On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 13:16:03 -0600,
wrote:

In article , (Graeme
Wall) wrote:

On 07/12/2013 11:31, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 07/12/2013 10:59, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 07/12/2013 10:46, d wrote:

Well there is that. But the jubilee, bakerloo, victoria & W&C are just
there and back lines

They aren't completely. Not all trains go all the way every trip and
the H&C has to dovetail into the Met, District and Circle lines.

Last time I checked the W&C and the H&C were different beasties.

So they are but then pausing at intermediate stops doesn't happen on
the W&C.

A pity really. It could do with a station at Blackfriars.


A station at Blackfriars, and a short extension to Liverpool Street,
would make the Waterloo and City into a very useful line. In its
present form it is something of an orphan.
--

http://www.991fmtalk.com/ The DMZ in Reno

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 15:18:28 -0800, Aurora wrote:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 13:16:03 -0600,
wrote:

In article , (Graeme
Wall) wrote:

On 07/12/2013 11:31, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 07/12/2013 10:59, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 07/12/2013 10:46, d wrote:

Well there is that. But the jubilee, bakerloo, victoria & W&C are just
there and back lines

They aren't completely. Not all trains go all the way every trip and
the H&C has to dovetail into the Met, District and Circle lines.

Last time I checked the W&C and the H&C were different beasties.

So they are but then pausing at intermediate stops doesn't happen on
the W&C.

A pity really. It could do with a station at Blackfriars.


A station at Blackfriars, and a short extension to Liverpool Street,
would make the Waterloo and City into a very useful line.

It isn't going to happen, the line isn't deep enough and there's
consequently too much in the way. The line also leaks like a sieve.
You're possibly more likely to have abandonment consequent to new work
providing a better parallel replacement (but certainly not this week).

In its
present form it is something of an orphan.

On 04/12/2013 22:34, Richard J. wrote:
Recliner wrote on 04 December 2013 20:27:55
...
John Levine wrote:
They won't have less than one member of staff on a train, so no savings
there.

Hmmn. What does the Paris Metro know that TfL doesn't?

How to build tunnels with walkways?

I think only line 14 in Paris has walkways, but generally all Paris
Métro tunnels are double-track, except for a few short lenths of
single-track tunnel. This means that it's easy to gain access to a
failed train by ladders/steps from the adjacent track, or by driving a
train on that track, stopping opposite the failed train, and using
boards to bridge the gap between the trains.


The Lille Metro also has walkways. I was on a train there that broke
down, and somebody came along after about 5 minutes, having gained
access to the train between the walkways.

On 06/12/2013 08:49, Giovanni Drogo wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, wrote:

Mentioning Milan isn't it one of the very few places where at least
one line was electrified on a four rail system like London?don't know
if it still is or has been changed.

Correct. M1 (1964) is still like that. There should be a part of M1 with
overhead wire (I really do not usually look up) because originally M2
trains were hosted in the same depot used by M1 (between Precotto and
Villa SG), so they had to run Precotto to Pasteur and then through a
connecting tunnel to Caiazzo on M2 (now M2 has its own depot). M2 (1969)
did not use the four rail system, because a part of it runs in open air,
and I believe it is forbidden for safety reasons.

Bucharest Metro trains are also fitted with a pantograph, though they
only use them in depots.

On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:27:19 -0800
Aurora wrote:
On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 19:49:00 GMT, d wrote:
Looks like a connection to the central line is just waiting to happen.
They even use the same trains!

Making the WandC a branch of the Central would reduce the number of
trains available on the Central Line west of Bank.

A connection might make sence in order to allow WandC trains to reach
a depot. But, it is probably too expensive a solution.

Well, I was being a bit tongue in cheek. But I suspect if the line had been
run by the underground since its inception rather than BR until the 90s then
probably a single line connection would have been built by now to transfer
stock instead of having the faff of craning them in and out when any heavy
overhauls are required.

--
Spud

On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 08:08:19 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
aiui the trains are no longer interoperable, even if once upon a time
they were delivered from the same production line.

What are the major differences now (other than the interior decor)?

--
Spud

On 09/12/2013 10:18, d wrote:
On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:27:19 -0800
Aurora wrote:
On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 19:49:00 GMT, d wrote:
Looks like a connection to the central line is just waiting to happen.
They even use the same trains!

Making the WandC a branch of the Central would reduce the number of
trains available on the Central Line west of Bank.

A connection might make sence in order to allow WandC trains to reach
a depot. But, it is probably too expensive a solution.

Well, I was being a bit tongue in cheek. But I suspect if the line had been
run by the underground since its inception rather than BR until the 90s then

Well it was operated by the LSWR & later the Southern Railway from it's
inception in 1898 until BR took it over in 1948. Its only purpose was to
allow commuters from the LSWR lines easy access to the city, a function
it still performs. The connection at Bank to the DLR is probably more
use to its regular users than access to Liverpool St.


probably a single line connection would have been built by now to transfer
stock instead of having the faff of craning them in and out when any heavy
overhauls are required.


There were LPTB proposals in the 1930s to extend it to Liverpool St and
on to Shoreditch to connect to the East London Line. Though no detailed
work appears to have been done, it seems that it would have involved new
tunnels to Liverpool St paralleling the Central Line. It was also
proposed to add an interchange station with the District Line at
Blackfriars.

A post war suggestion was to extend the shortly to be electrified LTS
line via the W&C to Waterloo (Route G).

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 09/12/2013 10:19, d wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 08:08:19 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
aiui the trains are no longer interoperable, even if once upon a time
they were delivered from the same production line.

What are the major differences now (other than the interior decor)?


No ATO is the main one.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

In message , at 10:19:12 on Mon, 9 Dec
2013, d remarked:
aiui the trains are no longer interoperable, even if once upon a time
they were delivered from the same production line.

What are the major differences now (other than the interior decor)?

aiui, Central has a degree of automatic operation, and a higher 4th
rail.
--
Roland Perry

Spud wrote

Well, I was being a bit tongue in cheek. But I suspect if the line had been
run by the underground since its inception rather than BR until the 90s
then
probably a single line connection would have been built by now to transfer
stock instead of having the faff of craning them in and out when any heavy
overhauls are required.

Until the 1990s, when the site was required for building Waterloo
International, access to the W&C was via a hoist in Waterloo Yard. W&C stock
could be brought to the surface using the hoist, and AIUI worked under its
own power to Wimbledon Depot for overhaul. The W&C originally had its own
power station, and coal trucks used the hoist to provide power. In 1948 the
lift descended while some trucks were being shunted on to it, and 4 coal
trucks and a loco landed at the bottom of the shaft.

Peter