Richard J. wrote:
Basil Jet wrote on 13
November 2009 10:46:44 ...
Richard J. wrote:
Basil Jet wrote on 13
November 2009 03:21:14 ...

But if you take David's plan and extend the Edgware Road
terminators back to Hammersmith (i.e. Hamm - KX - Vic - Edg Road -
Hammersmith, running in both directions) then you have ...

... confusion! Since your "extension" is actually a reversal, you
effectively have (a) a Hammersmith - Edgware Road shuttle, (b)
Hammersmith - KX - Vic - Edgware Road in both directions. You now
have two services terminating at Edgware Road, which is what David's
plan was trying to avoid.

No, you would have 12-16 trains an hour reversing without waiting.

Ha ha, very funny. :-)

baffled

The point is that the recovery time would not be at Edgware Road but at
Hammersmith, Wimbledon and Barking etc.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

On 14 Nov, 10:52, asdf wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:14:07 +0800, DW downunder wrote:
I wonder if an acceptable compromise would be to run the Circle as a "Lasso"
instead of a teacup?

In this mode, a train leaving Hammersmith runs via Edgeware Rd, Aldgate, HS
Ken, Edgeware Rd, Aldgate, HS Ken to terminate at Edgeware Rd. At Aldgate,
the trains terminating at Edgeware Rd change blind from "Circle" to
"Edgeware Rd".

In general, how does this sound as a "Plan B", Folks?

Something similar was trialled one weekend a while back (combining the
Circle and H&C into a service that runs Hammersmith - Edgware Road -
one loop of the Circle - Barking), and they decided it didn't work out
because the end-to-end running time was too long. (I never understood
why this was such a problem, as the current Circle end-to-end running
time is "infinite".)

I never understood that either, nor the lack of terminus, nor the lack
of depot. All spurious, but were they actually claimed by TfL or just
suggested in forums?

I guess that the limitations are the flat junctions (going nowhere)
and the current fleet sizes of appropriate length.

I am not convinced of the need for increased frequency to Hammersmith,
and wonder if it was just a consequence.

With the new stock and a chance to rearrange fleets (or maybe even
with current fleets), I think a better balance would be to

* keep Hammersmith frequency as it is, sending all round the teacup to
Edgware Road
* send Metropolitans to Barking (there being a better route to there
from Hammersmith)
* extend Wimbles to Aldgate

That could leave all frequencies pretty much as they are, but with
neat termini for everything and all interchanges retained.

If really necessary for serving Westworld, stick in a Hammersmith to
Edgware Road shuttle as well.

Basil Jet wrote on 14 November
2009 14:37:48 ...
Richard J. wrote:
Basil Jet wrote on 13
November 2009 10:46:44 ...
Richard J. wrote:
Basil Jet wrote on 13
November 2009 03:21:14 ...

But if you take David's plan and extend the Edgware Road
terminators back to Hammersmith (i.e. Hamm - KX - Vic - Edg Road -
Hammersmith, running in both directions) then you have ...

... confusion! Since your "extension" is actually a reversal, you
effectively have (a) a Hammersmith - Edgware Road shuttle, (b)
Hammersmith - KX - Vic - Edgware Road in both directions. You now
have two services terminating at Edgware Road, which is what David's
plan was trying to avoid.

No, you would have 12-16 trains an hour reversing without waiting.
Ha ha, very funny. :-)

baffled

Oh, I thought it was a competition to find the most impracticable
alternative to LU's plan. But if you're serious ...

"Reversing without waiting" implies stepping back, otherwise you'd have
to wait for the driver to walk the length of the train. Stepping back
two different services at one station would be seriously challenging,
especially if you're trying to do it within a normal dwell time, or in
practice probably 1½ minutes. LU aren't very successful with driver
changes in mid-route, e.g. Acton Town.

If the Wimbleware and Circle services both run at 6 tph in each
direction, you'll have 18 reversers per hour at Edgware Road (6
Wimbleware, 6 Hammersmith to inner rail, and 6 outer rail to
Hammersmith), not "12-16".

The point is that the recovery time would not be at Edgware Road but at
Hammersmith, Wimbledon and Barking etc.

Yes, that's the problem! If you don't provide any recovery time at
Edgware Road, any delay in one direction will automatically disrupt the
other direction too, partly because a late arrival at Edgware Road will
become a late departure, but also because conflicting moves at the
crossovers at Edgware Road and at Praed Street Junction will worsen the
delays. In other words, the reliability of the Circle Line will suffer
from the same problems that occur today.

Ensuring step-free changes at Edgware Road would probably become more
difficult too.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

In message
, MIG
writes

I am not convinced of the need for increased frequency to Hammersmith,
and wonder if it was just a consequence.

Passenger numbers at Hammersmith (H&C) rose from 6.8 million in 2007 to
9.2 million in 2008 - the new total is pretty much the same as those who
used Heathrow Terminals 1,2,3 and 4 combined. Compare the Northern Line
terminus at Morden, which sees only 6.65 million.

--
Paul Terry

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

With the new stock and a chance to rearrange fleets (or maybe even
with current fleets), I think a better balance would be to

* keep Hammersmith frequency as it is, sending all round the teacup to
Edgware Road
* send Metropolitans to Barking (there being a better route to there
from Hammersmith)
* extend Wimbles to Aldgate

That could leave all frequencies pretty much as they are, but with
neat termini for everything and all interchanges retained.

If really necessary for serving Westworld, stick in a Hammersmith to
Edgware Road shuttle as well.

Is there the capacity East of Baker Street to accommodate the extra trains
from Wimbledon? I doubt it.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 14 Nov, 23:47, wrote:
In article
,

(MIG) wrote:
With the new stock and a chance to rearrange fleets (or maybe even
with current fleets), I think a better balance would be to

* keep Hammersmith frequency as it is, sending all round the teacup to
Edgware Road
* send Metropolitans to Barking (there being a better route to there
from Hammersmith)
* extend Wimbles to Aldgate

That could leave all frequencies pretty much as they are, but with
neat termini for everything and all interchanges retained.

If really necessary for serving Westworld, stick in a Hammersmith to
Edgware Road shuttle as well.

Is there the capacity East of Baker Street to accommodate the extra trains
from Wimbledon? I doubt it.


They wouldn't be extra. Now you have Hammersmith, Circle and
Metropolitan. Instead you'd have Teacup, Metropolitan and Wimble.

On 14 Nov, 19:30, Paul Terry wrote:
In message
, MIG
writes

I am not convinced of the need for increased frequency to Hammersmith,
and wonder if it was just a consequence.

Passenger numbers at Hammersmith (H&C) rose from 6.8 million in 2007 to
9.2 million in 2008 - the new total is pretty much the same as those who
used Heathrow Terminals 1,2,3 and 4 combined. Compare the Northern Line
terminus at Morden, which sees only 6.65 million.

Add an alternating Hammersmith - Edgware Road shuttle then*. Even
with increased demand on the Hammersmith line used to justify the
current proposal, I don't see why it outweighs the impossible demands
that will be put on Paddington and Edgware Road and the loss of
convenient routes round the top left corner of the Circle. Sometimes
the cure is worse than the disease.


*No more terminating than in the Teacup proposal, but without the need
to worry about platforms, because both Hammersmith and Wimble would
offer some through trains for those who need them.

Richard J. wrote:
Basil Jet wrote on 14
November 2009 14:37:48 ...
Richard J. wrote:
Basil Jet wrote on 13
November 2009 10:46:44 ...
Richard J. wrote:
Basil Jet wrote on 13
November 2009 03:21:14 ...

But if you take David's plan and extend the Edgware Road
terminators back to Hammersmith (i.e. Hamm - KX - Vic - Edg Road
- Hammersmith, running in both directions) then you have ...

... confusion! Since your "extension" is actually a reversal, you
effectively have (a) a Hammersmith - Edgware Road shuttle, (b)
Hammersmith - KX - Vic - Edgware Road in both directions. You now
have two services terminating at Edgware Road, which is what
David's plan was trying to avoid.

No, you would have 12-16 trains an hour reversing without waiting.
Ha ha, very funny. :-)

baffled

Oh, I thought it was a competition to find the most impracticable
alternative to LU's plan. But if you're serious ...

"Reversing without waiting" implies stepping back, otherwise you'd
have to wait for the driver to walk the length of the train. Stepping back
two different services at one station would be
seriously challenging, especially if you're trying to do it within a
normal dwell time, or in practice probably 1½ minutes. LU aren't
very successful with driver changes in mid-route, e.g. Acton Town.

If the Wimbleware and Circle services both run at 6 tph in each
direction, you'll have 18 reversers per hour at Edgware Road (6
Wimbleware, 6 Hammersmith to inner rail, and 6 outer rail to
Hammersmith), not "12-16".

You have misunderstood twice. I said ...

you have the same frequencies on every stretch of track as
LUL's plan here
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...ce-Changes.pdf ,

.... and I said ...

The pink line would need a new name and would run from Barking
to Wimbledon via Edgware Road.

i.e. There would be no trains from Wimbledon terminating at Edgware Road. In
fact there would be no trains terminating at Edgware Road at all, just
reversers between Royal Oak and Bayswater.

The point is that the recovery time would not be at Edgware Road but
at Hammersmith, Wimbledon and Barking etc.

Yes, that's the problem! If you don't provide any recovery time at
Edgware Road, any delay in one direction will automatically disrupt
the other direction too, partly because a late arrival at Edgware
Road will become a late departure, but also because conflicting moves
at the crossovers at Edgware Road and at Praed Street Junction will
worsen the delays. In other words, the reliability of the Circle
Line will suffer from the same problems that occur today.

No - The Circle's problem is that the whole circle only has something like 3
minutes recovery time, so a ten minute delay would take three whole circuits
to catch up, even without missing slots at flat junctions. (Am I right in
thinking Circle trains have priority at flat junctions? If they don't, then
that would help a lot without changing any lines.)

Ensuring step-free changes at Edgware Road would probably become more
difficult too.

No-one would need to change at Edgware Road, unless services were disrupted.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

Basil Jet wrote on 15 November
2009 15:35:17 ...
Richard J. wrote:
Basil Jet wrote on 14
November 2009 14:37:48 ...
Richard J. wrote:
Basil Jet wrote on 13
November 2009 10:46:44 ...
Richard J. wrote:
Basil Jet wrote on 13
November 2009 03:21:14 ...

But if you take David's plan and extend the Edgware Road
terminators back to Hammersmith (i.e. Hamm - KX - Vic - Edg Road
- Hammersmith, running in both directions) then you have ...

... confusion! Since your "extension" is actually a reversal, you
effectively have (a) a Hammersmith - Edgware Road shuttle, (b)
Hammersmith - KX - Vic - Edgware Road in both directions. You now
have two services terminating at Edgware Road, which is what
David's plan was trying to avoid.

No, you would have 12-16 trains an hour reversing without waiting.

Ha ha, very funny. :-)

baffled

Oh, I thought it was a competition to find the most impracticable
alternative to LU's plan. But if you're serious ...

"Reversing without waiting" implies stepping back, otherwise you'd
have to wait for the driver to walk the length of the train. Stepping back
two different services at one station would be
seriously challenging, especially if you're trying to do it within a
normal dwell time, or in practice probably 1½ minutes. LU aren't
very successful with driver changes in mid-route, e.g. Acton Town.

[At this point my previous post got careless, as you've pointed out. Sorry.]

The point is that the recovery time would not be at Edgware Road but
at Hammersmith, Wimbledon and Barking etc.

Yes, that's the problem! If you don't provide any recovery time at
Edgware Road, any delay in one direction will automatically disrupt
the other direction too, partly because a late arrival at Edgware
Road will become a late departure, but also because conflicting moves
at the crossovers at Edgware Road and at Praed Street Junction will
worsen the delays. In other words, the reliability of the Circle
Line will suffer from the same problems that occur today.

No - The Circle's problem is that the whole circle only has something like 3
minutes recovery time, so a ten minute delay would take three whole circuits
to catch up, even without missing slots at flat junctions.

Yes, I know that, but reversing without a layover doesn't help - see my
comments above.

(Am I right in thinking Circle trains have priority at flat junctions? If they don't,
then that would help a lot without changing any lines.)

Should an outer rail Circle train at Gloucester Road get priority over
an eastbound District? I would have thought the delay to the latter
would affect more passengers. Neither service appears to get priority
at that location at present.

Ensuring step-free changes at Edgware Road would probably become more
difficult too.

No-one would need to change at Edgware Road, unless services were disrupted.

I assume you mean that people could change at another station and/or
wait for a through train. I suppose it's no worse that the current
situation.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

In message of Tue, 10
Nov 2009 18:02:31 in uk.transport.london,
writes

[snip]

This would also appear to be because the Journey Planner thinks there will
still be a Circle Line service from king's Cross to High St Kensington on
14 December! Bloody useless!

I phoned LU CSC after reading Colin's posting. The clerk got back to me
the next day to say the data would be loaded this week. The good news is
that there is now data reflecting the increased H&C frequency on
stations west of Paddington. The bad news is that about 5 minutes
journey time has been added between Royal Oak and Moorgate.

http://journeyplanner.tfl.gov.uk/use...language=en&se
ssionID=0&ptOptionsActive=-1&type_destination=stop&name_destination=MOOR
GATE&type_origin=stop&name_origin=royal%20oak&itdD ate=20091118&itdTime=9
54&itdTripDateTimeDepArr=arr

uses the current data on 20091118 and shows 8-9 minute headways and
journeys of 19-20 minutes.
http://journeyplanner.tfl.gov.uk/use...language=en&se
ssionID=0&ptOptionsActive=-1&type_destination=stop&name_destination=MOOR
GATE&type_origin=stop&name_origin=royal%20oak&itdD ate=20091218&itdTime=9
54&itdTripDateTimeDepArr=arr

is the same enquiry on 20091218 and shows 5 minute headways and journeys
of 26-27 minutes.
Both are weekday enquiries at the same time.
YMMV. I have sometimes found journey planner enquiries are not
repeatable. I say nothing about the service.

(A minimum change Bayswater - Baker Street journey on 20091218 shows as
costing 56 minutes.

I guess I shall be back on the phone, tomorrow.
(LUCSC staffs its phones 08.00-20.00)
--
Walter Briscoe