Another W&C Closure?
 

James Farrar wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:31:19 -0400, David of Broadway
wrote:

Most of the compromise height locations have subsurface trains on one
track and tube trains on the other -- if one of the tracks were raised a
bit and the other lowered, the problem would be largely solved (except
when trains are rerouted to the other track). But that still leaves
Uxbridge through Rayners Lane and Ealing Common.

And Acton Town, where Piccadilly Line trains use all four platforms.

Yes, that occurred to me after posting. But do Piccadilly line trains
really have to use the side tracks? I realize that doing so can reduce
delays for eastbound passengers getting off at Acton Town, but it
doesn't actually speed up train service much, does it? One train still
has to wait for the other before leaving the station. I suppose the
practice is useful when the Rayners Lane shuttle is running -- but when
that happened to me, the connecting Piccadilly line train across the
platform closed up and pulled out as soon as we pulled in. (It felt
just like home!)

Also, Silverlink shares trackage with the District line between
Gunnersbury and Richmond and with the Bakerloo line between Queen's Park
and Harrow & Wealdstone. I don't remember exactly what the floor height
of those trains is, but it's obviously not the same as both District and
Bakerloo trains. (Silverlink Metro runs Class 313 stock on all of its
electrified routes, right?)
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

Another W&C Closure?
 

On 18 Mar, 19:02, David of Broadway
wrote:
Yes, that occurred to me after posting. But do Piccadilly line trains
really have to use the side tracks? I realize that doing so can reduce
delays for eastbound passengers getting off at Acton Town, but it
doesn't actually speed up train service much, does it? One train still
has to wait for the other before leaving the station. I suppose the
practice is useful when the Rayners Lane shuttle is running -- but when
that happened to me, the connecting Piccadilly line train across the
platform closed up and pulled out as soon as we pulled in. (It felt
just like home!)

The S Stock (to be used on all non-tube lines) will be low floor, so
this problem goes away by itself once you rebuild all platforms to
tube height.

Also, Silverlink shares trackage with the District line between
Gunnersbury and Richmond and with the Bakerloo line between Queen's Park
and Harrow & Wealdstone.

Don't forget that one day the Bakerloo will take over the whole route
to Watford.

(Silverlink Metro runs Class 313 stock on all of its
electrified routes, right?)

Yes, and the odd 508, which are roughly the same design. High floor.

U

Another W&C Closure?
 

In article ,
(David of Broadway) wrote:

Also, Silverlink shares trackage with the District line between
Gunnersbury and Richmond and with the Bakerloo line between Queen's
Park and Harrow & Wealdstone. I don't remember exactly what the
floor height of those trains is, but it's obviously not the same as
both District and Bakerloo trains. (Silverlink Metro runs Class
313 stock on all of its electrified routes, right?)

313s and District stock should have pretty similar floor heights, surely?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Another W&C Closure?
 

"TheOneKEA" wrote in message
ups.com
On Mar 16, 7:20 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
That is exactly what it is - a trial. If you consider the LU
environment it is hugely varied and we have to start somewhere with
evaluating a relatively simple approach to providing level access
into the trains. Given that wheelchair space is at specific points
in the trains then this trial is designed with that in mind.
Raising the entire platform is not cheap and still causes issues at
those points where you exit the platform into adjoining corridors /
stairs or ramps. Solving one issue may well cause other more complex
ones. The real challenge centres on what to do with places like
Bank Central Line (curved) or compromise height locations like
Hammersmith D&P where you step up to District line trains and down
into Picc Line ones.

That's easy - change the level of the track on either side of the
island, so that the Picc lines are lower and the District lines are
higher.

How about Ealing Common, where the same platforms serve both Picc and
District stock, or Acton Town where Picc trains frequently use the
District platforms? Or Rayner's Lane to Uxbridge?

Another W&C Closure?
 

Another W&C Closure?
 

Richard J. wrote:

But until you do, you can't use the new stock! To accommodate the two
heights at a single platform, the platform level needs to be a
compromise. If it's level with either stock, the other stock would be
unreasonably low or high. Anyway, where does it say that S stock
floors will be at tube stock height? I don't believe that's true.

Neither do I. How would that work on the Metropolitan, where all platforms
are "normal" height and platforms from Harrow northwards are shared with
standard gauge overground stock (Chiltern)? Utter rubbish IMO.

Another W&C Closure?
 

On 18 Mar 2007 14:48:12 -0700,
wrote:

The S Stock (to be used on all non-tube lines) will be low floor, so
this problem goes away by itself once you rebuild all platforms to
tube height.

....but introduces exactly the same problems between Gunnersbury and
Richmond, and between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Amersham.

Another W&C Closure?
 

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...
Richard J. wrote:

But until you do, you can't use the new stock! To accommodate the two
heights at a single platform, the platform level needs to be a
compromise. If it's level with either stock, the other stock would be
unreasonably low or high. Anyway, where does it say that S stock
floors will be at tube stock height? I don't believe that's true.

Neither do I. How would that work on the Metropolitan, where all platforms
are "normal" height and platforms from Harrow northwards are shared with
standard gauge overground stock (Chiltern)? Utter rubbish IMO.

The S stock floor height will be a bit lower than the old surface stock, but
not as low as tube stock.

The S stock floor height will apparently be 950mm above rail height,
compared with the existing surface stock height of 975 or 980mm. Tube stock
is 600 or 610mm above rail height.
--
David Biddulph

Another W&C Closure?
 

In article , groups [at]
biddulph.org.uk (David Biddulph) wrote:

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...
Richard J. wrote:

But until you do, you can't use the new stock! To accommodate
the two heights at a single platform, the platform level needs to
be a compromise. If it's level with either stock, the other stock
would be unreasonably low or high. Anyway, where does it say that
S stock floors will be at tube stock height? I don't believe that's

true.

Neither do I. How would that work on the Metropolitan, where all
platforms are "normal" height and platforms from Harrow
northwards are shared with standard gauge overground stock
(Chiltern)? Utter rubbish IMO.

The S stock floor height will be a bit lower than the old surface
stock, but not as low as tube stock.

The S stock floor height will apparently be 950mm above rail
height, compared with the existing surface stock height of 975 or
980mm. Tube stock is 600 or 610mm above rail height.

This would make more sense if we knew the standard platform height above
rail level. I have a feeling it is more like 950 than 980 mm

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Another W&C Closure?
 

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , groups [at]
biddulph.org.uk (David Biddulph) wrote:

The S stock floor height will be a bit lower than the old surface
stock, but not as low as tube stock.

The S stock floor height will apparently be 950mm above rail
height, compared with the existing surface stock height of 975 or
980mm. Tube stock is 600 or 610mm above rail height.

This would make more sense if we knew the standard platform height
above rail level. I have a feeling it is more like 950 than 980 mm

I suspect that you are right and that stock and platforms will be at a
common height, for level wheelchair access.