By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:14:35 +0000, Steve Fitzgerald
] wrote:

In message
,
Anna Noyd-Dryver 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.


Thanks Steve, I've been meaning to come back to this post - apparently only
6 S7s stable at Hammersmith overnight now.

Really? I didn't realise it was that few now as the other stabling
points haven't changed much.

Last time I was at HMD (for training) there were quite a few trains
about and space for, I would guess maybe 20 to 25 in total.

HMD was very much a C stock depot and once they went everything was
focused at Ealing Common and Upminster (and a couple at Neasden) which
both now provide H&C trains for service.

So, Anna's point seems to have more, and more merit. Unfortunately it
is too late now. The 14tph will remain as terminators.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:44:18 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\14 13:17, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:08:41 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:14:35 +0000, Steve Fitzgerald
] wrote:

In message
,
Anna Noyd-Dryver 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.


Thanks Steve, I've been meaning to come back to this post - apparently only
6 S7s stable at Hammersmith overnight now.

Really? I didn't realise it was that few now as the other stabling
points haven't changed much.

Last time I was at HMD (for training) there were quite a few trains
about and space for, I would guess maybe 20 to 25 in total.

HMD was very much a C stock depot and once they went everything was
focused at Ealing Common and Upminster (and a couple at Neasden) which
both now provide H&C trains for service.

So, Anna's point seems to have more, and more merit. Unfortunately it
is too late now. The 14tph will remain as terminators.

But at OOC when it opens, which will be more useful than Paddington.

Yeah, but will OOC need 24tph? Would 12 not have been enough, with the
other twelve (or fewer) going to Hammersmith?

At one point there was talk of sending some Crossrail trains to Tring.
That seems to have been quietly set aside. IMHO Sending some
Crossrail trains to Tring and returning the Bakerloo to Watford would
be excellent. Euston's main emphasis should be on InterCity travel.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On 2016\01\14 14:07, e27002 aurora wrote:

At one point there was talk of sending some Crossrail trains to Tring.
That seems to have been quietly set aside. IMHO Sending some
Crossrail trains to Tring and returning the Bakerloo to Watford would
be excellent. Euston's main emphasis should be on InterCity travel.

Why? 18 platforms of Intercity travel? Would you stop the Victoria Line
and Northern line from calling there just in case the 160 metro tph
change the emphasis?

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:44:18 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\14 13:17, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:08:41 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:14:35 +0000, Steve Fitzgerald
] wrote:

In message
,
Anna Noyd-Dryver 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.


Thanks Steve, I've been meaning to come back to this post - apparently only
6 S7s stable at Hammersmith overnight now.

Really? I didn't realise it was that few now as the other stabling
points haven't changed much.

Last time I was at HMD (for training) there were quite a few trains
about and space for, I would guess maybe 20 to 25 in total.

HMD was very much a C stock depot and once they went everything was
focused at Ealing Common and Upminster (and a couple at Neasden) which
both now provide H&C trains for service.

So, Anna's point seems to have more, and more merit. Unfortunately it
is too late now. The 14tph will remain as terminators.

But at OOC when it opens, which will be more useful than Paddington.

Yeah, but will OOC need 24tph? Would 12 not have been enough, with the
other twelve (or fewer) going to Hammersmith?

At one point there was talk of sending some Crossrail trains to Tring.
That seems to have been quietly set aside. IMHO Sending some
Crossrail trains to Tring and returning the Bakerloo to Watford would
be excellent. Euston's main emphasis should be on InterCity travel.

The Tring proposal seems to have receded because the Euston rebuilding for
HS2 is now planned to be in phases, so platforms for the Tring services
will remain available throughout. No-one is prepared to fund it given that
the need has faded.

With the Met headed for Watford Junction with a 6 tph service, there would
be neither the space not the need for the Bakerloo to return there.

OOC will be an important both as an interchange (with HS2 and LO) and as a
destination in its own so it's not a bad idea for Crossrail to terminate
many of its trains there. Also, if Heathrow Express fades away once
Crossrail opens, it might take over the HEx services to the airport,
meaning that 8 tph Crossrail could be headed there.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:01:28 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\14 14:07, e27002 aurora wrote:

At one point there was talk of sending some Crossrail trains to Tring.
That seems to have been quietly set aside. IMHO Sending some
Crossrail trains to Tring and returning the Bakerloo to Watford would
be excellent. Euston's main emphasis should be on InterCity travel.

Why? 18 platforms of Intercity travel?

Because we are approaching saturation point for intercity terminal
platforms. Paddington s full, OK, it will gain some relief from
Crossrail. Marylebone is full, Saint Pancras's Midland platforms are
full. Kings Cross is close to at capacity. There is not much spare
space at Liverpool St.

Euston may be able to provide some relief. Moreover, most commuters
are heading for the West End or City, not Euston.

Would you stop the Victoria Line
and Northern line from calling there just in case the 160 metro tph
change the emphasis?

Not at all. Moreover, Euston Square should be incorporated into the
interchange.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\14 14:07, e27002 aurora wrote:

At one point there was talk of sending some Crossrail trains to Tring.
That seems to have been quietly set aside. IMHO Sending some
Crossrail trains to Tring and returning the Bakerloo to Watford would
be excellent. Euston's main emphasis should be on InterCity travel.

Why? 18 platforms of Intercity travel? Would you stop the Victoria Line
and Northern line from calling there just in case the 160 metro tph
change the emphasis?

Adrian also seems to have forgotten your beloved 3 tph LO service.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:01:28 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\14 14:07, e27002 aurora wrote:

At one point there was talk of sending some Crossrail trains to Tring.
That seems to have been quietly set aside. IMHO Sending some
Crossrail trains to Tring and returning the Bakerloo to Watford would
be excellent. Euston's main emphasis should be on InterCity travel.

Why? 18 platforms of Intercity travel?

Because we are approaching saturation point for intercity terminal
platforms. Paddington s full, OK, it will gain some relief from
Crossrail. Marylebone is full, Saint Pancras's Midland platforms are
full. Kings Cross is close to at capacity. There is not much spare
space at Liverpool St.

Both Kings X and Liverpool St will be relieved within four years.


Euston may be able to provide some relief. Moreover, most commuters
are heading for the West End or City, not Euston.

Would you stop the Victoria Line
and Northern line from calling there just in case the 160 metro tph
change the emphasis?

Not at all. Moreover, Euston Square should be incorporated into the
interchange.

Yes, that's part of the HS2 Euston rebuilding plan.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:01:28 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\14 14:07, e27002 aurora wrote:

At one point there was talk of sending some Crossrail trains to Tring.
That seems to have been quietly set aside. IMHO Sending some
Crossrail trains to Tring and returning the Bakerloo to Watford would
be excellent. Euston's main emphasis should be on InterCity travel.

Why? 18 platforms of Intercity travel?

Because we are approaching saturation point for intercity terminal
platforms. Paddington s full, OK, it will gain some relief from
Crossrail. Marylebone is fill, Saint Pancras's Midland platforms are
full. Kings Cross is close to at capacity. There is not much spare
space at Liverpool St.

Euston may be able to provide some relief. Moreover, most commuters
are heading for the West End or City, not Euston.

Would you stop the Victoria Line
and Northern line from calling there just in case the 160 metro tph
change the emphasis?

Not at all. Moreover, Euston Square should be incorporated into the
interchange.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:09:27 +0000, Robert
wrote:

On 2016-01-14 13:55:32 +0000, Recliner said:

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:44:18 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\14 13:17, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:08:41 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:14:35 +0000, Steve Fitzgerald
] wrote:

In message
,
Anna Noyd-Dryver 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.


Thanks Steve, I've been meaning to come back to this post - apparently only
6 S7s stable at Hammersmith overnight now.

Really? I didn't realise it was that few now as the other stabling
points haven't changed much.

Last time I was at HMD (for training) there were quite a few trains
about and space for, I would guess maybe 20 to 25 in total.

HMD was very much a C stock depot and once they went everything was
focused at Ealing Common and Upminster (and a couple at Neasden) which
both now provide H&C trains for service.

So, Anna's point seems to have more, and more merit. Unfortunately it
is too late now. The 14tph will remain as terminators.

But at OOC when it opens, which will be more useful than Paddington.

Yeah, but will OOC need 24tph? Would 12 not have been enough, with the
other twelve (or fewer) going to Hammersmith?

Why this sudden fixation with changing the service to Hammersmith?
It's an inner city line with frequent stops, well-served with Circle
and H&C S7 trains that were designed for it. Adrian seems to have
some vendetta against the H&C, apparently because it's lost its
original Metropolitan Line links.

If Crossrail were to have an additional western destination, it should
be on a line that gets it out of inner London, such as the WCML (to
Tring) or the Chiltern (perhaps to Gerrards Cross).

As grade separated junctions seem to be all the rage nowadays (Hitchin,
Nuneaton, Doncaster, Norton Bridge, Reading, Stockley Bridge and Action
that I can think of!) I still feel that Windsor would make an excellent
end point for Crossrail. It could easily accept 4 trains per hour
off-peak - all those tourists - and it's not so far that the lack of
on-board toilets could start becoming uncomfortable (!)

Agreed. Unfortunately, it is not even being considered by the powers
that be.

That leaves another 10tph to be accounted for...

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:06:13 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:44:18 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\14 13:17, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:08:41 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:14:35 +0000, Steve Fitzgerald
] wrote:

In message
,
Anna Noyd-Dryver 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.


Thanks Steve, I've been meaning to come back to this post - apparently only
6 S7s stable at Hammersmith overnight now.

Really? I didn't realise it was that few now as the other stabling
points haven't changed much.

Last time I was at HMD (for training) there were quite a few trains
about and space for, I would guess maybe 20 to 25 in total.

HMD was very much a C stock depot and once they went everything was
focused at Ealing Common and Upminster (and a couple at Neasden) which
both now provide H&C trains for service.

So, Anna's point seems to have more, and more merit. Unfortunately it
is too late now. The 14tph will remain as terminators.

But at OOC when it opens, which will be more useful than Paddington.

Yeah, but will OOC need 24tph? Would 12 not have been enough, with the
other twelve (or fewer) going to Hammersmith?

At one point there was talk of sending some Crossrail trains to Tring.
That seems to have been quietly set aside. IMHO Sending some
Crossrail trains to Tring and returning the Bakerloo to Watford would
be excellent. Euston's main emphasis should be on InterCity travel.

The Tring proposal seems to have receded because the Euston rebuilding for
HS2 is now planned to be in phases, so platforms for the Tring services
will remain available throughout. No-one is prepared to fund it given that
the need has faded.

With the Met headed for Watford Junction with a 6 tph service, there would
be neither the space not the need for the Bakerloo to return there.

According to one of the cunning plans circulated a couple of years ago
it wouldn't have got past Wembley Central because the DC line would
have been taken over by CrossRail.

OOC will be an important both as an interchange (with HS2 and LO) and as a
destination in its own so it's not a bad idea for Crossrail to terminate
many of its trains there. Also, if Heathrow Express fades away once
Crossrail opens, it might take over the HEx services to the airport,
meaning that 8 tph Crossrail could be headed there.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:06:13 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:44:18 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\14 13:17, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:08:41 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:14:35 +0000, Steve Fitzgerald
] wrote:

In message
,
Anna Noyd-Dryver 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.


Thanks Steve, I've been meaning to come back to this post - apparently only
6 S7s stable at Hammersmith overnight now.

Really? I didn't realise it was that few now as the other stabling
points haven't changed much.

Last time I was at HMD (for training) there were quite a few trains
about and space for, I would guess maybe 20 to 25 in total.

HMD was very much a C stock depot and once they went everything was
focused at Ealing Common and Upminster (and a couple at Neasden) which
both now provide H&C trains for service.

So, Anna's point seems to have more, and more merit. Unfortunately it
is too late now. The 14tph will remain as terminators.

But at OOC when it opens, which will be more useful than Paddington.

Yeah, but will OOC need 24tph? Would 12 not have been enough, with the
other twelve (or fewer) going to Hammersmith?

At one point there was talk of sending some Crossrail trains to Tring.
That seems to have been quietly set aside. IMHO Sending some
Crossrail trains to Tring and returning the Bakerloo to Watford would
be excellent. Euston's main emphasis should be on InterCity travel.

The Tring proposal seems to have receded because the Euston rebuilding for
HS2 is now planned to be in phases, so platforms for the Tring services
will remain available throughout. No-one is prepared to fund it given that
the need has faded.

With the Met headed for Watford Junction with a 6 tph service, there would
be neither the space not the need for the Bakerloo to return there.

According to one of the cunning plans circulated a couple of years ago
it wouldn't have got past Wembley Central because the DC line would
have been taken over by CrossRail.

The only cunning plan for Crossrail that I've heard of on that route was
for it to share the slow line to Tring, not take over the DC line. Everyone
has known, seemingly forever, that the Met would be going to the Junction,
and now it finally is, so what would Crossrail do at Watford? And how
would Crossrail get to Wembley, if not on the slow line? Why would it then
switch to the DC line?

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 08:18:16 -0800 (PST), ian batten
wrote:

On Thursday, 14 January 2016 12:54:33 UTC, e27002 wrote:
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.

You're presumably done a double-blind comparison of 44.1KHz 16 bit with
320kbps AAC?

No, so why not recommend it rather than take a less than convivial
tone?

No, I didn't think so.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:54:18 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

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.

It varies amongst people but it is an unfortunate fact of life that
although the format used may give better fidelity as people get older
their ears may not. It need not necessarily be as straight cut as a
blind man saying an HD telly has a better picture than a std one
therefore he needs the HD version but many people don't realise how
much detail their hearing is missing after around 40 to 50 years of
age even though they are a long way off needing a hearing aid.

Yes, very true. I always thought it ironic that the young can't afford top
class hi-fi systems, and those old enough to afford them can no longer hear
well enough to benefit.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:22:51 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:06:13 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:44:18 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\14 13:17, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:08:41 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:14:35 +0000, Steve Fitzgerald
] wrote:

In message
,
Anna Noyd-Dryver 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.


Thanks Steve, I've been meaning to come back to this post - apparently only
6 S7s stable at Hammersmith overnight now.

Really? I didn't realise it was that few now as the other stabling
points haven't changed much.

Last time I was at HMD (for training) there were quite a few trains
about and space for, I would guess maybe 20 to 25 in total.

HMD was very much a C stock depot and once they went everything was
focused at Ealing Common and Upminster (and a couple at Neasden) which
both now provide H&C trains for service.

So, Anna's point seems to have more, and more merit. Unfortunately it
is too late now. The 14tph will remain as terminators.

But at OOC when it opens, which will be more useful than Paddington.

Yeah, but will OOC need 24tph? Would 12 not have been enough, with the
other twelve (or fewer) going to Hammersmith?

At one point there was talk of sending some Crossrail trains to Tring.
That seems to have been quietly set aside. IMHO Sending some
Crossrail trains to Tring and returning the Bakerloo to Watford would
be excellent. Euston's main emphasis should be on InterCity travel.

The Tring proposal seems to have receded because the Euston rebuilding for
HS2 is now planned to be in phases, so platforms for the Tring services
will remain available throughout. No-one is prepared to fund it given that
the need has faded.

With the Met headed for Watford Junction with a 6 tph service, there would
be neither the space not the need for the Bakerloo to return there.

According to one of the cunning plans circulated a couple of years ago
it wouldn't have got past Wembley Central because the DC line would
have been taken over by CrossRail.

The only cunning plan for Crossrail that I've heard of on that route was
for it to share the slow line to Tring, not take over the DC line. Everyone
has known, seemingly forever, that the Met would be going to the Junction,
and now it finally is, so what would Crossrail do at Watford? And how
would Crossrail get to Wembley, if not on the slow line?

A separate pair of tracks coming up the west side of the WCML. IIRC
the displaced DC/Bakerloo terminating tracks were to be shoehorned
into the "wasteland" south of the station.

Why would it then switch to the DC line?

To provide an extra pair of tracks for CR/WCML. I suspect the author
had failed to look any further north when drawing on his/her fag
packet. Another consequence to achieve the plan would probably have
been clearing the entire site down to track level (as the walls
supporting the Central Square raft would have been partly in the way)
and extending westward of the Down DC to gain room for the extended
platforms.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:22:51 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:06:13 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:44:18 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\14 13:17, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:08:41 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:14:35 +0000, Steve Fitzgerald
] wrote:

In message
,
Anna Noyd-Dryver 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.


Thanks Steve, I've been meaning to come back to this post - apparently only
6 S7s stable at Hammersmith overnight now.

Really? I didn't realise it was that few now as the other stabling
points haven't changed much.

Last time I was at HMD (for training) there were quite a few trains
about and space for, I would guess maybe 20 to 25 in total.

HMD was very much a C stock depot and once they went everything was
focused at Ealing Common and Upminster (and a couple at Neasden) which
both now provide H&C trains for service.

So, Anna's point seems to have more, and more merit. Unfortunately it
is too late now. The 14tph will remain as terminators.

But at OOC when it opens, which will be more useful than Paddington.

Yeah, but will OOC need 24tph? Would 12 not have been enough, with the
other twelve (or fewer) going to Hammersmith?

At one point there was talk of sending some Crossrail trains to Tring.
That seems to have been quietly set aside. IMHO Sending some
Crossrail trains to Tring and returning the Bakerloo to Watford would
be excellent. Euston's main emphasis should be on InterCity travel.

The Tring proposal seems to have receded because the Euston rebuilding for
HS2 is now planned to be in phases, so platforms for the Tring services
will remain available throughout. No-one is prepared to fund it given that
the need has faded.

With the Met headed for Watford Junction with a 6 tph service, there would
be neither the space not the need for the Bakerloo to return there.

According to one of the cunning plans circulated a couple of years ago
it wouldn't have got past Wembley Central because the DC line would
have been taken over by CrossRail.

The only cunning plan for Crossrail that I've heard of on that route was
for it to share the slow line to Tring, not take over the DC line. Everyone
has known, seemingly forever, that the Met would be going to the Junction,
and now it finally is, so what would Crossrail do at Watford? And how
would Crossrail get to Wembley, if not on the slow line?

A separate pair of tracks coming up the west side of the WCML. IIRC
the displaced DC/Bakerloo terminating tracks were to be shoehorned
into the "wasteland" south of the station.

Why would it then switch to the DC line?

To provide an extra pair of tracks for CR/WCML. I suspect the author
had failed to look any further north when drawing on his/her fag
packet. Another consequence to achieve the plan would probably have
been clearing the entire site down to track level (as the walls
supporting the Central Square raft would have been partly in the way)
and extending westward of the Down DC to gain room for the extended
platforms.

Ah, I don't recall that 'plan'. It's almost Bellsian in its bonkersness!

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:19:53 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:22:51 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:06:13 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:44:18 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\14 13:17, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:08:41 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:14:35 +0000, Steve Fitzgerald
] wrote:

In message
,
Anna Noyd-Dryver 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.


Thanks Steve, I've been meaning to come back to this post - apparently only
6 S7s stable at Hammersmith overnight now.

Really? I didn't realise it was that few now as the other stabling
points haven't changed much.

Last time I was at HMD (for training) there were quite a few trains
about and space for, I would guess maybe 20 to 25 in total.

HMD was very much a C stock depot and once they went everything was
focused at Ealing Common and Upminster (and a couple at Neasden) which
both now provide H&C trains for service.

So, Anna's point seems to have more, and more merit. Unfortunately it
is too late now. The 14tph will remain as terminators.

But at OOC when it opens, which will be more useful than Paddington.

Yeah, but will OOC need 24tph? Would 12 not have been enough, with the
other twelve (or fewer) going to Hammersmith?

At one point there was talk of sending some Crossrail trains to Tring.
That seems to have been quietly set aside. IMHO Sending some
Crossrail trains to Tring and returning the Bakerloo to Watford would
be excellent. Euston's main emphasis should be on InterCity travel.

The Tring proposal seems to have receded because the Euston rebuilding for
HS2 is now planned to be in phases, so platforms for the Tring services
will remain available throughout. No-one is prepared to fund it given that
the need has faded.

With the Met headed for Watford Junction with a 6 tph service, there would
be neither the space not the need for the Bakerloo to return there.

According to one of the cunning plans circulated a couple of years ago
it wouldn't have got past Wembley Central because the DC line would
have been taken over by CrossRail.

The only cunning plan for Crossrail that I've heard of on that route was
for it to share the slow line to Tring, not take over the DC line. Everyone
has known, seemingly forever, that the Met would be going to the Junction,
and now it finally is, so what would Crossrail do at Watford? And how
would Crossrail get to Wembley, if not on the slow line?

A separate pair of tracks coming up the west side of the WCML. IIRC
the displaced DC/Bakerloo terminating tracks were to be shoehorned
into the "wasteland" south of the station.

Why would it then switch to the DC line?

To provide an extra pair of tracks for CR/WCML. I suspect the author
had failed to look any further north when drawing on his/her fag
packet. Another consequence to achieve the plan would probably have
been clearing the entire site down to track level (as the walls
supporting the Central Square raft would have been partly in the way)
and extending westward of the Down DC to gain room for the extended
platforms.

Ah, I don't recall that 'plan'. It's almost Bellsian in its bonkersness!

Ah-hah! Found it :-
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%...philip%201.pdf
[http://tinyurl.com/gpe9jlt]
It actually seems to be more than one cunning plan and still serving
the DC line to Watford rather than how I remembered it but still with
trains to/from London getting no further than Wembley.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:19:53 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:22:51 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:06:13 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:44:18 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\14 13:17, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:08:41 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:14:35 +0000, Steve Fitzgerald
] wrote:

In message
,
Anna Noyd-Dryver 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.


Thanks Steve, I've been meaning to come back to this post - apparently only
6 S7s stable at Hammersmith overnight now.

Really? I didn't realise it was that few now as the other stabling
points haven't changed much.

Last time I was at HMD (for training) there were quite a few trains
about and space for, I would guess maybe 20 to 25 in total.

HMD was very much a C stock depot and once they went everything was
focused at Ealing Common and Upminster (and a couple at Neasden) which
both now provide H&C trains for service.

So, Anna's point seems to have more, and more merit. Unfortunately it
is too late now. The 14tph will remain as terminators.

But at OOC when it opens, which will be more useful than Paddington.

Yeah, but will OOC need 24tph? Would 12 not have been enough, with the
other twelve (or fewer) going to Hammersmith?

At one point there was talk of sending some Crossrail trains to Tring.
That seems to have been quietly set aside. IMHO Sending some
Crossrail trains to Tring and returning the Bakerloo to Watford would
be excellent. Euston's main emphasis should be on InterCity travel.

The Tring proposal seems to have receded because the Euston rebuilding for
HS2 is now planned to be in phases, so platforms for the Tring services
will remain available throughout. No-one is prepared to fund it given that
the need has faded.

With the Met headed for Watford Junction with a 6 tph service, there would
be neither the space not the need for the Bakerloo to return there.

According to one of the cunning plans circulated a couple of years ago
it wouldn't have got past Wembley Central because the DC line would
have been taken over by CrossRail.

The only cunning plan for Crossrail that I've heard of on that route was
for it to share the slow line to Tring, not take over the DC line. Everyone
has known, seemingly forever, that the Met would be going to the Junction,
and now it finally is, so what would Crossrail do at Watford? And how
would Crossrail get to Wembley, if not on the slow line?

A separate pair of tracks coming up the west side of the WCML. IIRC
the displaced DC/Bakerloo terminating tracks were to be shoehorned
into the "wasteland" south of the station.

Why would it then switch to the DC line?

To provide an extra pair of tracks for CR/WCML. I suspect the author
had failed to look any further north when drawing on his/her fag
packet. Another consequence to achieve the plan would probably have
been clearing the entire site down to track level (as the walls
supporting the Central Square raft would have been partly in the way)
and extending westward of the Down DC to gain room for the extended
platforms.

Ah, I don't recall that 'plan'. It's almost Bellsian in its bonkersness!

Ah-hah! Found it :-
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%...philip%201.pdf
[http://tinyurl.com/gpe9jlt]
It actually seems to be more than one cunning plan and still serving
the DC line to Watford rather than how I remembered it but still with
trains to/from London getting no further than Wembley.


No wonder nothing has been heard of it since!

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On 13.01.16 8:55, Recliner wrote:
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.

Are there any external differences at this point between an S7 and S8?
Or does one need to always look at the seating arrangement/

Earlier, one could tell the difference by the fact that the third number
on an S7 railcar's number was always 3. Now however, that no longer
appears to be the case.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On 13.01.16 16:02, Recliner wrote:
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.

I miss the D78s' wood floors.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

wrote:
On 13.01.16 16:02, Recliner wrote:
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.

I miss the D78s' wood floors.

Presumably no longer allowed for fire safety reasons? All the old stock
had it, but I assume it's gone for good now.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

In article , () wrote:

On 13.01.16 8:55, Recliner wrote:
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.

Are there any external differences at this point between an S7 and
S8? Or does one need to always look at the seating arrangement/

Earlier, one could tell the difference by the fact that the third
number on an S7 railcar's number was always 3. Now however, that no
longer appears to be the case.

S8 stock is numbered as half sets 001-116. S7 is numbered as half sets
301-566.

In other words, S8 cars are numbered 21001-21116, 22001-22116, 23001-23116*,
24001-24116 while S7 cars are 21301-21566, 22301-22566, 23302-23566* (even
numbers only) and 24301-24566.

* De-icing cars in some units are numbered 25xxx instead of 23xxx (even nos
only). This appears to cover 25002-25056 and 25302-25386 (evens).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

Recliner wrote on 13 Jan 2016 at 08:55 ...
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.

To my surprise, having always tried to get a transverse seat on D stock,
I find that the lack of transverse seats on S7 doesn't actually bother
me, probably because S7 is better in all other respects. It helps (when
not in tunnel) that the windows are large, so much better than the
Overground's class 378 from the same manufacturer.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

Richard J. wrote:
Recliner wrote on 13 Jan 2016 at 08:55 ...
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.

To my surprise, having always tried to get a transverse seat on D stock,
I find that the lack of transverse seats on S7 doesn't actually bother
me, probably because S7 is better in all other respects. It helps (when
not in tunnel) that the windows are large, so much better than the
Overground's class 378 from the same manufacturer.

Yes, it's surprising how different those trains are, considering they were
built at the same time in the same factory. Even the seats are a lot more
comfortable in the S stock than the 378s. Some of the latter's windows are
small because of the external displays, aren't they?

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On 15.01.16 22:30, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 13.01.16 16:02, Recliner wrote:
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.

I miss the D78s' wood floors.

Presumably no longer allowed for fire safety reasons? All the old stock
had it, but I assume it's gone for good now.

I'm inclined to agree.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 17:08:25 +0000
" wrote:
On 15.01.16 22:30, Recliner wrote:
Presumably no longer allowed for fire safety reasons? All the old stock
had it, but I assume it's gone for good now.

I'm inclined to agree.

Wood can be made pretty fire proof - otherwise wooden houses would be banned.
I think its probably more likely that a nice wooden floor is expensive compared
to some cheap plastic (or whatever they use) covering over the bare metal.

--
Spud

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 17:08:25 +0000
" wrote:
On 15.01.16 22:30, Recliner wrote:
Presumably no longer allowed for fire safety reasons? All the old stock
had it, but I assume it's gone for good now.

I'm inclined to agree.

Wood can be made pretty fire proof - otherwise wooden houses would be banned.
I think its probably more likely that a nice wooden floor is expensive compared
to some cheap plastic (or whatever they use) covering over the bare metal.

The lino is probably easier to clean, too, than the old wooden slats. They
can also colour-code it these days, with a different colour near the doors.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:43:11 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Getting back to the subject of what to name future Underground lines, I assume
there will eventually be an Elizabeth line, probably some years after King
Charles III (or whatever other monarchical name he chooses) ascends the throne.
If this happens Her Majesty will have two lines named for her, as the Jubilee
was named for the Silver Jubilee. Given how long she has served the country,
that seems fitting.

Absolutely.

Naming lines after politicians, especially controversial ones or those who
divide opinion, would never be a good idea, regardless of the political
allegiance of the politician in question. Plus in general monarchical names
tend to just sound better, as they tend to be long-used and familiar, and
carry the majesty of their various original owners to an extent.

So naming something for "Clement Attlee" would not work for you.

I could see the merit in a Cromwell Line, while I'd personally not be in
favour I can accept that he was a sufficiently major character in English
history as to be potentially valid. And long enough ago that any personal
animosity on either side should have dissipated. Personally I thank the
gods that his ideas failed and we returned to being a monarchy though!

Of course major social movements for progress could possibly also be
considered. The abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women, the
outlawing of racism, the equality of people of alternative sexuality
and gender identity. But as movement names (the Emancipation Line,
or the Equality Line, perhaps?) as opposed to being named for individuals.
Though perhaps politicians from more than say 200 years ago could be
considered to be both long-term historically significant enough, and
sufficiently long ago as to be no longer divisive, could be allowed.
The Wilberforce Line?

A "Wilberforce" line, or any public structure so named, is a concept I
would wholeheartedly favor.

It doesn't matter what the name is as long as it meets the
three criteria: non-controversial; easily pronounced, concise.

One of the two halves will continue as the Northern Line.
The other can be called anything: Barclay Line, Primrose Line;
Sherman Line; anything you like. It doesn't matter if the name
makes no sense. Within a few days it will become accepted,
used and very familiar.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:41:15 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:43:11 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Getting back to the subject of what to name future Underground lines, I assume
there will eventually be an Elizabeth line, probably some years after King
Charles III (or whatever other monarchical name he chooses) ascends the throne.
If this happens Her Majesty will have two lines named for her, as the Jubilee
was named for the Silver Jubilee. Given how long she has served the country,
that seems fitting.

Absolutely.

Naming lines after politicians, especially controversial ones or those who
divide opinion, would never be a good idea, regardless of the political
allegiance of the politician in question. Plus in general monarchical names
tend to just sound better, as they tend to be long-used and familiar, and
carry the majesty of their various original owners to an extent.

So naming something for "Clement Attlee" would not work for you.

I could see the merit in a Cromwell Line, while I'd personally not be in
favour I can accept that he was a sufficiently major character in English
history as to be potentially valid. And long enough ago that any personal
animosity on either side should have dissipated. Personally I thank the
gods that his ideas failed and we returned to being a monarchy though!

Of course major social movements for progress could possibly also be
considered. The abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women, the
outlawing of racism, the equality of people of alternative sexuality
and gender identity. But as movement names (the Emancipation Line,
or the Equality Line, perhaps?) as opposed to being named for individuals.
Though perhaps politicians from more than say 200 years ago could be
considered to be both long-term historically significant enough, and
sufficiently long ago as to be no longer divisive, could be allowed.
The Wilberforce Line?

A "Wilberforce" line, or any public structure so named, is a concept I
would wholeheartedly favor.

Depends on who is being served? duicks

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

In message , at 10:52:53 on Mon, 11 Jan
2016, Mizter T 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.

Elizabeth Line.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/crossrail-gets-its-roundel/

They obviously changed their mind at some point in the last three years.
--
Roland Perry

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:52:53 on Mon, 11 Jan
2016, Mizter T 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.

Elizabeth Line.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/crossrail-gets-its-roundel/

They obviously changed their mind at some point in the last three years.

Yes. Boris had been publicly suggesting that it be named after HM for some
time, and perhaps he prevailed in an internal debate?

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On 2016\02\25 08:27, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:52:53 on Mon, 11 Jan
2016, Mizter T 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.

Elizabeth Line.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/crossrail-gets-its-roundel/

They obviously changed their mind at some point in the last three years.

Yes. Boris had been publicly suggesting that it be named after HM for some
time, and perhaps he prevailed in an internal debate?


I suspect that the Crossrail roundel will appear outside stations.

The Elizabeth Line roundel may or may not be used on the outside of
trains, will probably be used on the line guides inside trains, might be
used on posters about engineering work but that's about it. IMO.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:30:59 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\02\25 08:27, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:52:53 on Mon, 11 Jan
2016, Mizter T 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.

Elizabeth Line.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/crossrail-gets-its-roundel/

They obviously changed their mind at some point in the last three years.

Yes. Boris had been publicly suggesting that it be named after HM for some
time, and perhaps he prevailed in an internal debate?


I suspect that the Crossrail roundel will appear outside stations.

The Elizabeth Line roundel may or may not be used on the outside of
trains, will probably be used on the line guides inside trains, might be
used on posters about engineering work but that's about it. IMO.

Surely the roundel will also be used on platforms used exclusively by
Elizabeth Line trains. Quite what will be used on parts of the route
still used by TOC's trains I do not know? Maybe they will have TOC
Name boards, or TfL Roundels, or both.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:30:59 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\02\25 08:27, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:52:53 on Mon, 11 Jan
2016, Mizter T 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.

Elizabeth Line.


http://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/crossrail-gets-its-roundel/

They obviously changed their mind at some point in the last three
years.

Yes. Boris had been publicly suggesting that it be named after HM for
some time, and perhaps he prevailed in an internal debate?


I suspect that the Crossrail roundel will appear outside stations.

The Elizabeth Line roundel may or may not be used on the outside of
trains, will probably be used on the line guides inside trains, might be
used on posters about engineering work but that's about it. IMO.

Surely the roundel will also be used on platforms used exclusively by
Elizabeth Line trains. Quite what will be used on parts of the route
still used by TOC's trains I do not know? Maybe they will have TOC
Name boards, or TfL Roundels, or both.

Or abortions like at Cheshunt where the Overground platform has TfL signs
but the rest has TOC signs.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On 2016\02\25 10:46, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:30:59 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\02\25 08:27, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:52:53 on Mon, 11 Jan
2016, Mizter T 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.

Elizabeth Line.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/crossrail-gets-its-roundel/

They obviously changed their mind at some point in the last three years.

Yes. Boris had been publicly suggesting that it be named after HM for some
time, and perhaps he prevailed in an internal debate?


I suspect that the Crossrail roundel will appear outside stations.

The Elizabeth Line roundel may or may not be used on the outside of
trains, will probably be used on the line guides inside trains, might be
used on posters about engineering work but that's about it. IMO.

Surely the roundel will also be used on platforms used exclusively by
Elizabeth Line trains.

If you mean the big roundels on the walls, they will be in Crossrail
colours but will say the station name.

Quite what will be used on parts of the route
still used by TOC's trains I do not know? Maybe they will have TOC
Name boards, or TfL Roundels, or both.

I imagine Harrow-On-The-Hill will answer all your questions. AFAIK all
platforms at minor stations on the TfL Rail route have TfL Rail roundels
now, including the platforms rarely used by TfL trains.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

In message , at 10:46:31 on
Thu, 25 Feb 2016, e27002 aurora remarked:

Surely the roundel will also be used on platforms used exclusively by
Elizabeth Line trains. Quite what will be used on parts of the route
still used by TOC's trains I do not know? Maybe they will have TOC
Name boards, or TfL Roundels, or both.

What happens at shared stations today. For example Wimbledon.
--
Roland Perry

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:46:31 on
Thu, 25 Feb 2016, e27002 aurora remarked:

Surely the roundel will also be used on platforms used exclusively by
Elizabeth Line trains. Quite what will be used on parts of the route
still used by TOC's trains I do not know? Maybe they will have TOC
Name boards, or TfL Roundels, or both.

What happens at shared stations today. For example Wimbledon.

There aren't any shared platforms at Wimbledon. Elizabeth Line trains will
share platforms with GWR trains.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

On 2016\02\25 13:11, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:46:31 on
Thu, 25 Feb 2016, e27002 aurora remarked:

Surely the roundel will also be used on platforms used exclusively by
Elizabeth Line trains. Quite what will be used on parts of the route
still used by TOC's trains I do not know? Maybe they will have TOC
Name boards, or TfL Roundels, or both.

What happens at shared stations today. For example Wimbledon.

There aren't any shared platforms at Wimbledon. Elizabeth Line trains will
share platforms with GWR trains.

Hackney Downs is an Overground-managed station that has Anglia trains in
the peak using the same platforms. There are Overground-coloured
roundels with the station name on all platforms. It's not a problem, any
more than Bakerloo Line trains serving stations with Silverlink signs
was a problem in the old days.

I think people are arguing at cross purposes.
Some people think we are arguing about whether there will be roundels.
Some people think we are arguing about whether the roundels will be purple.

IMO it is a given that there will be purple roundels all over everything
that Crossrail owns or manages, even if GWR or Anglia stop there as
well. We're actually arguing about where, if anywhere, will there be
purple roundels with CROSSRAIL on them and where, if anywhere, will
there be purple roundels with ELIZABETH LINE written on them. I see
little use for the Elizabeth Line roundels - after all, the tube lines
do not AFAIK have their own roundels. I wouldn't be surprised if
yesterday's photo shoot was the last time we will ever see the ELIZABETH
LINE roundel, although the name itself will be widely used, often with
the CROSSRAIL roundel next to it.

By London's Northern Line to Battersea
 

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\02\25 13:11, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:46:31 on
Thu, 25 Feb 2016, e27002 aurora remarked:

Surely the roundel will also be used on platforms used exclusively by
Elizabeth Line trains. Quite what will be used on parts of the route
still used by TOC's trains I do not know? Maybe they will have TOC
Name boards, or TfL Roundels, or both.

What happens at shared stations today. For example Wimbledon.

There aren't any shared platforms at Wimbledon. Elizabeth Line trains will
share platforms with GWR trains.

Hackney Downs is an Overground-managed station that has Anglia trains in
the peak using the same platforms. There are Overground-coloured
roundels with the station name on all platforms. It's not a problem, any
more than Bakerloo Line trains serving stations with Silverlink signs
was a problem in the old days.

I think people are arguing at cross purposes.
Some people think we are arguing about whether there will be roundels.
Some people think we are arguing about whether the roundels will be purple.

IMO it is a given that there will be purple roundels all over everything
that Crossrail owns or manages, even if GWR or Anglia stop there as
well. We're actually arguing about where, if anywhere, will there be
purple roundels with CROSSRAIL on them and where, if anywhere, will
there be purple roundels with ELIZABETH LINE written on them. I see
little use for the Elizabeth Line roundels - after all, the tube lines
do not AFAIK have their own roundels. I wouldn't be surprised if
yesterday's photo shoot was the last time we will ever see the ELIZABETH
LINE roundel, although the name itself will be widely used, often with
the CROSSRAIL roundel next to it.

My understanding is that the Crossrail name will not be used for the
finished product; it was, in effect, a development code name. So all the
roundels will say Elizabeth Line or the station name if they have any text
at all (some will just be a solid purple). It's true that individual Tube
lines don't have their own roundels, but the Underground, Buses, DLR and
Overground do, and I think the Elizabeth Line will be the same.