|
Post by 100andthirty on Jun 17, 2024 16:40:02 GMT
Fascinating document. Seems to redact information that's already in the public domain, such as the Siemens train option which many at high level in TfL have urged to be taken up with some ungency before the options expire
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jun 18, 2024 0:55:13 GMT
Reading between the lines, it seems that the Bakerloo Upgrade remains much as reported in above posts. “A cost-effective solution offering fleet standardisation benefits” does sound like a further build of Piccadilly line style trains! “Beyond the traditional delivery approach” suggests unlike the method being employed for the Piccadilly Line Upgrade, where the new fleet is gradually commissioned to replace the existing trains. “Modelling suggests there is sufficient line capacity on alternative routes” implies a line closure. “The current condition of the fleet, cost, performance and reliability” implies urgent withdrawal is desirable. Dual running of old and new fleets with depot reconstruction would disrupt the service for three years, implying the preferred option will disrupt the line for a shorter unspecified period. A strong case is being built for the preferred option, since pressure is anticipated to take another option, which would delay completion and increase costs.
If they find a new depot site, then the current fleet could operate from Stonebridge Park until the new fleet can start from the new depot. But will the current trains last that long? Line disruption would still occur for modified power supply, signalling and tunnel ventilation works.
|
|
|
Post by A60stock on Jun 18, 2024 2:56:37 GMT
If Stonebridge park depot closes, does this spell the end for Stonebridge Park terminators? Feels like an odd destination to turn short at, without the depot
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,414
|
Post by metman on Jun 18, 2024 5:59:27 GMT
Are the 1972 stock in that bad a nick? I’ve had a very trips on the Bakerloo recently and found it to be running fine. The trains have performed well even under high passenger loads.
Was I just lucky?
|
|
|
Post by chilsie on Jun 18, 2024 7:33:57 GMT
To the credit of the Bakerloo Line staff, I’ve been finding journeys a lot more pleasant recently. The new lighting has done wonders for the atmosphere of the trains, and if I’m not mistaken the volume of the announcements has been bumped up to make them properly audible which is a great touch.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jun 18, 2024 8:26:14 GMT
They are the last of the old mechanical style electric trains on LU, and have a heavy scheduled maintenance routine. They have always had the poorest distance between failures figures, but fortunately aren't required to travel far on the Bakerloo. I haven't seen any recent performance figures.
|
|
|
Post by starlight73 on Jun 18, 2024 13:12:17 GMT
From the 3 options on page 5 - the third option, “An optimal balance between impact on delivery and passengers” sounds like the best one. Or that line sounds good but we can’t know what the option is
The second option is the one I thought could be a complete temporary line closure with its “significant” impact on passengers. Unless it’s saying “keep the old trains going” which is also possible.
We’ll find out in due course I guess…
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Jun 18, 2024 13:20:06 GMT
The signalling system has to be a major headache.
Years ago I saw the PC used to provide the platform destination indicators.
The operating system was way beyond support from the maker.
|
|
|
Post by jetblast787 on Jun 18, 2024 14:36:13 GMT
Can the 73 supplement the Bakerloo line once they start being withdrawn?
|
|
gefw
Gone - but still interested
Posts: 172
|
Post by gefw on Jun 18, 2024 14:43:02 GMT
The signalling system has to be a major headache. Years ago I saw the PC used to provide the platform destination indicators. The operating system was way beyond support from the maker. I think there is a project underway related to updating the Bakerloo line signalling control system - This may well include the Information system
|
|
|
Post by starlight73 on Jun 18, 2024 18:11:27 GMT
Can the 73 supplement the Bakerloo line once they start being withdrawn? This was discussed in another thread which I can’t find now. Think it was that the cost of converting the 73TS for the Bakerloo line would be too much - it’s poorer value than getting new stock.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,165
|
Post by Tom on Jun 18, 2024 19:18:04 GMT
The signalling system has to be a major headache. Years ago I saw the PC used to provide the platform destination indicators. The operating system was way beyond support from the maker. The vital signalling is broadly sound and can be modified/ugraded in house with little reliance on outside organisations for intellectual property rights - the main issue is the source of key spares, but these can be replaced with more modern equivalents relatively easily. The signalling control system is rather elderly, but there is a stock of spares to keep it going; the issue here is the ability of people with the skills to modify it and maintain it. It is therefore being replaced using a similar system to that installed on the Piccadilly line in 2018-19.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 18, 2024 20:17:53 GMT
can be modified/upgraded in house with little reliance on outside organisations for intellectual property rights ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) but I better not say more ![:-X](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/lipssealed.png) The signalling control system is rather elderly, ...... the issue here is the ability of people with the skills to modify it and maintain it. Indeed. Human obsolescence and succession training is poorly managed.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jun 18, 2024 21:22:20 GMT
If Stonebridge park depot closes, does this spell the end for Stonebridge Park terminators? Feels like an odd destination to turn short at, without the depot Above there is an LU proposal to reverse at Willesden Junction bay road, suitably lengthened, instead of at Stonebridge Park which would save 9 minutes running time, and so save a few new trains at some £16 million each (94 Picc train contract cost £1.5 billion). If the current depot site were sold, the reception roads would no longer be available for reversing. Stonebridge Depot was built on a cramped site as only stage I, to urgently get the Bakerloo out of Neasden depot, leaving room for the Jubilee line fleet there. It was envisaged that additional stabling would eventually be built on adjoining rail sites as they became available, accommodating the complete fleet. I never heard more of that proposal. The adjoining area has since been repurposed and is still in regular use. To acquire it now would require agreement on alternative sites for the current operations, and the time to provide those alternatives before a start is made on a new Bakerloo depot. It seems that a search is still underway for a new depot site along the line, presumably as far a Watford if necessary, but agreement on an alternative site will take time before a start can be made on any new depot. Quickest and cheapest is a closure of the current depot for rebuild free of trains. Any new site could just be used to stable the larger fleet required for a more frequent service, and perhaps an extension beyond Elephant & Castle. The new trains have lower maintenance requirements, which could probably be accommodated within the current depot area when rebuilt.
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Jun 19, 2024 1:35:59 GMT
If Stonebridge park depot closes, does this spell the end for Stonebridge Park terminators? Feels like an odd destination to turn short at, without the depot Above there is an LU proposal to reverse at Willesden Junction bay road, suitably lengthened, instead of at Stonebridge Park which would save 9 minutes running time, and so save a few new trains at some £16 million each (94 Picc train contract cost £1.5 billion). If the current depot site were sold, the reception roads would no longer be available for reversing. I suppose that there is a balance between cost of trains and providing a useful service. Ideally the service to Wembley Central should be improved as this is the main Bakerloo destination north of Queen's Park. The existing fleet already runs six trains per hour to Harrow & Wealdstone during the peaks and the cost of additional extra trains (the fleet size is already planned to be larger) won't be a large part of the overall modernisation scheme if a new depot is to be constructed. Additionally what will the balance be between lengthening platform 2 at Willesden Junction and ordering a couple more trains? Currently there is only one lift to the low level platforms, but lengthening the bay further will probably mean that there needs to be a separate lift on platform 1 as well given the lack of space to the north end of the platforms. Given the elongated nature of the Stonebridge Park site, the reception road(s) could still be retained for reversals even if the depot itself disappears.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jun 19, 2024 7:29:35 GMT
Given there is clear intent to extend the southern end of the Bakerloo route, would a less disruptive to customers option be to create a new depot somewhere along that planned extension route. Given the long over-run tunnels at Elephant & Castle - it should be possible to isolate a short section of those tunnels and begin digging south from the Elephant & Castle at least as far as the planned depot (and ideally let the tunneling team then continue on to deliver the entire extension route).
I recall earlier suggestions that there was an empty former Southern Region sidings/depot facilities close to the proposed route where a spur could rise to the surface and be repurposed for the Bakerloo depot at less cost than trying to create a completely new depot on a currently non-railway site.
This would sort of mirror the approach used to opening the Jubilee Line extension - which operated independently for a period. In effect it would allow the existing service to continue based on Stonebridge whilst the new depot is built and kitted out with all the necessary kit to support the delivery and testing of the new trains prior to their taking over service on the full route including the extension route.
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jun 19, 2024 7:51:41 GMT
The extended Bakerloo will not use the existing Elephant station or overrun tunnels, a new station box has already been provided by the developers of the over station site.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,627
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 19, 2024 10:13:00 GMT
The most recent consultation (2019) included a depot on the site of Wearside Road council depot just beyond Lewisham. See Factsheet 9 (PDF pages 26-27).
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jun 19, 2024 10:46:01 GMT
Above there is an LU proposal to reverse at Willesden Junction bay road, suitably lengthened, instead of at Stonebridge Park which would save 9 minutes running time, and so save a few new trains at some £16 million each (94 Picc train contract cost £1.5 billion). If the current depot site were sold, the reception roads would no longer be available for reversing. The problem with Bakerloo trains terminating at Willesden Junction is not just lengthening the bay, but maintaining access for Overground trains to Willesden TMD if there is going to be a Bakerloo in the bay most of the time.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,165
|
Post by Tom on Jun 19, 2024 18:21:29 GMT
Given the long over-run tunnels at Elephant & Castle - it should be possible to isolate a short section of those tunnels and begin digging south from the Elephant & Castle at least as far as the planned depot (and ideally let the tunneling team then continue on to deliver the entire extension route). I've walked the length of the tunnels beyond Elephant and Castle; whilst they are 'long' for overrun purposes compated to the traditional nominal overrun of a car or two, they are intended as stabling sidings, and in that role they are actually quite tight. I understand they are not currently used as stabling sidings but there is precious little room to take over a small section of them and use them as the working shafts for an extension south and still retain them as stabling berths- it would probably be questionable if they could even be used as overruns without additional speed control in the platforms.
|
|
|
Post by starlight73 on Jun 19, 2024 19:40:27 GMT
The Bakerloo line extension will use new platforms at Elephant & Castle, so they couldn’t start digging from the existing overrun. (Sorry to disappoint!) would’ve thought the tunnel boring machine(s) would start from ground level at the southern end of the extension? Fit out [of the new Elephant & Castle station box] includes step-free access to the Northern Line, installation of new lifts and escalators, and fit-out of a new ticket hall. Provision will be made for later escalators to new Bakerloo Line platforms on the Lewisham extension, should this be constructed. Given the timescales involved, is it possible that they’ll find a new/enlarged depot site on the existing Bakerloo line? Given that funding isn’t confirmed yet for the extension, so a southern depot wouldn’t be constructed for several years. While the report implies that the 72TS are in urgent need of replacement
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,627
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 20, 2024 1:46:51 GMT
At the time of the 2019 consultation (see link in my previous post) final decisions on TBM launch locations had not been made but the preferred option was primary construction starting at New Cross Gate and tunnelling both ways to Lewisham and the station known then as Old Kent Road 1 (now Burgess Park), with a secondary worksite at the latter station for constructing the tunnels between there and Lambeth North.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jun 21, 2024 9:13:26 GMT
I don't know how it came about, but the current order of trains for the Piccadilly Line is considered sufficient for a 30tph service, but only 27tph can be operated under the current signalling. When funding can be found for resignalling of the line, it will also cover a build of further trains to operate 33tph or 36tph. To cut the cost of new trains for the Bakerloo line, couldn't the last of the current Piccadilly order be diverted to the Bakerloo, allowing a smaller order of new trains for that line. This will mean that the resignalling proposal for the Piccadilly Line will increase by an equivalent amount to build more trains than was originally envisaged. Robbing Peter to pay Paul perhaps, but it might enable the Bakerloo case to pass the line using trains that would otherwise be surplus to requirements for some time into the future.
27 / 30 tph x 94 ordered suggests 9 trains will be surplus to requirements.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 21, 2024 12:01:23 GMT
I don't know how it came about, but the current order of trains for the Piccadilly Line is considered sufficient for a 30tph service, but only 27tph can be operated under the current signalling. When funding can be found for resignalling of the line, it will also cover a build of further trains to operate 33tph or 36tph. To cut the cost of new trains for the Bakerloo line, couldn't the last of the current Piccadilly order be diverted to the Bakerloo, allowing a smaller order of new trains for that line. This will mean that the resignalling proposal for the Piccadilly Line will increase by an equivalent amount to build more trains than was originally envisaged. Robbing Peter to pay Paul perhaps, but it might enable the Bakerloo case to pass the line using trains that would otherwise be surplus to requirements for some time into the future. 27 / 30 tph x 94 ordered suggests 9 trains will be surplus to requirements. Still does not answer the depot question. Unless some time and crew wasting grossly inefficient continual routine stock transfer between Bakerloo and Northfields; I would go as far as to say would actually demand the equivalent of one maybe even 2 whole units permanently rotating off the line; your 9 trains either need the Bakerloo depot facility, or you won't even get more than 7 or 8 working on the line. Nor all the necessary twiddling to platforms / signalling / sidings / signage / possibly traction current. And all the operational complexications of mixed train types, mixed traction knowledge. For an undetermined duration - everyone knows how these things slip and slip. Just for 7-8 units ? Economic ? ![8-|](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/nerd.png)
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jun 21, 2024 12:31:08 GMT
My suggestion was only that the cost of the line upgrade could be reduced by the cost of 9 trains with a saving of some £144 million (94 Picc train contract cost £1.5 billion). They would be maintained at the new line depot alongside the balance of new trains, and not required to return to the Piccadilly Line. If/when additional Piccadilly Line trains are required for a service increase with resignalling, an additional 9 trains would then be ordered to restore the fleet.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,957
|
Post by towerman on Jun 21, 2024 17:00:14 GMT
I don't know how it came about, but the current order of trains for the Piccadilly Line is considered sufficient for a 30tph service, but only 27tph can be operated under the current signalling. When funding can be found for resignalling of the line, it will also cover a build of further trains to operate 33tph or 36tph. To cut the cost of new trains for the Bakerloo line, couldn't the last of the current Piccadilly order be diverted to the Bakerloo, allowing a smaller order of new trains for that line. This will mean that the resignalling proposal for the Piccadilly Line will increase by an equivalent amount to build more trains than was originally envisaged. Robbing Peter to pay Paul perhaps, but it might enable the Bakerloo case to pass the line using trains that would otherwise be surplus to requirements for some time into the future. 27 / 30 tph x 94 ordered suggests 9 trains will be surplus to requirements. Still does not answer the depot question. Unless some time and crew wasting grossly inefficient continual routine stock transfer between Bakerloo and Northfields; I would go as far as to say would actually demand the equivalent of one maybe even 2 whole units permanently rotating off the line; your 9 trains either need the Bakerloo depot facility, or you won't even get more than 7 or 8 working on the line. Nor all the necessary twiddling to platforms / signalling / sidings / signage / possibly traction current. And all the operational complexications of mixed train types, mixed traction knowledge. For an undetermined duration - everyone knows how these things slip and slip. Just for 7-8 units ? Economic ? ![8-|](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/nerd.png) Whenthe Bakerloo was shut between Piccadilly and Elephant for tunnel works they had four trains stabled at Neasden,two were rotated every day.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,957
|
Post by towerman on Jun 21, 2024 17:02:03 GMT
Mind you in those days both lines had conventional signalling.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 21, 2024 19:54:48 GMT
Yes, but to do that means the Picc 2024 stock has to be Jubilee TBTC fitted, today to get through the Baker Street area from Bakerloo to Jubilee to Neasden. While one could perhaps assume 2024 will be Seltrac CBTC, I'd suggest approving and fitting TBTC would at least run into £-millions even if technically possible.
EDIT I see towerman then commented similarly.
I suggest all round ideas such as this are non starters; what was done in the past with juggling around minority sub-fleets of 38 56 59 62 (67) 72 etc tube stock etc, all of which had /generally/ similar characteristics and, in most cases, similar train protection systems and or similar depot facilities and or similar lengths does not now work these days.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jun 26, 2024 5:48:02 GMT
Bakerloo Line Extension (BLE) safeguarding link here. Interesting how sharply the line curves to reach Wearside depot site. Was the possible surface depot site, mentioned above by alpinejohn , the land at New Cross Gate which is to be used for spoil disposal by rail? The New Cross Gate site is the base for tunnelling, and provides for 300 metre trains to deliver tunnel segments and to remove spoil. It also provides for a slurry treatment plant to separate the spoil recovered and return slurry to the tunnel face. It is intended to launch two tunnelling machines towards Wearside before they are recovered to be returned to New Cross Gate to then launch west towards Burgess Park station. In the meantime the tunnel towards Wearside can be completed with track, signalling, etc. Two conventional tunnelling machines will already have launched from Burgess Park station site towards Lambeth North to allow time for connections to be made with the existing Bakerloo Line tunnels. The Wearside depot may therefore be used as a construction depot for the new tunnels and perhaps also for the Hayes line conversion, before becoming stabling sidings. The New Cross Gate site cannot be reinstated until all tunnelling is completed. Perhaps this eliminates it as a possible depot site for the Lewisham extension, but it might be equipped to stable additional trains for the Hayes branch if that is commissioned later. There would appear to be little remaining railway lands along the Hayes branch, except maybe room for a few sidings in current parking space. Conversion of the line with new signalling and platform heights would take a lot less time than the tunnelling work to Lewisham, and therefore works on the branch could commence later but still open at the same time. However, to spread expenditure, it might be preferred to delay start of works on the branch until the tunnel extension was opened. This would allow longer for the New Cross Gate site to be converted for rail access. It will already need access to the new tunnels to allow for slurry and tunnel segment delivery. A suitable inclined tunnel could also later serve for train access to a new depot. The site could probably accommodate double-length roads, and is wide enough for around two dozen roads. However, Stonebridge Park, or a similar north-west site, will already have been rebuilt to support the new fleet. New Cross Gate would only need to be a subsidiary depot in the south-east.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,957
|
Post by towerman on Jun 26, 2024 11:21:14 GMT
Doubt it would be a full maintenance depot,just sdgs with a few staff to do safety testing and cleaning.
|
|