In message , Nick Cooper
writes

Don't know what alternative arrangements might be made, but there's little
or no chance that the area of suspension will get any smaller. The only
other available reversing facility on the route is at Wood Green, and this
can only be used to reverse from east to west.

So what actually precludes a westbound train running into Wood Green,
reversing (east) into the siding, then out again (west) to the
eastbound platform, before heading back east again?

The points/signals from the sidings can only be set for one route (which
is into the westbound platform).
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 21:22:38 +0100, Steve Fitzgerald ]
wrote:

In message , Nick Cooper
writes

Don't know what alternative arrangements might be made, but there's little
or no chance that the area of suspension will get any smaller. The only
other available reversing facility on the route is at Wood Green, and this
can only be used to reverse from east to west.

So what actually precludes a westbound train running into Wood Green,
reversing (east) into the siding, then out again (west) to the
eastbound platform, before heading back east again?

The points/signals from the sidings can only be set for one route (which
is into the westbound platform).

I can appreciate that, having suffered many "terminating at Wood
Green" trains when heading for Bounds Green in the past, but how
feasible is it to reverse the set-up? I would guess that that would
rest on how long the central section of the line is likely to be
US....
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

In message , Nick Cooper
writes

The points/signals from the sidings can only be set for one route (which
is into the westbound platform).

I can appreciate that, having suffered many "terminating at Wood
Green" trains when heading for Bounds Green in the past, but how
feasible is it to reverse the set-up? I would guess that that would
rest on how long the central section of the line is likely to be
US....

I gather some tests have been planned/undertaken today although I have
no idea of the scope of them.

Without any signalling alterations, it would involve scotching and
clipping the point blades in position as required. So it would be a
normal signalled move into the sidings, someone to secure the left hand
point blade into position and then authorise the driver to make the move
into the eastbound platform. In these sidings they are two separate
blades so as to create a catch points effect when neither of them are
set.

I'm not too sure about the passenger benefits of extending to WGN only -
pity we can't get to Finsbury Park, at least then we would be linked
back into the network.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:47:38 +0100, Steve Fitzgerald ]
wrote:

In message , Nick Cooper
writes

The points/signals from the sidings can only be set for one route (which
is into the westbound platform).

I can appreciate that, having suffered many "terminating at Wood
Green" trains when heading for Bounds Green in the past, but how
feasible is it to reverse the set-up? I would guess that that would
rest on how long the central section of the line is likely to be
US....

I gather some tests have been planned/undertaken today although I have
no idea of the scope of them.

Without any signalling alterations, it would involve scotching and
clipping the point blades in position as required. So it would be a
normal signalled move into the sidings, someone to secure the left hand
point blade into position and then authorise the driver to make the move
into the eastbound platform. In these sidings they are two separate
blades so as to create a catch points effect when neither of them are
set.

I'm not too sure about the passenger benefits of extending to WGN only -
pity we can't get to Finsbury Park, at least then we would be linked
back into the network.

Yes, all that work in the 1960s, and nobody thought of putting a
cross-over in....
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

In article ,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:47:38 +0100, Steve Fitzgerald ]
wrote:

I gather some tests have been planned/undertaken today although I have
no idea of the scope of them.

Without any signalling alterations, it would involve scotching and
clipping the point blades in position as required. So it would be a
normal signalled move into the sidings, someone to secure the left
hand point blade into position and then authorise the driver to make
the move into the eastbound platform. In these sidings they are two
separate blades so as to create a catch points effect when neither of
them are set.

I'm not too sure about the passenger benefits of extending to WGN only
- pity we can't get to Finsbury Park, at least then we would be linked
back into the network.

Yes, all that work in the 1960s, and nobody thought of putting a
cross-over in....

or of creating a siding in the stub to Drayton Park that was abandoned.
:-(

However, if they had, would it have allowed access for reversal without
considerable new construction? I am more surprised in retrospect that no
running connection between the Piccadilly and Victoria lines was put in
which would have been trivially simple.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Steve Fitzgerald" ] wrote in message
...
In message , David Splett
writes
Don't know what alternative arrangements might be made, but there's
little or no chance that the area of suspension will get any smaller.
The only other available reversing facility on the route is at Wood
Green, and this can only be used to reverse from east to west.

I've just received a document that suggest some tests are being done
today to see if using Wood Green to reverse is feasible. I have no more
details on what is planned though. Steve??

Not going to happen. Currently cooking up something a bit more exciting...
--
Cheers, Steve.
Change from jealous to sad to reply.

In message ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes

However, if they had, would it have allowed access for reversal without
considerable new construction? I am more surprised in retrospect that no
running connection between the Piccadilly and Victoria lines was put in
which would have been trivially simple.

There is a connection both east/northbound and west/southbound between
the Picc and Victoria lines for engineers trains. As the signalling
systems are so different from each other (the Victoria is automatic), it
would not be possible to run 73 stock on the Vic. or 67 stock on the
Picc. other than under a total possession.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

In article , Steve Fitzgerald
] writes
There is a connection both east/northbound and west/southbound between
the Picc and Victoria lines for engineers trains. As the signalling
systems are so different from each other (the Victoria is automatic),
it would not be possible to run 73 stock on the Vic. or 67 stock on the
Picc. other than under a total possession.

67 stock can be fitted with tripcocks; somewhere I have the exact rules
for trains moving between the two lines and cutting various bits of kit
in and out.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article , ] (Steve
Fitzgerald) wrote:

In message ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes

However, if they had, would it have allowed access for reversal without
considerable new construction? I am more surprised in retrospect that
no running connection between the Piccadilly and Victoria lines was put
in which would have been trivially simple.

There is a connection both east/northbound and west/southbound between
the Picc and Victoria lines for engineers trains. As the signalling
systems are so different from each other (the Victoria is automatic),
it would not be possible to run 73 stock on the Vic. or 67 stock on the
Picc. other than under a total possession.

Hmm. I don't recall seeing those connections on line diagrams from the
days when the Victoria Line was built. I appreciate the signalling
incompatibilities. My point wasn't relevant to the current Piccadilly
problems.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes

There is a connection both east/northbound and west/southbound between
the Picc and Victoria lines for engineers trains. As the signalling
systems are so different from each other (the Victoria is automatic),
it would not be possible to run 73 stock on the Vic. or 67 stock on
the Picc. other than under a total possession.

67 stock can be fitted with tripcocks; somewhere I have the exact rules
for trains moving between the two lines and cutting various bits of kit
in and out.

Quite true as this is (was?) frequently done to move these trains to and
from Acton works. I doubt very much we would see them in public service
in this condition though. Mind you as we're now going to be another 3
car unit short who knows what they might come up with?

Another bit of useless information is that the tripcock tester on the
south bound Victoria is the only one on the combine actually linked into
the signalling system - if a train fails the tripcock test here, the
signaller can't set the route onto the Westbound Picc.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)