|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jun 11, 2006 11:34:14 GMT
AlwaystouchOut seems to have added a bit about the bakerloo re-extension to Watford, citing the same reasons we had when it was discussed here before, namely the undercapacity of the NLL for the future plans in store for it, and the relative surplus capacity the DC lines have.
Having the Bakerloo extended to cover the H&W-Watford section is all fine and well, but the Bakerloo still needs to share tracks with the NLL from Queens park to Willesden Junction. It's not *too* great a distance, but it will still affect the overall capacity, weakest link and all that.
Segregating the tracks would probably be possible, were it not for the fact that roughly half of the distance is in tunnel, not to mention under housing. Do you think this bottleneck will affect the long-term plans for the NLL (namely, orbiral et al.)?
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Jun 11, 2006 16:24:15 GMT
Some years back the main WCML was closed for engineering works and main line trains were sent up the DC lines including HSTs. The problem was IIRC that they could only run these every half-hour at maximum because of the infrastructure. If at that time that was the maximum possible usage of the DC lines then surely there is a potential problem? Of course in the future there will also be the Met diversions into the Junction adding to possible conflicts from Croxley Junction northbound.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Jun 11, 2006 18:19:56 GMT
As far as I'm aware,if the Bakerloo does go back to Watford the DC lines will be withdrawn from Euston completely and there will be a Stratford-Queen's Pk service via NNL with the possibility of Primrose Hill being reopened.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jun 11, 2006 19:42:16 GMT
As far as I'm aware,if the Bakerloo does go back to Watford the DC lines will be withdrawn from Euston completely and there will be a Stratford-Queen's Pk service via NNL with the possibility of Primrose Hill being reopened. That's pretty much what I'd heard as well, but with the eventual aim being Willesden Junction. Stopping at Queens park is a good comprimise now I think about it, as it was pretty much built for interchange thanks to the Bakerloo setup. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2006 19:45:27 GMT
Maps showing the projected service frequencies on the "new" NLL are on this page www.alwaystouchout.com/project/43#376These maps seem to show that no NLL trains will be added to the Bakerloo/DC Line's North of Queen's Park. |
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jun 14, 2006 20:38:01 GMT
That's a shame. Surely it would prove more advantageous in both operational and interchanhge terms to extend a Stratford-QP NLL service to Willesden Junction Low Level where it could reverse without conflict and directly meet NLL/WLL/Orbirail services. I find it hard to believe that the extra four trains per hour would cause huge capacity problems over the QP/WJLL section.
THC
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2006 21:15:49 GMT
I would agree that the 4tph isn't exactly going to put excessive pressure on the DC lines between Queen's Park and Willesden Junction, unless of course the Bakerloo Line's frequency north of Queen's Park is going to be significantly increased. I would guess that if NLL train's do terminate at Queen's Park, that they will reverse in the NB DC line platform, using the trailing crossover between Queen's Park and Kilburn High Road.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Jun 15, 2006 19:01:34 GMT
The proposed frequency is 6tph,same as it is now for H&W.Apparently this will require 7 extra trains.
|
|
