Richard M Willis wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Yes... its to replace the H&C service so that the H&C and Circle can be
combined (as detailed in some other posts in this thread).

Oh I see.

But, what an unbalanced service ? Barking to Metroland would take ages. Is
there significant traffic demand for that route ? Are there many people
wanting to go all the way ?

Probably not... but the intention isn't to allow through journeys, it's
merely a rearrangement of the service pattern across the SSL to attempt
to improve reliability and frequency.

Can you explain/describe what's going to happen to the H&C/Circle ? I
couldn't
follow the descriptions in these threads ? Is the idea that trains come from
Hammersmith H+C, travel eastwards along the top half of the circle to
Liverpool
Street, Aldgate, Tower Hill, Embankment, then on round to Edgware Road D+H+C
(so it passes through that station twice !)

That's pretty much right - but the trains terminate at Edgware Road the
second time, they don't pass through.

If so, isn't that going to confuse the passengers, having the same route
pass through the same station twice on one trip ? The next station could be
either Baker Street, Paddington H+C, or Paddington D+C depending on which
phase
and direction it's going in. Edgware Road DHC has severe platform
predictability
problems as it is.

I don't think running the new H&C in this manner would be any more
confusing than now. The next station for any given train can already be
any of the three you mentioned, and the only difference to the current
situation would be that trains to Gloucester Road and beyond would
depart from the same platforms as the Wimbledon service.

In fact, it's slightly less complicated than the current situation.
Currently, the outermost platform is for Baker St, the middle two
platforms are for Earl's Court and the innermost platform is for
Gloucester Road or Hammersmith. That means that trains to Notting Hill
Gate can depart from three different platforms.

If the new pattern runs as it should, then it would be outermost
platform for Baker Street, middle two platforms for Notting Hill Gate /
Paddington (Praed St) and innermost platform for Hammersmith and
Paddington (Bishops Rd). Trains to Paddington can depart from as many
platforms as now, but trains to NHG only depart from two instead of
three platforms.

And anyway, isn't that just the circle line under a different name, with a
long
tail to it, which will still fall foul of all the conflicting movts which
bedog the circle line currently.

Basically, yes! The plan doesn't resolve any of conflicting junction
concerns (and, as highlighted on Tupeprune's site, it makes Praed St
junction worse) but it does allow recovery time in the Circle line
timetable.

The only way to truely resolve all of those conflicting moves would be
to rebuild the offending junctions as grade-separated - which would be
incredibly expensive.

On a side note, I did wonder whether Crossrail should take over
Paddington to Hammersmith - they could send some of their wasted
terminating 14tph on from Paddington to Hammersmith, and Praed Street
junction could be eliminated. Perhaps Wimbleware services could then be
extended all the way around the Circle, as per the T Cup plan.

One problem with that would be that extending H&C stations to take
Crossrail trains might mean that Goldhawk Road, Shepherd's Bush and
White City turn into one big platform! Serving Royal Oak would also be a
problem since the Crossrail portal is west of there.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Richard M Willis wrote:

But, what an unbalanced service ? Barking to Metroland would take ages. Is
there significant traffic demand for that route ? Are there many people
wanting to go all the way ?

Well there's an awful lot of interchanging at Liverpool Street that could do
with a more reliable service to Aldgate East and beyond...

Whitechapel to Metroland is not actually that much further than the current
Met - and also from a commuter point of view this would provide direct
interchanges with routes into Docklands.

If so, isn't that going to confuse the passengers, having the same route
pass through the same station twice on one trip ?

Maybe but Paddington is actually two tube stations and I doubt the confusion
will be any greater than it is now. And other than the anoraks who is
actually going to do a full circuit?

And anyway, isn't that just the circle line under a different name, with a
long
tail to it, which will still fall foul of all the conflicting movts which
bedog the circle line currently.

Yes but at least there will be the opportunity to regain times. I suspect
for similar reasons Orbirail will not feature a regular full circuit
service.

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote

Yes but at least there will be the opportunity to regain times. I suspect
for similar reasons Orbirail will not feature a regular full circuit
service.

AIUI Orbirail will be Clapham Junction - SLL - ELL - NLL - WLL -Clapham
Junction, so trains will have to reverse at Clapham Junction, and would
probably alternate clockwise and counter-clockwise routes.

Peter

Dave Arquati wrote:

I don't think running the new H&C in this manner would be any more
confusing than now. The next station for any given train can already
be any of the three you mentioned, and the only difference to the
current situation would be that trains to Gloucester Road and beyond
would depart from the same platforms as the Wimbledon service.

In fact, it's slightly less complicated than the current situation.
Currently, the outermost platform is for Baker St, the middle two
platforms are for Earl's Court and the innermost platform is for
Gloucester Road or Hammersmith. That means that trains to Notting Hill
Gate can depart from three different platforms.

If the new pattern runs as it should, then it would be outermost
platform for Baker Street, middle two platforms for Notting Hill Gate
/ Paddington (Praed St) and innermost platform for Hammersmith and
Paddington (Bishops Rd). Trains to Paddington can depart from as many
platforms as now, but trains to NHG only depart from two instead of
three platforms.

Personally, I would have thought that it could have been even better
rationalised.

Instead of taking incoming H&Cs round the Circle and then back up to Edgware
Road would it not have been better to take them from Gloucester Road to
Earls Court and out to Wimbledon on the current Wimbleware service (also
worked by C-stock at present)? The service on the west side of the current
Circle/District line through Paddington and High Street Kensington could
then be worked either by a self-contained Edgware Road to Kensington Olympia
service, replacing the High Street Ken shuttle, and an Edgware Road to
Mansion House or Tower Hill service.

R.C. Payne:
What happened to what is now Charing Cross on the Northern between '73
and '76? Was it closed for Jubilee line works? Not something I had
ever appreciated before.

Peter Masson:
Closed for rebuilding, and combining the Northern Line (ex-Strand) and
Bakerloo Line (ex-Trafalgar Square) and the new-build Jubilee Line into
one station.

Yep. And it was from 1973 to 1979, reopening simultaneously with the
Jubilee Line's opening. Had they but known where the Jubilee would go
in the end...
--
Mark Brader | "If one were to believe the bulk of our mail, one
Toronto | would conclude that about every part of our anatomy
| (even those we don't possess) is the wrong size..." --LWN

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

If so, isn't that going to confuse the passengers, having the same route
pass through the same station twice on one trip ? The next station could
be
either Baker Street, Paddington H+C, or Paddington D+C depending on which
phase
and direction it's going in. Edgware Road DHC has severe platform
predictability
problems as it is.

I don't think running the new H&C in this manner would be any more
confusing than now. The next station for any given train can already be
any of the three you mentioned, and the only difference to the current
situation would be that trains to Gloucester Road and beyond would depart
from the same platforms as the Wimbledon service.

In fact, it's slightly less complicated than the current situation.
Currently, the outermost platform is for Baker St, the middle two
platforms are for Earl's Court and the innermost platform is for
Gloucester Road or Hammersmith. That means that trains to Notting Hill
Gate can depart from three different platforms.

If the new pattern runs as it should, then it would be outermost platform
for Baker Street, middle two platforms for Notting Hill Gate / Paddington
(Praed St) and innermost platform for Hammersmith and Paddington (Bishops
Rd). Trains to Paddington can depart from as many platforms as now, but
trains to NHG only depart from two instead of three platforms.

How feasible would it be to segregate the lines at Edgware Road by having
the through trains to/from Hammersmith using the north island and the
terminating trains from Bayswater using the south island? This would remove
all conflicting moves in this area.

Peter Smyth

Peter Smyth wrote:

How feasible would it be to segregate the lines at Edgware Road by having
the through trains to/from Hammersmith using the north island and the
terminating trains from Bayswater using the south island? This would remove
all conflicting moves in this area.

Peter Smyth

That would not help. The pair of tracks from Paddington Mainline and
the pair from Bayswater merge on a flat junction well before Edgware
Road, IIRC.

In the long term I would like to see CrossRail take over the
Hammersmith Branch. Four long TPH should suffice. Some judicious
re-organization of the intermediate stations should ensure we have
stops at sensible intervals. That would sure beat reversing trains at
Paddington.

Then, the Wimbleware trains could be extended to Baker Street for
reversal. The Met. could run right thru to Barking, or beyond.
Edgware Rd would retain its layout. Circle Line trains would be held
there so as to maintain a clock face service.

In the event that the Circle would ever be out of whack (Can you
imagine THAT), Wimbleware trains could be reversed at Edgware Road and
Met trains at Baker Street for the duration.

Adrian.

On 13 Jun 2006 12:39:08 -0700, "Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS"
wrote:


Peter Smyth wrote:

How feasible would it be to segregate the lines at Edgware Road by having
the through trains to/from Hammersmith using the north island and the
terminating trains from Bayswater using the south island? This would remove
all conflicting moves in this area.

Peter Smyth

That would not help. The pair of tracks from Paddington Mainline and
the pair from Bayswater merge on a flat junction well before Edgware
Road, IIRC.

Praed Street Junction.
snip
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Charles Ellson wrote:
On 13 Jun 2006 12:39:08 -0700, "Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS"
wrote:

The pair of tracks from Paddington Mainline and
the pair from Bayswater merge on a flat junction well before Edgware
Road, IIRC.

Praed Street Junction.
snip

Thank you, :-)

"Mark Brader" wrote in message

Yep. And it was from 1973 to 1979, reopening simultaneously with the
Jubilee Line's opening. Had they but known where the Jubilee would go
in the end...

Wasn't the Jubilee ("Fleet") Line originally expected to take over the ELL,
being extended to Lewisham from NCG ?

Wasn't it also going to have an interchange at Aldwych ?

Now that the Jubilee line to "Charing Cross" is now only used for
TV adverts (apparently), is there any justification for keeping the current
arrangement ?

It doesn't look right that there is a London Terminus that isn't on the
Circle
Line (or that it is, but it is called something other than the name of the
NR
station, towhit Embankment)

Why do we need two stations so close together on the Northern Line (on the
Bakerloo
Line, I could sort of understand it if it were renamed Trafalgar Square, and
shewn
as a walking route to Charing Cross NR)

Richard [in SG19]




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com