| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Amersham and Chesham
On Oct 23, 6:17*pm, "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message ... Rail Replacement Bus Service In Glasgow http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2012/10/18/rail-replacement-bus-service-in-g.... Lucky them. This afternoon's Chesham passengers were thrown off their Chesham service at Rickmansworth and told to take a train to Amersham and then WALK to Chesham. The matching morning service to London was held at Harrow-on-the-Hill whilst the driver yelled at the jam-packed cattle to stop pressing up against the doors. *As if they were doing so on purpose! Tfl - the pits It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut TfL back to Moor Park and Watford. |
Amersham and Chesham
"77002" wrote in message ... On Oct 23, 6:17 pm, "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message ... Rail Replacement Bus Service In Glasgow http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2012/10/18/rail-replacement-bus-service-in-g... Lucky them. This afternoon's Chesham passengers were thrown off their Chesham service at Rickmansworth and told to take a train to Amersham and then WALK to Chesham. The matching morning service to London was held at Harrow-on-the-Hill whilst the driver yelled at the jam-packed cattle to stop pressing up against the doors. As if they were doing so on purpose! Tfl - the pits It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut TfL back to Moor Park and Watford. -------------- I beg to differ. There's a lot of traffic from north of Moor Park and a lot of that doesn't want to go to Marylebone. Southbound peak services are loaded to crush point by Rickmansworth - and handing over to NR/Chiltern won't solve that. As for the "fast pair", the current Metropolitan services are now all on the slow pair, except for a few peak services. The journey yesterday was crappy enough, but last time they took up your suggestion and routed our Amersham train round towards Watford. Again, it was "all off, then bugger off" - although that time, they relented and rolled the train back around the triangle and on to Amersham - eventually. PA |
Amersham and Chesham
On Oct 24, 12:14*pm, "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote:
"77002" wrote in message ... On Oct 23, 6:17 pm, "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message .. . Rail Replacement Bus Service In Glasgow http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2012/10/18/rail-replacement-bus-service-in-g... Lucky them. This afternoon's Chesham passengers were thrown off their Chesham service at Rickmansworth and told to take a train to Amersham and then WALK to Chesham. The matching morning service to London was held at Harrow-on-the-Hill whilst the driver yelled at the jam-packed cattle to stop pressing up against the doors. As if they were doing so on purpose! Tfl - the pits It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut TfL back to Moor Park and Watford. -------------- I beg to differ. There's a lot of traffic from north of Moor Park and a lot of that doesn't want to go to Marylebone. *Southbound peak services are loaded to crush point by Rickmansworth - and handing over to NR/Chiltern won't solve that. As for the "fast pair", the current Metropolitan services are now all on the slow pair, except for a few peak services. The journey yesterday was crappy enough, but last time they took up your suggestion and routed our Amersham train round towards Watford. *Again, it was "all off, then bugger off" - although that time, they relented and rolled the train back around the triangle and on to Amersham - eventually.. In the medium term the route can be re-electrified at 25kV. There is no reason Chiltern cannot run longer trains. |
Amersham and Chesham
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 04:25:27 -0700 (PDT), 77002
wrote: On Oct 24, 12:14*pm, "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote: "77002" wrote in message ... On Oct 23, 6:17 pm, "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message .. . Rail Replacement Bus Service In Glasgow http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2012/10/18/rail-replacement-bus-service-in-g... Lucky them. This afternoon's Chesham passengers were thrown off their Chesham service at Rickmansworth and told to take a train to Amersham and then WALK to Chesham. The matching morning service to London was held at Harrow-on-the-Hill whilst the driver yelled at the jam-packed cattle to stop pressing up against the doors. As if they were doing so on purpose! Tfl - the pits It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut TfL back to Moor Park and Watford. -------------- I beg to differ. There's a lot of traffic from north of Moor Park and a lot of that doesn't want to go to Marylebone. *Southbound peak services are loaded to crush point by Rickmansworth - and handing over to NR/Chiltern won't solve that. As for the "fast pair", the current Metropolitan services are now all on the slow pair, except for a few peak services. The journey yesterday was crappy enough, but last time they took up your suggestion and routed our Amersham train round towards Watford. *Again, it was "all off, then bugger off" - although that time, they relented and rolled the train back around the triangle and on to Amersham - eventually. In the medium term the route can be re-electrified at 25kV. There is no reason Chiltern cannot run longer trains. To where? Marylebone platform capacity is very limited. |
Amersham and Chesham
On Oct 24, 11:57*am, 77002 wrote:
It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut TfL back to Moor Park and Watford.- Hide quoted text - To acheive what ? -- Nick |
Amersham and Chesham
On 24 Oct, 17:31, D7666 wrote:
On Oct 24, 11:57*am, 77002 wrote: It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut TfL back to Moor Park and Watford.- Hide quoted text - To acheive what ? Quality of management, and rolling stock, appropriate for the service. |
Amersham and Chesham
"e27002" wrote in message ... On 24 Oct, 17:31, D7666 wrote: On Oct 24, 11:57 am, 77002 wrote: It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut TfL back to Moor Park and Watford.- Hide quoted text - To acheive what ? \\\Quality of management, and rolling stock, appropriate for the service. Crikey, what are you on? |
Amersham and Chesham
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:31:37 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote: On Oct 24, 11:57*am, 77002 wrote: It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut TfL back to Moor Park and Watford.- Hide quoted text - To acheive what ? Vary it to future upgrading in the form of 25kV from Marylebone to Aylesbury with DC left until further notice between Harrow and Amersham. This leaves roughly the same track availability as at present with the opportunity for future (whole/part) conversion of the Met to 25kV when the DC equipment is beyond saving, possible use of joint stock (i.e. including existing stock with new transformer coaches and new sets re-using displaced coaches from old sets). With the Met being diverted to Watford Junction and thoughts about extensions north of Aylesbury it would reduce the electrical incompatibility that LU has with surrounding systems. |
Amersham and Chesham
"Charles Ellson" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:31:37 -0700 (PDT), D7666 wrote: On Oct 24, 11:57 am, 77002 wrote: It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut TfL back to Moor Park and Watford.- Hide quoted text - To acheive what ? Vary it to future upgrading in the form of 25kV from Marylebone to Aylesbury with DC left until further notice between Harrow and Amersham. This leaves roughly the same track availability as at present with the opportunity for future (whole/part) conversion of the Met to 25kV when the DC equipment is beyond saving, possible use of joint stock (i.e. including existing stock with new transformer coaches and new sets re-using displaced coaches from old sets). With the Met being diverted to Watford Junction and thoughts about extensions north of Aylesbury it would reduce the electrical incompatibility that LU has with surrounding systems. Stand on any up platform, Amersham to Moor Park inclusive, and observe how few passengers use the Chiltern services - so upgrading Aylesbury to Marylebone would yield no benefit to the overwhelming majority of these thousands of passengers. Likewise with the god-forsaken idea of pushing the Met on into Watford Junction. As for the conversion of the Met to OHLE - this is the loose sort of thinking that spawned IEP. The expression |
Amersham and Chesham
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:24:24 +0100, "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote:
"Charles Ellson" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:31:37 -0700 (PDT), D7666 wrote: On Oct 24, 11:57 am, 77002 wrote: It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut TfL back to Moor Park and Watford.- Hide quoted text - To acheive what ? Vary it to future upgrading in the form of 25kV from Marylebone to Aylesbury with DC left until further notice between Harrow and Amersham. This leaves roughly the same track availability as at present with the opportunity for future (whole/part) conversion of the Met to 25kV when the DC equipment is beyond saving, possible use of joint stock (i.e. including existing stock with new transformer coaches and new sets re-using displaced coaches from old sets). With the Met being diverted to Watford Junction and thoughts about extensions north of Aylesbury it would reduce the electrical incompatibility that LU has with surrounding systems. Stand on any up platform, Amersham to Moor Park inclusive, and observe how few passengers use the Chiltern services Maybe they don't all want to go where the Chiltern trains (presently) go ? - so upgrading Aylesbury to Marylebone would yield no benefit to the overwhelming majority of these thousands of passengers. I doubt if the passengers give a damn how the juice reaches the trains; they are more likely to notice when things go missing such as e.g. trains from Aylesbury to Baker Street. Getting rid of running two different systems (one non-standard) in what is practically the same space would add to flexibility and ought to decrease potential problems. Likewise with the god-forsaken idea of pushing the Met on into Watford Junction. As for the conversion of the Met to OHLE - this is the loose sort of thinking that spawned IEP. Distinct from the loose sort of thinking of replacing a knackered obsolete DC ground-based supply with a brand new obsolete DC ground-based supply system ? It is the sort of thinking that has contributed to the greatly increased use of the North London line. It is the sort of thinking that seems to be under serious consideration in SR third-rail territory. |
Amersham and Chesham
"77002" wrote It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut TfL back to Moor Park and Watford. I don't think there is any urgent need for a change, apart from the diversion of Met trains into Watford Junction, and extending Chiltern to Milton Keynes (via Quainton Road and Winslow). A useful add-on might be an Amersham - Watford Junction shuttle. But the joint running is less than perfectly efficient. There have been previous proposals for the Met to provide all trains between Amersham and Central London, with Aylesbury - Amersham reduced to a shuttle, or the Met could be extended to Aylesbury (BR proposals to close Marylebone in the early 1980s), or for a Crossrail branch across Old Oak Common to the Acton Wells - Neasden Junction line. which would then have taken over the Chiltern line to Harrow, the Met Fast Lines to Watford South Junction, and then whole Amersham, Chesham and Aylesbury service. I suspect that a recast (though not in the near future) might involve a 25 kV service from Marylebone taking over the Met Fast Lines from Harrow and all Met services to Chesham and Amersham, but with a West Hampstead Interchange station so that Chiltern passengers could transfer there to Met trains to the City or Jubilee trains to the West End and Docklands. Peter |
Amersham and Chesham
On 24 Oct, 19:28, "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote:
"e27002" wrote in message ... On 24 Oct, 17:31, D7666 wrote: On Oct 24, 11:57 am, 77002 wrote: It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut TfL back to Moor Park and Watford.- Hide quoted text - To acheive what ? \\\Quality of management, and rolling stock, appropriate for the service. Crikey, what are you on? Items Think back to when your mom taught you manners. Is your tone appropriate? You yourself were critical of TfL's management skills on the evening in question. Chiltern have a good reputation for service and customer focus. Do you really believe S8 stock is right for suburban services to Amersham and Chesham? You reconsidered reply is: |
Amersham and Chesham
On 24 Oct, 20:24, "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote:
"Charles Ellson" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:31:37 -0700 (PDT), D7666 wrote: On Oct 24, 11:57 am, 77002 wrote: It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut TfL back to Moor Park and Watford.- Hide quoted text - To acheive what ? Vary it to future upgrading in the form of 25kV from Marylebone to Aylesbury with DC left until further notice between Harrow and Amersham. This leaves roughly the same track availability as at present with the opportunity for future (whole/part) conversion of the Met to 25kV when the DC equipment is beyond saving, possible use of joint stock (i.e. including existing stock with new transformer coaches and new sets re-using displaced coaches from old sets). With the Met being diverted to Watford Junction and thoughts about extensions north of Aylesbury it would reduce the electrical incompatibility that LU has with surrounding systems. Stand on any up platform, Amersham to Moor Park inclusive, and observe how few passengers use the Chiltern services - so upgrading Aylesbury to Marylebone would yield no benefit to the overwhelming majority of these thousands of passengers. *Likewise with the god-forsaken idea of pushing the Met on into Watford Junction. *As for the conversion of the Met to OHLE - this is the loose sort of thinking that spawned IEP. I think you are saying most passengers do not want to reach Marylebone, and its interchange with the Bakerloo line. However, the addidion of a comprehensive interchange at West Hampstead would open up a multitude of possible destinations. |
Amersham and Chesham
On 24 Oct, 21:52, "Peter Masson"
wrote: "77002" *wrote It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut TfL back to Moor Park and Watford. I don't think there is any urgent need for a change, apart from the diversion of Met trains into Watford Junction, and extending Chiltern to Milton Keynes (via Quainton Road and Winslow). A useful add-on might be an Amersham - Watford Junction shuttle. But the joint running is less than perfectly efficient. There have been previous proposals for the Met to provide all trains between Amersham and Central London, with Aylesbury - Amersham reduced to a shuttle, or the Met could be extended to Aylesbury (BR proposals to close Marylebone in the early 1980s), or for a Crossrail branch across Old Oak Common to the Acton Wells - Neasden Junction line. which would then have taken over the Chiltern line to Harrow, the Met Fast Lines to Watford South Junction, and then whole Amersham, Chesham and Aylesbury service. I suspect that a recast (though not in the near future) might involve a 25 kV service from Marylebone taking over the Met Fast Lines from Harrow and all Met services to Chesham and Amersham, but with a West Hampstead Interchange station so that Chiltern passengers could transfer there to Met trains to the City or Jubilee trains to the West End and Docklands. That sounds reasonable to me. |
Amersham and Chesham
"Charles Ellson" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:24:24 +0100, "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote: "Charles Ellson" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:31:37 -0700 (PDT), D7666 wrote: On Oct 24, 11:57 am, 77002 wrote: It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut TfL back to Moor Park and Watford.- Hide quoted text - To acheive what ? Vary it to future upgrading in the form of 25kV from Marylebone to Aylesbury with DC left until further notice between Harrow and Amersham. This leaves roughly the same track availability as at present with the opportunity for future (whole/part) conversion of the Met to 25kV when the DC equipment is beyond saving, possible use of joint stock (i.e. including existing stock with new transformer coaches and new sets re-using displaced coaches from old sets). With the Met being diverted to Watford Junction and thoughts about extensions north of Aylesbury it would reduce the electrical incompatibility that LU has with surrounding systems. Stand on any up platform, Amersham to Moor Park inclusive, and observe how few passengers use the Chiltern services Maybe they don't all want to go where the Chiltern trains (presently) go ? - so upgrading Aylesbury to Marylebone would yield no benefit to the overwhelming majority of these thousands of passengers. I doubt if the passengers give a damn how the juice reaches the trains; they are more likely to notice when things go missing such as e.g. trains from Aylesbury to Baker Street. Getting rid of running two different systems (one non-standard) in what is practically the same space would add to flexibility and ought to decrease potential problems. Likewise with the god-forsaken idea of pushing the Met on into Watford Junction. As for the conversion of the Met to OHLE - this is the loose sort of thinking that spawned IEP. Distinct from the loose sort of thinking of replacing a knackered obsolete DC ground-based supply with a brand new obsolete DC ground-based supply system ? It is the sort of thinking that has contributed to the greatly increased use of the North London line. It is the sort of thinking that seems to be under serious consideration in SR third-rail territory. EXACTLY the same sort of loose thinking that produced IEP. Both the Dft's case for IEP and your argument - particularly as demonstrated in the above paragraph - are based upon an initial premise that is completely false (Dft: It takes over 15 minutes to attach a diesel locomotive; Yours that DC 4th rail is a "knackered obsolete" system). You then build your case on the sandiest of sand. |
Amersham and Chesham
"e27002" wrote in message ... On 24 Oct, 20:24, "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote: "Charles Ellson" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:31:37 -0700 (PDT), D7666 wrote: On Oct 24, 11:57 am, 77002 wrote: It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut TfL back to Moor Park and Watford.- Hide quoted text - To acheive what ? Vary it to future upgrading in the form of 25kV from Marylebone to Aylesbury with DC left until further notice between Harrow and Amersham. This leaves roughly the same track availability as at present with the opportunity for future (whole/part) conversion of the Met to 25kV when the DC equipment is beyond saving, possible use of joint stock (i.e. including existing stock with new transformer coaches and new sets re-using displaced coaches from old sets). With the Met being diverted to Watford Junction and thoughts about extensions north of Aylesbury it would reduce the electrical incompatibility that LU has with surrounding systems. Stand on any up platform, Amersham to Moor Park inclusive, and observe how few passengers use the Chiltern services - so upgrading Aylesbury to Marylebone would yield no benefit to the overwhelming majority of these thousands of passengers. Likewise with the god-forsaken idea of pushing the Met on into Watford Junction. As for the conversion of the Met to OHLE - this is the loose sort of thinking that spawned IEP. I think you are saying most passengers do not want to reach Marylebone, and its interchange with the Bakerloo line. However, the addidion of a comprehensive interchange at West Hampstead would open up a multitude of possible destinations. ----------------- Indeed they don't want Marylebone. What they want is Central London. That said, developing West Hampstead does seem to make sense. |
Amersham and Chesham
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:02:23 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote: present with the opportunity for future (whole/part) conversion of the Met to 25kV when the DC equipment is beyond saving, possible use of Brilliant idea. So who gets to rebuild the circle line tunnels so the catenary can fit? Not to mention that unless you're planning on dual voltage trains or re-wiring the entire circle line then it will still have to be DC in the central section. And then of course someone will have to stick some pantographs on the battery locomotives. Btw, what is the cost of entirely replacing the met lines DC system and installing 25KV including catenary? Quite a bit more than relaying some new DC rails I suspect. B2003 |
Amersham and Chesham
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:28:58 +0100, Peter Able wrote:
Dft: It takes over 15 minutes to attach a diesel locomotive. I've never understood this. If the diesel loco is properly designed to interwork with the unit(s) that it's expected to haul, then surely (de)coupling should take no longer than splitting and combining any *MU stock. Although I do understand that one school of thought holds that the DfT probably couldn't manage the proper design of a 1cm x 1cm x 1cm cube of solid steel, let alone anything more complex, perhaps that's the real issue? And yet they feel they can manage the design of IEP ..... Rgds Denis McMahon |
Amersham and Chesham
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:09:14 -0700 (PDT), e27002
wrote: On 24 Oct, 21:52, "Peter Masson" wrote: "77002" *wrote It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut TfL back to Moor Park and Watford. I don't think there is any urgent need for a change, apart from the diversion of Met trains into Watford Junction, and extending Chiltern to Milton Keynes (via Quainton Road and Winslow). A useful add-on might be an Amersham - Watford Junction shuttle. But the joint running is less than perfectly efficient. There have been previous proposals for the Met to provide all trains between Amersham and Central London, with Aylesbury - Amersham reduced to a shuttle, or the Met could be extended to Aylesbury (BR proposals to close Marylebone in the early 1980s), or for a Crossrail branch across Old Oak Common to the Acton Wells - Neasden Junction line. which would then have taken over the Chiltern line to Harrow, the Met Fast Lines to Watford South Junction, and then whole Amersham, Chesham and Aylesbury service. I suspect that a recast (though not in the near future) might involve a 25 kV service from Marylebone taking over the Met Fast Lines from Harrow and all Met services to Chesham and Amersham, but with a West Hampstead Interchange station so that Chiltern passengers could transfer there to Met trains to the City or Jubilee trains to the West End and Docklands. That sounds reasonable to me. We gave that a bit of a thrashing a few weeks back and ISTR it was seen as a nice idea but lost on points. |
Amersham and Chesham
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:44:49 +0100, wrote: To go off on a complete tangent does any one know if the 3000 volt 3 phase system the Metropolitan railway considered would have been straightfoward to install, or would that have required some tunnel alterations. So maybe conductor rail electrification was already seen as not the way to do it back then ? ITYF the cut and cover construction of the tunnels would at the least have given a more horizontal tunnel roof to work with. Don't forget that, in 1900, the percentage of the Underground (as distinct from Tube) lines that were in tunnel was very small indeed. The cut and cover tunnels were constructed on an ad hoc basis to allow buildings to be constructed above, in a way comparable to the Gerrards Cross Tesco project. |
Ganz system (was: Amersham and Chesham)
To go off on a complete tangent does any one know if the 3000 volt
3 phase system the Metropolitan railway considered would have been straightfoward to install, or would that have required some tunnel alterations. Mention is made however of Ganz which IMU infers 3-phase but according to Wonkypaedia :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1...A1n_Kand%C3%B3 there was also a modified system using a single-phase OH supply with conversion to 3-phase on the locomotive used in Hungary; the wlv.ac.uk article referred to above mentions the "an overhead conductor" so the Met. might only have wanted one piece of wet string. No, it was two overhead wires. The following is from "A History of London Transport" (Barker and Robbins), volume 2, pages 58 and 75. The Metropolitan and District issued a call for tenders for electrifying their lines and hired two consultants, Sir William Preece and Thomas Parker, to examine the tenders. # Preece and Parker... on 9 January 1901, reported that the thought # that Ganz's seemed the most suitable but felt that they ought to # inspect the Ganz system before making a definite recommendation. # They went to Budapest and reported to the joint committee on # 7 February 1901 that they were satisfied. It was therefore # decided to recommend the Ganz system to the two companies. # This agreed recommendation came as a bombshell, for the Ganz # tender was for a 3,000-volt three-phase a.c. system fed to the # trains from two overhead wires, quite unlike anything which had # been tried out by the underground companies so far and, indeed, # different from anything which had been in successful commercial # operation up to that time anywhere in the world. ... # This had the attraction of economizing in transformer and # converting plant but the disadvantage of requiring twin overhead # wires with a potential difference of 3,000 volts between them # and between each of them and earth. These overhead wires would # be difficult to install in underground tunnels and, should either # of them be brought down when the trains had started to run, they # might endanger human life by fire or electric shock and would # certainly lead to long interruptions in service. There was # the further disadvantage that alternating current motors had # a much poorer starting torque, a very important consideration # on a system having numerous stations and frequent stops. And, # most important of all, the Ganz system had not at that time been # tried out anywhere in the world under commercial conditions, # though it had been shown to be technically feasible on a trial # stretch of open line about a mile long... "Difficult to install in tunnels". That sounds to me as though they felt there was enough clearance for 3,000-volt overhead wiring, but only just. Note incidentally that there was 3,000 volts between each wire and earth as well as between the two wires. That's obviously because the earthed running rails were to be used as the third phase, just as they are a conductor when used with third rail (and not fourth) or single-wire overhead. In a 3-phase system with 3 separate conductors, they only need to be at 3,000/sqrt(3) = 1,732 volts relative to earth to have 3,000 volts between any two of them. The book includes a long footnote which says, among other things, that the first use of the Ganz system in commercial service was on the Valtellina line near Lake Como in September 1902; and that technical details of the system and an illustration of a Valtellina line locomotive can be found in "History of the Electric Locomotive" (1969) by F.J.G. Haut. -- Mark Brader, Toronto | This is Programming as a True Art Form, where style | is more important than correctness... --Pontus Hedman My text in this article is in the public domain. |
Amersham and Chesham
"Bruce" wrote The cut and cover tunnels were constructed on an ad hoc basis to allow buildings to be constructed above, in a way comparable to the Gerrards Cross Tesco project. Most of the original Met (Paddington to Farringdon) was built under streets, which were reinstated after construction of the railway. The District, between Westminster and Blackfriars, was built as part of the Victoria Embankment project which also incorporated the river wall, the road, and Bazalgette's sewer. http://www.historytoday.com/roger-hudson/taming-thames Peter |
Amersham and Chesham
In article ,
Peter Masson wrote: "Bruce" wrote The cut and cover tunnels were constructed on an ad hoc basis to allow buildings to be constructed above, in a way comparable to the Gerrards Cross Tesco project. Most of the original Met (Paddington to Farringdon) was built under streets, which were reinstated after construction of the railway. The District, between Westminster and Blackfriars, was built as part of the Victoria Embankment project which also incorporated the river wall, the road, and Bazalgette's sewer. http://www.historytoday.com/roger-hudson/taming-thames Indeed, even the bored tubes were mostly constructed under streets, as the need for underground wayleaves and the risk of even the slightest damage to property made it impossible to get Acts through parliament otherwise. I CBA to go through "Lost Tube Schemes" in fact I can't even find it right now (it's lost :)). But until the Metroland project came along there were few if any underground railway proposals for areas that were not already built up - why would there be, there'd be no traffic for them! Nick -- "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life" -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996 |
Amersham and Chesham
On Oct 26, 9:29*am, "Peter Masson"
wrote: "Bruce" *wrote The cut and cover tunnels were constructed on an ad hoc basis to allow buildings to be constructed above, in a way comparable to the Gerrards Cross Tesco project. Most of the original Met (Paddington to Farringdon) was built under streets, which were reinstated after construction of the railway. The District, between Westminster and Blackfriars, was built as part of the Victoria Embankment project which also incorporated the river wall, the road, and Bazalgette's sewer.http://www.historytoday.com/roger-hudson/taming-thames They were very few buildings over Met. Ry tracks. In some instances their own station buildings spanned the tracks. Indeed, rather than building over the tracks, their is the instance of a dummy facades in the Paddington area, i.e. 23 and 24 Leinster Gardens. Great Portland Street Station presents an interesting case. I think the line must slice the corner as Marylebone Road becomes Euston Road. The station entrance is at the top of Great Portland Street on an island to the side of Euston Road. At the Western End of the platforms there is an opening for locomotive exhaust to escape. The protective walls around the gap are at the side of the ISH parking lot. |
Amersham and Chesham
On Oct 26, 10:09*am, "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote:
"Peter Masson" wrote in message ... "Jeremy Double" *wrote in message ... Denis McMahon wrote: On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:28:58 +0100, Peter Able wrote: Dft: It takes over 15 minutes to attach a diesel locomotive. I've never understood this. If the diesel loco is properly designed to interwork with the unit(s) that it's expected to haul, then surely (de)coupling should take no longer than splitting and combining any *MU stock. In the days of ETH-fitted Peaks on the Midland main line, they used to reverse some trains at Nottingham in 5 minutes or so, and this included uncoupling a loco at one end of the train and coupling another one on the other end. Time was when 2 minutes were allowed to detach Sarah Siddons (or one of her sisters) at Rickmansworth, send her into a siding, back on a steam loco and couple up. The shunter had to go between the loco and the coaches, despite the presence of the 4th rail. These days H&S would have kittens. Peter I think that the issue is, if it does take more than 15 minutes - and it now appears that this figure was quite bogus - but whatever it takes, it is claimed to be due to the need for the train to re-boot and be acknowledged, then the question is why do we make such over-complicated systems nowadays? The same thing is true regarding 3rd-rail DC. *The over-complicated systems cannot deal with momentary supply fluctuation such as occur during cold weather. *This, combined with the foolish change to lightweight collector sandals (you really can't dignify them with the word, shoes) has lead to foolish condemnation of third-rail systems. In both cases, over-complication is the underlying problem - and no-one in DfT has the wit/guts to challenge this underlying, fundamental error - and no-one in the industry dares to. The light weight shoes are probably part of the reason NSR's EMUs fair so badly in snowy conditions. In the 1960s I can recall leaving Waterloo on a 4EPB during a light sprinkling. Even today SWT's Siemens units make some progress. NSR (an otherwise excellent railway) cancel services when their snow in the forecast. |
Amersham and Chesham
On Oct 26, 12:28*pm, 77002 wrote:
On Oct 26, 10:09*am, "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote: "Peter Masson" wrote in message ... "Jeremy Double" *wrote in message ... Denis McMahon wrote: On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:28:58 +0100, Peter Able wrote: Dft: It takes over 15 minutes to attach a diesel locomotive. I've never understood this. If the diesel loco is properly designed to interwork with the unit(s) that it's expected to haul, then surely (de)coupling should take no longer than splitting and combining any *MU stock. In the days of ETH-fitted Peaks on the Midland main line, they used to reverse some trains at Nottingham in 5 minutes or so, and this included uncoupling a loco at one end of the train and coupling another one on the other end. Time was when 2 minutes were allowed to detach Sarah Siddons (or one of her sisters) at Rickmansworth, send her into a siding, back on a steam loco and couple up. The shunter had to go between the loco and the coaches, despite the presence of the 4th rail. These days H&S would have kittens. Peter I think that the issue is, if it does take more than 15 minutes - and it now appears that this figure was quite bogus - but whatever it takes, it is claimed to be due to the need for the train to re-boot and be acknowledged, then the question is why do we make such over-complicated systems nowadays? The same thing is true regarding 3rd-rail DC. *The over-complicated systems cannot deal with momentary supply fluctuation such as occur during cold weather. *This, combined with the foolish change to lightweight collector sandals (you really can't dignify them with the word, shoes) has lead to foolish condemnation of third-rail systems. In both cases, over-complication is the underlying problem - and no-one in DfT has the wit/guts to challenge this underlying, fundamental error - and no-one in the industry dares to. Corrected version: The light weight shoes are probably part of the reason NSR's EMUs fair so badly in snowy conditions. In the 1960s I can recall leaving Waterloo on a 4EPB during a light sprinkling. *Even today SWT's Siemens units make some progress. *NSR (an otherwise excellent railway) cancel services when there is snow in the forecast. |
Amersham and Chesham
"77002" wrote in message ... On Oct 26, 12:28 pm, 77002 wrote: On Oct 26, 10:09 am, "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote: "Peter Masson" wrote in message ... "Jeremy Double" wrote in message ... Denis McMahon wrote: On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:28:58 +0100, Peter Able wrote: Dft: It takes over 15 minutes to attach a diesel locomotive. I've never understood this. If the diesel loco is properly designed to interwork with the unit(s) that it's expected to haul, then surely (de)coupling should take no longer than splitting and combining any *MU stock. In the days of ETH-fitted Peaks on the Midland main line, they used to reverse some trains at Nottingham in 5 minutes or so, and this included uncoupling a loco at one end of the train and coupling another one on the other end. Time was when 2 minutes were allowed to detach Sarah Siddons (or one of her sisters) at Rickmansworth, send her into a siding, back on a steam loco and couple up. The shunter had to go between the loco and the coaches, despite the presence of the 4th rail. These days H&S would have kittens. Peter I think that the issue is, if it does take more than 15 minutes - and it now appears that this figure was quite bogus - but whatever it takes, it is claimed to be due to the need for the train to re-boot and be acknowledged, then the question is why do we make such over-complicated systems nowadays? The same thing is true regarding 3rd-rail DC. The over-complicated systems cannot deal with momentary supply fluctuation such as occur during cold weather. This, combined with the foolish change to lightweight collector sandals (you really can't dignify them with the word, shoes) has lead to foolish condemnation of third-rail systems. In both cases, over-complication is the underlying problem - and no-one in DfT has the wit/guts to challenge this underlying, fundamental error - and no-one in the industry dares to. Corrected version: The light weight shoes are probably part of the reason NSR's EMUs fair so badly in snowy conditions. In the 1960s I can recall leaving Waterloo on a 4EPB during a light sprinkling. Even today SWT's Siemens units make some progress. NSR (an otherwise excellent railway) cancel services when there is snow in the forecast. Quite - and I can vouch for the even earlier 4SUBs, and even the pre-1920 3SUBs. There were pyrotechnics, but they got through. Nobody in the press seems to be recognising technical over-complication as a really serious issue, although I noted Tony Miles picking up on the issue of collector sandals as a bad move in a recent Modern Railways - an issue first raised in this group some time ago! |
Amersham and Chesham
On Oct 25, 11:51*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
Is that a certainty with the lesser clearances that are now known to be needed ? Was there any significant rebuilding on the Widened Lines when 25kV was installed ? No, but the clearances are minimal, and 319s sit lower on their suspensions than 321s do (I guess 377/5s do comoared with other 377s but have yet to find this data). Some of the track was lowered by using slab track - the usual reason stated for slab track in the tunnels is reduced maintenance - which is of course true - but overall it is lower height than sleepered track allowing shoe horning of OLE. To go off on a complete tangent does any one know if the 3000 volt 3 phase system the Metropolitan railway considered would have been straightfoward to install, or would that have required some tunnel alterations. That depends how you look at this. Other statements that " xx volts" are difficult to install in tunnels are incorrect without qualification. There is no difficulty in installing anything in tunnels provided the tunnel is big enough, so if you go back in time to when these ideas were proposed the underground network was a lot smaller, and, in the case of the Met. and Dist. that already existed far easier to have altered than today - you don't have huger tower blocks foundations straddling the railway making for impossible obstructions. Cut and cover lines could have been more easily dug out then but imagine trying to do that now with todays road traffic ... and road lobby. I'd say if it had been done at the time it was proposed it would have required alterations of larger extent than today because they'd need larger clearances than todays modern insulation standards allow, and those alterations would have been far far less disruptive than attempting it today. -- Nick |
Amersham and Chesham
On the subject of 25 kV Met, Marylebone etc etc, I am still of the
view that a better Thameslink upgrade would not have been to link the ex Midland lines to GN as KX/SP but to have linked the Midland to the Met/GC at West Hampstead, with trains being able to both switch between both routes. This could have been done using the sites to the south of the present West Hampstead stations, and incorporated the NLL station at a higher level. This could have allowed the ML to retain its Moorgate link (but some trains switching to the MET), allowed relief of Baker Street junction (by having some MET trains switch to TL), and give and electrified Chilterns route access to TL (solving the longer/more trains at Marylebone issue). It would also give a better spread of trains through the TL core - one of the issues is GN realistically can't take more than 8 TPH off TL but 24 TPH means 16 TPH have to head for the Midland which is not so sensible. If those were (say) inner suburbans from (one time) Wimbledon loop or other southern metro line those logically go to Watford Met or Uxbridge, while some of the faster TL core trains can go to [say] Aylesbury as well as Bedford. Before some nitwit comments, it assumed that all surface lines and Chilterns works will be to 12cars or 8car SDO where uneconomic - don't say it is impossible - uk.railways said 4car NLL and 12car TL was impossible but now are reality. If this had been done with the TL works, you'd now have a 25 kV wired Chilterns, and linking with other matters taking AC that way towards Banbury (for Birmingham) would result in considerable synergy and economy of scale with the current electric Spine project. GN capacity in my view should be dealt with by new construction from around Finsbury Park - thats where Crossrail 2 should go on the north side. -- Nick |
Ganz system (was: Amersham and Chesham)
Mark Brader:
The book includes a long footnote which says, among other things, that the first use of the Ganz system in commercial service was on the Valtellina line near Lake Como in September 1902; and that technical details of the system and an illustration of a Valtellina line locomotive can be found in "History of the Electric Locomotive" (1969) by F.J.G. Haut. Looking around on the Web for photos showing such a locomotive, I only find this one, although it's on several web pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ka...an_mozdony.jpg So I suspect it's the same one as in Haut's book. Anyway, the interesting thing is the collector that contacts the overhead wires, which looks more like a big bow collector than anything else -- one collector contacting both wires. Obviously there must have two separate contacts on that horizontal bar, with insulation between them. Also note how high the arm is above the locomotive. You'd never fit that thing into a Metropolitan or District tunnel. They must have had a different sort of collector in mind. This page shows that photo and a couple of other ones of the Ganz 3-phase system, before moving on to related subjects. They all appear to have those high collectors. http://erojr.home.cern.ch/erojr/cont...pe/kanprot.htm -- Mark Brader, Toronto | "What Europe needs is a fresh, unused mind." | -- Foreign Correspondent My text in this article is in the public domain. |
Ganz system (was: Amersham and Chesham)
On Oct 26, 11:22*pm, (Mark Brader) wrote:
one collector contacting both wires. *Obviously there must have two separate contacts on that horizontal bar, with insulation between them. Also note how high the arm is above the locomotive. *You'd never fit that thing into a Metropolitan or District tunnel. *They must have had a different sort of collector in mind. I've never really looked into the three phase ideas of the Met but I'd always thought they were looking at the three phase "two wire" system (i.e. three phases of two conductors and one running rail return) not with overhead wires but rails, with lower supply voltage than Ganz. Conductor rails something like the centre and outer rail (like todays DC) would be the equivalent to Ganz two wires, and the running rails the return in the same way as Ganz. That way you don't need to expand tunnels. My interpretation of "not suitable for tunnels" was not something about not enough wire clearances but one of having all track rails in a three phase system at a voltage too high for exposed ground level conductors. Like I said its not something I looked into, so maybe I misunderstood the whole thing. If you really wanted to run three phase for the tubes I suggest you simply use a side contract pickup for all three phases - its complex at points and crossings but providing one car of the set is in contact you still have power, and thats no different to a lot of DC section gaps on todays tube. -- Nick |
Ganz system (was: Amersham and Chesham)
Mark Brader:
Also note how high the arm is above the locomotive. You'd never fit that thing into a Metropolitan or District tunnel. They must have had a different sort of collector in mind. "Nick": I've never really looked into the three phase ideas of the Met but I'd always thought they were looking at the three phase "two wire" system ...not with overhead wires but rails, with lower supply voltage than Ganz. As I indicated in my previous posting, "A History of London Transport" is quite explicit that it was Ganz and overhead wires. -- Mark Brader, Toronto | "Something doesn't become ethical just because | you can get away with it." --Barry Margolin |
Ganz system (was: Amersham and Chesham)
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:52:33 +0100, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:22:33 -0500, (Mark Brader) wrote: Mark Brader: the Valtellina line near Lake Como in September 1902; and that technical details of the system and an illustration of a Valtellina line locomotive can be found in "History of the Electric Locomotive" (1969) by F.J.G. Haut. Looking around on the Web for photos showing such a locomotive, I only find this one, although it's on several web pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ka...an_mozdony.jpg So I suspect it's the same one as in Haut's book. Anyway, the interesting thing is the collector that contacts the overhead wires, Also note how high the arm is above the locomotive. You'd never fit that thing into a Metropolitan or District tunnel. They must have had a different sort of collector in mind. Bonnet mounted collectors have been used on some electric locos where there were limited clearances. http://www.flickr.com/photos/45127721@N05/6581147453 is an example on a UK industrial system that survived till the late 1980's. In a tunnel setting arcing from such a low collector in the drivers view can cause disruption to vision and I shouldn't think it would do much for the health of the eyes either. That can be avoided by using the rear collector if two are fitted as on the Italian locomotives in :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-p...lectrification On the subject of Italy, I hadn't realised they were still using 3-phase into the 1970s :- http://www.photorail.com/phr1-leFS/e432.htm (with an interesting effect caused by smoke/steam/fumes coming from a "chimney" at one end) Trolley poles would be another possibility. Used in the original Cascades tunnel electrification in the United States which was a 3 phase system. Distance memory's of trolley buses and dewirements suggest they would be impractical on a system with many junctions like the Metropolitan even though a railed vehicle would have less tendency to pull the booms offline. G.Harman |
Amersham and Chesham
On 27 Oct, 11:40, wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2012 6:29:11 PM UTC+1, D7666 wrote: On the subject of 25 kV Met, Marylebone etc etc, I am still of the view that a better Thameslink upgrade would not have been to link the ex Midland lines to GN as KX/SP but to have linked the Midland to the Met/GC at West Hampstead, with trains being able to both switch between both routes. This could have been done using the sites to the south of the present West Hampstead stations, and incorporated the NLL station at a higher level. This could have allowed the ML to retain its Moorgate link (but some trains switching to the MET), allowed relief of Baker Street junction (by having some MET trains switch to TL), and give and electrified Chilterns route access to TL (solving the longer/more trains at Marylebone issue). It would also give a better spread of trains through the TL core - one of the issues is GN realistically can't take more than 8 TPH off TL but 24 TPH means 16 TPH have to head for the Midland which is not so sensible. If those were (say) inner suburbans from (one time) Wimbledon loop or other southern metro line those logically go to Watford Met or Uxbridge, while some of the faster TL core trains can go to [say] Aylesbury as well as Bedford. Before some nitwit comments, it assumed that all surface lines and Chilterns works will be to 12cars or 8car SDO where uneconomic - don't say it is *impossible - uk.railways said 4car NLL and 12car TL was impossible but now are reality. If this had been done with the TL works, you'd now have a 25 kV wired Chilterns, and linking with other matters taking AC that way towards Banbury (for Birmingham) would result in considerable synergy and economy of scale with the current electric Spine project. GN capacity in my view should be dealt with by new construction from around Finsbury Park - thats where *Crossrail 2 should *go on the north side. -- Nick Spot on. Agreed, way to go! Although rather than taking Crossrail 2 to Finsbury Park, I would prefer to see the Northern City extended southwards. |
Amersham and Chesham
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
D7666 wrote: installing anything in tunnels provided the tunnel is big enough, so Well thats the problem isn't it. In the UK there seems to be a culture in civil engineering to get away with as small as you possibly can. You see this everywhere in roads, buildings and of course the hopeless railway loading gauge. B2003 |
Amersham and Chesham
On Oct 29, 9:35*am, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:11:13 -0700 (PDT) D7666 wrote: installing anything in tunnels provided the tunnel is big enough, so Well thats the problem isn't it. In the UK there seems to be a culture in civil engineering to get away with as small as you possibly can. You see this everywhere in roads, buildings and of course the hopeless railway loading gauge. Not to mention the size of homes. I have seen bedrooms in which it would be impossible to fit the smallest bed. |
Amersham and Chesham
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 02:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote: On Oct 29, 9:35=A0am, wrote: On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:11:13 -0700 (PDT) D7666 wrote: installing anything in tunnels provided the tunnel is big enough, so Well thats the problem isn't it. In the UK there seems to be a culture in civil engineering to get away with as small as you possibly can. You see = this everywhere in roads, buildings and of course the hopeless railway loading= gauge. Not to mention the size of homes. I have seen bedrooms in which it would be impossible to fit the smallest bed. Indeed. Some new builds in particular are pretty disgraceful especially given the price is usually on par with much bigger older houses. B2003 |
Amersham and Chesham
In message
, at 02:39:29 on Mon, 29 Oct 2012, 77002 remarked: Well thats the problem isn't it. In the UK there seems to be a culture in civil engineering to get away with as small as you possibly can. You see this everywhere in roads, buildings and of course the hopeless railway loading gauge. Not to mention the size of homes. I have seen bedrooms in which it would be impossible to fit the smallest bed. Not seen one quite that small, but the bed in my 4th bedroom only fits in one direction, the other it's about an inch too long (and that would be after removing the skirting boards). It is slightly longer than average [single] bed though. -- Roland Perry |
Amersham and Chesham
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:36:23 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: Not to mention the size of homes. I have seen bedrooms in which it would be impossible to fit the smallest bed. Not seen one quite that small, but the bed in my 4th bedroom only fits in one direction, the other it's about an inch too long (and that would be after removing the skirting boards). It is slightly longer than average [single] bed though. Your 4th bedroom? Obviously you must live in a cramped hovel. How do you manage? B2003 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:46 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk