In message , at 22:29:59 on Thu, 5
Mar 2009, Peter Smyth remarked:
So Paddington (Circle line station) to KX will *always* require a
change of train at Edgware Rd. Clockwise, anyway.

Yes, but anyone going from Paddington east should use the H&C platforms
which will have an increased frequency.

But isn't step-free. Not even close. My most frequent usage is
Heathrow-Paddington-KX, and clockwise is step free.

To preserve that really *does* need a x-platform interchange at Edgware
Rd.

In case you are wondering, when I'm going out from Heathrow I'd normally
have stayed overnight at an airport hotel, and so getting the Piccadilly
from KX is step free, and not too inconveniently slow.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:

There will be no regular
through service between the west and north of the circle, but
passengers are being promised cross platform interchange. Also
flagged as a positive is that there is a depot on the line route
(the Circle lacks one).

How exactly? If we're travelling from King's Cross to East Putney with my
toddler granddaughter and a buggy, the only half reasonable route now is
Circle to Paddington, then Wimbleware. That gives a sure same platform
connection.

If the first train at King's Cross is a Hammersmith and City then we have
to change at Edgware Road where there seems to be quite a high chance of
having to hump the buggy over the bridge.

In the other direction you don't even know whether to chance it for a
cross-platform change at Edgware Road or bail out at Paddington (in fact
anywhere between High St and Paddington)

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Peter Smyth) wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:22:56 on
Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Peter Smyth remarked:
6tph Hammersmith - Barking
6tph Hammersmith - Edgware Road - Aldgate - Victoria - Edgware Road

So Paddington (Circle line station) to KX will *always* require a
change of train at Edgware Rd. Clockwise, anyway.

Yes, but anyone going from Paddington east should use the H&C
platforms which will have an increased frequency.

No use from the Wimbledon branch.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, MIG wrote:

On Mar 5, 9:10*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"David Jackman" pleasereplytogroup wrote in message

. 109.145...

which has been reported by the Standard as

"From December, Circle line trains will start in Hammersmith, run
along the current Hammersmith & City line to Edgware Road and then do
a clockwise lap of the Circle line and head back to Hammersmith. They
would then do the journey anti-clockwise."

A very similar mistaken description to the last time the Standard ran
the story a few months back. *IIRC was discussed here at the time...

Identical nonsense in The London Paper I noticed.

Anyway, I really can't see Edgware Road being workable with the number
of crossing movements.

With 12 tph coming from Hammersmith (6 H&C, 6 Lasso), and going the other
way, and 12 tph coming from Notting Hill Gate (6 Lasso, 6 Wimbleware),
you've got 12 vs 12, which means, under ideal conditions, a five-minute
gap between successive Hammersmith-bound trains, through which you have to
fit the NHG-originating trains - every five minutes, all day, and vice
versa!

I think it's currently 7.5 tph H&C, 7.5 tph Circle, and something like 6
tph Wimbleware (?), which pits 13.5 against 7.5. As long as you can hold
the westbound H&Cs at Edgware Road (which you can, due to there being two
roads through it), that gives you 13.5 4-minute slots an hour into which
to fit 7.5 trains. That sounds like it should be easier.

The proximity to the reverse at Edgware Road means that anything which
clobbers a train coming into the bay (from NHG) has the potential to
affect trains doing the reverse, which since they share the line with the
trains going to Hammersmith, means that you could, i think, get some kind
of self-reinforcing cyclone of disaster. The spare slots in the current
scheme effectively mitigate this.

And for the punters, you'd never know which side of the bridge to run to
to get to the Notting Hill direction (bad enough now).

Given that cross-platform change is only 50 : 50 anyway,

According to Quail, there is a trailing crossover to the *east* of the
platforms. If a train's length of outer rail to the east of that was made
reversible, then you could send all reversing trains into platform 2, with
cross-platform change to platform 1 for trains to King's Cross, then carry
on eastward and reverse them via the reversible patch and the crossover
into platform 3, where they could pick up passengers cross-platform from
westbound H&C trains. That would deliver the promised cross-platform
interchange. It would also involve reversing trains on the bit of track
that 12 tph of trains from Hammersmith are trying to use to get to King's
Cross, but there you go. If that bit could be tripled, problem solved!

the only way I could see it working would be with major remodelling (two
new crossovers?) so that terminating trains could use the island
platform 3/4 and trains to/from Hammersmith on the other side. At least
you'd always know where to stand.

I think you'd need one new scissors crossover, to the west of the
divergence of the lines heading round each side of the islands. Or two
single crossovers and two bits of reversible line, but that would be very
painful.

What you really want is to widen the bit from the junction to the station
to four tracks, so trains can use platforms as you describe without any
crossing at all.

Well, what you *really* want is a flying junction. And four tracks. And
tripling to the east to make a reversing siding:


/-------------\
----------/ ###### \
Ham /-------------+----+--
/ / KX
---)/(------------+-+---------
/ /----\ ###### /
--/ / \------/
NHG /
--/

That gives you a completely conflict-free, cross-platform solution. You'd
have to demolish a good chunk of Paddington to do it, but that would then
also give you the chance to construct a large stick, on which the moon
could be mounted (for those who remember Fist of Fun).

tom

--
i'm prepared to do anything as long as someone else works out how to do
it and gives me simple instructions... -- Sean

"Paul Scott" wrote in news:8J-
:

So just who actually brought 'Lasso' into it?

"Insiders".

I still prefer "tea-cup line"...

Peter Smyth wrote:

The Metropolitan line will still go to Aldgate as present. The planned
service is

6tph Hammersmith - Barking
6tph Hammersmith - Edgware Road - Aldgate - Victoria - Edgware Road
6tph Uxbridge - Aldgate
6tph Wimbledon - Edgware Road

So the Circle, always crowded, will get less frequent... and the Hammersmith
branch, always roomy[1], gets a doubling of frequency. Has anyone said why
this is happening? The stuff about the Circle lacking a depot could be
solved by running Hammersmith - Edgware Road - Aldgate - Victoria - Edgware
Road - Barking at approximately the current frequency.

[1] before Westfield.... haven't used it since.

"John Rowland" wrote in
:

Subject: The "Lasso Line"
From: "John Rowland"
Newsgroups: uk.transport.london

Peter Smyth wrote:

The Metropolitan line will still go to Aldgate as present. The planned
service is

6tph Hammersmith - Barking
6tph Hammersmith - Edgware Road - Aldgate - Victoria - Edgware Road
6tph Uxbridge - Aldgate
6tph Wimbledon - Edgware Road

So the Circle, always crowded, will get less frequent...

It will? Isn't the Circle 6tph at the moment?

In message of Thu, 5 Mar 2009 22:39:38 in
uk.transport.london, Roland Perry writes
In message , at 22:29:59 on Thu, 5
Mar 2009, Peter Smyth remarked:
So Paddington (Circle line station) to KX will *always* require a
change of train at Edgware Rd. Clockwise, anyway.

Yes, but anyone going from Paddington east should use the H&C
platforms which will have an increased frequency.

But isn't step-free. Not even close. My most frequent usage is
Heathrow-Paddington-KX, and clockwise is step free.

Only if you count escalators as step-free.

http://directenquiries.com/stationdi...Detail&Title=N
ational+Rail+(Platforms+1+to+8)+-+Entrance+to+Ticket+Hall&did=0218-003042
0_E2H&level=3 shows either 21 steps or an escalator down.

I reckon step-free as equivalent to wheelchair-accessible.

OTOH
http://directenquiries.com/stationdi...Detail&Title=T
he+Lawns+%26+National+Rail+-+Entrance+to+Ticket+Hall&did=0218-0030439_E2H
&level=3 IS step-free. I had not clocked that access. I will check it
out when I next visit Paddington. It is not mentioned in the January
2009 Step-free Tube guide which is available in large paper, small paper
and online at
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/step-free-tube-guide-index.pdf
and
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/step-free-tube-guide-map.pdf.

I very much value this thread. I clocked "END OF THE CIRCLE LINE" (sic),
displayed on the first page of "LONDON LITE" (sic) on the ITV London
News program and went out into the cold for a copy. I am much more
informed than I was by the paper.
--
Walter Briscoe

On Mar 6, 1:02*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, MIG wrote:
On Mar 5, 9:10*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"David Jackman" pleasereplytogroup wrote in message

6.109.145...

which has been reported by the Standard as

"From December, Circle line trains will start in Hammersmith, run
along the current Hammersmith & City line to Edgware Road and then do
a clockwise lap of the Circle line and head back to Hammersmith. They
would then do the journey anti-clockwise."

A very similar mistaken description to the last time the Standard ran
the story a few months back. *IIRC was discussed here at the time...

Identical nonsense in The London Paper I noticed.

Anyway, I really can't see Edgware Road being workable with the number
of crossing movements.

With 12 tph coming from Hammersmith (6 H&C, 6 Lasso), and going the other
way, and 12 tph coming from Notting Hill Gate (6 Lasso, 6 Wimbleware),
you've got 12 vs 12, which means, under ideal conditions, a five-minute
gap between successive Hammersmith-bound trains, through which you have to
fit the NHG-originating trains - every five minutes, all day, and vice
versa!

I think it's currently 7.5 tph H&C, 7.5 tph Circle, and something like 6
tph Wimbleware (?), which pits 13.5 against 7.5. As long as you can hold
the westbound H&Cs at Edgware Road (which you can, due to there being two
roads through it), that gives you 13.5 4-minute slots an hour into which
to fit 7.5 trains. That sounds like it should be easier.

The proximity to the reverse at Edgware Road means that anything which
clobbers a train coming into the bay (from NHG) has the potential to
affect trains doing the reverse, which since they share the line with the
trains going to Hammersmith, means that you could, i think, get some kind
of self-reinforcing cyclone of disaster. The spare slots in the current
scheme effectively mitigate this.

And for the punters, you'd never know which side of the bridge to run to
to get to the Notting Hill direction (bad enough now).

Given that cross-platform change is only 50 : 50 anyway,

According to Quail, there is a trailing crossover to the *east* of the
platforms. If a train's length of outer rail to the east of that was made
reversible, then you could send all reversing trains into platform 2, with
cross-platform change to platform 1 for trains to King's Cross, then carry
on eastward and reverse them via the reversible patch and the crossover
into platform 3, where they could pick up passengers cross-platform from
westbound H&C trains. That would deliver the promised cross-platform
interchange. It would also involve reversing trains on the bit of track
that 12 tph of trains from Hammersmith are trying to use to get to King's
Cross, but there you go. If that bit could be tripled, problem solved!

the only way I could see it working would be with major remodelling (two
new crossovers?) so that terminating trains could use the island
platform 3/4 and trains to/from Hammersmith on the other side. *At least
you'd always know where to stand.

I think you'd need one new scissors crossover, to the west of the
divergence of the lines heading round each side of the islands. Or two
single crossovers and two bits of reversible line, but that would be very
painful.

What you really want is to widen the bit from the junction to the station
to four tracks, so trains can use platforms as you describe without any
crossing at all.

Well, what you *really* want is a flying junction. And four tracks. And
tripling to the east to make a reversing siding:

* * * * * * * * */-------------\
* * *----------/ ###### * * * *\
Ham * * * */-------------+----+--
* * * * * */ * * * * * * / * * * * * *KX
* * *---)/(------------+-+---------
* * * * */ /----\ ###### /
* * *--/ / * * *\------/
NHG * * /
* * *--/

That gives you a completely conflict-free, cross-platform solution. You'd
have to demolish a good chunk of Paddington to do it, but that would then
also give you the chance to construct a large stick, on which the moon
could be mounted (for those who remember Fist of Fun).


I still think that putting the moon on a stick is probably easier than
getting the proposal to work. I give it six weeks of chaos before
they revert to the current pattern.

On Mar 6, 9:22*am, MIG wrote:
I still think that putting the moon on a stick is probably easier than
getting the proposal to work. *I give it six weeks of chaos before
they revert to the current pattern.

Could it be any worse than the current circle line? From my limited
experience the circle line simply doesn't work in the rush hour. If
its not delayed its only because its not running at all.

B2003