|
Post by Tomcakes on Sept 3, 2007 5:55:50 GMT
Whilst I broadly agree MSO, it is all to easy to get stuck in a rut sometimes and do things "like they've always been done" when there is a better solution but people are afraid to change.
However, I suppose it's a different set of beancounters who do the stations this week than the ones who do the trains, and obviously co-operation is beyond the parties involved. You could cut out front & back doors but wouldn't that hash up the signalling and overlaps?
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Sept 3, 2007 7:03:51 GMT
The District used to opperate 8car trains without too much trouble. Was any feasability study done into reintroducing this? Granted, its opperationally advantageous if all trains can be substituted with one another, but the SSR upgrade plan doesn't even solve this since there will still be two different train lengths. At the moment there are three, and coincidentally each different length matches a different purpose with different seating arrangements.
I do agree with Tomcakes that traditions shouldn't always be kept for traditions' sake, but it doesnt seem that the benefits of the schemes proposed will propagate long enough to justify not doing this upgrade and[/b] any future upgrade needed at the same time. People pay high fairs; private companies are investing heavily; the goverment is promising a lot of money too. Something bold is required on the scale of the New Works programme (without a pesky world war in the way this time).
If the district took over the Grays branch from Upminster, is there any land around there ripe for building a new depot?
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Sept 3, 2007 8:35:10 GMT
If the district took over the Grays branch from Upminster, is there any land around there ripe for building a new depot? I hope you mean the Romford branch? As crossing the c2c main line at Upminster might prove very expensive too.
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Sept 3, 2007 8:40:15 GMT
However, I suppose it's a different set of beancounters who do the stations this week than the ones who do the trains, and obviously co-operation is beyond the parties involved. You could cut out front & back doors but wouldn't that hash up the signalling and overlaps? There was a very detailed assessment of the whole question of how to relieve the congestion on the SSR. The combination of the new signalling, ATO and higher capacity trains is supposed to provide about 15% more capacity. It might have been better if money had been available to eliminate the flat junctions round the Circle but we are looking at £500million for that. As for the co-operation - it's not a question of co-operation. The bean counters are the same people. It's what's possible within the money available. You may want a Merc. but you can only afford a Ford! The longer Hammersmith & Circle train idea has been a goal for 50 years at least. With SDO, it can become a reality without the expense of rebuilding all the tunnel stations between Baker St and NHG. Yes the block joints will have to be moved but they will eliminate most of them anyway with the new signalling (except at junctions). My biggest concern is the mix of signalling technologies on the Jub/Met and Picc/DR sections. That is a minefield and the most vulnerable part of the whole PPP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2007 9:24:49 GMT
If the district took over the Grays branch from Upminster, is there any land around there ripe for building a new depot? I hope you mean the Romford branch? As crossing the c2c main line at Upminster might prove very expensive too. The idea of the District taking over the Grays branch had been knocking about for ages, but I'm not sure how seriously - it may be one of those things that looks nice on a map until you actually see the reality on the ground. Crossing the c2c main does seem a pretty insurmountable obstacle - I'm sure they won't want a flat junction for us to trundle across!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2007 17:06:25 GMT
The longer Hammersmith & Circle train idea has been a goal for 50 years at least. With SDO, it can become a reality without the expense of rebuilding all the tunnel stations between Baker St and NHG. Longer Circles will just make the Circle slower than it is now. Every platform between Notting Hill Gate and Baker Street will have end doors cut out, in the case of Bayswater and Baker as these are six car platforms a car will need cutting out with all the delays in platforms whilst passengers move down the cars. The cab will also be in the tunnel in most places which will lead to difficulties in communicating with station staff in failure situations. I have calculated that at least 15 stabling places will also be lost with the complete abandonment of Triangle, Edgware Road and Farringdon Sidings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2007 17:18:12 GMT
If the district took over the Grays branch from Upminster, is there any land around there ripe for building a new depot? The Grays branch from Upminster could probably do with double tracking through out, a better frequent service to Thurrock Lakeside (Chafford Hundred Station) may well see good buisness ! However, such an extension would only serve stations outside the TfL area, so I can't see it. Last time I heard this one mooted was in the context of the H & C extending to Grays via the branch from Barking, via Dagenham Dock, Rainham & Purfleet (thus covering two stations within the TfL area) there is certainly plenty of unoccupied land in this area, however the presence of things like Level Crossings, overhead's, no third and fourth rails, goods trains are all likely to keep this as little more than a discussion point ! There has long been a local demand for some District trains to extend to Cranham (where the depot is anyway) which is within the TfL area, though this has never met with enthusiasm from LUL.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2007 17:38:46 GMT
There has long been a local demand for some District trains to extend to Cranham (where the depot is anyway) which is within the TfL area, though this has never met with enthusiasm from LUL. I believe the car park and bus turning area next the depot gates was at one time earmarked for a possible station. Not a possible option now due to the new sheds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2007 17:57:06 GMT
Whilst I broadly agree MSO, it is all to easy to get stuck in a rut sometimes and do things "like they've always been done" when there is a better solution but people are afraid to change. Ah im not saying that though. It seems that there is so many problems to iron out that to me it seems stupid to go away from something that has proven itself to work accross 50 + years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2007 18:38:39 GMT
I have calculated that at least 15 stabling places will also be lost with the complete abandonment of Triangle, Edgware Road and Farringdon Sidings. Interesting! South Harrow currently has six sidings. Northwood has one. Pinner has none. If South Harrow was rehabilitated and expanded with a new fan of sidings on the westbound side, and if Northwood was expanded with additional and/or longer sidings, AND if Pinner was rebuilt with stabling sidings, the 15 trains that can no longer stable in Zone 1 could stable at Neasden instead, with the 15 displaced from Neasden outstabled at South Harrow, Northwood and Pinner. There is also the possibility of building that long-lost depot at Ickenham - MandGC probably remembers the plans that once existed to build a Met line depot on the site next to Ruislip Siding.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,893
|
Post by towerman on Sept 3, 2007 19:38:30 GMT
When the rebuilding of Neasden is complete it will be able to accomodate 78 trains which will probably make up for the loss of a lot of the outstabling sites.When the full SSL upgrade is complete I would imagine there would be timetabled moves from Neasden to H & C & District,don't forget that the majority of Jubilee trains will be leaving Neasden by 2010.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Sept 3, 2007 21:35:55 GMT
With regard to the District taking over one or both the c2c routes to Grays, we've been there before! **prepare to cough from dust off old thread** www.districtdave.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=district&action=display&thread=1136754497However, such an extension would only serve stations outside the TfL area, I'm sure I've commented around this point before, though that may have been a discussion on c2c introducing Oyster readers.... As far as the buses go, the T fL area now goes as far as Lakeside with the 372 (also the 347 makes it as far as Ockendon station) - and if Ken gets his way with 'London Rail', Grays would be the farthest station from London. If past history were taken into account, London Country originally operated west of Grays town centre and Eastern National worked East of the town Centre - so Grays would fit the bill as a 'final frontier'.
|
|
|
Post by dave1 on Sept 3, 2007 22:49:17 GMT
When the rebuilding of Neasden is complete it will be able to accomodate 78 trains which will probably make up for the loss of a lot of the outstabling sites.When the full SSL upgrade is complete I would imagine there would be timetabled moves from Neasden to H & C & District,don't forget that the majority of Jubilee trains will be leaving Neasden by 2010. Where will the majority of the Jubilee trains go? Will Rickmansworth also be remodelled to accomodate more berths? Overall we have 190 new trains coming, are we sure we can find the space to accomdate them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2007 23:04:17 GMT
The plan is to double the capacity of Stanmore to 20 trains, and possibly outstable trains in turn at Wembley, Willesden and West Hampstead (though site security may be a problem).
|
|
|
Post by dave1 on Sept 3, 2007 23:41:21 GMT
The plan is to double the capacity of Stanmore to 20 trains, and possibly outstable trains in turn at Wembley, Willesden and West Hampstead (though site security may be a problem). I see, I hope that the stabling issues are resolved before the S Stock arrives. Also will Neasden depot have a bigger sheds or most of the sidings will be open. I just can see the new trains being grafittied unless the sidings are shedded as it were.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2007 1:11:48 GMT
Actually, trains don't often get graffitied in Neasden (that I know of) - Met trains usually get graffitied when outstabled at Rickmansworth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2007 3:15:27 GMT
Most graffiti attacks take place away from the main depots. I assume it's due to the amount of staff around nowadays.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2007 4:14:50 GMT
Actually, trains don't often get graffitied in Neasden (that I know of) - Met trains usually get graffitied when outstabled at Rickmansworth. Rickmansworth isnt a problem, its when they are outsbaled at Watford is when the problem arises.
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Sept 4, 2007 15:16:50 GMT
Actually, trains don't often get graffitied in Neasden (that I know of) - Met trains usually get graffitied when outstabled at Rickmansworth. Rickmansworth isnt a problem, its when they are outsbaled at Watford is when the problem arises. To be fair to TOK, it does have its fair share every now and then,but that was down to a "lack of security" at the time. Was particuarly affected on the North Met weekend shutdowns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2007 17:38:14 GMT
To be fair to TOK, it does have its fair share every now and then,but that was down to a "lack of security" at the time. Was particuarly affected on the North Met weekend shutdowns. I havnt had a train painted at Ricky for months now, however watford is a much more common occurance
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Sept 4, 2007 19:45:05 GMT
I havnt had a train painted at Ricky for months now... So it's you who is arranging for this to happen then ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2007 22:19:58 GMT
Surely having longer trains on the SSR will extend the gap between trains - longer trains take longer to leave the station and let the next train in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2007 22:58:08 GMT
Surely having longer trains on the SSR will extend the gap between trains - longer trains take longer to leave the station and let the next train in. But even a 16 car S stock will get out of a platform quicker than an A60
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2007 2:52:17 GMT
Whilst Iwas night spare I done a bit of surfing on the Intranet and came across a page on the "7 car Circle project". Bayswater, Notting Hill Gate and Paddington Circle platforms are going to be extended to 7 cars, it appears that Baker Street will remain as the only station with 6 car platforms.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Sept 19, 2007 5:11:42 GMT
Subject to it being practically possible and not costing too many king's ransoms(!), even Baker St 6-car platforms will be extended.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2007 8:14:18 GMT
Surely having longer trains on the SSR will extend the gap between trains - longer trains take longer to leave the station and let the next train in. The increased length of the train would cause an approx 2% decrease in headway. However, the extra car would add approx 17% extra capacity to the train.
|
|
|
Post by trainopd78 on Sept 19, 2007 8:19:21 GMT
Looking at layouts etc, I can't realistically see a 7 car s stock having much more capacity than a 6 car C stock. I don't think we'll ever see a people mover like a C stock ever again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2007 19:52:43 GMT
Looking at layouts etc, I can't realistically see a 7 car s stock having much more capacity than a 6 car C stock. I don't think we'll ever see a people mover like a C stock ever again. trainopd78 is a C stock bufff
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2007 20:04:50 GMT
Subject to it being practically possible and not costing too many king's ransoms(!), even Baker St 6-car platforms will be extended. I would have thought that Baker Street would be more of a priority than Bayswater in platform extending, but according to that site which lists all the C&H works needed for the project, no work is listed for Baker Street.
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Sept 19, 2007 20:07:07 GMT
Subject to it being practically possible and not costing too many king's ransoms(!), even Baker St 6-car platforms will be extended. I would have thought that Baker Street would be more of a priority than Bayswater in platform extending, but according to that site which lists all the C&H works needed for the project, no work is listed for Baker Street. Apparently they are going to dig the road junction up and put it on a platform, so it can still be used while they extend the platforms
|
|