Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,761
|
Post by Chris M on Jan 18, 2009 23:48:26 GMT
I think his idea was more to do with times of disruption where trains might currently be short tripped and reversed at Charring Cross. If it were possible to take pax there the service wouldn't need to be detrained at Green Park, and so it wouldn't hold up the train behind.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jan 19, 2009 0:03:16 GMT
Sorry, but sending some Jubilee trains to Charing X would be utter stupidity (and rather pointless). If trains were running with new signaling at 30tph, then whenever a train is sent to Charing X, a 4 minute interval would be created on the JLE. The JLE is currently crowded at 2min30sec intervals, so you can imagine what a 4 minute interval would do! To add to that, a whole train load of passengers trying to get to Canary Wharf would have to detrain at Green Park, and attempt to board the already crowded train behind it. This would result in a very overcrowded train, an overcrowded platform, and resulting closures of the whole of Green Park station due to the overcrowded platform. Do you still think it's a good idea? Utter stupidity? I think not actually. I did say I had not looked too fully into it, but, when you think about it, with ATO, excellent performance and trains one behind the other, the gap need not be 4 minutes to the extension at all. Why 30tph? Maybe it could be possible for much more. 35, 36 or maybe even 40tph  As for the Canary Wharf passengers, surely they would board a "Stratford" service not a "Charing Cross" service? Credit them with some intelligence. I think you attempt to paint an extremely dramatic picture, and base the entire Jubilee line around the patrons of Canary Wharf. The big players of said wharf may have helped pay for the extension, but they are not the only people using the line (as if anyone with money to buy a railway would actually end up using it as a commuter.) Charing Cross is used now, albeit with detrainments at Green Park, and the sending of a train there does not create a huge cavernous gap on the extension where hundreds of people will be forced to cling to the roof of the next available service. I rarely get behind such pipe dreams on this forum, and normally play the "It can't happen" card, but as I said, now I'm not responsible for its operation, I reckon with the right kit, this could work ;D ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2009 4:26:17 GMT
I don't know what all the fuss about running to Charing Cross is anyway. Jubilee line trains were pretty much empty from Green Park, possibly due to the poor interchange with the Bakerloo and Northern lines.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2009 10:58:11 GMT
I did say I had not looked too fully into it, but, when you think about it, with ATO, excellent performance and trains one behind the other, the gap need not be 4 minutes to the extension at all. Why 30tph? Maybe it could be possible for much more. 35, 36 or maybe even 40tph I think the Jubilee will struggle to reverse more than 30tph, unless LU relax the tipping out rule. Even at 40tph, which is totally unrealistic, then sending a train to Charing X will still create a 3 min gap, which again is more than the current 2min30sec. Even if they wait for next Canary Wharf service, it will still result in overcrowding as you still have two train loads of Canary Wharf passengers trying to squeeze onto one train. Trains are rarely sent to Charing X during the am peak, and when a train is sent to Charing X, the platform at Green Park and following Canary Wharf train do tend to get a tad overcrowded! |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jan 19, 2009 17:58:03 GMT
Sending trains to Charing Cross would be like terminating Central line trains in the evening peak at somewhere like Liverpool Street. Anyway, most passengers tend to board the first train anyway without paying attention to the destination, which means a lot of them would get off at Green Park, thus making the platform very crowded.
Interesting discussion about the busiest section of the Jubilee - I'm sure that Canary Wharf to London Bridge will become the busiest, if not already. Does it rival the busiest stretch on the entire system though, which is Bethnal Green to Liverpool Street westbound (am peak)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2009 18:03:20 GMT
... Does it rival the busiest stretch on the entire system though, which is Bethnal Green to Liverpool Street westbound (am peak)? Interesting, do you have a source for that? Not that I don't believe you. It is rather that I suffer from precisely that stretch every morning when I have to fight to get on a westbound train from Bethnal Green. |
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jan 19, 2009 18:30:46 GMT
Interesting discussion about the busiest section of the Jubilee - I'm sure that Canary Wharf to London Bridge will become the busiest, if not already. Does it rival the busiest stretch on the entire system though, which is Bethnal Green to Liverpool Street westbound (am peak)? Canary Wharf to London Bridge is still only crowded. St John's Wood to Baker Street is overcrowded. I don't doubt that CW-LB will get busier. As for the busiest section - no way: Central line trains are longer, more frequent and more crowded - 'overcrowded' rather than 'crowded'. The Jubilee gets 144 cars per hour. The Central gets 240 cars per hour. Jubilee cars are 1.52m longer, and less than a centimetre wider and taller - that's a few people more per car, but no way near enough to beat the massive 40% deficit in number of cars per hour, let alone the higher crowding rating. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2009 19:15:07 GMT
I don't know what all the fuss about running to Charing Cross is anyway. Jubilee line trains were pretty much empty from Green Park, possibly due to the poor interchange with the Bakerloo and Northern lines. Can't be any worse than at Waterloo, they're almost separate stations there. |
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Jan 19, 2009 20:53:30 GMT
Off the top of my head normally for a staircase height of a riser is 200mm with a 280-300mm going. An escalator step is 400mm high. I've checked with a info at work and stand corrected: escalator step dimension is 400mm pitch and 200mm depth. There is however a requirement for fixed stairways to be broken up by a horizontal landing every 15-16 steps. |
|
|
|
Post by edwin on Jan 19, 2009 22:01:33 GMT
I did say I had not looked too fully into it, but, when you think about it, with ATO, excellent performance and trains one behind the other, the gap need not be 4 minutes to the extension at all. Why 30tph? Maybe it could be possible for much more. 35, 36 or maybe even 40tph I think the Jubilee will struggle to reverse more than 30tph, unless LU relax the tipping out rule. Isn't the whole point of the 3rd platform at Stanmore to alleviate this? |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jan 19, 2009 22:06:41 GMT
I think the Jubilee will struggle to reverse more than 30tph, unless LU relax the tipping out rule. Isn't the whole point of the 3rd platform at Stanmore to alleviate this? Stanmore 3 is to improve the service beyond West Hampstead - more trains can fit!! |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jan 19, 2009 22:31:04 GMT
Even if they wait for next Canary Wharf service, it will still result in overcrowding as you still have two train loads of Canary Wharf passengers trying to squeeze onto one train. But, although there would be a gap in the service to the extension, with ATO, there could still be as many trains going to Stratford as there are now, and running an extra train doesn't mean that there will suddenly be an extra train load of passengers, so it might be possible, but I think that it would be better to only use Charing Cross when the line is suspended somewhere on the extension, as you would have to run enough trains to Charing Cross so that people would use it, but you need a lot of trains on the extension as well. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jan 20, 2009 0:47:11 GMT
Maybe I should just go back to my former role of slating any such pipe dreams. I mean, I don't seriously believe - as a former operator of the line - that proper use of the branch will ever return.
Some of you are missing the point - albeit based on a bit of fantasy.
If trains could use the branch as normal, then where is the tipping out?
If the signalling was completed in the way it is intended, and ATO introduced then maybe it would be possible to run every 3rd train to the Cross.
Every 3rd train on the north at Green Park would be lightly loaded.
The northbound would not suffer as much due to shutdowns on the extension.
Everywhere else on the underground, trains terminate short of the line's actual end. Overcrowding during normal service is never a big issue.
As for Charing Cross not being used in the morning peak, this is a slightly inaccurate statement. For the branch is not actually used at all except during late running recovery, test/training runs, and in emergencies due to shutdowns on the extension - the last of which can happen at any time of day.
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jan 20, 2009 2:13:49 GMT
Everywhere else on the underground, trains terminate short of the line's actual end. Overcrowding during normal service is never a big issue. Waterloo & City?  How many lines have trains terminate halfway through zone 1? terminating at Charing Cross is the equivalent of terminating Central line trains at Tottenham Court Road, or Piccadilly at Holborn, or Victoria at Oxford Circus. I guess you could build a branch from Westminster to Victoria to supply the extension with trains lost to Charing Cross. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2009 10:41:53 GMT
I think the Jubilee will struggle to reverse more than 30tph, unless LU relax the tipping out rule. Isn't the whole point of the 3rd platform at Stanmore to alleviate this? Given that LU struggle to reverse more than around 18-20tph at any existing 3 platform dead end terminus, then I don't have much hope in the Jubilee running more than 30tph. It should be remembered that a 3 platform dead end terminus has little capacity improvement over a 2 platform dead end terminus. However it should theoretically be more reliable due to the reduction in conflicting moves and longer dwell times. Even if ATO/ATP allowed for a 30sec improvement in platform re-occupation time at Stanmore, then this would only be 24tph. Reverse the other 6tph at Wembley or Willesden Green I here you say? Depending on how the ATO/ATP behaves with the points I doubt that a platform re-occupation time better than 55secs behind a reversing train will be possible. If the area behaves anything like Westferry EB on the DLR (where a train waits 50m outside the station until the points have cleared), then it could be much longer. The current tipping out time is around 65secs on a good day. 65+55secs = 120secs. So a 2 min headway is only possible behind a reversing train with no operating margin, and using best case scenario figures. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jan 20, 2009 11:37:33 GMT
...terminating at Charing Cross is the equivalent of terminating Central line trains at Tottenham Court Road, or Piccadilly at Holborn, or Victoria at Oxford Circus. Or like the District line terminating at Edgware Road or Tower Hill. Or the revised Circle Line as it will be, also terminating at Edgware Road. Or the Met terminating at Baker Street or even Aldgate. Take your point on the W&C though ;D |
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jan 20, 2009 13:32:43 GMT
Edgware Road, on the N-S Wimbleware line is at the far end of zone 1.
Tower Hill and Aldwych, likewise, at the far end of zone 1.
These are ways to address a lack of balance between one end of the line and the other - there's nowhere north of Edgware Road for the Wimbleware, there's only one branch for the Met/H&C and District to take to the East - you have to shed half the capacity on those two lines to get them to merge - so Aldgate and Tower Hill are needed.
Baker Street is at the start of zone 1, and anyway, the Met is weird - the equivalents are the NR termini.
I chose stations kind of in the middle of zone 1, like Charing Cross is. Perhaps Covent Garden would be a better example for the Piccadilly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2009 14:36:39 GMT
Just give it to the DLR I say. Tower Hill / Edgware at least have through-running trains. A line actually abruptly stopping in Central London wouldn't be a good idea, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jan 20, 2009 22:30:59 GMT
... Does it rival the busiest stretch on the entire system though, which is Bethnal Green to Liverpool Street westbound (am peak)? Interesting, do you have a source for that? Not that I don't believe you. It is rather that I suffer from precisely that stretch every morning when I have to fight to get on a westbound train from Bethnal Green. I have heard it and read it in numerous places - John Glover's London Underground book, a report about the upgrade of the Central back in the early 90's. Ok, these were a few years ago, but I daresay it still is the busiest in terms of passengers carried. Yes, Bethnal Green is one of the hardest stations to get on a train in the morning peak. When National Rail is having problems into Liverpool Street, I would go as far as to say that it's impossible to get on there. When that bridge collapsed a while back which suspended services into Liverpool Street, people were giving up trying to get on at Bethnal Green, and leaving the station. |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jan 20, 2009 22:34:02 GMT
Just give it to the DLR I say. Tower Hill / Edgware at least have through-running trains. A line actually abruptly stopping in Central London wouldn't be a good idea, I think. If Charing Cross Jubilee became part of the DLR, the DLR would terminate in Central London, actually the DLR already does, at Bank. Giving it to the DLR wouldn't be a good idea because trains from Bank can be crowded at the moment, so imagine what it would be like if they came from Charing Cross. It would also mean the Jubilee couldn't reverse at Green Park, making the line less flexible. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2009 22:41:23 GMT
Just give it to the DLR I say. Tower Hill / Edgware at least have through-running trains. A line actually abruptly stopping in Central London wouldn't be a good idea, I think. If Charing Cross Jubilee became part of the DLR, the DLR would terminate in Central London, actually the DLR already does, at Bank. Giving it to the DLR wouldn't be a good idea because trains from Bank can be crowded at the moment, so imagine what it would be like if they came from Charing Cross. It would also mean the Jubilee couldn't reverse at Green Park, making the line less flexible. It's a pretty lengthy stretch between Green Park and Charing Cross though isn't it? Surely it could still be used as a reversing siding? |
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Jan 20, 2009 22:48:49 GMT
/If/ they go ahead with taking over... I'm sure some requirement for retaining some reversing facilities for the Jubilee will be part of the deal...
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jan 20, 2009 22:49:13 GMT
If Charing Cross Jubilee became part of the DLR, the DLR would terminate in Central London, actually the DLR already does, at Bank. Giving it to the DLR wouldn't be a good idea because trains from Bank can be crowded at the moment, so imagine what it would be like if they came from Charing Cross. It would also mean the Jubilee couldn't reverse at Green Park, making the line less flexible. It's a pretty lengthy stretch between Green Park and Charing Cross though isn't it? Surely it could still be used as a reversing siding? Possibly, but it would require a bit of tunnel remodelling, in order to make a scissors crossover east of Green Park, just after the "extension" line branches off. Then, you would have two tunnel reversing sidings. The current crossover is just before Charing Cross, which would not be available if the terminus was used by the DLR. |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jan 20, 2009 22:51:08 GMT
It's a pretty lengthy stretch between Green Park and Charing Cross though isn't it? Surely it could still be used as a reversing siding? But wouldn't the crossovers be near to Charing Cross? I don't think they would spend the money on putting new ones in nearer to Green Park. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2009 23:39:40 GMT
Interesting, do you have a source for that? Not that I don't believe you. It is rather that I suffer from precisely that stretch every morning when I have to fight to get on a westbound train from Bethnal Green. I have heard it and read it in numerous places - John Glover's London Underground book, a report about the upgrade of the Central back in the early 90's. Ok, these were a few years ago, but I daresay it still is the busiest in terms of passengers carried. Yes, Bethnal Green is one of the hardest stations to get on a train in the morning peak. When National Rail is having problems into Liverpool Street, I would go as far as to say that it's impossible to get on there. When that bridge collapsed a while back which suspended services into Liverpool Street, people were giving up trying to get on at Bethnal Green, and leaving the station. My understanding, based on something I heard/read years ago, was that Liverpool St-Bank was the busiest section on the Tube (which sounds logical - westbound am I would expect more people to board at Liverpool St (off NR, etc.) than alight); followed by Victoria-Green Park. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2009 16:47:31 GMT
If Charing Cross Jubilee became part of the DLR, the DLR would terminate in Central London, actually the DLR already does, at Bank. Giving it to the DLR wouldn't be a good idea because trains from Bank can be crowded at the moment, so imagine what it would be like if they came from Charing Cross. It would also mean the Jubilee couldn't reverse at Green Park, making the line less flexible. The tunnels at Charing Cross would need enlarging to take DLR trains costing a fortune. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,761
|
Post by Chris M on Jan 21, 2009 17:18:54 GMT
What would be the relative costs of enlarging the exiting Jubilee tunnels compared to excavating new tunnels?
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jan 21, 2009 19:30:16 GMT
I have heard it and read it in numerous places - John Glover's London Underground book, a report about the upgrade of the Central back in the early 90's. Ok, these were a few years ago, but I daresay it still is the busiest in terms of passengers carried. Yes, Bethnal Green is one of the hardest stations to get on a train in the morning peak. When National Rail is having problems into Liverpool Street, I would go as far as to say that it's impossible to get on there. When that bridge collapsed a while back which suspended services into Liverpool Street, people were giving up trying to get on at Bethnal Green, and leaving the station. My understanding, based on something I heard/read years ago, was that Liverpool St-Bank was the busiest section on the Tube (which sounds logical - westbound am I would expect more people to board at Liverpool St (off NR, etc.) than alight); followed by Victoria-Green Park. Logically, Liv St to Bank should be busier. Quite a lot of people alight at Liverpool Street though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2009 20:15:13 GMT
There is only on line tunel going towards the city to turn trains around
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2009 22:23:10 GMT
My understanding, based on something I heard/read years ago, was that Liverpool St-Bank was the busiest section on the Tube (which sounds logical - westbound am I would expect more people to board at Liverpool St (off NR, etc.) than alight); followed by Victoria-Green Park. Logically, Liv St to Bank should be busier. Quite a lot of people alight at Liverpool Street though. Funny that it doesn't seem to be busier than BG-Liverpool Street. Crush load is maximum until Liverpool Street after which I can usually stand more or less normal for the rest of the journey. The whole westbound eastern stretch is basically one big funnel with BG as the climax until it is relieved at Liverpool Street. Apparently more people leave the train at Liverpool Street than enter it. |
|
