|
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
In message , at 10:24:35 on
Sun, 3 Jan 2016, e27002 aurora remarked: At one time commuters off the GM mainline could continue to stations to Farringdon. Do you mean Moorgate? They still can, by changing trains at Farringdon. -- Roland Perry |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:48:35 +0000
e27002 aurora wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:31:53 GMT, d wrote: There are always exceptions. But in general the people who listen to the pop music (this doesn't apply to classical or rock) of a certain era are people who grew up in that era so the majority of people who listen to 60s pop music would have had their formative years in that decade. The word "pop" as in popular implies lowest common denominator. If you ever watch footage of the 1960s TOP performances, for the most part these are not talented people. TBH I don't consider the Beatles particularly talented. To me it just sounds like a lot of whiny nasal vocals and guitar twanging. But then that sums up 60s pop music in general for this 80s kid. And, yes I am aware the trendy thing is to keep all ones music on a hard drive. But, I like having the CDs. I still have most of my CDs but these days I just stream off youtube. I have no idea why people pay for streaming services when its all free. -- Spud |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 10:54:09 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 10:24:35 on Sun, 3 Jan 2016, e27002 aurora remarked: At one time commuters off the GM mainline could continue to stations to Farringdon. Do you mean Moorgate? They still can, by changing trains at Farringdon. IIRC Farringdon was the original limit of the Met. One can no longer take a train from say Acton Main Line to Great Portland St (Portland Rd as was). |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 11:00:33 GMT, d wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:48:35 +0000 e27002 aurora wrote: On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:31:53 GMT, d wrote: There are always exceptions. But in general the people who listen to the pop music (this doesn't apply to classical or rock) of a certain era are people who grew up in that era so the majority of people who listen to 60s pop music would have had their formative years in that decade. The word "pop" as in popular implies lowest common denominator. If you ever watch footage of the 1960s TOP performances, for the most part these are not talented people. TBH I don't consider the Beatles particularly talented. To me it just sounds like a lot of whiny nasal vocals and guitar twanging. But then that sums up 60s pop music in general for this 80s kid. If you have ever seen black and white footage of a performance from the "She Loves You" days, Ringo displays and a complete lack of talent. He did improve. How could he do otherwise? And, yes I am aware the trendy thing is to keep all ones music on a hard drive. But, I like having the CDs. I still have most of my CDs but these days I just stream off youtube. I have no idea why people pay for streaming services when its all free. |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
In article , d
() wrote: On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:25:21 -0600 wrote: In article , (e27002 aurora) wrote: On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 15:28:34 GMT, d wrote: The Beatles were just the first boy band with all the accompanying hysteria. Once all the baby boomers have shuffled off this mortal coil they'll justjust another name in the musical history books. I doubt many people under the age of 60 actually listens to them on a regular basis. [There's something odd about your newsreader. I got none of the above text in this post, just the headers which is why I'm commenting to Aurora's comment because his browser did pick up your content. I can't see the content of your reply to this message of his either.] Probably a problem with the aioe nttp server which went off air over the new year. Another of my posts seems to have completely vanished into the ether. Why would that get the headers through but not the body text? And the body was still visible to some in this newsgroup. Whatever, the problem seems to have at least partly gone away now (there's another of your posts down thread where I only have the headers). You're totally wrong about the Beatles if my family is anything to go by. My daughters (29 and 23) are and always have been as keen on Beatles music as I am and now my granddaughter (9) is too. There are always exceptions. But in general the people who listen to the pop music (this doesn't apply to classical or rock) of a certain era are people who grew up in that era so the majority of people who listen to 60s pop music would have had their formative years in that decade. My point was that there are exceptions and the Beatles are a big one. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
|
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:34:47 -0600
wrote: In article , d Probably a problem with the aioe nttp server which went off air over the new year. Another of my posts seems to have completely vanished into the ether. Why would that get the headers through but not the body text? And the body was still visible to some in this newsgroup. Whatever, the problem seems to have at least partly gone away now (there's another of your posts down thread where I only have the headers). Quite possibly aioe was having issues forwarding posts before it died completely. There are always exceptions. But in general the people who listen to the pop music (this doesn't apply to classical or rock) of a certain era are people who grew up in that era so the majority of people who listen to 60s pop music would have had their formative years in that decade. My point was that there are exceptions and the Beatles are a big one. They're certainly better known that most other 60s acts. Doesn't mean many people not of that era listen to them. -- Spud |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
At one time commuters off the GM mainline could continue to stations
to Farringdon. Do you mean Moorgate? IIRC Farringdon was the original limit of the Met. Yes, but only for a period of just under 3 years, from January 1863 until December 1865. Through services of the GWR's own trains onto the Met via Paddington ran from October 1863 until September 1939, with some interruptions, so they originally ran to Farringdon St. station (as it then was) and afterwards to Moorgate. The Hammersmith & City Railway itself opened in June 1864, but it only ever ran from Hammersmith as far as a junction with the GWR near the present Westbourne Park station: its trains ran onto the GWR to reach the Met, so this was also a service onto the Met from the GWR mainline until the GWR separated it onto its own tracks in 1878. -- Mark Brader, Toronto "I don't have *any* minions any more." -- Clive Feather My text in this article is in the public domain. |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
In message , e27002 aurora
wrote: However, I would point out: At one time commuters off the GM mainline could continue to stations to Farringdon. Ceased late 1939; i.e. 76 years ago. So I doubt anyone is still missing it. Later, they could do the same by crossing a platform at Paddington. Now this is lost. It was lost on 12th November 1967; i.e. 48 years ago. (The new layout was installed during the week 12th-19th.) So I doubt anyone is still missing it. Likewise someone wishing to travel between Ladbroke Grove to Southall could change at Westbourne Park. Closed March 1992; i.e. almost 24 years ago. Again, I doubt anyone is still missing it. Now the traveller has to go thru Paddington. True, though I doubt there is a huge suppressed demand. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:20:56 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote: e27002 aurora wrote: On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:12:08 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: e27002 aurora wrote: On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:32:56 +0000, Robert wrote: Er, the Hammersmith & City Railway (H&CR) was financed jointly by the GWR and the Metropolitan Railway and opened in 1864. There is nothing artificial about it. Point taken. When I lived in London 40 years back, the H&C was simply part of the Met. If TfL want to maintain the GWR connection how about helping the longsuffering passengers and restoring the cross-platform interchange at Paddington. Before the issue of crossing the 3rd and 4th rail tracks comes up, that could be avoided with a long single track from Royal Oak to platform 16. Cross platform for who? The small number if trains which would use the particular platform adjacent to the H&C platform - which would not necessarily be to consistent destinations. Besides which with the new entrance to the H&C platforms you'd actually further inconvenience non-H&C travellers who did want to use your platform 16 trains. The Crossrail tunnel entrance, and lines from there to the Crossrail depot at OOC, have/will change the railway geography in that area - access to your 'long single line' ('cos they never cause operational problems or limit terminal platform re-occupation times) isn't as easy as you seem to think. More than happy to take the word of you, a professional. I've had a good look over the last few days; as the H&C rises out of the tunnel to Royal Oak station, the Crossrail tunnel ramp (3 tracks?) takes up all the space between LU and the railway boundary. Thank you for that. When, in the late sixties, I commuted between Maida Vale and Hammersmith, the sidings north of the Metropolitan between Royal Oak and Paddington held numerous old style goods rolling stock. However, I would point out: At one time commuters off the GM mainline could continue to stations to Farringdon. GW, not GM, presumably? Indeed, Great Western, NOT, Genetically Modified. Later, they could do the same by crossing a platform at Paddington. Now this is lost. It will be somewhat replaced by Crossrail. But it was only cross-platform for 1/14th of Paddington's platforms. What if your morning train came in cross-platform to the Hammersmith-bound line, and your evening train left cross-platform from the city-bound line? Sort of, Anna, trains from Cornwall, or Bristol, would not be likely to terminate at platform 16. For the commuters who could cross the platform and continue towards Kings Cross and the City it was a help Likewise someone wishing to travel between Ladbroke Grove to Southall could change at Westbourne Park. Now the traveller has to go thru Paddington. Through Westbourne Park now the main lines are 'lines 1-6', rather than up main, down relief etc. Theoretically any train can use any line, though generally 1-3 are used for main line trains and 3-6 for relief lines. So you'd need at least one extra platform to have been built to maintain the service of what, 2tph I presume used to serve it, like Acton Main Line gets now? At the expense of holding up many other services while you stop there, remember that since Westbourne Park mainline platforms closed, the number of trains in and out of Paddington has increased significantly. Again, thanks for the update. So, access to and from Paddington is much improved for arriving and departing trains. In any case, is Ladbroke Grove to Southall a particularly popular journey? (In any case, if it still existed WP would undoubtedly only be served by Greenford trains, so your passenger to Southall would have to change at Ealing Broadway, probably on to a train they could have caught if they'd travelled via Padd, and with rather less risk of a random cancellation leaving them stranded at WP for 30 minutes. For Ladbroke Grove substitute stations south of Westbourne Park, for Southall substi8tute stations out to Slough. However, your point is well take. Again, the opinion of a professional is valued. It is almost as if there is a conscious effort to isolate the Hammersmith Branch. :-) My preferred solution (though I'm sure someone will tell me why it's wrong!) would have been a low-level junction between Crossrail and H&C and Hammersmith served by Crossrail rather than 10tph terminating at Paddington. But now it's built the tunnels are in the wrong place for that ;) That is something I considered a while back. Here are some of the Pros: The issue of the 10 terminating trains is solved. Passengers from the Hammersmith Branch would have much better access to the West End, the City, and Docklands. One junction onto the Circle Line is eliminated, simplifying operation of the same. OTOH, there are serious Cons: The Hammersmith Branch would have to be re-electrified and probably re-signalled. At the very least track circuit immunization would have to change. One the S7 Stock Depots is at Hammersmith, that depot capacity would have to be provided elsewhere. The Branch platforms are all too short. Some of the stations are so close they would probably be better replace by new long platformed ones between the existing stations. e.g. Ladbroke Grove & Wood Lane, and Shepherds Bush Market and Goldhawk Road. So, it's a value judgement as to how worthwhile the change would be. |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On 2016\01\09 11:40, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:20:56 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: e27002 aurora wrote: On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:12:08 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: e27002 aurora wrote: On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:32:56 +0000, Robert wrote: Er, the Hammersmith & City Railway (H&CR) was financed jointly by the GWR and the Metropolitan Railway and opened in 1864. There is nothing artificial about it. Point taken. When I lived in London 40 years back, the H&C was simply part of the Met. If TfL want to maintain the GWR connection how about helping the longsuffering passengers and restoring the cross-platform interchange at Paddington. Before the issue of crossing the 3rd and 4th rail tracks comes up, that could be avoided with a long single track from Royal Oak to platform 16. Cross platform for who? The small number if trains which would use the particular platform adjacent to the H&C platform - which would not necessarily be to consistent destinations. Besides which with the new entrance to the H&C platforms you'd actually further inconvenience non-H&C travellers who did want to use your platform 16 trains. The Crossrail tunnel entrance, and lines from there to the Crossrail depot at OOC, have/will change the railway geography in that area - access to your 'long single line' ('cos they never cause operational problems or limit terminal platform re-occupation times) isn't as easy as you seem to think. More than happy to take the word of you, a professional. I've had a good look over the last few days; as the H&C rises out of the tunnel to Royal Oak station, the Crossrail tunnel ramp (3 tracks?) takes up all the space between LU and the railway boundary. Thank you for that. When, in the late sixties, I commuted between Maida Vale and Hammersmith, the sidings north of the Metropolitan between Royal Oak and Paddington held numerous old style goods rolling stock. However, I would point out: At one time commuters off the GM mainline could continue to stations to Farringdon. GW, not GM, presumably? Indeed, Great Western, NOT, Genetically Modified. Later, they could do the same by crossing a platform at Paddington. Now this is lost. It will be somewhat replaced by Crossrail. But it was only cross-platform for 1/14th of Paddington's platforms. What if your morning train came in cross-platform to the Hammersmith-bound line, and your evening train left cross-platform from the city-bound line? Sort of, Anna, trains from Cornwall, or Bristol, would not be likely to terminate at platform 16. For the commuters who could cross the platform and continue towards Kings Cross and the City it was a help Likewise someone wishing to travel between Ladbroke Grove to Southall could change at Westbourne Park. Now the traveller has to go thru Paddington. Through Westbourne Park now the main lines are 'lines 1-6', rather than up main, down relief etc. Theoretically any train can use any line, though generally 1-3 are used for main line trains and 3-6 for relief lines. So you'd need at least one extra platform to have been built to maintain the service of what, 2tph I presume used to serve it, like Acton Main Line gets now? At the expense of holding up many other services while you stop there, remember that since Westbourne Park mainline platforms closed, the number of trains in and out of Paddington has increased significantly. Again, thanks for the update. So, access to and from Paddington is much improved for arriving and departing trains. In any case, is Ladbroke Grove to Southall a particularly popular journey? (In any case, if it still existed WP would undoubtedly only be served by Greenford trains, so your passenger to Southall would have to change at Ealing Broadway, probably on to a train they could have caught if they'd travelled via Padd, and with rather less risk of a random cancellation leaving them stranded at WP for 30 minutes. For Ladbroke Grove substitute stations south of Westbourne Park, for Southall substi8tute stations out to Slough. However, your point is well take. Again, the opinion of a professional is valued. It is almost as if there is a conscious effort to isolate the Hammersmith Branch. :-) My preferred solution (though I'm sure someone will tell me why it's wrong!) would have been a low-level junction between Crossrail and H&C and Hammersmith served by Crossrail rather than 10tph terminating at Paddington. But now it's built the tunnels are in the wrong place for that ;) That is something I considered a while back. Here are some of the Pros: The issue of the 10 terminating trains is solved. Crossrail will have 14 tph terminating at Paddington. Only 10tph will continue westward. The Branch platforms are all too short. Some of the stations are so close they would probably be better replace by new long platformed ones between the existing stations. e.g. Ladbroke Grove & Wood Lane, Latimer Road and Wood Lane. and Shepherds Bush Market and Goldhawk Road. You're creating curved stations, and I doubt that would be allowed. |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 23:52:44 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote: On 2016\01\09 11:40, e27002 aurora wrote: On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:20:56 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: e27002 aurora wrote: On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:12:08 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: My preferred solution (though I'm sure someone will tell me why it's wrong!) would have been a low-level junction between Crossrail and H&C and Hammersmith served by Crossrail rather than 10tph terminating at Paddington. But now it's built the tunnels are in the wrong place for that ;) That is something I considered a while back. Here are some of the Pros: The issue of the 10 terminating trains is solved. Crossrail will have 14 tph terminating at Paddington. Only 10tph will continue westward. An altogether tragic waste. The Branch platforms are all too short. Some of the stations are so close they would probably be better replace by new long platformed ones between the existing stations. e.g. Ladbroke Grove & Wood Lane, Latimer Road and Wood Lane. Of course. :-) and Shepherds Bush Market and Goldhawk Road. You're creating curved stations, and I doubt that would be allowed. On the surface using the Hammersmith Branch looks like a great solution to the 14 terminating trains. Unfortunately it is fraught with difficulties. |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On 09/01/2016 23:52, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\09 11:40, e27002 aurora wrote: On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:20:56 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: e27002 aurora wrote: On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:12:08 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: e27002 aurora wrote: On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:32:56 +0000, Robert wrote: Er, the Hammersmith & City Railway (H&CR) was financed jointly by the GWR and the Metropolitan Railway and opened in 1864. There is nothing artificial about it. Point taken. When I lived in London 40 years back, the H&C was simply part of the Met. If TfL want to maintain the GWR connection how about helping the longsuffering passengers and restoring the cross-platform interchange at Paddington. Before the issue of crossing the 3rd and 4th rail tracks comes up, that could be avoided with a long single track from Royal Oak to platform 16. Cross platform for who? The small number if trains which would use the particular platform adjacent to the H&C platform - which would not necessarily be to consistent destinations. Besides which with the new entrance to the H&C platforms you'd actually further inconvenience non-H&C travellers who did want to use your platform 16 trains. The Crossrail tunnel entrance, and lines from there to the Crossrail depot at OOC, have/will change the railway geography in that area - access to your 'long single line' ('cos they never cause operational problems or limit terminal platform re-occupation times) isn't as easy as you seem to think. More than happy to take the word of you, a professional. I've had a good look over the last few days; as the H&C rises out of the tunnel to Royal Oak station, the Crossrail tunnel ramp (3 tracks?) takes up all the space between LU and the railway boundary. Thank you for that. When, in the late sixties, I commuted between Maida Vale and Hammersmith, the sidings north of the Metropolitan between Royal Oak and Paddington held numerous old style goods rolling stock. However, I would point out: At one time commuters off the GM mainline could continue to stations to Farringdon. GW, not GM, presumably? Indeed, Great Western, NOT, Genetically Modified. Later, they could do the same by crossing a platform at Paddington. Now this is lost. It will be somewhat replaced by Crossrail. But it was only cross-platform for 1/14th of Paddington's platforms. What if your morning train came in cross-platform to the Hammersmith-bound line, and your evening train left cross-platform from the city-bound line? Sort of, Anna, trains from Cornwall, or Bristol, would not be likely to terminate at platform 16. For the commuters who could cross the platform and continue towards Kings Cross and the City it was a help Likewise someone wishing to travel between Ladbroke Grove to Southall could change at Westbourne Park. Now the traveller has to go thru Paddington. Through Westbourne Park now the main lines are 'lines 1-6', rather than up main, down relief etc. Theoretically any train can use any line, though generally 1-3 are used for main line trains and 3-6 for relief lines. So you'd need at least one extra platform to have been built to maintain the service of what, 2tph I presume used to serve it, like Acton Main Line gets now? At the expense of holding up many other services while you stop there, remember that since Westbourne Park mainline platforms closed, the number of trains in and out of Paddington has increased significantly. Again, thanks for the update. So, access to and from Paddington is much improved for arriving and departing trains. In any case, is Ladbroke Grove to Southall a particularly popular journey? (In any case, if it still existed WP would undoubtedly only be served by Greenford trains, so your passenger to Southall would have to change at Ealing Broadway, probably on to a train they could have caught if they'd travelled via Padd, and with rather less risk of a random cancellation leaving them stranded at WP for 30 minutes. For Ladbroke Grove substitute stations south of Westbourne Park, for Southall substi8tute stations out to Slough. However, your point is well take. Again, the opinion of a professional is valued. It is almost as if there is a conscious effort to isolate the Hammersmith Branch. :-) My preferred solution (though I'm sure someone will tell me why it's wrong!) would have been a low-level junction between Crossrail and H&C and Hammersmith served by Crossrail rather than 10tph terminating at Paddington. But now it's built the tunnels are in the wrong place for that ;) That is something I considered a while back. Here are some of the Pros: The issue of the 10 terminating trains is solved. Crossrail will have 14 tph terminating at Paddington. Only 10tph will continue westward. The Branch platforms are all too short. Some of the stations are so close they would probably be better replace by new long platformed ones between the existing stations. e.g. Ladbroke Grove & Wood Lane, Latimer Road and Wood Lane. and Shepherds Bush Market and Goldhawk Road. You're creating curved stations, and I doubt that would be allowed. That last one is straight. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 23:52:44 +0000, Basil Jet wrote: On 2016\01\09 11:40, e27002 aurora wrote: On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:20:56 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: e27002 aurora wrote: On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:12:08 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: My preferred solution (though I'm sure someone will tell me why it's wrong!) would have been a low-level junction between Crossrail and H&C and Hammersmith served by Crossrail rather than 10tph terminating at Paddington. But now it's built the tunnels are in the wrong place for that ;) That is something I considered a while back. Here are some of the Pros: The issue of the 10 terminating trains is solved. Crossrail will have 14 tph terminating at Paddington. Only 10tph will continue westward. An altogether tragic waste. I thought the new idea was for them to terminate and reverse at OOC, which makes more sense? |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On 2016\01\10 09:02, Recliner wrote:
e27002 aurora wrote: On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 23:52:44 +0000, Basil Jet wrote: Crossrail will have 14 tph terminating at Paddington. Only 10tph will continue westward. An altogether tragic waste. I thought the new idea was for them to terminate and reverse at OOC, which makes more sense? Crossrail opens 2018/9. Old Oak Common station opens 2026. |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\10 09:02, Recliner wrote: e27002 aurora wrote: On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 23:52:44 +0000, Basil Jet wrote: Crossrail will have 14 tph terminating at Paddington. Only 10tph will continue westward. An altogether tragic waste. I thought the new idea was for them to terminate and reverse at OOC, which makes more sense? Crossrail opens 2018/9. Old Oak Common station opens 2026. And? |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
Graeme Wall wrote on 10 Jan 2016 at 08:13 ...
On 09/01/2016 23:52, Basil Jet wrote: On 2016\01\09 11:40, e27002 aurora wrote: On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:20:56 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: e27002 aurora wrote: On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:12:08 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: e27002 aurora wrote: On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:32:56 +0000, Robert wrote: Er, the Hammersmith & City Railway (H&CR) was financed jointly by the GWR and the Metropolitan Railway and opened in 1864. There is nothing artificial about it. Point taken. When I lived in London 40 years back, the H&C was simply part of the Met. If TfL want to maintain the GWR connection how about helping the longsuffering passengers and restoring the cross-platform interchange at Paddington. Before the issue of crossing the 3rd and 4th rail tracks comes up, that could be avoided with a long single track from Royal Oak to platform 16. Cross platform for who? The small number if trains which would use the particular platform adjacent to the H&C platform - which would not necessarily be to consistent destinations. Besides which with the new entrance to the H&C platforms you'd actually further inconvenience non-H&C travellers who did want to use your platform 16 trains. The Crossrail tunnel entrance, and lines from there to the Crossrail depot at OOC, have/will change the railway geography in that area - access to your 'long single line' ('cos they never cause operational problems or limit terminal platform re-occupation times) isn't as easy as you seem to think. More than happy to take the word of you, a professional. I've had a good look over the last few days; as the H&C rises out of the tunnel to Royal Oak station, the Crossrail tunnel ramp (3 tracks?) takes up all the space between LU and the railway boundary. Thank you for that. When, in the late sixties, I commuted between Maida Vale and Hammersmith, the sidings north of the Metropolitan between Royal Oak and Paddington held numerous old style goods rolling stock. However, I would point out: At one time commuters off the GM mainline could continue to stations to Farringdon. GW, not GM, presumably? Indeed, Great Western, NOT, Genetically Modified. Later, they could do the same by crossing a platform at Paddington. Now this is lost. It will be somewhat replaced by Crossrail. But it was only cross-platform for 1/14th of Paddington's platforms. What if your morning train came in cross-platform to the Hammersmith-bound line, and your evening train left cross-platform from the city-bound line? Sort of, Anna, trains from Cornwall, or Bristol, would not be likely to terminate at platform 16. For the commuters who could cross the platform and continue towards Kings Cross and the City it was a help Likewise someone wishing to travel between Ladbroke Grove to Southall could change at Westbourne Park. Now the traveller has to go thru Paddington. Through Westbourne Park now the main lines are 'lines 1-6', rather than up main, down relief etc. Theoretically any train can use any line, though generally 1-3 are used for main line trains and 3-6 for relief lines. So you'd need at least one extra platform to have been built to maintain the service of what, 2tph I presume used to serve it, like Acton Main Line gets now? At the expense of holding up many other services while you stop there, remember that since Westbourne Park mainline platforms closed, the number of trains in and out of Paddington has increased significantly. Again, thanks for the update. So, access to and from Paddington is much improved for arriving and departing trains. In any case, is Ladbroke Grove to Southall a particularly popular journey? (In any case, if it still existed WP would undoubtedly only be served by Greenford trains, so your passenger to Southall would have to change at Ealing Broadway, probably on to a train they could have caught if they'd travelled via Padd, and with rather less risk of a random cancellation leaving them stranded at WP for 30 minutes. For Ladbroke Grove substitute stations south of Westbourne Park, for Southall substi8tute stations out to Slough. However, your point is well take. Again, the opinion of a professional is valued. It is almost as if there is a conscious effort to isolate the Hammersmith Branch. :-) My preferred solution (though I'm sure someone will tell me why it's wrong!) would have been a low-level junction between Crossrail and H&C and Hammersmith served by Crossrail rather than 10tph terminating at Paddington. But now it's built the tunnels are in the wrong place for that ;) That is something I considered a while back. Here are some of the Pros: The issue of the 10 terminating trains is solved. Crossrail will have 14 tph terminating at Paddington. Only 10tph will continue westward. The Branch platforms are all too short. Some of the stations are so close they would probably be better replace by new long platformed ones between the existing stations. e.g. Ladbroke Grove & Wood Lane, Latimer Road and Wood Lane. and Shepherds Bush Market and Goldhawk Road. You're creating curved stations, and I doubt that would be allowed. That last one is straight. No, it isn't. Look at http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/...herdsBush1.jpg It's a view from the southern end of Shepherds Bush Market station towards Goldhawk Road, the latter indicated by the green arrow. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On 10/01/2016 21:48, Richard J. wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote on 10 Jan 2016 at 08:13 ... On 09/01/2016 23:52, Basil Jet wrote: On 2016\01\09 11:40, e27002 aurora wrote: On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:20:56 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: e27002 aurora wrote: On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:12:08 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: e27002 aurora wrote: On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:32:56 +0000, Robert wrote: Er, the Hammersmith & City Railway (H&CR) was financed jointly by the GWR and the Metropolitan Railway and opened in 1864. There is nothing artificial about it. Point taken. When I lived in London 40 years back, the H&C was simply part of the Met. If TfL want to maintain the GWR connection how about helping the longsuffering passengers and restoring the cross-platform interchange at Paddington. Before the issue of crossing the 3rd and 4th rail tracks comes up, that could be avoided with a long single track from Royal Oak to platform 16. Cross platform for who? The small number if trains which would use the particular platform adjacent to the H&C platform - which would not necessarily be to consistent destinations. Besides which with the new entrance to the H&C platforms you'd actually further inconvenience non-H&C travellers who did want to use your platform 16 trains. The Crossrail tunnel entrance, and lines from there to the Crossrail depot at OOC, have/will change the railway geography in that area - access to your 'long single line' ('cos they never cause operational problems or limit terminal platform re-occupation times) isn't as easy as you seem to think. More than happy to take the word of you, a professional. I've had a good look over the last few days; as the H&C rises out of the tunnel to Royal Oak station, the Crossrail tunnel ramp (3 tracks?) takes up all the space between LU and the railway boundary. Thank you for that. When, in the late sixties, I commuted between Maida Vale and Hammersmith, the sidings north of the Metropolitan between Royal Oak and Paddington held numerous old style goods rolling stock. However, I would point out: At one time commuters off the GM mainline could continue to stations to Farringdon. GW, not GM, presumably? Indeed, Great Western, NOT, Genetically Modified. Later, they could do the same by crossing a platform at Paddington. Now this is lost. It will be somewhat replaced by Crossrail. But it was only cross-platform for 1/14th of Paddington's platforms. What if your morning train came in cross-platform to the Hammersmith-bound line, and your evening train left cross-platform from the city-bound line? Sort of, Anna, trains from Cornwall, or Bristol, would not be likely to terminate at platform 16. For the commuters who could cross the platform and continue towards Kings Cross and the City it was a help Likewise someone wishing to travel between Ladbroke Grove to Southall could change at Westbourne Park. Now the traveller has to go thru Paddington. Through Westbourne Park now the main lines are 'lines 1-6', rather than up main, down relief etc. Theoretically any train can use any line, though generally 1-3 are used for main line trains and 3-6 for relief lines. So you'd need at least one extra platform to have been built to maintain the service of what, 2tph I presume used to serve it, like Acton Main Line gets now? At the expense of holding up many other services while you stop there, remember that since Westbourne Park mainline platforms closed, the number of trains in and out of Paddington has increased significantly. Again, thanks for the update. So, access to and from Paddington is much improved for arriving and departing trains. In any case, is Ladbroke Grove to Southall a particularly popular journey? (In any case, if it still existed WP would undoubtedly only be served by Greenford trains, so your passenger to Southall would have to change at Ealing Broadway, probably on to a train they could have caught if they'd travelled via Padd, and with rather less risk of a random cancellation leaving them stranded at WP for 30 minutes. For Ladbroke Grove substitute stations south of Westbourne Park, for Southall substi8tute stations out to Slough. However, your point is well take. Again, the opinion of a professional is valued. It is almost as if there is a conscious effort to isolate the Hammersmith Branch. :-) My preferred solution (though I'm sure someone will tell me why it's wrong!) would have been a low-level junction between Crossrail and H&C and Hammersmith served by Crossrail rather than 10tph terminating at Paddington. But now it's built the tunnels are in the wrong place for that ;) That is something I considered a while back. Here are some of the Pros: The issue of the 10 terminating trains is solved. Crossrail will have 14 tph terminating at Paddington. Only 10tph will continue westward. The Branch platforms are all too short. Some of the stations are so close they would probably be better replace by new long platformed ones between the existing stations. e.g. Ladbroke Grove & Wood Lane, Latimer Road and Wood Lane. and Shepherds Bush Market and Goldhawk Road. You're creating curved stations, and I doubt that would be allowed. That last one is straight. No, it isn't. Look at http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/...herdsBush1.jpg It's a view from the southern end of Shepherds Bush Market station towards Goldhawk Road, the latter indicated by the green arrow. It's a much more gentle curve than it appears in that photo. I remembered it as being parallel to Lime Grove. I used to watch the O/P stock trains heading south from Shepherds Bush (now Shepherds Bush Market) from the fire escape at the back of Lime Grove studios. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On 01/01/2016 14:48, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 14:11:06 on Fri, 1 Jan 2016, e27002 aurora remarked: Not a councillor since 2014. I'm just a pensioner these days. So, under the UK tradition you do not retain the title after your term in office? US tradition is slightly more familiar to me. Certain titles, President, Congressman, Judge, remain with the holder after his term It seems to happen in the ex-military, but not the sort of roles you mention. I don't think people can even keep a title like "Professor" unless elected to one of the few Emeritus Professorships. Those pompous ex-Army bods who continue to give themselves the Captain or Major title in civilian life are subject to widespread derision from most military types! I know a few medical doctors who remain Mr or Mrs/Ms in their non-work lives too. |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On 01/01/2016 11:37, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:59:02 on Fri, 1 Jan 2016, e27002 aurora remarked: Who knows what the completed Crossrail will be called. It could well be merged into the Overground brand. It's going to be called Crossrail. It has it's own purple roundel. http://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/crossrail-gets-its-roundel/ (The interim "TfL Rail" brand was created for the Shenfield service before it later becomes Crossrail, rather than it also being branded London Overground.) Meanwhile Crossrail is not bad. Thameslink has clung on, despite attempts to name it stupid things like First Capital Connect. Thameslink remained the name of part of the FCC service. |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On 03/01/2016 10:48, e27002 aurora wrote: [...] And, yes I am aware the trendy thing is to keep all ones music on a hard drive. But, I like having the CDs. You're a bit out of date... music is streamed from the cloud these days! Lots of the younger folk listen to all sorts of stuff from all eras, as it's so easily available. |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:00:36 +0000
Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote: In message , e27002 aurora writes OTOH, there are serious Cons: The Hammersmith Branch would have to be re-electrified and probably re-signalled. At the very least track circuit immunization would have to change. One the S7 Stock Depots is at Hammersmith, that depot capacity would have to be provided elsewhere. Hammersmith is no longer a depot as such. It's just a stabling point. That seems a waste of a very large facility. Why? -- Spud |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
|
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On 2016\01\11 16:00, Steve Fitzgerald wrote:
In message , e27002 aurora writes OTOH, there are serious Cons: The Hammersmith Branch would have to be re-electrified and probably re-signalled. At the very least track circuit immunization would have to change. One the S7 Stock Depots is at Hammersmith, that depot capacity would have to be provided elsewhere. Hammersmith is no longer a depot as such. It's just a stabling point. We have to take trains from Ealing Common to Edgware Road for H&C services now. In service, I hope. Does "We" mean District drivers? i.e. The District drivers have to take the trains from the depot to Edgware Road, hand them over to Circle & Hammersmith drivers and then go back to Ealing on the cushions? |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote: On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:08:47 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:00:36 +0000 Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote: In message , e27002 aurora writes OTOH, there are serious Cons: The Hammersmith Branch would have to be re-electrified and probably re-signalled. At the very least track circuit immunization would have to change. One the S7 Stock Depots is at Hammersmith, that depot capacity would have to be provided elsewhere. Hammersmith is no longer a depot as such. It's just a stabling point. That seems a waste of a very large facility. Why? Isn't the shed at Hammersmith now too short ? S stock isn't designed for conveniently splitting and shunting like older stock. Can't be. It was being used when the stock was mixed. I'm sure I saw S7 stock in the sheds when I went on the last C Stock tour which ended there. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On 12/01/2016 20:16, Steve Fitzgerald wrote: In message , Paul Corfield writes Hammersmith is no longer a depot as such. It's just a stabling point. We have to take trains from Ealing Common to Edgware Road for H&C services now. Back on the front now? Have been for over a year. Do you like the S-stock - from a driver's POV that is? |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On 12/01/2016 20:51, Steve Fitzgerald wrote: In message , Mizter T writes Do you like the S-stock - from a driver's POV that is? I love them. Comfortable, good driving position, cab air-com (although it's a bit noisy) and hi-tech controls (which always goes down well with me!) It's almost disappointing when a D stock turns up as they are getting dated and not much loved by the depots these days. That's great to hear! I like them from a passenger's perspective too - lots of space, big wide doors, smooth ride. |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
|
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
wrote:
In article , (Mizter T) wrote: On 12/01/2016 20:51, Steve Fitzgerald wrote: In message , Mizter T writes Do you like the S-stock - from a driver's POV that is? I love them. Comfortable, good driving position, cab air-com (although it's a bit noisy) and hi-tech controls (which always goes down well with me!) It's almost disappointing when a D stock turns up as they are getting dated and not much loved by the depots these days. That's great to hear! I like them from a passenger's perspective too - lots of space, big wide doors, smooth ride. I agree except for the lack of transverse seats on the S7s. One advantage of the S8s which I last used. Yes, I always try and grabs transverse seat on an S8, even a rear facing one. |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:51:38 +0000
Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote: In message , Mizter T writes Hammersmith is no longer a depot as such. It's just a stabling point. We have to take trains from Ealing Common to Edgware Road for H&C services now. Back on the front now? Have been for over a year. Do you like the S-stock - from a driver's POV that is? I love them. Comfortable, good driving position, cab air-com (although it's a bit noisy) and hi-tech controls (which always goes down well with me!) It's almost disappointing when a D stock turns up as they are getting dated and not much loved by the depots these days. Someone needs to ask LU why they spent millions having the D stock fully refurbished up until 2008 only to bin them 7 years later. -- Spud |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:51:38 +0000 Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote: In message , Mizter T writes Hammersmith is no longer a depot as such. It's just a stabling point. We have to take trains from Ealing Common to Edgware Road for H&C services now. Back on the front now? Have been for over a year. Do you like the S-stock - from a driver's POV that is? I love them. Comfortable, good driving position, cab air-com (although it's a bit noisy) and hi-tech controls (which always goes down well with me!) It's almost disappointing when a D stock turns up as they are getting dated and not much loved by the depots these days. Someone needs to ask LU why they spent millions having the D stock fully refurbished up until 2008 only to bin them 7 years later. It's a fair point, but I think this was yet another Metronet-related issue. The refurbishment was delayed by the PPP contract, and should have happened years earlier. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lond...#Refurbishment Also, not all the D stock has been binned yet; most are still in service with LU, so it'll be more like 8-10 years between the refurbishment and the transfer to Vivarail. I suspect you'd be at the front of the queue of the complainers if the D stock was still running around unrefurbished after 35 years of service. |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:08:43 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: transfer to Vivarail. I suspect you'd be at the front of the queue of the complainers if the D stock was still running around unrefurbished after 35 years of service. As long as a train is reliable I don't really care what the interior decor is like especially if a refurb means yet more strain on the budget and hence potential ticket price rises. -- Spud |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:08:43 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: transfer to Vivarail. I suspect you'd be at the front of the queue of the complainers if the D stock was still running around unrefurbished after 35 years of service. As long as a train is reliable I don't really care what the interior decor is like especially if a refurb means yet more strain on the budget and hence potential ticket price rises. Were you under the impression that the refurbishment was just a paint job?? Wow! See these pages to see what was actually done. Most of it was to improve functionality and reliability, as well as some safety features. The paint job was also needed for trains that were looking shabby and graffiti stained after 25 years of service, but it was a small part of the project. http://www.trainweb.org/districtdave...rbishment.html |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:53:50 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:08:43 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: transfer to Vivarail. I suspect you'd be at the front of the queue of the complainers if the D stock was still running around unrefurbished after 35 years of service. As long as a train is reliable I don't really care what the interior decor is like especially if a refurb means yet more strain on the budget and hence potential ticket price rises. Were you under the impression that the refurbishment was just a paint job?? Wow! See these pages to see what was actually done. Most of it was to improve functionality and reliability, as well as some safety features. The paint job was also needed for trains that were looking shabby and graffiti stained after 25 years of service, but it was a small part of the project. http://www.trainweb.org/districtdave...rbishment.html I don't see anything (in this admittedly messy site) about the motors or traction control equipment being refurbished. So some wiring was redone and an "information system" was put in. Nothing that was vital for a train about to be ditched less than 10 years later. -- Spud |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:53:50 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:08:43 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: transfer to Vivarail. I suspect you'd be at the front of the queue of the complainers if the D stock was still running around unrefurbished after 35 years of service. As long as a train is reliable I don't really care what the interior decor is like especially if a refurb means yet more strain on the budget and hence potential ticket price rises. Were you under the impression that the refurbishment was just a paint job?? Wow! See these pages to see what was actually done. Most of it was to improve functionality and reliability, as well as some safety features. The paint job was also needed for trains that were looking shabby and graffiti stained after 25 years of service, but it was a small part of the project. http://www.trainweb.org/districtdave...rbishment.html I don't see anything (in this admittedly messy site) about the motors or traction control equipment being refurbished. So some wiring was redone and an "information system" was put in. Nothing that was vital for a train about to be ditched less than 10 years later. Here's your list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lond...#Refurbishment The bogies were also replaced, but I think that was a separate project. I don't think they knew the replacement plans when the refurbishment plans were agreed. |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote:
In message , d writes Do you like the S-stock - from a driver's POV that is? I love them. Comfortable, good driving position, cab air-com (although it's a bit noisy) and hi-tech controls (which always goes down well with me!) It's almost disappointing when a D stock turns up as they are getting dated and not much loved by the depots these days. Someone needs to ask LU why they spent millions having the D stock fully refurbished up until 2008 only to bin them 7 years later. LU didn't spend any money as such. Metronet (as was) did a mini-refurb pending the introduction of new trains. It's quite notable now to see that the work done was appropriate to the expected life of the trains, some are looking very tired. Are they looking tired because maintenance is reduced to the minimum in the final year or two of service? If they were going to stay in service in London for another decade, presumably more would be spent on keeping them smart. |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 19:26:52 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote: signalling debacle has put paid to that as has the obsessing about "New Tube for London" and the later decision to "do something" with 72 stock to keep it going until it can collect its pension. Whats the status with the 72 stock? Its it doing alright or is it all hands to the pumps to keep it going? -- Spud |
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
|
By London's Northern Line to Battersea
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:58:22 +0000, Mizter T
wrote: On 03/01/2016 10:48, e27002 aurora wrote: [...] And, yes I am aware the trendy thing is to keep all ones music on a hard drive. But, I like having the CDs. You're a bit out of date... music is streamed from the cloud these days! Possibly, Mizter T, but I do not like music in compressed formats. It loses fidelity. I listen to .wav and .cdr formats. Strictly speaking my music is in the cloud. My music folder is in drobox, so it is synced over all my computers. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk