? As I understand it, as long as interworking with NR is necessary, the special components in 72S to permit line interworking will have to be replicated in a future version of adapted 2024 Picc. stock. Platforms at South Hampstead and Euston would have to be raised in part. Could the return path on those trains be made switchable to via-3rd-rail on above-ground sections? Hope this isn’t a cat-among-the pigeons contribution!
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 26, 2023 23:22:03 GMT
The Mersey Railway had switchable 3rd rail / 4 rail trains. The 4th rail was used when travelling in the tunnel below the river Mersey. Based on comments I vaguely recall reading I think it was the guard who moved a knife blade (return via wheels / via 4th rail) switch whilst called at Birkenhead Park station. (I'm too young to know for sure.)
I cannot imagine such an arrangement being acceptable today - but perhaps some sort of remote control switch could be devised.
As for the jointly operated service, I think that its quite simple, passengers appreciate the options. Euston is faster but Elephant trains (with their one-seat possibility) perhaps easier. Broad Street was great for the City but especially after the Great Northern Electrics started running from Highbury & Islington to Moorgate BR wanted passengers to change trains to this route and started to run down the Broad Street service. (Trains at less convenient times, often cancelled, etc)
As an aside, the service to Broad Street was quite slow. In the 1980s I often used the route from Hatch End and it took ages. I thought that at one time there were faster trains (from Tring?) but maybe they were lost when longer-distance services out of Euston were electrified.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 27, 2023 7:07:06 GMT
This post link maybe links with the idea that the Bakerloo line upgrade should also be a Watford Junction branch service rationalisation. A larger fleet of 2024TS could cover a Bakerloo Euston branch service, using some of the present Overground stabling to relieve Stonebridge Park depot. This would allow level platform access at all stations served, with no mixed stock. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Nov 27, 2023 11:36:10 GMT
I assume the lack of scissors is due to practicality. The wrong road reverse back south from Platform 1 to save time is sufficient within the flexibility of the layout at Harrow and Wealdstone. It is difficult to say what operational benefit the scissors would provide as a Northbound terminating train arriving on Platform 2 would conflict with southbound Overground trains from Watford and Bakerloo trains exiting the siding. It would also lead to confusion with passengers having to move platforms via the footbridge or lifts. At the times when Platform 1 is used to turn back, the siding is usually empty so no conflict there for a train to run into Platform 2; the Overground services are timed to pass Harrow at about the same time north and southbound so if the Bakerloo train is out of course Platform 2 would normally be free. The advantage of reversing in Platform 2 via any new connection (unlikely to be a scissors just an extra crossover) would be that Bakerloo passengers don't need to change from their usual platform which they do when Platform 1 is used. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 27, 2023 17:50:29 GMT
No they won’t need to change unless they want to continue onto Watford of course but you would expect the train operator to announce they change at Kenton….ideally…
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 28, 2023 12:51:22 GMT
This post link maybe links with the idea that the Bakerloo line upgrade should also be a Watford Junction branch service rationalisation. A larger fleet of 2024TS could cover a Bakerloo Euston branch service, using some of the present Overground stabling to relieve Stonebridge Park depot. This would allow level platform access at all stations served, with no mixed stock. But will tube and mainline trains be allowed to share tracks in the Euston station area? At present one pair of tracks is actually dual electrified (3rd rail and overhead wire) because they are used by both Overground and London Midland (London NorthWestern? or whatever its called today) trains. Passengers expressly want to retain through trains to Euston - some would also like through trains to Stratford! |
|
|
|
Post by taylor on Nov 28, 2023 22:55:18 GMT
With special components, 72TS (and before it 38TS) I believe interworks(ed) with mainline stock north of Queens Park. Therefore, as long as the Picc. 2024TS derivative is similarly adapted, simply rolling between Kilburn High Road and Euston ML station area should be possible. However, how CBTC for Bakerloo Line trains would be managed south of Camden DC Junctions is beyond me and would probably have to be similar as the 7 Flushing Line at Queensboro Plaza. NY subway does have mixed ATO and conventionally signaled (trip-cock) sections. I’ll stand correction, but I don’t think that’s in the planning for the Underground. Maybe operate Willesden Junction to Euston as a LO shuttle partly overlapping with the Bakerloo and (Lewisham/Hayes-) Elephant-Watford as the Bakerloo main line. Unless the LO and Bakerloo are completely segregated at Queens Park, with LO running Euston to Queen’s Park, some interworkable hybrid trains are likely necessary. Or? Question, (probably belongs under the London Overground heading), on the subject of interworking, do classes 378 and 710 have trip cocks?
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Dec 2, 2023 16:09:47 GMT
With special components, 72TS (and before it 38TS) I believe interworks(ed) with mainline stock north of Queens Park. Therefore, as long as the Picc. 2024TS derivative is similarly adapted, simply rolling between Kilburn High Road and Euston ML station area should be possible. However, how CBTC for Bakerloo Line trains would be managed south of Camden DC Junctions is beyond me and would probably have to be similar as the 7 Flushing Line at Queensboro Plaza. NY subway does have mixed ATO and conventionally signaled (trip-cock) sections. I’ll stand correction, but I don’t think that’s in the planning for the Underground. Maybe operate Willesden Junction to Euston as a LO shuttle partly overlapping with the Bakerloo and (Lewisham/Hayes-) Elephant-Watford as the Bakerloo main line. Unless the LO and Bakerloo are completely segregated at Queens Park, with LO running Euston to Queen’s Park, some interworkable hybrid trains are likely necessary. Or? Question, (probably belongs under the London Overground heading), on the subject of interworking, do classes 378 and 710 have trip cocks? I don't think there was any thing 'special' about the Bakerloo stock except maybe for improved insulation to allow working on the DC line where the 4th is bonded to the running rails for current return with the 3rd rail being at full +630V rather the nominal +420V/-210V split between 3rd/4th rails on LU tracks. New stock is already going to be better insulated as regeneration increases the voltages seen by the train anyway. The 378s did have tripcocks, but TPWS has replaced this requirement and I don't think they do anymore and I don't think the 710s ever had them. However, it is extremely unlikely that 'Tube' format stock would ever run into Euston. Apart from general issues with lighter Underground stock intermixing with much larger Intercity trains without suitable safety systems fitted, there is a lack of 4th rail and the platforms at Euston are not the compromise height needed for mixed mainline / Underground operation. If Bakerloo trains were to take over the DC line service then almost certainly a Euston - Queen's Park/Willesden Junction LO shuttle would be the answer, Queen's Park would allow dedicated platform heights but loss of easy interchange, Willesden Junction would allow level interchange in both directions. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Dec 2, 2023 19:43:34 GMT
With Kensal Green non-stopped by Euston trains, could be level tube access. The proposed new Bakerloo Line 9-car trains of 24TS are the same design as the Piccadilly Line fleet, but train equipment modification may be necessary to meet Network Rail requirements. There is also concern over the platform interface north of Queen's Park where services inter-work, and platform edge gap-fillers don't appear feasible. (Underground News November 2023)
|
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Dec 3, 2023 7:52:23 GMT
The platform train interface issue N of Queen's Park is no different from what 2024 tube stock will experience between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Dec 3, 2023 11:41:06 GMT
Queen's Park would allow dedicated platform heights but loss of easy interchange, Willesden Junction would allow level interchange in both directions. Why would there be a loss of easy interchange at Queens Park? LU and LO trains already have dedicated cross-platform interchange here. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Dec 3, 2023 19:52:13 GMT
LU used compomise height platforms on mixed tube/surface stock lines. I thought back in the day that the Watford Junction branch seemed to be standard National Rail height platforms, such that there was quite a climb to get out of a Bakerloo Line train. Has this now been fixed, or does there remain a problem reflected in the concern expressed?
|
|
