Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2007 13:20:54 GMT
Having repeatedly read throughout this forum that Triangle Sidings and Farringdon Sidings will definitely go out of use when the S stock arrives en masse, and that this will place major pressure on the remaining stabling sites, have any of the following ideas been floated yet?
- a joint reconstruction of Croxley Depot by the twin Metronets, for the joint use of the Bakerloo Line and the Metropolitan Line as a light maintenance facility - the construction of stabling sidings at Northwood and Pinner - making use of South Harrow to stable 8-car S stocks, and possibly expanding it with a fan of sidings on the westbound side
If the first idea were taken, then obviously any such facility would at first be used only by Bakerloo Line trains until the Croxley Link was constructed, but having a secure LMD available would take the pressure off when the northern part of the Met is cut off from Neasden. If there is enough land available, the facility could even be used to stable some of the Overground Electrostars.
The second idea is a good one mainly because it provides a refuge for dud trains during the day - at the moment, if a train goes dud on the local lines north of Harrow and is put in the siding at Northwood until it can be ECS'd back to Neasden, that siding is effectively out of use. There is also the fact that they could be used for engineering trains - unless the locals at Croxley can be convinced to allow the infrastructure depot to be built, being forced to either store engineering plant at Rickmansworth or drag it all in from Ruislip or behind a 66 must make engineering train movements overly complicated.
The third idea is probably the most likely to happen, mainly because road training the SSL drivers to run in and out of South Harrow station and sidings makes the station usable as a diversionary route when Harrow-on-the-Hill is blocked up. Besides, the sidings are hardly used as it is, and may be in need of refurbishment anyway - doing so with the objective of using them to store S stocks displaced from other sites due to the loss of Triangle and Farringdon would be a good idea IMO.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Apr 3, 2007 19:35:27 GMT
AFAIK nothing has yet been decided.
South Kensington was pencilled in for some sidings to replace the one's lost at Triangle (Triangle was to be re-modelled, not lost completely)...........but I did hear that the idea had been dropped.
There is still a lot (trust me, I mean A LOT) of discussion about all issue's related to S stock. They way things are progressing, I can foresee some major problems ahead unless someone somewhere starts making some decisions. Trouble is, thanks to PPP, no single person is really responsible any more - everything has to agreed between LUL and the infraco's (Metronet in this case). If something is not agreed, it dosen't get done. Simple as that!
Just to complicate matters, I'm led to believe that much of the infrastructure work needed for S stock isn't actually part of the PPP because it's not a current asset - the infraco's are not actually obliged to lift a finger unless PPP say's so. That's my understanding anyway.
Remember you read it here first - S stock will be late due to necessary infrastructure not being in place in time. If it all comes together, I will drive my car into the Thames - that's how confident I am of being right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2007 20:45:22 GMT
Personally I think that a few sidings at South Kensington would be very useful indeed - with all of those buildings swept away, you could fit a nice long siding along the eastbound road and at least two more along the westbound road near the floodgate. Three for three - a direct replacement for Farringdon.
Still, I think my idea about Croxley Depot is worth pursuing.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Apr 3, 2007 21:27:53 GMT
AFAIK nothing has yet been decided. Lots of things have been decided around stabling and all the issues that have yet to be finalised are on the table which means MRSSL and LU are aware of them. As an example (rather than going through everything) Hammersmith is subject to a study instigated by MRSSL and we are expecting a proposal in due course. South Kensington was pencilled in for some sidings to replace the one's lost at Triangle (Triangle was to be re-modelled, not lost completely)...........but I did hear that the idea had been dropped. No, South Kensington is still very much on the cards. There are some outstanding issues to finalise but it is still under serious consideration. There is still a lot (trust me, I mean A LOT) of discussion about all issue's related to S stock. They way things are progressing, I can foresee some major problems ahead unless someone somewhere starts making some decisions. Trouble is, thanks to PPP, no single person is really responsible any more - everything has to agreed between LUL and the infraco's (Metronet in this case). If something is not agreed, it dosen't get done. Simple as that! The stock itself is coming to the end of the design phase in the next few months and build commences in June. Decisions are being made but it is fair to say that we still have some issues to resolve, these are not insurmountable though and we are on track. The PPP is very clear where responsibility lies for the majority of areas in the upgrade. Where there are question marks LU and MRSSL are going through a rigorous process (candidate requirements etc) to close these out. The PPP has provision for out of scope items and there are 77 use cases which financially incentivise the Infraco's to provide more than the contract. In addition I have to say that MRSSL are being very forward thinking with their actions and in a lot of cases are including things which they consider not to be their responsibility in their Invitation To Tender (ITT) on the basis that we will sort it all out later. This means that there is no program delay while we have a 'bun fight' to decide who pays for what. Just to complicate matters, I'm led to believe that much of the infrastructure work needed for S stock isn't actually part of the PPP because it's not a current asset - the infraco's are not actually obliged to lift a finger unless PPP say's so. That's my understanding anyway. Not strictly true but broadly correct, as usual with PPP it's a bit more complicated than that! Some specific infrastructure work will not be finished by the time the first train hits London in all likelyhood, but this is not an issue and the program was designed this way in any case. The Infraco are aware of all the things that need to completed in order to implement 'S' Stock operations and are dealing with them through various different mechanisms (depending on the particular issue). At the end of the day if they miss program then there are financial penalties for them to face, so it's in no ones interest to miss targets. Currently the program is on time. Remember you read it here first - S stock will be late due to necessary infrastructure not being in place in time. If it all comes together, I will drive my car into the Thames - that's how confident I am of being right. If the 'S' Stock is late, I don't think it will be down to the infrastructure. Currently we are on program. The first 'S' is due in 2008 for testing (most likely at Old Dalby) and the first passenger will board in 2010. If we are late your car won't be around anyway - It's a Ford and would have rusted away to nothing by then! ;D I'm off!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2007 21:55:46 GMT
Excellent post prjb - thanks for the info.
But what about the ideas I posted? You said that a bunch of decisions had already been made WRT stabling - are you at liberty to reveal them?
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Apr 3, 2007 22:04:28 GMT
To be honest this isn't really my area, so I will pass on your comments to my colleague to look over (if thats ok with you?). The main problem for stabling will be for S7's so whilst your ideas are good they don't, in the main, solve our major headache. Wembley Park sidings is almost a dead cert to take S7's in the future AIUI.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2007 22:08:14 GMT
To be honest this isn't really my area, so I will pass on your comments to my colleague to look over (if thats ok with you?). The main problem for stabling will be for S7's so whilst your ideas are good they don't, in the main, solve our major headache. Wembley Park sidings is almost a dead cert to take S7's in the future AIUI. This is why I suggested facilities at Croxley, Northwood, Pinner and the use of South Harrow for S8s - this would allow many of the S7s to be stabled at Neasden, in prime position to be fed into the north Circle alongside the S7s from Hammersmith. And by all means, pass my comments onto him
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Apr 3, 2007 22:39:18 GMT
To be honest this isn't really my area, so I will pass on your comments to my colleague to look over (if thats ok with you?). The main problem for stabling will be for S7's so whilst your ideas are good they don't, in the main, solve our major headache. Wembley Park sidings is almost a dead cert to take S7's in the future AIUI. This is why I suggested facilities at Croxley, Northwood, Pinner and the use of South Harrow for S8s - this would allow many of the S7s to be stabled at Neasden, in prime position to be fed into the north Circle alongside the S7s from Hammersmith. And by all means, pass my comments onto him Yes, sorry - I was on the 07:25 to Derby this morning (and will be tomorrow and Thursday too ) so I'm a bit slow on the uptake tonight! Thanks.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,893
|
Post by towerman on Apr 6, 2007 23:05:16 GMT
Will the reversing crossings at Farringdon,Liverpool St & King's Cross be remaining and if they are will they be moved to take the longer S stock?
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Apr 7, 2007 0:21:17 GMT
Remember you read it here first - S stock will be late due to necessary infrastructure not being in place in time. If it all comes together, I will drive my car into the Thames - that's how confident I am of being right. If we are late your car won't be around anyway - It's a Ford and would have rusted away to nothing by then! ;D I'm off! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I actually can't think of anything in reply to that ;D ;D As for the rest of your replies, prjb, you have certainly cleared a few things up - ta for that Thanks also for the corrections to my post & I shall try to be more positive in future with regard to Metronet
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2007 0:50:25 GMT
I seem to recollect reading or being told that a number of rusty and never used "engineering train roads" as well as at least one unused shed road at Upminster depot would be brought back into use for S stock.
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Apr 7, 2007 6:40:21 GMT
Will the reversing crossings at Farringdon,Liverpool St & King's Cross be remaining and if they are will they be moved to take the longer S stock? Farringdon is already in the "wrong" position to reverse a current C-stock directly over. The same is true of Liverpool Street when it comes to A-stock. Therefore, given that the crossovers have always been in the "wrong" place I can't see why they would move them now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2007 6:54:53 GMT
Will the reversing crossings at Farringdon,Liverpool St & King's Cross be remaining and if they are will they be moved to take the longer S stock? Farringdon is already in the "wrong" position to reverse a current C-stock directly over. The same is true of Liverpool Street when it comes to A-stock. Therefore, given that the crossovers have always been in the "wrong" place I can't see why they would move them now. Personally I would remove the one at Farringdon and move the one at Liverpool Street - the latter is far more useful as an emergency reversing point in case the Aldgate triangle goes wrong.
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Apr 7, 2007 8:03:40 GMT
Out of curisoty.... Was there ever a stock (pre A & C) that could reverse Inner to Outer, and depart the Outer in passenger service? Or when the Platform to Train Interface wasn't as impressed upon as it is now did they depart in passenger....?
Ta
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Apr 7, 2007 13:03:22 GMT
Will the reversing crossings at Farringdon,Liverpool St & King's Cross be remaining and if they are will they be moved to take the longer S stock? It's funny you ask this because we have just been talking about this very issue. We carried out an exercise where we looked at some 'demanding scenarios' that drivers may face in the future, this should help in the cab and systems design (to try and make things easier/more logically laid out). One scenario we looked at was stepping back and reversing (west to east) at Liverpool Street. As we got into the detail we all thought - 'Oh!' - this train is not going to fit back in on the east!! As far as I am aware there are no plans to mobve the points at these locations at present.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Apr 7, 2007 13:08:32 GMT
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I actually can't think of anything in reply to that ;D ;D I'm only kidding, it looks like a really nice car. I can't talk too much anyway because, despite always buying Vauxhalls previously, I currently run a motor from a Ford owned company. As for the rest of your replies, prjb, you have certainly cleared a few things up - ta for that Thanks also for the corrections to my post & I shall try to be more positive in future with regard to Metronet Not at all, why wouldn't you be sceptical? After all you are basing your opinions/remarks on pretty sound experience of the Infraco so far. Not to mention the fact you are probably correct, this could be a record in 2011 for the oldest re-activated thread when you post 'I told you so'!! I love the fact that we don't always completely agree, although in this instance it is anyones guess who is going to be right!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2007 9:49:47 GMT
BUMP.
Having thought about this issue more, does anyone know if the sidings at Ealing Broadway will be refurbished and put into service as an outstabling site as well? Given its location in the midst of lots of electrified tracks, I would imagine that it wouldn't be too difficult to provide adequate security to protect a pair of S7 stabled there.
|
|
|
Post by edb on Apr 19, 2007 11:58:30 GMT
They'll just retire some old stock there.....
|
|
|
Post by dave1 on Jul 14, 2007 19:59:55 GMT
Any news on the stabling issues for the S stock? I read in the Metronet Matters that Neasden would be transformed from 48 to 81 berths. Does that mean parts of the depot building would be knocked down and sidings created?
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Jul 14, 2007 20:03:06 GMT
From what I understand the entire depot will be flattened (in the next few months). There will also be office accomadation for lots of Metronet staff, I did hear 1500, but dont know how correct that is.
It will be a shame to see the old building go, but the new "sheds" will be able to have an entire train raised up from the floor.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,105
|
Post by Tom on Jul 14, 2007 20:12:12 GMT
We're starting to do design work now to decommission around the steam shed.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jul 14, 2007 22:39:43 GMT
The original plans kept the steam sheds as a training centre.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2007 2:51:23 GMT
are s'stock trains going to fit into wembley park sidings - rumour has it that they're too long.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2007 13:48:03 GMT
are s'stock trains going to fit into wembley park sidings - rumour has it that they're too long. S stock trains are also too long for most roads in Hammersmith Depot, Farringdon Sidings, Edgware Road Sidings, Triangle Sidings and Parsons Green 29rd. They will also not fit into most of the platforms between Hammersmith and Baker Street as well as Bayswater. The person responsible for the S Stock programme in my opinion lacks common sense and is in the wrong job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2007 15:56:28 GMT
Aren't they going to lengthen platforms or use selective door opening on these short platforms?
The S stock won't fit because of the 7-car circle line?
They'll be able to trade trains between the circle and district more easily though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2007 16:31:13 GMT
Aren't they going to lengthen platforms or use selective door opening on these short platforms? The S stock won't fit because of the 7-car circle line? They'll be able to trade trains between the circle and district more easily though. Yes but the simpler way to do this would have to use 6 car S stock for the services now operated by C stock, thus being able to use all platforms and sidings as now without wasting billions re engineering five or six locations, this money could be better spent by building non conflicting junctions on the Circle or extending a tube line or an additional platform at Victoria or Liverpool Street etc to alleviate overcrowding.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Sept 2, 2007 16:36:34 GMT
The number of platforms that have to be lengthened are small compared with the benefit of having all the trains the same size on the south of the circle, reducing the differential in length between H&C/Circle and Met's and increasing the capacity of ALL H&S and Circle trains by over 20%. There are only 5 stations that are difficult to lengthen. although it's many milions of £, the cost is tiny compared with the cost of a new line
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2007 17:45:00 GMT
There are only 5 stations that are difficult to lengthen. although it's many milions of £, the cost is tiny compared with the cost of a new line What about the sidings at Edgwaer Road, Farringdon, PG, Triangle and Barking as well as the bay at Putney Bridge that will cease to be operational!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2007 23:51:31 GMT
Barking should be ok. You can put a 6 car D anywhere and with a fair bit of room to spare. A 7 car S will be about the same length.
Putney Bridge ! This needs remodeling anyway ...before the westbound collapses onto the road below !
Personally I have no issue with those stations difficult to extend having the rear one or two door sets not open and if still short have the drivers cab draw into the tunnel and one or two sets of doors at the front not open. I assume S will have in cab CCTV of the platforms and DVA to forewarn passengers (who would soon learn anyway) much as happens now on the Northern Line. The surface stations aught to be extendable fairly cheaply ..they keep doing it on the DLR ! The benefits of 7 cars on the rest of the Circle and H&C should substantially outweigh issues at a few stations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2007 4:55:55 GMT
S stock trains are also too long for most roads in Hammersmith Depot, Farringdon Sidings, Edgware Road Sidings, Triangle Sidings and Parsons Green 29rd. They will also not fit into most of the platforms between Hammersmith and Baker Street as well as Bayswater. The person responsible for the S Stock programme in my opinion lacks common sense and is in the wrong job. This is what i never can understand with LU at times. They realise things work, then they have to go and change it. Like the signalling on the met. Why spend loads of money on all this new kit and then being state of the art? Why not replace what we currently have like for like with all new wiring, signals etc? At least we know it will work! Once all the new signalling systems are in, how will chiltern run their trains over our railway? Will Chiltern have to have the ATP equipment installed in all of their trains? Will they simply not run down the met anymore? All these questions, just coz they want a state of the art system! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I actually can't think of anything in reply to that ;D ;D I'm only kidding, it looks like a really nice car. I can't talk too much anyway because, despite always buying Vauxhalls previously, I currently run a motor from a Ford owned company. [OT] Damn you....Traitor......! [/OT]
|
|