daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 13th, 2009, 01:50 AM   #3821
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
You're kidding right? That'd go down like a bag of cold sick with the good folk of Richmond, Kew, and Chiswick. The Richmond branch is very well patronised with big commuter populations living in Chiswick and Kew, the Chiswick Park business park opposite Gunnersbury station, and tourist traffic for Kew Gardens. It might be bearable if there was an interchange where the LOROL and District / Piccadilly lines cross but as there isn't all commuter traffic would have to go via mainline from Richmond to Waterloo or up to Willesden Junction and change. Not good.
Yes, if you read my first post properly you'd have seen this:

Quote:
-Richmond branch is given solely to LOROL, a new station is built north of Gunnersbury on the NLL that links to Turnham Green via high speed walkways... The Piccadilly line now stops at Turnham Green giving much of the NLL quick access to Heathrow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
This makes more sense... But you have to bear in mind that the service patterns I described were working with what we've got now (barring the single new diveunder east of Earl's Court), same signalling, same junctions, etc. Of course anyone can concoct a 'what if' wish list if money were no object, but as it is a major object for TfL right now, it's a moot point.
I'd estimate it's less than 1km of tube tunnels. All else it would need is more ballast at the stations to increase the height of the rails in order for the smaller tube profile trains to be somewhat close to the platform. But hey, the gap doesn't seem to be an issue for TfL on the Bakerloo line north of Willesden!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
This is counterintuitive for two reasons: firstly, if one service wins over the other on the DC lines it should be the Bakerloo because the longer trains offer more capacity. Secondly, your proposal removes direct trains to Central London from all stations north of Willesden Junction. i.e. It makes a poor service even poorer.
4 car 378s are 80m in length, are wider and are fully walk-through. I doubt the difference in capacity between 378s and a 110m 7 car tube train is that significant. If the Metropolitan is extended to Watford then the demand on the DC lines would diminish, anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
As I've already said, it's not. It's got a large catchment area, is well patronised by commuters, serves as a useful interchange, and is heaving with exhibition traffic when there's something on at Olympia (which is pretty often).
Okay, let's do a comparision. Getting rid of the Olympia branch would free up space at High Street Kensington allowing Wimbledon trains to terminate there with a higher frequency.

annual passengers from wikipedia:

Kensington Olympia (2007): 0.952 million

West Brompton (2007): 3.777 million
Fulham Broadway (2007): 10.291 million
Parsons Green (2007): 5.075 million

etc. you get the picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I agree that the Met should not run beyond the Watford Branch, but your point about Metro services is an odd one; Amersham doesn't have a metro-style service from LU... I think it's 4 tph. Therefore LU does not give Amersham a metro service, it's much more a commuter service.
Well, LU is essentially a metro. So anything in LU colours is a metro service. Anyway, using the Metropolitan on the Amersham branch becomes even more pointless when you consider the S Stock will have lower seating capacity than the A Stock.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
You're making LU sound like a museum. I'm sorry, but you're simply proposing reducing patronage and disadvantaging customers which is insane. One of the only good bits of logic (Bakerloo to Hammersmith) involves adding a branch to an existing line, which goes against your principles.
No, my principles are ironing out the SSL network by reducing flat junctions, line-sharing, and branches. Although adding a branch to the Bakerloo is not the best idea, taking away a branch from the Piccadilly, and getting rid of 6 flat junctions on the SSL far outweighs that disadvantage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Has it not occurred that people using the District / Circle line from NHG, Bayswater and Paddington do so because they're trying to get to the destinations offered (e.g. Euston Square, King's Cross St Pancras etc)? If they wanted Oxford Street, they already would use the Central or Bakerloo Lines. Adding Crossrail doesn't change that.
Exactly! And what do the terminating Edgware Road trains do to help them to get to their destination? 8tph on the Circle line is an increase over the current 7tph through those stations, so if anything, my plans offer a better service! Let's not forget eliminating the H&C and District lines through Edgware Road will also lead to quicker journey times for the Circles!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I'm all for rationalising the SSR flat junctions wherever possible, but your slash n' burn approach doesn't help anyone. What's the point of an efficient system if it only has half the customers?
Halfing customers?!? How am I halving customers? My proposals allow a better and more reliable service on the busiest parts of the SSL network.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
...Because in general other Circle Lines didn't evolve like ours did!
How does that prove your original point? Other circle lines are circles and do not seem to have the issue of "no terminus".
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 13th, 2009, 04:43 PM   #3822
streetquark
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 744
Likes (Received): 4

As long as there's a circle service sharing the circle route and branches joining it the SSR will be a compromise. If you *could* make lesser structural changes it would be to take off the Hammersmith and Olympia branches and add a west-facing curve for Met trains but this still leaves 4 main problems:

1. Met extension line-to-Earl's Court-to Wimbledon/Richmond/Ealing services don't go any nearer the centre than Baker Street/Edgware Road/Paddington.

The status quo of terminating Wimbleware trains at Edgware Road and Met trains at Baker Street keeps to the principle i've outlined but means neither terminating service goes anywhere nearer the West End/city than Baker Street (Met terminators) or Paddington/Edgware Road (Wimbleware).

The 'cheapest' (i.e. it isn't!) solution I could think of is to keep the east-facing-only arrangement at Baker Street and some terminators there (the Met is paralleled by other routes at least) and make a new connection between Paddington Praed Street and the Midland 3rd pair of tracks north of St. Pancras, thence linking existing tracks to the Gospel Oak-Barking service. At least this gives both GOBLIN and Wimbleware some West End destination along the Paddington-King's Cross St. Pancras route. At a bit more cost it could be diverted southwards via Bond Street or TCR for more of a central route.

2. The Wimbledon and Richmond/Ealing branches have to share full capacity (i.e. 2 full line capacities minus circle capacity) with the Ealing and Richmond branches being further divided (though they each share their branch with another service).

Simply not enough routes to serve these destinations. Richmond in particular because the NLL has very limited capacity due to freight (even if you could send a few ex-Richmonds east at Old Oak alongside the GWML, perhaps making Richmond a Crossrail destination) - at last Ealing BDY is well served by CL, CR (soon) etc.

With the Circle service taking capacity both main District branches out of Earl's Court need other lines to join them unless a significant number terminate at HSK or South Ken, hence Chelney south of Parson's Green. I guess the idea was/is to send more Districts west and fewer south of Earl's Court with most southbound trains only going from HSK. Chelney would take over south of Parson's green. At least this would allow a full service along the District west through Hammersmith.

Obviously Chelney is a massive cost undertaking effectively put further back by Crossrail 2 heading south through Clapham Junction if TfL even makes it that far in our lifetimes. It also leaves the District to Parson's Green as a stump...

The equivalent on the mainline through Hammersmith is extending the H&C along the Grove Road alignment to East of Ravenscourt Park and in tunnel westwards to Chiswick Park etc. - maybe you could head north west and use some of the Southfield curve then cut across to Acton Town and the extra tracks to Northfields or surface where there is existing space for tracks west of Turnham Green. Then you'd have a good service for the Richmond branch etc. again its cost but how else would you add the required line west of Earl's court? I guess you wouldn't.

If Chelney via Chelsea does ever get built, maybe it could head off further west from Parson's Green meaning the Wimbledon and Hammersmith District branches both get their own central London route.

3. 2 branches are left stranded. Olympia has nowhere to terminate; H&C is stuck at Paddington.

Maybe the Olympia branch can be dropped, properly segregated to HSK (and/or South Ken) or get it's own terminating platform carved out of Earl's Court but the Hammersmith branch needs at least the link to the Bakerloo or left as a shuttle. Neither option sounds great. A shuttle from a destination serving other central areas or a branch that will suck capacity from the Bakerloo north of Paddington. Don't forget Paddington-Queen's Park is essential for DC services into the West End, more so if Euston has its DC capacity given over to other network (WCML/HST) services. If the DC service is cut back to Willesden Junction it will still have the same problem of reduced service on the Bakerloo north of Paddington.

The Bakerloo should have full service to at least one WCML station served by the DC service and that service can have destinations other than Euston or those east of Queen's Park.

There's no easy solution to the H&C shuttle or C&H service replacing H&C and Circle. Probably a compromise of the new service plus a branch of Wimbleware/GOBLIN if it gets built would be best, with some trains of both branch of this line (Wimbledon and Hammersmith) terminating at Edgware Road and maybe some Wimbledon ones at HSK. Certainly the Hammersmith line would be more useful if it were extended westward.

4. The Circle line needs reversing, terminating and depot facilities. This is best done by the inclusion of the Hammersmith branch. That might sound like a solution to a H&S shuttle, but such a shuttle was only suggested in a service pattern that didn't overload Praed Street Junction eastwards. The Hammersmith and Circle will still do this between the junction and Edgware Road but this is a short distance. So if twin ML-sized tunnels somewhere west of Paddington joining up with the Bakerloo near Paddington tube station costs x number of beans, then it's probably going to cost a few less beans to diverge the Circle/Wimbleware line from just south/west of Praed Street Junction into the Edgware Road terminal via new tunnels.

Ideally of course the Circle would have its own new tube route round the London termini - the route mostly chooses itself (i.e. do you go via Charing X and/or Blackfriars and/or Cannon St or straight from Waterloo to London Bridge? Or what about a later extension out east, something like London Bridge-Limehouse-Shoreditch-Liverpool Street?). Again, its cost.
streetquark no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2009, 11:34 PM   #3823
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Yes, if you read my first post properly you'd have seen this:
Sorry, my mistake. The proposed 'high speed walkways' between your LOROL station in no mans land and Turnham Green (well over 1km) were evidently too silly to register.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
I'd estimate it's less than 1km of tube tunnels. All else it would need is more ballast at the stations to increase the height of the rails in order for the smaller tube profile trains to be somewhat close to the platform. But hey, the gap doesn't seem to be an issue for TfL on the Bakerloo line north of Willesden!
That's as maybe, but meanwhile you have:

- Made the Richmond Branch MUCH less customer-friendly

- Rendered Olympia far worse served by trains

- Eliminated the link between Liverpool St and Aldgate East, leading to a very inconvenient interchange at Tower Hill instead

- Made Gloucester Road, Baker Street and Minories flat junctions WORSE (more tph)

- Reduced services to Paddington-Queen's Park (presumably halved)

- Reduced services Willesden Jcn to Harrow & Wealdstone, and removed direct trains to London from Willesden Jcn to Watford Jcn

...And that's all that initially occur for starters...

Generally, when you spend money on transport, it's to IMPROVE customer service!

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
4 car 378s are 80m in length, are wider and are fully walk-through. I doubt the difference in capacity between 378s and a 110m 7 car tube train is that significant. If the Metropolitan is extended to Watford then the demand on the DC lines would diminish, anyway.
I still make that about 40% longer, whichever way you look at it!

And your assertion that Metropolitan Line to Watford Jcn would reduce DC lines traffic is basically false... Customers travelling from Watford Junction into London use the fast London Midland services, so both the DC lines and the extended Met would cater to local traffic, and as they head in completely different directions after Watford High Street they aren't competing with each other for traffic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Okay, let's do a comparision. Getting rid of the Olympia branch would free up space at High Street Kensington allowing Wimbledon trains to terminate there with a higher frequency.

annual passengers from wikipedia:

Kensington Olympia (2007): 0.952 million

West Brompton (2007): 3.777 million
Fulham Broadway (2007): 10.291 million
Parsons Green (2007): 5.075 million

etc. you get the picture.
And I've already suggested running an Olympia - Tower Hill service using the paths vacated by the current Wimbledon-Upminster service if segregation is achieved at Earl's Court; no need to remove Olympia's LU service (oh... and actually improving their service by providing direct trains to Central London). You're suggesting removing access to the LU system for 1.32 million journeys per year (2008) plus removing an interchange which will become increasingly useful as the LOROL system is developed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Well, LU is essentially a metro. So anything in LU colours is a metro service.
So Epping-Ongar was metro too because it had Tube trains running on it, right?

To me, Metro is 'turn up and go'... Amersham to Moor Park isn't; 4tph off-peak. It's no different to the majority of London's NwR suburban stations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Anyway, using the Metropolitan on the Amersham branch becomes even more pointless when you consider the S Stock will have lower seating capacity than the A Stock.
...And I fail to see why you're even arguing with me when I've already said that the Met shouldn't run beyond the Watford Branch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
No, my principles are ironing out the SSL network by reducing flat junctions, line-sharing, and branches. Although adding a branch to the Bakerloo is not the best idea, taking away a branch from the Piccadilly, and getting rid of 6 flat junctions on the SSL far outweighs that disadvantage.
Well, I beg to differ for the plethora of reasons I already noted. Rationalisation and simplicity is of course good in principle, but if in practice you bugger up services to many areas of London then what's the point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Exactly! And what do the terminating Edgware Road trains do to help them to get to their destination?
Because they get them to Edgware Road to connect with EB H&C trains perhaps?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
8tph on the Circle line is an increase over the current 7tph through those stations, so if anything, my plans offer a better service!
Try telling that to someone stood on the platform at Bayswater who used to get 14 tph and now gets only 8. That's not better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Let's not forget eliminating the H&C and District lines through Edgware Road will also lead to quicker journey times for the Circles!
...'til they get snarled up at Minories, Gloucester Road and Baker Street where you've increased tph!

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Halfing customers?!? How am I halving customers? My proposals allow a better and more reliable service on the busiest parts of the SSL network.
My hyperbole, admittedly... But your hare-brained scheme would reduce customers numbers by making tens of thousands of commuters' journeys much more inconvenient whilst making SSR marginally more efficient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
How does that prove your original point? Other circle lines are circles and do not seem to have the issue of "no terminus".
Because you're comparing apples with oranges; it's not a fair comparison.

I seriously think you need to go back to the drawing board mate
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 16th, 2009, 02:07 AM   #3824
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Sorry, my mistake. The proposed 'high speed walkways' between your LOROL station in no mans land and Turnham Green (well over 1km) were evidently too silly to register.
My mistake, I meant Chiswick Park. Re-locate Gunnersbury station to north of Chiswick High Road and then connect it with high-speed walkways to Chsiwick Park tube station. The high speed walkways could follow the route of the now unnecessary District line spurs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
That's as maybe, but meanwhile you have:

- Made the Richmond Branch MUCH less customer-friendly
Not if the Chiswick Park interchange is built, all of the Richmond branch will have quick access to Heathrow as well as the alternative choice of the Piccadilly line into Central London; adding up to as much as 60tph into Central London.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
- Rendered Olympia far worse served by trains
Who cares? The amount of people using it for a Zone 2 station is marginal. And the station already is already served by LOROL and is a short bus journey from Shepherd's Bush (Central line) or High Street Kensington which both have far superior service. I'd keep the connection for District line services to Olympia for use only on exhibition days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
- Eliminated the link between Liverpool St and Aldgate East, leading to a very inconvenient interchange at Tower Hill instead
By 2017 Crossrail will take any passengers from Liverpool Street to Whitechapel far quicker than the H&C line would. I guess those who want to get to Aldgate East may suffer, but you can't please everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
- Made Gloucester Road, Baker Street and Minories flat junctions WORSE (more tph)
No worse than the proposed increase due to TfL's 'tea-cup' service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
- Reduced services to Paddington-Queen's Park (presumably halved)
It's never been particularly busy when i've used it, even during the rush hour. Inevitable signalling upgrades will allow that section of the Bakerloo a higher frequency than half of the current tph.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
- Reduced services Willesden Jcn to Harrow & Wealdstone, and removed direct trains to London from Willesden Jcn to Watford Jcn
In my plans platforms on the WCML slow lines would be built at Willesden Junction and Crossrail would also be diverted through them. So, fast journeys into Central London via Crossrail, services on the NLL and fast trains into Euston. I don't really see that as a reduction in services.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I still make that about 40% longer, whichever way you look at it!
If you stupidly ignore the big difference in passenger capacity between a tube sized train and a standard NR train with the same seating layout...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
And your assertion that Metropolitan Line to Watford Jcn would reduce DC lines traffic is basically false... Customers travelling from Watford Junction into London use the fast London Midland services, so both the DC lines and the extended Met would cater to local traffic, and as they head in completely different directions after Watford High Street they aren't competing with each other for traffic.
I imagine 'local traffic' is a small minority compared to the majority who want to get into Central London and will have better access as a result of my proposals...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
And I've already suggested running an Olympia - Tower Hill service using the paths vacated by the current Wimbledon-Upminster service if segregation is achieved at Earl's Court; no need to remove Olympia's LU service (oh... and actually improving their service by providing direct trains to Central London). You're suggesting removing access to the LU system for 1.32 million journeys per year (2008)
The paseengers per annum speaks for itself... Your plans increase service and accessibility to Olympia station which only has a fraction of the passengers of the Wimbledon branch. The Wimbledon branch, despite being overcrowded, you have given little or no frequency increase!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
removing an interchange which will become increasingly useful as the LOROL system is developed.
What happenned to West Brompton, one stop down the line? Let's not forget that with my plans it'll have 24tph!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
So Epping-Ongar was metro too because it had Tube trains running on it, right?
It was a London Underground service, and London Underground is usually considered a metro service, so pretty much, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Well, I beg to differ for the plethora of reasons I already noted. Rationalisation and simplicity is of course good in principle, but if in practice you bugger up services to many areas of London then what's the point?
Because you don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Because they get them to Edgware Road to connect with EB H&C trains perhaps?
Let's see how that goes: Wait for a District line train. Pause several times in the tunnel because of trains crossing the numerous junctions ahead. Arrive slowly into Edgware Road, possibly needing to cross the bridge. Wait for a H&C line train for who knows how long as there is no dot matrix, ad nauseum. Although there would be a minor frequency decrease with my proposals, at least once the first train arrives it will get you there quickly without needing to change. It'll also have the side benefit of no more confused tourists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Try telling that to someone stood on the platform at Bayswater who used to get 14 tph and now gets only 8. That's not better.
Any overall improvement can be derided by a small minority who get a small regression as a result.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
My hyperbole, admittedly... But your hare-brained scheme would reduce customers numbers by making tens of thousands of commuters' journeys much more inconvenient whilst making SSR marginally more efficient.
It will increase reliability, frequency and efficience on the most used parts of the SSL network such as...

-Earl's Court - Action Town section of the District
-Metropolitan line north of Baker Street (no longer any terminators at Baker Street)
-Wimbledon branch
-District line east of Tower Hill
-Hammersmith branch
-Core Central London sections
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2009, 01:40 PM   #3825
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

I do find these tit-for-tat, quote-by-quote, 'battles' tiresome... But you aren't half talking a lot of bollocks on my thread which needs to be challenged

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
My mistake, I meant Chiswick Park. Re-locate Gunnersbury station to north of Chiswick High Road and then connect it with high-speed walkways to Chsiwick Park tube station. The high speed walkways could follow the route of the now unnecessary District line spurs...

...Not if the Chiswick Park interchange is built, all of the Richmond branch will have quick access to Heathrow as well as the alternative choice of the Piccadilly line into Central London; adding up to as much as 60tph into Central London.
Why the hell would you want to go to the effort and expense of moving Gunnersbury north of the High Road when all you're achieving in effect is to move the entrance to the opposite side of the road?

And speaking of expense and effort, your interchange at Chiswick Park would be a nightmare to engineer; there's no space for Piccadilly platforms, as the station was a simple addition to an earth embankment with 4 parallel tracks and the platforms either side of the 'slows'. To build a Piccadilly platform in the middle, the embankment would need to be widened, the current station demolished, and all 4 roads slewed apart to make the room, which also means that the bridges over Bollo and Acton Lanes which sandwich the station would need to be extensively rebuilt to accommodate the tracks being slewed apart.

And then, you've cocked up the Piccadilly Line by having 2 closely spaced stations (Acton Town and Chiswick Park) on what is supposed to be a fast service.

It was better first time, with your mistaken suggestion of the Piccadilly stopping at Turnham Green... and even then that was a daft idea.

And you keep banging on that this is somehow good for Richmond Branch passengers... Again, they lose direct trains to anywhere more meaningful than South Acton and Finchley Road & Frognal... Be honest, if you lived at Kew Gardens and were used to direct trains to the West End and City every 8 minutes and were told you now had to get an at best 4tph LOROL service one stop to Gunnersbury, then board a magical high-speed walkway and board another train to continue your journey, would you be impressed?

And where the hell does an additional 60tph into Central London come from?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Who cares? The amount of people using it for a Zone 2 station is marginal. And the station already is already served by LOROL and is a short bus journey from Shepherd's Bush (Central line) or High Street Kensington which both have far superior service. I'd keep the connection for District line services to Olympia for use only on exhibition days.
Who cares? 1.32 million people per annum

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
By 2017 Crossrail will take any passengers from Liverpool Street to Whitechapel far quicker than the H&C line would. I guess those who want to get to Aldgate East may suffer, but you can't please everyone.
So? If you travel from Plaistow to King's Cross every day (for example) that's bugger all use. Are you seriously suggesting people change onto Crossrail at Whitechapel for one stop then back onto LU at Liverpool St?

Like most of your suggestions, this imposes huge inconvenience with negligable benefit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
No worse than the proposed increase due to TfL's 'tea-cup' service.
Wrong. The T-Cup is a reduction in tph over the current Circle (6 rather than 7).

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
It's never been particularly busy when i've used it, even during the rush hour. Inevitable signalling upgrades will allow that section of the Bakerloo a higher frequency than half of the current tph.
Wrong again. The big hindrance to increasing Bakerloo tph is reversing at Elephant & Castle's 2 platforms. You can improve signalling all you like. You're still halving the service to 4 stations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
In my plans platforms on the WCML slow lines would be built at Willesden Junction and Crossrail would also be diverted through them. So, fast journeys into Central London via Crossrail, services on the NLL and fast trains into Euston. I don't really see that as a reduction in services.
Well you can move your goalposts all you like, but yet again you suggest grotesque expense and on balance customer disbenefit... And this still removes direct trains to Central London from all stations north of Willesden Junction on the DC lines, and reduces tph between there and Harrow & Wealdstone. Meanwhile, you add to London Midland journey time and probably at best double Crossrail journey time between Paddington and Ealing Broadway with a ridiculous diversion through Willesden, presumably mostly creeping along the existing freight routes. Unless you spend a heap on grade separated junctions you've also got conflicting train movements at the Paddington and Ealing ends of the diversion, as well as Willesden (the 'slows' are between the 'fasts' and the DC lines) and Acton Wells Junction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
If you stupidly ignore the big difference in passenger capacity between a tube sized train and a standard NR train with the same seating layout...
40% is 40%, stupidity doesn't enter into it, thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
I imagine 'local traffic' is a small minority compared to the majority who want to get into Central London and will have better access as a result of my proposals...
My point, if you'd have read it properly, was that the Met Line to Watford Junction would not divert traffic away from the DC Lines, which was your assertion. People who live in Watford and want to go into Central London get the London Midland... Are you seriously suggesting they sit on a LOROL train for just shy of an hour?

As the DC lines and a potential Met Line diverge at Watford High Street and head off in entirely different directions, they are not 'competing' with each other for traffic; it's not as if someone who lives in Bushey or Headstone Lane is going to suddenly switch to the Met Line if it extends to Watford Junction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
The paseengers per annum speaks for itself... Your plans increase service and accessibility to Olympia station which only has a fraction of the passengers of the Wimbledon branch. The Wimbledon branch, despite being overcrowded, you have given little or no frequency increase!
The Wimbledon branch is constrained by its signalling south of Putney Bridge: it's signalled by Network Rail, and only has a station starter and one intermediate signal between each station despite relatively long sections, the LU sections have generally 1 intermediate signal and multi-home signalling allowing greater tph. Bear in mind also that the NwR signaller signals SWT empty stock moves over the section at will and often the entire service during engineering work or if there's an incident like a suicide. The service patterns I suggested were working on the basis of current infrastructure barring the new Earl's Court diveunder to allow Wimbledon segregation.

Hence, I offered the same service currently provided... It is perfectly possibly to lay on an additional few tph of a Putney Bridge to High Street shuttle to bump up the tph.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
What happenned to West Brompton, one stop down the line? Let's not forget that with my plans it'll have 24tph!
Nothing has 'happened' to West Brompton. If push came to shove and there was no Olympia, yes of course people would change at West Brompton instead... But that is unnecessary, like most of your plans. With a Wimbledon-High St / Edgware Rd and an Olympia-Tower Hill set-up, I guess passengers would change at whichever of the two stations provided the best option for their onward journey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
It was a London Underground service, and London Underground is usually considered a metro service, so pretty much, yes.
It's semantics... As far as I'm concerned, an LU roundel doesn't automatically bestow 'metro' status to everything. Was the Metropolitan Line to Aylesbury 'Metro' too? All that Amersham is, is a truncated Aylesbury service... I'd find it very hard to call the steam-hauled trains to Aylesbury, 30 miles from Central London, 'Metro' just because they were operated by London Underground. The prime defining points of a metro are high frequency and high capacity.... The Metropolitan service to Amersham is neither.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Because you don't.
Good response. I have provided ample, well-explained reasons why you do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Let's see how that goes: Wait for a District line train. Pause several times in the tunnel because of trains crossing the numerous junctions ahead. Arrive slowly into Edgware Road, possibly needing to cross the bridge. Wait for a H&C line train for who knows how long as there is no dot matrix, ad nauseum. Although there would be a minor frequency decrease with my proposals, at least once the first train arrives it will get you there quickly without needing to change. It'll also have the side benefit of no more confused tourists.
The journey itself might be quicker once the Circle turns up, but whichever way you look at it, you've virtually halved the frequency of trains from those stations so on balance you would have to wait twice as long. And 'numerous' junctions? There's only one!

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Any overall improvement can be derided by a small minority who get a small regression as a result.
Indeed, you can't please everyone... But as a whole your schemes would create a lot more pissed off people than they would pleased people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
It will increase reliability, frequency and efficience on the most used parts of the SSL network such as...

-Earl's Court - Action Town section of the District
More frequent? Yes. More reliable? No, because of unnecessary increase in frequency... Made even more unnecessary by removing the Richmond branch, why chuck so many extra trains at a section already parallelled by the Piccadilly Line?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
-Metropolitan line north of Baker Street (no longer any terminators at Baker Street)
More frequent? Yes. More reliable? No, because of unnecessary increase in frequency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
-Wimbledon branch
I've explained why you cannot increase tph to the extent you propose, and I too am suggesting segregation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
-District line east of Tower Hill
Slight increase in tph, but you've removed the direct trains along the H&C route so less convenient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
-Hammersmith branch
Just swapped one line for another as far as I can tell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
-Core Central London sections
As I've already demonstrated, you've increased tph along the southern half of the Circle so made that section, and especially the junctions at Gloucester Road and Minories, less efficient and reliable.

Anyway, I feel like I'm flogging a dead horse and have wasted too much time pointing out the huge flaws in your plans. If you want to be arsey and have a pointless debate about your schemes, go and find sotonsi.

Right folks, any *sensible* questions?!
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2009, 04:04 PM   #3826
L2
King of Bali
 
L2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kuta Beach, Bali, Indonesia
Posts: 5,826
Likes (Received): 487

Quick one - at 23:30 on Tuesday night I was on an Uxbridge train near Eastcote station (really busy time on the Metropolitan line ) and we passed what looked like a small freight consist going the other way. What would this have been, a works train or something?

In relation to the above about all of LU being a metro, I didn't think that line was a metro when I was using it for a few days, but the frequency was pretty good for a suburban line. The old A60/A62 trains weren't bad to ride on either, pity they're on the way out.
__________________
L2 comes between L1 and L3
L2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2009, 12:50 AM   #3827
TampaMike
Oh Hey!
 
TampaMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tampa
Posts: 7,066
Likes (Received): 968

In your own opinion Tubeman, what makes a good rail system and what should be required/recommended(including the stations)?
__________________
Corporations Are People Too - Mitt Romney
For the People that dress up like Corporations.
TampaMike no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2009, 01:37 PM   #3828
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by L2 View Post
Quick one - at 23:30 on Tuesday night I was on an Uxbridge train near Eastcote station (really busy time on the Metropolitan line ) and we passed what looked like a small freight consist going the other way. What would this have been, a works train or something?

In relation to the above about all of LU being a metro, I didn't think that line was a metro when I was using it for a few days, but the frequency was pretty good for a suburban line. The old A60/A62 trains weren't bad to ride on either, pity they're on the way out.
It would have definitely been an engineers train, usually with a Battery loco at each end and transporting rail / ballast / sleepers or empties to / from a site of engineering work (a frequent event at weekends!). The main depot is at West Ruislip, but there's a connection to the Uxbridge Branch between Ruislip and Ickenham so a lot of engineers trains would run on the Uxrbdige Branch going to / from the depot.



As the name implies, they can run off battery power, so they can work into 'possessions' where the current is switched off and deliver equipment / materials.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2009, 01:38 PM   #3829
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Giant wikimedia pictures strike again!!!
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2009, 01:46 PM   #3830
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by TampaMike View Post
In your own opinion Tubeman, what makes a good rail system and what should be required/recommended(including the stations)?
I guess as a 'wish list', if I were designing a system from scratch:

- Automatic operation
- Simplicity (i.e. no or few branches)
- Minimal stations (i.e. not lots of closely spaced stations like Paris)
- Platform edge doors
- Air conditioning
- Emergency walkways in tunnels
- Smartcard ticketing (like Oyster / Octopus)
- Terminal and reversing loops (as opposed to sidings)
- Plenty of reversing points
- 24 hour operation
- A bidirectional third track throughout (prevents engineering closure and gives more operational resilience)
- Step-free access to platforms and on / off trains
- Walk-through trains
- Cross-platform interchanges
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2009, 11:28 PM   #3831
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

LOL at the erased posts making it look like I gave up...

Anyway, the new S Stock for the Sub-Surface lines was delivered last night.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2009, 11:12 AM   #3832
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
LOL at the erased posts making it look like I gave up...

Anyway, the new S Stock for the Sub-Surface lines was delivered last night.
No, everyone else did.

I erased the posts back to the last two sensible questions. I suggest you look at the thread title: 'Ask the Tubeman', not 'Try and argue with the Tubeman with increasingly risible arguments, then argue with everyone else, then get stroppy because several people are pointing out the huge flaws in your arguments'. By all means start a thread of that name, but please keep that toss out of my thread.

Anyway, thank you for making a decent contribution to the thread with your last post... There is hope
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2009, 09:33 PM   #3833
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
No, everyone else did.

I erased the posts back to the last two sensible questions. I suggest you look at the thread title: 'Ask the Tubeman', not 'Try and argue with the Tubeman with increasingly risible arguments, then argue with everyone else, then get stroppy because several people are pointing out the huge flaws in your arguments'. By all means start a thread of that name, but please keep that toss out of my thread.
I think you'll find everyone else got stroppy with me, not the other way round.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Anyway, thank you for making a decent contribution to the thread with your last post... There is hope
That's what i've been doing ever since i've joined, why should it change now?
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2009, 11:58 PM   #3834
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

S Stock delivery

iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2009, 01:27 PM   #3835
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Looking great! Had a horrible moment where I thought we were getting a Class 20 loco instead

I've been invited up to Old Dalby to have a play on one, could be a good day out!
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2009, 01:31 AM   #3836
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,094
Likes (Received): 292

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
S Stock delivery

wow looking great!!!
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 4th, 2009, 04:08 AM   #3837
davidaiow
Registered User
 
davidaiow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London E14/Isle of Wight
Posts: 544
Likes (Received): 5

A few questions which I hope haven't been asked before (they weren't mentioned in the 1st post contents...)

I'm new to London and love the tube, and what I love hearing most is the noise that the Jubilee line trains always seem to make. Is it just these trains? If so, why?

Also related is the syncronised doors on the Westminster-Canary Warf Stations on Jubilee (I've travelled no further East) and wondered whether all Stations will be like this-they seem a good idea.

Another question, would it be possible to 'open-up' the tube stations so that they look like Westminster, Bermondsey, etc. The network of mini-tubes to walk down can be so confusing and the uneven surfaces when changing lines at Oxford Circus, whilst funky, can get annoying!

I read in one of the posts that the tubes travel 30mph, is this true? How fast do they enter the stations?

As for a cooling mechanism, why can hole not be bored to the surface? I was on the tube the other day and the connecting door just flung open, scary at first but it did provide a nice breeze! Can a strong mesh not be used instead of a door to provide more circulation, how about windows, such as those on buses, too?

Also, CrossRail- do you think it would have been better as a tube network? I've read the Pro's and Con's but wanted to know your thoughts. And will it be used by the Oyster Card etc?

I think those are my questions for now, all that I have to say is you do a great job and everybody here really appreciates it- thanks!


(oh and a personal question, do the LU hire students for part-time work?)
davidaiow no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2009, 10:33 AM   #3838
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Hi David, thanks for the questions... apologies for the delay in answering, I've had no internet all week...

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidaiow View Post
A few questions which I hope haven't been asked before (they weren't mentioned in the 1st post contents...)

I'm new to London and love the tube, and what I love hearing most is the noise that the Jubilee line trains always seem to make. Is it just these trains? If so, why?
Yes the Jubilee Line 1996 stock are the only LU trains with this traction system, colloquially referred to as 'Chopper'. I don't really understand the ins & outs of what makes this system different from other traction systems beyond the noticeably different noise. The 1996 stock uses three-phase induction motors fed from a single-source inverter using a GTO (gate-turn-off) thyristor... not too sure what this means in English! The British Rail Class 465 Networkers (used mostly on Southeastern's routes) also have the 'chopper' system, I don't think any other English trains do beside these two.



Quote:
Originally Posted by davidaiow View Post
Also related is the syncronised doors on the Westminster-Canary Warf Stations on Jubilee (I've travelled no further East) and wondered whether all Stations will be like this-they seem a good idea.
No, they never will. I can say this with some degree of certainty because there are too many curved platforms on the network which would be incompatible with Platform Edge Doors (PEDs), basically much as there is a big gap between train and platform on curved platforms, there would be an equally big gap between train and PEDs with the potentially lethal consequence of people getting trapped between train and PED screen. I guess the Victoria Line might be able to be retro-fitted with PEDs as the platforms are all straight, but I can't think of any other line which could be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidaiow View Post
Another question, would it be possible to 'open-up' the tube stations so that they look like Westminster, Bermondsey, etc. The network of mini-tubes to walk down can be so confusing and the uneven surfaces when changing lines at Oxford Circus, whilst funky, can get annoying!
Possible at some locations I guess, but not without demolition at street level generally. It would be an enormous expense for what is just aesthetics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidaiow View Post
I read in one of the posts that the tubes travel 30mph, is this true? How fast do they enter the stations?
About the same generally, hitting the platform at 30mph is pretty standard on most manual lines. The Central and Victoria Lines are noticeably faster as they're automatic and platforms are on a 'hump' profile (uphill approaching, downhill departing). On manual lines it varies from platform to platform (e.g. approach speed, gradient, etc) but generally the driver brakes as they hit the platform or a little bit before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidaiow View Post
As for a cooling mechanism, why can hole not be bored to the surface? I was on the tube the other day and the connecting door just flung open, scary at first but it did provide a nice breeze! Can a strong mesh not be used instead of a door to provide more circulation, how about windows, such as those on buses, too?
There are some ventilation shafts, notably on the Jubilee Line extension ('Intervention points', with access stairs and extraction fans), but generally on older tubes it wasn't given a thought and to add shafts now would be tricky because the older Tubes follow the streets above faithfully so they would have to be angled, and plus land would need to be found at street level for the shafts to open to.

Providing more 'open' cars would of course improve ventilation, but it would also make Tube travel far noisier and dirtier. It would also I guess have implications for structural integrity in a collision or derailment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidaiow View Post
Also, CrossRail- do you think it would have been better as a tube network? I've read the Pro's and Con's but wanted to know your thoughts. And will it be used by the Oyster Card etc?
I personally think Crossrails are the future; linking the existing suburban Network rail system across Central London in tunnels, so yes I'm happy it's not an LUL 'Tube'. It will be Oyster-ticketed I'm sure, as it's a TFL project... The stations will all be managed by LUL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidaiow View Post
I think those are my questions for now, all that I have to say is you do a great job and everybody here really appreciates it- thanks!
No problem, you're most welcome!

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidaiow View Post
(oh and a personal question, do the LU hire students for part-time work?)
We do take on part-timers, I presume we don't care whether they're students or not as long as they come to work. It's a good gig if you can get it; knocking on the door of £10k for weekend work plus free travel.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2009, 01:44 PM   #3839
ajw373
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,249
Likes (Received): 48

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Hi David, thanks for the questions... apologies for the delay in answering, I've had no internet all week...



Yes the Jubilee Line 1996 stock are the only LU trains with this traction system, colloquially referred to as 'Chopper'. I don't really understand the ins & outs of what makes this system different from other traction systems beyond the noticeably different noise. The 1996 stock uses three-phase induction motors fed from a single-source inverter using a GTO (gate-turn-off) thyristor... not too sure what this means in English! The British Rail Class 465 Networkers (used mostly on Southeastern's routes) also have the 'chopper' system, I don't think any other English trains do beside these two.
Tubeman in very simple terms the speed of an induction motor is varied by the frequency of the AC power that is sent to the motor. It is the frequency that you hear on these trains. What makes the Jubilee trains sound unique is the stepped variation in frequency. It makes them sound like they are changing gears.

The change in frequency is controlled by GTO's which are like big switches that vary the amount of DC going into the inverter, which in turns makes the 3 phase AC needed by the motor. As these trains use AC motors they are not traditional chopper trains as such.

Newer trains use a similar motor system, but use IGBT's technologyto vary the frequency of the inverter output. The major difference between IGBT and GTO's is IGBT's can vary the frequency in a smoother, less stepped manner, hence why Northern line stock doesn't make the same noise as Jubilee line stock. Ie the frequency is always changing and it is sudden hence why it isn't noticeable like on Jubilee line stock.

GTO's are also used in DC motor applications and control motor speed by pulsing (or chopping) the DC. These are true chopper trains as they are directly chopping the power to the motor.

Older electric trains use resistors to vary the amount of current getting to the motors. Various combinations of parallel and series resistors are used to provide the appropriate motor speed variation.
ajw373 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2009, 02:48 PM   #3840
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272


Thanks for the explanation... It's still pretty much lost one me though! (not your fault, should've paid more attention in Physics!)
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
london, railways, tube

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium