|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 25, 2005 10:56:25 GMT
 Hallo all. Now when those in power "at-the-top" finally decide to implement ATO for the SSL I wonder if they will increase flexibility too. For instance the bay roads at Tower Hill and Mansion House could be made double ended al la Loughton and Golders Green. That would enable trains to be reversed west/east as well as east/west. Also the crossover at St James's could be re-installed too. Also that southern tunnel (the westbound) between Sth Kens and Gloucester Road could be abandoned and the northern one used for all traffic. The southern one could then be used for other purposes's (I intend to start a new thread soon on that subject) Increasing flexibility like that would, in my opinion, enable quicker recovery of service after and during disruption and also aid our signalling partners in doing their job too. (retires to the corner and keenly awaits the views that will surely come) 
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Apr 25, 2005 12:32:16 GMT
I like your ideas Q8. Trouble is it comes down to cost. A new set of points and associated signalling don't come cheap, unfortunately.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2005 14:10:33 GMT
Abandoning the District tunnel at South Kensington wouldn't help at all - it would restore the original problems associated with that site when it was first built.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2005 1:34:20 GMT
i also think they should reinstall the crossovers at earls court to make more flexibilty but seeing ATO on SSL will be a long while yet
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Apr 26, 2005 1:42:55 GMT
i also think they should reinstall the crossovers at earls court to make more flexibilty but seeing ATO on SSL will be a long while yet I heard a rumour recently that they are indeed looking an re-installing the crossovers both ways at Earls Court in 2 years. |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 27, 2005 8:25:30 GMT
 Wotcha you lot! I 've had another thought (shall have to be careful them pills is affecting me) While they are doing all this trackwork why don't the make Mansion House a WEST to EAST reversing point by moving the points from the west end of the station to the other. Leave Tower Hill as it is. That way you will have a reversing point further west than Whitechapel during disruption. Also if that was done along with making the two MIDDLE roads at Aldgate the through routes with the sides as the bays then it may be possible to have the Uxbridge Met service extended round to Mansion House and reduce the number of circles each way to 4. Having the middle roads at Aldgate as the through platforms would also (maybe) remove the bugbear for the signal control centre of having Districts blocking the outer rail exit. Is that a bum idea? Let me know. (As no doubt you will) 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2005 8:37:34 GMT
Wotcha you lot! I 've had another thought (shall have to be careful them pills is affecting me) While they are doing all this trackwork why don't the make Mansion House a WEST to EAST reversing point by moving the points from the west end of the station to the other. Leave Tower Hill as it is. That way you will have a reversing point further west than Whitechapel during disruption. Plus you will also lose a convenient place to reverse the eastbound service from Ealing, Richmond or Wimbledon when HSK is unavailable and things beyond Mansion House have gone sideways. Far better to make Mansion House's bay platform double-ended. Also if that was done along with making the two MIDDLE roads at Aldgate the through routes with the sides as the bays then it may be possible to have the Uxbridge Met service extended round to Mansion House and reduce the number of circles each way to 4. Having the middle roads at Aldgate as the through platforms would also (maybe) remove the bugbear for the signal control centre of having Districts blocking the outer rail exit. Is that a bum idea? Let me know. (As no doubt you will) It's a very, very, very bum idea. Aldgate was remodelled back in the days of the MR to have central terminating roads as opposed to side terminating roads because the number of conflicting movements crucified their services. Baker Street suffers from this problem to this day, yet it can never be fixed because of the flat junction. |
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Apr 27, 2005 8:41:55 GMT
Wotcha you lot! Also if that was done along with making the two MIDDLE roads at Aldgate the through routes with the sides as the bays then it may be possible to have the Uxbridge Met service extended round to Mansion House and reduce the number of circles each way to 4. Having the middle roads at Aldgate as the through platforms would also (maybe) remove the bugbear for the signal control centre of having Districts blocking the outer rail exit. Is that a bum idea? Let me know. (As no doubt you will) As a matter of general principle any station which has one or more bay platforms for reversing should have those platforms in the centre with the through platforms on the outside. This seriously reduces the number of conflicting moves for trains arriving at and leaving the bays. Baker St Met would be a good bit easier to operate if the through platforms to the city were 4&1 with the terminal bays being 2&3. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2005 9:33:28 GMT
Agreed, Harsig.
I seem to remember reading in an issue of Modern Railways that had a cover story on the Met that plans were once floated to disconnect platform 3 from the Circle Line and extend platform 4 instead. I posted about it elsewhere but someone shot it down.
Would there be any discernible advantage from an operating perspective to do such a thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Apr 27, 2005 9:56:01 GMT
Agreed, Harsig. Would there be any discernible advantage from an operating perspective to do such a thing? There would be a slight improvement, but I should be very suprised if it was anywhere close to being sufficient to justify the cost. |
|
|
|
Post by piccadillypilot on Apr 27, 2005 9:56:03 GMT
Baker St Met would be a good bit easier to operate if the through platforms to the city were 4&1 with the terminal bays being 2&3. In principle quite true. But in that particular case think about the implications for the pre-existing platforms and how much additional space would be needed for the junction. |
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Apr 27, 2005 10:01:24 GMT
In principle quite true. But in that particular case think about the implications for the pre-existing platforms and how much additional space would be needed for the junction. I was just trying to demonstrate the principle. I certainly wasn't attempting to suggest it was a realistic proposition |
|
Hallo all. 
Wotcha you lot!
