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 September 3rd, 2011, 04:53 PM   #4681
London Underground
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 107
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Just that info alone isn't enough... If you could post a pic then I could date it

It's pre-1994 (Aldwych & Ongar), but to my recollection the W&C has been depicted for decades, in fact I think it was only omitted for the first decade or so of Beck's map.
So, pre-1994.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
So you say no JLE... so does the Jubilee Line exist and does it terminate at Charing Cross? If yes, then it's post-1979.
Don't know where it terminates, but i think that's right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
What about Heathrow? If it's a simple terminus at Heathrow Central then it's pre-1986, if the T4 loop is there then it's post-1986
The Heathrow loop is there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
In 1987 the DLR appears, in 1990 the H&C gets its own identity (pink)... you should be able to narrow it down using these milestones.
DLR and H&C are there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
This link is great, depicts a good selection of Tube maps through the ages:

http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~mjr/u...landmarks.html
Thanks. I took a little look on the site, and from what i remember it looks like some kind of a combination. I'll see if i can get a pic or two on monday.
__________________
Sweet home Stockholm!
London Underground no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 4th, 2011, 12:29 PM   #4682
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Well that's narrowed it down nicely then... between 1990 and 1994

Not too sure off the top of my head what happened during these four years development-wise to narrow it down any further.

Anyway, I'm on 2 weeks holiday now, so may not be able to answer any questions
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2011, 09:24 PM   #4683
Christius Alerius
gah!
 
Christius Alerius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 131
Likes (Received): 15

Will the Underground ever run 24/7 like the NY Subway?
Christius Alerius no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2011, 02:06 AM   #4684
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

No. LU does not have express tracks to route trains over when maintenance work needs to take place, unlike NYC. Therefore it needs to take place during the night.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2011, 04:39 PM   #4685
London Underground
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 107
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Well that's narrowed it down nicely then... between 1990 and 1994

Not too sure off the top of my head what happened during these four years development-wise to narrow it down any further.

Anyway, I'm on 2 weeks holiday now, so may not be able to answer any questions
Couldn't get any pics, as i just remembered that i no longer know where my cord is to my cellphone.

Thanks for the help, Joe.
__________________
Sweet home Stockholm!
London Underground no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2011, 04:34 PM   #4686
RedArkady
Viewseeker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 37

Tubeman - you of all people surely have a comment!: http://www.londonreconnections.com/2011/haykerloo/
RedArkady no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2011, 01:56 AM   #4687
Apoc89
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 287
Likes (Received): 55

Quote:
Originally Posted by mayflower232 View Post
Am I the only one who kind of likes it?
Apoc89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2011, 07:50 PM   #4688
MiaM
Registered User
 
MiaM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 280
Likes (Received): 85

The front window texture could perhaps be used in "The Fly 3"
MiaM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2011, 02:13 AM   #4689
ill tonkso
Portsmouths Finest, Maybe
 
ill tonkso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St. Neots
Posts: 16,444
Likes (Received): 2055

Does anyone know why the lines into Portsmouth were electrified in the 20's but those into Southampton were not? Both routes were owned and operated by the same company.
ill tonkso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2011, 10:51 AM   #4690
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by ill tonkso View Post
Does anyone know why the lines into Portsmouth were electrified in the 20's but those into Southampton were not? Both routes were owned and operated by the same company.
As a general principle, electrification began on frequent-stop routes within London as these are the type of routes with the biggest cost-benefit (due to the need to stop / start every few minutes)... so from the SR's point of view these were routes like the Hounslow and Kingston Loops, Windsor line, Shepperton branch. This was to remain competitive with the Tube and trams which were eating into mainline rail companies' patronage within London in the early part of the 20th century.

Portsmouth is at the end of its own stub whereas Southampton merely lies on an onwards route to Bournemouth and Weymouth, so I guess it made sense if one route could be chosen for electrification over the other, the self-contained Portsmouth route would be. Bear in mind that electrification only finally reached Weymouth in 1988 after having been stuck at Bournemouth since 1967.

For the intervening 21 years, Waterloo to Weymouth trains were pushed from the rear by a 4-REP EMU, which would uncouple at Bournemouth to allow a Class 33 diesel loco to couple to the front and pull the coaches for the remaining part of the journey from Bournemouth to Weymouth. From Weymouth to London, the opposite would be the case (the Class 33 would push the coaches from Weymouth to Bournemouth, uncouple, and the 4-REP EMU would couple to the front and pull the coaches for the Bournemouth - Waterloo section).

Due to the cost / disruption involved, electrification is generally done in stages rather than an entire line / network in one go, so each stage is prioritised in terms of cost-benefit / consideration of operational concerns. For example, if it was decided to electrify the whole GWR main line system but leave the numerous little branches unelectrified, it may be deemed prudent to electrify the branches after all... there is no immediate cost-benefit, but long-term the disbenefit of needing to procure and maintain a small fleet of DMUs on an otherwise electrified network could outweigh the initial outlay of electrifying the branches.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2011, 12:00 PM   #4691
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
No. LU does not have express tracks to route trains over when maintenance work needs to take place, unlike NYC. Therefore it needs to take place during the night.
But to expand on that, 24-hour running during weekends has been investigated and would be practicable at some point (i.e. running from Friday morning through to Sunday night non-stop).

Maybe when the upgrades are all complete, it could be revisited... but for now we can't deliver the usual 19 hour a day service 364 days a year as it is due to weekend closures.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2011, 10:16 PM   #4692
nr23Derek
Registered User
 
nr23Derek's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Norwich
Posts: 211
Likes (Received): 77

Welcome back tubey

I had the misfortune to visit London a week of so ago and couldn't help noticing the Central line doesn't interchange with the Northern at Totenham Court Road. Now I'm sure it used to, what's going on - am I just imagining things or more likely is it something to do with the Crossrail works?

Sorry if this has all been explained before in the thread

Derek
nr23Derek no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2011, 10:38 PM   #4693
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by nr23Derek View Post
Welcome back tubey

I had the misfortune to visit London a week of so ago and couldn't help noticing the Central line doesn't interchange with the Northern at Totenham Court Road. Now I'm sure it used to, what's going on - am I just imagining things or more likely is it something to do with the Crossrail works?

Sorry if this has all been explained before in the thread

Derek
Yes Crossrail works... Or rather the station refurb linked to the Crossrail works
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2011, 11:41 PM   #4694
MiaM
Registered User
 
MiaM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 280
Likes (Received): 85

On what part of the underground network does traffic on one track interfere with maintenance on the other track?

I assume this is true for the SSL cut'n'cover lines - but how about the deep level lines?

If one track could be open then maintenance could perhaps be carried out at the same time as a limited 24-hour service runs on the other track (say for example one train every 30 or even 60 minutes).

I understand that some work on for example the signal system requires that there is no traffic on either track, but how much of the maintenance work is that kind of work?

If 24/7 traffic is a good idea is another question. I assume that night buses are sufficient?
MiaM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 26th, 2011, 01:25 AM   #4695
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiaM View Post
On what part of the underground network does traffic on one track interfere with maintenance on the other track?

I assume this is true for the SSL cut'n'cover lines - but how about the deep level lines?

If one track could be open then maintenance could perhaps be carried out at the same time as a limited 24-hour service runs on the other track (say for example one train every 30 or even 60 minutes).

I understand that some work on for example the signal system requires that there is no traffic on either track, but how much of the maintenance work is that kind of work?

If 24/7 traffic is a good idea is another question. I assume that night buses are sufficient?
Yes you're right in surmising that 'Single line working' as its known is more problematic on double-track tunnel than single (protection of working staff is harder to arrange). It has been done due to service emergencies before, but the trouble is under conventional signalling all LU lines are signalled for one way traffic (with a couple of isolated examples, like the Mill Hill East and Chesham branches), so the only way to do it is to have a single train locked in on the affected section running up and down, effectively with no signals whatsoever. I've done this myself as a driver on the District Line Richmond branch (shuttling between Gunnersbury and Richmond on the 'up' / eastbound line), when the westbound line was damaged at Kew.

So yes on all deep-level Tube lines you could work on one track and leave the other unaffected, but the remaining service would realistically just be a single train 'locked in', providing too infrequent a service. I guess maybe the advent of TBTC on the Jubilee Line might open up the possibility of all lines being bi-directional, but I haven't seen this tested yet. This would allow more flexibility perhaps, but whichever way it's operated, frequencies would be hugely diminished to the point it's probably not worth the effort.

And yes currently a lot of the work does preclude any trains running: lifting / Packing (evening out the ballast level), re-railing, hammering rail 'keys' back in etc.

Night buses do the job I feel... not ideal or as fast, but a very comprehensive network.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 26th, 2011, 02:13 AM   #4696
ill tonkso
Portsmouths Finest, Maybe
 
ill tonkso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St. Neots
Posts: 16,444
Likes (Received): 2055

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
As a general principle, electrification began on frequent-stop routes within London as these are the type of routes with the biggest cost-benefit (due to the need to stop / start every few minutes)... so from the SR's point of view these were routes like the Hounslow and Kingston Loops, Windsor line, Shepperton branch. This was to remain competitive with the Tube and trams which were eating into mainline rail companies' patronage within London in the early part of the 20th century.

Portsmouth is at the end of its own stub whereas Southampton merely lies on an onwards route to Bournemouth and Weymouth, so I guess it made sense if one route could be chosen for electrification over the other, the self-contained Portsmouth route would be. Bear in mind that electrification only finally reached Weymouth in 1988 after having been stuck at Bournemouth since 1967.

For the intervening 21 years, Waterloo to Weymouth trains were pushed from the rear by a 4-REP EMU, which would uncouple at Bournemouth to allow a Class 33 diesel loco to couple to the front and pull the coaches for the remaining part of the journey from Bournemouth to Weymouth. From Weymouth to London, the opposite would be the case (the Class 33 would push the coaches from Weymouth to Bournemouth, uncouple, and the 4-REP EMU would couple to the front and pull the coaches for the Bournemouth - Waterloo section).

Due to the cost / disruption involved, electrification is generally done in stages rather than an entire line / network in one go, so each stage is prioritised in terms of cost-benefit / consideration of operational concerns. For example, if it was decided to electrify the whole GWR main line system but leave the numerous little branches unelectrified, it may be deemed prudent to electrify the branches after all... there is no immediate cost-benefit, but long-term the disbenefit of needing to procure and maintain a small fleet of DMUs on an otherwise electrified network could outweigh the initial outlay of electrifying the branches.
That makes a lot of sense I guess. The Portsmouth Direct Line has quite a few stops (which is why it was kept over the mainline standard route through the Meon Valley).
ill tonkso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 26th, 2011, 03:54 AM   #4697
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

I heard on districtdave that bi-directional running on the Jubilee was omitted because of cost/time.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 26th, 2011, 09:51 AM   #4698
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
I heard on districtdave that bi-directional running on the Jubilee was omitted because of cost/time.
From what I know of TBTC, I'd guess it's primarily just a software issue... from the perspective of the actual track and train-bound hardware it's perfectly possible. The only physical assets which are direction-specific are the 'RM Hold' boards, which are effectively permanently red signals. If a train has to be driven in Restricted Manual mode (RM)... effectively driving completely 'blind' at low speed... the RM Hold boards must not be passed without authority (they protect junctions etc). They face the direction of traffic, so to become bi-directional I guess RM Hold boards would have to be installed facing in both directions (no biggie). Obviously when a train is running in ATO or PM (Protected manual), the drivers ignore the boards...
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 27th, 2011, 06:46 PM   #4699
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by ill tonkso View Post
That makes a lot of sense I guess. The Portsmouth Direct Line has quite a few stops (which is why it was kept over the mainline standard route through the Meon Valley).
The Meon Valley line was a stillborn single track route that never competed with the mainline.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2011, 12:24 AM   #4700
ill tonkso
Portsmouths Finest, Maybe
 
ill tonkso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St. Neots
Posts: 16,444
Likes (Received): 2055

I know, though there is much speculation to what would have happened if it was allowed to reach it's full potential. Alton for example would likely have been a much more important town. Portsmouth may have been within an hour of London too.

There is also a - dead - proposal to reopen it to mainline standards. The Portsmouth Direct Line is among the most overcrowded in Europe!
ill tonkso 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 06:38 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