On Jul 13, 10:57 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Charles Ellson" wrote in message

...

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:31:08 -0700, MIG
wrote:
Just what I was thinking, but then I thought "Don't say anything ...
any plan to replace 313s and 508s must be encouraged".

Unfortunately, about the only thing that is more uncomfortable than a
313 on the DC line is a tube train.

Ever since I first heard this, I wondered if passengers really want, or
need, tube stock all the way out to Watford Junction, given the competing
County service for 'whole route' travel. What are the loadings like on the
upper reaches of the DC lines anyway - and is it possible TfL's drive for
high frequency tube style services could get a bit carried away?

TfL are pretty much obligated to provide a service to Watford anyway,
so I think the idea is that sending Bakerloo Line trains up is cheaper
than running a whole separate operation.

If the 378s (4 car of courses) are in use for an intervening few years, with
main line size, comfort, speed and acceleration; are tube trains, even fully
refurbished, really going to cut it?

The jump from 3 to 6 trains an hour should be fair compensation.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:57:56 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:


"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:31:08 -0700, MIG
wrote:

Just what I was thinking, but then I thought "Don't say anything ...
any plan to replace 313s and 508s must be encouraged".

Unfortunately, about the only thing that is more uncomfortable than a
313 on the DC line is a tube train.

Ever since I first heard this, I wondered if passengers really want, or
need, tube stock all the way out to Watford Junction, given the competing
County service for 'whole route' travel. What are the loadings like on the
upper reaches of the DC lines anyway - and is it possible TfL's drive for
high frequency tube style services could get a bit carried away?

Any time I have been down that way the non-rush hour loadings of the
tube trains on the DC line hardly seem to exceed about a dozen people
by the time they reach Harrow. Overall, I would have seen more sense
in the new "Overground" services running to WJ and continuing to cover
the current services into Euston with the Bakerloo services staying as
they are or even reduced. In the past my impression was that outwith
the rush-hours most of the passengers joining the DC line via the
Bakerloo Line had left at the intervening three stations by the time
the trains reached Stonebridge Park.

If the 378s (4 car of courses) are in use for an intervening few years, with
main line size, comfort, speed and acceleration; are tube trains, even fully
refurbished, really going to cut it?

Barry Salter wrote:
Jack Taylor wrote:
Mojo wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but what signaling problems would affect the
use of SDO, such as not releasing the doors in the rear coach?

Sorry, I wasn't very clear on that, was I? Willesden Junction will
only hold three cars. With four car units it would not be possible
to pull forward such that the inner sets of doors in the leading and
trailing cars were at the platform and the other sets cut out
because of the position of the station starting signal at the end
of the platform. Either that would need to be relocated or
otherwise both sets of doors on the rear car would have to be cut
out (as that would be off the platform) - not very desirable or
customer friendly.
The Rules of the Plan give the following platform lengths for
Willesden Junction:

Low Level: Up and Down platforms - 125m, Bay - 67m
High Level: Eastbound - 55m, Westbound - 72m

I don't know how they worked that out, but that gives a 5 metre
overhang on the Eastbound with a 3 car set if it's accurate!

I did a path measurement on Google Earth for the High Level platform
edges, well actually the yellow lines near the edge, and got exactly
those figures.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Jul 13, 3:24 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

There's no space to run any more trains. They need to be able to run
closer together, which means new signalling and better acceleration/
braking and improved dwell times (eg bigger doors), all of which
points to replacing the stock.



Which is E-X-A-C-T-L-Y why I say the Bakerloo too needs new trains and
not cast offs.

They need to get on with it now not 12 years time.

--
Nick

On Jul 13, 3:57 pm, Charles Ellson wrote:

Any time I have been down that way the non-rush hour loadings of the
tube trains on the DC line hardly seem to exceed about a dozen people

Really IMHO what needs to be done - nay should have been done under
WCML PUG - is abandon the DC out of Euston, convert it to AC and have
a full 6 track railway between Euston and Watford.

--
Nick

On Jul 14, 12:57 am, D7666 wrote:
On Jul 13, 3:57 pm, Charles Ellson wrote:

Any time I have been down that way the non-rush hour loadings of the
tube trains on the DC line hardly seem to exceed about a dozen people

Really IMHO what needs to be done - nay should have been done under
WCML PUG - is abandon the DC out of Euston, convert it to AC and have
a full 6 track railway between Euston and Watford.

Well, it's a nice idea, but not without its problems. Where, for
example, would the Bakerloo terminate?

More realistically, if the bit into Euston is abandoned, and the
Bakerloo runs all the Watford services,it will make life a lot simpler
from an electrical supply point of view.

The line can go over to a proper LT 'floating' 4th rail system, rather
than a 4th bonded to the running rails. That means that Bakerloo
stock no longer needs enhanced insulation on the positive side (though
having Stratford - Queens Park services could present a problem at the
latter) .

It gets rid of the nuisance bits electrified on both AC and DC on the
way into Euston (and on the Down Fast at Watford Jcn), which in turn
makes life simpler for S&T. Probably also an opportunity to optimise
section gaps to suit Tube stock.

As for the reservations about using ex-Victoria Line 1967 stock on the
extended Bakerloo, while it isn't ideal, I'd guess that the fact that
they have spent all their working life (apart from going to the depot
at Northumberland Park) underground may mean that they have lasted
rather better than would otherwise be the case.

On Jul 14, 2:49 am, wrote:
On Jul 14, 12:57 am, D7666 wrote:

On Jul 13, 3:57 pm, Charles Ellson wrote:

Any time I have been down that way the non-rush hour loadings of the
tube trains on the DC line hardly seem to exceed about a dozen people

Really IMHO what needs to be done - nay should have been done under
WCML PUG - is abandon the DC out of Euston, convert it to AC and have
a full 6 track railway between Euston and Watford.

Well, it's a nice idea, but not without its problems. Where, for
example, would the Bakerloo terminate?

More realistically, if the bit into Euston is abandoned, and the
Bakerloo runs all the Watford services,it will make life a lot simpler
from an electrical supply point of view.

The line can go over to a proper LT 'floating' 4th rail system, rather
than a 4th bonded to the running rails. That means that Bakerloo
stock no longer needs enhanced insulation on the positive side (though
having Stratford - Queens Park services could present a problem at the
latter) .

It gets rid of the nuisance bits electrified on both AC and DC on the
way into Euston (and on the Down Fast at Watford Jcn), which in turn
makes life simpler for S&T. Probably also an opportunity to optimise
section gaps to suit Tube stock.

As for the reservations about using ex-Victoria Line 1967 stock on the
extended Bakerloo, while it isn't ideal, I'd guess that the fact that
they have spent all their working life (apart from going to the depot
at Northumberland Park) underground may mean that they have lasted
rather better than would otherwise be the case.


I still think a new crossover between Kilburn and Queen's Park and
reopening the platforms at Queen's Park would allow some kind of semi-
fast services to call Euston, South Hampstead, Kilburn (cross tracks),
Queens Park, Wembley, Harrow, Watford etc. All connection options
would remain instead of two stations losing their connection to
Euston. There would surely be enough paths between Queen's Park and
Chalk Farm to include the NLL services as well.

I don't understand why half of Queen's Park station is currently
abandoned.

As for the Victoria Line stock, it hasn't had to deal with the
horrible bends that exist on the Bakerloo either, so it's probably in
a better condition than a lot of stock. The 313s were never fit for
any purpose, so their age is irrelevant.

On Jul 14, 12:12 am, MIG wrote:

As for the Victoria Line stock, it hasn't had to deal with the
horrible bends that exist on the Bakerloo either, so it's probably in
a better condition than a lot of stock.

Victoria Line stock utilisation is much higher than Bakerloo.

The current SX service is 38/27 peak/off-peak trains with 16286 km
training running timetabled each day. Current Bakerloo is 33/29 peak/
off peak but running only 10541 km.

1967 stock is accumulating mileage and therefore approaching its
fatigue limit at a rate 33% higher than 1972 stock = a 1967 car does
in 3 years what a 1972 car does in 4.

--
Nick

In article ,
(Peter Masson) wrote:

"sweek" wrote

Initially, TfL may substitute the current trains running the
Euston - Watford service (aged Class 313 and Class 508 trains) with
some (modified) stock cascaded from the Victoria line after that line
receives its new trains.

i.e. substituting aged (30-year-old) Class 313 and 508 trains with
modern (40-year old) Victoria line stock.

Not entirely. More like 35 years old. The Victoria Line stock includes
some (3 1/2 trains IIRC) of 1972 stock, but of the first batch while the
main Bakerloo stock is from the second 1972 stock batch.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, sweek wrote:

On 13 Jul, 12:27, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message

h.li...

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, sweek wrote (quoting ATO):

Initially, TfL may substitute the current trains running the Euston -
Watford service (aged Class 313 and Class 508 trains) with some
(modified) stock cascaded from the Victoria line after that line
receives its new trains.

Tube trains running into Euston mainline station? Seriously? Who would
drive them, and how would the line be signalled and electrified?

'sweek' should have put Queens Park where he had Euston.

The Bakerloo line extension to Watford Junction is from Harrow and
Wealdstone, with fewer trains reversing at Queens Park. South of Queens
Park the existing Euston DC line service will be diverted through
Primrose Hill to form a NLR service to Stratford.

It's not my own text but a quote, but in essence it's right. It is the
stock that is qurrently running the Euston - Watford services that would
be replaced by Vic. stock, it just wouldn't run on that whole route
anymore.

Okay, that's what i thought was going to happen. Phew. They way it's
phrased on ATO implies otherwise - it talks about trains being
substituted, which doesn't say anything about a route change.

tom

--
The girlfriend of my friend is my enemy.