Londoncityslicker wrote:

The addition of CCTV of course is welcome but on a small line with
mostly high flyers using the service. I can't see crime being a huge
issue on the W&C.

I suspect the total amount stolen on the line since 1898 is less than the
cost of the CCTV... and the limited opening hours must pretty much preclude
any violence too.

Peter Frimberley wrote:

I think the overhaul was more about "behind the scenes" or
"undercarriage" stuff. These five units having been isolated on the
W&C had apparently become very different to the supposedly identical
1992 stock on the Central Line - e.g. I don't think the motor mods
that had to be done to the whole Central Line fleet when they started
dropping off had ever been done to the W&C stock

I don't think that last bit is correct..... the W&C was shut for a while
when the Central Line was shut. Since it was a safety mod you would expect
it to be done on all 92 stock at the same time (even though the ATO largely
caused the problem by putting more stress on the brackets than a human
driver would).

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:50:28 +0100, Peter Frimberley wrote:

I think the overhaul was more about "behind the scenes" or
"undercarriage" stuff. These five units having been isolated on the
W&C had apparently become very different to the supposedly identical
1992 stock on the Central Line - e.g. I don't think the motor mods
that had to be done to the whole Central Line fleet when they started
dropping off had ever been done to the W&C stock; and a whole series
of similar in-cab and underfloor alterations that had been done to the
Central stock meant that the drivers could no longer drive each
others' trains. So to enable possible driver rotations in future
(because driving the W&C is boring as hell so they want to look at
just spending a few months at a time on it), and to keep costs down by
applying the same fixes and spares to both sets in future, they had to
do a lot of "catching up" work on the W&C stock.

Why didn't they go all the way and install ATO?

Peter Frimberley wrote:

So it should have been a win-win-win situation for Metronet, TfL, and
the passengers too, but unfortunately Metronet seem to have done only
a 90% job as usual.

Used it yesterday to have a look, and while Bank station and the trains
were looking very slick, Waterloo is still a dump; they haven't removed
the old NSE red panelling in places, and the stairway (wouldn't it have
been a good time for some accessibility work - or is there a lift
already and I haven't seen it?) looked unfinished with metal panels on
one side and the old wall on the other.

Neil

The W&C has been worked off the main Leytonstone depot drivers' rota
for years.

Also the 1992TS on the W&C was "grounded" along with the main fleet
following the Chancery Lane derailment and similarly returned to
service after suitable modifications.

Although I believe the accessibility "humps" are probably a trial
pending installation on the rest of the system, surely the stairs
leading from the arrival platform at Waterloo means that disabled
travel is only possible in the northbound (officially "eastbound")
direction? i.e. you can go from Waterloo to Bank in a wheelchair but
never get back!

Also wouldn't it have been better the raise the height of all of the
platforms (or lower the track) to allow level access throughout? No
doubt the disability lobby will soon be claiming discrimination on the
grounds that they can only access one set of doors per train.

wrote:
Also wouldn't it have been better the raise the height of all of the
platforms (or lower the track) to allow level access throughout? No

Thats something I never understood about the tube. Why are the
platforms
all lower that the floors? On curved platforms its understandable since
the train might need to overhang them , but whats the excuse on
straight platforms? Its not just disabled people it would be useful
for,
even like myself when trying to wrestle a large suitcase onto the
train at heathrow it would be nice if I could just wheel it on rather
than having to physically lift it up.

B2003

In article . com,
" writes
I used the "revamped" service yesterday afternoon, and noticed no
discernible difference, save for the raised platform area in the middle
at each station.

A huge amount of cost and inconvenience for no discernible improvement:
as I said on this forum before the work even started! That's the
trouble with construction-company-led P.F.I. contracts of this sort: a
huge amount of money spent on cosmetic "improvements",

Um, it sounds like they *haven't* spent a load of money on cosmetic
"improvements".

for which huge
amounts are paid, rather than the basic service improvement.

The basic task was to replace the track and signalling. Shaving seconds
off the round-trip time on the line means an extra train or two per
hour, increasing the number of passengers that can be carried per hour.

--
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:

On 25/09/2006 18:34, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article . com,
" writes

I used the "revamped" service yesterday afternoon, and noticed no
discernible difference, save for the raised platform area in the middle
at each station.

A huge amount of cost and inconvenience for no discernible improvement:
as I said on this forum before the work even started! That's the
trouble with construction-company-led P.F.I. contracts of this sort: a
huge amount of money spent on cosmetic "improvements",


Um, it sounds like they *haven't* spent a load of money on cosmetic
"improvements".

for which huge
amounts are paid, rather than the basic service improvement.


The basic task was to replace the track and signalling. Shaving seconds
off the round-trip time on the line means an extra train or two per
hour, increasing the number of passengers that can be carried per hour.

Having been unable to use the drain Monday morning (09:00) due to a
stalled/failed train at the Waterloo end) I did get my ride home last
night, and ride into work this morning on it.

As others have said - for 5 months and 2 weeks it looks like a poor job
to me.

Yes the ride is *much* smoother now (And that's a nice thing) but;

The platforms at each end have been given a lick of paint (if that), had
the raised area installed (Which is only a decking like surface), and
the raised kerbing along the platform edge.

The trains are filthy (externally) again - mostly pidgin droppings as
before.

The clock at the Waterloo end (Departures) is *still* wrong - if I get a
spare moment I'll mention it to them tonight on my way home.

I'm yet to suffer a signal/TC failure, but give it a week or 2 (I was
away when the line reopened)

And I'm still waiting for 1 very heavy rain, 2 a thunderstorm to see
what happens.

All in all for the extra time and hassle it added to my daily trip I'm
not that impressed at all.


/grumble over/

On 22 Sep 2006 10:54:57 -0700, "
wrote:


A huge amount of cost and inconvenience for no discernible improvement:
as I said on this forum before the work even started! That's the
trouble with construction-company-led P.F.I. contracts of this sort: a
huge amount of money spent on cosmetic "improvements", for which huge
amounts are paid, rather than the basic service improvement. Who cares
what the stations look like cosmetically? Their purpose is for us to
spend as little time in them as possible after all!

Shows your usual lack of transport knowledge/understanding.


Closure of the Drain involved:

a) Replacement of all track between stations (not within them)

b) Some re-wiring

c) Major overhaul of all traind

d) Deep clean of stations and platform humps.


Many of the things the Tube needs replaced - like new track - are not
visibile to passengers but are very expensive and make a big
difference.


Not replacing/upgrading the track means eventually you can't operate a
service.

Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

The boastful "Investing in the Tube" posters still displayed on the W&C
ysterday still claim "all signals replaced".