On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:37:39 +0100
Recliner wrote:
It's only a limited service on a subset of lines for two nights a
week, so the fleet will still be in a depot for at least five nights a
week. Even on those weekend nights, only a reduced fleet will be in
service.

Anyone know the reason why its only deep level tube lines? I'd have thought
the sub surface lines would have been the easiest to run a night service
on wrt to maintenance.

--
Spud

In message , at 19:44:51 on
Wed, 24 Sep 2014, Paul Corfield remarked:
Introducing the "Night Tube" does raise the issue of what happens if
there is planned engineering work. Do we get "night tube replacement
bus services"?

Or they could do the work on Sun-Thu nights only.

For serious stuff they could close it all day Sunday (from 4am anyway),
as they do already.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 21:11:22 on
Wed, 24 Sep 2014, Paul Corfield remarked:

Introducing the "Night Tube" does raise the issue of what happens if
there is planned engineering work. Do we get "night tube replacement
bus services"?

Or they could do the work on Sun-Thu nights only.

And it would take rather long than if every night was available -

Yes, but we have to assume they've done their sums. In particular why
this new initiative is only possible after a whole year of normal/
current timetabling.

especially Sat to Sun which is the longest break in service because of
the later Sunday start times. The SSR resignalling is already up
against it in terms of time. In order to save face I imagine LU will
want maximum productivity on multiple sites every night of the week
(assuming no clashes).

For serious stuff they could close it all day Sunday (from 4am anyway),
as they do already.

Serious stuff needs 52 hours, sometimes longer. This is why you get
Friday night to Monday morning closures.

These could still take place. I don't think they've announced that
"night tubes" will be any more uninterruptable than the current ones.
--
Roland Perry

On 2014\09\24 23:55, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:21:41 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

Serious stuff needs 52 hours, sometimes longer. This is why you get
Friday night to Monday morning closures.

These could still take place. I don't think they've announced that
"night tubes" will be any more uninterruptable than the current ones.

I agree that such an announcement hasn't been made. However there is a
credibility point about not launching a new service and then
immediately cancelling it for umpteen weekends in a row. All that will
do is upset prospective passengers and give the media an easy story to
beat TfL with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly ;-)

Does anyone know why the Bakerloo has been left out?

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 07:02:01 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2014\09\24 23:55, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:21:41 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

Serious stuff needs 52 hours, sometimes longer. This is why you get
Friday night to Monday morning closures.

These could still take place. I don't think they've announced that
"night tubes" will be any more uninterruptable than the current ones.

I agree that such an announcement hasn't been made. However there is a
credibility point about not launching a new service and then
immediately cancelling it for umpteen weekends in a row. All that will
do is upset prospective passengers and give the media an easy story to
beat TfL with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly ;-)

Does anyone know why the Bakerloo has been left out?

Just speculation, but presumably the trains would sometimes be unable
to use NR tracks overnight, thus limiting the service to south of
Queen's Park (which would limit its usefulness). But the main depot is
further north, at Stonebridge Park, which may not always be accessible
via NR tracks overnight.

On 2014\09\25 10:52, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 07:02:01 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

Does anyone know why the Bakerloo has been left out?

Just speculation, but presumably the trains would sometimes be unable
to use NR tracks overnight, thus limiting the service to south of
Queen's Park (which would limit its usefulness). But the main depot is
further north, at Stonebridge Park, which may not always be accessible
via NR tracks overnight.

Why would access to the main depot be needed? A few trains from the
evening shift would run all night, and London Road could deal with any
broken windows or other minor disasters.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:52:39 +0100
Recliner wrote:
Just speculation, but presumably the trains would sometimes be unable
to use NR tracks overnight, thus limiting the service to south of
Queen's Park (which would limit its usefulness). But the main depot is
further north, at Stonebridge Park, which may not always be accessible
via NR tracks overnight.

I'm surprised TfL haven't taken over the line euston - watford junction line
yet. Do they not want it or is there some reason they can't have it?

--
Spud

In article , d
() wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:52:39 +0100
Recliner wrote:
Just speculation, but presumably the trains would sometimes be unable
to use NR tracks overnight, thus limiting the service to south of
Queen's Park (which would limit its usefulness). But the main depot is
further north, at Stonebridge Park, which may not always be accessible
via NR tracks overnight.

I'm surprised TfL haven't taken over the line euston - watford
junction line
yet. Do they not want it or is there some reason they can't have it?

Not their decision, surely? I expect it will coincide with the Met diversion
scheme.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 2014-09-25 16:36:42 +0000, d said:

I'm surprised TfL haven't taken over the line euston - watford junction line
yet. Do they not want it or is there some reason they can't have it?

I don't think NR will let them have it. It's a potentially useful
diversionary route.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.