from last night's Standard:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...eed-repairs.do
(or http://tinyurl.com/lu-block-closures )

Tube closures for three weeks in dramatic tactic to speed repairs

Commuters are facing three-week Tube shutdowns under plans to save
money and avoid years of weekend closures.
Whole sections of the Circle, Hammersmith & City, Metropolitan,
Northern and Piccadilly lines could be closed, the Standard has
learned.
London Underground bosses are planning the “block� suspensions in a
desperate and radical bid to deliver the network's £10 billion upgrade
but they will be a blow to millions of passengers.

--
The article seems to be doing its best to paint it as a Bad Thing, but
it does seem like a sensible plan of action. I daresay most people
could cope with a few weeks of misery if they knew it would lead to a
more reliable service afterwards.

Have similar things not been done in the past? I remember once seeing
a tube map which had one branch of the Northern Line marked as one way.

Have similar things not been done in the past? I remember once seeing
a tube map which had one branch of the Northern Line marked as one way.

Wasn't the entire 'City' branch of the Northern closed for major works
back in the early-mid nineties? IIRC this was also the time when they
eliminated the 'dangerous' island platform at Angel, built a new
tunnel, slewed the track, and provided separate NB / SB platforms?

M

On Nov 27, 10:50*am, M J Forbes wrote:
Have similar things not been done in the past? I remember once seeing
a tube map which had one branch of the Northern Line marked as one way.

Wasn't the entire 'City' branch of the Northern closed for major works
back in the early-mid nineties? *IIRC this was also the time when they
eliminated the 'dangerous' island platform at Angel, built a new
tunnel, slewed the track, and provided separate NB / SB platforms?

M

Well they effectively did it on the Hammersmith and City earlier this
year so they could complete the majority of the platform extension
works.

On Nov 27, 12:48*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 01:18:32 -0800 (PST), martin





wrote:
from last night's Standard:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-tube-closures...
(orhttp://tinyurl.com/lu-block-closures)

Tube closures for three weeks in dramatic tactic to speed repairs

Commuters are facing three-week Tube shutdowns under plans to save
money and avoid years of weekend closures.
Whole sections of the Circle, Hammersmith & City, Metropolitan,
Northern and Piccadilly lines could be closed, the Standard has
learned.
London Underground bosses are planning the “block” suspensions in a
desperate and radical bid to deliver the network's £10?billion upgrade
but they will be a blow to millions of passengers.
The article seems to be doing its best to paint it as a Bad Thing, but
it does seem like a sensible plan of action. I daresay most people
could cope with a few weeks of misery if they knew it would lead to a
more reliable service afterwards.

The Standard are trying to have it both ways. They have been moaning
about weekend closures and overruns a great deal recently and it was
also "flavour of the month" when they wanted to kick Metronet in the
goolies. * At that time they said "why don't do they do blockades?"

Now we get a statement that blockades are being considered and it's a
case of "woe, woe and thrice woe" even though there is next to no detail
and no view as to what alternative transport facilities will be
available. *In short LUL doesn't seem to be able to "win" on this issue
so far as our evening newspaper is concerned.

Have similar things not been done in the past? I remember once seeing
a tube map which had one branch of the Northern Line marked as one way.

Yes lots and lots of times - Northern Line city branch, Bakerloo south
of Piccadilly Circus for tunnel works, Victoria Line to allow
replacement of Brixton crossover and also removal of asbestos. Heathrow
loop to allow breakthrough of link to T5 but other works were done
including the refurb of T4 station at the same time. It is simply a case
of "horses for courses" and the ability to do the work in a sensible
time frame.

I think the Northern Line Bank branch must have been closed twice in
the last couple of decades, because they'd have done London Bridge as
well, and I'm sure it wasn't the same time as Angel.

In article ,
Paul Corfield wrote:
Another blockade that springs to mind is the Waterloo and City Line -
twice. Once to get the 92 stock in and working I think - there was the
800 replacement bus service and then, of course, much more recently to
do the track and signalling works and to refresh the trains.

Entirely off topic, but how come it was called no. 800? According to
Wikipedia, TfL don't use numbers 700-899 for bus routes to avoid
clashing with long distance coaches. Any idea why this service was an
exception? -- or did that rule not exist back then?

-roy

On Nov 27, 5:46*pm, (Roy Badami) wrote:
Entirely off topic, but how come it was called no. 800? *According to
Wikipedia, TfL don't use numbers 700-899 for bus routes to avoid
clashing with long distance coaches. *Any idea why this service was an
exception? -- or did that rule not exist back then?

Probably fair game to use it as an easy-to-remember "Special" service
number as opposed to using it for a "proper" service? Also I think you
may be right in thinking that TfL are more prescriptive these days on
all matters connected with service number (and destination) content
and format.

--
gordon

In article ,
Paul Corfield wrote:
Err it was a special service sponsored by the City Corporation IIRC.
TfL did not exist then so it was a London Regional Transport decision
and I'd guess it was to make things as distinctive as possible.

Is TfL actually a legally different entity, then, and not just a new
name for LRT?

I would point out that the local Hoxton / Islington route run by CT Plus
is numbered 812 and a route that served Clapton not so long back was
numbered 816.

Presumably those are non-TfL services, though -- do TfL get to set the
numbers for those or are they up to the operator?

-roy