Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2005 22:24:37 GMT
Where is Hammersmith cabin? I've looked around for it but it's quite cleverly hidden and doesn't advertise itself with a lovely enamel nameboard like Ricky and Amersham do (Edgware Road is similarly lacking!)
Also, how much less efficient is the reversed terminal layout, with the facing crossover being first as opposed to the trailing crossover being first (like at EBDY)? citysig once said that the layout can cope with a 4-min service, and hair-trigger cope with a 2-min service in one direction, i.e. sucking trains from the SSL or pushing them into the SSL.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2005 6:22:52 GMT
Where is Hammersmith cabin? I've looked around for it but it's quite cleverly hidden and doesn't advertise itself with a lovely enamel nameboard like Ricky and Amersham do (Edgware Road is similarly lacking!) It's just beyond the pointed end of platform 1 |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Sept 14, 2005 6:42:04 GMT
TOK if you look at the video 125 version of the Hammersmith and city DVD you can see it quite cleary on the left as you leave.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Sept 14, 2005 9:21:49 GMT
A few years ago there would be a rather handsome chap looking longingly out the window, trying to spot his relief walking up platform 1. And that was normally about 10 minutes after his shift had started ;D We used to have an enamel sign, which read "I'm a human...get me out of here!" It can indeed cope with a 4-minute service in both directions, though this would have to be a reliable service. One small shutdown could cost quite a bit. The layout could easily be made more efficient (and I'm sure the author of this thread will have numerous plans, both expensive and cheap, some with flyunders, some with flyovers or some with a simple scissors crossover  ;D ) A manager of the time had plans to create a third track between Goldhawk Road and the platforms, so that you could have simultaneous arrivals and departures. It was found in the end though that it would only be used twice a day, and only then if everything was bang on time. So a minor change to the timetable snuffed this idea out. Having worked the layout for years, you did get a little frustrated when it got busy (which was very very rare). The simple one train in, one train out working can hold things up. However, the service as it stands provides the typical 8-minute headway for branches such as this. Any increase in service to 6-minute headways could still be handled well by the area. I doubt the branch will ever warrant a 4-minute service so the layout is sufficient - if a little restrictive at times. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2005 10:44:05 GMT
A few years ago there would be a rather handsome chap looking longingly out the window, trying to spot his relief walking up platform 1. And that was normally about 10 minutes after his shift had started ;D We used to have an enamel sign, which read "I'm a human...get me out of here!" Why? Is it really that boring? It can indeed cope with a 4-minute service in both directions, though this would have to be a reliable service. One small shutdown could cost quite a bit. The layout could easily be made more efficient (and I'm sure the author of this thread will have numerous plans, both expensive and cheap, some with flyunders, some with flyovers or some with a simple scissors crossover ;D ) Hey! Diagram? A manager of the time had plans to create a third track between Goldhawk Road and the platforms, so that you could have simultaneous arrivals and departures. It was found in the end though that it would only be used twice a day, and only then if everything was bang on time. So a minor change to the timetable snuffed this idea out. Well, considering how little siding space there is for C stock, I made a siding on top of the old District connection - there appears to be enough space for at least one six-car siding. Having worked the layout for years, you did get a little frustrated when it got busy (which was very very rare). The simple one train in, one train out working can hold things up. However, the service as it stands provides the typical 8-minute headway for branches such as this. Any increase in service to 6-minute headways could still be handled well by the area. I doubt the branch will ever warrant a 4-minute service so the layout is sufficient - if a little restrictive at times. Was it always built this way, to provide the connection (single lead? double lead?) with the District? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2005 16:18:20 GMT
Why? Is it really that boring? Yes, sometimes it makes Amersham look interesting!  |
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Sept 14, 2005 20:32:04 GMT
Is Hammersmith boring... YES  . The most exciting part of the day is when the mad cleaner comes to visit. On carnival weekend there was a train every 6 mins, so it can just about handle a 4min service, subject to operators beng in position  Posted by citysig on Today at 10:21 A few years ago there would be a rather handsome chap looking longingly out the window, trying to spot his relief walking up platform 1. And that was normally about 10 minutes after his shift had started We used to have an enamel sign, which read "I'm a human...get me out of here!" And what's wrong with the current batch of operators ;D |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Sept 16, 2005 8:28:43 GMT
Well, considering how little siding space there is for C stock, I made a siding on top of the old District connection - there appears to be enough space for at least one six-car siding. Was it always built this way, to provide the connection (single lead? double lead?) with the District? The additional road planned was to use the closest depot road to the main. Making the new road along the existing trackbed where the District connection went off, would have been slightly cheaper (the depot, for a start, stays level whilst the main slowly rises to Goldhawk Road.) There is space on the old District alignment for a siding of more than 6-cars in length. The plans for the huge building covering the old connection included space in the base of it to allow re-instatement of either the connection itself or a siding. The layout is more or less as it was when the connection existed - even though that was removed over 100 years ago. The same manager who wanted the extra road on the main also had other ideas. He wanted to push ahead with the extra sidings (behind platform 1) but that never happened. He also pushed for the re-instatement of the connection to the District, with a plan for a level crossing on the road outside Hammersmith station ;D Is Hammersmith boring... YES . The most exciting part of the day is when the mad cleaner comes to visit. And what's wrong with the current batch of operators ;D Is that cleaner still there or is there another mad one ;D As for the current batch. A colleague of mine once rang Hammersmith to enquire on a train. The signal operator asked him to call back in a minute as he was busy. Apparently, he had entered the high-pressure scenario of having 4 trains on his diagram - 3 in platforms and one at Goldhawk Road ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2005 17:40:14 GMT
Well, considering how little siding space there is for C stock, I made a siding on top of the old District connection - there appears to be enough space for at least one six-car siding. Was it always built this way, to provide the connection (single lead? double lead?) with the District? The additional road planned was to use the closest depot road to the main. Making the new road along the existing trackbed where the District connection went off, would have been slightly cheaper (the depot, for a start, stays level whilst the main slowly rises to Goldhawk Road.) Wouldn't that have put a pretty big kink in the H&C? Or were they planning on demolishing part of the depot? There is space on the old District alignment for a siding of more than 6-cars in length. The plans for the huge building covering the old connection included space in the base of it to allow re-instatement of either the connection itself or a siding. Interesting. Do you think it will ever be used for either purpose? The layout is more or less as it was when the connection existed - even though that was removed over 100 years ago. The same manager who wanted the extra road on the main also had other ideas. He wanted to push ahead with the extra sidings (behind platform 1) but that never happened. He also pushed for the re-instatement of the connection to the District, with a plan for a level crossing on the road outside Hammersmith station ;D Heehehehehehe.... I get the feeling that cabin OZ would no longer be boring if it had an electrified, high-tph level crossing to play with ;D ;D ;D Still though, from a service provision standpoint, would more sidings next to platform 1 be useful? Is Hammersmith boring... YES . The most exciting part of the day is when the mad cleaner comes to visit. And what's wrong with the current batch of operators ;D Is that cleaner still there or is there another mad one ;D As for the current batch. A colleague of mine once rang Hammersmith to enquire on a train. The signal operator asked him to call back in a minute as he was busy. Apparently, he had entered the high-pressure scenario of having 4 trains on his diagram - 3 in platforms and one at Goldhawk Road ;D How did he fix it? Did he send the one in platform 1 out first, followed by 2, then bring the one at Goldhawk Road down into 1 and send the one in 3 onward? |
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Sept 17, 2005 10:51:20 GMT
You have to do the one train in, one train out, otherwise the drivers moan about sitting outside. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Sept 18, 2005 11:55:45 GMT
Interesting. Do you think it will ever be used for either purpose?... Still though, from a service provision standpoint, would more sidings next to platform 1 be useful?... How did he fix it? Did he send the one in platform 1 out first, followed by 2, then bring the one at Goldhawk Road down into 1 and send the one in 3 onward? I don't think the connection to the District will ever return - though who knows what might turn up next on the planning table. As for extra sidings, either under the building or next to Platform 1, they could be useful. Hammersmith depot does occasionally get a bit on the full side if there are a few extra trains in for repair. Would take the pressure off. As for getting out of the situation, the signaller was not one of the elite by any means. However he got out of it, everything was actually right time and where it was supposed to be at that particular time. One was heading for depot I would imagine, with another heading eastbound. It was hardly a high-pressure situation ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2005 14:40:22 GMT
You have to do the one train in, one train out, otherwise the drivers moan about sitting outside. Drivers moaning? Surely not! ;D Especially those charming H&C drivers... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2005 1:11:12 GMT
You have to do the one train in, one train out, otherwise the drivers moan about sitting outside. OK, I need to ask a serious question on this. What is gained by letting 2 trains out while holding one on the homes? By the time the first train out has cleared the track circuits so the second train can leave, the train on the homes could almost be berthed in the platform. What is wrong with delaying the second departure by about 15 seconds (when that train is going to be right up behind the first one anyway) if it avoids a delay of 120 seconds to the arriving train? |
|
;D )
. The most exciting part of the day is when the mad cleaner comes to visit.
