London | Future of the Underground Network | Vision - Page 7 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Transport, Urban Planning and Infrastructure

Transport, Urban Planning and Infrastructure Shaping space, urbanity and mobility


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 January 2nd, 2019, 09:11 PM   #121
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,569
Likes (Received): 947

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan's Finest View Post
That's a figure for low speed metro with just one type of train run by one operator - but the Met line is faster and shares tracks with national rail DMU services. I note the above suggests there will be 28 TPH through Finchley Road - we shall see if I'm being too pessimistic with 24 TPH.
There are about that number now, with clockwork signalling so 28tph shouldn't be too hard. The Met, whilst being complicated, does at least have plenty of infrastructure to run the service with, and the busiest bit is the most straightforward
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old January 2nd, 2019, 10:30 PM   #122
Vulcan's Finest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: None these days.
Posts: 9,035
Likes (Received): 2781

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
There are about that number now, with clockwork signalling so 28tph shouldn't be too hard. The Met, whilst being complicated, does at least have plenty of infrastructure to run the service with, and the busiest bit is the most straightforward
I thought I had better check the Met Line timetable before replying. It has certainly increased in frequency since I last looked. I used 1715 to 1814 as a guess when the services would be most frequent.

From: Baker Street Underground Station
To: Harrow-on-the-Hill Underground Station Monday to Thursday

I make it 23 TPH! A train every 156.5 seconds on average. Some of the gaps at the outer ends are very inconsistent however.

1715 Uxbridge
1717 Amersham
1720 Uxbridge
1722 Watford
1725 Watford
1727 Chesham
1730 Uxbridge
1733 Watford
1735 Uxbridge
1738 Watford
1741 Uxbridge
1743 Amersham
1746 Uxbridge
1749 Amersham
1751 Uxbridge
1754 Watford
1757 Watford
1759 Chesham
1802 Uxbridge
1804 Watford
1807 Uxbridge
1809 Watford
1812 Uxbridge


28 TPH would require a train departing Baker Street every 128.5 seconds.
Vulcan's Finest no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2019, 10:49 PM   #123
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,569
Likes (Received): 947

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan's Finest View Post

I make it 23 TPH! A train every 156.5 seconds on average. Some of the gaps at the outer ends are very inconsistent however.
...
28 TPH would require a train departing Baker Street every 128.5 seconds.
I have a feeling it is officially 23.5tph i.e. 47 trains in 2 hours or something like that.

Some of the discrepancies to Amersham and Chesham will be down to the need to fit in the Chiltern trains. I don't know what the actual timetable is like now, but in the past some of the Watford trains were semi-fast and some all-stations.

The 1727 to Chesham was the train I used to try and catch when I worked near Moorgate, as it was fast to Harrow, and also it was often very quiet as so few people on the platforms had the faintest idea where Chesham is!
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old January 2nd, 2019, 11:23 PM   #124
acs121
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 25
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan's Finest View Post
You will never see 36 TPH on the Met line, with all it's branches and differing stopping patterns plus inter working with other tube lines and Chiltern. 36 TPH is only possible on a simple automated metro with no interfaces like the Victoria line.

24 TPH might realistically be possible one day. Some of the frequencies above are overkill considering the amount of potential commuters from what is mainly low-density suburbs (the original Metroland!).

Not sure how or where the Met line could be put into a deep level tunnel under Central London - space under Baker Street is at a premium! At West Hampstead perhaps would work, certainly not possible near Baker Street?
32tph is the maximum a normal line can have if it's not automated - see most deep-level lines, and subsurface ones too.
acs121 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2019, 12:10 AM   #125
Leedsrule
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,624
Likes (Received): 618

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
Agree the Croxley link being a shame, however I don't think the Chiltern line could cope without the Met services
They could if you sent other Chiltern services to OOC or Crossrail which has spare capacity to the west.
Leedsrule no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2019, 01:41 AM   #126
acs121
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 25
Likes (Received): 2

Actually, I just realised it : instead of sending 32tph through the tracks from Finchley Road to Wembley Park and re-doing the error that was made some 87 years ago, using my idea of leaving only the Watford and Uxbridge branches, it would be this way :

- 24tph between Finchley Road and Wembley Park
- Trains to Watford would always use the fast tracks between Wembley Park and Harrow-on-the-Hill
- Trains to Uxbridge would always use the slow tracks between Wembley Park and Harrow-on-the-Hill, stopping at Northwick Park and Preston Road
- 6 additionnal trains per hour on the Chiltern Main Line to Aylesbury, stopping at Harrow-on-the-Hill, Moor Park, Rickmansworth, etc.
- 2 trains per hour taking over the Met branch to Chesham, also stopping at Harrow-on-the-Hill, Moor Park, Rickmansworth, etc.

This would rather redirect services on the Met through Marylebone, and maybe relieving the Metropolitan. This would make 18 trains per hour from Marylebone to the junction at Neasden, which Marylebone could have, I believe.
acs121 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2019, 03:19 PM   #127
Vulcan's Finest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: None these days.
Posts: 9,035
Likes (Received): 2781

Quote:
Originally Posted by acs121 View Post
Actually, I just realised it : instead of sending 32tph through the tracks from Finchley Road to Wembley Park and re-doing the error that was made some 87 years ago, using my idea of leaving only the Watford and Uxbridge branches, it would be this way :

- 24tph between Finchley Road and Wembley Park
- Trains to Watford would always use the fast tracks between Wembley Park and Harrow-on-the-Hill
- Trains to Uxbridge would always use the slow tracks between Wembley Park and Harrow-on-the-Hill, stopping at Northwick Park and Preston Road
- 6 additionnal trains per hour on the Chiltern Main Line to Aylesbury, stopping at Harrow-on-the-Hill, Moor Park, Rickmansworth, etc.
- 2 trains per hour taking over the Met branch to Chesham, also stopping at Harrow-on-the-Hill, Moor Park, Rickmansworth, etc.

This would rather redirect services on the Met through Marylebone, and maybe relieving the Metropolitan. This would make 18 trains per hour from Marylebone to the junction at Neasden, which Marylebone could have, I believe.
18 trains an hour from six platforms can easily work for metro-style operations, but when many of the Chiltern line trains are long-distance and subject to delays en-route it would be pretty much unworkable in practice.

However... a few years back I did some measurements and concluded there was room for a couple of extra terminating platforms underground at Marylebone. The tracks would have to rise quite steeply to get up and over the Regents Canal - say a 7 or 8 metre rise in 330m - but it certainly looks do-able. The cost would be pretty high though as it would need the space under platforms 1 & 2 to be excavated - which would surely be quite disruptive to the existing service.....

The next bottleneck is the flat junction at Neasden, but modern signalling and automatic train control should be able to deliver 18TPH reliably over it.

How Marylebone would cope with so many passengers is another issue... it wasn't really designed for mass transit on this scale.
Vulcan's Finest no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2019, 06:23 PM   #128
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,569
Likes (Received): 947

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan's Finest View Post
18 trains an hour from six platforms can easily work for metro-style operations, but when many of the Chiltern line trains are long-distance and subject to delays en-route it would be pretty much unworkable in practice.

However... a few years back I did some measurements and concluded there was room for a couple of extra terminating platforms underground at Marylebone. The tracks would have to rise quite steeply to get up and over the Regents Canal - say a 7 or 8 metre rise in 330m - but it certainly looks do-able. The cost would be pretty high though as it would need the space under platforms 1 & 2 to be excavated - which would surely be quite disruptive to the existing service.....

The next bottleneck is the flat junction at Neasden, but modern signalling and automatic train control should be able to deliver 18TPH reliably over it.

How Marylebone would cope with so many passengers is another issue... it wasn't really designed for mass transit on this scale.
I suspect knocking down the BNP Paribas building and then putting it back on top of new platforms would be cheaper!

The last point is key though, it's not a sensible place to put lots more passengers
__________________

mr_jrt liked this post
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2019, 08:25 PM   #129
mr_jrt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,705
Likes (Received): 138

*cough* Time to dredge up my old proposal then!

1) Project the OOC terminating Crossrail services up the Chiltern line, taking over all the suburban services. This removes all of those from Marylebone, and obviously mean electrifying to Oxford, Aylesbury via Princes Risborough, and Bicester North.

2) Either:
2a) Close the poorly-used Chiltern stations between Ruislip and Neasden, or
2b) Restore & extend the former 4-track formation to act as a branch of the Jubilee Line to provide service to the stations
...but whichever you choose, most importantly you need to have a clear run for the Chiltern Mainline services to make the most of them.

3) Rebuild Neasden properly, with 3 or 4 Jubilee platforms, 2 Met platforms, and 2 WLO platforms. Move the fast Met stops from Wembley Park to Neasden. Service Wembley Park from the Uxbridge branch Met services and the Stanmore branch Jubilee services. Don't forget all those Wembley Park terminators will still be serving Wembley - just Wembley Stadium station rather than Wembley Park station.

4) You now have Marylebone used only by the Chiltern Mainline services and the residual Aylesbury-via-Amersham services. Give Marylebone's 3 long platforms over to the mainline services and use the 3 short platforms for the Amersham services. If there Chiltern capacity is there, consider cutting the Met back to Rickmansworth or Moor Park (as a short turn instead of going all the way to Watford) so you can pull up the 4th rail between Amersham and HotH and install OHLE from Aylesbury to Neasden. Or, if you have the capacity (which, at trying to find useful places for 32tph through Finchley Road to go, you probably will have), re-extend the Met to Aylesbury, with associated extension of the 4th rail.

Last edited by mr_jrt; January 6th, 2019 at 08:33 PM.
mr_jrt no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2019, 09:32 PM   #130
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,569
Likes (Received): 947



Interesting ideas, although I'm not sure I would be keen on sitting on a 345 all the way to Oxford! I would have thought High Wycombe was the sensible limit for using metro-style trains, but that would be worth doing

I think sending the Jubilee to Wembley Stadium could work, but further than there it's low density suburbia, I don't think the cost could justify going any further. Then the problem is that there is at least some commuting to Wembley Stadium from further out. And Northolt Park is an issue, with no very close alternative, compared to the Sudbury stations. All a bit tricky and unlikely to ever happen.

If the Met ever took over the route to Aylesbury I would expect overhead wiring and dual-voltage trains being a better answer than another 20 miles of 4th rail
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2019, 09:39 PM   #131
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,569
Likes (Received): 947

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon10 View Post
Neasden (I kid you not) is to be a 'major growth area' with the coming of the West London Orbital,
Neasden? I really should refrain from any sneering given the popularity of St Reatham or Peckham... but Neasden???

When is the West London Orbital likely to happen?
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2019, 10:28 PM   #132
acs121
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 25
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan's Finest View Post
18 trains an hour from six platforms can easily work for metro-style operations, but when many of the Chiltern line trains are long-distance and subject to delays en-route it would be pretty much unworkable in practice.

However... a few years back I did some measurements and concluded there was room for a couple of extra terminating platforms underground at Marylebone. The tracks would have to rise quite steeply to get up and over the Regents Canal - say a 7 or 8 metre rise in 330m - but it certainly looks do-able. The cost would be pretty high though as it would need the space under platforms 1 & 2 to be excavated - which would surely be quite disruptive to the existing service.....

The next bottleneck is the flat junction at Neasden, but modern signalling and automatic train control should be able to deliver 18TPH reliably over it.

How Marylebone would cope with so many passengers is another issue... it wasn't really designed for mass transit on this scale.
If you look closely on Google Maps, Marylebone has a platform north of the BNP Paribas building. And if you look closer, you can see there is space for another platform and track next to it.

I guess since the surroundings of the junction at Neasden are just brownfields, I think the junction can be rearranged into a flying junction.

As for Stuu : At the time, electrification to Aylesbury was planned, but in fact, the Met EMUs were too slow to operate this section, and the LPTB didn't want to continue using electric locomotives.
acs121 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2019, 11:42 PM   #133
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,569
Likes (Received): 947

Quote:
Originally Posted by acs121 View Post
If you look closely on Google Maps, Marylebone has a platform north of the BNP Paribas building. And if you look closer, you can see there is space for another platform and track next to it.
Having been a regular user of the newer platforms at Marylebone, I'm pretty confident there isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by acs121 View Post
As for Stuu : At the time, electrification to Aylesbury was planned, but in fact, the Met EMUs were too slow to operate this section, and the LPTB didn't want to continue using electric locomotives as they were very old and they didn't want to replace them.
I suspect money was the issue for stopping at Amersham. My money would definitely be on the A Stock in a race with a BR MkI DMU
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2019, 12:27 AM   #134
mr_jrt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,705
Likes (Received): 138

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
Interesting ideas, although I'm not sure I would be keen on sitting on a 345 all the way to Oxford! I would have thought High Wycombe was the sensible limit for using metro-style trains, but that would be worth doing
I agree, but if Reading is apparently ok for them, and Oxford passengers will have the GWR alternative...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
I think sending the Jubilee to Wembley Stadium could work, but further than there it's low density suburbia, I don't think the cost could justify going any further. Then the problem is that there is at least some commuting to Wembley Stadium from further out. And Northolt Park is an issue, with no very close alternative, compared to the Sudbury stations. All a bit tricky and unlikely to ever happen.
All the high-density urban areas were low density suburbia at one point. Usually, just before good rail lines were built nearby. I personally don't think it'd work out, but if the will was there to increase the density on that corridor, maybe. The areas already have the nearby Uxbridge branch to ferry them to central London, which is the primary reason why the stations are so quiet (that and few people want Marylebone itself, which given the poor connections, is probably where you want need to be going to use them), are candidates for closure. Improving the connectivity by adding a call at Neasden might just make them more attractive. Likewise, getting from Neasden to Ruislip without having to travel via HotH and changing at Rayners Lane might be a candidate for inclusion in an orbital connectivity project. Who knows...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
If the Met ever took over the route to Aylesbury I would expect overhead wiring and dual-voltage trains being a better answer than another 20 miles of 4th rail
I can't imagine TfL wanting to go dual-voltage on their SSL fleet for the extremities of the Met. Either it'll be a) 4th rail to Aylesbury, b) the Met will be cut back to Rickmansworth or Moor Park (with NR taking over beyond), or most unlikely, c) separate tracks will be laid to Amersham, keeping the Met as-is with OHLE alongside.
mr_jrt no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2019, 02:38 AM   #135
acs121
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 25
Likes (Received): 2

I think that the extension to Aylesbury is technically and financially possible, and that it would eventually free capacity at Marylebone, especially for mainline trains to Oxford, Birmingham, etc.

However the S Stock can't go faster than 100kph, and I don't think S Stock is adapted to a line where stations are some quite long distances apart. The DMUs that operate right now go at least at 120kph.

If ever suitable rolling stock would be built, here's how I would do it :
- No more NR services between Marylebone and Aylesbury via Amersham
- Services to Aylesbury Vale Parkway would take the route via Denham
- 1 more train per hour to Aylesbury via Denham
acs121 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2019, 01:15 AM   #136
mr_jrt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,705
Likes (Received): 138

As lovely as having a homogeneous SSL S-stock fleet is, they are a retrograde step over the dedicated A-Stock in top speed (62mph vs. 70mph), abet not by much. The metro-optimisation of the S-stock is the reasoning behind my preference of NR taking over the Amersham line.

Cut the Met back and then you have options. You can lengthen the platforms to handle 8x20m trains, for example. You could upgrade the track to handle faster speeds, and if segregated, it makes installing OHLE much more simple. Travelling from Amersham to Marylebone on a ~90mph 8-car modern EMU is going to be a sufficient enough of an improvement over the current 5-car DMUs stuck behind 60mph Met trains to drag passengers back from the WCML and the Chiltern services via High Wycombe, I suspect.
mr_jrt no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2019, 04:18 AM   #137
Vulcan's Finest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: None these days.
Posts: 9,035
Likes (Received): 2781

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_jrt View Post
As lovely as having a homogeneous SSL S-stock fleet is, they are a retrograde step over the dedicated A-Stock in top speed (62mph vs. 70mph), abet not by much. The metro-optimisation of the S-stock is the reasoning behind my preference of NR taking over the Amersham line.

Cut the Met back and then you have options. You can lengthen the platforms to handle 8x20m trains, for example. You could upgrade the track to handle faster speeds, and if segregated, it makes installing OHLE much more simple. Travelling from Amersham to Marylebone on a ~90mph 8-car modern EMU is going to be a sufficient enough of an improvement over the current 5-car DMUs stuck behind 60mph Met trains to drag passengers back from the WCML and the Chiltern services via High Wycombe, I suspect.
Don't think the A-Stock exceeded 60mph in recent years, the ride was pretty poor even at just 50mph. Although I do know one was recorded doing 77mph downhill in the 1970s! Otherwise I totally agree, if there were sufficient platforms at Marylebone it would make teal sense for the line to Aylesbury to become a modern and much faster 25kV railway, perhaps completely segregated physically from the Met (slow lines) - and the Chiltern trains could serve Wembley to interchange with the Jubilee.

I suspect in the rush hour 4x Aylesbury, 2x Amersham and 2x Chesham from Marylebone would do the job. The bay at Rickmansworth could accommodate 4TPH Met line (terminating), all others going either to Watford or Uxbridge.

Last edited by Vulcan's Finest; January 8th, 2019 at 05:16 AM.
Vulcan's Finest no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2019, 05:12 AM   #138
Vulcan's Finest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: None these days.
Posts: 9,035
Likes (Received): 2781

Quote:
Originally Posted by acs121 View Post
If you look closely on Google Maps, Marylebone has a platform north of the BNP Paribas building. And if you look closer, you can see there is space for another platform and track next to it.
Look closer still and you'll there is most certainly no space for what you propose next to the main station - four blocks of high-spec flats have been built very close to the track at platform six, on the west side.

Believe me, I've looked in great detail at Marylebone - and have concluded there is no realistic way to provide a seventh long platform on the surface within the current station footprint, hence why the only decent option I think would be going underneath. It would I agree be possible to provide a short (4 or 5-car) platform 7 on the other side of Rossmore Road bridge, however the issue here is how to link that platform to the rest of the station for passengers, as there is so little space to play with to install a footbridge to platform 5&6.

Quote:
I guess since the surroundings of the junction at Neasden are just brownfields, I think the junction can be rearranged into a flying junction.
A flying junction at this location is totally impossible - did you not see the North Circular and B453 road bridges that cross over the railway?

Grade separation is however possible by dropping one of the tracks by about 6m. This could for example allow the down Wembley/Harrow line to cross over the up Sudbury line. However building this would involve massive disruption and total closure of both Chiltern routes for a long time - which is not going to happen!

Might also be possible for a much longer version of the Acton dive-under built for Crossrail. This track would come off the down line just west of Dudden Hill Lane bridge and dive steeply underground - it could then rise back to the surface opposite Neasden Works/Depot, with the existing Chiltern tracks slewed over. I've calculated it would need a single-bore tunnel of about 800m length (half a mile) to be bored. Probably even more expensive, but at least it would not require lengthy closures of the Chiltern lines.
__________________

Rapidtransitman liked this post
Vulcan's Finest no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2019, 10:04 AM   #139
bench_mark_2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hampstead
Posts: 2,953
Likes (Received): 1391

A new tube route could replace the suburban routes from Marylebone and all routes from Fenchurch street station. We still need a new Fleet line via Central London.
bench_mark_2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2019, 11:51 AM   #140
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,569
Likes (Received): 947

Quote:
Originally Posted by bench_mark_2 View Post
A new tube route could replace the suburban routes from Marylebone and all routes from Fenchurch street station. We still need a new Fleet line via Central London.
The suburban routes don't have anything like the numbers to justify that. NW London has more underground routes than any other quadrant, so there just isn't the demand to anything like the extent found elsewhere. And there are only relatively small commuter towns outside the M25 which also limit demand.

Fenchurch Street lines should be linked to the Windsor lines out of Waterloo, IMHO.
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BRAZIL | Urban Transport Compilation mopc Subways and Urban Transport 2230 Yesterday 04:00 AM
LONDON | Projects & Construction wjfox City/Metro Compilations 24014 November 18th, 2019 10:43 PM
Lisboa | Village Underground MarcoSousa Projectos 55 July 12th, 2014 11:32 AM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us