Another W&C Closure?
 

This morning, one of my colleagues at work mentioned that he had heart
an announcement on LU about future works on the W&C line, which would
mean passengers could only use it in one direction?

I can't find anything about it on the TfL website, anyone know any more?
Or had my colleague just got confused?

The only reason I can think of is that they could be closing the
arrivals platform at Waterloo to install the lift (to go with the new
'humps').

Another W&C Closure?
 

"Spyke" wrote in message
...
This morning, one of my colleagues at work mentioned that he had heart an
announcement on LU about future works on the W&C line, which would mean
passengers could only use it in one direction?

I can't find anything about it on the TfL website, anyone know any more?
Or had my colleague just got confused?

The only reason I can think of is that they could be closing the arrivals
platform at Waterloo to install the lift (to go with the new 'humps').

What are the humps?

Another W&C Closure?
 

"Spyke" wrote in message
...
wrote:
"Spyke" wrote in message
...
This morning, one of my colleagues at work mentioned that he had heart
an announcement on LU about future works on the W&C line, which would
mean passengers could only use it in one direction?

I can't find anything about it on the TfL website, anyone know any more?
Or had my colleague just got confused?

The only reason I can think of is that they could be closing the
arrivals platform at Waterloo to install the lift (to go with the new
'humps').

What are the humps?
Raised sections in the platform which bring it up to train floor-level, so
that passengers in wheelchairs/with limited mobility can easily board the
trains.
(Given that the platforms at Bank and Waterloo are pretty straight, I
don't understand why they didn't raise the whole platform).

Bank is a crazy design. Walking from the DLR to the Central line is some
walk.

Another W&C Closure?
 

Another W&C Closure?
 

In article , (Spyke)
wrote:

(Given that the platforms at Bank and Waterloo are pretty straight,
I don't understand why they didn't raise the whole platform).

What is the official reason for this nonsense?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Another W&C Closure?
 

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:09:27 +0000, Spyke wrote:

(Given that the platforms at Bank and Waterloo are pretty straight, I
don't understand why they didn't raise the whole platform).

Perhaps it's a trial of a hump that will be used at many other
stations?

Another W&C Closure?
 

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:09:56 +0000, asdf
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:09:27 +0000, Spyke wrote:

(Given that the platforms at Bank and Waterloo are pretty straight, I
don't understand why they didn't raise the whole platform).

Perhaps it's a trial of a hump that will be used at many other
stations?

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.

Keeping the safety risks as low as reasonably practicable is the key
issue here and it will be interesting to see what solutions we
eventually arrive at.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Another W&C Closure?
 

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.

The only disadvantage is that when trains from either line are
diverted due to disruption, the H&S nailbiters will howl because the
level access is gone...

Another W&C Closure?
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:09:56 +0000, asdf
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:09:27 +0000, Spyke wrote:

(Given that the platforms at Bank and Waterloo are pretty straight, I
don't understand why they didn't raise the whole platform).
Perhaps it's a trial of a hump that will be used at many other
stations?

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.

Why don't the platforms already line up with the trains?

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.

Agreed.

For curved platforms, you could try gap fillers:
http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?246
http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?27026
http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?29324

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.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

Another W&C Closure?
 

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.

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.

Another W&C Closure?
 

On 18 Mar, 22:55, "Richard J." wrote:
Anyway, where does it say that S stock floors will be at tube stock height?

There's a guy on the District Dave boards called pjrb who does a
pretty convincing job of claiming to be one of the guys working on the
S stock.

He mentions low floors here, although on reflection, he doesn't
mention tube height:
http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...e=1#1158424908

U

Route Swap (was: Another W&C Closure?)
 

On Mar 18, 10:09 pm, "Recliner" wrote:
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?

Simple - swap the Picc and District services to Uxbridge and Ealing
Broadway.

Except it isn't that simple; it's actually a hoary old chestnut that
has been kicking around the halls of 55 Broadway for quite a while,
and is not likely to be seriously considered until either T5 finally
opens and the Picc services to Uxbridge need to be reduced further to
maintain loadings on the Heathrow branch, or when the S stock arrives
in sufficient numbers to allow Uxbridge to finally be served
adequately in terms of train availability (how an enhanced Uxbridge
service gets through Earl's Court on top of the existing services to
Richmond, Wimbledon and Olympia is a whole 'nother matter!)

Another W&C Closure?
 

On Mar 19, 12:57 pm, "Mr Thant"
wrote:
There's a guy on the District Dave boards called pjrb who does a
pretty convincing job of claiming to be one of the guys working on the
S stock.

I would imagine so, seeing as how he is actually one of the people in
charge of the project...

Another W&C Closure?
 

In article , David of Broadway
writes
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.

Actually, it can help because of the longer headways needed at stations.
Put simply, when you work out the numbers you find that the minimum
possible time between trains is longer at stations than between them.
With two platforms you can negate this to some extent because one train
can be running in to the station with the previous one still departing;
with one platform, you can't let the second train in until the first has
cleared the overlap.

Admittedly, in this case you then run into the bottleneck again at
Hammersmith, but having the lower headways at Acton gives you more
robustness.

It also helps with the District. Suppose that an eastbound train from
Heathrow is in the Piccadilly platform, with a District train from
Ealing Broadway behind a Piccadilly from Uxbridge. If the latter can get
into the station before the ex-Heathrow has left, even though it blocks
the District's platform, the latter still gets through earlier.

--
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:

Another W&C Closure?
 

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:34:07 +0000, Clive D. W. Feather 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.

Actually, it can help because of the longer headways needed at stations.
Put simply, when you work out the numbers you find that the minimum
possible time between trains is longer at stations than between them.
With two platforms you can negate this to some extent because one train
can be running in to the station with the previous one still departing;
with one platform, you can't let the second train in until the first has
cleared the overlap.

Admittedly, in this case you then run into the bottleneck again at
Hammersmith, but having the lower headways at Acton gives you more
robustness.

It's more significant than that - driver changes take place at Acton,
which means dwell time there is often longer than at Hammersmith
(etc).

Route Swap (was: Another W&C Closure?)
 

On 19 Mar 2007 08:12:01 -0700, TheOneKEA wrote:

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?

Simple - swap the Picc and District services to Uxbridge and Ealing
Broadway.

Except it isn't that simple;

And wouldn't solve the problem at Ealing Common anyway.

Another W&C Closure?
 

On 18 Mar, 21:48, "
wrote:
On 18 Mar, 19:02, David of Broadway
wrote:


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



London Rail are talking about it, but in relality it is in the region
of 2025 before it will happen.

Ian

Another W&C Closure?
 

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Jack Taylor wrote:

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)?

Kneeling suspension?

tom

--
Destroy - kill all hippies.

Another W&C Closure?
 

asdf wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:34:07 +0000, Clive D. W. Feather 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.

Actually, it can help because of the longer headways needed at
stations. Put simply, when you work out the numbers you find that
the minimum possible time between trains is longer at stations
than between them. With two platforms you can negate this to some
extent because one train can be running in to the station with the
previous one still departing; with one platform, you can't let the
second train in until the first has cleared the overlap.

Admittedly, in this case you then run into the bottleneck again at
Hammersmith, but having the lower headways at Acton gives you more
robustness.

It's more significant than that - driver changes take place at
Acton, which means dwell time there is often longer than at
Hammersmith (etc).

Two comments on that:

1. If driver changes were properly managed, there would be no need for
longer dwell times. Some of the current changes are decidedly
leisurely, even when the new driver is already on the platform when the
train arrives.

2. In my experience, full use of the platform capacity isn't always
made, causing westbound trains to crawl through Turnham Green in the
queue to enter Acton Town. It's ludicrous that a station with extra
platform capacity should be a bottleneck.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Another W&C Closure?
 

On 20 Mar, 16:50, "Ian Rivett" wrote:

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

London Rail are talking about it, but in relality it is in the region
of 2025 before it will happen.


Based on what? It's hardly a project of Crossrail complexity...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org