Northern Line extension to Battersea proposed

[mackenziesoley]

Originally Posted by State of London

I guess it is only practical if there is a need for further capacity for the Northern Line after the current plans for upgrades...

After the proposed spilt you could be seeing 32tph compared to the current 24tph. Big leap.

Hold on, why can't the 96s remain on the Jubilee considering they are 7-car (unlike the 6-car 95s)?

So why can't some extra 95s go to the Jubilee with some 95s going to the Bakerloo and the rest being stored (and cars taken from them to extend the JL 95s to 7-AR)?

Because although the 95ts & 95ts share the same bodies doesn't make them the same train. Technically they are very different trains. Having to different fleets means you have to carry many more additional parts. Things like motors etc.

What about cutting back the Bakerloo Line to Queens Park and increase the frequency of the LO Euston-Watford Junction services to compensate?

Because Queens Park can't handle terminating EVERY Bakerloo train there. Plus the extra money for the additional 378, you'd be looking at something like 4-6 units at £7m a unit.

[State of London]

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

After the proposed spilt you could be seeing 32tph compared to the current 24tph. Big leap.

Fair enough...

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

Because although the 95ts & 95ts share the same bodies doesn't make them the same train. Technically they are very different trains. Having to different fleets means you have to carry many more additional parts. Things like motors etc.

That is the big problem, it is no longer pratical to order new 95s and 96s.

Preahaps most of the 95s could be moved to the JL, with the rest being stored for the purpose of extending the operating 95s to 7-car, maybe then will the 96s be moved to the Bakerloo

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

Because Queens Park can't handle terminating EVERY Bakerloo train there. Plus the extra money for the additional 378, you'd be looking at something like 4-6 units at £7m a unit.

So why did Queen's Park did in the past?

Besides 378s are more suitable (and better) then 72s between Queens Park and beyond because the line was designed for BR trains...

[mackenziesoley]

Originally Posted by State of London

That is the big problem, it is no longer pratical to order new 95s and 96s.

However TfL is mulling over whether or not to do this. But perhaps you didn't read this?

Originally Posted by Tubeman

What I'd heard was New fleet for the Northern, '95 cascaded to Jubilee, '96 cascaded to Bakerloo, '72 scrapped.

This this affect your thinking?

Preahaps most of the 95s could be moved to the JL, with the rest being stored for the purpose of extending the operating 95s to 7-car, maybe then will the 96s be moved to the Bakerloo

Then there this..

Originally Posted by Tubeman

Bakerloo needs around 35 trains for the current timetable, Jubilee 60, Northern 100... you need about 10% margin of spare stock to allow for overhaul, defects, etc.

There 106 95ts, easily sorted to provide Jubilee with enough trains.

So why did Queen's Park did in the past?

Besides 378s are more suitable (and better) then 72s between Queens Park and beyond because the line was designed for BR trains...

Because there were far less people travelling meant it was easier to deal with. To achieve a Bakerloo terminus at Queens Park would need a total rebuild with at least three platforms. Elephant & castle already limits the line with two platform terminus, doing the same on the north end would make it very difficult in times of disruption to reform the service.

How are the 378 more suitable? Please don't reply with just an opinion. And why is your answer always build more Electrostar? Don't forget that Electrostars are considered last generation now by Bombardier. In this case we're talking about having the 96ts on the Bakerloo so why are you comparing them to a fleet we're talking about scrapping?

Your argument of designed for mainline stock is not valid. Many parts of the Tube were designed for main line stock and work perfectly happy as the Tube.

[State of London]

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

Because there were far less people travelling meant it was easier to deal with. To achieve a Bakerloo terminus at Queens Park would need a total rebuild with at least three platforms. Elephant & castle already limits the line with two platform terminus, doing the same on the north end would make it very difficult in times of disruption to reform the service.

Alright you have a point...

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

How are the 378 more suitable? Please don't reply with just an opinion. And why is your answer always build more Electrostar? Don't forget that Electrostars are considered last generation now by Bombardier. In this case we're talking about having the 96ts on the Bakerloo so why are you comparing them to a fleet we're talking about scrapping?

The 378s have more space and capacity then both the 72 and 96, plus in the case of the 72, the interior is much more pleasent.

Also unlike either train, AC can be added...

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

Your argument of designed for mainline stock is not valid. Many parts of the Tube were designed for main line stock and work perfectly happy as the Tube.

The Watford DC line was first used by Mainline Trains, the Bakerloo came after, since there is no benefit running Tube Trains nor any loading gauge limitations, why should Tube trains run on routes best served by BR trains?

[Jon10]

Originally Posted by State of London

The Watford DC line was first used by Mainline Trains, the Bakerloo came after, since there is no benefit running Tube Trains nor any loading gauge limitations, why should Tube trains run on routes best served by BR trains?

I think the DC line dates back to 1913, when it was built for both sizes of train. The big ones only used the whole of the current DC lines into Euston from 1922, due to a little problem with the Kaiser.



metromapart.blogspot.co.uk/2008_04_01_archive.html


I don't expect the Stonebridge Park Bakerloo train depot to be going anywhere, so you could run Bakerloo trains to Stonebridge Park, to turn out passengers there as well.

In peak hours and during football match days, you could run Bakerloo trains one extra station, to one or two terminal platforms on the right-hand side of Wembley Central. The depot could then be accessed from the north.

Passengers travelling further than Wembley could be asked to change at Stonebridge Park, for a following big train, to make it easier for themselves.

[State of London]

Originally Posted by Jon10

I don't expect the Stonebridge Park Bakerloo train depot to be going anywhere, so you could run Bakerloo trains to Stonebridge Park, to turn out passengers there as well.

In peak hours and during football match days, you could run Bakerloo trains one extra station, to one or two terminal platforms on the right-hand side of Wembley Central. The depot could then be accessed from the north.

Passengers travelling further than Wembley could be asked to change at Stonebridge Park, for a following big train, to make it easier for themselves.

Why not expand the depot at Queens Park?

Other than that it is a very good idea...

[mackenziesoley]

Originally Posted by State of London

Alright you have a point...

Thank you.

The 378s have more space and capacity then both the 72 and 96, plus in the case of the 72, the interior is much more pleasent.

Are you so sure? According to TfL the 96ts can handle 817 where a crush loaded 8 car 377 is 726.

As for interior, well that's a very subject. Only air con alters it into its favour.

Also unlike either train, AC can be added...

And there no current plan to AC the DC Lines so your point off track.....

The Watford DC line was first used by Mainline Trains, the Bakerloo came after, since there is no benefit running Tube Trains nor any loading gauge limitations, why should Tube trains run on routes best served by BR trains?

That's ignore my point completely. No reason why the Tube can't serve a railway perfectly fine. As for no benefits, well new signaling system could allow far more trains to run. Along with a evo generation stock could mean air con so your talk of Tube not comparing is out the window.

BTW BR haven't run a train in years so I think your confused.

[Tubeman]

Originally Posted by State of London

Hold on, why can't the 96s remain on the Jubilee considering they are 7-car (unlike the 6-car 95s)?

Sorry did you not read my post?

1) The 1996 stock fleet is insufficient for future Jubilee requirements
2) It is very much desirable to keep uniform fleets on each line
3) 1972 MkI stock are ancient

Originally Posted by State of London

So why can't some extra 95s go to the Jubilee with some 95s going to the Bakerloo and the rest being stored (and cars taken from them to extend the JL 95s to 7-AR)?

Bakerloo is 7 car, so just cascading the entire '96 fleet there is minimum fuss... but yes the 6 car '95 fleet will need to be partially cannibalised to create a fleet of 7 car trains. This is the flaw, at best you could only get 70 x 7 car trains (106 - 70 = 36, so 72 available trailer cars for use as 7th cars).

Originally Posted by State of London

What about cutting back the Bakerloo Line to Queens Park and increase the frequency of the LO Euston-Watford Junction services to compensate?

Possible, but a slight loss of capacity (7 car Bakerloo trains lost in favour of 4/5 car Overground), and I think that long term Overground would be diverted away from Euston, so potentially no direct trains to zone 1 from the DC lines.

[Glom]

I don't like the idea of withdrawing the Capitalstars from the DC line. They're a much better way to travel further out than using tube stock. Besides, the loving restoration of stations like Hatch End have had the LO motif incorporated into it so it will start to cause clashing if they became tube only.

Since TfL have started agitating for control of metro services of other franchises, it is clear that LO are fine to continue to operate into the terminals.

[State of London]

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

Are you so sure? According to TfL the 96ts can handle 817 where a crush loaded 8 car 377 is 726.

I was talking about a Class 378 consisting of 5-6 cars

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

And there no current plan to AC the DC Lines so your point off track.....

I was talking about Air Con.

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

That's ignore my point completely. No reason why the Tube can't serve a railway perfectly fine. As for no benefits, well new signaling system could allow far more trains to run. Along with a evo generation stock could mean air con so your talk of Tube not comparing is out the window.

The "new signaling system" can apply to BR Trains, The Bakerloo is not looking like it will get Evo stock and lastly even if it did a mainline train will still have more space for passengers than any tube sized stock...

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

BTW BR haven't run a train in years so I think your confused.

I was talking about the former network...

Originally Posted by Tubeman

Sorry did you not read my post?

1) The 1996 stock fleet is insufficient for future Jubilee requirements
2) It is very much desirable to keep uniform fleets on each line
3) 1972 MkI stock are ancient

I understood what you meant, I just saw some issues with that proposal...

Originally Posted by Tubeman

Bakerloo is 7 car, so just cascading the entire '96 fleet there is minimum fuss... but yes the 6 car '95 fleet will need to be partially cannibalised to create a fleet of 7 car trains. This is the flaw, at best you could only get 70 x 7 car trains (106 - 70 = 36, so 72 available trailer cars for use as 7th cars).

The 96s are slightly longer than the 72s (1 meter per car) and will 70 trains be enough to increase frequency on the Jubilee?

Originally Posted by Tubeman

Posibble, but a slight loss of capacity (7 car Bakerloo trains lost in favour of 4/5 car Overground), and I think that long term Overground would be diverted away from Euston, so potentially no direct trains to zone 1 from the DC lines.

What about a 6-car 378 (around the same length as the 72s)?

[cle]

At least 5 car 378s are planned, and a fourth tph is also planned, for the DC line. Trains have never been busier, and people like the new trains. The improvements will only make it more popular - especially against the increasingly old, battered and delayed (all that work to rule action earlier this year) on the Bakerloo line, so more people are going to Euston instead.

New Victoria line trains and better Northern line service will only make via Euston more attractive. Removing the DC line would be a big upset -as with the other Overground routes, it's not the Silverlink of the past.

[Jon10]

Originally Posted by cle

At least 5 car 378s are planned, and a fourth tph is also planned, for the DC line.

There is only room for nine carriages at platforms 9 and 10 at Euston, so the currently daily practice of putting two LO trains into one platform cannot continue.

Those platforms would be of more use to London Midland 8-car trains, or two 4-car ones. (Are there 12-car ones in the peaks?)

Using platforms 8 and 11 for LO would, however, mean stopping outside the station for DC-AC changeover.

[MuppetThumper]

Originally Posted by CroydonBoy

Wandsworth roundabout is pretty much adjacent to Wandsworth Town station. There should be a station in the area but not so close to Wandsworth Town.

I think it should be tunnelled to Twickenham. Taking over the Windsor slows via Richmond from Putney with a couple stops in between (Putney and Battersea inc. Clapham Junction), perhaps more closer to the riverside developments, could be a good idea.

Thoughts on this ?

My point being that it would serve as an interchange onto the overground as it would be easy to link the two stations, and would help relieve pressure on vauxhall & waterloo. Like I said, a pipedream, but I don't see what else they can do with the rather large and completely wasted space that is Wandsworth roundabout. Its ideally set for multiple entrances too, to serve folks from all directions including those in south Fulham on the other side of the river.