|
|
Post by tubeprune on Jun 25, 2008 11:12:37 GMT
A long report in Modern Railways for July 2008 says that LU are considering abandoning Circles from December 2009 using C Stock. The Circle will become the long-awaited T-Cup with Hammersmith to Edgware Road via Liverpool St and Victoria, plus Hammersmith to Plaistow/Barking, both at 10 intervals peak & off-peak. No Whitechapel reversers. Wimblewares will be 10min headways in peaks and 20 minutes off peaks.
I think it's a good idea in general. Issues? Lack of off-peak Wimblewares and terminating at Edgware Road for two. The turnrounds there will go up from 7.5/hr to 12/hr. Not much room if something goes wrong. The pointwork at the west end will get a thrashing so I hope they will have lots of technicians available round the clock.
Plaistow reversers will have to be managed carefully if the main isn't to be held up all the time.
Presumably also, they won't forget to continue to have some C Stock trains running from Tower Hill to Barking to allow for turning round for wheel wear.
Strangely, they don't use the phrase "T-Cup".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2008 11:21:52 GMT
How are the Wimbledons going to be run if there's no terminating at Edgware Rd? From Barking via Victoria?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2008 13:15:54 GMT
This sounds awful. Wimblewares are quite busy and only 3 trains off-peak is simply ridiculous. Edgware Road is also an awful and complicated station already and with even more people changing trains there and more trains terminating, I'm expecting it to be really bad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2008 13:43:38 GMT
Sounds good, apart from the 20 minute off-peak Wimblewares. As a one time user of Earl's Court, this service really needs to be 10mins at all times.
Other suggestions - how about Hammersmith - Edgware Rd (via Circle), and Wimbledon - Barking (via Baker St). This would still allow for the same tph as present, give both lines proper termini, and not increase the number of trains reversed at Edgware Rd.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Jun 25, 2008 13:53:21 GMT
How are the Wimbledons going to be run if there's no terminating at Edgware Rd? From Barking via Victoria? No, you misunderstood - I didn't make myself clear. I meant terminating at Edgware Rd will be an issues with 12tph turning round. |
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Jun 25, 2008 15:10:31 GMT
Other suggestions - how about Hammersmith - Edgware Rd (via Circle), and Wimbledon - Barking (via Baker St). This would still allow for the same tph as present, give both lines proper termini, and not increase the number of trains reversed at Edgware Rd. I like the sound of this but capacity issues on the northern bit of the circle might make it tricky to implement the proposed increased frequency to Hammersmith, maintain the service pattern on the Met (esp at peaks), AND run an additional service over that section from Wimbledon-Barking. I might be wrong... Probably would work keeping the present H&C frequency so it depends how important it is to increase the frequency to Hammersmith. |
|
|
|
Post by uzairjubilee on Jun 25, 2008 16:57:26 GMT
I dont understand. What do you mean "How are the Wimbledons going to be run if there's no terminating at Edgware Rd?"
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 25, 2008 18:08:23 GMT
I dont understand. What do you mean "How are the Wimbledons going to be run if there's no terminating at Edgware Rd?" How are the Wimbledons going to be run if there's no terminating at Edgware Rd? From Barking via Victoria? If you are both wondering about this sentence: Issues? Lack of off-peak Wimblewares and terminating at Edgware Road for two. I read it as if there were a semi - colon (which I know is a rather archaic punctuation mark these days) after 'Wimblewares', which would spilt split the sentence into two parts - implied words in curly parentheses, thus: Issues? {Yes there are and I think they are} Lack of off-peak Wimblewares ; and {the difficulties in coping with an increase in} terminating at Edgware Road. If I'm wrong, I'm sure Mr. TP will be along to correct me shortly. |
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Jun 25, 2008 18:43:24 GMT
Ah, mfrs, the young don't DO punctuation these days, especially things as abstruse as colons and semi-colons...............  |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 25, 2008 18:47:23 GMT
Indeed, not all that long ago when I was completing my degree, I was congratulated for capturing an errant semi-colon and using it in anger.
The prof. (a relatively crusty DD [1]) said it was the first time he'd seen one used in about 15 years. ;D
[1] not the glorious leader - a Doctor of Divinity.
|
|
|
|
Post by uzairjubilee on Jun 25, 2008 19:01:53 GMT
I am not saying anything about punctuation as I use colons and semi colons.. I just wanted to know what Joe S meant by, how the Wimblewares are going to be run when there is no terminating at Edgware Road. I do not understand what he means. Nothing to do with punctuation.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 25, 2008 19:08:11 GMT
I think that's covered by reply #4: there's going to be a lot more terminating at Edgware Road. Not looking like a really sensible suggestion, to be honest.  Although I am keeping an open mind on this matter. Anyone else remember the fiasco interesting events of Covered Way No 12?  I'm mildly interested to see how it will be implemented, as I've got just over a century's worth of information on the evolution of the Circles, admittedly with a few big gaps in the earlier years of the last century. |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jun 25, 2008 19:34:54 GMT
Issues? Lack of off-peak Wimblewares and terminating at Edgware Road for two. The turnrounds there will go up from 7.5/hr to 12/hr. Not much room if something goes wrong. Don't you mean when something goes wrong, because something goes wrong there every day! Could the Wimbledon service run every 10 minutes as far as HSK, and every other train goes to Edgware Road? |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 25, 2008 19:44:06 GMT
Issues? Lack of off-peak Wimblewares and terminating at Edgware Road for two. The turnrounds there will go up from 7.5/hr to 12/hr. Not much room if something goes wrong. Don't you mean when something goes wrong, because something goes wrong there every day! Could the Wimbledon service run every 10 minutes as far as HSK, and every other train goes to Edgware Road? Using the other bay to the Olympia service? |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jun 25, 2008 19:48:13 GMT
The problem is that the Wimbledon branch needs a train every 6-8 mins! By running the Wimbleware service every 20 mins, this combined with the 10 mins Upminster-Wimbledon service means the Wimbledon branch will have a train every 5-10 mins.
One major problem which has been discussed is the problems at Pread St junction. For me this is a limiting factor in the T cup service! Sure there is a layover time- but at the expense and chaos of all other trains in the area!
There is no easy solution to this-my take on it would be as follows:
* Keep the Circle service as, is but with new trains OR
* Implement the T cup, but withdraw the District line btwn Edgware Road and High St Ken OR
* Rebuild Edgware Road by remodelling the junctions and adding a fifth platform!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2008 20:56:32 GMT
This proposal would require an increase in the number of H&C drivers and a reduction on the District. It would also mean District drivers (especially at Acton) getting even less practice driving C stock than they do now.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jun 25, 2008 21:21:16 GMT
This won't be a problem because the S7 will run all services!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2008 21:29:13 GMT
All this talk about Praed Street junction capacity and Edgware Rd reversing capacity....
Edgware Road can reverse at least 20tph in the centre tracks if operated efficiently. It thus should be able to cope with 12tph! Maybe stepping back will be required (the dwell times would be 5-8mins) ?
Praed Street junction would handle 18tph in each direction. This is considerably less than many other junctions on the SSLs.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 25, 2008 21:45:54 GMT
Indeed - but the passenger flows at Edgware Road, in my experience, are not ideal - admittedly that could be levelled at most of the network without the JLE-type futureproofing on the passenger access/egress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Jun 27, 2008 8:19:14 GMT
All this talk about Praed Street junction capacity and Edgware Rd reversing capacity.... Edgware Road can reverse at least 20tph in the centre tracks if operated efficiently. It thus should be able to cope with 12tph! Maybe stepping back will be required (the dwell times would be 5-8mins) ? Stepping back should be avoided if at all possible as it creates operational complications. Certainly Edgware Road is far from the ideal location to carry out Stepping Back of reversing trains because the two reversing platforms are not either side of the same island platform; in the event that a termintaing train is put into a different platform from the one scheduled then it becomes something of an exercise to make sure the correct driver is in the correct place to pick up the train. This problem also applies at Aldgate and it is a problem which tends to reduce the effectiveness and usefulness of Stepping Back. Surely with 12tph reversing at Edgware Road then these new service proposals would mean 24tph between Edgware Road and Praed St Junction. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jun 27, 2008 12:02:00 GMT
Edgware Road can reverse at least 20tph in the centre tracks if operated efficiently. Don't forget the poor signaller at Edgware Road - I know they won't be there forever, but as things currently stand, all signals & points controlled by Egdware Road cabin are operated manually. There is no option to put any part of the frame into auto, so the more complicated things are made in that area, the harder it will be for the signaller to stay on top of things. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2008 12:09:17 GMT
Surely with 12tph reversing at Edgware Road then these new service proposals would mean 24tph between Edgware Road and Praed St Junction. Sorry, I forgot a about the H&C in my calculations! Still slightly less than some other SSL junctions though |
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Jun 27, 2008 15:42:38 GMT
Edgware Road can reverse at least 20tph in the centre tracks if operated efficiently. Don't forget the poor signaller at Edgware Road - I know they won't be there forever, but as things currently stand, all signals & points controlled by Egdware Road cabin are operated manually. There is no option to put any part of the frame into auto, so the more complicated things are made in that area, the harder it will be for the signaller to stay on top of things. Na, they'll be alright ;D ;D I think that the problem now is that the new electric points aren't anywhere near as good as the air ones that they replaced. Someone did say that they are not designed to be moved 100 odd times an hour! Like many locations it will probably be slower when it gets moved over to a computer... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2008 4:46:31 GMT
This won't be a problem because the S7 will run all services! Having now read the article there is a definate sense that S6 will be the order of the day. It would make sense as it would be easier to implement the changeover and leave the major problems of platform and signalling alterations for a later period after the Olympics. On the capacity point the aspiration is to raise the the frequency from 6tph initially to 8tph on all routes. Whch would see 16tph between Hammersmith and Aldgate with 16tph from High Street Kensington peak (12tph off peak), how Praed Street Jcn copes with 32tph each way will be something to see. Also implied is 32tph between Baker Street and Aldgate Jcn and the same between Plaistow and Aldgate East and between Minories Jcn and Gloucester Road. The Jones don't like to be left behind by the Smiths in the railway sense as one line ramps up the oythers are sure to follow. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2008 10:17:44 GMT
This won't be a problem because the S7 will run all services! Having now read the article there is a definate sense that S6 will be the order of the day. It would make sense as it would be easier to implement the changeover and leave the major problems of platform and signalling alterations for a later period after the Olympics. On the capacity point the aspiration is to raise the the frequency from 6tph initially to 8tph on all routes. Whch would see 16tph between Hammersmith and Aldgate with 16tph from High Street Kensington peak (12tph off peak), how Praed Street Jcn copes with 32tph each way will be something to see. Also implied is 32tph between Baker Street and Aldgate Jcn and the same between Plaistow and Aldgate East and between Minories Jcn and Gloucester Road. The Jones don't like to be left behind by the Smiths in the railway sense as one line ramps up the oythers are sure to follow. Unless I've got my calculations wrong again, wouldn't it be 24tph between Aldgate East and Plaistow (16tph District, 8tph H&C)? Interesting. Is this increase to 32tph before the signalling is upgraded? Maybe the improved performance of the S-stock will allow for 32tph with current signalling? Apparently 31tph was run in the 80s between Mansion House and Gloucester Rd, and I would assume that the signalling hasn't changed since then? (I apologise for the number of question marks in this reply!) |
|
|
|
Post by Alight on Jun 28, 2008 13:32:42 GMT
In regards to semi - colon (off-topic), I do not believe it is archaic and I certainly can't write with out it! Young people do use semi-colons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alight on Jun 28, 2008 13:35:58 GMT
As for this, like I said in a previous thread, I'm all for the District Line running Edgware Road Wimbledon AND Edgware Road to Tower Hill (along circle track) which does away with the Tea cup idea. The only problem faced then will be linking Aldgate to Tower Hill, which could be (if modified) a H&C termination point.
Thus there would be no need to have the confusing tea cup and at the same time, the circle line (which is common knowledge to everyone that it only survives due to HSK-Gloucester Rd and Aldgate-Tower Hill).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2008 13:36:11 GMT
Just to clear up matters regarding the Wimbledon branch, there will still be 6 t.p.h ex Wimbledon in the off peak and AFAIK this will reverse at Edgware Rd along with the Hammersmith - Edgware Road service (via Liverpool St & Victoria)
It 'could' be an option to pull alternate trains out at HSK, however HSK - Wimbledon will most definately remain at 6 t.p.h
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2008 19:03:57 GMT
Unless I've got my calculations wrong again, wouldn't it be 24tph between Aldgate East and Plaistow (16tph District, 8tph H&C)? Interesting. Is this increase to 32tph before the signaling is upgraded? Maybe the improved performance of the S-stock will allow for 32tph with current signaling? Apparently 31tph was run in the 80s between Mansion House and Gloucester Rd, and I would assume that the signaling hasn't changed since then? (I apologize for the number of question marks in this reply!) No apology necessary, my sums went a little awry Plaistow to Aldgate East should have been 24tph, though we have yet to hear what the District has planned! The implied 32tph on other stretches was my interpretation of the article for the service proposed after resignalling as it would call for 1.5" headways on the busy stretches. The 1980's attempt to run this sort of service must have been fraught with problems as the service would have fallen down with the smallest problem occurring. Not that it is not impossible with new signaling! |
|
|
|
Post by Alight on Jul 1, 2008 16:46:54 GMT
As I have mentioned on another thread, this seems best and least confusing (to travellers) method in my opinion (without need of a tea cup service) SEE HEREServices however are tricky. 6 tph Ealing Broadway - Upminster (D78) 6 tph Richmond - Upminster (D78) 6 tph Wimbledon - Upminster (D78) 6+* tph Wimbledon - Edgware Road (C) 6+* tph Tower Hill – Edgware Road (C) 4 tph Kensington (Olympia) - High Street Kensington (D78) * more trains due to more C stock avalible. The method will also increase Upminster services by an extra 6 trains from Ealing Broadway to make space for terminating C stocks at Tower Hill from Edgware Road. A further alternative (if shortage of A stock) is to terminate Metropolitan at Tower Hill (modification needed of course) and then H&C can run to Barking instead. Diagram edited to a link because size of image was far bigger than forum limits (and was distorting page). Reminder that images are 800x500pxl max |
|
Although I am keeping an open mind on this matter.
