# Ask the Tubeman



## spsmiler

Tubeman said:


> I was aware of that... But don't forget it was _Addison Road_ Station so technically the Earl's Court to Willesden Junction service never served Kensington Olympia


Ha! Semantics!!!

technically of course you are right, but it was the same station, just with a different name.

I could say that only the Bakerloo Line ever served Trafalgar Square - I would (probably) be right too, except that if you go there now you can also have a long walk through tunnels from the Northern Line. For a while the Jubilee Line also went there (& still does ecs and accidentally with pasengers too) and what I used to do was use the two sets of escalators to shorten the walk. Alas that is no longer possible.

That leads me into the station's modern name, (Charing Cross) which is a station name saga in itself, what with that, Strand, Embankment, etc. 

And what about Archway / Highgate? Wood Green, plus others... (though cant think of any right now)

What I find really odd is how there are 2 independant Shepherds Bush stations, yet no-one bats an eyelid - indeed, soon there will be 3 of 'em, although I dont know if the new West London Line station will actually be linked in to either of the other two??? 

A recipe for confusion...

now off to rest my head in a darkened room 

lol 


Simon


----------



## Justme

Tubeman said:


> Welcome to the world of Public Private Partnership and the most incompetent bunch of cowboy contractors you'll ever encounter :yes:


I wouldn't worry too much. We have the same problem with escalators here in Frankfurt. Set's around the main station here have been out of operation so long (years we are talking) that instead of fixing them, they just cover them up now with sheet metal so they don't fall into worse disrepair.


----------



## spsmiler

Justme said:


> I wouldn't worry too much. We have the same problem with escalators here in Frankfurt. Set's around the main station here have been out of operation so long (years we are talking) that instead of fixing them, they just cover them up now with sheet metal so they don't fall into worse disrepair.


There is at least one station in London where the same has been done.

It might be Greenford, i dont remember - its on the West Ruislip branch of the central Line, where the stations are all above street level.

Simon


----------



## Tubeman

spsmiler said:


> There is at least one station in London where the same has been done.
> 
> It might be Greenford, i dont remember - its on the West Ruislip branch of the central Line, where the stations are all above street level.
> 
> Simon


It would be Greenford, I believe the only escalator from street level UP to the platforms on the Underground!


----------



## Tubeman

spsmiler said:


> Ha! Semantics!!!
> 
> technically of course you are right, but it was the same station, just with a different name.
> 
> I could say that only the Bakerloo Line ever served Trafalgar Square - I would (probably) be right too, except that if you go there now you can also have a long walk through tunnels from the Northern Line. For a while the Jubilee Line also went there (& still does ecs and accidentally with pasengers too) and what I used to do was use the two sets of escalators to shorten the walk. Alas that is no longer possible.
> 
> That leads me into the station's modern name, (Charing Cross) which is a station name saga in itself, what with that, Strand, Embankment, etc.
> 
> And what about Archway / Highgate? Wood Green, plus others... (though cant think of any right now)
> 
> What I find really odd is how there are 2 independant Shepherds Bush stations, yet no-one bats an eyelid - indeed, soon there will be 3 of 'em, although I dont know if the new West London Line station will actually be linked in to either of the other two???
> 
> A recipe for confusion...
> 
> now off to rest my head in a darkened room
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> Simon


There have been / are / will be *7* separate Shepherd's Bush stations!

I think it must be a record; the most separately-sited stations all holding the exact same name. I'm sure you'd be able to get 5 of them pretty easily, but the other 2 were revelations to me when I found out about them during my book research. 

I'll see if you know where they were


----------



## Rational Plan

Tubeman said:


> That sucks balls. If the trains are going to take up paths into Paddington anyway, they might as well be advertised and have their capacity fully utilised. Lunacy... Private industry and public servcies shouldn't mix because it causes ludicrous situations like this. "Yes sir, the trains do run to Paddington but I'm not allowed to tell you that, oh and you can't buy a ticket anyway."
> 
> :crazy:


But it was only because of BAA we got the line built in the first place. When it was first proposed it was going to be a 70/30 split on funding. But as the government dragged its feet and eventually decided that, sorry no cash available, BAA just bit the bullet and paid for the entire thing itself. 

BAA has invested £700 million in Heathrow Express, so of course it wants a return on its investment. The local service should be integrated into the Travel card zone, but no one is prepared to pay BAA for that so in effect there is toll on use on the tunnel, which is why the service is pretty expensive. I think it costs a fiver from Hayes and Harlington alone. 

The big question is how are they going to allow acces to Crossrail trains and what the fares will be? There will be huge political pressure for it to be part of the travelcard area. BAA will be using its huge lobby skill to make sure it is compensated propperly. 

Now there is a talk of a £5 toll to use the terminal access roads, to help fund the Airtrack scheme to Staines.


----------



## mr_storms

whats happening with the w&c rerubishment and will it (or does it already) have ato like the central line


----------



## Tubeman

Rational Plan said:


> But it was only because of BAA we got the line built in the first place. When it was first proposed it was going to be a 70/30 split on funding. But as the government dragged its feet and eventually decided that, sorry no cash available, BAA just bit the bullet and paid for the entire thing itself.
> 
> BAA has invested £700 million in Heathrow Express, so of course it wants a return on its investment. The local service should be integrated into the Travel card zone, but no one is prepared to pay BAA for that so in effect there is toll on use on the tunnel, which is why the service is pretty expensive. I think it costs a fiver from Hayes and Harlington alone.
> 
> The big question is how are they going to allow acces to Crossrail trains and what the fares will be? There will be huge political pressure for it to be part of the travelcard area. BAA will be using its huge lobby skill to make sure it is compensated propperly.
> 
> Now there is a talk of a £5 toll to use the terminal access roads, to help fund the Airtrack scheme to Staines.


Network Rail should buy it off BAA at a reasonable price and in return HEX trains should be able to use the branch to the airport toll free.


----------



## Tubeman

mr_storms said:


> whats happening with the w&c rerubishment and will it (or does it already) have ato like the central line


Its going ahead, it seems to be closed a lot recently so perhaps these are enabling works. It will shut for 4 months solid next year.

Its currently manual, and I don't think there are plans for auto working but don't quote me on that.


----------



## nick_taylor

Tubeman said:


> Its going ahead, it seems to be closed a lot recently so perhaps these are enabling works. It will shut for 4 months solid next year.
> 
> Its currently manual, and I don't think there are plans for auto working but don't quote me on that.


Yeah thats what I thought, especially as its the main tube route I take between Waterloo and Liverpool Street. Jubilee, Northern and Central for me then!


----------



## invincible

Tubeman said:


> Yes I was aghast to see 'Connex' emblazened on all of the Melbourne trains the last time I was there... They had two franchises on suburban lines in Kent, Sussex and Surrey (South of London) which were taken off them because they were so bad. They're French I believe?
> 
> Re: The Indian-Pacific... How did that work, with 5 different gauges?
> 
> At each point where it changed was everyone turfed off one train onto another?


The current route is 4352km long and spans three states.

But there used to be 4 breaks of gauge from Sydney to Perth and 5 from Brisbane to Perth to form a route Brisbane - Sydney - Melbourne - Adelaide - Perth and effectively circumnavigating half the continent which was at least better than circling the continent by ship.

If Wikipedia is correct, then at the time of the railway's completion in 1917:
Queensland used 1034mm narrow gauge.
New South Wales used 1435mm standard gauge.
Victoria used 1600mm broad gauge.
South Australia used 1034mm narrow gauge.
Western Australia used 1034mm narrow gauge.
The track across the desert between SA and WA was built by the federal government to standard gauge.

So from Sydney to Perth, you had these gauges: standard - broad - narrow - standard - narrow.

I'm guessing that passengers would just change trains since changing the bogies is probably too much work. There's stories of passengers on the night train between Sydney and Melbourne having to wake up at 4am to change trains. 

The problem here isn't even with Connex itself though, it's the government not paying for infrastructure which leaves both gaps in coverage and large bottlenecks in the network. And the infrastructure is still the government's responsibility.


----------



## Justme

A few years ago, I took an overnight train from Paris to Barcelona. It was when there was still a guage difference between the two countries. The train was quite modern and fast, and while sleeping in Port Bou at the border, the bofies actually widened under the train, so it could continue through to Barcelona with minimal disruption.


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> A few years ago, I took an overnight train from Paris to Barcelona. It was when there was still a guage difference between the two countries. The train was quite modern and fast, and while sleeping in Port Bou at the border, the bofies actually widened under the train, so it could continue through to Barcelona with minimal disruption.


That's pretty mad... I've never heard of telescopic axles before!


----------



## jonallen1966

> Originally Posted by pricemazda
> but you don't find the escalators at Selfridges breaking down every 2 weeks, or the ones at heathrow that require being completely boarded up for 2 years (@Brixton an escalator was out for 2 1/2 years while being fixed)





Tubeman said:


> Welcome to the world of Public Private Partnership and the most incompetent bunch of cowboy contractors you'll ever encounter :yes:


The escalators at Selfridges don't have half as tough a life as the 
escalators on the Undergroud.
the TFL site has a few statistics and reasons why it takes so long
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/using/useful-info/technical/escalators.asp
Things are getting better. The 3 at waterloo are being replaced in less than six months.


----------



## CharlieP

Tubey, what's the latest on the Space Train project?


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> Tubey, what's the latest on the Space Train project?


Disappeared off the radar sadly. The Victoria Line is going to be receiving conventional trains, and it was the Vic that Space Train was mooted for.


----------



## spsmiler

Tubeman said:


> Disappeared off the radar sadly. The Victoria Line is going to be receiving conventional trains, and it was the Vic that Space Train was mooted for.


Hi Tubeman, all, 

sorry not always able to come during the week (busy), anyway, boss is out this afternoon..  

re: the space train, here a pic I took of a model at the 1999 UITP exhibition in Toronto. 

Yes its a great shame that its been killed off - privatisation, I suppose, and railcos afraid of what might happen (financially) if several years after introduction there were mechanical problems requiring expensive remedial work. As happened to the Combino(?) trams. 

Simon


----------



## spsmiler

Tubeman said:


> There have been / are / will be *7* separate Shepherd's Bush stations!
> 
> I think it must be a record; the most separately-sited stations all holding the exact same name. I'm sure you'd be able to get 5 of them pretty easily, but the other 2 were revelations to me when I found out about them during my book research.
> 
> I'll see if you know where they were


Hi Tubeman.

Nope, no idea - although possibly linked in with TV, Eastenders? 

It wasnt Quatermass was it - I thought that used something like "Hobbs Cross"?

Simon


----------



## nick_taylor

Won't the new sub-surface stock be articulated?


----------



## Tubeman

nick-taylor said:


> Won't the new sub-surface stock be articulated?


Not that I'm aware of. They'll just be Electrostars with more doorways.

The reason being (I presume) because it will be a universal stock running in 8 (Metropolitan), 7 (District) and 6 (Circle / H&C) Car formations. I suppose then there could be 3 and 4 car units (i.e. either 4+4, 3+4 or 3+3) which could be permanently coupled and therefore articulated, but the entire train couldn't be.


----------



## spsmiler

pricemazda said:


> What was the former name of Covent Garden station?


Since when was this station renamed???

puzzled Simon


----------



## spsmiler

nick-taylor said:


> I found a map of the extended DLR network and it shows the various lines:


It is amazing to see how the system has grown over the years - most small to medium sized towns would be thrilled to have a system such as this - yet within the London context this is a small network which only serves a very limited area!

Its just a shame that its all in low lying areas close to the river - I say this because as sea levels rise (global climate change) so these areas will be flooded first. 

Simon


----------



## pricemazda

I noticed it today when I was waiting for the train, i saw in the tiles a part of a name ...bury. Presumably the station was renamed.


----------



## DarJoLe

pricemazda said:


> I noticed it today when I was waiting for the train, i saw in the tiles a part of a name ...bury. Presumably the station was renamed.


It's part of 'Trains to Finsbury Park' which appeared on the platforms I think. I've seen something similar at South Kensington (I think).


----------



## DarJoLe

Justme said:


> Thanks Razional Plan.
> 
> Another DLR question. When is the Woolwich Arsenal extension scheduled for completion? Do you think this may help reduce the pressure on the Lewisham - Bank route, as some people who may transfer from NR to the DLR before Cutty Sark will use the new Woolwich Arsenal station and different line?


Early 2009 (far too long in my opinion)

I guess it would, afterall that's probably why it was extended there in the first place. And it will be used by Olympic spectators for Shooting Events at Woolwich in 2012. It's a bit annoying it couldn't have somehow looped back and gone further to Thamesmead but heyho.


----------



## samsonyuen

Question about the map: why is it that they don't have transfer indications for some stations (Gloucester Road), but they do for some others (South Ken)? Is it just the preferred transfer points for the Underground?

Also, what lines do you personally think terminate short of where they should? Aldgate and the Metropolitan Line? Hammersmith and the H&C line?


----------



## Rational Plan

Justme said:


> Thanks Rational Plan.
> 
> Another DLR question. When is the Woolwich Arsenal extension scheduled for completion? Do you think this may help reduce the pressure on the Lewisham - Bank route, as some people who may transfer from NR to the DLR before Cutty Sark will use the new Woolwich Arsenal station and different line?


2009, I don't think it will have much effect on the Lewisham Bank route as it will be much quicker to Get to Canary Wharf from Greenwich and Lewisham rather than from Woolwich. The new connection will open up the travel to work area for the Royal Docks and Stratford, boosting the chance of redevelopment as they become accesible to Kent and Essex commuters. 

The 2020 new horizons study will be interesting. This aimed to look at new options for extending the DLR. The previous study was remarkable because most of the options promoted are actually being built! The study was supposed to publish its results in spring, but not a word has been heard.
Rumours suggest a Southern extension from Lewisham to Catford, or Hither Green, both of which would link to longer distance Kent commuters whose trains bypass Lewisham. A western extension for Bank is also proposed but as this is in tunnel I can't imagine it being long because of the cost, maybe Farringdon or Moorgate stations could be linked. Most likely would be further extensions downstream of the Thames to act as a local distributer of commuters to rail stations, allowing more of the Thames Gateway to be developed.


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> Would this include the run from Cutty Sark & Greenwich to Canary Wharf and Bank? This has some underground stations which would be very expensive to expand.


Sorry guys, I've been in Portsmouth for 3 days and therefore have some catching up to do...

I believe that the subterranean stations on the Lewisham Extension were built for 6 cars, so thankfully there was some forward planning involved. In fact, my recollection of standing on Cutty Sark platforms is that they are very long, perhaps even long enough for 8 cars (4 units) of DLR stock.


----------



## Tubeman

Nephasto said:


> Inner London Sub-surface network is the circle routes?
> 
> The Metropolitan has 4 tracks up north(in some parts at least north of wembley park) doesn't it? Enabling the Fast/Semi-Fast and Slow services.


Yes, the Metropolitan Line is quadruple from Wembley park to the junction with the Watford Branch, although between Harrow-on-the-Hill and that junction the Chiltern main Line trains share the 'fast' tracks.

Technically Met Trains can use the 'Slow' (=Jubilee) tracks between Wembley Park and Finchley Road if need be, and they were originally built by the Metropolitan railway.


----------



## Tubeman

mr_storms said:


> yes. On a related note, why does the picc have 4 pics for only like 2 stations on the heathrow line? Were they planning to expand these and just never got around to it?


Until 1975 the Heathrow Branch was the Hounslow West Branch, and until 1933 it was exclusively a District Line branch.

Until 1933 the Piccadilly Line terminated at Hammersmith, after which time quadrupling works between there and Northfields enabled Piccadilly Line trains to run out to Uxbridge and Hounslow West. The reason why quadrupling was only completed as far as Northfields is because in connection with the works and Piccadilly Line extension the huge depot at Northfields was constructed for the District and Piccadilly Lines, it was obviously deemed appropriate for 4 tracks between the depot and Acton Town because of the anticipated depot traffic.

Districts to Hounslow West used to run slow and would stop at South ealing, Chiswick Park, Turnham Green, Stamford Brook and Ravenscourt park whilst the Piccadilly Line Hounslow West trains would run fast and miss these stations out. In 1964 the District Line was withdrawn from the then Hounslow West branch and it became exclusively Piccadilly, but Northfields depot remained in use by the District Line for a few more years.

The branch was then extended to Hatton Cross (1975), Heathrow Central (1977), Terminal 4 (1986) and soon Terminal 5 (2008).

The 'extra' tracks between Northfields and Acton Town are today basically redundant, but are kept in use for test trains and diversionary use. I'm not that well versed with the Piccadilly timetable, but they would probably have some trains timetabled over them every day to keep them in working order (so-called 'Rusty rail' Working).


----------



## Tubeman

jetsetwilly said:


> Was the sticker for the Woolwich Arsenal extension added to show it under construction where it wasn't on the map before, or to conceal the "completed" version of the map, do you think?


If you look carefully, the sticker doesn't cover King george V or part of the track continuing beyond it, so therefore it can be inferred its covering a completed Woolwich Arsenal extension and will be peeled off in 2009!


----------



## Tubeman

homesweethome said:


> In the loosist possible way of using this term, for a non train spotter as such is this book
> 
> "The Subterranean Railway: How the London Underground Was Built and How It Changed the City Forever"
> 
> any good?
> 
> i have been living in london for the past 3 months and getting the tube every day jus amazes me!im sure it has some facinating secrets and im wanting to find out a little more about its history, noticed this book and wandered if ne one here has read it?
> 
> i get the picalilly line evry day and went on the circle line y day. it was weird, reminded me more of a new yourk subway than the tube. there was more station space and the carriages were much bigger, im guessing this was a more modern line and the pic line was an early line. so there fore smaller? and also when was the most recent line built other than the dlr and jubillee extension?
> 
> will that book answert these kinds of questions?
> 
> maybe some 1 here knows?
> 
> thanx


The biggest trains are on the oldest lines, somewhat peversely

The Sub-Surface Lines were built to main line loading gauges as they carried coaches and freight from off the main lines through the tunnels. The Deep-Level lines which were conceived later were always basically self-contained passenger lines and so were built to the smallest comfortable dimensions to save money.


----------



## Tubeman

pricemazda said:


> What was the former name of Covent Garden station?


Its always been 'Covent Garden', the origin of '-bury' has been correctly explained already.

Many Piccadilly Line stations on the original section (Hammersmith to Finsbury Park) have tiling on the wall saying 'Trains to Hammersmith' on the Westbound and 'Trains to Finsbury Park' on the Eastbound with an arrow pointing in the trains direction. Have a look, you're bound to see a few surviving signs.


----------



## Tubeman

samsonyuen said:


> Question about the map: why is it that they don't have transfer indications for some stations (Gloucester Road), but they do for some others (South Ken)? Is it just the preferred transfer points for the Underground?
> 
> Also, what lines do you personally think terminate short of where they should? Aldgate and the Metropolitan Line? Hammersmith and the H&C line?


Yes, Gloucester Road only has lifts and so an interchange isn't indicated whereas South Kensington has escalators so one is.

Regarding the second question:

Most inner London Underground Line termini are unintentional, for example the Metropolitan & Great Western railways who jointly built the Hammersmith branch from Edgware Road sought powers for a river crossing and a line onwards to Barnes and the L&SWR Main Line, but this was blocked I believe.

Likewise, the Victoria Line was intended to continue beyond Brixton at least to Streatham and possibly to Croydon, and the Bakerloo to Camberwell.

Aldgate is an exception, as the District Line beyond Aldgate East cannot accommodate any more trains so the Metropolitan Line needs to 'stop short'... literally, as the platforms at Aldgate are within touching distance of the District Line.

There are plans afoot for the H&C and Met to 'swap' between Aldgate (East) and Barking, as the Met trains have 2 extra cars and so could increase capacity on a very busy section. This won't happen until the new 'S' Stock comes in though.


----------



## Rational Plan

Tubeman said:


> Sorry guys, I've been in Portsmouth for 3 days and therefore have some catching up to do...
> 
> I believe that the subterranean stations on the Lewisham Extension were built for 6 cars, so thankfully there was some forward planning involved. In fact, my recollection of standing on Cutty Sark platforms is that they are very long, perhaps even long enough for 8 cars (4 units) of DLR stock.


Not according to the interview in Modern rail with the head of DLR. It was suprising that such a modern line was not built with such capacity. While Island Gardens is big enough Cutty Sark is not so they will have at least one of set doors shut when they are in the station. I can remember years ago, on the old Northern line trains, the last did not open at one station. I'm not sure if it was Embankment or Charing Cross, all I have a memories of a section of carriage blocked off with a horizontal metal pole (for when they still had guards on the tube) and an announcement about the last door not openening. Does that still happen?


----------



## pricemazda

Its at Charing Cross.


----------



## Tubeman

Rational Plan said:


> Not according to the interview in Modern rail with the head of DLR. It was suprising that such a modern line was not built with such capacity. While Island Gardens is big enough Cutty Sark is not so they will have at least one of set doors shut when they are in the station. I can remember years ago, on the old Northern line trains, the last did not open at one station. I'm not sure if it was Embankment or Charing Cross, all I have a memories of a section of carriage blocked off with a horizontal metal pole (for when they still had guards on the tube) and an announcement about the last door not openening. Does that still happen?


The first single door on the last carriage of the 1959 Stocks had the Guard's Panel and a metal bar that was raised across the gangway; I used to be a Northern Line Guard before they were withdrawn.

We used to cut out the last set of doors at Euston Bank Branch Southbound, I believe these doors still do not open. The leading set of doors at Moorgate Southbound now do not open, the platform there is now deemed too narrow.

The old Northern Line trains had 7 cars and the front and rear of the trains were usually in the tunnel at either end of the platform. When the new trains came in, because they had no Guard, they became 6 cars and the Driver's cab is stopped on the platform (i.e. a few metres short of where they used to stop).


----------



## Justme

DarJoLe said:


> Early 2009 (far too long in my opinion)
> 
> I guess it would, afterall that's probably why it was extended there in the first place. And it will be used by Olympic spectators for Shooting Events at Woolwich in 2012. It's a bit annoying it couldn't have somehow looped back and gone further to Thamesmead but heyho.


2009! That's incredibly slow. In fact, it's slower than the Rotherhithe Tunnel which was started in 1904. Amazing that they could build tunnels faster 100 years ago. In fact, the world's first underwater tunnel, also in London was built in 10 years (excluding the break when they needed to find more money) and that was the first time anything like this had ever been done.


----------



## Justme

Another question.

The subway in Glasgow is the 3rd oldest in the world, after London and Budapest. It is said that the first London Underground line, the Metropolitan line, lent it's name to the globally common term "metro" after cities like Paris called their system the "metropolitan".

Was Glasgow then the first network in the world to be called a "Subway" in which most American subway's were named after?


----------



## Nephasto

Tubeman, when will the sub surface lines(SSL) starting to receive the new S-Stock?
Will all SSL receive it? When will they all have it?

As for the tube lines, I know that Victoria line was going to have a new rolling stock... but I haven't been following that... How is it? 
And what are the traind going to be? Just the same stile as teh 1995/1996 stocks? (I guess, because that was what was planned about a year or more ago).
Any chance of walk-through type trains like the S-Stock?

PS: I don't buy the excuse that the tunnels are too narrow for walk through type trains... some Madrid short profille lines (Lines 1/2/3/4/5 and R) which are also very narrow are going to receive new walk through type trains(series 3000). If they can do it in Madrid, I guess they could do it too in London.
I'm not asking for air conditioning... I know that's very dificult/impossible... But I must say I wonder how they can fit(the A/C units) it in Madrid's small profile lines(the newer 2000 series and future 3000 series)...


----------



## Tubeman

My thread is dying 

Ask me more!


----------



## DonQui

Do you think crossrail will be as complementary and integrated with the Underground as the RER is with the Parisian metro?


----------



## pricemazda

I think if and it is still a big IF crossrail gets built they will integrate it with Thameslink.


----------



## CharlieP

Rational Plan said:


> So if the did want to extend the DLR to the West End and the trains could fit those tunnels then the only tunnel they would have to build is from Bank to Aldwych and they would only have to build two stations as the Charing Cross platforms could be reopened.


The only problem is that the DLR lines turn to face north before running into the Bank/Monument complex, so aren't pointing in the right direction to get to the Jubilee line spur - they'd have to either loop all the way back round or re-site the DLR Bank platforms...


----------



## empersouf

Are there any new lines opened in the future, please post a map or something please, im very interested.


----------



## Rational Plan

CharlieP said:


> The only problem is that the DLR lines turn to face north before running into the Bank/Monument complex, so aren't pointing in the right direction to get to the Jubilee line spur - they'd have to either loop all the way back round or re-site the DLR Bank platforms...


It all depends, I suppose, on whether they face directly north like the Northern line or North Westerly. I thought the DLR was directly under King William Street? Well, we will only find out how ambitious the proposed western scheme is when they finally publish the study.


----------



## Tubeman

DonQui said:


> Do you think crossrail will be as complementary and integrated with the Underground as the RER is with the Parisian metro?


It will be better integrated insofar as the interchanges with the Tube will be better... Paris seems to have sprawling labrynthine stations where 3 different Metro stations interlink with an RER station... all a bit confusing.

Crossrail will be explicitly tailored to compliment the Tube and act as a relief line for the West-East Tube lines (esp. Central).


----------



## Tubeman

Rational Plan said:


> It all depends, I suppose, on whether they face directly north like the Northern line or North Westerly. I thought the DLR was directly under King William Street? Well, we will only find out how ambitious the proposed western scheme is when they finally publish the study.


Correct; the DLR platforms are aligned with King William Street and so point WNW, no great obstacle to a westwards extension towards Fleet Street.


----------



## pricemazda

Tubeman said:


> It will be better integrated insofar as the interchanges with the Tube will be better... Paris seems to have sprawling labrynthine stations where 3 different Metro stations interlink with an RER station... all a bit confusing.
> 
> Crossrail will be explicitly tailored to compliment the Tube and act as a relief line for the West-East Tube lines (esp. Central).


I find the central line to be fine and not the worst when it comes to overcrowding, the Bakerloo at peak times is unbearable and the jubilee line is a mess as well.


----------



## sarflonlad

Thanks Tubeman for all the effort and answers you've given here - brilliant!

Earlier this week (I forget which day) a train (SWT) I boarded got diverted just after Wimbledon and ended up following the district line through to one of the putney stops (many quizical faces on the district line platforms as a proper overground train passed by) then via wandsworth town (i think - it didnt stop) to clapham junction and on to Waterloo as scheduled. 

This happens usually when they are doing engineering between Wimbledon and Vauxhall - it allows services to be run (with district line being reduced) as "normal" offering a quicker way to central london than the tube (and I swear more trains depart an hour from wimbledon to waterloo than north bound tubes).

Anyway... how is this organised? Who is responsible for the signalling? On the day I mentioned above, the district line continued to run alongside the overground trains... how? Also doesn't the tube use 2 current rails - is the system compatible with both types of train then? Does this technically mean overground trains could run all the way to upminister via central london (a crossrail if you will)? Why don't they create a new tube route following this 'divert' line to say Clapham Junction or Vauxhall - or even to the spare capacity to be created at Waterloo when Eurostar leaves - connecting South London beyond Zone 3 better in to the system e.g. The Hampton Line - running from Hampton Court via New Malden, Raynes Park, Wimbledon, Wimbledon Park, Southfields, East Putney, Wandsworth Town, Clapham J, Waterloo (as I understand the District Line would have gone all the way to Kingston following presumably the SWT route from Wimbledon to Kingston, alas dosh ran out).

If you can answer any of that Id be most interested to hear! Sorry if that waffle was a bore.


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> Thanks Tubeman for all the effort and answers you've given here - brilliant!
> 
> Earlier this week (I forget which day) a train (SWT) I boarded got diverted just after Wimbledon and ended up following the district line through to one of the putney stops (many quizical faces on the district line platforms as a proper overground train passed by) then via wandsworth town (i think - it didnt stop) to clapham junction and on to Waterloo as scheduled.
> 
> This happens usually when they are doing engineering between Wimbledon and Vauxhall - it allows services to be run (with district line being reduced) as "normal" offering a quicker way to central london than the tube (and I swear more trains depart an hour from wimbledon to waterloo than north bound tubes).
> 
> Anyway... how is this organised? Who is responsible for the signalling? On the day I mentioned above, the district line continued to run alongside the overground trains... how? Also doesn't the tube use 2 current rails - is the system compatible with both types of train then? Does this technically mean overground trains could run all the way to upminister via central london (a crossrail if you will)? Why don't they create a new tube route following this 'divert' line to say Clapham Junction or Vauxhall - or even to the spare capacity to be created at Waterloo when Eurostar leaves - connecting South London beyond Zone 3 better in to the system e.g. The Hampton Line - running from Hampton Court via New Malden, Raynes Park, Wimbledon, Wimbledon Park, Southfields, East Putney, Wandsworth Town, Clapham J, Waterloo (as I understand the District Line would have gone all the way to Kingston following presumably the SWT route from Wimbledon to Kingston, alas dosh ran out).
> 
> If you can answer any of that Id be most interested to hear! Sorry if that waffle was a bore.


Not at all, I'm pretty good authority on the matter working on the District Line :yes:

The Wimbledon Branch has an interesting history of which the current working arrangements are a hangover...

The District Railway got as far as Putney Bridge on the north bank of the Thames 'under its own steam' so to speak. It long had aspirations to cross the river and reach the affluent suburbs of Putney, Wimbledon and Kingston, but never had enough money. The London & South-Western Railway (LSWR), who built all of the routes out of Waterloo, did however have the money and so built the loop from Wandsworth Town (Point Pleasant Junction) via East Putney, Southfields and Wimbledon Park to their existing Wimbledon station. They also built the viaduct from East Putney down to and across the river to connect with the District Railway's Putney Bridge station, all of these new works opening in 1889. The District railway immediately had running powers to Wimbledon, all that LSWR asked in return was the right to run their trains off the main line and over the District railway to South Kensington, powers they never bothered to exercise.

So, since 1889 the District Railway had been serving Wimbledon via LSWR infrastructure. LSWR (later Southern Railway) also provided their own regular passenger services via East Putney / Southfields / Wimbledon Park until 1941, when regular services were withdrawn, but occasional services called until 1969. Despite the withdrawal of regular passenger trains, British Railways (as it then was) were keen to retain the route as it was a very useful diversionary route as well as providing easier access to their depot at Wimbledon Park. The boundary between LUL and British Rail was always halfway across the bridge at Putney, the significance of which I will return to regarding your question about power supply. Signalling beyond Putney Bridge remained under British Rail control.

This arrangement worked fine until 1994 when the 'Thames Bubbler', a huge barge which plies the river pumping in oxygen in the Summer for the wildlife's benefit, rammed the bridge. British rail owned half of it, and as they had never (nor any of their predescessors) run any trains over it, refused to repair it. District Line trains were suspended for some months to one of their most lucrative catchment areas (Southfields station is the highest-grossing station for season tickets on the network). A solution was hatched whereby the entire route from Putney Bridge to Wimbldeon would be sold to London Underground for the princley sum of £1 (I kid you not!) on the proviso British rail could retain control of the signalling and have unlimited access to the branch for diversions and stock movements.

This occurred, the bridge was repaired, and we now have today's bizarre situation whereby London Underground owns the route but has no control over the signals and whenever South West Trains feel like it they can route as many of their trains as they wish over our property and we can't do a thing about it. Also, as soon as District Line trains get halfway across the river they have to obey Network Rail rules & regulations (which vary wildly from ours) so all of our Drivers and Managers need to be au fait with Network Rail's procedures.

Your observation about power supply is correct; LUL uses 4th rail and NR 3rd rail. Main Line trains pick up (approx) 750V DC from their 3rd rail and feed it back through the running rails (i.e. what the wheels run on). LUL trains use a bizarre system whereby 420V DC is collected from the 'Positive' Rail (the one on the outside) and 210V DC from the 'Negative' Rail (the one in the middle), giving a total of 630V DC. The LUL trains that run onto Network Rail infrastructure (i.e. District and Bakerloo) are able to also pick up the 750V DC through the Positive shoes and return the current via the Negative shoes, so whereas the middle current rail on LUL is live, on Network Rail routes used by LUL its just a return. Beacuse of the incompatability, there is a gap in the current rails halfway across Putney Rail Bridge at the former boundary of property to prevent a train from bridging the gap.

An LUL train must have the Middle rail otherwise it would stall, and Main Line trains cannot run onto our infrastructure because the only current rail they'd contact, the Positive, gives a feeble 420V compared to the 750V they need. I'm pretty sure also that if they did they'd try to return current via our running rails, which would blow up all of the signalling circuits.

I hope I have explained adequately without baffling you with science? Please don't make me draw diagrams!


----------



## empersouf

Are there any new lines opened in the future, please post a map or something please, im very interested.


----------



## nick_taylor

sarflonlad said:


> Thanks Tubeman for all the effort and answers you've given here - brilliant!
> 
> Earlier this week (I forget which day) a train (SWT) I boarded got diverted just after Wimbledon and ended up following the district line through to one of the putney stops (many quizical faces on the district line platforms as a proper overground train passed by) then via wandsworth town (i think - it didnt stop) to clapham junction and on to Waterloo as scheduled.
> 
> This happens usually when they are doing engineering between Wimbledon and Vauxhall - it allows services to be run (with district line being reduced) as "normal" offering a quicker way to central london than the tube (and I swear more trains depart an hour from wimbledon to waterloo than north bound tubes).
> 
> Anyway... how is this organised? Who is responsible for the signalling? On the day I mentioned above, the district line continued to run alongside the overground trains... how? Also doesn't the tube use 2 current rails - is the system compatible with both types of train then? Does this technically mean overground trains could run all the way to upminister via central london (a crossrail if you will)? Why don't they create a new tube route following this 'divert' line to say Clapham Junction or Vauxhall - or even to the spare capacity to be created at Waterloo when Eurostar leaves - connecting South London beyond Zone 3 better in to the system e.g. The Hampton Line - running from Hampton Court via New Malden, Raynes Park, Wimbledon, Wimbledon Park, Southfields, East Putney, Wandsworth Town, Clapham J, Waterloo (as I understand the District Line would have gone all the way to Kingston following presumably the SWT route from Wimbledon to Kingston, alas dosh ran out).
> 
> If you can answer any of that Id be most interested to hear! Sorry if that waffle was a bore.


Thats absolutely amazing and crazy! I use SWT a lot between Portsmouth and London, but I never knew that they could end up going off and then taking an alternative route!


----------



## sarflonlad

Tubeman = legend. Thanks very much! I had no idea the wimbledon area was so complicated or the politics of who owns what. The incident with putney bridge - it's like equivalent of a landlord not repairing damage to their property because they don't live in it then selling it to you for a £1 but still wanting to come in and use it on demand!



> Thats absolutely amazing and crazy! I use SWT a lot between Portsmouth and London, but I never knew that they could end up going off and then taking an alternative route!


Tell me about it! It makes a nice change of scenery when it does happen. When diverted, often the long distance trains out of waterloo (to portsmouth etc.) will operate as 'commuter' until wimbledon where it returns back on to the high speed lines (crossing over several platforms). It may happen to you yet - just book your tickets when they have engineering planned towards Clapham!


----------



## CharlieP

Tubeman said:


> Correct; the DLR platforms are aligned with King William Street and so point WNW, no great obstacle to a westwards extension towards Fleet Street.


OK, I was misinformed 

Are there any accurate maps of the Underground online which show the exact positions of the tracks and tunnels? I know they sell atlases like that at the LT Museum in Covent Garden, but it's not exactly local to me...


----------



## DonQui

The Tubemeister rocks.

:rock:


----------



## nick_taylor

CharlieP said:


> OK, I was misinformed
> 
> Are there any accurate maps of the Underground online which show the exact positions of the tracks and tunnels? I know they sell atlases like that at the LT Museum in Covent Garden, but it's not exactly local to me...


Other than the main geographical map, the London Bus maps are quite good:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pdfdocs/centlond.pdf

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pdfdocs/n_west.pdf

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pdfdocs/n_east.pdf

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pdfdocs/s_west.pdf

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pdfdocs/s_east.pdf


----------



## DarJoLe

So I've had another shitty journey on the Tube, so here's some bitchy questions.

What is exactly a 'signal failure' and why do they seem to happen so much?

Trains are often held in stations 'to regulate the service'. Surely this just increases the gap in front of the held train, causing more passengers to overcrowd this train. Is this regulating the service just an excuse to 'smooth' over late trains?

London Underground has a worldwide reputation as probably being the worst subway in the world for delays. Do you think there's a worse one?

Do you think we'll ever see a reduction in fare prices instead of the constant increases we're given?


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> OK, I was misinformed
> 
> Are there any accurate maps of the Underground online which show the exact positions of the tracks and tunnels? I know they sell atlases like that at the LT Museum in Covent Garden, but it's not exactly local to me...


You can buy my atlas from Ian Allan Publishing in 2 months! :yes:


----------



## Tubeman

DarJoLe said:


> So I've had another shitty journey on the Tube, so here's some bitchy questions.
> 
> What is exactly a 'signal failure' and why do they seem to happen so much?
> 
> Trains are often held in stations 'to regulate the service'. Surely this just increases the gap in front of the held train, causing more passengers to overcrowd this train. Is this regulating the service just an excuse to 'smooth' over late trains?
> 
> London Underground has a worldwide reputation as probably being the worst subway in the world for delays. Do you think there's a worse one?
> 
> Do you think we'll ever see a reduction in fare prices instead of the constant increases we're given?


Ok, I'll have to (again) get a little deep to explain this one...

Very simply, London Underground lines are split into 'Track Circuits' which are electrical circuits running through the running rails (i.e. what the wheels run on). When the circuit is uninterrupted it is complete and displays a green signal to the rear of it. When a train enters a section its wheels short-circuit the track circuit and causes the signal to the rear to go red. Track circuits are separated from each other by short (half inch) sections of plastic in the running rails which give the distinct 'clackety clack' sound as the train wheels pass across them.

A Signal Failure is when anything other than a train causes a short circuit to the track circuit and turns the signal to the rear red. The causes can be manifold, but the commenest are metal objects bridging one of the plastic insulating sections, something contacting a running rail and a current rail (causing a huge voltage to cross to the track circuit and blow the fuses), flooding, a broken rail (usually just a hairline crack) etc etc.

This causes a delay because thanks to our safety systems (Tripcock - Trainstop) a train will come to a halt after passing a red signal, and will then be restricted to 5mph until it has passed the next 2 signals. This means each train encountering a signal failure has to stop, recive authority to pass the red signal, proceed, be stopped, then proceed at 5mph (walking pace) for several hundred metres. As you can appreciate, this is for safety reasons in case a train accidentally passes a red signal with a train ahead of it, but in thecase of a signal failure causes a huge delay. Even worse, if there are points immediately ahead of the failing signal, they need to be manually secured in position with a big lump of wood and G Clamp (Scotch & Clip), so a further delay is incurred whilst a memeber of staff walks down to the points and secures them.

I hope this explains why signal failures are so disruptive, it is essenitally because of our safety systems and the fact that everything fails safe.

Regulating....

Trains have a nasty habit of bunching up on busy lines... you only need a slight gap in front of a train and it becomes amplified at each station as it is calling at ever busier platforms, and therefore stops longer and longer. The longer the gap in front, the busier the platforms and therefore it becomes a vicious circle. Trains behind get closer and closer as the train in front loses more and more time, and so in the end, without intervention, you'll get a very busy train followed by 2 or 3 empty ones immediately behind (as you'd no doubt have noticed). Regulation is an intervention used to restore the regular gaps between trains and therefore even out the passenger loading.

Regarding your last two questions, I don't know any other system intimately enough to know if there's any worse (I suspect there are), and no I don't think we'll ever drop our fares!


----------



## DarJoLe

I know it's I guess the correct term, but wouldn't renaming a signal failure to something, well, less failing (in other words, it sounds like the system is falling apart) be a better PR exercise? I know that when I hear the term signal failure it just sounds like another example of how falling apart the system is.

Controversial one - what do you think of the RMT union?


----------



## Tubeman

DarJoLe said:


> I know it's I guess the correct term, but wouldn't renaming a signal failure to something, well, less failing (in other words, it sounds like the system is falling apart) be a better PR exercise? I know that when I hear the term signal failure it just sounds like another example of how falling apart the system is.
> 
> Controversial one - what do you think of the RMT union?


I suppose we could just use a generic term like 'Operating problems', but the bottom line is that if the service is fucked then Customers can't get from a to b quickly, and that is a failure on our part.

Regarding the RMT (and ASLEF to a lesser degree)...

The Trade Unions proclaiming their support for railway staff are in fact a bunch of militant dinosaurs clinging on to a gravy train.

My attitude is this: 150 years ago we sent kids down mines and up chimneys and there were no real employee rights to speak of. In 2005 every profession is protected by employment law and so there is a real limit to what an employer can do to its employees, whether individually or en masse. The Trade Unions are an industry like any other; they cream money off their members' wages to finance very healthy salaries and perks for the higher up troglodytes like Bob Crowe (who is paid more than any LUL Manager bar Tim O'Toole). They are motivated by personal political gain and greed; more often than not they'll throw their toys out of the pram at a meeting with LU management and call a strike, which costs them nothing but their members a days money simply to raise their profile or make a point.

They care less about the average employee than management guaranteed, and fight tooth and nail to save the jobs of shameless skivers (who by always being absent make their honest TU sub paying colleagues work harder). They do not protect the average employee (because the average is hard working and reliable) but save the oily hides of people who do not deserve a job (often their own reps).

The whole Trade Union industry is morally corrupt and financially corrupt, and people like Bob Crowe make me want to vomit.


----------



## Justme

Tubeman, back to signal failures.

This seems to be a serious problem on the Tube, but is not on many other large networks. Why is it so much a problem in London? Is it because the design of the signalling system simply doesn't work? 

Should they completely scrap it for a better system, one proven elsewhere? I know this would cost money, but surely once done, it would be save the Tube money and more customers would use the more reliable service.


----------



## spsmiler

Soufian said:


> Are there any new lines opened in the future, please post a map or something please, im very interested.


Hi there,

heres a realistic yet cynical response...

whilst there are some proposals its probable that they wont come into fruition until your granchildren are old, whith granchildren of their own.


despite the fine words the present politicians are working against better transport.

Indeed, according to present-day investment criteria the Victoria Line (which was built in the 1960's) could not be built nowadays because it would be seen as "uneconomic".

Simon


----------



## spsmiler

Tubeman said:


> Crossrail will be explicitly tailored to compliment the Tube and act as a relief line for the West-East Tube lines (esp. Central).


One of the problems with crossrail is that where it takes over existsng mainline railway tracks it will force all other trains off those tracks - and thereby potentially seriously and negatively impacting upon frieght services, as well as reduce operational flexibility (of all services).

Also, they keep changiong the western routes, and whether they will serve the route to Amersham, Richmond / Kingston, Heathrow, Slough / Reading. etc.

I will only believe that the line will be built when I see it underway. Even then, knowing that it has happened overseas I will be wary of workstopping partway.

Simon

Simon


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> Tubeman, back to signal failures.
> 
> This seems to be a serious problem on the Tube, but is not on many other large networks. Why is it so much a problem in London? Is it because the design of the signalling system simply doesn't work?
> 
> Should they completely scrap it for a better system, one proven elsewhere? I know this would cost money, but surely once done, it would be save the Tube money and more customers would use the more reliable service.


Our infrastructure is in many places ancient; our technology is generally pre-war Westinghouse gear... It is well past its sell-by date. Sadly the recent instances where we have bought 'state-of-the-art' signalling (e.g. Central Line), that seems to have been even more prone to failure than 1930's vintage stuff. It baffles me, it really does. There's no acceptable reason for it.

Watch the forthcoming signalling (ATO) upgrades of the Jubilee and Northern Lines closely to see if its done any better under PPP... hopefully it will. If these are ****-ups then there's no hope for us!

If DLR can do it, why can't LUL?


----------



## Tubeman

spsmiler said:


> One of the problems with crossrail is that where it takes over existsng mainline railway tracks it will force all other trains off those tracks - and thereby potentially seriously and negatively impacting upon frieght services, as well as reduce operational flexibility (of all services).
> 
> Also, they keep changiong the western routes, and whether they will serve the route to Amersham, Richmond / Kingston, Heathrow, Slough / Reading. etc.
> 
> I will only believe that the line will be built when I see it underway. Even then, knowing that it has happened overseas I will be wary of workstopping partway.
> 
> Simon
> 
> Simon


I doubt Crossrail will have the negative impact you mention; existing Thames Trains services will simply become Crossrail and continue beyond Paddington under London instead of terminating. I expect a huge growth in traffic from places like Southall, Hanwell and Hayes but these are currently served by weedy 3 car trains but will get 12 car monsters from Crossrail, so capacity can be happily quadrupled without taking up any extra train paths. The GWR main line is 6 roads to Old Oak Common then 4 beyond, so I'm certain there's enough room for any extra trains.

Richmond / Kingston has officially been dropped, it would be a virtual crawl along a lot of the route anyway, so I think its value would be limited.

The logic behind the Amersham route was to close Marylebone; all of the Chiltern trains would be diverted at Neasden via the Dudding Hill Loop and a new curve at Old Oak Common to Crossrail. Chesham would be handed to Crossrail and the Metropolitan Line would cease operations north of the Junction with the Watford Branch, allowing separation of the routes all the way from there to Neasden. The drawback was that all of the Chiltern Lines would therefore need 25kv Overhead electrification as obviously DMUs aren't wanted in the Crossrail Tunnel... I think this, with the new curve at Old Oak and upgrade to the Dudding Hill Loop, made it prohibitively expensive.


----------



## spsmiler

Tubeman said:


> Your observation about power supply is correct; LUL uses 4th rail and NR 3rd rail. Main Line trains pick up (approx) 750V DC from their 3rd rail and feed it back through the running rails (i.e. what the wheels run on). LUL trains use a bizarre system whereby 420V DC is collected from the 'Positive' Rail (the one on the outside) and 210V DC from the 'Negative' Rail (the one in the middle), giving a total of 630V DC. The LUL trains that run onto Network Rail infrastructure (i.e. District and Bakerloo) are able to also pick up the 750V DC through the Positive shoes and return the current via the Negative shoes, so whereas the middle current rail on LUL is live, on Network Rail routes used by LUL its just a return. Beacuse of the incompatability, there is a gap in the current rails halfway across Putney Rail Bridge at the former boundary of property to prevent a train from bridging the gap.


Hi Tubeman, 

to be pendantic shouldn't that be expresed as +420v dc and -210 v dc???

also explains why its not safe to stand on the centre rail (not that any sane person would want to, either way).

also, when the LNWR first electrified its lines it also used the 4th rail system (indeed those which still survived were only converted to 3rd rail in 1970) - but did it also electrify at +420v and -210v or with the full line voltage on the outer rail? (Euston / Broad Street - Watford / Croxley / Ricky, & Richmond, WLL and Kew).

Another question, which admittedly you may not know, as its about Liverpool, - the Mersey railway first used trains which were 3rd rail for part of the route, and 4th rail elsewhere, with the guard switching systems during a station stop. I guess that this line used full line voltage on the 3rd rail - am I correct?

Thanks

Simon


----------



## Tubeman

spsmiler said:


> Hi Tubeman,
> 
> to be pendantic shouldn't that be expresed as +420v dc and -210 v dc???
> 
> also explains why its not safe to stand on the centre rail (not that any sane person would want to, either way).
> 
> also, when the LNWR first electrified its lines it also used the 4th rail system (indeed those which still survived were only converted to 3rd rail in 1970) - but did it also electrify at +420v and -210v or with the full line voltage on the outer rail? (Euston / Broad Street - Watford / Croxley / Ricky, & Richmond, WLL and Kew).
> 
> Another question, which admittedly you may not know, as its about Liverpool, - the Mersey railway first used trains which were 3rd rail for part of the route, and 4th rail elsewhere, with the guard switching systems during a station stop. I guess that this line used full line voltage on the 3rd rail - am I correct?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Simon


My GCSE Physics doesn't serve me too well. Is there such a thing as a negative voltage? Pass...

I suppose as Voltage is 'Potential Difference' and all our gear runs off 630V then it does make sense that its +420V and -210V (i.e. 630V difference), although we were never taught this, all we're told is the Positive Rail = 420V DC and the Negative = 210V DC giving a 'total' of 630V DC. No + or - mentioned.

I seem to recall that the LNWR 4th rail electrification had slightly lower voltages; 600V DC. I'm unsure whether all 600V were in one rail and the other a return, I'd have to do some research.

Re: Merseyrail... Pass!


----------



## samsonyuen

Hey Tubeman, I know Jubilee is adding a 7th carriage for their trains (and the DLR Bank-Lewisham a third car), how many trains do the other lines run?


----------



## empersouf

Are there any new lines opened in the future????????????????? 3 time


----------



## pricemazda

there are lot of tram projects and the east london line extension, and crossrail, and thameslink 2000 improvements.


----------



## Tubeman

Soufian said:


> Are there any new lines opened in the future????????????????? 3 time


Sorry Soufian, I've been rude 

I get carried away answering big questions and forget about the short ones!

One extension is definitely happening; East London Line phase 1. It is expected to open in 2010, but its will very likely ultimately end up a Network Rail (i.e. Main Line) route and I'm unsure whether it will get London Underground branding.

New works involve a link from south of the current Shoreditch terminus, crossing above the Liverpool St Main Line, over the former Bishopsgate Goods Yard, across Shoreditch High St, then onto the abandoned North London Railway Broad Street Line all the way to Dalston. New stations will open at Shoreditch High Street, Hoxton, Haggerston and Dalston. In the south the ELL will be reconnected with the Main Line at New Cross Gate and a new flyover built so that trains can access the 'slow' lines between New Cross Gate and West Croydon, there will also be a branch at Sydenham to Crystal Palace. All these will be existing stations and lines served by ELL trains, but at last a lot of South East London will get 'underground' stations.










On the above map the branches to Clapham Junction and beyond Dalston (Junction) to Highbury & Islington are 'Phase 2' and are not _definitely_ going ahead at present.

Another project is the diversion / extension of the Metropolitan Line to Watford Junction:










The current terminus is poorly sited for central Watford, and there is an abandoned Main Line branch (1995) to Croxley Green which ends a couple of hundred yards from the Metropolitan Line. The proposal is for the abandonment of Watford (Met) and new viaduct to be built across the Grand Union Canal linking to the former Croxley Green Branch. A new station would open at Ascot Road, and Watford West would re-open (Watford Stadium would stay closed). Watford High St and Watford Junction would then be served by LUL trains for the first time since the Bakerloo Line was withdrawn in 1982.

Sorry for the delay!


----------



## Tubeman

samsonyuen said:


> Hey Tubeman, I know Jubilee is adding a 7th carriage for their trains (and the DLR Bank-Lewisham a third car), how many trains do the other lines run?


Metropolitan, Central, Victoria = 8
Jubilee, Bakerloo = 7
District, Circle, Hammersmith & City, Piccadilly, Northern = 6
East London, Waterloo & City = 4


----------



## CharlieP

They were talking about the Croxley Link project as though it was going to happen any time when I lived in London... in 1995/6!


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> They were talking about the Croxley Link project as though it was going to happen any time when I lived in London... in 1995/6!


Yes, its pathetic. Its about 200m of new railway hno:

Its still not 'go', I wish they'd stop talking about building it and just build it!


----------



## pricemazda

TFL is up to its eyeballs in debt. After this round of transport improvements we won't see any for decades.

The only saving grace is that any mayoral candidate will have to promise more transport projects and at least London has its own voice now. We will be saving milions from Bob Kiley though.


----------



## spsmiler

pricemazda said:


> TFL is up to its eyeballs in debt. After this round of transport improvements we won't see any for decades.
> 
> The only saving grace is that any mayoral candidate will have to promise more transport projects and at least London has its own voice now. We will be saving milions from Bob Kiley though.


Well, it would be better if they spent their precious money on transport improvements which everyone wants, and which potentially will benefit many people - rather than expandiing the congestion charge zone, which consumes money and is something that virtually no-one wants, and will actually disbenefit people.

But the politicans are more interested in showpiece schemes than things which really benefit the people of London.

Another aspect of the CCZ expansion is that they want to trial RFID chipping of vehicles as part of a nationwide road pricing scheme. The national govt. is happy to let local govt. perform the trials, at least partly because then the local govt can take the flak if things go wrong. 

But if things go as they wish it will lead to the creation of a network of RFID readers throughout Britain. Then they will be able to track us 24/7. This will be sold as a way to imnprove safety and reduce congestion - but congestion would be reduced if they reduced transport fares and generally improved the transport, whilst even if the 7/7 bombers had known that they were being tracked I dont see how that would have deterred them - after all, they were on suicide missions. 

Simon

Simon


----------



## pricemazda

I Dont understand why the residents don't want the extension, it makes no sense they would be inside the zone whereas now they are on the edge of the zone. They get a 95% discount being inside the zone whereas currently they would have to pay to go into town.


----------



## spsmiler

Tubeman said:


> Sorry Soufian, I've been rude
> 
> I get carried away answering big questions and forget about the short ones!
> 
> One extension is definitely happening; East London Line phase 1. It is expected to open in 2010, but its will very likely ultimately end up a Network Rail (i.e. Main Line) route and I'm unsure whether it will get London Underground branding.
> 
> New works involve a link from south of the current Shoreditch terminus, crossing above the Liverpool St Main Line, over the former Bishopsgate Goods Yard, across Shoreditch High St, then onto the abandoned North London Railway Broad Street Line all the way to Dalston. New stations will open at Shoreditch High Street, Hoxton, Haggerston and Dalston. In the south the ELL will be reconnected with the Main Line at New Cross Gate and a new flyover built so that trains can access the 'slow' lines between New Cross Gate and West Croydon, there will also be a branch at Sydenham to Crystal Palace. All these will be existing stations and lines served by ELL trains, but at last a lot of South East London will get 'underground' stations.


Hi Tubeman,

Although I dont know the exact dates at least two of the stations on the NLL viaduct (in addition to Dalston Junction) will be reopenings of old stations. 

Dalston Junction closed when the route to Broad Street closed, but there were several other stations between there and Broad Street, which closed as a result of wartime bombing. I think it was in 1940. 

Simon


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> Great timing.
> 
> After reading this, I switched over to Sky Travel and episode 4 of the Tube just started. I was totally suprised when I spotted you there!
> 
> Well done. I must admit, it was rather funny when you said to the camera something like "In times like these we must bring in the professionals", and then the crazy technician starts smashing away at the panel :lol:
> 
> Not bad, looking forward to the next episode. I really must say that I admire your job. Especially if you get to travel the network and be outdoors a lot. Must get rather stressful at times though.
> 
> :cheers:


Yes, TV comedy gold :rofl:

The next episode is even better :yes:

The role I was working there is 'Mobile', I also do a 'Desk' role which entails much more of the man-management side of things (as opposed to incident management), which is more stressful and office-bound.


----------



## Zim Flyer

Hi Tubemonster, 

don't answer this question if it will get you into trouble, but what is the state of play with the strike threat for New Years Eve, who is in the right.

Personally I'm no fan of Bob Crowe, I just wondered what the deal was?


----------



## CharlieP

Tubey, do you know what episode 4 is called? DigiGuide only lists them by name...


----------



## Nick in Atlanta

Why don't they build a direct train line from Gatwick Airport to Heathrow Airport?


----------



## sfgadv02

Are signal problems really that bad in the Tube?? lol.....


----------



## Tubeman

Zim Flyer said:


> Hi Tubemonster,
> 
> don't answer this question if it will get you into trouble, but what is the state of play with the strike threat for New Years Eve, who is in the right.
> 
> Personally I'm no fan of Bob Crowe, I just wondered what the deal was?


I know nish... Read the Evening Standard; they always know before the actual staff do. I'm not aware of any ballot; I hear its Station Staff, not Train Staff.


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> Tubey, do you know what episode 4 is called? DigiGuide only lists them by name...


Not sure, I don't recall episode names ever coming up when it was first on


----------



## Tubeman

Nick in Atlanta said:


> Why don't they build a direct train line from Gatwick Airport to Heathrow Airport?


It is technically possible (i.e. the tracks are there)

I'm not aware of an awful lot of need for it though; Gatwick is predominantly package holiday flights for Brits, so there aren't many transfers between Heathrow and Gatwick.


----------



## Tubeman

sfgadv02 said:


> Are signal problems really that bad in the Tube?? lol.....


Probably worse than most


----------



## Justme

Tubeman said:


> Yes, TV comedy gold :rofl:
> 
> The next episode is even better :yes:
> 
> The role I was working there is 'Mobile', I also do a 'Desk' role which entails much more of the man-management side of things (as opposed to incident management), which is more stressful and office-bound.



Spotted the 5th episode this morning. Nice job. I presume many of your responses to these questions come from the computer seen at your office  Not often we get to see where other forumers post from on TV.

:cheers:


----------



## CharlieP

Tubeman said:


> Not sure, I don't recall episode names ever coming up when it was first on


OK, which of these do you star in? 

*24 Hours.* A train enthusiast attempts to break the world record time for travelling the entire network and the pressure is on. Will there be any delays or closed stations? Probably.

*Strike.* Follow the staff of London Underground as strikes, broken escalators, fire alarms and fare dodgers keep them on their toes. All on a hot, sticky, summer's day.

*One Under.* It's the first day back at work for tube driver Karen Jordan who witnessed a suicide attempt at Wimbledon. How will she cope with being back on the tracks?

*Rush Hour.* Every day, more than 750,000 people cram onto the tube network for the morning rush hour. How do the staff of Victoria station keep their heads when passengers lose theirs?

*Women Drivers.* An advert in Cosmopolitan appealed for female tube drivers. Meet Jo Drummond, who applied for one of the £30k positions as she prepares to take her final tests.

*Heatwave.* It's August and temperatures are soaring on the tube. Fainting passengers, backed up trains and illegal buskers ensure that underground staff feel the heat.

*Busking Underground.* For years, buskers were unwelcome on the tube but pressure from passengers meant that the law was changed. Follow the progress of some very talented tube entertainers.

*Underground Crime.* The British Transport Police go in search of an elusive graffiti vandal. Will they catch their man? Also, the ticket inspectors of Camden Town crack down on fare-dodgers.

*Mind The Gap.* A mother of six faces the final part of her training to become a tube station assistant. She must walk across 630 volts of live track in order to begin the highly charged job.

*Under Pressure.* Delays, abusive passengers, rival football fans and a suicide attempt mean a difficult day for the underground staff. Also, how is working mum Jackie coping at King's Cross?

*Ups and Downs.* The race is on for tube workers to get Canary Wharf's East End station ready for Mayor Ken's grand opening. And a broken escalator at Brixton holds up some angry commuters.

*All Change Please.* As a trainee driver gets to grips with a 160-tonne Northern Line train, veteran Keith Tibbles retires after 44 years on the job. Will he miss life underground?

*Losing It.* Mandy faces her first major incident in the control room at Brixton. And a visit to London Underground's cavernous Lost Property office in the bowels of the earth.

*Tickets Please.* Ticket staff, station announcers and revenue officers are the public face of the Tube, but their customers often cause surprising problems. And at Wembley Park, Welshman Tom Davies has seen it all.

*Off the Rails.* Violence, abuse and unruly behavior by passengers put real pressure on Tube staff, but delays and building work also put pressure on the passengers. The combination can make the Tube a tough place to work, and at Kings Cross, the staff even have stress counselling.

*The Train Set.* The enormous train set that is the Tube network has to be kept working and innovative solutions have to be found for old problems. One is Ted the Harris hawk - employed at Neasden depot to frighten off pigeons.

*Moving On.* From the 1860s till today, stations, rolling stock, even names on the Tube are constantly changing. Jason Collins moves from running state-of-the-art Canary Wharf station to historic Waterloo and security-conscious Westminster. He faces new challenges but then so does the entire network.

*Open All Hours.* Just what does it take to replace over 1,300 metres of Piccadilly Line track in six days? The hard graft is halted when an unattended bag causes an emergency evacuation.

Excerpts taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from http://www.getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=14986
Copyright GipsyMedia Ltd.


----------



## nick_taylor

Nick in Atlanta said:


> Why don't they build a direct train line from Gatwick Airport to Heathrow Airport?


I don't think there is the demand for such a service. Anyway, a quick journey into London Victoria on the Gatwick Express, then onto London Paddington for the Heathrow Express should be enough. That said you can get a train that goes from London Luton Airport to London Gatwick Airport without changing trains - its on the Thameslink line (runs north to south through London).

Currently 4 of London's 5 international airports have heavy rail express service connections into Central London. The 5th: London City Airport has just seen its DLR connection to Central London opened earlier this month.


----------



## pricemazda

But wouldn't a maglev between the airports mean we wouldn't have to build more runways as all the airports would in effect become terminals of Heathrow?


----------



## spsmiler

Tubeman said:


> Our infrastructure is in many places ancient; our technology is generally pre-war Westinghouse gear... It is well past its sell-by date. Sadly the recent instances where we have bought 'state-of-the-art' signalling (e.g. Central Line), that seems to have been even more prone to failure than 1930's vintage stuff. It baffles me, it really does. There's no acceptable reason for it.
> 
> Watch the forthcoming signalling (ATO) upgrades of the Jubilee and Northern Lines closely to see if its done any better under PPP... hopefully it will. If these are ****-ups then there's no hope for us!
> 
> If DLR can do it, why can't LUL?


Hi Tubeman,

The Victoria Line ATO works well - I am dreading what will happen when it is upgraded.

Indeed, I would say that there is a case for keeping the system - OK, 1960's and crude, but (as the saying goes), if it aint broke, why fix it?

As for the DLR - well, it too was a disaster, with so many breakdowns that a shadow bus service had to be operated. Thats why (for a while) the DLR became known as the Docklands Light _Failway!_

Simon


----------



## spsmiler

Tubeman said:


> By the way, has anyone else noticed how nasty all the place names sound in this corner of Hackney? Hoxton, Haggerston, Dalston, Shoreditch :crazy:


Hi Tubeman,

'ackney, 'oxton and 'aggerston are some of London's poorest areas. Shoreditch is just that (a ditch). I used to work there many years ago.

Spent many a quarter-hour walking to / from work and Liverpool Street Station breathing deeply and enjoying the freshly polluted London air! (buses, cars, taxis, motorbikes, etc) 

Simon :wave:


----------



## spsmiler

pricemazda said:


> Why even after refurbishment are stations still badly lit?



I'm not sure how you define "badly" but maybe you've never been on the Paris Metro - or the RER! Passengers should carry torches!!!!

Simon


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> OK, which of these do you star in?
> 
> *24 Hours.* A train enthusiast attempts to break the world record time for travelling the entire network and the pressure is on. Will there be any delays or closed stations? Probably.
> 
> *Strike.* Follow the staff of London Underground as strikes, broken escalators, fire alarms and fare dodgers keep them on their toes. All on a hot, sticky, summer's day.
> 
> *One Under.* It's the first day back at work for tube driver Karen Jordan who witnessed a suicide attempt at Wimbledon. How will she cope with being back on the tracks?
> 
> *Rush Hour.* Every day, more than 750,000 people cram onto the tube network for the morning rush hour. How do the staff of Victoria station keep their heads when passengers lose theirs?
> 
> *Women Drivers.* An advert in Cosmopolitan appealed for female tube drivers. Meet Jo Drummond, who applied for one of the £30k positions as she prepares to take her final tests.
> 
> *Heatwave.* It's August and temperatures are soaring on the tube. Fainting passengers, backed up trains and illegal buskers ensure that underground staff feel the heat.
> 
> *Busking Underground.* For years, buskers were unwelcome on the tube but pressure from passengers meant that the law was changed. Follow the progress of some very talented tube entertainers.
> 
> *Underground Crime.* The British Transport Police go in search of an elusive graffiti vandal. Will they catch their man? Also, the ticket inspectors of Camden Town crack down on fare-dodgers.
> 
> *Mind The Gap.* A mother of six faces the final part of her training to become a tube station assistant. She must walk across 630 volts of live track in order to begin the highly charged job.
> 
> *Under Pressure.* Delays, abusive passengers, rival football fans and a suicide attempt mean a difficult day for the underground staff. Also, how is working mum Jackie coping at King's Cross?
> 
> *Ups and Downs.* The race is on for tube workers to get Canary Wharf's East End station ready for Mayor Ken's grand opening. And a broken escalator at Brixton holds up some angry commuters.
> 
> *All Change Please.* As a trainee driver gets to grips with a 160-tonne Northern Line train, veteran Keith Tibbles retires after 44 years on the job. Will he miss life underground?
> 
> *Losing It.* Mandy faces her first major incident in the control room at Brixton. And a visit to London Underground's cavernous Lost Property office in the bowels of the earth.
> 
> *Tickets Please.* Ticket staff, station announcers and revenue officers are the public face of the Tube, but their customers often cause surprising problems. And at Wembley Park, Welshman Tom Davies has seen it all.
> 
> *Off the Rails.* Violence, abuse and unruly behavior by passengers put real pressure on Tube staff, but delays and building work also put pressure on the passengers. The combination can make the Tube a tough place to work, and at Kings Cross, the staff even have stress counselling.
> 
> *The Train Set.* The enormous train set that is the Tube network has to be kept working and innovative solutions have to be found for old problems. One is Ted the Harris hawk - employed at Neasden depot to frighten off pigeons.
> 
> *Moving On.* From the 1860s till today, stations, rolling stock, even names on the Tube are constantly changing. Jason Collins moves from running state-of-the-art Canary Wharf station to historic Waterloo and security-conscious Westminster. He faces new challenges but then so does the entire network.
> 
> *Open All Hours.* Just what does it take to replace over 1,300 metres of Piccadilly Line track in six days? The hard graft is halted when an unattended bag causes an emergency evacuation.
> 
> Excerpts taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from http://www.getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=14986
> Copyright GipsyMedia Ltd.


'Rush Hour' and 'Women Drivers' :yes:


----------



## Tubeman

spsmiler said:


> Hi Tubeman,
> 
> The Victoria Line ATO works well - I am dreading what will happen when it is upgraded.
> 
> Indeed, I would say that there is a case for keeping the system - OK, 1960's and crude, but (as the saying goes), if it aint broke, why fix it?
> 
> As for the DLR - well, it too was a disaster, with so many breakdowns that a shadow bus service had to be operated. Thats why (for a while) the DLR became known as the Docklands Light _Failway!_
> 
> Simon


The Vic Line ATO is showing its age though; Drivers are increasingly having to manually apply the emergency brake to stop trains sailing past the OPO Monitors; hence the frequent sharp stops accompanied by a 'farting' noise (the blowdown valves letting excess air off the brakes during the emergency braking).

Probably the trains and not the ATO Codes to blame though


----------



## DonQui

Has the Tube come back to full form in all respects from 7/7? Is there any lingering damage?


----------



## nick_taylor

pricemazda said:


> But wouldn't a maglev between the airports mean we wouldn't have to build more runways as all the airports would in effect become terminals of Heathrow?


Well yes having direct airport-airport services would be preferable but possibly unrealistic. What would be more likely (although still doubtful) would be to have services (along all major intercity and intercity lines) all converge on a central behemoth of a station at Tottenham Court Road. This mega station would allow anyone to connect to any train going anywhere in the UK, but also from Central London to any of the 5 London international airports or from airport-TCR-airport.

This way you create a major node and the greater viability of having airport-airport connections, although you might have to change trains, it would only be say to the next platform, etc...

This of course is only in my mind - a massive TCR station 15 storeys in height, designed and detailed to look like the interior of Westminster Abbey (using actual craftsmen who specialise in the construction and restoration of ancient buildings) with 10 platforms, each 10x in width of average current tube platforms in a non-pillar cavenous space. All my little pet project to create the grandest ever underground station. :yes:




DonQui - I believe it has, my only problems were on the Waterloo & City (got chatting to a nice Italian lady as she wasn't sure how many stops were on the Waterloo & City line....when there are only two: Bank + Waterloo :laugh: ) and that wasn't affected by the bombs. I've also been past all 'scenes' and other than a person praying going past one of the sites there didn't seem to be much difference on the trains, their performance or the activity of the other passengers.


----------



## jetsetwilly

Tubeman,

What do you think the odds are of the Jubilee Line extension to Thamesmead being built? They must have thought there was a pretty good chance if they built North Greenwich to accomodate it. Is this going to be a bit like the original Jubilee Line extension - when the DLR gets overloaded, they'll build it? Or has it just been abandoned?

P.S. Atlas pre-ordered on Amazon


----------



## CharlieP

Tubeman said:


> "It is the greatest publication ever known to man, Shakespeare should hang his head in shame. People who do not buy this will have vacant and sad lives, and may as well kill themselves"
> 
> No too over the top?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps wait until it is published before reviewing it... It would look a bit sus otherwise!


Any example pages you can display?


----------



## CharlieP

Ah, don't worry, just seen them on the UK Transport forum...


----------



## Tubeman

jetsetwilly said:


> Tubeman,
> 
> What do you think the odds are of the Jubilee Line extension to Thamesmead being built? They must have thought there was a pretty good chance if they built North Greenwich to accomodate it. Is this going to be a bit like the original Jubilee Line extension - when the DLR gets overloaded, they'll build it? Or has it just been abandoned?
> 
> P.S. Atlas pre-ordered on Amazon


I'd say high-ish, but not anytime soon

I think you're totally correct about waiting for the DLR to the Royal Docks to get overloaded first, although it is interesting to note that the DLR to Woolwich turns 180 degrees to face West, so it can't be extended into Thamesmead unless Woolwich Arsenal is left as a tiny stump (and yet another DLR destination!).

Personally I think they should just get on and build it while there's still land in the Royal Docks to build upon; a JLE from North Greenwich could surface at Thames Wharf and then follow the route of the old Silvertown tramway all the way to North Woolwich, avoiding a lot of expensive tunnelling. In 5 more years I don't think there'll be any land left.

To everyone who's pre-ordered the book: :hug:


----------



## samsonyuen

Looks good. Any SSC discounted rates?

For the Jubilee line, where would it have stops past North Greenwich? Would this leave Stratford as its own branch then?

I think on the central London tube map they have on the carriages, they should show any lines that run in that area, including Thameslink, etc. It just makes planning your journey a lot better (for tourists and the like).


----------



## CharlieP

Just thought of another question (prompted by one of the maps from your book!).

Do you have any more information on plans once mooted for the Bakerloo line to take over the Ealing Broadway spur of the Central line?


----------



## CharlieP

Tubeman said:


> I think you're totally correct about waiting for the DLR to the Royal Docks to get overloaded first, although it is interesting to note that the DLR to Woolwich turns 180 degrees to face West, so it can't be extended into Thamesmead unless Woolwich Arsenal is left as a tiny stump (and yet another DLR destination!).


Does your book includes the DLR Woolwich extension? If not, I'm not sure I want it


----------



## CharlieP

Another one - has anybody measured the impact on North London Line passenger numbers south of Canning Town since the opening of the DLR City Airport extension?


----------



## samsonyuen

Any other plans for line swaps (like the aforementioned Central line-Bakerloo swap, or the creation of the Jubilee line out of the Bakerloo, etc.)?

^It might be too early, since it's been open three weeks, and it's holiday season, so it might be hard to see the impact.


----------



## gothicform

i have a question, do the wheels on the bus really go round and round all day long?


----------



## DonQui

Why in God's name is DLR not considered full metro?

:?


----------



## CharlieP

gothicform said:


> i have a question, do the wheels on the bus really go round and round all day long?


Of course - they don't go square!


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> Just thought of another question (prompted by one of the maps from your book!).
> 
> Do you have any more information on plans once mooted for the Bakerloo line to take over the Ealing Broadway spur of the Central line?


It was proposed in a transport review in the late 80's (Under Tory Transport Minister Paul Channon I think). All it entailed was a new tunnel from Queens Park to North Acton with no intermediate stops, then taking over the Central Line to Ealing. I think the gyst of it was that because of signalling and sharing with BR the Bakerloo couldn't run many trains beyond Queens Park, so this way it could run tube-frequency services beyond there and take some of the strain off the Central Line.


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> Does your book includes the DLR Woolwich extension?  If not, I'm not sure I want it


Of course! And the East London Line Extension Phase 1


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> Another one - has anybody measured the impact on North London Line passenger numbers south of Canning Town since the opening of the DLR City Airport extension?


The North London Line beyond Stratford's days are numbered; Canning Town to Stratford is destined to be converted to DLR, and the rest abandoned (although most of it should be resurrected by Crossrail 1).

I think it only gets a 30 min service beyond Stratford; I presume that the DLR branches in the Royal Docks will have destroyed what little custom the line had.


----------



## Tubeman

DonQui said:


> Why in God's name is DLR not considered full metro?
> 
> :?


I don't think it isn't, its just that its not mentioned in the same breath as the Underground as its not operated by the same company.


----------



## Justme

Went past the London Underground museum last week, and noticed it closed for renovation. It was pretty good previously, so I am wondering what the plans are. Does anyone know what's in store? Are they expanding the site?


----------



## sarflonlad

Can you give us a reminder when your book is out? (cos if I pre-order now there is no guarantee I'll have the money in my Bank Account when it's dispatched ) I loved the Subterranean Railway by Chris Wolmar - will this be on par or surpass?

Another Q about LU. What's it got (asides from the stations) in its property portfolio (if anything)?


----------



## samsonyuen

Tubeman, I've got another question! How many stations a year are there lifts added to? Is there a quota or is it just as the funds come in line? Is there a priority for higher traffic stations?


----------



## nick_taylor

Another question - what is the chances of the Varsity Line (ie the line between Oxford - Cambridge via Bletchley + Bedford) being re-opened. In some places the track still runs services (eg Oxford - Bicester Town; Bletchley - Bedford), while in others the tracks are either overgrown or have been lifted. What with the Oxford-Cambridge Arc in full growth mode (encompassing the fastest growing areas of the UK), how soon could we see it re-opened?


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> Went past the London Underground museum last week, and noticed it closed for renovation. It was pretty good previously, so I am wondering what the plans are. Does anyone know what's in store? Are they expanding the site?


I very much doubt it will be expanding at all (due to constraints of the site), I assume perhaps some of the exhibits are being changed?

The Mezzanine level is fairly recent already, I doubt any new floorspace is being added.


----------



## Tubeman

samsonyuen said:


> Tubeman, I've got another question! How many stations a year are there lifts added to? Is there a quota or is it just as the funds come in line? Is there a priority for higher traffic stations?


Its pretty haphazard; its not so much that stations are getting lifts put in per se, but they're being totally overhauled with lifts being put in as a part of the wider works. To comply with the DDA all stations will have to be step-free evenutally, but I'm not aware of any particular timescale for this to happen, it is very expensive after all. Even many of the older Yerkes stations with only lifts peversely have flights of stairs involved which renders them inaccessible anyway. I suspect that as these would be the cheapest to convert, if there was some sort of quota these would be first as they could be made step-free relatively easily. I presume Queensway (currently closed for lift replacement) will be the first example of this.


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> Can you give us a reminder when your book is out? (cos if I pre-order now there is no guarantee I'll have the money in my Bank Account when it's dispatched ) I loved the Subterranean Railway by Chris Wolmar - will this be on par or surpass?
> 
> Another Q about LU. What's it got (asides from the stations) in its property portfolio (if anything)?


According to Amazon its out 1/2/06, but this could just be a guess. A month seems like a very short time as I haven't seen the final proofs yet.

Re: LU property...

We own several office buildings like 55 Broadway, Pelham Street, Albany House etc. I'm not aware of much else.


----------



## Tubeman

nick-taylor said:


> Another question - what is the chances of the Varsity Line (ie the line between Oxford - Cambridge via Bletchley + Bedford) being re-opened. In some places the track still runs services (eg Oxford - Bicester Town; Bletchley - Bedford), while in others the tracks are either overgrown or have been lifted. What with the Oxford-Cambridge Arc in full growth mode (encompassing the fastest growing areas of the UK), how soon could we see it re-opened?


I'd say it will eventually re-open, certainly Bedford to Oxford anyway, I'm not too sure about the last stretch from Bedford to Sandy (then on to Cambridge via the ECML).

This Page is interesting, but out of date.

A drawback is that the line would not serve Milton keynes Central but Bletchley, I certainly think MK had reached the stage where it should be looking at some sort of light rail or tram system which would improve this problem.


----------



## samsonyuen

Bump.

The impending RMT strike stinks. What I'm not sure about is whether it will affect the tube lines like New Year's Eve, where only a few stations in Central London were closed, or whether most of the lines will be suspended?


----------



## Tubeman

samsonyuen said:


> Bump.
> 
> The impending RMT strike stinks. What I'm not sure about is whether it will affect the tube lines like New Year's Eve, where only a few stations in Central London were closed, or whether most of the lines will be suspended?


It will probably have the same minimal effect as the NYE strike. Drivers will not forego a day's pay to support station staff, even our local RMT Rep is advising Drivers to come in to work.

Some stations or parts of stations may close from time to time, but it will be about as disruptive as a bad signal failure (in fact, probably much less).


----------



## samsonyuen

Oh! I normally take the bus to Canary Wharf, change at Westminster, and then onto Parson Green, all on the tube. Should I not change this for tomorrow? Otherwise, I'd have to take the DLR to Greenwich, take the mainline to Waterloo East, walk to Waterloo, and take the train to Putney, and walk.


----------



## Tubeman

samsonyuen said:


> Oh! I normally take the bus to Canary Wharf, change at Westminster, and then onto Parson Green, all on the tube. Should I not change this for tomorrow? Otherwise, I'd have to take the DLR to Greenwich, take the mainline to Waterloo East, walk to Waterloo, and take the train to Putney, and walk.


Play it by ear. Just find out the extent of the disription before setting off tomorrow. I'd expect the network to be at worst 25% disrupted, at best there may be no appreciable effect.


----------



## samsonyuen

Great news. I'm crossing my fingers.


----------



## Tubeman

*"This morning, the RMT strike has had a minimal impact on London Underground services. 


London Underground is running good services on 11 out of 12 lines. More than 90 per cent of our 275 stations are open this morning, with only 20 closed due to the non-availability of staff."*

Kiss our arses, Bob Crowe!

Didn't I tell you? :yes:


----------



## Capzilla

@Tubeman: looking forward to your book, pre-ordered it.

Have there ever been any plans to split up the District line into multiple lines?

The current map tricks travellers into believing there is a single service with ordinary branches, however the Wimbledon-Edgware Road service is rather distinct. The only plan I've seen to make this a separate line is where the Wimbledon segment becomes the southern end of the proposed Chelsea-Hackney line (and the Hainault service of the Central line the northernmost segment), but that line will probably never be built as such due to all the CrossRail plans. Does the Earl's Court first-come-first-served signalling affect this situation at all?


----------



## redstone

Tubeman, what is more efficient, electrified third rail or overhead electrical pylons for transmitting power to subway trains? :?

And reasons why each is used?


Thanks a lot!


----------



## Tubeman

Capzilla said:


> @Tubeman: looking forward to your book, pre-ordered it.
> 
> Have there ever been any plans to split up the District line into multiple lines?
> 
> The current map tricks travellers into believing there is a single service with ordinary branches, however the Wimbledon-Edgware Road service is rather distinct. The only plan I've seen to make this a separate line is where the Wimbledon segment becomes the southern end of the proposed Chelsea-Hackney line (and the Hainault service of the Central line the northernmost segment), but that line will probably never be built as such due to all the CrossRail plans. Does the Earl's Court first-come-first-served signalling affect this situation at all?


The most recent map has redesigned Earl's Court so it no longer looks like it is possible to catch trains direct from Richmond or Ealing to Edgware Road, or Upminster to Olympia. It still doesn't show that the offpeak service pattern has all Ealing trains terminating at Tower Hill, so its still confusing.

My next little project is to redesign the Tube Map showing off-peak service patterns, it will look much more complex but I'll try to keep it simple.

For example, the District Line would become 5 different lines:

- Ealing Broadway to Tower Hill
- Richmond to Upminster
- Wimbledon to Upminster
- Wimbledon to Edgware Road
- Olympia to High Street Kensington

Likewise the Metropolitan and Northern Lines would become much more complex. I've had a think about the Northern Line, and technically it would become 6 different lines which is perhaps a bit OTT!

I can't really work on it at the moment though, as I'm doing a University course as well as working and dealing with the book.

Its a bit of a nonsense Wimbledon - Edgware Road being part of the District Line; it would much more logically be part of the Hammermsith & City then the District Line would be D Stocks only, and the Hammersmith & City + Wimbledon to Edgware Road C Stocks only. The only drawback is the Hammersmith & City Line drivers would need to learn Network Rail rules & regs for the East Putney to Wimbeldon section.

I think with the advent of universal S Stock Sub Surface Railways might become a bit inventive with service patterns... I think the Metropolitan is already a dead cert to run to Barking instead of the H&C (trains are longer, therefore more capacity).

Thanks for buying the book, by the way


----------



## Tubeman

redstone said:


> Tubeman, what is more efficient, electrified third rail or overhead electrical pylons for transmitting power to subway trains? :?
> 
> And reasons why each is used?
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot!


The main disadvantage of live rails comes with adverse weather (i.e. snow), but I suppose the rarity of snowfall in the SE of England means that this is not a major consideration and thus the majority of SE England Main Line railways as well as the Underground uses live rails.

Both systems have their pros and cons: Overhead wires can be brought down and the much higher current (25,000V as opposed to 600-750V) means that overhead wires are very hazardous as the current can jump up to 2m through the air (and will fry you instantly).

At track level, the live rails present more of a hazard, but the current cannot jump and you can even fall against the live rail and not get a shock provided you have dry clothing between you and the rail. You literally need to lie on the rail with bare skin or wet clothing to get a shock, and even then you could survive.

Live rails work very well for a high frequency low speed (relatively) metro, and this is why they have endured as the electrification of choice. The only real drawback is snow and ice, but this is too rare in London to be an issue.


----------



## CharlieP

High voltage AC is also a lot more efficient to transmit, since

P=I²R

and

V=IR

i.e. if you double the voltage over a given resistance you halve the current, and the power loss is divided by four...


----------



## sarflonlad

> Its a bit of a nonsense Wimbledon - Edgware Road being part of the District Line; it would much more logically be part of the Hammermsith & City then the District Line would be D Stocks only, and the Hammersmith & City + Wimbledon to Edgware Road C Stocks only. The only drawback is the Hammersmith & City Line drivers would need to learn Network Rail rules & regs for the East Putney to Wimbeldon section.


I presume you mean that trains would start at wimbledon then join the H&C at Edgeware with Wimbledon retaining the the Upminster part of the District line? Is this actually likely to happen at all?

Looking at a tube map, you wonder why the Wimbledon - Edgeware District line wasn't just called the 'West London Line'. 

Can we also assume we wont see the Chelney Line/Crossrail 2 in our lifetimes? What is the safeguarded route for this line exactly?

At least George Galloway is away from the Crossrail 1 discussions this Thursday


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> High voltage AC is also a lot more efficient to transmit, since
> 
> P=I²R
> 
> and
> 
> V=IR
> 
> i.e. if you double the voltage over a given resistance you halve the current, and the power loss is divided by four...


All of the distribution cables are 25kv AC, obviously you couldn't have 25kv AC live rails as current would be arcing across to the running rails and up to the train


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> I presume you mean that trains would start at wimbledon then join the H&C at Edgeware with Wimbledon retaining the the Upminster part of the District line? Is this actually likely to happen at all?


Yes, that's what I meant. Is it likely? Well, what I think is more likely is that we'll see the emergence of a strong 'SSR' (Sub-Surface Railway) identity with the introduction of the universal S Stock. We may well witness experimentation with service patterns and perhaps a loss of the traditional line identities. The whole network (Metropolitan + District + Circle + Hammersmith & City + East London) is basically all one big interlinked railway anyway, so services can be re-jigged to maximise capacity. It will probably take over Ealing Common to Uxbridge off the Piccadilly Line too.



sarflonlad said:


> Looking at a tube map, you wonder why the Wimbledon - Edgeware District line wasn't just called the 'West London Line'.


It would make sense I suppose, or a colloquialism I like is 'Wimbleware'... Bear in mind however that the Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction route (Silverlink and Southern) is also the 'West London Line'.



sarflonlad said:


> Can we also assume we wont see the Chelney Line/Crossrail 2 in our lifetimes? What is the safeguarded route for this line exactly?
> 
> At least George Galloway is away from the Crossrail 1 discussions this Thursday


Chleney will never appear as a traditional Tube Line, in fact I doubt we'll ever see another traditional Tube line built from scratch. What we will see hopefully is a couple of 'Crossrails', and I think the Chelney / Crossrail 2 option may appear within the next 20 years.

the original route was as follows (I think)

Wimbledon to Parsons Green via District Line > Chelsea > Sloane Sq > Victoria > Green park > Piccadilly Circus > Tottenham Court Rd > King's Cross > Angel > Essex Road > Dalston > Hackney (then a few options)


----------



## mr_storms

Why do some stations have platforms on top of each other? My home station used to be south ken, where the piccadilly is one on top of the other. Is this because of geological issues?


----------



## Jam35

mr_storms said:


> Why do some stations have platforms on top of each other? My home station used to be south ken, where the piccadilly is one on top of the other. Is this because of geological issues?


Mainly property rights. In the early 20th Century, lines wer built under streets as they were publicly owned and this avoided having to buy rights off property-owners. This was stuck to even with very deep lines, like the Piccadilly. If the streets got narrow or twisty overhead, the tubes got stacked. That explains both the stacking and the twistiness of the Picc around South Ken.


----------



## Tubeman

adder said:


> On some earlier post en couple of links to geographicalmaps was posted (well it were bus maps but the subwaylines were drawn into it.) Does anybody know a site whith more of these maps? I'm looking for such maps of the Paris metro.
> 
> thanx-a-lot


It was on another thread, just have a look for it. I think most of them had been created by a forumer (Metropolitan?)


----------



## samsonyuen

Is this the thread you were talking about?
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=140635&page=1&pp=25


----------



## samsonyuen

Bump

Tubeman, I have another map-related question. Why on the District line do they not show the entire line with all the branches? Would it be so hard for the Wimbledon-Edgware branch to show the other parts (and H&C, Met)? And the other branches to show the Edgware branch past High St. Kensington? If you're going to call it one line, you should treat it like one. 

On another note, I've still not received my (your) book, though it was meant to be dispatched 5-7 Feb. Amazon.co.uk still has that date, but it says it hasn't been sent out yet. Is there a problem with the distribution? Has anyone received their book?


----------



## CharlieP

I haven't had mine yet - I ordered a CD as well to qualify for free delivery, and they sent that separately...


----------



## Tubeman

The book's still at the binders, should be with you within a couple of weeks.

Ian Allan only ever stated a February publishing date (which is still correct), but Amazon decided this meant February 1st, hence the confusion.

Re: depiction of the District Line on in-car maps...

The maps pertain to the stocks. D Stocks cannot go to Edgware Road (too long), therefore the branch is missed off the D Stock in-car line maps and 'Edgware Road' is shown as an interchange option at Earl's Court on a District green background. High Street Kensington to Olympia is shown as a separate entity as for most of the working day it is (although a lot of early morning and late night eastbound trains from the western branches terminate at High Street kensington to allow reversal back to depots).

Likewise the C Stocks work the Wimbleware, Hammersmith & City and Circle Lines only, so these are the only routes shown on the C Stock map. As a little anomaly, the Olympia Branch is shown on the C Stock map even though they don't go there anymore, as up until about 3 years ago the early morning Olympia service originated at Edgware Road.


----------



## Capzilla

^^ The map situation is indeed also a good reason to rebrand Wimbledon-Edgware into the West London Line (or Wimbleware, that's a name I could fancy).


----------



## Tubeman

It would logically be a Hammermsith & City Line branch, then D Stock = District and C Stock = Hammermsith & City / Circle.

The only thing preventing this is that Hammersmith & City Line drivers would need licences for Network Rail operating procedures for the Wimbldeon Branch (currently District and Bakerloo Line Drivers are the only ones receiving this training), but this is just 1 day every 2 years now.

With a slight remodelling just west of Earl's Court the two lines could pass through the station without any conflict and cross-platform interchange at Earl's Court.


----------



## sweek

What line do you think is the most reliable? Which one's the worst?
I guess the ones that share tracks with other lines and national rail are pretty bad.
I'm looking at living in London and a good tube or commuter train service is pretty important.

I've heard good things about Wimbledon, with both frequent trains and tubes. What do you reckon?


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> What line do you think is the most reliable? Which one's the worst?
> I guess the ones that share tracks with other lines and national rail are pretty bad.
> I'm looking at living in London and a good tube or commuter train service is pretty important.
> 
> I've heard good things about Wimbledon, with both frequent trains and tubes. What do you reckon?


In my opinion:

*Best v*

Waterloo & City and East London (a bit unfair 'cos they're so short)

Victoria - Automatic, simple, reliable, very quick but very busy
Central - Automatic, has overcome teething problems, very quick
Jubilee - Mostly very modern, overcoming teething problems, soon to be automatic
Piccadilly - Very frequent through central area, slow through Acton / Arnos Grove
Bakerloo - Simple and pretty reliable but trains and track a bit old

Metropolitan - Shares tracks with other Subsurface lines, flat junctions (=delays)
District - As above
Hammermsith & City - As above

Circle - Trains often cancelled so big gaps, shares with other lines

Northern :bash: Horrific! Near-daily signalling problems

*Worst ^*

I would personally avoid living in an area solely dependant on the Northern Line. It was terrible up until 2000, but then new trains were introduced and it improved markedly. All of a sudden after the Camden Town derailment (c.3 years ago) which ripped out loads of siganlling control cables its had untold signalling problems, and its as bad as it was pre-2000.

All other lines have their moments, but the Northern is the only one I would actually actively avoid. Due to staff shortages at Edgware Road Depot Circle Lines are often cancelled in favour of Hammersmith & City Lines, so a bit of advice is that if there's no Circle Line on the Dot Matrix board, don't wait for one... you never know how long you'll be waiting!



Wimbledon is a very good choice; a great area with lots of amenities. Excellent services into London:

District City Train every 8 minutes (approx 25 to Victoria, 35 to Embankment, 45 to Monument)

District Edgware Road every 8 minutes (approx 20 to High St ken, 30 to Edgware Rd)

Main Line services to Waterloo every 5 or so minutes, some as quick as 10 minutes (depends how many stops)

Also Thameslink trains every 15 minutes to Blackfriars / City / King's Cross, maybe 30 mins to King's X but don't quote me

Plus Trams to Croydon, if you're desperate  



What sort of area do you want? Quiet suburban / buzzing suburban / gentrified Inner City / 'edgy' but trendy Inner City?


----------



## sweek

Tubeman said:


> Wimbledon is a very good choice; a great area with lots of amenities. Excellent services into London:
> 
> District City Train every 8 minutes (approx 25 to Victoria, 35 to Embankment, 45 to Monument)
> 
> District Edgware Road every 8 minutes (approx 20 to High St ken, 30 to Edgware Rd)
> 
> Main Line services to Waterloo every 5 or so minutes, some as quick as 10 minutes (depends how many stops)
> 
> Also Thameslink trains every 15 minutes to Blackfriars / City / King's Cross, maybe 30 mins to King's X but don't quote me
> 
> Plus Trams to Croydon, if you're desperate
> 
> What sort of area do you want? Quiet suburban / buzzing suburban / gentrified Inner City / 'edgy' but trendy Inner City?


Trams to Croydon! That's what I've been waiting for my whole life! 
I'm going to be studying at UC for a year, and should be getting accommodation around there, which is the Bloomsbury / Camden town area. I want to stay in the city after that year, and where I'll be living will definitely depend on where I'll work as well.

I've heard about Wimbledon being a very nice area with good connections, which is why I asked.

I wouldn't want to go too suburban, and hope I can keep the commute under 20-30 minutes. 'buzzing' also sounds good.
The East End also seems like a nice, up and coming area, and I've heard good stories about the DLR.
I still have some time really, I just wanted to hear the opinion of an expert.  Thanks! And your book sounds very interesting, I think I'll go and buy it.


----------



## samsonyuen

Tubey, are you sorry I bumped your thread?

I find the Wimbledon branch the most troubled, is that wrong? Why does it sometimes show a train as coming in _ minutes when in fact I can see that it's going to come much sooner. Once, the board was 8 minutes, but it was half a minute. How do those ETA boards work?


----------



## Tubeman

samsonyuen said:


> Tubey, are you sorry I bumped your thread?
> 
> I find the Wimbledon branch the most troubled, is that wrong? Why does it sometimes show a train as coming in _ minutes when in fact I can see that it's going to come much sooner. Once, the board was 8 minutes, but it was half a minute. How do those ETA boards work?


No, I'm glad you bumped it 

The Dot matrix boards are completely unreliable on the Wimbledon Branch, because they're dependant on the Wimbledon Signaller punching in the right info. The Network Rail Wimbledon Signalling Centre controls the entire SWT network from Waterloo halfway to Portsmouth, the East Putney to Wimbledon section, which they control, is a minor side issue and so never gets the degree of signallers' attention we'd like. They usually input incorrect or no information so the Dot matrix indicators are not usually correct until after Earl's Court when the Earl's Court Control Room can actually phone us Duty managers to ascertain the train destinations. Archaic but true.

The Wimbledon Branch had issues with rainfall causing 'bobbing' signals (i.e. they disconcertingly would flicker from green to red as trains approached them), but this has been rectified. It was very complex, but it was because, essentially, the rails need to be arranged for the working of both 4th rail LUL trains and 3rd rail SWT trains. There was some sort of conflict with the siganlling circuits as the SWT trains feed current back via the running rails as opposed to the 4th rail. Its very complicated, but the net result was that every time it rained the Wimbledon Branch was prone to multiple signal failures. As I said, its been rectified. This week we have an issue of only 2 of 4 platforms being available at Wimbldeon, but this is unrelated.

On the rest of the network the dot matrix indicators should be pretty accurate most of the time. Train destinations are punched in by signal operators at strategic points, as each train reaches a certain section it will pass this info forwards to stations in advance and cause the dot matrices to display how far away they are in minutes, this is purely from how many stops away they are. Therefore if there's a delay then a train can get stuck on, say, '4 minutes' for 10 minutes, if it gets stuck at the station 4 minutes away for 6 minutes. They don't have a crystal ball!


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> Trams to Croydon! That's what I've been waiting for my whole life!
> I'm going to be studying at UC for a year, and should be getting accommodation around there, which is the Bloomsbury / Camden town area. I want to stay in the city after that year, and where I'll be living will definitely depend on where I'll work as well.
> 
> I've heard about Wimbledon being a very nice area with good connections, which is why I asked.
> 
> I wouldn't want to go too suburban, and hope I can keep the commute under 20-30 minutes. 'buzzing' also sounds good.
> The East End also seems like a nice, up and coming area, and I've heard good stories about the DLR.
> I still have some time really, I just wanted to hear the opinion of an expert.  Thanks! And your book sounds very interesting, I think I'll go and buy it.


The East End is great, your money will go much further there in my opinion, but a lot of the Docklands areas have been developed so recently they're a bit sterile. If you're looking for reasonably priced Central London then I'd advise somewhere like Bethnal Green; its historically a bit 'rough', but this is more reputation than anything else. If you're aiming for a City job eventually then you'll be one stop from Liverpool Street... Its crazily central and yet still very affordable. 

UCL is easily accessed by the Victoria Line (Warren Street), so that opens up several good value areas for a very easy commute... I'd personally advise looking at Highbury or Vauxhall (both about 10 minutes away). Wimbledon wouldn't be a complete nightmare to get to UCL, but it wouldn't necessarily be that painless (probably City District Train to Victoria then change to the Victoria Line to Warren St), that could take up to 45 mins and will likely be very busy the whole way.

If you have any other questions, please ask!


----------



## pricemazda

Wimbledon would be quite suburban though.


----------



## Tubeman

^
Yes, but its got a busy town centre with loads of amenities... Its not like Ruislip or Raynes Park


----------



## CharlieP

Capzilla said:


> ^^ The map situation is indeed also a good reason to rebrand Wimbledon-Edgware into the West London Line (or Wimbleware, that's a name I could fancy).


There's already a West London Line though...


----------



## sarflonlad

sweek said:


> Trams to Croydon! That's what I've been waiting for my whole life!
> I'm going to be studying at UC for a year, and should be getting accommodation around there, which is the Bloomsbury / Camden town area. I want to stay in the city after that year, and where I'll be living will definitely depend on where I'll work as well.
> 
> I've heard about Wimbledon being a very nice area with good connections, which is why I asked.
> 
> I wouldn't want to go too suburban, and hope I can keep the commute under 20-30 minutes. 'buzzing' also sounds good.
> The East End also seems like a nice, up and coming area, and I've heard good stories about the DLR.
> I still have some time really, I just wanted to hear the opinion of an expert.  Thanks! And your book sounds very interesting, I think I'll go and buy it.


Hey sweek, I used to live in Wimbledon. Getting to UCL would be no probs - you could take South West Trains (every 2-5 mins) down the line 12 mins to Vauxhall then change to the Vic Line there (quicker than taking the district). Transport to all parts of London is excellent (though there is no day time bus service north of the river in to zone 1).

However I wouldnt recommend the place to live in as a student/fresh faced postgrad. Whilst it's a definately any interesting vibrant blend of a surrey heritage meets south london, it is a bit geared towards older-"young" professionals, families and the well off (and south africans). You'd probably also feel a bit detached from a 'london life' given that technically you could do and get all you needed from the well furnished town centre.

I'd start a seperate post in the UK forums if I was you to try and get the low down on the best places to live starting off after a degree. Good luck with the year at UCL!


----------



## sweek

Thanks for the pointers.  I guess Wimbledon is a place to consider a bit later on in life. I'll focus a bit more on the East End for now then.
I just bought your book as well Tubeman, I hope shipping to the continent doesn't take too long.


----------



## Capzilla

CharlieP said:


> There's already a West London Line though...


Right, I had forgotten about suburban rail. Okay, Wimbleware wins.


----------



## samsonyuen

I prefer Chelney to Wimbleware, but I guess Wimbleware makes sense, since it goes beyond Chelsea, and won't go to Hackney (yet?). Or something like the Western line (à la Northern Line). I think platforms should remain as they are if they did change though, since more Wimbledon-ers are more likely to go into the city than Richmond or Ealing Broadway, and I would think Richmonders and Ealing Broadwayers are more likely to go to Edgware than Wimbledon.

Tubey, I'm looking for a flat as well, where can I find a decent (£1000/month) one-bedroom flat. I live in Fulham and would love to live there, but I think it's more expensive. If not Fulham, somewhere with great transit links to it and Zone 1. Maybe somewhere around Bayswater or Wimbledon (via overland train to the central core?)

Any update on the book's status? (I mean no annoyance)


----------



## Tubeman

Book should be out in a matter of days... honest!

Have been roped into a signing at the Ian Allan bookshop in Waterloo on March 17th.

Re: Moving...

Where do you work? Do you like going out anywhere in particular?

I love Islington personally, its short bus rides to both the City and West End (20 mins to either) and has a great selection of shops, bars and restaurants. I'd stay here forever given the choice. My flat rents out at £270 pw, but its on one of the best streets and I'm sure you can find a one-bed in a Central Islington street property for £250 pw.

Other areas I'd consider would be Bayswater, Paddington, Earl's Court, Fulham, Putney or if I was feeling trendy somewhere like Shoreditch, Hoxton or Clerkenwell, although I'm not convinced as the transport isn't brilliant and the areas are still pretty grotty.


----------



## Justme

^ This is what I love about London, always discovering something new. I knew of the transport bookshop near Covent Gardens, but not this one in Waterloo. Have to check it out next time I'm in London.


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> ^ This is what I love about London, always discovering something new. I knew of the transport bookshop near Covent Gardens, but not this one in Waterloo. Have to check it out next time I'm in London.


Ah, I presume you mean Motorbooks?

I bought a lot of my research material there, great little shop :yes:


----------



## samsonyuen

Good news about the book. 

I work in Parsons Green (and my partner works in North Acton), but usually stay close to home at the moment, around Canary Wharf, or in the West End or Fulham.


----------



## Justme

Tubeman said:


> Ah, I presume you mean Motorbooks?
> 
> I bought a lot of my research material there, great little shop :yes:


Year, that's the one. Has a great selection on rail transport as well.


----------



## Tubeman

samsonyuen said:


> Good news about the book.
> 
> I work in Parsons Green (and my partner works in North Acton), but usually stay close to home at the moment, around Canary Wharf, or in the West End or Fulham.


I'd go for Bayswater then... You can get the tube straight into work from Bayswater and your Partner from Queensway (ok, when it re-opens).

Loads of shops in Whiteley's, and Hyde Park on your doorstep

The West End a couple of tube stops away and a short walk to Paddington for the Heathrow Express

Perfect


----------



## ReddAlert

Tubeman, answer me these questions three

1) Do you know the Muffin Man?

2)Who is Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

and 

3)Why do fools fall in love?

THANKS! :cheers:


----------



## Tubeman

:hahano:


----------



## ReddAlert

Tubeman said:


> :hahano:


aw come on! You know you want to bust out laughing at it. Your like the stern king who sits there and doesnt laugh at the jackassery being performed by the court jester---for fears that laughing at the buffoon will make him appear soft.


----------



## Tubeman

I'm not being funny mate but I've devoted a lot of time to creating a serious thread about London Transport, and I don't appreciate you coming on here and being a ****.

Save it for the Skybar...


----------



## Essex

Rational Plan said:


> 2009, I don't think it will have much effect on the Lewisham Bank route as it will be much quicker to Get to Canary Wharf from Greenwich and Lewisham rather than from Woolwich. The new connection will open up the travel to work area for the Royal Docks and Stratford, boosting the chance of redevelopment as they become accesible to Kent and Essex commuters.
> 
> The 2020 new horizons study will be interesting. This aimed to look at new options for extending the DLR. The previous study was remarkable because most of the options promoted are actually being built! The study was supposed to publish its results in spring, but not a word has been heard.
> Rumours suggest a Southern extension from Lewisham to Catford, or Hither Green, both of which would link to longer distance Kent commuters whose trains bypass Lewisham. A western extension for Bank is also proposed but as this is in tunnel I can't imagine it being long because of the cost, maybe Farringdon or Moorgate stations could be linked. Most likely would be further extensions downstream of the Thames to act as a local distributer of commuters to rail stations, allowing more of the Thames Gateway to be developed.


Farringdon or Moorgate would be good.

I think they should use a spur at Bow to go north through Stratford International and the Lea valley lines to Tottenham Hale, South Tottenham and Seven Sisters and Walthamstow Central. Getting to the Docklands from the Lea Valley at the moment isn't quick. Maybe south it could go to Beckenham to link up with the victoria main lines?? Or Bromley North from Hither Green.


----------



## samsonyuen

Tubey, on the DLR do you think there will be Canary Wharf/Lewisham-King George V trains anytime soon? It seems it'd be a popular route, but maybe they're just waiting on more stock? How about other routings to follow, like Stratford-Beckton or King George V, etc.?


----------



## Tubeman

samsonyuen said:


> Tubey, on the DLR do you think there will be Canary Wharf/Lewisham-King George V trains anytime soon? It seems it'd be a popular route, but maybe they're just waiting on more stock? How about other routings to follow, like Stratford-Beckton or King George V, etc.?


Stratford trains can only go towards Lewisham or The City, as the junction points west at Poplar. Don't forget the Stratford International extension will provide trains from Woolwich Arsenal and Beckton (and perhaps Barking Reach?) to Stratford.

I would strongly suspect that Beckton and Woolwich will both get direct trains to Canary Wharf at some point soon as more and more yuppie flats go up in the Royal Docks.


----------



## kostya

I like this thread so much . We've learnt so many things about London Underground, thanks Tubeman  kay:


----------



## Tubeman

kostya said:


> I like this thread so much . We've learnt so many things about London Underground, thanks Tubeman  kay:


You're welcome, please keep the questions coming!


----------



## Tubeman

The book's officially out...

Here's the first edition, hot off the press!


----------



## nick_taylor

Is that a new cover? Looks more busier and modern than the last one shown to us!

I just got Kenneth Powell's _The Jubilee Line Extension_ book: absolutely fantastic pictures!


----------



## Tubeman

nick-taylor said:


> Is that a new cover? Looks more busier and modern than the last one shown to us!
> 
> I just got Kenneth Powell's _The Jubilee Line Extension_ book: absolutely fantastic pictures!


Its the same image, its just the last picture I posted was a crappy scan of a crappy print and the colours were all washed out... You could barely see Battersea Power Station!

I have to agree its a great image (publisher's choice)

I'm pissed off though; they mis-spelled my Niece's name in the dedication (what I submitted to them was correct, they then re-typed it). Just as well she's 4 months old and can't read yet!


----------



## Justme

Excellent. I should see my copy in a few days! Looks great Joe


----------



## samsonyuen

I'm eagerly awaiting it!


----------



## Rational Plan

Tubeman said:


> Stratford trains can only go towards Lewisham or The City, as the junction points west at Poplar. Don't forget the Stratford International extension will provide trains from Woolwich Arsenal and Beckton (and perhaps Barking Reach?) to Stratford.
> 
> I would strongly suspect that Beckton and Woolwich will both get direct trains to Canary Wharf at some point soon as more and more yuppie flats go up in the Royal Docks.


I'm not so sure. Considering that the Bank - Lewisham route has become the core route for the DLR and the number of train paths through the flying junction north of West India Quay are fully occupied. I think the difference in journey time between changing at Canning Town for Canary wharf (which is just two stops on the Jubilee line) in comparison to five stops on the DLR. 

On the other hand if Crossrail is ever built a lot of DLR traffic to the city could reduce, allowing a change in the service pattern. But when the Jubilee line was built, they expected a big drop in passenger numbers on the city route as south London commuters and people from the West End no longer used the DLR, but as development intensified and the DLR tapped into the Kent commuter market in Lewisham, traffic figures soared. So any drop in City traffic could be compensated by increased commuter traffic, especially if they extend the line further South. 

By the way the map looks good Tubeman. Does it include proposed rail infrastructure?


----------



## Tubeman

^
Nothing proposed... I decided against it as it would make an already complex map messy. Its got Under Construction and approved lines on it (e.g. Woolwich DLR, ELLE to Dalston and CTRL).


----------



## Capzilla

^^ That's okay we'll just have to buy the second edition in five years then!


----------



## Tubeman

Capzilla said:


> ^^ That's okay we'll just have to buy the second edition in five years then!


Yes hopefully my Niece's name will be spelled correctly in the dedication by then :bash: 

Its the only part of my Visio document they re-typed, and they spelled 'Jemima' as 'Jemime' 

I've told my sister we'll have to rename her 'Jemime' for the sake of consistency... She's only 4 months... she'll be none the wiser!


----------



## pricemazda

Does it have the geographical tube map overlayed with a streetmap? 

I have always wondered exactly where the tube goes in relation to the surface.


----------



## Tubeman

pricemazda said:


> Does it have the geographical tube map overlayed with a streetmap?
> 
> I have always wondered exactly where the tube goes in relation to the surface.


No, no streets... It would just become a complete mess then!

All of the railways are plotted following their true geographical routes, if you compare it to an A to Z it should be relatively easy to follow the underground routes (each page is equal to 4 A to Z pages, this is how I drew the map!). All of the 'Yerkes' era tubes followed the roads above precisely, so these are very easy to follow. A line like the Victoria Line is more difficult to follow... even I'm not sure of its exact route, say, between Highbury & Islington and King's Cross. Suffice to say it is direct as possible with gentle curves.


----------



## pricemazda

I am interested in the 3d side of a tube map. I want to see how far from the surface and the layout of stations and how the tracks work in relation to each other.

I just realised this is verging on the territory on the trainspotter, i withdraw my statement and am about to go shoot myself in the head!


----------



## Tubeman

pricemazda said:


> I am interested in the 3d side of a tube map. I want to see how far from the surface and the layout of stations and how the tracks work in relation to each other.


That would be some project, a 3-D interactive London Railway Map...

Maybe one day!


----------



## sweek

pricemazda said:


> Does it have the geographical tube map overlayed with a streetmap?
> 
> I have always wondered exactly where the tube goes in relation to the surface.


Have you tried Google Earth with the LU template?
I'm not sure if the routes underneath the surface are completely correct, but it shows you all stations and streets on a satellite map.

Google Earth: http://earth.google.com/
The template: http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/108907/page/vc


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> Have you tried Google Earth with the LU template?
> I'm not sure if the routes underneath the surface are completely correct, but it shows you all stations and streets on a satellite map.
> 
> Google Earth: http://earth.google.com/
> The template: http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/108907/page/vc


Nah, GoogleEarth's plotting of railway lines are miles off the mark... Its really, really, inaccurate.


----------



## sweek

Tubeman said:


> Nah, GoogleEarth's plotting of railway lines are miles off the mark... Its really, really, inaccurate.


I know the regular ones are, but this is an add-on made by some LU enthousiasts.
The stations seem to be right as far as I can tell from the satellite images. But you probably know more about this than I do.

Here's an example:


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> I know the regular ones are, but this is an add-on made by some LU enthousiasts.
> The stations seem to be right as far as I can tell from the satellite images. But you probably know more about this than I do.
> 
> Here's an example:


Hmm... Even on that section of map the line courses are plotted very crudely and inaccurately.

I've overlayed more accurate paths (thick lines)


----------



## nick_taylor

This was something I made a few months ago. Doesn't show which lines or how many lines run along the route. Unfortunately one or two errors but.....


----------



## samsonyuen

^ ^Looking at this map, why is Bank linked to Monument, and not to Cannon Street? Just because of where the DLR is?


----------



## nick_taylor

I think its because of the arrangements of the Northern Line platforms.


----------



## Rational Plan

A few more tweaks to the DLR network suggested. Currently work has started on the Woolwich extension, a larger Stratford terminus and work is due to start soon on the on the Stratford to Canning Town line and the capcity enhancement on the Bank to Lewisham Line. It has been decided that the Stratford Poplar line will also increased to take six carriage trains, East India and Blackwell stations will also be extended. This means that only section that takes four carriage trains will be the Becton line. This will cost £50 million, funds for this were to be used to relocate the tracks near Pudding Mill lane further South when Crossrail is built. The sentiment is that construction won't start on Crossrail till after the Olympics, with completion in 2018!

This is probably why the article in Modern Rail also said that a Western extension to Charing cross is becoming a serious prospect. The main reasons cited was capacity limits at Bank station and possible delay to Crossrail. 

They did comment that the most expensive part of underground lines are the stations, and therefore the old Jubilee line platforms were ideal. This could mean that they might not be planning any stations between Bank and Charring Cross. The advantage is a fast journey time, but the opportunity to link Aldwych and the Western city could be missed. Two simple stations could link these areas, but even this option would cost an extra £100 - £200 million and probably more. But as history has shown on the underground network, cheap stations soon fill up and become constrained, with them having to be closed periodicaly to maintain safety.


----------



## Tubeman

samsonyuen said:


> ^ ^Looking at this map, why is Bank linked to Monument, and not to Cannon Street? Just because of where the DLR is?


Yes Nick is spot on... The Northern Line platforms lie under King William Street such that at their northern end are the Central Line platforms and the southern end is Monument station, so the Northern Line platforms form the 'link' between the two.


----------



## Tubeman

nick-taylor said:


> This was something I made a few months ago. Doesn't show which lines or how many lines run along the route. Unfortunately one or two errors but.....


^
That is very accurate :yes:


----------



## Tubeman

Rational Plan said:


> A few more tweaks to the DLR network suggested. Currently work has started on the Woolwich extension, a larger Stratford terminus and work is due to start soon on the on the Stratford to Canning Town line and the capcity enhancement on the Bank to Lewisham Line. It has been decided that the Stratford Poplar line will also increased to take six carriage trains, East India and Blackwell stations will also be extended. This means that only section that takes four carriage trains will be the Becton line. This will cost £50 million, funds for this were to be used to relocate the tracks near Pudding Mill lane further South when Crossrail is built. The sentiment is that construction won't start on Crossrail till after the Olympics, with completion in 2018!
> 
> This is probably why the article in Modern Rail also said that a Western extension to Charing cross is becoming a serious prospect. The main reasons cited was capacity limits at Bank station and possible delay to Crossrail.
> 
> They did comment that the most expensive part of underground lines are the stations, and therefore the old Jubilee line platforms were ideal. This could mean that they might not be planning any stations between Bank and Charring Cross. The advantage is a fast journey time, but the opportunity to link Aldwych and the Western city could be missed. Two simple stations could link these areas, but even this option would cost an extra £100 - £200 million and probably more. But as history has shown on the underground network, cheap stations soon fill up and become constrained, with them having to be closed periodicaly to maintain safety.


Yes, its all go on the DLR...

Stratford remodelling (2 new platforms being built to the south of the existing single bay) finished 2007

Woolwich Arsenal extension to open 2009

Stratford International to Canning Town to open 2010 (North London Line closes Nov 2006)

Possible Barking Reach extension to open 2015

I expect that once the Stratford International extension opens DLR will start depicting itself as a network in its own right with different lines noted as opposed to the current web of lines over east London.

I get the impression from the TFL website that Stratford International to Woolwich Arsenal will be a self-contained route. So there'll be 4 lines:

Bank to Lewisham
Tower Gateway to Beckton
Lewisham to Stratford
Stratford International to Woolwich Arsenal


----------



## samsonyuen

Rational Plan said:


> This is probably why the article in Modern Rail also said that a Western extension to Charing cross is becoming a serious prospect. The main reasons cited was capacity limits at Bank station and possible delay to Crossrail.
> 
> They did comment that the most expensive part of underground lines are the stations, and therefore the old Jubilee line platforms were ideal. This could mean that they might not be planning any stations between Bank and Charring Cross. The advantage is a fast journey time, but the opportunity to link Aldwych and the Western city could be missed. Two simple stations could link these areas, but even this option would cost an extra £100 - £200 million and probably more. But as history has shown on the underground network, cheap stations soon fill up and become constrained, with them having to be closed periodicaly to maintain safety.


That's great news. Wasn't Aldwych closed because the costs to repair the lifts were too much to substantiate? How would this change? Would service from Holborn ever continue as well (and perhaps further south)? Or could the DLR use platform 5 at Holborn from Bank (although I guess it's about the same as the Central line)?


----------



## Justme

Still waiting mine. It was sent out last week, so should arrive here in Frankfurt probably tomorrow.

I must admit I'm rather excited.


----------



## samsonyuen

No word yet Amazon.co.uk still says mine is to be delivered 7-9 February!


----------



## Tubeman

Bah! My first error 

Oh well, its pretty minor... A reader sent me an email today and I re-read my source and confirmed it, but the passage in my source was somewhat misleading.


----------



## CharlieP

Tubeman said:


> Have you got it yet?


It arrived today. It's a good job I nipped home and parked on the drive, as I found the card from the postman saying he'd put it in the garage - if I'd just come home after work I'd have probably driven over it


----------



## Tubeman

...And?...


----------



## CharlieP

I've only read the first chapter so far. The plot took a while to make sense, but I'm finding it quite gripping now.


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> I've only read the first chapter so far. The plot took a while to make sense, but I'm finding it quite gripping now.


:crazy:


----------



## samsonyuen

^Received an email yesterday, and it should be here soon enough. 

Why are there two different Shepherd's Bush (and Paddington) stations that don't directly connect to each other, and why don't they just name one something else? I guess few people are confused by it. And why is Olympia always referred to as such, but on the maps, it's Kensington (Olympia)?


----------



## Tubeman

samsonyuen said:


> ^Received an email yesterday, and it should be here soon enough.
> 
> Why are there two different Shepherd's Bush (and Paddington) stations that don't directly connect to each other, and why don't they just name one something else? I guess few people are confused by it. And why is Olympia always referred to as such, but on the maps, it's Kensington (Olympia)?


Re: Shepherd's Bush...

Wait 'til you get the book, there have been *7* differently-located stations named Shepherd's Bush over the years... we should be grateful just to have 2 at the moment!

The simple answer is that the companies which built London's Railways were by and large all separate entities and so often thought nothing of providing easy interchanges between lines (in fact this would often be actively avoided), they only cared about tapping into certain areas. Therefore many areas received adjacent but unlinked stations from different companies, e.g.

Shepherd's Bush = Central & Metropolitan Lines, London & SW, West London
Edgware Road = Bakerloo, Circle / District / H&C
Crystal Palace = London Chatham & Dover (LCDR) and London & Brighton (LBSCR)
Catford Bridge / Catford = LCDR & LBSCR
Bromley North & South = South-Eastern (SER) and LCDR
Uxbridge had 3 independent termini at one point (Met, GWR, Great Central)
Staines had 2 stations (LSWR & GWR)

(Plus many more)

Victoria Station is in fact 2 totally independent stations alongside each other (again LCDR and LBSCR), this is still fairly apparent today although the wall between their concourses has been knocked down!

Re: Paddington

It is all one station in that technincally the H&C platforms are part of the main GWR terminus, which in turn interchanges with the Bakerloo / Circle / District station. It just so happens however that the H&C platforms are right on the north side of the trainshed and the underground station at the southern tip, they are so far apart that they are not shown as an interchange.

The original Metropolitan Railway was a very early Crossrail. As built is was a direct London-ward extension of the GWR, it was GWR 7 foot Broad Gauge and physically connected with the Midland (St Pancras), Great Northern (Kings Cross), London Chatham & Dover (Farringdon) and Great Eastern (Liverpool Street). It was fully intended to operate like Thameslink does today, but it was ahead of its time and the Main Line companies it connected with never agreed about reciprocal arrangements to run over each other's metals, and so by default it became the world's first metro.

Connections at Liverpool Street and King's Cross (the one facing eastwards) were hastily removed, but the St pancras one is still intact after a fashion (Thameslink) and as a hangover the H&C Line emerges into Paddington Mainline station.


----------



## spsmiler

Tubeman said:


> Ah, thanks for the nostalgia Simon
> 
> I'd never seen the A Stock Guard's Panel before... looks a lot tidier than the ones on the '59 Stocks!


Hi Tubey,

I've got a pic of panel 2 as well - I'll uplift and post here the next tme I am uplifting images (hopefully within next few days).

In the meantime, I have aquestion - I might have asked this before, but its a topic which very much concerns me.

Apart from the Thanmes barrier, how good (if at all) are London Underground's flood defences? OK, so flood barriers were installed to protect the system in case a WW2 bomb breached a section of tunnel which passes under the Thames - but is that all?

Simon

ps, I am so concerened that I might start a thread on this topic


----------



## spsmiler

Tubeman said:


> Re: Paddington
> 
> It is all one station in that technincally the H&C platforms are part of the main GWR terminus, which in turn interchanges with the Bakerloo / Circle / District station. It just so happens however that the H&C platforms are right on the north side of the trainshed and the underground station at the southern tip, they are so far apart that they are not shown as an interchange.
> 
> The original Metropolitan Railway was a very early Crossrail. As built is was a direct London-ward extension of the GWR, it was GWR 7 foot Broad Gauge and physically connected with the Midland (St Pancras), Great Northern (Kings Cross), London Chatham & Dover (Farringdon) and Great Eastern (Liverpool Street). It was fully intended to operate like Thameslink does today, but it was ahead of its time and the Main Line companies it connected with never agreed about reciprocal arrangements to run over each other's metals, and so by default it became the world's first metro.
> 
> Connections at Liverpool Street and King's Cross (the one facing eastwards) were hastily removed, but the St pancras one is still intact after a fashion (Thameslink) and as a hangover the H&C Line emerges into Paddington Mainline station.


But it used to use 4 platforms - the pair which it still does use plus the next pair in, which nowadays are used by terminating mainline diesel trains. The former trackbed has been reused as an access point.

Untill WW2 some GWR trains would continue through over the northern half of the Circle Line - I think as far as Aldgate? - changing between steam and electric locos as Paddington. 

Oh to be able to time travel and take a modern digital camera + camcorder with me!!! (perchance to dream) (I'd also want to investigate trains such as the Southend Corridor Express)

Simon


----------



## Tubeman

spsmiler said:


> Hi Tubey,
> 
> I've got a pic of panel 2 as well - I'll uplift and post here the next tme I am uplifting images (hopefully within next few days).
> 
> In the meantime, I have aquestion - I might have asked this before, but its a topic which very much concerns me.
> 
> Apart from the Thanmes barrier, how good (if at all) are London Underground's flood defences? OK, so flood barriers were installed to protect the system in case a WW2 bomb breached a section of tunnel which passes under the Thames - but is that all?
> 
> Simon
> 
> ps, I am so concerened that I might start a thread on this topic


Well the WW2 floodgates are all still in situ and allegedly operational, but I'm not aware of them ever being tested. Truthfully the Thames Barrier should do the job; when a Spring Tide is due the barrier is lowered at low tide damming the Thames at Woolwich and preventing the tide from rising above it, the Thames is so tidal that even if the Thames was in full flood the effect of damming it for a few hours is preferable to allowing the spring tide up into London.

There's probably barely a single metro system that isn't below sea level and / or the level of the city's river, so we're not unique (think about cities properly at sea level like New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore etc). The WW2 floodgates were pretty callous anyway; if a tunnel under the Thames was breached by a bomb the gates would all be lowered, and if there was a train trapped between them then tough shit... everyone on that train drowned. This was deemed preferable to flooding half the network and killing many more people.


----------



## spsmiler

Hi Tubeman,

below should an image of the other A stock guards panel. The flap at the top of the panel is where the guard used his key to activate the buttons.










I have some sympathy with the view that its better to loose one train load of passengers than the entire system, with many train loads of passengers, plus passengers on station platforms. But nevertheless it is / would have been a very brutal thing to do. 

Thank God the scenario did not arise.

but talking of flooding a specific threat has been recorded for later this month / early April. If the event happens along Atlantic Ocean coastlines then cities such as New York, Boston, Lisbon, Barcelona, Liverpool and more would be imperrilled. London would be less likely to be affected. A North Sea event would be the end of london, as well as many north European low land cities. 

Information based on this website. 

The main page is here - it will need about a week to read, but the first quarter or so will be enough http://users.gloryroad.net/~bigjim/index.htm 

http://users.gloryroad.net/~bigjim/what_we_have.htm a brief resume of why he made this website and his evidence. 

Simon


----------



## Tubeman

I still have my Guard's Key... I wonder how much it would fetch on ebay?


----------



## mrstar

Hey Tubeman,

Love your work!

How legal is drinking booze on the tube? On my way out I usually have a cheeky tin on the tube and I see alot of others doing the same and no one bats an eyelid!

Thanks!


----------



## Tubeman

Its against railway byelaws to be drunk on the railway, but considering most manline TOCs sell alcohol and 95% of our Customers are bladdered on a Friday or saturday night you can see its not taken seriously.

As long as you do none of the following I don't care:

Be loud / abusive
Piss on the train / station
Puke on the train / platform
Leave your empties lying around


----------



## Capzilla

I'm so glad that a quiet orgy and leaving undies lying around is not a problem.


----------



## spsmiler

Tubeman said:


> I still have my Guard's Key... I wonder how much it would fetch on ebay?


But why would you want to sell it???

Simon


----------



## samsonyuen

Tubey, great book! (Delayed response to me getting it)

Why are there only glass doors in the underground stations of the Jubilee line extension, and not Canning Town, etc. that are above ground? Will future underground stations be fitted with these too?


----------



## Tubeman

spsmiler said:


> But why would you want to sell it???
> 
> Simon


Nah, I never would


----------



## Tubeman

samsonyuen said:


> Tubey, great book! (Delayed response to me getting it)
> 
> Why are there only glass doors in the underground stations of the Jubilee line extension, and not Canning Town, etc. that are above ground? Will future underground stations be fitted with these too?


Yes I see your point... Why were PEDs (Platform edge doors) restricted to the tunnel stations on the JLE? It does seem a bit odd. Its almost as if people are only assumed to feel suicidal underground.

I suppose an aspiration would be for PEDs to be fitted on all platforms, but at the moment with mixed stocks serving platforms (or at least the potential) its physically impossible. At the moment a lot of the network is automatically ruled out:

Hammersmith-Ealing Common
Finchley Road-Amersham
Entire District & Circle lines except District beyond Barking

These all see routinely, or potentially, different stocks of trains (i.e. doors line up in different places)


----------



## CharlieP

Tubeman said:


> Yes I see your point... Why were PEDs (Platform edge doors) restricted to the tunnel stations on the JLE? It does seem a bit odd. Its almost as if people are only assumed to feel suicidal underground.


I thought the main reason for the PEDs was to cut out the piston effect of a train entering an underground station...?


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> I thought the main reason for the PEDs was to cut out the piston effect of a train entering an underground station...?


This is actually a very desirable effect, as its pretty much the only ventilation system we have! This is why the PED screen does not form a seal with the tunnel ceiling, so still allowing air circulation. This is also why tube trains have unaerodynamic flat fronts, to maximise the amount of air they push around the tunnels.


----------



## samsonyuen

I just thought since Canning Town, West Ham, Stratford were built the same time as Canary Wharf, etc., it would've made sense to have them all fitted with PEDs.


----------



## mr_storms

because those stations are outdoors?


----------



## Tubeman

mr_storms said:


> because those stations are outdoors?


This is the only difference between them, but I still see no logical reason why PEDs couldn't have been fitted at the overground JLE stations.

Does anyone know of any open air PEDs anywhere in the world?

The only possible explanation I can think of is that weather conditions (Rain or ice) can make braking performance unpredictable overground, and the Jubilee Line trains have little margin for error because of having to line up with the PEDs.


----------



## mrtfreak

Tubeman said:


> This is the only difference between them, but I still see no logical reason why PEDs couldn't have been fitted at the overground JLE stations.
> 
> Does anyone know of any open air PEDs anywhere in the world?
> 
> The only possible explanation I can think of is that weather conditions (Rain or ice) can make braking performance unpredictable overground, and the Jubilee Line trains have little margin for error because of having to line up with the PEDs.


The Hong Kong MTR uses some sort of Platform Door at its open-air at grade stations at Sunny Bay and Disneyland Resort. Not too sure about weather conditions.

Tung Chung line train at Sunny Bay station (from the Hong Kong MTR thread):


----------



## mrstar

Hello!

I've fallen for Shoreditch station and demand it stays open!

It's so hidden away, no wonder no one uses it!

Do you think the closure will be temp or long term?

Thank you!


----------



## sweek

mrstar said:


> Hello!
> 
> I've fallen for Shoreditch station and demand it stays open!
> 
> It's so hidden away, no wonder no one uses it!
> 
> Do you think the closure will be temp or long term?
> 
> Thank you!


Shoreditch will be replaced by Shoreditch High Street (a little further to the North-West) during the first phase of the ELL extension.


----------



## samsonyuen

Back to PEDs once more... Why are there no PEDs in non-JLE stations where they rebuilt the station, like London Bridge (Northern line) or Westminster (Circle and District lines?


----------



## DarJoLe

samsonyuen said:


> Back to PEDs once more... Why are there no PEDs in non-JLE stations where they rebuilt the station, like London Bridge (Northern line) or Westminster (Circle and District lines?


Cost. These doors cost £1million a platform, and for each of these stations you'd have to build entirely new doors for each stock of train - plus at Westminster different train configurations run on the same tracks.

I believe the one reason they weren't installed outside (apart from the weather one) was because the train side of the doors is actually quite ugly with the mechanisms on show, and it wasn't really aesthetically pleasing to be able to see these at Canning Town, West Ham and Stratford from outside the station (the only place you get a good look at the reverse side of the doors is at North Greenwich where there is a dual track).


----------



## Coccodrillo

Why services are not numbered?

Line's names are historic, but the District Line has 6 destinations, like the DLR, and understand where a train goes from any map is impossible.

Same idea for the suburban railroads (why not like Germany?), with a lot of lines numbers help a lot.

Thank you and excuse me if this question has yet been posed.


----------



## Tubeman

Coccodrillo said:


> Why services are not numbered?
> 
> Line's names are historic, but the District Line has 6 destinations, like the DLR, and understand where a train goes from any map is impossible.
> 
> Same idea for the suburban railroads (why not like Germany?), with a lot of lines numbers help a lot.
> 
> Thank you and excuse me if this question has yet been posed.


I agree, lines like the District, Northern and Metropolitan must be a nightmare for out-of-towners. I'd support fragmenting lines into their off-peak service patterns on the Tube map personally, there's no logic to the way the map is laid out at the moment. It will never happen though; the individual line identities and Beck's map are too iconic and there'd be riots if they were radically changed.

It's something I'd like to look at personally as a 'little project', but I'm a bit too busy at the moment.

As an example, the off-peak District Line operates as 5 discrete services:

Richmond - Upminster
Wimbledon - Upminster
Ealing - Tower Hill
Wimbledon - Edgware Road
Olympia - High Street Kensington

...And therefore logically should be shown as separate lines on the map.

What I was contemplating was making them 5 different shades of green on the map and numbered 'District 1', 'District 2' etc... But bear in mind that that would perhaps treble to total number of lines on the map and make it much 'busier'.

In answer to why... Its purely down to history and the way in which the network grew out of several independent railway companies.


----------



## sweek

I really don't think numbering is necessary or useful. If the names are too complicated, you can easily work with colours. Numbers would actually be quite confusing I think.
Tourists don't care much for terminating stations and where trains are going anyway: they stay in the centre of the city and it doesn't really matter whether their service goes to Wimbledon or Richmond.
Showing what District lines go where though, might be a good idea. But you would get so many colours on the map, I don't think that's really possible. Just changing Wimbleware (that'd be a good name  ) and the Kensington shuttle to a separate line as you suggested would probably work much better.

It actually seems quite clear to me right now on the map, with the different services through Earl's Court separated.


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> I really don't think numbering is necessary or useful. If the names are too complicated, you can easily work with colours. Numbers would actually be quite confusing I think.
> Tourists don't care much for terminating stations and where trains are going anyway: they stay in the centre of the city and it doesn't really matter whether their service goes to Wimbledon or Richmond.
> Showing what District lines go where though, might be a good idea. But you would get so many colours on the map, I don't think that's really possible. Just changing Wimbleware (that'd be a good name  ) and the Kensington shuttle to a separate line as you suggested would probably work much better.
> 
> It actually seems quite clear to me right now on the map, with the different services through Earl's Court separated.


That was chiefly because it used to look like trains ran from Richmond / Ealing to Edgware Road, which they don't.

I find numbering very reassuring on a foreign metro, it does make it very easily navigable. Numbers are universal after all, words are ok if you're used to Roman script, but if you only know Japanese, Chinese or Cyrillic then it must be bewildering.

Colours are even better, but if you have more than 10 or so lines you start getting into the realms of different shades of the same colour, which can become confusing (e.g. in London you can't say "take the blue line" as they could wind up on the Victoria, Piccadilly, Waterloo & City or DLR lines).

I think what might be optimal actually is separating out service patterns into separate lines on the map but keeping the traditional colours, then the terminal stations of each service highlighted on the map to draw the eye to the destinations. After all, on a 'numbered' system like Paris its not good enough knowing which line you want, you still need to know the destination to make sure you're going the right way.


----------



## Coccodrillo

A solution can be only place the number near the terminus and the junctions on the actual map, without adding a line for each service.


----------



## Capzilla

sweek said:


> Showing what District lines go where though, might be a good idea. But you would get so many colours on the map, I don't think that's really possible.


I myself would be able to distinguish at least a few shades of green for the District services, but I'm sure some people already have problems keeping the colours separated properly, especially the colourblind.


----------



## mrstar

Hello,

Is there ever going to be any expansion of Holloway Road station. When work commenced on the new Emirates Football Stadium there was talk of upgrading the station to make way for the extra 20,000 fans who will be comming into the area on match days.

I really do not think the station is capable of hosting the supporters especially only having 2 elevators and one very narrow spiral staircase.

With the station being close to the new stadium, stations like Arsenal will be less busy on matchdays with most travelling to either Drayton Park or Holloway Road.

Do you know of any future plans?

Thank You!


----------



## Tubeman

mrstar said:


> Hello,
> 
> Is there ever going to be any expansion of Holloway Road station. When work commenced on the new Emirates Football Stadium there was talk of upgrading the station to make way for the extra 20,000 fans who will be comming into the area on match days.
> 
> I really do not think the station is capable of hosting the supporters especially only having 2 elevators and one very narrow spiral staircase.
> 
> With the station being close to the new stadium, stations like Arsenal will be less busy on matchdays with most travelling to either Drayton Park or Holloway Road.
> 
> Do you know of any future plans?
> 
> Thank You!


None that I'm aware of... I think fans will be encouraged to use Finsbury Park station rather than Holloway Road. The only blessing is that the Emirates will be roughly in the middle of 3 stations; Arsenal, Holloway Road and Finsbury Park so hopefully people will disperse 3 ways depending on where they're going to. They should have built a platform for football trains really, a wasted opportunity considering the stadium is surrounded by railways.


----------



## sarflonlad

Tubeman,

what in your opinion do you think would follow on from any failure of the Crossrail bill? Would TfL focus attention on the Chelney as a standard tube gauge line? More light rail schemes? More buses perhaps?

Also, in your ideal world, what single thing would you do to the entire tube network to improve it?


----------



## Tubeman

pricemazda said:


> Why are the sub surface lines so much slower than the deep level lines?


They aren't really, its an illusion because the tunnels are much tighter on the deep-level giving the sensation of higher speeds.

Trains on most lines typically do not exceed 30-35 mph between Central London stations, its actually the sub-surface which pick up a bit more speed as the stations are generally further apart (e.g. Kings Cross to Farringdon).


----------



## pricemazda

Kings Cross to Farringdon is one of the ones I mean, it takes ages to get between those stops! 

Is it maybe the acceleration and braking on the sub surface that makes them feel slower. 

But you know this everyone says the circle/district/ham&shitty/metro/ are slow. 

A friend of mine prefers to get on a central line train at Mile End to change at Liverpool St onto the circle, because its quicker than if they got the Ham & Shitty.

So are they nuts for doing that? It can't be all in ours heads?


----------



## Kentigern

This might not be a question it's possible to answer. I know the current system has about 400km of lines. In the fantasy future map I keep seeing (the one including crossrail, DLR, and the stuff south of the river, how many kms of lines are there? In other words, how much extension is planned in kilometers?

Thanks!


----------



## Tubeman

pricemazda said:


> Kings Cross to Farringdon is one of the ones I mean, it takes ages to get between those stops!
> 
> Is it maybe the acceleration and braking on the sub surface that makes them feel slower.
> 
> But you know this everyone says the circle/district/ham&shitty/metro/ are slow.
> 
> A friend of mine prefers to get on a central line train at Mile End to change at Liverpool St onto the circle, because its quicker than if they got the Ham & Shitty.
> 
> So are they nuts for doing that? It can't be all in ours heads?


The Central Line is exceptionally fast since it went ATO, acceleration and braking can be at maximum capacity and train can enter platforms much faster than a manual driver could dare to. Also the stations are on a 'hump' profile where the is an uphill gradient entering platforms to assist deceleration and a downhill leaving to assist acceleration. The exceptions with the Central are the torturous bends through The City and West of Shepherd's Bush.

If a driver 'goes for it' I think over 45 mph is possible between Kings Cross and Farringdon (downhill) which is far faster than the usual 30mph between most Central London stations. It takes a long time because its a long way.

The Sub-surface lines are 'slow' because of the flat junctions at places like Aldgate, Edgware Road, Gloucester Road, etc where trains sit it tunnels waiting for their 'turn' across the junction. The train performance is generally equivalent to the Tube stock of similar age.


----------



## pricemazda

Will they ever spend the money on sorting out the Aldgate mess?

So would the sub surface lines, if fitted with the same technology as on the central line, could they conceivably go faster?

How could things be speeded up on those lines?


----------



## Tubeman

pricemazda said:


> Will they ever spend the money on sorting out the Aldgate mess?
> 
> So would the sub surface lines, if fitted with the same technology as on the central line, could they conceivably go faster?
> 
> How could things be speeded up on those lines?


The stations can't be given a 'hump' profile without spending billions, but with new trains and automatic working speeds should improve.

The flat junctions are always going be a headache, probably the best option long-term would be to scrap the Circle Line and build a new one below in Tube.

Believe it or not Aldgate used to be worse until the 1930's when the triangle was remodelled. Before two sides of the triangle weren't long enough to accommodate a train so a train sitting on one side would obstruct the other side. This was solved by moving Aldgate East eastwards and running the District and H&C lines parrellel to each other for the length of the original station.


----------



## pricemazda

Could you ever imagine them ever funding a deep level circle line?

But the thought of it, gets my juices going. It would be clean, efficient. Amazing. 

I am going to start a campaign now!!!!


----------



## Tubeman

pricemazda said:


> Could you ever imagine them ever funding a deep level circle line?
> 
> But the thought of it, gets my juices going. It would be clean, efficient. Amazing.
> 
> I am going to start a campaign now!!!!


I've already planned the route! 

It doesn't precisely follow the current Circle Line, its designed to serve all the major termini.

*King's Cross St Pancras
Angel
Old Street
Liverpool Street
Fenchurch Street / Tower Hill
London Bridge
Waterloo
Victoria
Knightsbridge
Lancaster Gate
Paddington
Baker Street
Euston
King's Cross St Pancras*


----------



## pricemazda

You are such a nerd tubey!


----------



## Tubeman

Thanks... I think!


----------



## pricemazda

Its ok, I have a hard time accepting my own nerd status. I am after all posting on an internet forum devoted to Skyscrapers!!! 

Those in Nerd Houses......


----------



## JDRS

Related to the above point but why sometimes between Amersham and Finchley Road, do the trains go quite fast and other times quite slow? Will the trains speed up when the new stock comes in 2009?


----------



## Tubeman

JDRS said:


> Related to the above point but why sometimes between Amersham and Finchley Road, do the trains go quite fast and other times quite slow? Will the trains speed up when the new stock comes in 2009?


Different trains perform differently, but its largely down to the driver's whim. If you're right up the arse of the train in front you'll not bother going hell for leather... there's no point.


----------



## Kentigern

Bump... even if it's just so my question gets answered... =P


----------



## nick_taylor

Kentigern said:


> This might not be a question it's possible to answer. I know the current system has about 400km of lines. In the fantasy future map I keep seeing (the one including crossrail, DLR, and the stuff south of the river, how many kms of lines are there? In other words, how much extension is planned in kilometers?
> 
> Thanks!


408km > 425km (excluding Crossrail, DLR and trams)


----------



## Kentigern

Excellent... now if I may be so bold, what about are the lengths of 1) Crossrail 2) DLR and 3) the tram network? 

If there info is somewhere easy to find, just point me in the direction and tell me to shut up...!


----------



## sweek

DLR is 31 km according to Wikipedia, Crossrail would be a 16 km tunnel newly built and upgrades to the system already there. I can't seem to find how much new track, not in a tunnel, would be built.


----------



## LordCarnal

Mr. Tubeman, can a 4-lane tunnel (around 1.2 km long) for vehicles be also called a subway? Or does a subway only refer to underground railways?


----------



## Jean Luc

Tubeman, could land value taxation (LVT) be used to finance the construction of new lines? When the Jubilee Line was extended through South London and the Docklands area some properties near the new stations increased in value by up to four times! :shocked: These windfall gains for the few lucky property owners could have been taxed to help pay for the line's construction, as explained in the booklet "Taken for a Ride" by Don Riley, himself a property owner and developer in the area. Perhaps the building of new lines could even be self-financing using this method, meaning that their proponents would not have to go cap-in-hand to the government for funding from general revenue, but instead could say that the line would pay for itself, giving the scheme a greater chance of being approved by the bean counters.

To get an idea of what I mean, check out the following:
http://www.samuelbrittan.co.uk/text89_p.html
http://www.labourland.org/in_the_news/articles/new_approach.php

The opinions expressed are those of the authors, and although I don't agree with everything they say I believe that they make a valid case for using LVT to finance new lines. Indeed, new construction could be expedited by using this funding method.

What do you think?


----------



## Capzilla

^^ Impossible. It's only reasonable to assume land values increase when the line is a success by economic necessity, in which case it will be developed anyway, so land owners are most likely to try and complain in the hopes of getting compensation for the increased traffic/noise/crime/daffodils/lack-of-mojo.


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> Interesting term for lunch... "Meal Relief"


...Always referred to simply as 'grub' though


----------



## mr_storms

Hi from London  A couple of new questions now
On the new jubilee trains whenver they start up you hear a high pitched whine that sounds like a engine starting up and switching gears. What is it?
Whats the frequency on circle trains now? It seems awfully low. Even during rush hour, I saw far more district trains that circles . I have yet to catch a circle train, the districts are always there beforehand, which is too bad considering how horrible the D stock is
Are the tunnels on the jubilee extension built larger to accomodate an emergency walkway and/or larger stock?


----------



## samsonyuen

Tubey, a straightforward question: What's the deepest station?


----------



## pricemazda

I think its Angel or Hampstead


----------



## samsonyuen

I've read about Angel having the longest escalator in Western Europe, but I didn't read about it being the deepest...


----------



## pricemazda

then it will be Hampstead


----------



## Sideshow_Bob

Mr Tubeman, have you ever travelled with the Stockholm subway?
And if you have, what's your impression?


----------



## samsonyuen

Tubey, do you think there'll be any infill stations anytime soon? For example, a station between, say, Bermondsey and Canada Water?


----------



## Tubeman

pricemazda said:


> then it will be Hampstead


Correct!

Angel = Longest escalators
Hampstead = Deepest platforms below ground level (lifts only)


----------



## Tubeman

samsonyuen said:


> Tubey, do you think there'll be any infill stations anytime soon? For example, a station between, say, Bermondsey and Canada Water?


Below ground: No

Above ground: Yes... e.g. White City between Shepherds Bush and Latimer Road


----------



## Tubeman

Sideshow_Bob said:


> Mr Tubeman, have you ever travelled with the Stockholm subway?
> And if you have, what's your impression?


No I haven't... I have only been on Hong Kong, Singapore, Paris, NYC, Barcelona


----------



## ♣628.finst

Tubeman, what's you impression about Northern Line and Bakerloo Line?


----------



## Tubeman

Xäntårx said:


> Tubeman, what's you impression about Northern Line and Bakerloo Line?


*Northern Line:*

Historic, antique infrastructure, filthy tunnels, unreliable service (signalling)

*Bakerloo Line:*

Runs better than the Northern but very hot & dusty (no natual aeration at southern end). Very old (100 years old this year)


----------



## jetsetwilly

Tubeman said:


> Below ground: No
> 
> Above ground: Yes... e.g. White City between Shepherds Bush and Latimer Road


I'm sure this has been covered elsewhere, but I'm confused about this. Will the new White City station be an interchange with the Central Line one, or will it be another duplication like the two Shepherd's Bush Stations? Wasn't there once a plan to call the Central Line station there Shepherd's Bush Green?


----------



## Tubeman

jetsetwilly said:


> I'm sure this has been covered elsewhere, but I'm confused about this. Will the new White City station be an interchange with the Central Line one, or will it be another duplication like the two Shepherd's Bush Stations? Wasn't there once a plan to call the Central Line station there Shepherd's Bush Green?


It will interchange with the Central Line platforms via a walkway, so it won't be like the two Shepherd's Bushes.

The Central Line Shepherd's Bush does indeed (or at least did) appear with a 'Green' suffix on some of the maps displayed on Central Line platforms (certainly at my old stop, Bethnal Green). It never appeared as such on the Tube Map or on the in-car maps to my knowledge, so its rather bizarre to be honest. Why name it so on a handful of enamel line maps in stations but nowhere else?


----------



## jetsetwilly

Tubeman said:


> It will interchange with the Central Line platforms via a walkway, so it won't be like the two Shepherd's Bushes.
> 
> The Central Line Shepherd's Bush does indeed (or at least did) appear with a 'Green' suffix on some of the maps displayed on Central Line platforms (certainly at my old stop, Bethnal Green). It never appeared as such on the Tube Map or on the in-car maps to my knowledge, so its rather bizarre to be honest. Why name it so on a handful of enamel line maps in stations but nowhere else?


Thanks for that. Calling one Shepherd's Bush Green would certainly clear up a lot of the confusion. I got off at Shepherd's Bush H & C when I was a teenage Tube fan, and was thoroughly confused by the walk I had to do to get to the Central Line station. It's one of those anomalies on the system that should be ironed out. I had no idea that it had already been actioned, in a way, though; I thought it was a recent proposal.


----------



## Justme

@Tubeman.

I'll be back in London in August for a week or two, and as I visit so frequently, I was wondering, should I get a Oyster Card. It would save me a bit of money I think even over just a week. That is of cause if it costs to get one initially. (???)

Can I get an Oyster card despite my address being in Germany? The online webpage only allows UK postcodes.

Can I use one Oyster Card for two people. i.e. swipe it once when passing a gate, and then handing it over for the 2nd person to swipe?

cheers.


----------



## Capzilla

Justme said:


> Can I get an Oyster card despite my address being in Germany? The online webpage only allows UK postcodes.


Yes, everyone can get Oyster. What you cannot do without UK address is register and insure your card against loss and theft, but simply using an anonymous card is no problem whatsoever.



Justme said:


> Can I use one Oyster Card for two people. i.e. swipe it once when passing a gate, and then handing it over for the 2nd person to swipe?


As far as I know you cannot check in a second time before checking out, so you'll need to get two cards (they're 3 quid each). Even if it were possible, it seems like hanging over cards back is a very effective way to create long queues in front of gates, so fellow travellers might not appreciate it anyway.


----------



## Justme

Capzilla said:


> Yes, everyone can get Oyster. What you cannot do without UK address is register and insure your card against loss and theft, but simply using an anonymous card is no problem whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know you cannot check in a second time before checking out, so you'll need to get two cards (they're 3 quid each). Even if it were possible, it seems like hanging over cards back is a very effective way to create long queues in front of gates, so fellow travellers might not appreciate it anyway.


Thanks for the answers there. So, do I just buy one at Hethrow airport tube station? Will I need to top it up there, I presume that's the equivilent of x amount of money + £3.


----------



## yako

Either that, or you use it as a 7-day travelcard. Generally, as a tourist, I'd say you make several shorter journeys over the course of a week, and in that case I believe that the travelcard gives you more 'bang for the bucks'.


----------



## Coccodrillo

> It is pointless connecting the W&C line to any other lines as the platforms at Waterloo and Bank only accommodate 4-car trains, so its at capacity as a 2-station shuttle. connecting it to another line or adding more stations would be very costly with little additional benefit.


Thank you very much.

A connection would be useful to bring the trains out of the line to a bigger workshop, but, as you said, "_connecting it to another line would be very costly with little additional benefit_".



> 5) Only 2... even though 3 different lines are shown on the Tube map!personally I can't see much benefit apart from perhaps having 'fast' trains non-stopping at Barbican.


Perhaps it could reduce delays on a (probably) busy route. What is the headway of trains on this line, actually?

The Underground (Tube & Sub Surface lines) are still connected with the British rail network? And with the DLR (with this, I think no)?

Another new question: on all maps there is always shown a traditional rail line (Richmond on the District line to North Woolwich), why only these? Is it the only line integrated with London's tarif zones?


----------



## pricemazda

A lot of the ones in central London are pretty dark. It is the level of lighting that contributes to the feeling of decay and general decline. Think how well lit shops are in comparison to Piccadilly, Oxford circus, or Leicester Sq.

In these stations on the platform there is only one source of light. There isn't any on the platforms. I have a solution for the blinded driver, get rid of the drivers altogether!!! Then the money raised from our extortionate fares could be spent on improving the service rather than the RMT's coffee mornings.!


----------



## Justme

Hell, I like the subtle lighting on the stations. They are certainly bright enough for me, but not too bright. I studied lighting for a while, and the lights on the underground are perfect for their purpose.

Shop lighting is a big issue. Sometimes they are far too bright, especially the cheap chains. You can usually tell the difference between the twobit stores and the quality ones. The quality stores are less bright, but with higher quality downlights.

Are you a ceiling light person at home, or a lamp person at night? I hate ceiling lights and never linger in a home which has them on - it's just too uncomfortable for me! Funny enough, there is also a class distinction with home lighting as well. Lower working class homes often light up their houses with bright ceiling lights in a failed attempt to turn night into day. Lower Middle Class and above (and some upper Working Class) usually opt for lamps (this was also pointed out by an anthropologist friend of mine).


----------



## pricemazda

I have both, I have recessed lights and lamps. I turn the lamps on as the evening turns into night. Its a psychological thing I do, to encourage me to go to bed. Otherwise if I have my ceiling lights on I tend to stay awake.

But darker places put a greater strain on the eyes. Good lighting contributes to a sense of safety. I don't think it would take much, but a few more lights, would actually have a massive affect on how people perceive the underground.


----------



## Tubeman

Coccodrillo said:


> Thank you very much.... ...Perhaps it could reduce delays on a (probably) busy route. What is the headway of trains on this line, actually?
> 
> The Underground (Tube & Sub Surface lines) are still connected with the British rail network? And with the DLR (with this, I think no)?
> 
> Another new question: on all maps there is always shown a traditional rail line (Richmond on the District line to North Woolwich), why only these? Is it the only line integrated with London's tarif zones?


Baker Street to Liverpool Street will have trains approximately every 2 minutes, although headways will vary between 1 and 4 minutes normally.

Connections with the Network Rail system are at West Ruislip (Central Line), Gunnersbury to Richmond (District Line), East Putney and Wimbledon (District Line), and Amersham to Harrow-on-the Hill (Metropolitan Line) which is owned by LUL and shared by Chiltern Railways. There were once many more connections, but these have been slowly eliminated over the years.

The DLR is, like the Waterloo & City Line, completely isolated

The 'North London Line' was promoted in the mid-1980's by the then GLC, who financed the building of new stations like Homerton, Hackney Wick and Dalston Kingsland. It made it onto the Tube map as it was a useful route across London avoiding the central area whilst interchanging with many Tube lines. It was recently removed, but will probably re-appear now that TFL control the Silverlink Metro franchise.


----------



## Tubeman

pricemazda said:


> A lot of the ones in central London are pretty dark. It is the level of lighting that contributes to the feeling of decay and general decline. Think how well lit shops are in comparison to Piccadilly, Oxford circus, or Leicester Sq.
> 
> In these stations on the platform there is only one source of light. There isn't any on the platforms. I have a solution for the blinded driver, get rid of the drivers altogether!!! Then the money raised from our extortionate fares could be spent on improving the service rather than the RMT's coffee mornings.!


I still don't see it, sorry... I find Tube stations quite bright and welcoming, I certainly think the 'decay and decline' thing is a bit harsh.

As to your other point, are you telling me you'd happily get onto an unstaffed train?


----------



## pricemazda

I don't mind getting on the DLR. If the technology is there for driverless trains, I don't see why we don't use them. I think it would be great to have the Tube being innovative again, breaking ground. 

I really do think lighting is important, it is the same as dark and dank pedestrian subways, or poorly lit areas always contribute to general gloominess. Its not so much stations that bother me, but platforms. 

Do you think there will ever be an entirely new tube line?


----------



## Justme

I still really don't see what you mean by dark stations. The lighting seems fine by me:










Some, like Baker Street Station are dimmer, but I would kill anyone who tried to destroy the atmospheric lighting of this station!


----------



## Tubeman

pricemazda said:


> I don't mind getting on the DLR. If the technology is there for driverless trains, I don't see why we don't use them. I think it would be great to have the Tube being innovative again, breaking ground.
> 
> I really do think lighting is important, it is the same as dark and dank pedestrian subways, or poorly lit areas always contribute to general gloominess. Its not so much stations that bother me, but platforms.
> 
> Do you think there will ever be an entirely new tube line?


So, you're on a Central Line train halfway between Bethnal Green and Liverpool Street, you're probably a mile from either station, there's no way of opening the doors and besides there's no walkway alongside the train to escape... and something terrible happens. Are you still telling me you'd be happy on an unstaffed train?

The DLR has escape walkways alongside the trains in its few tunnel sections and there is a 'Train captain' anyway. What's the difference between a Tube train with a driver at the front and a DLR train with a Train Captain walking around inside? They both have a salaried member of staff on board. Having a completely unstaffed train is incomprehensible in London.

The Train Captain idea is I think unworkable on a Tube train. In the rush hour if the ATO fails and the driver has to work their way to the front cab to drive manually they could potentially be fighting their way through 8 cars sardine-packed with passengers, taking many minutes if possible at all. They'd also be extremely vulnerable... It was bad enough in my experience driving trains through Barking and Dagenham late at night, the thought of not being in the protection of the cab is frightening. Many people would flatly refuse; some sections of the underground are very dangerous for staff after dark.

I'm still struggling to see your problem with 'gloomy' platforms... I have explained why they can't be lit like a supermarket, they certainly seem adequate. The tube lights have been switched from traditional ones giving off an unnatural orangey glow to ones giving off a colour much more akin to sunlight, this can make the platforms feel less well lit because the colour of the lighting is less noticeable.

Will there ever be an entirely new Tube line? No, I think not. The future is Thameslink and Crossrail-style projects bringing suburban mainline routes under London thus taking the strain off the Tube lines linking mainline termini.


----------



## Tubeman

Ah yes Baker Street, probably about as 'gloomy' as it gets (but still perfectly adequate). This lighting scheme is to re-create the station's appearence as built in 1863... the brick wells in the roof once opened up at street level to let daylight in and smoke out, therefore the lighting has been installed in these wells to (very successfully) give the impression of sunlight from street level lighting the station.

The above photo is quite old anyway, as it shows an unrefurbished C-Stock train... That dates it to being around 15 years old. The below photo shows the station as today, the lighting has been improved with suspended globular lights, which are exact copies of the original gas lamps which lit the platforms at night:


----------



## JohnNotts

I think that one of the worst stations in the context of lighting, was Stepney Green before they put up fluorescent lighting. In those days, cynics used to say that if you took a District Line journey from Bow Road to Earl's Court, the state of each station, and the inadequacy of the lighting, was indicative of the social conditions you would find if you got out at that station and explored the locality.


----------



## Reluctantpopstar

Forgive me if this was asked before, but there was just too much too read here.

You seem to have a great deal of information on the London Underground. For me, it's a fascinating topic, since it is such a huge system with so many lines and stations to discuss and talk about. The abandoned stations and lines and everything.

I grew up in the New York area, so I had to content myself with that system (admittedly also very large), which was, unfortunately, falling apart during my youth. Watch the film "The Warriors" to get an idea of how bad it was. It's much better these days, though I've lived in Los Angeles since 1989.

Anyway, you have any thoughts about other subway/underground systems? Any favorites? Have you ridden any others? Have you gone on any during holidays, or do you avoid them like the plague during your time away since you're basically living in them every day of the week for your work? Some people are just obsessed, and love their work so they can't stay away. Some people need a break from the everyday routine.

If you haven't ridden any, or ridden very many, are there any you enjoy based on reading about them or seeing pictures?

Do you have any favorite films which prominently feature subways? 

Contrary to the old myth, we do have a subway here in Los Angeles, plus three light rail lines, and we're building more.

Thanks...


----------



## Tubeman

Reluctantpopstar said:


> Forgive me if this was asked before, but there was just too much too read here.
> 
> You seem to have a great deal of information on the London Underground. For me, it's a fascinating topic, since it is such a huge system with so many lines and stations to discuss and talk about. The abandoned stations and lines and everything.
> 
> I grew up in the New York area, so I had to content myself with that system (admittedly also very large), which was, unfortunately, falling apart during my youth. Watch the film "The Warriors" to get an idea of how bad it was. It's much better these days, though I've lived in Los Angeles since 1989.
> 
> Anyway, you have any thoughts about other subway/underground systems? Any favorites? Have you ridden any others? Have you gone on any during holidays, or do you avoid them like the plague during your time away since you're basically living in them every day of the week for your work? Some people are just obsessed, and love their work so they can't stay away. Some people need a break from the everyday routine.
> 
> If you haven't ridden any, or ridden very many, are there any you enjoy based on reading about them or seeing pictures?
> 
> Do you have any favorite films which prominently feature subways?
> 
> Contrary to the old myth, we do have a subway here in Los Angeles, plus three light rail lines, and we're building more.
> 
> Thanks...


I'm no 'anorak', so don't seek out other metros, but am happy to compare and contrast the Tube with other systems when I'm abroad. The way I see it metros fall into two categories: Historic / organic and Planned / modern. The former would include London, New York, Paris, Berlin, Barcelona, Moscow etc and the latter Singapore and Hong Kong (amongst many others). It is undeniable that the latter are cleaner, faster, more efficient etc... But I cannot but help love the old systems steeped in history, even if they have their flaws.

I never disliked any foreign metro I've been on to be honest, they're all great in their own way.

There aren't really many films I can think of featuring metros much... Although the British horror flick 'Creep' probably exploits the Tube the most of any film. Sadly I keep noticing glaring inconsistencies in it that most people would be oblivious to, but the Tube is heavily featured so its all good


----------



## JDRS

In regards to the lighting of stations, one of the things I'd never think of critiscising the tube over is lighting. In my opinion it's one of the better things on the tube with stations well lit underground. Perhaps a case could be made for some of the overground stations away from the ticket area.


----------



## Rational Plan

Here are some excerpts of the London Transport Users commitee meeting, which gives a few tantalising hints of future palns for the DLR.



Canary Wharf Transport Forum: meeting on 27 April 2006
Attending for London TravelWatch: Elizabeth Hall
Others: Jim Berry (Chair) and others from Canary Wharf Group Ltd; transport providers; representatives of local employers; officials from LB Tower Hamlets.
Note: after a couple of exhortationary emails from the LBTH secretariat about poor attendance, there were many more employers and providers here than last time.
DLR update
Nick O’Donnell from DLR reviewed the current state of DLR plans, starting with the 10-12 ideas initially shortlisted which had come down to four:
• Barking Reach: likely to be operational in 2016; following Mayoral decision, now moving to TWA and engaging consultants;
• Wood Wharf: options being considered: would be alternatives to Delta Junction but more expensive;
• Catford: feasibility study to be completed in May 06 showed great difficulties in moving on from Lewisham;
• Bank etc: several ideas, including extensions to Liverpool St, Moorgate, Charing X to be decided in Sept 06.
These would feed into T2025 Project, June 06.
He also reviewed the Stratford/NLL closure, with new DLR to be opened 2010. In response to a question about DLR indicator boards on LUL platforms, Nick said that they would happen in the next few months.
Other DLR projects in gestation were: cycling links with DLR stations; station design guide; complementary works eg access or walkways; and DLR “urban realm”. Improvements to Shadwell station were mentioned, and the improved Limehouse interchange for which funding had been lost and now might be on again.
C2C Rail
A short presentation on the new timetable and its announcement in Sept. News of more Limehouse stops and 20 min frequencies was well received.
--------------
Cordon survey
CWG introduced the most recent survey of movement in and out of Canary Wharf, now conducted annually. There had been remarkable growth in travel outside the peaks and it was also noticeable that the Isle of Dogs was becoming a place to live – with commuting into the City. 12% of CW workers now walk to work.
Other items
The manager of Canary Wharf LUL station announced that scanners would be introduced from 28 May, with prior publicity. (Also at Paddington and two other stations). They would be voluntary [??].
On-bus display (iBus) had been successfully piloted and would be rolled out next year.
Blackwall Tunnel n’bound would have fire safety work starting early 07 with w/e and night closures for two years. This follows the successful upgrade of the s’bound tunnel.


----------



## samsonyuen

Ooh, I hope the Bank extension westward goes into fruition. What's the Wood Wharf proposal about?


----------



## Coccodrillo

Still about numbering the lines: as proposed also by Tubeman, why not rename one branch of the Northern line (Southern?) and the Edgware Road-Wimbledon service of the District (if this is not going to change)?

(even if I still prefer numbers)


----------



## Rational Plan

samsonyuen said:


> Ooh, I hope the Bank extension westward goes into fruition. What's the Wood Wharf proposal about?



All I know is that stage 2 capacity enhancements include the remodelling of the junction North of West India Quay. This involves building more grade seperation links to remove the conflict between trains from Stratford and Bank towards Canary Wharf. I assume any route via the Eastern end of the estate would mean that trains from Stratford would no longer go via the main Canary Wharf station. Either this line would be a dead end with one station or it would go South over the docks and join the main line again North of Cross harbour allowing easy interchange between Bank-Lewisham and Stratford-Stratford trains. The Isle of Dogs would then have its own little loop railway like Chicago! Sort of.


----------



## Tubeman

^
That would actually (give or take) follow the route of the original London & Blackwall Railway line from Millwall Junction (roughly where Poplar is today) to North Greenwich (later becoming the DLR station at Island Gardens). Strange how history can repeat itself.


----------



## micro

Tubeman, do you know the length of the Hainault loop (length of the full loop) and the length of the Circle Line?


----------



## pricemazda

I had a kind of related question, you know the Business Design Centre in Islington, well I have always thought it looked like it was once a train station, is this true?


----------



## Tubeman

pricemazda said:


> I had a kind of related question, you know the Business Design Centre in Islington, well I have always thought it looked like it was once a train station, is this true?


No. Its funny how many people think that... I can certainly see where people get that impression. It was built as an agricultural exhibition hall... Its a very similar design to Olympia, which also can look like a grand abandoned railway terminus.


----------



## Tubeman

micro said:


> Tubeman, do you know the length of the Hainault loop (length of the full loop) and the length of the Circle Line?


That would take a little research, although a useless factoid (if I remember correctly) is that the former is longer than the latter. The Circle Line is 13 miles (approx 20km) long according to my London Underground handbook, so if the useless factoid is correct then the Hainault Loop is at least 20km long (including the Western side between Leytonstone and Woodford).


----------



## micro

I probably wouldn't have asked if it were useless for me, but forget it.


----------



## Tubeman

Tubeman said:


> No. Its funny how many people think that... I can certainly see where people get that impression. It was built as an agricultural exhibition hall... Its a very similar design to Olympia, which also can look like a grand abandoned railway terminus.


In case people were wondering what we were talking about; the Business Design Centre in Islington;


----------



## Tubeman

micro said:


> I probably wouldn't have asked if it were useless for me, but forget it.


Eh? Have you got the hump?

I've told you the Circle Line is 20km and the Hainault Loop longer than that... Apologies for not knowing the Hainault Loop's length off the top of my head! :crazy:


----------



## Justme

Wasn't there a graveyard station in South London once, London Necropolis Station or something, used to transport stiffs?


----------



## nick_taylor

Justme said:


> Wasn't there a graveyard station in South London once, London Necropolis Station or something, used to transport stiffs?


The London Necropolis Station in London was this building:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...inus.jpg/450px-London_necropolis_terminus.jpg


Location of the London terminus in London - practically right in the heart of the city on Westminster Bridge Road, just beside the approach tracks into London Waterloo.












The dead ended up going to Brookwood Cemetery which still has its station so you can pop off for a trip to visit the dead....











The red circle is the station - its on the West of England Main Line, so you can still visit the dead if you wish to...


----------



## Justme

Thanks Nick, though I'm not morbid enough to visit the cemetery, but it was interesting that there was a dedicated station in central London just for this purpose.


----------



## CharlieP

Coccodrillo said:


> Still about numbering the lines: as proposed also by Tubeman, why not rename one branch of the Northern line (Southern?) and the Edgware Road-Wimbledon service of the District (if this is not going to change)?
> 
> (even if I still prefer numbers)


If they were to do that I'd prefer the Bank branch to be called the City & South London line...


----------



## Tubeman

Yes, Necropolis was originally located where the 'St' of 'Leake St' is on the Western side of the station, when Waterloo was expanded in 1902 it was moved to the east side and further south; where it says 'PO'. The site is now occupied by two sidings and the portakabins of the BEX Railway Training Centre, I believe the station was bomb-damaged in 1941 and never re-opened.


----------



## sarflonlad

Tubeman said:


> Yes, Necropolis was originally located where the 'St' of 'Leake St' is on the Western side of the station, when Waterloo was expanded in 1902 it was moved to the east side and further south; where it says 'PO'. The site is now occupied by two sidings and the portakabins of the BEX Railway Training Centre, I believe the station was bomb-damaged in 1941 and never re-opened.



Where was the original Nine Elms Terminus for the SouthWestern Railway - presumably somewhere on that map no doubt?

EDIT:

I bothered to look it up myself:
"Nine Elms formerly was the London terminus of the London and South Western Railway -the forerunner of South West Trains- but in 1848 Waterloo station opened and became the London terminus. The area where the railway station was located became a locomotive and goods depot for the railway company before being sold and transformed into the New Covent Garden Market."

So not on that map then, but a bit more south.


----------



## nick_taylor

The old London & South Western Railway Terminus for London was at Nine Elms, basically next-door to Clapham Junction which must have made that area back then even more crazier than it is now.


The original 1838 Station






























And an old picture of London Waterloo - presumably more approach tracks were added after this photo because its at least 8 tracks wide by this bridge today.


----------



## Tubeman

Give or take the location of the original Nine Elms L&SWR terminus, plus the original LB&SCR terminus at Pimlico, which existed before the line was extended across the Thames to Victoria.


----------



## ♣628.finst

Tubeman, does London Metro have any hidden stations which is closed to the public? I think there must be some there because London Metro is a large system.


----------



## mr_storms

samsonyuen said:


> Ooh, I hope the Bank extension westward goes into fruition


yes....go to CX, I mean there are already 2 platforms there waiting to be used and have a stop at City Thameslink


----------



## nick_taylor

Xäntårx said:


> Tubeman, does London Metro have any hidden stations which is closed to the public? I think there must be some there because London Metro is a large system.


Probably the best source for closed stations on the London Underground, numbering a whopping 40 stations (thats more than most underground railway networks):

http://underground-history.co.uk/front.php


The number of total heavy rail stations that have been closed in and around London is uncertain - possibly 300+ stations?


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor

*@ Tubeman*

How many rail lines (commuter*...including EuroStar*, subway/metro/underground, mono-rail, freight, etc.) does Greater London have (used/un-used). 

Thanks.


----------



## samsonyuen

Coccodrillo said:


> Still about numbering the lines: as proposed also by Tubeman, why not rename one branch of the Northern line (Southern?) and the Edgware Road-Wimbledon service of the District (if this is not going to change)?
> 
> (even if I still prefer numbers)


I'd like that too, because in reality the two branches of the Northern line really are seperate, as is the Wimbleware branch. It's not even on the line map!



Rational Plan said:


> All I know is that stage 2 capacity enhancements include the remodelling of the junction North of West India Quay. This involves building more grade seperation links to remove the conflict between trains from Stratford and Bank towards Canary Wharf. I assume any route via the Eastern end of the estate would mean that trains from Stratford would no longer go via the main Canary Wharf station. Either this line would be a dead end with one station or it would go South over the docks and join the main line again North of Cross harbour allowing easy interchange between Bank-Lewisham and Stratford-Stratford trains. The Isle of Dogs would then have its own little loop railway like Chicago! Sort of.


Wow, that'd be pretty strange. I guess there isn't much Stratford-bound Canary Wharfers, and vice versa?


----------



## Tubeman

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> How many rail lines (commuter*...including EuroStar*, subway/metro/underground, mono-rail, freight, etc.) does Greater London have (used/un-used).
> 
> Thanks.


*Apologises, have been away for a week*

Do you mean in terms of Km, or in terms of different lines / companies?


----------



## Boards

Oops sorry must have pressed reply rather than edit.


----------



## fishcatdogbird

^ i much prefer the central line windows as its good to see who is on the carriage, especially late at night you can always quickly move before train has stopped to a different end to avoid that drunk group of teenagers etc...


----------



## AG

On that note the new Victoria Line trains do bare some sort of resemblance to the 1992 stock on the Central Line. There is clearly enough room for higher windows on the new Victoria Line stock, and I wonder why they haven't followed through with the window design on the 1992 stock. Maybe it's related to the fact that the whole of the Victoria Line is underground (other than the depot).


----------



## Tubeman

fishcatdogbird said:


> ^ May have already been asked, but will the above have air-con?


Shamefully not. Its a fruitless excercise as the hot air would be exhausted into the tunnels / stations, making them even hotter even if the trains would be cooler. What someone really needs to invent is an endothermic way of generating electricity: drawing the energy from hot air! 

The Victoria Line is spectacularly hot, being wholly deep underground, anyone who has travelled on it in one of London's increasingly common 35C+ Summers can vouch for that. The Bakerloo Line is also very hot, as it doesn't surface at the southern end, being essentially a dead end tunnel all the way from Queens Park to Elephant & Castle.

If its any consolation I can confirm the new universal 'S' Stock for the Metropolitan, Circle, District and Hammersmith & City Lines will be fully air conditioned. I've received some top secret renderings of it at work... I'll email them home and post them here. It looks pretty sharp; the front is similar to the Victoria Line 'Movia' train, 3 pairs of doors per car, and the sides are curved outwards like the C Stock (but unlike D and A stocks), which will increase capacity.


----------



## Tubeman

jetsetwilly said:


> Didn't they introduce trains with "slit" windows before, and they were colossally unpopular? I seem to remember reading that women especially were less keen as they couldn't properly who was in a carriage before they got on.


Yes the photo I posted is the interior of the original 'Tube' carrige in London; the City & South London Railway (today part of the Northern Line Bank Branch). It was all underground (King William Street to Stockwell) and so windows were considered unnecessary, as each car had a Guard to call out the stations and open and close the gates.

They proved unpopular with a travelling public un-used to deep-level tube travel, and became nick-named 'padded cells', later 'Tube' trains were built with bigger windows even though they were still basically useless as the next 2 lines that opened were the Waterloo & City (1899) and Central London Railway (= Central Line) in 1900, both of which were completely subterranean when opened (the former still is).


----------



## Tubeman

Boards said:


> Tubeman I haven't read through all 36 pages so apologies in advance if these questions have already been posed. How many stations are fully underground? Is Bank the largest underground station in the world? Oh also, are there many stories of hauntings on the underground or even phantom trains? Any particularly commonly reported strange sights or sounds? Thanks.


Haha don't blame you for not browsing the whole thread... I've created a monster!

How many stations fully underground? Pass... roughly half I think, maybe a little less

Is Bank the largest? It certainly covers a large area (the Monument-Bank complex) and is served by 6 lines, but I'm sure some of the large interchange agglomerations in cities like Paris are bigger, there in some instances 3 stations are interlinked by subways etc, some really sprawl.

The Underground station with most 'proper' Underground platforms is Baker Street (10), although area-wise its much more compact than Bank-Monument. I also suspect from the huge hike to get to the Jubilee Line at Waterloo that that's also a very expansive station underground taking the 4 lines there into account.

Ghosts? The commonest is the ghost of a murdered actor haunting Covent Garden from the adjacent Theatre Royal, Drury lane. I believe a now-disused signal box at the East end of the Central Line was famously haunted by a former employee. I've seen nothing myself!

One night I was carrying out a night track walk inspection between Earl's Court and West Kensington and pooed my pants as I heard a train approaching along a single-track tunnel. It was only once it passed overhead that I remembered the West London Line above my head (used all night for freight). That was almost a ghost train!


----------



## Tubeman

AG said:


> On that note the new Victoria Line trains do bare some sort of resemblance to the 1992 stock on the Central Line. There is clearly enough room for higher windows on the new Victoria Line stock, and I wonder why they haven't followed through with the window design on the 1992 stock. Maybe it's related to the fact that the whole of the Victoria Line is underground (other than the depot).


After the 1992 Stock was introduced on the Central Line customer surveys showed the taller windows unpopular due to the 'hall of mirrors' effect due to the curved upper portion. Therefore the next two Stocks (1995 and 1996) had flat and therefore smaller windows... But handily for LUL more space for advertising therefore.

As you note, the window size on the Vic is pretty academic really, although I'd like to know who I'm getting on next to at Seven Sisters or Tottenham Hale!


----------



## Kentigern

I'm not sure if it's possible to answer this question, but I'm interested enough to ask anyway. I was recently in London, and noticed that there were still many stations and routes through stations where you have to take the stairs. I was wondering what deal had been struck with the government (or with whomever it is who deals with this kind of thing) regarding the necessity of providing disabled access? What kind of timescale does the underground have? How many stations are fully wheelchair accessible (I see that the DLR is good for this)? And what is the estimated cost of bringing att the stations of the network up to the standard where they can have one of the blue and white wheelchair circles on the map as opposed to just the whire one? How many billions?!

How do other undergrounds rate on disabled access? Is London notably better or worse than average?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Tubeman

Kentigern said:


> I'm not sure if it's possible to answer this question, but I'm interested enough to ask anyway. I was recently in London, and noticed that there were still many stations and routes through stations where you have to take the stairs. I was wondering what deal had been struck with the government (or with whomever it is who deals with this kind of thing) regarding the necessity of providing disabled access? What kind of timescale does the underground have? How many stations are fully wheelchair accessible (I see that the DLR is good for this)? And what is the estimated cost of bringing att the stations of the network up to the standard where they can have one of the blue and white wheelchair circles on the map as opposed to just the whire one? How many billions?!
> 
> How do other undergrounds rate on disabled access? Is London notably better or worse than average?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


Yes the ittle blue wheelchairs have begun appearing on the Tube Map to show where there is MIP (mobility Impaired Person) access... you may find this interesting, its a full accessibility map of the network which takes the idea further.

I don't know what our exemption to the DDA specifically is (i.e. how long we've got to be compliant), needless to say it would cost an absolute bomb.

Personally I think we should be permanently exempt... The billions it would cost to remove every last step from the system could build entire new lines: the disabled already have access to dial-a-ride, Black cabs and subsidised cars. Its a nice to have, of course, and I respect the disabled's right to be independent... But I admit I'm never going to play for Arsenal or win 100m Gold, we all have our physical limitations.

For all the billions spent on wheelchair accessible buses and I'm yet to see a single wheelchair on one...


----------



## samsonyuen

I think with regards to DDA, if it was built before 1995, it doesn't have to (immediately?) adhere to it.


----------



## chico_pastor

Uffff...I've just finished reading the 37 pages. A wonderful thread tubeman  Congratulations!

Now, some questions:

1) You may find this one stupid, but what happens if a driver arrives late or has an emergency? Who put "his" train in service? I mean, is there always a driver to place him, or you have to be at the depot x min before your train timetable, or sth. like this?

2) Does NR get paid by LU to use their stations/tracks? How does this work?

3) Is there any "stable siding" (despite the platforms) on underground sections?


----------



## chico_pastor

Some more questions...

1) Last time I have been in London (March 2005), I noticed that in some stations there was station staff on the platforms announcing the next train...Is that normal? And at which stations? I remember Picadilly Circus had them...
( A comical situation...we were in a school trip and when we get down to the platform at Picadilly Circus, I remember the man saying on the speaker: "the next train ........(......)..and look this nice group that's now arriving ! applaud them...." a little bit embarassing....but everyone on the platform was smiling as this man was joking while announcing the next train)

2) Is still in use the staff on the platform with the  or  signs saying that the train was OK or not to proceed? In which stations?



Do you know if I can download the Tube tv series fromanywhere (i.e. emule)?

[[]]


----------



## Boards

Thanks for the reply Tubeman. Great stuff, absolutely fascinating. Love the London Underground.


----------



## ♣628.finst

Tubeman said:


> What someone really needs to invent is an endothermic way of generating electricity: drawing the energy from hot air!


That's impossible given technology available in 2006. 

However I want to ask which lines have air con? And which lines doesn't have air con? 

And, Is the air in the tunnel usually uncomfortably stale in London Underground? I think that varies between stations... probably.


----------



## shenqie

No it's not impossible, it's called a heat exchanger.


----------



## Tubeman

chico_pastor said:


> Uffff...I've just finished reading the 37 pages. A wonderful thread tubeman  Congratulations!
> 
> Now, some questions:
> 
> 1) You may find this one stupid, but what happens if a driver arrives late or has an emergency? Who put "his" train in service? I mean, is there always a driver to place him, or you have to be at the depot x min before your train timetable, or sth. like this?
> 
> 2) Does NR get paid by LU to use their stations/tracks? How does this work?
> 
> 3) Is there any "stable siding" (despite the platforms) on underground sections?


1) Every depot has a supply of 'Spare' drivers to cover in such an eventuality... They also cover duties uncovered due to Sickness, Annual leave, training etc. They aren't designated 'Spares' permanently, but roughly one shift in five is 'Spare' for every driver (i.e. once a week), so the work gets shared out fairly. That's one of my main roles, managing the Spares on any given day to keep the service running smoothly.

2) Yes I believe LUL pays rent to Network Rail for using Gunnersbury to Richmond (District Line) and Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone (Bakerloo Line), just as Silverlink metro has to. As soon as our trains hit 'their' turf they have to abide by Network Rail rules (which can be very different to ours), meaning that all District and Bakerloo Line drivers and Managers have to know both sets of rules... It can be confusing!

3) There are a few. On the deep-level lines ('Tubes') there are a fair few reversing sidings between the running lines, examples being Tooting Broadway, Archway, Down Street (between Green park and Hyde Park Corner), Liverpool Street (Central), Euston (Northern), Victoria (Vic Line) etc. In general they are accessed from one end (the end facing Central London) to allow 'short-tripping' late running trains, there are a few exceptions like Euston and Down Street which can be accessed from both ends. Trains are never 'stabled' on these reversing sidings unless in an emergency.

At a couple of locations trains are stabled in deep-level sidings, the most notable being beyond the platforms at Elephant & Castle (Bakerloo) where up to four trains are stored overnight in the overrun tunnels which are especially long due to the never-finished extension to Camberwell.

On the sub-surface the best example of an underground 'depot' is Triangle Sidings which lies in the triangle between High Street Kensington, Gloucester Road and Earl's Court, here 5 District and Circle Line trains are stabled overnight. Its not strictly subterranean however, as until the 1960's it was open air before being rafted over for development. A very similar thing is currently happening to White City depot on the Central Line in connection with the new shopping mall being built above.


----------



## Tubeman

chico_pastor said:


> Some more questions...
> 
> 1) Last time I have been in London (March 2005), I noticed that in some stations there was station staff on the platforms announcing the next train...Is that normal? And at which stations? I remember Picadilly Circus had them...
> ( A comical situation...we were in a school trip and when we get down to the platform at Picadilly Circus, I remember the man saying on the speaker: "the next train ........(......)..and look this nice group that's now arriving ! applaud them...." a little bit embarassing....but everyone on the platform was smiling as this man was joking while announcing the next train)
> 
> 2) Is still in use the staff on the platform with the  or  signs saying that the train was OK or not to proceed? In which stations?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know if I can download the Tube tv series fromanywhere (i.e. emule)?
> 
> [[]]


1) All stations are staffed all of the time, Central London stations are staffed by veritable armies of staff which I think is very refreshing compared to systems like NYC and Paris. There'll be a member of staff allocated to each platform most of the time in Central London, announcing trains and giving out information. LUL wouldn't dream of ever trying to cut costs and reduce these staff due to security and Trade union pressure. I think its great, certainly the Tube's best selling point, I believe. They're not averse to making comical announcements too, as you noticed 

2) I'm not entirely sure what you mean... Do you mean the white 'SATS' bat which platform staff raise when the train is ready to depart? This is still in use... Its intended to speed up 'Dwell times' by hurrying drivers along (but they usually ignore them!).


----------



## Tubeman

chico_pastor said:


> Do you know if I can download the Tube tv series fromanywhere (i.e. emule)?
> 
> [[]]


I don't know... A guy at work recorded all of the episodes onto DVD for me, so I have series 1 & 2 including my starring performances :crazy:


----------



## chico_pastor

Tubeman said:


> 1) All stations are staffed all of the time, Central London stations are staffed by veritable armies of staff which I think is very refreshing compared to systems like NYC and Paris. There'll be a member of staff allocated to each platform most of the time in Central London, announcing trains and giving out information. LUL wouldn't dream of ever trying to cut costs and reduce these staff due to security and Trade union pressure. I think its great, certainly the Tube's best selling point, I believe. They're not averse to making comical announcements too, as you noticed
> 
> 2) I'm not entirely sure what you mean... Do you mean the white 'SATS' bat which platform staff raise when the train is ready to depart? This is still in use... Its intended to speed up 'Dwell times' by hurrying drivers along (but they usually ignore them!).


1) I think this little (big) porminors makes travelling on LU a wonderful experience =) Those little things make this system unique in the world, and my favourite 

2) Yes, I mean the white "SATS" bat...

Thanks for your answers Tubeman =) You're big


----------



## chico_pastor

Tubeman said:


> I don't know... A guy at work recorded all of the episodes onto DVD for me, so I have series 1 & 2 including my starring performances :crazy:


Can't you make a copy of the DVD's and send me by post mail? I can pay them and the delivery 
...I'm asking you this because I'm addicted on the tube and LU is one of my passions...


----------



## Tubeman

chico_pastor said:


> Can't you make a copy of the DVD's and send me by post mail? I can pay them and the delivery
> ...I'm asking you this because I'm addicted on the tube and LU is one of my passions...


Yeah no problem, PM me your address

I might even be able to get a 'proper' copy complete with sleeve and artwork from the guy who gave me mine... He might not have any more though. I think he was charging £10, but that was for charity so I don't mind paying it myself.

If not I'll make you a copy minus artwork and sleeve!

Check out my book too


----------



## samsonyuen

I was at Brent Cross today, around 2pm. The gates were left open. If I weren't so honest, I could've not punched out and not paid. Do you think the TfL loses a lot of money on this, and why do they not have staff at the station?


----------



## Tubeman

As promised, here's some *exclusive* images of the S Stock:


----------



## chico_pastor

Many thanks Tubeman. I'll send you my address  Check out your private messages box.
After reading the 37 pages of the thread, I've obviously seen the posts about your book and I ordered it yesterday from Amazon =)


----------



## Tubeman

samsonyuen said:


> I was at Brent Cross today, around 2pm. The gates were left open. If I weren't so honest, I could've not punched out and not paid. Do you think the TfL loses a lot of money on this, and why do they not have staff at the station?


Yes but unless you have open gates at both ends (which is highly unlikely) you'll end up with an unresolved journey, which will render your Oystercard unusable until you go to a ticket office, when the journey will be 'resolved' and the money docked.

There's no escaping the power of Oyster


----------



## Bitxofo

Oh, thanks for the photos!

But it is NOT so tube...

Nice trains though.
:wink2:


----------



## elkram

Tubeman said:


> If you're feeling really trainspottery, there's half a train of refurbished D Stock (the prototype) which uses an experimental 'lunar' flourescent lighting. Its casts an unnatural deathly glow over the whole carriage and makes everyone look undead or at best very ill. You'd know it if you saw it, as 3 of 6 cars only have been repainted on the outside, and only the middle of those three has been refurbished inside... that is the one with the evil lighting.


Hilarious, mind you it seems it might be frightening for some passengers.


----------



## samsonyuen

^^^Great photos of the new S-Stock! 

I think I've gone without touching out my Oyster, and the unresolved journeys have just resulted in paying the daily cap, I believe. The journey I was on, I guess, I could've gotten away with it (Brent Cross to Bank, DLR to Mudchute). But, it's true, there aren't many stations with open gates.


----------



## lasdun

Aw. So no articulation then? I was hoping for the 2 door articulated design I saw a sketch of ages ago. I guess its less practicle...

Good looking, the interior is the bigger challenge - I really hope they do a good job. The D Stock refurb has transformed my daily 20 minutes of district line. Amazing the difference a lick of paint can do. I think the doors look too narrow, but that could be the angle.


----------



## JDRS

Thanks for the new S-Stock renders. Doesn't look all that different to the current ones, with the exception of the 'bend'. Hopefully the inside is much more modern and the acceleration is improved and sound levels reduced. 

As for the oyster capping issue, I've tapped in at only one end before and used my oyster card again. All it does is warn me that I need to go to the office every time I top up but I never have. Although on some occasions mine has exceeded the travelcard price, but other people who have done the same thing say it caps at 50p?


----------



## elkram

Hi Tubeman,

I've had little luck finding fair enough pictures to answer the following question. It's about either Wapping or Rotherhithe station back in 1979 or 1980 that had a narrow, twisting iron staircase down a broad open-air shaft linking the station exit to the sunken platforms -- I can't remember which station. Is the staircase still in service, or has the station been remodelled?

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## Tubeman

elkram said:


> Hi Tubeman,
> 
> I've had little luck finding fair enough pictures to answer the following question. It's about either Wapping or Rotherhithe station back in 1979 or 1980 that had a narrow, twisting iron staircase down a broad open-air shaft linking the station exit to the sunken platforms -- I can't remember which station. Is the staircase still in service, or has the station been remodelled?
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris


I really can't answer that, sorry

It might have been one of the original staircases from when the Brunel tunnel was still a footway? I'm not very familiar with the ELL.


----------



## JohnNotts

I used the ELL in the 1970's. My recollection is that Wapping station entrance was at the top of the original shaft, and that you could use those stairs as an alternative to the lift. Rotherhithe station was not at the top of the other shaft.

I read somewhere that those shafts were built as brick cylinders from ground upwards, and they then dug out the earth from inside - the cylinders sinking as they went.


----------



## Rachmaninov

Great exclusive pics from you of the S-stock!


----------



## Tubeman

Some images of Brunel's maginifcent Thames Tunnel

Useless factoid... Puzzle your friends...

"What is the oldest part of London Underground?"

- Obviously most people would answer "Paddington to Farringdon, Metropolitan Railway 1863", but this structure pre-dates it by 20 years. To show what an achievement it was, it only came 7 years after the very first railway was opened in London.

Here's the staircases accessing one end (don't know which) of the tunnel:










Inside the tunnel...



















..And once converted to a railway (opened 1869)


----------



## fishcatdogbird

^ Its just fascinating what London achieved before all the other great cities in the world, truly amazing! 

FCDB


----------



## Jean Luc

Tubeman said:


> Inside the tunnel...


Hmmm, if it were still a pedestrian tunnel today it would probably be a mugger's paradise, unless there was a heap of security measures in place...


----------



## Tubeman

Jean Luc said:


> Hmmm, if it were still a pedestrian tunnel today it would probably be a mugger's paradise, unless there was a heap of security measures in place...


LOL I see what you mean. Its sheer serendipity that it was built with twin tunnels of the correct proportions to accommodate trains... It was intended to carry two road carriageways, but the ramps which would have afforded access to each end were never built due to lack of funds. It must have been bizarre for the 46 years that it was a pedestrian tunnel; descending a grand sweeping staircase to access the cavernous tunnels.

There are two surviving examples of pedestrian tunnels under The Thames, at Greenwich and Woolwich... They are of much more 'human' proportions (similar in diameter to a standard 'Tube' railway tunnel), but they are pretty eerie places

Woolwich (1912) 504m long










Greenwich (1902) 370m long


----------



## Kentigern

Are those tunnels accessible by the public?


----------



## Tubeman

Kentigern said:


> Are those tunnels accessible by the public?


Absolutely, I've walked through both myself

They're hardly busy thoroughfares these days (Greenwich is now paralleled by the DLR between Island Gardens and Cutty Sark stations and Woolwich runs below the Woolwich free ferry) but they are very much still in operation.

Do any other cities have such long pedestrian tunnels as these?


----------



## elkram

Any floodgates (at the pedestrian tunnel exits)?


----------



## Jean Luc

Tubeman said:


> Absolutely, I've walked through both myself
> 
> They're hardly busy thoroughfares these days (Greenwich is now paralleled by the DLR between Island Gardens and Cutty Sark stations and Woolwich runs below the Woolwich free ferry) but they are very much still in operation.


Just carrying on from my previous post are these tunnels safe to use in terms of crime? In the photos of them I can't see any grafitti on any surface, which I find pretty amazing as I assume London would have its' share of vandalism like any big city these days. Perhaps the vandals can't be bothered going all the way down there.



Tubeman said:


> Do any other cities have such long pedestrian tunnels as these?


Here in Sydney we have the Devonshire Street Tunnel, a long pedestrian tunnel which runs from Chalmers Street, (where it meets Devonshire Street, hence its' name) Surry Hills, underneath all the railway tracks at Central Station, to an open air plaza on the eastern side of Railway Square. I'd say it's 200-300m long. Over the years lots of murals have been painted on sections of the walls in between tiled sections to help brighten it up a bit. After a short break at the plaza the tunnel continues on under Railway Square itself to its' western side, where it has been extended a short distance to another open air plaza occupying the old Darling Harbour Goods Line ROW (in behind the ABC TV and Radio studios) almost as far north as Ultimo Road.

Inside the Devonshire Street Tunnel:









Some underground stations in the Sydney CBD have pedestrian tunnels connecting them to surrounding areas e.g. St James, but they are not as long.


----------



## Jean Luc

..


----------



## yako

In Stockholm we have the 231m long Brunkeberg tunnel, pedestrianized (although you're allowed to ride a bike at caution) and a favourite spot for filmmakers.










Link to Wikipedia.


----------



## lasdun

Not a serious crime problem that I've heard of, and graffiti is very limited (helped by being tile so easy to clean)

I also can not recomend the tunnels enough when the heat picks up. It was blisfully cold down there during the heatwave.


----------



## samsonyuen

That looks pretty cool/crazy in Stockholm. I must say I do like the Greenwich Foot Tunnel. Lots of tourists and locals use it. In the summer it stays very cool because it's underwater, which is a plus.


----------



## Tubeman

elkram said:


> Any floodgates (at the pedestrian tunnel exits)?


Not that I'm aware of... They wouldn't have served much of a purpose really

The floodgates were installed on the Underground network because huge areas are below the level of The Thames, therefore a single tunnel breach anywhere during WW2 could have flooded miles of tunnels and drowned tens of thousands. If the roof of the Greenwich or Woolwich Foot tunnels had been breached the tunnels would have flooded, granted, but that would have been it. Tough luck for anyone in them at the time, but floodgates wouldn't have saved them anyway.


----------



## Tubeman

Jean Luc said:


> Just carrying on from my previous post are these tunnels safe to use in terms of crime? In the photos of them I can't see any grafitti on any surface, which I find pretty amazing as I assume London would have its' share of vandalism like any big city these days. Perhaps the vandals can't be bothered going all the way down there.
> 
> 
> Here in Sydney we have the Devonshire Street Tunnel, a long pedestrian tunnel which runs from Chalmers Street, (where it meets Devonshire Street, hence its' name) Surry Hills, underneath all the railway tracks at Central Station, to an open air plaza on the eastern side of Railway Square. I'd say it's 200-300m long. Over the years lots of murals have been painted on sections of the walls in between tiled sections to help brighten it up a bit. After a short break at the plaza the tunnel continues on under Railway Square itself to its' western side, where it has been extended a short distance to another open air plaza occupying the old Darling Harbour Goods Line ROW (in behind the ABC TV and Radio studios) almost as far north as Ultimo Road.
> 
> Some underground stations in the Sydney CBD have pedestrian tunnels connecting them to surrounding areas e.g. St James, but they are not as long.


One advantage of the foot tunnels under The Thames is that they are simply round tunnels with no alcoves, i.e. no-one can jump out at you. They are quite eerie if you're alone, but they're probably no more dangerous than adjacent streets. I presume they're well covered by CCTV too.

As has already been mentioned, the ceramic tiles make for easy graffiti removal, plus CCTV coverage would be a discouragement.

Re: the tunnel in Sydney you mention... I think I've walked through it.


----------



## Sy

Tubeman, any hint of a date for when the waterloo and city line will open. Saying early spetember is a bit vague. It's killing me having it closed. How quick will the trip be now the improvements have been made?


----------



## Tubeman

Sy said:


> Tubeman, any hint of a date for when the waterloo and city line will open. Saying early spetember is a bit vague. It's killing me having it closed. How quick will the trip be now the improvements have been made?


No, sorry... tfl are still simply saying 'September'

Its also fairly vague about improvements; you'll notice an improved ride quality due to new track, and it alludes to faster journey times, but I doubt an awful lot would be shaved off the current 4 minute run.


----------



## nothingman

I have a few questions....

One....Earls Court...when is it going to be refurbished? It could be a beautiful station, but it needs a little work!

Two....am I the only one who loves the smell of the Underground (that musty smell)?

Three.....why is the District Line so clackety?

Four....are there any major extensions planned in the next few years?

Five.....what is your favorite station (mine is Bank)?

Six....how long have you worked for London Transport, do you enjoy it?

The Underground rocks!!!!!!!


----------



## Sy

Tubeman said:


> No, sorry... tfl are still simply saying 'September'
> 
> Its also fairly vague about improvements; you'll notice an improved ride quality due to new track, and it alludes to faster journey times, but I doubt an awful lot would be shaved off the current 4 minute run.


Thanks for the reply, September is getting near, you think they'd have an idea by now.

I always enjoyed the ride quality on that line, the constant feeling that the train was going to derail made it fun...


----------



## Tubeman

nothingman said:


> I have a few questions....
> 
> One....Earls Court...when is it going to be refurbished? It could be a beautiful station, but it needs a little work!
> 
> Two....am I the only one who loves the smell of the Underground (that musty smell)?
> 
> Three.....why is the District Line so clackety?
> 
> Four....are there any major extensions planned in the next few years?
> 
> Five.....what is your favorite station (mine is Bank)?
> 
> Six....how long have you worked for London Transport, do you enjoy it?
> 
> The Underground rocks!!!!!!!


1) When were you last there... It just has been :?

Its magnificent now... Trust me (best pics I could find)

Before:










After:










...Note the new walkway and lifts to the District Line platforms; the station is now 100% wheelchair-accessible










The entire booking hall has been expanded and refurbished to its original glory, but I can't find any pics online

2) It does have a certain odour... Not unpleasant. The main ingredient is brake dust (what wears off brake pads during breaking)... It gives rise to most of the black tunnel dust and blue haze in the air, it has a very distinctive (but pleasant) smell... almost like incense!

3) Old track, pure and simple. Most weekends now large sections of the Underground are being closed down for track replacement; the old wooden sleepers, ancient ballast and old-fashioned 'bullhead' rails are being ripped out and being replaced by concrete sleepers, new ballast and flat-bottomed rail, giving a much smoother and quieter ride quality. Eventually the whole underground should give a ride akin to the Jubilee Line extension.

4) Yes, the East London Line is currently being extended north to Dalston with stops at Shoreditch High Street, Hoxton and Haggerston and in the south the New Cross Gate branch is being extended along the main line to Croydon stopping at all stations to West Croydon with a branch to Crystal Palace (2010). Phase II of the expansion will see extensions beyond Dalston to Highbury & islington (perhaps further), and in the south from Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction via Peckham, Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road.

Also, Heathrow Terminal 5 station is due to open in 2008 on new branches off the existing Piccadilly Line and Heathrow Express.

The DLR is currently being extended beyond King George V to Woolwich Arsenal, and after November work will begin on a new route from Canning Town to Stratford International, with 3 completely new stations and 2 new interchange stations.

New stations are under construction at Langdon Park (DLR), White City (Hammersmith & City Line), and at Shepherds Bush and Imperial Wharf on the West London Line, plus the Eurostar London extension is to open next year... Quite a lot going on!

5) Earl's Court, but I'm biased 

6) Almost 9 years, and I love it

1997 = Northern Line Guard (now defunct) at east Finchley
1998 = Northern Line Driver at East Finchley
1999 = District Line Driver at Parsons Green Depot
2001 = Duty Manager at Earl's Court


----------



## Tubeman

Sy said:


> Thanks for the reply, September is getting near, you think they'd have an idea by now.
> 
> I always enjoyed the ride quality on that line, the constant feeling that the train was going to derail made it fun...


Fun, wasn't it? Like Alton Towers


----------



## samsonyuen

When will the Terminal 4 station reopen?


----------



## Tubeman

samsonyuen said:


> When will the Terminal 4 station reopen?


Next month... Like the Waterloo & City Line I can't say precisely when in September...


----------



## Englishman

I notice you have three reviews on amazon's website, by an interesting mix of people.


----------



## Rachmaninov

Actually, Tubeman, the exterior of Earl's Court station seems to look the same before and after the refurbishment.

One thing I don't really like about Earl's Court is the difficulty of crossing it from Earl's Court Road to Warwick Road. Sometimes when somebody went to a wrong direction, he'd be at a loss and don't know how to cross the station and get out on the other side except to walk back down to the platform.


----------



## london-b

I went from Heathrow to Kings Cross the other day, and I want to know why is the ride so bumpy?


----------



## Tubeman

Englishman said:


> I notice you have three reviews on amazon's website, by an interesting mix of people.


Yes, that lunatic doka..dan, gothicform and a genuine one (i.e. someone who actually bought the book)

That's why the link isn't in my signature anymore... too much risk of disgruntled trolls writing rubbish. I complained about doka..dan's 'review' to Amazon, but its still there.


----------



## Tubeman

Rachmaninov said:


> Actually, Tubeman, the exterior of Earl's Court station seems to look the same before and after the refurbishment.
> 
> One thing I don't really like about Earl's Court is the difficulty of crossing it from Earl's Court Road to Warwick Road. Sometimes when somebody went to a wrong direction, he'd be at a loss and don't know how to cross the station and get out on the other side except to walk back down to the platform.


The exterior stonework was cleaned up, and the shop units completely restored to a more authentic appearence. A bit difficult to see in those pics, I admit.

Regarding the second comment... Did you not discover the high-level walkway between the two booking halls? Its the cantilevered steelwork hovering above Platform 1. Its also a sinch at street level, take the first left off Earl's Court Road and go straight on, turn left again and bingo, the Warwick Road exit.


----------



## Tubeman

london-b said:


> I went from Heathrow to Kings Cross the other day, and I want to know why is the ride so bumpy?


The stocks of train built in the 1970's have notoriously bouncy suspension (C Stock on the Circle / Hammersmith & City lines, Piccadilly line 1973 stock, and Bakerloo line 1972 stock), plus the track's shit in places.


----------



## Justme

Jean Luc said:


> Hmmm, if it were still a pedestrian tunnel today it would probably be a mugger's paradise, unless there was a heap of security measures in place...


No, they are pretty safe. There is a guard at each end from memory that operate the huge lifts. And there are security camera's. I have walked them many times, and always do when I am back in Greenwich.

I also heard of an Oxford race using the Greenwich tunnel called "Tie the River", in which two teams race from each side, first crossing the river by boat, pulling along a long cable, then running through the river with the cable to "tie" up the Thames.



Tubeman said:


> Do any other cities have such long pedestrian tunnels as these?


They are very rare. London is the only city I know with two existing and working pedestrian tunnels under the river. The only other cities I know of this are also in Europe, but only have a single tunnel each.

A very unusual one is in Hamburg, which also allows cars to go down the lifts and drive through. Pedestrians walk on either side of the underground road.

I actually created two threads for each of these. The first is for the pedestrian only tunnels. And is missing the Stockholm one just mentioned (well, until I just added it ;O)
http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=260018

The 2nd is regarding the style of tunnel in Hamburg:
http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=260023


----------



## Justme

Just got back from London again, and this time, I got an Oyster Card. I have to say that it works perfectly for tourists as well.

I was staying a week, and got the 7 day Travel Card on the Oyster. Much cheaper than a usual ticket 7 day pass, or the separate daily travel cards, and I could use it anytime even in peak. It was only for zones 1&2, but added 10quid as a "top up" which allowed for the extra route to and from Heathrow and a few other excursions out beyond zone 2. 

Maybe because I got the weekly travel card, I didn't have to pay a deposit. At the end a pound or so was left on, but I just kept the card for the next time I go, and then I can top it up by credit card over the phone (or so I am led to believe - unfortunately, as yet, the Internet site to top up only works for UK residents).

So, if you are spending a week in London on holiday, I recommend the Oyster. If staying in the central area, get the zones 1&2 travel card and add an extra tenner (or more if needed) for any excursions.


----------



## Rachmaninov

Tubeman said:


> The exterior stonework was cleaned up, and the shop units completely restored to a more authentic appearence. A bit difficult to see in those pics, I admit.
> 
> Regarding the second comment... Did you not discover the high-level walkway between the two booking halls? Its the cantilevered steelwork hovering above Platform 1. Its also a sinch at street level, take the first left off Earl's Court Road and go straight on, turn left again and bingo, the Warwick Road exit.


Yes I do notice that walkway, but I believe that a tourist who isn't familiar with the station would have difficulty finding it. As far as I am concerned, the signs aren't exactly clear. Would a plan of the station be helpful? Or is there already one which I haven't noticed?


----------



## Tubeman

Rachmaninov said:


> Yes I do notice that walkway, but I believe that a tourist who isn't familiar with the station would have difficulty finding it. As far as I am concerned, the signs aren't exactly clear. Would a plan of the station be helpful? Or is there already one which I haven't noticed?


No, there isn't... I find many metro systems are a bit 'presumptuous' about what users should and shouldn't know, i.e. they assume everyone pretty much knows where they're going. If you take a step back and look at the underground through the eyes of someone completely unfamiliar with it, its bewildering. Earl's Court a good case in point... The District Line platforms are milling with people completely baffled by the multitude of destinations on offer, most metro lines are from A to B, the District Line is from A, B, C or D to E, F, G, H or I! Even discovering the Piccadilly Line platforms seems to be an achievement for many tourists, who presume they've found them when they arrive on the District Line platforms because they don't understand the signage.

For this reason a station plan at Earl's Court and many other complex stations would be a great idea... Diagrams are universal, English is not.


----------



## Rachmaninov

Tubeman said:


> No, there isn't... I find many metro systems are a bit 'presumptuous' about what users should and shouldn't know, i.e. they assume everyone pretty much knows where they're going. If you take a step back and look at the underground through the eyes of someone completely unfamiliar with it, its bewildering. Earl's Court a good case in point... The District Line platforms are milling with people completely baffled by the multitude of destinations on offer, most metro lines are from A to B, the District Line is from A, B, C or D to E, F, G, H or I! Even discovering the Piccadilly Line platforms seems to be an achievement for many tourists, who presume they've found them when they arrive on the District Line platforms because they don't understand the signage.
> 
> For this reason a station plan at Earl's Court and many other complex stations would be a great idea... Diagrams are universal, English is not.


Exactly. The arrows pointing at a particular destination may mean nothing to tourists at all. Even if finally they realised what it is, they still have to refer to a tube map to check whether it passes their destination. I would expect signages like those on British Rail to work better than the current arrows - something like "RICHMOND - Calling at Vauxhall, Clapham Junction, etc.". In that case, tourists who don't know English should be able to identify their destination in the signs anyway.

Is there any way we can turn in these ideas to the TfL?


----------



## Tubeman

^
LOL I can try... Maybe this will get me my promotion!


----------



## Rachmaninov

^^ lol tell us if you really get it! 

And thanks for producing this thread. You've been most helpful!!


----------



## Smarty

Tubeman said:


> No, there isn't... I find many metro systems are a bit 'presumptuous' about what users should and shouldn't know, i.e. they assume everyone pretty much knows where they're going. If you take a step back and look at the underground through the eyes of someone completely unfamiliar with it, its bewildering. Earl's Court a good case in point... The District Line platforms are milling with people completely baffled by the multitude of destinations on offer, most metro lines are from A to B, the District Line is from A, B, C or D to E, F, G, H or I! Even discovering the Piccadilly Line platforms seems to be an achievement for many tourists, who presume they've found them when they arrive on the District Line platforms because they don't understand the signage.
> 
> For this reason a station plan at Earl's Court and many other complex stations would be a great idea... Diagrams are universal, English is not.


I always thought it was stupid that the Bank branch of the northern line was called the city branch. How would tourists know what the city banch is when there's no station called "city"

I was wondering what you think the chances are of the bakerloo line being extended to Camberwell are. I understand that the line goes half way there anyway after E&C. That area of south london is so badly served by rail / tube. I don't know why they don't re-open Walworth and Camberwell overground stations.


----------



## Tubeman

Smarty said:


> I always thought it was stupid that the Bank branch of the northern line was called the city branch. How would tourists know what the city banch is when there's no station called "city"
> 
> I was wondering what you think the chances are of the bakerloo line being extended to Camberwell are. I understand that the line goes half way there anyway after E&C. That area of south london is so badly served by rail / tube. I don't know why they don't re-open Walworth and Camberwell overground stations.


It would be misleading to say the overrun tunnels at E&C go halfway to Camberwell, they're 2 train's lengths long, so they perhaps stretch only 250m towards Camberwell. I'd say in the current climate there's no chance of any extension happening, but I agree its ridiculous that the Walworth and Camberwell mainline stations aren't re-opened for the Thameslink Sutton / Wimbledon service.

Inner London mainline stations closed en masse during WWI, as they were already suffering from tram competition and were easy targets for economies. Scores closed temporarily, never to re-open: Camberwell, Walworth Road, Borough Road, Spa road, Camden Road, Finchley Road, Haverstock Hill... Some like Loudoun Road (later South Hampstead), Cambridge Heath and London Fields were reprieved after WWI closure and are still with us today, but they illustrate why so many inner London mainline stations did close, as they offer at best 30 minute services which crawl into termini like Euston or Liverpool Street when the Tube or bus are far more frequent and quicker.

Re: The 'City' branch... yet another example of a presumptuousness that everyone should know what 'The City' is! Bank Station (or at least the Waterloo & City Line part, which was the first) was originally named simply 'City'. It was renamed to bring it in line with the rest of the station complex.


----------



## Justme

By the way, what does the "loo" originally mean in Waterloo and Bakerloo?


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> By the way, what does the "loo" originally mean in Waterloo and Bakerloo?


'Waterloo' is named after the Battle of Waterloo, and therefore a town in Belgium.

'Bakerloo' is simply an (origninally colloquial) abbreviation of the line's original name: '*Baker* Street and Water*loo* Railway'


----------



## CharlieP

Justme said:


> By the way, what does the "loo" originally mean in Waterloo and Bakerloo?


Loo is a British euphemism for toilet - the Waterloo district of London (and hence the station) was renamed in honour of the invention of the water cistern, and the Bakerloo line was so named because it was found that the route of the line went right underneath Sherlock Holmes's toilet on Baker Street...


----------



## Rachmaninov

^^ I thought Bakerloo simply means "passing through BAKER street and waterLOO"?


----------



## El_Greco

CharlieP said:


> Loo is a British euphemism for toilet - the Waterloo district of London (and hence the station) was renamed in honour of the invention of the water cistern, and the Bakerloo line was so named because it was found that the route of the line went right underneath Sherlock Holmes's toilet on Baker Street...


Nice! :lol:


----------



## Smarty

This thread is great Tubeman kay: 

Two questions:

1. I live and work in zone 2 but when I recently renewed my zone 2 only travelcard I found I had to buy zones 2 & 3. Is this just a way to make more money ?

2. I know Museum station is supposed to be able to be viewed from the Central Line (although I've never seen it). Are there any other ghost stations that can be seem when travelling on the tube ?


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> Loo is a British euphemism for toilet - the Waterloo district of London (and hence the station) was renamed in honour of the invention of the water cistern, and the Bakerloo line was so named because it was found that the route of the line went right underneath Sherlock Holmes's toilet on Baker Street...


:crazy: :laugh:


----------



## Tubeman

Smarty said:


> This thread is great Tubeman kay:
> 
> Two questions:
> 
> 1. I live and work in zone 2 but when I recently renewed my zone 2 only travelcard I found I had to buy zones 2 & 3. Is this just a way to make more money ?
> 
> 2. I know Museum station is supposed to be able to be viewed from the Central Line (although I've never seen it). Are there any other ghost stations that can be seem when travelling on the tube ?


1) Probably, yes

2) Loads. Pretty much anywhere on any deep-level 'Tube' line that the tunnel turns into anything other than plain castiron ringed tunnel you're probably looking at a 'ghost' station.

Examples:

Between Green park and Hyde Park Corner you rattle over points then pass a brick wall before suddenly descending. The brick wall is built along the edge of Down Street platform, the rapid descent you experience is the 'hump profile' of every tube station whereby the track descends from a platform (to assist acceleration) the ascends into the next platform (to assist deceleration).

Between Knightsbridge and South Kensington you pass another brick wall, this was Brompton Road station. The location is immediately before the Piccadilly Line enters into the torturous series of curves approaching South Kensington.

Other abandoned 'tube' stations that are still visible:

Kentish Town South
York Way
British Museum

These three are simply where the tunnel seems to widen... another instance is 'Bull & Bush' between Hampstead and Golders Green, here the platforms were built but the station never opened.

Other examples on the sub-surface lines are Mark lane (just West of Tower Hill), St Mary's (between Aldgate East and Whitechapel), and the original King's Cross platforms to the east of the current ones. All of these have intact platforms, although it takes a keen eye to spot them in the gloom.


----------



## FM 2258

I was in London last week and I was suprised how clean the tube system was compared to the NYC subway. Pretty much I was impressed with the British Rail system as a whole.


----------



## sarflonlad

This thread is like beer: I can't get enough of it and it makes me feel good 

Question: Suppose the Northern Line is extended Southwards from Kennington and thus split into 2 separate lines, do you think with a bit of additional tunneling and realignment at either Camden Town or Euston in the north and Kennington (not already including the complex crossovers there) or Oval in the south, LU could have themselves another circle line operating in a similar way to the existing one? i.e. track sharing with the new kennington line and bank branch on the east side... sharing with the morden and charing cross branch on the west side?

A piss poor diagram:


----------



## Tubeman

There's certainly no reason why not, but I suppose it defeats the point of splitting the Northern Line to simplify it only to then introduce a new service sharing the tracks.

I'm very much in favour of a southward extension ex-Charing Cross Branch from kennington... It could serve Brixton, Brixton Hill, Streatham Hill, Streatham, Norbury then under the London road to Croydon (intermediate stop at Thornton Heath Pond). In the north it would exclusively take over the Edgware Branch such that the two new lines would be Edgware - Croydon and High Barnet / Mill Hill East - Morden. The reason for splitting the northern branches thus is that the two major overhaul depots are at Morden and Golders Green, so each new line gets one each.

The junctions could all be removed at Camden, perhaps retaining those at Kennington for stock transfer and engineers trains. The basic rule of thumb for successful metro lines is simplicity... The Northern and also the Sub-surface lines suffer from complexity and junction working, not something a line like the Victoria has to worry about.


----------



## sweek

Is there any chance of the Northern Line actually being split like that? I personally never actually wait for a train to the right branch when going northbound from the centre. It can take ages so I'll just change at Camden Town.
Given how much pressure LU gets and how it's still the worst performing line, it seems like such a simple solution.
I've also heard (fairly reliable) rumours about the Mill Hill East branch becoming a shuttle... know anything about that?


----------



## Tubeman

Nothing official. For much the same reason that the Olympia service runs as short shuttle, the Mill Hill branch would be able to provide a far more reliable service if operated as a shuttle.

I really don't understand the desire to hold on to the unified Northern Line... Its complicated, prone to disastrous operational problems, and is no doubt more than a little confusing to non-Londoners.


----------



## ryantey

Does anybody get any mp3 or sound files of the London Underground Stations or Trains Announcements (especially for Celia's voice)?


----------



## Jean Luc

Tubeman said:


> I'm very much in favour of a southward extension ex-Charing Cross Branch from kennington... It could serve Brixton, Brixton Hill, Streatham Hill, Streatham, Norbury then under the London road to Croydon (intermediate stop at Thornton Heath Pond).


If this line was extended all the way to Croydon, in London's southern suburbs, could it still realistically be called the Northern Line? If not, what could it be called?


----------



## AG

Right here:

http://www.haltestellenansage.de/ansagen/u/london/london_en.htm


----------



## Tubeman

AG said:


> Right here:
> 
> http://www.haltestellenansage.de/ansagen/u/london/london_en.htm


kay: Great find!

Perhaps we should play this on a constant loop?


----------



## CharlieP

Jean Luc said:


> If this line was extended all the way to Croydon, in London's southern suburbs, could it still realistically be called the Northern Line? If not, what could it be called?


Why not? The Northern line is already the southern-most line on the network.

As I've said before, if the Northern line were to be split, I'd call the Charing Cross branch the Northern line and the Bank branch the City & South London line...


----------



## Tubeman

I like the thought of Charing Cross - Edgware reverting to the colloquial 'Hampstead Tube'... Barnet to Morden would be more logically 'Northern' as it runs over parts of the Great Northern railway's 'Northern Heights' lines.


----------



## spsmiler

Hi Tubey,

wow, page 42, and still going strong!

many congrats.


btw, the splitting of the Northern Line is not a new idea, but I think the real issue is funding. Who would pay?

Extending further south (eg: Croydon) might seem a good idea in theory but the Morden route is already overcrowded. At one time a start was made on buidling new tunnels with a long term aim to 4 tracking it and even part of Charing Cross Branch (express service with fewer stops) but that idea seems to have died ages ago. As has the 9 car idea for longer trains.

Anyway, Croydon is very well served with mainline trains which reach Central London much faster than the underground ever would / could, plus it has trams too.

As you suggest, a transport corridor which does need investment is the A23 road, as the buses are very busy and rail provision very poor. As we know, extending the Victoria Line beyond Brixton would not be wise, as the line just about copes with the passenger numbers as it is. This is where a second Northern Line branch would be of benefit, and by routing the two southern branches via dedicated central & north London routes London would effectively get two lines for the price of a short extension... and these two lines would have far greater passenger capacity than at present.

But this will not please those people (especially in north London) who would lose through services which they curently enjoy.

For my mind the Mill Hill East service should be extended south at East Finchley towards Finsbury Park, and even to Moorgate, as a third service sharing with the First Capital Connect (as they are now known) trains which only serve Moorgate weekday daytimes.

Now where have I seen that proposal before (smile)

Simon

ps, had the Victoria Line is line been built to accept larger trains, as originally proposed in the 1944 plans then maybe a southern extension would have been feasible, as it (probably) would not have been so overcrowded.


----------



## Tubeman

spsmiler said:


> Hi Tubey,
> 
> wow, page 42, and still going strong!
> 
> many congrats.
> 
> 
> btw, the splitting of the Northern Line is not a new idea, but I think the real issue is funding. Who would pay?
> 
> Extending further south (eg: Croydon) might seem a good idea in theory but the Morden route is already overcrowded. At one time a start was made on buidling new tunnels with a long term aim to 4 tracking it and even part of Charing Cross Branch (express service with fewer stops) but that idea seems to have died ages ago. As has the 9 car idea for longer trains.
> 
> Anyway, Croydon is very well served with mainline trains which reach Central London much faster than the underground ever would / could, plus it has trams too.
> 
> As you suggest, a transport corridor which does need investment is the A23 road, as the buses are very busy and rail provision very poor. As we know, extending the Victoria Line beyond Brixton would not be wise, as the line just about copes with the passenger numbers as it is. This is where a second Northern Line branch would be of benefit, and by routing the two southern branches via dedicated central & north London routes London would effectively get two lines for the price of a short extension... and these two lines would have far greater passenger capacity than at present.
> 
> But this will not please those people (especially in north London) who would lose through services which they curently enjoy.
> 
> For my mind the Mill Hill East service should be extended south at East Finchley towards Finsbury Park, and even to Moorgate, as a third service sharing with the First Capital Connect (as they are now known) trains which only serve Moorgate weekday daytimes.
> 
> Now where have I seen that proposal before (smile)
> 
> Simon
> 
> ps, had the Victoria Line is line been built to accept larger trains, as originally proposed in the 1944 plans then maybe a southern extension would have been feasible, as it (probably) would not have been so overcrowded.


I think you slightly misunderstood what was being mooted; the Northern Line to Morden is busy enough, what we were discussing was a southward extension from the Charing Cross Platforms at Kennington, as after the 'split' the southern end of the Edgware - Kennington line would not be realising its full potential (much like the Bakerloo). I'm sure few people in Croydon would use the Tube to get into London, but it would provide a very useful local link along the A23 and some valuable interchanges (i.e. with the mainline at Streatham Hill, Streatham and Norbury and of course West & East Croydon). I'd like to see a terminal loop linking the two Croydons, or perhaps even a continuation via Purley to the Caterham and / or Tattenham Corner Branches which it could take over.


----------



## Smarty

Do you think there's a chance that links to the North London Line will be improved now following the announcement of the London Overground - perhaps rebuilding Camden Town to link with Camden Rd, and re-opening York Rd to link with a new York Rd station on NLL ?


----------



## Tubeman

Smarty said:


> Do you think there's a chance that links to the North London Line will be improved now following the announcement of the London Overground - perhaps rebuilding Camden Town to link with Camden Rd, and re-opening York Rd to link with a new York Rd station on NLL ?


I think York Road will possibly re-open thanks to the Kings Cross redevelopment (it is certainly being considered), but its still a distance away from the NLL, and moreover there are no NLL platforms there; there was a station there named Maiden lane which could be rebuilt I suppose.

I think Camden Road and Camden Town are quite simply too far apart; Camden Town is far better located for Camden, and it is unfeasible to relocate Camden Road as its on a viaduct (i.e. the line can't be diverted south the nearer Camden Town without huge disruption).

So a probable no to both as interchanges... The NLL is still well-connected regardless. Other options could be new platforms at North Acton (Central), re-opening Junction Road on the Gospel Oak - Barking line (Adjacent to Tufnell Park), and perhaps a station in the vicinity of Bollo lane to interchange with Chiswick Park station.


----------



## El_Greco

This thread must stay alive but unfortunately I have no good questions so Ill just say how are Tubeman?


----------



## Tubeman

Errr...Fine!


----------



## JDRS

Yesterday and today I've had a bad experience on the Northern Line. Why is it that trains suddenly decide to take a different route and also why do they decide to suddenly terminate? 

And would I be correct in saying that in 2009 when the Met/Circle/Hammersmith & City line trains are updated the East London line (which will be part of the new London overground) will have different trains?


----------



## Tubeman

JDRS said:


> Yesterday and today I've had a bad experience on the Northern Line. Why is it that trains suddenly decide to take a different route and also why do they decide to suddenly terminate?
> 
> And would I be correct in saying that in 2009 when the Met/Circle/Hammersmith & City line trains are updated the East London line (which will be part of the new London overground) will have different trains?


During service disruption (e.g. Signal failure, 'One Under') generally all trains on a line will become equally late-running. Today I had a shitty day on the District Line where an earlier overrun of engineering works led to late running of (at worst) 1 hour 10 minutes still at lunchtime.

What 'Sevice Control' (Service Controllers and Signal Operators) have to strive for is for late-running trains to get back in their timetabled paths. The easiest way of doing this is turning a train short of its booked destination, obviously making time up. On the Northern Line the commonest examples of this are Edgware trains reversing at Colindale or Golders Green, High Barnet trains at Finchley Central, or Morden trains at Tooting Broadway or Kennington. Obviously all trains can't be handled in this way, or the service would effectively be suspended to a line's extremities, so perhaps only 1/3 or half of trains can be 'short-tripped'.

Last-minute diversions occur for 3 main reasons, again I'll tell you in the context of the Northern Line...

1) Delay: If a train is heading south as a 'via Bank' service and reaches Camden Town as a person jumps under a train at Angel, the Service Controller can divert it 'via Charing Cross' to avoid the incident, ditto a High Barnet train being diverted to Edgware or vice versa.

2) Incorrect 'TD' (Train Description)... The trains transmit information about their destination via the track to the Control Room, this is what gives the information appearing on the 'Dot matrix' displays on platforms. Sometimes the message can get confused or disappear (Incorrect TD), which means that you might board what you thought was an Edgware train in good faith (because the dot matrix said so) when in fact it was High Barnet all along. My advice to anyone using the Northern Line is always get the first train and change at Camden or Kennington, you never know if the destination will change or what might go wrong!

3) Reformation of service: This is a little complicated...

Believe it or not all trains run to a timetable, so have allocated 'paths'. Let's say there's a High Barnet train every 5 minutes, but the service is running 30 minutes late so every train is running 30 minutes behind where it should be. If the Duty Manager (i.e. me) has a driver just starting their day's work who wants a High Barnet train, instead of waiting 30 minutes and being late, they can take the next High Barnet train and 'Reform' its number into the one they want, so its on time. Its not that striaghtforward though, as this alone means you now have 2 trains carrying the same number (one on time and one 30 minutes late), so the Duty manager needs to 'Reform' the original late running train back into the number of the train the driver picked up, usually short-tripping it so it too ends up on time.

What usually occurs is a 'chain' of several reforms with drivers dropping back onto different trains behind and changing numbers and / or short-tripping to recover the timetabled service. If you think it sounds complicated, try doing it for real!

This can change destinations if the reformed train is going somewhere different to the original, Earl's Court where I work is notorious for this.

Re: East London Line trains, the contract has been awarded to Bombardier to build the new fleet. I don't think they're the same as the S-Stock on the rest of Subsurface lines, but very similar.


----------



## Justme

I really don't understand why London Underground wants to "keep" to a schedule. No passengers ever use a timetable when using a metro - people just turn up and take the next train. That's the whole point of a metro system.

So, if trains started 1 hr 10 minutes late due to works overrun, then just start the services running from that point on.

I guess it gets harder with networks like London which has multiple branches. One thing a lot easier with networks that consider each branch a seperate line I would imagine, is that people know instantly what train they are getting and where it will go.


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> I really don't understand why London Underground wants to "keep" to a schedule. No passengers ever use a timetable when using a metro - people just turn up and take the next train. That's the whole point of a metro system.
> 
> So, if trains started 1 hr 10 minutes late due to works overrun, then just start the services running from that point on.
> 
> I guess it gets harder with networks like London which has multiple branches. One thing a lot easier with networks that consider each branch a seperate line I would imagine, is that people know instantly what train they are getting and where it will go.


What you have to factor in is the drivers though!

We can't just say "turn up when you feel like it and take whatever train comes in first!" to them, there needs to be some sort of structure to their working day. Moreover the first & last trains have to run in specific paths, and bearing in mind how complex some lines are there are numerous first & last trains. Without a timetable the provision of a regular service to the Western branches of the District Line would go to pot, the frequencies to Richmond and Ealing are only 8-10 minutes, so even a slight oversight could result in a 20 minute gap. Trains also have to rotate between stabling on sidings with no overhaul and cleaning facilities (e.g. Parson's Green, Triangle or Barking) and overhaul depots (Ealing Common and Upminster) otherwise they might go for weeks without getting washed or overhauled.

I was shocked when I first started working for LUL and discovered there was a timetable (always presuming it was some sort of free-for-all), but once you actually start working in the railway environment you appreciate how vital a timetable is. It may seem irrelevant to a customer on the Piccadilly Line at Holborn where there's a train every 2 minutes, but it makes sense when you consider running regular services to a line's branches or dealing with the maintenance of trains or structuring the workforce's day as highlighted above.


----------



## Tubeman

Jean Luc said:


> Tubeman - all this improvement to the London Underground is being done via public-private partnerships (PPPs) is it not? I've read that it would have been cheaper if the government had simply funded it themselves, as governments can borrow money (if necessary, in order to fund the work) at lower rates of interest than the private sector. Is the way they are doing it the cheapest and most cost-effective? What's your view?


Yes it is, and yes it is a grotesque waste of money in the long run.

The issues are balancing the books in the short term by the government, and transferring the risk to the private sector. Neither of which are valid enough reasons for PPP in my opinion.


----------



## Tubeman

micro said:


> Tubeman: I think it is the masses of ad posters that add to the perception of crampedness and dirt (though the stations are actually quite clean) that foreign visitors experience when first riding the tube. Are there any plans to remove the ads from the stations? How much revenue does LU get from advertising in stations?


I doubt the revenue from each poster is much, but in combination they probably pull in a fair amount. Maybe I'm used to them, but I like them... They make the platforms more colourful and gives you something to look at whilst waiting for a train.


----------



## Audiomuse

What is the average temperature in the Tube's in Winter (generally) and Summer. I've been in the tubes in summer. and its just unbearable. Will there be new tubes in the future with A/C??? And what's all the work going on at King's X area?


----------



## Tubeman

macon4ever said:


> What is the average temperature in the Tube's in Winter (generally) and Summer. I've been in the tubes in summer. and its just unbearable. Will there be new tubes in the future with A/C??? And what's all the work going on at King's X area?


The Tube is in the region of 5-10C warmer than street level I believe, meaning when we get 35C+ in the summer (increasingly common) temperatures on some deep-level lines (the Victoria and Bakerloo are especially hot) could exceed 45C and extremely humid.

I also seem to recall being told that for every 2 minutes a packed Tube carriage is stationary underground the temperature rises by 1C, meaning a 10-minute delay on a hot day could send temperatures in the 50's Celcius! 

The new SSR fleet of trains (S Stock) will have A/C, running on the District, Hammermsith & City, Circle and Metropolitan Lines. This is possible as the routes were originally built for steam trains and so there are vents for heat to escape the tunnels. This also means these are currently the least hot lines (but still stifling on a hot summer's day, so its welcome regardless). Experiments are being carried out for a new groundwater air cooling system for the deep-level tube stations (groundwater is around 19C), but the trains can't get A/C as there's nowhere for the exhaust heat to vent.

King's Cross is being hugely redeveloped in connection with the opening of the Eurostar terminal and new Thameslink platforms at St Pancras next Summer. The huge new ticket hall / concourse has opened (one of them) with more to follow, and the tatty and gloomy platforms on the subsurface and tube lines are all getting a major facelift. It'll be an amazing interchange when its finished.


----------



## Songoten2554

*about the International Straford Station*

hey tubeman

i was wondering about something the International Straford station is it going to open the same time as the rest of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link or a little later

and what do you think of this massive project that london is doing not only for london but the olympics in 2012 what is your opion for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link?


----------



## Songoten2554

hey tubeman

i was wondering what is the biggest Train Station terminal in the london area i know some but what is the best train terminal?


----------



## ignoramus

Tubeman said:


> It was a fully-fledged arm of London Underground, but it was wound up a few years ago. I met the former head (by chance) on holiday in Thailand... It sounded like an amazing job: travelling around the world helping cities build their metros. He'd had a hand in (if I remember correctly) Taipei, Bangkok, Hong Kong and Singapore, plus some in Latin America. Amazing!


I didn't know London Underground International specifically had a hand in Singapore's MRT. I didn't even know London Underground International existed. Pardon my ignorance. All I knew was that Singapore looked up to the UK and other metro systems for advice etc for transport integration etc and a few years back (in 2001) adopting the LU's tube map for Singapore and editing it a little. haha. Great map design. Clean, sleek, informative.


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> hey tubeman
> 
> i was wondering about something the International Straford station is it going to open the same time as the rest of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link or a little later
> 
> and what do you think of this massive project that london is doing not only for london but the olympics in 2012 what is your opion for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link?


Stratford International won't open until 2010 at the earliest, possibly not until the 2012 Olympics. Its bizarre, the station is structurally complete... I don't really know the reasoning behind this. I know the DLR extension to the station isn't due to open until 2010, but even without it its only a couple of hundred metres from the existing Stratford with 2 Tube lines, DLR, and numerous Network Rail destinations... so its not as if its not connected.

I welcome any investment in London's railways, although its not of enormous benefit to Londoners per se. It had to happen; the passage of Eurostars crawling across South London suburban lines was an embarassment to this country. I found the extravangant 19km tunnels from Dagenham all the way to St Pancras a little excessive: Long before the CTRL was proposed I plotted my own route on an atlas, which followed an almost identical route from the North Downs under the Thames at Northfleet but then differed by having a more southerly alignment into London. 

My alignment was at surface level, crossing (as then) undeveloped brownfield land on the north bank of the Thames through Dagenham, Creekmouth, Beckton, then along the northern edge of the Royal Docks (roughly where the DLR Beckton branch runs today), through Leamouth to a station serving Canary Wharf (almost exactly where the proposed Crossrail station will be). The line then descended into a far shorter tunnel with a station beneath The City, with the route then turning north and splitting to two stations below King's Cross and Euston with the lines then surfacing to join the WCML and ECML giving direct access to The Midlands, Northern England and Scotland.

Firstly the amount of tunnelling involved would be a fraction of the current 19km pair, but secondly the CTRL would have stations directly serving Canary Wharf and The City and services would continue to destinations like Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and perhaps beyond to Scotland (although the uncompetitiveness of rail from Scotland to the Continent in terms of time probably precluded this from being financially viable).

Sadly though I'm not a transport planner, so it wasn't to be... And now a lot of the land along my route has been redeveloped.


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> hey tubeman
> 
> i was wondering what is the biggest Train Station terminal in the london area i know some but what is the best train terminal?


London's biggest station is Waterloo on the South Bank, it was built by the London & South-Western Railway in 1848 (although it has been rebuilt / expanded several times since). It offers mainline destinations from platforms 1-19 across South-west London and the West and Southwest of England, being the terminus for important towns and cities like Portsmouth, Southampton, Basingstoke, Bournemouth and Poole as well as offering services as far north as Reading and as far west as Exeter. 

Platforms 20-24 are the Eurostar platforms offering trains to Paris, Brussels, Lille as well as seasonal ski trains to The Alps, these are to become redundant next year when all services are diverted to St Pancras and will probably be given over to the longer-distance South-west Trains services to Exeter, Poole, Southampton and Portsmouth.

Below the 24 Mainline platforms are a further 8 Tube platforms on the Waterloo & City, Northern, Bakerloo and Jubilee Lines, giving 32 in total.

Immediately to the north is Waterloo East, a through station on the Mainline ex-Charing Cross, which could be considered as part of the same complex. Here the 4 platforms are 'numbered' a, b, c & d so as not to cause confusion with platforms at Waterloo 'proper'.

Therefore the entire complex could be reasonably considered to have 36 platforms.


----------



## Tubeman

Regarding 'best', I'd say St Pancras when it opens next year, but Paddington, Liverpool Street, Waterloo, King's Cross and Victoria are all magnificent.

London Bridge, Euston, Cannon Street and Blackfriars have all been ruined by 20th century redevelopment.

Charing Cross and Fenchurch Street are similar in that they have both been hugely redeveloped, but quite tastefully, with the original facades preserved and new offices built above. The only thing I dislike about this practice is it makes the platforms quite gloomy and claustrophobic.


----------



## sarflonlad

Tubeman said:


> Below the 24 Mainline platforms are a further 8 Tube platforms on the Waterloo & City, Northern, Bakerloo and Jubilee Lines, giving 32 in total.


8 tube platforms?

2 Bakerloo
2 Northern
2 Jubilee
1 W&C ... Total 7: unless I'm missing something?


----------



## sweek

According to CULG, there are two platforms on the W&C at Bank. I can't remember from those two or three times I've used it.


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> 8 tube platforms?
> 
> 2 Bakerloo
> 2 Northern
> 2 Jubilee
> 1 W&C ... Total 7: unless I'm missing something?


2 on the W&C... one for boarding only, the other for alighting only. Trains arrive ex-Bank, detrain, proceed into the tunnel beyond, then reverse back into the Bank-bound platform and pick up passengers.


----------



## Songoten2554

hey tubeman

you see i am from the united states i live in Miami Florida and well i wondered about london alot since about the CTRL and the London Olympics in 2012 do you think it was a great idea for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and will England built TGV or Shinkansen Style Trains and Routes and Tracks and such or only the CTRL


----------



## Songoten2554

hey tubeman

i was wondering a bit but what do you think of the Olympics in London in 2012 and i think its exciting espically with all the construction in london and all

and i wonder of Eurostar have you been on Eurostar? how it is? i mean you could travel from london to paris or to brussels and back i mean europe and asia is lucky to have high speed Rails while America doesn't expect Acela


----------



## Songoten2554

tubeman

i want to know something what London Rail is the best and that you rode on?

and whats the Best and Worst Underground Train line?

also which london train you take to go to Work and back and such?

its just that i am going to london soon since i will begin to travel in a few years from now


----------



## Jean Luc

Tubeman said:


> Stratford International won't open until 2010 at the earliest, possibly not until the 2012 Olympics. Its bizarre, the station is structurally complete... I don't really know the reasoning behind this. I know the DLR extension to the station isn't due to open until 2010, but even without it its only a couple of hundred metres from the existing Stratford with 2 Tube lines, DLR, and numerous Network Rail destinations... so its not as if its not connected.


Will the DLR be the only public transport link between the two Stratford stations?


----------



## nick_-_taylor

Tubeman said:


> Not that I'm aware of, but its to me a very 'obvious' Crossrail option... One that I'd thought of before myself.
> 
> Milton Keynes is booming and there is great growth potential in the Tring - Leighton Buzzard - MK corridor which would benefit greatly from a Crossrail-style service beyond Euston. I'd be more in favour of a connection with the C2C line myself for the following reasons:
> 
> - Both systems are 25kv AC electrified, so no need for dual-voltage trains
> 
> - Customers from the Euston line get access to The City without changing, likewise C2C customers get access to the West End without changing
> 
> - Strain can be taken off the extremely congested Fenchurch Street
> 
> - To take the last point a step further, if all C2C services are diverted via this 'Crossrail 3', then the point from the tunnel entrance (probably in the Bromley-by-Bow area) to Fenchurch Street could be given over to allow DLR 4-tracking to Limehouse with perhaps the redundant bit of C2C (Limehouse to Bromley-by-Bow) becoming a new DLR branch. The 'slow' tracks between Fenchurch Street and Limehouse (Tower Gateway could be abandoned) could have internediate stops opened either side of Shadwell to serve the local area... This would in fact be a re-opening of two long-abandoned mainline stations at Leman Street and Cannon Street Road. Burdett Road could also be re-opened on the Limehouse - Bromley section.
> 
> The new tunnel for this Crossrail 3 would start just north of Euston with platforms linking the current Warren Street and Euston Square stations together (as opposed to under Euston proper) to form a new station complex served by the Northern, Victoria, Circle, H&C and Metropolitan Lines. Next stop could be Holborn, then City Thameslink, Bank, Tower Hill / Fenchurch Street, Shadwell, Limehouse, then emerging West of Bromley-by-Bow to join the existing C2C route. Its probably impractical for the tunnel to begin any further West as getting the C2C down from viaduct level to tunnel level on the approach to Fenchurch Street would be problematic.


Interesting idea, although your plan would surely mean London Fenchurch Street becoming a DLR 4 platform terminus - correct with the C3 platforms directly beneath? See I've always thought that if there was to be a mass-Crossrail building program, that the routes should be different

*Crossrail 1 for instance should go outside the city boundaries.... Reading - Chelmsford*
Reading > Slough > London Heathrow Airport > London Paddington > London Liverpool Street > Stratford > Romford > Chelmsford

*Crossrail 2: Guildford - London Stansted Airport*
Guildford > Woking > Clapham Junction > London Waterloo > London Liverpool Street > Broxbourne > Harlow > London Stansted Airport

*Crossrail 3: Milton Keynes - Chatham*
Milton Keynes > Watford Junction > Willesden Junction > London Euston > London Bridge > Lewisham > Dartford > Chatham

*Crossrail 4: Aylesbury - Southend Central*
Aylesbury > Amersham > Harrow-on-the-Hill > London Marylebone > London Fenchurch Street > Barking > Upminster > Southend Central

*Crossrail 5: Basingstoke - Cambridge*
Basingstoke > Ascot > Clapham Junction > London Waterloo > London King's Cross > Stevenage > Cambridge

*Crossrail 6: Reading - Ashford*
Reading > Heathrow Airport > London Victoria > London Bridge > Sevenoaks > Tonbridge > Ashford

*Crossrail 7: Horsham - Southend Victoria*
Horsham > Epsom > Clapham Junction > Victoria > London Liverpool Street > Stratford > Romford > Southend Victoria

*Crossrail 8: Maidstone East - Peterborough*
Maidstone East > Ashford > Caterbury West > London Cannon Street > London Moorgate > Finsbury Park > Stevenage > Peterborough




Tubeman - The reason for the CTRL alignment through London is simple: it avoids areas that could increase the risk of subsidence of properties above which would significantly delay construction, but also lead to lengthy disputes about insurance, etc...

Hence when it exits the Thames Tunnel, it follows the London, Tilbury & Southend Railway till Dagenham, dives under, follows this route towards Barking and then Stratford, where it then follows the route of the North London Line to St Pancras. There are maps showing its exact route and it practically follows this route to the lines above. 

Stratford International was essentially going to be the London station for trains coming/going to Europe and the North of England - the reason being, that you don't have to reverse in and out of St Pancras. Stratford is however going to become something big. Currently its a wasteland, but a Canary Wharf like development will spring up, as well as the Olympic Park. Stratford is going to become a pretty impressive transport interchange when it opens.



Jean Luc - I know this is Tubemans thread, but I can give a quick reply: yes and no. I think an underground travelator has been rumoured but I can't be certain. The DLR will however offer direct links.


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> hey tubeman
> 
> you see i am from the united states i live in Miami Florida and well i wondered about london alot since about the CTRL and the London Olympics in 2012 do you think it was a great idea for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and will England built TGV or Shinkansen Style Trains and Routes and Tracks and such or only the CTRL


The WCML (West Coast main line: London Euston - Milton Keynes - branch to Birmingham - Branches to Liverpool & Manchester - Preston - Glasgow) and ECML (East Coast main line: London King's Cross - Peterborough - Doncaster - Branch to Leeds - York - Newcastle - Edinburgh) are both 25kv AC electrified and in places capable of near-Shinkansen / TGV speeds. I think with the right investment these two will serve us perfectly well; the WCML has just had an enormous upgrade and journey times from London to Glasgow (etc) have been slashed with tilting trains up to 140mph; there's little need for new dedicated tracks really... certainly not within the realms of financial possibility.

All I forsee is upgrades / electrifications to existing trunk routes: The GWR route to Wales & The West should be a priority, as should the Midland Mainline. Through trains ex-CTRL are only really viable as far north as perhaps Leeds or Manchester; the distances between Scotland and Paris / Brussels are too far to make rail competitive with air, as shorthaul air travel is so cheap in Europe (Easyjet etc).

As I already said, the CTRL is commendable and had to happen, as the current situation (Eurostars crawling across Southeast London on suburban lines) is an embarassment.


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> hey tubeman
> 
> i was wondering a bit but what do you think of the Olympics in London in 2012 and i think its exciting espically with all the construction in london and all
> 
> and i wonder of Eurostar have you been on Eurostar? how it is? i mean you could travel from london to paris or to brussels and back i mean europe and asia is lucky to have high speed Rails while America doesn't expect Acela


I'm very excited about the Olympics... Its being held in a very deprived area of London (The East End) and I'm certain it will have a lasting beneficial effect on the area and will be a great force for good in this city.

Eurostar is great, I travelled on it to Paris this time last year. Its still in transition somewhat as you crawl out of London waterloo on a torturous series of suburban lines, stop-starting to Fawkham Junction in kent, where you join phase 1 of the CTRL. The difference is amazing; the line is so new and so well-engineered that you glide effortlessly along at 180mph and it barely registers, the next thing you look up and are in the tunnel itself. On the French side the ride is a little rougher as the track is older, but in seemingly no time you're entering Gare Du Nord _in a different country_. This sensation is very odd to a British person having never done it before; living on an island, the concept of catching a train to another country is very bizarre.


----------



## Songoten2554

so tubeman

where do you work at and what train you take on wish we had some kind of mass transit in the united states we do but its not like europe and Asia


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> tubeman
> 
> i want to know something what London Rail is the best and that you rode on?
> 
> and whats the Best and Worst Underground Train line?
> 
> also which london train you take to go to Work and back and such?
> 
> its just that i am going to london soon since i will begin to travel in a few years from now


Regarding suburban rail, Southwest Trains (Waterloo) is very impressive, a great new fleet of Siemens trains giving a comprehensive service covering all of South-west London (and beyond). C2C (Fenchurch Street) is also good, with again a new fleet of trains serving the Thames Estuary and Essex. Chiltern Trains (Marylebone) and Thames Trains (Paddington) are also good, but lose brownie points for being diesel-operated.

Other providers provide not so good services, namely the 'One' and 'First' franchises, I've seen some shockingly dilapidated commuter EMUs operating out of Liverpool Street and King's Cross and on the Thameslink (First Capital Connect). They're all relatively new trains, but very poorly maintained.

Underground... 

Best Line: probably Central (recent upgraded, fully automatic)

Worst: Northern, without a doubt... Horrendous near-daily operating problems

My commute: Bus from Mount Pleasant to Holborn, Piccadilly Line from Holborn to Earl's Court

The Piccadilly Line, at least across central London, is very quick, frequent and efficient... It never gives me any problems. Its slows down a bit nearing the two crew relief points (Acton Town and Arnos Grove), but this doesn't affect me.


----------



## Tubeman

Jean Luc said:


> Will the DLR be the only public transport link between the two Stratford stations?


Nick answered this one... Essentially yes, but its not far to walk anyway


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> so tubeman
> 
> where do you work at and what train you take on wish we had some kind of mass transit in the united states we do but its not like europe and Asia



I work at Earl's Court, as a DMT (Duty Manager Trains) on the District Line. I manage Train drivers after having been one at the same location myself (and before that a driver and Guard on the Northern Line).


----------



## Songoten2554

tubeman

about the DLR what do you like about it or don't like?

and is DLR feasible to be built here in Miami well we have the Metrorover which is like the DLR but its cool the it serves the area 

well i haven't been to europe neither london so i am sorry about all this i am telling you


----------



## Songoten2554

tubeman

i like the julibee line but i hear about its new and such and also about Crossrail

what is the best place to view trains i hear its straford is that right


----------



## Jean Luc

Tubeman said:


> The WCML (West Coast main line: London Euston - Milton Keynes - branch to Birmingham - Branches to Liverpool & Manchester - Preston - Glasgow) and ECML (East Coast main line: London King's Cross - Peterborough - Doncaster - Branch to Leeds - York - Newcastle - Edinburgh) are both 25kv AC electrified and in places capable of near-Shinkansen / TGV speeds. I think with the right investment these two will serve us perfectly well; the WCML has just had an enormous upgrade and journey times from London to Glasgow (etc) have been slashed with tilting trains up to 140mph; there's little need for new dedicated tracks really... certainly not within the realms of financial possibility.


I think that few countries are better suited to high speed rail than the U.K., having a number of cities with populations in the millions separated by only a few hundred kilometres - the ideal distance for high speed train service. If France can do it (and presumably afford it) with its' main cities further apart, meaning a) longer travel times (so less advantage over flying), and b) longer lines (more costly), then why can't the U.K.? Are property acquisition and construction costs lower in France than in the U.K.? Less NIMBY-style opposition? Paris to Marseille is a good example of (a) - 3 hours via non-stop TGV, and (b) - 750 km via the LGV, above.



Tubeman said:


> All I forsee is upgrades / electrifications to existing trunk routes: The GWR route to Wales & The West should be a priority, as should the Midland Mainline. Through trains ex-CTRL are only really viable as far north as perhaps Leeds or Manchester; the distances between Scotland and Paris / Brussels are too far to make rail competitive with air, as shorthaul air travel is so cheap in Europe (Easyjet etc).


Why wasn't the main western line electrified decades ago, like the ECML and WCML were? Isn't it a busy major line like the latter two? Is any of it electrified at present e.g. within daily commuting distance of London? AFAIK there is less electrification in the U.K. than in other comparable European countries. If this is so, why?


----------



## Jean Luc

Tubeman said:


> As I already said, the CTRL is commendable and had to happen, as the current situation (Eurostars crawling across Southeast London on suburban lines) is an embarassment.
> <snip, the following from separate post>
> Eurostar is great, I travelled on it to Paris this time last year. Its still in transition somewhat as you crawl out of London waterloo on a torturous series of suburban lines,


Yeah, the Southeast London crawl does seem a bit below par, especially compared to the quick and easy run the Eurostars have out of Paris - on regular rail tracks. It's interesting to note that, in contrast to CTRL2, building high speed lines all the way into cities is actually rarely done in France. The only examples that I can think of are the Paris end of the LGV Atlantique, starting only 2-3 km out of Gare Montparnasse (using a once abandoned railway alignment) and the LGV Nord through Lille (where TGVs and Eurostars travel at much reduced speed). Usually the LGVs start on the outskirts, just beyond built-up areas. In light of this Tubeman, and the fact that you think that CTRL2 is a bit extravagant, would it have been possible to add extra tracks, dedicated to Eurostars, to existing railway lines in London, if only over certain sections, to give them a fast unimpeded run into and out of the city? Would it have been cheaper and allowed a similar travel time, compared to CTRL2? Could it have been done without too much disruption to existing train services and surrounding areas?



Tubeman said:


> stop-starting to Fawkham Junction in kent, where you join phase 1 of the CTRL.


AFAIK the link line from CTRL1 to Fawkham Junction will be kept after CTRL2 starts operating. What purpose will it then serve?


----------



## nick_-_taylor

Jean Luc said:


> I think that there are few countries better suited to high speed rail than the U.K., having a number of cities with populations in the millions separated by only a few hundred kilometres - the ideal distance for high speed train service. If France can do it (and presumably afford it) with its' main cities further apart, meaning a) longer travel times (so less advantage over flying), and b) longer lines (more costly), then why can't the U.K.? Are property acquisition and construction costs lower in France than in the U.K.? Less NIMBY-style opposition? Paris to Marseille is a good example of (a) 3 hours via non-stop TGV, and (b) 750 km via the LGV, above.
> 
> 
> Why wasn't the main western line electrified decades ago, like the ECML and WCML were? Isn't it a busy major line like the latter two? Is any of it electrified at present e.g. within daily commuting distance of London? AFAIK there is less electrification in the U.K. than in other comparable European countries. If this is so, why?


Property acquisitions are the main stumbling block, hence the WCML fix by going for tilting Pendolinos - the track route practically stays the same (so no expensive house purchases). The average house in the UK is now around $400,000. Now that itself is a lot of money if you have to pay out insurance to ensure that nothing happens to that property, but you might have to slap a compulsory order to buy it and then demolish it. The result is that you could spend tens of $bns just ensuring you have an alignment before you've actually laid a single km of track, signalling or new trains.

My opinion is that maglev is the way - it is flexible enough to be built along alongside/above/below the WCML (busiest trunk line in the world outside Japan) yet still attain higher speeds than a HSR line which would need a completely new alignment. Britain simply doesn't have the vast space between say Paris and Marseille that France has, so we have to work around it or look to alternative solutions.

The Great Western Main Line while being a busy line (the Reading - London Paddington route is probably one of the most congested in the UK) really ought to have been electrified at least too Bristol - I suspect the reason it didn't was because of the Beeching Axe, where thousands of km and hundreds of stations were closed which saw passenger numbers drop, lower revenues and less money to upgrade the network at a time when most commuter and intercity lines around the world were just beginning to switch the electric running. However the section between London Paddington and the spur line off to London Heathrow Airport is electrified and the diesel trains that run along the entire route are pretty fast - not TGV fast, but fast considering the geography of the route.

The two below maps give an indication of the electrified lines in the UK and around London - unfortunately they do not show every station, or whether there are triple or more lines. Also the London Underground is not visible.


----------



## Bikkel

Jean-Luc;
politics have a lot to do with France's prestigeous projects. Presidents reach immortality by building extravagant musea, huge bridges, libraries etc. The president in France holds a lot of power. Often protest and resistance are simply overruled.

The advantage of TGV tracks away from the cities is that fast city to city connections become a possibility, like direct connections from Brussels to Montpellier that skip Paris.


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> tubeman
> 
> about the DLR what do you like about it or don't like?
> 
> and is DLR feasible to be built here in Miami well we have the Metrorover which is like the DLR but its cool the it serves the area
> 
> well i haven't been to europe neither london so i am sorry about all this i am telling you


The DLR's great, it certainly serves its purpose. I just wish they'd have had a bit more foresight when building it in the 1980's, as now millions are having to be spent lengthening the original platforms to accommodate 3 unit (6 car) trains. I like the way its ever-expanding, its like a huge plant ever-spreading across East London.

Kudos to Serco, they run an efficient railway profitably with enough money to burn for continuous expansion, of course their job is made easier as the line is generally built above ground on brownfield sites so its cheap to build.

My recollection of the Miami system is that its pretty similar to DLR; mainly elevated, it looked pretty sleek.


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> tubeman
> 
> i like the julibee line but i hear about its new and such and also about Crossrail
> 
> what is the best place to view trains i hear its straford is that right


If you want to see lots of mainline trains try somewhere like Clapham Junction, or for sheer variety Stratford would be a good bet.


----------



## Tubeman

Jean Luc said:


> I think that few countries are better suited to high speed rail than the U.K., having a number of cities with populations in the millions separated by only a few hundred kilometres - the ideal distance for high speed train service. If France can do it (and presumably afford it) with its' main cities further apart, meaning a) longer travel times (so less advantage over flying), and b) longer lines (more costly), then why can't the U.K.? Are property acquisition and construction costs lower in France than in the U.K.? Less NIMBY-style opposition? Paris to Marseille is a good example of (a) - 3 hours via non-stop TGV, and (b) - 750 km via the LGV, above.
> 
> 
> Why wasn't the main western line electrified decades ago, like the ECML and WCML were? Isn't it a busy major line like the latter two? Is any of it electrified at present e.g. within daily commuting distance of London? AFAIK there is less electrification in the U.K. than in other comparable European countries. If this is so, why?


I think the issue with France was partly that prior to TGV the railways were shocking, so I suppose there was more impetus. With the country being twice the size of the UK I also suppose that actual time savings on cross-country journies were far greater. I have no idea how long Paris to Marseille would have taken pre-TGV, but I suspect that TGV at least halved that time.

Our intercity trunk routes all operate a pretty decent speeds, the WCML up to 140mph / 225kmh and the ECML and GWR up to 125mph / 200kmh... constructing a new TGV-style route from scratch wouldn't actually save an awful lot in terms of time on a journey like London - Manchester, so from a cost-benefit point of view its a bit extravagant.

The GWR main line is electrified as far as Heathrow Airport Junction, the only two services using electric traction are The Heathrow Express and Heathrow Connect, the latter being a suburban service. All 6 approach tracks into Paddington are 25kv AC electrified though. I suppose the great distances involved with the GWR main line are a bit off-putting: Its not just one main line, its two in effect splitting just west of London (Reading) into the Swindon / Bristol / South Wales route and the line to the South-west. There must be easily 1000km of track to electrify if they electrified London to Penzance and Fishguard. Moreover there's just been a lot of investment in new diesel trains which will have a working life of at least another 20 years.

All excuses, mind. Of course the GWR mainline should be electrified along with the Midland mainline beyond Bedford. Why hasn't it happened? Underfunding under British Rail and subsequently whilst in the private sector. Other European countries seem to have consistently put more value on their railways.


----------



## Tubeman

Jean Luc said:


> Yeah, the Southeast London crawl does seem a bit below par, especially compared to the quick and easy run the Eurostars have out of Paris - on regular rail tracks. It's interesting to note that, in contrast to CTRL2, building high speed lines all the way into cities is actually rarely done in France. The only examples that I can think of are the Paris end of the LGV Atlantique, starting only 2-3 km out of Gare Montparnasse (using a once abandoned railway alignment) and the LGV Nord through Lille (where TGVs and Eurostars travel at much reduced speed). Usually the LGVs start on the outskirts, just beyond built-up areas. In light of this Tubeman, and the fact that you think that CTRL2 is a bit extravagant, would it have been possible to add extra tracks, dedicated to Eurostars, to existing railway lines in London, if only over certain sections, to give them a fast unimpeded run into and out of the city? Would it have been cheaper and allowed a similar travel time, compared to CTRL2? Could it have been done without too much disruption to existing train services and surrounding areas?
> 
> 
> AFAIK the link line from CTRL1 to Fawkham Junction will be kept after CTRL2 starts operating. What purpose will it then serve?


Regarding adding extra tracks alongside the existing Eurostar route, much of it is either on viaduct (e.g. Waterloo - Herne Hill) or in tunnel (e.g. Penge), so it would be hugely expensive / disruptive. The alignment isn't really straight enough to allow decent speeds either.

The link between the CTRL and Fawkham Junction may remain for freight, I don't think any passenger services will use it.


----------



## eusebius

Hmm, pre-TGV France was still pretty good compared to Britain. The PLM was quick. This is not really off-topic but where I live you can see the difference between French and British designs in our parks. The old French, strategic, designs cut straight through the woods whilst British styled landscaping preserved the woods much better. It's France's system of routes, inherited from the Romans perhaps. The old N-ways in France serve as good examples of that. The N1 is almost like a straight line from Paris to Bruxelles. In England the A1 goes a little more zigzag to connect say Selby and Peterborough.


----------



## Jean Luc

Tubeman said:


> Kudos to Serco, they run an efficient railway profitably with enough money to burn for continuous expansion, of course their job is made easier as the line is generally built above ground on brownfield sites so its cheap to build.


Wow, you mean to say that the DLR is sufficiently lucrative to fund upgrades and expansion from profits alone i.e. without any funding from the government? That's a rarity in the world of railways. I thought that the government contributed towards the cost of building expensive additions like the tunnels under the Thames to Lewisham and Woolwich.


----------



## Rational Plan

Jean Luc said:


> Wow, you mean to say that the DLR is sufficiently lucrative to fund upgrades and expansion from profits alone i.e. without any funding from the government? That's a rarity in the world of railways. I thought that the government contributed towards the cost of building expensive additions like the tunnels under the Thames to Lewisham and Woolwich.


I think it does not require any operating subsidy. The DLR has been able to build so quickly, compared to other UK systems is down to a variety of factors. 

The 1st stage of the DLR was built for only £88 million. The docklands area at the time was landlocked inside London, with very poor connections to the surrounding transport network. The improvement of transport infrastructure has helped unlease a flood of development ever since. The pace of change has suprised planners ever since. This has meant that extensions and capacity increases were being planned before the 1st line opened. 

The original vision of Docklands, as an area of small offices and industrial units combined some new low rise housing was swept away when Canary Wharf was proposed. The Jubilee line extension was built to serve this new level of development. Some wondered how badly the DLR's traffic figures would suffer as the Jubilee line served both Stratford and Central London much better than the DLR. But two things helped it grow ever larger.

Housing development recovered after the 1989 slump and as the 90's wore on it became ever more dense and frenetic. The DLR serves residential areas better than the Jubilee line, with its high number of stations close together.
The lewisham extension was built southwards under the river, connecting two important commuter rail stations. The connections drastically shortened commute times for people living in SE london and Kent. 

The lewisham line was important for the DLR in two ways. Not only did it give an important new source of passengers, it dramatically improved its reputation with the Department of Transport. The project was built ahead of time, and slightly under budget. In comparsion the Jubilee line extension was a story of spiralling costs, and substandard signalling system was Kludged together to get the line open for the millenium. This severely damaged London transport reputation. I believe it was the principle reason the PPP was forced on the tube since the Treasury did not trust the tube to manage a big increase in funding itself. 

Since then the DLR has taken the lessons of the Lewisham extensions to heart. All its projects have been for under £200 million (the reason why the London city airport extension and the tunnel extension project to Woolwich was split into two.) and they seem to have been able to keep to budegt and time ever since. 

After the current batch of projects are built they only easy project they have left is an extension to Dageham. A new round of studies has been launched to expand the system further. But no announcements have been made. Probably because any further projects are more technically challenging and a lot more expensive, th ebest example of this is the rumoured extension from Bank into the West End.


----------



## thainotts

Tubeman, you say the WCML operates at 140mph, is the main reason for this speed the track (gauge, lbs/yd, etc) that allows the train to run at such speeds?


----------



## DonQui

Can you describe how the deep tunneled tubes were constructed? Specifically, what type of tunnel boring machines were around at that time, it has always fascinated me that technology in place nearly a century ago to build lines is still being usesd to construct everything from the Channel Tunnel to the current bonanza of expansions in Madrid.

If tunnel boring machines were in fact being employed in London during that time period, how similar/different (in general terms, as I don't know that much abotu them) are they to the current breed of mega-borers?

:?


----------



## Tubeman

DonQui said:


> Can you describe how the deep tunneled tubes were constructed? Specifically, what type of tunnel boring machines were around at that time, it has always fascinated me that technology in place nearly a century ago to build lines is still being usesd to construct everything from the Channel Tunnel to the current bonanza of expansions in Madrid.
> 
> If tunnel boring machines were in fact being employed in London during that time period, how similar/different (in general terms, as I don't know that much abotu them) are they to the current breed of mega-borers?
> 
> :?


We have James Henry Greathead to thank, a South African engineer who moved to London and perfected the 'tunnelling shield' technique with the 'Greathead Shield'.

The first use of a tunnelling shield was on Marc Brunel's Thames Tunnel which today carries the East London Line under The Thames (although it was not built for this purpose). Below is a description of his technique:

_"The mode in which this great excavation was accomplished was by means of a powerful apparatus termed a shield, consisting of twelve great frames, lying close to each other like as many volumes on the shelf of a book-case, and divided into three stages or stories, thus presenting 36 chambers of cells, each for one workman, and open to the rear, but closed in the front with moveable boards. The front was placed against the earth to be removed, and the workman, having removed one board, excavated the earth behind it to the depth directed, and placed the board against the new surface exposed. The board was then in advance of the cell, and was kept in its place by props; and having thus proceeded with all the boards, each cell was advanced by two screws, one at its head and the other at its foot, which, resting against the finished brickwork and turned, impelled it forward into the vacant space. The other set of divisions then advanced. As the miners worked at one end of the cell, so the bricklayers formed at the other the top, sides and bottom." _










In short, at the site of excavation is an ever-advancing 'shield' which supports the newly-excavated tunnel, gives the tunnellers room to work, and allows brickwork to be constructed in its wake.

One of the two Thames Tunnel bores today:










This principle was developed by Greathead, who first experimented by building the 'Tower Subway' which crosses under the Thames just upstream of Tower Bridge. This differed from the Thames Tunnel in that it was circular in profile, as the 'Greathead Shield' used to construct it was an iron cylinder which protected the miners inside at the excavation face. It was advanced using hydraulic rams, and in its wake castiron cylinder segments were bolted into place as opposed to brickwork. This method was used for all of the Tube tunnels from that point onwards until the late 20th Century. The Tower Subway carried a single cable-hauled car carrying a mere 12 passengers, so understandably only lasted 3 months. This was all then removed and the tunnel given over to pedestrians, today the bore carries water mains and telecommunications cables under The Thames.

Inside the Tower Subway car... perhaps children were chosen for the engraving to make it look less packed?!










Although a failure as a railway, the subway was a success as a tunnelling technique, so Greathead then engineered the City & South London Railway from Stockwell to King William Street (now largely part of the Northern Line), opening a staggering 116 years ago and the first deep-level underground electric railway. Numerous more 'Tubes' followed, notably under Charles Tyson Yerkes in the 1900's.

The next, and really final, major development of this technique is the Tunnel Boring Machine, which works along the same principle but with a rotating cutting face instead of a team of miners. Like the earliest shields, they still advance slowly forwards with tunnel walls being built in its wake. Castiron rings have now been replaced by concrete, applied by spraying or 'shotcreting'. Personally I feel a lot safer in a castiron ring than a concrete pipe, but its probably irrational.


----------



## Tubeman

thainotts said:


> Tubeman, you say the WCML operates at 140mph, is the main reason for this speed the track (gauge, lbs/yd, etc) that allows the train to run at such speeds?


The main limit to speeds are curves... The WCML is in places 164 years old, and is simply not engineered for Shinkansen / TGV speeds having been conceived at a time when speeds of 140mph were inconceiveable.

The line has just been upgraded to accommodate 'Pendolino' tilting trains, making great savings on journeys like London to Glasgow, as the 'twistier' sections of the route are found north of Preston where the terrain becomes much hillier.


----------



## ADCS

Hey, Tubeman, great thread. I was absolutely enthralled with the Underground the last two times I was in London, so this thread has been immensely entertaining. My question is this; when I was there, I found the names of the lines to help in remembering routes a great deal. Why do you think many other subway/metro systems have foregone this system? I can understand why New York's system operates as it does, but to me, having to remember a bunch of numbers, or termini is very confusing, and colors are so bland. Thanks a ton for this thread.


----------



## Jean Luc

Tubeman said:


> The main limit to speeds are curves... The WCML is in places 164 years old, and is simply not engineered for Shinkansen / TGV speeds having been conceived at a time when speeds of 140mph were inconceiveable.
> 
> The line has just been upgraded to accommodate 'Pendolino' tilting trains, making great savings on journeys like London to Glasgow, as the 'twistier' sections of the route are found north of Preston where the terrain becomes much hillier.


As a way of increasing speeds and decreasing travel times would realigning the more winding sections of a railway line and bypassing towns and cities enroute be economically viable e.g. on the WCML and ECML?

As long as there is a mixture of fast and slow trains operating on the same tracks TGV-type speeds (300 kph) are impossible.

Tubeman, do you know what is the fastest "conventional", i.e. non-high speed, railway line in the world? I could be wrong but I believe that the Northeast Corridor in the U.S. allows 240 kph (150 mph) over some sections, in Sweden some tracks over which the X2000 tilt-train operates allow 250 kph and the line from Berlin to Hamburg, Germany, was recently upgraded to allow 230 kph. Apparently in France SNCF is planning to upgrade some classic mainlines to allow 240-250 kph.










^^ Cool trains, those Pendilinos. Nice pic. kay:

Thanks.


----------



## Tubeman

ADCS said:


> Hey, Tubeman, great thread. I was absolutely enthralled with the Underground the last two times I was in London, so this thread has been immensely entertaining. My question is this; when I was there, I found the names of the lines to help in remembering routes a great deal. Why do you think many other subway/metro systems have foregone this system? I can understand why New York's system operates as it does, but to me, having to remember a bunch of numbers, or termini is very confusing, and colors are so bland. Thanks a ton for this thread.


Hey, you're most welcome :cheers:

Yes, the line names is one of the many things I love about The Tube that give it its uniqueness. I think one of the main reasons why its not employed elsewhere is its difficult to concoct snappy, relevant names that don't sound stupid, although I'm sure that when people first started using the name 'Bakerloo' it must have sounded pretty daft!

These are the origins of the line names (to my knowledge)

Metropolitan = *Metropolitan* Railway
District = Metropolitan *District* Railway
Circle = Self-explanatory... Was originally the 'Inner *Circle*' service run by the Met & District jointly
East London = *East London* Railway
Hammersmith & City = Only recently coined (1990), links *Hammersmith* with 'The *City*'
Central = *Central* London Railway
Waterloo & City = Links *Waterloo* station with 'The *City*', colloquially called 'The Drain'
Piccadilly = Great Northern, Brompton & *Piccadilly* Railway (quite a mouthful!)
Bakerloo = *Baker* Street & Water*loo* Railway
Victoria = Passes through *Victoria* station
Jubilee = Was under construction during the Queen's Silver *Jubilee* (1977)... opened 1979
Northern = A bit of a hash... formed by amalgamating two separate lines:

Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway (colloquially became 'Hampstead Tube') = Charing Cross branch
+
City & South London Railway = Bank Branch

The 'Northern' name came into use as the newly-formed line began expanding over the Great Northern Railway's 'Northern Heights' branches in the 1930's / 40's... Ironically much of this work was abandoned resulting in the never-realised services to Alexandra Palace, Edgware via Mill Hill and Finsbury Park to East Finchley, and even more ironically the Northern line goes the furthest south in London (Morden).

Many of the names were contractions of the official railway company names coined by passengers and later adopted by Tube bosses... Obviously you're not going to tell someone to get on the "Great Northern, Brompton and Piccadilly Railway mate!"... You can see how the colloquial names rapidly evolved!


----------



## Tubeman

Jean Luc said:


> As a way of increasing speeds and decreasing travel times would realigning the more winding sections of a railway line and bypassing towns and cities enroute be economically viable e.g. on the WCML and ECML?
> 
> As long as there is a mixture of fast and slow trains operating on the same tracks TGV-type speeds (300 kph) are impossible.
> 
> Tubeman, do you know what is the fastest "conventional", i.e. non-high speed, railway line in the world? I could be wrong but I believe that the Northeast Corridor in the U.S. allows 240 kph (150 mph) over some sections, in Sweden some tracks over which the X2000 tilt-train operates allow 250 kph and the line from Berlin to Hamburg, Germany, was recently upgraded to allow 230 kph. Apparently in France SNCF is planning to upgrade some classic mainlines to allow 240-250 kph.


I'm not too sure to be honest, but as you rightly say the maximum permissable speed is pretty academic when the high-speed services are having to dodge slow trains and freight services. The WCML upgrade, as well as higher-spec track, has included quadrupling of sections (e.g. the 'Trent Valley' route skirting northern Birmingham) and remodelling of junctions and stations to eliminate conflicting train paths (e.g. Nuneaton, Stafford, Rugby, Milton Keynes etc).

There are no particularly tight-radius curves south of Preston, the main problem is congestion in the aforementioned areas which is being rectified. North of Preston the line rises up as it passes across the highlands between The Lake District and The Pennines, then between Carlisle and Glasgow it again crosses difficult terrain in the form of the Southern Uplands of Scotland. Of course, with great expense and a series of new tunnels / viaducts I'm sure this route could be straightened, but from a cost-benefit perspective its probably a grotesque waste of money.

The rail time record for London-Glasgow has just been broken thanks to the upgrade and the Pendolinos: 3h55m was set in September for the 640km / 400mile trip, giving an average speed of exactly 100mph / 160kmh. I think this is pretty reasonable, and competitive with air travel considering the time cost of getting to an airport and checking in.

Similarly, the ECML has few curves of any note south of York: the main one was eliminated in the 1940's when Selby was by-passed. Its north of York where the line encounters the Cheviots and Southern Uplands that the going gets much slower, much of the route hugs the Northumberland coastline with dramatic cliffs on one side and hills on the other (a great journey if you ever get the chance)... again it would be hugely expensive to straighten the route. The passage through some towns and cities is very slow too, due to tight radius curves (e.g. York, Durham, Newcastle, Morpeth, Berwick)... but if the line didn't serve these places it would be pretty pointless!


----------



## ADCS

Thanks for the informative answer!:cheers: 

My next question is, how much per mile/kilometer is it to build tube lines? Has it gotten less expensive over time with technology, or do other factors, be it geological or political, raise the price tag?


----------



## Kentigern

Tubeman,

This isn't quite about the tube, but what are your thoughts about a new north-south link? should it follow the WCML or ECML? How fast should it be? 500kph, 300kph, 250kph, less? What option do you think the government will eventually go for? What should they go for? &c., &c.


----------



## Tubeman

ADCS said:


> Thanks for the informative answer!:cheers:
> 
> My next question is, how much per mile/kilometer is it to build tube lines? Has it gotten less expensive over time with technology, or do other factors, be it geological or political, raise the price tag?


When the bulk of the network was built we chucked hoardes of irish navvies underground and paid them a pittance, so construction costs used to be relatively low. These days we're paying contractors very good wages to build lines, and its ridiculously (and bascially prohibitively) expensive.

Even the grossly disruptive 'cut and cover' method employed before the advent of the Greathead shield kept the costs down by aiming for slums and demolishing them... The whole human cesspit that was the Fleet Valley was swept away by the Metropolitan railway, and was probably applauded for doing so at the time.

The Jubilee Line extension ended up costing £4bn for about 6 miles (10 km)

By my crude calculations that's £4,000 per cm!

Granted the stations are quite extravagant... but even so!...


----------



## Bitxofo

Tubeman said:


> Hey, you're most welcome :cheers:
> 
> Yes, the line names is one of the many things I love about The Tube that give it its uniqueness. I think one of the main reasons why its not employed elsewhere is its difficult to concoct snappy, relevant names that don't sound stupid, although I'm sure that when people first started using the name 'Bakerloo' it must have sounded pretty daft!
> 
> These are the origins of the line names (to my knowledge)
> 
> Metropolitan = *Metropolitan* Railway
> District = Metropolitan *District* Railway
> Circle = Self-explanatory... Was originally the 'Inner *Circle*' service run by the Met & District jointly
> East London = *East London* Railway
> Hammersmith & City = Only recently coined (1990), links *Hammersmith* with 'The *City*'
> Central = *Central* London Railway
> Waterloo & City = Links *Waterloo* station with 'The *City*', colloquially called 'The Drain'
> Piccadilly = Great Northern, Brompton & *Piccadilly* Railway (quite a mouthful!)
> Bakerloo = *Baker* Street & Water*loo* Railway
> Victoria = Passes through *Victoria* station
> Jubilee = Was under construction during the Queen's Silver *Jubilee* (1977)... opened 1979
> Northern = A bit of a hash... formed by amalgamating two separate lines:
> 
> Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway (colloquially became 'Hampstead Tube') = Charing Cross branch
> +
> City & South London Railway = Bank Branch
> 
> The 'Northern' name came into use as the newly-formed line began expanding over the Great Northern Railway's 'Northern Heights' branches in the 1930's / 40's... Ironically much of this work was abandoned resulting in the never-realised services to Alexandra Palace, Edgware via Mill Hill and Finsbury Park to East Finchley, and even more ironically the Northern line goes the furthest south in London (Morden).
> 
> Many of the names were contractions of the official railway company names coined by passengers and later adopted by Tube bosses... Obviously you're not going to tell someone to get on the "Great Northern, Brompton and Piccadilly Railway mate!"... You can see how the colloquial names rapidly evolved!


^^Thanks a lot for all this info, mate!
kay:
It is very useful for me.
:happy:


----------



## Tubeman

Kentigern said:


> Tubeman,
> 
> This isn't quite about the tube, but what are your thoughts about a new north-south link? should it follow the WCML or ECML? How fast should it be? 500kph, 300kph, 250kph, less? What option do you think the government will eventually go for? What should they go for? &c., &c.


The faster the better, really!

I think if one line is going to be built between London and Scotland it should be a WCML / ECML hybrid, e.g.:

London - Milton keynes - Birmingham - Manchester - Leeds - Middlesbrough - Newcastle - Edinburgh - Glasgow

I think that's the top 5 biggest population centres on the UK linked on a single line? If I'm allowed a second route I'd have a 'short-cut' route through the Midlands diverging south of Milton keynes calling at Leicester, Nottingham & Sheffield before rejoining the trunk route at Leeds.

Of course, you could add more and more routes like a branch to Liverpool or a line westwards to Reading, Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea or southwest to Exeter and Plymouth... Where do you stop?

If there's funding available for one line only then I stand by my first proposition: a line linking London with Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Glasgow.


----------



## Songoten2554

tubeman

i want to ask something what do you think of the Miami Metrorail and Metromover have you been to Miami before? what did you liked about Miami?

and another thing have you been on the Acela before? is it considered a real high speed train or not? because there are some people saying its not or something like that?


----------



## nick_-_taylor

^^ The problem with the Acela Express is that state railway codes mean that its speed is restricted. It only gets up to top speed for a few miles, but then slows down rapidly on other stretches to commuter-train pace.


----------



## aquablue

Regarding the metal (iron dust) that people breath in, are there any plans to filter the dust out better? I.E, collectors, vacums, etc..

I heard the tube is bad for metal dust. The northern line is the worst for dust, why is this? Why isn't anything being done about the dust? Why do the public just accept it? Are they all sheep?

i heard some people need to wear masks on the tube, especially some people on the internet (tube challenger) is this common?

Do newer trains reduce the dust produced? If so, why is the northern line so bad for dust given its newish trains?

Isn't it irresponsible to do nothing about the dust problem?

Do you know people who have developed lung problems from the dust.

When are the picadilly trains being upgraded?


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> tubeman
> 
> i want to ask something what do you think of the Miami Metrorail and Metromover have you been to Miami before? what did you liked about Miami?
> 
> and another thing have you been on the Acela before? is it considered a real high speed train or not? because there are some people saying its not or something like that?


I only saw the Miami elevated metro system from a car, I didn't ride on it.

I only passed through Miami really, spent a couple of night at South Beach en route to Key West. South Beach was pretty cool, I liked the Cuban flavour and the art deco hotels... a bit noisy at night though! I barely set foot in Miami proper.

I've not been on Acela either... as Nick says its nowhere near in the Shinkansen / TGV league in terms of high speed. In fact, it probably lags behind the ECML or even Midland or Great Western mainlines in terms of average speed.


----------



## Audiomuse

Tubeman said:


> The Tube is in the region of 5-10C warmer than street level I believe, meaning when we get 35C+ in the summer (increasingly common) temperatures on some deep-level lines (the Victoria and Bakerloo are especially hot) could exceed 45C and extremely humid.
> 
> I also seem to recall being told that for every 2 minutes a packed Tube carriage is stationary underground the temperature rises by 1C, meaning a 10-minute delay on a hot day could send temperatures in the 50's Celcius!
> 
> The new SSR fleet of trains (S Stock) will have A/C, running on the District, Hammermsith & City, Circle and Metropolitan Lines. This is possible as the routes were originally built for steam trains and so there are vents for heat to escape the tunnels. This also means these are currently the least hot lines (but still stifling on a hot summer's day, so its welcome regardless). Experiments are being carried out for a new groundwater air cooling system for the deep-level tube stations (groundwater is around 19C), but the trains can't get A/C as there's nowhere for the exhaust heat to vent.
> 
> King's Cross is being hugely redeveloped in connection with the opening of the Eurostar terminal and new Thameslink platforms at St Pancras next Summer. The huge new ticket hall / concourse has opened (one of them) with more to follow, and the tatty and gloomy platforms on the subsurface and tube lines are all getting a major facelift. It'll be an amazing interchange when its finished.



Thanks for the info!
:cheers:


----------



## ignoramus

Tubeman said:


> When the bulk of the network was built we chucked hoardes of irish navvies underground and paid them a pittance, so construction costs used to be relatively low. These days we're paying contractors very good wages to build lines, and its ridiculously (and bascially prohibitively) expensive.
> 
> Even the grossly disruptive 'cut and cover' method employed before the advent of the Greathead shield kept the costs down by aiming for slums and demolishing them... The whole human cesspit that was the Fleet Valley was swept away by the Metropolitan railway, and was probably applauded for doing so at the time.
> 
> The Jubilee Line extension ended up costing £4bn for about 6 miles (10 km)
> 
> By my crude calculations that's £4,000 per cm!
> 
> Granted the stations are quite extravagant... but even so!...


Oh god that translates to about 12 (4 times 3) billion Singapore Dollars for a 10km extension. For the same length of underground rail here, it would cost around 2.3 billion Singapore Dollars. And the network in Singapore still grows at a relatively slow pace even at this price. ITS AMAZING THE LONDON NETWORK STILL GREW AND GREW AND GREW and didn't rot away due to lack of funding etc! Great JoB Transport For London.

And great website as well. Very very informative, updated everytime something new happens... I liked it a lot.


----------



## aquablue

Tubeman, please see my post about tube dust - a few posts back. Thx


----------



## Songoten2554

so the acela is not as fast as i thought it would be i don't know why doesn't the united states gets its act together and start to build a new high speed rail line or simply upgraded an exsting line and make it faster


----------



## DarJoLe

I've never seen anyone on the Tube with a mask. I've never noticed a dust problem. Us Brits don't tend to worry about small things like that.


----------



## aquablue

There are rather too many news articles on dust in the tube....but apparantly its not too much of a concern. Still, I'd hope that they would be doing something to reduce the dust as much as possible as the dust could be toxic.
There is a fellow who uses a mask, search him on the web.


----------



## aquablue

Acela is 135 max - DC-NYC
NYC-BOS -- max 150mph for short section -- held up at slow speeds because it travels on metro north commuter tracks.


----------



## aquablue

I'd think that a maglev will be built soon as the democrats regain controll.


----------



## Justme

aquablue said:


> Regarding the metal (iron dust) that people breath in, are there any plans to filter the dust out better? I.E, collectors, vacums, etc..
> 
> I heard the tube is bad for metal dust. The northern line is the worst for dust, why is this? Why isn't anything being done about the dust? Why do the public just accept it? Are they all sheep?
> 
> i heard some people need to wear masks on the tube, especially some people on the internet (tube challenger) is this common?
> 
> Do newer trains reduce the dust produced? If so, why is the northern line so bad for dust given its newish trains?
> 
> Isn't it irresponsible to do nothing about the dust problem?
> 
> Do you know people who have developed lung problems from the dust.
> 
> When are the picadilly trains being upgraded?


One of the problems with the media is that they often over-hype situations. Fear sells papers quite simply. Essentially, this fear of dust on the underground started by a study from the University College of London which suggested the dust maybe harmful to passengers in 2003. Apparently at the time, the mobile dust vacuum train that clears up the dust was not operational.

In 2005 a study was done by the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh, and concluded that the dust levels was not high enough to pose any serious health risks. The safe occupational welding fume exposure level is set at 5000 ìg/m3 and workers on the London Underground could expect to be exposed to maximum levels of 200 ìg/m3 over an 8 hour shift. Commuters using the Underground for two hours every day would boost their particulate matter levels by 17 ìg/m3 over 24 hours.

Here are a couple of links to this study.
Link 1

Link 2

If you are still worried do a google search for the complete finding. I know it's publicly available on the internet somewhere in PDF form.

In reality though, the pollution at street level is far more of concern. Don't let the media hype suck you in


----------



## Tubeman

aquablue said:


> Regarding the metal (iron dust) that people breath in, are there any plans to filter the dust out better? I.E, collectors, vacums, etc..
> 
> I heard the tube is bad for metal dust. The northern line is the worst for dust, why is this? Why isn't anything being done about the dust? Why do the public just accept it? Are they all sheep?
> 
> i heard some people need to wear masks on the tube, especially some people on the internet (tube challenger) is this common?
> 
> Do newer trains reduce the dust produced? If so, why is the northern line so bad for dust given its newish trains?
> 
> Isn't it irresponsible to do nothing about the dust problem?
> 
> Do you know people who have developed lung problems from the dust.
> 
> When are the picadilly trains being upgraded?


The dust is mostly the result of friction brakes (i.e. brake pads applying pressure to wheels) and thus is a combination of minute fragments of steel and the resin brake blocks are manufactured with. All trains built since the late 1960's have the majority of inertia removed using a Rheostatic or 'Rheo' brake, the basic principle being that the opposite electromagnetic forces are applied to axles by the motors to when forward movement is desired, thus reducing speed without any actual friction. This means that the amounts of dust produced by trains built after the late 1960's is far less than from earlier trains.

Today only one pure friction brake stock survives, the Metropolitan / East London Lines' A Stock. The last stock prior to that to be withdrawn that was 100% friction braked was the Northern Line's 1959 Stock (which had a few ex-Central Line 1962 stocks mixed in). These took their bow only 6 years ago in 2000, and the Northern Line is still waiting for the dust to settle so to speak. I remember from my days as a Guard on the back of '59s' the constant bluish haze on the Northern Line and the way that at the end of each day black dust would be deposited in every crease in your face and clothing (made worse by the fact our uniform shirts were white then). The dust levels are diminishing but still noticeably higher than other lines.

I remember when the first 1995 stocks were being introduced we tried to run a vacuum train through the Northern Line tunnels to try to clear out the buildup of tunnel dust (over 100 year's worth) and it broke down after a few hundred metres because it was dislodging so much dust. It was decided to leave the dust to cake onto the tunnel walls rather than dislodge any more.

Also bear in mind the lack of aeration on the Northern Line: its 28km of continuous tunnel from Morden to East Finchley via Bank with a further loop of tunnel attached via Charing Cross and the Edgware Branch to Golders Green... well over 40km of twin tunnels with only three openings to the outside world. It will take decades for the loose dust to be blown out.

I have never seen any customers wearing a mask, some drivers choose to but even this is rare with only a handful doing so. Its not hazardous, and the air quality is actually better in terms of harmful pollutants like Ozone, Carbon Monoxide and Sulphur Dioxide than at street level.

The only long-term health problems I've ever known afflict drivers that could be attributed to their job is RSI in wrists / elbows / shoulders, the only people I have ever known suffer from lung problems were smokers.

The Piccadilly Line will probably receive new 'Movia' trains built by Bombardier, the current 1973 Stock were only refurbished 6 years ago and I think look very smart.

'Movia' Prototype under construction at Derby:



















They will be introduced 2009-2011 on the Victoria Line, and by 2019 on the Bakerloo Line... Not too sure about the Piccadilly Line


----------



## aquablue

Thanks. However, there really should be more effort to clean up that dust on the northern line. Maybe they should have more than 1 dust trains.


----------



## Tubeman

aquablue said:


> Thanks. However, there really should be more effort to clean up that dust on the northern line. Maybe they should have more than 1 dust trains.


Yes but as I've already alluded to, they cause more problems than they solve as they dislodge previously well-caked dust.

In my opinion the best way of solving the issue would be to spray some form of bonding agent onto the tunnel lining to firmly glue loose dust particles. Modern trains generate little dust, they just blow around dust produced by trains years ago.


----------



## fishcatdogbird

Hi Tubeman,

Ever since i have lived in London all the delays pretty much seem to be signal failure... where can i find what the most common signal failure is, and what exactly is it? Is it loss of power, broken wires? I don’t remember ever hearing on other systems around the world about signal failure i.e. New York, Paris or hometowns Sydney and Melbourne... I understand London’s system is very old but surely they have upgraded signal systems over the years, and particularly on the newer lines i.e. Jubilee, why does this still have signal failure? Am i being skeptical or is signal failure just a broad term for something is wrong.


----------



## Capzilla

^^ Come to think of it, not one single signal failure on the Northern Line while I visited for Halloween weekend. And for some reason Camden Town could be used to embark as well, that's not supposed to happen on Sundays is it? (had to use the stairs though, should definitely do that more often, I'm still young.)


----------



## Tubeman

fishcatdogbird said:


> Hi Tubeman,
> 
> Ever since i have lived in London all the delays pretty much seem to be signal failure... where can i find what the most common signal failure is, and what exactly is it? Is it loss of power, broken wires? I don’t remember ever hearing on other systems around the world about signal failure i.e. New York, Paris or hometowns Sydney and Melbourne... I understand London’s system is very old but surely they have upgraded signal systems over the years, and particularly on the newer lines i.e. Jubilee, why does this still have signal failure? Am i being skeptical or is signal failure just a broad term for something is wrong.


There's a post by me buried in the deepest recesses of this thread explaining the principles of signalling and the cause of signal failures, but the search function aint working so I can't dig it out for you... ...oh well, here goes!...

Firstly, I'll describe the difference between running rails and current rails... it should be pretty obvious I hope! LUL use a 4-rail system with the two running rails and 2 current rails. They are easily distinguished as the current rails are higher, supported by white porcelain 'pots', and have a wider, duller top surface. One (the negative) is dead centre between the two lower, shinier running rails, the other (the positive) lies on the outside of one of the running rails (switching sides usually so they're furthest from the platforms).










The lower, shinier running rails are what the wheels run on. You must hear the 'clackety clack' noise from the wheels of trains? Many of these are simple expansion joints between rail sections, but others (making more complex 'rhythms') are so-called 'Insulated Block Joints' (IBJs). These are sections of plastic separating rail sections into electrically isolated sections of track, each a so-called 'Track Circuit' or 'Signal Track Circuit'. Through the running rails of each section flows a small current of 5-10V which when uninterrupted maintains the signal to the rear at green. When anything interrupts this circuit, the signal to the rear defaults to red (i.e. it 'fails safe').

An insulated Block Joint (IBJ)










By far the commonest reason for the track circuit to be interrupted and the signal to the rear to return to red is a train running through the section; the metal wheels and axle short-circuit the section. As soon as the last set of wheels pass across the IBJ at the end of the section, the circuit becomes complete again and the signal turns green to the rear, essentially proving the section no longer has a train in it.

However, other than an actual train, the section can also give a false indication of a train's presence if the circuit is broken: commonest reasons are a broken rail, flooding (causing an earth), a conductive object bridging an IBJ (often as simple as a foil sweet wrapper), or a metal object contacting both a running rail and a current rail causing an arc of high-voltage electricity to enter the low-voltage track circuit, blowing the track fuses (fuses on the track circuit designed exactly for this eventuality).

Any of these instances will cause the signal to the rear of the section to return to red even without a train in the section, and this is a 'Signal Failure': a signal showing danger even when there is no train ahead.

Once it is established to be a failure, each train must speak to the signal operator and be authorised past the signal in turn until the failure is resolved. This causes such a delay on LUL as each train when passing a red signal is restricted to 'slow speed' mode (no more than 5mph) for 3 minutes afterwards. This is the mechanism which stops trains from colliding even if a driver passes a red signal and decides to continue regardless, its basically the result of a stringent saftey feature. 

Here is a red signal, with the ATP (Automatic Train Protection) system raised: The 'Trainstop'... this contacts a lever on the leading bogie of the train called a 'Tripcock', which automatically applies the brakes. Like everything, it fails safe, and is held down with air pressure. If the air supply fails the trainstop springs up and the signal returns to red, this is another cause of a signal failure (air supply failure to the trainstop)... the unique indication of this is that the signal will display a red and green aspect at the same time ('Dual Aspect'):










Closer view of a trainstop:










The tripcock on the train (small lever pointing downwards by joint in rails):










...And when the Tripcock and Trainstop are united...










Each train is then greatly delayed: they stop at the failing signal, speak to the signal operator, receive authority, proceed past the red signal (which stops the train automatically), re-sets the stopping mechanism (called a tripcock), overrides the block on forward movement caused by this, then proceeds at 5mph (i.e. walking pace) for 3 minutes afterwards. If trains normally run every 2 minutes, you can appreciate how quickly a huge backlog of trains builds up behind the failure.

So, when you hear of a signal failure it is excatly that, but sadly due to the age of some of our signalling equipment we're probably more prone to it than most networks.


----------



## Justme

Brilliant description Tubeman! Thanks.


----------



## fishcatdogbird

Great, thanks so much for the excellent pictures and description A+++. I was wondering since problems can happen rather easily could there be a different system implemented. I always wondered if you could put tracking devices in trains cabins that literally send out a signal via radio waves, you then have the tube tunnels networked as such which receive the signal and send the details back to "base" for processing... Base can then send signals to different parts of the line i.e. red stop, green go full speed, yellow 1/2 speed etc... Could something like this work, or has it been tried on other systems either around the UK or world?

Cheers 
FCDB


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

Tubeman said:


> Absolutely, I've walked through both myself
> 
> They're hardly busy thoroughfares these days (Greenwich is now paralleled by the DLR between Island Gardens and Cutty Sark stations and Woolwich runs below the Woolwich free ferry) but they are very much still in operation.
> 
> Do any other cities have such long pedestrian tunnels as these?


Probably Paris got such long pedestrian tunnels: this is a long walkway at Montparnasse 










In Milan I think longer is this one at Rho-Fiera wich brings to new exhibition centre 










This one is from Naples metro


----------



## Songoten2554

Tubeman

i know this is getting off topic but are you going to see the New 007 movie Casino Royale and if you did can you tell me how was it like and if i should go see it and who was better Pirece Bronson or Daniel Creig?

another thing ummm what is your Favortie Station in london Underground and National Rail?

also what is the Overground and what will it do to london?

and have you rode on the Crydon Tramlink and what you think of the expansions and how is it like?


----------



## Nicux

I remember a very long pasillo in Barcelona's metro. There was no air and it was so hot!! 
I think it was a connection between Lìnia 2 and another one!


----------



## sweek

Why are those nice little displays on the Uxbridge line simply saying "Metropolitan and Piccadilly trains", and not telling you how many more minutes it will be until the next train arrives? It seems to work along other stations of both the Met and the Pic, so I'm not sure why it wouldn't work around here?


----------



## Bitxofo

Nicux said:


> I remember a very long pasillo in Barcelona's metro. There was no air and it was so hot!!
> I think it was a connection between Lìnia 2 and another one!


PASSEiG DE GRÀCiA station, transfer corridor between lines 3 and 4/2.

It is more than 200 metres long, but it has been renovated recently and now it's less hot and it has got a better ventilation.
:wink2:


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> Brilliant description Tubeman! Thanks.


You're very welcome, I hope it made sense!


----------



## Tubeman

fishcatdogbird said:


> Great, thanks so much for the excellent pictures and description A+++. I was wondering since problems can happen rather easily could there be a different system implemented. I always wondered if you could put tracking devices in trains cabins that literally send out a signal via radio waves, you then have the tube tunnels networked as such which receive the signal and send the details back to "base" for processing... Base can then send signals to different parts of the line i.e. red stop, green go full speed, yellow 1/2 speed etc... Could something like this work, or has it been tried on other systems either around the UK or world?
> 
> Cheers
> FCDB


Yes, what you're describing is called 'Moving Block'... Its going to be installed on the Jubilee then Northern Lines (and ultimately I presume the rest of the network still using the traditional Trainstop/Tripcock ATP [Automatic train protection] system from Westinghouse described above).

The two LUL lines not using the old Westinghouse system are the Victoria and Central: The Victoria has been ATO (Automatic train operation) since its inception in the 1960's, very advanced for its day, and the Central went ATO about 5 years ago. The Victoria Line still uses its original ATO system; the track is still separated into isolated track circuits, but instead of being a simple circuit controlling a signal to its rear, electrical impulses of various frequencies are transmitted to the train via the track circuits. The frequency varies depending on how close the train is to the one in front, and on approaches to platforms. I'm not too well versed with the system, but that's the jist of it. I know even less about the Central Line system, but assumedly its a fair bit more modern than the Victoria Line being over 30 years newer.

The modern vogue is pretty much as you describe, using radio signals and transponders... I think this is how very high-speed routes like TGV and Shinkansen are signalled.


----------



## fishcatdogbird

^ Ace, always a pleasure reading your responses, thanks for your help/time! I wish i could just go to the future say approx 50 years to see what the London underground would be like, and if it changes drastically... only time will tell LOL... 

Thanks again!

FCDB


----------



## Nicux

bitxofo said:


> PASSEiG DE GRÀCiA station, transfer corridor between lines 3 and 4/2.
> 
> It is more than 200 metres long, but it has been renovated recently and now it's less hot and it has got a better ventilation.
> :wink2:


Pues si! I remember walking through it with three bags from the SUPERMERCAT "El Corte Inglés" ...it was not very easy in July!


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> Why are those nice little displays on the Uxbridge line simply saying "Metropolitan and Piccadilly trains", and not telling you how many more minutes it will be until the next train arrives? It seems to work along other stations of both the Met and the Pic, so I'm not sure why it wouldn't work around here?


Train Descriptions ('TDs') which give rise to the information on the dot matrices depend on the signal track circuits I just mentioned. When an approaching train enters a section, for example 5 minutes from where you are, its destination and the fact its 5 minutes away is transmitted to the dot matrix on your platform.

The trouble with Uxbridge is that no-one waiting there cares when the next arrival is, as its the terminus, they only care about departures. Therefore you could be told that a train is 5 minutes away if you really want, but the information is pointless as it gives you no idea when that train will subsequently depart.

Are you with me?


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> Tubeman
> 
> i know this is getting off topic but are you going to see the New 007 movie Casino Royale and if you did can you tell me how was it like and if i should go see it and who was better Pirece Bronson or Daniel Creig?
> 
> another thing ummm what is your Favortie Station in london Underground and National Rail?
> 
> also what is the Overground and what will it do to london?
> 
> and have you rode on the Crydon Tramlink and what you think of the expansions and how is it like?


No I haven't seen Casino Royale, and the best Bond was Roger Moore!

My favourite station is where I work, Earl's Court:










The 'Overground' is just a re-branding of the Silverlink metro mainline rail franchise which runs a collection of orbital lines around London (North London Line, West London Line, GOBLIN [Gospel Oak to Barking]). Transport for London (TFL) have assumed control of the franchise and will amalgamate the network with the East London Line once extended. They are looking to provide more trains, more frequent services, and new service patterns. Once the East London Line extension opens in 2010 there will be an unbroken 'Outer Circle' of mainline tracks encircling Inner London such that we could see 2 Circle Lines (the current LUL one and an outer 'Overground' one).

Yes I have been on the Croydon Tramlink, its an interesting concept. Most of its route miles are built on abandoned mainline track beds, switching to street running through the town centre of Croydon. Its far faster and more frequent than the mainline service it replaced (West Croydon to Wimbledon), and provides many other destinations besides this route, including the sizeable town of New Addington with its first ever mass transit / rail link. There's plenty of scope for expansion, I believe a link to the other major town centre on the southern edge of London (Sutton) is on the cards.


----------



## sweek

By Uxbridge line I meant the stations from Uxbridge to Rayners Lane by the way. The displays are up at Ruislip, Ruislip Gardens, Eastcote and I think Rayners Lane as well.


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> By Uxbridge line I meant the stations from Uxbridge to Rayners Lane by the way. The displays are up at Ruislip, Ruislip Gardens, Eastcote and I think Rayners Lane as well.


Oh ok I thought you were talking about only Uxbridge... In that case I don't know. Have they never shown destinations / waiting times? It seems a bit odd that dot matrices would have been installed if there wasn't the data to display on them.


----------



## Songoten2554

Tubeman

Earl Court seems busy is it a Underground station or also the National Rail?


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> Tubeman
> 
> Earl Court seems busy is it a Underground station or also the National Rail?


Just London Underground: 4 District Line platforms upstairs (pictured) and 2 Piccadilly Line platforms downstairs. Well over 100 trains per hour pass through the station during the peaks:

Olympia <> High Street Kensington: 4 tph each way
Edgware Road <> Wimbledon: 8 tph each way
Wimbledon <> Upminster: 8 tph each way
Richmond <> Upminster: 8 tph each way
Ealing Broadway <> Tower Hill: 8 tph each way
Piccadilly Line: 25 tph each way

Mainline trains did terminate here for a time (The London & North-western railway used to run an Earl's Court to Willesden Junction service) and main line freight workings used to pass through en route to the goods yard at High Street Kensington.


----------



## Justme

Keeping this great thread going...

I was in London twice in the last couple of weeks, and yesterday I had to use the DLR to get to City Airport. Now, I know why the underground is such a bumpy ride, hell, it's an old system and I can forgive it. But why is the DLR so bumpy? Even the brand new route to City Aiprort rattles around like it's making a milkshake.


----------



## fishcatdogbird

^ i always thought the same thing, some parts it throws people around...


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> Keeping this great thread going...
> 
> I was in London twice in the last couple of weeks, and yesterday I had to use the DLR to get to City Airport. Now, I know why the underground is such a bumpy ride, hell, it's an old system and I can forgive it. But why is the DLR so bumpy? Even the brand new route to City Aiprort rattles around like it's making a milkshake.


Its quite cheaply engineered, lots of steep gradients and very tight radius curves, plus the trains hare around at a fair old speed. Its also probably not helped by the fact that rails are embedded in concrete as opposed to sleepers resting on ballast, so there's less 'give'.


----------



## fishcatdogbird

Hi Tubeman, what was the vandalism which occured on the Central line yesterday? I have looked online and cant find anything, just interested to see what it was and whats been done to stop it from happening again?


----------



## sarflonlad

Tubeman... 

Recently the Northern and Jubilee lines have had new stock. However no allowance has been made for the fact human beings, on average, have gotten taller (and wider!) since the underground's inception. 

Do you invisage the introduction of trains with smaller wheels and thus lower floors or the rebuilding on some lines entirely within say the next 50 years? I do recall that part of what is now the northern line had its tunnel rings replaced (donkeys ago) to accomodate bigger trains in the new combined south london and city railway... therefore it seems that technically bigger trains could run on the tube lines. (i mean its joke when you look at how much height space they have in NY, Paris or Tokyo).


----------



## city_thing

Tubeman, will you please marry me? :lol:


----------



## Tubeman

city_thing said:


> Tubeman, will you please marry me? :lol:


Sorry, already spoken for


----------



## Tubeman

fishcatdogbird said:


> Hi Tubeman, what was the vandalism which occured on the Central line yesterday? I have looked online and cant find anything, just interested to see what it was and whats been done to stop it from happening again?


Not too sure... I had a driving trip day before yesterday and I had to non-stop Mile End whilst the Central Line was suspended due to a London Fire Brigade investigation... May have been a spot of arson or something?


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> Tubeman...
> 
> Recently the Northern and Jubilee lines have had new stock. However no allowance has been made for the fact human beings, on average, have gotten taller (and wider!) since the underground's inception.
> 
> Do you invisage the introduction of trains with smaller wheels and thus lower floors or the rebuilding on some lines entirely within say the next 50 years? I do recall that part of what is now the northern line had its tunnel rings replaced (donkeys ago) to accomodate bigger trains in the new combined south london and city railway... therefore it seems that technically bigger trains could run on the tube lines. (i mean its joke when you look at how much height space they have in NY, Paris or Tokyo).


Ideally Tube tunnels would be large enough to accommodate full-height trains with an emergency walkway alongside the train, but these weren't considerations 100 years ago. The 'Space Train' (smaller wheels = lower floors = taller carriages) concept could work, but all of the motor and other equipment located below the floor would need to be greatly miniaturised to allow this, plus platforms would need to be lowered so its not a cheap option.

The original section of the City & South London railway was indeed closed for 2 years and expanded in diameter (1922-1924 I think) to bring it in line with the Yerkes Tube tunnels diameter, it was a lengthy process of expanding each ring section by excavating around it and inserting and additional section, you can see why it took 2 years.

The way I see it, although not ideal, the dimensions of the Tube tunnels have served a purpose well for over 100 years, and are a marvel of space-efficiency. of course if a line were built from scratch today no-one would think for a second of building such small tunnels, but that's the benefit of hindsight.

I very much doubt any of the present 'Tubes' will ever be expanded in diameter, the cost both financially and in terms of disruption would be simply unimaginable.


----------



## chris.haynes

i would like to see the Northern Line extended east from Kennington to Lewisham, calling at: 
Peckham Rye -> Camberwell -> New Cross (with links to New Cross Gate) -> Lewisham


----------



## thainotts

Tubeman, are Arsenal still in the title race?


----------



## Tubeman

chris.haynes said:


> i would like to see the Northern Line extended east from Kennington to Lewisham, calling at:
> Peckham Rye -> Camberwell -> New Cross (with links to New Cross Gate) -> Lewisham


I'd have thought Camberwell would come before Peckham Rye, unless there was a torturous s-bend.

Personally, I feel the Camberwell / Peckham area would be better served by an extension of the Bakerloo Line from Elephant & Castle, calling at Walworth Road (at the junction with East Street Market), Camberwell (on the north side of the green) and then Peckham Rye. It could conceiveably continue South-eastwards towards Nunhead, Brockley, Lewisham, Hither Green and Grove Park and then take over the Bromley North branch from Network Rail, giving Bromley a Tube service and taking over a peripheral backwater from the Southeastern franchise.

Alternatively it could continue east from Peckham Rye to Nunhead, then taking over the line calling at Crofton park, Catford, Bellingham, Beckenham Hill and Ravensbourne, an interchange at Shortlands before diving into a tunnel under central Bromley, rising at Bromley North to take over the Bromley North branch and terminating at Grove Park

My vision of a Northern Line extension from Kennington involves a splitting of the line into two parts: Mordern > High Barnet / Mill Hill East via Bank and then Edgware to Kennington via Charing Cross then continuing south as follows:

Kennington > Angell Town* > Brixton > Brixton Hill* > Streatham Hill > Streatham > Norbury > Thornton Heath Pond* > West Croydon > East Croydon

*New stations

...then possibly south to Purley then taking over the Caterham and / or Tattenham Corner branches from Network Rail

The line basically follows the A23 road across South London, it would provide a wealth of interchanges with existing NR routes and provide an important link between major centres of South London.


----------



## Tubeman

thainotts said:


> Tubeman, are Arsenal still in the title race?


I like to think so... We overcame a bigger points defeceit in 1997/98 to win the title... We have not played badly once this season (except perhaps Manchester City away) and have already disposed of supposedly unstoppable Manchester United away. I'll tell you for sure after Che$ki and Manure play next weekend and we play Chel$ki in a couple of weeks... I'm hoping for Che$ki to beat manure and then we beat Chel$ki to close the gap to 10 points and us with a game in hand... a potential and not unsurmountable 7 point difference with Man Utd yet to visit Emirates... If we win that like we won at Old Trafford we could be talking about only a 4 point gap.


----------



## Songoten2554

Tubeman

i think london has many diverse Transportation modes is it like tokyo in that its very diverse in a way

i heared now that they changed the Channel Tunnel Rail Link to High Speed 1

do you think that there will be High Speed Rail in the UK outside of High Speed 1 Uk will be like Europe and Asia awsome :rock:


----------



## Tubeman

Click here for the beginning of this thread 



elfabyanos said:


> Book?












London Railway Atlas (on Amazon)

On my publisher's website


----------



## Tubeman

Smarty said:


> Congrats on the publicity for your book.
> 
> Any idea why the first branch of the ELL extension to get done is the one to Croydon - wouldn't it be more sensible to do the one to Clapham Jn first as that's more important surely from a strategic point of view.


Thanks 

I'm also frontpage news on the TFL Tube website

Granted, ELLE Phase 2 is more strategically important... I think the only reason why Phase 1 to West Croydon / Crystal Palace will come first is because its easier: All it requires is the connection to be re-established between the current ELL and NR at New Cross Gate, with the only engineering of any note being a flyover to carry the northbound track from the Up Slow road across the Brighton mainlines to the east side where the ELL platforms are.

Phase 2 requires the relaying of the abandoned line from Surrey Quays to Queens Road Peckham. Again, not a massive undertaking as the trackbed is still intact, but a longer stretch of track nevertheless. It also involves the construction of a new station at Surrey Canal Road.


----------



## elfabyanos

Spotted a metro in the launderette last night and took a ganders - good luck with the book - when it goes platinum are you going to be hosting a party?
(Do books go platinum?)

Is the northern bit off the ell going to be on shared track or is the old four track going to be reinstated and national rail and ell segregated? As in on the north london line section will freight and other trains be using the same actual tracks as the 'overground' trains?


----------



## legslikeaspider

Tubeman, I salute you. This is a wonderfully informative thread. Apologies if you have already been asked this, but have you considered going on mastermind?


----------



## Justme

Great stuff Tubeman. Thanks for posting the article (I presume the TFL article is the same as the metro newspaper one).

Pity we have to wait until you retire before you do a South East version! Anyway, I still enjoy going over my copy of the book. Brilliant stuff mate!


----------



## Tubeman

elfabyanos said:


> Is the northern bit off the ell going to be on shared track or is the old four track going to be reinstated and national rail and ell segregated? As in on the north london line section will freight and other trains be using the same actual tracks as the 'overground' trains?


Just double track. Don't be misled into thinking that the ELLE will see Mainline _and_ Underground services sharing the same track: When the extension opens the entire ELL will essentially become part of the National Rail network, but governed by TFL (like the Silverlink services). Its part of a wider strategy by TFL to better integrate local London Mainline services into the wider transport network.

The station site at Haggerston only every had a single island platform with the other pair of lines non-stopping, so it would not be possible to have 4 tracks and all trains serving Haggerston. The same applies to Hoxton, the station site is not the same as the original Shoreditch station so at the location of the future station the viaduct is the width of 4 tracks and nothing more, i.e. 4 tracks could not be reinstated without leaving no room for the platforms.


----------



## Tubeman

legslikeaspider said:


> Tubeman, I salute you. This is a wonderfully informative thread. Apologies if you have already been asked this, but have you considered going on mastermind?


Is Mastermind still going? I saw a godawful kiddies' mastermind a few months back full of pretentious brats, but I thought the 'proper' version was no more.

Something I might consider... They'd probably just be testing me on my book though!


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> Great stuff Tubeman. Thanks for posting the article (I presume the TFL article is the same as the metro newspaper one).
> 
> Pity we have to wait until you retire before you do a South East version! Anyway, I still enjoy going over my copy of the book. Brilliant stuff mate!


Thanks fella


----------



## Songoten2554

Tubeman

awsome book where did you get it at?

and well how is the docklands light railway and how is the london city airport and if you have pics or stuffs and i don't know if i asked you this before

and do you drink so that we can hang out in a pub do you go to a pub?

it must be big being a manager at a train station?

oh and have you been to the london eye and how is it?

sorry man its just too many questions


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> Tubeman
> 
> awsome book where did you get it at?


Try Amazon although I don't know if they send to the US



Songoten2554 said:


> and well how is the docklands light railway and how is the london city airport and if you have pics or stuffs and i don't know if i asked you this before


The DLR serves a purpose, but it has always felt very 'toytown' to me, with very sharp curves, steep gradients and tiddly trains. I've seen a load of good photos of the City Airport / King george V extension on someone's personal photo site, I'll see if I can find it.



Songoten2554 said:


> and do you drink so that we can hang out in a pub do you go to a pub?


Being a bit forward, aren't we?  ...I'd never say no to a drink, mind (unless on duty of course!)



Songoten2554 said:


> it must be big being a manager at a train station?


Its hard work, but I love it. Its my vocation 



Songoten2554 said:


> oh and have you been to the london eye and how is it?
> 
> sorry man its just too many questions


The London Eye is excellent, if a little pricey. The view is incomparable at the moment.


----------



## mrstar

Hello Mr Tube.

One of my Piccadilly line cars spoke to me today! The on-board station announcements are excellent if a little loud. Can you tell me when this service will be rolled out?

Also, at peak times...how many people can a train on the Piccadilly line hold?

Merci!


----------



## sweek

Hello!

What kind of difference is the Connect system going to make for an average passenger like me? Is it going to increase reliability, and have there already been effects on the District line? (and ELL/Circle, but I guess you don't know as much about that one)


----------



## Tubeman

mrstar said:


> Hello Mr Tube.
> 
> One of my Piccadilly line cars spoke to me today! The on-board station announcements are excellent if a little loud. Can you tell me when this service will be rolled out?
> 
> Also, at peak times...how many people can a train on the Piccadilly line hold?
> 
> Merci!


Yes I've started to notice it in the past 2 weeks or so, along with correct 'next station' information rolling across the in-car dot matrices. These sort of modifications are usually done at the rate of a few trains per week, so expect the full 1973 Stock fleet to be upgraded within a few months.

I think a peak Piccadilly Line service would be somewhere in the region of 1,200 customers, if you sardine-pack it maybe 1,500.


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> Hello!
> 
> What kind of difference is the Connect system going to make for an average passenger like me? Is it going to increase reliability, and have there already been effects on the District line? (and ELL/Circle, but I guess you don't know as much about that one)


I'm just about to go out on the piss, I'll answer you tomorrow


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> Hello!
> 
> What kind of difference is the Connect system going to make for an average passenger like me? Is it going to increase reliability, and have there already been effects on the District line? (and ELL/Circle, but I guess you don't know as much about that one)


The main difference should be quicker / safer resolution of operational problems / incidents and faster service recovery from them.

As ludicrous as it may sound, when the District Line went 'up the wall' in the past, Service Control did not know where the trains were. They relied on the 'Box Sheets' of the Barking and Whitechapel signal cabins being faxed through which gave the running order of trains, but these would confuse the Earl's Court signallers as there would be additional trains mixed in with the running order due to reversing points at Tower Hill and Mansion House (plus trains coming down from High Street Kensington and Edgware Road). Therefore every train that arrived would result in a phonecall downstairs to us to confirm the train number, by which time the wrong signal might already have been lowered which takes 2 minutes to reset ('taking a release'). Therefore the more disrupted the service got, the slower and slower it would run through Earl's Court: the service sometimes going into complete meltdown (late running between 1 and 2 hours was not uncommon).

Connect allows positive identification of each train's location, which has a number of benefits:

- 'Reformation' of the service can be better planned (I have already described this, if you want me to explain what it is again please ask)

- As a Duty Manager I can immediately assess if a 'Short Meal Relief' (when a driver gets off their first train late and doesn't have enough time before their second train for 30 minute minimum meal relief) will have an opertional impact: i.e. before, if a driver got off late, I'd have to start planning for covering their second train with a 'Spare'... now I can check to see if their second train is also late (likely), therefore giving the driver long enough 'grub'. I can even tell them when to come downstairs, as I can predict what time their next train will actually arrive.

- Quicker running through Earl's Court, fewer wrong signals lowered at junctions

Connect also now gives us crystal-clear communication. As a Duty Manager I had no way of calling up a driver 'on the road' before, the Service Controllers alone had access to the crappy 'Legacy' Train Radio system (which was poor quality and riddled with dead spots). Now I can call any driver at any time on either their train radio or their personal issue radio to pass / receive information. Everyone can talk to everyone else either privately 1-to-1 or publicly (Group Call). This means that incidents are handled quicker and more safely as unambiguous information can be passed between staff members and everyone is always accessible.

For instance on Friday night we had a 'One under' at Bromley-By-Bow literally just as I walked through the door at 21:00. In many ways it was like a double 'One under' as in addition to the incident train (Eastbound) the driver of a Westbound train saw the person going under the wheels and was greatly traumatised. I was able to call her up and stay in contact with her throughout, talking her through what I wanted her to do. Everyone involved in the incident was able to talk to everyone else: the Service Manager, Service Controllers, Signallers, Station Staff, Duty Managers, the Train Operators. Before, especially in tunnel sections, this would have been virtually impossible.

We were suspended between 21:00 and 22:30, making some trains 1.5 hours late. As Service Control could tell where all the trains were, service recovery was much faster and ultimately the Last trains 2 hours later all ran practically on time (only around 5 minutes late), which in turn allowed current to be switched off on time and maintenance work was not delayed (with no consequent risk of a morning over-run of works).

So things still can and will go wrong on the District Line, 'Connect' won't prevent people jumping uder trains etc, but what it does facilitate is quicker and safer resolution of incidents and faster service recovery after them.


----------



## Tubeman

PS My head hurts and my fingers smell of kebab :cheers: :crazy:


----------



## mrstar

Ahoy Tubeman!

Ahem a few questions..sorry!

Was Northen Heights part of the London Underground or National Rail?

Is there any new news on Holloway Road being upgraded? I'm getting sick of walking to Caledonian Road during every Arsenal Home match!

We all know that Covent Garden to Leicester Sqaure is the shortest tube journey but how much shorter is it compared to Charing Cross to Embankment?

Which stations on the Picidilly line can act as a terminus? For example, Coulda train run from Cockfosters to Holborn?

Why will Heathrow's T5's staff be BAA staff and not London Underground?

York Way! When is it opening up again!?


Even if you just answer 1 it would be great!


----------



## Acemcbuller

*Making use of the floor*

Hi Tubeman

Very interesting thread, thanks for answering all the questions.

I think LU should make more use of the floor in stations and trains, to influence/aid passengers' in addition to signs and announcements.

I know you work on the train side but I have some specific ideas to share:

*Floor of trains aisles: *
Arrows pointing to the centre along with "Move down inside" signs.

*Floor of trains by the next to the seats nearest the double doors:*
"Please stay next to your luggage"
- to reduce the number of bags that appear to be left worryingly unattended.

*Escalator steps:*
Arrows on the left and footprints on the right
- to remind tourists to only stand on the right.

*Floor of interchange station concourses:*
Coloured lines/arrows corresponding to the underground line colours, that lead to the platforms of that line.
- to provide a continuous reassurance and reduce the number of people stopping in mid flow to read signs.

*Floor of busy steps and corridors (especially blind corners):*
'Lanes' and direction arrows to show which side people should keep to.

This one is my favourite. I think it would make a real difference to the flow of people around stations.
There are many examples where you have to dodge people walking against/across the flow, or bump into people as you both round a corner. The signs on the wall just are not effective enough and often you need to set up the flow a lot earlier than the specific problem spot.
If the floor was marked with arrows on each side of the corridor/stairs in the most suitable direction, people would be inclined to follow the guidance. Psychologically you would feel uncomfortable walking the opposite way to the arrows.

Ok this will not work in some places, because the nature of the flow varies but I think it would help in lots of areas.

Similarly 'box junctions' in areas that need to be kept clear, and no entry floor signs on one way corridors would be useful.


My last idea is not for the tube but I'll say it anyway. I think there should be a fast lane at mainline stations. For example on the concourse at Waterloo there should be a 'runway' painted on the floor running the length of the concourse, across all the platform entrances. People standing waiting must be keep off of the runway. This means that people can dash along the along it to catch their train, instead of trying weave pass everyone.

What do you think?
Do you know what work LU does to address these kind of crowd control and behavior problems?

James


----------



## Tubeman

mrstar said:


> Ahoy Tubeman!
> 
> Ahem a few questions..sorry!
> 
> Was Northen Heights part of the London Underground or National Rail?


The Northern heights were built by two independent mainline companies but operated by the Great Northern Railway (ex-King's Cross) from the outset. They would have then been transferred to the LNER (London & North-eastern Railway) during 'grouping'. I'm not too sure exactly when ownership of East Finchley to High Barnet / Mill Hill East was tranferred to London Transport, Northern Line services commenced between 1940 and 41. Freight trains remained throughout the High Barnet Branch and beyond Mill Hill East to the original (now closed) Edgware station well into the 1960's, so I'm not actually sure if it was a case of mainline freights running on LT property or vice versa.

I assume that after the LT services commenced to High Barnet and Mill Hill East the remaining part of the 'Northern Heights' (Finsbury park to Alexandra Palace) became part of British railways in 1947, although certainly work had already begun to convert this section to LT as well, so I don't know if or when ownership was ever transferred. I'd like to find out actually... who owns the trackbed ('Parkland Walk'). The very last use of the East Finchley to Finsbury Park section was until 1970, when battery locos were being used to propel stock transfers between Highgate Wood Depot and the Northern City Line (as electrification was abandoned)... so tantalisingly there are images of Tube trains trundling through Crouch End and Stroud Green stations, although not under their own power.



mrstar said:


> Is there any new news on Holloway Road being upgraded? I'm getting sick of walking to Caledonian Road during every Arsenal Home match!


Pass. Fortunately I can just walk home from matches, I do feel sorry for the thousands of people queuing for Highbury & Islington though! The only upgrade that would render Holloway Road open for matches would be a bank of escalators, and I can only assume fitting escalators into a traditional yerkes lifts-only station would be a nightmare.



mrstar said:


> We all know that Covent Garden to Leicester Sqaure is the shortest tube journey but how much shorter is it compared to Charing Cross to Embankment?


Not much; a few metres here or there. Both pairs of stations can validly claim being the 'closest'. Covent garden and Leicester Square are the closest between platforms, Charing Cross and Embankment are the closest between station entrances.



mrstar said:


> Which stations on the Picidilly line can act as a terminus? For example, Coulda train run from Cockfosters to Holborn?


To the best of my knowledge:

Oakwood
Arnos Grove
Wood Green
King's Cross
Green Park
Hyde Park Corner
Barons Court
Hammersmith
Acton Town
Northfields
Hatton Cross
Ealing Common
South Harrow
Rayners Lane
Ruislip

...So a train couldn't run from Cockfosters to Holborn, it would either have to reverse at King's Cross or Green Park.



mrstar said:


> Why will Heathrow's T5's staff be BAA staff and not London Underground?


I didn't know this, but if they are its probably because BAA funded the T5 extension



mrstar said:


> York Way! When is it opening up again!?


Its not definite, but if it does it won't be until the King's Cross railway lands redevelopment gets underway.


----------



## Tubeman

Acemcbuller said:


> Hi Tubeman
> 
> Very interesting thread, thanks for answering all the questions.
> 
> I think LU should make more use of the floor in stations and trains, to influence/aid passengers' in addition to signs and announcements.
> 
> I know you work on the train side but I have some specific ideas to share:
> 
> *Floor of trains aisles: *
> Arrows pointing to the centre along with "Move down inside" signs.
> 
> *Floor of trains by the next to the seats nearest the double doors:*
> "Please stay next to your luggage"
> - to reduce the number of bags that appear to be left worryingly unattended.
> 
> *Escalator steps:*
> Arrows on the left and footprints on the right
> - to remind tourists to only stand on the right.
> 
> *Floor of interchange station concourses:*
> Coloured lines/arrows corresponding to the underground line colours, that lead to the platforms of that line.
> - to provide a continuous reassurance and reduce the number of people stopping in mid flow to read signs.
> 
> *Floor of busy steps and corridors (especially blind corners):*
> 'Lanes' and direction arrows to show which side people should keep to.
> 
> This one is my favourite. I think it would make a real difference to the flow of people around stations.
> There are many examples where you have to dodge people walking against/across the flow, or bump into people as you both round a corner. The signs on the wall just are not effective enough and often you need to set up the flow a lot earlier than the specific problem spot.
> If the floor was marked with arrows on each side of the corridor/stairs in the most suitable direction, people would be inclined to follow the guidance. Psychologically you would feel uncomfortable walking the opposite way to the arrows.
> 
> Ok this will not work in some places, because the nature of the flow varies but I think it would help in lots of areas.
> 
> Similarly 'box junctions' in areas that need to be kept clear, and no entry floor signs on one way corridors would be useful.
> 
> 
> My last idea is not for the tube but I'll say it anyway. I think there should be a fast lane at mainline stations. For example on the concourse at Waterloo there should be a 'runway' painted on the floor running the length of the concourse, across all the platform entrances. People standing waiting must be keep off of the runway. This means that people can dash along the along it to catch their train, instead of trying weave pass everyone.
> 
> What do you think?
> Do you know what work LU does to address these kind of crowd control and behavior problems?
> 
> James


Hi there James 

Excellent ideas, I think they are both practical and potentially of great benefit. I had too thought of 'fast walking lanes' and the footprints / arrows painted on escalator steps to show where to stand / walk. Perhaps the only issue with the latter is that any markings might get quickly worn off?

There are yellow box junctions... there's one on Holborn Piccadilly South / West bound platform around where the Central Line passageway joins the platform, but everyone seems to ignore it though. I suppose that unless you're a car driver the markings are pretty meaningless.


----------



## UnitedPakistan

Ohh dear thats going to cost us a disgusting shitload of money to build.:nuts: 

This is what happens when you have morons in charge that want to build such projects just to boast about them.

Thanks...All that information was informative and appreciated...


----------



## Tubeman

UnitedPakistan said:


> Ohh dear thats going to cost us a disgusting shitload of money to build.:nuts:
> 
> This is what happens when you have morons in charge that want to build such projects just to boast about them.
> 
> Thanks...All that information was informative and appreciated...


Well I personally believe any investment in high-speed rail is money well spent. In a country like Pakistan it will boost economic development and prevent the exponential growth in carbon emissions when every household has the means to buy a car. As I said, I very much doubt the HST route there will cost as much as the extravagant costs incurred building TGV or CTRL.

My Pakistani geography isn't brilliant, but is Islamabad - Lahore essentially straight along the central, flat, Indus valley of Central Pakistan? If so the topography would be pretty favourable.


----------



## CharlieP

My question for Tubeman - where did you get those tights?

http://www.elfyourself.com/?userid=ff2029f0b7d28fbe537b5f2G06121916


----------



## Acemcbuller

Hi Tubeman

How come the Waterloo and City line still needs so much engineering work after being closed for several months to supposedly get it all done in one hit?
And what do think of that "closed due to dust" incident a while ago on the same line?

James


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> My question for Tubeman - where did you get those tights?
> 
> http://www.elfyourself.com/?userid=ff2029f0b7d28fbe537b5f2G06121916


I borrowed them off you, silly


----------



## Tubeman

Acemcbuller said:


> Hi Tubeman
> 
> How come the Waterloo and City line still needs so much engineering work after being closed for several months to supposedly get it all done in one hit?
> And what do think of that "closed due to dust" incident a while ago on the same line?
> 
> James


I don't really know the undercurrent of calamities behind the Waterloo & City Line upgrade... You certainly would have thought that after being closed for several months that would be it in terms of closures for some time, so the subsequent nightly / weekend closures are baffling.

The dust incident sounds like Trade Union Health & Safety Reps getting their pants in a twist... On such a small line all it takes is one Rep on duty to decide that there's too much dust who can in turn persuade the other 5 or so drivers not to pick up, and the line's closed. Signal sighting was the excuse... of course it could have been an impenetrable haze of dust down there, but I doubt it was that bad. It might also be a political move by TFL to discredit Metronet even further as the dust was 'their' fault, not ours.


----------



## thainotts

Hey Tubeman,

Merry Christmas.


----------



## ignoramus

Maybe this has been asked before numerous times but why is there NO SERVICE on ANY LU line on Christmas Day. LU serves the whole of London but is there really no commuter traffic in London on Christmas Day?


----------



## Accura4Matalan

In the UK, only the very bare essentials operate on Christmas Day, and even they are operating at the smallest possible capacity.


----------



## Tubeman

ignoramus said:


> Maybe this has been asked before numerous times but why is there NO SERVICE on ANY LU line on Christmas Day. LU serves the whole of London but is there really no commuter traffic in London on Christmas Day?


Think of the poor staff! We have run on Christmas day in the past and the services were pathetically under-used so scrapped. Its nice to just have at least one day a year where we are all off work!

National Rail shuts down for Boxing Day too... considering I'm in work tomorrow that's quite an attractive proposition


----------



## Genç

Tubeman! 

Merry Christmas.  

Do you know anything in particular about what sort of upgrades will be made in Cockfosters station? Apparently rennovation works will continue until May next year, but it seems to me that some parts have been made even worse!

Just wondering what to expect for the near-future. 

Thanks in advance. kay:


----------



## Tubeman

Genç said:


> Tubeman!
> 
> Merry Christmas.
> 
> Do you know anything in particular about what sort of upgrades will be made in Cockfosters station? Apparently rennovation works will continue until May next year, but it seems to me that some parts have been made even worse!
> 
> Just wondering what to expect for the near-future.
> 
> Thanks in advance. kay:



I'm not aware of any specifics, but as Cockfosters is a good example of Inter-War London Transport architecture I doubt it will be anything less than a pretty faithful restoration. In the short term it might look pretty nasty as old concrete is drilled out etc, but I'm fairly certain the end result will be better than how it looked before. I presume it will also be getting made DDA compliant (i.e. step-free), which can cause some fairly drastic internal changes.


----------



## Genç

Ah, you mean a step-free entrance? I thought that too, and it seemed the case since each stairway was closed for "rennovations" which claimed to aid those with sight difficulties or something, but when finished it was just lighter in color, and *such* a poor quality surface finish compared to before!

Anyway, I guess it's not really that big a deal.

Moving on, are there any interior shots of the carriages from the previous page? I like the new design.


----------



## lasdun

RE Tram Schemes..

As nonsencicle as it sounds, it appears that the Cross River Tram Scheme will not actualy use the Kingsway tram tunnel, it will rather run on the road above the abandoned tunnel... No, I don't understand either...


----------



## Tubeman

lasdun said:


> RE Tram Schemes..
> 
> As nonsencicle as it sounds, it appears that the Cross River Tram Scheme will not actualy use the Kingsway tram tunnel, it will rather run on the road above the abandoned tunnel... No, I don't understand either...


The southern end of the tram tunnel is now occupied by a road, so this probably explains why its now effectively useless for CrossRiver trams. Shame


----------



## Tubeman

Genç said:


> Moving on, are there any interior shots of the carriages from the previous page? I like the new design.


There sure are, just follow this link.


----------



## Songoten2554

yo tubeman merry christmas

so the Cross River Tram will work or not and where will it run i mean its interesting london is coming back with trams thats cool


----------



## Genç

Tubeman said:


> There sure are, just follow this link.


Thanks!  

It looks pretty modern and clean inside, although not very different, it must be said.

I don't know why, but recently I've just found myself becoming more and more interested in the Tube network. (I always have been, but never really did much research into it)

Was just looking at some articles on Wikipedia, and learnt so many new things. 

One question about the piccadilly line Heathrow extension: Will an airport-bound train always stop at all five terminals; or will it be a case of either T4 or T5 as the final stop?

--

Also! Just read that the S-Stock trains from '09 onwards will have air-conditioning! Awesome.


----------



## e605

I am in the Railway Industry too. 
I work in the Belgrano Norte line in Buenos Aires.


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> yo tubeman merry christmas
> 
> so the Cross River Tram will work or not and where will it run i mean its interesting london is coming back with trams thats cool


Yes, I'm positive about this: the tram's first foray back into Central London in 50 years;










http://www.lrta.org/london-Xriver.html

It certainly could work and work well: it will give some very deprived areas of South London (Walworth, Peckham, Brixton, Stockwell, Elephant & Castle) a quick, convenient link into Waterloo and Central London, and provide a very useful link between King's Cross St Pancras and Waterloo termini when there is currently no direct Tube route (I spent a couple weeks sampling life at King's Cross a couple of years ago for career development and you wouldn't believe how often you get asked how to get to Waterloo... and its complicated!). I think the crux of it is segregated street running, so it shouldn't be held hostage by London traffic.

Merry Christmas to you too!


----------



## Blindfold

Tubeman, off topic sure but where did you go in Australia? Any pic thread you are gonna start? PM if you want.


----------



## sarflonlad

Will the district line ever be looped from Richmond to Wimbledon via the SWT tracks providing the tube to Twickenham, Strawberry Hill, Teddington, New Malden, Raynes Park etc?

This was mooted by councillors in the Borough of Richmond and Kingston a few years ago... seems like a good idea to me - pretty cheap also id imagine.


----------



## Monkey

Is the Tube on course this year to beat the 976 million pax pa record set in 2004/5?


----------



## Tubeman

Blindfold said:


> Tubeman, off topic sure but where did you go in Australia? Any pic thread you are gonna start? PM if you want.


This time: Sydney (Partner's got 2 brothers there), Brisbane and Heron Island

On my 2 previous trips I've taken in Cairns (x2), Sydney (x2), Melbourne (x2), Alice Springs (+Red Centre), Perth, Lizard Island, Daintree rainforest (x2) and Live-aboard diving on the GBR.

I'll post pics when I can be arsed, there's millions of them!


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> Will the district line ever be looped from Richmond to Wimbledon via the SWT tracks providing the tube to Twickenham, Strawberry Hill, Teddington, New Malden, Raynes Park etc?
> 
> This was mooted by councillors in the Borough of Richmond and Kingston a few years ago... seems like a good idea to me - pretty cheap also id imagine.


Never say never, but probably no time soon.

TFL want to assume control of all of London's suburban rail (they're already starting to with Silverlink), so I forsee a future where there is much more connectivity between the SSR lines and suburban rail. Personally, I'd aim to convert all of the LUL lines to 3rd rail 750V DC (like the suburban lines) and re-establish connections before perhaps experimenting with different services.

The Richmond - Wimbledon via Kingston continuation of the District Line is a good example of the sort of service which could be laid on very easily. Other services could be an extension of the Olympia service north to Willesden Junction and beyond to Watford Junction, or from West Brompton south to Clapham Junction and beyond to Balham, Streatham etc via a new connection there.

If dual-electrified stock like the Silverlink or First capital connect trains are used then route options could be expanded yet further: Beyond Ealing Broadway to Heathrow or Windsor, or alternatively by re-establishing a connection at Royal Oak on the H&C line. C2C trains could run fast to a re-established Campbell Road junction (Bow) before joining the District line through the City.

There are so many exciting options which could be easily achieved if the SSR network and suburban lines became more compatible.


----------



## Tubeman

Monkey said:


> Is the Tube on course this year to beat the 976 million pax pa record set in 2004/5?


Apparently so


----------



## Monkey

^ kay:


----------



## Smarty

Don't want this to get on page 2.

Tubeman - which lines are the most congested and which ones have most capacity ? I'd guess Northern for most congested and East London for least.


----------



## sweek

Victoria is way more congested than the Northern, even though the Northern has more passengers. The Victoria line is much shorter and doesn't have many stations, but is very crowded. And yes, the East London is the least congested one, for now, which will probably change once the extensions are in place.


----------



## thainotts

^^ How do you measure congestion? Same as for population density?


----------



## sweek

thainotts said:


> ^^ How do you measure congestion? Same as for population density?


Number of passengers on the line split by the number of stations says a lot. The Victoria has a very high frequency, but so, so many trains are still very packed.

In a way it's "too good", with long distances between the stations and cross-platform transfers, and all but one station being an interchange.


----------



## Tubeman

Smarty said:


> Don't want this to get on page 2.
> 
> Tubeman - which lines are the most congested and which ones have most capacity ? I'd guess Northern for most congested and East London for least.


I suppose its debateable... Congestion should really be measured in terms of passengers per car per hour, so I suspect that a tiny line like the Waterloo & City could be considered pretty congested despite not carrying anywhere near as many passengers as larger lines.

The Northern Line carries the most passengers per day (around 700,000 I think?) but this doesn't necessarily make it the most congested... Its a matter of how these passengers are distributed across the line and during the day. I seem to recall seeing a tube map a very long time ago with the most heavily used stretches highlighted, I think Victoria to Green park on the Victoria Line and Bank to Liverpool Street on the Central Line are the two 'worst'.

In terms of capacity I'd say probably the Central Line section between North Acton and Leytonstone, as every train is 8 cars and with the modern ATO/ATP systems theoretically a higher frequency is possible than lines with traditional signalling, I don't think this capacity is fully exploited however. The Victoria Line probably does the best job of combining potential capacity with actual usage of it though, although I have noticed anecdotally that peak services seem to be more frequent on the Piccadilly Line than on the Victoria Line, possibly due to availability of rolling stock.


----------



## Tubeman

Monkey said:


> Is the Tube on course this year to beat the 976 million pax pa record set in 2004/5?


Apparently we just recorded our first 4 million+ day, so I presume we're well on course to smash the 1 billion / year record.


----------



## Minato ku

Per average passengers per station, Victoria line is the busiest Tube line.  

4 million+ a day :applause: not bad. When it was ? a special day or a normal workday ?
_One million more and Tube will beat Paris metro_ (indeed per average worday) :runaway: 
It is sure Tube will smash the billion.

An other question. It will be a real record for the Tube or the record after the WWII like Paris metro ?


----------



## sweek

The TfL website also has these interesting statistics on the busiest sections...

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/using/useful-info/busiest-lines.asp


----------



## HasanB

Are there any plans to replace the trains on the district line? is so then by when, cos the trains on there were fairly poor....especially the ones that are completely white from the outside and have this wooden sort of flooring from the inside...i was quite surprised to see this stock still being used. The other type of train used on this line is the one which sports the normal red and white paint job...these ones are not so bad. 

so yeah, any plans to update this line to bring it on par with say...the northern line for example?


----------



## sweek

S-Stock will replace the current district line trains, and indeed the trains on all the other surface lines except for the East London Line.
This will happen between 2009 and 2015, starting with the Metropolitan.










http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_S_Stock
http://www.metronetrail.com/default.asp?sID=1088068912937 for pictures


----------



## Gag Halfrunt

HasanB said:


> Are there any plans to replace the trains on the district line? is so then by when, cos the trains on there were fairly poor....especially the ones that are completely white from the outside and have this wooden sort of flooring from the inside...i was quite surprised to see this stock still being used. The other type of train used on this line is the one which sports the normal red and white paint job...these ones are not so bad.


Both those types are in fact D Stock; it's just that some (the painted ones) have been refurbished.


----------



## Tubeman

HasanB said:


> Are there any plans to replace the trains on the district line? is so then by when, cos the trains on there were fairly poor....especially the ones that are completely white from the outside and have this wooden sort of flooring from the inside...i was quite surprised to see this stock still being used. The other type of train used on this line is the one which sports the normal red and white paint job...these ones are not so bad.
> 
> so yeah, any plans to update this line to bring it on par with say...the northern line for example?


Unless you're talking about the C Stock (Edgware Road to Wimbledon service) then you're actually talking about the same trains, the D78 fleet is roughly halfway through the process of refurbishment, so half have unpainted aluminium bodies and wooden floors and the other half are painted in corportate livery, have door chimes and dot matrix displays as well as vinyl flooring.

They will all be replaced by S Stock in 20?? (take you pick!) as already mentioned. The unreliable C Stocks will go first from the District Line (following the ancient early-1960's A Stock from the Metropolitan Line), with the by then fully refurbished fleet of D Stocks going last. I reckon they'll be with us for another 10 years at least... bloody good thing too; they're the most reliable trains on LUL.

Unrefurbished D78 Stock at Olympia (early 1980's vintage)










Interior;










Refurb:










Interior;










Side by side at Richmond;










The other District Line stock, the C69 / C77 stock (built in two batches in the 1970's), refurbished in the early 1990's;










Distinguished from D Stocks through having double sets of doors as opposed to the single-leaf doors of the D Stock


----------



## Tubeman

minato ku said:


> Per average passengers per station, Victoria line is the busiest Tube line.
> 
> 4 million+ a day :applause: not bad. When it was ? a special day or a normal workday ?
> _One million more and Tube will beat Paris metro_ (indeed per average worday) :runaway:
> It is sure Tube will smash the billion.
> 
> An other question. It will be a real record for the Tube or the record after the WWII like Paris metro ?


A normal workday a couple of weeks ago I believe

I think its a real record too, the Tube was very heavily used in the 1930's (capacity was higher than it is now on many lines) but don't forget in the 1930's there was no Victoria or Jubilee lines and many other lines were shorter (e.g. the Central Line was only Wood Lane to Bank).


----------



## Minato ku

Thank you  

It because
In 2005 Paris metro was 1,375 million passengers The number of 2006 break the 2005 number but we don't have data yet.
It is the highest number since the end of 1940's.
The record for Paris metro was in 1946 with 1,598 million pax.

New Tube train will have LCD screen ?


----------



## jetsetwilly

It's great that the Tube is getting investment, and new trains and so on, but... I love the wooden floored District Line trains. Sad to see them vinyl'd over...


----------



## Tubeman

minato ku said:


> Thank you
> 
> It because
> In 2005 Paris metro was 1,375 million passengers The number of 2006 break the 2005 number but we don't have data yet.
> It is the highest number since the end of 1940's.
> The record for Paris metro was in 1946 with 1,598 million pax.
> 
> New Tube train will have LCD screen ?


Well I suppose that graphically illustrates the difference in the two cities' fortunes during WW2: 1946 probably saw one of the lowest London riderships and at the same time Paris' highest!

Ridership figures are probably quite poor comparisons between cities I suppose, as they record individual journies so it follows that a city with a higher density of closely-spaced stations like Paris will see more short hop journies within the city whereas London will see fewer, but longer, journies. I wonder what the comparison would be like if expressed in terms of passenger km / year?

I'm unsure if the S Stock will boast LCD screens, but I wouldn't be surprised as many newer buses have them. They're a complete waste of money in my opinion, though... all I ever see on the bus ones is CCTV footage from inside the bus or bus driver recruitment adverts. Scrolling dot matrices are present on the Northern, Jubilee, Piccadilly and now D Stock refurb trains and to be honest give all the necessary information for the hard of hearing / those listening to music. Showing live footage of CCTV from within the car may well be a good deterrent against antisocial behaviour, though... so LCDs may have their uses.


----------



## Tubeman

jetsetwilly said:


> It's great that the Tube is getting investment, and new trains and so on, but... I love the wooden floored District Line trains. Sad to see them vinyl'd over...


Yes 2 features of 'old' underground trains which will soon disappear with the D Stock refurb, the wooden flooring and the grab straps (for want of a better name)... the curious plastic balls on the ends of springs which have been removed to make impromptu offensive weapons for decades (dangling from the car roof).










I have one hived away along with a full set of 1959 Stock keys (Driver's and Guard's), and other memorabilia such as old Duty books from the Northern Line and my old name badges and ties.


----------



## Minato ku

It is right 
Paris bus are not as competive than London bus 
It is 1.7 billion passenger for London bus and 1 billion for RATP bus (Only 400 million within Inner Paris) 

I calculated Porte d'Orleans at Denfert rochereau in bus and in subway.

Bus 4 stops 1.5 km : 15 min at 1 hour in rush hours. frequency : all 5 min but always in late because the traffic :bash: 
Metro 4 stations 1.5 km : 5 min frequency : every 90s

Thats why metro is more competive than bus.
but bus have some aventage 
These are more recent (less than 5 years for bus but 40 years for this line of subway) It has air conditioned and it is wheel chairs friendly.


----------



## Songoten2554

yo Tubeman welcome back i want to know something??

i find it werid but i don't know if this is true or not that they say Seven Tunnel can't be electrifyed or something is it true or not why isn't the whole great western main line electrifyed???


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> yo Tubeman welcome back i want to know something??
> 
> i find it werid but i don't know if this is true or not that they say Seven Tunnel can't be electrifyed or something is it true or not why isn't the whole great western main line electrifyed???


I've not heard that, but it may well be true... perhaps the clearance above trains is too small to fit in the OLE (overhead line equipment) through the Severn Tunnel? This in turn would make full 25kv AC electrification of the GWR main line impossible as the Severn Tunnel is an integral part of it (being the sole direct link between England and South Wales). Perhaps the Paddington to Wales trains could remain diesel while the other arms of the GWR main line (into The West Country, Devon and Cornwall) could be electrified? This would at least reduce the amount of diesel fumes in Brunel's magnificent Paddington station, which i think seriously detracts from it.

The main issue with this is the stunning stretch of railway between Exeter and Plymouth: it skirts the sea for miles, often taking a battering with huge waves during storms... I don't think 25kv AC OLE and seawater would mix very well!

Impromptu train wash as Dawlish, Devon:


----------



## Tubeman

minato ku said:


> It is right
> Paris bus are not as competive than London bus
> It is 1.7 billion passenger for London bus and 1 billion for RATP bus (Only 400 million within Inner Paris)
> 
> I calculated Porte d'Orleans at Denfert rochereau in bus and in subway.
> 
> Bus 4 stops 1.5 km : 15 min at 1 hour in rush hours. frequency : all 5 min but always in late because the traffic :bash:
> Metro 4 stations 1.5 km : 5 min frequency : every 90s
> 
> Thats why metro is more competive than bus.
> but bus have some aventage
> These are more recent (less than 5 years for bus but 40 years for this line of subway) It has air conditioned and it is wheel chairs friendly.


I wish our new buses were A/C 

We spend billions on new Mercedes 'bendy' buses (which I'm sure would be built with A/C as standard), and yet they have no A/C... a false economy if ever I saw one. You can't even open up loads of windows like you could on the routemaster.

I would say the in Central London the buses perform some of the functions of the Metro in Paris, i.e. short hops, as the Tube stations are generally far more widely spaced than Paris' Metro stations. I have no idea how bus usership is being accurately measured any more, as the 'Bendy' buses are dubbed 'The Free Bus' and the majority of passengers do not touch in with their Oyster cards (if they even have them). For this reason I'm sure the usership of buses is being grossly under-measured now.


----------



## Minato ku

Tubeman said:


> the majority of passengers do not touch in with their Oyster cards (if they even have them). For this reason I'm sure the usership of buses is being grossly under-measured now.


We have the same problem with Navigo card (Contactless card) and Orange card can't be composted. 
It is less frequent now RATP are reforced controls.


----------



## Tubeman

You should see the stampede off 'Bendies' when the inspectors get on... I've literally seen a packed bus become empty in a matter of seconds before!


----------



## HasanB

Tubeman said:


> Unless you're talking about the C Stock (Edgware Road to Wimbledon service) then you're actually talking about the same trains, the D78 fleet is roughly halfway through the process of refurbishment, so half have unpainted aluminium bodies and wooden floors and the other half are painted in corportate livery, have door chimes and dot matrix displays as well as vinyl flooring.
> 
> They will all be replaced by S Stock in 20?? (take you pick!) as already mentioned. The unreliable C Stocks will go first from the District Line (following the ancient early-1960's A Stock from the Metropolitan Line), with the by then fully refurbished fleet of D Stocks going last. I reckon they'll be with us for another 10 years at least... bloody good thing too; they're the most reliable trains on LUL.


Cheers for the info there, the refurbed trains were of a pretty good standard i felt. Interesting point you make about the D stock being the most reliable trains, cos i had the 'pleasure' of having to get to kings cross from elm park right in the middle of the travel chaos caused by the snowfall in london recently...The district line seemed to be pretty much the only line which had good service on that day. 

So i ended up getting stranded at aldgate east, before deciding to go onto monument and take the northern line from bank to kings cross, i just got there in the nick of time aswell. Anyway the S stock is looking quite impressive there.


----------



## Songoten2554

tubeman

you mean that there will be no electrified tracks on the Great Western Main Line but if they can they can put it up to a city that diesals or Bio dieasl can take over or something like that where do you think it can go and where it can be electrifyed at if you can put up pics or something that you think where it can, videos are good too

and Paddington is it a good station or not?


----------



## Tubeman

HasanB said:


> Cheers for the info there, the refurbed trains were of a pretty good standard i felt. Interesting point you make about the D stock being the most reliable trains, cos i had the 'pleasure' of having to get to kings cross from elm park right in the middle of the travel chaos caused by the snowfall in london recently...The district line seemed to be pretty much the only line which had good service on that day.
> 
> So i ended up getting stranded at aldgate east, before deciding to go onto monument and take the northern line from bank to kings cross, i just got there in the nick of time aswell. Anyway the S stock is looking quite impressive there.


Yeah I was on duty that day and happily sat there watching the entire network fall to bits except the District Line... It made a pleasant change 

To be honest it was more because the heaviest snowfall was across North-west and North London, so the Metropolitan, Central, Piccadilly, Northern, and Jubilee lines bore the brunt of the disruption.


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> tubeman
> 
> you mean that there will be no electrified tracks on the Great Western Main Line but if they can they can put it up to a city that diesals or Bio dieasl can take over or something like that where do you think it can go and where it can be electrifyed at if you can put up pics or something that you think where it can, videos are good too
> 
> and Paddington is it a good station or not?


The Great Western mainline could certainly be electrified beyond the current extent of Heathrow Airport Junction as far as Exeter, Birmingham and Bristol (i.e. including Slough, Reading, Oxford and Swindon). As I already mentioned I am dubious about the Exeter - Plymouth section due to the proximity to the sea between Newton Abbott and Dawlish and the danger of 25kv AC power lines with waves breaking over them, and if what you say about the Severn Tunnel is correct then this precludes South Wales too.

Even so, the only services that would remain diesel-hauled would be the services to Cornwall and South Wales, and even these could see a loco change at Plymouth and The Severn Tunnel if appropriate allowing Paddington to become diesel-free.

Paddington station is magnificent, the finest terminus in London if not the UK in my opinion... The new St Pancras will probably eclipse Paddington when it opens later this year though:


----------



## Songoten2554

tubeman

so the only electric trains using the paddington station is the heathrow express and connect or is there others as well???

oh ok tubeman you know your stuffs i guess so any news on the CTRL or any railway news so far and how is it going with the expansions of the Docklands Light Railway???


----------



## Songoten2554

paddington looks beautiful looks like a cathedral wow thanks tubeman


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> tubeman
> 
> so the only electric trains using the paddington station is the heathrow express and connect or is there others as well???
> 
> oh ok tubeman you know your stuffs i guess so any news on the CTRL or any railway news so far and how is it going with the expansions of the Docklands Light Railway???


Yes, that's correct, the only electric services into Paddington mainline station are the Heathrow Express / Connect trains, but all 6 tracks approaching the terminus (becoming 4 west of Old Oak Common) are electrified. In a way there is another electric service: the Hammersmith & City Line runs into the terminus (on the northern side) before entering the tunnel to Edgware Road, but these platforms along with the local Thames trains platforms alongside are outside of the main Brunel trainshed roof (which is made of a main span flanked by 2 smaller spans, with a later addition on the north side, intercepted by two north-south 'transepts'... very cathedral-like!).

Brunel's roof is detracted from by years of grime from first steam then diesel trains... the ironwork and glass has a brownish tinge to it. What I would love to see is an end to diesels under the roof followed by a clean-up and paint job of the roof... I believe the results would be awesome.


----------



## pricemazda

Well they cleaned/replaced the glass roof at Waterloo, and have done at St Pancras, surely Paddington has to be on the agenda.

In fact the fact the GWL isn't electric is a bit of a scandal. Couldn't they switched to third rail in the tunnel?


----------



## Tubeman

pricemazda said:


> Well they cleaned/replaced the glass roof at Waterloo, and have done at St Pancras, surely Paddington has to be on the agenda.
> 
> In fact the fact the GWL isn't electric is a bit of a scandal. Couldn't they switched to third rail in the tunnel?


No reason why not, unless its prone to flooding... we could see dual-electrified HST stock like the current Eurostars, although it might be deemed overkill having a fleet of trains with current collection shoes just for the sake of a short section of tunnel.

Perhaps the current Eurostar fleet could retire to the GWR routes through the Severn Tunnel? This would allow a new generation of TGVs to be introduced on the Chunnel routes... Just a thought. The GWR main line can't remain unelectrified forever!


----------



## Songoten2554

umm tubeman any new rail news like any news on the CTRL or any railway news so far and how is it going with the expansions of the Docklands Light Railway???

and if you do do you have new pics of the CTRL and other new rail things going on it includes airplanes and buses as well

also i heard of what happened on the railway with the virgin train i am so sorry tubeman is everything ok overthere i hope your country will be ok i saw it on the news and man the wreckage looks bad please forgive me everybody here


----------



## Monkey

Tubeman said:


> I think Londoners, or certainly regular Tube users, would generally object to mobile phone aerials in tunnels due to the annoyance factor.


You can get mobile reception in the underground rail system of every other large city I have been to. It's really annoying that London hasn't introduced this yet. It muist damage our competitiveness.


----------



## Tubeman

Monkey said:


> You can get mobile reception in the underground rail system of every other large city I have been to. It's really annoying that London hasn't introduced this yet. It muist damage our competitiveness.


Last time I checked our customers realistically didn't have much choice! 

Dunno about mobile phones working on other networks either... I've travelled on a fair few over the past 5 years and don't recall anyone making calls in tunnels anywhere.

As I said, I reckon the majority of hardened commuters would welcome phone reception being unavailable, especially now the 'Connect' system has been introduced which ensures flawless communications during incidents.

I could think of nothing worse than half a dozen people barking into their phones on a packed Victoria Line train, or people's phones ringing with their oblivious owners listening to their ipods.


----------



## Justme

Monkey said:


> You can get mobile reception in the underground rail system of every other large city I have been to. It's really annoying that London hasn't introduced this yet. It muist damage our competitiveness.


This could also be due to most networks around the world not being as deep as many London Tube lines.

We have phone access in Frankfurt, but it's sparotic. I am guessing it's only because the lines are not very deep and signal is seeping through.


----------



## TallBox

How do oyster readers that inspectors carry, work? Do they detect the date:time of it's last use (travelcards)? Or whether money has been deducted recently (pay as you go)? Or whether it is simply valid?


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> This could also be due to most networks around the world not being as deep as many London Tube lines.
> 
> We have phone access in Frankfurt, but it's sparotic. I am guessing it's only because the lines are not very deep and signal is seeping through.


Yes I'd assume that's the case. Many metros are built cut & cover below roads with just a raft of steel and the road surface between the tunnels and the outside world, so its no different to being in a building's basement really. Even London's shallow cut & cover tunnels are built with a brick arch above the tracks and tons of brickwork / earth above, so this generally blocks the signal.

Even so, mobile phone signals do seep down to parts of London's cut & cover lines through stations and ventilation shafts, if you don't believe me watch your reception as you travel along the District line and you'll see it often registering something (but not much and never for long).


----------



## Tubeman

shaun said:


> How do oyster readers that inspectors carry, work? Do they detect the date:time of it's last use (travelcards)? Or whether money has been deducted recently (pay as you go)? Or whether it is simply valid?


Pass. They seem to display an awful lot of information though, as I've overheard inspectors grilling passengers on bendy buses before and they were telling them when / where they last swiped it to the minute and the exact location. Big Brother is watching us indeed!

Funnily enough my staff pass expires 31st December 2069... I wonder if I'll live to see it expire? ...I'd be 92!


----------



## TallBox

Tubeman said:


> Pass. They seem to display an awful lot of information though, as I've overheard inspectors grilling passengers on bendy buses before and they were telling them when / where they last swiped it to the minute and the exact location. Big Brother is watching us indeed!


scary stuff indeed, thanks!


----------



## lasdun

The cultral Brunel references go into overdrive in Swindon, Brunell Tower, Brunell roundabout, Brunel road and onwards (it helps that he's the only person of any value to have any association with the town).


----------



## Tubeman

lasdun said:


> The cultral Brunel references go into overdrive in Swindon, Brunell Tower, Brunell roundabout, Brunel road and onwards (it helps that he's the only person of any value to have any association with the town).



What about Billie Piper?


----------



## Stuu

Sorry but that is bollocks about other networks being nearer the surface. The Paris metro, and the RER have mobile phone service everywhere, which is plainly much deeper, as does the Hong Kong metro. In fact, I was in Hong Kong 3 years ago and every lift you got into had a little plaque telling you which mobile network covered it. The basic fact is we are too scared that it will be used for bombs to allow it. When the connect project was first announced it was stated there would be capacity for mobile phone networks. I'm so glad they didn't, it would be such a nightmare to contend with all the "I'm stuck on the train"


----------



## sarflonlad

Stuu said:


> Sorry but that is bollocks about other networks being nearer the surface. The Paris metro, and the RER have mobile phone service everywhere, which is plainly much deeper, as does the Hong Kong metro. In fact, I was in Hong Kong 3 years ago and every lift you got into had a little plaque telling you which mobile network covered it. * The basic fact is we are too scared that it will be used for bombs to allow it*. When the connect project was first announced it was stated there would be capacity for mobile phone networks. I'm so glad they didn't, it would be such a nightmare to contend with all the "I'm stuck on the train"


but as been said before, the Madrid bombs were set off by mobile phone internal clocks NOT via text message or phone call - i.e. they didn't need reception. The London Tube bombs were set off by bloody suicide bombers and had nothing to do with phones. I honestly don't think any sensible person believes having mobile phone reception increases the likelihood of a bomb going off - i think most people are concerned about the annoyances of idiots who like to yak about their privates live loudly in crowded, confined public spaces.


----------



## Tubeman

Stuu said:


> Sorry but that is bollocks about other networks being nearer the surface. The Paris metro, and the RER have mobile phone service everywhere, which is plainly much deeper, as does the Hong Kong metro. In fact, I was in Hong Kong 3 years ago and every lift you got into had a little plaque telling you which mobile network covered it. The basic fact is we are too scared that it will be used for bombs to allow it. When the connect project was first announced it was stated there would be capacity for mobile phone networks. I'm so glad they didn't, it would be such a nightmare to contend with all the "I'm stuck on the train"


What's your surname, 'Pid'?


----------



## Truepioneer

Tubeman:

Was there ever a propsal to extend the Bakerloo Line past its Elephant & Castle terminus. Possibly going down Old Kent Road through Blackheath and terminating at Bexelyheath?. Or maybe going down Camberwell Green through Crystal Palace terminating at either Croydon or Catford?

How about any consideration in extending the Victoria Line down through Streatham to Mitcham or Carshalton? 

An alternative, to spread out the concentration of commuters, on NR can obviously be used in some of these areas. Guess the East London Line will fufill some of that demand.


----------



## Tubeman

Truepioneer said:


> Tubeman:
> 
> Was there ever a propsal to extend the Bakerloo Line past its Elephant & Castle terminus. Possibly going down Old Kent Road through Blackheath and terminating at Bexelyheath?. Or maybe going down Camberwell Green through Crystal Palace terminating at either Croydon or Catford?
> 
> How about any consideration in extending the Victoria Line down through Streatham to Mitcham or Carshalton?
> 
> An alternative, to spread out the concentration of commuters, on NR can obviously be used in some of these areas. Guess the East London Line will fufill some of that demand.


Yes... The Bakerloo Line was never intended to halt suddenly at Elephant & Castle, it was always supposed to continue south to at least Camberwell. Beyond E&C the tunnels continue for some distance and swing southwards to point at Camberwell, the redundant lengths of tunnel today used for stabling 4 trains (2 in each tunnel). I don't know what the original 1900's planned route was beyond E&C, but the idea of a southwards extension has never gone away and it got as close as the proposed extension to Camberwell appearing on the Tube map in the 1950's. 

It resurfaced in the late 1980's in Paul Channon's London transport review, this time the proposed extension continued eastwards from E&C and surfaced just east of Bricklayer's Arms roundabout at the north end of the Old Kent Road on the site of the by then recently abandoned Bricklayer's Arms goods station. It followed the alignment of the abandoned goods line to a point just south of South Bermondsey station (still easily traced on an A to Z) before rising up to join the main lines out of London Bridge (all the chords and viaducts are still there even today, much overgrown). The Bakerloo Line was from there to have passed through Lewisham before completely taking over the Hayes (Kent) mainline route, thus serving Ladywell, Catford, Beckenham, Elmers End (etc). Sadly not long after this great proposal British Rail flogged all the land of the Bricklayer's Arms goods station and the extensive approach tracks and today it its covered in 1980's 'Brookside' houses and warehouses, so opportunity lost.

More recently Red Ken has stated his desire for the Bakerloo Line to extend south to Camberwell, but without any funds to back this up its unlikely to happen... We've been waiting forever for someone to find the money for 200 metres of track between Watford (Met) and Croxley Green for years, so a new 'Tube' extension is looking beyond the realms of possibility.

My personal preferred route would see stops at Walworth, Camberwell Green, Peckham Rye, Nunhead, Brockley and Lewisham, possibly taking over the Hayes branch as previously proposed.

The Victoria Line, like the Bakerloo Line, was never supposed to grind to a halt in inner-city South London. As originially planned it was to continue south along the A23 through Streatham, Norbury, Thronton Heath and terminating at Croydon. Money ran out, but more importantly the line has been such a success that it now doesn't have the capacity to accommodate any more passengers on the southern section, pretty much killing off any hopes of an extension. The only serious proposal recently has been more for operational reasons: a single-track reversing loop from Brixton southbound to Brixton northbound with a single platform at Herne Hill, this is to reduce the bottleneck at Brixton, where a very intensive service currently has to reverse at Brixton's 2 platforms and a single 'scissors' crossover. I am in favour of this proposal, but thousands of mainline commuters would pour off the various mainline services passing through Herne Hill every morning, thus putting more strain on a line already at full capacity.

My personal way forward for developing London's rail would be to focus on increasing frequency / capacity on Network Rail lines and combine this with some strategically placed, relatively short, new 'Tube' lines traversing Central London which will link strategic Network Rail stations like Clapham Junction, Willesden Junction, Stratford, Peckham Rye, Herne Hill, Tulse Hill, West Hampstead (etc) as well as putting inner-city areas with no Tube service on the map like Battersea, Chelsea, Camberwell, Walworth, Peckham, Hackney, Clapton etc. Current Underground Lines are inefficient in that they have central sections groaning under the weight of passengers combined with suburban and even rural lengths sparsely used off-peak that do not need anywhere near the frequency of service currently provided. Shorter, high-frequency Tube lines in Inner London will provide much better cost-benefit than a sprawling new 50km line. It is certainly conceiveable that with automation they could even become highly proftable. 

My blueprint for new lines is for completely driverless trains running along tunnels with an escape passageway. Trains would be despatched from each platform by staff watching the platforms via CCTV, this way one staff member can remotely operate 3 or 4 trains. They would have real-time CCTV views of each carriage and the ability to make Public Address announcements into each carriage. If an evacuation was necessary then passengers would be guided to the nearest station along the emergency walkway by announcements and lights. This way staffing is kept to a minumum, along with costs, and all of the operational problems resulting from Train operators bound to a particular train (late running, exceeding duty paramenters, short meal reliefs) are avoided, thus when there is an incident like a person under train service can literally commence straight after the cleanup without the current chaos with drivers in the wrong place / needing relief etc. 

The unions would never swallow it though, because it spells their demise


----------



## James

Hi Tubeman,

Here's a dumb question - do you think that the Northern express line would ever get built - at least putting some of the abandoned infrastructure that was put into place in WW2 into use? If it was to be built, what sort of an alignment do you think it would travel, once outside the existing built stations?


----------



## Tubeman

James said:


> Hi Tubeman,
> 
> Here's a dumb question - do you think that the Northern express line would ever get built - at least putting some of the abandoned infrastructure that was put into place in WW2 into use? If it was to be built, what sort of an alignment do you think it would travel, once outside the existing built stations?



No, far too ambitious. I think only a very limited amount of infrastructure was built anyway, namely the deep-level platforms at Clapham which became air raid shelters, and after WW2 accommodation for newly arrived West Indian immigrants.

They should certainly concentrate on getting the current Northern Line working before anything else!


----------



## Jean Luc

G'day Tubeman!

In your estimation, how much of the overcrowding on central London tube lines is caused by commuters changing from mainline services at terminal stations to the underground, in order to complete their journies into the centre?

If any of the Crossrail proposals were built would this problem be alleviated, and if so, by how much?


----------



## Tubeman

Jean Luc said:


> G'day Tubeman!
> 
> In your estimation, how much of the overcrowding on central London tube lines is caused by commuters changing from mainline services at terminal stations to the underground, in order to complete their journies into the centre?
> 
> If any of the Crossrail proposals were built would this problem be alleviated, and if so, by how much?


A significant percentage, but I wouldn't like to hazard a guess. Some termini are within walking distance of workplaces (e.g. Liverpool Street, Moorgate, Fenchurch Street, Blackfriars, Cannon Street are all in 'The City' and London Bridge is a short walk over the river), whereas others like Victoria, Waterloo, King's Cross, Euston, Marylebone and Paddington are not within easy walking distance of either The City or the West End. Of course that's not to say that everyone works in The City or The West End, or even that everyone coming into Liverpool Street works in The City... So its hard to gauge.

I'd hazard a guess that perhaps 80% of passengers alighting at Victoria or Paddington during the morning peak have an onward tube journey to their ultimate destination, but perhaps only 30% at the 'City' termini like Liverpool Street or Fenchurch Street. Cannon Street probably has the lowest as South-eastern and Southern services offer it as one of three terminus choices (Charing Cross = West End, Cannon Street = City, London Bridge = all trains), so I presume that the vast majority of passengers using Cannon Street are City workers who then walk... certainly my anecdotal evidence having been a District Line driver suggests Cannon Street station is never particularly busy in terms of people waiting for the underground during the morning peak or alighting off it during the evening peak.

Therefore, Crossrail would have limited impact on Liverpool Street tube compared to Paddington, but the latter is not that busy compared to the goliaths of london commuter traffic like Waterloo and Victoria. By far the best proposal to reduce mainline to Tube transfers would be a Crossrail scheme involving the lines into Victoria which serves the West End and City, before perhaps taking over the entire C2C network to the east. Bear in mind the C2C mainline between Barking and Fenchurch Street gets by with a mere 2 tracks, so it follows that if they dived into a 2-track tunnel in the Bromley-by-Bow area the entire C2C service could be diverted via this Crossrail to Victoria. The now redundant C2C viaduct between Bow and Fenchurch Street could be converted to DLR, also allowing quadrupling of the DLR between Limehouse and Tower Gateway which could be closed in favour of Fenhcurch Street. I would suggest closing Fenchurch Street for redevelopment, but the air rights have already been sold and utilised by a giant office block. The former C2C east of Limehouse could become a new DLR service calling at a new station on Burdett Road, then on to Bromley-By-Bow, and then along the alignment of the Northern Outfall sewer which strikes a long, straight slash across Newham Borough to Beckton, where it could run straight into the existing Beckton terminus (which faces West), providing a huge loop service around Newham Borough.


----------



## Dothog

Tubeman said:


> I'd hazard a guess that perhaps 80% of passengers alighting at Victoria or Paddington during the morning peak have an onward tube journey to their ultimate destination, but perhaps only 30% at the 'City' termini like Liverpool Street or Fenchurch Street.


What are the nine escalators to the Central Line at Liverpool Street there for then?


----------



## Tubeman

Dothog said:


> What are the nine escalators to the Central Line at Liverpool Street there for then?


9? I can only recall a bank of 3


----------



## Rational Plan

There are three escalator shafts at liverpool street. I remember them putting an extra one in when the redeveloped the station with the Broadgate development.


----------



## Tubeman

Rational Plan said:


> There are three escalator shafts at liverpool street. I remember them putting an extra one in when the redeveloped the station with the Broadgate development.



Thank you for confirming that. I don't know where he was getting 9 from :crazy:


----------



## lasdun

There's nine. At least, there were 3 hours ago.

Bank of three in the main ticket hall and another two banks of three each open at peak hours only in the western ticket hall.

But despite this, I'd agree. There are less people joining the central line at liverpool street than at Stratford or Mile End where cross platform interchange is very tempting. Lots of people do get off though.


----------



## Tubeman

lasdun said:


> There's nine. At least, there were 3 hours ago.
> 
> Bank of three in the main ticket hall and another two banks of three each open at peak hours only in the western ticket hall.
> 
> But despite this, I'd agree. There are less people joining the central line at liverpool street than at Stratford or Mile End where cross platform interchange is very tempting. Lots of people do get off though.


Fair enough, but the original post I was responding to conjoured up images of a bank of nine.


----------



## lasdun

Ah. 

Yes a bank of nine would be fun... the biggest I can think of is the 5 at Canary Wharf.


----------



## Tubeman

lasdun said:


> Ah.
> 
> Yes a bank of nine would be fun... the biggest I can think of is the 5 at Canary Wharf.


Yeah I suppose that must be the record in London... One less, but my personal favourite is the upper bank of escalators at Holborn with 4 very long parallel escalators. I use them every day, and its quite a spectacle descening them in the morning peak with the other three sets coming upwards all crammed with hundreds of people. Couldn't find decent pics illustrating this though...


----------



## Truepioneer

Tubeman, has the issue yet been raised of the DLR possibly being unable to accommodate the volume of commuters in the CW area, as it quickly develops, with high-density office and residential space? Perhaps one day needing to be replaced with high capacity heavy rail transport?

Here in Toronto during the mid-80s a DLR stlye service was built in favour of an actual subway extension. This was obviously for cost saving reasons. The service is now at capacity and can no longer cope with the population growth. Suggestions are now being brought up of taking down the light rail system and building the original proposed subway extension in it's place. 

I can easily see this situation happening in East London, with the DLR, as development increases there.


----------



## Tubeman

Truepioneer said:


> Tubeman, has the issue yet been raised of the DLR possibly being unable to accommodate the volume of commuters in the CW area, as it quickly develops, with high-density office and residential space? Perhaps one day needing to be replaced with high capacity heavy rail transport?
> 
> Here in Toronto during the mid-80s a DLR stlye service was built in favour of an actual subway extension. This was obviously for cost saving reasons. The service is now at capacity and can no longer cope with the population growth. Suggestions are now being brought up of taking down the light rail system and building the original proposed subway extension in it's place.
> 
> I can easily see this situation happening in East London, with the DLR, as development increases there.


With the addition of the Jubilee Line in 1999 and hopefully Crossrail Line 1 within the next 6 years the DLR is becoming more of a 'feeder' system, connecting the new docklands neighbourhoods with the Tube / rail system. As DLR stops are generally much closer together than Tube or rail stops, its never going to be very attractive over longer distances. As is always the case there wasn't enough foresight: I suppose the amount of development in the area, especially the Isle of Dogs, was far beyond anyone's wildest dreams 20 years ago.

From this...










To this...










...In less than 20 years

Because of the sharp curves and steep gradients of the DLR route it can never be converted into conventional rail, but with the capacity expansion (trains being extended by 50% from 2 units to 3) it will certainly hold its own at least until Crossrail 1 takes some of the strain. Despite the closely-spaced stations it is generally pretty zippy and very efficient... and to be honest with hindsight I think the DLR's format is ideal for the area when considered in conjunction with its connectivity with the Tube and mainline services.

The Isle of Dogs, although only a peninsula in a meander of the Thames, is effectively an island with only 2 roads on and off, to that ends the meandering, frequently stopping DLR route serves the area much better than a single Tube or rail stop would.


----------



## sarflonlad

A question not directly related to the tube - but NR... and I thought you might know the answer.

A geeky thing that has always bugged me on railways - and I see them all over London railways - are signals where the 'traffic light' has an "arm" of lights that sometimes all turn on white next to the signal. When these lights are lit what do they mean?


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> A question not directly related to the tube - but NR... and I thought you might know the answer.
> 
> A geeky thing that has always bugged me on railways - and I see them all over London railways - are signals where the 'traffic light' has an "arm" of lights that sometimes all turn on white next to the signal. When these lights are lit what do they mean?


They're the route indicator, London Underground signals have them too. They're found on controlled signals with an associated set of points... points have a 'normal' and 'reverse' position, a 'straight' green with no route indicator indicates points are 'normal', green with the lights indicates points are 'reverse'. The NR and LUL indicators are exactly the same principle, but on NR they have 5 white bulbs, but LUL only 3. 

The 'bar' or 'harbour lights' as they're coloquially known 'point' in the direction that they take you... for example at Gunnersbury eastbound a 'straight green' (no harbour lights) takes you straight on to South Acton while green with the 'harbour lights' pointing 45 degrees to the right takes you right towards Turnham Green.

An actual set of 5-light Network Rail junction indicator lights, this would give technically 3 routes (diagonal, horizontal and neither):










At some more complex locations a single signal can take you along mutliple routes, in this instance more than one set of 'harbour lights', at different angles, are displayed:










The signal on the right can give 4 different routes to a driver, the three directions of 'harbour lights' plus the 'straight green' with none of them.

Have I explained this well enough?


----------



## Truepioneer

Tubeman said:


> With the addition of the Jubilee Line in 1999 and hopefully Crossrail Line 1 within the next 6 years the DLR is becoming more of a 'feeder' system, connecting the new docklands neighbourhoods with the Tube / rail system. As DLR stops are generally much closer together than Tube or rail stops, its never going to be very attractive over longer distances. As is always the case there wasn't enough foresight: I suppose the amount of development in the area, especially the Isle of Dogs, was far beyond anyone's wildest dreams 20 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...In less than 20 years
> 
> Because of the sharp curves and steep gradients of the DLR route it can never be converted into conventional rail, but with the capacity expansion (trains being extended by 50% from 2 units to 3) it will certainly hold its own at least until Crossrail 1 takes some of the strain. Despite the closely-spaced stations it is generally pretty zippy and very efficient... and to be honest with hindsight I think the DLR's format is ideal for the area when considered in conjunction with its connectivity with the Tube and mainline services.
> 
> The Isle of Dogs, although only a peninsula in a meander of the Thames, is effectively an island with only 2 roads on and off, to that ends the meandering, frequently stopping DLR route serves the area much better than a single Tube or rail stop would.


I suppose DLR style service would be perfect to fill in the gap between buses/trams and heavy rail/underground service when it comes to frequency and capacity.

Not to mention the DLR offers some fanastic views of East London.


----------



## lasdun

double post.


----------



## lasdun

Re. holborn, as an LSE student for three years I was often seen at 5 past 10 running up the escallators and even more offen stumbling down them again at half eleven. I know what your talking about with the 3 up one down effect. The downside at holborn is the horrific walking conflicts at the bottom, I'd like to dig the middle two another 3 meters down, and have an underpass to the picadilly line escalators.

There isn't enough thought put into grade free pedestrian junctions 

On the DLR the majority of the routes are radial or feeders, Crossrail 1 needs to fill in the missing links but its a pretty sound system. Bus service is pretty poor and the road layout isn't that great for them.

What would you think to demolishing West India Quay? There is an underpass planned as part of the capacity enhancements but with three car trains the gap between CW, Poplar and WIQ is getting rather ridiculious. I guess a four platform station is handy to have, but Poplar is only one stop away. I'd say extend the Poplar bridge into the billingsgate site and remove the station. It'd also cut of the minute that Langdon Park is going to add to my journey...


----------



## sarflonlad

Tubeman said:


> They're the route indicator, London Underground signals have them too. They're found on controlled signals with an associated set of points... points have a 'normal' and 'reverse' position, a 'straight' green with no route indicator indicates points are 'normal', green with the lights indicates points are 'reverse'. The NR and LUL indicators are exactly the same principle, but on NR they have 5 white bulbs, but LUL only 3.
> 
> The 'bar' or 'harbour lights' as they're coloquially known 'point' in the direction that they take you... for example at Gunnersbury eastbound a 'straight green' (no harbour lights) takes you straight on to South Acton while green with the 'harbour lights' pointing 45 degrees to the right takes you right towards Turnham Green.
> 
> An actual set of 5-light Network Rail junction indicator lights, this would give technically 3 routes (diagonal, horizontal and neither):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some more complex locations a single signal can take you along mutliple routes, in this instance more than one set of 'harbour lights', at different angles, are displayed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The signal on the right can give 4 different routes to a driver, the three directions of 'harbour lights' plus the 'straight green' with none of them.
> 
> Have I explained this well enough?


absolutely! 

I shall be sleeping easy tonight 

:cheers: cheers tubeman!


----------



## Tubeman

lasdun said:


> Re. holborn, as an LSE student for three years I was often seen at 5 past 10 running up the escallators and even more offen stumbling down them again at half eleven. I know what your talking about with the 3 up one down effect. The downside at holborn is the horrific walking conflicts at the bottom, I'd like to dig the middle two another 3 meters down, and have an underpass to the picadilly line escalators.
> 
> There isn't enough thought put into grade free pedestrian junctions
> 
> On the DLR the majority of the routes are radial or feeders, Crossrail 1 needs to fill in the missing links but its a pretty sound system. Bus service is pretty poor and the road layout isn't that great for them.
> 
> What would you think to demolishing West India Quay? There is an underpass planned as part of the capacity enhancements but with three car trains the gap between CW, Poplar and WIQ is getting rather ridiculious. I guess a four platform station is handy to have, but Poplar is only one stop away. I'd say extend the Poplar bridge into the billingsgate site and remove the station. It'd also cut of the minute that Langdon Park is going to add to my journey...


Yeah I think WIQ is pretty pointless: Poplar and Crossrail 1 will serve North Quay / Billingsgate, and with the 3-car upgrade we'll have the lunacy that Canary Wharf and WIQ will be roughly a train's length apart! Can't see any other DLR stations worth sacrificing though...


----------



## Acemcbuller

*Odd Victoria line train*

Hi Tubeman

After many months I have finally confimred my fiancees tales of a Victoria line train that has door side perch seats and just four longditudinal seats between the double doors. It's only the first two carriages, perhaps on just one train?

Any ideas what this is all about? Something to do with prototyping for the new fleet of trains perhaps?

James


----------



## Tubeman

Acemcbuller said:


> Hi Tubeman
> 
> After many months I have finally confimred my fiancees tales of a Victoria line train that has door side perch seats and just four longditudinal seats between the double doors. It's only the first two carriages, perhaps on just one train?
> 
> Any ideas what this is all about? Something to do with prototyping for the new fleet of trains perhaps?
> 
> James


More likely a prototype design for the current refurbishment (i.e. the one completed in the 1990's), although I'd have to see it with my own eyes to judge this. It would seem a bit odd, but not impossible, to try out layouts for the new trains in existing cars.


----------



## DarJoLe

lasdun said:


> What would you think to demolishing West India Quay? There is an underpass planned as part of the capacity enhancements but with three car trains the gap between CW, Poplar and WIQ is getting rather ridiculious. I guess a four platform station is handy to have, but Poplar is only one stop away. I'd say extend the Poplar bridge into the billingsgate site and remove the station. It'd also cut of the minute that Langdon Park is going to add to my journey...


West India Quay could go, but I'd like to see another bridge link between Canary Wharf and the dockside other than the green bridge we currently have. It's quite a walk between the two, and the walk by Aspen Way from Poplar is not the nicest.

Once Crossrail comes and North Quay is built it will link the whole lot so hopefully this will complete this part of the Estate.

I'm more pissed off with the extra DLR line being proposed - it slices right under the 3-way interchange which will block off any pedestrians underneath. Wasn't this space to become one of the Mayor's World Squares?


----------



## Acemcbuller

Tubeman said:


> More likely a prototype design for the current refurbishment (i.e. the one completed in the 1990's), although I'd have to see it with my own eyes to judge this. It would seem a bit odd, but not impossible, to try out layouts for the new trains in existing cars.


I did a bit more digging and came up with these photos of Victoria Line Unit 86 - a prototype for the refurbishment of Piccadilly Line trains.


----------



## Tubeman

Acemcbuller said:


> I did a bit more digging and came up with these photos of Victoria Line Unit 86 - a prototype for the refurbishment of Piccadilly Line trains.


Ah, good find... so I was semi-right then!


----------



## Monkey

Tubeman said:


> Arsenal Tube, of course!


Good answer.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, yet another question...

How come on the Jubilee Line Extension theres a strange 'clangy' sound, heres a video to illustrate it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B-MbVTLZZE

I never hear it anywhere else so i'm just wondering.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, yet another question...
> 
> How come on the Jubilee Line Extension theres a strange 'clangy' sound, heres a video to illustrate it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B-MbVTLZZE
> 
> I never hear it anywhere else so i'm just wondering.


It's a type of motor / brake system known as 'Chopper', I don't know much about it but the only Tube stock with it is the Jubilee Line. Its something to do with converting DC to AC I think, you hear it during acceleration and deceleration. Some of the Kent Coast networkers operating out of Charing Cross / London Bridge also have the 'Chopper' system and so make the same noises.


----------



## chris.haynes

hey tubeman, on my daily commute on the southeasten bexleyheath line there is a strange experience sometimes when leaving a station the train struggles to pull away and sounds like 'chugging' it sounds like a major fault ... what's happening?


----------



## Tubeman

chris.haynes said:


> hey tubeman, on my daily commute on the southeasten bexleyheath line there is a strange experience sometimes when leaving a station the train struggles to pull away and sounds like 'chugging' it sounds like a major fault ... what's happening?



Could be wheelspin... Does it happen in the Autumn and / or when its wet?

If there's leaf pulp on the rails or water (in my experience a light coating of drizzle is worse for adhesion than heavy rain) then the wheels will spin as the train attempts to pull away, so it will 'struggle' and make a strange noise as the wheels spin round. Likewise the same conditions impede normal braking: if the brakes are applied too hard the wheels will lock and skate along the slippery rails, which wears flat sections ('flats') on the wheel tread... This gives rise to the rhythmic banging sound you'll hear from many trains as the wheels turn: its bad for the track and bad for the train so 'flats' are generally ground off on a wheel lathe. 

A trick I used to use driving the old Northern Line trains, which were terrible for both wheelspin and brakes locking, was to purposefully spin the wheels pulling away to smooth out the 'flats' caused by the previous stop!


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, that wasn't exactly the sound I meant :shifty: nevermind though!

I remember hearing about this terrorist in the news who was planning to detonate a bomb below the thames, thinking it would make the tunnels flood... Would a bomb manage to pierce the tunnel in anyway? Was there any structural damage after the Piccadilly line 7/7 bomb?

Also, why does the Central line still have signal failures even though it has much more update-to-date signalling then other lines?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, that wasn't exactly the sound I meant :shifty: nevermind though!
> 
> I remember hearing about this terrorist in the news who was planning to detonate a bomb below the thames, thinking it would make the tunnels flood... Would a bomb manage to pierce the tunnel in anyway? Was there any structural damage after the Piccadilly line 7/7 bomb?
> 
> Also, why does the Central line still have signal failures even though it has much more update-to-date signalling then other lines?


Nah, the 7/7 Piccadilly Line bomb caused no structural damage at all... you have to bear in mind the original Tube tunnels are heavy cast-iron segments bolted together bored through heavy clay, they won't budge an inch. This is why that horrific bomb was so murderous: the explosion was concentrated by the rigid tunnel structure and exploded laterally like a pipebomb through the cars, killing 25 and injuring hundreds. The two Circle Line bombs (Edgware Road and Aldgate) only killed 7 apiece because the explosion was able to expand in all directions due to the larger cars and tunnels, there was some minor cable damage but even then the well-engineered 150 year old brickwork was undamaged.

There are floodgates spread strategically on the underground network installed during WW2 in case a bomb fell into the Thames and pierced the roof of a Tube tunnel, which would have inundated half the network. Thankfully they have never been used in anger, as the idea was that as soon as such an incident occurred they would have been closed, and any train trapped on the wrong side would have been sacrificed to save thousands more lives. As the 7/7 Piccadilly bomb demonstrates, the Tube tunnels are bloody strong and so it would take more than a rucksack bomb to even slightly damage the tunnel.

The Central Line's signal failures aren't like conventional signal failures, they are bugs in the ATO system that causes the trains to 'lose codes', i.e. the ATO signals fail. These glitches are slowly being ironed out: they were terrible immediately after the upgrade.

Sorry I didn't get the right noise... which one did you mean again?


----------



## TallBox

Hi Tubeman

Which Tube station has the smallest ground-level floor area? I suspect somewhere like Russell Sq or Belsize Park?? 

What is the thermal conductivity of the train tracks?


Thanks!


----------



## Tubeman

shaun said:


> Hi Tubeman
> 
> Which Tube station has the smallest ground-level floor area? I suspect somewhere like Russell Sq or Belsize Park??
> 
> What is the thermal conductivity of the train tracks?
> 
> 
> Thanks!


Russell Square is pretty minute... perhaps 30m2?

Aldwych would have definitely taken the prize if it were still open... You pretty much walked stright off the street into the lifts... maybe only 15-20m2?










Regarding thermal conductivity, that's well beyond my knowledge... assumedly the same as any other bit of steel of the same dimensions?


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Nah, the 7/7 Piccadilly Line bomb caused no structural damage at all... you have to bear in mind the original Tube tunnels are heavy cast-iron segments bolted together bored through heavy clay, they won't budge an inch. This is why that horrific bomb was so murderous: the explosion was concentrated by the rigid tunnel structure and exploded laterally like a pipebomb through the cars, killing 25 and injuring hundreds. The two Circle Line bombs (Edgware Road and Aldgate) only killed 7 apiece because the explosion was able to expand in all directions due to the larger cars and tunnels, there was some minor cable damage but even then the well-engineered 150 year old brickwork was undamaged.
> 
> There are floodgates spread strategically on the underground network installed during WW2 in case a bomb fell into the Thames and pierced the roof of a Tube tunnel, which would have inundated half the network. Thankfully they have never been used in anger, as the idea was that as soon as such an incident occurred they would have been closed, and any train trapped on the wrong side would have been sacrificed to save thousands more lives. As the 7/7 Piccadilly bomb demonstrates, the Tube tunnels are bloody strong and so it would take more than a rucksack bomb to even slightly damage the tunnel.
> 
> The Central Line's signal failures aren't like conventional signal failures, they are bugs in the ATO system that causes the trains to 'lose codes', i.e. the ATO signals fail. These glitches are slowly being ironed out: they were terrible immediately after the upgrade.
> 
> Sorry I didn't get the right noise... which one did you mean again?


Thanks a lot! So useful!  

Which line is the fastest? And will the Victoria Line be even faster when it gets new stock?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Thanks a lot! So useful!
> 
> Which line is the fastest? And will the Victoria Line be even faster when it gets new stock?


The Met and Central both have official line speeds of 60mph / 100kmh, although other lines achieve this unofficially and I have heard speeds in excess of 100mph / 160kmh are possible on the Met main, although this is probably bollocks as I don't think the speedos go up that high.

The Victoria Line should benefit from better braking / aceleration with the new stock, so I'm sure on the faster sections (e.g. Seven Sisters to Finsbury Park) 100kmh may well be possible.


----------



## elfabyanos

Tubeman said:


> It's a type of motor / brake system known as 'Chopper', I don't know much about it but the only Tube stock with it is the Jubilee Line. Its something to do with converting DC to AC I think, you hear it during acceleration and deceleration. Some of the Kent Coast networkers operating out of Charing Cross / London Bridge also have the 'Chopper' system and so make the same noises.


I read the answer to a similar question in a railway magazine years ago, when a reader was enqiuring about the funny noise from networkers on the Kings Cross line. I can't remember exactly what it said except that the it is Gated Thyristor Operated. It's something like the magnetic poles on the motor are changed as the speed increases/decreases, as a kind of electronic gearing system, in effect altering the physical magnet arrangement in the motors. If what I've written is correct, that should mean the voltages would not need to be varied as the motors step up, avoiding smoothness, efficiency and start-up current surge problems. Is this the same system, or were the 25Kv AC networkers fundementally different from the southern region ones?


----------



## Tubeman

Yes that would make sense, it must be something to do with the acceleration / deceleration process as that's when you hear the sound.

All I know well is older types of Tube stock, and these have 'RPAs' or 'Rotary Pneumatic Accelerators', which in essence are mechanical camshafts which rotate in 10 or so 'notches' as the train accelerates, with each turn making more contacts and supplying more electricity to the Traction Motors. This prevents a sudden surge when the driver 'winds up'.

If you listen carefully on some stocks (in my experience notably 1967 / Victoria, 1972 / Bakerloo and the SSR C Stocks) you can hear the 'tap' sound each time the RPA turns accompanied by a slight lurch in acceleration in the first 10 seconds or so as the train moves off.



elfabyanos said:


> I read the answer to a similar question in a railway magazine years ago, when a reader was enqiuring about the funny noise from networkers on the Kings Cross line. I can't remember exactly what it said except that the it is Gated Thyristor Operated. It's something like the magnetic poles on the motor are changed as the speed increases/decreases, as a kind of electronic gearing system, in effect altering the physical magnet arrangement in the motors. If what I've written is correct, that should mean the voltages would not need to be varied as the motors step up, avoiding smoothness, efficiency and start-up current surge problems. Is this the same system, or were the 25Kv AC networkers fundementally different from the southern region ones?


----------



## iampuking

Is the Piccadilly line going to be swapped with the District line's Ealing Broadway branch when Heathrow T5 opens? I've just heard about this somewhere and i'm wondering...

And why doesn't the tube have it's own thread when Hong Kong's MTR etc have their own!?!


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Is the Piccadilly line going to be swapped with the District line's Ealing Broadway branch when Heathrow T5 opens? I've just heard about this somewhere and i'm wondering...
> 
> And why doesn't the tube have it's own thread when Hong Kong's MTR etc have their own!?!


One of the longer-term plans is to transfer the Uxbridge service to the District Line (who originally built & operated it), but the problem is that after decades of reballasting the track has been raised such that there isn't a comfortable clearance for SSR trains under bridges... They do fit, but are limited to 10mph... In short, it would involve a degree of track lowering under bridges between Ealing Common and Rayners Lane. I think the original deal was for the District to run to Uxbridge and the Piccadilly to Ealing Broadway, but this would still result in three Piccadilly Line branches once T5 opens, so the frequency would be less than ideal.

What I think the optimal solution would be is for there to be complete separation of the District and Piccadilly Lines: the Piccadilly should run to Heathrow only (alternating between T4 loop and T5 trains), and the District should take over the Uxbridge service such that everything beyond Acton Town heading toward Ealing / Uxbridge should be SSR only... therefore platforms can be raised at Ealing Common to prevent the precipitous drop down from District Line trains currently witnessed (as the platforms are served by both SSR and Tube stock), and we'd no longer have Piccadilly trains clogging up the 'slow' platforms at Acton Town delaying the District service.

As the District Line would now have yet another western terminus, I'd run the Uxbridge trains to terminate at High Street Kensington as there are no train paths left through the City... the Uxbridge - High Street trains can fill the slots between Wimbledon / Richmond / Ealing trains vacated by Circle Line trains at Gloucester Road, leading to an 8 minute off-peak service, the same as the Richmond and Ealing services.

As the Olympia service currently terminates at High Street Kensington, I'd truncate it at Earl's Court: Just west of Platform 1 Earl's Court there is a complex of Metronet buildings which could be demolished to create a 3 car length bay platform. The road ex-Olympia continues parallel to the 'main' ex-West Kensington until about 100 yards west of Earl's Court, all that needs to be done is to extend this road to the new bay platform such that a completely self-contained 3-car shuttle service can operate between the new bay platform and Olympia. This would make the Olympia service far more reliable: currently it is not uncommon for a train to depart Olympia on time only to then be held in the tunnel approaching Earl's Court for 5 minutes while late-running 'main' services run past it... It can often take 7-8 minutes just to go the one stop!

So the service patterns would be revised to: (off-peak)

Richmond - Upminster 8 mins
Wimbledon - Upminster 8 mins
Wimbledon - Edgware Road 8 mins
Ealing - Tower Hill 8 mins
Uxbridge - High Street Kensington 8 mins
Olympia - Earl's Court 15 mins (increased to 8 during exhibitions by 'double ending')

There is a 'London Underground' thread buried somewhere, but this seems to be the unofficial LU thread!


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> One of the longer-term plans is to transfer the Uxbridge service to the District Line (who originally built & operated it), but the problem is that after decades of reballasting the track has been raised such that there isn't a comfortable clearance for SSR trains under bridges... They do fit, but are limited to 10mph... In short, it would involve a degree of track lowering under bridges between Ealing Common and Rayners Lane. I think the original deal was for the District to run to Uxbridge and the Piccadilly to Ealing Broadway, but this would still result in three Piccadilly Line branches once T5 opens, so the frequency would be less than ideal.
> 
> What I think the optimal solution would be is for there to be complete separation of the District and Piccadilly Lines: the Piccadilly should run to Heathrow only (alternating between T4 loop and T5 trains), and the District should take over the Uxbridge service such that everything beyond Acton Town heading toward Ealing / Uxbridge should be SSR only... therefore platforms can be raised at Ealing Common to prevent the precipitous drop down from District Line trains currently witnessed (as the platforms are served by both SSR and Tube stock), and we'd no longer have Piccadilly trains clogging up the 'slow' platforms at Acton Town delaying the District service.
> 
> As the District Line would now have yet another western terminus, I'd run the Uxbridge trains to terminate at High Street Kensington as there are no train paths left through the City... the Uxbridge - High Street trains can fill the slots between Wimbledon / Richmond / Ealing trains vacated by Circle Line trains at Gloucester Road, leading to an 8 minute off-peak service, the same as the Richmond and Ealing services.
> 
> As the Olympia service currently terminates at High Street Kensington, I'd truncate it at Earl's Court: Just west of Platform 1 Earl's Court there is a complex of Metronet buildings which could be demolished to create a 3 car length bay platform. The road ex-Olympia continues parallel to the 'main' ex-West Kensington until about 100 yards west of Earl's Court, all that needs to be done is to extend this road to the new bay platform such that a completely self-contained 3-car shuttle service can operate between the new bay platform and Olympia. This would make the Olympia service far more reliable: currently it is not uncommon for a train to depart Olympia on time only to then be held in the tunnel approaching Earl's Court for 5 minutes while late-running 'main' services run past it... It can often take 7-8 minutes just to go the one stop!
> 
> So the service patterns would be revised to: (off-peak)
> 
> Richmond - Upminster 8 mins
> Wimbledon - Upminster 8 mins
> Wimbledon - Edgware Road 8 mins
> Ealing - Tower Hill 8 mins
> Uxbridge - High Street Kensington 8 mins
> Olympia - Earl's Court 15 mins (increased to 8 during exhibitions by 'double ending')
> 
> There is a 'London Underground' thread buried somewhere, but this seems to be the unofficial LU thread!


Gawd you're so helpful!

I would post in the LU thread now that i've found it, but it would be ignored :nuts:


----------



## iampuking

Does the Central line have larger tunnels than other lines? Because the trains look/feel more spacious than other deep level tube trains.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Does the Central line have larger tunnels than other lines? Because the trains look/feel more spacious than other deep level tube trains.


No they are the same, they were originally built to slightly smaller dimensions than the Yerkes standard when they were opened 107 years ago, but were expanded when the Central London railway was absorbed by London Transport. The only explanantion I can offer is that the Central Line cars seem to have straight sides extending higher than most other stock, i.e. the curve of the roof starts higher up, so the cars feel a bit wider. I think the seats are narrower too, giving more floorspace between them. The tunnels are the same size as standard for sure, as the Stock used to be interchangeable (1962 stock displaced by the 1992 stock was transferred to the Northern Line to replace the most dilapidated 1959 stock during the 1990's). Quite a few of the ex-Central Line 1962 stocks I used to drive on the Northern Line still have Central Line route maps in the cabs and 'Central Line' stickers in the windows!


----------



## hoogbouw010

Tubeman,
The seat coverings in the tube cars are printed with nice colourful graphical motifs. Do you know anything about these designs and if there is a website with all the designs displayed. Thanks!


----------



## Tubeman

hoogbouw010 said:


> Tubeman,
> The seat coverings in the tube cars are printed with nice colourful graphical motifs. Do you know anything about these designs and if there is a website with all the designs displayed. Thanks!


They are referred to as 'Moquette' and are a nice feature of Underground trains. They are actually designed to look brighter and cleaner the more worn they are, as the fibres are compacted down the fabric becomes more reflective. You can even buy cushions covered in Moquette from the London Transport Museum!










Classic D Stock Moquette on the left (also used in a lot of buses), the one on the right looks like the Bakerloo line one.

An old 1959 Stock train... towards the end of their life damaged seats were replaced with leftover 1962 stock seats from ex-Central Line trains to cut costs, so there were a lot of 'Frankenstein' trains around with different moquettes inside:










A dog warmer?!?










Lampshades!










Ironing Board cover










New Piccadilly Line moquette










C Stock moquette + pigeon passenger... green, yellow and pink splashes for the District, Circle and Hammermsith & City Lines:










Mostly from here


----------



## hoogbouw010

Thanks, didn't know they are called moquette. Some designs are really fantastic. Some more examples of moquettes here.


----------



## iampuking

I've just come across this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3895769.stm Apparently, it's so noisy that it can damage one's hearing! I love that line! 

Also, I have a question, can you post in my "Favourite Subway Trains" thread cause everyone is ignoring it


----------



## samsonyuen

I want a moquette cushion!


----------



## sarflonlad

Tubeman said:


> No they are the same, they were originally built to slightly smaller dimensions than the Yerkes standard when they were opened 107 years ago, but were expanded when the Central London railway was absorbed by London Transport. The only explanantion I can offer is that the Central Line cars seem to have straight sides extending higher than most other stock, i.e. the curve of the roof starts higher up, so the cars feel a bit wider. I think the seats are narrower too, giving more floorspace between them. The tunnels are the same size as standard for sure, as the Stock used to be interchangeable (1962 stock displaced by the 1992 stock was transferred to the Northern Line to replace the most dilapidated 1959 stock during the 1990's). Quite a few of the ex-Central Line 1962 stocks I used to drive on the Northern Line still have Central Line route maps in the cabs and 'Central Line' stickers in the windows!


The feeling of space, I personally think, comes from the larger windows. I dont know who these people are who didnt like how their reflection looked, but it's a shame all new tube stock is going to continue having these tiny claustrophobic windows.


----------



## Martin S

sarflonlad said:


> The feeling of space, I personally think, comes from the larger windows. I dont know who these people are who didnt like how their reflection looked, but it's a shame all new tube stock is going to continue having these tiny claustrophobic windows.


The original City and South London trains (known as padded cells) didn't have windows at all, just ventilation openings. The argument was that, since they ran through tunnels, there was nothing to see. The train guard would announce each station when the train arrived.


----------



## iampuking

Three questions:

1) I heard that the new 2009 stock for the Victoria line will only be able to fit in Victoria line's tunnels, does this mean that the Victoria line has larger tunnels or something?

2) If there is another "tube" line built, bar crossrail, will it be standard tube size tunnels or will they make it larger and put big trains inside? I'd prefer tube tunnels as it's more "London" myself.

3) Has the JLE got larger tunnels? If so does it mean larger trains could go along that section of the line?


----------



## Dothog

iampuking said:


> Three questions:
> 
> 1) I heard that the new 2009 stock for the Victoria line will only be able to fit in Victoria line's tunnels, does this mean that the Victoria line has larger tunnels or something?


Yerkes tunnels are 3.56m in diameter. Victoria tunnels are 3.71m for better air resistance. (http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/intro.html)



> 2) If there is another "tube" line built, bar crossrail, will it be standard tube size tunnels or will they make it larger and put big trains inside? I'd prefer tube tunnels as it's more "London" myself.


Who knows? Bigger tunnels are more expensive.



> 3) Has the JLE got larger tunnels? If so does it mean larger trains could go along that section of the line?


JLE tunnels are 4.35m across. Some of this is used for a walkway there is room for higher trains; however the 1939 tunnels between Baker Street and Finchley Road rule out anything bigger than standard tube trains. (www.davros.org/rail/culg/jubilee.html).


----------



## Martin S

It's not always the shear physical size of the tunnels that limits the type of trains that can be used. If the tunnels have small radius horizontal curves, some trains will not be able to use them because of the projection of the ends and middle of each coach (known as the end and centre throw).


----------



## iampuking

Dothog said:


> JLE tunnels are 4.35m across. Some of this is used for a walkway there is room for higher trains; however the 1939 tunnels between Baker Street and Finchley Road rule out anything bigger than standard tube trains. (www.davros.org/rail/culg/jubilee.html).


Thanks, but for this answer I was asking whether or not a bigger train could fit just in the JLE tunnels and not the rest of the line, I was just wondering really.

Thanks a lot for the rest of the answers they were interesting, and no i'm not a terrorist.


----------



## Tubeman

I think your questions have generally been answered, although I'd add to #2 that yerkes diameter tunnels would not be built again for a newly built line... I'm certain room for a walkway would be stipulated like on the JLE and DLR tunnels.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> I think your questions have generally been answered, although I'd add to #2 that yerkes diameter tunnels would not be built again for a newly built line... I'm certain room for a walkway would be stipulated like on the JLE and DLR tunnels.


What i'm asking is whether they would make the tunnels large enough for 'normal' trains to fit in, or make them like the JLE where as far as i'm aware, 'normal' trains cannot fit into.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> What i'm asking is whether they would make the tunnels large enough for 'normal' trains to fit in, or make them like the JLE where as far as i'm aware, 'normal' trains cannot fit into.


If it were a self-contained Tube line like the Vic then possibly a bit larger, but I think a bore wide enough to accommodate mainline loading gauge would be deemed excessive really. Also don't forget that stock is transferred between lines generally so if the new line received stock via another Tube line then the trains couldn't be any larger (e.g. all Northern Line stock comes via the Piccadilly Line, Bakerloo via the Jubilee etc).

I think somewhere in between with a link to SSR somewhere would be ideal... a 'hybrid' tunnel diameter giving a bit more room than current Tube stock but without going to the excess of being large enough to accommodate mainline trains.

The JLE was constrained by the fact a portion of the line is traditional pre-WW2 Tube (Baker Street to Finchley Road), with the 1970's extension to Green Park also the same diameter. Therefore, other than installing the walkway alongside the track there was no point in making the JLE tunnels any wider.


----------



## Jean Luc

Tubeman said:


> They are referred to as 'Moquette' and are a nice feature of Underground trains. They are actually designed to look brighter and cleaner the more worn they are, as the fibres are compacted down the fabric becomes more reflective. You can even buy cushions covered in Moquette from the London Transport Museum!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classic D Stock Moquette on the left (also used in a lot of buses), the one on the right looks like the Bakerloo line one.
> 
> An old 1959 Stock train... towards the end of their life damaged seats were replaced with leftover 1962 stock seats from ex-Central Line trains to cut costs, so there were a lot of 'Frankenstein' trains around with different moquettes inside:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Piccadilly Line moquette
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C Stock moquette + pigeon passenger... green, yellow and pink splashes for the District, Circle and Hammermsith & City Lines:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly from here


Wouldn't vandalism (e.g. slashing) be a problem with these? How would grafitti (either paint or ink) be removed?


----------



## Tubeman

Jean Luc said:


> Wouldn't vandalism (e.g. slashing) be a problem with these? How would grafitti (either paint or ink) be removed?


Seats do get slashed, but very rarely in my experience. This sort of damage results in repairs (stitches) or wholesale replacement depending on the severity.

I have occasionally seen marker pen tags on seats, but due to the patterning on the moquettes they aren't very distinct and so this isn't very common either. Its certainly preferable to the moulded plastic seats or plain leather / PVC seen on many other metro trains which are much easier to tag and result in much clearer tags.

They're designed to be very durable and not to show up stains / tags readily due to the 'busy' geometric patterns, they're very effective... and very comfortable compared to moulded plastic seats in particular.


----------



## thainotts

^^ Yes, but spillage is a problem. A friend of my once sat on one of those and got her bottoms wet and chilly for a while.


----------



## Tubeman

thainotts said:


> ^^ Yes, but spillage is a problem. A friend of my once sat on one of those and got her bottoms wet and chilly for a while.


Pretty rare though... I must have ridden the Tube on average 2,000 times a year since I was 12 (so about 35,000 times!) and have not yet sat in anything bar chewing gum once.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> If it were a self-contained Tube line like the Vic then possibly a bit larger, but I think a bore wide enough to accommodate mainline loading gauge would be deemed excessive really. Also don't forget that stock is transferred between lines generally so if the new line received stock via another Tube line then the trains couldn't be any larger (e.g. all Northern Line stock comes via the Piccadilly Line, Bakerloo via the Jubilee etc).
> 
> I think somewhere in between with a link to SSR somewhere would be ideal... a 'hybrid' tunnel diameter giving a bit more room than current Tube stock but without going to the excess of being large enough to accommodate mainline trains.
> 
> The JLE was constrained by the fact a portion of the line is traditional pre-WW2 Tube (Baker Street to Finchley Road), with the 1970's extension to Green Park also the same diameter. Therefore, other than installing the walkway alongside the track there was no point in making the JLE tunnels any wider.


So do you think if they constructed a new line it would have tube-shaped trains just larger or conventional shape?

Sorry bout all the questions, I seem to have asked the most out of anyone in existance!

But i'll continue...

Do you think the so-called 'Chelney line' which is dubbed to be a Crossrail line will end up as a normal tube line, isn't that what happenned with the Victoria line anyway?

Also, I have a question about Canning Town station, when the new DLR route to Stratford International opens will it use the North London line platforms, or will they connect it to the upper level DLR ones? It seems ridiculous if the former is chosen, since if one wants to travel to the airport, there will be trains coming from both the ex North London line platforms and the DLR ones! Meaning half the service for each platform...


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> So do you think if they constructed a new line it would have tube-shaped trains just larger or conventional shape?
> 
> Sorry bout all the questions, I seem to have asked the most out of anyone in existance!
> 
> But i'll continue...
> 
> Do you think the so-called 'Chelney line' which is dubbed to be a Crossrail line will end up as a normal tube line, isn't that what happenned with the Victoria line anyway?
> 
> Also, I have a question about Canning Town station, when the new DLR route to Stratford International opens will it use the North London line platforms, or will they connect it to the upper level DLR ones? It seems ridiculous if the former is chosen, since if one wants to travel to the airport, there will be trains coming from both the ex North London line platforms and the DLR ones! Meaning half the service for each platform...


As all new lines in London are going to be bored deep tunnel (I can't see 'Cut & Cover' going down too well anymore!), they will all have a circular profile... This is the case for all new tunnels like the HEX tunnel, CTRL and Crossrail. The circular profile is strong and is obviously the result of rotating tunnelling machines... in short it is the easiest tunnel profile to build. The shape of the train will obviously be dependent on the size of the bore: the smaller the bore the more circular the trains will be in profile... certainly as I already mentioned the Tube dimensions are not ideal and would not be dreamt of for a newly built line.

Regarding Chelsea-Hackney / Chelney / Crossrail 2 I think the trend is away from new Tube lines and toward Crossrail-type projects, so no I don't think we'll ever see a 'Chelney' Tube line, but possibly Crossrail 2 which will follow the same route through Central London, but will instantly tap in to a multitude of suburban mainline services as opposed to being a self-contained Tube line.

Finally, as far as I'm aware the DLR extension to Stratford International will run through the recently closed Silverlink platforms at Canning Town... As you point out this will lead to the odd situation where southbound trains to the same destination (e.g. City Airport) will call at two different platforms on two levels, which is less than ideal. There will be a complex set of flying junctions to the south-east of Canning Town where the routes from Central London and Stratford will converge then diverge into the routes to Woolwich and Beckton (and Dagenham Dock in the future).

And please, ask away... I enjoy answering the questions!


----------



## Cherguevara

Tubeman - long time listener first time caller...

Do you think there's any prospect of a new traditional tube lines to a place not already on the network (Inner south east London, Hackney etc.) being proposed or do you think this perceived shift to 'mainline underground' will mean places like Peckham are just going to have to do without?


----------



## elkram

Tubeman said:


> Pretty rare though...


Hmmm, it happened two mornings in a row some summer ago, coffee or tea on each fabricked seat. The first morning the bus seat was on the back bench, while the following one was on the front one. I've since found many spills, people are careless over here.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

iampuking said:


> Yes, it's Tottenham Hale overground station, the tube station is underground.


It is a stop of the shuttle to Stanstead airport: I pass true there last month, but I didn't notice these round porthole windows. Cool


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Yes, it's Tottenham Hale overground station, the tube station is underground.
> 
> Also Tubeman, I asked a question earlier and I think you must of missed it...
> 
> "I've heard about the Central line ATO, and apparently they drive it manually once overground as ATO can overshoot the platforms? Surely this defeats the whole purpose as the higher frequencies when it's underground will have to be reduced once overground? Or is this counter-acted by the fact that the branches split very near the underground sections, or do they reverse trains early?"
> 
> Do you know?


No, the Central Line is 100% ATO. It was initially manual overground, but now that the technology has been proved the ATO can cope with all railhead conditions (i.e. ice, drizzle, leaf fall) its all ATO all of the time. I think it was manual on Sundays for a while, so drivers kept their 'hands in' in case the ATO trial was deemed a disaster!


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> No, the Central Line is 100% ATO. It was initially manual overground, but now that the technology has been proved the ATO can cope with all railhead conditions (i.e. ice, drizzle, leaf fall) its all ATO all of the time. I think it was manual on Sundays for a while, so drivers kept their 'hands in' in case the ATO trial was deemed a disaster!


Do you think that they should always drive on Sundays, just so the drivers never "forget" if something were to go wrong?


----------



## Zedferret

Hi Tubeman, What are the chances of the tube (e.g Victoria Line) extending to the tottenham area? Cheers


----------



## sweek

zedferrett said:


> Hi Tubeman, What are the chances of the tube (e.g Victoria Line) extending to the tottenham area? Cheers


Ehm, it's in the Tottenham area? Seven Sisters and Tottenham Hale aren't Tottenham anymore?
If it's extended, it'd be towards Leytonstone as originally planned I think, but the line is already so overcrowded that it simply can't take more passengers.


----------



## Acemcbuller

zedferrett said:


> Hi Tubeman, What are the chances of the tube (e.g Victoria Line) extending to the tottenham area? Cheers


Victoria Line to Northumberland Park

More recent documents online from Haringey council indicate that the idea is pretty dead though with it being removed from their plans.


----------



## NothingBetterToDo

sweek said:


> Ehm, it's in the Tottenham area? Seven Sisters and Tottenham Hale aren't Tottenham anymore?
> If it's extended, it'd be towards Leytonstone as originally planned I think, but the line is already so overcrowded that it simply can't take more passengers.


Tottenham is a big area - He's talking about the proposed extension to Northumberland Park (close to Tottenham Hotspur football club) - in North Tottenham.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Do you think that they should always drive on Sundays, just so the drivers never "forget" if something were to go wrong?


Probably more trouble than its worth... The trouble with ATO is drivers get too used to entering platforms at very high speed and so don't drive defensively enough manually, we've had problems with drivers from ATO lines when they transfer to manual lines before (e.g. over-running platfoms, signals passed at danger). When the 'codes are lost' and an ATO line has to revert to manual, its only at limited speed anyway, so the risk of inexperienced drivers is largely mitigated.


----------



## Tubeman

zedferrett said:


> Hi Tubeman, What are the chances of the tube (e.g Victoria Line) extending to the tottenham area? Cheers


Assuming you mean Northumberland Park, I think your question has already been answered by Acemcbuller.

Obviously the Victoria Line already serves much of Tottenham...


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, why do many stations have that awful strip lighting? And are there any plans to get rid of it? Also, are the windows on the tube shatter-proof?


----------



## 1LONDONER

Hey tubeman, from the other thread which tube station is this?




Also in the thread its got this station (pic below) down as arnos grove in properties, which it isnt. looks like southgate to me. But could be a similar station like bounds green, but ive never come out at that station so im not sure..


----------



## iampuking

The top one is Southwark.

The bottom could be maybe... St John's Wood or Swiss Cottage?


----------



## Riise

The station in the bottom picture looks quite similar, actually identical, to those found in Moscow.


----------



## iampuking

Riise said:


> The station in the bottom picture looks quite similar, actually identical, to those found in Moscow.


It's definately in London, there are a few Charles Holden art deco designed stations that look quite similar to Moscow Metro stations (albeit nowhere near as grand) he claimed he was "inspired" by Moscow's system. The picture is enhanced in some way though.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, why do many stations have that awful strip lighting? And are there any plans to get rid of it? Also, are the windows on the tube shatter-proof?


I don't really know what a suitable replacement for fluorescent strip lighting is... 'normal' bulbs probably give out too much heat. Moves have been made to make the colour exuded by strip bulbs more realistic (i.e. more like natural daylight), so stations are now more white than orangey.

All glass on Tube stock is safety glass, i.e. it shatters into tiny cubes of glass which isn't as sharp as shards of normal glass.

Some glass is missile proof, i.e. there is a layer of plastic sandwiched between two layers of safety glass... The glass surrounding the driver's cabs is generally missile proof, although I don't know if its necessary on the Victoria Line which has no overground sections.


----------



## Tubeman

1LONDONER said:


> Hey tubeman, from the other thread which tube station is this?


Certainly not Arnos Grove as labelled... I think its either one of the 1930's vintage Jubilee Line stations (St John's Wood or Swiss Cottage), or one of the stations between Leytonstone and Newbury park on the Central Line... Gants Hill rings a bell.


----------



## Tubeman

On second thoughts, this is Gants Hill:










You can see from the bank of escalators at the far end its not the same station (assuming there is only one bank there, I've never been there).


----------



## Tubeman

Looks like Swiss Cottage on further Googling:



















...Although that being said the 'Way Out' sign in the second photo should be visible then? :?


----------



## Tubeman

...St Johns Wood is almost identical too...


----------



## 1LONDONER

yh think its southgate


----------



## Justme

Will the congestion charge ever be used to help finance more Tube lines? I know it's used for the buses at the moment, but they have really improved now (well, except for dropping the routemasters). So what about other projects.

Does anyone know how much the congestion charge brings in every year?


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> Will the congestion charge ever be used to help finance more Tube lines? I know it's used for the buses at the moment, but they have really improved now (well, except for dropping the routemasters). So what about other projects.
> 
> Does anyone know how much the congestion charge brings in every year?


Not enough for a new Tube Line, that's for sure!

Yes ideally that would be the case, but by the time you subtract the cost of administrating the CC plus the millions being lost by people riding Bendy buses for free there's probably enough left over for a coat of paint and a dozen lightbulbs!


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Not enough for a new Tube Line, that's for sure!
> 
> Yes ideally that would be the case, but by the time you subtract the cost of administrating the CC plus the millions being lost by people riding Bendy buses for free there's probably enough left over for a coat of paint and a dozen lightbulbs!


Bendy buses. I do like Ken Livingstone but those things were a dreadful idea.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Bendy buses. I do like Ken Livingstone but those things were a dreadful idea.


I couln't agree more :yes:


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> I couln't agree more :yes:


I know! Why did he bother with them?

Also, how many tph are there on each line in the central section? How does it compare to other systems around the world?


----------



## fishcatdogbird

Bendy buses make me so furious! When riding into work the are so difficult to pass, drivers always pull out and as they are so long when the turn corners are always pushing into the cycle lane. Let alone the above they always block intersections, make it difficult to cross the road, and the amount of hobos on it is insane and yet after living in London for over 2 years im yet to see a disabled person use one!!! ARGHHHHH


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> I know! Why did he bother with them?
> 
> Also, how many tph are there on each line in the central section? How does it compare to other systems around the world?


Maybe he got a nice Merc for his trouble? I really don't know.

Just had a lovely journey on one... the heaters were blasting out hot air making the bus like a sauna, even though the windows were all open they provided minimal ventilation, and I was sat near a tramp who stank of piss who wouldn't have been on a Routemaster as the Clippie would have kicked his arse off the bus.

20 minutes on a pissy sauna :bash:

I really don't get the obsession with cranking up the heating on the bendies... Even last month when it was very pleasant indeed most had the heaters on all day, and even in Winter I don't see why they should be on so hot as everyone's wearing heavy jackets, so the last thing you want is to get on a stuffy bus heated to 25C.

I'm certain that state-of-the-art Mercedes buses come with air con as standard... a ridiculous decision must have been made to order them _without_ air con... cost saving? to help the environment? **** knows! As they are obviously designed to have air con as standard the windows are crappy little slits which open 45 degrees giving nil ventilation. Oh but don't worry, they painted the rooves white to reflect the sun's heat... that's alright then :crazy:

Plus, they take up far too much roadspace... 3 turn up at once and the back of the third bus is about 75 metres from the bus stop, and I've often seen people missing the bus they wanted because it stopped so far from the stop they're waiting at becuase of other bendies in front.

I hate them! :bash:

The day the Routemaster retired from my route (the 38) I was genuinely very upset indeed... I'm a transport nerd anyway, but to me the RM was an utter institution: a part of London died the day it was withdrawn 

Regarding tph through Central London...

20-30 is normal (i.e. a train every 2-3 minutes), probably more likely closer to 20 than 30 per timetable. In the 1930's some lines managed in excess of 30tph due to a proliferation of signals, but many of these were ripped out to minimise the number of signal failures and cheapen maintenance costs when usership fell in the 1960's amd 70's. Technically, with ATO, lines like the Central or Victoria could manage maybe a train a minute... But this means that there'd be a distinct lack of trains elsewhere on the line, and journey times would be extended as trains pause in tunnels waiting for the train in front to depart a platform. If anything goes wrong, you have dozens of trains stuck in tunnels.

A train every 2 minutes (30tph) is probably the realistic top frequency of any system.


----------



## iampuking

Thanks for that. Apparently, when new ATO comes for the Vic they'll be able to cram 33tph onto the line. Doubt we can trust metronet though!


----------



## sweek

I actually quite like the bendy buses. They're comfortable, and I think quite suitable for frequent, very busy lines without too many turns. I use the 29 all the time and double deckers just wouldn't be able to cope with the amount of traffic that's usually there. The time it takes for people to enter and exit is also reduced drastically.
I've never even noticed the heating, by the way?


----------



## Tubeman

^^

LOL you must be a reptile... or maybe its only the 38's which are afflicted by year-round furnace-like heating?


----------



## NothingBetterToDo

sweek said:


> I actually quite like the bendy buses. They're comfortable, and I think quite suitable for frequent, very busy lines without too many turns. I use the 29 all the time and double deckers just wouldn't be able to cope with the amount of traffic that's usually there. The time it takes for people to enter and exit is also reduced drastically.
> I've never even noticed the heating, by the way?


The 29 takes sooooooooo long to get into town. Its at LEAST an hour on the 29, compared to about 25 mins on the Tube (and despite everyones moaning, i rarely have any delays when using the tube) 

I wish they would introduce 'Express Buses' that only stop at the main transport interchanges/shopping hubs etc. Most people are on the bus for the long haul - its just an annoying individual or two that uses the smaller bus stops, which slows the whole journey down for everyone else. They could leave the regular buses for the annoying people that get on/off at awkward stops


----------



## sweek

I never actually take the 29 into town. I mostly take it between Turnpike Lane, Harringay and Camden Town, but no further than that. The reason I don't think express buses would really be helpful is because the reason buses are slow is not really the number of stops (not during the daytime anyway), but the amount of other traffic that's there. But maybe it could help, I don't know. I wouldn't be against it anyway.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman,

-How come the Metropolitan line's Amersham branch isn't in the "normal" zones?
-Do drivers put their lights on, and can they see in front of them?
-If Crossrail ever gets built, will it appear on the tube map, or do you think it will effectively destroy the aesthetics of it?
-Will the new Victoria line signalling be "fixed block" or "moving block" signalling?
-Do the new Vic trains have the long type carriages or the shorter ones?

Thanks in advance...


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman,
> 
> -How come the Metropolitan line's Amersham branch isn't in the "normal" zones?
> -Do drivers put their lights on, and can they see in front of them?
> -If Crossrail ever gets built, will it appear on the tube map, or do you think it will effectively destroy the aesthetics of it?
> -Will the new Victoria line signalling be "fixed block" or "moving block" signalling?
> 
> Thanks in advance...


1) Its just so far from London physically... The Epping end of the Central Line also used to lie outside Zone 6 for the same reason, but was brought in when the Epping-Ongar service ended.

2) Not much in the tunnels. You mainly look at a reflection of yourself with the light on, but at least you get someone to talk to :crazy:

I used to always have it on for 3 reasons:

- So I could wave at my mates as I passed them
- So I could eye up talent on the platforms
- Apparently it discourages people from jumping uder your train

3) I'm pretty sure it would. As its a strategic move to reduce congestion on east-west tube lines it would be a strange decision to leave it off the map. It needn't ruin the aesthetics of the map provided its drawn on well.

4) Moving block, I'd have thought


----------



## iampuking

Do the headlights light up the tunnels much then?

Also I have questions about the new "S" Stock:

Aren't the walk through carriages a bit dangerous? If there was a bomb the debris could travel through the entire train... And what if the train stopped suddenly, or there was a crash, couldn't the passangers be thrown much further? Also, will they bet entirely walk-through or be like the DLR with cars that are divided? 

Oh yeah and: How does the Moscow Metro get cram enough trains for every 90 secs?

Sorry and thanks!


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Do the headlights light up the tunnels much then?
> 
> Also I have questions about the new "S" Stock:
> 
> Aren't the walk through carriages a bit dangerous? If there was a bomb the debris could travel through the entire train... And what if the train stopped suddenly, or there was a crash, couldn't the passangers be thrown much further? Also, will they bet entirely walk-through or be like the DLR with cars that are divided?
> 
> Oh yeah and: How does the Moscow Metro get cram enough trains for every 90 secs?
> 
> Sorry and thanks!


Headlights are much more for the train to be seen by people on the track rather than anything to do with lighting up the tunnels... They barely light the tunnels at all, and to be blunt lighting up the tunnels is pretty pointless anyway as everything which the driver needs to see (signals, speed restrictions) are lit anyway.

Regarding walk-through carriages I'm under the impression they're going to just be like mainline EMUs, so the cars will still be separate but the communicating doors will be permissable for passengers to walk through as they'll be enclosed, so in effect the integrity of the cars will be no different to now. I don't think they'll be articulated.

Trains every 90 seconds or less occur on the Tube, but they aren't supposed to per timetable. At this frequency train speeds start slowing down and it becomes a bit of a false economy. Victoria Line trains could effectively come and go from a platform one after the other with only seconds separating them, but they would be crawling. As i said, 30 tph is probably the realistic optimum for a free-flowing, delay-free service. Any more frequent and trains stop-start a lot and journey times extend.


----------



## iampuking

So do you think the Moscow Metro has trains stopping in the tunnels and a less than efficient service?


----------



## coth

less than efficient service?


----------



## El_Greco

Tubeman said:


> or maybe its only the 38's which are afflicted by year-round furnace-like heating?



I think so...because when I lived in Ilford I used the 25 all the time and in winters I was freezing my ass off on my way to/from Whitechapel!


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> So do you think the Moscow Metro has trains stopping in the tunnels and a less than efficient service?


Dunno... can't comment (and please don't get coth started!  )

All I do know is that with conventional signalling frequencies above 30 tph will start to cause delays as trains are held up behind the train ahead as it stops at a station.


----------



## sarflonlad

sweek said:


> The JLE is being upgraded to ATO right now, though, and should be using the same system as the DLR in 2009.


I didn't know they were installing it 'right now'. Excellent news, though at present I personally find the Jubilee Line not as crowded as the others. ATO = presumably more trains, running at a faster speed, through some fantastic stations. Finally a 21st century line for London!


----------



## Songoten2554

umm tubeman or anybody here

do any of you people know Thomas the Tank Engine?? i hear he is the most famous Fictional Rail Engine in the world tubeman is there any thomas like Trains for the London Underground?

i noticed something when i watched the epsiodes that notices alot of british Rail infrustructure in the series was it made in britian? and who made it? i am thinking it was influanced i don't know

anybody here can explain this?


----------



## Acemcbuller

Of course we know Thomas, the books, the series, the toys...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Tank_Engine_and_Friends
They original name "Thomas The Tank Engine" was dropped in recent years because it didn't translate well (so I heard) to other languages. So now it's just "Thomas and Friends" 

And more recently:
http://www.undergroundernie.com/


----------



## sweek

sarflonlad said:


> I didn't know they were installing it 'right now'. Excellent news, though at present I personally find the Jubilee Line not as crowded as the others. ATO = presumably more trains, running at a faster speed, through some fantastic stations. Finally a 21st century line for London!


Just picking this up from another forum:

Trains done so far 
028-027
044-043
048-079
070-069 all in service but still as conventional trains
032-031 waiting testing on DCA 
118-117 in work
112-111 done,but waiting repairs on 112 unit after it's mishap.
064-063 done,but on test track at Highgate,064 due to return next Wednesday night

The section north of Wembley is ATO-ready and should be going 'live' this September.


----------



## iampuking

I'm so lucky I live on the Jubilee line!

The central is quite reliable too, and the Vic is ATO but it's always crowded so that isn't much of a plus.

Though I can't help but feel sorry for the poor sods living on the Northern line. You see a train leave the stations and then look at the Dot Matrix "Morden via Bank 10 MINUTES"

And btw, will the Jubilee be like the DLR in having no driver?!? I wouldn't want to be in a dark victorian tunnel when driverless personally.


----------



## NothingBetterToDo

^^ Yeah, i hate the northern line...not only does it take ages for the right train to arrive, but once you're on it its painfully slow. The trains chug along at what feels like walking pace and it takes hours to get anywhere on it. 

Victoria and Piccadilly are my faves - those trains know how to move and they come every couple of minutes.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

NothingBetterToDo said:


> ^^ Yeah, i hate the northern line...not only does it take ages for the right train to arrive, but once you're on it its painfully slow. The trains chug along at what feels like walking pace and it takes hours to get anywhere on it.
> 
> Victoria and Piccadilly are my faves - those trains know how to move and they come every couple of minutes.



Me too I hate the Northern Line. I also hate the Bakerloo Line & the Victoria Line. I lke especially the Picadilly; Central & Discrit lines.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Songoten2554 said:


> umm tubeman or anybody here
> 
> do any of you people know Thomas the Tank Engine?? i hear he is the most famous Fictional Rail Engine in the world tubeman is there any thomas like Trains for the London Underground?
> 
> i noticed something when i watched the epsiodes that notices alot of british Rail infrustructure in the series was it made in britian? and who made it? i am thinking it was influanced i don't know
> 
> anybody here can explain this?


Yeah of course we know about it, it's set in a imaginary British island in the Irish sea, inbeteewn England & the Isle of Man.


----------



## sarflonlad

You'd have thought that bringing ATO to the Northern Line would be a priority, but I guess from the point of view of stimulating and maintaining growth at CW ATOing the Jubilee is also fairly urgent.


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> You'd have thought that bringing ATO to the Northern Line would be a priority, but I guess from the point of view of stimulating and maintaining growth at CW ATOing the Jubilee is also fairly urgent.


Northern ATO works are underway I believe.

That'll be 4 ATO lines by 2011 up from just one 10 years ago


----------



## iampuking

sarflonlad said:


> You'd have thought that bringing ATO to the Northern Line would be a priority, but I guess from the point of view of stimulating and maintaining growth at CW ATOing the Jubilee is also fairly urgent.


It's probably to do with the Olympics, the Jubilee goes to Stratford so they want to get it done?



DFM said:


> Me too I hate the Northern Line. I also hate the Bakerloo Line & the Victoria Line. I lke especially the Picadilly; Central & Discrit lines.


You hate the Victoria line? hno:


----------



## sweek

What's wrong with the Bakerloo? Never really have much problems with it. The only problem I can think of is that many services don't go beyond Queen's Park.


----------



## iampuking

I don't like the Bakerloo personally. The stations are too close together and the route is too curvy so it just goes real slow.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> It's probably to do with the Olympics, the Jubilee goes to Stratford so they want to get it done?


Its probably more to do with the issues with the 'conventional' signals currently installed as a stop-gap... As it was a rushed job they were not installed to allow a very high capacity.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> I don't like the Bakerloo personally. The stations are too close together and the route is too curvy so it just goes real slow.


Oi! Lay off my new line! :bash:


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Oi! Lay off my new line! :bash:


Does this mean you won't answer my incessant questions?


----------



## city_thing

I like the northern line, but probably only because I used to live in camden, so it was the line I always took. The District line is quite bad I always felt.

Piccadilly line is the best.


----------



## iampuking

city_thing said:


> I like the northern line, but probably only because I used to live in camden, so it was the line I always took. The District line is quite bad I always felt.
> 
> Piccadilly line is the best.


The Piccadilly line is reliable, but it goes really slow in the central, the stations are too close together... It's a tourist magnet, it goes through Piccadilly Circus, Heathrow, Leicester Square and Covent Garden!


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, questions!

-What is the T5 Piccadilly line station like?
-Why are the lights on in the tunnels by the crossovers?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Does this mean you won't answer my incessant questions?


Yes


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, questions!
> 
> -What is the T5 Piccadilly line station like?
> -Why are the lights on in the tunnels by the crossovers?


Re: T5... Haven't seen it... All I know is its 4 platforms (2 Tube, 2 HEX)

Re: Lights at crossovers... On ATO lines its so that drivers can see the position of points when driving manually (i.e. 'codes lost'), thus preventing a derailment. On manual lines its so that the station supervisor can see what they're doing if they need to manually secure the points due to a signal failure, and then so that the drivers can check the points have been correctly secured before passing over them.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Re: T5... Haven't seen it... All I know is its 4 platforms (2 Tube, 2 HEX)
> 
> Re: Lights at crossovers... On ATO lines its so that drivers can see the position of points when driving manually (i.e. 'codes lost'), thus preventing a derailment. On manual lines its so that the station supervisor can see what they're doing if they need to manually secure the points due to a signal failure, and then so that the drivers can check the points have been correctly secured before passing over them.


How can the drivers see the positions of the points? It seems like the train is going too fast. And the lights are usually on at all times...

Anyway:
-How come sometimes on the Victoria line the train breaks incredibly aggressively, throwing some people across the train!
-When the S Stock comes, will the Metropolitan line go faster on the long sections?
-What dictates maximum line speed?
-What are these constant "engineering works" part closures on the weekends for? It seems a bit... excessive... do other systems around the world have as many part closures?
-I heard from a forum that the new Victoria line signalling will be fixed block, is this true?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> How can the drivers see the positions of the points? It seems like the train is going too fast. And the lights are usually on at all times...


When the ATO fails and trains are driven manually on the Vic and Central lines speed is limited to a crawl (5-10mph), and drivers are explicitly told to ensure points are set correctly for them.



iampuking said:


> How come sometimes on the Victoria line the train breaks incredibly aggressively, throwing some people across the train!


The trains are getting a bit old and the braking doesn't respond exactly how its supposed to, so without last-ditch intervention they can often overrun the monitors. The drivers have to manually apply the emergency brake just as the train is coming to a halt to ensure it stops where its supposed to (you'll hear a whooshing sound from the front of the train as the driver applies the emergency brake followed by a farting noise from each car, as retarders release excess brake pressure). This leads to a very sudden halt just as people are standing up to get off. The 2009 stock should hopefully put and end to this!



iampuking said:


> When the S Stock comes, will the Metropolitan line go faster on the long sections?
> 
> What dictates maximum line speed?


The answer to the second question answers the first: Line speed is dictated by the track, either curvature or its quality. Therefore technically the JLE has no line speed as such, as the track is so good and straight that trains can go as fast as they physically can provided they stop at the stations. Metropolitan line speeds have been decreased from 70mph to 60mph due to deteriorating track, and unless the track is replaced the S Stocks will be similarly constrained. Even on an A Stock speeds of over 100mph have allegedly been reached on the long downhill sections coming into London from The Chiltern Hills, the onus is on the driver to shut off at 60mph and apply the brake to prevent the train picking up further speed due to the downhill gradient.



iampuking said:


> What are these constant "engineering works" part closures on the weekends for? It seems a bit... excessive... do other systems around the world have as many part closures?


Of course all networks have to close sections from time to time for essential works, but the difference with London at the moment is we're carrying out about 10 year's worth of outstanding works, so the closures are much more frequent. Blame underinvestment over the past 2 decades.



iampuking said:


> I heard from a forum that the new Victoria line signalling will be fixed block, is this true?


Hmmm possibly, they may just be using new trains on the existing ATO infrastructure?


----------



## iampuking

On wikipedia, it says the Vic is getting "more mordern" ATO, but it doesn't specify what type. But I read on another forum that it'll be "fixed block". I guess we'll have to wait and see really...

Thanks a bunch for all your replies Tubeman, it's really interesting! 

Sorry two more!

-The Central line is getting a new westbound platform at Stratford for the Olympics, does this mean a completely new bit of track? Or will the platform just be on the other side of the existing track a la Arnos Grove?

-According to Metronet's image library, the SSL stock will have transverse seating, but it's got a large gap between the bottom of the seat and the floor, after the IRA's bombing campaign is it really a good idea to leave such a large gap? A bomb could easily be placed there.

Thanks again!


----------



## DanielFigFoz

sweek said:


> What's wrong with the Bakerloo? Never really have much problems with it. The only problem I can think of is that many services don't go beyond Queen's Park.



It's smelly; noisy; slow; dirty etc.


Yes, i also hate te Vic. Line


----------



## iampuking

DFM said:


> It's smelly; noisy; slow; dirty etc.
> 
> 
> Yes, i also hate te Vic. Line


Smelly? How is the Bakerloo smellier then other lines? How is it noisier than other lines, apparently the Bakerloo is the quietest! So that throws your theory out the window. The Bakerloo is slow, i'll give you that. But dirty? How is it dirtier than other lines?

And why do you hate the Victoria line?

Stop saying things without any evidence to back them up. And to me it doesn't sound like you hate specific lines, just the London Underground in general hno:


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> -The Central line is getting a new westbound platform at Stratford for the Olympics, does this mean a completely new bit of track? Or will the platform just be on the other side of the existing track a la Arnos Grove?


I suspect a new wider platform will be built above the embankment on the south side of the station complex, as the Central Line Westbound is the furthest south track, so as you suspect it will be like Arnos Grove / Barking / Golders Green / Uxbridge / Morden with platforms on both sides of the train. Pretty pointless though, as I presume the vast bulk of visitors will be alighting from eastbound trains, not westbound (not many tourists stay in Leytonstone!). I very much doubt the tunnels etc would be realigned or anything, this would be far too costly, with questionable benefit (the current arrangement with cross-platform transfer to the mainline servcies is ideal).



iampuking said:


> -According to Metronet's image library, the SSL stock will have transverse seating, but it's got a large gap between the bottom of the seat and the floor, after the IRA's bombing campaign is it really a good idea to leave such a large gap? A bomb could easily be placed there.


I wouldn't pay too much attention to the computer-generated renders... I very much doubt the final seating plan will be confirmed until after the first prototype is built. These days we should be more worried about bombs with the terrorists still attached to them than IRA-style bombs under seats... From the terrorists' point of view its too risky just leaving them lying around as they would quickly be discovered and the services suspended (i.e. no casualties), and moreover forensic evidence could be gleaned from the disarmed bomb.


----------



## Tubeman

Actually, I just realised the additional westbound platform would make a lot of sense... this is where olympicgoers would wait _after_ a day's watching the games... the current platform would become very dangerous if there were a delay as it is an island with the mainline on one side and central line on the other and only one entrance / exit at one end. Passenger numbers can be much more easily and safely controlled with a new, dedicated, wider platform on the other side of the train. Doors could be opened on the existing platform first for egress from the train then a few seconds later on the new platform side, which could be access only, improving passenger flows.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

iampuking said:


> Smelly? How is the Bakerloo smellier then other lines? How is it noisier than other lines, apparently the Bakerloo is the quietest! So that throws your theory out the window. The Bakerloo is slow, i'll give you that. But dirty? How is it dirtier than other lines?
> 
> And why do you hate the Victoria line?
> 
> Stop saying things without any evidence to back them up. And to me it doesn't sound like you hate specific lines, just the London Underground in general hno:



What! I pratacly grew up on the Underground! I love the: Picadilly
Central
Distrit
Hamm. & C.
Circle
Jubbile


----------



## El_Greco

Hi Tubeman :wave: 

Do you know why Old Shoreditch Station (On The Corner Of Old Street And Kingsland Road) was closed?

Thanks :cheers:


----------



## Tubeman

El_Greco said:


> Hi Tubeman :wave:
> 
> Do you know why Old Shoreditch Station (On The Corner Of Old Street And Kingsland Road) was closed?
> 
> Thanks :cheers:


I was just about to launch into a post about the Shoreditch station that closed last year on Brick Lane... Then I re-read you post!

Shoreditch and Haggerston stations closed in 1940 due to bomb damage and never re-opened, despite the fact that passenger trains continued passing the abandoned platforms until the late 1980's. Whilst it was common for stations to close temporarily due to enemy action, many Inner London stations that did so were never re-opened as passenger numbers were already light due to bus and tram competition and it was therefore not worth the expenditure during Postwar austerity to rebuild.

Shoreditch will never reopen, the new Hoxton station being slightly further to the north (in a slightly bizarre backstreet location if you ask me), whereas the new Haggerston station will be on the same site as the original.


----------



## iampuking

DFM said:


> What! I pratacly grew up on the Underground! I love the: Picadilly
> Central
> Distrit
> Hamm. & C.
> Circle
> Jubbile


You didn't answer my questions.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> I suspect a new wider platform will be built above the embankment on the south side of the station complex, as the Central Line Westbound is the furthest south track, so as you suspect it will be like Arnos Grove / Barking / Golders Green / Uxbridge / Morden with platforms on both sides of the train. Pretty pointless though, as I presume the vast bulk of visitors will be alighting from eastbound trains, not westbound (not many tourists stay in Leytonstone!). I very much doubt the tunnels etc would be realigned or anything, this would be far too costly, with questionable benefit (the current arrangement with cross-platform transfer to the mainline servcies is ideal).
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't pay too much attention to the computer-generated renders... I very much doubt the final seating plan will be confirmed until after the first prototype is built. These days we should be more worried about bombs with the terrorists still attached to them than IRA-style bombs under seats... From the terrorists' point of view its too risky just leaving them lying around as they would quickly be discovered and the services suspended (i.e. no casualties), and moreover forensic evidence could be gleaned from the disarmed bomb.


I know we have more of a worry of suicide bombers these days, but hey, who knows what the threat is in the future! Thanks for your answers!


----------



## El_Greco

Tubeman said:


> I was just about to launch into a post about the Shoreditch station that closed last year on Brick Lane... Then I re-read you post!
> 
> Shoreditch and Haggerston stations closed in 1940 due to bomb damage and never re-opened, despite the fact that passenger trains continued passing the abandoned platforms until the late 1980's. Whilst it was common for stations to close temporarily due to enemy action, many Inner London stations that did so were never re-opened as passenger numbers were already light due to bus and tram competition and it was therefore not worth the expenditure during Postwar austerity to rebuild.
> 
> Shoreditch will never reopen, the new Hoxton station being slightly further to the north (in a slightly bizarre backstreet location if you ask me), whereas the new Haggerston station will be on the same site as the original.


Very interesting.Thank you very much.:cheers:
Do you by any chance know how many stations (tube/rail) London had in mmmm 1920s?More or less than today?I think more...Whitechapel alone had like 3 stations - Whitechapel St Mary and Leman Street plus 2 goods stations.
What was the point in having so many stations in such small area?



:cheers1:


----------



## iampuking

God the Northern line is *awful* I had to use it today between Moorgate and Euston. Euston station was badly lit, confusing and dirty. In Moorgate the train was too short for the platform (this happens at a few Northern line station) and it was so crowded because the trains are infrequent and only 6 cars. Tubeman, do you think it would ever be feasible to split the Northern line into two lines, the Charing Cross branch could go to Edgware, and the Bank branch to High Barnet, the High Barent & Bank branch could be called it's old name... City & South London, or would that be too long? Would it make sense to extend the platforms to accomodate 7 or 8 car trains, on the Bank branch either? Also, I read about air conditioning on the tube in the papers, it said some air cooling thing would be installed at Oxford Circus, great news! But do you have any clue how it works?


----------



## Tubeman

El_Greco said:


> Very interesting.Thank you very much.:cheers:
> Do you by any chance know how many stations (tube/rail) London had in mmmm 1920s?More or less than today?I think more...Whitechapel alone had like 3 stations - Whitechapel St Mary and Leman Street plus 2 goods stations.
> What was the point in having so many stations in such small area?
> 
> :cheers1:


I think that with the inclusion of the DLR London has probably more railway stations than ever, but up until World War 1 there was a proliferation of inner London mainline stations which closed during the war never to reopen, and those which did reopen then closed for good during World war 2. 

Mainline companies were a little overambitous with station provision in Inner London during 'Railway Mania', perhaps the stiff competition from trams, tubes and buses was at that time unforseen. Of a very long list I can think of:

Borough Road, Walworth Road, Camberwell (all between Blackfriars and Loughborough Jcn)

Camden Road, Haverstock Hill (between St Pancras and West Hampstead)

Holloway (next to Holloway Rd tube)

Spa Road, Commercial Dock (between London Bridge and Deptford)

Leman Street, Cannon Street Road (between Fenchurch St and Limehouse)

Mile End, Globe Town, Coborn Road (Between Liverpool St and Stratford)

...The aforementioned Shoreditch and Haggerston (between Broad St and Dalston Jcn)

Also factor in the fact that we were often seeing several competing railway companies building stations near to one another... there was no TFL or strategic transport planning then. For example at one point Shepherd's Bush had 4 different stations on different lines, all within a few hundred yards of each other (H&C, Central, West London line, London & South-western... the latter now closed and the line dismantled). There are tons of other anomalies of adjacent stations with no interchange, as I said there was no planning, just stiff competition for passengers.


----------



## El_Greco

^ Thank you!


----------



## DanielFigFoz

iampuking said:


> You didn't answer my questions.



Well I might be wrong (I haven't been on it since '02 but I remember it as being not very nice.


----------



## Acemcbuller

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, do you think it would ever be feasible to split the Northern line into two lines,


I think effectively it already is in terms of service patterns. Tubemans has said previously that actually spiitting it would reduce the flexibility (for example drivers not knowing the road) when there is a problem on one branch.



> Also, I read about air conditioning on the tube in the papers, it said some air cooling thing would be installed at Oxford Circus, great news! But do you have any clue how it works?


See:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/4987.aspx
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/5217.aspx


----------



## carlspannoosh

One good idea would be for London Underground to put signs around Northern Line stations warning that you shouldnt use it if you are travelling to a schedule, e.g going to work, meeting someone at a certain time etc.


----------



## El_Greco

Oh come on now!Northern Line isnt that bad.


----------



## iampuking

El_Greco said:


> Oh come on now!Northern Line isnt that bad.


Yes it is! Sometime I have to wait for like 5 minutes for a train, the stations are all manky, the trains are too short and always crowded, the trains are too big for some stations, Camden town is just a mess and the DVA is annoying!


----------



## Trainman Dave

I sounds like nothing has changed since I was commuting from Clapham Common to Hampstead


----------



## Tubeman

carlspannard said:


> One good idea would be for London Underground to put signs around Northern Line stations warning that you shouldnt use it if you are travelling to a schedule, e.g going to work, meeting someone at a certain time etc.


:rofl:

Perhaps their mission statement could be: "You'll get there eventually... probably"


----------



## NothingBetterToDo

Trainman Dave said:


> I sounds like nothing has changed since I was commuting from Clapham Common to Hampstead


jeez, so what that....about 3 hours each way??  would have been quicker walking.


----------



## Tubeman

Insider info: I had lunch with the Chief Operating Officer Mike Brown (Tim O'Toole's number two) on Tuesday on account of my recent promotion to Middle Management, and he mentioned that a full split of the Misery / Northern Line is part of the long-term strategy of LU.

Another bit of info I just discovered since moving to the Bakerloo is that plans are quite far advanced for a southern extension of the Bakerloo beyond Elephant & Castle to Hayes (Kent)... I heard a cost of £3.5 billion mentioned today (i.e. no fucking chance!).

I can only assume it entails stops [give or take] at Walworth, Camberwell, Peckham, Nunhead, then hence over existing NR tracks taking over the Hayes branch beyond Lewisham. A good cost-benefit... Bakerloo Line capacity is under-utilised south of Waterloo and Walworth, Camberwell and Peckham could really do with Tube (utter shiteholes). It would then provide useful interchanges with NR / DLR at Lewisham as well as the Croydon Tramlink at Elmers End. It would also remove the perpetual headache of trying to reverse 24tph via Elephant & Castle's two platforms and single scissors crossover (an issue I am very rapidly becoming familiar with).


----------



## Trainman Dave

NothingBetterToDo said:


> jeez, so what that....about 3 hours each way??  would have been quicker walking.


I was living with my Aunt in Clapham and her coooking made it well worth while :cheers:
and it was free


----------



## sarflonlad

Tubeman said:


> Insider info: I had lunch with the Chief Operating Officer Mike Brown (Tim O'Toole's number two) on Tuesday on account of my recent promotion to Middle Management, and he mentioned that a full split of the Misery / Northern Line is part of the long-term strategy of LU.
> 
> Another bit of info I just discovered since moving to the Bakerloo is that plans are quite far advanced for a southern extension of the Bakerloo beyond Elephant & Castle to Hayes (Kent)... I heard a cost of £3.5 billion mentioned today (i.e. no fucking chance!).
> 
> I can only assume it entails stops [give or take] at Walworth, Camberwell, Peckham, Nunhead, then hence over existing NR tracks taking over the Hayes branch beyond Lewisham. A good cost-benefit... Bakerloo Line capacity is under-utilised south of Waterloo and Walworth, Camberwell and Peckham could really do with Tube (utter shiteholes). It would then provide useful interchanges with NR / DLR at Lewisham as well as the Croydon Tramlink at Elmers End. It would also remove the perpetual headache of trying to reverse 24tph via Elephant & Castle's two platforms and single scissors crossover (an issue I am very rapidly becoming familiar with).


Wow really interesting news!

Is the Northern line split likely to happen in the way you have previously discussed? Any suggestion of a time frame? Surely though commuters on the existing South Branch will be peeved they have to change given their destinations are no longer on the current line...

Excellent "in theory" news on the Bakerloo front. 3.5bn though! Do lines really cost that much?

Did you get to question him on anything related to Chelney/CR2 ?


----------



## sweek

Wow, that's interesting to read, Tubeman. After Nunhead I think a station at Brockley for interchange with the London Overground / extended East London Line would be very useful as well.

The Northern Line split had been mentioned before in certain documents. It just can't happen until Camden Town station is improved and enlarged - it'll become an even more important interchange if this happens, and it's too small already.

The Bakerloo extension southwards is very interesting! How likely would it be for the Charing Cross branch of the Northern Line to be extended southwards from Kennington if this all happens? I know we're talking very long term developments here.


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> Wow really interesting news!
> 
> Is the Northern line split likely to happen in the way you have previously discussed? Any suggestion of a time frame?


Yes. The layout at Kennington means that it must be the Bank branch that continues south to Morden (Bank branch trains can't access the Kennington Loop). Likewise as this means the Bank-Morden section would have one of the major overhaul depots (Morden), it follows that the Kennington-Charing Cross section must get the other (Golders Green) and so the Edgware Branch goes to the Kennington-Charing Cross line and the Barnet / Mill Hill branches go to the Bank-Morden Line.

A link between the two would need to be retained... The Bank Branch connects with the Piccadilly Line at King's Cross, so probably the southbound link between the Edgware Branch and the Bank Branch as Camden Town would be kept and the rest taken out of commission.

In terms of timeframe its technically a matter of reprinting all the maps, inventing a new name for one of the 'new' lines and devising a new timetable... It really is that straightforward. Quite possibly in time for ATO operation in 2011... but that's merely a guess on my part.



sarflonlad said:


> Surely though commuters on the existing South Branch will be peeved they have to change given their destinations are no longer on the current line...


...If it imrpoves frequency and reliability between Morden and Kennington then it probably wouldn't be a problem... the interchange at kennington is cross-transfer so pretty painless.



sarflonlad said:


> Excellent "in theory" news on the Bakerloo front. 3.5bn though! Do lines really cost that much?


Well the JLE was £4 billion... the amount of tunnelling and brand new stations is less though, and the stations would no doubt be much less lavish (can't see Camberwell getting a station like Canary Wharf!), but the entire Hayes Branch would need to be upgraded to LUL standard which is 10 or so stations... unless we end up with a similar situation to the north end of the Bakerloo where LU trains serve NR stations (until November at least). Its a third of the conservative cost of the Crossrail 1 too, so it does seem fairly good value.



sarflonlad said:


> Did you get to question him on anything related to Chelney/CR2 ?


Didn't want to look like a nerd! But that's more of a TFL / NR issue... we certainly won't see anything until Crossrail 1 is built.


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> Wow, that's interesting to read, Tubeman. After Nunhead I think a station at Brockley for interchange with the London Overground / extended East London Line would be very useful as well.


Indeed. I don't know if the extension is intended to surface at Nunhead and take over the lightly used link between there and Lewisham, or remain in tunnel until south of Lewisham to link up with the Hayes branch... My recollection is that Its all embankment / viaduct between Peckham Rye and Lewisham, so a surfacing tube line would have a mean gradient and cause a lot of disruption getting up to the existing line. If using the existing line new platforms could be built for Brockley, which is immediately south of that line, or if still in Tube a more convenient interchange could be built.



sweek said:


> The Northern Line split had been mentioned before in certain documents. It just can't happen until Camden Town station is improved and enlarged - it'll become an even more important interchange if this happens, and it's too small already.


Absolutely... I think this is the only major obstacle at present (Mike Brown said as such).



sweek said:


> The Bakerloo extension southwards is very interesting! How likely would it be for the Charing Cross branch of the Northern Line to be extended southwards from Kennington if this all happens? I know we're talking very long term developments here.



Like the Bakerloo south of Waterloo, the new Kennington-Edgware line would have unused capacity south of Waterloo, so an extention off the Kennington Loop and south is completely plausible. My suggestion is: 

Brixton - Brixton Hill - Streatham Hill - Streatham - Norbury

I think any further down London Road to Croydon and the line will get caned with too many passengers.


----------



## Cherguevara

Tubeman - Do we know what's happening with the Camden station enlargement. I remember it was a big deal when I lived up that way (2002, as a student, when I had hair and hope) but the market traders (and boy George) kicked up a huge fuss and I haven't heard anything since then.

I didn't really like the plans, but something does need to be done up there.


----------



## Justme

iampuking said:


> Yes it is! Sometime I have to wait for like 5 minutes for a train, the stations are all manky, the trains are too short and always crowded, the trains are too big for some stations, Camden town is just a mess and the DVA is annoying!


If you have to wait 5 minutes for a train, and that qualifies it as a bad line, then you'd hate much of the world's networks. Here in "central" Frankfurt, off peak you can sometimes wait up to 20minutes for the next u-bahn. Even on peak I had to wait 5 minutes this morning.


----------



## iampuking

Justme said:


> If you have to wait 5 minutes for a train, and that qualifies it as a bad line, then you'd hate much of the world's networks. Here in "central" Frankfurt, off peak you can sometimes wait up to 20minutes for the next u-bahn. Even on peak I had to wait 5 minutes this morning.


Well compared to other tube lines it isn't very good, i've never had to wait longer than 3 minutes for the Jubilee or Piccadilly and i've never had to wait longer than 2 minutes for the Central and Victoria!! In the central section of course, and when the service is running smoothly. It's amazing how many more people can flood the platforms when there are that extra 2 minutes top wait...

And great news about the Bakerloo Tubeman! If the stations aren't going to be like Canary Wharf or North Greenwich, will they be like say... Southwark?


----------



## Rational Plan

Tubeman said:


> Insider info: I had lunch with the Chief Operating Officer Mike Brown (Tim O'Toole's number two) on Tuesday on account of my recent promotion to Middle Management, and he mentioned that a full split of the Misery / Northern Line is part of the long-term strategy of LU.
> 
> Another bit of info I just discovered since moving to the Bakerloo is that plans are quite far advanced for a southern extension of the Bakerloo beyond Elephant & Castle to Hayes (Kent)... I heard a cost of £3.5 billion mentioned today (i.e. no fucking chance!).
> 
> I can only assume it entails stops [give or take] at Walworth, Camberwell, Peckham, Nunhead, then hence over existing NR tracks taking over the Hayes branch beyond Lewisham. A good cost-benefit... Bakerloo Line capacity is under-utilised south of Waterloo and Walworth, Camberwell and Peckham could really do with Tube (utter shiteholes). It would then provide useful interchanges with NR / DLR at Lewisham as well as the Croydon Tramlink at Elmers End. It would also remove the perpetual headache of trying to reverse 24tph via Elephant & Castle's two platforms and single scissors crossover (an issue I am very rapidly becoming familiar with).


Well the Camden station rebuild will eventually happen and it will be funded out of TFL's normal ten year plan, so the seperation of the Northern line should eventually happen (within 10 years).

I've always thought that the Bakerloo could be extended. Its one of the less crowded tube lines and the terminus in Elephant and Castle has always pointed so invistingly towards Lewisham. Indeed there must have been half a dozen plans over the years pointing towards that goal. But considering the grief of wringing any money out of thies government for transport then I'm not hopeful. 

Maybe if a true London wide congestion charge, at least to zone three, was introduced then the funding could be found.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Well compared to other tube lines it isn't very good, i've never had to wait longer than 3 minutes for the Jubilee or Piccadilly and i've never had to wait longer than 2 minutes for the Central and Victoria!! In the central section of course, and when the service is running smoothly. It's amazing how many more people can flood the platforms when there are that extra 2 minutes top wait...
> 
> And great news about the Bakerloo Tubeman! If the stations aren't going to be like Canary Wharf or North Greenwich, will they be like say... Southwark?


Sadly I wouldn't go so far as to calling it 'news' as such, although the scheme is being seriously investigated I sincerely doubt is ever comes to anything.

The section of the Northern Line with the best service is Kennington-Morden, I think trains turn up every 2-3 minutes in the peak. I find the Bank branch fairly 'poor' (perhaps 5-7 minutes off-peak), but this is still pretty good by world standards. The trouble is the line is so often disrupted that you're unlikely to ever be seeing the true timetable in action... I gave up using it despite living 2 minutes from Angel station as the number of times I spent the 2 minutes getting down to platform level from the entrance only to find a packed platform and the next train in 9 minutes I lost count of. I ended up catching the 38 or 19 buses from Angel to Holborn for the Piccadilly Line to Earl's Court, quicker and much less grief than the palaver of going one stop on the Northern to King's Cross.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Sadly I wouldn't go so far as to calling it 'news' as such, although the scheme is being seriously investigated I sincerely doubt is ever comes to anything.
> 
> The section of the Northern Line with the best service is Kennington-Morden, I think trains turn up every 2-3 minutes in the peak. I find the Bank branch fairly 'poor' (perhaps 5-7 minutes off-peak), but this is still pretty good by world standards. The trouble is the line is so often disrupted that you're unlikely to ever be seeing the true timetable in action... I gave up using it despite living 2 minutes from Angel station as the number of times I spent the 2 minutes getting down to platform level from the entrance only to find a packed platform and the next train in 9 minutes I lost count of. I ended up catching the 38 or 19 buses from Angel to Holborn for the Piccadilly Line to Earl's Court, quicker and much less grief than the palaver of going one stop on the Northern to King's Cross.


Thanks for that.

Tubeman, I asked this before but I think you missed it.. Would it ever be feasible to extend the platforms on the Northern line, maybe they could split the line first and then extend the platforms on the busier branch (Bank branch?) 6 cars seens insufficient...

Also, will the new 09TS for the Vic have longer cars like the 95/96TS or shorter ones like the 92TS?

Finally! Why in the refurbished stations has the "Mind the gap, please" been introduced? I noticed it at Bethnal Green and at Regent's Park when I went through it! Both stations aren't even on a curve! And why the hell do tourists find "Mind the Gap" so funny?


----------



## Justme

iampuking said:


> And why the hell do tourists find "Mind the Gap" so funny?


I can only guess it comes from some of the versions with a very strong, harsh but posh accent - which to tourists sounds so quintessential on their recent arrival in England.
http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/samplesViewSingle.php?id=12705

This version is also cool, you have to wait until the end...
http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/samplesViewSingle.php?id=12710

There is a better version out there, which sounds like the speaker is smoking a pipe whilst in a smoking jacket and sitting on a great big armchair in front of the fire... But I can't be bothered looking for it.

The popularity of this phrase though has reached quite amazing levels. Although a few other networks around the world have used it as well (Toronto, Singapore and New York - where they changed it to "Watch the Gap") only the London one where it started is famous.

The phrase is well known enough for London Underground to print it on t-shirts and other souvenirs sold to the public. 
The phrase also inspired songs of the same name by Judge Dread, The Soundtrack of Our Lives, Osamu Kubota, and Matrix. 
The Thompson Twins called their tour of the UK, in 1984, the "Mind The Gap" tour. 
In Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere, Richard Mayhew (the protagonist) ignores the warning and encounters a beast known as "The Gap". 
In the videogame X2: The Threat, the phrase can be heard being broadcast in the space stations. 
The phrase is the title of an interactive 'Tube map' showing the process of creativity and innovation with reference to Harry Beck, the tube map originator. 
Composer Robert Steadman wrote an experimental composition entitiled Mind the Gap for cello orchestra, which depicts a journey around the Circle Line of the London Underground beginning and ending with the performers shouting "Mind the gap". 
The phrase was sampled on The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu's album 1987 (What the **** Is Going On?). 
On the Infected Mushroom album Converting Vegetarians (2003), the title track contains the line "Minding the gap since 1996". 
Bentley Rhythm Ace has a song titled Mind The Gap 
In the video game Halo 2, the phrase is one of many semi-humorous messages randomly broadcast through the loudspeakers on the railway station-based multiplayer level Terminal. 
Mind the Gap is a recurrent theme and the title of a 2004 film written and directed by Eric Schaeffer. 
The primeval man in the 1972 film Death Line can say only "mind the doors" - the original phrase spoken by the drivers before the automated system was put in place. 
"Mind the Gap" is the name of a song created by Osamu Kubota for the video game Beatmania IIDX Happy Sky. 
On The Ricky Gervais Show, Steve Merchant described a t-shirt he saw on a youth that read, "**** the Gap". 
"Mind The Gap" is also the name of an album by German techno band Scooter. 
In the video game Metal Gear Solid 2, the phrase is said by a malfunctioning A.I. saying random things. 
"Mind the Gap" is the name of a Hungarian metal band that has broken up. 
"Mind the Gap" was the name of a Vancouver alternative band that has broken up. 
In the 2006 film Notes on a Scandal (film), the character Sheba, played by Cate Blanchett, says that her father used to tell her that "mind the gap" refers to "the distance between life as you dream it and life as it is." 
"Mind the Gap" is mentioned in "New Frontier", a song by Counting Crows on This Desert Life LP ("little children mind the gap") 
"Mind the Gap" is the title of the song performed by UK indie rock band Noisettes. 
"Mind the Gap" is the title of a film: A Svensk release of a Sweetwater Filmright II production, in association with Svensk, TV4, Cinema Art Prods., Succefilm, with participation of Break Even. 
Hans Rosling's project to organize global statistic data into easily accessible diagrams is called the Gapminder Foundation in reference to the phrase "Mind the Gap".


----------



## Calvin W

Question do you know anything outside of London and Great Britain when it comes to subways?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Thanks for that.
> 
> Tubeman, I asked this before but I think you missed it.. Would it ever be feasible to extend the platforms on the Northern line, maybe they could split the line first and then extend the platforms on the busier branch (Bank branch?) 6 cars seens insufficient...


Possible, but improbable. Its been done before (the original City & South London platforms were all extended in the 1920's when the Northern Line was created... look for the change in platform tunnel diameter at stations like Borough, these are the extensions). Some of the platforms were built long enough for 9 short cars (maybe 8 cars of 1996 stock), Highgate and all of the platforms built during the 1920's expansion are long enough. 9 car trains used to run for a short while but the difficulties posed by having 2 cars stopping in tunnels at many central London stations (i.e. passengers had to know which cars' doors wouldn't open) rendered it pretty pointless.

Its probably easier just to resignal to allow higher frequencies (and more customer-focused)... this is in the pipeline anyway (ATO in 2011)



iampuking said:


> Also, will the new 09TS for the Vic have longer cars like the 95/96TS or shorter ones like the 92TS?


Good question... I don't really know to be honest. I suspect long like the 73, D78, 95 and 96 stocks... The Victoria line has no tunnel geometry constraints demanding shorter cars (unlike the Central Line), but the fact that if cars were longer trains would be 7 cars might be an issue, as operationally its easier having an even number of cars in a train (i.e. 4x 2-car units). The only line left with an uneven number of cars is my beloved Bakerloo with 7 (4 car+3 car)... 7 cars of 38 or 59 stocks used to be standard on the Piccadilly, Northern and Bakerloo Lines (i.e. the Yerkes Tubes). Perhaps the Victoria Line could have 6 extra-long cars?



iampuking said:


> Finally! Why in the refurbished stations has the "Mind the gap, please" been introduced? I noticed it at Bethnal Green and at Regent's Park when I went through it! Both stations aren't even on a curve! And why the hell do tourists find "Mind the Gap" so funny?


I suspect DDA compliance (Disability Discrimination Act)... Even though there isn't a gap due to a curve, there is a step up to the train to which the visually impaired should be notified.

As to the phrase being funny, I agree with Justme that its probably the ultra-posh 'Mind the Gap!' barked by the automated announcements at places like Embankment Northern Line northbound that tickles them!


----------



## Tubeman

Calvin W said:


> Question do you know anything outside of London and Great Britain when it comes to subways?


Not really... outside my field of expertise I'm afraid!


----------



## DarJoLe

Why is the announcer at the newly refurbished King's Cross so scary?


----------



## lasdun

Since the upgrade the Jubilee has 7 cars now.

I'm about to move to Lambeth North so I look forward to knowing who to blame when I'm late for work!

The northern split is a great idea, theres some PDF burried on the TfL site with various plans that includes some details. Camden needs to get real and accept that they need a serious upgrade, which you can fund with your tax or with air rights development - i'm all for development! That said, they could rehouse the market (a big problem with the application last time) I'm sure, I'd also love more upgrades to keep the original facades, again - no reason that that would not be possible that I can think of.

The Southern Tube extentions from Kennington and Elephant would be great, and real vote winners aswell, that's a huge number of people in the catchement area. Little Bakerloo is going to really grow up when it's running from watford to Hayes! (perhaps time for a third escalator at paddington!!)

As for the north lines spit, how about Southern for the charring cross branch (as it goes to morden) and I think the SSL upgrade is going to make pink or yellow avalible as the H&C line and Circle are merged so there is your colour. Purple is being saved for cross rail, gold for chelney and light green should be on standby just in case we ever figure out how to simplify the district!

Wineing and dining with the uppermanagement! don't forget about us all!


----------



## Calvin W

Tubeman said:


> Not really... outside my field of expertise I'm afraid!



Ok thanks. I have a few questions on North American and Australian systems. I will check around those sub forums.


----------



## sweek

Oh, since you haven't mentioned it, and I suppose it's right up your alley now... (when) is the Bakerloo expected to be extended back to Watford Junction? I believe the old Victoria line stock would be transferred there to assist the current stock, which would be in 2009 once the new trains there go back into service.
Is anything going to change to the Bakerloo at the end of this year, when TfL takes over the Silverlink services?


----------



## Tubeman

lasdun said:


> Since the upgrade the Jubilee has 7 cars now.


You're aboslutely right! I hang my head in shame :doh: 



lasdun said:


> I'm about to move to Lambeth North so I look forward to knowing who to blame when I'm late for work!


*gulp* Its actually a very reliable line in the central section, one of the best.



lasdun said:


> The northern split is a great idea, theres some PDF burried on the TfL site with various plans that includes some details. Camden needs to get real and accept that they need a serious upgrade, which you can fund with your tax or with air rights development - i'm all for development! That said, they could rehouse the market (a big problem with the application last time) I'm sure, I'd also love more upgrades to keep the original facades, again - no reason that that would not be possible that I can think of.


This is all I can find about it... Looks like we're back at a consultative stage following rejection of the first scheme (because of the surface buildings).



lasdun said:


> The Southern Tube extentions from Kennington and Elephant would be great, and real vote winners aswell, that's a huge number of people in the catchement area. Little Bakerloo is going to really grow up when it's running from watford to Hayes! (perhaps time for a third escalator at paddington!!)


Stumbled across 'alwaystouchout'... Its got loads of information about transport projects in London, mentioning (amongst other things) Bakerloo extensions north & south, new NR stations at Walworth and Camberwell (re-openings essentially), the Crossrails, Overground (etc). Its unofficial, and some of the projects need updating, but its better than the projects section on the official TFL site.



lasdun said:


> As for the north lines spit, how about Southern for the charring cross branch (as it goes to morden) and I think the SSL upgrade is going to make pink or yellow avalible as the H&C line and Circle are merged so there is your colour. Purple is being saved for cross rail, gold for chelney and light green should be on standby just in case we ever figure out how to simplify the district!


As I said the lines can only really be split into Edgware - Charing Cross - Kennington and Barnet / Mill Hill - Bank - Morden. The former should be renamed the 'Hampstead Tube' (its pre-northern Line colloquial name) or to fit in with the other lines the 'Hampstead Line', the remainder can remain 'Northern' as the name tips a nod to the Great Northern Railway's 'Northern heights' routes which the line largely took over (everything north of East Finchley). If as you mention the 'T Cup' line comes to fruition (i.e. Hammersmith H&C line to Edgware Road via a lap of the Circle and back again) then I suppose pink could be an appropriate colour for the Hampstead Tube, but I don't think yellow really stands alone on the map too well (it only really 'works' at the moment because the Circle runs alongside other lines pretty much throughout).



lasdun said:


> Wineing and dining with the uppermanagement! don't forget about us all!


No wine involved... we were on duty!


----------



## Tubeman

Calvin W said:


> Ok thanks. I have a few questions on North American and Australian systems. I will check around those sub forums.



You can try me... Metros / Subways / Tubes are actually pretty generic.


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> Oh, since you haven't mentioned it, and I suppose it's right up your alley now... (when) is the Bakerloo expected to be extended back to Watford Junction? I believe the old Victoria line stock would be transferred there to assist the current stock, which would be in 2009 once the new trains there go back into service.
> Is anything going to change to the Bakerloo at the end of this year, when TfL takes over the Silverlink services?


Again referring to 'alwaystouchout' it appears that this is expected to happen by 2012 as Phase 2 of the London Overground project. The key event is the commencement of a Queens Park to Stratford service which will provide a service to Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead stations, and by this time as you say the redundant 1967 stocks can be modified and delivered to the Bakerloo Line. I doubt it actually would be Queens Park to Stratford, as I don't think NR trains can reverse there. It would make far more sense for services to reverse via the little-used bay platforms at Willesden Junction Low Level, thus providing interchange with the North London and West London lines.

2012 service pattern on London Overground / North London railway. Note the doubling of services on the Gospel Oak - Barking service (becoming Clapham Junction - Barking)... This suggests to me that unless NR are planning on electrifying GOBLIN, the West London Line will again have to revert to diesel operation:


----------



## iampuking

Thanks Tubeman, interesting as usual!

So are they going to put the "Mind the Gap" announcement at every refurbished station from now on that has a step up/step down to the train? They mays well do every bloody station then...

I just saw this hilarious, "so bad it's good" song/video about the Central line as well!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvgxz2wyolg


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Thanks Tubeman, interesting as usual!
> 
> So are they going to put the "Mind the Gap" announcement at every refurbished station from now on that has a step up/step down to the train? They mays well do every bloody station then...


If you've heard them at stations with straight platforms then I suspect so... the only exception would be the JLE I suppose.

I can't watch the video... at work at the mo (websense filters YouTube).


----------



## sarflonlad

Tubeman said:


> If as you mention the 'T Cup' line comes to fruition (i.e. Hammersmith H&C line to Edgware Road via a lap of the Circle and back again) then I suppose pink could be an appropriate colour for the Hampstead Tube, but I don't think yellow really stands alone on the map too well (it only really 'works' at the moment because the Circle runs alongside other lines pretty much throughout).


Hi Tubeman.

Previously you talked of the 'T-Cup' line such that it would basically go along the existing Wimbleware route then going around the circle coming back to Wimbledon.

Why is H&C now being suggested for the T-Cup line? Surely the H&C serves a useful purpose as it is unlike the Wimbleware which could easily continue beyond Edgeware Road.


----------



## Stefan88

Tubeman - Do you know how many disused stations and tunnels there are on the London Underground Network?
If so is there a website with pictures or do you have any pictures yourself? Cheers.


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> Hi Tubeman.
> 
> Previously you talked of the 'T-Cup' line such that it would basically go along the existing Wimbleware route then going around the circle coming back to Wimbledon.
> 
> Why is H&C now being suggested for the T-Cup line? Surely the H&C serves a useful purpose as it is unlike the Wimbleware which could easily continue beyond Edgeware Road.


The new thinking seems to have come about due to the intention to extend the Metropolitan Line to Barking, as then capcacity would be increased along the busy Barking-Aldgate East section as trains can be 33% longer (i.e. 8 cars not 6). However, I can't see how Edgware Road with essentially 2 reversing platforms can reverse both the T-Cup and Wimbleware services, as if current frequencies are maintained we're talking 20tph in the peak. I suppose the intention might be for the Wimbleware trains to run through to terminate at Aldgate, but I don't know if there's the capacity between Baker Street and Liverpool Street for T-Cup + Metropolitan Line + Wimbledon-Aldgate services.

Personally, I think a better option could be Hammersmith to Barking via a lap of the Circle, i.e.:

Hammersmith H&C - Edgware Rd - Aldgate - Tower Hill - Gloucester Rd - Edgware Rd - Aldgate East - Barking... perhaps a train every 4 minutes?

This means the middle platforms at Edgware Rd can remain free for reversing Wimblewares.

Its a bit of a headache really... Maybe once the S Stock is universal the current notion of 'lines' on SSR can be thrown out of the window and service patterns can be truly studied for maximum customer benefit. In an ideal world the flat junctions would be eliminated and some sections quadrupled... Baker Street to Farringdon would be ideal as the quadrupling between Farringdon and Moorgate will essentially become redundant if Thameslink '2000' ever happens... It would be great if the Metropolitan Line could run to terminate at Moorgate along a separate pair of lines.


----------



## Tubeman

stef17 said:


> Tubeman - Do you know how many disused stations and tunnels there are on the London Underground Network?
> If so is there a website with pictures or do you have any pictures yourself? Cheers.


You could buy my book!... I have (hopefully) recorded every single abandoned station and section of line across London's entire railway network (as well as the current network), complete with all the dates of opening / closing etc.

This is a fantastic site with loads of photos of London's abandoned Tube stations (with a few of mainline routes too). I haven't really got any photos myself, that site is pretty comprehensive.


----------



## sweek

Reading alt.transport.london, it seems like the bottom half of the Circle can't actually take that many trains, and that those can't all be resersed at Edgware Road as you said. So the option that they came up with was half of the T-Cup line trains not doing any more than Hammersmith - Aldgate, with the others doing Hammersmith - Aldgate - Edgware Road. The Uxbridge branch Met. trains would indeed be going to Barking, then.
I don't think that's good enough an improvement to get rid of the circle line, which really can come in very handy and any of these options would mean extra changes for certain people.


----------



## thainotts

Tubeman, I saw some "Above Ground" posters that depict the route of the Piccadilly line in relation to above ground structures and landmarks. Was wondering if they've done something like that for the other lines. I think its really nice and was looking at it for quite a while.


----------



## RzgR Spijkenisse

He guy's 

At the moment I'm in Milton Keynes for an intenship at a hotel. Tomorow I will visit London

I haven't found a topic yet about it bud what station do I realy need to visit. Like special station for architecture, atmoshpere, history, deepness, longest escelator etc....

Thank a lot already

I am sorry if I have used the wrong topic.


----------



## sweek

RzgR Spijkenisse said:


> He guy's
> 
> At the moment I'm in Milton Keynes for an intenship at a hotel. Tomorow I will visit London
> 
> I haven't found a topic yet about it bud what station do I realy need to visit. Like special station for architecture, atmoshpere, history, deepness, longest escelator etc....
> 
> Thank a lot already
> 
> I am sorry if I have used the wrong topic.


Canary Wharf for the spaciousness and beautiful roof, and the modernity of the Jubilee Line extension.
Westminster for the great escalators and impressive layout.
Angel for the longest escalator.
Oxford Circus, Victoria, Waterloo and King's Cross St. Pancras for the sheer size and business.
Baker Street, where the H&C/Circle platforms still look the way they did when the first Underground started running there.
Notting Hill Gate and High Street Kensington are pretty, I think.
Earl's Court is interesting because so many trains go in so many directions there.

I'm not sure what else to recommend here.


----------



## willkill

Bank/Monument for the stupidly long distance walking underground between the Central/ District and Circle lines.

Covent Garden's also pretty interesting as it's one of the busiest stations without esculators and you use a lift to go down. There is also an emergency staircase with 193 steps which is really quite a way and I walked up it last time I left the station.


----------



## Tubeman

thainotts said:


> Tubeman, I saw some "Above Ground" posters that depict the route of the Piccadilly line in relation to above ground structures and landmarks. Was wondering if they've done something like that for the other lines. I think its really nice and was looking at it for quite a while.


No, just the Piccadilly. My understanding is the design company drew it off their own back and approached LU... it wasn't commissioned by us as such. I agree that its good, it certainly would be a nice feature for other lines.


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> Canary Wharf for the spaciousness and beautiful roof, and the modernity of the Jubilee Line extension.
> Westminster for the great escalators and impressive layout.
> Angel for the longest escalator.
> Oxford Circus, Victoria, Waterloo and King's Cross St. Pancras for the sheer size and business.
> Baker Street, where the H&C/Circle platforms still look the way they did when the first Underground started running there.
> Notting Hill Gate and High Street Kensington are pretty, I think.
> Earl's Court is interesting because so many trains go in so many directions there.
> 
> I'm not sure what else to recommend here.


Also Gloucester Road for the art installations
Southwark is stunning inside


----------



## RzgR Spijkenisse

Alright Thanks a lot Tubeman, Sweek and WillKill I will go and see the stations you've recomended....


----------



## thainotts

Tubeman said:


> No, just the Piccadilly. My understanding is the design company drew it off their own back and approached LU... it wasn't commissioned by us as such. I agree that its good, it certainly would be a nice feature for other lines.


That's a shame. Is there any chance you have a link to it online or something? The London Olympic committee should've hired that company instead, saving £400,000...........


----------



## Tubeman

thainotts said:


> That's a shame. Is there any chance you have a link to it online or something? The London Olympic committee should've hired that company instead, saving £400,000...........


No, I tried to find an image of it online or even a link to the design company ('Globalvision'?) a while back when this topic cropped up, but to no avail.


----------



## Paxton

thainotts said:


> That's a shame. Is there any chance you have a link to it online or something? The London Olympic committee should've hired that company instead, saving £400,000...........


Is this the one you mean? http://thincities.tfl.gov.uk/projects/artist-further-information.php?id=12

There's a link to download it but unfortunately it doesn't work. There's a closer view of it, however, here: http://thincities.tfl.gov.uk/projects/artist.php?id=12


----------



## thainotts

^^ No, not that particular one. But I suppose it was done by the same company seeing as the looks and such are the same, but the one I saw didn't seem to have the visionary aspects of it.


----------



## Tubeman

Paxton said:


> Is this the one you mean? http://thincities.tfl.gov.uk/projects/artist-further-information.php?id=12
> 
> There's a link to download it but unfortunately it doesn't work. There's a closer view of it, however, here: http://thincities.tfl.gov.uk/projects/artist.php?id=12


Nah, thats an artist's interpretation of the Globalvision one in Piccadilly Line cars... Its not the same (note the 'Hammersmith Mushroom Facility' and 'South Chelsea Bisosphere'!!!).


----------



## iampuking

Will Heathrow T5 have PSDs?

Is the Oyster card called Oyster because of the expression "the world is your oyster"?

And are you for the mobile network getting signals on the tube? I'm not... The only time there is any peace on the way to work is when you're on the tube, no-one talks at rush hour. Instead we'll soon have tossers yapping on their phone for the entire journey... As if it isn't bad enough when you sit in a cafe or whatever.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Will Heathrow T5 have PSDs?
> 
> Is the Oyster card called Oyster because of the expression "the world is your oyster"?
> 
> And are you for the mobile network getting signals on the tube? I'm not... The only time there is any peace on the way to work is when you're on the tube, no-one talks at rush hour. Instead we'll soon have tossers yapping on their phone for the entire journey... As if it isn't bad enough when you sit in a cafe or whatever.


PSDs? Did you mean PEDs? (Platform Edge Doors)... If yes, not that I'm aware of, it would require modification of the 1973 stock fleet to some degree (such that the driver opening the train doors will result in the PEDs opening).

Regarding Oyster: I don't know what the 'Oyster' refers to (if anything)... but your suggestion sounds plausible. It may tip a cheeky wink to Hong Kong's 'Octopus' system which predates it? "The world is your octopus" doesn't quite have the same ring to it though!

Regarding mobile signals: dead against for the same reasons as you. Also considering the immemnse background noise on Tube trains everyone would be barking into their phones at the tops of their voices. Now that 'Connect' is being rolled out the Emergency services' radios will work underground, so the only real pro-argument for mobiles working underground has been removed.


----------



## thainotts

Here's a pic of it from yesterday...sorry for the crappy quality, it was taken on my phone


----------



## sweek

I was hoping that because of the high noise levels people would just stick with text messages, which would be very useful for me too, really.


----------



## mrmoopt

PEDs could mean half height gates to full height doors.
PSDs only means full height doors

but essentially both do the same job. Hopefully they keep people away from the track.


----------



## iampuking

cal_t said:


> PEDs could mean half height gates to full height doors.
> PSDs only means full height doors
> 
> but essentially both do the same job. Hopefully they keep people away from the track.


As far as i'm aware, PSDs were installed on the JLE to stop draughts, safety was only an additional benefit...

Regarding the JLE, how come between Westminster and Green Park it is so noisy! It's noisier than the old sections! There is a real loud humming sound and I can barely here someone elses voice!

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> As far as i'm aware, PSDs were installed on the JLE to stop draughts, safety was only an additional benefit...
> 
> Regarding the JLE, how come between Westminster and Green Park it is so noisy! It's noisier than the old sections! There is a real loud humming sound and I can barely here someone elses voice!
> 
> Thanks in advance.


Nah, safety is the prime concern... draughts are good (its the only form of aeration in a lot of Tube tunnels), which is why the PEDs do not form a seal at the top.

I've not ridden Green Park to Westminster lately, but I suspect its due to railhead corrugation (I already described this phenomenon earlier in this thread), this forms on curves with high-speed traffic.


----------



## mrmoopt

Tubeman said:


> Nah, safety is the prime concern... draughts are good (its the only form of aeration in a lot of Tube tunnels), which is why the PEDs do not form a seal at the top.


In a full air con environment, the PSDs are sealed to the top.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Nah, safety is the prime concern... draughts are good (its the only form of aeration in a lot of Tube tunnels), which is why the PEDs do not form a seal at the top.
> 
> I've not ridden Green Park to Westminster lately, but I suspect its due to railhead corrugation (I already described this phenomenon earlier in this thread), this forms on curves with high-speed traffic.


Okay! Thanks! How often does track need to be replaced on the tube, and how long does it take before their is this railhead corrugation?

Also, today, I noticed that in the front car of the 67/72TS has air vents at the top of the cab door in the passenger section... I presumed this was to allow air to rush in from the tunnel? There was a noticeable rush of air when the trains pressure changed which was cooling. I was wondering why there isn't this feature on newer stocks?


----------



## Tubeman

cal_t said:


> In a full air con environment, the PSDs are sealed to the top.


LOL this is London Underground we're talking about!


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Okay! Thanks! How often does track need to be replaced on the tube, and how long does it take before their is this railhead corrugation?
> 
> Also, today, I noticed that in the front car of the 67/72TS has air vents at the top of the cab door in the passenger section... I presumed this was to allow air to rush in from the tunnel? There was a noticeable rush of air when the trains pressure changed which was cooling. I was wondering why there isn't this feature on newer stocks?


Drivers cabs have air con on newer stocks plus some of the most recent refurbs (e.g. 1973 & D Stocks)... so not having the cab airtight would defeat the point. Originally the vents would have been designed to push air through the car though, you're right.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Drivers cabs have air con on newer stocks plus some of the most recent refurbs (e.g. 1973 & D Stocks)... so not having the cab airtight would defeat the point. Originally the vents would have been designed to push air through the car though, you're right.


Why don't they make the air vent not have to pass through the driver's cab? So it could be a bit passing through the ceiling, and won't go through the cab.

I thought the air vent made the journey more... windy! Which is good when it's hot.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> LOL this is London Underground we're talking about!


:lol: So true.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Why don't they make the air vent not have to pass through the driver's cab? So it could be a bit passing through the ceiling, and won't go through the cab.
> 
> I thought the air vent made the journey more... windy! Which is good when it's hot.


There are vents above the windows on stocks like the 67,72 and 73 but they really do seem to supply minimal ventilation... There are also fans in the ceilings but again I hardly remember feeling so much as a whisper from them. The thought of having very powerful fans in the ceilings blasting air downwards is quite an attractive one to me... perhaps they can't be too strong or people would complain about their newspapers getting blown about?

I quote like the scheme suggested this week of a sort of 'stored' air conditioning system: In short, whilst above ground trains would have refrigeration units going into overdrive, chilling water or oil stored in cylinders under the seats and expelling the hot air into the overground world. As soon as the trains entered the tunnel the units would shut off and air from the cars would be circulated across the frozen cylinders, which would slowly defrost whilst chilling the air in the cars. 

Nice idea in principle, but they said it would only last for about 20 minutes and it would obviously be f-all use on the two hottest lines, Victoria and Bakerloo, as the former is all underground and most of the latter's journies are underground (Queens Park to Elephant & Castle). The Jubilee, Piccadilly and Central Lines could benefit the most, however the Northern Line with 17 miles of tunnel from Finchley to Morden wouldn't benefit too much, as trains are only above ground at Morden for about 5 minutes, so essentially it will be a 35 mile / 50km tunnel round trip without the refrigeration recharging.

It would assumedly also add a lot of weight to each carriage, which isn't ideal.


----------



## lasdun

I was quite excited about the storage cooler idea, sounded very smart, but obviously some problems as you pointed out.

Chancery Lane put up some blue cages in the escalator areas and signs announcing a new cooling trial at the begining of the week. I was quite excited. Then they put some fans in the cages. Not very impressive. There is allready a lot of airmovement in that area.


----------



## iampuking

Why do station staff feel the need to make *SO* many announcements? As if "please remember to keep your personal belongings with you" "there is good service on all london underground lines" isn't enough, the staff feel the need to constantly say "mind the doors" "stand behind the yellow line" "the next train is coming in 1 minute" "there are delays on the centreal line" are they that bored!?! We're not children for god sakes!

Also I think you missed it before but: How often does track need replacing?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Why do station staff feel the need to make *SO* many announcements? As if "please remember to keep your personal belongings with you" "there is good service on all london underground lines" isn't enough, the staff feel the need to constantly say "mind the doors" "stand behind the yellow line" "the next train is coming in 1 minute" "there are delays on the centreal line" are they that bored!?! We're not children for god sakes!
> 
> Also I think you missed it before but: How often does track need replacing?



Its about a balance really... One of the main complaints about us is lack of information, but this is more PAs from the drivers when there are delays rather than the constant barrage of information. There's probably also an element of avoiding litigation with the 'Mind the gaps' and 'Mind the doors', i.e. if someone gets injured we have the defence of having made the announcements. A lot of the announcements are pre-recorded or come directly from the NOC (Network Operations Centre) network-wide, so whilst it might sound like the station staff are bored and going into overdrive, its not actually them making many of the announcements.

Track gets replaced wholesale every 20-30 years, but in this period elements are replaced as necessary (e.g. sections of rail, sleepers, porcelain pots etc).


----------



## lasdun

I know you're down on the bakerloo now, but I've been enjoying this weekends engineering work.

The Hamersmith and city line has been a pleasure to use, I have the misfortune of living at Bow Rd and consider the H&C to generaly not exist. If I'm going anywhere on the top of the circle I will allways take the central and change. 

This weekend however, with no circle or district to mess up the junctions, and extra trains laid on, it has been a joy. Train every few minutes, rolling straight through aldgate rather than the usual 5 minute wait, not stopping at whitechappel to let every other train go first. It's wonderfull!

I really think the central's overcrowing could be sorted more easily and more cheaply by improving the H&C - can we start a petition to close whitechappel - Earls court?! Perhaps they could have a shuttle service!


----------



## Truepioneer

Tubeman, I haven't lived in London for 2 1/2 years. I'm aware that day and week travel cards, on Oyster, don't include NR services. Are the old travel cards still sold that include use of Network Rail?

Considering, when I'm back London next, I'll mainly be South it's important that NR service is included on my card.

Cheers,


----------



## sarflonlad

Truepioneer said:


> Tubeman, I haven't lived in London for 2 1/2 years. I'm aware that day and week travel cards, on Oyster, don't include NR services. Are the old travel cards still sold that include use of Network Rail?
> 
> Considering, when I'm back London next, I'll mainly be South it's important that NR service is included on my card.
> 
> Cheers,


Week/Month/Annual travelcards on Oyster DO include NR services within your zones. There's no such thing as a day travelcard on Oyster - the amount you spend on it per day if just capped at the Day Travelcard price (but you still can't use it on NR).


----------



## U Thant

Tubeman said:


> Nah, safety is the prime concern... draughts are good (its the only form of aeration in a lot of Tube tunnels), which is why the PEDs do not form a seal at the top.


That's not right. The JLE was designed for ATO, which allows trains to be driven much more aggressively than a manual driver would, which makes better use of line capacity. One aggressive thing ATO computers can be programmed to do is drive into stations at very high speed and stop at the last minute, and the platform screen is there to protect passengers from the blast of air this creates in underground stations (which is also why the above ground stations don't have doors).

The gap at the top is indeed there to allow ventilation of the system.


----------



## iampuking

U Thant said:


> That's not right. The JLE was designed for ATO, which allows trains to be driven much more aggressively than a manual driver would, which makes better use of line capacity. One aggressive thing ATO computers can be programmed to do is drive into stations at very high speed and stop at the last minute, and the platform screen is there to protect passengers from the blast of air this creates in underground stations (which is also why the above ground stations don't have doors).
> 
> The gap at the top is indeed there to allow ventilation of the system.


Why don't they have them on the Central and Victoria lines then?

On them i've never found the rush of air to be any stronger than on other lines...

Tubeman, thanks as well. Would it ever be feasible to try and create flying junctions on the SSLs? Obviously it could only be done where possible, but maybe it would improve the service?


----------



## U Thant

iampuking said:


> Why don't they have them on the Central and Victoria lines then?


They're not a requirement of ATO, they just allow you to program more aggressive braking curves into the system. Retro-fitting them to the Central and Victoria would be too expensive for the benefits gained, since platforms need to completely rebuilt to take the extra weight/forces.


----------



## lasdun

My understanding was that the private contacts issued for the JLX specified the maximum draft allowed, hence the PEDs.

The safty is another great side effect. I also like that they deter people from holding the doors. Its harder for one thing, but the PEDs are pretty brutish compaired with the train doors and people seem less comfortable throwing themselves into them.


----------



## Tubeman

lasdun said:


> I know you're down on the bakerloo now, but I've been enjoying this weekends engineering work.
> 
> The Hamersmith and city line has been a pleasure to use, I have the misfortune of living at Bow Rd and consider the H&C to generaly not exist. If I'm going anywhere on the top of the circle I will allways take the central and change.
> 
> This weekend however, with no circle or district to mess up the junctions, and extra trains laid on, it has been a joy. Train every few minutes, rolling straight through aldgate rather than the usual 5 minute wait, not stopping at whitechappel to let every other train go first. It's wonderfull!
> 
> I really think the central's overcrowing could be sorted more easily and more cheaply by improving the H&C - can we start a petition to close whitechappel - Earls court?! Perhaps they could have a shuttle service!


My personal dream to 'sort out' SSR would be to scrap the Circle and build a deep-level 'express' Circle line as follows:

Kings Cross St Pancras
Angel
Old Street
Liverpool Street
Fenchurch Street / Tower Hill
London Bridge
Waterloo
Victoria
South Kensington
High Street Kensington
Notting Hill Gate
Paddington
Baker Street
Euston
Kings Cross St Pancras

...With a depot built on the King's Cross railway lands which would then be rafted over for the redevelopment. This route mirrors sections of the circle whilst better serving termini (e.g. Waterloo, London Bridge, Euston) and missing out a few stops, so it becomes a much more attractive route (e.g. Victoria to The City in just 3 stops).

I'd then quadruple Baker Street to Farringdon to allow separation of a Metropolitan service into Moorgate from the H&C (Farringdon-Moorgate is set to be abandoned by Thameslink / First Crapital)... Moorgate would have 4 terminal platforms available for this service.

I'd also close Aldgate and quadruple Aldgate East to Whitechapel to allow separation of the H&C service from the District, eliminating flat junction working at Aldgate East / Aldgate / Minories. All H&C services would terminate at Whitechapel, but the District service would be greatly enhanced due to the train paths freed up by removing the Circle.

I'd then run the H&C with 2 western branches (Hammersmith & Wimbledon) with trains every 4 minutes (i.e. every 2 minutes between Edgware Road and Whitechapel). The Wimbledon Branch would become solely operated by the H&C Line, a new flyunder would be built east of Earl's Court to allow eastbound trains ex-platform 2 to dive under the District line ex-platform 1 without conflict: this would allow the two lines to be completely separate (i.e. platforms 2 and 4 Earl's Court = H&C, 1 and 3 = District). The train every 4 minutes between Wimbledon and Whitechapel could have an additional train every 4 minutes between Wimbledon and High Street Kensington in the peak, providing a far better service to that very heavily used branch than currently provided.

The District would remain from Upminster to Richmond / Ealing, but I'd probably run Upminster - Richmonds every 5 minutes, Barking - Ealings every 5 minutes and Olympia - Plaistows every 10 minutes, giving a train every 2 minutes along the core Earl's Court to Plaistow section. With the removal of the Circle service flat junctions at Gloucester Road and High Street Ken can be eliminated, the only remaining one would be at Praed Street (Edgware Road) which could be eliminated with a flying junction (although doing this with a subsurface tunnel would be tricky!).

That's what I'd do anyway


----------



## Tubeman

U Thant said:


> That's not right. The JLE was designed for ATO, which allows trains to be driven much more aggressively than a manual driver would, which makes better use of line capacity. One aggressive thing ATO computers can be programmed to do is drive into stations at very high speed and stop at the last minute, and the platform screen is there to protect passengers from the blast of air this creates in underground stations (which is also why the above ground stations don't have doors).
> 
> The gap at the top is indeed there to allow ventilation of the system.


Why did you say "That's not right" to only then agree with my statement as your last sentence? :?

As has been pointed out, the Central and Victoria Lines are also auto and both hit platforms very fast... Your notion that the screens are there purely with ATO in mind seems very odd. Of course they're there for safety: customers cannot jump / be pushed / fall under trains or give the impression the are about to. ATO trains hit platforms generally faster, but the same effect can be repeated manually with an experienced driver with a steely nerve. Whether a train hits the platform at 30mph or 40mph you're still going to get a significant blast of air but there's not exactly much in it, its not as if ATO trains enter platforms at 100mph or anything.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, thanks as well. Would it ever be feasible to try and create flying junctions on the SSLs? Obviously it could only be done where possible, but maybe it would improve the service?



I already touched on that with post before last... Its not impossible, but it would be an engineering nightmare in some locations building new inclines / tunnels within the constraint of exisitng subsurface tunnels... In many cases I doubt it would be possible without demolition at street level.


----------



## Tubeman

U Thant said:


> They're not a requirement of ATO, they just allow you to program more aggressive braking curves into the system. Retro-fitting them to the Central and Victoria would be too expensive for the benefits gained, since platforms need to completely rebuilt to take the extra weight/forces.


But the point is people aren't being knocked off their feet by a Central or Victoria Line train entering a platform at 40mph any more than they are by other lines trains at 30mph. I really can't see the draught issue being very high up on the list of reasons compared to the great benefit of having a physical barrier between the customers and track / trains to prevent people under trains, near-misses etc. In fact, I'd say prevention of litter from blowing onto the track / down tunnels is more of a consideration.


----------



## Justme

Truepioneer said:


> Tubeman, I haven't lived in London for 2 1/2 years. I'm aware that day and week travel cards, on Oyster, don't include NR services. Are the old travel cards still sold that include use of Network Rail?
> 
> Considering, when I'm back London next, I'll mainly be South it's important that NR service is included on my card.
> 
> Cheers,


You can still buy normal paper tickets which from memory have the full day/week/month travel cards for all trains including network rail in the 6 zones.

The catch is that paper tickets cost more than Oyster cards - a lot more.

As for Oyster cards being used on mainline stations. When I was last in London with my Oyster card there were some stations that allowed it's use, or others which allowed it for daily, weekly tickets etc but not for "pay as you go".

In fact, from memory (someone correct me if I am wrong here), the Oyster weekly pass should also work with all NR stations in zones 1-6. The catch was that you couldn't use a "pay as you go" method. However, all stations have now agreed to use the Oyster method now (for "pay as you go"), and over the next few years various lines will start providing this service.

I got my Oyster at Heathrow, and have just kept it for the next time I travel there. Hopefully by then I can top it up online from outside of the UK.

To be honest, it's a great system.


----------



## sweek

ANY travelcard - on Oyster or as a paper ticket - allows you to travel on all tube and NR services, except for the Heathrow Express and the Heathrow Connect between Heathrow and Hayes & Harlington.
It's only pay as you go Oyster that is not accepted on most National Rail routes, for now.

Edit: bit late there, didn't see there was a new page!

Tubeman: I think your plan would be overserving the section between Paddington and King's Cross - with trains every two minutes on your new H&C (well, H/W&C really  ) plus all the train on the new deep level circle line. Your plan without the deep-level circle line already looks great, and would probably create enough capacity by splitting the services and building fly-overs / dive-unders.
If there was enough money to be spent on a new deep-level line, I would try and serve area not yet served instead.


----------



## U Thant

Tubeman said:


> Your notion that the screens are there purely with ATO in mind seems very odd.


It's not "my notion". Read any published work on the JLE and it'll agree with me - the primary reason for the doors is to manage air blasts from trains. Of course they prevent suicides, but that alone was not seen as reason enough to add them, which is why the 3 above ground stations don't have them.


----------



## sarflonlad

Tubeman said:


> My personal dream to 'sort out' SSR would be to scrap the Circle and build a deep-level 'express' Circle line as follows:
> 
> Kings Cross St Pancras
> Angel
> Old Street
> Liverpool Street
> Fenchurch Street / Tower Hill
> London Bridge
> Waterloo
> Victoria
> South Kensington
> High Street Kensington
> Notting Hill Gate
> Paddington
> Baker Street
> Euston
> Kings Cross St Pancras
> 
> ...With a depot built on the King's Cross railway lands which would then be rafted over for the redevelopment. This route mirrors sections of the circle whilst better serving termini (e.g. Waterloo, London Bridge, Euston) and missing out a few stops, so it becomes a much more attractive route (e.g. Victoria to The City in just 3 stops).
> 
> I'd then quadruple Baker Street to Farringdon to allow separation of a Metropolitan service into Moorgate from the H&C (Farringdon-Moorgate is set to be abandoned by Thameslink / First Crapital)... Moorgate would have 4 terminal platforms available for this service.
> 
> I'd also close Aldgate and quadruple Aldgate East to Whitechapel to allow separation of the H&C service from the District, eliminating flat junction working at Aldgate East / Aldgate / Minories. All H&C services would terminate at Whitechapel, but the District service would be greatly enhanced due to the train paths freed up by removing the Circle.
> 
> I'd then run the H&C with 2 western branches (Hammersmith & Wimbledon) with trains every 4 minutes (i.e. every 2 minutes between Edgware Road and Whitechapel). The Wimbledon Branch would become solely operated by the H&C Line, a new flyunder would be built east of Earl's Court to allow eastbound trains ex-platform 2 to dive under the District line ex-platform 1 without conflict: this would allow the two lines to be completely separate (i.e. platforms 2 and 4 Earl's Court = H&C, 1 and 3 = District). The train every 4 minutes between Wimbledon and Whitechapel could have an additional train every 4 minutes between Wimbledon and High Street Kensington in the peak, providing a far better service to that very heavily used branch than currently provided.
> 
> The District would remain from Upminster to Richmond / Ealing, but I'd probably run Upminster - Richmonds every 5 minutes, Barking - Ealings every 5 minutes and Olympia - Plaistows every 10 minutes, giving a train every 2 minutes along the core Earl's Court to Plaistow section. With the removal of the Circle service flat junctions at Gloucester Road and High Street Ken can be eliminated, the only remaining one would be at Praed Street (Edgware Road) which could be eliminated with a flying junction (although doing this with a subsurface tunnel would be tricky!).
> 
> That's what I'd do anyway


Why did they put you on to the Bakerloo line? You should be heading up a team to get cracking on these changes!


----------



## sweek

I just wanted to know what it looked like, so I made this.








I put way too much work into this, but oh well.

This is:
- Everything Tubeman suggested in that last post.
- East London line phase 1 and 2
- Northern Line split
- Shoreditch station on the Central Line
- Bakerloo line extended both ways
- Extra interchange between East London Line and Bakerloo Line at Brockley.

I'm obviously still missing Crossrail, the Heathrow extension and a bunch of other projects, and I used a few of the existing National Rail line that might still be used for other services to draw the extensions.

Oh, and I'm not exactly Harry Beck. It doesn't look very pretty, I know. But I've done my best.


----------



## lasdun

I think that is a pretty spectacular plan for the SSL, Hamersmith taking over Wimbelware didn't occure to me, very smart. The junctions are hard, and the Bakerstreet - Farringdon double tracking would be a challenge. I've allways thought the best thing to do with the met is either terminate at Baker st (uproar from the metworlders) or sink it into a new tube, the route I fancied was Baker Street, Tottenham court rd, Aldwych, ludgate circus, fenchurch street and then taking over the C2C lines, bargin cross rail line 4!

Around Aldgate is all rubish 80s ground scrapers or empty land, I'm sure that some fancy developer would love to build something down there. Earls court is more tricky, listed buildings.... 

I have this idea in my head of an SSR flyover that emerges from the ground and disappears again in a glass tube, crosses Aldgate and dissapears again like some sort of serpant... 

If I had the money for a 20 mile deep express tube, I wouldn't choose a circle line,


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> I just wanted to know what it looked like, so I made this.
> I put way too much work into this, but oh well.
> 
> This is:
> - Everything Tubeman suggested in that last post.
> - East London line phase 1 and 2
> - Northern Line split
> - Shoreditch station on the Central Line
> - Bakerloo line extended both ways
> - Extra interchange between East London Line and Bakerloo Line at Brockley.
> 
> I'm obviously still missing Crossrail, the Heathrow extension and a bunch of other projects, and I used a few of the existing National Rail line that might still be used for other services to draw the extensions.
> 
> Oh, and I'm not exactly Harry Beck. It doesn't look very pretty, I know. But I've done my best.


:banana:

That's excellent work, well done! 

On another note, I'm off to Barbados in 90 minutes so won't be here to answer queries until June 24th... Adios!


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman I heard that the S Stock will be 7 cars long, how will this work in the stations on the Western end of the circle? Also, will the S Stock have 7 car Met trains? If so won't this mean a reduced capacity? If they will be 8 car for the Met, then surely that means they could create extra seating for the Met trains specifically? How will the trains be connected? Will it be like HK where it's one long train or like the DLR where lots of 2 car trains together... Sorry for the questions! I'm interested!

Oops... too late...


----------



## lasdun

if you'll accept an answer from a layman.

The S stock come in two versons, a 6 car for use on the Circle, H&C and district line and a 7 car for the Met.

The cars are of the longer D stock length so 6 cars of S = 7 of A etc.

The met line trains will be around the same length as they are now. The circle line, H&C and Wimbeldon branch trains will be longer and platforms will be lengthened on the western side of the circle to accomidate this.

The trains are not articlated like the DLR (two cars share one bogie) but are fully linked through.


----------



## iampuking

Thanks, how will the extend the platforms at Notting Hill Gate or Baker Street without ruining the appearance of the original station? And How will they do it at Edgware Road where there are junctions either side of the platform?

Also, will the cars be split into different sections or will it be just one long car with no gaps? And will the Met trains and the rest of the S Stock be interchangeable like say... the Bakerloo and Victoria line stock? - Just different legnths?


----------



## samsonyuen

That's a great looking line, Sweek!


----------



## U Thant

The S stock will be 7 or 8 short cars, so 7*S = 7*C = 6*D and 8*S=8*A. Otherwise ladsun is spot on.

Carriages will be joined together by a near full-width corridor, and each train will be a single unit. All trains are being built to exactly the same design.

Only a few of the sixteen 6 car stations will be lengthened, the rest will be SDO, although the details of this are still being worked out.


----------



## iampuking

U Thant said:


> The S stock will be 7 or 8 short cars, so 7*S = 7*C = 6*D and 8*S=8*A. Otherwise ladsun is spot on.
> 
> Carriages will be joined together by a near full-width corridor, and each train will be a single unit. All trains are being built to exactly the same design.
> 
> Only a few of the sixteen 6 car stations will be lengthened, the rest will be SDO, although the details of this are still being worked out.


Who an earth was the moron who decided to build them all to the same design? Does anyone fancy commuting from Aldgate to Amersham on C Stock? Hell, we mays well use the Victoria line stock for GNER services :|


----------



## sweek

iampuking said:


> Who an earth was the moron who decided to build them all to the same design? Does anyone fancy commuting from Aldgate to Amersham on C Stock? Hell, we mays well use the Victoria line stock for GNER services :|


The interiors still have enough seats, I think. The seats on the A stock now are basically too small. Using tip-up seats is a good idea for these services, to make them more flexible depending on what services they're running.
Using the same design saves a lot of cost, both building and when it comes to repairs and maintenance.


----------



## iampuking

sweek said:


> The interiors still have enough seats, I think. The seats on the A stock now are basically too small. Using tip-up seats is a good idea for these services, to make them more flexible depending on what services they're running.
> Using the same design saves a lot of cost, both building and when it comes to repairs and maintenance.


So what about cost! We already pay the highest metro fares in the world, would a different seating layout really cost that much!?!? They waste money on stuff like this yet what most commuters want is a comfortable and fast journey. The train can be the same but can have a different seating layout!! It makes me angry that they're being so simplistic, the Tube is a diverse network, they can't just have a "one for all" policy!

Also, what are you on about the A Stock having small seats? It has the most seating of them all!


----------



## sweek

iampuking said:


> Also, what are you on about the A Stock having small seats? It has the most seating of them all!


A Stock has the highest amount of seats, but the seats are laid out as 2 + 3 across the train; while in reality, they are way too crammed for that and are very often used as 1 + 2 instead, simply because people find it uncomfortable to sit almost on each other. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but newer stock have all gotten wider seats to help with this; and now these trains will, too.

Furthermore, because of the higher frequency that is going to be provided - while the total number of seats per train might be going down, the amount of seats of all the trains together is actually going to be the same.

Here's a link with pictures of what these trains will look like, by the way, for people wondering what we're talking about.
http://www.amersham.org.uk/forum/ipb/index.php?showtopic=372


----------



## iampuking

sweek said:


> A Stock has the highest amount of seats, but the seats are laid out as 2 + 3 across the train; while in reality, they are way too crammed for that and are very often used as 1 + 2 instead, simply because people find it uncomfortable to sit almost on each other. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but newer stock have all gotten wider seats to help with this; and now these trains will, too.
> 
> Furthermore, because of the higher frequency that is going to be provided - while the total number of seats per train might be going down, the amount of seats of all the trains together is actually going to be the same.
> 
> Here's a link with pictures of what these trains will look like, by the way, for people wondering what we're talking about.
> http://www.amersham.org.uk/forum/ipb/index.php?showtopic=372


As far as I know, ATO, which is what provides higher frequency will be years behind when the first Met train is delivered. And do you seriously believe ATO will work straight away, or not be delayed? Look at the Central line! Or the Jubilee line for that matter, it was supposed to have ATO from day one of the extension yet we're getting it nine years later.

The seating appears to have even fewer seats than the District line, as well, it just gets better and better, doesn't it?


----------



## iampuking

There are many issues I have with this new stock, seating being one of them. 
-Why do LU think anyone will want to stand in the area between the carriages? As has already been said on the Amersham forum, people like to stand near the doors so they have the least resistence when getting off
-What if a bomb went off? I know it sounds paranoid but the shrapnel would be able to travel through the entire train, potentially killing more people?
-If the train were to suddenly deccelerate in an emergency wouldn't all the passengers go flying with nowhere to stop?
-What i'm confused about is why they can't provide more seating on the Met. If the trains are fully walk-through which I think they are, then surely they won't be able to "mix and match" 8 car met trains with 7 car Circle line trains? Doesn't this mean they could provide a dedicated Met S Stock with better optimized seating?

I'm sorry, i'm not having a go at you or anything, the only issue I have is with this bloody train! The new Vic stock looks great though.


----------



## sweek

iampuking said:


> As far as I know, ATO, which is what provides higher frequency will be years behind when the first Met train is delivered. And do you seriously believe ATO will work straight away, or not be delayed? Look at the Central line! Or the Jubilee line for that matter, it was supposed to have ATO from day one of the extension yet we're getting it nine years later.


The frequency increase isn't directly related to ATO. The Met has some capacity left with 6 Uxbridge + 6 Watford + 4 Amersham trains = 16 trains per hour now in the central section, whereas the District, with an even more complicated service pattern, has 18 trains in the central section plus 7 Circle line trains it shares tracks with; so clearly it's possible to run more trains.
What I heard is that the Uxbridge Branch would be getting 10 instead of 6 trains per hour.



iampuking said:


> There are many issues I have with this new stock, seating being one of them.
> -Why do LU think anyone will want to stand in the area between the carriages? As has already been said on the Amersham forum, people like to stand near the doors so they have the least resistence when getting off


I think the layout is a lot more spacious; I don't think you will really have to lean over people from looking at those pictures.


> -What if a bomb went off? I know it sounds paranoid but the shrapnel would be able to travel through the entire train, potentially killing more people?


What if a bomb went off on a public square? Should we start building random walls on Trafalgar just so the blast of a potential bomb couldn't reach as far? I know it sounds ridiculous the way I'm saying it, but I really don't think that's something we should be worrying about.
This also makes it a lot easier to evacuate a train and to get away from any problems. I'm quite sure a lot of people have felt unsafe being with only one dodgy looking person in the same car late at night. I think the 'one long carriage' will feel a lot safer and be more transparent.



> -If the train were to suddenly deccelerate in an emergency wouldn't all the passengers go flying with nowhere to stop?


There are still plenty of things to hold on to, and as you can see from a pic like this one http://www.metroland.nildram.co.uk/sstock/S-stockinterior-2.jpg , the transversal seats move from side to side all the time, so it's no long endless path through the middle with nothing to 'stop you' from falling.



> -What i'm confused about is why they can't provide more seating on the Met. If the trains are fully walk-through which I think they are, then surely they won't be able to "mix and match" 8 car met trains with 7 car Circle line trains? Doesn't this mean they could provide a dedicated Met S Stock with better optimized seating?


I don't think you can really speak of 'cars' anymore here. Mixing and matching is almost certainly not (easily) possible.

Furthermore, the Metropolitan is going to be providing more of an 'urban' and 'inner city' service if it gets extended to Barking, which is quite likely to happen. If it does, it will need the extra space.


----------



## iampuking

sweek said:


> The frequency increase isn't directly related to ATO. The Met has some capacity left with 6 Uxbridge + 6 Watford + 4 Amersham trains = 16 trains per hour now in the central section, whereas the District, with an even more complicated service pattern, has 18 trains in the central section plus 7 Circle line trains it shares tracks with; so clearly it's possible to run more trains.
> What I heard is that the Uxbridge Branch would be getting 10 instead of 6 trains per hour.


What do you mean by "central section" Aldgate to Baker Street or Baker Street to Wembley?



sweek said:


> I think the layout is a lot more spacious; I don't think you will really have to lean over people from looking at those pictures.


The 92TS look "spacious" inside, yet they're anything but in rush hour. Also, I beg to differ about them looking spacious, the transverse seats poke out, seating making it look awkward, and the inward-tapering body makes it look cramped. They look less spacious then the bloody D Stock! It'd be amusing seeing commuters trying to work their way through the train whilst guessing which side the transverse seating juts out...



sweek said:


> What if a bomb went off on a public square? Should we start building random walls on Trafalgar just so the blast of a potential bomb couldn't reach as far? I know it sounds ridiculous the way I'm saying it, but I really don't think that's something we should be worrying about.


I'm not particularly worried about terrorists, but these "What ifs" are things that need to be asked.



sweek said:


> This also makes it a lot easier to evacuate a train and to get away from any problems. I'm quite sure a lot of people have felt unsafe being with only one dodgy looking person in the same car late at night. I think the 'one long carriage' will feel a lot safer and be more transparent.


I agree regarding evacuation. Though I don't agree with your last point, if there are a gang of yobs late at night, there is nothing to seperate you from them if you were at the front or back.



sweek said:


> There are still plenty of things to hold on to, and as you can see from a pic like this one http://www.metroland.nildram.co.uk/sstock/S-stockinterior-2.jpg , the transversal seats move from side to side all the time, so it's no long endless path through the middle with nothing to 'stop you' from falling.


You're probably right there, though I don't see a short section of transverse seating as effective as a wall.




sweek said:


> I don't think you can really speak of 'cars' anymore here. Mixing and matching is almost certainly not (easily) possible.


You clearly haven't read my post if you think I meant that.



sweek said:


> Furthermore, the Metropolitan is going to be providing more of an 'urban' and 'inner city' service if it gets extended to Barking, which is quite likely to happen. If it does, it will need the extra space.


Sensible idea... Personally, I think the Met's Amersham, Watford and Chesham branches should be handed over to Chiltern. The new trains are too slow (62mph maximum, which it'll probably never reach in service, the Met USED to go at 70mph) meaning Met trains frequently slow down Chiltern services, the new trains are narrower, which probably means there will be a larger gap between the train and the platform... I could go on...


----------



## sweek

iampuking said:


> What do you mean by "central section" Aldgate to Baker Street or Baker Street to Wembley?


Baker Street to Wembley that was.



> The 92TS look "spacious" inside, yet they're anything but in rush hour. Also, I beg to differ about them looking spacious, the transverse seats poke out, seating making it look awkward, and the inward-tapering body makes it look cramped. They look less spacious then the bloody D Stock! It'd be amusing seeing commuters trying to work their way through the train whilst guessing which side the transverse seating juts out...


Ehm, they can just look in front of them. I'm sure pretty similar designs are in use in other places. I can't see this being much of a problem.



> I agree regarding evacuation. Though I don't agree with your last point, if there are a gang of yobs late at night, there is nothing to seperate you from them if you were at the front or back.


So what would you do? Check every car and make sure you go and sit in one with people that 'look safe'? That's not possible in reality. 

It's a good thing that people can easily move throughout the train, spreading the load over the whole place.



> You're probably right there, though I don't see a short section of transverse seating as effective as a wall.


Well, it won't be. But I think that's just a minor problem, with quite a few big advantages attached to not having walls.



> Sensible idea... Personally, I think the Met's Amersham, Watford and Chesham branches should be handed over to Chiltern. The new trains are too slow (62mph maximum, which it'll probably never reach in service, the Met USED to go at 70mph) meaning Met trains frequently slow down Chiltern services, the new trains are narrower, which probably means there will be a larger gap between the train and the platform... I could go on...


The trains should be able to actually reach that 62 mph max in some of the longer sections. The reason the A stock has been restricted to 50 mph is due to the stock not being able to cope with those speeds anymore.

I don't think the Chiltern trains really get in the way of the Mets, since 70 mph isn't reached very often, and if it is it'll be on the outskirts of the line where there isn't a very high frequency.
If it would be just Chiltern, they couldn't provide peak through-services past Baker Street anymore either.
I think Chiltern has been providing a pretty good service, but can't see them taking over the whole line any time soon. I actually don't know if the trains would fit in the tunnels south of Finchley Road either (?)


----------



## iampuking

sweek said:


> Ehm, they can just look in front of them. I'm sure pretty similar designs are in use in other places. I can't see this being much of a problem.


You can look in front of you, but when it's crowded having to make your way around seats that are poking out is more difficult than one might imagine.



sweek said:


> So what would you do? Check every car and make sure you go and sit in one with people that 'look safe'? That's not possible in reality.


Well duh. But it's something that needs to be asked, not necessarily amended, but asked.



sweek said:


> It's a good thing that people can easily move throughout the train, spreading the load over the whole place.


You're definately right there.



sweek said:


> The trains should be able to actually reach that 62 mph max in some of the longer sections. The reason the A stock has been restricted to 50 mph is due to the stock not being able to cope with those speeds anymore.


I don't believe that they'll regularly reach 62mph max. I don't know of a single train on the tube right now that reaches max speed in commercial service.



sweek said:


> I don't think the Chiltern trains really get in the way of the Mets, since 70 mph isn't reached very often, and if it is it'll be on the outskirts of the line where there isn't a very high frequency.
> If it would be just Chiltern, they couldn't provide peak through-services past Baker Street anymore either.
> I think Chiltern has been providing a pretty good service, but can't see them taking over the whole line any time soon. I actually don't know if the trains would fit in the tunnels south of Finchley Road either (?)


They probably could, as the Met has the largest loading gauge in Britain, so i'd assume that if they can then other trains can as well. But my suggestion was that the trains could go down to Marylebone instead, probably hasn't got enough capacity but one can only dream... It'd also be a waste of four tracking round that area anyway!


----------



## Zim Flyer

Hi Tubey, I will be coming to London next month and have a question for you re the Tube.

What is the easiest way to get from Victoria to Dagenham East?


----------



## El_Greco

^ Take District Line train.


----------



## iampuking

El_Greco said:


> ^ Take District Line train.


I wouldn't if I was him... Much quicker to take the Victoria line to Oxford Circus and then the Central to Mile End, where there is cross-platform interchange with the District line. The Central line has larger gaps between stops, takes a more direct route and is much faster in general. The District line sluggishly crawls down the south section with constant stops between the stations and the stations are too close together... Also, let's not forget the huge amount of tourists between Westminster and Tower Hill, tourists = annoying.


----------



## Petr

Tubeman said:


> I was spot on then, 1970's :yes:
> 
> If you're feeling like a real nerd watch the brake gauge on any train with E.P. + Rheostatic / Electrodynamic / Regenerative braking.
> 
> When the train starts braking the brake pressure needle initially jumps up to provide immediate response to the brake application made. As soon as the Rheo 'proves' (i.e. the moaning / whining noise starts) all the air is released from the brakes as braking becomes purely electrical (i.e. no fricition), and it remains so until speed reduces to about 10-15kmh below which the Rheo is ineffective, so the brake gauge needle will again jump up as air re-enters the brake cylinders and the brake blocks re-apply until the train comes to a halt.
> 
> The principle of Rheostatic braking is that one motor becomes a dynamo generator to supply the energy to reverse the field on the other motor, thus they both mutually slow each other down without any friction brakes being applied. This reduces wear & tear and tunnel dust (which is mostly formed from brake blocks).


I've read about this on the Polish site http://www.transportszynowy.pl/metro81budowa.php, and now I generally understand Your explanation, otherwise this technical English would be to difficult for me. Some terms even in Polish are for me hardly understandable. Too much time has passed since my last physics lesson and my knowledge after social studies... :doh:


----------



## sweek

Tubeman said:


> I would be surprised if any tunnels on the ECML have speed limits higher than 100mph.


A total of 14 tunnels need to be constructed. The longest being the London Tunnel, 19Km (12 miles) from Islington, just above the ECML, to Dagenham. The line briefly comes to the surface for Stratford Station. This will be a joint domestic/ international station, and the London stop for Eurostar services running north of London. It is being built as a large box, with a line for E.C.S. trains rising through the middle. Five huge shafts of 17.15 metres diameter ventilate the twin bore, single-track tunnels and provide emergency access points. *Maximum speed through the tunnel will be 225kph (140 mph).* A large concrete segment factory is being set up at Stratford.

From: http://www.lococarriage.org.uk/ctrl.htm


----------



## iampuking

Thats good news then!


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> A total of 14 tunnels need to be constructed. The longest being the London Tunnel, 19Km (12 miles) from Islington, just above the ECML, to Dagenham. The line briefly comes to the surface for Stratford Station. This will be a joint domestic/ international station, and the London stop for Eurostar services running north of London. It is being built as a large box, with a line for E.C.S. trains rising through the middle. Five huge shafts of 17.15 metres diameter ventilate the twin bore, single-track tunnels and provide emergency access points. *Maximum speed through the tunnel will be 225kph (140 mph).* A large concrete segment factory is being set up at Stratford.
> 
> From: http://www.lococarriage.org.uk/ctrl.htm


Interesting... So do we know why the Channel Tunnel proper has always had a 100mph / 160 kmh limit? Does seem a bit strange.


----------



## Trainman Dave

Tubeman said:


> Interesting... So do we know why the Channel Tunnel proper has always had a 100mph / 160 kmh limit? Does seem a bit strange.


There was a post on another thread a few months ago that explained the pathing of the Eurostar trains when inter twined with the the shuttle trains in the channel tunnel. 

In summary running faster Eurostar trains consumes 2-3 extra paths through the tunnel. It has to do with capacity.


----------



## fishcatdogbird

^ I think also being such a large tunnel without much ventilation i.e. shafts coming to the surface, if you go too fast it gets too hot in the tunnel... i remember seeing something along those lines on the Discovery Channel...


----------



## Tubeman

Trainman Dave said:


> There was a post on another thread a few months ago that explained the pathing of the Eurostar trains when inter twined with the the shuttle trains in the channel tunnel.
> 
> In summary running faster Eurostar trains consumes 2-3 extra paths through the tunnel. It has to do with capacity.


Oh yeah that rings a bell now


----------



## Zedferret

Hi Tubeman, after reading a thread on the UK skybar, I was wondering roughly how many people go under trains, whether it be murder, accident or suicide in any one year, and what the procedure for the driver is. My father in law is a guard on S.W.T.(Shit) and he says its quite common on railways, so I wondered about the tube. Cheers


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, I heard that the track on the Jubilee line extension is so good that it has no speed limit, is this true? If so, how fast will it go when the Jubilee line becomes ATO?


----------



## Tubeman

zedferrett said:


> Hi Tubeman, after reading a thread on the UK skybar, I was wondering roughly how many people go under trains, whether it be murder, accident or suicide in any one year, and what the procedure for the driver is. My father in law is a guard on S.W.T.(Shit) and he says its quite common on railways, so I wondered about the tube. Cheers


Obviously it varies from year to year and also depends on the time of year (a January during an economic recession is usually the worst), but we'd have between 50 and 100 'One unders' per year. Murders are extremely rare (maybe once very 5 years) and of the remainder its probably about 50:50 accident:suicide. The District Line had a rash of them at the start of this year, including a double accidental fatality at Barking (two graffiti writers), a dubious one at Barking a few weeks later (teenager walking along the middle of the track facing the train), a suicide at Bromley-by-Bow, plus the one in question on the UK thread which appears to have been accidental (fell down the gap as a train departed). There was another notable double one under at Earl's Court when I was on duty at the end of last year, when a group of QPR trainees were mucking about on the platform and one fell over the edge and pulled an innocent Vietnamese student with him: the student died and the QPR trainee lived, peversely. 

On the District Line I remember a week when I was a driver still (so 1999-2001) when there were 4, but that was exceptional. It was January, the peak time for depression (Post-Christmas blues, financial worries, SAD syndrome). The worst one was at Upminster Bridge where the platforms are 12 cars long so trains hit the start of the platform at about 40mph, the guy jumped really late and came through the windscreen and showered the poor driver (another friend of mine) with bits of head. Fortunately the driver was able to return, I'm not so sure about the lad who had the double fatality at Barking however.

There's no procedure in the Rule book at the request of the Unions which is fine: all the driver is expected to do is notify Service Control and then do as much as they feel able with regard to turning off Traction Current etc. It would be unfair to prescribe a procedure that a driver is expected to adhere to when they're in a severe state of shock (its been known for the driver to leave in an ambulance too), as it might have safety implications.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, I heard that the track on the Jubilee line extension is so good that it has no speed limit, is this true? If so, how fast will it go when the Jubilee line becomes ATO?


It already touches 100kmh along some sections (e.g. Canada Water to Canary Wharf) so with ATO perhaps a bit faster. Obviously the constraint is having to stop at each platform or slow to 5mph past the starting signal if running empty, so we're not talking Shinkansen speeds or anything!


----------



## DarJoLe

I'm not sure if this has been covered yet, but I've always wondered who the woman is who does the voice for the network updates? Is it preprogrammed software that just says what is typed, or is an actual 'live' person who records the announcements for the whole network?

I only ask because the other day almost immediately after the central line derailment she came over the tannoy with 'Due to a derailment on the Central line at Mile End, there is currently no service between Leytonstone and Liverpool Street. London Undergroud tickets will be valid on local bus services' which I thought was pretty complicated if it is software.

Also, do you know when the London Overground network and Stratford International extension will become 'under construction' on the printed map? It always excites me when I spot something on a new Tube map.


----------



## Tubeman

DarJoLe said:


> I'm not sure if this has been covered yet, but I've always wondered who the woman is who does the voice for the network updates? Is it preprogrammed software that just says what is typed, or is an actual 'live' person who records the announcements for the whole network?
> 
> I only ask because the other day almost immediately after the central line derailment she came over the tannoy with 'Due to a derailment on the Central line at Mile End, there is currently no service between Leytonstone and Liverpool Street. London Undergroud tickets will be valid on local bus services' which I thought was pretty complicated if it is software.
> 
> Also, do you know when the London Overground network and Stratford International extension will become 'under construction' on the printed map? It always excites me when I spot something on a new Tube map.


All of the 'sonia' DVA announcements on trains were recorded by an actress, but the more complex announcements you noted are put together by computer from pre-recorded words. Quite clever how they could be mistaken for a complete pre-recorded announcement though: they don't sound like cut & paste jobs.

I suspect the Overground network will appear from this November, when Silverlink is taken over by TFL. Failing that, not until 2010 when the ELLE opens.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, are the escalators on the JLE faster, they seem quicker to me.

And why don't they make the escalators faster? They are so slowwww...


----------



## Acemcbuller

DarJoLe said:


> I'm not sure if this has been covered yet, but I've always wondered who the woman is who does the voice for the network updates?


http://www.emmaclarke.com/demos.asp 



> And why don't they make the escalators faster?


I know what you mean so just some ideas:
a) People often do not or cannot (eg. elderly) get off the escalator quickly enough.
b) There may not be much space between the top of the escalator and a small number of gates. So there is s limit to the rate at which you can sensibly deliver people into the area befoe it gets too crowded

I guess its better to have a crowd waiting to get on the escalator than a crowd blocking way off or falling over as they get off.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, are the escalators on the JLE faster, they seem quicker to me.
> 
> And why don't they make the escalators faster? They are so slowwww...


I'd have thought that there would be a standard speed for all escalators on LU, but I'm not an escalator expert! maybe the JLE ones are a little faster.

Different speeds have been experimented with in the past and the current one is deemed the optimum. Too fast and they become more dangerous and you might risk a pile-up of people at the top if the flow of people away is slower than the escalator.


----------



## iampuking

Thanks Tubeman.

I was wondering (again!) about Canning Town station when the DLR extension to Stratford International opens, and the fact that there will be seperate platforms for trains heading to and from Stratford International and towards town... Will they have like a dot matrix screen somewhere telling them which platform to go to for the next London City train or Beckton?


----------



## Smarty

Hi Tubeman,

How is it decided what zone stations go into ? I know that Simon Hughes MP for Southwark and Bermondsey has been campaigning to have Bermondsey re-designated as being in both zones 1 and 2 - like the Elephant & Castle and Vauxhall. Any chance of it happening ?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Thanks Tubeman.
> 
> I was wondering (again!) about Canning Town station when the DLR extension to Stratford International opens, and the fact that there will be seperate platforms for trains heading to and from Stratford International and towards town... Will they have like a dot matrix screen somewhere telling them which platform to go to for the next London City train or Beckton?


The only platform from which Bank / Tower gateway trains will depart is the current city-bound one as the junction between the routes will be to the south of Canning Town. I seem to recall the ultimate aim is for Stratford International to Dagenham Dock to operate as a separate entity, therefore you won't have too much confusion or running between platforms... This will only apply to stations between Canning Town and Gallions Reach to which trains could arrive at either eastbound platform.


----------



## Tubeman

Smarty said:


> Hi Tubeman,
> 
> How is it decided what zone stations go into ? I know that Simon Hughes MP for Southwark and Bermondsey has been campaigning to have Bermondsey re-designated as being in both zones 1 and 2 - like the Elephant & Castle and Vauxhall. Any chance of it happening ?


I think its purely distance from a central point (Charing Cross?) with each ring being elliptical (i.e. wider west to east than north to south). I suppose the stations deemed in two zones must have fallen on or near these distance rings. It seems a bit silly having stations in two zones to me... Its bad for revenue if nothing else.


----------



## sweek

Tubeman said:


> I think its purely distance from a central point (Charing Cross?) with each ring being elliptical (i.e. wider west to east than north to south). I suppose the stations deemed in two zones must have fallen on or near these distance rings. It seems a bit silly having stations in two zones to me... Its bad for revenue if nothing else.


I'm guessing it's a bit more complicated than that. The Hainault loop has been moved into zone 4 completely to attract more passengers for example, and Hampstead Heath was moved to zone 3 (from zone 2) so passengers on the North London Line wouldn't be able to travel _too_ cheaply for a very long distance. Earl's Court is a zone 1/2 I think, because the station can be used to bypass central London, for example when going from Putney Green to Acton Town, in which case it'd be unfair to make that person pay for travelling through Central London. But it can also be used for trips that are wholly within Central London, like High Street Kensington to Victoria when there's no circle line train coming any time soon.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman
-Do you think the stations in the central section should be restored to their former glory or do you think they should be more modern looking, and have no unity in design?
-How come Central line trains are so bloody close together? I know its ATO but i've waited at times in the central section and trains are coming one after the other!


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> I'm guessing it's a bit more complicated than that. The Hainault loop has been moved into zone 4 completely to attract more passengers for example, and Hampstead Heath was moved to zone 3 (from zone 2) so passengers on the North London Line wouldn't be able to travel _too_ cheaply for a very long distance. Earl's Court is a zone 1/2 I think, because the station can be used to bypass central London, for example when going from Putney Green to Acton Town, in which case it'd be unfair to make that person pay for travelling through Central London. But it can also be used for trips that are wholly within Central London, like High Street Kensington to Victoria when there's no circle line train coming any time soon.


Oh yes there have certainly been a few 'tweaks' like Epping being brought into Zone 6 a few years ago (was in special Zone A which now only exists on the Met main)... I supose it was deemed 'silly' to have a line straying outside zone 6 for its terminus, espcially after the Ongar branch closed. The reasons for stations like Earl's Court being on the border are also sensible, but essentially lose us money, as you say you can travel from Putney to Hammersmith without straying into Zone 1 for example and thus save money.

I'm pretty sure the basic boundaries are purely dictated by distance though, through elliptical rings radiating from a central point.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman
> -Do you think the stations in the central section should be restored to their former glory or do you think they should be more modern looking, and have no unity in design?
> -How come Central line trains are so bloody close together? I know its ATO but i've waited at times in the central section and trains are coming one after the other!


Stations with mostly original features should be restored like Baker Street Circle, Notting Hill Gate, the largely intact Yerkes stations etc, but many have been 'modernised' beyond repair at some point and would benefit from an ultra-modern renovation for variety. Knightsbridge is a good example of this: It was modernised in the mid-20th Century (late 30's or 40's?) and ended up with the tatty biscuit-coloured tiles of that era (other examples: Highgate, Aldgate East, Bethnal Green etc). When it was further renovated about 2 years ago modern metal panels were fitted over the top of the crappy tiles to make the station look very futuristic. Doing this to a 'classic' Yerkes station would be sacriligous in my opinion, and fortunately recent renovations of these stations have been very tasteful and faithful to the originals (e.g. Mornington Crescent, Tufnell Park, Camden Town etc), but there are a lot of poor 'modern' renovations which would benefit from something more contemporary (Tottenham Court Road for example).

Regarding closely-spaced Central Line trains, this is thanks to ATO as you note. This wouldn't be the timetable frequency, but the result of a delay somewhere causing 'blocking back' so the trains bunch up. I presume the timetabled frequency is somewhere in the region of 2 minutes.


----------



## iampuking

Thanks Tubeman, the Central line also never seems to go between stations without slowing down and speeding up either, and it sometimes arrives at a station only to speed up and then slow down harder!

Do you think it would be feasible to extend the central vestibule at Victoria's Victoria line platforms to the ened of the platforms much like the Moscow Metro? It would alleviate overcrowding as passengers would no longer have to walk down the platform but instead down the central vestibule.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Thanks Tubeman, the Central line also never seems to go between stations without slowing down and speeding up either, and it sometimes arrives at a station only to speed up and then slow down harder!
> 
> Do you think it would be feasible to extend the central vestibule at Victoria's Victoria line platforms to the ened of the platforms much like the Moscow Metro? It would alleviate overcrowding as passengers would no longer have to walk down the platform but instead down the central vestibule.


That's a drawback of ATO... there's no 'intelligence' to it. On a manual line if the driver can see they're close to the train in front they'll shut off and coast (roll) or maybe wait a little longer in each station to regulate the service preventing unnecessary accelerating and braking (thus saving energy and wear & tear). ATO pretty much just works on the 'stop' or 'go' premise, so you have the idiocy of a train crawling into a platform, then accelerating sharply, then braking sharply, as the train in front accelerates away you noted. It maximises capacity, but is very wasteful of energy.

WRT Victoria I'm sure its not impossible, but there is obviously the District Line and concourse above which would complicate matters. It would certainly help the crowd problems there.


----------



## iampuking

Tunneling shield? The stations on the Moscow Metro are sometimes twice as deep as ours yet they're probably twice as spacious!

I also have another question, sorry... but how come the Central line only has 2 platforms at Ealing Broadway where the much less frequent service of the District gets 3? I rarely see more than one District line platform used there...


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, what's going on at King's Cross, i've noticed on the Northern line platforms there are boards up and some structual things are exposed... Do you know when the Piccadilly/Northern platforms are being refurbished?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tunneling shield? The stations on the Moscow Metro are sometimes twice as deep as ours yet they're probably twice as spacious!
> 
> I also have another question, sorry... but how come the Central line only has 2 platforms at Ealing Broadway where the much less frequent service of the District gets 3? I rarely see more than one District line platform used there...


The Central Line has 3 platforms at Ealing Broadway... I'm certain.

Most of the day with the 8 minute off-peak service to Ealing Broadway 2 platforms is all that are required for the District service, but last thing at night trains come thick & fast to be detrained and run empty to Ealing Common Depot, so all 3 platforms are definitely required then.

Dwell time is also a factor: District Line trains usually have 10-15 minutes timetabled at termini to allow timetable recovery, perhaps the Central Line has less due to ATO ensuring the timetable is more closely adhered to.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, what's going on at King's Cross, i've noticed on the Northern line platforms there are boards up and some structual things are exposed... Do you know when the Piccadilly/Northern platforms are being refurbished?


Yes, the entire station complex is being renovated. The Tube platforms are the last parts to get the treatment.


----------



## iampuking

Thanks for that.

Tubeman:

-Why are stations in Zone 1 so shabby? There are few nice stations there...
-What will the frequencies on the Northern and Jubilee lines be when they get ATO?
-When the Bakerloo and Piccadilly lines trains are replaced, will they be the same or does the fact that they're under different infracos effect this?
-Does ATO take into account things such as gradients etc. and does it coast?
-Why are lines 'ATOified' and not made driverless instead? If it is because of tunnel size then will the sub-surface network be able to become fully driverless because of larger tunnels?
-How come Kilburn Park has a Charles Yerkes style frontage yet it was extended way after the era?
-I've been reading this website: http://www.dougrose.co.uk it's about Yerkes tiles, and i'm wondering *who the hell got rid of them?* Many of the stations in Zone 1 had them covered up or ripped out, why?!? They're gorgeous! I've noticed Elephant & Castle has had it's covered with, wait for it... white tiles! I thought the infracos were supposed to preserve heritage. I was wondering if it would ever be possible/feasible to recreate tiling from old photographs etc for future renovations?

Sorry for all the questions!


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Thanks for that.
> 
> Tubeman:
> 
> -Why are stations in Zone 1 so shabby? There are few nice stations there...
> -What will the frequencies on the Northern and Jubilee lines be when they get ATO?
> -When the Bakerloo and Piccadilly lines trains are replaced, will they be the same or does the fact that they're under different infracos effect this?
> -Does ATO take into account things such as gradients etc. and does it coast?
> -Why are lines 'ATOified' and not made driverless instead? If it is because of tunnel size then will the sub-surface network be able to become fully driverless because of larger tunnels?
> -How come Kilburn Park has a Charles Yerkes style frontage yet it was extended way after the era?
> -I've been reading this website: http://www.dougrose.co.uk it's about Yerkes tiles, and i'm wondering *who the hell got rid of them?* Many of the stations in Zone 1 had them covered up or ripped out, why?!? They're gorgeous! I've noticed Elephant & Castle has had it's covered with, wait for it... white tiles! I thought the infracos were supposed to preserve heritage. I was wondering if it would ever be possible/feasible to recreate tiling from old photographs etc for future renovations?
> 
> Sorry for all the questions!


Hey that's what I'm here for 

- Shabby Zone 1 stations... Hmm I can't say I've especially noticed them being bad. I think its a little bizarre that many of the major station overhauls have all been on the most minor stations like Mornington Crescent, Regents Park, Lancaster gate, Queensway, Tufnell park, Kentish Town: many of them closed down for protracted spells... its almost as if the stations being completely overhauled are only the ones we can afford to close for a few months... they all look stunning now, great restorations. I think it may partly be because some needed lifts replacing, and while this was happening the stations were unusuable, so the opportunity was taken to spruce them up. Many of the sprawling Zone 1 interchanges are a little the worse for wear, and as work can only progress for a few hours each night progress seems painfully slow (Oxford Circus for example).

- Northern and Jubilee line frequencies with ATO: I expect in the region of 30 tph

- New Bakerloo and Picc trains: I believe they are both going to be Bombardier 'Movia' stock, despite being different business units. With Tubelines' success and Metronet's demise I wouldn't be surprised if Tubelines ends up maintaining the lot, though.

- ATO and gradients... good question. I would have thought that codes are specific to a particular section of track to account for this, so that on downhill gradients the 'brake' command is triggered assuming a longer braking distance than if the gradient's uphill. If you catch my drift! ATO would tell the train to coast if it reached line speed for a particular section, not an issue on the Victoria Line because it was engineered for ATO, but the Central still has plenty of torturous curves which will have permanent speed restrictions.

- ATO not driverless? As you rightly surmise its safety: there is no walkway alongside trains so trains must be staffed really. The only exception is the JLE, but the section from Finchley Road to Green park has no walkway, so driverless trains are out of the question. The Subsurface tunnels have no walkways and no room for them either... train-to-train detrainment is possible side by side, but staff are needed to coordinate this, so again trains can't realistically be driverless.

- Kilburn Park: You're right, I'd never thought about it, but its definitely very Yerkes-esque despite coming a decade after the Yerkes stations. Its subtely different (a little more 'busy' / ornate), but the tiles are very similar. I suppose the distinctive red terrazo (?) tiling became such a powerful advert for a tube station's presence that it was stuck with for the Queens Park extension... an early form of corporate branding I suppose?










- Preserving Yerkes stations... There are many well-restored / preserved Yerkes stations out there so perhaps its assumed that stations where the tiling has already been destroyed during past 'improvement' works needn't be restored to their original state? Its a shame, but at least there are many good examples left.


----------



## iampuking

Regarding driverless trains:

How does the Paris Metro line 1 work then? Isn't it the oldest on their system, so I doubt it'll have walkways, isn't it unsafe for it to be driverless? Also, if a tube was to be driverless wouldn't it have a member of staff doing the doors like on the DLR? 

And regarding the stations, a lot of the stations in Zone 1 were originally Yerkes stations and were truly gorgeous, yet they've been destroyed by 80s-90s 'refurbishments', do you think they will ever remake the tiles to the original? 

Take Piccadilly Circus for example:










Hideous.

and then: http://www.dougrose.co.uk the 7th one down on the "Walk along the platform" section, brilliant!

It riles me that they changed them in the first place!!!:bash:


----------



## Tubeman

^^
That's a great site: a real labour of love.

Paris doesn't seem that bothered about staffing levels... barring drivers I don't recall ever seeing a single member of Metro staff there. I'm not too sure about their driverless lines... I know the new Ligne 14 is driverless, but there are walkways in the tunnels and PEDs at the stations. Maybe if other lines are also driverless its every man / woman for themselves if there's a problem between stations.

If the Tube became driverless then I'd like to think a Train Captain would be retained like the DLR: but to be honest it pretty much defeats the point if you're still employing someone to be on the train: they might as well be in the front cab in case the ATO fails and the train needs to be driven manually (essentially fulfilling the role of a Victoria or Central Line 'driver').

Regarding restoration to Yerkes tiling schemes of already destroyed stations, I doubt it will happen. I presume the consensus is there are enough well-preserved examples of Yerles stations already.


----------



## Gag Halfrunt

iampuking said:


> How does the Paris Metro line 1 work then? Isn't it the oldest on their system, so I doubt it'll have walkways, isn't it unsafe for it to be driverless? Also, if a tube was to be driverless wouldn't it have a member of staff doing the doors like on the DLR?


Line 14 is driverless and stations have platform edge screens up to the ceiling to stop people getting onto the track, so that it's safe to control the doors remotely. Line 1 will be converted to driverless ATO in the next couple of years, and the stations will get platform edge screens but they won't be full-height. A photo of a prototype installation was on a thread here quite recently.


----------



## iampuking

Gag Halfrunt said:


> Line 14 is driverless and stations have platform edge screens up to the ceiling to stop people getting onto the track, so that it's safe to control the doors remotely. Line 1 will be converted to driverless ATO in the next couple of years, and the stations will get platform edge screens but they won't be full-height. A photo of a prototype installation was on a thread here quite recently.


Yes, but what about walkways? Isn't it an EU requirement for automated systems?

And Tubeman, why can't the Yerkes stations be restored? On the website it shows that few of the stations retain their original tile pattern, merely being replaced by a pastiche. Also, most of the Yerkes stations that have been restored are not in the centre, the infracos seem to spend all the time and effort restoring the tiles in stations like Regent's Park and Arsenal, why can't they do Oxford Circus or Waterloo which are much more heavily used? Why can't we have some decent decoration in a central station where all the tourists can see instead of this uber bland white tiling that Metronet seem to adore?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Yes, but what about walkways? Isn't it an EU requirement for automated systems?
> 
> And Tubeman, why can't the Yerkes stations be restored? On the website it shows that few of the stations retain their original tile pattern, merely being replaced by a pastiche. Also, most of the Yerkes stations that have been restored are not in the centre, the infracos seem to spend all the time and effort restoring the tiles in stations like Regent's Park and Arsenal, why can't they do Oxford Circus or Waterloo which are much more heavily used? Why can't we have some decent decoration in a central station where all the tourists can see instead of this uber bland white tiling that Metronet seem to adore?


I never said they can't be restored... They just probably won't. White tiles are cheap and Metronet are in the shit, and that's the basic fact of the matter.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> I never said they can't be restored... They just probably won't. White tiles are cheap and Metronet are in the shit, and that's the basic fact of the matter.


Okay sorry, I feel incredibly adolescent and "the world is against me" about this issue as you can see :lol: 

Do you think with a new and better infraco there may be an incentive to restore the tiles? 

To be fair, weren't the majority of Central line stations (which are the majority of what have been refurbished) originally tiled in white, white and more white, a la Lancaster Gate unrefurbished. So they are effectively being 'restored'?


----------



## Minato ku

Don't worry iampuking, the line 1 has walkways 

Exemple here on ground section it is the same in tunnel


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Okay sorry, I feel incredibly adolescent and "the world is against me" about this issue as you can see :lol:
> 
> Do you think with a new and better infraco there may be an incentive to restore the tiles?
> 
> To be fair, weren't the majority of Central line stations (which are the majority of what have been refurbished) originally tiled in white, white and more white, a la Lancaster Gate unrefurbished. So they are effectively being 'restored'?



Yes the Central London Railway stations were all tiled in plain white tiles, so restorations / refurbishments like Queensway and Lancaster Gate are pretty faithful (if boring).

Personally, I hope that Tubelines are given the contract for the entire network, as they have done a professional and frugal job of maintaining JNP.


----------



## iampuking

minato ku said:


> Don't worry iampuking, the line 1 has walkways


Were the Walkways there from day one, and were the walk ways at the underground sections as well?

I doubt that the Tube will ever be fully driverless, ask yourself this question... Would you want to be alone in a train with 10 cm from the car body and the tunnel walls after a breakdown, or in the boiling summer heat at rush hour? Well it wouldn't bother me much cause I know you're supposed to walk through the train and out the front, but it not everybody knows that!


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Yes the Central London Railway stations were all tiled in plain white tiles, so restorations / refurbishments like Queensway and Lancaster Gate are pretty faithful (if boring).
> 
> Personally, I hope that Tubelines are given the contract for the entire network, as they have done a professional and frugal job of maintaining JNP.


Yes I agree, stations like Arsenal and Swiss Cottage, St John's Wood, Warren Street, Stockwell have all been renovated very well.

Another question I have is why are so few of the Zone 1 stations being renovated? Only stations on the Central line seem to have been refurbished.

Whereas awful stations like Tottenham Court Road, King's Cross, Paddington seem to be ignored.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Yes I agree, stations like Arsenal and Swiss Cottage, St John's Wood, Warren Street, Stockwell have all been renovated very well.
> 
> Another question I have is why are so few of the Zone 1 stations being renovated? Only stations on the Central line seem to have been refurbished.
> 
> Whereas awful stations like Tottenham Court Road, King's Cross, Paddington seem to be ignored.


King's Cross? Eh? Its being transformed beyond all recognition: new ticket halls, new passageways... the work's largely complete barring the final cosmetic touches on the Tube platforms.

TCR is due a massive overhaul: I think it was tied in with Crossrail 1 though so it might be on hold for now.

Paddington's got a nice new entrance off the concourse. Maybe the brickwork could do with a clean on the Circle / District platforms, but the Bakerloo platforms are quite a recent refurbishment (past 15 years or so).


----------



## sweek

Victoria is going to be updated, too. I can't think of any busy stations that need to be updated and haven't got plans to have that done, really. It just takes a long, long time. Grrr Oxford Circus.


----------



## Smarty

Is it my imagination or are Bakerloo line trains smaller than all the others ?


----------



## iampuking

Victoria line uses the car bodies. I think the walls have to be thicker because the door types, and the seats also extend further out (more comfy)

To me it seems as if the Piccadilly line has the smallest carriages, but I think it's down to the dark colour scheme more than anything.




Tubeman said:


> King's Cross? Eh? Its being transformed beyond all recognition: new ticket halls, new passageways... the work's largely complete barring the final cosmetic touches on the Tube platforms.
> 
> TCR is due a massive overhaul: I think it was tied in with Crossrail 1 though so it might be on hold for now.
> 
> Paddington's got a nice new entrance off the concourse. Maybe the brickwork could do with a clean on the Circle / District platforms, but the Bakerloo platforms are quite a recent refurbishment (past 15 years or so).


They may have been refurbished recently, but whether they look good or not is what i'm arguing 

Do you have any idea what the King's Cross deep tube stations will look like? I hope to god that they aren't as bland as the sub surface platforms...


----------



## Tubeman

Smarty said:


> Is it my imagination or are Bakerloo line trains smaller than all the others ?


Imagination I'm afraid... the depth of the seating and seating arrangements of the various stocks probably make some feel more spacious than others.


----------



## Acemcbuller

Hi Tubeman

I've spotted wire cages appearing at stations. At present they are empty. Any ideas what these are for?

I saw two, one at the top and one at the bottom of the escalators at Blackhorse Road. Can't remember where the others were.

Perhaps they are mini jails for people who stand on the left of escalator?  

James


----------



## Tubeman

Acemcbuller said:


> Hi Tubeman
> 
> I've spotted wire cages appearing at stations. At present they are empty. Any ideas what these are for?
> 
> I saw two, one at the top and one at the bottom of the escalators at Blackhorse Road. Can't remember where the others were.
> 
> Perhaps they are mini jails for people who stand on the left of escalator?
> 
> James



Yay! We could chuck fare dodgers in there too!

Hmmm not too sure without seeing them... what size are they? Do they block any of the escalators? Maybe the escalators are about to be renewed?


----------



## Acemcbuller

I've spotted them at Chancery Lane too.
From memory they are about a meter sqare at the base. The top slopes so that the front is maybe 1.5meters high and the back is maybe two meters high.
They are dark blue and have signs saying "Danger, Moving Parts"

Housing for fans perhaps?


----------



## Tubeman

Acemcbuller said:


> I've spotted them at Chancery Lane too.
> From memory they are about a meter sqare at the base. The top slopes so that the front is maybe 1.5meters high and the back is maybe two meters high.
> They are dark blue and have signs saying "Danger, Moving Parts"
> 
> Housing for fans perhaps?


Hmmm very odd. Might be something to with the 'Connect' radio system (i.e. basestations). I passed through Chancery Lane last weekend but didn't notice anything as such.


----------



## iampuking

Are they those "£10bn investment" TfL propaganda things?

They have them where there is an escalator refurbishment, or where any work is being done for a matter of fact.


----------



## Acemcbuller

Acemcbuller said:


> I've spotted wire cages appearing at stations. At present they are empty. Any ideas what these are for?
> 
> I saw two, one at the top and one at the bottom of the escalators at Blackhorse Road.
> ...
> I've spotted them at Chancery Lane too.
> From memory they are about a meter sqare at the base. The top slopes so that the front is maybe 1.5meters high and the back is maybe two meters high.
> They are dark blue and have signs saying "Danger, Moving Parts"


These cages are still empty. I found this press release which says that: 


> Temporary portable industrial fans will be trialled at Seven Sisters and Chancery Lane stations this summer to increase air circulation and if successful will be rolled out to a number of stations in 2008.


I wonder if Seven Sisters was a misake and should have been Blackhorse Road?


----------



## lasdun

those cages were for a trial of some office fans that some bright spark thought would cool the place down. The fan's dissapeared after a fortnight, the cages remain.


----------



## Medo

Acemcbuller said:


> These cages are still empty. I found this press release which says that:
> 
> 
> I wonder if Seven Sisters was a misake and should have been Blackhorse Road?


No it's correct, there's one in Seven Sisters station. Last month they had a huge fan in there trying to cool the platforms but they've been taken out and now the cages are empty.


----------



## iampuking

I have a few questions... Again... Sorry...

-Were there more uplighters on escalators before the tragic fire at King's Cross, where they were ripped out when metal escalators were installed?

-I've been reading about ATO on the central line (http://www.davros.org/rail/signalling/articles/central.html) under the 'Coded Manual' bit it explains that the driver can control the train, by listening to a chime and under ATP. I was wondering what the point of allowing it was and if it would be implemented on the Jubilee/Northern ATO systems?

-Why do some sub-surface stations have rounded roofs (Baker Street) whereas others are flat? (Victoria)

Thanks in advance


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> I have a few questions... Again... Sorry...
> 
> -Were there more uplighters on escalators before the tragic fire at King's Cross, where they were ripped out when metal escalators were installed?
> 
> -I've been reading about ATO on the central line (http://www.davros.org/rail/signalling/articles/central.html) under the 'Coded Manual' bit it explains that the driver can control the train, by listening to a chime and under ATP. I was wondering what the point of allowing it was and if it would be implemented on the Jubilee/Northern ATO systems?
> 
> -Why do some sub-surface stations have rounded roofs (Baker Street) whereas others are flat? (Victoria)
> 
> Thanks in advance


No problem 

- King's Cross... I honestly couldn't tell you

- Central ATO: There was parallel running for a time whilst the ATO was being rolled out: initially I think the line was ATO tunnel section only Mon-Sat, then it was rolled out to overground sections too, then finally it went ATO on Sundays. I don't know what prompted this cautious approach really... There may have been questions about ATO performance along overground sections (i.e. low rail adhesion through leaf fall, rain or ice), but I can't really think why it remained manual on Sundays for so long... although I suspect it was to ensure drivers 'kept their hands in' so to speak in case the ATO was deemed unfit for purpose and had to be withdrawn suddenly.

- Many District subsurface stations were originally open-air with an arched overall roof (like Notting Hill Gate) which have since had the air rights used and the stations rafted over, hence flat ceilings. The stations of the original Metropolitan Railway at Baker Street, Great Portland Street, and Euston Square were built in association with the new Euston Road and are directly under the new road, hence the brick arched roof (evidently preferred over iron beams at the time). It all depends on the local geography and engineering really.


----------



## poshbakerloo

hopefully this won't sound like a silly question...

.are there any new tube lines or extensions planed that are big e.g. jubilee line exention etc


----------



## iampuking

"planned" and being built is another thing altogether...

And for god sakes its "extension"...


----------



## CharlieP

iampuking said:


> And for god sakes its "extension"...


For God's sake it's "it's"... hno:


----------



## iampuking

That's a minor blip compared to his spelling and grammar mistakes...


----------



## Acemcbuller

poshbakerloo said:


> hopefully this won't sound like a silly question...
> 
> .are there any new tube lines or extensions planed that are big e.g. jubilee line exention etc


The East London Line Extension and Crossrail are the main ones.
Have a look at alwaystouchout.com/

James


----------



## iampuking

I really should stop but...

-Why have recent refurbishments of stations not had lifts fitted? Most stations in central London are impossible to get into for the mobility impaired yet nothing seems to be being done about it...


----------



## Tubeman

poshbakerloo said:


> hopefully this won't sound like a silly question...
> 
> .are there any new tube lines or extensions planed that are big e.g. jubilee line exention etc


Technically nothing definite insofar that the East London Line extension will essentially be Network Rail (or rather TFL Overground), and Crossrail will also be NR.

The closest we have to an LUL extension is Metropolitan to Watford Junction (essentially the terminus at Watford will be abandoned and the current branch diverted over the abandoned BR Croxley Green branch to Watford Junction), although for such a small amount of new works (about 250m of viaduct) there's been f-all progress lately. Similarly the Bakerloo will probably end up being extended back to Watford Junction again (it used to) and the slow Silverlink service to Euston abandoned within the next few years.

A Bakerloo extension from Elephant & Castle to Hayes (Kent) is again being looked at, but that's probably as far as it'll ever get.


----------



## Justme

^^ I guess the lost of the East London Line to the London Overground will drop the total amount of stations significantly, lowering London on the global scale of Network sizes (not that it matters, but these statistics are always interesting)

Then again, do you think they will add the London Overground as "part" of London Underground in much the same way as the DLR is?


----------



## poshbakerloo

i heard that (correct me if i'm wrong) the east london LINE, will ne called the east london RAILWAY???for some weird reason???


----------



## iampuking

No... It will be called the London Overground, along with the North & West London lines that TfL are taking over.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> No... It will be called the London Overground, along with the North & West London lines that TfL are taking over.


...However I think poshbakerloo is correct in that under the Overground umbrella the ELL will be called the East London Railway.


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> ^^ I guess the lost of the East London Line to the London Overground will drop the total amount of stations significantly, lowering London on the global scale of Network sizes (not that it matters, but these statistics are always interesting)
> 
> Then again, do you think they will add the London Overground as "part" of London Underground in much the same way as the DLR is?


Its all semantics really... Its inevitable that the TFL overground routes will appear on the Tube map and so I think all TFL routes (i.e. Tube + DLR + Overground) will be considered as a single entity. Many Tokyo subway lines are privately owned and operated and yet you'd never dream of excluding any from the route km / stations total for this reason.

I think ultimately much of the suburban NR network will fall under TFL control and as such the 'Tube' map will gain scores of 'new' stations over the coming decades.


----------



## Justme

^^ Thanks Tubeman. Does anyone have a map of the new overground that will be open (is it Nov this year?) showing all stations? I have seen some that only show major stations, but not all.


----------



## bigbossman

...


----------



## Justme

bigbossman said:


> 4. i think instead of building crossrail they should concentrate on using existing capacity to increase the network especially by extending the underground to south london. the district line could easily run a loop around kingston taking over the services and other extensions are possible. south london wants and needs the tube, *crossrail wont benefit us.*


Can I just say that from the perspective of someone who has lived in our cities in the world which have the equivalent of crossrail (which incidentally is common across Europe) I have to say that it is incredibly beneficial.

London is sorely lacking in this type of network.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, what did the original City & South London tiling look like?


----------



## iampuking

Justme said:


> ^^ Thanks Tubeman. Does anyone have a map of the new overground that will be open (is it Nov this year?) showing all stations? I have seen some that only show major stations, but not all.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5316358.stm

2010 Tube map, if that helps.


----------



## DarJoLe




----------



## Martin S

Tubeman,

On the subject of the City and South London line. I realise that when first constructed it had a terminus at King William Street in the City. This was closed and a new station south of the river opened at London Bridge together with two new Thames tunnels to carry the line on its present alignment to Bank. 

However, the C&SL was noted for the small diameter of its tunnels (about 10'6"). When the line was upgraded, was the diameter increased not only in the new sections but in the existing section that went down as far as Stockwell? 

What I'm really asking is if any of the small diameter section still remains in use.


----------



## Acemcbuller

According to http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/northern.html it seems yes almost the whole stretch from Euston to Stockwell was enlarged.

Reading www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/k/king_william_street_station/index1.shtml and www.pendar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tube/King_William_Street_1.html
the abandoned King William Street branch starts just after Borough passes the above the platforms at London bridge.


----------



## ignoramus

I'm curious: Are the Jubilee Line Extension tunnels built to modern day size and standards or did they in the spirit of continuity built tunnels the same olden day tube size?


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> alright tubeman, got a few questions for ya
> 
> 1. i was looking and the southern franchise is up for grabs in 2009, do you reckon that they'll transfer the metro services to ken and he can fully integrate them into london overground? i personally think that would be perfect.
> 
> 2. i heard that i t was once planned to extend the waterloo and city line to the northern city but the city blocket it coz they were worried that their buildings would subside, with modern technology would it now be possible, then it can be conceived that it could be extended to the northern heights bringing a new underground line with minimal tunnelling. also a southern extension would be a good idea. this would be good with thameslink 2000 taking over some of the great northern services into moorgate, meaning people have an aleternative city route, freeing up the northern city. what do you thik.
> 
> 3. do you think that once the dlr is etended to charing cross they'll re-openm the aldwych branch of the piccadilly and extend it waterloo.
> 
> 4. i think instead of building crossrail they should concentrate on using existing capacity to increase the network especially by extending the underground to south london. the district line could easily run a loop around kingston taking over the services and other extensions are possible. south london wants and needs the tube, crossrail wont benefit us.
> 
> 5. finally how does the tube regenerate an area, as far as i am aware islington is the 6th poorest borough in london but it is probably one of the most well conencted transport wise, therefore i doubt that bringing the tube to hackney will have a difference, you'll just get clusters of yuppies around the nice areas but like islington the rest will still be a dump!! what do you think?


1) I think TFL definitely want to assume control of all suburban mainline services in due course, the takeover of Silverlink is just the beginning. How long it takes and if it ever happens is anyone's guess however... The Silverlink takeover in November will be the real litmus test. If its a success I'd expect a lot of franchises to be taken over by TFL, obviously with a private partner (Hong Kong's MTR is the partner for 'Overground').

2) Yes it was once proposed to link the W&C and GN&C, but really I think its pretty impractical now. The W&C is poorly engineered (some tight curves, 4 car trains) so muddles through as a little shuttle but can't realistically be extended or tacked onto another line. The GN&C however is an entirely different kettle of fish and I think is a prime candidate for a southern extension to form a second north-south Thameslink-type route, although again the platforms are short which is a bit of a hindrance. An obvious option to me would be linking it to Cannon Street, less than a mile of tunnel but opening up a lot of possible cross-London routes (including your suggested re-opening of the Northern heights).

3) I doubt it... I'm not aware of an intermediate station at Aldwych being part of the bargain for a DLR extension to Charing X, perhaps if there is one proposed there would be some merit to it. Extending the Aldwych branch to Waterloo was proposed in the past, but I suspect without running through trains beyond Holborn to King's Cross (which would damagingly decrease capacity west of Holborn) it would be a bit pointless unless people wanted to travel specifically from Waterloo to Aldwych or Holborn (a route which is served by tons of buses).

4) The Tubes are already at capacity by and large: The District line is already at bursting point on the Wimbledon branch so adding a load more stations (I presume you mean via the Kingston Loop to Richmond?) would make matters worse, and the Northern Line to Morden is also similarly busy. The two options realistically open are extending the Bakerloo beyond Elephant & Castle (currently being seriously looked at), and splitting the Northern Line into two halves and extending the Charing X branch south from Kennington.

The Bakerloo extension proposed stops at Camberwell, Peckham, Nunhead, Brockley, Lewisham and then south to Hayes taking over the existing NR branch.

My proposed Charing X branch extension would see stations at Brixton, Brixton Hill, Streatham Hill, Streatham, Norbury, Thornton Heath Pond, West Croydon and East Croydon... either with a terminal loop or perhaps continuing beyond to take over the Caterham and Tattenham Corner NR branches at Purley.

5) You have a point about Islington (my home borough)... It is fairly well served by the Tube and the affluent areas (Angel, Highbury) mostly reflect this with the crappiest areas like Hoxton, Finsbury, Upper Holloway not having Tube stations. There are however areas like Lower Holloway, Caledonian Road and Archway which have good Tube access and yet are still dumps. Some areas, like mine (Finsbury) are just full of grotty estates so haven't been gentrified in the same manner that the houses of Angel and Highbury have been. Yuppies convert subdivided houses back into family homes, but tend to give sink estates a wide berth, regardless of how close to the Tube they are. Its more about housing stock than anything else therefore. Hackney has a lot of decent Victorian housing subdivided into flats which would be turned into family homes if made more accessible by having a decent Tube link.


----------



## Tubeman

ignoramus said:


> I'm curious: Are the Jubilee Line Extension tunnels built to modern day size and standards or did they in the spirit of continuity built tunnels the same olden day tube size?


Neither... As the Jubilee line extension was extending an existing 'Tube' tunnel in parts 70 years old, trains could only be as large as the smallest tunnel (i.e. standard 'Tube' size), but the JLE was built with a larger diameter purely to accommodate an evacuation walkway alongside the track. Therefore the JLE is larger diameter than standard 'Tube' tunnel, but still far smaller than surface stock size tunnel.


----------



## Tubeman

Martin S said:


> Tubeman,
> 
> On the subject of the City and South London line. I realise that when first constructed it had a terminus at King William Street in the City. This was closed and a new station south of the river opened at London Bridge together with two new Thames tunnels to carry the line on its present alignment to Bank.
> 
> However, the C&SL was noted for the small diameter of its tunnels (about 10'6"). When the line was upgraded, was the diameter increased not only in the new sections but in the existing section that went down as far as Stockwell?
> 
> What I'm really asking is if any of the small diameter section still remains in use.


Acemcbuller has already answered your query... The entire Bank Branch was shut for 2 years (1922-24 I think) to enlarge the tunnels, and not without event either... I believe the was a catastrophic collapse through The City during the works which set them back significantly.

The tunnels to King William Street are still largely intact: parts of Prodigy's 'Firestarter' video were filmed down there, and the tunnel from Borough to Stockwell is original C&SLR tunnel, albeit expanded.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, what did the original City & South London tiling look like?


Plain boring white I believe, Like the Central London Railway. Part of Borough station is original C&SLR tiling still.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Plain boring white I believe, Like the Central London Railway. Part of Borough station is original C&SLR tiling still.


It seems to me that Yerkes tube lines were the only ones with any kind of imagination...


----------



## Songoten2554

hey tubeman haven't talked for some time here well anyways i want to know somethings

so what is the news lately with the High Speed 1 the CTRL is there new pics of the stations and such

i heard that the eurostar went to visit there to st Pacreas international station and well i also heard many things of eurostar is there any new pics of the station and the other stations and such

also tubeman i am not sure if you are aware but i been planning for a major international high speed railway for Asia like it did for europe i am not an engineer but its an a huge transportation railway project but its in the Railways section so you can come and see

anyways i heard about also the DLR is there pics of the construction of the platforms of the Straford and also the construction of the Straford international DLR line and the pics of the construction of the woolwich DLR station


----------



## iampuking

Latest on CTRL: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=242636&page=22

Heres pictures of the new DLR platforms at Stratford:



















Sorry for stealing answers from you...


----------



## Songoten2554

but there is no pics from the CTRL and also thank you king

anyways also about the Straford international DLR Route is there any pics of it underconstuction and also about the woolwich tunnel and station for the DLR

it looks futuristic touching very cool


----------



## bigbossman

...


----------



## KB

Tubeman, I know this question might have been asked a zillion times, but which train is it in your avatar and can you post a full picture here?


----------



## ignoramus

Tubeman said:


> Neither... As the Jubilee line extension was extending an existing 'Tube' tunnel in parts 70 years old, trains could only be as large as the smallest tunnel (i.e. standard 'Tube' size), but the JLE was built with a larger diameter purely to accommodate an evacuation walkway alongside the track. Therefore the JLE is larger diameter than standard 'Tube' tunnel, but still far smaller than surface stock size tunnel.


Thanks!

If only all new extensions had the standard tunnel size, then if the Jubilee Line Extension ever becomes a separate line after more extensions it could finally be a *standard metro line (standard large sized tunnels that is, not that the metro line is substandard)*

*Then again, I don't know how the London Tube works *so its just a crazy thought.:lol:


----------



## iampuking

ignoramus said:


> Thanks!
> 
> If only all new extensions had the standard tunnel size, then if the Jubilee Line Extension ever becomes a separate line after more extensions it could finally be a standard metro line.
> 
> Then again, I don't know how the London Tube works so its just a crazy thought.:lol:


It is a standard metro line. 

Many older systems have smaller than ideal train sizes, Paris Metro has lines with only 5 carriages per train because the platforms are too short, and the New York Subway has short carriages on some lines because of tight curves. Let us not forget the Tokyo Metro has some narrow platforms as well. Would you call them sub-standard metros?



Songoten2554 said:


> but there is no pics from the CTRL and also thank you king
> 
> anyways also about the Straford international DLR Route is there any pics of it underconstuction and also about the woolwich tunnel and station for the DLR
> 
> it looks futuristic touching very cool


Stratford International route hasn't even started construction, it's not due to open until 2010 at the earliest... The only work I think that has been done has been removing of the old Silverlink track.

And there are no pics of the Woolwich extension to my knowledge, it's a rather minor part of the line so gets little press coverage, and the press don't really report projects like this unless they're over budget and delayed... :|


----------



## ignoramus

iampuking said:


> It is a standard metro line.
> 
> Many older systems have smaller than ideal train sizes, Paris Metro has lines with only 5 carriages per train because the platforms are too short, and the New York Subway has short carriages on some lines because of tight curves. Let us not forget the Tokyo Metro has some narrow platforms as well. Would you call them sub-standard metros?
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford International route hasn't even started construction, it's not due to open until 2010 at the earliest... The only work I think that has been done has been removing of the old Silverlink track.
> 
> And there are no pics of the Woolwich extension to my knowledge, it's a rather minor part of the line so gets little press coverage, and the press don't really report projects like this unless they're over budget and delayed... :|


No thats not what I meant.

What I mean was that if the Jubilee Line Extension had been built with standard sized tunnels (today's standard) it would be a metro line with a standard sized tunnel, a first for the London Tube. Of course it isn't practical.

I didnt say metros which do not have standard sized tunnels are substandard.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman... Would TfL ever install 'smart' escalators, the ones that only move when someone steps on them, it saves energy apparently.



ignoramus said:


> No thats not what I meant.
> 
> What I mean was that if the Jubilee Line Extension had been built with standard sized tunnels (today's standard) it would be a metro line with a standard sized tunnel, a first for the London Tube. Of course it isn't practical.


A first for the Underground? Have you not heard of the Circle, East London, District, Hammersmith & City, or Metropolitan lines?

And even though you didn't intend to say that the Tube lines were sub-standard, it certainly came across that way.


----------



## ignoramus

iampuking said:


> Tubeman... Would TfL ever install 'smart' escalators, the ones that only move when someone steps on them, it saves energy apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> A first for the Underground? Have you not heard of the Circle, East London, District, Hammersmith & City, or Metropolitan lines?
> 
> And even though you didn't intend to say that the Tube lines were sub-standard, it certainly came across that way.


1. I thought I read somewhere they were larger tunnels but still not large enough?

2. Well I am sorry if it came across that way........................... It was certainly not intended.


----------



## iampuking

The Circle, District, East London, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines are the oldest lines, constructed using the cut-and-cover method, meaning they had to dig up streets for them to be constructed... They're twin bore, like the Paris Metro of the New York Subway, and were built for steam trains therefore there are many sections in open cuttings (where the steam was designed to escape) And yes, they're big enough, in fact, the Metropolitan line's A Stock has the largest loading guage in all of Britain...



















Here is the notable size difference:










More pictures here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=242643&page=19


----------



## ignoramus

iampuking said:


> The Circle, District, East London, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines are the oldest lines, constructed using the cut-and-cover method, meaning they had to dig up streets for them to be constructed... They're twin bore, like the Paris Metro of the New York Subway, and were built for steam trains therefore there are many sections in open cuttings (where the steam was designed to escape) And yes, they're big enough, in fact, the Metropolitan line's A Stock has the largest loading guage in all of Britain...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the notable size difference:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More pictures here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=242643&page=19


Oh okay thanks! That helped.

Do they come with air conditioning/heating? Cause the deeper tube tunnels were to small to incorporate air conditioning units right.

So are they Tokyo Metro size for instance?


----------



## iampuking

ignoramus said:


> Oh okay thanks! That helped.
> 
> Do they come with air conditioning/heating? Cause the deeper tube tunnels were to small to incorporate air conditioning units right.
> 
> So are they Tokyo Metro size for instance?


They haven't got air conditioning yet, but the new S Stock to be introduced in 2010 will have it. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_S_Stock

And the tube lines probably don't have enough space for air conditioning units, but there is nowhere to get rid of the hot air that comes from an air conditioning unit, it would have to be pumped into the small tunnels, making the stations even hotter. There was a thing in the paper about how a different type of air cooling would be incorporated into the tube lines, it sounded promising.










And here is the interior of a sub surface District D Stock, I don't know if it's larger than the Tokyo Metro so see for yourself


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, why don't they not make Crossrail's underground section powered by third rail? The tunnels could have a smaller diameter, and they could switch to overheard wires when overground (like Thameslink) it would save money to bore smaller tunnels...


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> thanks tubeman,
> 
> 1) with regards to capacity of the tube, the bakerloo and northern extensions i think are a good idea, extending the bakerloo into bromley might be suicide during the peaks though, big commuter area where traisn could be full before they've left the borough, my local station is north greenwich i live about 3-4 miles away but people would rather sit on a bus for an hour to get to one of these stations than use a local south eastern station, thee 486 is usually packed to at least welling in peak time. thats the problem if your gonna extend south you need as much capacity as possible.
> 
> 2) to get capacity down the wimbledon branch of the district scrap the kensington olympia branch and run all them trains down there, wouldn't that be a temporary solution, also why can't they put money into getting rid of the flat junctions before crossrail and that.
> 
> 3) i've always though they should divert the metropolitan line at liverpool street down the shenfield metro, as far a i know liverpool street is a low station so it would only involve building some connection. i reckon if they do the t-cup thing with the circle then they could divert more metropolitan line trains down the northern side of the circle. i reckon this would be perfect instead of crossrail. then they should extend more district trains from tower hill or something i dunno.
> 
> 4) i think crossrail terminating at abbey wood, would ruin the area, too many people are gonna try and converge on that station as it is on the border of bexley and the area could become gridlocked during peak times, it's a stupid idfea terminating it there, what do you think?
> 
> cheers tubeman


1) Yeah, its a fine balance... Its undeniable that the southern end of the B'loo has capacity to burn at present, but extending it miles into suburbia would as you say be suicide. Personally I'd contemplate a shorter extension stopping at Walworth (East Street market), Camberwell Green and terminating at Peckham Rye.

2) The Olympias are only every 15 minutes so would only add another 4tph, and the trains would have to terminate at High Street Kensington. Its actually a fairly well-used service anyway, with a couple of hundred per train in the peak and thousands per hour during exhibitions. Digging out flying junctions would be enormously beneficial to SSR, but the engineering headache of trying to create flying junctions in 150 years old brick tunnels without collapse or lengthy suspensions is prohibitive. Praed Street (Edgware Rd), Minories (Tower Hill), Aldgate, Aldgate East, Baker Street and Gloucester Road junctions would all benefit greatly from being 'flying' as opposed to 'flat', but I presume we're stuck with them as they are.

3) That's a good idea, actually... Not one I'd thought of. There was actually once a connection curving off the Metropolitan / Circle / H&C line tunnel West of Liverpool Street directly into the mainline terminus (platforms 1 and 2) which would have allowed this service. Sadly the curve was rarely used and has now been partially obstructed, so opportunity lost. Places like Forest gate, Ilford and Romford would benefit greatly from an LU service through Central London.

4) I don't think the intention is for services to terminate at Abbey Wood, that's just where the tunnel portal will be. Trains ex-Crossrail will continue along the North Kent Lines through Dartford to Ebbsfleet.


----------



## Tubeman

kbboy said:


> Tubeman, I know this question might have been asked a zillion times, but which train is it in your avatar and can you post a full picture here?


Its a British Rail Class 401 EMU (Southern Region) or 2-Bil

I can't remember where I got the original photo from, below are some variations on a theme:


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> It is a standard metro line.
> 
> Many older systems have smaller than ideal train sizes, Paris Metro has lines with only 5 carriages per train because the platforms are too short, and the New York Subway has short carriages on some lines because of tight curves. Let us not forget the Tokyo Metro has some narrow platforms as well. Would you call them sub-standard metros?


I think he just meant in terms of standard loading gauge... go easy on him fella!



iampuking said:


> Stratford International route hasn't even started construction, it's not due to open until 2010 at the earliest... The only work I think that has been done has been removing of the old Silverlink track.


The track's all still very much in situ, at least through Canning Town and Custom House. I wouldn't be surprised of the DLR runs on the very same rails, as its all fairly decent modern concrete-sleeper continuous welded rail track. All that's needed is the addition of the DLR third rail and ATO track circuits.



iampuking said:


> And there are no pics of the Woolwich extension to my knowledge, it's a rather minor part of the line so gets little press coverage, and the press don't really report projects like this unless they're over budget and delayed... :|


The tunnel:


----------



## iampuking

These full size DLR tunnels with walkways are just alien to Londoners!


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman... Would TfL ever install 'smart' escalators, the ones that only move when someone steps on them, it saves energy apparently.


That's only of benefit for lightly used escalators really, and very few on the LU network would fall into this category.



iampuking said:


> A first for the Underground? Have you not heard of the Circle, East London, District, Hammersmith & City, or Metropolitan lines?


I think he probably meant in terms of bored Tube tunnel of surface stock size, but even then we had one example: the Great Northern & City, which is now part of Netwrok rail (Finsbury Park to Moorgate).



iampuking said:


> And even though you didn't intend to say that the Tube lines were sub-standard, it certainly came across that way.


Now now its my job to get ultra-defensive of the Tube


----------



## Tubeman

ignoramus said:


> 1. I thought I read somewhere they were larger tunnels but still not large enough?


All SSR tunnels are large enough for surface stock trains, in fact some are even larger as they were built to GWR broad gauge (7 feet!)


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, why don't they not make Crossrail's underground section powered by third rail? The tunnels could have a smaller diameter, and they could switch to overheard wires when overground (like Thameslink) it would save money to bore smaller tunnels...


It probably costs more to have all trains dual-voltage and maintaining shoegear than it would to have tunnels marginally bigger. Plenty of 25Kv OLE has been squeezed into old brick tunnels, e.g. Thameslink Farringdon to Kings Cross, so it can be inferred it doesn't require much more space than not having it.


----------



## iampuking

Thanks


----------



## Zim Flyer

Tubeman, I know you don't work for the DLR so you might not know this but a few weeks ago I travelled up and down it for best part of the day (well made four journies on it) but at no point was I asked to show my ticket.

How do they know how many people use the DLR if they don't use those automatic gates like the underground and trust people to buy tickets? So I guess my real question is why not copy the same system as the underground for checking your tickets, ie before you enter the platforms?


----------



## poshbakerloo

are euston and euston square close enough to be linked up by travelater do you think?


----------



## Tubeman

Zim Flyer said:


> Tubeman, I know you don't work for the DLR so you might not know this but a few weeks ago I travelled up and down it for best part of the day (well made four journies on it) but at no point was I asked to show my ticket.
> 
> How do they know how many people use the DLR if they don't use those automatic gates like the underground and trust people to buy tickets? So I guess my real question is why not copy the same system as the underground for checking your tickets, ie before you enter the platforms?


As far as I'm aware the 'Train Captain' should be wandering up and down checking tickets, so from the point of view of their revenue its a worry that no-one did.


----------



## Tubeman

poshbakerloo said:


> are euston and euston square close enough to be linked up by travelater do you think?


No reason why not, but it would be grotesquely expensive creating a new subterranean travelator... Its at worst a 5 minute walk and there's plenty of buses for the really idle.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> As far as I'm aware the 'Train Captain' should be wandering up and down checking tickets, so from the point of view of their revenue its a worry that no-one did.


Whenever i'm on it the train captain never does that. Just stands in the middle and opens and closes the doors... Once one of them took over to 'drive' but he just pressed the buttons to start and stop it, much like the Victoria line I assumed... He was a bit of an obnoxious git though! He was banging on his mobile the entire journey and taking up both seats...


----------



## lasdun

Yes, the train captains are very hit and miss. Some are the most diligent and polite workers I've encountered in London, some are not. Revenue collection is largely non-existent for large parts of the route for lots of the day.


----------



## sweek

I've been checked on around one fourth of my trips on the DLR, I think.
Do you have any idea what might've happened to the new DLR trains, by the way? They should've started being introduced in May already.


----------



## Justme

Tubeman said:


> No reason why not, but it would be grotesquely expensive creating a new subterranean travelator... Its at worst a 5 minute walk and there's plenty of buses for the really idle.


For the likes of normal situations it certainly is an easy walk. But there are loads of people who come into Euston with luggage, and walking with all that luggage can be a problem for some. Buses are also no help there (buses and baggage just don't go together)

So in these cases a travelator would come in very handy. Pity the London Underground just can't afford to do these things anymore.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, do you think it would be a good idea to scrap the tube names and give each line a number? It's easier for tourists apparently, I hate the idea personally.


----------



## Justme

^ Personally I also think it's stupid. You can always make a tourist map which includes numbers, so why scrap the names completely.

The only network I used which also had numbers was the Tokyo system. Now here we are talking a network where many of the maps are only in Japanese. Even then, I still never really used the numbers and prefered the names (of cause, using a map with European spelling)

If you have too much trouble using a subway network, you should stay at home ;O)


----------



## sweek

An underground connection between Euston and Euston Square should be included in the Euston upgrade.

---
The proposed £1bn redevelopment for Euston Station will provide a city centre mixed use development and an enlarged and enhanced station facility to serve the upgraded West Coast Main Line. 

Franklin + Andrews has been involved in the preparation of feasibility estimates and cost planning of capital and whole life costs to consider the various options available under this proposed redevelopment.

The new station will feature an enlarged concourse with retail and passenger facilities on basement, ground and first floor levels. There will be a new London Underground concourse with a proposed *direct pedestrian tunnel to link into the Circle Line at Euston Square.* The first floor of the concourse could link directly into the commercial scheme, which is to be constructed over the station platforms on a new deck.

http://www.franklinandrews.com/projects/?mode=type&id=15580


----------



## Justme

^ but will it have a travelator? The only reason why not is if they make it an underground retail concourse. Otherwise it will be a long boring tunnel walk.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, do you think it would be a good idea to scrap the tube names and give each line a number? It's easier for tourists apparently, I hate the idea personally.


Its only of any value if the numbers are displayed on the trains... I think it has merits for a comple of lines: the District runs 5 distinct off-peak services which could be numbered (e.g. Richmond - Upminster = District 1, Edgware Road - Wimbledon = District 4 etc), but this only means anything to baffled tourists if there's a whopping great big green '1' on the front of the District 1 train.

I certainly think erasing the heritage of the different line names altogether would be a travesty.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, I noticed on another forum this new 'daylight' lighting installed at Belsize Park, and i'm wondering *why?*

People know they are not outside, so why try and fool people, horrid fluroscent lighting just gives people headaches, makes everyone look like zombies and not forgetting: looked crap! They've already butchered the Circle and H&C platforms at Baker Street with white lighting, it used to be a lovely orange glow which gave the station it's original atmosphere! It's so annoying!!

New lighting, see connecting passageway for contrast:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k266/swifftos_da_mega/belsize.jpg


----------



## DanielFigFoz

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, I noticed on another forum this new 'daylight' lighting installed at Belsize Park, and i'm wondering *why?*
> 
> People know they are not outside, so why try and fool people, horrid fluroscent lighting just gives people headaches, makes everyone look like zombies and not forgetting: looked crap! They've already butchered the Circle and H&C platforms at Baker Street with white lighting, it used to be a lovely orange glow which gave the station it's original atmosphere! It's so annoying!!
> 
> New lighting, see connecting passageway for contrast:
> 
> http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k266/swifftos_da_mega/belsize.jpg



What is that crap?!hno: :bash:


----------



## iampuking

It's just awful, isn't it?


----------



## DanielFigFoz

It's terrible I love the LU but what is this...


----------



## iampuking

I think it's only a trial...


----------



## Tubeman

...Yes the 'natural' light lighting is grotesque... It makes everyone look pallid and undead which really isn't a good look.


----------



## Stuu

Re the reason why there isn't a link between Euston and Euston Square, there is an underground river or one of Bazalgette's great sewers between them, so anything would have to go underneath, so it would be far more expensive than it appears, though why the entrance to Euston Square is at the other end to Euston is a different matter


----------



## Truepioneer

Tubeman, why are the platforms at Angel Station wider than the platforms at the average Northern Line station?

It's not an interchange station and there are busier stations on the Northern that would benefit from larger platforms.

Please explain

Cheers


----------



## iampuking

I know this one. It's because Angel was originally an island platform similar to the ones at Clapham Common and Clapham North, since overcrowding became a problem it was modernised in the 90s, the southbound platform used the existing tunnel, and a new tunnel was constructed for the northbound platform. The surface building was also changed, and now Angel holds the record of having the longest escalators on the Underground, previously having lifts. A similar arrangement can be seen at Euston (Bank branch)

Here's Clapham Common, what Angel station would of looked like before modernisation:


----------



## Truepioneer

^Thank you

They should really apply this idea to some other underground stations.


----------



## Tubeman

Thanks for fielding that one Mr puking...

Here's the only image I can find of the disgusting condition of Angel before the Northbound track was diverted:










Today's Southbound... A vast improvement!










The last two examples of this original City & South London station layout are Clapham North and Clapham Common.


----------



## iampuking

Truepioneer said:


> ^Thank you
> 
> They should really apply this idea to some other underground stations.


The only stations they could do it to are Clapham North and Clapham Common! Tubeman, do you know if there are any plans to give them the same treatment?

And does Lambeth North have that weird lighting in it as well?


----------



## petermandelson

Hi Tubey

Do you think there is a secret tunnel linking 10 Downing St and Westminster station?

So if anything go wrong such as war or terrorist attack PM and his family can escape using Tube?


----------



## iampuking

Why would he want to go to Westminster, Big Ben? That's even more of a target!!


----------



## Martin S

Tubeman said:


> Thanks for fielding that one Mr puking...
> 
> Here's the only image I can find of the disgusting condition of Angel before the Northbound track was diverted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today's Southbound... A vast improvement!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last two examples of this original City & South London station layout are Clapham North and Clapham Common.


Judging by conditions on some underground platforms I have had to use recently, they could all do with widening like that. Some platforms are so narrow that the entrances are easily blocked making it almost impossible to get to less crowded stretches of platform, which has the knock on effect that trains are not evenly loaded.


----------



## iampuking

Northern line platforms tend to be quite narrow...


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> The only stations they could do it to are Clapham North and Clapham Common! Tubeman, do you know if there are any plans to give them the same treatment?
> 
> And does Lambeth North have that weird lighting in it as well?



Not that I'm aware of... Angel had to be 'done' as it became extremely dangerous when the area became more affluent in the 1980's (and therefore the station got busier), and the development at street level helped to pay for the works. The Claphams are pretty busy (Common more so than North I'd have thought), but I'd never seen them hazardously busy when I was a driver.

Lambeth North does indeed have the ghastly 'daylight' style lighting.


----------



## Tubeman

petermandelson said:


> Hi Tubey
> 
> Do you think there is a secret tunnel linking 10 Downing St and Westminster station?
> 
> So if anything go wrong such as war or terrorist attack PM and his family can escape using Tube?


Well if anyone would know, you would Mr Mandelson! 

I've heard the same urban myth about a secret Piccadilly Line siding to Buckingham Palace... I'm not being funny but if there was a 4-minute warning Queenie would just about shuffle on to her secret train, let alone get anywhere near Heathrow Airport.

Rubbish, in short.


----------



## Tubeman

Martin S said:


> Judging by conditions on some underground platforms I have had to use recently, they could all do with widening like that. Some platforms are so narrow that the entrances are easily blocked making it almost impossible to get to less crowded stretches of platform, which has the knock on effect that trains are not evenly loaded.


Angel (and Euston Bank Branch Southbound) aren't widenings as such, they were both instances of the northbound track being diverted through a new tunnel to serve a new platform such that the entire old station tunnel became just the southbound platform.

Actually expanding existing plaforms to this extent would be very expensive, and nigh on impossible in many locations. The usual layout of a Tube station sees escalators accessing a low-level concourse between two platform tunnels: the only way to widen platforms is to encroach into the low-level concourse which would be physically impossible as the escalators would be in the way of this expansion.

I certainly agree about some platforms with limited access where people are too stupid to spread along the platform... I used to use Holborn Piccadilly Westbound every day, where there is one narrow entrance onto the platform around which people often crowd. You'll often not be able to get onto the platform even though its mostly free because of a gang of tourists with suitcases right in front of the entrance. In the vain hope that people observe them, yellow markings like the 'no stopping' diamond box junctions on roads have been painted on, but to be fair they don't exactly mean much if you're not in a car. In these instances I'd like to see more entrances / exits to / from busier plaforms, but again it would be expensive.


----------



## Rachmaninov

Hey man somebody might have asked this before but just about how many passengers can a tube train take? I know it varies from line to line but I guess numbers for the Metropolitan line and for Central line would be a nice indicator. Cheers!!


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Not that I'm aware of... Angel had to be 'done' as it became extremely dangerous when the area became more affluent in the 1980's (and therefore the station got busier), and the development at street level helped to pay for the works. The Claphams are pretty busy (Common more so than North I'd have thought), but I'd never seen them hazardously busy when I was a driver.
> 
> Lambeth North does indeed have the ghastly 'daylight' style lighting.


Thanks... Does the Bakerloo line have more modern signalling than other lines with conventional signals? I'm sure I read about it once before, and it doesn't seem to have problems as often as the Piccadilly or Nothern, for example.


----------



## Tubeman

Rachmaninov said:


> Hey man somebody might have asked this before but just about how many passengers can a tube train take? I know it varies from line to line but I guess numbers for the Metropolitan line and for Central line would be a nice indicator. Cheers!!


At a push, 1,500 per train. The Met's capacity is probably not as much as the Central or Victoria as a lot of floorspace is taken up by seating so less standees, both of the latter two have 8 cars as opposed to the usual 7 or 6 of other lines.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Thanks... Does the Bakerloo line have more modern signalling than other lines with conventional signals? I'm sure I read about it once before, and it doesn't seem to have problems as often as the Piccadilly or Nothern, for example.


I once read somewhere it had more modern 'moving block' signals, but now I work on it, it appears to have bogstandard signalling. Maybe moving block was experimented with at some point?


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> I once read somewhere it had more modern 'moving block' signals, but now I work on it, it appears to have bogstandard signalling. Maybe moving block was experimented with at some point?


I know it has bog-standard signalling, but I remember reading that it was more up to date bog-standard signalling, like the Jubilee line extention, hence why the Piccadilly is schedueled for an overhaul in 2014, whereas the Bakerloo is something like 2020...

About the Jubilee line extention signalling... How come there are still signalling failures, there was one at Westminster the other day, I thought signal failures only happen with old signalling!

I was on the Central line the other day at rush hour, and it was crowded, but sometimes the train would start up and start to move and then break violently, it sent everyone flying, including me! This one man went flying onto someone elses seat! It was hilarious! But everyone else was used to it, so used to it that they didn't even apologise... Why did it happen!?!? and it happenned more than once, this occassion was more violent than usual.

Also, there is a new passageway being constructed at Kings Cross, a deep level one, do you have any clues as to where the hell its going?!? :nuts: 

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> I know it has bog-standard signalling, but I remember reading that it was more up to date bog-standard signalling, like the Jubilee line extention, hence why the Piccadilly is schedueled for an overhaul in 2014, whereas the Bakerloo is something like 2020...
> 
> About the Jubilee line extention signalling... How come there are still signalling failures, there was one at Westminster the other day, I thought signal failures only happen with old signalling!
> 
> I was on the Central line the other day at rush hour, and it was crowded, but sometimes the train would start up and start to move and then break violently, it sent everyone flying, including me! This one man went flying onto someone elses seat! It was hilarious! But everyone else was used to it, so used to it that they didn't even apologise... Why did it happen!?!? and it happenned more than once, this occassion was more violent than usual.
> 
> Also, there is a new passageway being constructed at Kings Cross, a deep level one, do you have any clues as to where the hell its going?!? :nuts:
> 
> Thanks in advance!


The JLE signalling was a hastily-installed hash of conventional signalling when the intended siganlling system either didn't work or was too expensive (I forget which), hence when the JLE opened it was beset by signalling problems. They've improved, but haven't gone away. the current signalling was only ever intended to be a stop-gap until the line went ATO (which is coming soon), so signals are quite sparse limiting capacity.

The Bakerloo isn't a priority for an upgrade simply because it's not especially important compared to the Northern, Jubilee and Piccadilly lines... not because its in any less need of it.

The incident on the Central Line you describe was almost certainly someone's clothing trapped in the doors: the driver shuts the doors and gets the 'doors closed visual' ('Pilot light') and so starts the train, but as it pulls away the doors with something trapped in them open marginally further causing the Pilot light to go out and the motors to cut out. Its an illusion when it feels like the train is braking, its just that it suddenely stops accelerating which can feel like you're slowing down. On older stocks there's a noticebale 'pop' noise, which is the air-operated linebreakers slamming open as the power to the motors is cut. The linebreakers need to open suddenly and violently to prevent an arc being drawn which could potentially fuse the linebreakers shut.

As the Central is ATO it would probably have repeatedly accelerated quickly (pilot goes out), stopped accelerating (pilot comes back on), accelerated again (and so on) until it got enough momentum up for the pilot to stay on despite something being stuck in the doors. On a manual line a driver, realising something was stuck in the doors, would then accelerate very gingerly to prevent the G-force of acceleration from causing the pilot to be lost (and would probably make a PA along the lines of "Please do not lean against the doors"). This is the advantage of having intelligence driving a train as opposed to a computer, driving technique can be employed whereas the ATO just, essentially, goes 'go quickly' and 'stop quickly'.


----------



## Songoten2554

i wonder what will happen to waterloo international they can use it for the long distance trains and international night trains as well

so i hear a eurostar departed from Nord to St Pancreas it seems awsome now and well it seems that the british had done it

also i am wondering though there is a movie is called mr Bean holiday and i am wondering where is bean is going and what is the beach of the vacations and what rail and road routes did he use to get there

i want to see the movie but what do you think tubeman about the movie


----------



## Tubeman

^^
Mr Bean is a spaz (although I like Rowan Atkinson as Blackadder)

Waterloo International platforms will probably be used for longer-distance SWT services to Portsmouth, Bournemouth, Southampton etc

Yes the first full Eurostar run from GDN in Paris to St Pancras via the CTRL arrived today, a great moment in railway history


----------



## Acemcbuller

Songoten2554 said:


> i wonder what will happen to waterloo international they can use it for the long distance trains and international night trains as well


http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/99


> A report by Arup for the Department for Transport into the future of Waterloo International station after Eurostar vacates it in favour of St Pancras in 2007 has recommended that it be retained for rail use. The report highlights a wide number of possible rail uses for the station, including use by SWT Windsor or Main line trains, and use for diversions during the construction of Crossrail and Thameslink 2000.


----------



## trainrover

*How are the A and C Stocks doing there?*

Tell me, how well are the A and C Stocks faring over there?


----------



## Tubeman

trainrover said:


> Tell me, how well are the A and C Stocks faring over there?


A bit battered & bruised, but still struggling on! I reckon on it being another 15 years before the last C Stock runs, making them over 50 years old when they go... The A Stocks will go first, but even then with the demise of Metronet I wouldn't be surprised if we're still waiting for the first S Stock to run in 2012.

Spare a thought for the ex-LT 1938 stocks still serving the Isle of Wight: nearly 70 years old!


----------



## trainrover

Tubeman said:


> but still struggling on!


Really? Struggling, because I've been imagining their break-downs to be pretty non-existant? I mean, for example, I can't imagine the thundering speed of the A stock (when on their express runs) ever having diminished since the early 80s . . .


Tubeman said:


> Spare a thought for the ex-LT 1938 stocks still serving the Isle of Wight: nearly 70 years old!


I do (have been for the past several years)! I wonder how the operators of the fleet protect them from salt corrosion. It's really special that some of that adorable fleet spend their golden years seaside after spending decades in the guts of the world's cosmopolis.


----------



## Tubeman

trainrover said:


> Really? Struggling, because I've been imagining their break-downs to be pretty non-existant? I mean, for example, I can't imagine the thundering speed of the A stock (when on their express runs) ever having diminished since the early 80s . . .


No, you're right... they're doing pretty well considering their age... Its all about the maintenance regime really. C Stocks always have been prone to defects though, some stocks are intrinsically more prone to them.

A60 Stock (Metropolitan Line), 1960










C Stock (Circle, Hammersmith & City and Edgware Rd-Wimbledon), 1969 & 1977












trainrover said:


> I do (have been for the past several years)! I wonder how the operators of the fleet protect them from salt corrosion. It's really special that some of that adorable fleet spend their golden years seaside after spending decades in the guts of the world's cosmopolis.


That's a very romantic way of looking at it 

I wonder how long they're going to battle on for? Maintenance / parts must be a bit of a nightmare. They must surely be the oldest trains in normal passenger service in the UK.


----------



## trainrover

Tubeman said:


> That's a very romantic way of looking at it


Awww, thank you, coz I remember over time an endless stream of couple upon couple snuggling up so adorably in those row seats at the car ends -- I'm fond of that fleet for other reasons too.


----------



## Tubeman

*ahem* second page? Unheard of!!!


----------



## kegan

I've got a couple of questions:

- I think I vaguely remember something about the District possibly taking over the Uxbridge branch of the Piccadilly line. Is this likely to happen?

- Is anything happening with the plan to extend the Metropolitan to Watford Junction over the old BR Croxley branch?


----------



## Tubeman

kegan said:


> I've got a couple of questions:
> 
> - I think I vaguely remember something about the District possibly taking over the Uxbridge branch of the Piccadilly line. Is this likely to happen?
> 
> - Is anything happening with the plan to extend the Metropolitan to Watford Junction over the old BR Croxley branch?


- District to Uxbridge (and possibly in turn Piccadilly to Ealing Broadway) is fairly likely at some point, but the main stumbling block is that years of track replacement / reballasting have raised the rail level reducing clearances under bridges. The Surface stock still physically fit under the bridges (ask any District driver who has ever taken a wrong signal at Hanger Lane Junction... It does happen!), but are limited to 5mph 'just in case'.

- Its still pending, frustratingly. 200m of track is all that's required to link the Met Watford branch and the old Croxley Green Branch and thus give the Met Line access into the heart of Watford. The Croxley Green branch, although only ever single track, was engineered for double track so its simply a case of building the 200m of new viaduct, reinstating the track and signals, and building new platforms at Watford West (and a new station at Ascot Road, replacing Croxley Green). Watford Stadium would remain closed, as that plaform was built on the never-used trackbed for the second track so would need to be demolished.


----------



## trainrover

^^ Does this TfL Uxbridge plan to have District-line service exist simply to overcome the Piccadilly fleet from being short to meet the Rayners Lane to Uxbridge platform heights?


----------



## iampuking

Would the District line have enough trains to go to Uxbridge? Ealing Broadway is a rather short branch compared and already has low frequency as it is..


----------



## Tubeman

trainrover said:


> ^^ Does this TfL Uxbridge plan to have District-line service exist simply to overcome the Piccadilly fleet from being short to meet the Rayners Lane to Uxbridge platform heights?


The platform heights are sort of in between Tube and Surface stock heights (step down to Tube, step up to Surface) so reverting the route to District Line (which it was until the 1930's) wouldn't solve the height difference issue. A good example of this headache is Ealing Common, whose platforms are used routinely by both stocks. The step up to District Line trains is immense.

The fleet issue is probably academic, as I presume the S Stock and the replacements for the 1973 stocks will be in before the branch switches to SSR.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Would the District line have enough trains to go to Uxbridge? Ealing Broadway is a rather short branch compared and already has low frequency as it is..


Not yet, as I mention in my previous post I presume it hinges on the provision of S Stocks. That being said in my opinion the District runs too many trains east of Barking (all Richmond and Wimbledon trains through the city terminate at Upminster), leading to a load of empty trains getting vandalised by the scummy chavs in Dagenham. If the Wimbledon trains terminated at Barking that would free up sufficient stock to run an Uxbridge service.


----------



## sweek

Acton Town - Rayners Lane - Uxbridge i already a lightly used section of the Piccadilly.
I understand that the Picc will need extra trains for Heathrow T5, but sending the District to Uxbridge seems wrong. The travel time from the Uxbridge Branch to Central London using the Piccadilly is already quite long, making many trips, even to stations like Leicester Square (on the Picc) faster via the Metropolitan. Replacing it with the District line - which would result in extra stops between Acton and Hammersmith - would make this service even more unattractive for them.

Since the Metropolitan is probably going to be running 10 tph along the Uxbridge branch, I could see TfL just cutting back the 
Picc. to Rayner's entirely, provided that station can handle 6tph reversing plus 10 through-trains.


----------



## Republica

Was on the Metropolitan line last week. I thought it was great - is it just some of the trains that are 60's? Cos the one i was on was very nice! It seemed very wide too.


----------



## cle

sweek said:


> Acton Town - Rayners Lane - Uxbridge i already a lightly used section of the Piccadilly.
> I understand that the Picc will need extra trains for Heathrow T5, but sending the District to Uxbridge seems wrong. The travel time from the Uxbridge Branch to Central London using the Piccadilly is already quite long, making many trips, even to stations like Leicester Square (on the Picc) faster via the Metropolitan. Replacing it with the District line - which would result in extra stops between Acton and Hammersmith - would make this service even more unattractive for them.
> 
> Since the Metropolitan is probably going to be running 10 tph along the Uxbridge branch, I could see TfL just cutting back the
> Picc. to Rayner's entirely, provided that station can handle 6tph reversing plus 10 through-trains.


I think most people from Rayners Lane and beyond use these trains for local journeys, such as working in Hammersmith, down to Heathrow etc... and the Met for commuting to central London.

If the Park Royal Central line interchange was done, the people of Alperton and Sudbury (and all the way to Uxbridge) would have an even quicker ride to the West End - and the White City shopping centre/BBC area. Tubeman - is any progress being made on the Park Royal interchange?


----------



## iampuking

West London is terrible for interchanges, if you compare it to East London where two lines never cross without an interchange. The Central line crosses the Piccadilly three times and there is no interchange! Don't get me started on the Hammersmith & City line...


----------



## Tubeman

Republica said:


> Was on the Metropolitan line last week. I thought it was great - is it just some of the trains that are 60's? Cos the one i was on was very nice! It seemed very wide too.


All of the trains are 1960's vintage, but were refurbished in the 1990's (exterior and interior paint jobs, new seat moquette). They are also unusually wide (but only by a small margin): a throwback from the fact the Metropolitan Railway was built to GWR 7-foot broad gauge so the tunnels are wider.


----------



## Tubeman

cle said:


> I think most people from Rayners Lane and beyond use these trains for local journeys, such as working in Hammersmith, down to Heathrow etc... and the Met for commuting to central London.
> 
> If the Park Royal Central line interchange was done, the people of Alperton and Sudbury (and all the way to Uxbridge) would have an even quicker ride to the West End - and the White City shopping centre/BBC area. Tubeman - is any progress being made on the Park Royal interchange?


Not that I'm aware of... The interchange station would be poorly sited compared to what it replaces (especially Hanger Lane), so it might be of limited benefit on balance.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, why did the JLE cost so much in comparision to Line 14 of the Paris Metro which was constructed around the same time?


----------



## Tubeman

Because it was built in Britain and nothing ever comes in on time and on budget if the government are even remotely involved in it.

Good example: Emirates vs Wembley

If you want to give a project the kiss of death, make it a political hot potato and get the MPs involved. The JLE was in this boat because without it opening before 31/12/99 the entire Millennium Dome would have been an utter flop (as opposed to just the partial flop we ended up with).


----------



## iampuking

I suspected that would be the reason!

But I don't understand how the MPs can mess it up SO drastically.


----------



## elfabyanos

There was a program on tv last year all about govt involvement being a disaster. The Millenium dome, North Sea Gas, the Eurofighter, the Channel Tunnel...


----------



## sweek

Yes, but on the other hand, St. Pancras International, the CTRL, Heathrow T5 and the DLR are all built on time and within budget.


----------



## elfabyanos

On all those projects the politicians didn't involved once work had started.


----------



## Songoten2554

but the dome is not a flop anymore its actually a great arena and that it has a movie threatres and all

Tubeman: a couple of questions if its alright umm for the Great Western Main line will it be eclitrified to Bristol or Reading?? i mean it could be possible

but i remember you saying it can't go all the way you are right about that but the Eltrictified tracks should extend further to Bristol or reading

i hear that the Heathrow Express goes super fast i mean i seen videos that it goes fast


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> Yes, but on the other hand, St. Pancras International, the CTRL, Heathrow T5 and the DLR are all built on time and within budget.


Exactly. This proves my point yet further: al of these projects had minimal government meddling and were a case of private industry just being allowed to get on with it by and large.

I'm not saying "we can't do big projects on time and on budget in the UK", I'm lamenting the fact that as soon as something becomes a political hot potato and MPs get involved, it normally turns into an unmitigated disaster.


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> but the dome is not a flop anymore its actually a great arena and that it has a movie threatres and all
> 
> Tubeman: a couple of questions if its alright umm for the Great Western Main line will it be eclitrified to Bristol or Reading?? i mean it could be possible
> 
> but i remember you saying it can't go all the way you are right about that but the Eltrictified tracks should extend further to Bristol or reading
> 
> i hear that the Heathrow Express goes super fast i mean i seen videos that it goes fast


Its perfectly possible... The stretch which I think would pose huge problems is that between Exeter and Plymouth where the line runs feet from the sea and often gets inundated by waves during storms: 25,000v OLE and seawater don't mix!

I think the route to Bristol Temple Meads and South Wales at least should be electrified. I hate the smell of diesel in the magnificent trainshed at Paddington.


----------



## Songoten2554

Tubeman: oh and why are they saying that the dome is a flop if now they converted to the O2 arena and well it looks successful now i mean a huge movie threaters a arena covention hall and that plus connected to public transport by the london underground and buses

Tubeman: the Piccadilly Line which is the third busiest tube line is there pics of this line and the new airport stations as well


----------



## Songoten2554

Tubeman: which is better to go to Healthrow your experience the Heatlthrow express, the Healthrow Connect or the Piccadilly Line? and the pictures of the and its stations


----------



## DarJoLe

Songoten2554 said:


> Tubeman: oh and why are they saying that the dome is a flop if now they converted to the O2 arena and well it looks successful now i mean a huge movie threaters a arena covention hall and that plus connected to public transport by the london underground and buses


Because o2 are a private company and pumped all their money into renovating the dome structure and building everything inside. Therefore there's no controversy if they go over budget because taxpayers money isn't involved.

Most Londoners didn't want the Dome built because they believed their tax could be better spent on hospitals, schools and a crumbling transport system rather than a large tent housing a load of fluff about Britain celebrating the millennium. When the Dome was a flop in 2000, it left a real bad taste in the UK taxpayers mouth that so much had been spent on a structure that was now empty and a white elephant.

It's only now a private company have redeveloped it that people are starting to wake up to how incredible a structure it is. But that bad taste still remains and the whole Dome debacle is used by many cynics to cloud judgement over a lot of other Government projects, such as the Olympics.


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> Tubeman: oh and why are they saying that the dome is a flop if now they converted to the O2 arena and well it looks successful now i mean a huge movie threaters a arena covention hall and that plus connected to public transport by the london underground and buses
> 
> Tubeman: the Piccadilly Line which is the third busiest tube line is there pics of this line and the new airport stations as well


The O2 is officially no longer a flop... sadly its taken 8 years for it to be put to good use. The frustration is firstly the 'Millennium Experience' which it hosted during 2000 was absolute tripe, and secondly its been nothing but an occasional rave venue between 2001 and 2007 and cost millions in maintenance / security costs with minimal return during this period.

With regard to the Piccadilly Line... I can't find any pics of T5 station (although I have seen a couple somewhere)


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> Tubeman: which is better to go to Healthrow your experience the Heatlthrow express, the Healthrow Connect or the Piccadilly Line? and the pictures of the and its stations


If you want to get there quickly and be ripped off = Express

If you want to get there slowly and not be ripped off = Piccadilly line

Connect I've not used... Its probably the best value vs time to be honest, but Paddington is not the most conveniently located terminus... depends where you're going to in London I suppose


----------



## Songoten2554

oh but isn't the Paddington station where the first section of the london underground was built i mean thats where is very historical i think?

oh but i heard that Connect people that work at the airport can use and its cheaper i think?


----------



## Songoten2554

i also have seen some pics of the Dawlish station and such it seems nice that its a resort gateway station its next to the beach great for surfing and swiming in the ocean


----------



## Tubeman

^^
Dunno which is worst, although anecdotally I remember a fair few under Picc trains at Turnham Green over the years. Lancaster Gate would surprise me to be honest.

By far the worst used to be Tooting Bec when it had Furzedown Mental Hospital open upstairs, gladly that closed about 10 years ago and the suicides stopped.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, why is there such a gap between the escalators, where there is a bank of three, they could reduce the gap and squeeze in a forth by the looks of it!


----------



## Songoten2554

Tubeman: i want to know something well alot of things

what will happen to the North Pole Depot i mean will it work for another company for a depot i mean it can work like that?

since Eurostar is moving to temple mills depot


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, why is there such a gap between the escalators, where there is a bank of three, they could reduce the gap and squeeze in a forth by the looks of it!


Must be something to do with all the gubbins you don't see underneath... I would expect there to be an angled walkway in between each escalator to allow access to the mechanism below the treads, so they would need to be at least a comfortable person's width apart for access... If you catch my drift!


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> Tubeman: i want to know something well alot of things
> 
> what will happen to the North Pole Depot i mean will it work for another company for a depot i mean it can work like that?
> 
> since Eurostar is moving to temple mills depot


I'm certain North Pole will be recycled by someone... The Heathrow Express / Heathrow Connect Depot on the opposite side of the GWR main line is looking very cramped, so it would be logical for them to take it over, as its already 25Kv AC electrified.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Must be something to do with all the gubbins you don't see underneath... I would expect there to be an angled walkway in between each escalator to allow access to the mechanism below the treads, so they would need to be at least a comfortable person's width apart for access... If you catch my drift!


In Moscow, they cope fine with much less room between the escalators... See here


----------



## Tubeman

Hmmm... And these at Canary Wharf (not in the station)










...Maybe the regulations following the Fennel Report / King's Cross Fire stipulate a certain amount of space between LU escalators? The above certainly proves it is physically possible for them to be closer together.


----------



## sarflonlad

Tubey,

As someone who was previously stationed at Earls Court, can you explain to me why I suffer whenever I want to use the Wimbledon branch of the District line.

Why is the service pattern typically:

Ealing, Ealing, Richmond, Ealing, Ealing, Richmond, Wimbledon...

The platforms get mega over crowded and no one seems to board the masses of Ealing trains that go through (plus those in Ealing have the Central and Picc lines at their disposal). Is Southfields not the most profitable station on the entire network in terms of receipts? So why neglect the commuters there??


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> Tubey,
> 
> As someone who was previously stationed at Earls Court, can you explain to me why I suffer whenever I want to use the Wimbledon branch of the District line.
> 
> Why is the service pattern typically:
> 
> Ealing, Ealing, Richmond, Ealing, Ealing, Richmond, Wimbledon...
> 
> The platforms get mega over crowded and no one seems to board the masses of Ealing trains that go through (plus those in Ealing have the Central and Picc lines at their disposal). Is Southfields not the most profitable station on the entire network in terms of receipts? So why neglect the commuters there??


What time of day are you referring to? I can assure you that off-peak during the day there are more trains to Wimbledon than anywhere else.

Off-peak the service is: Wimbledon - Ealing - Wimbledon - Richmond (etc) with Wimbledons every 4 minutes (alternating ex-Edgware Road and ex-Upminster) and Richmonds / Ealings every 8 minutes (plus Olympias every 15 minutes).

The problem is, and this might be where you get your impression from, during the evenings trains start coming out of service and returning to Ealing Common Depot, so after 20:00 there are a disproportionate number of Ealings and the Wimbledon service reduces to 10 minute intervals made up purely of Edgware Road - Wimbledon trains. By about 22:00 there are 2 or 3 Ealings for each Wimbledon / Richmond train, which always hacks off the customers for those branches... It cannot be helped though. It's more a case of running far too many Ealings than too few Richmonds / Wimbledons, as they run westbound for their last trip before stabling in Ealing Common.


----------



## sarflonlad

^^^ that explains it. I usually only find myself getting the tube from Earls Court wimbledon bound after 9pm.

Bloody annoying! Can't the utilise some of SWTs depot at Wimbledon for stock?


----------



## iampuking

I saw the digital advertising trial on the Southbound Victoria line platform at Euston, and I ask this: Why an EARTH is the equipment so bulky?!


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> ^^^ that explains it. I usually only find myself getting the tube from Earls Court wimbledon bound after 9pm.
> 
> Bloody annoying! Can't the utilise some of SWTs depot at Wimbledon for stock?


The idea of opening a depot at Wimbledon Park has been mooted: the westernmost fan of sidings never seem to see a huge amount of use and can stable about 15 trains. Through experience, LU have learned that the move toward 'super' depots of 200+ drivers doesn't work (they become unmanageable), so splitting the problematic Earl's Court depot (the District Line's largest) into two chunks would make sense. As we physically have enough sidings, Parson's Green sidings could be closed and the land given over to housing in a very expensive part of London (i.e. self-financing). The current layout of four reversing sidings to the west of Parson's Green could be replaced by one or two central sidings between the EB and WB roads so the reversing capability isn't lost, and the land east of the station (27 and 28 roads) and a fair bit of land to the west (21 and 24 roads) could be sold.

The other benefits would be platform pick-ups at Wimbledon: as its a terminus we wouldn't have the eternal problem of trains sitting down at Earl's Court due to a wayward driver and the consequent delays to other trains. Secondly, the majority of Earl's Court drivers travel there via Wimbledon anyway (most staff live in places like Morden, Mitcham, Sutton, Croydon, Tooting etc) but we have no parking at Parson's Green or Earl's Court which poses travel difficulties for the earliest / latest duties.

Earl's Court could be split into two much more manageable depots of around 90 drivers each (I manage 100 at Elephant & Castle)... All the statistics show that small depots like Barking and Loughton fare much better than larger depots like Acton (Picc) and Earl's Court for attendance etc as 'troublemakers' can be more easily targetted.


----------



## sarflonlad

Tubeman said:


> The idea of opening a depot at Wimbledon Park has been mooted: the westernmost fan of sidings never seem to see a huge amount of use and can stable about 15 trains. Through experience, LU have learned that the move toward 'super' depots of 200+ drivers doesn't work (they become unmanageable), so splitting the problematic Earl's Court depot (the District Line's largest) into two chunks would make sense. As we physically have enough sidings, Parson's Green sidings could be closed and the land given over to housing in a very expensive part of London (i.e. self-financing). The current layout of four reversing sidings to the west of Parson's Green could be replaced by one or two central sidings between the EB and WB roads so the reversing capability isn't lost, and the land east of the station (27 and 28 roads) and a fair bit of land to the west (21 and 24 roads) could be sold.
> 
> The other benefits would be platform pick-ups at Wimbledon: as its a terminus we wouldn't have the eternal problem of trains sitting down at Earl's Court due to a wayward driver and the consequent delays to other trains. Secondly, the majority of Earl's Court drivers travel there via Wimbledon anyway (most staff live in places like Morden, Mitcham, Sutton, Croydon, Tooting etc) but we have no parking at Parson's Green or Earl's Court which poses travel difficulties for the earliest / latest duties.
> 
> Earl's Court could be split into two much more manageable depots of around 90 drivers each (I manage 100 at Elephant & Castle)... All the statistics show that small depots like Barking and Loughton fare much better than larger depots like Acton (Picc) and Earl's Court for attendance etc as 'troublemakers' can be more easily targetted.


Reducing the service towards Wimbledon after 8pm seems crazy in a World City like London. Couple this with the benefits of having drivers nearer to their place ("start") of work - why has this plan not been implemented!?


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> Reducing the service towards Wimbledon after 8pm seems crazy in a World City like London. Couple this with the benefits of having drivers nearer to their place ("start") of work - why has this plan not been implemented!?


It's logical?

Pass...


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> The idea of opening a depot at Wimbledon Park has been mooted: the westernmost fan of sidings never seem to see a huge amount of use and can stable about 15 trains. Through experience, LU have learned that the move toward 'super' depots of 200+ drivers doesn't work (they become unmanageable), so splitting the problematic Earl's Court depot (the District Line's largest) into two chunks would make sense. As we physically have enough sidings, Parson's Green sidings could be closed and the land given over to housing in a very expensive part of London (i.e. self-financing). The current layout of four reversing sidings to the west of Parson's Green could be replaced by one or two central sidings between the EB and WB roads so the reversing capability isn't lost, and the land east of the station (27 and 28 roads) and a fair bit of land to the west (21 and 24 roads) could be sold.


Isn't that area round Parsons Green sidings 'safeguarded' for the Crossrail 2 route? I would of thought that's where the tunnel portals would be...


----------



## 1LONDONER

Tubeman 

At wood green picadily line trains terminate eastbound at times, I think there is a split in the track like two ways jus in the tunnel. Where does it go? 

Like is there another train depot at wood green? or is it another seperate tunnel to the eastbound+westbound ones, thay somehow allows it to do u-turn and start a new westbound service from W.G ??


----------



## 1LONDONER

Also do v.i.p/blind transport users get a special oyster card that allows them to go through any barrier, as in even though the red cross is facing them rather then the yellow arrow.

I thought I might of saw someone do it, an thought it was a good idead.


----------



## iampuking

1LONDONER said:


> Tubeman
> 
> At wood green picadily line trains terminate eastbound at times, I think there is a split in the track like two ways jus in the tunnel. Where does it go?
> 
> Like is there another train depot at wood green? or is it another seperate tunnel to the eastbound+westbound ones, thay somehow allows it to do u-turn and start a new westbound service from W.G ??


I know this one...

It's a siding, a third tunnel that comes off the main tracks which is large enough to fit a single train, the train tips out on the eastbound platform, goes into the siding empty, and then reverses back onto the westbound.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> I know this one...
> 
> It's a siding, a third tunnel that comes off the main tracks which is large enough to fit a single train, the train tips out on the eastbound platform, goes into the siding empty, and then reverses back onto the westbound.


Yes, pretty common: examples also found at Archway, Tooting Broadway, Victoria Victoria Line (a pair), Liverpool Street Central Line (a Pair)... there are overground examples of the same layout too, such as Rayners lane, Harrow & Wealdstone and Colindale.


----------



## Tubeman

1LONDONER said:


> Also do v.i.p/blind transport users get a special oyster card that allows them to go through any barrier, as in even though the red cross is facing them rather then the yellow arrow.
> 
> I thought I might of saw someone do it, an thought it was a good idead.


I don't think that's possible... the UTS gates are set up to be one-directional by the staff (one pair of gates is physically locked open and the other not, depending on which direction the gate is allowing).


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Isn't that area round Parsons Green sidings 'safeguarded' for the Crossrail 2 route? I would of thought that's where the tunnel portals would be...


Yes I think you're right... Oh well


----------



## Acemcbuller

1LONDONER said:


> Also do v.i.p/blind transport users get a special oyster card that allows them to go through any barrier, as in even though the red cross is facing them rather then the yellow arrow.


Well I am partially sighted and have never heard of that.
We do get a Freedom Pass which is similar to the pass that pensioners get. It is fantastic. 

The only downside is that when we go through the gates it flashes the screen on the other side. This alerts any lurking ticket inspectors that I am using a special pass - which could be dodgy in some way. Because I do not look disabled I have often been stopped and had my ticket checked.


----------



## 1LONDONER

Tubeman, iampuking, either of you have any diagrams to illustrate what your talking about, if u dnt mind? Just that the 'other tunel' seemed to go to the left as oppose to the right which would of been inbetween the two main tunnels.

And Acemcbuller, I get it aswell, I have a student Oystercard and inspectors stop me.


----------



## Acemcbuller

1LONDONER said:


> Tubeman, iampuking, either of you have any diagrams to illustrate what your talking about, if u dnt mind? Just that the 'other tunel' seemed to go to the left as oppose to the right which would of been inbetween the two main tunnels.


I looked at the track diagram of Wood Green. There are no left branches from the eastbound track. It looks like this



Code:


________________
  WG  \_____
______/________


----------



## sarflonlad

Left can be right... depending on which direction you were facing at the time.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman some *more* questions

-The uplighters on the Morden extension, are they the originals?

Here is an example:










-On the Central line, when you travel between the stations in the central section, you can hear the motors "tuning" down and back up again even when there isn't a train close in front, is it because of the large amount of gradients on the line? You can clearly see the gradients if you watch down the tunnels when a train is coming, since the central line is so straight!

-Is a tph higher than 30 possible on the Underground, and how come the Jubilee is planned for a higher tph than the Central line? Could the design of the stations be a factor? As the older stations don't have escalators at grade with the platforms so there are narrow walkways etc.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Have you ever seen the pre-new horrible Hounslow West staiton platforms? I mean the old ones?

I have my parents used to work there (Hounslow West) and I had the privelege to go all around the staiton (years years back). Once a DSM cam around so I hid in a closet (I was about 3 I think).


----------



## iampuking

What do you mean? Are you talking about the decor of Hounslow West tube station? It's an ugly 70s station...


----------



## ChrisH

This has probably been answered before, but why does the Central line swap to right-side driving between East Acton and Shepherd's Bush? I know the line used to terminate there, but why did they not straighten it out when the line was extended? On a similar note, is the eastern swapover grade-separated like the western end? It's underground so I can't see what's going on...


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman some *more* questions
> 
> -The uplighters on the Morden extension, are they the originals?
> 
> Here is an example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -On the Central line, when you travel between the stations in the central section, you can hear the motors "tuning" down and back up again even when there isn't a train close in front, is it because of the large amount of gradients on the line? You can clearly see the gradients if you watch down the tunnels when a train is coming, since the central line is so straight!
> 
> -Is a tph higher than 30 possible on the Underground, and how come the Jubilee is planned for a higher tph than the Central line? Could the design of the stations be a factor? As the older stations don't have escalators at grade with the platforms so there are narrow walkways etc.


Re: Uplighters... I don't know for sure... they look pretty contemporary and I don't recall seeing them at those stations when I used them prior to their refurb (I've been in and out of most of them at some point but not since their refurb)

Re: Central Line: As I've mentioned before, there is no 'intelligence' behind ATO... A train will adhere to whatever speed applies to that stretch of line, and as you rightly surmise if that's an uphill gradient you might find the motors going on and off as the train tries to maintain a particular speed. However, on the more or less dead straight section between Shepherd's Bush and Chancery lane there generally aren't many speed restrictions: the trains go as fast as they can before having to stop at the next station. The 'hump' profile of the stations, which is very pronounced, aids acceleration and deceleration (downhill out of stations, uphill approaching). I suspect if you are on this section and the motors start to cut in and out, you may well be approaching the train in front.

Re: tph... I'm sure that Moscow's 40tph is _possible_ on LU, but you get to a point where tph starts to become a hindrance with trains stop-starting and lots of trains stuck in tunnels in the event of a one-under etc. If you observe the Central or Vic lines after an incident as the trains starts coming through, you'll see a rate of easily 40tph as they pass through a station one after the other (although the Controller would normally aim to hold trains in platforms behind a delay, so they shouldn't all be stuck in tunnels). Personally I think 30 tph (i.e. one every 2 minutes) is the optimum... you might find that the difference between the Central and Jubilee lines is more to do with stock availability or line georgraphy.


----------



## Tubeman

DFM said:


> Have you ever seen the pre-new horrible Hounslow West staiton platforms? I mean the old ones?
> 
> I have my parents used to work there (Hounslow West) and I had the privelege to go all around the staiton (years years back). Once a DSM cam around so I hid in a closet (I was about 3 I think).


They closed 2 years before I was born, so I never saw them myself. To explain to those who don't know: Hounslow West (originally Hounslow Barracks) was the western terminus of the District Railway's branch from Acton Town in 1884. When the Heathrow extension was opened (at first to Hatton Cross in 1975), the ground-level terminus at Hounslow West had to be abandoned in favour of a new subterranean through station, although the station building was retained (so this is 1930's vintage).

Here is a map I found:










Here's a photo from 1957

A good little page on Answers.com


----------



## Tubeman

chrishillcoat said:


> This has probably been answered before, but why does the Central line swap to right-side driving between East Acton and Shepherd's Bush? I know the line used to terminate there, but why did they not straighten it out when the line was extended? On a similar note, is the eastern swapover grade-separated like the western end? It's underground so I can't see what's going on...


I'm not 100% sure, but it's partly to do with the terminal loop extension from Shepherd's Bush to serve Wood Lane. Shepherd's Bush was the original 1900 terminus, with a layout pretty much as you'd see at stations like Elephant & Castle (Bakerloo) or Brixton with 2 terminal platforms. In 1908 a terminal loop was built to Wood Lane, and for some reason the two roads crossed each other immediately west of Shepherd's Bush such that trains travelled anticlockwise around the loop instead of the logical clockwise. My explanation is that this arrangement meant that the proposed extension 'straight on' from Shepherd's Bush under Goldhawk and Bath Roads to Turnham Green (and thence to Richmond) could be accommodated with a grade-separated junction off the new loop. Sadly this extension never materialised, and the loop with its torturous curves which was only ever built to serve the White City exhibition centre ended up becoming part of the 'main line' when the line was further extended off the loop via White City to West Ruislip in 1948.

As the Westbound and Eastbound roads swapped over at Shepherd's Bush as part of this arrangement, they had to be swapped back to restore standard 'driving on the left' working, I guess the flyover next to Wormwood Scrubs prison was the easiest opportunity to do so. This section actually used to be 4-track, and the flyover on the Central line allowed for quite a clever little grade-separated junction with the parallel freight line (which came off the West London Line roughly where the Hammersmith & city line viduct crossed and ran parallel to a point west of North Acton, where it joined the GWR Birmingham 'main line' which still remains as a little used single-track backwater today.


----------



## Tubeman

From my book... This should help!


----------



## sarflonlad

Why are some platforms on the Northern line unusually wide e.g. Angel?

Do TfL make interest on prepay loaded on to someone's oystercard?


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> Why are some platforms on the Northern line unusually wide e.g. Angel?
> 
> Do TfL make interest on prepay loaded on to someone's oystercard?


Angel and Euston (Bank Branch) southbound platform tunnels both originally housed the entire station, i.e. both southbound and northbound roads plus a central island platform (exactly the same layout as Clapham North and Clapham Common stations today). Both were redeveloped and the northbound line diverted through a new tunnel to serve a new platform, with the southbound being left with an unusually wide platform.

Clapham Common: 'before'










Angel: 'after'


----------



## Tubeman

Re: interest off Oyster prepay... I'd have thought so, yes!


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Re: Uplighters... I don't know for sure... they look pretty contemporary and I don't recall seeing them at those stations when I used them prior to their refurb (I've been in and out of most of them at some point but not since their refurb)


I'm guessing they were designed as replicas. The original stations along the Mordern extension probably had similar types to Turnpike lane station (see below) on the Piccadilly, but were ripped out after the King's Cross fire when the escalators were replaced with metal ones. Do you think i'm right?

Turnpike lane uplighters:












Tubeman said:


> Re: Central Line: As I've mentioned before, there is no 'intelligence' behind ATO... A train will adhere to whatever speed applies to that stretch of line, and as you rightly surmise if that's an uphill gradient you might find the motors going on and off as the train tries to maintain a particular speed. However, on the more or less dead straight section between Shepherd's Bush and Chancery lane there generally aren't many speed restrictions: the trains go as fast as they can before having to stop at the next station. The 'hump' profile of the stations, which is very pronounced, aids acceleration and deceleration (downhill out of stations, uphill approaching). I suspect if you are on this section and the motors start to cut in and out, you may well be approaching the train in front.


I'm pretty sure there weren't trains close in front as I arrived at the platform when the train in front had just left, the one I got on was 2 minutes behind. But thanks for your answer! Do you know what speed the Central line reaches between stations...? Sorry if I asked this before...

I'm also wondering if there are gradients that aren't at the edge of the platforms but well between the stations, I have to use the Northern line's Bank branch at times and i've noticed there are several 'dips' well between the stations.



Tubeman said:


> Re: tph... I'm sure that Moscow's 40tph is _possible_ on LU, but you get to a point where tph starts to become a hindrance with trains stop-starting and lots of trains stuck in tunnels in the event of a one-under etc. If you observe the Central or Vic lines after an incident as the trains starts coming through, you'll see a rate of easily 40tph as they pass through a station one after the other (although the Controller would normally aim to hold trains in platforms behind a delay, so they shouldn't all be stuck in tunnels). Personally I think 30 tph (i.e. one every 2 minutes) is the optimum... you might find that the difference between the Central and Jubilee lines is more to do with stock availability or line georgraphy.


I asked a Moscow Metro 'expert' (i think you can guess who)  and said that the 36tph is the maximum operating frequencies there these days... Are you sure that the size of stations isn't factored? At rush hour it usually takes a while for the platforms to clear, especially since nearly all the passengers have to squeeze through a narrow stair well, as well as avoiding all the passengers waiting on the platforms! I would have thought that the Jubilee line stations could take more, all stations have the bottom of the escalators at grade with the platforms, and the busiest on the JLE have platform doors as i'm sure you're aware of.


----------



## Acemcbuller

> I have to use the Northern line's Bank branch at times and i've noticed there are several 'dips' well between the stations.


Partly to dive under things such as the Thames and other underground lines or services.
I don't know how detailed they are but you could try looking at the simulators: http://bve-routes.com/search.php?search=london+underground&lang=bri

As an aside I came across this discussion about joining up lines around Cannon Street, Moorgate and Bank.


----------



## Tubeman

Acemcbuller said:


> Partly to dive under things such as the Thames and other underground lines or services.
> I don't know how detailed they are but you could try looking at the simulators: http://bve-routes.com/search.php?search=london+underground&lang=bri
> 
> As an aside I came across this discussion about joining up lines around Cannon Street, Moorgate and Bank.


The most pronounced 'dips' on the Northern Line are approaching King's Cross SB and between Angel and King's Cross NB and SB. I am of the understanding that the pronounced 'dip' halfway between Angel and King's Cross is in fact a short section of level track on an otherwise steep gradient under Pentonville Road, the rollercoaster-like feeling of going down a 'dip' is when you come off level and return to the gradient. Apparently way back in the C&SLR days there was a signal box located here, halfway between the stations... although my recollection from driving on the line is that there was nothing lineside to suggest this. You don't notice the southbound section so much because you're going so much slower (struggling up a 1/30 gradient at 30mph... on the downhill northbound section I'd easily get 50mph+ out of a '72 Stock).

Approaching King's Cross SB is very odd... You come out of Euston on what feels like the level, then as King's Cross comes into sight you suddenly dive sharply downwards before climbing upwards again just before hitting the platform. It must be to avoid something... I know the Fleet River flows through King's Cross so it might be passing under the subterranean river.


----------



## iampuking

Thanks a lot for that answer, very informative!

Could the dip between Euston and King's Cross be due to the Piccadilly line? It is situated above the Northern there.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Thanks a lot for that answer, very informative!
> 
> Could the dip between Euston and King's Cross be due to the Piccadilly line? It is situated above the Northern there.


The Piccadilly Line crosses over the Northern Line at the other end (i.e. the eastern end)... but it could be the explanation... The City & South London extension from Angel to Euston (May 1907) would have been under construction at the same time as the Piccadilly Line (December 1906) opening only 5 months apart. There is a big dip to the east of King's Cross Northern Line platforms too (where the Piccadilly line actually crosses), so perhaps these dips represented a last-minute lowering of the route of the Northern Line through King's Cross to avoid the Piccadilly Line route above. Presumably when construction began on the two lines what was going to happen when / if they met each other at King's Cross wasn't given full consideration and whoever got there first got the shallower / flatter route? The marked dips are probably either end of the station as platform roads are preferably level (old trains didn't have failsafe brakes so could potentially roll away).

I did a little reading, and there was indeed a signal box halfway between Angel and King's Cross at Weston Street... although I'm buggered if I can remember any sign of it other than the track gradient. I presume the track levels out adjacent to the box for the same reason that it's level through stations (in case of rolling), as you didn't want pre-Westinghouse and Parking Braked trains held on steep gradients for any length of time... Even the 1959 Stocks I used to drive on the Northern Line, which were built prior to the invention of spring-applied parking brakes, had handbrakes you had to wind on when you stabled them for the night, as well as wooden blocks (Scotch Blocks) to be inserted under the downhill-most wheels as well as a huge hook and chain (Rail anchor) which clamped around a running rail and hooked onto an eye by the coupler... Very archaic considering these trains persisted until the 21st Century (just!).


----------



## 1LONDONER

Tubeman, have london underground got shot of all those platform vending machines? Im sure there was one on the holborn picc platform. Also havent noticed one in a while.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, the redevelopment plans at Camden Town, why do they have to knock down the original building AND several other heritage buildings beside the station, why not do what they did at Oxford Circus and build under the junction of the roads?

I heard the Central line's ATO was troublesome when first introduced... What happenned?

What is the point in stabling trains? Why not just leave them anywhere? Sounds silly I know :?

Thanks a lot


----------



## Tubeman

1LONDONER said:


> Tubeman, have london underground got shot of all those platform vending machines? Im sure there was one on the holborn picc platform. Also havent noticed one in a while.



Yeah not too sure, at one point there was a Cadbury's machine on every platform pretty much... I suspect Cadbury's might have deemed them more trouble than they were worth (servicing, restocking, compensation for eaten coins etc).


----------



## sarflonlad

1LONDONER said:


> Tubeman, have london underground got shot of all those platform vending machines? Im sure there was one on the holborn picc platform. Also havent noticed one in a while.


I'm fairly certain they withdrew these after several caused fire alarms...? or maybe I'm just imagining that. 

Urhghghgh... nothing worse than eating warm chocolate on a hot tube.


----------



## Acemcbuller

1LONDONER said:


> Tubeman, have london underground got shot of all those platform vending machines? Im sure there was one on the holborn picc platform. Also havent noticed one in a while.


There's been some discussion on this in the comments on an entry on the Going Underground Blog.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, the redevelopment plans at Camden Town, why do they have to knock down the original building AND several other heritage buildings beside the station, why not do what they did at Oxford Circus and build under the junction of the roads?
> 
> I heard the Central line's ATO was troublesome when first introduced... What happenned?
> 
> What is the point in stabling trains? Why not just leave them anywhere? Sounds silly I know :?
> 
> Thanks a lot


Hmmm I can't help and awful lot with the first two: I'm a bit confused by the current plans for Camden, but I'd be disappointed if the original building went, even if it is too cramped. Re: the Central Line, I suppose it's always going to pose problems introducing ATO to an already up-and-running conventional line: running two parallel systems for a while is bound to cause conflicts etc, an then it takes a while to iron out the glitches. I have a feeling the Victoria Line might experience similar difficulties, and the life-expired 1960's ATO will have to run in parallel with the new system for the 2007 Stock for some time while the new trains are introduced.

Re: stabling... If, for example, we just left a train in each platform overnight and didn't have depots / sidings then a driver not turning up for one of them would shut down the whole line as the line's essentially blocked. Also, it's much more practical to have all the trains concentrated in a couple of locations for the nightly checks, cleaning etc: If the maintainers and cleaners had to travel to scores of different locations, they'd never get the lot done in the 3 hour window they have. A few trains are outstabled in platforms nightly at a handful of locations, the only one I can think of off the top of my Head is Train 110 which stables at Richmond overnight to form the first departure ex-Richmond each morning (Train 6)... there might be others. This is because the nearest depot (Ealing Common) is nearly an hour away (train departs depot eastbound and can't be reversed back toward Richmond until West Kensington). This used to mean the first train ex-Richmond was relatively late compared to other branches, the outstabling practice means the first departure can be at a similar time to everywhere else.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Hmmm I can't help and awful lot with the first two: I'm a bit confused by the current plans for Camden, but I'd be disappointed if the original building went, even if it is too cramped.


I agree with you. getting rid of the old station would be an awful shame, Leicester Square and Oxford Circus both have the original tiling, but the ticket hall is sub-surface.

And thanks a lot with the rest, I definately 'get' the sidings thing, with all the track replacements these days it makes more sense.


----------



## cle

Tubeman - why is providing passenger info so difficult on some lines?

At Hammersmith it's nonsensical: "Cockfosters 2 mins. Next Arnos Grove train within 5 mins". And the westbound District line destinations only show up a minute before the train, so pointless. I understand they'd have to slightly estimate due to the Earls Court mess, but surely there could be a bit more info?

And along the H'smith and City line, you have those announcements rather than dot matrix screens. Again, Edgware Road complicates things but there could be an approximation.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, I can't resist, more questions! 

-How come so many Yerkes tube stations have the platforms on the outside rather than an island platform?
-I know I touched on this before, quite a lot actually. But why was Oxford Circus re-tiled when it was only refurbished relatively recently? 
-Do you think the original tiling remains underneath the metal cladding at Holborn and Embankment?
-Do you know if passengers approved of that horrid fluroscent lighting I showed earlier? Or do LU even give a damn what the passengers think!?
-Many sub surface stations had roofs like Earl's Court, Farringdon and Notting Hill Gate, am I right? Do you think the remaining ones will eventually end up being bulldozed and sold off?

Thanks a lot for being so patient with me!


----------



## 1LONDONER

Tubeman why does the service on the picc line from about wood green eastbound get so erratic from say about 8 onwards, if i come back that way after that time I tend to spend ages hangin around in wood green, bounds green etc platforms, not forgettin the the train stoppin in the tunnels like 4 times between stations.

Is it because it doesnt have that ATO ?


----------



## sarflonlad

Why don't they put air con on the tube line trains? They say it's because the air has no where to disapate - but trains, on the whole, move and piston air around the system.

I think TFL is just trying to save money. I mean they don't put air con on the buses, DLR or Trams - all of which don't have this disapation issue.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, I can't resist, more questions!
> 
> -How come so many Yerkes tube stations have the platforms on the outside rather than an island platform?


Those are the stations below narrow roads where the platforms are stacked one above the other, the platforms are on the same side of the tracks as the lift shaft.



iampuking said:


> -I know I touched on this before, quite a lot actually. But why was Oxford Circus re-tiled when it was only refurbished relatively recently?


Maybe a rush of blood to Metronet's head before it all went wrong? The tiling can't have been that old as there was a pretty serious fire there in the 1980's (no fatalities).



iampuking said:


> -Do you think the original tiling remains underneath the metal cladding at Holborn and Embankment?


Most likely, I watched Knightsbridge's tiling being enveloped by the steel panels a couple of years back, and they do just mount the panels over the tiling... so yes it may well be hiding behind the enamel panels at those stations.



iampuking said:


> -Do you know if passengers approved of that horrid fluroscent lighting I showed earlier? Or do LU even give a damn what the passengers think!?


They strongly disapproved, hence the usage on the prototype D Stock refurb and the stations which received the treatment (e.g. Lambeth North) will end up being 'it' in terms of the 'natural light' fluorescent tubes.



iampuking said:


> -Many sub surface stations had roofs like Earl's Court, Farringdon and Notting Hill Gate, am I right? Do you think the remaining ones will eventually end up being bulldozed and sold off?
> 
> Thanks a lot for being so patient with me!


Not so much Farringdon and Earl's Court, those are fairly unique structures, but Notting Hill gate is the best example of the standard arched roof which once spanned almost all of the original Metropolitan and District railway subsurface stations. Notable losses are King's Cross (where the Thameslink station is now), Gloucester Road and High Street Kensington which all had magnificent rooves spanning 4 tracks.

The remainder are listed without doubt so are here to stay... most of those we lost were during air raids.


----------



## Tubeman

1LONDONER said:


> Tubeman why does the service on the picc line from about wood green eastbound get so erratic from say about 8 onwards, if i come back that way after that time I tend to spend ages hangin around in wood green, bounds green etc platforms, not forgettin the the train stoppin in the tunnels like 4 times between stations.
> 
> Is it because it doesnt have that ATO ?


If its slow going E/B from Wood Green its due to blocking back into Arnos Grove (a crew relief point), crew relief points often cause this sort of disruption if the service is running late due to drivers being on short meal relief (they are entitled to a bare minimum between trains) or drivers being out of position (train turned back due to signal failure etc). Delays are caused trying to locate drivers or 'reform' (change) train numbers to match the drivers who are available.

Other than that I always found the Picc very frequent pretty much all day, so I can't explain why you'd experience such long headways.


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> Why don't they put air con on the tube line trains? They say it's because the air has no where to disapate - but trains, on the whole, move and piston air around the system.
> 
> I think TFL is just trying to save money. I mean they don't put air con on the buses, DLR or Trams - all of which don't have this disapation issue.


The heat dissipation is the issue on the Tube, but you'll be pleased to hear the SSR lines are getting air con on the S Stock, because these lines were originally steam traction there is ample ventilation in the tunnels to allow the heat to escape.

Think how hot the Bakerloo and Vic line tunnels / platforms are now: now imagine that with the exhaust heat from the trains' air con too. It would simply be unbearable. I quite like the idea of 'stored' air con where Tube trains freeze internal cooling blocks when above ground and vent the heat before passing air across the frozen blocks once underground to cool the carriages. This would be useless for the Victoria Line (all underground) and near-useless for the Bakerloo (most trips Queen's Park to Elephant, all underground bar Queen's Park), which are two hottest lines though.

Not getting air con on the hundreds of new buses is penny-pinching criminality, I agree. Not least becasue the Mercedes bendies no doubt come with air con as standard and it was left out for cost reasons, and so the windows provided are inadequate slits. They certainly don't mind having the heating blaring out for 9 months of the year however, even if its a pleasant Spring or Autumn day!


----------



## Tubeman

cle said:


> Tubeman - why is providing passenger info so difficult on some lines?
> 
> At Hammersmith it's nonsensical: "Cockfosters 2 mins. Next Arnos Grove train within 5 mins". And the westbound District line destinations only show up a minute before the train, so pointless. I understand they'd have to slightly estimate due to the Earls Court mess, but surely there could be a bit more info?
> 
> And along the H'smith and City line, you have those announcements rather than dot matrix screens. Again, Edgware Road complicates things but there could be an approximation.


I explained this somewhere way back in the deep recesses of this thread... It's to do with the fact that the District / Picc lines between Acton and Hammersmith are technically interchangeable and the dot matrices cannot know for definite where the next train is coming from (plus the first come / first serve signalling at Earl's Court).


----------



## iampuking

Thanks for the response


----------



## iampuking

I'm confused about two developments...

Victoria station upgrade: http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/2007/04/victoria-tube-station-upgrade.html I don't see how the plan will relieve overcrowding on the northbound Victoria line platforms, which is where the problem lies! What is the purpose of it exactly? :?

And this:http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/2007/10/temporary-tunnel-opens-at-kings-cross.html I don't actually get it... Is the tunnel going to be abadoned? Why is it temporary?

Also an unrelated question: Why wasn't Angel made with step free access when it was refurbished in the 90s? And why did they relocate the surface building and not build two escalators, twice the size, one could go up one way, and then a u-turn and up the other way, and hoorah you're at the same place as you'd be if you got lifts!


----------



## elfabyanos

Tubeman, do you have any track layout diagrams of the LU? Or know anywhere some could be located? Likewise for NR?


----------



## Acemcbuller

elfabyanos said:


> Tubeman, do you have any track layout diagrams of the LU? Or know anywhere some could be located? Likewise for NR?


http://www.trackmaps.co.uk/diagrams.htm
Book 5 includes LU.

Angel - Apart from anything else I suspect that there was a desire to serve the more active area of Upper Street and hence improve it even more rather than the 'dead' area of City Road. Probably mostly it was logistical, engineering and disruption reasons.


----------



## Tubeman

elfabyanos said:


> Tubeman, do you have any track layout diagrams of the LU? Or know anywhere some could be located? Likewise for NR?


In addition to the diagrammatic series below, Quail also do a foldout map 'London Transport Railway Track Map' which is a vaguely geographically accurate track diagram of all LU lines + DLR.

Save your money for 2008, when the second edition of my book comes out: I'm in the process now of re-drawing it all to show exact track layouts of all of London's railways past & present. Bloody hard work, but its looking very good.


----------



## sarflonlad

The tracks between the Thameslink line to Sutton and the Northern Line morden depot are pretty much touching each other (see image).










Will LU ever consider extending the the Northern Line across these tracks to Sutton (most stations en route only have 2tph at the moment) as previously planned? Surely with an ATO upgrade or having Fast Services the Northern line could become a credible commute in to Central London down in those parts with no tube and no real benefits from Thameslink 2000?


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> The tracks between the Thameslink line to Sutton and the Northern Line morden depot are pretty much touching each other (see image).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will LU ever consider extending the the Northern Line across these tracks to Sutton (most stations en route only have 2tph at the moment) as previously planned? Surely with an ATO upgrade or having Fast Services the Northern line could become a credible commute in to Central London down in those parts with no tube and no real benefits from Thameslink 2000?


The line from Wimbledon to Sutton was actually built to prevent the Northern Line from reaching Sutton by physically blocking it's path at this point. The line is underutilised and has a poor service pattern, it was actually intended to be operated by the District Line, but the L&SWR never built the flyover at Wimbledon they promised to allow this so it just ended up being a suburban backwater.

It probably wouldn't be an enormous task to extend the Northern Line up to the line, but the problem is what happens to the route north of Morden South... Having the link between Wimbledon and Sutton is useful and a lot of the users in places like Rosehill and St Helier are trying to go north to Wimbledon. Maybe there could be a slightly unusual service pattern with 50% of trains terminating at Morden and 50% at Sutton, with the Wimbledon to Sutton service remaining as a shuttle service.

Current capacity on the Northern Line wouldn't allow this anyway, but as you rightly suggest it could be possible with ATO and the upgrade.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> I'm confused about two developments...
> 
> Victoria station upgrade: http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/2007/04/victoria-tube-station-upgrade.html I don't see how the plan will relieve overcrowding on the northbound Victoria line platforms, which is where the problem lies! What is the purpose of it exactly? :?
> 
> And this:http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/2007/10/temporary-tunnel-opens-at-kings-cross.html I don't actually get it... Is the tunnel going to be abadoned? Why is it temporary?
> 
> Also an unrelated question: Why wasn't Angel made with step free access when it was refurbished in the 90s? And why did they relocate the surface building and not build two escalators, twice the size, one could go up one way, and then a u-turn and up the other way, and hoorah you're at the same place as you'd be if you got lifts!


I'm not entirely sure about your Victoria and King's Cross queries, but with regard to Angel I suppose the answer is it was planned pre-DDA. It is fixed step free, it's all escalators though. I suspect that if they did it all again today the lifts at City Road would have been renovated as MIP lifts and the original booking hall refurbished. As it is it's about 60 seconds walk between the old and new entrances, so it's hardly much of an issue.

As acemcbuller rightly suggests, the new entrance is far better placed than the old anyway.


----------



## sarflonlad

Tubeman said:


> The line from Wimbledon to Sutton was actually built to prevent the Northern Line from reaching Sutton by physically blocking it's path at this point. The line is underutilised and has a poor service pattern, it was actually intended to be operated by the District Line, but the L&SWR never built the flyover at Wimbledon they promised to allow this so it just ended up being a suburban backwater.
> 
> It probably wouldn't be an enormous task to extend the Northern Line up to the line, but the problem is what happens to the route north of Morden South... Having the link between Wimbledon and Sutton is useful and a lot of the users in places like Rosehill and St Helier are trying to go north to Wimbledon. Maybe there could be a slightly unusual service pattern with 50% of trains terminating at Morden and 50% at Sutton, with the Wimbledon to Sutton service remaining as a shuttle service.
> 
> Current capacity on the Northern Line wouldn't allow this anyway, but as you rightly suggest it could be possible with ATO and the upgrade.


Interesting! So given a choice - what do you think is a more appropriate use of this poor mans part of the overground:

i. Build the flyover at Wimbledon on to the District Line or even the SWT Tracks (surely this just involves replacing a small bit of railway track!).

ii. Extend the Northern Line following the introduction of ATO

Or both!


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> Interesting! So given a choice - what do you think is a more appropriate use of this poor mans part of the overground:
> 
> i. Build the flyover at Wimbledon on to the District Line or even the SWT Tracks (surely this just involves replacing a small bit of railway track!).
> 
> ii. Extend the Northern Line following the introduction of ATO
> 
> Or both!


In an ideal world I'd suggest building the flyover / dive-under at Wimbledon to allow the District Line to fulfil what is an 80-year old promise, and _also_ extend the Northern Line up from the depot to the route allowing it too to run to Sutton and thus also provide the District / Northern with an interchange. The only issue this poses is the problem of surface and Tube stock sharing the same platforms... I suppose it could just be preferable (and much cheaper) to have separate terminal platforms at a low level adjacent to Morden South station with an escalator link.

The problem at the moment, on both lines, is capacity. The District can only really offer 15tph on the Wimbledon branch (7tph to Edgware Rd and 7tph via the City) and is chokka during the peak. The former NR section (East Putney to Wimbledon) is still signalled by NR and doesn't have the same capacity as a purpose-built LU line. It would require resignalling to increase capacity, and really removal of the physical links with NR as they still run on a whim empty stock and often (during engineering works or disruption) passenger services over our route even though we own it, which can wreck the District sevice. Trying to run 20tph+ would currently be impossible for these reasons, and if one of the current services was just extended to Sutton (e.g. Edgware Road), the trains would be heaving by the time they got to Wimbledon (in the peak trains are often standing room only even departing Wimbledon and impossible to get on by Putney).


----------



## CharlieP

Tubeman said:


> Save your money for 2008, when the second edition of my book comes out: I'm in the process now of re-drawing it all to show exact track layouts of all of London's railways past & present. Bloody hard work, but its looking very good.


You could have bloody well got it right the first time!


----------



## U Thant

iampuking said:


> Victoria station upgrade: http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/2007/04/victoria-tube-station-upgrade.html I don't see how the plan will relieve overcrowding on the northbound Victoria line platforms, which is where the problem lies! What is the purpose of it exactly? :?


Ah, that's my blog. The overcrowding on the platform happens because people aren't being taken away quickly enough by trains, so can only be solved by improving capacity. Over the next ~5 years the line is getting brand new trains (slightly bigger and there'll be more of them), and a new signalling system for running more often.

The new entrance relieves crowding in the ticket hall and interchange passages. It separates passengers to/from the main line station from passengers to/from the local area (there's a major office district NE of the station, where the new entrance will be).



> And this:http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/2007/10/temporary-tunnel-opens-at-kings-cross.html I don't actually get it... Is the tunnel going to be abandoned? Why is it temporary?


There's no need for it to stay open. As you can see on my diagram, it'll be entirely redundant once the other tunnel reopens. The internal fittings are certainly only temporary.

I don't actually have a clue what the future plan for it is - it's missing from most of the official documentation of the project (which does back up the idea it will be abandoned). I suspect it could be reused as a ventilation shaft (it's quite near the surface) or equipment room, or could just as easily stay open as a mostly useless interchange tunnel.


----------



## iampuking

Thanks for replying...

I know about the Victoria line upgrade, but will a few more trains and slightly bigger trains (by about an inch or two? :|) really make much of a difference?

And I don't see how the passageway is useless :? It offers an interchange between the Victoria and Piccadilly lines, going in the other direction and going through the narrow stairway which connects the Victoria line concourse with the Piccadilly/Northern one is a bit of a trek as it's badly signed and overcrowded. It also makes the platforms less unevenly crowded as the corridor ends up at the opposite end of the platform from where most passengers congregate. It also seems stupid to me to go through all of the malarky of boring a new tunnel to end up abadoning it in a few years.


----------



## U Thant

iampuking said:


> Thanks for replying...
> I know about the Victoria line upgrade, but will a few more trains and slightly bigger trains (by about an inch or two? :|) really make much of a difference?


There should be a roughly 25% increase in capacity, which should be noticeable. The long term plan for this route is the Chelsea-Hackney (aka Crossrail 2), but don't hold your breath.



> And I don't see how the passageway is useless :? It offers an interchange between the Victoria and Piccadilly lines, going in the other direction and going through the narrow stairway which connects the Victoria line concourse with the Piccadilly/Northern one is a bit of a trek as it's badly signed and overcrowded.


Have another look at the diagram. The middle passageway will eventually reopen and provide a short route between the two, and have an escalator up rather than stairs. The new passageway merges with the old one, so there's not even an increase in capacity by having both open.


----------



## cle

As the south London sections of both the Northern and District (and Victoria) are too busy to extend, wouldn't you say that it'd make sense to extend the Bakerloo from Camberwell - and then towards Peckham etc... but also down the current Thameslink line to Herne Hill and round the Sutton/Wimbledon loop? Might be cheaper.


----------



## iampuking

U Thant said:


> Have another look at the diagram. The middle passageway will eventually reopen and provide a short route between the two, and have an escalator up rather than stairs. The new passageway merges with the old one, so there's not even an increase in capacity by having both open.


I thought that the traffic between the Victoria and Piccadilly lines could be seperated from the traffic between the Piccadilly and Thameslink, the passageway also spreads out the passengers along the platform a bit more, which some passengers seem incapable of doing themselves. It's not the most important of passageways, but now that they've spent the money on building it it seems ludicrous to shut it so soon.


----------



## Tubeman

cle said:


> As the south London sections of both the Northern and District (and Victoria) are too busy to extend, wouldn't you say that it'd make sense to extend the Bakerloo from Camberwell - and then towards Peckham etc... but also down the current Thameslink line to Herne Hill and round the Sutton/Wimbledon loop? Might be cheaper.


The Bakerloo is planned to extend via Camberwell and Peckham to Lewisham and thence to Hayes (Kent), taking over the NR branch via Catford.


----------



## sarflonlad

Tubeman said:


> The Bakerloo is planned to extend via Camberwell and Peckham to Lewisham and thence to Hayes (Kent), taking over the NR branch via Catford.


What priority does this project have?


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> What priority does this project have?


Low-ish, but its is seriously being developed. Estimated delivery date 2025.


----------



## sarflonlad

Does the Bakerloo ever get particularly busy and crowded? Always seems like a ghost line to me. A sort of back up line.

Do you agree that it would be beneficial to close some stations on the Northern Line to make it run faster e.g. Embankment once ATO gets installed?


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> Does the Bakerloo ever get particularly busy and crowded? Always seems like a ghost line to me. A sort of back up line.
> 
> Do you agree that it would be beneficial to close some stations on the Northern Line to make it run faster e.g. Embankment once ATO gets installed?


Yeah, Waterloo to Paddington can get very busy in the peaks. It used to be the most crowded line on the underground when the Stanmore to Baker Street section of the Jubilee was a Bakerloo branch and the current line ran all the way to Watford Junction. The whole point of theJubilee line was to divert the Stanmore branch along a new line to reduce crowding on the Bakerloo.

One or two Northern stations could go, but not many. Now that the Jubilee platforms are closed, I'd like to see Charing Cross again split into two stations (Strand and Trafalgar Square) as it's advertised as an interchange but the two lines are miles apart... This could result in 'Strand' (the Northern Line station) being closed: commuters ex-Charing Cross could get on the Northern at Embankment instead. I can't really think of any other candidates: Mornington Crescent?


----------



## Acemcbuller

sarflonlad said:


> Do you agree that it would be beneficial to close some stations on the Northern Line to make it run faster e.g. Embankment once ATO gets installed?


Or resurrect the Northern Line Express idea:
http://underground-history.co.uk/shelters.php
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/features/deep_level_shelters/index.html


----------



## cle

Could ditch Goodge St, cute as it is.

I always thought a merged Charing X/Embankment station would be better if rebuilt well. It would save journey times slightly and give the stations a more important mainline feel. They could also redo those hideous 70s sections underneath the Strand at Charing X.

Would the Bakerloo extension be done in stages, so the Camberwell section first, up and running while the conversion is done from Lewisham - Hayes and the main bit of tunnelling from Camberwell to Lewisham is done?


----------



## Justme

To be honest, instead of ditching stations which may not have large passenger numbers, it maybe more logical to designate these as new high density housing area's. The public transport is in place (and underutilized) and new, modern highrise apartments (of high quality) could be built there. 

High rise housing around public transport really work well together.


----------



## Tubeman

Goodge Street serves a purpose: It is sufficiently far away from TCR and Warren St to warrant it's own existence and serves a pretty important retail area (the furniture / electronics shops of TCR).

cle, I don't know if the Bakerloo Line southern extension is intended to progress in stages or not: probably not.


----------



## shamrockbono

does anyone have tables of prices for stations by???

norman foster
calatrava
Bilbao
Southwark station (1999) by McCormac Jamieson Prichard architects.
Hollywood/Highland station by Dworsky Associates architects and artist Sheila Klein.
Westfriedhof station
Naples Line M1 Museo station
Alameda station

And rates for tunneling in europe with different types capacity and depths???


----------



## Tubeman

Can't help you much: all I can tell you is the entire Jubilee Line extension cost £4bn


----------



## Tubeman

...And that was in 1999


----------



## Tubeman

Me with the MD (Tim O'Toole) opening South London House (my office building) on Wednesday:


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Which one is you?


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman is the baldie I think!

How come you met him? And what was he like?!


----------



## Songoten2554

Tubeman: wow man good luck with the new office building make sure you don't lose that position

also tubeman or anybody can awnser me this

1. is there pictures of the woolwich extension of the Docklands Light Railway and how far is it at?

2. is there pictures of the DLR Stratford International Expansion that is underconstruction anybody has pictures of it?


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Tubeman said:


> They closed 2 years before I was born, so I never saw them myself. To explain to those who don't know: Hounslow West (originally Hounslow Barracks) was the western terminus of the District Railway's branch from Acton Town in 1884. When the Heathrow extension was opened (at first to Hatton Cross in 1975), the ground-level terminus at Hounslow West had to be abandoned in favour of a new subterranean through station, although the station building was retained (so this is 1930's vintage).
> 
> Here is a map I found:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a photo from 1957
> 
> A good little page on Answers.com


I was born lots of years sfter in the 90's, but my parents worked there, and there still is a hidden door down to the old platforms.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman is the baldie I think!
> 
> How come you met him? And what was he like?!


Aye, the baldie 

Tim's a great leader: inspirational... He's one of the best public speakers I've ever come across and at events like this he always makes a bee-line for the front-line staff and chats to them instead of chinwagging with the management. He's genuinely a nice, personable guy: not aloof or anything.

I know it sounds like I'm brown-nosing, but I genuinely do find him inspirational... I aspire to be like him one day (and maybe have his job!)

He was at Elephant & Castle on Wednesday 31st to open (or rather re-open) South London House, which is the Edwardian building on top of the Bakerloo Line station (it used to house the South London Press). I'm the landlord of the building (it's where my traincrew accommodation is, as well as the station offices), it's just been refurbished at a cost of £4 million.


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> Tubeman: wow man good luck with the new office building make sure you don't lose that position
> 
> also tubeman or anybody can awnser me this
> 
> 1. is there pictures of the woolwich extension of the Docklands Light Railway and how far is it at?
> 
> 2. is there pictures of the DLR Stratford International Expansion that is underconstruction anybody has pictures of it?


Sorry, these are tiny:

















Not much to show you on the Stratford Intl extension, conversion of the NR tracks has commenced but I don't know if any 'real' work has started yet (i.e. stations or the junctions at Canning Town).


----------



## Songoten2554

i saw the video of the St Pancras Station my god its beautiful man its a piece of art itself man 

i am glad this station is going to open i am excited but too bad i am NOT in britian to witness it


----------



## Justme

^^ Sounds like you need a holiday to the UK


----------



## Songoten2554

i meant i live in Miami Florida in the united states

so there is no pics of the stratford international expandion for DLR well i guess they are finally going to build it

and Crossrail is finally getting started to get built


----------



## petermandelson

Overground is about to open
can you share anythings that we can't find here


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Songoten2554 said:


> i saw the video of the St Pancras Station my god its beautiful man its a piece of art itself man
> 
> i am glad this station is going to open i am excited but too bad i am NOT in britian to witness it



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Pancras_railway_station


History 
Opened 1868


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, I haven't asked in a while but here goes!

-How come when there are track replacements, some stations are left with the old "bullhead" rail whilst others have it ripped out and replaced with newer flat bottomed rail?
-Would articulated and ajoining cars ever be possible on tube stock?
-How come drivers aren't aggressive enough with the doors? The other day a driver re-opened the doors to let a woman on! If we want to improve the frequency then keeping dwell times low is important.
-On this site: http://www.dougrose.co.uk/ (it's the one about the tiles) it says in the "WANT THE BOOK" section: "By good fortune I met one of the companies heavily involved in modernizing several London Underground stations. They wanted some copies and offered me a substantial amount of money in sponsorship if I decided to publish it myself. I looked at their work and found it to be to a high standard and therefore needed little encouragement and agreed. Discussions were also had with London Underground Ltd; Tim O'Toole (the present Managing Director) offered further financial assistance and has also kindly written the foreword." Could this mean that they are proposing to refurbish stations with the original tiling? Or am I being optimistic here?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, I haven't asked in a while but here goes!
> 
> -How come when there are track replacements, some stations are left with the old "bullhead" rail whilst others have it ripped out and replaced with newer flat bottomed rail?


If they put 'bullhead' back in then I assume it's just a case of re-railing: i.e. new rail laid on existing sleepers and 'chairs'. If the 'chairs' aren't replaced too then you can only put bullhead rail back in as the chairs won't accommodate flat-bottomed rail (because the base is so much wider).

Re-railing occurs quite often in areas with lots of wear & tear, it's a temporary solution before wholesale track replacement takes place.



iampuking said:


> -Would articulated and ajoining cars ever be possible on tube stock?


Yes, absolutely. No reason why not. It's a shame its not happening with the new generation of Tube stock.



iampuking said:


> -How come drivers aren't aggressive enough with the doors? The other day a driver re-opened the doors to let a woman on! If we want to improve the frequency then keeping dwell times low is important.


Excellent customer service, promote that man! (or woman) 

As a driver I'd enjoy the feeling power toying with people... shall I reopen or shant I? As a rule of thumb, if someone ran for the train and missed it and then turned toward the front of my train and mouthed obscenities and waved their arms about, I'd not re-open. In fact, of they were really aggressive I'd pause for a few seconds with the doors shut just to rub it in before pulling away. On the other hand if someone ran for the train and missed it, and turned toward the front of my train and smiled and made a pleading gesture with their hands then I'd re-open. I'd be more likely to re-open if they were elderly, female or someone with kids.

In central London in the peak you'd generally never re-open because of short headways, but off-peak in the 'burbs then you'd be more inclined to re-open because you know they'd have longer to wait.



iampuking said:


> -On this site: http://www.dougrose.co.uk/ (it's the one about the tiles) it says in the "WANT THE BOOK" section: "By good fortune I met one of the companies heavily involved in modernizing several London Underground stations. They wanted some copies and offered me a substantial amount of money in sponsorship if I decided to publish it myself. I looked at their work and found it to be to a high standard and therefore needed little encouragement and agreed. Discussions were also had with London Underground Ltd; Tim O'Toole (the present Managing Director) offered further financial assistance and has also kindly written the foreword." Could this mean that they are proposing to refurbish stations with the original tiling? Or am I being optimistic here?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


Pass... I hope so, sounds encouraging


----------



## Tubeman

petermandelson said:


> Overground is about to open
> can you share anythings that we can't find here


Not an awful lot... There's going to be a massive transformation of the stations over the coming weeks with TFL / LU branding, Oyster reading barriers and LU uniformed staff. The new trains will follow later.


----------



## Justme

Tubeman said:


> As a driver I'd enjoy the feeling power toying with people... shall I reopen or shant I? As a rule of thumb, if someone ran for the train and missed it and then turned toward the front of my train and mouthed obscenities and waved their arms about, I'd not re-open. In fact, of they were really aggressive I'd pause for a few seconds with the doors shut just to rub it in before pulling away. On the other hand if someone ran for the train and missed it, and turned toward the front of my train and smiled and made a pleading gesture with their hands then I'd re-open. I'd be more likely to re-open if they were elderly, female or someone with kids.


I agree with you, good manners should be the standard, and there is no reason to curse a driver just because they closed the doors. 

That said, it is a little depressing knowing that the reason the doors didn't open for me could be simply because I'm male, young and without kids - despite the smile and friendly gestures.


----------



## elfabyanos

Thanks guys.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> The Met should keep the express tracks between Wembley Park and Harrow-on-the-Hill though, they can go exclusively to Watford. It's no myth that the most simple of lines operate the best, look no further than Paris and Moscow!
> 
> What would happen to the Chesham branch though? I can't quite see Chiltern bothering with it.


Chesham's a fair sized town: I see no reason why it can't remain as a shuttle off-peak with through trains to Marylebone during the peaks.


----------



## sotonsi

Tubeman said:


> I agree totally... The Met and NR should be segregated and the Met terminate at Watford and Uxbridge only. It will make it easier for the S Stock seating layout to suit all of the SSR routes too.


except that the biggest fuss over seats has come from Northwood, which is on the Watford branch (which makes sense - Amersham-Rickmansworth can go Chiltern and is far enough up the line to get seats on the S stock anyway. Watford, Croxely and Moor Park can use the forward/backward facing seats - which, as considered better, will go first - and most of the sideways ones, leaving Northwood passengers on the worse sideways facing seats, or standing (neither of which they want to do), so bang goes that idea! seeing as there's going to be 7 and 8 car S stock, with the Met being the sole user of 8-car, 8-car might as well be different - IIRC, it will be anyway, as 7-car moves from the bad compramise to a more metro style seating.


iampuking said:


> What would happen to the Chesham branch though? I can't quite see Chiltern bothering with it.


there's an urban myth that it only is kept due to some LU bigwigs living out there. If it wasn't electrified, you could run the current few peak time trains to Marylebone, and then an hourly shuttle (Amersham service can be dropped off peak too) through the day. A fairly recent study tried to make it shuttle only, and failed.

Giving north of Moor Park to Chiltern will solve the problem of reduced peak time frequency up there - kind of funny, giving that we're talking commuter belt - lots of commuters, quiet inter-peaks. Amersham has a halving (just about) of the numbering of trains - 1 Chiltern (several non-stop, which don't stop at Amersham, as Chiltern don't get any fare off of Amersham passengers, and they will be swamped by them) and a Met every 34 minutes (rather than every 10/20 alternating).


----------



## lasdun

Tubeman said:


> I can't find it, can you post the text or a link.
> 
> The S Stock might have low_er_ floors than current Subsurface stocks to avoid the step-up, but the notion that they're going to have Tube-height floors is ridiculous. What is the logic of engineering a step-down?


here is a link. http://districtdave.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=newfuturetrains&action=display&thread=1160573450#1160684670


----------



## iampuking

There is absolutely no logic in having the S Stock as having tube height floors, it's impossible anyway, as the wheels portrude into the passenger cabin, meaning the S Stock's doors would have to be a similar layout to the tube stock, they aren't. He probably means it "low floor" compared to the Electrostars that it's based on?


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> except that the biggest fuss over seats has come from Northwood, which is on the Watford branch (which makes sense - Amersham-Rickmansworth can go Chiltern and is far enough up the line to get seats on the S stock anyway. Watford, Croxely and Moor Park can use the forward/backward facing seats - which, as considered better, will go first - and most of the sideways ones, leaving Northwood passengers on the worse sideways facing seats, or standing (neither of which they want to do), so bang goes that idea! seeing as there's going to be 7 and 8 car S stock, with the Met being the sole user of 8-car, 8-car might as well be different - IIRC, it will be anyway, as 7-car moves from the bad compramise to a more metro style seating.


Well the good folk of Northwood will just have to lump it... In the peak the majority of Tube customers wouldn't expect a seat so I don't see what makes these guys so special. Trains leave Wimbledon in the peak usually with no seats left but you don't hear residents of Wimbledon Park or Southfields moaning about it, and they have a 40 minute journey into The City to look forward to.

I think my idea of different seating arrangements in the 4-car and 3-car S Stock units is the most straightforward: 4-car units with more seats, 3 car with less. Therefore the routes currently worked by C Stock get 3+3 so a whole train of high capacity / low seating. The Met Line gets 4+4 so a whole train of lower capacity, high seating. The District can have a 3-car unit West end and 4-car East end, as the West end unit stands at the entrances to the platforms at the three main termini (Wimbledon, Richmond and Ealing) and so would become heaviest loaded in the morning peaks.


----------



## Tubeman

lasdun said:


> here is a link. http://districtdave.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=newfuturetrains&action=display&thread=1160573450#1160684670


"As the 'S' is a low floor train, the cab seems huge. I would estimate that the cab is slightly bigger than a 'D' but without my tape measure I cannot be certain. There is a full size spatial mock up of the cab in Derby, I will see if I can get permission to post some photos. Don't hold your breath though!"

Low floor compared to what? I'm not convinced, not least as this sounds like a pretty anecdotal account written by someone who has see the mock up of the cab.

Yes the floors may well be a couple of inches lower than the current Subsurface stocks, which generally seem to be higher than all of the platforms they serve, but they surely won't be Tube stock height.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Well the good folk of Northwood will just have to lump it... In the peak the majority of Tube customers wouldn't expect a seat so I don't see what makes these guys so special. Trains leave Wimbledon in the peak usually with no seats left but you don't hear residents of Wimbledon Park or Southfields moaning about it, and they have a 40 minute journey into The City to look forward to.
> 
> I think my idea of different seating arrangements in the 4-car and 3-car S Stock units is the most straightforward: 4-car units with more seats, 3 car with less. Therefore the routes currently worked by C Stock get 3+3 so a whole train of high capacity / low seating. The Met Line gets 4+4 so a whole train of lower capacity, high seating. The District can have a 3-car unit West end and 4-car East end, as the West end unit stands at the entrances to the platforms at the three main termini (Wimbledon, Richmond and Ealing) and so would become heaviest loaded in the morning peaks.


Bit of a problem there: the Circle/H&C will be 7 cars too...

I think the current plans are for lots of seating on the Met sub-fleet and C Stock style seating on the rest!


----------



## micro

Tubeman, London Overground looks like a circle with branches on this map: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/2010_London_Overground.pdf

Do you know how it will be operated once completed in 2011? As a circle? As multiple lines? How many lines?


----------



## Minato ku

What will be the frequencies of London Overground ?


----------



## sotonsi

eventual (on current plans) frequencies are to be something like 4tph on (nb:unsure which northern termini will be what with the ELL):
Dalston - Whitechapel - West Croydon
Dalston - Whitechapel - Crystal Palace
Highbury & Islington - Whitechapel - New Cross
Highbury & Islington - Whitechapel - Clapham Junction
Stratford - Richmond
Stratford - Queens Park (probably Willesden Junction, unless Queens Park gets totally remodelled) via reopened station at Chalk Farm
Barking - Gospel Oak - Willesden Junction - Clapham Junction

these overlap to give 8tph Stratford-Camden Road, Willesden Junction-Gospel Oak, Highbury & Islington-Dalston and Surrey Quays-Sydenham. 16tph will run from Dalston to Surrey Quays.

Current services are
ELL (which is still London Underground, though will close for some time in December):
5tph New Cross-Whitechapel, 5tph New Cross Gate-Whitechapel
NLL: 4tph Richmond-Stratford
GOBLin: 2tph Gospel Oak-Barking
WLL: 2tph Clapham Junction-Willesden Junction

I'll let tubeman do the Bakerloo/DC lines, as he's far more informed than me on this.

Oh, and as for what makes Northwood people so special - they have it now and your are only just beginning to deny them the luxury that is A stock seating (compared to standing, or crappy longitudinal seating). If they didn't have it now, they wouldn't be complaining, but they do have the luxury of some of the most spacious trains in the UK, and by far the most comfortable seating on the underground network - high back, forward/backwards facing seats and they don't want to swap that for standing or crappy low back longitudinal seats. Seeing as the 7car and 8car S stock look likely to be completely different in terms of seating plan, the 8car design might as well just be A stock, but with better engine and more uniform parts, so as to allow easier maintenance. I know that it'll just be forced on the people of Northwood that they have to sit like that. 

One also guesses that when the plans come to extend the Bakerloo to Watford, and stop the Euston services, there will be a similar seat quality outcry and a mass exodus to London Midland - the reason that they stopped the Bakerloo to Watford in the first place, was that no one used them, preferring either the slow DC line trains, or a change at Harrow or Wembley to the longer distance trains - they wanted comfort and Euston. When they reinstated services to Harrow, they worked out that it was the furthest place worth taking it as the people north of there wanted Euston far more than Paddington.


----------



## iampuking

micro said:


> Tubeman, London Overground looks like a circle with branches on this map: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/2010_London_Overground.pdf
> 
> Do you know how it will be operated once completed in 2011? As a circle? As multiple lines? How many lines?


I'm sorry if i'm nicking your questions Tubeman but...

No it won't be operated as a circle, that's mostly because trains from the east at Clapham Junction will face the same direction as trains from the north. (see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:London_Overground_2007.png) Plus, there are operational difficulties with operating circular routes (ask Tubeman) just look at how unreliable the Circle line is...

As for frequency, this is Phase 1 (2010) The numbers indicate tph (trains per hour)










And Phase 2, which can only happen when the Bakerloo line is re-extended to Watford Junction










For more info see here: http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/43 It is slightly out of date, mind.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman I have a few questions...

-Why is the Tube *so* expensive?
-I've noticed there are suicide pits on the JLE, what's the point if it has PEDs?
-Is Gants Hill a cut-and-cover or tunnelled station?
-Why, at St John's Wood did they install a pair of overbright ceiling lights on the escalator shafts when the uplighters provided enough light already, is it a desperate bid to make the stations appear 'airly' (think that awful blue lighting) which I find funny considering grotty stations like Holland Park have sufficient lighting but a dreadful atmosphere!
-What dictates what type of tunnel lining is used? I've noticed at Westminster on the Jubilee line the exposed tunnel lining on the opposite side to the platform is metal, whereas at Waterloo and Southwark it is concrete. I've also read stuff about the Victoria line having different tunnel linings as well.

Thank you!


----------



## Songoten2554

Tubeman i have some questions

1. is it true that electrifition of Railways have been stopped since privatalision or will they continue to electrify British railways?? alot??

2. is Network Rail in charge of the electrifition of British Railways and maintaining the infrustruce of the british rail

3. about Fenchurch Street railway station is it a great station or is not that good i hear only the C2C Railway goes there i think its a small station is liverpool street better then Fenchurch Street?


----------



## Gag Halfrunt

I was on the District line yesterday (Richmond to Hammersmith and back) and noticed that changes were already afoot on the North London Line. Both the NLL trains I saw had had their Silverlink logos covered, and at Kew Gardens and Gunnersbury new signs had been put up (over the old ones) with the station name in blue New Johnson type with the Underground logo on the left. At Kew Gardens, the Underground logo on each sign was itself covered by a square of black bin liner held on with parcel tape.

I suppose that TfL now regards Kew Gardens and Gunnersbury as Underground stations, since more District Line than NLL trains run through them.


----------



## cle

Went through Gunnersbury this morning, District driver made an announcement along the lines of "Finally you can use pre pay on the old Silverlink".

A couple of roundels had been roughly painted over Silverlink logos, and some PR people giving out free Cafe Nero vouchers and Overground leaflets, not much else changed so far!


----------



## bigbossman

tubeman, i haven't asked anything for abit but here goes!!

-what do you reckon is more important, tube to areas of london without it, aka the tube to south london and hackney, or an over inflated east-west line, to serve the city and doclands fat cats?

-london overground is here now, do you reckon ken should get control of the south london metro lines when the franchise expires in 2009, i reckon they should integrate the rest of southern with first capital connect, and on the south coast areas with SWT, then the metro services can be combined with london overground. what do you think, they could then simplfy south london rail so much and'd be on the map!!

-why can't they pull their finger out and open the northern heights all the way to moorgate as another overground line.then possibly extend it through to cannon street or something, linking with the south london metro lines, creating in essence a new north south line which could relieve the northern maybe??

-why does it take so long for us to plan and build transport infrastructure, it's pointless, if this was a foregn country we'd have the northern heights, the victoria would be inc roydon the bakerloo in ahyes, the northern wouldve been split and would probably be in extended from kennington to, chelney wouldve been built, crossrail wouldve been buil etc etc!!

-with dlr extension to charing cross why don't they open a station under tower hill which i heard was possible, close tower gateway, and run the dlr alongthe old fleet line alignment to charing cross, keeping the bank spur as a separate branh, leaving two well connected central london lines.

-and finally totally unrelated, do you think we'll win the league this season?

cheers


----------



## bigbossman

- oh yeah a couple more, i dont think TfL have carefully considered how busy the london overground will get, i think the proposed frequencies are pitful, i think the stratford- highbury and islington section will need more than 8 trains per hour 4 coach trains, i know they may be extended to 6, but when are they gonna realise people want more frequent trains not longer trains. they need to get it up to at least 12 trains an hour imho, what do you think??


----------



## sweek

Made a little trip on the Overground today. Harringay Green Lanes to Gospel Oak, and then to Richmond. Not much has changed so far, although I did see staff in nice new jackets on my trains. I've barely ever seen staff on these trains before. And there were people at Richmond station working on putting up the signs.

Maps are slowly being updated across the network it seems. It's good to see all of this happening, anyway! I hope we'll see those 4 tph from Barking to Clapham Junction some time soon.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Bit of a problem there: the Circle/H&C will be 7 cars too...
> 
> I think the current plans are for lots of seating on the Met sub-fleet and C Stock style seating on the rest!


At one point it was considered to have all S Stocks 7 car, which would have caused massively expensive platform extensions at some Circle Line stations and under-used capacity on the Met. I'm pretty certain S Stocks will be 3 and 4 car units with 4+4 on the Met, 4+3 on the District and 3+3 on the Circle / H&C. If they do anything else, it's idiotic IMO.


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> eventual (on current plans) frequencies are to be something like 4tph on (nb:unsure which northern termini will be what with the ELL):
> Dalston - Whitechapel - West Croydon
> Dalston - Whitechapel - Crystal Palace
> Highbury & Islington - Whitechapel - New Cross
> Highbury & Islington - Whitechapel - Clapham Junction
> Stratford - Richmond
> Stratford - Queens Park (probably Willesden Junction, unless Queens Park gets totally remodelled) via reopened station at Chalk Farm
> Barking - Gospel Oak - Willesden Junction - Clapham Junction
> 
> these overlap to give 8tph Stratford-Camden Road, Willesden Junction-Gospel Oak, Highbury & Islington-Dalston and Surrey Quays-Sydenham. 16tph will run from Dalston to Surrey Quays.
> 
> Current services are
> ELL (which is still London Underground, though will close for some time in December):
> 5tph New Cross-Whitechapel, 5tph New Cross Gate-Whitechapel
> NLL: 4tph Richmond-Stratford
> GOBLin: 2tph Gospel Oak-Barking
> WLL: 2tph Clapham Junction-Willesden Junction
> 
> I'll let tubeman do the Bakerloo/DC lines, as he's far more informed than me on this.
> 
> Oh, and as for what makes Northwood people so special - they have it now and your are only just beginning to deny them the luxury that is A stock seating (compared to standing, or crappy longitudinal seating). If they didn't have it now, they wouldn't be complaining, but they do have the luxury of some of the most spacious trains in the UK, and by far the most comfortable seating on the underground network - high back, forward/backwards facing seats and they don't want to swap that for standing or crappy low back longitudinal seats. Seeing as the 7car and 8car S stock look likely to be completely different in terms of seating plan, the 8car design might as well just be A stock, but with better engine and more uniform parts, so as to allow easier maintenance. I know that it'll just be forced on the people of Northwood that they have to sit like that.
> 
> One also guesses that when the plans come to extend the Bakerloo to Watford, and stop the Euston services, there will be a similar seat quality outcry and a mass exodus to London Midland - the reason that they stopped the Bakerloo to Watford in the first place, was that no one used them, preferring either the slow DC line trains, or a change at Harrow or Wembley to the longer distance trains - they wanted comfort and Euston. When they reinstated services to Harrow, they worked out that it was the furthest place worth taking it as the people north of there wanted Euston far more than Paddington.


Well to be blunt if they don't like it in Northwood what are they going to do about it? Walk?

Watford Jcn DC lines run 3tph currently

To me it makes sense to scrap the DC service: there's no logic in having two crap slow services overlapping like the Watford DC and Bakerloo Harrow & Wealdstone services currently do. Just have the Bakerloo as the crappy slow service to Watford Jcn and enhance the Silverlink County services to give Watford Jcn, Harrow & Wealdstone and Queen's Park decent stopping services so that the two routes operate like the District and C2C between Fenchurch Street / Tower Hill and Upminster. In an ideal dreamworld there'd be cross-platform transfer at QPK and H&W, but obviously that's pushing it.

To be honest I'm not hung up on South Hampstead and Kilburn High Road stations either: The former is next to Swiss Cottage and the latter Kilburn Park... I know the plan is to run a service into Willesden Low Level bay platforms off the NLL from Camden Rd, but these are just going to be irritating trains getting in the way of a hopefully much enhanced Bakerloo service... and it's still not as if this new service will provide trains into Euston anyway.

Nah, I think a robust Bakerloo service to Watford Junction (at least 12 tph) combined with Silverlink County services stopping at Harrow & Wealdstone and Queen's Park with decent frequency and the closure of Kilburn High Rd and South Hampstead is the way forward.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman I have a few questions...
> 
> -Why is the Tube *so* expensive?
> -I've noticed there are suicide pits on the JLE, what's the point if it has PEDs?
> -Is Gants Hill a cut-and-cover or tunnelled station?
> -Why, at St John's Wood did they install a pair of overbright ceiling lights on the escalator shafts when the uplighters provided enough light already, is it a desperate bid to make the stations appear 'airly' (think that awful blue lighting) which I find funny considering grotty stations like Holland Park have sufficient lighting but a dreadful atmosphere!
> -What dictates what type of tunnel lining is used? I've noticed at Westminster on the Jubilee line the exposed tunnel lining on the opposite side to the platform is metal, whereas at Waterloo and Southwark it is concrete. I've also read stuff about the Victoria line having different tunnel linings as well.
> 
> Thank you!


1) No public contribution of any note to normal operating costs

2) Good question: I'd never noticed. Can't think of a decent answer

3) Gants Hill, Redbridge and Wanstead station boxes were all cut-and cover, but are linked by bored 'Tube' (hence stations very shallow for Tube). The area above was being built pretty much in conjunction with the Tube line, so avoiding existing buildings and roads wasn't a problem really.

4) Pass

5) It could be due to the ground tunnelled through: my guess is that Westminster being right on the Thames might be water-bearing alluvium for which 'shotcreting' might not be an appropriate technique.


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> Tubeman i have some questions
> 
> 1. is it true that electrifition of Railways have been stopped since privatalision or will they continue to electrify British railways?? alot??
> 
> 2. is Network Rail in charge of the electrifition of British Railways and maintaining the infrustruce of the british rail
> 
> 3. about Fenchurch Street railway station is it a great station or is not that good i hear only the C2C Railway goes there i think its a small station is liverpool street better then Fenchurch Street?


1) Effectively. Not an awful lot of electrification has taken place since privatisation: Heathrow Express and lines into Paddington and ???

2) Yes, but it's now been taken back into public hands after Railtrack collapsed

3) A very compact station: only 4 platforms so tiny for a London terminal. Liverpool St is much larger and has a real 'wow' factor in the concourse, but the trainshed is all roofed over and claustrophobic since the Broadgate Centre was built above.


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> tubeman, i haven't asked anything for abit but here goes!!
> 
> -what do you reckon is more important, tube to areas of london without it, aka the tube to south london and hackney, or an over inflated east-west line, to serve the city and doclands fat cats?


In a way the latter, because if you build new Tube lines out to un-served areas like Hackney, Clapton, Peckham, Battersea etc then you funnel even more Tube passengers into Central London and existing infrastructure wouldn't be able to cope.



bigbossman said:


> -london overground is here now, do you reckon ken should get control of the south london metro lines when the franchise expires in 2009, i reckon they should integrate the rest of southern with first capital connect, and on the south coast areas with SWT, then the metro services can be combined with london overground. what do you think, they could then simplfy south london rail so much and'd be on the map!!


TFL's stated aim is to ultimately assume control of all of London's suburban rail. Hence the clever 'London Overground' name: hints at the future, doesn't it? Very few bits of London have no rail link at all: the Tube-less areas are generally well served by mainline rail, they just need to have their services made more attractive and metro-like.



bigbossman said:


> -why can't they pull their finger out and open the northern heights all the way to moorgate as another overground line.then possibly extend it through to cannon street or something, linking with the south london metro lines, creating in essence a new north south line which could relieve the northern maybe??


Money I suppose. The Northern City line would never make a good basis for a heavily used Crossrail-type line as the platforms are short, but Moorgate to Cannon Street is a pretty obvious and very short route for a cross-London tunnel. It would mean that you'd have 4-car trains taking up valuable train paths through London Bridge however, which is wasteful.



bigbossman said:


> -why does it take so long for us to plan and build transport infrastructure, it's pointless, if this was a foregn country we'd have the northern heights, the victoria would be inc roydon the bakerloo in ahyes, the northern wouldve been split and would probably be in extended from kennington to, chelney wouldve been built, crossrail wouldve been buil etc etc!!


I wouldn't be so sure... although we are spectacularly slow at getting these things going and even worse at actually completing projects as originally planned.



bigbossman said:


> -with dlr extension to charing cross why don't they open a station under tower hill which i heard was possible, close tower gateway, and run the dlr alongthe old fleet line alignment to charing cross, keeping the bank spur as a separate branh, leaving two well connected central london lines.


It would probably be better to close Tower Gateway anyway and extend the Bank terminus. The abandoned Jubilee Line tunnels to Aldwych are useless for the DLR anyway, as they're Tube size bore.



bigbossman said:


> -and finally totally unrelated, do you think we'll win the league this season?
> 
> cheers


I have an awful feeling Man Utd will win again, but we can hope.


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> - oh yeah a couple more, i dont think TfL have carefully considered how busy the london overground will get, i think the proposed frequencies are pitful, i think the stratford- highbury and islington section will need more than 8 trains per hour 4 coach trains, i know they may be extended to 6, but when are they gonna realise people want more frequent trains not longer trains. they need to get it up to at least 12 trains an hour imho, what do you think??


It's more down to capacity: the Overground routes aren't signalled for particularly high frequencies, and parts are very heavily used by cross-London freight traffic. The only section which can be quadrupled is Camden Road to Dalston Western Junction (currently 3 or 4 tracks throughout, with the 3rd / 4th tracks being freight exclusively).


----------



## Justme

iampuking said:


> Tubeman I have a few questions...
> 
> -Why is the Tube *so* expensive?


Actually, I don't personally find the Tube to be that expensive - at least with Oyster cards (cash fares are rediculous, but who needs to pay for those)


What I do find terribly expensive are the suburban and commuter services in London and the Southeast. These are just so far above anywhere else in the world it's almost unbelievable.


----------



## Justme

Tubeman said:


> 1) No public contribution of any note to normal operating costs


Now that Kens congestion charge has improved the buses, why is this money not spent on the Tube and other rail infrastructure now? I read that the congestion charge generates around £100million profit a year. This could surely go towards subsidising the Tube significantly.


----------



## Songoten2554

so tubeman you mean to tell me that Railway Electrification in the UK is still happening its still contiuning thank you tubeman

is it going to grow in the future well at least it hasn't ended because i heard about it being a virtual stop

i mean if it has stopped then that means its a very sad thing but i am glad that that Railway Electrification is still continuing in the UK thank god it hasn't ended i hope it doesn't end


----------



## lasdun

*low floor*

Found some clearer answers: The foor height of the S stock will be 950mm http://districtdave.proboards39.com...n=display&thread=1158377443&page=4#1159558674 

So this is 'low floor' as in Level accsess with the standard height of SSL platform (950mm), rather than the 975mm height standard used previously to allow an over-flight of the platform for saftey. Though of course being London I'm sure there are exceptions around. I stand corrected. Tube standard remains 650mm I think - so even the small 700mm wheels will still protude into the saloon underneith the seats - rulling out nice ideas such as 3 double doors rather than the 1/2 - 1 - 1 - 1/2 arrangement. 

The Wheels will be the same 700mm design used on the 09 stock. http://districtdave.proboards39.com...n=display&thread=1158377443&page=6#1159999294 

There's a mock-up due early in the new year so hopefully we'll know much more shortly.


----------



## bigbossman

Tubeman said:


> It's more down to capacity: the Overground routes aren't signalled for particularly high frequencies, and parts are very heavily used by cross-London freight traffic. The only section which can be quadrupled is Camden Road to Dalston Western Junction (currently 3 or 4 tracks throughout, with the 3rd / 4th tracks being freight exclusively).



-yeah but tubeman you must realise that the trains are just gonna get so overcrowded, surely it wouldnt be that expensive to quadruple between dalston and stratford i swear there must be space to build one track on either side and it would be so beneficial, 

-or would it be possible to build small passing loops at stations like hackney wick, where the freight can over take the stopping trains or something.

-how likely if ever would an m25 style railway be, for freight only which can funnel freight traffic around london?? that would then take away all the capacity issues.

-also if the tube can be signalled with out ato to operate 20+ trains an hour and network rail lines can get up to that frequency too especially into the big london terminus, surely they could resignal the north london line to operate i dunno 24 trains an hour with ever third train being a freight train, do you know exactly how many freight trains run along the north and west london lines an hour/day??

-also with regards to the west london line when it goes up to 4tph are they gonna remove the southern service to watford, i think they should, the problem with national rail is the non integrated nature of the network different companies operating on the smae tracks, i think they should try and self contain london overground as much as possible, then surely it could be more efficient??

-so tubeman do u reckon crossrail will remain crossrail or will it just come under the london overground umbrella, as the cross town railway or something along those lines

-with regards to chelney, you said the wimbledon branh of the district is over crowded, but the plans are if it becomes crossrail 2, to take over that branch and run trains further to take over some of SWTs services, wouldn't that just defeat the point of relieving that branch, and how exactly would it operate, would the wimbledon branch district trains just terminate at pasrsons green making a relaly pointless branch?? and i've read if its built to national rail specs it wouldnt call at piccadilly circus? is it specifically wimbledon that makes the wimbledon branch so busy, if so wouldnt it be beneficial to by pass the whole of that branch and run trains firect from that battersea park spur they are proposing via clapham junction and earlsfield??

-do you think thameslink 2000 has too many southern terminus'?



sorry for all the questions i have an enquiring mind and as your an expert why not take advantage. 

PS did you not see how we demolished reading second half yesterday, the title is ours!!


----------



## Martin S

iampuking said:


> Tubeman I have a few questions...
> 
> --What dictates what type of tunnel lining is used? I've noticed at Westminster on the Jubilee line the exposed tunnel lining on the opposite side to the platform is metal, whereas at Waterloo and Southwark it is concrete. I've also read stuff about the Victoria line having different tunnel linings as well.
> 
> Thank you!


Generally tunnel linings on the London Underground are of cast iron, precast or in-situ concrete. Brick is usually confined to the older lines such as the Metropolitan and District which were mainly constructed as cut and cover.

Cast iron segments were a standard for the lines built in the early 20c and are relatively light (so can be installed using manual labour) and form a strong, watertight lining that can be installed very quickly. This form of construction was first used on the Tower Subway, which is still in use as a cable tunnel under the Thames but which closed to passengers when Tower Bridge opened.

Precast concrete segments are generally used in connection with tunnel boring machines and are heavy so installed with hydraulic lifting devices. Sometimes these are bolted together as with cast-iron or sometimes form an expanding lining that is held in place with a wedge segment forced in place with hydraulic rams.

The Jubilee Line made considerable use of the New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM), which is a widely used and flexible form of lining construction but which has been associated with a number of collapses - the most famous being the Heathrow Express tunnels, whose failure led to suspension of the method on the JLE and consequent increase in costs.

The idea of NATM is to dig out the tunnel using hand tools or a TBM and install an initial lining of shotcrete, reinforced with steel ribs. The lining so formed is then monitored for movement and, additional shotcrete is applied until the movement stops. Then, a secondary lining of reinforced concrete is installed to form the internal lining of the tunnel. 

The Heathrow Express collapse was due to the results of the movement observation not being acted upon which led to excessive movement and consequent collapse.

Despite the well-publicised failures, NATM has proved very popular and the massive crossover caverns on the Channel Tunnel were made using this method.


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> Now that Kens congestion charge has improved the buses, why is this money not spent on the Tube and other rail infrastructure now? I read that the congestion charge generates around £100million profit a year. This could surely go towards subsidising the Tube significantly.


It's being channelled back into the TFL pot which in turn is funding things like LOROL, so it is... The whole object of the exercise was to increase funding to public transport through the CC. As it looks like a dead cert that TFL will assume control of Metronet, then the Tube will be a direct beneficiary of CC money.


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> so tubeman you mean to tell me that Railway Electrification in the UK is still happening its still contiuning thank you tubeman
> 
> is it going to grow in the future well at least it hasn't ended because i heard about it being a virtual stop
> 
> i mean if it has stopped then that means its a very sad thing but i am glad that that Railway Electrification is still continuing in the UK thank god it hasn't ended i hope it doesn't end


I'm not aware of anything in the pipeline: we have seen some significant electrification projects in the past couple of decades with the Midland mainline as far as Luton (or Bedford, whicever is further... I forget), and of course the ECML. We'll never witness total electrification, but I think the GWR to Oxford, Swansea and Exeter and the Midland mainline to Sheffield / Derby / Nottingham should be priorities.


----------



## Tubeman

lasdun said:


> Found some clearer answers: The foor height of the S stock will be 950mm http://districtdave.proboards39.com...n=display&thread=1158377443&page=4#1159558674
> 
> So this is 'low floor' as in Level accsess with the standard height of SSL platform (950mm), rather than the 975mm height standard used previously to allow an over-flight of the platform for saftey. Though of course being London I'm sure there are exceptions around. I stand corrected. Tube standard remains 650mm I think - so even the small 700mm wheels will still protude into the saloon underneith the seats - rulling out nice ideas such as 3 double doors rather than the 1/2 - 1 - 1 - 1/2 arrangement.
> 
> The Wheels will be the same 700mm design used on the 09 stock. http://districtdave.proboards39.com...n=display&thread=1158377443&page=6#1159999294
> 
> There's a mock-up due early in the new year so hopefully we'll know much more shortly.


As I thought: lower in line with platform heights, but not Tube height. Less than a foot lower.


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> -yeah but tubeman you must realise that the trains are just gonna get so overcrowded, surely it wouldnt be that expensive to quadruple between dalston and stratford i swear there must be space to build one track on either side and it would be so beneficial,
> 
> -or would it be possible to build small passing loops at stations like hackney wick, where the freight can over take the stopping trains or something.


Well longer and more frequent trains is a good start, but I agree they will probably be at capacity quite soon after the ELL reopens in 2010. It's certainly not impossible to quadruple Dalston to Stratford, but it would be very expensive. Perhaps a third road for freight with passing loops is a better compromise.



bigbossman said:


> -how likely if ever would an m25 style railway be, for freight only which can funnel freight traffic around london?? that would then take away all the capacity issues.


It was seriously looked at post-WW2, but the distances involved would be immense (hundreds of Km). There may well be scope to use some lightly-used and abandoned lines combined with new stretches to create a diversionary freight ring or near-ring around London: maybe the Oxford-Cambridge line combined with the North Downs line (i.e. Cambridge - Sandy - Bedford - Bletchley - Bicester - Oxford - Didcot - Reading - Guildford - Tonbridge - Ashford)... If junctions were remodelled and some sections doubled / quadrupled a freight route linking most of the main lines radiating out of London could be created, removing a lot of cross-London freight traffic.



bigbossman said:


> --also if the tube can be signalled with out ato to operate 20+ trains an hour and network rail lines can get up to that frequency too especially into the big london terminus, surely they could resignal the north london line to operate i dunno 24 trains an hour with ever third train being a freight train, do you know exactly how many freight trains run along the north and west london lines an hour/day??


The great length of freight trains and much longer braking distances greatly affect the frequencies, as signalling has to assume every train has the longest length and longest braking distance possible, this means trains need to be kept further apart than they would, say, on a standard Tube line where all trains are the same length and have the same (relatively short) braking distance. The passenger roads between Camden Road and Dalston could have a Tube-style signalling density as the freight can be segregated, but the double track sections between Dalston and Stratford and Camden Rd and South Acton would need to have a compromised signalling layout to cater for the mixed traffic, thus affecting the frequencies on the entire line.

The West London line suffers from the same problem.

As you can hopefully gather, it's not so much how many freights share the route, its the fact that they do at all which limits passenger train frequencies.



bigbossman said:


> --also with regards to the west london line when it goes up to 4tph are they gonna remove the southern service to watford, i think they should, the problem with national rail is the non integrated nature of the network different companies operating on the smae tracks, i think they should try and self contain london overground as much as possible, then surely it could be more efficient??


The Southern service is pretty well used, I think it would be a mistake to withdraw it.



bigbossman said:


> --so tubeman do u reckon crossrail will remain crossrail or will it just come under the london overground umbrella, as the cross town railway or something along those lines


I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up part of a far wider TFL Overground network in, say, 20 years time.



bigbossman said:


> --with regards to chelney, you said the wimbledon branh of the district is over crowded, but the plans are if it becomes crossrail 2, to take over that branch and run trains further to take over some of SWTs services, wouldn't that just defeat the point of relieving that branch, and how exactly would it operate, would the wimbledon branch district trains just terminate at pasrsons green making a relaly pointless branch?? and i've read if its built to national rail specs it wouldnt call at piccadilly circus? is it specifically wimbledon that makes the wimbledon branch so busy, if so wouldnt it be beneficial to by pass the whole of that branch and run trains firect from that battersea park spur they are proposing via clapham junction and earlsfield??


All stations on the Wimbledon branch are very busy with the exceptions perhaps of Wimbledon Park and West Brompton, which are still quite heavily used. Southfields has the most season ticket holders of any LU station. I think the original Chleney plan was for the District to terminate at P.G. and the rest of the Wimbledon branch to divert into a tunnel there. More contemporary Crossrail 2 proposals don't involve any use of the Wimbledon branch at all and have a southern portal at Wimbledon, which is preferable I think. Most passengers ex-Wimbledon branch use the Edgware Rd service to get into west-central London (as anyone wanting the West end or City would be more likely to use the mainline to Waterloo), so removing this direct service would be very unpopular.



bigbossman said:


> --do you think thameslink 2000 has too many southern terminus'?


I'm not entirely sure what the final plan is, but with enhanced capacity through the central section I think 3 or 4 termini north and south is reasonable (e.g. maybe 5 or 6 tph on each).



bigbossman said:


> -sorry for all the questions i have an enquiring mind and as your an expert why not take advantage.
> 
> PS did you not see how we demolished reading second half yesterday, the title is ours!!


No probs... And it's early days still! Reading were cack...


----------



## iampuking

Martin S said:


> Generally tunnel linings on the London Underground are of cast iron, precast or in-situ concrete. Brick is usually confined to the older lines such as the Metropolitan and District which were mainly constructed as cut and cover.
> 
> Cast iron segments were a standard for the lines built in the early 20c and are relatively light (so can be installed using manual labour) and form a strong, watertight lining that can be installed very quickly. This form of construction was first used on the Tower Subway, which is still in use as a cable tunnel under the Thames but which closed to passengers when Tower Bridge opened.
> 
> Precast concrete segments are generally used in connection with tunnel boring machines and are heavy so installed with hydraulic lifting devices. Sometimes these are bolted together as with cast-iron or sometimes form an expanding lining that is held in place with a wedge segment forced in place with hydraulic rams.
> 
> The Jubilee Line made considerable use of the New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM), which is a widely used and flexible form of lining construction but which has been associated with a number of collapses - the most famous being the Heathrow Express tunnels, whose failure led to suspension of the method on the JLE and consequent increase in costs.
> 
> The idea of NATM is to dig out the tunnel using hand tools or a TBM and install an initial lining of shotcrete, reinforced with steel ribs. The lining so formed is then monitored for movement and, additional shotcrete is applied until the movement stops. Then, a secondary lining of reinforced concrete is installed to form the internal lining of the tunnel.
> 
> The Heathrow Express collapse was due to the results of the movement observation not being acted upon which led to excessive movement and consequent collapse.
> 
> Despite the well-publicised failures, NATM has proved very popular and the massive crossover caverns on the Channel Tunnel were made using this method.


Thanks a bunch for the information  Do you work in tunnelling, you seem to know a helluva lot more than your average layman.


----------



## micro

iampuking said:


> I'm sorry if i'm nicking your questions Tubeman but...
> 
> No it won't be operated as a circle, that's mostly because trains from the east at Clapham Junction will face the same direction as trains from the north. ...


Thanks iampuking


----------



## bigbossman

Tubeman said:


> Well longer and more frequent trains is a good start, but I agree they will probably be at capacity quite soon after the ELL reopens in 2010. It's certainly not impossible to quadruple Dalston to Stratford, but it would be very expensive. Perhaps a third road for freight with passing loops is a better compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> It was seriously looked at post-WW2, but the distances involved would be immense (hundreds of Km). There may well be scope to use some lightly-used and abandoned lines combined with new stretches to create a diversionary freight ring or near-ring around London: maybe the Oxford-Cambridge line combined with the North Downs line (i.e. Cambridge - Sandy - Bedford - Bletchley - Bicester - Oxford - Didcot - Reading - Guildford - Tonbridge - Ashford)... If junctions were remodelled and some sections doubled / quadrupled a freight route linking most of the main lines radiating out of London could be created, removing a lot of cross-London freight traffic.
> 
> 
> 
> The great length of freight trains and much longer braking distances greatly affect the frequencies, as signalling has to assume every train has the longest length and longest braking distance possible, this means trains need to be kept further apart than they would, say, on a standard Tube line where all trains are the same length and have the same (relatively short) braking distance. The passenger roads between Camden Road and Dalston could have a Tube-style signalling density as the freight can be segregated, but the double track sections between Dalston and Stratford and Camden Rd and South Acton would need to have a compromised signalling layout to cater for the mixed traffic, thus affecting the frequencies on the entire line.
> 
> The West London line suffers from the same problem.
> 
> As you can hopefully gather, it's not so much how many freights share the route, its the fact that they do at all which limits passenger train frequencies.
> 
> 
> 
> The Southern service is pretty well used, I think it would be a mistake to withdraw it.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up part of a far wider TFL Overground network in, say, 20 years time.
> 
> 
> 
> All stations on the Wimbledon branch are very busy with the exceptions perhaps of Wimbledon Park and West Brompton, which are still quite heavily used. Southfields has the most season ticket holders of any LU station. I think the original Chleney plan was for the District to terminate at P.G. and the rest of the Wimbledon branch to divert into a tunnel there. More contemporary Crossrail 2 proposals don't involve any use of the Wimbledon branch at all and have a southern portal at Wimbledon, which is preferable I think. Most passengers ex-Wimbledon branch use the Edgware Rd service to get into west-central London (as anyone wanting the West end or City would be more likely to use the mainline to Waterloo), so removing this direct service would be very unpopular.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what the final plan is, but with enhanced capacity through the central section I think 3 or 4 termini north and south is reasonable (e.g. maybe 5 or 6 tph on each).
> 
> 
> 
> No probs... And it's early days still! Reading were cack...




-surely techno wizards can invent a signal system which can recognise do different train lenghts? is it that they can't or that it would be too expensive to implement? 

-is there not a spur taking the east coast mainline onto the goblin and i'm also sure the is a spur taking the wcml onto the north london line then subsequently onto the goblin. surely they can just duert all freight up the goblin to get round the north london line? then the section between stratford and camden road can really be busy! 

-where exactly are the freight paths in london is it only the orbirail they effect, i know freight runs through my local stations around woolwich, coz it used to hurtle pass my primary school when i was a nipper.

-if they can build a third road between dalston and stratford surely it would be possible to build a 5th one between camden road and dalston allowing the east london to run completely separate from the north london over that stretch. is this possible on the west london line, i know that alot of it is through wasteland and cuttings, so maybe, but would the snag be at the bridge over the thames. if it's possible they should seriously consider it!

-a major problem i have is with interchanges, i think at stations which are suppsoed to be interchanges but you walk out of the station they should build some sort of links which make it feel like it's the same station, like waterloo-waterloo east. if they re-open the stations near tufnell park and chalk farm, do you reckon they could build better interchange links, in the form of tunnels similar to the way they linked strand and traflagar square or the two elephant and castles? is the new shepherds bus station two separate stations or do they share a common entrance?

-i know i bang on about the northern heights alot, but you previously mentioned that the paltforms are short how hard and expensive would it be to lengthen the platforms on only 4 subterranian stations?? i just believe the benefits far away the costs of opening it as planned.

-do you know of any lesser known underground lines that were proposed or planned, and in the past was there ever any plans to heavily expand the underground southwards or was it always thought that overland rail could cope.

-do you reckon the dlr should expand more into south london? like for example after cutty sark having an additional spur towards the greenwich line of southeastern and running along that to abbey wood. then crossrail when built could run all the way to at least slade green. and it would free up more capacity into london bridge. people along that line will still have a central london link, and will have better links to canary wharf, be on the tube map and likely have more tph, coz surely the trains that terminate at canary wharf on the dlr could just be extended that way?

-i do hope they sort out the southern end of thameslink, the simpler it is the better it will be for customers.

-and finally (for now maybe, lol), what is the likely time frame of the bakerloo to hayes?? 

cheers tubeman!!


----------



## Tubeman

micro said:


> Thanks iampuking


re: Orbirail running as a circle the track is there once the ELL re-opens and the re-opened Surrey Quays to Queen's Road Peckham spur is built as part of the ELLE phase II: the North, East, South and West London lines will all be connected as a continuous circle.

The only reason why the circle is incomplete with two 'ends' terminating at Clapham Jcn is (I presume) to serve Clapham Jcn: otherwise trains would stop at Imperial Wharf and then pass under the SWT lines with no interchange and not stop again until Wandsworth Rd.

As I have already mentioned, running a circular service poses operational problems (no terminus to recoup lost time) so if the circle is going to be broken anywhere, then I'd say Clapham Jcn is ideal due to the sheer variety of destinations available from there. It is of far more use to have an Orbirail running into a terminus at Clapham Jcn than it is so have a 'perfect' complete circle which merrily misses the main lines out of Waterloo and Victoria and passes right under them with no interchange.


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> -surely techno wizards can invent a signal system which can recognise do different train lenghts? is it that they can't or that it would be too expensive to implement?


It's perfectly possible to have an ATO system which calculates braking distances for each train depending on their speed, weight and braking capacity, but it would be very complex, expensive, and a freight train would still need a large envelope of empty track in front of it because it's braking distance is so much longer than an EMU.



bigbossman said:


> -is there not a spur taking the east coast mainline onto the goblin and i'm also sure the is a spur taking the wcml onto the north london line then subsequently onto the goblin. surely they can just duert all freight up the goblin to get round the north london line? then the section between stratford and camden road can really be busy!


There is a spur from Harringay to the GOBLIN but there is no direct route from the WCML to the GOBLIN via the NLL: the link is between the site of Primrose Hill station and Camden Rd, but the junction with the NLL faces east and the junction with the GOBLIN is further north and west-facing at Gospel Oak. The NLL is an important freight route all the way from South Acton (Bollo lane Jcn) to Stratford: there really isn't much in the way of alternative routes. The GOBLIN isn't very well connected: there is a direct link off the Midland mainline and NLL at the west end and a direct link to the LTSR (C2C) main line at Barking, but other than these there is only a single-track spur onto the ECML at Harringay, a single-track spur between South Tottenham and Seven Sisters, a spur from South Tottenham to the Lea valley Line toward Stratford, and the connection to the GER mainline at Woodgrange Park.



bigbossman said:


> --where exactly are the freight paths in london is it only the orbirail they effect, i know freight runs through my local stations around woolwich, coz it used to hurtle pass my primary school when i was a nipper.


The potential orbirail routes are the main freight arteries across central London, there is generally no freight traffic anywhere more central than this ring. All of the main lines radiating out of west, north and east london have fairly heavy freight traffic, the southern region has less but there is a fair amount along the Windsor line and around the Hounslow loop.



bigbossman said:


> --if they can build a third road between dalston and stratford surely it would be possible to build a 5th one between camden road and dalston allowing the east london to run completely separate from the north london over that stretch. is this possible on the west london line, i know that alot of it is through wasteland and cuttings, so maybe, but would the snag be at the bridge over the thames. if it's possible they should seriously consider it!


The NLL between Dalston and and Camden goes from cutting at the eastern end to brick viaduct at the western end, the cutting section was already widened from double to quadruple in the 19th century and any further widening would result in huge property loss as it traverses very dense victorian housing in places like Highbury and Canonbury. I think a 5th track would be prohibitively expensive.



bigbossman said:


> --a major problem i have is with interchanges, i think at stations which are suppsoed to be interchanges but you walk out of the station they should build some sort of links which make it feel like it's the same station, like waterloo-waterloo east. if they re-open the stations near tufnell park and chalk farm, do you reckon they could build better interchange links, in the form of tunnels similar to the way they linked strand and traflagar square or the two elephant and castles? is the new shepherds bus station two separate stations or do they share a common entrance?


I believe the new Shepherd's Bush will have a common entrance. Some NLL interchanges are pretty good: Willesden Jcn, Highbury, Stratford... some are a bit crap like West Hampstead and others are totally non-existent like Central line at North Acton, Northern Line at Camden and Piccadilly Line at York Road. For orbirail to be really effective, some of these crap or non-existent interchanges need to be looked at (Brixton having no South London line station is another).



bigbossman said:


> --i know i bang on about the northern heights alot, but you previously mentioned that the paltforms are short how hard and expensive would it be to lengthen the platforms on only 4 subterranian stations?? i just believe the benefits far away the costs of opening it as planned.


Pretty grotesque I'd have thought. Maybe costs could be reduced by closing Old Street on the GN&CR so only Highbury & islington, Essex Rd and Moorgate would need to be extended: it could be justifiable if the line is linked with Cannon St as another Crossrail.



bigbossman said:


> --do you know of any lesser known underground lines that were proposed or planned, and in the past was there ever any plans to heavily expand the underground southwards or was it always thought that overland rail could cope.


A few proposals have persisted: Aldwych to Waterloo, Elephant & Castle to Camberwell, Shepherd's Bush (Central) to Turnham Green (thence to Richmond). The Victoria Line was supposed to continue under the A23 to Croydon. South London has always been a bit of a no-no due to the ground: it's waterlogged gravel largely and therefore a fucker to bore through.



bigbossman said:


> --do you reckon the dlr should expand more into south london? like for example after cutty sark having an additional spur towards the greenwich line of southeastern and running along that to abbey wood. then crossrail when built could run all the way to at least slade green. and it would free up more capacity into london bridge. people along that line will still have a central london link, and will have better links to canary wharf, be on the tube map and likely have more tph, coz surely the trains that terminate at canary wharf on the dlr could just be extended that way?


The DLR is only really effective as a local feeder line onto the Tube and NR network: I doubt anyone would seriously change onto it in SE London to travel into the City.



bigbossman said:


> --i do hope they sort out the southern end of thameslink, the simpler it is the better it will be for customers.
> 
> -and finally (for now maybe, lol), what is the likely time frame of the bakerloo to hayes??
> 
> cheers tubeman!!


Hayes is planned to be delivered in 2025: but don't hold me to this!


----------



## Trainman Dave

Justme said:


> Why is everyone so hard on Songoten2554?


Mostly because he has a history of ignoring (in other threads) any suggestion of fact which denies some of his wilder flights of fancy. 

Further, I have tried to engage him in a dialogue but he has never yet answered one of my questions. With Songoten everything is a one way street.


----------



## Tubeman

Trainman Dave said:


> Mostly because he has a history of ignoring (in other threads) any suggestion of fact which denies some of his wilder flights of fancy.
> 
> Further, I have tried to engage him in a dialogue but he has never yet answered one of my questions. With Songoten everything is a one way street.


Alright well keep this crap out of my thread please


----------



## Songoten2554

please people don't fight here jeeze lets keep it to the topic

i guess your right i am not the most mature person in here but i do know somethings and well i am sorry trainman davie for dissapointting you or anybody here the fact here is that i am pretty young here i am just 21 and well i am like a kid at times

Tubeman:lets be on topic so umm you say FCC is bad??? hmm never thought about it but i understand since you do work in a major postion your the professional here though i heard that now they are starting to do the Thameslink Programme and the Luton Airport Parkway is going to be extended

well hopefully the FCC will get better with the Thameslink Programme gets completed


----------



## Songoten2554

also what about Southeastern trains are they good you know i don't know if they have good service and also Southern trains as well


----------



## chris.haynes

i use Southeastern for my daily commute and at rush hour it feels like the network is full ... i dont see how they can increase the number of trains because currently at my station which is a standard station ie only two platforms ... there are around 8-10 trains an hour at peak times to either victoria, charing cross or cannon street ... and almost every train is full by the time they reach lewisham ( in-bound) ...


----------



## Acemcbuller

Songoten2554 said:


> i heard that now they are starting to do the Thameslink Programme and the Luton Airport Parkway is going to be extended
> well hopefully the FCC will get better with the Thameslink Programme gets completed


Yeah Thameslink 2000, the initiative so old that both parts of its name are now out of date!
FCC is moving from 'Kings Cross Thameslink' to 'St Pancras International' on 9 December 2007. 
While this will be great for interchange with Eurostar and the Circle/H+C/Met lines it'll make it worse for interchange with the Victoria and Piccadilly lines.

I'm not really clear exactly where the new FCC platforms are. Does anyone know where there is a diagram? I know they connect to the new Kings Cross Western ticket hall. I presume they are to the north of it and deeper than the Circle line platforms?


----------



## Tubeman

Acemcbuller said:


> Yeah Thameslink 2000, the initiative so old that both parts of its name are now out of date!
> FCC is moving from 'Kings Cross Thameslink' to 'St Pancras International' on 9 December 2007.
> While this will be great for interchange with Eurostar and the Circle/H+C/Met lines it'll make it worse for interchange with the Victoria and Piccadilly lines.
> 
> I'm not really clear exactly where the new FCC platforms are. Does anyone know where there is a diagram? I know they connect to the new Kings Cross Western ticket hall. I presume they are to the north of it and deeper than the Circle line platforms?


The new FCC station is directly below the western edge of St Pancras, set back a few hundred metres from the road. The line curves around from the main road quite sharply from west to north, as soon as it becomes straight the platforms start, they continue the entire length of St Pancras station give or take.


----------



## Tubeman

^^

I'm really impressed that I managed to type that error-free at 02:41 this morning considering I was absolutely hammered.


----------



## sotonsi

Tubeman said:


> Did you draw that diagram? I'm impressed!


thanks very much!
It's not that hard, it's just paint, line tool, a perfectionist attitude and quite a bit of spare time (I think it took me two hours in total from coming up with the idea to finishing the layout). I was annoyed, as I couldn't find my Quail atlas, so I had to use Google Earth to double check the current track layout.

However the diagram is only a way of conveying my idea - that's the important thing.


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> thanks very much!
> It's not that hard, it's just paint, line tool, a perfectionist attitude and quite a bit of spare time (I think it took me two hours in total from coming up with the idea to finishing the layout). I was annoyed, as I couldn't find my Quail atlas, so I had to use Google Earth to double check the current track layout.
> 
> However the diagram is only a way of conveying my idea - that's the important thing.


I'm currently re-drawing my atlas to show exact track diagrams... Very time-consuming: I'm managing about a page a week, it's looking really good though. I'm hoping this second edition will be out in about 6 months tops.

I'm cross-referencing everything on Google earth and am using old OS maps on old-maps.co.uk to get the layouts of former goods yards and sidings right.


----------



## Justme

^^ I bought the last one, and I'll be buying this updated one. Thanks for keeping it going.

Any chance of extending it to Hemel Hempstead? I use this length a lot and would love to see the changes made over time. Especially the old disused line that went through the town center and then to St. Albans (?)


----------



## sweek

I really like the atlas too! I wonder if it would be an option to have a streetmap (in very light colours so it doesn't distract from actual railways) underneath the lines. Do you think that'll ever be possible, would it be too much?


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> I really like the atlas too! I wonder if it would be an option to have a streetmap (in very light colours so it doesn't distract from actual railways) underneath the lines. Do you think that'll ever be possible, would it be too much?


It's in the "I'd like to eventually but too much grief at present" box... Also unless it's done just right it'd just make the atlas cluttered and potentially detract from it rather than add to it.

The maps are copied by eye from the A to Z (each page = 4 A to Z pages) and so aren't 100% accurate in terms of precise routes. Maybe one option would be to scan the A to Z pages and reduce them to very faint greyscale and then draw the railways on top, but obviously for copyright reasons I can't do this.

In an ideal world I'd use Google Earth as a guide so spatially the atlas would be spot on, but to be accurate the lines representing the tracks would need to be very light (as in narrow) to prevent large yards and depots becoming distorted. With my current re-drawing of the atlas some of the larger yards are becoming a bit distorted in terms of area, but I'm happy to put up with this in order to produce a definitive, accurate track map of London which is pleasing to look at through geographical accuracy rather than sheer functionality of the Quail diagrams.


----------



## CharlieP

Sounds like a labour of love. I've recently started mapping all the various high-speed lines in Europe as paths on Google Earth, mainly because I'm extremely frustrated that there aren't any decent up-to-date diagrams in the public domain, and it's becoming quite good fun...


----------



## bigbossman

yo tubeman, a few more for ya. 

- now that crossrail has been transferred to Tfl whats it's future, london underground line, with modified overhead wire s-stock maybe?? do you reckon they'll be any changes like dropping shenfield for a more concentrated service to docklands.

-on the crossrail, couldnt they divert the paddington reversers down the hammersmith and city, or would the platform extensions be too expensive, then you take those trains off of the subsurface adding capactiy

-is a circle line really necessary? would it be beneficial to take away the circle line and mayb even grade separate the whole subsurface network, by doing what i said above, extending maybe the edgeware road trains to terminate at baker street, getting rid of the cirle and running more trains down to wimbledon, richmond and ealing, then mahbe extending the metropolitan trains from baker street and aldgate under the river somewhere, then you will only have the conflict at earls court, could that be manageable, workable??

-will chelney ever be bult, i here it had better cost/benefits than crossrail, surely it would relieve the network better than crossrail??

-oh yeah and how possible is it to quadruple the inner circle?? like from baker street-faringdon?


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, what is the point of that beeping noise on the lifts? Is it just to make you nervous so you hurry up?

And i'm a bit concerned about this whole "air-conditioning on the SSLs" thing... I know there are gaps in the tunnels designed to vent steam, but for example between Embankment and Aldgate East there are practically none, the same goes for Farringdon to Edgware Road... Won't these stations get boiling in the summer... Think NY.


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> yo tubeman, a few more for ya.
> 
> - now that crossrail has been transferred to Tfl whats it's future, london underground line, with modified overhead wire s-stock maybe?? do you reckon they'll be any changes like dropping shenfield for a more concentrated service to docklands.


If anything it'll be a part of the 'Overground' network in branding and organisation: Crossrail will never operationally be able to integrate with the LU network because of the vast difference in train lengths (12 versus 6-8 cars) so I suspect it will be kept very much separate.



bigbossman said:


> -on the crossrail, couldnt they divert the paddington reversers down the hammersmith and city, or would the platform extensions be too expensive, then you take those trains off of the subsurface adding capactiy


Nice idea, but some of the stations on the H&C Line are probably a Crossrail train's length apart (especially with the new station at Wood Lane)... so to serve all of the stations you'd probably end up with a continuous platform from Wood Lane to Goldhawk Road!



bigbossman said:


> -is a circle line really necessary? would it be beneficial to take away the circle line and mayb even grade separate the whole subsurface network, by doing what i said above, extending maybe the edgeware road trains to terminate at baker street, getting rid of the cirle and running more trains down to wimbledon, richmond and ealing, then mahbe extending the metropolitan trains from baker street and aldgate under the river somewhere, then you will only have the conflict at earls court, could that be manageable, workable??


In a word, no ("is a circle line really necessary?"). The only disbenefit of not having the Circle Line is that some journeys would be broken into two trips with a change. If this disbenefit is outweighed with greater capacity and reliability then I think it's justified. One option I like is to have the Metropolitan Line dive into a tube tunnel at Baker Street and stop at Oxford Circus, Tottenham Court Road and Holborn before surfacing at Farringdon to take over the soon to be abandoned southern pair of tracks between there and Moorgate. This would have the line completely separate and provide West End stations as well as a City terminus.

There are so many ways to skin a cat with regard to re-organising the SSR routes into something better operationally, but they pretty much all involve expensive new tunnels and grade-separated junctions.



bigbossman said:


> -will chelney ever be bult, i here it had better cost/benefits than crossrail, surely it would relieve the network better than crossrail??


Probably not in my lifetime, and yes I think it would be a good relief.



bigbossman said:


> -oh yeah and how possible is it to quadruple the inner circle?? like from baker street-faringdon?


It is possible, but the new tracks would have to be deep-level tube tunnel below the existing route. I suppose it would make sense to have 'fast' below and the existing lines 'slow', but then transfer between the two would be difficult. Alternatively, eastbound above and westbound below or vice versa but as almost all of the stations have a pair of tracks flanked by platforms (as opposed to island platfoms) whichever direction takes the existing tunnel wouldn't have cross-platform interchange between fast and slow.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, what is the point of that beeping noise on the lifts? Is it just to make you nervous so you hurry up?


Same as door chimes on trains I suppose: to kitigate against complaints of being unexpectedly caught in the doors and for the benefit of the blind / VIPs.



iampuking said:


> And i'm a bit concerned about this whole "air-conditioning on the SSLs" thing... I know there are gaps in the tunnels designed to vent steam, but for example between Embankment and Aldgate East there are practically none, the same goes for Farringdon to Edgware Road... Won't these stations get boiling in the summer... Think NY.


Yes that is a bit of a danger I suppose, a lot of the steam-venting gaps have been covered over and the mostly once-open stations have often been built over (e.g. Gloucester Road, Mansion House, Blackfriars etc).


----------



## Tubeman

Anyone hear me interviewed on BBC London radio 94.9 this morning?


----------



## sotonsi

Tubeman said:


> In a word, no ("is a circle line really necessary?"). The only disbenefit of not having the Circle Line is that some journeys would be broken into two trips with a change. If this disbenefit is outweighed with greater capacity and reliability then I think it's justified. One option I like is to have the Metropolitan Line dive into a tube tunnel at Baker Street and stop at Oxford Circus, Tottenham Court Road and Holborn before surfacing at Farringdon to take over the soon to be abandoned southern pair of tracks between there and Moorgate. This would have the line completely separate and provide West End stations as well as a City terminus.


wouldn't it be better to not follow Crossrail? Also the Northern circle will be rather depleted in terms of services, as the Met makes up half of them. You can't have 2 services on the South Circle, as the district gets in the way. I guess you could have the T-cup extended back round to Aldgate (so it does the handle and one and a half circles), the Hammersmith and City as is, and the Wimbleware trains extended round to Aldgate, but that's rather ugly and involves some nasty journeys. An other idea would be to triple Hamersmith-Paddington service (or make High Street Ken 1.5 times the frequency, though I don't think Earl's Court could cope with a near doubling of Olympia trains) and have Hammersmith/Olympia - Aldgate, T-Cup just to Edgware Road and Wimblewares all the way round the top, with H&C back to normal.

Alternately, build some tracks along the GWML and across the railway lands to Willesden Junction, and take over the DC lines north of there (cross-platform with the Bakerloo) and have half service up there, with the other half going to Hammersmith. The Watford route could replace the Met, so end at Aldgate and the Hammersmiths can go to Barking/Edgware Road via South Ken - it doesn't need tunneling, though it does require some new surface line, and a remodel of Willesden Junction.


> There are so many ways to skin a cat with regard to re-organising the SSR routes into something better operationally, but they pretty much all involve expensive new tunnels and grade-separated junctions.


my favourite has to be building a large grade seperated junction between Liverpool Street/Tower Hill and Whitechapel. Basically Aldgate becomes a stabling yard. Aldgate East becomes a reverse direction cross platform interchange (so you end up going the way you came - the cross platforms will be very one way, as no one would want to go back to Whitechapel, however you could do Liverpool Street-Tower Hill and vice versa with a cross platform) and Whitechapel becomes a terminus (with reversing tracks beyond) for the H&C), with a right way cross platform interchange (thus allowing District line people to make one change and be able to get to Liverpool Street.

Service pattern would be as follows:
District: Wimbledon-Upminster
Richmond-Upminster
Ealing Broadway-Barking (extension from Tower Hill)
Edgware Road - Barking via South Ken (rerouting of south side of T-cup)
other: Wimbledon - Whitechapel via Baker Street
Hammersmith - Whitechapel
Uxbridge - Moorgate (short turn to stop Whitechapel being overloaded)
Watford - Moorgate (ditto)

Moorgate would be made better by using the Thameslink tracks - have the outside two from just East of Farringdon as the through ones and the inner two as terminating tracks. This would involve a connection from the southern most track at Moorgate to the inner circle and a rejig of the area just east of Farringdon. The latter will be far harder than the former.

The cost would be huge, of course!


----------



## bigbossman

cheers tubeman

- i think they should just abolish the circle. and re-combine the met and hammersmith and city and run them all to terminate at aldgate, then if possible a tunnel from aldgate, calling at tower hill, bermondsey, new cross, lewisham (cross platform with a possible bakerloo extension to bromley north/south), then take over the hayes branch, who wouldn't lose there direct city route and would still have big trains too, with a much more frequent service. 
- then with no circle or hammersmith and city interfering with the district, you could run more district trains down the south half of the "circle" (8tph) and run more trains to barking aka the ones which currently terminate at tower hill and the trains that would replace the circle, as there would be no more flat junctions around aldgate. you could also increase the wimbleware trains by 8tph maybe coz the ex circle line trains can be diverted to earls court rather than gloucester road. then you would have more trains running westbound allowing for increases on each of the branches. the only problem i can see is can earls court cope with more trains even if circle line trains are taken out of the equation??

what do you think of this idea, tubeman, it's workable as tunneling is only required if you decide to extend trains beyong aldgate?


----------



## Justme

Tubeman said:


> Anyone hear me interviewed on BBC London radio 94.9 this morning?


Anyone got this on mp3 or recorded?


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> Anyone got this on mp3 or recorded?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/london.shtml

You need to go forward to 2h39m and again to 2h47m


----------



## Acemcbuller

Tubeman said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/london.shtml
> 
> You need to go forward to 2h39m and again to 2h47m


Specifically the Breakfast show: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/london/aod.shtml?london/breakfast_fri
Nice to hear you tubeman!


----------



## Tubeman

Acemcbuller said:


> Specifically the Breakfast show: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/london/aod.shtml?london/breakfast_fri
> Nice to hear you tubeman!


Oh cheers, was that the wrong link? I just copied and pasted what was in the address bar when it was playing back.


----------



## Songoten2554

hey tubeman what did you discussed there on the radio though did you meet famous people overthere


----------



## Tubeman

I was called by the London Underground Press office to see if I wouldn't mind being a Tube staff member-come-expert as BBC London were broadcasting their morning show from the London Transport Museum (which has just re-opened after refurbishment). Didn't really know what I was letting myself in for, but agreed nevertheless. No-one famous, just standard radio bods.


----------



## Songoten2554

oh i thought you meet famous people like the rolling stones and such

but anyways BBC seems to be a great broadcasting network and they seem to mature and stuffs in what they do

i think the closest to BBC is CNN and NBC Universal is BBC going to put on the 2008 Olympic games

i know in the United States its NBC Universal and also for spanish i find out recently its Telemundo but anyways thanks Tubeman


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, thanks for the answers before, I didn't have time to thank you earlier, I was in Wales! 

-Do you think it's sensible to get rid of the Uxbridge branch of the Piccadilly and transfer it to the Metropolitan, which can run an Earling Common - Uxbridge/Rayners Lane service... Ealing Common could be rebuilt for cross-platform interchange with a reversing siding to the south, isn't Ealing depot right beside the station? It's LU property so they wouldn't have any problems there! It would mean more trains on the Piccadilly, and more capacity on the District, this is particularly good in that the District/Piccadilly would no longer share tracks, they're going to be getting completely different ATO systems, it also means more trains for the Heathrow branch and a more predictable service for the Uxbridge branch.
-I heard that the Bakerloo used to operate with 34tph? And the District once operated 40tph! How were such high frequencies achieved?
-When I asked about the beeping noise on the lift, I meant the one that sounds as soon as the doors open, not just before it closes like on the trains, I still don't see what purpose it serves!


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, thanks for the answers before, I didn't have time to thank you earlier, I was in Wales!
> 
> -Do you think it's sensible to get rid of the Uxbridge branch of the Piccadilly and transfer it to the Metropolitan, which can run an Earling Common - Uxbridge/Rayners Lane service... Ealing Common could be rebuilt for cross-platform interchange with a reversing siding to the south, isn't Ealing depot right beside the station? It's LU property so they wouldn't have any problems there! It would mean more trains on the Piccadilly, and more capacity on the District, this is particularly good in that the District/Piccadilly would no longer share tracks, they're going to be getting completely different ATO systems, it also means more trains for the Heathrow branch and a more predictable service for the Uxbridge branch.


Hmmm I don't know if the Rayners lane - Ealing Common section customers would appreciate losing direct trains to London. I'm all for total segregation between the District and Piccadilly. With a bit of remodelling west of Turnham Green we could have the Piccadilly going to Richmond and Heathrow and the District to Ealing and Uxbridge with no track sharing. I'd also have the Piccadilly stop at Turnham Green but not at Barons Court,



iampuking said:


> -I heard that the Bakerloo used to operate with 34tph? And the District once operated 40tph! How were such high frequencies achieved?


Loads more signals, and loads of speed / approach controlled signals. The latter allow ATO-frequency services because they allow trains to get closer together if they're travelling slowly. A lot of signals were ripped out in the 1970's because Tube usership fell and more signals = more maintenance costs and more signal failures. Plus, if anything did go wrong you would get numerous trains stuck in section between stations.



iampuking said:


> -When I asked about the beeping noise on the lift, I meant the one that sounds as soon as the doors open, not just before it closes like on the trains, I still don't see what purpose it serves!


Possibly to alert VIPs to which side the doors are opening on?


----------



## PresidentBjork

Well this thread is called ask the tubeman. so I'll ask a question.

A couple of times on the outer part of the metropolitan line I've noticed a crappy old diesel passenger train stop at my local station. The line's also used by national rail trains but I think it's driven by tube drivers because I see them walk in and out the cabin. The windows are bordered up and it's pretty bloody filthy.

Just wandering, what's it for?


----------



## ADCS

I've got a quick one, might be a rehash, but anyway... have you ever gotten stuck in a tunnel and had to evacuate the train? If so, what was it like? How did the passengers react?


----------



## Tubeman

PresidentBjork said:


> Well this thread is called ask the tubeman. so I'll ask a question.
> 
> A couple of times on the outer part of the metropolitan line I've noticed a crappy old diesel passenger train stop at my local station. The line's also used by national rail trains but I think it's driven by tube drivers because I see them walk in and out the cabin. The windows are bordered up and it's pretty bloody filthy.
> 
> Just wandering, what's it for?


Probably a 'Sandite' train for leaf fall season: the outer stretches of the Met are bad for leaf pulp and 'Sandite' trains are usually old multiple units converted for the task. They spreas a sand mixture on the railhead to improve adhesion.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Hmmm I don't know if the Rayners lane - Ealing Common section customers would appreciate losing direct trains to London. I'm all for total segregation between the District and Piccadilly. With a bit of remodelling west of Turnham Green we could have the Piccadilly going to Richmond and Heathrow and the District to Ealing and Uxbridge with no track sharing. I'd also have the Piccadilly stop at Turnham Green but not at Barons Court


That's a much better idea than mine! They should also throw in a station on the London Overground for interchange with the Piccadilly, passengers could get to Heathrow and avoid Central London.



Tubeman said:


> speed / approach controlled signals.


What are they? And why can't LU simply add signals to increase capacity, why do they need all the malarky of installing ATO and bringing new stock etc.

Also: Do you think Thameslink will ever get rebranded as Crossrail 2?


----------



## Martin S

iampuking said:


> Also: Do you think Thameslink will ever get rebranded as Crossrail 2?


That got me to think what the fundamental difference is between Thameslink and Crossrail.

I suppose Thameslink is a cheaper version of Crossrail in that the core of the network is the small length of existing route between Farringdon and Blackfriars that was reopened in the 80s having been closed for most of the 20c.

In many respects the two lines are similar in that they both cater for full main line gauge trains. However, Thameslink has the two forms of power supply with the changeover at Farringdon and the curvature on the route and the steep gradient between City Thameslink and Farringdon will restrict linespeed.

I know that City Thameslink was built to take 12 car trains, although part of the reason for that was the need for the station to extend between its two entrances at Ludgate Hill and Holborn. I am not sure about the rest of the route.


----------



## sweek

I really don't like how the idea of District to Uxbridge/Rayner's Lane keeps coming up. The along that branch already long with the Piccadilly, and letting the District take it over would lead to even longer journey times on this already quite unpopular line.


----------



## kegan

Martin S said:


> I know that City Thameslink was built to take 12 car trains, although part of the reason for that was the need for the station to extend between its two entrances at Ludgate Hill and Holborn. I am not sure about the rest of the route.


I think Thameslink is going to upgraded for 12 car trains. I seem to remember something about platform extensions at Farringdon being the reason that the Thameslink Moorgate branch will close (platform extended over junction site).

Anyway, Tubeman I've got a question:

- Now that the Watford DC line is part of the Overground, will TfL move the stations north of Hatch End in to zone A to be consistent with the Metropolitan line?


----------



## sweek

kegan said:


> - Now that the Watford DC line is part of the Overground, will TfL move the stations north of Hatch End in to zone A to be consistent with the Metropolitan line?


Just because I happen to know this; TfL is getting rid of zones A-D and transferring them to 7, 8 and 9.

Carpenders Park is in 7
Bushey and Watford High St. are in 8
Watford Junction may still be outside the zones.
Amersham and Chesham are in zone 9
Chalfont and Latimer is in 8
Chorleywood to Moor Park are in 7 (Moor Park in 6/7)


----------



## iampuking

Martin S said:


> That got me to think what the fundamental difference is between Thameslink and Crossrail.
> 
> I suppose Thameslink is a cheaper version of Crossrail in that the core of the network is the small length of existing route between Farringdon and Blackfriars that was reopened in the 80s having been closed for most of the 20c.
> 
> In many respects the two lines are similar in that they both cater for full main line gauge trains. However, Thameslink has the two forms of power supply with the changeover at Farringdon and the curvature on the route and the steep gradient between City Thameslink and Farringdon will restrict linespeed.
> 
> I know that City Thameslink was built to take 12 car trains, although part of the reason for that was the need for the station to extend between its two entrances at Ludgate Hill and Holborn. I am not sure about the rest of the route.


Just because it has two forms of power supply, steep gradients doesn't mean it can't be known as a Crossrail line, after all, steep gradients and changes of power supply are of little matter to the paying public... It can take full size trains, it connects several satellite towns into London, and it goes straight through London without the need to change onto Tube lines, it sounds just like Crossrail to me.

Tubeman, sorry, but another question! How come the Piccadilly and Northern lines both have full size central halls with the escalators at grade with the platforms, even though they were both built before escalators even existed? And C&SLR and Yerkes stations all used lifts and had a twin-tube station design?


----------



## elfabyanos

I don't see any reason why not to brand Thameslink as a type of crossrail - it is just a brand after all. There's not really much need for higher line speeds between Blackfriars and Farringdon - they're only about 12 cars apart anyway - even at 20 mph it takes about a minute from city to farringdon. All of Thameslink will be platform-extended for 12 car operation including Blackfirars which would then completely travers the Thames and have an entrance on the south side of the river too.


----------



## sweek

I've heard you talk about the extension to Hayes quite a lot, but how likely are the plans to re-extend it to Watford and take over the Watford DC line?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Thanks a lot Martin S, it was really interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is on the Victoria line, it appears there is enough space to squeeze in an emergency walkway if the tracks were moved to the left a tad, does anyone know if this is a possibility?


Those platforms on the Victoria Line are emergency walkways... Wouldn't fancy using them however!


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> I've heard you talk about the extension to Hayes quite a lot, but how likely are the plans to re-extend it to Watford and take over the Watford DC line?


Yes, absolutely. I'd say it's a certainty, in fact.

Perhaps it'll be considered once the ELLE opens in 2010: the plan is to run LOROL trains to Queen's Park ex-Camden Road, leading to Primrose Hill being re-opened (as Chalk Farm, which it was very close to), and thus allowing South Hampstead and Kilburn High Road to remain open when the Bakerloo exclusively takes over ther entire Watford DC lines beyond Queens Park.

To be honest I wouldn't even bother with that, it would be yet another LOROL service to run on the NLL route purely to keep two very lightly used stations open (they are both very close to Tube stations).


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> yo tubeman, been thinking got some more for ya
> 
> -do you reckon it would be beneficial to curtail the metropolitan line at baker street, and then increase the capacity on the hammersmith and city? do u reckon it could be done or would the metroland lobby complain too hard about losing thier city link?


I think you're right with your final point. Also from a capacity perspective this would be wasting 33% of capacity per train path, as the Met main trains are 8 cars while the H&C / Circle 6.



bigbossman said:


> -are bakerloo line to somewhere in the bromley andthe northern splitting and extending to croydon seriously on TFLs agenda??


Northern Line split is inevitable I think (when ATO comes in), as for an extension from Kennington or any southern Bakerloo extension I wouldn't hold my breath, although the latter is defintiely being studied at present.



bigbossman said:


> -do you reckon running the fleet line as ashort shuttle from charing cross to fenchurch street would be beneficial??


Possibly, but ideally as a fast shuttle route with maybe only an intermediate station at City 'Thameslink', this would make it quite attractive as a route between The City and The West End.



bigbossman said:


> -finally do you reckon crossrail will change much from now to when it's implemented, like dropping a branch, going for shorter trains, and also now that it's a tfl project surely they can increase the frequency of the core section from 24tph so that bith branches can be served adequately??
> 
> cheers tubeman


I can't help fearing that it will be rationalised to an extent, but shortening trains would be criminal and ludicrous. Operationally I'd rather see a long train every 5 minutes than a short train every 2 minutes, as this makes the timetable easier to maintain.


----------



## sotonsi

Tubeman said:


> To be honest I wouldn't even bother with that, it would be yet another LOROL service to run on the NLL route purely to keep two very lightly used stations open (they are both very close to Tube stations).


I thought that part of the reason for that service was to up frequency between Camden and Stratford as 4tph wasn't enough. Keeping the stations open is a bonus, but not the only reason for it (though there wouldn't be a need for 8tph once Chelney opens).

It'll be worth seeing what the demand from the DC line area between Willesden Junction and South Hampstead to Camden is - look at bus routes, etc. It could be that while those people don't want to go to Euston, as the tube links are better for end destinations in Central London, they would far value a service to Camden. It'll take people off the slower NLL route which is a bit further north (however is moving passengers around justification for it), as well as buses. It'll probably show that it's worth closing the stations, but you would need such a study to justify it, especially to Mayor Ken (if still in charge)


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Those platforms on the Victoria Line are emergency walkways... Wouldn't fancy using them however!


Why is there two narrow ones when a wider one could go on one side? :nuts:

What does "LOROL" mean?

And I thought of an idea for faster reversals... How about having a driver at each end, for example, a driver can get on the back of the train at Queen's Park, and the original driver drives it into the siding, the "new" driver then drives forward into the southbound platform and the original driver gets off and has his tea break!


----------



## iampuking

Another question, i'm sorry about this, I sometimes feel that i'm taking the piss with all these questions...

What is the frequency on Tube lines during rush hour?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Another question, i'm sorry about this, I sometimes feel that i'm taking the piss with all these questions...
> 
> What is the frequency on Tube lines during rush hour?


The Bakerloo (for example) is 22 tph... This is fairly typical.

I don't know what the highest timetabled tph is, but anecdotally the Piccadilly Line has always felt like 30tph (I used it every day for 8 years), dunno if this is accurate or not though?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Why is there two narrow ones when a wider one could go on one side? :nuts:
> 
> What does "LOROL" mean?
> 
> And I thought of an idea for faster reversals... How about having a driver at each end, for example, a driver can get on the back of the train at Queen's Park, and the original driver drives it into the siding, the "new" driver then drives forward into the southbound platform and the original driver gets off and has his tea break!


I think those Vic Line walkways were a bit of an afterthought when it was originally planned to be driverless: there must have been a bit of an outcry about the thought of hundreds of passengers being left marooned on trains, quite what use those walkways would be I don't know, as customers have no emergency door release anyway. Perhaps the original plan was for a Guard at the back to operate the doors, and they could have facilitated a detrainment via the Guard's **** (don't laugh, it's the emergency internal door release for one of the doors on the rear car)... I really don't know.

LOROL = London Overground Rail Operations Ltd


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> The Bakerloo (for example) is 22 tph... This is fairly typical.
> 
> I don't know what the highest timetabled tph is, but anecdotally the Piccadilly Line has always felt like 30tph (I used it every day for 8 years), dunno if this is accurate or not though?


Silly me, I was supposed to ask about off-peak frequencies, I said rush hour in haste... :nuts:

Do you know?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Silly me, I was supposed to ask about off-peak frequencies, I said rush hour in haste... :nuts:
> 
> Do you know?


Dunno... Really depends on the line I suppose... between the peaks services really don't tail off an awful lot anyway.


----------



## iampuking

Sometimes it seems that some lines could do with more trains, especially on Saturdays when the Tube is still very crowded. Saturday is worse than rush hour actually... Too many tourists and shoppers with large bags in big groups, at rush hour nearly everyone is alone and walks as fast as possible, they all know the rules...


----------



## sweek

The Piccadilly specifically seems to be extremely busy on evenings and weekends. Not surprising really, considering how many tourist spots there are along the line.


----------



## iampuking

It has the most passengers on Saturday's according to the TfL site...


----------



## chris.haynes

got to be heathrow and arsenal fc traffic


----------



## iampuking

and Piccadilly Circus, Covent Garden, Leicester Square, South Kensington, King's Cross and then the tourist hotels at Russel Square and Earl's Court!


----------



## Songoten2554

this is the new FCC St Pancras Station that First Capital Connect are currently using now what used to be Thameslink

this seems like a great and modern station like the Jubilee line Extensions stations


----------



## jetsetwilly

Is it called St Pancras Thameslink, or just St Pancras? Please say it's not St Pancras First Capital Connect - if it is I may be sick.


----------



## Acemcbuller

Songoten2554 said:


> this is the new FCC St Pancras Station that First Capital Connect are currently using now what used to be Thameslink
> 
> this seems like a great and modern station like the Jubilee line Extensions stations


I was there this evening. Yes its very nice, big and clean. Very reminiscent of a continental station. Very airport like too.
I was disappointed though by the transfer from there to the tube though. It took several minutes to walk. Covered, car free, and very interesting compared to Kings Cross/St Pancras to Kings Cross Thameslink but annoyingly long.


----------



## bigbossman

tubeman question about crossrail, the double entrance thing bugs me. 

-the majority of people using crossrail will be using the central stations, therefore isn't liekly you are gonna have bunching at the front and back of the trains expecially durin rush hour??

-don't you think that the morgate/liverpool street and faringdon/barbican stations should be named as such similar to kings cross st pancras to avoid confusion. and it could be misleading one may enter liverpool street thinking they can catch the northern from moorgate. i hope something is done to show separation!!

-do you think that the station at bond street should be renamed hanover square as that is nowhere bond street and therefore have a monument bank sort of feel where you enter hanover square for crossrail and bond street for the other lines and there is free interchange between the two. same at tottenham court road, call the crossrail exit dean street. a major reason is as the stations are named after roads than areas, it is a bit weird that bond street station would have an entrance nowhere near bond street, although i am well away bond street isn't a road name that actually exists

-finally do you think they should add a station at holborn and get rid of maryland. i personally hope they get rid of the isle of dogs branch and maidenhead branches and run it from heathrow to shenfield with a branch to hammersmith. i know you mentioned that there would likely be a continuous station between golhawk road and wood lanre but that wouldnt be a problem if they built shepherds bush station as it used to be with exists on both goldhawk and uxbridge roads

what do you think tubeman???


----------



## iampuking

Acemcbuller said:


> I was there this evening. Yes its very nice, big and clean. Very reminiscent of a continental station. Very airport like too.
> I was disappointed though by the transfer from there to the tube though. It took several minutes to walk. Covered, car free, and very interesting compared to Kings Cross/St Pancras to Kings Cross Thameslink but annoyingly long.


It's going to be quicker to the Tube platforms (Northern, Piccadilly, Victoria) in 2009 when the Northern Ticket Hall opens, there will be a connection from there to the lower concourse at St Pancras (to the left when you exit the Thameslink station) and then a new set of escalators to the deep level tube platforms on the opposite end of the escalators there already. The walk to the Circle, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines will probably be the same legnth as it is now unfortunately...


----------



## bigbossman

...


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2903879.ece
> 
> tubeman i don't know if you have seen this but what are your thoughts. taking over the metro services is a must. they already have a fair frequency but no rationality. you get 8trains and our up at say crystal palace and 8 down, but they all go to different places. hopefully if red ken gets control then he can make more sence of it. but i think he should then tender out the longer distances commuter services coz its a bit stupid. but i'd rather the it be in public than private ownership!!


Yeah Ken / TFL have made no secret about their desire to control all commuter rail services in London. I'd love to see one single body overseeing all rail services in London: the LU:NR distinction is pretty arbitrary anyway. I'd like to see full integration between SSR and NR (the ELL being absorbed into LOROL is just the start)... The two sides of the Circle are ready-made Crossrails and could offer a wide range of cross-London services if connections were made with NR (e.g. at Royal Oak, Olympia, West Brompton, Richmond, Ealing Broadway, Bromley By Bow etc.


----------



## sarflonlad

I know this is not strictly about the tube, but can you explain clearance and gauge to me? Why do these factors affect the speed on our national rail network i.e. they are too small compared to continental lines.

And now a tube question - what happens to the network on Christmas day? Do people work on it?

many many thanks


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> I know this is not strictly about the tube, but can you explain clearance and gauge to me? Why do these factors affect the speed on our national rail network i.e. they are too small compared to continental lines.
> 
> And now a tube question - what happens to the network on Christmas day? Do people work on it?
> 
> many many thanks


It might be a little confusing as there are two gauges, there's the gauge of the rails (i.e. their distance apart) and also the loading gauge, which is essentially the height / width of the train (i.e. clearance).

UK and most continental railways have standard 4 foot 8.5 inches gauge between the rails, but the difference is the continental loading gauge is bigger so in short many British bridges and tunnels are too small for larger continental trains (e.g. duplex TGV). This shouldn't have any bearing on speed though, although it is true to say that continetal high speed trains can't run on British railways due to the loading gauge, so it is sort of the case.

Re: Tube on Christmas Day, services finish about an hour earlier on Christmas Eve and then start up significantly later on Boxing day (about 08:00), so there's about 32 hours with no train movements. Practically all operational duties normally staffed round the clock (e.g. Station Supervisors, Service Controllers, Duty managers) stop for this period, but the Network Operations Centre (NOC) stays open with a skeleton staff. There are also a few staff members who object to taking Christmas Day as a day's Annual leave for religious reasons, they are allowed to busy themselves with office work at Head Office (55 Broadway) etc.

Even though we employ security, it's also normally a graffiti free-for-all too


----------



## ChrisH

I'd love to see some internal maps of tube stations, especially the complex ones like KXSP, Bank/Monument and Oxford Circus. Are they available online anywhere? (Not for any nefarious purpose, you understand...!)


----------



## Tubeman

chrishillcoat said:


> I'd love to see some internal maps of tube stations, especially the complex ones like KXSP, Bank/Monument and Oxford Circus. Are they available online anywhere? (Not for any nefarious purpose, you understand...!)


I doubt it, LU are pretty twitchy about that sort of thing... Certainly not precise digrams showing all rooms.

This as good as you'll find online...

Bank-Monument:










Piccadilly Circus:










Camden Town Junctions:










All very stylised / diagrammatic


----------



## iampuking

Oxford Circus too:










More here.


----------



## lasdun

TfL may be sniffy about station diagrammes, but station staff have an interesting habit of sticking them up on the wall in public areas - certainly at Holborn and Chancery Lane - there near the top of the escalators at both.


----------



## Tubeman

lasdun said:


> TfL may be sniffy about station diagrammes, but station staff have an interesting habit of sticking them up on the wall in public areas - certainly at Holborn and Chancery Lane - there near the top of the escalators at both.


Those are essential: they are adjacent to the fire panel and are for the LFB to locate where on the station the panel is being activated from. You'll find them at every 'Section 12' station. Otherwise a station could evacuate and the LFB would be scratching their heads on arrival which room / area they're supposed to be going to as all the panel print-out will say is 'Fire detected in room X', without the map this information would be useless.


----------



## CharlieP

Tubeman said:


> There are also a few staff members who object to taking Christmas Day as a day's Annual leave for religious reasons, they are allowed to busy themselves with office work at Head Office (55 Broadway) etc.


That seems a bit nutty given that Christmas is very much a secular holiday these days (unless you go to church or sing Christian carols). Do LUL treat Christmas differently to other Bank Holidays?


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> That seems a bit nutty given that Christmas is very much a secular holiday these days (unless you go to church or sing Christian carols). Do LUL treat Christmas differently to other Bank Holidays?



Well yes, it's the only day with no trains!

Any other Christian holiday can be worked without a problem, it's just that some staff object to being 'forced' to use an Annual leave day on Christmas Day (it's taken off the entitlement) and so insist on 'working'.


----------



## sarflonlad

In your driving days, did you check out the talent on the platform as you came cruising in on your big machine?


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> In your driving days, did you check out the talent on the platform as you came cruising in on your big machine?


Yes, all the time. Hence I always drove with my cab light on. It's one of the few pleasures you have as a Tube driver


----------



## bigbossman

Tubeman said:


> Yes, all the time. Hence I always drove with my cab light on. It's one of the few pleasures you have as a Tube driver


joker

tubeman, got a few more qs

-do tiket inspectors regularly patrol the tube, because i've just realised how easy it is to travel from seven kings to whitton (got family in both those areas), using the tube and for free. coz theres never usually anyone manning those stations, and the connections with the tube are just cross platform, Stratoford, mile end, richmond? makes it too easy in some places don'tcha think?

-also with stratford station to get to the jubilee, you have to go through twosets of ticket barriers, is your ticket double counted or is the technology advanced enough to realise that you've already been through once, coz surely that has a massive effect on the entrance/exit figures. and also how do they work out the annual ridership on the circle??

-whats your opinion on peds. personally as functional as they are, i think theyruin the feel of a train station astetically and i love the rush of hot air you get as a tube train enters the platform its one of the quirks of the system

-do you reckon they'll ever be aday that the tube can run 24/7?

cheers tubeman


----------



## zfreeman

Hi tubeman,

Probably a stupid question and been answered before,so just point me in the right directions and forgive me.

At North Greenwich there is a third platform - 2 eastbound and one westbound.
Am i right in thinking this 2nd platform was for a proposed extension into southeast London towards Thamesmead and Charlton??
BUT since Crossrail IS going ahead as planned to this area whats going to happen with this?? Have there been any ideas floated for this 'spare routing'?


----------



## Martin S

CharlieP said:


> That seems a bit nutty given that Christmas is very much a secular holiday these days (unless you go to church or sing Christian carols). Do LUL treat Christmas differently to other Bank Holidays?


What other type of carols are there?


----------



## Justme

Martin S said:


> What other type of carols are there?


Plenty, although today we mostly associate carols with Christmas (and to a lesser extend Easter) and as christian religious songs. As far as history goes though, carols were festival songs, both christian or otherwise.


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> joker
> 
> tubeman, got a few more qs
> 
> -do tiket inspectors regularly patrol the tube, because i've just realised how easy it is to travel from seven kings to whitton (got family in both those areas), using the tube and for free. coz theres never usually anyone manning those stations, and the connections with the tube are just cross platform, Stratoford, mile end, richmond? makes it too easy in some places don'tcha think?


Yes that is a weakness in the system... It will only be addressed once all suburban stations have Oyster barriers which are staffed and therefore energised (if a station is unstaffed as is often the case with quieter NR stations then any barriers would just be left open anyway). I suppose it's only useful if you enter and exit at quiet NR stations with no staff / barriers, and yes there are Revenue Protection staff (RCIs) patrolling the Tube so you run the risk of a £20 Penalty fare.



bigbossman said:


> -also with stratford station to get to the jubilee, you have to go through twosets of ticket barriers, is your ticket double counted or is the technology advanced enough to realise that you've already been through once, coz surely that has a massive effect on the entrance/exit figures.


The Oyster technology accounts for this, otherwise there'd be a fair few complaints!



bigbossman said:


> and also how do they work out the annual ridership on the circle??


I presume all of the annual ridership figures are estimates based on actual monitoring of train loading. It is impossible to know this data for sure from Oyster because for numerous journies there is more than one possible route involving different lines so just knowing where someone entered and exited the network doesn't tell you which lines they used... Plucking an example out of thin air, if someone enters at Ealing Broadway and exits at King's Cross St Pancras, did they:

- Central to Holborn then Picc
- Central to Oxford Circus then Vic
- Central to Notting Hill Gate then Circle
- District to Acton Town then Picc
- District to Victoria then Vic
- NR to Paddington then Circle / H&C

???

...And so on



bigbossman said:


> -whats your opinion on peds. personally as functional as they are, i think theyruin the feel of a train station astetically and i love the rush of hot air you get as a tube train enters the platform its one of the quirks of the system


I agree that PEDs ruin the aesthetics of the JLE stations insofar that you feel removed from the train coming in. They're obviously useful in that they prevent access to the track, but unless every station above and below ground has them, anyone wanting to commit suicide just needs to go to a PED-free station instead!



bigbossman said:


> -do you reckon they'll ever be aday that the tube can run 24/7?
> 
> cheers tubeman


Probably never, not 7 days a week anyway. We might see continuous running from Friday morning to Sunday night at some point, but Saturday onto Sunday is currently the most useful spell of engineering hours in the week as its nearly 5 hours as opposed to the usual 3, so there would be a lot of resistance from engineering. We'd also lose untold trains from service due to vomit, urine and vandalism and suffer a lot of antisocial behaviour / crime so I personally don't believe the pros outweigh the cons.


----------



## Tubeman

zfreeman said:


> Hi tubeman,
> 
> Probably a stupid question and been answered before,so just point me in the right directions and forgive me.
> 
> At North Greenwich there is a third platform - 2 eastbound and one westbound.
> Am i right in thinking this 2nd platform was for a proposed extension into southeast London towards Thamesmead and Charlton??
> BUT since Crossrail IS going ahead as planned to this area whats going to happen with this?? Have there been any ideas floated for this 'spare routing'?



North Greenwich was laid out to allow the flying junction for a branch into the Royal Docks to be easily added as required, but now the DLR extensions to Beckton and Woolwich have effectively removed the need, and it will be even less attractive as an option if Crossrail 1 builds the link from the Isle of Dogs through the Royal Docks to Abbey Wood.

I guess also the Stratford - Canary Wharf corridor has become so vital for funelling passengers from Essex and NE London toward Canary Wharf avoiding Central London that any reduction in service by splitting the line at North Greenwich would not acceptable.


----------



## Kentigern

Tubeman,

Could you give me a list of all tube stations which have upgrades planned to make them wheelchair accessible? 

And is there any overall timetable or even hopeful date when every single tube station will be wheelchair accessible?

Thanks!


----------



## Tubeman

just so I don't seem rude, I'm actually in Cornwall writing this on an iPhone so I haven't got time for full answers... Normal service resumed in a couple of days


----------



## Martin S

zfreeman said:


> Thanks for that tubeman.
> 
> My questions just keep coming sorry!
> 
> Now some about the Waterloo and City Line.
> 
> I know its known as the drain for obvious reasons but is more at risk of flooding than say Wapping, Rotherhithe or for that matter I heard recently Canada Water is constantly pumped out.
> 
> When travelling in the direction of Bank we pass an area as we are passing out of the platform into an underground area before going into tunnel do you know what this area is?
> 
> Also, when they were refurbishing the line earlier in the year. I know they removed the trains by way of one of the national rail platforms how did they do this is theresome sort of ramp between the lower levels of the W&C line and the NR Lines above, if so, in theory could trains from say Southampton run into Bank if the line had more than a single platform at each end??
> 
> I know this line was in the hands of BR until fairly recently.
> 
> Oh one final question (for today anyway) what happens with stock that is no longer useful??


In Tubeman's well deserved absence, I should be able to answer some of this one. I was a British Rail engineer involved with the refurbishment of the Waterloo and City in the early 90s, when the new rolling stock was introduced.

I think the W&C has always been the poor relation of the tube network in that it was built by a main line rail company (the London and South Western) and did not (initially at least) have any lifts or escalators to access the platforms. (It was only in the 1960s that the travelators were installed at Bank - prior to that passengers had a long walk up a stepped ramp to ground level). Also, the connections to the other tube lines are pretty poor and involve a lot of climbing and walking.

I'm not sure that the nickname, 'The Drain' is that obvious. There are three possible explanations for it. One is the initials of the line (WC), another the fact that the line appeared on old tube maps rather like a drain at the bottom of the system. However, the most likely reason is the smell of the underground, particularly at Waterloo. This emanates from the water that leaks into the tunnels at the Waterloo end.

When I was working there, we called out railway scientific services to analyse the water leaking into the tunnels. They came to the conclusion that there was nothing particularly harmful in the water but that it just had a 'dirty water smell'.

Despite the line running under the Thames, it is at the Waterloo end, which is constructed in marshland, that has the main water ingress problem. The main tunnels are lined with cast iron segments and water leakage is minimal (although over the years, some thin stalactites have developed from the tunnel ceiling). 

At the Waterloo end, the tunnels are lined with brick. That is because the original lining was destroyed by bombing in the Second World War and was rapidly reconstructed. There is also a short stub branch tunnel that used to lead to a lift alongside Waterloo main line station used for lifting rail vehicles in and out of the tunnels.

This lift (known as the Armstrong lift) was removed to allow the Waterloo International Station to be constructed in the early 90s. To replace it, a 'hole in the roof' was constructed at the south end of Waterloo station which allows trains to be craned in and out of the system. As most maintenance is carried out in the Waterloo Depot, the 'hole in the roof' is only used when major refurbishment of the trains is required, accident damage needs to be repaired or new trains are to be introduced and old ones removed.

The underground area at the south end of Bank station is a scissor crossover,which allows trains arriving on the east side platform to cross over to the west side for the journey under the Thames. At the Waterloo end, the same operation is carried out in the open air between the station and the depot.

When we were working on the W&C, the rolling stock in use was the pre-war Bulleid Southern Railway stock and some of the oldest in use anywhere on the British Rail network. I remember it mainly for its extremely poor ride quality. The vehicles use to rock from side to side to an alarming extent and I was often amazed they didn't hit the tunnel walls.

Having said that, the new tube type stock that was introduced didn't seem to be much better in terms of ride quality and I think a lot of it must have been down to the track, which over much of its length was laid on longitudinal timbers, rather than transverse sleepers set in ballast. That arrangement is very difficult to maintain. Sections of it were replaced with transverse sleepers as part of our work and recent refurbishment may have replaced the lot.


----------



## bigbossman

tubeman a few questions to ponder on your return

-do you think that the fact the jubilee line went over budget stopped other tube lines and extensions happening in london??
-do you think they'll ever try and rationalise services on the national rail network, coz especially in south london its a stupid confusing maze.
-do you think we'll ever get double decker trains, in britain??
-The victoria line is at capacity and cannot be extended. however do you not think the reason that brixton is so busy is because people from surrounding areas like streatham, therefore if it was extended beyond brixton it would have the same passengers and you would see brixton station being less busy, what do yo thnk??
-private enterprise built the tube we have today, whats stopping private enterprise from doing so again, surely a private company could suggest a line or extension or something, it could be paid for like ppp, in the future, or in installments, surely that would solve fundage issues??

cheers tubeman and merry christmas


----------



## Martin S

I would like to add a question to Bigbossman's comment about the national rail network being a confusing maze. If you look at old tube maps (before the time of the Beck map), the lines seem to be just a pile of spaghetti. We have Beck to thank for giving us the impression that the tube is a logical network.

My question is - has an up to date map been produced showing the tube network in a geographically accurate form?


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> tubeman a few questions to ponder on your return
> 
> -do you think that the fact the jubilee line went over budget stopped other tube lines and extensions happening in london??


It certainly didn't help, but the JLE was a peculiar beast in that it was being built to a strict deadline (31.12.99) which gave carte blanche to the workers to take the piss and stall for better money. The industrial relations were terrible throughout with various sets of workers on strike at various times. This pushed the project badly over budget... fortunately with any future project there would less likely be the same issues.



bigbossman said:


> -do you think they'll ever try and rationalise services on the national rail network, coz especially in south london its a stupid confusing maze.


I don't know really... It surprises me that the hugely complex pattern of overlapping services has existed for so long (they hark back to the original 'Railway mania' competition between companies like the LSWR, SER, LCDR, LBSCR in South London), it probably would benefit from some degree of rationalisation but that would result in some stations losing direct services to certain termini and other suburbs, which wouldn't go down well.

It's amazing really how little has gone in terms of South London railway infrastructure: the only significant closures were the LCDR branches to Greenwich and Crystal Palace and the southern half of the Tooting-Wimbledon loop through Merton Abbey. The other closures were to facilitate the Croydon Tramlink (Wimbledon - Croydon and Elmers End - Addiscombe), with the abandoned Woodside to Selsdon line being significantly 'recycled' by Tramlink. Aside from a few Central London stations like Borough Road, Walworth Road and Camberwell it's basically all intact.



bigbossman said:


> -do you think we'll ever get double decker trains, in britain??


We already have had them!:



















...The 4-DD Southern EMU prototype which lasted from 1949 to 1971. It was restricted to certain routes, was unpopular with the passengers, and took longer to load and unload so never caught on.

The trouble with double decker trains is they don't really suit suburban services with frequent stops and heavy loading because they generally only have one set of doors at each end of the cars so their dwell times are longer than single deck trains with numerous doors.

I assume 'High speed 1' between St pancras and the Eurotunnel has been engineered to accommodate continental loading gauges (and therefore TGV Duplex trains), so perhaps any future expansion of the HSR network would too.



bigbossman said:


> -The victoria line is at capacity and cannot be extended. however do you not think the reason that brixton is so busy is because people from surrounding areas like streatham, therefore if it was extended beyond brixton it would have the same passengers and you would see brixton station being less busy, what do yo thnk??


That is a possibility, certainly if the Victoria Line were extended south of Brixton a lot of the passengers using the new stations already use the Victoria Line anyway (e.g. bus to Brixton from Streatham).



bigbossman said:


> -private enterprise built the tube we have today, whats stopping private enterprise from doing so again, surely a private company could suggest a line or extension or something, it could be paid for like ppp, in the future, or in installments, surely that would solve fundage issues??
> 
> cheers tubeman and merry christmas


The main issue is labour I think: it was cheap 100 years ago but today it certainly isn't. All major transport improvements around the world seem to be financed with more than a little help from central government, I doubt with tight profit margins any private enterprise would be able to build a Tube line from scratch profitably.


----------



## Tubeman

Martin S said:


> I would like to add a question to Bigbossman's comment about the national rail network being a confusing maze. If you look at old tube maps (before the time of the Beck map), the lines seem to be just a pile of spaghetti. We have Beck to thank for giving us the impression that the tube is a logical network.
> 
> My question is - has an up to date map been produced showing the tube network in a geographically accurate form?


I presume you mean for passenger consumption?

In a word, no. There are plenty of maps out there mapping the Tube geographically correctly (including mine!), but there has been no geographically correct official Beck companion map available to my knowledge.


----------



## jetsetwilly

Tubeman, do you think that Mill Hill East and Chesham are basically being readied for closure? Both are being run mainly via shuttle services, and they are strange little stubs on the map - it seems that they may be being run down deliberately.


----------



## dom

No they won't be shut as would be politically untenable for LUL/TfL to shut them.


----------



## bigbossman

dom said:


> No they won't be shut as would be politically untenable for LUL/TfL to shut them.


surely chesham can be shut, seen as it's not in greater london if they shut it the buckinghamshire people have no one to hold accountable


----------



## Tubeman

jetsetwilly said:


> Tubeman, do you think that Mill Hill East and Chesham are basically being readied for closure? Both are being run mainly via shuttle services, and they are strange little stubs on the map - it seems that they may be being run down deliberately.


The move to a shuttle for Mill Hill East was actually to make the service more attractive to customers, as with the Northern Line's unreliability the service was very hit and miss most of the time. At least having a single train rattling up and down the route means that service at least can run like clockwork (even if the rest of the Northern Line doesn't!).

Chesham has always had the service pattern of a couple of through trains to / from London each peak and a shuttle off-peak. Chesham is a pretty sizeable town and I suspect the station is amongst the better-used suburban stations on LU.

Both these branches are examples of Single-line working (the only two of any significance on LU), which essentially means only one train can be on the branch at any one time. This firstly reduces the maximum frequency (4tph tops) and moreover secondly 'through' trains off the main line have to be evenly spaced to avoid delays. For example, if Mill Hill East was served by through trains all day (as it used to be) and a train is (for example) delayed for 10 minutes en route from Morden but the following Mill Hill train is on time (perfectly possible due to the separate Charing Cross / Bank branches) then you have 2 Mill Hill east trains only 5 minutes apart. The second train will then have to wait at Finchley Central for the train in front to reach Mill Hill east, change ends, and return: possibly up to 10 minutes.

With all of the Northern line's operating problems this situation was common, as was long headways in the Mill Hill east service. Instead of having frequent delays at Finchley Central waiting to join the branch (because of a train already being on the branch) combined with wildly varying headways between trains, now with the shuttle customers have a much more reliable service off-set against the inconvenience of having to change at Finchley Central.


----------



## sarflonlad

can you remind us of the name of your book? it's a new version right? I had intended to buy the first, but never got round to doing so.


----------



## iampuking

I'm still baffled as to why LU can't have higher frequencies, it would help if there wasn't this silly law about having to tip out every single carriage at reversing-in-sidings stations, such as Queen's Park. Look how quickly the trains in Moscow and Paris reverse (they both have frequencies above 30tph)

This was taken from the Paris Metro thread






And Moscow






Both of these examples are not with driverless trains


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> I'm still baffled as to why LU can't have higher frequencies, it would help if there wasn't this silly law about having to tip out every single carriage at reversing-in-sidings stations, such as Queen's Park. Look how quickly the trains in Moscow and Paris reverse (they both have frequencies above 30tph)
> 
> This was taken from the Paris Metro thread
> 
> Both of these examples are not with driverless trains


That's an interesting example of 'stepping back'... we do similar at Elephant & Castle. Basically every driver 'steps back' onto the train behind with the interval between trains giving them time to change ends and be in position in the reversing sidings. 

In short, you bring a train into the sidings and get off, and start walking toward the other end. As soon as you're clear of the back cab the driver who brought in the previous train gets on the front and drives off the train you just brought in, allowing really quick turnaround times. The alternative is each train dwells in the sidings while a driver fannies about, walks the length of the train, has a pee, makes a cup of tea etc. On the Bakerloo Line at least you generally step back onto two trains behind the one you brought in to ensure a reasonable interval.

It's only really an issue at locations with a pair of reversing sidings or just a pair of terminal platforms: it's preferable to have three or four and timetable a longer dwell time to allow timetable recovery... Stepping back is very effieicnt when it works, but once late running is introduced it becomes a confusing mess to manage.


----------



## iampuking

Interesting, thank you. Is the horn on the Moscow video to signify that the cab at the opposite end has been 'switched off'?

Is the limiting factor on increasing the Bakerloo line's frequency (apart from the fact that it's not busy enough to warrant it!) the tipping out rules at Queen's Park. Why do we have these rules...? Or is it that LU are too scared of shoving trains down there because of the amount that would get stuck in the tunnels if the service were to be messed up?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Interesting, thank you. Is the horn on the Moscow video to signify that the cab at the opposite end has been 'switched off'?
> 
> Is the limiting factor on increasing the Bakerloo line's frequency (apart from the fact that it's not busy enough to warrant it!) the tipping out rules at Queen's Park. Why do we have these rules...? Or is it that LU are too scared of shoving trains down there because of the amount that would get stuck in the tunnels if the service were to be messed up?


It's all because of a fatality at Liverpool Street about 8 years ago: Until then we'd just make 3 x "This train terminates here, all change" announcements, shut the doors, and go into reversing sidings without physically checking each car to ensure it was empty (i.e. about as long as standard dwell time in a platform). 

In this incident a chap was overcarried into Liverpool Street sidings to reverse (Central Line) and paniced, as he was walking between cars in said panic he somehow managed to fall out between the cars and die. It is purely because of this incident that we now have to physically check each car to ensure its empty before a train reverses via sidings (obviously it always was a necessity if a train was being withdrawn)... It's all to do with the Risk Assessment principles I was waffling about a few pages back. 

It was deemed that the delays / disruption of having to fully detrain each reversing train at locations like Queen's Park, Liverpool Street, Parson's Green etc was worth enduring to prevent x risk of future deaths following overcarry. Insane overreaction if you ask me, but this is how the whole H&S regulations operate.

The incident was, in my opinion, nothing to do with an overcarry: it was because a numpty decided to walk between the cars in contravention of the stickers stuck on every communicating door (do not use while moving / only use in emergency). He could have just as easily died doing the same in passenger service on any section of line anywhere... We can't seal up the doors because they are an emergency escape route through trains... but surely they were the bigger risk than the fact the guy was overcarried?

Overcarries still happen all the time when drivers don't check the cars thoroughly enough when detraining: if somone's slumped asleep across seats they could be easily missed when the driver sticks their head in the car before pushing the 'Porter Button' (the button on the end of each car which closes just that car's doors)... I guess it's a real problem with A Stocks as the seat backs are so high (almost like old-fashioned compartments).

Re: the horn in the Moscow vid, yes it may well be some form of 'Rear Cab Clear' indication: at Elephant & Castle there's a plunger by the rear cab (i.e. at the south end) which a driver hits as soon as they get off the train. This illuminates a 'Rear cab clear' sign at the other (i.e. front / north) to tell the driver stepping back onto the train that they're not about to drive off with the previous driver still in the rear cab (which would be a mini-disaster operationally).


----------



## iampuking

Interesting... Seems very reactionary to me. Why can't there just be a warning saying something along the lines of "this train will re-enter service, stay where you are!" They seem to think warnings will protect us from everything else, please stand behind the yellow lines, please don't throw yourself into a train, for your safety... grrr...

Why do they use that phrase "This is for your safety" it sounds so condescending it's unbelievable, it's how one would speak to a child for god sakes.

I'm going off on a completely irrelevant rant, sorry.


----------



## Justme

That's a good point iampuking. Surely that would be enough of a safety warning to avoid this walking through the train.

Another solution is future trains to allow passengers to walk between carriages. All trains everywhere else allow this, why are London Underground trains the exception here?


----------



## iampuking

The S Stock to replace all sub-surface line trains will be completely walk-through... See Page 52, I just banged on about it!


----------



## bigbossman

tubeman a few more questions for ya

-with them renaming the two shepherd's bushes and edgware roads, will they ever rename hammersmith (n the h&c line), hammersmith grove or something coz they are clearly not the same station and hardly that close

-following on from that, what is the exact purpose of designating interchange stations, because there are stations not close which are, and stations closer which aren't. if i am going to change from hackney central to hackney downs i will do so i dont need a circle on a map to tell me it can be done, is it for ticketing purpose if so, shouldnt there be some sort of guidline as to what the distance between stations has to be for it to be an interchange??

-do you think that national rail should adopt a standrad livery which all tocs should adopt and stations should have one type of branding, so that when trains change operators there isnt millions spent on rebranding a fleet of trains and stations, which could be better invested elsewhere, i dont see any reason why private companies need a coporate identy imblazened all over there trains, i think the national rail logo and the name of the region, like national rail south east, national rail west coast, national rail east, would be better with different colour liveries for each franchise

- following on from my last point, i know its not your area, but why hasnt ken livingstone pushed for a london bus livery, with private companies having no branding of thereown whats so ever, just a red bus with the TfL roundel, it would help to create the illusion of a more unified transport system, and private companies can be advertised with a small sticker similar to the current london buses sticker on buses now?? what do you think??

-tubeman can you tell me why all british train except LU have to have yellow fronts, nowehre else in the world has to, whats the purpose and why? surely if it isn't neccessary elsewhere or on the underground it isnt actually necessary and ruins the astetics of the train

-finally do you think dlr should fit barriers at all the major stations aka lewisham, greenwich, woolwich arsenal (when it opens), london city airport, and all between poplar and south quay, as they are clearly busy enough to warrant it, and discourage fair dodging as they are the likely destinations of most people? i have got on the dlr at lewisham to deptford bridge and never been checked it is so easy to fair dodge for small hop journeys!!

cheers tubeman


----------



## iampuking

No problem! Do you have any idea why Victoria station on the Victoria line is closed?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> No problem! Do you have any idea why Victoria station on the Victoria line is closed?


Hmmm I dunno... must be to do with works on the access / egress from the platforms: I can't think why else just the Victoria Line platforms at Victoria would close but not the District Line or the rest of the Victoria Line. Maybe carving out new passageways? ...Or it could just be escalator works.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Hi Tubeman,

Great thread....maybe you can answer some of the following questions:

- What would you say is the best underground line in London, and what would you say is the worst?

- Are there any plans for driverless trains?

- How much is an all-day travelcard these days (for all transport zones covered by London Underground)?

- To the best of your knowledge, what other subway system is most like London's (I've noticed that some of Moscow's stations have that "tube" look)?

- How old is the oldest rolling stock, still currently in use on the London Underground?

I was born in London myself, but I haven't been back for a long time. For me, part of the fun of the city was riding on the Underground, as weird as that may sound. I love the musty smell, the sound of the trains, hearing 1,000 different languages and the general "chaos" of it all.


----------



## Justme

For fares, check this guide: It's a bit confusing though as there are so many different options. The essential thing to remember is that there are Oyster Fares (what everyone uses) and Cash fares (much higher and only people who don't know about Oyster use it). Then of cause there are Peak and off Peak fares.

Not to forget Price capping on the Oyster card which works out generally better than daily passes in many cases. This works as such; you travel x amount of journey's in a day, if it reaches the price of a daily pass for those zones (and time of travel) it will cap - in other words, all journeys for the same day after that are essentially free... and the capping is a bit less than a daily pass.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/guide-to-fares-and-tickets-08-01-02.pdf

I think...

Oyster 1-6 zone Daily (off peak): ?
Oyster 1-6 zone capped (off peak): £6.50
Cash 1-6 zone travel card (off peak): £7?

Oyster 1-6 zone Daily (Peak): ?
Oyster 1-6 zone capped (Peak): £13.30
Cash 1-6 zone travel card (peak): £13.80

In fact, I don't quite understand everything on the above PDF as there is also cheaper prices for 16+ (16years old to what?) and "New Deal", which is half the above fares.

Essentially, I think the prices for off peak are good value for money, especially if you use your Oyster Card to get around - it will work out the cheapest way in most cases. However, I think London Transport is taking the piss when it comes to Peak travel costs. People don't have a choice when to travel to work, and TFL exploits this like no other place I know.

Shame.


----------



## Tubeman

Angry_Chair said:


> Hi Tubeman,
> 
> Great thread....maybe you can answer some of the following questions:
> 
> - What would you say is the best underground line in London, and what would you say is the worst?


The worst is pretty easy in my opinion: The Northern

The best is a little more difficult. The quickest and most efficient / reliable would probably be the Victoria Line (more so when the new trains / ATO come in), but it suffers from being very crowded (victim of own success) and VERY hot in the Summer, so from a passenger's perspective maybe not so.



Angry_Chair said:


> - Are there any plans for driverless trains?


We will never have unstaffed trains on the existing lines: completely unstaffed trains are only realistic if there are emergency walkways along the tunnels which no line but the Jubilee extension have. Two lines are automatic (Victoria and Central, soon to be joined by the Jubilee and Northern), but a driver needs to be present to manually drive if the ATO fails, and the logical place for them to be is in the front cab (their primary function normally is operating the doors).



Angry_Chair said:


> - How much is an all-day travelcard these days (for all transport zones covered by London Underground)?


Justme answers that below... I'm no ticket expert unfortunately!



Angry_Chair said:


> - To the best of your knowledge, what other subway system is most like London's (I've noticed that some of Moscow's stations have that "tube" look)?


Much of Paris' network is reminiscent of the SSR sections of the Underground, while I suppose Glasgow is the closest to the Tube sections.



Angry_Chair said:


> - How old is the oldest rolling stock, still currently in use on the London Underground?


Metropolitan Line = A60 Stock = *48 years*
Victoria Line = 1967 Stock = 41 years
Circle / H&C / District = C69 Stock = 39 years
Bakerloo Line = 1972 Stock = 36 years
Piccadilly Line = 1973 Stock = 35 years
District Line = D78 Stock = 30 years
Central / Waterloo & City Lines = 1992 Stock = 16 years
Jubilee Line = 1885 Stock = 13 years
Northern Line = 1996 stock = 12 years

The reality is the trains are generally 4 or so years 'newer' than the above dates, as the dates refer to the prototype (e.g. the last 96 Stock Northern Line trains were introduced in 2000).



Angry_Chair said:


> I was born in London myself, but I haven't been back for a long time. For me, part of the fun of the city was riding on the Underground, as weird as that may sound. I love the musty smell, the sound of the trains, hearing 1,000 different languages and the general "chaos" of it all.


:yes:


----------



## sarflonlad

Can you tell us anything about the introduction of ATO on the Jubilee and Northern Lines? For example, their estimated delivery dates, the increases in frequencies, changes to routes (e.g. splitting of northern line) ...


----------



## Acemcbuller

iampuking said:


> No problem! Do you have any idea why Victoria station on the Victoria line is closed?


Asbestos removal


----------



## iampuking

Angry_Chair said:


> - To the best of your knowledge, what other subway system is most like London's (I've noticed that some of Moscow's stations have that "tube" look)?


I think Moscow too... They have an extensive (and old) deep level network, like London. Though London differs a bit in that it lacks chandeliers and statues of 'comrades'...

Compare these two vintage shots, the Moscow station has been rebuilt but the London one remains similar

Moscow










London










They appeared to have "borrowed" a lot of design elements from Charles Holden stations, the lights on the platforms in the top Moscow pic are eerily reminiscent of the ones at Cockfosters station










Escalator lighting...

Pre-war shot of escalator lamps at Holborn in London










Moscow escalator lamps...










The only difference is that they were torn out in the eighties in London following the King's Cross fire when all wooden escalators were replaced.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

Tubeman said:


> The worst is pretty easy in my opinion: The Northern
> 
> The best is a little more difficult. The quickest and most efficient / reliable would probably be the Victoria Line (more so when the new trains / ATO come in), but it suffers from being very crowded (victim of own success) and VERY hot in the Summer, so from a passenger's perspective maybe not so.


Based on my own experiences with the Victorian and Northern Lines, I'd have to agree with you! However, I was also never a big fan of the District Line, partly because there were so many stops, especially going west.



> We will never have unstaffed trains on the existing lines: completely unstaffed trains are only realistic if there are emergency walkways along the tunnels which no line but the Jubilee extension have. Two lines are automatic (Victoria and Central, soon to be joined by the Jubilee and Northern), but a driver needs to be present to manually drive if the ATO fails, and the logical place for them to be is in the front cab (their primary function normally is operating the doors).


Gotcha. Besides, if anything goes wrong, it's always good to have the "human" element, in the form of a driver in charge.



> Much of Paris' network is reminiscent of the SSR sections of the Underground, while I suppose Glasgow is the closest to the Tube sections.


Agreed - Glasgow's is very similar, although much smaller. I used the Glasgow Subway once - I liked it.



> Metropolitan Line = A60 Stock = *48 years*
> Victoria Line = 1967 Stock = 41 years
> Circle / H&C / District = C69 Stock = 39 years
> Bakerloo Line = 1972 Stock = 36 years
> Piccadilly Line = 1973 Stock = 35 years
> District Line = D78 Stock = 30 years
> Central / Waterloo & City Lines = 1992 Stock = 16 years
> Jubilee Line = 1885 Stock = 13 years
> Northern Line = 1996 stock = 12 years
> 
> The reality is the trains are generally 4 or so years 'newer' than the above dates, as the dates refer to the prototype (e.g. the last 96 Stock Northern Line trains were introduced in 2000).


Wow - so some trains are almost half a deade old. At the end of the day, if they're working fine and not malfunctioning in any way, why replace them? Personally, I like the older trains -- they have so much character.

Thanks for your reply anyway. If I can think of any other London Underground related questions, I'll post some more.


----------



## Comfortably Numb

iampuking said:


> I think Moscow too... They have an extensive (and old) deep level network, like London. Though London differs a bit in that it lacks chandeliers and statues of 'comrades'...
> 
> Compare these two vintage shots, the Moscow station has been rebuilt but the London one remains similar
> 
> Moscow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> London


Agreed, especially above.

You replied to my "Moscow Metro" thread too with a link that showed dozens of photos from the Moscow Metro. Many of the stations do bear a striking resemblance many London Underground stations (the "tube" type), although Moscow's have old fashioned lamps, elaborate decorations and completely devoid of advertising (a throwback from the dark days of Communism, I'd imagine), while London's stations are literally covered with advertising.

Now I have the urge to visit Moscow, just to ride on the Metro!


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, I have a question...

Why is Chelney/Crossrail 2 planned to take over the Epping branch of the Central line? If the answer is to relieve overcrowding then my response is that the overcrowding of the Central line comes from passengers cramming on from main lines at Liverpool Street and Stratford, something which will be "relieved" with Crossrail 1!


----------



## sweek

iampuking said:


> Escalator lighting...
> 
> Pre-war shot of escalator lamps at Holborn in London
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moscow escalator lamps...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference is that they were torn out in the eighties in London following the King's Cross fire when all wooden escalators were replaced.


It still exists in London now, really. Try my local station Turnpike Lane for example:








Or St. John's Wood


----------



## iampuking

True, but before almost every single Central London station had them, now only a handful remain.


----------



## Accura4Matalan

They look pretty good. I guess they wont waste money restoring them though.


----------



## iampuking

Especially when they're going to slap on a pair of fluroscent lights straight above them, runing any sort of lighting effect.


----------



## zfreeman

iampuking said:


> No problem! Do you have any idea why Victoria station on the Victoria line is closed?



Asbestos removal and line upgrades like they do when they close it at weekends.


----------



## zfreeman

iampuking said:


> Tubeman, I have a question...
> 
> Why is Chelney/Crossrail 2 planned to take over the Epping branch of the Central line? If the answer is to relieve overcrowding then my response is that the overcrowding of the Central line comes from passengers cramming on from main lines at Liverpool Street and Stratford, something which will be "relieved" with Crossrail 1!


I believe the original idea was for it to take over part of the 'loop' through Woodford and Hainault and originally off into the Essex countryside, but this was when it was first put forward decades ago, I don't know the ultimate destination, but they seemed to have decided to go the Epping Route - who knows for those that want to reopen the Epping Onger part might have their wish??

Perhaps tubeman knows more......


----------



## iampuking

It couldn't go round the Hainault loop as it has a tunnelled section between Leytonstone and Newbury Park that is too narrow for the proposed full-sized trains to use the line...


----------



## sotonsi

iampuking said:


> It couldn't go round the Hainault loop as it has a tunnelled section between Leytonstone and Newbury Park that is too narrow for the proposed full-sized trains to use the line...


Don't forget that it was tube gauge when it was originally proposed in the early 80s, at safeguarding in 1991 (over the two bigger gauge routes) and at the current re-safeguarding (2007). It was only mainline as a possibility in 1995, and when it was stuck with Crossrail branding for 6 years this decade. Every non-tube gauge incarnation of the scheme, plus all but one of the tube-gauge ones (1994) have done Epping (if taking over a central line branch - Crossrail 2 was rather vague).


zfreeman said:


> I believe the original idea was for it to take over part of the 'loop' through Woodford and Hainault and originally off into the Essex countryside, but this was when it was first put forward decades ago, I don't know the ultimate destination, but they seemed to have decided to go the Epping Route - who knows for those that want to reopen the Epping Onger part might have their wish??


I'm sure it spent the first few years of it's live as either, then was going to be Epping when safeguarding got done, then for some reason got changed to the Hainault route in 94, changed back in 95, then to "we don't know" while in it's in it's 'Crossrail 2' phase and then re-safeguarded back as Epping.

The original idea, AFAIK, was Epping, but this got changed in 1994 to Hainault, which was a short lived idea.


iampuking said:


> Why is Chelney/Crossrail 2 planned to take over the Epping branch of the Central line? If the answer is to relieve overcrowding then my response is that the overcrowding of the Central line comes from passengers cramming on from main lines at Liverpool Street and Stratford, something which will be "relieved" with Crossrail 1!


1)it's an older scheme - Crossrail is a more recent scheme that got pushed forward as it could serve Heathrow and central Docklands easily and score political points, with far less congestion relief benefits.
2)the Central line is rather crowded in peaks from Leytonstone down, especially Leyton-Stratford - it's not just Stratford-St Pauls.

The answer _is_ to relieve overcrowding, and it would have done it far better than Crossrail will do it. They just can't think of anywhere else to take it past Homerton at the moment to give it a decent route, now Crossrail has scuppered the justification for all the good ones (central line branch, Shenfield, etc).


----------



## sarflonlad

Another non LU question - but in your wisdom, I'm sure you know the answer.

I'm trying to understand what allows for HSR. Is it just the state of signaling and lack of dedicated track from other traffic that prevents the UK at present running trains above 125mph? Or is it the actual state of the rails?


----------



## iampuking

Why has there been little attempt to make cross-platform interchanges on Crossrail?


----------



## sotonsi

iampuking said:


> Why has there been little attempt to make cross-platform interchanges on Crossrail?


there's cross-platform interchanges at Stratford (with the Central line) and Abbey Wood (with the North Kent line). One guesses that it's a combination of 1)cost
2)health & safety (I can't remember why - I think it's to do with tunnelling main bores so close to open tunnels or some such nonsense)
3)those long platforms making it difficult to fit
and 4)that it's running at a far lower level, in order to avoid the other lines and buildings and so on.

Sadly the safeguarded route of Chelney looks to just have them at Leytonstone and Parsons Green - Angel, Kings Cross (with the Victoria) and Victoria (with the Victoria again) should have got them, as they would have been easyish to do.


sarflonlad said:


> I'm trying to understand what allows for HSR. Is it just the state of signaling and lack of dedicated track from other traffic that prevents the UK at present running trains above 125mph? Or is it the actual state of the rails?


IIRC, it's a lack of in-cab signalling (which would have to be on all trains on, say, the WCML). We have the trains, we have the line speeds (on both coasts, in places) but we don't have the signalling.

Sorry Tubeman, I keep answering your questions, so I'll give you another one!
Can I have a full list of all proposed alterations and additions to the Underground network? (extensions of lines, new lines, reroutes, etc).


----------



## iampuking

sotonsi said:


> there's cross-platform interchanges at Stratford (with the Central line) and Abbey Wood (with the North Kent line). One guesses that it's a combination of 1)cost
> 2)health & safety (I can't remember why - I think it's to do with tunnelling main bores so close to open tunnels or some such nonsense)
> 3)those long platforms making it difficult to fit
> and 4)that it's running at a far lower level, in order to avoid the other lines and buildings and so on.
> 
> Sadly the safeguarded route of Chelney looks to just have them at Leytonstone and Parsons Green - Angel, Kings Cross (with the Victoria) and Victoria (with the Victoria again) should have got them, as they would have been easyish to do.IIRC, it's a lack of in-cab signalling (which would have to be on all trains on, say, the WCML). We have the trains, we have the line speeds (on both coasts, in places) but we don't have the signalling.
> 
> Sorry Tubeman, I keep answering your questions, so I'll give you another one!
> Can I have a full list of all proposed alterations and additions to the Underground network? (extensions of lines, new lines, reroutes, etc).


So both questions you answered can are to dow ith Health & Safety... It sounds almost as cliche as "PC gone mad!" but "H&S has gone mad!" ...

They didn't seem to have problems with boring tunnels for the Victoria line when there were numerous cross-platform interchanges, why do they have it with Crossrail?


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> Another non LU question - but in your wisdom, I'm sure you know the answer.
> 
> I'm trying to understand what allows for HSR. Is it just the state of signaling and lack of dedicated track from other traffic that prevents the UK at present running trains above 125mph? Or is it the actual state of the rails?


HSR requires a few things:

A certain weight (i.e. quality) of rail
A lack of sharp curves
ATP signalling (conventional signalling not appropriate due to speed of trains)

Obviously there's nothing stopping HSR trains from running on conventional track, just not as fast.


----------



## iampuking

The ECML used to go at 140mph and theoretically could, it's just they won't let it because some bright spark thought that they wouldn't be able to see the signals. Wouldn't they be abled to hear the Automatic Warning System anyway?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Why has there been little attempt to make cross-platform interchanges on Crossrail?


In addition to sotonsi's reasons, the fact that some of the Crossrail stations lie between two tube stations and link them is also a factor (e.g. Moorgate / Liverpool Street, Tottenham Court Road / Oxford Circus). This means the Crossrail platforms will not be alongside the existing stations.

I guess Bond Street could have been, at Farringdon Crossrail is too deep and crosses the other lines at right angles, at Whitechapel again Crossrail is too deep and the isle of Dogs station is separate from Canary Wharf LU station.

So really the only underground potential cross-platform interchange I think is Bond Street, and I guess this is made impossible by the fact the Jubilee Line crosses quite close below the Central Line and therefore the Crossrail bores would need to be squeezed in above the Jubilee Line, and are probably too big to fit.


----------



## elfabyanos

sarflonlad said:


> Another non LU question - but in your wisdom, I'm sure you know the answer.
> 
> I'm trying to understand what allows for HSR. Is it just the state of signaling and lack of dedicated track from other traffic that prevents the UK at present running trains above 125mph? Or is it the actual state of the rails?


If I could have a pop at answering - HMRI (now part of the rail regulator?) decress any speeds above 125mph need two drivers, due to the possibility of not seeing a signal at such high speeds. This is why the WCML didn't go above 125mph without in-cab signalling which railtrack said it would do and didn't. The ECML has sections of a flashing green to serve as a 5th aspect to allow 140mph speeds, but again requires two drivers present - this being the only section actually signalled to take advantage the two-driver rule in the UK I believe. It's only really been used for 140 mph on class 91 testing and other special runs though.

Theoretically, with in-cab signalling for the high-speed trains there isn't really a signalling limit on the speed, so that would then be down to the track, other traffic, corners, train performance etc if in-cab is ever to be introduced. Though nothing seems to have been publically released, Virgin's request to review speeds of pendo's in the trent valley to 135 mph seems to rest on the fact that the signals in general have been re-sighted to be more visible, the HMRI have been blended with a department with more of an eye on practicality and just just rigid health and safety, and that pendos have a form of in cab signalling to do the tilting mechanisms and enhanced linespeed signalling stuff. As and when in-cab is deployed all over the country the current effective ceiling of 125mph may be removed. Here's hoping - I'm sure the alignments on much of the great western and ECML could happily hit 150mph.

Tubeman, I'm sure there's a few things I've said that may need correcting!


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> Sorry Tubeman, I keep answering your questions, so I'll give you another one!
> Can I have a full list of all proposed alterations and additions to the Underground network? (extensions of lines, new lines, reroutes, etc).


*Under Construction:*

2008: Heathrow T123 to Heathrow T5

2009: DLR to Woolwich Arsenal

2010: East London Line Phase 1 (Whitechapel to Dalston and New Cross Gate to West Croydon / Crystal palace).

2010: DLR Canning Town to Stratford International via West Ham

2008: Stations at Shepherd's Bush and Imperial Wharf on the West London Line

2008: Station at Wood Lane on the Hammersmith & City Line (with their Shepherd's Bush station having the suffix 'Market' added).

*Approved*

2011: East London Line Phase 1 extension (Dalston to North London Line)

2014: Crossrail 1

East London Line extension Phase 2 (Surrey Quays to Queen's Road Peckham and thence to Clapham Junction)

DLR Gallions to Dagenham Dock (start 2010?)

Station at Thames View on the DLR Woolwich Arsenal branch

*Proposed and likely:*

Metropolitan Line to Watford Junction via Croxley Green branch (200m of new line needed between the existing LU Watford branch and the abandoned BR Croxley Green branch, Watford LU would be abandoned).

Bakerloo Line to Watford Junction (not enough 1972 stock to allow this, either the Bakerloo will need its entire fleet replaced with additional trains, or old staock from an upgraded line can be cascaded / converted).

District Line to Uxbridge, Piccadilly Line to Ealing Broadway (i.e. swap)... probably waiting for S Stock introduction to District Line

Metropolitan Line to Barking (ditto above)

DLR bank to Charing Cross

*Proposed and unlikely anytime soon:*

Bakerloo Line to Hayes (Kent)

Crossrail 2 / Chelney

Anyone else please feel free to add more... I think that's it


----------



## sweek

- Northern Line split (quite likely) and possible extension from Kennington further south (unlikely any time soon)
- Thameslink upgrades (approved, partly ready before the Olympics)

I guess that's all for now! It seems like a 5th terminal and third runway at Heathrow are also very likely, in which case the Piccadilly will probably be altered and extended again to serve it.


----------



## Tubeman

Regarding the Bakerloo Line extension to Watford, I'm now obviously in the priveliged (?!) position of attending strategic planning meetings for the line.

Believe it or not we're last in the pecking order for an upgrade and might not see new stock until *2020*!!! That would make the 1972 Stock nearly 50 years old by then. I laboured under the misapprehension that Victoria Line 1967 stocks would be converted to make up the numbers to allow the Watford extension, but apparently this has now been ruled out as too expensive so we might be lumbered.

The only hope is if the Central Line 1992 stock continues its deterioration and needs to be replaced pronto, then at the same time x amount of extra units can be added to the order for the Bakerloo Line (a large part of the expense is development / testing, doing 2 lines at once saves money).


----------



## iampuking

Thanks for answering my questions Tubeman and sotonsi... I guess I forgot that Crossrail's tunnels are much wider than the Victoria line's, making cross-platform interchange more difficult...

A few more questions...

-What is the maximum theoretical speed that tilting trains can go? Not neccessarilly the current designs, but the technology?
-Do you think it's likely that the Piccadilly will get 1995 Stock, albeit slightly more advanced since both lines are run by TubeLines and commonality would be good...
-Do you think the Bakerloo line will receive cars of the longer type or the shorter type when it is upgraded?
-What angle to most LU escalators go up at?
-Are disposed newspapers recycled?
-What's the worst and best thing about your job?

Edit: Why is it expensive for the 1967 Stock to go onto the Bakerloo once they're replaced?


----------



## El_Greco

Hi Mr Tube Ive got one silly (maybe not) question :

If I want to visit one of the disused tube stations (Aldwych British Museum etc) whom should I contact to arrange a visit?


----------



## Tubeman

El_Greco said:


> Hi Mr Tube Ive got one silly (maybe not) question :
> 
> If I want to visit one of the disused tube stations (Aldwych British Museum etc) whom should I contact to arrange a visit?


I don't think any public access is allowed in the current security climate sadly... I think there used to be little tours of some of the stations of interest like Down Street but nothing now.

I suppose you could visit Aldwych, but only if you are making a film or something. Might be worth contacting the press office and saying you're a professional photographer who wants to take some pictures and see what they say: you'd need to be chaperoned so I guess there would be a cost involved.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Thanks for answering my questions Tubeman and sotonsi... I guess I forgot that Crossrail's tunnels are much wider than the Victoria line's, making cross-platform interchange more difficult...
> 
> A few more questions...
> 
> -What is the maximum theoretical speed that tilting trains can go? Not neccessarilly the current designs, but the technology?


I can't think of any reason why tilting train technology can't go as fast as any other HSTs, although I guess for Shinkansen or TGV speeds it is deemed better to ensure the track is straight than the trains can tilt.



iampuking said:


> -Do you think it's likely that the Piccadilly will get 1995 Stock, albeit slightly more advanced since both lines are run by TubeLines and commonality would be good...


I believe they'll be getting 'Movia' stock... it'll look very similar to the 2009 Stock. I'm glad: I think the 95 and 96 TS are ugly. Technology is always changing and I think there are a few glitches with the 95 Stock so a new production of an old stock is very unlikely.



iampuking said:


> -Do you think the Bakerloo line will receive cars of the longer type or the shorter type when it is upgraded?


Shorter, I doubt the longer car bodies would fit in some of the tunnels due to the sharp curves scattered across the Bakerloo Line.



iampuking said:


> -What angle to most LU escalators go up at?


30 degrees



iampuking said:


> -Are disposed newspapers recycled?


Yes litter picked up from trains / stations is separated and recycled. Most is recyclable (papers, bottles, cans) so it would be a travesty if we didn't. Offices have paper, toner and battery recycling too.



iampuking said:


> -What's the worst and best thing about your job?


Worst: Trade unions using their members as pawns for political leverage... Making self-serving decisions not in the interest of staff, customers or management. That being said I'm lucky where I am and have a good relationship with my reps.

Best: The sheer diversity of people employed, a feeling that I'm doing something worthwhile, being a part of a great and historical organisation.



iampuking said:


> Edit: Why is it expensive for the 1967 Stock to go onto the Bakerloo once they're replaced?


The cabs would need to be completely remodelled as the conversion is from an ATO stock to manual.


----------



## El_Greco

Tubeman said:


> I don't think any public access is allowed in the current security climate sadly... I think there used to be little tours of some of the stations of interest like Down Street but nothing now.
> 
> I suppose you could visit Aldwych, but only if you are making a film or something. Might be worth contacting the press office and saying you're a professional photographer who wants to take some pictures and see what they say: you'd need to be chaperoned so I guess there would be a cost involved.


Oh I see...thanks :cheers1:


----------



## zfreeman

El Greco,

In 2004 I visited the Old Aldwych station in the OpenHouse weekend they normally do in September.

But haven't seen any underground ones in the diary with the exception of the brunel tunnels in east london (the route of the East London Line) since then.

Also, in relation to the Brunel tunnels I believe they used to do regular visits 3 or 4 times a year. But i don't know whether they are going to continue them due to the refurbishment works.


----------



## CharlieP

Tubeman said:


> *Proposed and likely:*
> 
> District Line to Uxbridge, Piccadilly Line to Ealing Broadway (i.e. swap)... probably waiting for S Stock introduction to District Line


What's the rationale behind this, Tubey?


----------



## iampuking

As usual, great replies! 

Do you think that in the future there will be more attempts to make NR + LO have better interchanges? There are numerous places where lines cross over without any interchange, despite having stations close together, very frustrating! Perhaps they could build moving walkways in a suspended tube? Or those express ones like in Paris..


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> What's the rationale behind this, Tubey?


Basically to provide more stock for a more intensive Heathrow service I believe (as there will soon be 2 different Heathrow services).

As I've said before I'd sooner see the Piccadilly Line diverted to Richmond via the abandoned freight underpass just west of Turnham Green and Ealing and Uxbridge become the two western District destinations. This means that the District and Picc can be segregated and the ridiculous (and dangerous) steps at Ealing Common removed along with other adjustments to reduce the gaps at stations west of Barons Court.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> As usual, great replies!
> 
> Do you think that in the future there will be more attempts to make NR + LO have better interchanges? There are numerous places where lines cross over without any interchange, despite having stations close together, very frustrating! Perhaps they could build moving walkways in a suspended tube? Or those express ones like in Paris..


Do you mean LO or LU?

I'm assuming you mean LU; yes there are a few irritating non-interchanges at locations like Camden Town / Camden Road, North Acton, and where the Piccadilly Line and NLL cross between KXSP and Caledonian Road.

The latter could be sorted with the re-opening of two abandoned stations (York Road Picc Line and Maiden Lane NLL), which were pretty close together.

The Camden issue could be solved with a new northern entrance to the Barnet platforms, which would surface not a million miles away from Camden Road.

North Acton too could be a pretty easy interchange to create.

I think these interchanges will become key with the new LOROL services, it doesn't function very well as an orbital service if it misses out key interchanges.


----------



## ChrisH

On lines with ATO would it be possible to paint yellow boxes where the doors will open, and instruct passengers to wait either side? I know it sounds pretty idealistic, but it works in Singapore and Tokyo (oh... right).


----------



## Tubeman

ChrisH said:


> On lines with ATO would it be possible to paint yellow boxes where the doors will open, and instruct passengers to wait either side? I know it sounds pretty idealistic, but it works in Singapore and Tokyo (oh... right).


Knowing the Great British public it wouldn't work. Born-and-bred commuters are pretty good with Tube etiquette, but a lot of tourists and recent European immigrants seem to have trouble understanding the concept of letting people off first and just barge on. The yellow boxes would probably just give these types a head start and encourage them to stand in the way.

Certainly a good idea in principle, but all it takes is one. When a packed train comes into a station most people politely stand back, but as soon as one of them barges on prematurely the rest follow for fear of losing their chance of getting on through their politeness. It's like watching lemmings.


----------



## Tubeman

zfreeman said:


> Hi tubeman
> I was travelling through London Bridge earlier today, whats this I hear about dwell times being changed/experimented with.....there was a poster but being rush hour didn't get chance to stop and read it....do you know anything about it?


No... I'll have a nose around our intranet and see if I can spot anything.


----------



## sarflonlad

Tubeman said:


> No... I'll have a nose around our intranet and see if I can spot anything.


The poster he refers to I believe has been there for ages. There's another one at Bermondsey.

It says "Train Operators: Peak dwell time target: 30 seconds" at Bermondsey it says "Peak dwell time target: 20 seconds"


----------



## Tubeman

^^
That'll be to do with the 24tph promise: LU are contractually bound to CWG to provide at least that frequency because of the financial contribution CWG made to the JLE.


----------



## zfreeman

It was upstairs near to the ticket barriers not down on the platforms, and the poster looked quite lengthy....

Am going through Bermondsey on Sunday and London Bridge again on Monday will see whether I can see any more then, unless i see something here before hand.

Will report back.


----------



## sarflonlad

Tubeman said:


> ^^
> That'll be to do with the 24tph promise: LU are contractually bound to CWG to provide at least that frequency because of the financial contribution CWG made to the JLE.


Jeez... you mean LU do this grudgingly?? 24tph is at least what you should expect on a subway line in Zone 2.


----------



## iampuking

It has been explained before, the Jubilee line has crap signalling because it was originally intended to have ATO from when the extension opened. When the contractors couldn't install it in time for the millenium, they rushed and installed sparsely spaced bog standard signalling instead.

The Jubilee line is to receive new signalling for 2009, and it's being installed now, you may notice a wire appearing between the running rails like on the DLR... According to alwaystouchout it'll run at 33tph after the upgrade.

See the Tubelines propaganda video here


----------



## Tubeman

^^
Thanks for explaining!


----------



## mrtfreak

ChrisH said:


> On lines with ATO would it be possible to paint yellow boxes where the doors will open, and instruct passengers to wait either side? I know it sounds pretty idealistic, but it works in Singapore and Tokyo (oh... right).


It used to work well years ago here (Singapore). But then in the mid-1990s they removed them and put them back in a new format in the 2000s. But they aren't effective anymore although they were expanded system wide on the older lines compared to at underground stations only during the 1990s.

Kuala Lumpur's seems to be effective though, with passengers actually forming queues.


----------



## iampuking

There is no space for queues at most LU stations...

Many commuters are savvy enough to know where the doors stop on the Central/Victoria lines, plus, at stations with gaps (pretty much all of them these days :|) it helps to stand where the "MIND THE GAP" is written on the floor, as doors often stop somewhere around there.


----------



## sarflonlad

iampuking said:


> There is no space for queues at most LU stations...
> 
> Many commuters are savvy enough to know where the doors stop on the Central/Victoria lines, plus, at stations with gaps (pretty much all of them these days :|) it helps to stand where the "MIND THE GAP" is written on the floor, as doors often stop somewhere around there.


Interestingly on the Jubilee platform floors of Green Park you'll find faint arrows where you should stand to board and disembark.


----------



## iampuking

Strange, do you work for LU or do you just remember?


----------



## sarflonlad

I just remember... and the trains dont line up with them


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> I just remember... and the trains dont line up with them


They must have been painted on for the 1983 Stock then... I guess when it was suddenly realised what a terrible mistake installing single-leaf doors on Tube trains was, they experimented with methods of ensuring dwell times at the busiest stations (namely Green Park) were managed as best as possible.

Note the woeful provision of doors (in the name of 'economy')


----------



## cle

I liked those trains - I used to catch them down to Charing Cross every morning...those were the days!

I think there were rumours of them going to the Piccadilly at one point - were they made into scrap in the end?


----------



## Tubeman

cle said:


> I liked those trains - I used to catch them down to Charing Cross every morning...those were the days!
> 
> I think there were rumours of them going to the Piccadilly at one point - were they made into scrap in the end?


Some sat in Upminster depot for years rusting, and ultimately I think they were all scrapped bar a few cars which now sit atop containers on the disused section of Broad Street viaduct immediately north of Great Eastern Street.



















They were earmarked for the Picc at one point, but they would have needed to have had wider doorways cut in to prevent the '83s from slaughtering the service, and in the end it was decided that this was too expensive.


----------



## iampuking

They had weird cab ends, it looked like someone had just sliced a tube train in half and decided it was the front.


----------



## Tubeman

Very similar to the D Stock:










(They were essentially Surface and Tube versions of the same train)


----------



## zfreeman

Tubeman said:


> Some sat in Upminster depot for years rusting, and ultimately I think they were all scrapped bar a few cars which now sit atop containers on the disused section of Broad Street viaduct immediately north of Great Eastern Street.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were earmarked for the Picc at one point, but they would have needed to have had wider doorways cut in to prevent the '83s from slaughtering the service, and in the end it was decided that this was too expensive.


I thought I read somewhere that the Broad St Viaduct - rebuilt - part of the original route of the ELL northern extension? Until the changes it to go through the goods yard further north


----------



## Justme

Ok, here's another one.

On the roof of Cannon Street Station, there is an acre sized rooftop garden with great views of the Thames and London in general. It aparently cost something like half a million pounds to build.

My question is, is this open to the public, maybe via a restuarant or cafe (or only for private events), and if so, how on earth does one find the entrance? ;O)


----------



## zfreeman

^^^

This is one i know a bit about.......

It's generally used for corporate events and private parties. I was fortunate enough to go there twice last summer, both fantastic occasions, the building it is based on is private but if attending events the entrance for the roof garden is on Cousins Lane.

Access is via either a spiral staircase or elevator. At the garden even has a pond with a group of resident ducks.

Its similiar to the Roof Gardens in Kensington (owned by Richard Branson), from where the idea was taken. They have a website for further info


----------



## DarJoLe

zfreeman said:


> They were talking about boarding times and how they will be experimenting over the next 6 months at 10 Jubilee Line stations, basically its all about the lines on platforms showing people where to stand, ironically a couple of the stations included are Canada Water and Canary Wharf, both of which have those doors!!


----------



## iampuking

Am I the only one that hopes the experiment is a disaster and those ugly things won't remain there?

And Tubeman, South Kensington has direct platform access since the platforms are on top of each other, I know this for sure, it's in that Doug Rose's book.

Do you know which stocks are the most and least reliable?

As always, thanks for replying!


----------



## svast

*Railway stations in a day*

Swede told me to use this nice thread for my question!
I will be in London in mid march and had an idea of looking at the railway stations in one day. 
So I'm looking for some good advice on the matter. And of course is there some nice station outside the city center worth visiting.

Always railways!:lol:

Now I have some photos my visit in London


----------



## iampuking

It depends on what kind of thing you're after...


----------



## sweek

svast:
Mainline railway stations: St. Pancras International, Paddington, Liverpool Street.
Tube stations: Westminster, Canary Wharf, Notting Hill Gate, Baker Street (Hammersmith and City/Circle lines), Earl's Court... I'm not sure what else to recommend here. I think this would be a very good selection of stations. If you don't mind going futher out, try Turnpike Lane or Arnos Grove for a nice Charles Holden designed station.


----------



## Smarty

Tubeman - why are people asked to not lean against the doors when travelling through the tunnels ? On the Jubilee Line (assuming it's working which is a big assumption after the past few days) it's so packed from Canary Wharf that it's impossible not to lean against the doors. What does leaning against the doors do ?


----------



## Tubeman

Smarty said:


> Tubeman - why are people asked to not lean against the doors when travelling through the tunnels ? On the Jubilee Line (assuming it's working which is a big assumption after the past few days) it's so packed from Canary Wharf that it's impossible not to lean against the doors. What does leaning against the doors do ?


It can cause the loss of the 'Doors closed visual', essentially a circuit proved when all the doors are closed which allows the motors to engage. Without it the motors won't engage, which prevents the driver from moving off with the doors open but can also cause loss of forward movement if the train is so packed people are pushing against the doors. It also happens if someone has a coat or scarf stuck in the doors.

The doors initially close enough for the 'Doors closed visual' to illuminate so the driver pulls off, but the momentum of the train pulling away causes the doors to open a fraction more and the visual is lost along with power to the motors. This causes a lurch often mistaken for brakes being applied accompanied by a loud 'pop' on some stocks. It's less common on newer stocks and commoner on 67, 72 and 73 stocks which have old fashioned air-operated doors combined with jerky acceleration.

The 'pop' on these stocks is the air-operated linebreakers slamming across to shut off power to the motors: it needs to be a rapid and forceful motion to stop and arc being drawn which could fuse the linebreakers shut.


----------



## sarflonlad

Do you happen to know what happened to those hydrogen buses they were using on Route 25?

I know it's not a tube question, but you seemed a good port of call...


----------



## Smarty

Tubeman said:


> It can cause the loss of the 'Doors closed visual', essentially a circuit proved when all the doors are closed which allows the motors to engage. Without it the motors won't engage, which prevents the driver from moving off with the doors open but can also cause loss of forward movement if the train is so packed people are pushing against the doors. It also happens if someone has a coat or scarf stuck in the doors.
> 
> The doors initially close enough for the 'Doors closed visual' to illuminate so the driver pulls off, but the momentum of the train pulling away causes the doors to open a fraction more and the visual is lost along with power to the motors. This causes a lurch often mistaken for brakes being applied accompanied by a loud 'pop' on some stocks. It's less common on newer stocks and commoner on 67, 72 and 73 stocks which have old fashioned air-operated doors combined with jerky acceleration.
> 
> The 'pop' on these stocks is the air-operated linebreakers slamming across to shut off power to the motors: it needs to be a rapid and forceful motion to stop and arc being drawn which could fuse the linebreakers shut.


Thanks. 

And what causes power supply problems / traction problems ?


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> Do you happen to know what happened to those hydrogen buses they were using on Route 25?
> 
> I know it's not a tube question, but you seemed a good port of call...


Dunno... I used to see them at Waterloo on an experimental route a couple of years ago but they seem to have disappeared... I know they were very expensive. Looks really cool to see steam coming out of the top of a bus though!


----------



## Tubeman

Smarty said:


> Thanks.
> 
> And what causes power supply problems / traction problems ?


Traction current is split into sections normally about 4 or 5 stations long with a substation at each end. If there are a lot of trains in a section and they all 'wind up' at once the circuit breakers can trip in the substation, but they reset immediately normally. There can also be surges which knock out the breakers and can be more damaging (e.g. to train equipment). I dunno if the latter is what happened on the Jubilee Line yesterday...


----------



## iampuking

When on the Jubilee line yesterday, half the lights were off!


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> When on the Jubilee line yesterday, half the lights were off!


Assuming the Jubilee stock are like the more archaic stocks I know better, this means the 'Motor Alternators' in one of the motor cars wasn't working.

The trains receive 630V from the current rails which power the motors, compressors (for air pressure) and the Motor Alternators (MAs). The MAs convert the 630V DC traction current into 110V AC for the car lighting and 50V DC for power & control circuits (essentially transformers).

Each train is usually made up of 2 units with a motor car at each end, and each motor car has an MA on it which supplies power for the lighting up one side of that unit. This basically means that if you see cars with lighting up one side only then the MA on one of the motor cars isn't working.

You see a similar effect briefly when a train passes over points or rail gaps, as each motor car comes off 'juice' half the car lights on that unit blink out as power is cut to the MAs before being restored again.


----------



## iampuking

I thought it had something to do with the power problems earlier, but this seems to make more sense... The lights on the trains weren't off on one side though, it was alternating from one on on one side and one on on the other side, if you get what I mean.


----------



## Tubeman

^^
Was the train moving?

If the traction current goes off then a smattering of strip lights remain on through battery power (Emergency lighting)... But obviously if the train was moving this wouldn't be the reason.


----------



## iampuking

The train was moving, and it was for the whole journey...

On another note, do you know why the sub-surface lines don't have suicide pits?


----------



## Acemcbuller

Once when appraching Seven Sisters on a train that was to terminate there, the driver decided to flick the lights several times to tell everyone that. This of course plunged the whole training in to darkness!


----------



## juanico

A question to the Tubeman or anyone who has the answer: how long does it take one to ride the whole Jubilee line end to end? Same question with Bakerloo line.


----------



## Songoten2554

i seen some large Railway yards but wow those are massive.

so the ones that exist now are on the London Underground Jubliee line and the other line as well?

i thought Main Line Railway Yards are way more bigger then Metro Yards?

isn't the Channel Tunnel Railway Yard Large and in Epic Scale?


----------



## Winterstar

Hi Tubeman,

Question regarding 1992 stock: Having read a bit of this thread and elsewhere, the impression is that the '92 stock seems to be deteriorating, or at least not predicted to have the longetivity of other tube stock. What are the reasons for this, technical or otherwise?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Bloody hell, it's massive!


Kingmoor yard only remained open for 9 years as a marshalling yard, part of it remains open today as a fan of dead-end engineering sidings but the rest of the vast series of yards can be made out on Google earth (to the north-west of the city of Carlisle to the west of the WCML).

Margam's completely gone, but can be traced on Google earth (to the south of Port Talbot).


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> i seen some large Railway yards but wow those are massive.
> 
> so the ones that exist now are on the London Underground Jubliee line and the other line as well?
> 
> i thought Main Line Railway Yards are way more bigger then Metro Yards?
> 
> isn't the Channel Tunnel Railway Yard Large and in Epic Scale?


Freight traffic has dwindled so much in the UK that the huge marshalling yards I posted are a distant memory.

Freight used to be loaded onto separate wagons at goods stations and factories across the country before being concentrated at facilities like these and the wagons 'marshalled' into trains depending on their ultimate destination, so for example coal from South Wales destined for the East End of London might run from the colliery to Margam Yard, be marshalled into a London-bound train, run to Temple Mills Yard, then be marshalled into a smaller train to run to a local coal depot where merchants sold the coal to local customers.

Freight was revolutionised after the 1960's when containerisation came into force, which essentially removed the need for any marshalling as containers can be simply plucked off the back of trains without the wagons being shunted around. Local goods stations (which were once found at most UK stations) were generally all closed between about 1965 and 1970 with a handful surviving after that, so whereas freight trains once consisted of dozens of mixed short wagons and vans, after the 1970's they generally were trains of one raw material (e.g. coal, stone, oil) or trains of containers.

This removed the need for these vast marshalling yards often within a decade of their being built.

The Channel Tunnel yard is modest in comparison to those I posted before, as containers are simply carried straight through the tunnel between Europe and the UK without any need for transfer or sorting.


----------



## Tubeman

Winterstar said:


> Hi Tubeman,
> 
> Question regarding 1992 stock: Having read a bit of this thread and elsewhere, the impression is that the '92 stock seems to be deteriorating, or at least not predicted to have the longetivity of other tube stock. What are the reasons for this, technical or otherwise?


Sadly I guess it was not built robust enough to cope with the punishment of running ATO... The 92 Stock accelerate and brake very quickly and seems to be struggling somewhat with the stresses and strains of this.

It was the swansong of BREL (British Rail Engineering Ltd) up in Derby before it was taken over by Bombardier.


----------



## Justme

^ interesting, thanks Tubeman. Do you know why such large yards still exist in the US? If containers made them unnessesary, what are their purposes there?


----------



## Trainman Dave

Justme said:


> ^ interesting, thanks Tubeman. Do you know why such large yards still exist in the US? If containers made them unnessesary, what are their purposes there?


Freight is still the primary emphasis of the North American railroads. Carload traffic is not yet on the decline in North America to the extent it disappeared in the UK and Europe. Freight travels much long distances in North America than Europe and the distribution patterns still support concentration and deconcentration of carload traffic in large yards.


----------



## Tubeman

Trainman Dave said:


> Freight is still the primary emphasis of the North American railroads. Carload traffic is not yet on the decline in North America to the extent it disappeared in the UK and Europe. Freight travels much long distances in North America than Europe and the distribution patterns still support concentration and deconcentration of carload traffic in large yards.


Yes I think it's the distances that are key... It would be pointless for a UK company like Tesco to transport goods by rail if they're only going to be moved <100 miles from distribution depots before being loaded onto lorries to go to individual stores anyway... may as well make the entire journey by road as at least it's door to door.

In the US where it's a matter of thousands of miles it's more effective.


----------



## iampuking

I went through Gloucester Road station on the Piccadilly line, and noticed that over there had been grey boards slapped over the tiling. I assume that these grey boards are going to be where the new advertising will be projected onto. My question is: Why go through all of the trouble of restoring the Yerkes tiles, methodically recreating the pattern, only to slap advertising over it? Who is responsible for it (and could I have their address ) Surely something that is actually infitting with the architecture would be better...


----------



## Tubeman

^^
No it can't be the projection advertising, they project from behind waiting passengers onto the trackside wall from a projector unit suspended from the ceiling.

I had an interesting presentation last week from the company behind the cross-platform projection advertising as they want to roll it out at a couple of Bakerloo locations. I saw the list of stations due to get it next, and Gloucester Rd wasn't one of them. They're going to go for the busiest platforms only and I don't think Gloucester Road is especially busy comapred to many other stations.


----------



## iampuking

But why did they feel the need to put them over the tiling, why bother at all with restoring it...

And why are only Bakerloo line stations receiving the new style of advertisement?

thanks for your replies.

EDIT: sounded unintentionally rude!


----------



## Martin S

They have projection advertising in the Victoria Line station at Euston. In these days of plasma screens it seems rather old fashioned and, although the heat generated by a projector is not that great, I thought the tunnels could do without it.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> But why did they feel the need to put them over the tiling, why bother at all with restoring it...
> 
> And why are only Bakerloo line stations receiving the new style of advertisement?
> 
> thanks for your replies.
> 
> EDIT: sounded unintentionally rude!


Errr as I said the cross-platform projection advertising can't be the reason for anything being fixed in front of any tiling, the projections will be onto the blank wallspace currently covered in wet posters.

Maybe it's one of the new plasmas? In which case yes I guess it is a poor show to have it fixed over restored tiling, I suppose they get away with it as it's 'temporary'.

Only two Bakerloo platforms are getting Cross platform projections if I remember correctly (Oxo and Picc), the others of the first wave of installations are spread across central London stations. As Martin S rightly says, the pilot is at Euston on the Vic line.


----------



## Songoten2554

i wonder something tubeman?

why is it the government doesn't want to expand Electrification to Bristol Temple meads? i mean not with crossrail but an intercity route like the WCML and the ECML.

and also why doesn't the midland Mainline get Electrified to Sheffiled and to Leeds it would make more sense since i see Electrified overhead wires at St Pancras on the Midland Mainline side of the station?

also why they won't electrify also the Chiltern Main Line as well with it to Birmingham Snow Hill station?


----------



## Tubeman

^^
One word: money

A lot of money has just been invested in new diesel trains for these routes too.

I guess the Midland Mainline would be the most logical as it's electrified as far north as Bedford anyway, and the north end of the route meets wires again ex-ECML.

The GWR mainline will have its electrification pushed westwards to wherever the western end of Crossrail ends up (ideally Reading I guess), and I'd like to see it continue up the Birmingham Line via Oxford as again at the northern end the line re-joines electrified routes at Birmingham. If it's extended out to Bedwyn then all but the long-distance servcies to Wales and the West Country could be electrified.


----------



## Songoten2554

Electrification is expensive but it was done before in the past i wonder why is it so expensive now but in the past it was cheaper i don't get it?


----------



## Tubeman

The wave of electrification was mostly a part of the huge modernisation of British Rail in the 1960's. Thousands of miles of track and thousands of stations were sacrificed while the main lines were upgraded: the savings made from closing loss-making branch lines funded the electrification of the WCML, LTSR, GER etc.


----------



## Songoten2554

will there be another major wave of upgrades like that soon?


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> will there be another major wave of upgrades like that soon?


The last was the WCML (which was already electrified, it just had its track upgraded for pendolinos and some junction remodelled), this cost an obsecene amount of money (several billion £), and previous to that was the ECML electrification of the 1990's. I guess that as a large chunk of any funding will be sunk into Crossrail 1 we won't see any significant upgrade of an intercity route any time soon.

I guess the GWR main line would be next and the Midland main line last, but I suppose a significant proportion of the UK's railways will never be electrified.


----------



## U Thant

Tubeman said:


> I guess the GWR main line would be next and the Midland main line last, but I suppose a significant proportion of the UK's railways will never be electrified.


The GWML isn't a good candidate - it has too many branches that'd you'd have to either do them all or still run lots of diesel trains.

The economic benefits of electrification aren't great, and given modern diesel trains are almost as quiet and fast and energy efficient as electric ones, there just isn't much of a case for doing it. That said, small scale projects on busy lines that make better use of existing electrification (eg Manchester-Preston and Maidenhead-Oxford/Newbury) are still plausible under current government thinking.

The WCML upgrade is still ongoing btw. It supposedly finishes this December when Virgin will introduce a much more frequent timetable and slightly faster journey times.


----------



## lasdun

There is the Morgan Tube, which was to be built into Hackney. Some of the Northern Heights lines would go quite far north east. The Fleet line would have run into Docklands or Lewisham (ended up being the jubilee) and the Bakerloo was to further south east to camberwell, as was the Victoria which was heading for Croyden.

I personaly don't feel the east is badly served, certainly not after the East London Railway extensions are finished. The Hackney-Chelsea line is the missing piece of the puzzel.


----------



## zfreeman

lasdun said:


> There is the Morgan Tube, which was to be built into Hackney. Some of the Northern Heights lines would go quite far north east. The Fleet line would have run into Docklands or Lewisham (ended up being the jubilee) and the Bakerloo was to further south east to camberwell, as was the Victoria which was heading for Croyden.
> 
> I personaly don't feel the east is badly served, certainly not after the East London Railway extensions are finished. The Hackney-Chelsea line is the missing piece of the puzzel.


I know about the Morgan Tube idea, which was later developed into the Chelsea-Hackney tube/crossrail 2 idea, and also feel it would overcome some of the transport issues in the area

It's not that East London is badly served, with quite a sizeable national rail service in SE London, and Docklands has the DLR, but it still leaves quite a sizeable portion of NE London with poor access to rail services in comparison to West London, which is one of the reasons I asked the question to try and find out whether as in other issues during the 19th Century East London remains the poorer half of London.

As for ideas to add additional services (I know financing is not forthcoming at this time) I feel opening additional rail services along the former lea bridge line and converting the chingford line to DLR type services would be a step in the right direction.


----------



## sarflonlad

Mr Tubeman,

There is a test bore tunnel around New Cross for what was suppose to be the Fleet Line...

Do you happen to know what this tunnel is being used for now? And can you imagine a situation where they build a line that would use this tunnel?


----------



## Tubeman

sarflonlad said:


> Mr Tubeman,
> 
> There is a test bore tunnel around New Cross for what was suppose to be the Fleet Line...
> 
> Do you happen to know what this tunnel is being used for now? And can you imagine a situation where they build a line that would use this tunnel?


To my knowledge it's not used for anything: it was to be the northbound Fleet line tunnel between Lewisham and New Cross and was the pilot for an experimental tunnelling technique. It's about 200m long and I hear ends under Lewisham Shopping centre.

Maybe it can be turned into the country's longest poundstore? 

I can't see its alignment being of any use... even if the Bakerloo is extended to Lewisham its direction is wrong to be utilised for that.


----------



## zfreeman

Hey tubeman,

Since Northern Rail is going to be trialling Tram Trains on a line the Penistone Line in South and West Yorkshire, do you foresee them being used in the London area to take over less frequently serviced lines?

The line in question is 37 miles long, has 17 stations and is used by 1.2 million passengers but service is only by one train an hour


----------



## Tubeman

Tram trains? Like the ones on Croydon Tramlink?


----------



## U Thant

Yes, but diesel. The DfT are proposing to introduce them on relatively lightly used rail routes to reduce costs and improve frequency and ambience. As their name implies, they're also capable of on-street running, which has interesting possibilities for turning the country's urban rail networks into light rail systems cheaply.

I don't think there's anywhere much in London they could usefully run, except possibly the GWML branch line shuttles. They just don't have the capacity to replace existing services, and there are few unused lines or new lines they could run on.


----------



## Acemcbuller

*BTP calls*

Hi Tubeman

How come tube station staff have to request help from British Transport Police using the public address system? Surely then they don't know if anyone is responding or not? What's wrong with a phone call to the BTP control centre or a direct radio link?

James


----------



## zfreeman

Tubeman said:


> Tram trains? Like the ones on Croydon Tramlink?


The example system given in the publicity details is the system in Kassel, which use three car low floor Alstom Regio Citadis trams which as far as I am aware in other cities which use them are classed as Trams not trains.


----------



## Tubeman

Acemcbuller said:


> Hi Tubeman
> 
> How come tube station staff have to request help from British Transport Police using the public address system? Surely then they don't know if anyone is responding or not? What's wrong with a phone call to the BTP control centre or a direct radio link?
> 
> James


It's all bluster: It's a pretty standard message to get rid of touts or unruly passengers when they know full well there aren't any BTP on the station. You can see the logic: you have a drunk wanker or tout in the concourse so you make that announcement in the hope they hear it and move on.


----------



## Acemcbuller

Ah, cunning!
Thanks Tubeman.

Can you help me understand what the point of the BTP is?
Why can the regular police not handle the role of the BTP? Do the BTP get training in rail safety or something?

James


----------



## Tubeman

Acemcbuller said:


> Ah, cunning!
> Thanks Tubeman.
> 
> Can you help me understand what the point of the BTP is?
> Why can the regular police not handle the role of the BTP? Do the BTP get training in rail safety or something?
> 
> James


The BTP were set up because policing is split into authorities (e.g. Met, Thames Valley, etc) and by definition railways travel between authorities thus demanding a 'mobile' authority with jurisdiction everywhere (but only on railways, buses etc). I guess they have some additional specific railway-related training too.

The frustration is you can have a Met police station right outside a Tube station and need a policeman quick, and have to wait 45 minutes for the nearest BTP officers to amble down. Rather unkindly the 'BTP' is said to stand for 'Be there possibly / probably' amongst Tube staff.

I'm not 100% sure how it works, because if there's a serious crime then the demarcarcation seems to disappear and Met offciers will happily rush onto the Tube to apprehend a fleeing criminal (or pump his head full of lead like at Stockwell!).

It's a bit messy really... I think that as the Tube is 95% within the Met's area of juridiction we should be covered by them, thus having much quicker response times.


----------



## Acemcbuller

Tubeman said:


> The BTP were set up because policing is split into authorities (e.g. Met, Thames Valley, etc) and by definition railways travel between authorities thus demanding a 'mobile' authority with jurisdiction everywhere (but only on railways, buses etc).


I sort of see the idea. But that's the difference between USA and UK - a police office in the UK has jurisdiction everywhere in the UK, not just in their county. So it's more responsibility for dealing with incidents in their area rather than being the only ones with power in their area.

BTP website
BTP Wikipedia

According to those sources they don't cover buses or docks any more just railways. Sounds like the Met and TFL would like the BTP done away with like you. I would have thought they could operate like the traffic divisions of regular forces. That is they have specialist jobs but get involved in all the regular stuff too.


----------



## micro

I don't know if this question was asked before: 
Why is there a rule that passengers should stand *on the right *on escalators? Isn't that counterintuitive in a country where the cars drive on the left? I've just seen a short video of London in the 1920s where signs "Please stand on the right" were visible, so it's not a new thing.


----------



## DarJoLe

micro said:


> I don't know if this question was asked before:
> Why is there a rule that passengers should stand *on the right *on escalators? Isn't that counterintuitive in a country where the cars drive on the left? I've just seen a short video of London in the 1920s where signs "Please stand on the right" were visible, so it's not a new thing.


I'd imagine it's because people hold the escalator side with their right hand.


----------



## Tubeman

micro said:


> I don't know if this question was asked before:
> Why is there a rule that passengers should stand *on the right *on escalators? Isn't that counterintuitive in a country where the cars drive on the left? I've just seen a short video of London in the 1920s where signs "Please stand on the right" were visible, so it's not a new thing.


I don't quite get your point... if people are used to driving on the left, then surely walking down the left side of escalators makes sense?


----------



## Justme

Tubeman said:


> I don't quite get your point... if people are used to driving on the left, then surely walking down the left side of escalators makes sense?


It could be that people stand on the right in Europe, and as London get's so many European travellers, it would serve no purpose with half the people standing on the right, and the other half standing on the left.


----------



## micro

Tubeman said:


> I don't quite get your point... if people are used to driving on the left, then surely walking down the left side of escalators makes sense?


Driving on the left means passing on the right. Standing on the right on escalators means passing on the left. That's my picture of it, and it seems like a contradiction.


----------



## micro

DarJoLe said:


> I'd imagine it's because people hold the escalator side with their right hand.


That might explain it. Clinging to the handrail with the right hand might have been crucial back in the 1920s when the escalator ride was still bumpier.


----------



## zfreeman

Hi tubeman,

A question regarding the ELL Southern Extensions.

There was formally a bridge going over Surrey Canal Road taking trains to New Cross and New Cross Gate over the course of two or three weekends earlier this year the bridge was removed. I have since noticed a huge iron thing further down the track beyond the new depot. Do you know whether this the replacement bridge (it looks too long from what I can see?) or whether this is the 'flyover' to connect the extension to the current Southern Tracks south of New Cross Gate?


----------



## Tubeman

zfreeman said:


> Hi tubeman,
> 
> A question regarding the ELL Southern Extensions.
> 
> There was formally a bridge going over Surrey Canal Road taking trains to New Cross and New Cross Gate over the course of two or three weekends earlier this year the bridge was removed. I have since noticed a huge iron thing further down the track beyond the new depot. Do you know whether this the replacement bridge (it looks too long from what I can see?) or whether this is the 'flyover' to connect the extension to the current Southern Tracks south of New Cross Gate?


Yes I believe that would be the new flyover adjacent to the new depot at New Cross Gate, it's due to be lifted into place in May. Incidentally, I understand the new bridge across Shoreditch High Street was due to be lifted into place yesterday.


----------



## U Thant

The new bridge at Surrey Canal Road will be a like-for-like replacement with a simple flat deck. I haven't figured out why the old one was demolished.


----------



## Tubeman

U Thant said:


> The new bridge at Surrey Canal Road will be a like-for-like replacement with a simple flat deck. I haven't figured out why the old one was demolished.


Assumedly life-expired


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman, I noticed that at the end of the platforms on the Central line (where the driver will look forwards when at the station, terrible description I know) I noticed that the signal had three colours, red, green and white, do you know what the white one is for?


----------



## Tubeman

Most platforms would just have the white light I believe, I'm guessing other aspects are only available if there are points beyond the platform. All it indicates is that the train ahead has got far enough away that the driver can close the doors and press 'go' I think.


----------



## iampuking

So a green means the train can carry on to the next station and a white means the train can leave but may have to slow down or stop in the tunnels? I think you're right because the lights went from red, to white and then to green.


----------



## cle

Are they doing a sly Hampstead Heath skank by putting Shoreditch High St in zone 1?


----------



## sweek

cle said:


> Are they doing a sly Hampstead Heath skank by putting Shoreditch High St in zone 1?


No...? And Hampstead Heath has also been moved back into zone 2 as of January this year.


----------



## zfreeman

U Thant said:


> The new bridge at Surrey Canal Road will be a like-for-like replacement with a simple flat deck. I haven't figured out why the old one was demolished.


Would have been nice to have something with a little more style to it since the area will be ripe for regeneration/conversion for more small scale commercial and residential once phase two comes online.


----------



## Songoten2554

wow the London Underground has had a long history of things its huge.

umm so how is the East London Railway Construction going is there pictures of it?

also can anyone put pictures of Healthrow Terminal 5 and also about the new platforms and the new transport system at Heathrow?


----------



## Tubeman

Here's the new bridge being swung into place across Shoreditch High Street a couple of weeks ago:










...And in situ:










Construction near Dalston:










...Near Hoxton:










...The site of the old Shoreditch station, crossing the east end of Old Street:










Work on the New Cross gate flyover and depot:


----------



## Tubeman

Hmmm the last lot don't seem to be working, this is the Flickr set I nicked them from:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72057594093830603/


----------



## U Thant

Songoten2554 said:


> umm so how is the East London Railway Construction going is there pictures of it?


I've got a load of recent ones on my blog:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/2008/03/east-london-line-progress-photos-april.html



> also can anyone put pictures of Healthrow Terminal 5 and also about the new platforms and the new transport system at Heathrow?


Terminal 5 station:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/2008/03/sunrise-at-heathrow-terminal-5.html

UltraPRT:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/2008/03/heathrow-ultra-prt.html


----------



## Songoten2554

yeah that good great progress its finally happening at least.


----------



## Songoten2554

umm where is everybody?


----------



## Tubeman

I'm here


----------



## silicon

hey guys ,,,i need to know how do i get the imperial war museum by tube from the hearthrow airport


----------



## iampuking

Piccadilly line eastbound to Piccadilly Circus, Bakerloo line southbound to Lambeth North.


----------



## silicon

thanks^^^^^^^^


----------



## iampuking

It's all right...


----------



## Tubeman

Martin S said:


> On this subject of electrification, I recently went to the Covent Garden Transport Museum and was mystified by one of the exhibits. It was a glass floor with a representation of the four rails of the tube lines, which lit up if you stood on a rail that was electrified. All four rails apparently could electrocute people who were to come in contact with them.
> 
> That seemed strange to me. The outer rail I understand is the high voltage conductor, the centre rail the return conductor and the two running rails I would have thought would have been at the same potential as the train so that anyone coming in contact with the metalwork of the train could therefore become electrocuted. Perhaps the intention of the exhibit was to warn people against trespassing on the railway.
> 
> In a third rail system, such as is used in the London area and on Merseyrail, the conductor rail is at 750v and the running rails, which are the return conductors, are ostensibly at earth potential. However, as there is not a clear path to earth from the running rails, leakage can occur through metallic objects such as the cast-iron lining of a tunnel, or signalling equipment, which can promote corrosion or signalling problems. The idea of the fourth rail is that it will act as a return conductor by being at a potential significantly below local earth potential so that it is the natural path for the return current.
> 
> Have to say though that before I knew much about how these trains operated, the four rails on the London Underground always fascinated me. I used to wonder which rails the trains actually ran on or whether they had four sets of wheels that ran on each rail.


There are small 5-10V currents running through the 'Running' (i.e. lower and not resting on insulating pots) rails, associated with signalling circuits. Technically therefore all 4 rails are 'live' to a point, but the Running rails have nothing to do with Traction current return, this would frazzle the signalling circuits.

PS I'm back from Vietnam


----------



## Songoten2554

i am amazed how london is changed and is changing its really cool to see that happening.

St Pancras Station looks marvelous and it will be even more grander when the five star hotel opens and also the domestic HSR will open.

i like the thameslink St Pancras Station it looks like airport station even the annoucements look like an airport.

the East London line is going to be the East London Railway from a little stub to a more functional regional Rail line.

also the opening of Terminal 5 which is awesome oh man such exciting times for the UK also Endiberth is having a Tram network as well.

Tubeman how was your trip to Vietnam i have a fear of flying though.


----------



## Tubeman

^^
I think you mean Edinburgh 

Vietnam was ace... If anything will cure you of a fear of flying it's Vietnam's roads... you're glad to get on a plane.


----------



## Acemcbuller

*Old 1967 stock on the Victoria line*

Hi Tubeman

Any idea what will happen to the old 1967 stock on the Victoria line when it is replaced by 2009 stock?

James


----------



## sweek

Acemcbuller said:


> Hi Tubeman
> 
> Any idea what will happen to the old 1967 stock on the Victoria line when it is replaced by 2009 stock?
> 
> James


Possibly moved to the Bakerloo to allow it to be extended to Watford Junction.


----------



## iampuking

Welcome back Tubeman, did you go to North or South Vietnam...?


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> Possibly moved to the Bakerloo to allow it to be extended to Watford Junction.


Sadly this won't be happening: it is not deemed cost-beneficial to spend the money converting the '67 Stock for Manual operation for what might only be 8 years use on the Bakerloo. At best the '67 stocks will simply be cannibalised as a supply of parts for the '72 MkI Stock.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Welcome back Tubeman, did you go to North or South Vietnam...?


Both 

Started in the south and worked northwards

4 nights Ho Chi Minh (Saigon) including trips to the Mekong Delta and Chu Chi (Viet Cong tunnels)

Flew HCM > Da Lat

1 night Da Lat

Drove Da Lat > Nha Trang

2 nights Nha Trang

Flew Nha Trang > Da Nang

2 nights Hoi An

Drove Hoi An > Hue

1 night Hue

Flew Hue > Hanoi

3 nights Hanoi including trip to Ha Long Bay

Flew Hanoi > Da Nang

4 more nights Hoi An at a resort

It's a magnificent country, really varied. The starkest illustration was probably the drive from Da Lat to Nha Trang, Da Lat nestles on a tranquil lake 1,000m up surrounded by pine forests and 3 hours later we were on a stunning palm-fringed beach via some of the most spectacular mountain passes I've been through, with about a 10C difference in temperature. Saigon and Hanoi are great, buzzing cities with some beautiful architecture and parks and the ancient city of Hue is stunning as is the old town of Hoi An.

A hearty Tubeman thumbs-up

If you go, set aside 2 weeks for touring if you want to see the country anywhere close to properly. There are some fantastic resorts for R&R too, we stayed at the Nam Hai, Hoi An:



















^^
Each villa has its own pool out front overlooking the beach


----------



## iampuking

I was about to ask what it was like visting a communist country, then I realised that was North Korea :nuts:

It looks like you had a great time, though!


----------



## Cherguevara

iampuking said:


> I was about to ask what it was like visting a communist country, then I realised that was North Korea :nuts:
> 
> It looks like you had a great time, though!


Vietnam is a communist country. Nominally at least. Also there is no north Vietnam/South Vietnam any more, there's just Vietnam.


----------



## zfreeman

Just a question or two about the Bakerloo line.

I know there is plan to extend it once again to watford. 

1. Why did they decide to alter the terminus to Harrow and Wealdstone? was it just a money thing??

2. Are the plans firmed up to renew the link to watford, do they plan on it being sometime soon??

My finally question is one regarding the proposed Camberwell Extension, this has been on the drawing board now for almost 80 years and yet nothing much has been done about it, people talk about it yet as far as I'm aware this isn't even on TfL 2025 agenda.

Do you feel it is a viable extension or just one of those things that is always taked about but never actioned - a little like CrossRail used to be?

Glad to hear you enjoyed Vietnam - its a beautiful part of the world. Loved it when i went a few years ago and would love to go back and see more.


----------



## elfabyanos

iampuking said:


> Great, now that i've got your essay writing in tune could you explain to all of us why AirTrack is not allowed to have three rail electrification despite the fact that it'll be using 21st century technology (probably with concrete tunnels), and full size loading guage? No malice intended.


Someone said earlier (somewhere) that overhead ac systems ground to earth, through the rails, which are earthed, but on 750v DC southern system the rails are connected back to the substation to earth? Possibly a rectification design issue? IF that is the case, and I have absolutely nothing but a vague idea that it is, then it wouldn't be possible to have the same earth for both systems. that would also mean that at existing changeover sections like Farringdon they are isolated from the normal circuits, and earth in a specific way, indeed the 3rd rail could be rectified from the overhead ac power source and not have the earth conflict.


----------



## Tubeman

zfreeman said:


> Just a question or two about the Bakerloo line.
> 
> I know there is plan to extend it once again to watford.
> 
> 1. Why did they decide to alter the terminus to Harrow and Wealdstone? was it just a money thing??
> 
> 2. Are the plans firmed up to renew the link to watford, do they plan on it being sometime soon??
> 
> My finally question is one regarding the proposed Camberwell Extension, this has been on the drawing board now for almost 80 years and yet nothing much has been done about it, people talk about it yet as far as I'm aware this isn't even on TfL 2025 agenda.
> 
> Do you feel it is a viable extension or just one of those things that is always taked about but never actioned - a little like CrossRail used to be?
> 
> Glad to hear you enjoyed Vietnam - its a beautiful part of the world. Loved it when i went a few years ago and would love to go back and see more.


The Bakerloo was cut back from Watford Jcn to Stonebridge Park in 1982 really due to lack of patronage, and the only reason Stonebridge Park and not Queen's Park was that the main Bakerloo Depot is there so some trains ran beyond Queen's Park out of necessity.

A raft of service cut-backs across LT were introduced as an economy in 1982, and this meant that the depot at Croxley Green (shared by BR and the Bakerloo Line, uniquely) was able to close and therefore there was no point maintaining any service beyond Stonebridge park.

The cut-back prompted sufficient complaints from passengers to prompt re-extension beyond Stonebridge park in 1984, but Harrow & Wealdstone was deemed the most cost-beneficial terminus as stations north are lightly used serving low-density 1930's suburbs, and no-one realistically would use the Bakerloo to get into London from Watford when fast BR trains are available.

The only thing stopping the Watford re-extension is rolling stock: the Bakerloo hasn't enough. I have already discussed before that the idea of converting retired Victoria Line 1967 stock has been dismissed as too costly. Maybe the Piccadilly 1973 stock could be cascaded to the Bakerloo, but this is deemed life-expired and might have tunnel clearance issues being 6 longer cars rather than 7 shorter cars. The logic is to withdraw entirely the slow Watford-Euston BR service, and have a stub of the NLL serving the two stations left out (South Hampstead and Kilburn High Rd), terminating at Queen's Park.

This segregates the Bakerloo Line and BR services, increasing reliability and giving a better service north of Queen's park.

There is a southern extension on the drawing board with a delivery date of 2025 mooted. I doubt it will ever materialise, certainly not by then. It would serve Camberwell, Peckham, Nunhead, Brockley and Lewisham before taking over the Hayes BR branch via Ladywell, Catford etc.


----------



## Tubeman

elfabyanos said:


> Someone said earlier (somewhere) that overhead ac systems ground to earth, through the rails, which are earthed, but on 750v DC southern system the rails are connected back to the substation to earth? Possibly a rectification design issue? IF that is the case, and I have absolutely nothing but a vague idea that it is, then it wouldn't be possible to have the same earth for both systems. that would also mean that at existing changeover sections like Farringdon they are isolated from the normal circuits, and earth in a specific way, indeed the 3rd rail could be rectified from the overhead ac power source and not have the earth conflict.


It's still baffling as much of the North London Line was dual 25Kv AC / 750V DC electrified for many years so I am confused how the current return would happen.

I know that on 'normal' 25Kv AC OLE track there are earth bonds from the running rail into the ground every so often (painted bright red, so you know not to touch them), but I don't know how it works if the 3rd Rail DC and OLE AC returns are both being fed back to the same runing rail.

3rd Rail systems definitely do return to the substation via a running rail, as on the East Putney - Wimbledon section of the District Line the Middle 4th 'Negative' rail is just a dummy bonded to the runnning rail to allow LU 4th rail trains to run over 3rd rail electirified track (fed from Raynes Park NR substation).


----------



## Martin S

I'm not 100% sure of this but the traction return on a 25kV OLE network is via the return conductor which is a cable normally slung along the backs of the masts and with an electrical potential of around 3000v. This is sometimes insulated where it would be within touching distance. 

Current return is via the red bonds that run to the return conductor from the running rail. At intervals, there are booster transformers which maintain the voltage in the return conductor. As the voltage in the conductor is well above (or below) earth potential, stray currents are prevented.


----------



## MoritzCH

*Door Closing Noises*

Hi, My first post here and I apologize if what I ask has been answered before, I haven't had time to run though the many pages of this thread. If there are answers, please direct me to them.

First, on my two total trips to London, I really liked the "chirping" noises that went with the doors closing, on all different lines, though I liked the D78 Stock and the 1995/1996 TS ones the best. I was wondering, where did these originate and how did they come into use. Is there somewhere that I can find all the beeping chimes? Oh, and I also liked some of the "door opening" chimes that work too. 

Secondly, would the interchage between Jubilee and Piccadilly Lines at Green Park be a Hassle on a Monday at around 2 or 3 in the afternoon for tourists toting some luggage heading for Heathrow? Would it be better to take the Met line up away from Central London and then change for a Piccadilly line heading back down to Heathrow after an interchange at Acton Town? (Originating at Finchley Road) 

Also, any tips for a Heathrow Terminals 1-2-3 to North Acton trip on a weekday with luggage around 12? I was thinking of taking the Piccadilly to Acton Town, a District to Ealing Bdy and then the Central back to North Acton. 

Many Thanks


----------



## U Thant

MoritzCH said:


> Secondly, would the interchage between Jubilee and Piccadilly Lines at Green Park be a Hassle on a Monday at around 2 or 3 in the afternoon for tourists toting some luggage heading for Heathrow? Would it be better to take the Met line up away from Central London and then change for a Piccadilly line heading back down to Heathrow after an interchange at Acton Town? (Originating at Finchley Road)


You're not likely to encounter abnormally large crowds at Green Park there are lifts to get between those two lines, but note it's still a long level walk between them. I don't think going via Rayner's Lane is necessary.


> Also, any tips for a Heathrow Terminals 1-2-3 to North Acton trip on a weekday with luggage around 12? I was thinking of taking the Piccadilly to Acton Town, a District to Ealing Bdy and then the Central back to North Acton.


Heathrow Connect direct to Ealing Broadway might be the best option since it's a much more direct journey with level interchange at EB. You have to buy a separate ticket (about £5 per person single) since tube tickets, Oyster and Travelcards aren't valid. The trains are only every 30 minutes.

Your plan means going over the footbridge at Acton Town. They are installing lifts right now, but they won't be working until towards the end of the year.


----------



## U Thant

Martin S said:


> I'm not 100% sure of this but the traction return on a 25kV OLE network is via the return conductor which is a cable normally slung along the backs of the masts and with an electrical potential of around 3000v. This is sometimes insulated where it would be within touching distance.


No, in AC overhead systems the current return is via the track. Because it's AC, you don't need to worry about stray currents in the same way, since it doesn't have the same corroding effect as DC.

I think the wire on the back of the posts is the third wire of the three phase supply (power companies usually supply high voltage AC as three phase), and they swap over which is used as the overhead line to balance out the use of the phases.


----------



## Tubeman

MoritzCH said:


> Hi, My first post here and I apologize if what I ask has been answered before, I haven't had time to run though the many pages of this thread. If there are answers, please direct me to them.
> 
> First, on my two total trips to London, I really liked the "chirping" noises that went with the doors closing, on all different lines, though I liked the D78 Stock and the 1995/1996 TS ones the best. I was wondering, where did these originate and how did they come into use. Is there somewhere that I can find all the beeping chimes? Oh, and I also liked some of the "door opening" chimes that work too.
> 
> Secondly, would the interchage between Jubilee and Piccadilly Lines at Green Park be a Hassle on a Monday at around 2 or 3 in the afternoon for tourists toting some luggage heading for Heathrow? Would it be better to take the Met line up away from Central London and then change for a Piccadilly line heading back down to Heathrow after an interchange at Acton Town? (Originating at Finchley Road)
> 
> Also, any tips for a Heathrow Terminals 1-2-3 to North Acton trip on a weekday with luggage around 12? I was thinking of taking the Piccadilly to Acton Town, a District to Ealing Bdy and then the Central back to North Acton.
> 
> Many Thanks


Welcome to ssc 

Stick with U Thant's advice!

Regarding door chimes, they are motivated by catering for VIP's (as in Visually Impaired People), this is also why the doors are all red contrasting against the mostly white car bodies. They were first introduced with the first refurbishments (C Stock 1990-1994), the first stock to have them from delivery was the Central Line 1992 Stock (1993 onwards). The last stock to have them were the District D Stock, which were only fully refurbished last year.

In addition to door close chimes, the 1995, 1996 (Northern / Jubilee) and D Stock refurb also have door open alerts.

I don't know if they can be accessed online, but there are sites with general Tube noise clips so they're probably out there somewhere.


----------



## Martin S

U Thant said:


> No, in AC overhead systems the current return is via the track. Because it's AC, you don't need to worry about stray currents in the same way, since it doesn't have the same corroding effect as DC.
> 
> I think the wire on the back of the posts is the third wire of the three phase supply (power companies usually supply high voltage AC as three phase), and they swap over which is used as the overhead line to balance out the use of the phases.



Whilst I admit that my knowledge of electrical power systems is pretty sketchy, I don't think that is correct. Certainly the cable slung at the back of the masts is always referred to as the return conductor. For it to be an alternative power cable, it would have to be at a potential of 25kV and the return conductor is certainly not at that potential (as evidenced by the short insulator pots that it is suspended on).

Whilst the corrosive effect of D.C. may not be present, stray AC currents can interfere with signalling systems, which is one reason why expensive immunisation is required as a precursor to electrification.


----------



## iampuking

Surely they can put those bloody things into _some_ kind of casing...


----------



## sarflonlad

Why is the formation of the circle/wimbleware/h&C stock 4 cars with 2 drivers cabs + 2 cars with 1 drivers cab... i.e. 3 drivers cabs 

Or did I just ride an oddity on the network?


----------



## U Thant

Each unit of C stock is two cars long, with a cab at one end of one of the cars. Every train has 6 cars (ie 3 units), so every train has a third cab in the middle as you describe.

Every line has a similar setup, with each train made of several units coupled, with each unit having 2 or more carriages permanently coupled. Units can have cabs at one end, at both, or at neither. The only exception is the Jubilee and Northern where one unit is one train.


----------



## Tubeman

U Thant said:


> Each unit of C stock is two cars long, with a cab at one end of one of the cars. Every train has 6 cars (ie 3 units), so every train has a third cab in the middle as you describe.
> 
> Every line has a similar setup, with each train made of several units coupled, with each unit having 2 or more carriages permanently coupled. Units can have cabs at one end, at both, or at neither. The only exception is the Jubilee and Northern where one unit is one train.


Indeed... I'm not an expert on the newer stocks, but the older stocks are formed thus:

A & 67 Stocks = 2 x 4-car units
C Stock = 3 x 2-car units
D & 73 Stocks = 2 x 3-car units
72 Stock = 1 x 3 + 1 x 4 car units

There are three basic types of car:

Driving Motor (DM) = Has a driver's cab and traction motors
Non-driving Motor (NDM) = Has traction motors but no drivers cab*
Trailer (T) = No traction motors or cab, but Air compressors

*On some stocks (D & 73) these have rudimentary driving controls at one end inside a cabinet, in case the train needs to be split in an emergency

So the trains are formed thus:

*A & 67* = (DM)-(T)-(NDM)-(DM)---(DM)-(T)-(NDM)-(DM)

*C* = (DM)-(T)---(DM)-(T)---(T)-(DM)

*D & 73* = (DM)-(T)-(NDM)---(NDM)-(T)-(DM)*

*Or some trains = (DM)-(T)-(DM)---(DM)-(T)-(DM)

^ These double-ended units with a 'proper' cab in the middle represent about 25% of the D and 73 Stock fleets, they were built to allow 3-car trains to operate on the Aldwych shuttle and East London Line

*72* = (DM)-(T)-(NDM)-(DM)---(DM)-(T)-(DM)


----------



## funkydory

Tubeman

I'm a social historian looking for pictures of London Underground stations in the 1950's and 1960's. Its really the platforms i'm looking for-fashions, adverts for dinkapintamilkaday-that sort of thing.

Is there a website you can recommend please?

Thanks.


----------



## Tubeman

funkydory said:


> Tubeman
> 
> I'm a social historian looking for pictures of London Underground stations in the 1950's and 1960's. Its really the platforms i'm looking for-fashions, adverts for dinkapintamilkaday-that sort of thing.
> 
> Is there a website you can recommend please?
> 
> Thanks.


Hmmm not too sure, you might get some joy here, although I think the TFL photo library is more contemporary stuff than historical.


----------



## Tubeman

Just thought I'd share some info on the Victoria Line upgrade after I received a presentation today...

The first 2009 Stock train is being tested during 'Engineering hours' (i.e. after the last passenger train) and I was shown film today of it in action, running off the new radio ATO system, which is working in parallel with the existing rail-bound codes.

The service frequency will be ramped up to 33tph from the current 27, with a peak service of 43 trains leading to the logistical problem of more trains than platforms (a headache during times of service disruption e.g. a suicide).

The test train will be joined by another and they will run earlier and earlier, running alongside passenger 67 stock until later this year when they will start taking passengers. Full introduction of production line trains will commence June 2009, when the new control centre will open at Northumberland Park. This will run in parallel with the current control room at Euston until all of the 67 Stock have been withdrawn, when it will close (although remain open for the Northern Line control centre).


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Just thought I'd share some info on the Victoria Line upgrade after I received a presentation today...
> 
> The first 2009 Stock train is being tested during 'Engineering hours' (i.e. after the last passenger train) and I was shown film today of it in action, running off the new radio ATO system, which is working in parallel with the existing rail-bound codes.


Interesting... Sorry to be vague, but what was the new stock like? :nuts:

And I didn't know whether to include this in the London Underground thread or this one, but the old 1938 Stock ran on the Northern line the other day on a heritage journey, here's a good pic of it alongside the existing modern rolling stock:










There are some more pics here.


----------



## Acemcbuller

iampuking said:


> Interesting... Sorry to be vague, but what was the new stock like?


Real: http://tubesnaps.fotopic.net/c1280954.html
Mock-up: http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/gb...nd/emu-tube/Victoria/mockup/interior/pix.html


----------



## cle

Tubeman - what's with the start then emergency stop thing they do on trains when the signals are down? 

This happened to me the other day heading towards town from Gunnersbury. The driver started and then halfway through the platform, came to an abrupt stop and then went very slowly until Turnham Green.


----------



## U Thant

When a signal turns red a mechanical device (a trainstop) is raised at ground level that will operate the emergency brakes if a train tries to pass (it hits a lever on the train called a tripcock).

When a driver deliberately passes a red light, the train is tripped. The driver is then required to drive very slowly to the next signal to avoid causing an accident. This is enforced using a speed limiter on the train that applies for a fixed period after the train is tripped.

Drivers usually only do this when a signal is stuck on red and the light ahead is known to be safe.


----------



## jarbury

If the Victoria Line is the busiest (in terms of passengers per km) then how come it has forward/back facing seats as you would think it would need to fit in many standing people? Or was that just a random train I caught that was like that?


----------



## iampuking

Acemcbuller said:


> Real: http://tubesnaps.fotopic.net/c1280954.html
> Mock-up: http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/gb...nd/emu-tube/Victoria/mockup/interior/pix.html


Thanks, but I know what it looks like, I was more interested in... I don't know, the sound? There haven't been any clips of it moving, apart from a brief part in an ITV news report...


----------



## sarflonlad

Thanks for the update Tubeman!



Tubeman said:


> The service frequency will be ramped up to 33tph from the current 27, with a peak service of 43 trains leading to the logistical problem of more trains than platforms (a headache during times of service disruption e.g. a suicide).


What speed increases can we expect?

Surely with all the upgrade work, suicides are likely to be the only things causing problems? Can we look forward to having a reliable metro line like every other city now?


----------



## Gag Halfrunt

Tubeman said:


> The test train will be joined by another and they will run earlier and earlier, running alongside passenger 67 stock until later this year when they will start taking passengers. Full introduction of production line trains will commence June 2009, when the new control centre will open at Northumberland Park. This will run in parallel with the current control room at Euston until all of the 67 Stock have been withdrawn, when it will close (although remain open for the Northern Line control centre).


Are there going to be any problems running two different ATO systems at the same time?


----------



## sweek

jarbury said:


> If the Victoria Line is the busiest (in terms of passengers per km) then how come it has forward/back facing seats as you would think it would need to fit in many standing people? Or was that just a random train I caught that was like that?


I guess they didn't expect this many passengers on the line. The new stock will only have seats 'along the side'.


----------



## Tubeman

U Thant said:


> When a signal turns red a mechanical device (a trainstop) is raised at ground level that will operate the emergency brakes if a train tries to pass (it hits a lever on the train called a tripcock).
> 
> When a driver deliberately passes a red light, the train is tripped. The driver is then required to drive very slowly to the next signal to avoid causing an accident. This is enforced using a speed limiter on the train that applies for a fixed period after the train is tripped.
> 
> Drivers usually only do this when a signal is stuck on red and the light ahead is known to be safe.


I wrote a huge response to the question yesterday complete with diagrams, and got '505 Internal server error' and lost it... I could have cried.

I'll re-write it if I can be arsed, but yes you've got the basics above.


----------



## pricemazda

Is Boris right when he says that with the increase in frequency of trains will create a lot of kinetic energy and then air conditioning will be essential?


----------



## iampuking

pricemazda said:


> Is Boris right when he says that with the increase in frequency of trains will create a lot of kinetic energy and then air conditioning will be essential?


To me, someone who is not in the know, it sounds like a load of tosh. An increase in trains will mean more draughts, which is a good thing in this weather! And the increase isn't _that_ much, only from 28tph to 33tph (trains her hour).


----------



## Justme

^^ I have no idea what Boris is going on about, but I would imagine he didn't come up with that himself, instead probably through some "expert". Then again, I never trust these "experts" either 

I would be inclinded to agree with you iampuking, but then what do I know.


----------



## Tubeman

DanielFigFoz said:


> Thats alot of trains!


A bit of a cheat to be honest...

56, 59 and 62 were essentially the same train as were 72 Mk I and II and C69 / C77.

As a driver I've only effectively driven 4 stocks:

56/59/62 (Northern)
1972 Mk I (Northern)
C69/C77 (District)
D78 (District)

The 67 stock was pushing it, as I said (I've just pressed the 'start' buttons), and I've done a couple of trips on 1972 MkII stock on my new line because I'm a nerd and like driving trains. If I do, I need to be accompanied by an instructor.


----------



## hegneypl

Tubeman said:


> Hello! And welcome to SSC
> 
> I never had the chance to drive any of those prototypes, that honour would have been bestowed upon the dedicated Test train drivers. I've driven a few stocks in my time though, some now gone:
> 
> 1956 Stock (1959 Stock prototype)*
> 1959 Stock (originally Piccadilly Line but later moved to Northern)*
> 1962 Stock (originally Central Line but later moved to Northern)*
> 1967 Stock (Victoria Line, tenuous... I've pushed the buttons to start the ATO)
> C69 Stock (District Line)
> 1972 Mk I Stock (Northern Line)*
> 1972 Mk II Stock (Bakerloo Line)
> C77 Stock (District Line)
> D78 Stock (District Line)
> 
> Those marked with * are now scrapped
> 
> The painted finish to (now) all LU trains was a response to graffiti... The bare aluminium bodies used to carry stains of graffiti which couldn't be buffed off. They are kept clean simply though running through a car wash, but as trains can outstable at locations without a wash they can get very dirty if they outstable at one of these locations for several nights consecutively. An example is the Bakerloo, where trains stable at either Elephant & Castle Sidings, London Road Depot (near Lambeth North), or Stonebridge Park Depot. Only the latter has a car wash, so if a train stables at Elephant & castle or London Road for several consecutive nights it can get very dirty. This is avoided by the timetable, but if a train has its number changed (is 'reformed') due to service disruption it could easily miss its 'turn' to stable at Stonebridge and get dirty.


Out of all those unit types, which do you think were the best ones?


----------



## Tubeman

hegneypl said:


> Out of all those unit types, which do you think were the best ones?


Most reliable = D78










(LOL I know this driver)

Least reliable = 72 MkI










...Went like the clappers when they decided to work though!

I have the most affection for the 1959 Stock, proper 'old fashioned' train with separate brake and motor handles:










Not a '59 cab, but the still operating A60 Stock from the Metropolitan Line... the cab layout is the same as the '59s were, only more spacious:


----------



## hegneypl

Thank you so much! I'm quite jealous. If I had my way, I'd have been with the MTA since 1971, the year I ended my public schooling. Unfortunately, I was living in Pennsylvania by then and my life followed a different path.


----------



## pricemazda

Why on the victoris line in the middle do they always have two drivers carrisges, facing each toher, did they order too msny or something?


----------



## hegneypl

I've read countless complaints from New York operators that the new single controllers are hard on the hands for express routes. Nothing beats the original. It's akin to a three-speed cloumn mounted manual transmission that many American cars once had. Now it is all but forgotten. So, after all the years you spent operating these trains, did it fulfill your expectations as a profession? I also read about some NY types that dreamed of the job as kids. But when they drew their first pay, it was either agony or ecstacy. Anyway, I love the asthetics of the London system. The larger stock seems like they would fit well here. My favorite is the "F" stock because it appeared so clean in form, yet had those funky ovals on the ends. The smaller tube stock sems to be so narrow to what I am personally accustomed to. But that's typical of anything that's American/mechanical.


----------



## U Thant

pricemazda said:


> Why on the victoris line in the middle do they always have two drivers carrisges, facing each toher, did they order too msny or something?


The Victoria Line trains are made up of two four car trains coupled together. Each set of four carriages is permanently coupled together and self-contained, with the train's equipment spread along it. This makes the fleet a lot more flexible, in that if two trains have a defective carriage, they can couple together the two working halves into one train, rather than being two trains down.


----------



## hegneypl

*Interior Design on EXP Stock*

<a href="http://s284.photobucket.com/albums/ll6/fijir/ARS-LT-2/?action=view&current=800px-1986-Prototype-Green-Inside.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll6/fijir/ARS-LT-2/800px-1986-Prototype-Green-Inside.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
This is so cool! Tube stock is just so very out of the ordinary because of the space shape and space utilization. Also, the color selection is wild here.


----------



## hegneypl




----------



## iampuking

It doesn't look that different from the current Central line 92TS...


----------



## iampuking

First photo of the new Sub-surface 'S' Stock here and of the final design here.


----------



## hegneypl

iampuking said:


> First photo of the new Sub-surface 'S' Stock here and of the final design here.


Thank you so much for sharing those pictures. I am surprised and delighted that they are going in this direction. Although, I must admit the oldest stock for that purpose up to the present day have evolved well. I am enthralled with this system, just because I have been a subway nut since my childhood days riding the 3rd Avenue Elevated in the South Bronx, where I was born. Not only that, but my wife was bron in Hendon and grew up in Romford. Itching to see it all!


----------



## poshbakerloo

Those new 'S stock' trains look like a larger version of the '2009 TS' trains...


----------



## iampuking

hegneypl said:


> Thank you so much for sharing those pictures. I am surprised and delighted that they are going in this direction. Although, I must admit the oldest stock for that purpose up to the present day have evolved well. I am enthralled with this system, just because I have been a subway nut since my childhood days riding the 3rd Avenue Elevated in the South Bronx, where I was born. Not only that, but my wife was bron in Hendon and grew up in Romford. Itching to see it all!


Have you not been on it yet?


----------



## Tubeman

hegneypl said:


> I've read countless complaints from New York operators that the new single controllers are hard on the hands for express routes. Nothing beats the original. It's akin to a three-speed cloumn mounted manual transmission that many American cars once had. Now it is all but forgotten. So, after all the years you spent operating these trains, did it fulfill your expectations as a profession? I also read about some NY types that dreamed of the job as kids. But when they drew their first pay, it was either agony or ecstacy. Anyway, I love the asthetics of the London system. The larger stock seems like they would fit well here. My favorite is the "F" stock because it appeared so clean in form, yet had those funky ovals on the ends. The smaller tube stock sems to be so narrow to what I am personally accustomed to. But that's typical of anything that's American/mechanical.


I'm also a big fan of the F Stock because of the oval windows, but my all time favourite is the CO/CP and R Stock I remember from the District Line when I was really little... I preferred the red CO/CP Stock because of the colour.

As a career I enjoyed it to a point, but to be blunt the 2 years I was a driver was about as much as I could tolerate, it is ultimately a boring and repetitive job


----------



## Plaistow

The new sub-surface trains look lovely, and better even than the new Victoria line stock. The curved body and large headlights are what a Tube train should look like. You can almost see how it's evolved from the look of the current Circle/Met or even Victoria/Bakerloo stock. I've never been a fan of the current District Line stock, simply because the square headlights along the buffer beam aren't aesthetically pleasing and for me don't resemble a Tube train. However, I'm sure when introduced they looked cutting edge.


----------



## hegneypl

iampuking said:


> Have you not been on it yet?


No. It's killing me, but we have to save up to get over there. We're shooting for next year. We were in Scotland last year (to visit my wife's family) and the fares have doubled since then. Been on ScotRail many times though.


----------



## hegneypl

Thanks again, Tubeman. I have a smiliar sitaution in my occupation. The daily routine of things that must be done compared to the things that will get done. Routine as opposed to whatever can happen, which is the fun part. Operating a machine all day long seems like it could be a drone. For me, it would be the reward of the motion that I'd get out of driving a subway. Since my childhood, that desire has never waned. However, I'd never work in Philadelphia now because crime is on the rise (although I wouldn't say it can't be ridden). Philly is 70 miles to the south of me. New York is very expensive and comparible with London in that sense. Besides, there is a hefty waiting list for the NY system and I'm 55 years of age.


----------



## iampuking

hegneypl said:


> No. It's killing me, but we have to save up to get over there. We're shooting for next year. We were in Scotland last year (to visit my wife's family) and the fares have doubled since then. Been on ScotRail many times though.


Well, if you're interested, a good source of LU videos is here.

Edit: URL attachment written wrong!


----------



## Acemcbuller

> re: ads. They're using great big professional projectors as they need to be very bright to cope with how brightly lit tube platforms are (much brighter than the average office). They could certainly have come up with prettier mountings though.


According to the London Mayor


> The total energy required to power 150 cross track projector (XTP) units for one month is
> around 50,000 kWh. Each XTP will consume the same amount of electricity as just over three
> 32" widescreen LCD televisions.
> The advertising screens will be operational throughout the Tube opening times (typically 05.30
> to 01.00 Mon-Sat and 0700 to 2330 Sunday).
> The use of digital advertising will reduce the amount of paper wet-posted onto tunnel walls,
> which cannot be recycled (due to the paste applied), for advertising on our stations. This will
> save an estimated 4 tonnes of waste that would go to landfill sites per year.
> ...
> London Underground has undertaken a study on the heat impact of digital advertising media.
> The study concluded that the impact on platform temperatures is negligible.


Alternatively put the projectors on trains to shine on tunnel walls


----------



## hegneypl

*Correct!*

Oops, I am comparing apples to oranges. Wrong! Just wanted to show the condition of these beasts. They run outdoors and have dented roof surfaces, rust and a general feel/look of agedness.


----------



## ChrisH

New question from me: when the East London Line works are finished to extend it north, where will it terminate? Will trains run from Highbury/Islington round to New Cross?


----------



## MelbourneCity

Highbury & Islington by 2010.

The entire Overground could look like this: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:London_overground_future.png

Of course, if TfL get their hands on the heavy rail routes currently in the hands of various TOCs including Southern and Southeastern, the Overground brand will spread even further.


----------



## U Thant

The ELL will run to Dalston Junction some time in early 2010, and a year later to Highbury & Islington. It'll have dedicate tracks all the way, and the track layout will preclude running trains off them further west than H&I. It'll be the Crystal Palace and New Cross services that run this far, with the West Croydons continuing to terminate at Dalston Junction.

Taking over any of Southern's services is definitely off, and the Southeastern franchise doesn't expire until 2014, so it's unlikely there'll be any other expansion of the Overground brand in the foreseeable future.

(The new Southern franchisee will be required to make Overground-style service and quality improvements, so there's a tiny chance they could use the brand in some way)


----------



## Plaistow

Two questions:

1. At the existing stations on the southern part of ELL extension, such as Forest Hill and Crystal Palace, will there be more services provided by London Overground than Southern? If so, will LO take over the stations and branding, or will they be like Streatham which is run and branded by Southern but primarily served by First Capital Connect?

2. Tubeman, is it possible to find out the times of H&C line services that start in the bay platform 3 at Plaistow tube station? I often see H&C line trains pull out empty from Platform 3 because of a lack of information on the indicator boards (announcements are non-existent!) Meanwhile, the rest of us try crushing on to packed District or H&C line services on Platform 1 that have come down from Barking or Upminster. 

Many commuters on these services change at West Ham or Mile End, so knowing that you can catch an empty train and grab a seat would be much better than cramming on to a full train.

The information boards at Plaistow never give information for platform 3. The H&C line timetable on the TfL website gives approximate times of departures but there's no indication as to whether the service is a through train from Barking or starts at Plaistow.


----------



## U Thant

Plaistow said:


> At the existing stations on the southern part of ELL extension, such as Forest Hill and Crystal Palace, will there be more services provided by London Overground than Southern?


Yes. 8 or 4 trains per hour LO vs a token Southern service. 


> If so, will LO take over the stations and branding, or will they be like Streatham which is run and branded by Southern but primarily served by First Capital Connect?


According to the new Southern franchise document, London Overground will be taking over New Cross Gate, Brockley, Honor Oak Park, Forest Hill, Sydenham, Penge West, Anerley, Crystal Palace, Norwood Junction and West Croydon. Several of these stations have already had ticket gates installed by LO, and the rest will be getting them. It looks like New Cross will be the only one not managed by them.


----------



## sotonsi

U Thant said:


> Yes. 8 or 4 trains per hour LO vs a token Southern service.


surely not? That would be awful. Surely it's something like 4tph Southern north of Sydenham? Penge West and Anerley would get a token service (Anerley gets nothing off peak).

The 2015 peak timetable would involve 4tph Thameslink to Norwood Junction, some extending, and 2tph Southern to Crystal Palace and beyond. The overground would be 4tph to West Croydon and 6tph to Crystal Palace. Off peak, I can't expect it to drop much.

Then again, this was the 2015 timetable idea realising that you can't replace a radial service with an orbital one, only supplement it, and maybe partially replace it.

To only have a token London Bridge service would be like redirecting the whole Wimbledon branch of the District to Edgware Road, save a couple of trains - having the Wimblewares is great and they are popular, however every other train heads to somewhere more major - the southern edges of both the West End and the City and are just as popular, if not more so.


----------



## iampuking

I have a question, Tubeman. Why does the Northern line run on the right between Borough and Moorgate, instead of the usual left?

Thanks for any replies!


----------



## U Thant

sotonsi said:


> surely not? That would be awful. Surely it's something like 4tph Southern north of Sydenham? Penge West and Anerley would get a token service (Anerley gets nothing off peak).


Looking at the franchise spec again, you're right, and all trains will be all stops as the higher frequency means limited stop trains can't fit in the timetable.

I believe the original ELL proposals had far fewer services to London Bridge, as it's easily reachable via the Jubilee. There's precedent for diverting local services away from termini - ECML locals to Moorgate, Upminster locals to the District, etc.


----------



## sotonsi

however Moorgate is a city branch for the GN (one that already existed, via what is now the Thameslink route) and the District line was just a diversion to the 'crossrail' line - it's no different to the Met/Marylebone thing - Baker Street is a bit away from Marylebone, just as Tower Hill is a bit away from Fenchurch Street. However both the Met and District go beyond their nearby-to-terminus stations.

On the other hand the ELR doesn't serve the same area as London Bridge (eg Tower Hill/Fenchurch Street or Baker Street/Marylebone), nor does it serve the City any better (unlike Moorgate vs Kings Cross).

While there's precedent for diverting to a tube line through central London or to a different terminus, there's no precedent for diverting a radial line onto an orbital one that doesn't enter zone 1. The Wimbleware route is a similar, not-quite-central route, so my suggestion that it would be a diversion of all Wimbledon district trains to Edgware Road is similar thing. It will work with the trains to London Bridge and beyond as well as Dalston.


----------



## hegneypl

Tubeman, have your ever visited the States? Spend any time on a system here?


----------



## cle

sotonsi said:


> however Moorgate is a city branch for the GN (one that already existed, via what is now the Thameslink route) and the District line was just a diversion to the 'crossrail' line - it's no different to the Met/Marylebone thing - Baker Street is a bit away from Marylebone, just as Tower Hill is a bit away from Fenchurch Street. However both the Met and District go beyond their nearby-to-terminus stations.
> 
> On the other hand the ELR doesn't serve the same area as London Bridge (eg Tower Hill/Fenchurch Street or Baker Street/Marylebone), nor does it serve the City any better (unlike Moorgate vs Kings Cross).
> 
> While there's precedent for diverting to a tube line through central London or to a different terminus, there's no precedent for diverting a radial line onto an orbital one that doesn't enter zone 1. The Wimbleware route is a similar, not-quite-central route, so my suggestion that it would be a diversion of all Wimbledon district trains to Edgware Road is similar thing. It will work with the trains to London Bridge and beyond as well as Dalston.


I'm sure I read somewhere that the Wimbleware takes 60% of Wimbledon branch traffic. If extended to Moorgate, it would be much more useful.


----------



## Tubeman

Sorry guys have been in the Yorkshire Dales with no t'internet for 6 days, am back now though


----------



## Tubeman

Plaistow said:


> 2. Tubeman, is it possible to find out the times of H&C line services that start in the bay platform 3 at Plaistow tube station? I often see H&C line trains pull out empty from Platform 3 because of a lack of information on the indicator boards (announcements are non-existent!) Meanwhile, the rest of us try crushing on to packed District or H&C line services on Platform 1 that have come down from Barking or Upminster.
> 
> Many commuters on these services change at West Ham or Mile End, so knowing that you can catch an empty train and grab a seat would be much better than cramming on to a full train.
> 
> The information boards at Plaistow never give information for platform 3. The H&C line timetable on the TfL website gives approximate times of departures but there's no indication as to whether the service is a through train from Barking or starts at Plaistow.



I'd need to dig around on the intranet at work to get timetables (all that are publicly available are first & last trains)... Although I'd caution that probably a lot of H&C trains terminating at Plaistow are timetabled Barking reversers being turned short due to late running, and so are unpredictable and not timetabled. I don't think there are many timetabled Plaistow reversers at all, there'll be a couple per day, but I very much doubt there'd be any intentional Plaistow reversers during the peaks (waste of train paths beyond Plaistow to the very busy Upton Park and East Ham stations, not to mention Barking).


----------



## Plaistow

Thanks, look forward to it. There's always a fair few in the morning peak and a couple at night. I'd suggest that the morning peak is due to low patronage going east, and so it makes sense to reverse them and get them working the westbound via Kings Cross etc.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> I have a question, Tubeman. Why does the Northern line run on the right between Borough and Moorgate, instead of the usual left?
> 
> Thanks for any replies!


Honestly don't know... Might just be a funny little anomaly.

The roads under which the Northern Line runs get narrow enough to warrant the bores being stacked one above the other (other examples being Chancery lane and Notting Hill Gate on the Central Line), but why they end up 'the other way around' through London Bridge and Bank I don't know. The only possible explanation I can offer is something to do with when the line was extended off the original C&SLR route at Borough to Bank, closing the original King William St terminus?


----------



## Tubeman

hegneypl said:


> Tubeman, have your ever visited the States? Spend any time on a system here?



Have been to NYC twice, San Francisco twice, Miami, South Beach, The Florida Keys inc Key West, and a lot of the national parks in Utah, Arizona and Colorado.

The only metro I have been there on is the NYC subway (have been on the SF streetcars and cable cars but these don't really count I guess). I liked the subway's air of history and grittiness, but find it lacks The Tube's warmth and welcome.


----------



## hegneypl

From all the reading and pictures I've seen I have to agree. I even have a video on the Tube! That system is loaded with so many different facets it makes it desirable just to see it. I have ridden several lines that have been discontinued in NY, especially the 3rd Avenue El. While it was not the first el in NY, it was the longest at one point and the last one in Manhattan to be torn down. Of course it ran right through neighborhood where I was born so I have an emotional attachment to it. My wife rode the tubes many, many times in her years in London and the surrounding areas. She has no real opinon of NYC's system other than it takes us everywhere we want to go. The old time rolling stock is what I miss because at the time they were in use, NY was my home. Now, I go to the museum to see them. I haven't had any opportunity to ride any nostalgia trains yet, but I hope to correct that next year. You have travelled quite a bit, good for you!


----------



## Songoten2554

thats why the London underground has one of the best metro systems in the world also since i am a new yorker i have extreme fondness with the NYC Subway including the number 7 line since thats where i was raised at.

but anyways tubeman i heard that the London Underground is going to add an expansion or a new underground route i don't remember what it is but is it still going on and where will it go east of london or south of london?


----------



## jarbury

I'm not quite sure what those plans might be..... I'd be curious to hear more though. As far as I know, the main London rail projects going on are (or will be):

1) DLR extensions
2) Cross-rail
3) Northern Line unbundling
4) Some new Tube line in the west of London??

I'd be curious to hear about anything additional....


----------



## Acemcbuller

Hi Tubeman

At the eastern end of the westbound sub-surface platform at Kings Cross there is a set of monitors. Normally such monitors show CCTV images of the platform to the driver. What are these ones for though? Obviously they are at the back of the train so there is no-one there to look at them.

James


----------



## Tubeman

Acemcbuller said:


> Hi Tubeman
> 
> At the eastern end of the westbound sub-surface platform at Kings Cross there is a set of monitors. Normally such monitors show CCTV images of the platform to the driver. What are these ones for though? Obviously they are at the back of the train so there is no-one there to look at them.
> 
> James



There's a crossover east of the station, so the 'wrong road' monitors allow a driver departing back east off the westbound to see the platform-train interface. Any platform with a 'wrong road' move will have them, e.g. Embankment WB, South Ken WB etc.


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> thats why the London underground has one of the best metro systems in the world also since i am a new yorker i have extreme fondness with the NYC Subway including the number 7 line since thats where i was raised at.
> 
> but anyways tubeman i heard that the London Underground is going to add an expansion or a new underground route i don't remember what it is but is it still going on and where will it go east of london or south of london?


Currently under construction:

*East London Line extensions (2010)*

Whitechapel - Dalston: brand new stations at Shoreditch High Street, Hoxton, Haggerston and Dalston plus extensions over existing NR lines beyond New Cross gate to West Croydon and Crystal Palace, serving all intermediate stations

*DLR extensions*

King George V - Woolwich Arsenal (2009)

Canning Town - Stratford International (2010), new stations at Star Lane, Abbey Road, Stratford High Street and Stratford International

*Other*

New stations at Shepherd's Bush (NR West London Line) and Wood Lane (Hammersmith & City Line), both 2008

...Plus plenty of approved and proposed projects like Crossrail 1, DLR to Dagenham Dock, 'Thameslink 2000' and so forth


----------



## U Thant

The Thameslink Programme (aka TL2000) belongs in the under construction category. Crossrail is a minor-works-under-construction, funding-for-major-works-not-signed-off-yet project.

One other major project is rebuilding the North London Line between Camden Road and Dalston, which will happen 2009-2011.


----------



## Tubeman

U Thant said:


> The Thameslink Programme (aka TL2000) belongs in the under construction category. Crossrail is a minor-works-under-construction, funding-for-major-works-not-signed-off-yet project.
> 
> One other major project is rebuilding the North London Line between Camden Road and Dalston, which will happen 2009-2011.


Thanks for clarifying... My last post was a bit rushed!

I know a few bits n' bobs of platform lengthening have been carried out for 'Thameslink 2000' and certainly property has started to be emptied out (e.g. 180 Queen Victoria Street next to Blackfriars, which was a TFL property), but there's no activity on major works like the new viaduct through Southwark, is there?


----------



## Tubeman

Oh as an aside U Thant do you know what the hell is happening (or not) with Imperial Wharf station? I need to know for the second edition of the book, which I'm trying to get out in time for Christmas.


----------



## U Thant

It depends on your definition of "under construction". I consider it to be when all of the procedural faffing is complete, funding is allocated and construction contracts are being awarded, because at that point physical construction is as good as inevitable, and it's very much moved past the proposal stage.

I don't think there are any major construction on Thameslink is happening yet, since this year is all about enabling works.

Imperial Wharf is, as of a few weeks ago, physically under construction, opening 2011.

(btw Are you adding Heathrow Junction to the next edition?)


----------



## Tubeman

U Thant said:


> It depends on your definition of "under construction". I consider it to be when all of the procedural faffing is complete, funding is allocated and construction contracts are being awarded, because at that point physical construction is as good as inevitable, and it's very much moved past the proposal stage.
> 
> I don't think there are any major construction on Thameslink is happening yet, since this year is all about enabling works.
> 
> Imperial Wharf is, as of a few weeks ago, physically under construction, opening 2011.
> 
> (btw Are you adding Heathrow Junction to the next edition?)


Yes, I've got Heathrow Junction in there... can't find anything on its layout though, I've assumed it was a straightforward island platform on a spur to the north-west of the tunnel portal. Weird that a station which existed only a decade ago is so poorly documented, can't find any photos or anything.

Thanks re: Imperial Wharf... it says 2010 on wiki, and as it's already u/c mid-2008 I'm guessing 2010 is more likely than 2011... I'm surprised it's not 2009 even.


----------



## iampuking

iampuking said:


> Won't people's heads get in the way of the advertisements? The 95/96/09TS all have rather small windows..
> 
> They have advertisements like this on the Kyiv Metro I think.


Here!


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Here!


They have those in the HEX tunnel too


----------



## iampuking

Here, again!


----------



## iampuking

Bakerloo line

Exterior

Interior

Central line

Exterior

Interior

Circle/Hammersmith & City line

Exterior

Interior

District line

Interior and exterior

Jubilee line

Exterior

Interior

Metropolitan line

Exterior

Interior

Northern line

Exterior

Interior

Piccadilly line

Exterior

Interior

Victoria line

Interior and exterior

Waterloo & City line

Exterior

Interior


----------



## CharlieP

Tubeman said:


> I need to know for the second edition of the book, which I'm trying to get out in time for Christmas.


Have you corrected the station name typo on page 32?


----------



## jarbury

OK coming in rather late here, but what book? Got a link for more info?


----------



## CharlieP

jarbury said:


> OK coming in rather late here, but what book? Got a link for more info?


http://www.amazon.co.uk/London-Rail...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218628435&sr=1-1

Five stars!


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> Have you corrected the station name typo on page 32?


Are you being picky about St James's / St James' Park?

Personally, I always write the possessive of names ending in 's' with just an apostrophe on the end, i.e. James', but I decided to use the spelling used on Tube maps with the additional 's' on the end.

Or is there a 'real' typo I've missed?!

There is a genuine station name typo on page 45 though... See if you can find it! I got a disgruntled email from a resident!


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> http://www.amazon.co.uk/London-Rail...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218628435&sr=1-1
> 
> Five stars!


Romford's finest!










Admittedly two of my ***** reviews are courtesy of doka_dan and gothicform!


----------



## pricemazda

Tubeman said:


> Are you being picky about St James's / St James' Park?
> 
> Personally, I always write the possessive of names ending in 's' with just an apostrophe on the end, i.e. James', but I decided to use the spelling used on Tube maps with the additional 's' on the end.
> 
> Or is there a 'real' typo I've missed?!
> 
> There is a genuine station name typo on page 45 though... See if you can find it! I got a disgruntled email from a resident!


Are we referring to the Earl's Court/ Barons Court controversy?


----------



## jarbury

Looks like a great book. Added to my wish list, hopefully my girlfriend might buy it for me for Christmas


----------



## Tubeman

jarbury said:


> Looks like a great book. Added to my wish list, hopefully my girlfriend might buy it for me for Christmas


Cheers... Be careful you get the right edition, I'm trying to get the second edition finished in time for the Christmas market. It's much better cartography than the first (in my humble opinion).


----------



## CharlieP

Actually, I've just spotted an actual error! I used the southbound Thameslink platform at St. Pancras International yesterday - to get there I entered the old building, walked through the undercroft, turned right and kept going north, definitely passed under the transition between the Barlow shed and extension, went through the ticket gates, kept going north, went down the escalator, kept going north, went down another escalator, and the platform was on my left, with several car lengths' worth still to the north. On page 54 the Thameslink platforms go no further than the Barlow shed...


----------



## CharlieP

Still a fine body of work though. How many emails did you get with "suggestions"?


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> Heh, heh, I was just being mischievous - I didn't even have the book to hand when I wrote that  It would have been cool if I'd picked page 45 though (where you typed
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Ashstead
> 
> 
> instead of
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Ashtead
> 
> 
> ).


Kudos to you :applause:

I still contend the spelling of that town is stupid


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> Still a fine body of work though. How many emails did you get with "suggestions"?


Hundreds, and dozens of old-fashioned letters from old-timers (they sent them via the publisher). Some useful, some confusing, some downright weird.


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> Actually, I've just spotted an actual error! I used the southbound Thameslink platform at St. Pancras International yesterday - to get there I entered the old building, walked through the undercroft, turned right and kept going north, definitely passed under the transition between the Barlow shed and extension, went through the ticket gates, kept going north, went down the escalator, kept going north, went down another escalator, and the platform was on my left, with several car lengths' worth still to the north. On page 54 the Thameslink platforms go no further than the Barlow shed...


Yes you are right: the new TL platforms are further north than I thought... It's always tricky with underground structures, understandably... You can't see them on Google earth!


----------



## hegneypl

*Tubeman........................Q stock*

Then I seriously doubt that there is a "living" example of "Q" stock around. Those units look so classy and cool. I read that they were too powerful and that they used less motor units in their consists. I have also seen many photos of the earliest tube stock. They look like submarines on wheels, very threatening is a way.


----------



## Tubeman

hegneypl said:


> Then I seriously doubt that there is a "living" example of "Q" stock around. Those units look so classy and cool. I read that they were too powerful and that they used less motor units in their consists. I have also seen many photos of the earliest tube stock. They look like submarines on wheels, very threatening is a way.


The 'Q' stock were great looking, yes... But I think there's a motor car in the LT Museum proper at Covent Garden. Nothing working though...


----------



## hegneypl

*Tubeman.........Q again*

Well, I'm sure it's worth a look. That's the good thing about saving things like that, you can at least experience it ina dimensional way. You can get a sense for how it was. The past is so cool because you can read about it and see how it turned out. When it comes to design, the evolution of it's stages throughout it's life can be marked. The NY system is a series of contradictions in that they never saved many of the revolutionary models that were developed, built and used. But many people recall them as they were when they rode them. Some if the BMT designs (first the BRT, then the BMT) were way ahead of their time. Even the test mules ran for years until they could no longer be repaired. The Green Hornet was made of aluminum and was recycled for WWII. The units you operated in the past compared with what's being used today represent the stages of development of the breed. One of the most interesting points for me is the people who rode them, each with a story and with lives that made it necessary to ride mass transit. It became a part of them, like the family automobile and they never forget the experience.


----------



## Tubeman

Et voila! You saw it here first!

As you can see, I've mapped every track and platform, which presented some really fiddly bits, especially the termini. This means there's a little distortion in areas, but I think it's worth it.


----------



## CharlieP

Wow! I love it! When's it coming out?


----------



## Songoten2554

wow man that looks like a fine map and what detail it has about the tracks and so forth.

so is there more areas about this it shows alot of the history of the Railways around london and such.


----------



## iampuking

Wow, I particularly love the Victoria line, it's interesting to see how the Victoria line slides between other lines to provide cross-platform interchange at so many stations!


----------



## Acemcbuller

Yes. Wow. The Victoria wizes straight past Arsenal. Didn't realise that.
The books has been on my wishlist for a while. Hopefully someone one day...


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> Wow! I love it! When's it coming out?


I'm aiming for Christmas but with each passing week that's looking a little less likely. I've re-drawn all 40-odd 'main' map pages in this format and am now on the zoomed-in maps at the end, but I want to add a few more to these so I've realistically got a couple more months of work, including updating the index ( :sleepy: x1,000).


----------



## ajw373

iampuking said:


> Wow, I particularly love the Victoria line, it's interesting to see how the Victoria line slides between other lines to provide cross-platform interchange at so many stations!



No doubt it would have been the easiest way to integrate the Victoria line into existing stations, considering it was built recently (compared to the rest of the lines)


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> wow man that looks like a fine map and what detail it has about the tracks and so forth.
> 
> so is there more areas about this it shows alot of the history of the Railways around london and such.


Thanks  ...Pretty much all of London within the M25 is mapped to this scale, so about 50 pages. I've attempted to include every single last scrap of railway infrastructure that has ever existed, but that is practically impossible... I'm confident every line, station, goods yard and depot is on there... But despite pouring over hundreds of OS maps the odd sidings or railway-served factory might have escaped my attention.

I've 'discovered' some pretty interesting industrial railway networks through my research.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Wow, I particularly love the Victoria line, it's interesting to see how the Victoria line slides between other lines to provide cross-platform interchange at so many stations!



A great design feature :yes:


----------



## Justme

Looks amazing Tubeman. One question, why do a few lines swap sides and then back again, looking at the map you posted, from Camden Town to Tuffnell Park the line crosses for Kentish Town. I also see it on KingsCross St Pancras to Highbury Islington?


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> Looks amazing Tubeman. One question, why do a few lines swap sides and then back again, looking at the map you posted, from Camden Town to Tuffnell Park the line crosses for Kentish Town. I also see it on KingsCross St Pancras to Highbury Islington?



Thanks 

It's 'lost' a bit being j-pegged above, the PDF (which is what the printers use) is a lot crisper with better colours.

The Victoria Line switches around to facilitate more logical cross-platform interchange at Euston... I don't know why the Northern Line does it through Kentish Town and between Borough and Moorgate... Both stretches involve the lines being stacked one above the other due to narrow roads above, but I don't know why this would necessitate the directions swapping over, as they are clearly the 'wrong way around' through London Bridge and Bank.

The only example I do know the reason for is Shepherd's Bush - north of White City, which came about as the 1920 extension to Ealing Broadway was built off the 1908 terminal loop through Wood lane station which ran anti-clockwise, so as a consequence the Northbound and Southbound are the opposite way around through White City.


----------



## U Thant

Borough-Moorgate is due to them being forced to make trains running uphill to King William Street use the tunnel with the shallower gradient, which was on the right. When they extended south, they made the tunnels swap to have left-hand running on the extension, and when they extended north, ditto. 

Kentish Town is a one above the other layout, with each platfrom on the east side of the track. While the centrelines of the tunnels cross, they don't swap completely like you've drawn them.


----------



## Tubeman

hegneypl said:


>


What years was that operational? We had a 'Standard' Stock too, which worked the majority of the Tube lines for much of the middle of the 20th century (1923 onwards).


----------



## iampuking

Why won't the new 2009 Stock mean 100km/h speeds for the Victoria line like they were when the Central received it's new stock?


----------



## hegneypl

*Tubeman/Standards*

They first appeared in service in 1914. In company nomenclature they were AB units. They kept on building them until 1924, after a total of 850. The name Standard was more or less coined in-house to let the competition know that they meant business. They set the standard in mass-transit design. They were kept in use until that late 1960's.


----------



## kegan

Tubeman,
I was wondering what the maximum service frequency operated across the flat junctions on the SSL is. 
ta


----------



## Tubeman

kegan said:


> Tubeman,
> I was wondering what the maximum service frequency operated across the flat junctions on the SSL is.
> ta


Well the southern half of the Circle (i.e. Gloucester Road to Tower Hill) manages 28tph off-peak with the four services offering a train every 8 minutes (Richmond-Upminster, Wimbledon-Upminster, Ealing-Tower Hill and Circle Line). In addition in the peaks a few extra trains are laid on, so it would exceed 30tph. I assume similar is the case for the Baker Street-Liverpool Street section.

I think 30 tph is pretty much the comfortable limit operationally with unevenly spaced stations and numerous flat junctions.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Why won't the new 2009 Stock mean 100km/h speeds for the Victoria line like they were when the Central received it's new stock?


I haven't heard that, but I'm sure there's no limitation on the train's capabilities as such. I guess trains can only get up so much speed before having to brake for the next station, the Central Line can achieve 100kmh simply due to very long runs between stations on the overground sections. I know there are also long runs on the Vic, notably Seven Sisters to Finsbury Park, but maybe the current 50mph / 80kmh already achieved by the 67 stock on that run is as fast as the 09 stock will manage.


----------



## Tubeman

hegneypl said:


> They first appeared in service in 1914. In company nomenclature they were AB units. They kept on building them until 1924, after a total of 850. The name Standard was more or less coined in-house to let the competition know that they meant business. They set the standard in mass-transit design. They were kept in use until that late 1960's.


Pretty similar story to our 'Standards' then in terms of vintage. As you can see in the photos, they had a large proportion of the leading car dedicated to the Traction motors and other equipment as when designed we didn't yet have the technology to fit it all under the cars. The Classic 1938 Stock was the first Tube stock to successfully incorporate the Traction motors into the bogeys and place all the other equipment under the cars or under the seats.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> I haven't heard that, but I'm sure there's no limitation on the train's capabilities as such. I guess trains can only get up so much speed before having to brake for the next station, the Central Line can achieve 100kmh simply due to very long runs between stations on the overground sections. I know there are also long runs on the Vic, notably Seven Sisters to Finsbury Park, but maybe the current 50mph / 80kmh already achieved by the 67 stock on that run is as fast as the 09 stock will manage.


Thanks for the reply, do you think the Victoria line is only going to be 80km/h because of the Central line's motor problems when it ran at 100km/h?


----------



## iampuking

Video showing the new 2009 Stock for the Victoria line, part of a BBC news report. Particularly interesting (for me) because you can hear it's sound...


----------



## sotavento

iampuking said:


> London Overground is not commuter rail, it is orbital rail.


^^ We (non english speakers) tend to use "comuter" for a lack of a better word. :cheers:

Here we call them "urbanos" (urban trains) but I don't hear that expression anywhere else: 

CP Lisboa Urban train:









Metropolitano de Lisboa:










^^ LU is not like any of those ... neither LO ... and what is "orbital" rail ??? space shuttle ?? (just kidding)


----------



## iampuking

Oh god you're posting here now.

Orbital rail orbits the city centre, is it really so hard to grasp?


----------



## sotavento

iampuking said:


> Oh god you're posting here now.
> 
> Orbital rail orbits the city centre, is it really so hard to grasp?


Oh god you're posting here now.


Orbital Rail ... nice catchy name. hno:


----------



## Tubeman

Take it outside please ladies :sleepy:


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Thanks for the reply, do you think the Victoria line is only going to be 80km/h because of the Central line's motor problems when it ran at 100km/h?


No, I very much doubt that. The limitations on the 1992 Stock are specifically because of design flaws discovered after Chancery Lane.

The 1967 Stock already have pretty nippy acceleration / braking so I don't know if the 2009 Stock will improve on it that much, hence probably not surpassing the current 80kmh reached between Seven Sisters and Finsbury Park. I'd also have concerns about ride quality and noise if speeds got any faster. It's ok on the JLE because those are new concrete-lined tunnels with flat-bottomed, welded rail leading to better / quieter journies at high speeds, but the Victoria Line is 40 years old and traditional metal-lined Tube tunnel.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> No, I very much doubt that. The limitations on the 1992 Stock are specifically because of design flaws discovered after Chancery Lane.
> 
> The 1967 Stock already have pretty nippy acceleration / braking so I don't know if the 2009 Stock will improve on it that much, hence probably not surpassing the current 80kmh reached between Seven Sisters and Finsbury Park. I'd also have concerns about ride quality and noise if speeds got any faster. It's ok on the JLE because those are new concrete-lined tunnels with flat-bottomed, welded rail leading to better / quieter journies at high speeds, but the Victoria Line is 40 years old and traditional metal-lined Tube tunnel.


Those design flaws are that the vibration at 100km/h wore the motors making them more likely to come off, AFAIK.

Last time I heard, the increased performance of the 2009 Stock is something that will allow shorter gaps between the trains. And of course the 1967 Stock has sluggish acceleration, get on the Central line and the difference is crystal clear. Isn't the whole point of replacing track is to improve ride quality and noise, and much of the Victoria line is in concrete tunnels, anyway.


----------



## Justme

If an orbital rail orbits the city center, then the Central Line isn't an orbital as it passes right through the city center.


----------



## hegneypl

Tubeman said:


> Pretty similar story to our 'Standards' then in terms of vintage. As you can see in the photos, they had a large proportion of the leading car dedicated to the Traction motors and other equipment as when designed we didn't yet have the technology to fit it all under the cars. The Classic 1938 Stock was the first Tube stock to successfully incorporate the Traction motors into the bogeys and place all the other equipment under the cars or under the seats.


These beasts were 67 feet long. When the City of NY took over the operation of all el's and subways, the original line had 40 foot cars. The other 2 lines had 60 to 75 foot cars. If they had standardized all the division back then, it would have been less costly to purchase rolling stock. Of course, the larger cars are smoother in operation and ride quality. Even the current fleet, while they are disposing of some 1964 stock, those old beasts are somewhat smoother than even the newer units. Those 1914 units, were very sturdy and they were a joy to ride. I rode them as a youngster before leaving New York for good.


----------



## Songoten2554

i thought the victoria Line was just as modern as the Jubliee Line i mean why is it that the victoria is not fast yet its modern?


----------



## Tubeman

Songoten2554 said:


> i thought the victoria Line was just as modern as the Jubliee Line i mean why is it that the victoria is not fast yet its modern?


The Victoria Line is 40 years old and still (for now) uses 40 year old trains. The fact it's still relatively modern compared to some other lines is testament to how advanced it was when it was opened. It is pretty fast too, up to 80kmh (50mph).


----------



## Cosmin

Tubeman said:


> Et voila! You saw it here first!


That is great, *Tubeman*!:applause: What program are you using?


----------



## U Thant

Tubeman said:


> any conversion of kinetic into electrical energy will likely produce heat I suppose.


With conventional friction brakes, all the kinetic energy of the train is converted to heat. With rheostatic brakes, the kinetic energy is converted into some heat in the motors and the rest of into electrical energy, which is converted into heat by banks of resistors mounted on the train. Since the amount of kinetic energy to be dissipated is the same, the total amount of heat produced is exactly the same as for friction brakes. With regenerative braking, the electricity that would have been released as head is instead diverted into the track. Ergo regenerative braking causes each train to release less heat.

The amount of heat produced is the same as the kinetic energy of the train [ignoring regenerative braking], so the simple answer is that the extra heat comes from the higher speed the trains run at, and because of their extra weight (I'm assuming they're heavier). The trains will also produce more heat while accelerating, and from friction with air, and so on.


----------



## Tubeman

U Thant said:


> With conventional friction brakes, all the kinetic energy of the train is converted to heat. With rheostatic brakes, the kinetic energy is converted into some heat in the motors and the rest of into electrical energy, which is converted into heat by banks of resistors mounted on the train. Since the amount of kinetic energy to be dissipated is the same, the total amount of heat produced is exactly the same as for friction brakes. With regenerative braking, the electricity that would have been released as head is instead diverted into the track. Ergo regenerative braking causes each train to release less heat.
> 
> The amount of heat produced is the same as the kinetic energy of the train [ignoring regenerative braking], so the simple answer is that the extra heat comes from the higher speed the trains run at, and because of their extra weight (I'm assuming they're heavier). The trains will also produce more heat while accelerating, and from friction with air, and so on.


Of course you're right... I can only explain the higher temperatures by the aggressive acceleration / braking of the Central Line. I'd have thought the 1992 Stock are lighter than their 1962 Stock predescessors.

I used to drive ex-Central Line 1962 stock trains on the Northern Line (they were pretty much interchangeable with the 1959 stock), and they were noticeably heavier than the 1972 MkI stock (you can judge from the braking performance).


----------



## sotavento

jarbury said:


> I'm curious as to whether running the tube 24 hours a day has been considered, like New York does.


London has a HUGE bus network in adition to runing the LU ... they don't seem to need a 24/7 metro open over there. hno:


----------



## sotavento

sarflonlad said:


> People treat cleaner things with more respect.
> 
> TFL's policy can be extreme sometimes on cleanliness. Nothing fucks me off more than someone getting sick on the night bus and it being taken out of service. But is does the trick. A constant army of cleaners on stations and trains. Regular 'deep cleans' for trains and buses themselves.
> 
> Probably an EU elf and safety thing really... but I'll let LU take credit for it.


1st look at this picture:









^^ British train after arriving in london on a Glasgow-London trip ... nobody "cleans" a train like the british do. :cheers:

In inverness (to our "continentals" astonishment) they managed to arrive , empty (from passengers) , turn (the drivers), clean , re.book(reserved seats) and fill up (with the next batch of comuters and the BAR cart) a train in less than 5 minutes. :lol:

On the other hand LU feels HOT but extremely CLEAN everywhere ... :cheers:


----------



## sotavento

Tubeman said:


> You seem almost sympathetic to the graffiti 'artists' cause?
> 
> The amount of lost customer hours they cause through train withdrawals amounts to hundreds of thousands of pounds per year, not to mention costs of undoing the damage... probably millions in total, all passed on to the customer. Why should a handful of middle class wannabe gangstas have the right to impose such enormous costs on London and its commuters?
> 
> In the current climate any acts of trespass onto the LU network, espcially into depots at night, have to be treated gravely and with the same robustness as terrorists. Sure it might be little Johnny with a bag of spray paint one night, but it could easily be little Osama with a bag of semtex the next. If a graffiti 'artist' can gain access to trains to paint the sides, then a terrorist could gain access to plant a bomb under a seat.


hno:

Just read this now ... I simply was "amused" by the way BBC was portraying the image of the "vilan" ... they basicaly made it seem as if Osama and the guy were "mates"/"brothers" ... quite shocking actualy if one isn't used to the ways british media works. :lol:

But don't just take my word for it:

http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/Government_Targets_Graffiti_Tagg?version=1



> Government Targets Graffiti Taggers
> 
> 20 November 2003
> 
> An offensive against unsightly and expensive graffiti tags was launched today by the Government as part of its drive to tackle the anti-social behaviour which can blight communities.
> 
> The campaign will offer a £500 reward to those prepared to name the most prolific ‘taggers’. It will be promoted with a poster campaign highlighting the unsightly signatures which graffiti offenders have left on rail and Underground carriages, bridges, buildings and embankments in London, Manchester and Liverpool.
> 
> The 'Name that tag' campaign will be backed by clean-ups for the areas worst affected and pilots of tough news measures to ensure graffiti is removed.
> 
> The campaign spearheads a new programme of action which forms the 'Together' campaign, announced last month as part of the Government’s action plan on anti-social behaviour. Over the coming months 'Together' will roll-out across the country in a series of targeted work tackling abandoned cars, graffiti, begging and nuisance neighbours.


Sidenotice: "graffity" and tag's are just as much "artistic" as anything else ... the problem is when instead of painting an amasing work of art people insist in learning to spel their name in other peoples property ... it surely will be amasing when the "trend" passes from public walls and transport to "top of the chart" automobiles and such ... 

Wouldn't it be amasing to buy a nw BMW ferrary or Bugatti and see it full of paint ? hno:


----------



## Tubeman

sotavento said:


> 1st look at this picture:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ British train after arriving in london on a Glasgow-London trip ... nobody "cleans" a train like the british do. :cheers:
> 
> In inverness (to our "continentals" astonishment) they managed to arrive , empty (from passengers) , turn (the drivers), clean , re.book(reserved seats) and fill up (with the next batch of comuters and the BAR cart) a train in less than 5 minutes. :lol:
> 
> On the other hand LU feels HOT but extremely CLEAN everywhere ... :cheers:


It's a little unfair to post that photo as evidence of lack of cleanliness though: it's a long distance train, the same group would have been sat at that table for several hours (evidently having a good time), the bins are pretty small, and it all would have been picked up by cleaners before the train departed on its return trip. It's not as if the next set of passengers would have had to have sat down at that table covered in cans. It's like a plane just after its landed.


----------



## Tubeman

sotavento said:


> hno:
> 
> Just read this now ... I simply was "amused" by the way BBC was portraying the image of the "vilan" ... they basicaly made it seem as if Osama and the guy were "mates"/"brothers" ... quite shocking actualy if one isn't used to the ways british media works. :lol:
> 
> But don't just take my word for it:
> 
> http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/Government_Targets_Graffiti_Tagg?version=1


But there's not a single mention of 'terrorism' in that article, so I don't get your earlier point. Seems like pretty straightforward unsensational reporting to me. Graffiti costs Train operating companies, London Underground and Network Rail millions of pounds per year to make good, which is ultimately paid for by every single user of the transport network. Why are you so forgiving?



sotavento said:


> Sidenotice: "graffity" and tag's are just as much "artistic" as anything else ... the problem is when instead of painting an amasing work of art people insist in learning to spel their name in other peoples property ... it surely will be amasing when the "trend" passes from public walls and transport to "top of the chart" automobiles and such ...
> 
> Wouldn't it be amasing to buy a nw BMW ferrary or Bugatti and see it full of paint ? hno:


Tags very rarey are artistic, especially when they're etched onto train and bus windows. 'Pieces' can be fantastic, but only in the right locations. The fact is due to being hurried / dark / cold / whatever, the few pieces that do appear on trains these days are crap.


----------



## sarflonlad

sotavento said:


> 1st look at this picture:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ British train after arriving in london on a Glasgow-London trip ... nobody "cleans" a train like the british do. :cheers:
> 
> In inverness (to our "continentals" astonishment) they managed to arrive , empty (from passengers) , turn (the drivers), clean , re.book(reserved seats) and fill up (with the next batch of comuters and the BAR cart) a train in less than 5 minutes. :lol:
> 
> On the other hand LU feels HOT but extremely CLEAN everywhere ... :cheers:


I'm confused - is this a good or bad thing? All long distance trains get in to a mess - nothing like treating them 'like home' if you're sitting in the same places for hours...

but local public transport in London is constantly kept clean - with exceptions of course.. even the fabric on seats are designed to look "cleaner" with more use.


----------



## Republica

sotavento said:


> 1st look at this picture:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ British train after arriving in london on a Glasgow-London trip ... nobody "cleans" a train like the british do. :cheers:
> 
> In inverness (to our "continentals" astonishment) they managed to arrive , empty (from passengers) , turn (the drivers), clean , re.book(reserved seats) and fill up (with the next batch of comuters and the BAR cart) a train in less than 5 minutes. :lol:
> 
> On the other hand LU feels HOT but extremely CLEAN everywhere ... :cheers:


Whilst essentially I agree with most of what you say, your anti UK propaganda is going a bit too far.

I do agree that our trains are pretty dirty compared with some German ones,but theres not much in it! In comparison, those italian trains were very dirty, altho i quite liked the trains that were completely 100% grafiti-ed over.


----------



## sotavento

Tubeman said:


> It's a little unfair to post that photo as evidence of lack of cleanliness though: it's a long distance train, the same group would have been sat at that table for several hours (evidently having a good time), the bins are pretty small, and it all would have been picked up by cleaners before the train departed on its return trip. It's not as if the next set of passengers would have had to have sat down at that table covered in cans. It's like a plane just after its landed.


So you are rampaging on the sight of that picture ... but never even READ the portion of my message (that you even included in your quote) ??? 



> In inverness (to our "continentals" astonishment) they managed to arrive , empty (from passengers) , turn (the drivers), clean , re.book(reserved seats) and fill up (with the next batch of comuters and the BAR cart) a train in less than 5 minutes


^^ It's astonishing the large quantities of pure CRAP you british ASSUME others are throwing at you ... when they are not. hno:

There is no "lack of cleanliness" there ... pure eficiency at cleaning since that particular train (a mallard set from "now defunct" GNER) was imediately invaded by a dozen cleaning teams as soon as we arrived. :cheers:

And youngsters in the UK can be very messy indeed ... it's the only place where I've seen 15 minute stops in intercity trains to "refill" the beer stockpiles in the middle of the course.

Glasgow-London(Virgin) = 4h + 15 minutes to resupply (and 15 aditional minutes for smokers at Preston) :lol:


----------



## sotavento

Tubeman said:


> But there's not a single mention of 'terrorism' in that article, so I don't get your earlier point. Seems like pretty straightforward unsensational reporting to me. Graffiti costs Train operating companies, London Underground and Network Rail millions of pounds per year to make good, which is ultimately paid for by every single user of the transport network. Why are you so forgiving?
> 
> Tags very rarey are artistic, especially when they're etched onto train and bus windows. 'Pieces' can be fantastic, but only in the right locations. The fact is due to being hurried / dark / cold / whatever, the few pieces that do appear on trains these days are crap.


That "article" is not an "article" ... it's an official home office comunication on the subject ... that should give you an indication of the seriousness in wich the matter is treated.

But I would pay to find the footage of that particular documentary ... it was priceless indeed. 

Oh ... and TAGS suck!! 
for each "good" graffity artist there are millions of crappy ones. :cheers:


----------



## sotavento

sarflonlad said:


> I'm confused - is this a good or bad thing? All long distance trains get in to a mess - nothing like treating them 'like home' if you're sitting in the same places for hours...
> 
> but local public transport in London is constantly kept clean - with exceptions of course.. even the fabric on seats are designed to look "cleaner" with more use.


Trains and buses ARE "clean" ... that's the point ... people (passengers) can make a complete mess of them (as seen on the picture .. .wich by the way just happened to be sitting around in my imageshack acount since it was taken back in 2005) but nonetheless the cleaning services MANAGE to keep them clean for the next ride as soon as possible. 



Republica said:


> Whilst essentially I agree with most of what you say, your anti UK propaganda is going a bit too far.
> 
> I do agree that our trains are pretty dirty compared with some German ones,but theres not much in it! In comparison, those italian trains were very dirty, altho i quite liked the trains that were completely 100% grafiti-ed over.


Are you PARANOID or something like that ??? 

Where do you see propaganda in my posts ???

Discussing how things are done in the UK is being "anti UK" nowadays ??? 

then consider yourself lucky that i didn't post any shots of the day when I was in Newcasttle (metro closed with police rushing drunks , rioting , vomiting , drinking , etc and police escorting "passengers" to the train to manchester) ... it seemed just the tipical drunk adolescent behaviour to me ... hno:

The point is ... trains in the UK are "clean" ... elsewhere you see complete pieces of "sh**" in rails (italian ones seem to be the worst) ... in the UK you only get a large pile of emty cans , lots of paper cofee/tea cups and an ocasional vomit on the Underground/Comuter ... wich are cleaned at the next available spot. :cheers:


----------



## Tubeman

Your attitude is starting to grate on me, and I feel you're diverting my thread off-topic... If you haven't got any sensible questions to ask, then kindly be quiet.


----------



## jarbury

Are any future tube lines planned? (obviously excluding Crossrail, which would be more National Rail-like).

Or further extensions of existing lines? I heard something about when the Northern Line gets split into 2, one of the branches could be continued into the Southeast more.


----------



## ajw373

jarbury said:


> Are any future tube lines planned? (obviously excluding Crossrail, which would be more National Rail-like).
> 
> Or further extensions of existing lines? I heard something about when the Northern Line gets split into 2, one of the branches could be continued into the Southeast more.


The Northern line split is an operational issue and requires no new lines to be built for it to happen. 

That being said there is talk of using the split to build an extension towards the Battersea area.


----------



## 2co2co

Is there any plan of expanding Oyster card system? I mean stuff like Octopus or Suica, in which you can have "tickets" on mobile phones, can shop outside tube stations and usable on regional trains outside London Underground?


----------



## sweek

2co2co said:


> Is there any plan of expanding Oyster card system? I mean stuff like Octopus or Suica, in which you can have "tickets" on mobile phones, can shop outside tube stations and usable on regional trains outside London Underground?


Tickets on mobile phones - there's been a trial and I think we'll see more of that soon. I believe there are also Oyster watches being made.
On other trains outside LU - it's already installed on quite a few stretches of National Rail, and will work on all national rail next year.
- Shopping outside tube stations - not exactly, but Barclays has issued a card that is an Oyster card, a credit card and a cashless "paywave" card all in one, so that's one card you can use for everything.


----------



## MelbourneCity

Any updates on the works being undertaken at present on various sections of the TfL Overground network?


----------



## jetsetwilly

Does the Kensington - Olympia shuttle have any purpose other than carrying passengers? By which I mean, is it useful for staff training, or stock movements or something, because I can't believe that in this day and age a three station shuttle is of any use any more? Especially since it is not marked on the map or anything. Wouldn't it be easier just to wipe it out and free up some space at Earl's Court?


----------



## CityGent

What are the turquoise numbers that are seen after leaving stations used for?


----------



## Tubeman

jarbury said:


> Isn't it best to encourage everyone to touch in, for statistical purposes as much as anything?


I think so, personally. I always touch in.


----------



## ajw373

sweek said:


> Dwelling times would go up, and the bendy buses are there exactly to combat that problem on the busiest bus lines.


How would dwell times go up? The readers are inside the bus so you would be on before you touched in so that wouldn't slow the bus any more. Many (tram) systems operate like this with no adverse effects.

I know this is really off topic, but I saw somewhere where it said that the cost of conductors on the bendies would be more than the cost of the estimated fare evasion.


----------



## sweek

ajw373 said:


> How would dwell times go up? The readers are inside the bus so you would be on before you touched in so that wouldn't slow the bus any more. Many (tram) systems operate like this with no adverse effects.
> 
> I know this is really off topic, but I saw somewhere where it said that the cost of conductors on the bendies would be more than the cost of the estimated fare evasion.


I think you underestimate how many people use these buses and how packed they are. I use the 29 very frequently and very often I can't even research the readers. If everyone had to get out their Oyster card and touch in there would be a queue forming from the readers going all the way outside the bus because everyone has to reach the readers.

Besides, there are still enough paper travelcard holders on these bus routes that cannot possibly touch in, making it quite useless for statistics and/or making sure that everyone's paying.


----------



## Republica

More readers needed. Just about every system in europe has tickets that require validation.


----------



## sotonsi

Indeed, the UK is rather the exception - most tickets in Europe are brought off the bus, and validated on it by use of a machine. Catches me out quite often when on buses over there, that I need to validate my ticket when on the bus.


----------



## zfreeman

This may be a question answered elsewhere, slightly further back in the thread there was a question that was about extending the Victoria line to a Leytonstone Junction. 

I always thought the idea was to eventually take the Vic Line up to Chingford thereby converting the BR Stub line from Liverpool Street.

The idea of a RER style system appeals to me and feel that Crossrail and any future infrastructure should be based on a City-Regional style system rather than just a City style tube line.....


----------



## sweek

zfreeman said:


> This may be a question answered elsewhere, slightly further back in the thread there was a question that was about extending the Victoria line to a Leytonstone Junction.
> 
> I always thought the idea was to eventually take the Vic Line up to Chingford thereby converting the BR Stub line from Liverpool Street.
> 
> The idea of a RER style system appeals to me and feel that Crossrail and any future infrastructure should be based on a City-Regional style system rather than just a City style tube line.....


I don't think that was ever the idea. One extra stop in Walthamstow is all that was every officially planned on that end. 

The Victoria line has shown just how successful an actual tube line can be, and when serving areas that aren't served by tube yet (like with the Chelsea-Hackney line), the number of passengers in London itself make it pretty impossible to take the line much further out.

Chelsea-Hackney has changed it's route quite often and this one has included the Chingford branch, by the way.


----------



## Tubeman

zfreeman said:


> This may be a question answered elsewhere, slightly further back in the thread there was a question that was about extending the Victoria line to a Leytonstone Junction.
> 
> I always thought the idea was to eventually take the Vic Line up to Chingford thereby converting the BR Stub line from Liverpool Street.


I'll have to do some digging as to what the original intention for the Vic line was... I'd suggest that Chingford must have been disregarded if it ever was the intended eastern / northern end, as it would have made more sense to commence construction at the eastern tunnel portal (I'm guessing Wood Street) than at the underground terminus at Walthamstow Central (or Hoe Street as it then was). Certainly it might have been given consideration at one point, as the alignment of the overrun tunnel at Walthamstow Central would have made onward construction up to take over the Chingford Branch pretty straightforward.

Perhaps the fact that it was very much an ATO test bed scared them off? There would have been concerns about automatic braking performance in wet or icy conditions, so as soon as the Victoria Line was decided to be ATO, any hopes of overground sections was disregarded.


----------



## U Thant

The Victoria Line was built on a very small budget and taking over a perfectly good rail service wouldn't have been a great use of that money. I bet the good burghers of Chingford wouldn't have been happy about losing direct trains to the City, either. In the end they couldn't even provide the proposed cross-platform interchange at Wood Street they originally planned.

One thing I've wondered about is why they didn't use the Gospel Oak-Barking tracks to save money, given Beeching had just proposed it for closure and the two run very near each other from Harringay Green Lanes to Walthamstow Queen's Road/Central.


----------



## U Thant

[double]


----------



## iampuking

Has Wood Lane station opened? This video suggests it has:


----------



## Tubeman

Opened today I think?


----------



## Tubeman

U Thant said:


> The Victoria Line was built on a very small budget and taking over a perfectly good rail service wouldn't have been a great use of that money. I bet the good burghers of Chingford wouldn't have been happy about losing direct trains to the City, either. In the end they couldn't even provide the proposed cross-platform interchange at Wood Street they originally planned.
> 
> One thing I've wondered about is why they didn't use the Gospel Oak-Barking tracks to save money, given Beeching had just proposed it for closure and the two run very near each other from Harringay Green Lanes to Walthamstow Queen's Road/Central.


I'm sure that despite potential passenger closure, GOBLIN would certainly have been retained for freight traffic being a useful inter-regional link, so trying to run ATO Tube trains in amongst freight trains would have been an impossibility.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Opened today I think?


Yep! See my new thread.


----------



## skydive

Acemcbuller said:


> *TFL have said bendies suffer only marginally higher fare evasion than other buses*. What appears to be large number of non-payers are ususally people whose season ticket give unlimited inclusive bus travel, so there is no point in them touching in.
> 
> See page 3 of the Should Boris Johnson renew the Bendy Bus contracts? thread for more discussion.


Given people are not touching/validating their oyster card, then the results will be incorrect


----------



## U Thant

They measure fare evasion by stopping the bus and turfing everyone out, seeing who has tickets and/or has touched in, and fining those that haven't. I'd expect the statistics gathered to be very accurate.


----------



## Tubeman

U Thant said:


> They measure fare evasion by stopping the bus and turfing everyone out, seeing who has tickets and/or has touched in, and fining those that haven't. I'd expect the statistics gathered to be very accurate.


One the very seldom occasions I've seen any revenue inspectors on a 'Bendy' (and I can count them on the fingers of one hand), about half the bus had disembarked by the back doors by the time the inspectors reached the back of the bus and the remainder were most certainly not turfed off for a roadside pass inspection.

The number of times at Mount Pleasant that I see people letting a #19 go in order to get on a bendy #38 (when they both follow the same route into Central London) suggests that a very large proportion of bendy passengers don't pay.


----------



## skydive

^^ thank you for the clarification, i dont use busses at all unless the tubes are unavailable, but the few times i got on the bendy bus, it was very evident that people use the back doors to enter and exit and get a free ride. I did not know how to respond to U Thant's claim that the tfl's study shows the bus fare evasion is not as bad or whatnot, but i know from the obvious that bendy busses is a huge source of free ride. All those plastic police, sorry community poilce could help tfl with the revenue busting by riding the busses regularly.


----------



## Tubeman

If I don't answer for 2 weeks I'm not being rude, I'm in India!


----------



## Tubeman

Tubeman said:


> If I don't answer for 2 weeks I'm not being rude, I'm in India!


Hello, I'm back... Normal service resumed :wave:


----------



## iampuking

Does this train have a "flat" wheel as you were describing earlier? It sounds like it, especially towards the end...


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Does this train have a "flat" wheel as you were describing earlier? It sounds like it, especially towards the end...


Yes, sounds like there are 'flats' on that car... The clip is also a good ilustration of the weird whining / moaning noise mostly heard on the Victoria Line due to railhead corrugation. It is fairly unusual to get 'flats' on Victoria Line trains simply because they run almost exclusively underground (and shouldn't be going fast enough within Northumberland Park Depot to get them from the usual manner of skidding on ice / rain / leaves). I suspect that flats in this case would have been causes by 'Brakes hanging on', i.e. the brake blocks didn't release properly on one axle as the train pulled away from a station, causing the wheels to be dragged without turning and wearing a flat edge. Often when older trains (including 67 Stock) are just pulling away from a station, there's a loud dragging / belching / vibrating for about a second, this is due to brake blocks not releasing quickly enough. Hopefully you know the noise I'm talking about?


----------



## coit

Why don't they put a rail grinder through it?


----------



## Jang0

Hi Tubeman,

I've got another question about that (many times aforementioned) Bakerloo extension south to wherever.

It strikes me that if TfL and Southwark Council and Network Rail were to have a little chat, the Bakerloo could be extended to Hayes for considerably less than the several billion they are claiming. 

Note first, that this route might miss out on a few tricks (like not going to Camberwell and that Hayes doesn't really need to be converted to tube) but bear with me.

1) Apparently tube tunnels already head off down Walworth road. Walworth road is physically very near Aylesbury estate (couple of hundred metres maybe). The Aylesbury is about to be completely razed to the ground and rebuilt in the next 15 years. Has anyone discussed with Southwark Council how this land could effectively be used for London's benefit without impacting their scheme? My plan would be that in the process of digging up the estate, they stick a great big concrete cut-and-cover tunnel in. Would be a lot cheaper than boring underneath.

2) At the other side of the estate, Burgess Park is situated and you could take any route through the park (cut-and-cover) although the straightest might be best to minimise damage to the park. But considering this park is in need of redevelopment anyway, this might not be such a bad thing.

3) Head towards Peckham. All the way into Peckham the old Grand Surrey Canal alignment could be used. I would envisage this again being cut-and-cover underneath the park they've now created, but technically this could be surface level. Even the bridges are in place.

4) At Peckham you would need 500m (that's a guess) to get underneath Peckham towards the Peckham Rye / Nunhead line. This would be the most difficult engineering challenge on the line as the line would need to get from sub-ground to elevated in a relatively short distance.

5) Nunhead used to be 4-track and so did all the track from Peckham Rye towards it, therefore, I would think that there would be space (looking at Google Maps) to reinstate the 4-track in this section and keep the tube separate from the NR line. The Bakerloo would then take over the Nunhead-Lewisham track. I'm not sure what impact this would have on freight services, but it would be a great use of an under-used alignment which would have an obvious interchange at Brockley with the ELL.

6) New Platforms at Lewisham looks easy enough. They would be to the West of the existing Hayes / Hither Green ones, so that the Hither Green trains can continue to call at Lewisham. The track would then be 4-track down to the junction north of Ladywell and from there on in, the whole of the rest of the line down to Hayes would be a simple NR -> LU conversion.

In summary:
New Stations - Aylesbury (maybe some others in the gaps between the other stations)
Station rebuilds - Peckham Rye NR interchange, Nunhead, Brockley, Lewisham
Bored tunnel sections - Walworth -> Aylesbury (500m tops) and Peckham (500m)
Cut-and-cover sections - Aylesbury -> Peckham

What do you think?

Do you think the Council would ever chat with TfL about the Aylesbury? It's a large piece of land in inner London - personally I don't think Southwark should be allowed to just build what they want there without consideration of the greater London good.

Jango


----------



## Tubeman

coit said:


> Why don't they put a rail grinder through it?


They do, but I understand the Victoria Line railheads corrugate much quicker than other lines due to their dryness combined with high speeds.

Rainwater / humid air introduced into tunnels by trains on lines with overground sections assists with wheel / rail lubrication and prevents corrugation and broken rails, however minute the amounts might be in the deeper recesses of these lines.

That's the explanation I've heard, anyway!


----------



## Tubeman

Jang0 said:


> Hi Tubeman,
> 
> I've got another question about that (many times aforementioned) Bakerloo extension south to wherever.
> 
> It strikes me that if TfL and Southwark Council and Network Rail were to have a little chat, the Bakerloo could be extended to Hayes for considerably less than the several billion they are claiming.
> 
> Note first, that this route might miss out on a few tricks (like not going to Camberwell and that Hayes doesn't really need to be converted to tube) but bear with me.
> 
> 1) Apparently tube tunnels already head off down Walworth road. Walworth road is physically very near Aylesbury estate (couple of hundred metres maybe). The Aylesbury is about to be completely razed to the ground and rebuilt in the next 15 years. Has anyone discussed with Southwark Council how this land could effectively be used for London's benefit without impacting their scheme? My plan would be that in the process of digging up the estate, they stick a great big concrete cut-and-cover tunnel in. Would be a lot cheaper than boring underneath.
> 
> 2) At the other side of the estate, Burgess Park is situated and you could take any route through the park (cut-and-cover) although the straightest might be best to minimise damage to the park. But considering this park is in need of redevelopment anyway, this might not be such a bad thing.
> 
> 3) Head towards Peckham. All the way into Peckham the old Grand Surrey Canal alignment could be used. I would envisage this again being cut-and-cover underneath the park they've now created, but technically this could be surface level. Even the bridges are in place.
> 
> 4) At Peckham you would need 500m (that's a guess) to get underneath Peckham towards the Peckham Rye / Nunhead line. This would be the most difficult engineering challenge on the line as the line would need to get from sub-ground to elevated in a relatively short distance.
> 
> 5) Nunhead used to be 4-track and so did all the track from Peckham Rye towards it, therefore, I would think that there would be space (looking at Google Maps) to reinstate the 4-track in this section and keep the tube separate from the NR line. The Bakerloo would then take over the Nunhead-Lewisham track. I'm not sure what impact this would have on freight services, but it would be a great use of an under-used alignment which would have an obvious interchange at Brockley with the ELL.
> 
> 6) New Platforms at Lewisham looks easy enough. They would be to the West of the existing Hayes / Hither Green ones, so that the Hither Green trains can continue to call at Lewisham. The track would then be 4-track down to the junction north of Ladywell and from there on in, the whole of the rest of the line down to Hayes would be a simple NR -> LU conversion.
> 
> In summary:
> New Stations - Aylesbury (maybe some others in the gaps between the other stations)
> Station rebuilds - Peckham Rye NR interchange, Nunhead, Brockley, Lewisham
> Bored tunnel sections - Walworth -> Aylesbury (500m tops) and Peckham (500m)
> Cut-and-cover sections - Aylesbury -> Peckham
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Do you think the Council would ever chat with TfL about the Aylesbury? It's a large piece of land in inner London - personally I don't think Southwark should be allowed to just build what they want there without consideration of the greater London good.
> 
> Jango


Hi Jango, and welcome to SSC!

It's a very intriguing and novel suggestion... To add to it I'd suggest that cleared land ex-Aylesbury Estate could also be turned over to a new depot allowing closure of the cramped London Road (prime real estate in SE1 / Zone 1), the depot could be rafted over exactly like the new White City depot on the Central Line has been for Westfield.

The main issue for me as you rightly note is that the line would 'miss' Camberwell, which I think would be a big loss, but if the choice is either this suggestion or nothing at all, it certainly wouldn't hurt.


----------



## sotonsi

Surely Camberwell could be served by reopening the station on the Blackfriars line there? They'd need to be on all 4 tracks (so Sevenoaks/Orpington and Kent House/Sutton loop services can all stop there, rather than having the longer distance ones stopping)?


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> Surely Camberwell could be served by reopening the station on the Blackfriars line there? They'd need to be on all 4 tracks (so Sevenoaks/Orpington and Kent House/Sutton loop services can all stop there, rather than having the longer distance ones stopping)?


There is that, most certainly... It seems a bit arbitrary to have kept Loughborough Junction whilst closing Camberwell and Walworth Road stations, I think with the ease of bus access along the Walworth Road to the tube at Elephant & Castle, Walworth Road would not be realistic to re-open, but there is a strong case for Camberwell to re-open. This would allow Jango's 'cheap' (and more direct) Bakerloo extension toward Peckham, with the ability to provide numerous ventilation shafts allowing the Bakerloo to be significantly cooler.


----------



## zfreeman

Hey tubeman,

Hope you enjoyed India?

I also thought the initail work pointed in the direction of Camberwell given that appeared on the pre-war tube map......

However given that Camberwell could be served by a regular overground rail service that has connections to the tube netweork then why not build through the area but allow for future growth by sticking the tunnels in a big box which would allow platforms etc to be built at a later date.

Another question about camberwell originally the area supported four rail stations 
Loughborough Junction,Denmark Hill both of which i understand are on the ouskirts of the area.
Camberwell Gate and Camberwell New Road both were located closer to the Green and closer to the shopping area. Given that the line serving both these former stations is still in operation would it not be easier and cheaper to build a new station on this rail route. Saving money to be used on extending the bakerloo line to through Peckham, Camberwell would then be linked through to both Peckham and Elephant by buses, and the proposed CRT.


----------



## Jang0

zfreeman said:


> Hey tubeman,
> 
> Hope you enjoyed India?
> 
> I also thought the initail work pointed in the direction of Camberwell given that appeared on the pre-war tube map......
> 
> However given that Camberwell could be served by a regular overground rail service that has connections to the tube netweork then why not build through the area but allow for future growth by sticking the tunnels in a big box which would allow platforms etc to be built at a later date.
> 
> Another question about camberwell originally the area supported four rail stations
> Loughborough Junction,Denmark Hill both of which i understand are on the ouskirts of the area.
> Camberwell Gate and Camberwell New Road both were located closer to the Green and closer to the shopping area. Given that the line serving both these former stations is still in operation would it not be easier and cheaper to build a new station on this rail route. Saving money to be used on extending the bakerloo line to through Peckham, Camberwell would then be linked through to both Peckham and Elephant by buses, and the proposed CRT.


I think that the CRT is largely superceded by my proposed Bakerloo suggestions, and besides, I need to think about this some more, but I suspect my policy would be to reject any tram proposals within zone 1. It's liable to be overcrowded as soon as it opens. Zone 1 should be for metro-type services - i.e. Tube.


----------



## zfreeman

True. 

But any transport measure made within Zone 1 will more than likely be overcrowded from the outset. 

Anything that provides additional routes through the area will be a good thing, IF it has a dedicated right of way.

Personally, I'd prefer going the whole hog and banning cars within the Zone UNLESS they were carrying more than one person, or registered taxi's, but that would never happen you just have to look at the chaos caused when they block off one or two streets for the bike thing that they do as part of a car free day.


----------



## Tubeman

zfreeman said:


> Hey tubeman,
> 
> Hope you enjoyed India?
> 
> I also thought the initail work pointed in the direction of Camberwell given that appeared on the pre-war tube map......
> 
> However given that Camberwell could be served by a regular overground rail service that has connections to the tube netweork then why not build through the area but allow for future growth by sticking the tunnels in a big box which would allow platforms etc to be built at a later date.
> 
> Another question about camberwell originally the area supported four rail stations
> Loughborough Junction,Denmark Hill both of which i understand are on the ouskirts of the area.
> Camberwell Gate and Camberwell New Road both were located closer to the Green and closer to the shopping area. Given that the line serving both these former stations is still in operation would it not be easier and cheaper to build a new station on this rail route. Saving money to be used on extending the bakerloo line to through Peckham, Camberwell would then be linked through to both Peckham and Elephant by buses, and the proposed CRT.


Hi 

India was great thanks, check out the link to my photos in my sig

The over-run tunnels at Elephant & Castle actually point in 2 different directions: the original tunnels point east under New Kent Road and the current tunnels point south toward Camberwell, but the latter obliterate the former.

The two stations between Elephant & Castle and Loughborough Junction suffered the same fate of a lot of London's inner-city mainline stations, proving uncompetitive with electric trams combined with staff shortage during WW1 leading to closure... However once the trams went passengers were left with just buses.

It would be far cheaper to re-open either station than to provide a new one at a different location simply because the viaduct already has the necessary spaces to accommodate platforms at these locations (and I guess the infrastructure of stairwells etc is pretty much intact). As I said, Camberwell is a winner but Walworth Road probably not so due to proximity to Camberwell and Elephant & Castle and the parallel Walworth Road and its buses.

A Bakerloo extension would be much more than just serving Camberwell, and if Camberwell can be served by a re-opened mainline station then a Bakerloo extension could take Jango's more direct route to Peckham, which is I assume a bigger priority.


----------



## Jang0

There are a couple of problems with my route that haven't been picked up on yet. 

One of those is duplicity of route. Currently we have NR trains from Catford -> Nunhead -> Elephant & Castle using the Catford Loop line up to Blackfriars.

If the Bakerloo is extended to Hayes, then you get a service which runs from Catford (Bridge) -> Nunhead -> Elephant & Castle! Albeit, via Lewisham which would be incredibly useful.

Another problem is the CRT, which I've mentioned previously. If the CRT was to go ahead, then the Bakerloo won't. A metro-style Bakerloo extension is what is required in Zone 1, not a low-capacity tram system. The trams should definitely be used out in semi-suburban London (Lewisham, Brent Cross, Wimbledon) to replace heavy bus routes. To me, the CRT sounds like a half-baked measure aimed to solve the problem of the overcrowding on the Northern line. The French would build RER; we British prefer to skirt the issue.

But the final thing, which I fear would drive the final nail in my route's coffin, is that Southwark Council will proceed with their Aylesbury scheme without any thought for the greater London good. Their precocious schemes to remove cars from Elephant & Castle for the sake of their local pedestrians is merely an example of how blinkered they are to London as a whole. What we need is action now before it's too late.


----------



## jarbury

I'm not quite sure what the rationale is for keeping trams/light-rail out of inner London. I mean surely along routes that have far too many buses (like Oxford Street for example) a tram line would be great due to its significantly higher capacity.


----------



## Jang0

I'm happy to disagree on this point. I need to work out in my own mind what value trams/light-rail should have in inner London. 

I take your point that Oxford Street may be a good place to have trams. Clearly, the buses are more useful than the Tube in that scenario. Now I have to think about why and how that should be extrapolated to less obvious areas.


----------



## ajw373

jarbury said:


> I'm not quite sure what the rationale is for keeping trams/light-rail out of inner London. I mean surely along routes that have far too many buses (like Oxford Street for example) a tram line would be great due to its significantly higher capacity.


The problem is all those buses are not there to just serve Oxford street, they quite clearly spread out into the suburbs at various points along the route. So to convert Oxford street to trams you would have to do either every route that goes down Oxford Street (which would not be viable) have have interchange points where people could join buses to get them where they are going, which isn't viable either.

As for the tube the only line that follows Oxford street is the central line. For short trips down Oxford street it isn't useful, due to costs times etc. So the people who use the Central line are people who have come or are going to points beyond Oxford street or those who have changed from other lines. The only buses that follow the central line for any distance are the 390 and 94. The 390 isn't overly busy, but the 94 is Often packed by Bond Street station, with many passengers getting off the route on the part that parallels the Central line (ie Oxford Circus to Shepherds bus).

Oh I know this is off topic but a page or two back there is a debate about artic buses vs double deckers. In particular reasons why people might choose to ride an artic over a decker on routes where both operate. The common theory is they want to evade the fares, but my experiance is maybe they want to get there faster as the deckers are much slower to load and unload so the artic gets there faster, provided it isn't being blocked by a slow loading DD.

Like everything the artics have a place. Londoners should accept that with a growing population that more artics are needed and the luxury of a seat might have to be given up by far greater standing space. Due to saftey reasons standing isn't allowed on the top deck of a DD, so in that regards the artic has far greater carrying capacity.


----------



## bigbossman

Hi tubeman just a point about DLR to woolwich that i have just noticed out of curiosity is this

it takes

-34 minutes roughly to get from woolwich arsenal to charing cross

-31 minutes to get from woolwich arsenal to canon street

via south eastern

-it is eastimated that it will take 27 minutes to get to bank on the DLR

the DLR has the advantages of being integrated with TFL fares, more frequent, and it takes u into the heart of the city, and one of LU's biggest interchange stations.

Based on all this do you not think this extension is gonna be REALLY REALLY overcrowded within weeks of it opening.

the station has nearly 3 million passengers with 6-8 trains an hour all going to different destinations via different routes. imagine what being on the tube map is gonna do.


----------



## Jang0

to be honest, i can't really see the justification behind that DLR extension... not considering that Crossrail will soon be there too and it should be a much better service than the DLR.


----------



## bigbossman

Jang0 said:


> to be honest, i can't really see the justification behind that DLR extension... not considering that Crossrail will soon be there too and it should be a much better service than the DLR.


crossrail was never planned to stop at woolwich which was alwasy stupid, the original plan was for the jubliee line to follow the crossrail alignment from north greenwich, the only difference being that it would serve woolwich arsenal station, and run along the disused track bed to thamesmead. 

There was also a plan in the late nineties to extend the north london line to the north kent line west of woolwich via either a flat or flying junction, with trains running from dartford to stratford, according to the source i got this from it had a positive cost benefit ratio, but ultimately didn't get the go ahead. The reason why the DLR was chosen is because it was the cheapest and it was already being extended to LCA anyway, so it obviously made sense.

Crossrail was never initially intended to serve woolwich or canary wharf it was only added for funding reasons, although they'll tell you it is important to the service (yeah right!). The station at woolwich was only added a few years ago due to local protest, and the fact that it runs just past the town centre. The station isn't even in the town centre it is to the north of it, in the woolwich arsenal redevelopment area and will not be integrated properly with local transport (a big theme with crossrail).

This is why DLR was chosen.


----------



## bigbossman

another question tubeman i have just seen a map which has a crossrail alignment running from the isle of dogs station to charlton via north greenwich, then by the looks taking over the north kent line to places beyond, surely this is a million times better than the alignment they chose.

Obviously, it would leave the north kent line from greenwich nowhere to go, except maybe terminating at the old bay platform in charlton or even curving round into the blackheath tunnel then back to central london via lewisham. It ceases to amaze that they always choose the worst idea. The question is do you think this wouldve been a better idea?


----------



## sotonsi

bigbossman said:


> it's not moving the goalposts its what i said, i said the bexleyheath and woolwich lines, not once did i mention the sidcup line as it runs nowhere near woolwich and or bexleyheath for that matter. (save for a little bit near bexley)


I don't recall you mentioning that - it was SE London and Southeastern. I won't go and find the quote, partially as you've just tried to find a way to save face.


> You are a serious idiot, especially if think that i meant
> 
> "and if you did your research u would find that a railway _that has been_ left_, near_ the south eastern tracks east of plumstead (glorious place)!"
> 
> the useage of the verb to leave is meant in reference to the former railway and how it left the the south eastern tracks east of plumstead station, not how a railway has been left. However i know you didn't, you obviously spent long and hard trying to think of a way to save face, all i can say is epic fail :lol:


'Had a junction with' would have been a clearer verb. I get it now. I wouldn't use leave, because you might as well had said joined, which it would do in the up direction. I really didn't find that out without you spelling it out. 'To leave' is just an odd verb there - left as in left in-situ/behind, left as in not right, left as in diverged from. I blame English words having too many meanings. I think the missing 'yo' made me think I was dealing with someone with poor grammar.



> Now i know you are scraping the barrel, OF COURSE buses take that long, heck during saturday shopping hours it can take up to 15 minutes to do around a mile down plumstead high street.


walking is quicker!


> it takes about 20 minutes to get from thamesmead to any meaningful train station.


Abbey Wood?


> and the 96 bexleyheath to woolwich can take 30 minutes during the quietest of times, it's just how it is.


So there is nowhere that can be 20 minutes from Bexleyheath and 30 from Woolwich. If the buses take that long, it's really really stupid to take a bus to North Greenwich from somewhere that's close to a rail station. Clearly, if that's the case, then the speed difference will mean nothing for the DLR, as


> And not everyone in erith lives next to erith train station. if you live 15 minutes walk from erith station and 10 minutes bus journey from abbey wood and you have a travelcard, i know which alternative i'd take, go to abbey wood where the are more trains, doy!


Clearly, however judging by bus times you suggest, it would take 30 minutes to bus it to Woolwich - which is what we were discussing - by which time you could have gone to Abbey Wood, or walked to Erith. Clearly also, if you have a shorter bus journey than walk, you'd take that, and you ignore the fact you can take a bus the other way to Erith or somewhere. What I don't get is people living within 10 minutes of Erith station wanting to take a bus for 30 minutes and then getting on a train at Woolwich, rather than getting a train from Erith straight to zone 1.



> ahem, as stated thamesmead was the planned one (in at least two plans, one going along the original fleet line plan then following the crossrail route, and one leaving the built jubilee at north greenwich). They wanted to serve the "new town" of thamesmead, then stratford usurped thamesmead, but provisions were still left in for thamesmead to be revisited at a later date


Fair enough - I see the '70s plan that escaped my notice. Still, you moved the goalposts to the later JLE when I mentioned that Thamesmead usurped Addiscombe, in which case, I'm right.


> The thing with this is i'm never gonna agree with you, and you never we me, so lets end it, and agree to disagree.


We're going to have to wait until the station opens and then either your initial "very very overcrowded" comment (I looked back, and though you denied it, it was you) that I entered this debate to challenge will be true, or I win, as what I set off to do, and debunk that will happen. I don't think we can measure the stupidity and illogicality of people in SE London and whether they'd flock to Woolwich though, so the extent of how much we're right will be unknowable...


----------



## chris.haynes

hi guys ... using tfl journey planner :

i live in welling and i commute to borough market - mon-fri

southeastern welling --> london bridge = 30mins

10 min wait + 486 bus to north greenwich + jubilee line to london bridge = 1 hour

10 min wait + 51 bus to woolwich + king george v --> bank + (3mins? from woolwich arsenal) = 1 hour

... why would u not use national rail if its avaliable to you !?


----------



## bigbossman

chris.haynes said:


> hi guys ... using tfl journey planner :
> 
> i live in welling and i commute to borough market - mon-fri
> 
> southeastern welling --> london bridge = 30mins
> 
> 10 min wait + 486 bus to north greenwich + jubilee line to london bridge = 1 hour
> 
> 10 min wait + 51 bus to woolwich + king george v --> bank + (3mins? from woolwich arsenal) = 1 hour
> 
> ... why would u not use national rail if its avaliable to you !?



Your post assumes that everyone that lives in welling lives within 10-20 minutes travelling distance of the station which is rubbish, i lived on upper wickham lane for years, and it was as easy to travel to abbey wood or plumstead stations. 10 minutes on the bus either way. YOu may live next to welling station, but not everyone does.

If you read my posts i am talking about the people who don't live near stations but have alternatives between two or more separate ones

also i never mentioned the 486 once, who would get that to north greenwich from welling when it doesn't even travel a direct route. when mentioning north greenwich i was referring to the 472 set, they planned the GWT to relieve it because the route has become so busy, people travel from thamesmead, plumstead etc to get there


----------



## bigbossman

sotonsi said:


> I don't recall you mentioning that - it was SE London and Southeastern. I won't go and find the quote, partially as you've just tried to find a way to save face.





> -if you have spent time on the south eastern network, especially the bexleyheath and woolwich lines, you'll know the people are indeed muppets.


Clearly shows i was specifically not referring to the sidcup line, which *YOU* brought up! 



sotonsi said:


> 'Had a junction with' would have been a clearer verb. I get it now. I wouldn't use leave, because you might as well had said joined, which it would do in the up direction. I really didn't find that out without you spelling it out. 'To leave' is just an odd verb there - left as in left in-situ/behind, left as in not right, left as in diverged from. I blame English words having too many meanings. I think the missing 'yo' made me think I was dealing with someone
> with poor grammar..


That doesn't even warrant a reply more than this



sotonsi said:


> walking is quicker!
> 
> Abbey Wood?.


yes in morning peak it can take that long especially from crossways when 10 people are getting on the 229 at every stop.



sotonsi said:


> So there is nowhere that can be 20 minutes from Bexleyheath and 30 from Woolwich. If the buses take that long, it's really really stupid to take a bus to North Greenwich from somewhere that's close to a rail station. Clearly, if that's the case, then the speed difference will mean nothing for the DLR, as
> Clearly, however judging by bus times you suggest, it would take 30 minutes to bus it to Woolwich - which is what we were discussing - by which time you could have gone to Abbey Wood, or walked to Erith. Clearly also, if you have a shorter bus journey than walk, you'd take that, and you ignore the fact you can take a bus the other way to Erith or somewhere. What I don't get is people living within 10 minutes of Erith station wanting to take a bus for 30 minutes and then getting on a train at Woolwich, rather than getting a train from Erith straight to zone 1..


ok let me explain it for you nice and simple

-as mentioned the 96 can take during the best times around 30 minutes to get from bexleyheath to woolwich, but that is town centre to town centre. At the worst of times this journey can take upwards of an hour, due to traffic and heavy loadings. 
-there are however parts of bexleyheath and welling, around king harolds way, okehampton crescent which are halfway inbetween bexleyheath and woolwich, mainly based on the fact that the 422 goes on a roundabout route to get to bexleyheath station meaning they are viable alternatives. for example if waiting at london bridge station you have a legitimate choice of using either the bexleyheath or woolwich lines to get you home.
-No matter what you say alot of people see the tube as more convenient no matter if it is or isn't. they see the ability of getting one or even two buses then a tube straight into the heart of the city or west end as a viable alternative to their local station, it's just how it is. Alot of people get on the 472 from thamesmead to north greenwich it's just how it is. it's like people sit on the 96 for and hour and a bit from woolwich to bluewater because they want to shop in bluewater, even though they go through the perfectly adequate bexleyheath shopping centre, it's just how it is.
-on the erith thing, it's the same point i've been trying to explain, if you live say in the fraser road area then you are not near erith station and you have the 99 bus which will take you to woolwich in 20 minutes, where there are more trains and the fares are cheaper (zone 4), people see that alternative as better than travelling to erith in zone 6 with less trains.



sotonsi said:


> Fair enough - I see the '70s plan that escaped my notice. Still, you moved the goalposts to the later JLE when I mentioned that Thamesmead usurped Addiscombe, in which case, I'm right.We're going to have to wait until the station opens and then either your initial "very very overcrowded" comment (I looked back, and though you denied it, it was you) that I entered this debate to challenge will be true, or I win, as what I set off to do, and debunk that will happen. I don't think we can measure the stupidity and illogicality of people in SE London and whether they'd flock to Woolwich though, so the extent of how much we're right will be unknowable...


i never said it wouldn't be very overcrowded what i said, was that the south eastern services aren't *VERY* overcrowded 



> -I'm not saying it's "overcrowded"


 they are just standard busy, so i didn't deny anything you just didn't- like previously- understand my use of simple grammar, it's means it is, and it doesn't mean it's going to be, although you seem to think it does.

Basically let me summarise my point for you. Alot of people from the woolwich thamesmead areas (but by no means the majority)** travel to north greenwich station, i believe with the opening of DLR alot of those will transfer to woolwich arsenal, along with many of those who currently use woolwich arsenal south eastern station, meaning that the station will be extremely busy. Thats basically it, but you tried your damdest to change what i said and to pick holes in nothing through misunderstanding, i hope that has cleared it up for ya.

**let me give you an example to illustrate my point, manchester united are the biggest club in the country, they have fans everywhere, but with the exception of their immediate environs they are not the dominant club. Yes you will find Manchester United fans in any south london comp, but usually it is 1-3 in each class where as the local london team (in croydon it's palace) and arsenal/tottenham have the majority split between them. Relating this back to my point. North Greenwich is machester united, and the surrounding districts are the regions of britain. In the local area north greenwich dominates in that most local passengers choose to use NG, but in areas like woolwich and thamesmead and even beyond people still travel to use the station, add them all together and it's a significant proportion of the total usership. I hope this helps to understand what i am trying to say


----------



## Tubeman

Okaaaaay this is 'Ask the Tubeman' not 'bigbossman and sotonsi have a squabble' take it elsewhere please gents...

To change the subject entirely, I have just got back from my first ever LU customer focus group (and consequently have just worked a 14 hour day, 07:30-21:30!!!). It was really interesting, I didn't even know we did them!

14 customers from the Bakerloo Line stations north of Queen's Park were selected and enticed by the promise of money to a venue behind Selfridges. The first 90 minutes they have a focus group separated from we Bakerloo senior managers by a two-way mirror, so we observe and scribble notes while they comment on what's good and bad about our service. The second 90 minutes we're then introduced to the group and field their questions and ask them our own questions about the customer experiences. Quite a lively group, but it was enlightening. We got posed the usual questions about why we can't run 24 hours and why we can't run more trains so they can all get a seat, but there were some more useful bits of feedback there too.

I'm ready for my bed now though...


----------



## bigbossman

sorry tubeman, do you know how one gets on these focus groups?? i for one have a lot to say!!


----------



## lightrail

Hey Tubeman - first of all, great thread.

My question is around the Northern Electrics line out of Moorgate. I know it used to be owned and operated by London Underground (Northern City Line), then transferred to British Rail around 1975 (just after Moorgate Accident). Has there been any discussion about extending the tunnels south, say to Waterloo, providing a new crossrail line and essentially making the Waterloo and City Line redundant? I don't know what's happening underground just south of Moorgate, with regard to whether or not the tunnels could physically be extended. The major advantage would be through train services from the south-west (trains that currently terminate at Waterloo), through the City and to the north. I assume dual-voltage stock, similar to Thameslink, could be used.


----------



## Burkitt

Hi
I was wondering if you have any news on the new edition of your London Railway Atlas. Is it likely to be available in time for Christmas?
Thanks
Paul


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> sorry tubeman, do you know how one gets on these focus groups?? i for one have a lot to say!!


Apparently you just get accotsed outside Tube stations... I've never been on a focus group, I feel a bit jealous!


----------



## Tubeman

lightrail said:


> Hey Tubeman - first of all, great thread.
> 
> My question is around the Northern Electrics line out of Moorgate. I know it used to be owned and operated by London Underground (Northern City Line), then transferred to British Rail around 1975 (just after Moorgate Accident). Has there been any discussion about extending the tunnels south, say to Waterloo, providing a new crossrail line and essentially making the Waterloo and City Line redundant? I don't know what's happening underground just south of Moorgate, with regard to whether or not the tunnels could physically be extended. The major advantage would be through train services from the south-west (trains that currently terminate at Waterloo), through the City and to the north. I assume dual-voltage stock, similar to Thameslink, could be used.


I think the main limitation of the Great Northern & City is the short platforms: I guess the huge expense of extension when only 4-car trains can run is deemed excessive, nice thought in principle though.

It's had an intersting history for such a short line: opened as an independent railway in the 1900's as the only surface stock gauge Tube line, bought by the Metropolitan Railway, later transferred to the Northern Line when it was supposed to be extended north to take over the GNR Northern Heights (aborted post-WW2 despite being almost complete), curtailed to Drayton park so the tunnels through Finsbury Park could be cannibalised by the Victoria Line, further witness to the worst accident in Tube history at Moorgate in 1975, then transferred to BR.


----------



## Tubeman

Burkitt said:


> Hi
> I was wondering if you have any news on the new edition of your London Railway Atlas. Is it likely to be available in time for Christmas?
> Thanks
> Paul


Sadly not in time for Xmas as I'd hoped, the second edition won't be out until July 2009 because Ian Allan want to sell all of the stock of the First edition before printing the second. I don't have a say in these matters!


----------



## Martin S

Wasn't there a proposal at one stage to link up the Great Northern and City with the Waterloo and City?


----------



## Plaistow

Tubeman said:


> I think the main limitation of the Great Northern & City is the short platforms: I guess the huge expense of extension when only 4-car trains can run is deemed excessive, nice thought in principle though.
> 
> It's had an intersting history for such a short line: opened as an independent railway in the 1900's as the only surface stock gauge Tube line, bought by the Metropolitan Railway, later transferred to the Northern Line when it was supposed to be extended north to take over the GNR Northern Heights (aborted post-WW2 despite being almost complete), curtailed to Drayton park so the tunnels through Finsbury Park could be cannibalised by the Victoria Line, further witness to the worst accident in Tube history at Moorgate in 1975, then transferred to BR.


What was the frequency of the Northern Line trains on this line then compared to when it was taken over by British Rail? Did passenger trains branch off from other Northern Line stations (eg Kennington) or was it run as a self-contained shuttle for most of the day?

It seems strange that a Tube line was taken over, but then I guess the same is happening with the East London Line extension albeit remaining in TfL control. (And I believe that the existing ELL stations will receive an increased frequency.)


----------



## ChrisH

Is there a junction between the GN&C and the Northern lines at Moorgate then? I assumed they were separate, despite running on top of each other there.


----------



## sotonsi

They are seperate, though plans were made to link them up once (IIRC). Other plans were link the GN&C to the W&C, or the GN&C to the Met at Liverpool Street (bypassing Moorgate)


----------



## Tubeman

Plaistow said:


> What was the frequency of the Northern Line trains on this line then compared to when it was taken over by British Rail? Did passenger trains branch off from other Northern Line stations (eg Kennington) or was it run as a self-contained shuttle for most of the day?
> 
> It seems strange that a Tube line was taken over, but then I guess the same is happening with the East London Line extension albeit remaining in TfL control. (And I believe that the existing ELL stations will receive an increased frequency.)


It was always isolated at the Moorgate end, but it certainly had a more 'Tube like' service under LT with better frequencies and a weekend service. The folks who really missed out were those in the environs of Essex Road and to a lesser extent Drayton Park (I say lesser because it's closer to other stations than Essex Road).

Once the line was curtailed at Drayton Park in the 1960's it became even less useful than before and certainly had 'value added' as a BR branch even if it didn't operate at weekends (considering it only provided direct trains to The City I guess its usefulness at weekends was limited anyway).


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> They are seperate, though plans were made to link them up once (IIRC). Other plans were link the GN&C to the W&C, or the GN&C to the Met at Liverpool Street (bypassing Moorgate)


Even with the 'New Works' programme extending the GN&C at the northern end to Ally Pally and East Finchley (and beyond to Edgware and High Barnet), I don't think a connection to the Northern Line proper at Moorgate was ever mooted.

There were proposals to link to the Metropolitan Line when it was owned by them and later to the W&C, but these were never pursued.


----------



## jarbury

I have a couple of questions:

1) What do you think is the worst Tube line and why?
2) What do you think is the best Tube line and why?


----------



## Capzilla

^^ What's your definition of best and worst? The view on the overground parts, the over-all performance (fewer delays and outages), ridership numbers? I doubt there's a single answer for best and worse..


----------



## jarbury

An opinion really.... I guess the one that "works" best and worst from a regular user's perspective. I've heard lots of people say the Northern Line is definitely the worst.


----------



## bigbossman

Tubeman said:


> Unusually the entire South London Line route from Victoria to London Bridge was built with 3 tracks, still intact in places (Victoria to Clapham High Street), but for a lot of the route the space vacated by the middle track allowed for new island platforms at Queen's Road, Peckham Rye and South Bermondsey. The 'extra' third track was retined for the approaches to the two termini because it serves as a relief road, leading to the odd number of tracks on both approaches.


so its basically-

3 tracks- south london line
2- south eastern surburban (via dept and lewisham)
2- kent main line
2- brighton main line
2- brighton main line (stopping) 

or am i wrong


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> so its basically-
> 
> 3 tracks- south london line
> 2- south eastern surburban (via dept and lewisham)
> 2- kent main line
> 2- brighton main line
> 2- brighton main line (stopping)
> 
> or am i wrong


No that's about right... The only 'bottleneck' as I see it is the fact that the two tracks ex-Deptford merge with 4 ex-St Johns at North Kent East Junction, so 6 tracks merge into 4 there.


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> tubeman, was @ mile end today and i personally think that as a station it embodies what i feel a truely integrated underground station should be, and is probably my favourite, what are your opinions of it?
> 
> and what is your favourite/most hated stations?


It's incredibly practical and the only example of subterranean cross-platform interchange between a Subsurface and a Tube line, but I always found the station quite opressive and gloomy: the flat ceiling and columns are reminiscent of a New York subway station. It seems to have a similar effect on other passengers too, as it's a... if not the... suicide hotspot on LU.

Bow Road is minging, and Stepney Green is pretty gloomy and opressive too. Gunnersbury is a concrete jungle, Stonebridge Park is windswept and spartan... But that being said only a handful are genuinely unpleasant and are beyond help no matter how they're painted / lit.

I love very many stations: the classic 1860's stations like Baker Street (Circle) and Notting Hill Gate, the magnificent overall roof of Earl's Court (although it's been hidden for years now, sadly), the almost twee ex-LSWR stations at Southfields, Ravenscourt park and Turnham Green, the ultra modern JLE stations, the rustic ex-GNR stations north of East Finchley, the 1930's masterpieces at Chiswick park, Park Royal, Southgate etc... We have some fabulous and varied stations.


----------



## bigbossman

Tubeman said:


> It's incredibly practical and the only example of subterranean cross-platform interchange between a Subsurface and a Tube line, but I always found the station quite opressive and gloomy: the flat ceiling and columns are reminiscent of a New York subway station. It seems to have a similar effect on other passengers too, as it's a... if not the... suicide hotspot on LU.
> 
> Bow Road is minging, and Stepney Green is pretty gloomy and opressive too. Gunnersbury is a concrete jungle, Stonebridge Park is windswept and spartan... But that being said only a handful are genuinely unpleasant and are beyond help no matter how they're painted / lit.
> 
> I love very many stations: the classic 1860's stations like Baker Street (Circle) and Notting Hill Gate, the magnificent overall roof of Earl's Court (although it's been hidden for years now, sadly), the almost twee ex-LSWR stations at Southfields, Ravenscourt park and Turnham Green, the ultra modern JLE stations, the rustic ex-GNR stations north of East Finchley, the 1930's masterpieces at Chiswick park, Park Royal, Southgate etc... We have some fabulous and varied stations.


Yeah it feels grotty, but it buzzes like no other and doesn't feel too overcrowded with it.

Yes Baker street is immense, I do like earls court also, and i love the uniqueness of paddington on the hammersmith and city line, the way it emerges into Brunel's western gateway but still seems so detatched from it.


----------



## sotonsi

Tubeman said:


> bigbossman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so its basically-
> 
> 3 tracks- south london line
> 2- south eastern surburban (via dept and lewisham)
> 2- kent main line
> 2- brighton main line
> 2- brighton main line (stopping)
> 
> or am i wrong
> 
> 
> 
> No that's about right... The only 'bottleneck' as I see it is the fact that the two tracks ex-Deptford merge with 4 ex-St Johns at North Kent East Junction, so 6 tracks merge into 4 there.
Click to expand...

My quail suggests otherwise.

From South to North, just before the throat:
Up South London
Down South London
Up BML
Down BML
UP loop
No 6 Up
No 5 Down
No 4 Down
No 3 Up
No 2 Reversible
No 1 Down

That puts the 3 track railway the other side of the formation to the South London Line.

Just over a mile from London Bridge, as the SLL diverges the formation looks like this:
Up South London
Down South London
Reversible (nominally Up BML Slow, though also a second Down SL that only goes to the spur from the SL to the BML)
Up Fast
Down BML (just about to split into fast and slow)
Up loop (just about to merge into No 6 Up for BML split)
No 6 Up
No 5 Down
No 4 Down
No 3 Up
No 2 Reversible
No 1 Down

The South London tracks serve platforms 13-16, you can consider them the slow for the Central network. There's the spur from the SLL to a flat junction with the BML, and there the Reversible ends.
The BML tracks serve platforms 8 to 13, and cover the whole BML, slow and fast, with conflicts only in the throat (where platforms are paired and crossovers happen before they merge together).
The Up Loop serves the non-existent platform 7 and the tracks with numbers serve those platforms. 4 to 7 come from 2 Charing Cross tracks. 1-3 come from Cannon Street. 5 and 6 become the down SEML fast, 4 is able to split either way (merging with no 2 and no 5 after the Greenwich line heads off) just south of New Cross the no 2 merges with the no 1 and no 3.

The SL is not three tracks, at least not functionally.

Still, it's all about to change!


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> It's incredibly practical and the only example of subterranean cross-platform interchange between a Subsurface and a Tube line, but I always found the station quite opressive and gloomy: the flat ceiling and columns are reminiscent of a New York subway station. It seems to have a similar effect on other passengers too, as it's a... if not the... suicide hotspot on LU.
> 
> Bow Road is minging, and Stepney Green is pretty gloomy and opressive too. Gunnersbury is a concrete jungle, Stonebridge Park is windswept and spartan... But that being said only a handful are genuinely unpleasant and are beyond help no matter how they're painted / lit.
> 
> I love very many stations: the classic 1860's stations like Baker Street (Circle) and Notting Hill Gate, the magnificent overall roof of Earl's Court (although it's been hidden for years now, sadly), the almost twee ex-LSWR stations at Southfields, Ravenscourt park and Turnham Green, the ultra modern JLE stations, the rustic ex-GNR stations north of East Finchley, the 1930's masterpieces at Chiswick park, Park Royal, Southgate etc... We have some fabulous and varied stations.


Bow Road station has been refurbished and looks much better.

I love Mile End. It is unique in many respects, you can see daylight from the western end of the westbound Central line platforms, subterrenean cross platform interchange between sub-surface and tube lines, you can see Bow Road station from the eastern end of the District/H&C lines and it's the only cross platform interchange where the tube lines are on the outside and the sub-surface on the inside! I also love seeing trains race into all four platforms...


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> My quail suggests otherwise.
> 
> From South to North, just before the throat:
> Up South London
> Down South London
> Up BML
> Down BML
> UP loop
> No 6 Up
> No 5 Down
> No 4 Down
> No 3 Up
> No 2 Reversible
> No 1 Down
> 
> That puts the 3 track railway the other side of the formation to the South London Line.
> 
> Just over a mile from London Bridge, as the SLL diverges the formation looks like this:
> Up South London
> Down South London
> Reversible (nominally Up BML Slow, though also a second Down SL that only goes to the spur from the SL to the BML)
> Up Fast
> Down BML (just about to split into fast and slow)
> Up loop (just about to merge into No 6 Up for BML split)
> No 6 Up
> No 5 Down
> No 4 Down
> No 3 Up
> No 2 Reversible
> No 1 Down
> 
> The South London tracks serve platforms 13-16, you can consider them the slow for the Central network. There's the spur from the SLL to a flat junction with the BML, and there the Reversible ends.
> The BML tracks serve platforms 8 to 13, and cover the whole BML, slow and fast, with conflicts only in the throat (where platforms are paired and crossovers happen before they merge together).
> The Up Loop serves the non-existent platform 7 and the tracks with numbers serve those platforms. 4 to 7 come from 2 Charing Cross tracks. 1-3 come from Cannon Street. 5 and 6 become the down SEML fast, 4 is able to split either way (merging with no 2 and no 5 after the Greenwich line heads off) just south of New Cross the no 2 merges with the no 1 and no 3.
> 
> The SL is not three tracks, at least not functionally.
> 
> Still, it's all about to change!



I thought he meant more in terms of where the lines come from, obviously after the series of crossovers in the Southwark Park area the lines are reorganised and you can't definitively say which track handles which traffic.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Bow Road station has been refurbished and looks much better.


Fair enough, it's been some years since I last passed through


----------



## bigbossman

Tubeman said:


> I thought he meant more in terms of where the lines come from, obviously after the series of crossovers in the Southwark Park area the lines are reorganised and you can't definitively say which track handles which traffic.


yeah i meant what tubeman said


----------



## zfreeman

Tubeman said:


> It's incredibly practical and the only example of subterranean cross-platform interchange between a Subsurface and a Tube line, but I always found the station quite opressive and gloomy: the flat ceiling and columns are reminiscent of a New York subway station. It seems to have a similar effect on other passengers too, as it's a... if not the... suicide hotspot on LU.
> 
> Bow Road is minging, and Stepney Green is pretty gloomy and opressive too. Gunnersbury is a concrete jungle, Stonebridge Park is windswept and spartan... But that being said only a handful are genuinely unpleasant and are beyond help no matter how they're painted / lit.
> 
> I love very many stations: the classic 1860's stations like Baker Street (Circle) and Notting Hill Gate, the magnificent overall roof of Earl's Court (although it's been hidden for years now, sadly), the almost twee ex-LSWR stations at Southfields, Ravenscourt park and Turnham Green, the ultra modern JLE stations, the rustic ex-GNR stations north of East Finchley, the 1930's masterpieces at Chiswick park, Park Royal, Southgate etc... We have some fabulous and varied stations.



Love Mile End, reminds me of the subway in New York however it needs a clean up......the station reminds me of Westminster Cathedral ie unfinished.
Its bottom half is tiled and dirty yet the barreled roof is just bare - imagine it painted or tiled could become as iconic as Green stations are.

I love Canary Wharf on the JLE too just because of the space.

Everyone has a favourite............


----------



## sweek

I really like Finchley Road as well. It feels similar to Mile End in that it has a cross-platform "small train to big train" interchange, although this one is just outside the station. It also feels sort of New Yorkish.


----------



## fishcatdogbird

Hey tubeman, great thread as per usual! On Saturday i saw this travelling west bound at Westminster, do you know what the dirt has come from? I guess its something to do with the district line as it was shut for engineering... 

Apologies for the quality were taken on my blackberry... doh!


----------



## sotonsi

Tubeman said:


> I thought he meant more in terms of where the lines come from, obviously after the series of crossovers in the Southwark Park area the lines are reorganised and you can't definitively say which track handles which traffic.


I thought I did a good job of following the tracks through. My Second list is about where the SLL joins (OK, where the UP pass loop ends). I thought I did a pretty good job of following the tracks through, saying where they came from in the down direction and where they go in the up direction.

There are only a couple of crossovers in the Southwark Park area - the Spa Road area has lots. Southwark Park is down from where the SLL joins and there has been one little crossover linking Southern and SErn at that point.

I repeat strongly, that there are NOT three tracks from the SLL. There are 6 tracks from the SEML, 3 of which the Greenwich line merges into and 6 from the BML, 2 of which the SLL merges into.

At Southwark Park, you have 6 tracks (down, reversible, up, down, down, up) which link to the SErn network and 6 tracks (down, down, up, reversible, down, up) that link to the Southern network (3 separate from the main formation). The South London is isolated, save for the link from the up and down 'spur' tracks to/from the BML away from London, the reversible diverging from the down direction and a crossover just before the throat. The SLL can only access three tracks at the throat - the southernmost three - and only because of the crossover a third of a mile from London Bridge, over a mile since the SLL merged with the spur tracks, and two thirds of a mile since the Reversible ended).

Three tracks join the formation when the SLL joins it properly, but that is because the reversible diverges there (but doesn't have any crossovers with the SLL), and merges in with the spur to the BML a bit later.


----------



## Tubeman

^^
Services were suspended Embankment to Whitechapel, so somewhere between there... All that filth is decades of ballast intermingled with all manner of dirt. The track is ripped up, all the old ballast is dug out, new ballast laid and new track with flat-bottomed rail on concrete sleepers laid. The improvement in ride quality is immense, they're slowly replacing all of the SSR tunnelled sections, probably more than halfway now.


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> I thought I did a good job of following the tracks through. My Second list is about where the SLL joins (OK, where the UP pass loop ends). I thought I did a pretty good job of following the tracks through, saying where they came from in the down direction and where they go in the up direction.
> 
> There are only a couple of crossovers in the Southwark Park area - the Spa Road area has lots. Southwark Park is down from where the SLL joins and there has been one little crossover linking Southern and SErn at that point.
> 
> I repeat strongly, that there are NOT three tracks from the SLL. There are 6 tracks from the SEML, 3 of which the Greenwich line merges into and 6 from the BML, 2 of which the SLL merges into.
> 
> At Southwark Park, you have 6 tracks (down, reversible, up, down, down, up) which link to the SErn network and 6 tracks (down, down, up, reversible, down, up) that link to the Southern network (3 separate from the main formation). The South London is isolated, save for the link from the up and down 'spur' tracks to/from the BML away from London, the reversible diverging from the down direction and a crossover just before the throat. The SLL can only access three tracks at the throat - the southernmost three - and only because of the crossover a third of a mile from London Bridge, over a mile since the SLL merged with the spur tracks, and two thirds of a mile since the Reversible ended).
> 
> Three tracks join the formation when the SLL joins it properly, but that is because the reversible diverges there (but doesn't have any crossovers with the SLL), and merges in with the spur to the BML a bit later.


My point is that originally the SLL was built with three tracks, a vestige of this is the 3 tracking of the spur ex-Thames Junction onto which it joins at South Bermondsey Junction. 3 tracks were de rigeur at one point: the route from London Bridge to Charing Cross was originally built with 3, as was the NLR main line into Broad Street (both subsequently had a 4th track added). As the viaduct into London Bridge ended up to a width to accommodate an odd number of tracks as a consequence, it was fully utilised.


----------



## Stuu

Tubeman said:


> The improvement in ride quality is immense, they're slowly replacing all of the SSR tunnelled sections, probably more than halfway now.


Certainly is a huge improvement. Is there any information available with the schedule for when the tracks will be replaced? I know about the track closures thing on the TFL site, but presumably there are internal documents with a more complete schedule? I would love to know when they are going to start on the section between Finchley Road and Baker Street, its got to be the worst on the network


----------



## jarbury

Another question, how come Clapham Junction doesn't have a tube line run through it (considering how busy it is), and do you think it should? Following on from that, are there any plans to hook Clapham Junction up to the Tube?


----------



## Inconfidente

Hey Tubeman, 

I'm going to stay in London for eight weeks from the end of december till end of february. Is taking pictures of The Tube allowed inside stations and trains?

Thanks! Greetings from Brazil!


----------



## Tubeman

Stuu said:


> Certainly is a huge improvement. Is there any information available with the schedule for when the tracks will be replaced? I know about the track closures thing on the TFL site, but presumably there are internal documents with a more complete schedule? I would love to know when they are going to start on the section between Finchley Road and Baker Street, its got to be the worst on the network



Someone at Metronet SSR must know, but its not in the LU staff domain (i.e. not on our intranet, I'm sure someone somewhere knows!). I must say it's been very piecemeal... to me it would have made sense to start at one end and end at the other, but its been bits & pieces all over the place, and not necessarily the worst bits first as you've noticed.


----------



## Tubeman

jarbury said:


> Another question, how come Clapham Junction doesn't have a tube line run through it (considering how busy it is), and do you think it should? Following on from that, are there any plans to hook Clapham Junction up to the Tube?


'It just doesn't' is the trite unhelpful answer. To be honest it's not hugely busy in terms of people walking in off the street, it's busy in terms of people changing trains never leaving the station premises. It's always had very intensive services into Waterloo and Victoria so it's well served, and I fear because of the number of services stopping there a Tube line would be mobbed with customers choosing Clapham Junction to transfer between networks (similar to Vauxhall and Wimbledon).

There have no doubt been plans to link it to the Tube in the past, but evidently they've never come to fruition.


----------



## Tubeman

Fred_ said:


> Hey Tubeman,
> 
> I'm going to stay in London for eight weeks from the end of december till end of february. Is taking pictures of The Tube allowed inside stations and trains?
> 
> Thanks! Greetings from Brazil!


Hi Fred! You've certainly picked the gloomiest, coldest time of year to visit!

Technically you need a permit to take photos, but as long as you don't loiter too long anywhere with too professional looking a camera you'll be ok, and don't whatever you do commit the cardinal sin of taking a flash photo of the front of a train.


----------



## jarbury

Tubeman said:


> 'It just doesn't' is the trite unhelpful answer. To be honest it's not hugely busy in terms of people walking in off the street, it's busy in terms of people changing trains never leaving the station premises. It's always had very intensive services into Waterloo and Victoria so it's well served, and I fear because of the number of services stopping there a Tube line would be mobbed with customers choosing Clapham Junction to transfer between networks (similar to Vauxhall and Wimbledon).
> 
> There have no doubt been plans to link it to the Tube in the past, but evidently they've never come to fruition.


Yes I guess there's nothing really that obvious for it to link to anyway. You'd have to realign the Northern Line quite significantly to reach it, and I imagine you don't really want to flood that part of the Northern Line with a mass of new passengers.


----------



## Inconfidente

Tubeman said:


> Hi Fred! You've certainly picked the gloomiest, coldest time of year to visit!
> 
> Technically you need a permit to take photos, but as long as you don't loiter too long anywhere with too professional looking a camera you'll be ok, and don't whatever you do commit the cardinal sin of taking a flash photo of the front of a train.


Just like here in my city. Is it too hard to get (the permit)?


----------



## Tubeman

Fred_ said:


> Just like here in my city. Is it too hard to get (the permit)?


I think it's only really aimed at 'proper' professionals, which is why I said if you don't start pointing too professional a camera about or hanging about in any location too long you'll be fine. Unless you get a real arsehole, the staff will leave you alone as long as you're not getting in anyone's way or pissing anyone off. I reckon setting up a tripod on a platform or in a passageway would be asking for trouble, and there is a blanket ban on flash photos (even though this is only actually to prevent people taking flash photos of the front of trains as they come into platforms because it blinds the driver).

So yeah, go for off-peak when it's quiet and there aren't too many staff about, and avoid a big flashy camera / tripod and you'll be fine without a permit.


----------



## Inconfidente

Tubeman said:


> I think it's only really aimed at 'proper' professionals, which is why I said if you don't start pointing too professional a camera about or hanging about in any location too long you'll be fine. *Unless you get a real arsehole*, the staff will leave you alone as long as you're not getting in anyone's way or pissing anyone off. I reckon setting up a tripod on a platform or in a passageway would be asking for trouble, and there is a blanket ban on flash photos (even though this is only actually to prevent people taking flash photos of the front of trains as they come into platforms because it blinds the driver).
> 
> So yeah, go for off-peak when it's quiet and there aren't too many staff about, and avoid a big flashy camera / tripod and you'll be fine without a permit.


:lol:

Ok! I'll follow your advices. Thanks!


----------



## iampuking

Just remember to post the pics here afterwards...


----------



## fishcatdogbird

Tubeman said:


> ^^
> Services were suspended Embankment to Whitechapel, so somewhere between there... All that filth is decades of ballast intermingled with all manner of dirt. The track is ripped up, all the old ballast is dug out, new ballast laid and new track with flat-bottomed rail on concrete sleepers laid. The improvement in ride quality is immense, they're slowly replacing all of the SSR tunnelled sections, probably more than halfway now.


Sweet, thanks for the explanation, makes sense! :banana:


----------



## Inconfidente

iampuking said:


> Just remember to post the pics here afterwards...


Sure, why not. kay:


----------



## bigbossman

ay tubeman, a weird question for you about station name influence. Basically was speaking to someone the other day and i asked them where they lived and they said Acton main line. To me that sounded weird that someone claimed to live on a railway track but obviously i knew what they ment. It got me thinking about people who say they live in clapham junction which also makes no sense. The only one that does and is elephant and castle but that's because that's the de facto name for the area. I was just wondering if you knew of anymore oddities, like for instance to do people around Angel say they live in angel or islington?? Strange question i know, but i wanted to guage your opinion, cheers tubeman.


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> ay tubeman, a weird question for you about station name influence. Basically was speaking to someone the other day and i asked them where they lived and they said Acton main line. To me that sounded weird that someone claimed to live on a railway track but obviously i knew what they ment. It got me thinking about people who say they live in clapham junction which also makes no sense. The only one that does and is elephant and castle but that's because that's the de facto name for the area. I was just wondering if you knew of anymore oddities, like for instance to do people around Angel say they live in angel or islington?? Strange question i know, but i wanted to guage your opinion, cheers tubeman.


A few areas are named after their railway station, like Waterloo or Clapham Junction, but generally it's vice versa. Angel and Elephant & Castle are both named after pubs, and yes a lot of people say they live in 'Angel' because Islington is a very large area. I guess alot of people name their nearest Tube or railway station when describing where they live, but I certainly have never heard anyone referring the the area in which Acton Main Line is as 'Acton Main Line'... My friend from school lived just north of there off Horn Lane and always said 'Acton' or 'North Acton' but never 'Acton Main Line' even though that was by far his closest station. I've heard the environs of Clapham Junction referred to as 'Clapham Junction', 'The Junction' or 'Junction' quite often, which is a clear case of the station naming the area, not vice versa... This is again because Clapham is a large area and the Tube stations (North, South and Common), the mainline (Junction) and also Clapham Park are all referred to as discrete areas in my experience.

Other examples of stations naming the area are in the interwar suburbs where the railway preceded the housing, like Arnos Grove, Cockfosters, Colindale etc... I think some of these were named after the nearest farm to the station site.


----------



## bigbossman

Tubeman said:


> A few areas are named after their railway station, like Waterloo or Clapham Junction, but generally it's vice versa. Angel and Elephant & Castle are both named after pubs, and yes a lot of people say they live in 'Angel' because Islington is a very large area. I guess alot of people name their nearest Tube or railway station when describing where they live, but I certainly have never heard anyone referring the the area in which Acton Main Line is as 'Acton Main Line'... My friend from school lived just north of there off Horn Lane and always said 'Acton' or 'North Acton' but never 'Acton Main Line' even though that was by far his closest station. I've heard the environs of Clapham Junction referred to as 'Clapham Junction', 'The Junction' or 'Junction' quite often, which is a clear case of the station naming the area, not vice versa... This is again because Clapham is a large area and the Tube stations (North, South and Common), the mainline (Junction) and also Clapham Park are all referred to as discrete areas in my experience.
> 
> Other examples of stations naming the area are in the interwar suburbs where the railway preceded the housing, like Arnos Grove, Cockfosters, Colindale etc... I think some of these were named after the nearest farm to the station site.


clapham junction is in battersea though lol, and willesden junction is in harlesden, ont eh front of buses, it says harlesden willesden junction which is stupid imho.

It was a pretty dumb person who said they lived at acton main line tbf


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> clapham junction is in battersea though lol, and willesden junction is in harlesden, ont eh front of buses, it says harlesden willesden junction which is stupid imho.
> 
> It was a pretty dumb person who said they lived at acton main line tbf



LOL yeah as if it's something to be bragging about!  (At least it's better than South Acton!). And yeah I'd agree that Clapham Junction is in Battersea... even more evidence that the station named the area and not vice versa.


----------



## bigbossman

had a day off today, and had the old oyster weekly travel card so did abit of a random tour of london. This tour brought up a few questions

-Why the hell is the thameslink tunnel from st pancras to blackfriars so bloody slow
-Getting on at kentish town it also made me think that there are so many places where you can exit and enter the tube and effectively get a free journey, basically any station owned by NR or that has some sort of no ticket barrier link to it. Has TfL not thought of doing anything about this??
-Went to clapham north, and i changed my mind, i think that is the perfect tube station design (minus the narrow platform of course), Bright, and with a proper cross paltform, if only they could've built it wider, do you know why it was built so narrow??
-has there ever been plans to link regents park and great portland street, they are stupidly close?
-also what is the point of charing cross tube?? surely it should go back to it's pre jubilee line incarnation
-Another really extremely random question, i was just wondering why it was never thought of to link st pancras and kings cross properly into one station as part of the renovation works or ever? Even knock down the british library and add the WCML as well, would be a proper gateway to the north and they could truely banish euston to hell. 

cheers tubeman

-


----------



## bigbossman

oh yeah, saw alot of freight trains especially aroudn lewisham, where exactly does the freight go to and from round there, and is that what stops more frequent trains in South east London, i thought it was only london overground that was majorly affected??


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> had a day off today, and had the old oyster weekly travel card so did abit of a random tour of london. This tour brought up a few questions


I used to do that in the Summer holidays :yes:



bigbossman said:


> -Why the hell is the thameslink tunnel from st pancras to blackfriars so bloody slow


Hmmm it'll be subject to speed restrictions of some sort, I guess in the region of 40mph which isn't slow slow, about the same as the parallel LU tunnel. It might just feel slower due to a smoother ride. The last bit up the hill from City to Blackfriars is slow because of the extreme gradient (about 1/30).



bigbossman said:


> -Getting on at kentish town it also made me think that there are so many places where you can exit and enter the tube and effectively get a free journey, basically any station owned by NR or that has some sort of no ticket barrier link to it. Has TfL not thought of doing anything about this??


Although access to FCC is 'free', there is definitely a ticket barrier at the top of the escalators to the Tube. Because of Oyster there isn't a single LU station without ticket barriers (to prevent unresolved journies).



bigbossman said:


> -Went to clapham north, and i changed my mind, i think that is the perfect tube station design (minus the narrow platform of course), Bright, and with a proper cross paltform, if only they could've built it wider, do you know why it was built so narrow??


It's ok as long as the station isn't too busy, but Euston and Angel had to be converted into 'conventional' station layouts because the platforms were simply too narrow. I guess the overall width of the station tunnel bore was restricted to the wdith of the road above by the then payments which had to be paid for building under private property. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the layout, it's quite common on other metros, but the island platforms on the former C&SLR were simply too narrow.



bigbossman said:


> -has there ever been plans to link regents park and great portland street, they are stupidly close?


No point really... the only reason for a linking subway would be for interchange, and that can be done one stop along at Baker Street so it wouldn't add much value for the customers.



bigbossman said:


> -also what is the point of charing cross tube?? surely it should go back to it's pre jubilee line incarnation


I agree. It should be split back into 2 separate stations and not shown as an interchange.



bigbossman said:


> -Another really extremely random question, i was just wondering why it was never thought of to link st pancras and kings cross properly into one station as part of the renovation works or ever? Even knock down the british library and add the WCML as well, would be a proper gateway to the north and they could truely banish euston to hell.


The ECML and Midland Mainline are on different levels on the approach to the termini, as the ECML tunnels under the Regents Canal whilst the Midland crosses over it just before the stations. I quite like the notion of having used the British Library site (a former Goods station anyway) as the WCML terminus creating a vast super station, but the logical diversionary route would be via Primrose Hill and the NLL, which would result in a lot of property destruction through Camden as the viaduct would need to be widened to at least 6, and ideally 8, tracks. This could be seriously balanced by the huge amount of land at Euston and its approaches that this would free up, and plus would allow for Eurostars to run straight up to Manchester, Birmingham, etc without having to squeeze through the 2 tracks at Camden Road along with all the LOROL and freight trains. In principle the 'Gateway to the north' station is a great idea


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> oh yeah, saw alot of freight trains especially aroudn lewisham, where exactly does the freight go to and from round there, and is that what stops more frequent trains in South east London, i thought it was only london overground that was majorly affected??


The South London Line is also a very heavily used cross-London freight artery, with the bulk of this traffic running through Nunhead and thence on to Lewisham. This is certainly a major factor in limiting passenger frequencies, the signalling is not as dense as a Tube line (normally just a 'Station starter' signal + 1 'running' signal halfway between stations), and this is mostly because the signalling has to take into account the different lengths and braking capacities of trains... Freight trains are often longer and take a longer distance to stop than EMUs and so signalling has to be sparse compared to a Tube line.


----------



## bigbossman

> I used to do that in the Summer holidays :yes:


was an iteresting day until i ending up in croydon around school chucking out, Yobs, yobs and more yobs, police everywhere made me question if my area was that bad after school after all.




> Hmmm it'll be subject to speed restrictions of some sort, I guess in the region of 40mph which isn't slow slow, about the same as the parallel LU tunnel. It might just feel slower due to a smoother ride. The last bit up the hill from City to Blackfriars is slow because of the extreme gradient (about 1/30).


i dunno every tunnel i went in on national rail it fealt really slow, i don't know why. They also need a stop between kings cross and farringdon. that area has a load of estates around it, no wonder it's so isolated with no tube stop and being in central london.



> Although access to FCC is 'free', there is definitely a ticket barrier at the top of the escalators to the Tube. Because of Oyster there isn't a single LU station without ticket barriers (to prevent unresolved journies).


i mean if i was like a real scoundrel i could easily get around the tube without paying. Can use the dlr to get me on the network at straford, bank or canning town, and can get off the network somewhere like kentish town and take FCC to any ungated station which there are plenty. I dunno cricklewood to beckton could be done for free. Maybe TfL should think about Gating the massive multi mode interchanges and the major DLR stops along the lines of woolwich Arsenal. 

That brings up another Question really, they are gating woolwich arsenal to stop fair evasion on the south eastern side, but 1. the south eastern side is only gated up till about 7-8pm, and 2. none of the other south eastern stations are gated round there so i can just hop on the train at plumstead, then hop over onto the DLR for free, i suprised they never thought about this.



> It's ok as long as the station isn't too busy, but Euston and Angel had to be converted into 'conventional' station layouts because the platforms were simply too narrow. I guess the overall width of the station tunnel bore was restricted to the wdith of the road above by the then payments which had to be paid for building under private property. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the layout, it's quite common on other metros, but the island platforms on the former C&SLR were simply too narrow.


does the TfL still have to pay for building under properties?? if so thats stupid and is obviously what drives up line costs. GOvernment should pass a spanish style law, that everything underground is national property and thus the government can do what it wishes with it.



> No point really... the only reason for a linking subway would be for interchange, and that can be done one stop along at Baker Street so it wouldn't add much value for the customers.


Then why not cut out regents park, i can see the merit of Great Portland street, but regents park is a joke, maybe cut it out and speed up journeys to paddington, which is so damn hard to get to/from.




> I agree. It should be split back into 2 separate stations and not shown as an interchange.


Maybe they are holding out for some sort of DLR extension before abandoning it



> The ECML and Midland Mainline are on different levels on the approach to the termini, as the ECML tunnels under the Regents Canal whilst the Midland crosses over it just before the stations. I quite like the notion of having used the British Library site (a former Goods station anyway) as the WCML terminus creating a vast super station, but the logical diversionary route would be via Primrose Hill and the NLL, which would result in a lot of property destruction through Camden as the viaduct would need to be widened to at least 6, and ideally 8, tracks. This could be seriously balanced by the huge amount of land at Euston and its approaches that this would free up, and plus would allow for Eurostars to run straight up to Manchester, Birmingham, etc without having to squeeze through the 2 tracks at Camden Road along with all the LOROL and freight trains. In principle the 'Gateway to the north' station is a great idea


just wish the victorians had foresight, they had it with victoria, but not with kings cross and st pancras, which i still find strange, i suppose i wasn't around when there was liverpool st and broad st also, but it's weird that they couldn't create supwe stations to serve their purpose.

Apparently DLR to victoria has jumped above Dagenham dock as the next extension. Apparently the route is gonna be some sort of express line, stopping at only ludgate circus, aldwych and charing cross, i was thinking, if they are going to do that, why don't they swap the district and DLR branches just before bank/monument?? Then run the District as an express to victoia and run the DLR stopping. would speed up journeys to the city from victoria, and the DLR when it's 6 cars would have similar capacity to the district and that line is slow anyway, wondering what your thoughts on that were??

cheers tubeman


----------



## Stuu

Tubeman said:


> Because of Oyster there isn't a single LU station without ticket barriers (to prevent unresolved journies).


Pedant Alert... Not all, West Harrow westbound doesn't! Bet there are a couple of others about like that too


----------



## bigbossman

Stuu said:


> Pedant Alert... Not all, West Harrow westbound doesn't! Bet there are a couple of others about like that too


finsbury park as well, for a station with 20+million people going through each year thats crazy


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> was an iteresting day until i ending up in croydon around school chucking out, Yobs, yobs and more yobs, police everywhere made me question if my area was that bad after school after all.


That'll teach you to go to Croydon!!! 



bigbossman said:


> i dunno every tunnel i went in on national rail it fealt really slow, i don't know why. They also need a stop between kings cross and farringdon. that area has a load of estates around it, no wonder it's so isolated with no tube stop and being in central london.


I live on one of those estates! (Margery Street estate) ...And yes you're right, Kings X to Farringdon is far too long a gap between stations for central London. The reason why there is such a gap and probably nothing will ever be done about it is because the lines are in a 'real' tunnel at this point rather than cut & cover just below the ground, the tunnel begins just north of Lloyd Baker Street (behind the Travelodge) and ends where Farringdon Lane joins Farringdon Road (Betsy Trotswood pub), and burrows under a quite significant hill (Mount Pleasant). I don't know how deep the tracks are at Mount Pleasant (definitely the right location for the intermediate station), but I'd hazard a guess at 20-30 meteres, quite significant. Trying to insert a station here would be a nightmare: a huge 30m deep hole would need to be carved out down to the tops of the tunnels and broken through, the current tunnel walls destroyed, platforms inserted, then the new station encased in a concrete box and hole filled back in again. I'm no engineer, but I can't think of how else it could be done?

To be fair though Finsbury doesn't feel isolated, because the 38 and 19 buses bombing up and down Rosebery Avenue come every couple of minutes and get you to Tottenham Court Road in under 10 minutes... In fact I very rarely use the Tube outside of work, I prefer buses anyway!



bigbossman said:


> i mean if i was like a real scoundrel i could easily get around the tube without paying. Can use the dlr to get me on the network at straford, bank or canning town, and can get off the network somewhere like kentish town and take FCC to any ungated station which there are plenty. I dunno cricklewood to beckton could be done for free. Maybe TfL should think about Gating the massive multi mode interchanges and the major DLR stops along the lines of woolwich Arsenal.
> 
> That brings up another Question really, they are gating woolwich arsenal to stop fair evasion on the south eastern side, but 1. the south eastern side is only gated up till about 7-8pm, and 2. none of the other south eastern stations are gated round there so i can just hop on the train at plumstead, then hop over onto the DLR for free, i suprised they never thought about this.


Well I guess if you're really committed to the cause I guess free journies are possible, but obviously they aren't much use unless you live in Beckton and want to go to Cricklewood... and manage to avoid any revenue inspectors!



bigbossman said:


> does the TfL still have to pay for building under properties?? if so thats stupid and is obviously what drives up line costs. GOvernment should pass a spanish style law, that everything underground is national property and thus the government can do what it wishes with it.


No, it ended early in the 20th Century... Dunno which year though. All the Yerkes Tubes and the Central London and City & South London Railways stuck to the streets above, but by the time the Bakerloo was extended to Queen's Park in 1915 it just took the shortest route, so circa WW1 I guess?



bigbossman said:


> Then why not cut out regents park, i can see the merit of Great Portland street, but regents park is a joke, maybe cut it out and speed up journeys to paddington, which is so damn hard to get to/from.


It's not the busiest, but cutting it out would disadvantage, for example, someone travelling up from the south who wanted to get to Regent's Park, as otherwise they'd have to travel to Baker Street and change for an eastbound train to GPS.



bigbossman said:


> Maybe they are holding out for some sort of DLR extension before abandoning it


Probably, yes... I can't see the logic otherwise



bigbossman said:


> just wish the victorians had foresight, they had it with victoria, but not with kings cross and st pancras, which i still find strange, i suppose i wasn't around when there was liverpool st and broad st also, but it's weird that they couldn't create supwe stations to serve their purpose.


They were all in fierce competition with each other and in many cases actively tried to destroy each other. Even apparent acts of cooperation like Victoria station would have been beset by squabbles and underhand tactics.



bigbossman said:


> Apparently DLR to victoria has jumped above Dagenham dock as the next extension. Apparently the route is gonna be some sort of express line, stopping at only ludgate circus, aldwych and charing cross, i was thinking, if they are going to do that, why don't they swap the district and DLR branches just before bank/monument?? Then run the District as an express to victoia and run the DLR stopping. would speed up journeys to the city from victoria, and the DLR when it's 6 cars would have similar capacity to the district and that line is slow anyway, wondering what your thoughts on that were??


There is something to be said for that; DLR to Victoria, if it is significantly faster to The City than the District, would be mobbed from day one. Better to switch them around, provided it isn't too much of an engineering headache.


----------



## Tubeman

Stuu said:


> Pedant Alert... Not all, West Harrow westbound doesn't! Bet there are a couple of others about like that too


I stand corrected! I'm surprised... Must be a nightmare for Oyster users, because if you don't 'resolve' a journey by touching out, you won't be able to get through a gate next time.


----------



## Stuu

Yes, forgetting is easily done especially when it is quiet so there isn't a queue waiting to use the validators. When did they start not letting people through if they have an unresolved journey? They used to just charge you and keep the money


----------



## bigbossman

On the issue of 24 hour trains. there is apparently one that runs from victoria to croydon through the night, are there anymore tubeman?


----------



## Stuu

Thameslink trains run all night, hourly Bedford-Three Bridges, possibly not on a Saturday night. They might not be at the moment because of all the engineering works though


----------



## Tubeman

Stuu said:


> Yes, forgetting is easily done especially when it is quiet so there isn't a queue waiting to use the validators. When did they start not letting people through if they have an unresolved journey? They used to just charge you and keep the money


I'm pretty sure if the last journey was unresolved the UTS gates won't open next time, and a member of staff needs to 'resolve' the journey for you. Might be wrong though, not a stations bod


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> On the issue of 24 hour trains. there is apparently one that runs from victoria to croydon through the night, are there anymore tubeman?


Aside from the two mentioned, I don't know... There are a couple of sleeper services left, so obviously those sort of count. All-night services used to be much more common.


----------



## iampuking

Great sped up video of a cab view of the Piccadilly line between Arnos Grove and Acton Town:


----------



## Tubeman

^^
Love it! If only it were really that fast


----------



## elfabyanos

^^ Does anyone have any links for cab views at normal speeds? There are a few on youtube but frustratingly few, and mostly they are the sped up ones which are just a blur.


----------



## bigbossman

tubeman, if thameslink runs 24/7 then is it theoritically possible that the sub-surface lines can too?


----------



## iampuking

elfabyanos said:


> ^^ Does anyone have any links for cab views at normal speeds? There are a few on youtube but frustratingly few, and mostly they are the sped up ones which are just a blur.


You may have heard of this, but piccdriver has quite a few of the Piccadilly line.


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> tubeman, if thameslink runs 24/7 then is it theoritically possible that the sub-surface lines can too?


I guess so... NR seem to have a different approach to maintenance than LU do, they'll trade 24 hour running for complete weekend shut-downs every now and then whereas LU seems to prefer providing a service 364 days a year with a nightly engineering shut-down. In general our assets are in a worse state than NR, but maybe when the entire SSR has been resignalled and the track replaced the maintenance frequency can be reduced?

One difference in general between NR tunnels and LU ones is that on NR there are 'refuges' in the tunnel wall for workers to retire to when a train approaches: it is perfectly normal to see workers anywhere, anytime on NR routes even in tunnels carrying out the sort of light maintenance and inspections LU do at night.

LU tunnel sections are known as 'line clear', which basically prohibits any form of unprotected track access during traffic hours (the alternative is 'line safe' which refers to most overground sections, here work can be carried out by day). The difference between NR and LU tunnels is mostly due to the higher train frequencies and 2 current rails rendering work in any LU tunnel very hazardous, even with refuges (which are built into many sections of SSR). Plus you're never very far from a live current rail, so walking around with tools with the 'juice' on is inadvisable... At least where there are tunnels with 3rd rail on NR you can safely walk along the '4 foot' (the space between the running rails) and step over to a refuge if a train approaches, as there is no middle 'negative' rail like on LU.


----------



## jarbury

I noticed you said 364 days a year above. Is the whole Tube shut down on Xmas day?


----------



## Tubeman

jarbury said:


> I noticed you said 364 days a year above. Is the whole Tube shut down on Xmas day?


Yes. We used to run Xmas day, but not anymore. Graffiti artistes' heaven!


----------



## bigbossman

why is fourth rail needed on the sub surface lines?? is it just for standardisation or are there actual benefits?


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> why is fourth rail needed on the sub surface lines?? is it just for standardisation or are there actual benefits?


Standardisation with the rest of the network for stock transfers and engineer's trains. A third rail alone poses issues I don't fully understand for Tube lines, something to do with corrosion or losing current due to leaking into the tunnel structure... I know the Central London Railway originally had a single third rail though.


----------



## Capzilla

Tubeman said:


> Yes. We used to run Xmas day, but not anymore. Graffiti artistes' heaven!


Planned downtime is rather valuable, any reason it isn't put to use for maintenance not possible in the night hours yet not requiring an extensive closure? Other than the obvious "people don't want to work on Christmas Day" which is in my experience definitely not a given.


----------



## bigbossman

Tubeman said:


> Standardisation with the rest of the network for stock transfers and engineer's trains. A third rail alone poses issues I don't fully understand for Tube lines, something to do with corrosion or losing current due to leaking into the tunnel structure... I know the Central London Railway originally had a single third rail though.


isn't it to do with electrolosis and the water table?? thats why a lot of old lines weren't built because water companys objected, and the water table was used more heavily in the pre war (by factories) than it is now. I don't know anything about science unfortunately but thats the reason i heard for fourth rail. so that the current doesn't use the tunnel lining.


----------



## Tubeman

Capzilla said:


> Planned downtime is rather valuable, any reason it isn't put to use for maintenance not possible in the night hours yet not requiring an extensive closure? Other than the obvious "people don't want to work on Christmas Day" which is in my experience definitely not a given.


People want to be paid a lot to work Christmas day, basically!


----------



## ajw373

Tubeman said:


> Standardisation with the rest of the network for stock transfers and engineer's trains. A third rail alone poses issues I don't fully understand for Tube lines, something to do with corrosion or losing current due to leaking into the tunnel structure... I know the Central London Railway originally had a single third rail though.


The reason is on a 3rd rail system the return conductor(s) are the rails which are connected to earth. Most of the London tube tunnels are metalic, so if you were to run the return current through the rails which are connected to the tunnel sections you end up with massive corrosion. (like a big battery)

So the solution is a 4th rail which is fully insulated from the running rails and hence the walls, so no corrosion issue.

As for Christmas, as a new arrival to the UK (almost 2 years) I still find it amazing that the whole public transport system in London (buses included) shuts down on Christmas day. No doubt many don't want to work, but my experiance is there will be just as many who (with appropriate pay) will work. Afterall how many in London now days are christians and celebrate Christmas as it is intended. London is the only major city I have lived in that closes down like this. Also I beleive some lines remain closed for a few days after too, same too with mainline trains. Appaling actually and a shows further why this country is so messed up and behind the rest of the world.


----------



## lightrail

With regard to the four rail system, as I understand it, on London Underground the negative rail is also charged at around -300volts and the positive rail is charged at +300 something volts. But on the Network Rail lines, the centre rail is not charged but grounded to the running rails so LU trains can run on the third-rail track, discharging to the 4th "dummy" rail.

Four rail systems are not unique to London. Vancouver's Skytrain operates on a four rail system, with two power rails stacked on top of each running on the outside of the track, charged in a similar fashion to London's (-330v on the negative rail and +300v on the positive rail.

Another advantage to four rail system is it keeps the running rails clear for use in track circuits.


----------



## Tubeman

ajw373 said:


> The reason is on a 3rd rail system the return conductor(s) are the rails which are connected to earth. Most of the London tube tunnels are metalic, so if you were to run the return current through the rails which are connected to the tunnel sections you end up with massive corrosion. (like a big battery)
> 
> So the solution is a 4th rail which is fully insulated from the running rails and hence the walls, so no corrosion issue.
> 
> As for Christmas, as a new arrival to the UK (almost 2 years) I still find it amazing that the whole public transport system in London (buses included) shuts down on Christmas day. No doubt many don't want to work, but my experiance is there will be just as many who (with appropriate pay) will work. Afterall how many in London now days are christians and celebrate Christmas as it is intended. London is the only major city I have lived in that closes down like this. Also I beleive some lines remain closed for a few days after too, same too with mainline trains. Appaling actually and a shows further why this country is so messed up and behind the rest of the world.


We used to run Christmas day and it was wound up in the 1980's due to lack of patronage. I think it's ok... people just travel to family on Christmas Eve and come back Boxing Day... It actually gives Christmas day a nice bit of sanctity and peace (although I'm biased because my dad's house backs onto the District Line). NR shuts down Boxing day too.

Staffing isn't a problem, there's enough people who don't care, or in the case of some Muslim staff refuse to not work on Christmas Day and are told to report to head office. We don't have any variable pay rates for bank holidays though, so people just don't lose an Annual leave day if they work Xmas day (every other staff member loses a day out of their allocation).

I certainly baulk at you notion that it shows how 'backwards' we are in the UK... It's one of very few traditions left.


----------



## Tubeman

lightrail said:


> With regard to the four rail system, as I understand it, on London Underground the negative rail is also charged at around -300volts and the positive rail is charged at +300 something volts. But on the Network Rail lines, the centre rail is not charged but grounded to the running rails so LU trains can run on the third-rail track, discharging to the 4th "dummy" rail.
> 
> Four rail systems are not unique to London. Vancouver's Skytrain operates on a four rail system, with two power rails stacked on top of each running on the outside of the track, charged in a similar fashion to London's (-330v on the negative rail and +300v on the positive rail.
> 
> Another advantage to four rail system is it keeps the running rails clear for use in track circuits.


LU Positive = +420V, Negative = -210V, giving a total PD of 630V

NR = approx +700V returned by the running rail


----------



## sotonsi

ajw373 said:


> Afterall how many in London now days are christians and celebrate Christmas as it is intended. London is the only major city I have lived in that closes down like this. Also I beleive some lines remain closed for a few days after too, same too with mainline trains. Appaling actually and a shows further why this country is so messed up and behind the rest of the world.


About 10% - a higher percentage than the rest of the country than the rest of the country. Add to that probably 75+% who celebrate it as a secular traditional festival, maybe with a nod to the religious bits of it.


Tubeman said:


> We used to run Christmas day and it was wound up in the 1980's due to lack of patronage.


as Christmas in the UK has lost much of it's religious image and became a commercialised secular festival more people celebrate it in bigger ways.


> I think it's ok... people just travel to family on Christmas Eve and come back Boxing Day... It actually gives Christmas day a nice bit of sanctity and peace (although I'm biased because my dad's house backs onto the District Line). NR shuts down Boxing day too.


Indeed, it's most civilised to shut down for a day. Breaking our hectic lives for one day.


> Staffing isn't a problem, there's enough people who don't care, or in the case of some Muslim staff refuse to not work on Christmas Day and are told to report to head office.


Very odd on the Muslims - though they don't have Christmas as celebrating Immanuel, they do believe in the Virgin Birth - which is more than most people who have the day off. I guess they'd rather have the leave for Eid or something. Is there enough staff to run a Sunday service on Christmas Day? I don't think there would be. Being given the choice of working on Christmas Day is far better than many places which close completely on Christmas Day where you have to take it off. Many force you to take three days leave as they close at lunch on the 24th and open again on the 2nd and most that aren't retail or catering would close for Christmas and Boxing Day.

I'd also think that removing the Christmas Day break (as well as getting Bob Crowe to call a strike) would put the all night service on New Years at risk.


> I certainly baulk at you notion that it shows how 'backwards' we are in the UK... It's one of very few traditions left.


I agree: it's backward to decide that we should get rid of tradition for profit. The nation goes quiet for a week, and near silent for a day when the nights are long and days are short, dull, cold and depressing. It's probably more productive to have it, even ignoring the massive amount spent on the feast and on presents - purely for morale terms.


----------



## jarbury

Auckland runs its buses on Christmas Day.... on a Sunday timetable. Plus a lot of the buses are actually free on that one day of the year. What's traffic like throughout the city on Xmas Day because there is no public transport running?


----------



## ajw373

Tubeman said:


> We used to run Christmas day and it was wound up in the 1980's due to lack of patronage. I think it's ok... people just travel to family on Christmas Eve and come back Boxing Day... It actually gives Christmas day a nice bit of sanctity and peace (although I'm biased because my dad's house backs onto the District Line). NR shuts down Boxing day too.
> 
> Staffing isn't a problem, there's enough people who don't care, or in the case of some Muslim staff refuse to not work on Christmas Day and are told to report to head office. We don't have any variable pay rates for bank holidays though, so people just don't lose an Annual leave day if they work Xmas day (every other staff member loses a day out of their allocation).
> 
> I certainly baulk at you notion that it shows how 'backwards' we are in the UK... It's one of very few traditions left.


I can understand the tube shutting down because it takes a whole lot of staff to operate for little return. I am more concerned that all transport shuts down, buses included. Any yes it is very backwards, same too not getting penalty rates for holidays compared to everywhere else I have lived in this world. Even my real home which is the small city of Canberra can manage to run a bus service on Christmas day.

I wonder how people in London, many who do not have cars get to their family and freinds homes on Christmas day? Likewise how do the people who are working (police, fire, hospital etc) get to work.


----------



## ajw373

jarbury said:


> Auckland runs its buses on Christmas Day.... on a Sunday timetable. Plus a lot of the buses are actually free on that one day of the year. What's traffic like throughout the city on Xmas Day because there is no public transport running?


It is as quiet in central London at least because a great percentage of people do not have cars.


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> Very odd on the Muslims - though they don't have Christmas as celebrating Immanuel, they do believe in the Virgin Birth - which is more than most people who have the day off. I guess they'd rather have the leave for Eid or something.


Note I said some, there's only a handful who insist on working (Issa is a Muslim prophet too as you note)... So no there aren't enough to run the railway, but if it was thrown open with a bit of an incentive then I guess you'd get enough. New Year's Eve all night running is always oversubscribed.


----------



## Tubeman

ajw373 said:


> I can understand the tube shutting down because it takes a whole lot of staff to operate for little return. I am more concerned that all transport shuts down, buses included. Any yes it is very backwards, same too not getting penalty rates for holidays compared to everywhere else I have lived in this world. Even my real home which is the small city of Canberra can manage to run a bus service on Christmas day.
> 
> I wonder how people in London, many who do not have cars get to their family and freinds homes on Christmas day? Likewise how do the people who are working (police, fire, hospital etc) get to work.


People who work drive, if they don't drive their organisation would get them a taxi I presume. We have LU workers finishing early Christmas morning, taxis are provided to get them home. I've lived in London all my life and don't drive... Christmas day is fine. If I am staying elsewhere I just get there Christmas Eve and come back Boxing Day, but usually it's just me and the other half alone in our flat totally undisturbed on the only day of the year we're both guaranteed to be off... It's bliss.

It's *civilised* not backwards. If someone really can't either arrange a lift or a taxi on Christmas day I suggest they haven't got anyone who actually wants to see them... They should stay indoors


----------



## Acemcbuller

Hi Tubeman

A silly question but maybe you'll indulge me. You're not a stations bod but maybe you've got an idea what the codes for cleaners are?! It just intrigues me to hear the public address system being used to ask cleaners to attend a "code 2"! I guess its done to avoid describing the bodily fluid that's appeared on the floor!

James


----------



## Tubeman

Acemcbuller said:


> Hi Tubeman
> 
> A silly question but maybe you'll indulge me. You're not a stations bod but maybe you've got an idea what the codes for cleaners are?! It just intrigues me to hear the public address system being used to ask cleaners to attend a "code 2"! I guess its done to avoid describing the bodily fluid that's appeared on the floor!
> 
> James


I don't know, but I'd wager it's probably puke


----------



## zfreeman

I remember once hearing a tannoy message regarding this. It went something like this:

"Could the contract cleaner please come to the end of platform 2, to give the individual a mop and bucket to clean up his urine. Yes we can see you"


----------



## bigbossman

random questions

Do you think people use the heathrow airport stations as commuter stations as there is a lot of residential land around it?

kings cross is the busiest tube station by entries/exits, what do you reckon the true busiest station in london is if you include interchange?? For me the amount of people changing lines at victoria or bank seems much larger than kings cross

cheers


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> random questions
> 
> Do you think people use the heathrow airport stations as commuter stations as there is a lot of residential land around it?
> 
> kings cross is the busiest tube station by entries/exits, what do you reckon the true busiest station in london is if you include interchange?? For me the amount of people changing lines at victoria or bank seems much larger than kings cross
> 
> cheers


I think locals to the airport use Hatton Cross station... It's too much of a palaver getting to the 'proper' airport stations as they're all inside the airport perimeter, you can't walk to them I don't think.

I think the answer to the second one is Oxford Circus


----------



## Rational Plan

Tubeman said:


> I think locals to the airport use Hatton Cross station... It's too much of a palaver getting to the 'proper' airport stations as they're all inside the airport perimeter, you can't walk to them I don't think.
> 
> I think the answer to the second one is Oxford Circus


Not that many local people use Hatton cross to get to London. They will often change from a bus to get to Heathrow. Though Heathrow is a small site compared to other international airports, it is still huge. The main road access is a congested tunnel under the Northern Runway. With the exception of buses from the North, most buses have a convoluted journey to the terminals, hence interchanging at Hatton Cross. 

The only major residential areas that are close to the airport are to the East and they are already served by the Piccadilly line. For nearly everyone else their own local train or tube station is much closer than Heathrow.


----------



## elfabyanos

Tubeman said:


> I guess so... NR seem to have a different approach to maintenance than LU do, they'll trade 24 hour running for complete weekend shut-downs every now and then whereas LU seems to prefer providing a service 364 days a year with a nightly engineering shut-down. In general our assets are in a worse state than NR, but maybe when the entire SSR has been resignalled and the track replaced the maintenance frequency can be reduced?


Also apart from the central section thameslink travel over routes with four tracking, or possible diversionary routes.

Thaniks for the link iampuking


----------



## bigbossman

Tubeman, had an interesting trip to oxford this week travelling on the great western main line, which tbf is damn fast and for all it's documented faults thought had a nice service, oxford-london in under an hour. But they have to electrify it, the place i stayed in was right by the station and the noise those damn deisel trains made at 5 in the morning is horrendous, do you know why this line was never fully electrified, at least to reading, oxford or bristol??

commuted to waterloo today, and the amount of people changing trains at london bridge just get to waterloo is amazing, more than stayed on to charng cross, i think at least re opening the chord to waterloo is a must for through services, even if it means cutting through the concourse... do you know what platform it would come cut through? it looked like around platform 4-5 to me. 

cheers tubeman


----------



## bigbossman

another quick one, how do tube trains and national rail stock share the same lines, running third rail and fourth rail??


----------



## sarflonlad

bigbossman said:


> commuted to waterloo today, and the amount of people changing trains at london bridge just get to waterloo is amazing, more than stayed on to charng cross, i think at least re opening the chord to waterloo is a must for through services, even if it means cutting through the concourse... do you know what platform it would come cut through? it looked like around platform 4-5 to me.


Waterloo East to London Bridge has always been used as an alternative W&C line - but for the south of the city/London Bridge area.

It's a nice idea to link the chord again. But you would need very frequent services to justify it - and I don't think that the SE lines could handle that. Not much bother walking a few mins to connect as you would with an LU line.


----------



## bigbossman

sarflonlad said:


> Waterloo East to London Bridge has always been used as an alternative W&C line - but for the south of the city/London Bridge area.
> 
> It's a nice idea to link the chord again. But you would need very frequent services to justify it - and I don't think that the SE lines could handle that. Not much bother walking a few mins to connect as you would with an LU line.


no i disagree i went from london bridge to waterloo, basically alot of people who were on cannon street trains on london bridge terminators hop over to platfrom 6 to the very frequent trains into charing cross. the train was packed out for one stop then it emptied more or less at waterloo. I'd prefer all the charing cross service be diverted into waterloo and take over one of the pairs of tracks out of waterloo. i don't think charing cross is all that personally and most passengers get on at waterloo east and london bridge.


----------



## sotonsi

Tubeman said:


> I support them insofar I wouldn't complain if they were built, but I question their necessity / benefit vs the cost. I think as much can be achieved with upgrades of existing lines and junction remodellings.


You need a new line to the Birmingham area for capacity, but north of there, you could do a lot with short little stretches (eg to form a Stafford bypass, by building 2 mile of track around the south of Stone) of new standard track and junction upgrades. However you need more Birmingham-London capacity, and that's where HS2 comes in.

It's also as cheap to build new lines than as to upgrade old ones. Closures and restricted working times get annoying.

On the roads it's cheaper per-mile, but politically more difficult, to build a new 3-lane motorway than to widen an existing one properly to 4-lanes, with full hard shoulders.


----------



## bigbossman

elfabyanos said:


> I'm not saying it won't be useful to some people, but you have based this on your perception of seeing people alight at Waterloo East. I am telling you that you cannot infer from that that it would be of benefit to most of those people to have direct service into the Waterloo south west mainlines.
> 
> I don't think you realise what it is that I'm saying.
> 
> Of course it would generate new journey opportunities, but it would not be a free lunch, reinstating the link would require more than just reinstating the link and all I'm trying to point out to you is that you have over-simplified the issue based on your perceptions of being on a train at a certain time once.


i get the train everyday and get off at waterloo east, at least once a week... lots of people go from the southeastern network to the south west trains network, it's an interchange for this very reason and IT IS very busy, if you want an argument, do it in private not on tubemans thread, tar


----------



## sotonsi

Where would these people who interchange be going? Are they people who change going from the London Bridge area to the SWrn destinations? Or are they SErn people changing and going through to SWrn destinations?

Would better orbital links help - eg Lewisham to Clapham Junction (perhaps having ELLX phase 2 going somewhere else, and of course having Brockley and Brixton high level stations). They'd be a lot cheaper than the several hundred million plus that rebuilding the link, reorganising the Charing Cross line's tracks and building the flyover needed to get to Cannon Street would cost.


----------



## bigbossman

well kingston, wimbledon, richmond are all places people work at in the suburbs. you have places like guildford and woking beyond.

i agree with you for once sotonsi, brixton high level, moving clapham high street to next to clapham north, brockley high level and loughborough high level should be built.

Personally i wouldve pumped all the ELLX money into taking all the freight of the orbirail and building the interchanges. even shoreditch high street. 

But sotonsi network rail are looking at st pancrasing waterloo. lowerring the concourse, so having that through track could be done easily as part of the works.


----------



## bigbossman

tubeman on a related note, the northern end of the high barnet branch platforms run pretty close to the north london line, or it looks like they do. Camden town needs a rebuild and the north london line has poor interchanges. i was in camden the other day and i looked on google images and the NLL viaduct is surrounded by a park on kentish town road. ok here is where i am leading.

1. why the hell don't they just quadruple the junction, the land is there, and it would solve the freight bottle neck, espcially with some sort of flying junction.

2. there is room to move the platforms over kentish town road, or extend them that way, then how possible would it be to link this to the northern end of those platforms. This would provide another exit for camden town and provide proper interchange.

3. i know these are costly but the money is there for the redevelop anyway and surely it would help the case of overground more.


----------



## bigbossman

final questions tubeman cheers

it is on overground/orbirail, i love the premise but this is what i would've done differently. it goes through everywhere important in zone 2 except hackney and hammersmith (finsbury park should really be in 3). 

-to serve hackney i was thinking, from whitchapel it couldve been diverted onto the lea valley viaduct, and round the graham curve. if the shenfield metro goes, capacity is created, as one of the lea valley lines could go up via stratford. It would then be able to interchange with the central at bethnal green stopping the need to build platforms at shroeditch high street.

-to serve hammersmith i was thinking the H & C viaduct could be shared from when the WLL crosses it to hammersmith. Then maybe a short tunnel under hammersmith to wandsworth town, then into clapham junction. Personally the busyness of hammersmith could justify a tunnel. i dunno

The only line it would miss then would be the piccadilly north on kings cross but that really can't be helped.

oh yeah and they could have for platforms at clapham junction and matbe H & I and run two overlapping services. H & I to H & I and CJ to CJ. Just some thoughts. obviously pipe dreams but just some thoughts

what do you think tubeman. and also how can they get the freight of these lines.

i was thinking the WLL they could divert it via acton central, chiswick and barnes with a few well placed curves???

also how did district line trains get through to windsor, did the shed they termiante in at ealing used to have through workings or has that wall always been there, was in E bdy today thats why??


----------



## sweek

Off topic, and as as an ex-local... why would Finsbury Park have to be in zone 3, when zone 2 runs all the way to Stamford Brook and Acton in the west for example, and Willesden Junction in the north-west... all much further away from Central London.


----------



## bigbossman

sweek said:


> Off topic, and as as an ex-local... why would Finsbury Park have to be in zone 3, when zone 2 runs all the way to Stamford Brook and Acton in the west for example, and Willesden Junction in the north-west... all much further away from Central London.


i didn't mean it like that, it's not on the orbirail alignment is all, so it doesn't feel as zone 2 as the other places, it should be be zone 2/3 really for interchange purposes, like north acton/turnham green etc


----------



## elfabyanos

bigbossman said:


> if you want an argument, do it in private not on tubemans thread, tar


To be honest mate you're having an argument with yourself as you create a false binary in every conversation. Forgive me for bringing some practical considerations to the table. In this and the other thread I'm going to leave you to it.

Tubeman my apologies. I think I need to brig myself and rediscover the real world for a week


----------



## bigbossman

elfabyanos said:


> To be honest mate you're having an argument with yourself as you create a false binary in every conversation. Forgive me for bringing some practical considerations to the table. In this and the other thread I'm going to leave you to it.
> 
> Tubeman my apologies. I think I need to brig myself and rediscover the real world for a week


you know what i did write a proper reply to you, but that was clearly what you were aiming for, grow up mate! 

You started all this by criticising my question to tubeman, i didn't ask your opinion, i asked tubemans, your attitude stinks mate and your attempts at sarcasm and degredation don't cover up the fact that all you want to do is disagree with people (and i include myself in that)!


----------



## sweek

bigbossman said:


> i didn't mean it like that, it's not on the orbirail alignment is all, so it doesn't feel as zone 2 as the other places, it should be be zone 2/3 really for interchange purposes, like north acton/turnham green etc


Alright don't worry. but it's pretty obvious the orbirail is going to run a lot closer to central London in certain places (Camden, Shoreditch) than it does in others, such as Willesden and Denmark Hill.


----------



## sotonsi

bigbossman said:


> well kingston, wimbledon, richmond are all places people work at in the suburbs. you have places like guildford and woking beyond.


but how many people go there? Richmond wouldn't be served by such a link anyway. Not how all are south of CJ - a CJ-Lewisham service would be cheaper, even with the interchanges and would cover all the inside London journeys. Outside London journeys would be very rare - Guildford and Woking would have people changing anyway to fast trains.


> But sotonsi network rail are looking at st pancrasing waterloo. lowerring the concourse, so having that through track could be done easily as part of the works.


yes it could (those works cost £1billion - very expensive, hence why Euston's plans have leapfrogged them in the queue), however you still have Borough Market 3rd viaduct (and rebuild of London Bridge, whoops, back to the drawing board - they won't redo it only a few years after redoing it!) or a Metropolitan Junction Flyover into Cannon Street.

As for a full orbital rail service - complete mistake. A series of tangental services, that overlap, would be better. No one would want to go more than a third of the way around.

Whitechapel to Lea Valley slows was a proposal at one point. Shoreditch would have been scrapped and a linking tunnel built, so the Liverpool Street tracks were avoided. I think it was mostly for freight, though it may have been for Palace Gates to New Cross services.


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> Off topic, and as as an ex-local... why would Finsbury Park have to be in zone 3, when zone 2 runs all the way to Stamford Brook and Acton in the west for example, and Willesden Junction in the north-west... all much further away from Central London.


The zones are elliptical, i.e. are shorter on the north-south axis than the east-west axis, because this is the overall shape of London and the CBD. This means somewhere like Finsbury Park, due north of The City, is in zone 3 despite being closer to Central London than places due west of it like Turnham Green which lies on the boundary.

Sort of unfair, bet hey


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> final questions tubeman cheers
> 
> it is on overground/orbirail, i love the premise but this is what i would've done differently. it goes through everywhere important in zone 2 except hackney and hammersmith (finsbury park should really be in 3).
> 
> -to serve hackney i was thinking, from whitchapel it couldve been diverted onto the lea valley viaduct, and round the graham curve. if the shenfield metro goes, capacity is created, as one of the lea valley lines could go up via stratford. It would then be able to interchange with the central at bethnal green stopping the need to build platforms at shroeditch high street.


Do you propose this instead of taking over the Broad Street viaduct? I'd be against this if that was the case, purely because the biggest selling point of the East London Line extension to me is the stations at Hoxton and Haggerston, currently in areas devoid of any railway access as bad as anywhere in Central London. Interestingly however the linkage you propose was half-built, as well as the eventual Liverpool St facing junction there was supposed to be a spur linking up with the GER between Bethnal Green and Cambridge Heath, but aside from the cutting running up as far as the GER mainline (which housed two sidings for a number of years), the costly remainder of the spur (rising from cutting to viaduct through dense East End housing) was never built. One other flaw is that the two Bethnal Greens are not interchange distance apart, probably 5-10 minutes walk.



bigbossman said:


> -to serve hammersmith i was thinking the H & C viaduct could be shared from when the WLL crosses it to hammersmith. Then maybe a short tunnel under hammersmith to wandsworth town, then into clapham junction. Personally the busyness of hammersmith could justify a tunnel. i dunno


This would add yet another branch to the LORO network, not too sure if it would be viable considering a pretty hefty new spur would need to be built.



bigbossman said:


> The only line it would miss then would be the piccadilly north on kings cross but that really can't be helped.


Re-opening York Road and Maiden Lane stations could provide the interchange, but the disbenefit would be slower journey times on the respective lines.



bigbossman said:


> oh yeah and they could have for platforms at clapham junction and matbe H & I and run two overlapping services. H & I to H & I and CJ to CJ. Just some thoughts. obviously pipe dreams but just some thoughts


I've always preferred the notion of running 'Orbirail' as a Clapham Jcn to Clapham Jcn service via the West, North, East and South London Lines overlaid with a service direct off the WLL onto the SLL avoiding Clapham (not through choice as such, this is just the layout of the area).



bigbossman said:


> what do you think tubeman. and also how can they get the freight of these lines.
> 
> i was thinking the WLL they could divert it via acton central, chiswick and barnes with a few well placed curves???


Actually the WLL as a through freight route could be made totally defunct via existing metals, but there would be a couple of pretty circuitous routes involved, and these are over 2-track largely passenger lines so you'd move the problem from one route onto another.

e.g. to get from the WCML to the SWT mainline through Wimbledon the obvious current route is via the WLL, but it is possible via Acton Canal Wharf Jcn, Acton Central, Kew Bridge, Barnes, Clapham Jcn, Brixton, Herne Hill, Streatham & Tooting.



bigbossman said:


> also how did district line trains get through to windsor, did the shed they termiante in at ealing used to have through workings or has that wall always been there, was in E bdy today thats why??


Bear in mind when the MDR ran to Windsor, there was no Central Line, so the MDR terminated where the Central Line platforms are now. There was simply a link between the GWR and MDR allowing through running; the trainshed at Ealing Broadway is relatively recent (1920's).


----------



## bigbossman

Tubeman said:


> Do you propose this instead of taking over the Broad Street viaduct? I'd be against this if that was the case, purely because the biggest selling point of the East London Line extension to me is the stations at Hoxton and Haggerston, currently in areas devoid of any railway access as bad as anywhere in Central London. Interestingly however the linkage you propose was half-built, as well as the eventual Liverpool St facing junction there was supposed to be a spur linking up with the GER between Bethnal Green and Cambridge Heath, but aside from the cutting running up as far as the GER mainline (which housed two sidings for a number of years), the costly remainder of the spur (rising from cutting to viaduct through dense East End housing) was never built. One other flaw is that the two Bethnal Greens are not interchange distance apart, probably 5-10 minutes walk.


Yes i'd run the DLR up the broad street viaduct from bank personally

I meant the Lea valley lines actually run over bethnal green tube station, so they could just build platforms there instead, and maybe have lifts down to ticket office level...





Tubeman said:


> This would add yet another branch to the LORO network, not too sure if it would be viable considering a pretty hefty new spur would need to be built.


i mean drop the west london line from it and run all trains via the route i suggested, i know it would be a quite hefty, but hammersmith to clapham junction could be a very viable route. 

it also serves the picc and district

then run the richmonds as a spur just from richmond to willesden or round the dudden to the goblin




Tubeman said:


> Re-opening York Road and Maiden Lane stations could provide the interchange, but the disbenefit would be slower journey times on the respective lines.


i agree i don't think they should, just an unfortunate miss




Tubeman said:


> I've always preferred the notion of running 'Orbirail' as a Clapham Jcn to Clapham Jcn service via the West, North, East and South London Lines overlaid with a service direct off the WLL onto the SLL avoiding Clapham (not through choice as such, this is just the layout of the area).


thats why i suggested going via hammersmith and approaching clapham junction from the west, then onto the south london line.

i like the idea of going through the junction




Tubeman said:


> Actually the WLL as a through freight route could be made totally defunct via existing metals, but there would be a couple of pretty circuitous routes involved, and these are over 2-track largely passenger lines so you'd move the problem from one route onto another.
> 
> 
> 
> e.g. to get from the WCML to the SWT mainline through Wimbledon the obvious current route is via the WLL, but it is possible via Acton Canal Wharf Jcn, Acton Central, Kew Bridge, Barnes, Clapham Jcn, Brixton, Herne Hill, Streatham & Tooting.


thats what i thought, surely it should be done.

i was looking at the north london line, surely the dudden hill loop and goblin can take it all off that line??




Tubeman said:


> Bear in mind when the MDR ran to Windsor, there was no Central Line, so the MDR terminated where the Central Line platforms are now. There was simply a link between the GWR and MDR allowing through running; the trainshed at Ealing Broadway is relatively recent (1920's).


i didn't know that, it looks really old thats why

you missed my Questions about camden btw tubeman cheers


----------



## bigbossman

tubeman another question is the link between the circle and liverpool street still there?? If it is can it still be used?? cheers tubeman...


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> tubeman another question is the link between the circle and liverpool street still there?? If it is can it still be used?? cheers tubeman...


No, the tunnel was completely obliterated and the concourse filled in at Liverpool Street (the lines uses to run straight across the concourse to platforms 1 & 2, crossed by a footbridge). Would be very difficult to re-establish.


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> tubeman on a related note, the northern end of the high barnet branch platforms run pretty close to the north london line, or it looks like they do. Camden town needs a rebuild and the north london line has poor interchanges. i was in camden the other day and i looked on google images and the NLL viaduct is surrounded by a park on kentish town road. ok here is where i am leading.
> 
> 1. why the hell don't they just quadruple the junction, the land is there, and it would solve the freight bottle neck, espcially with some sort of flying junction.
> 
> 2. there is room to move the platforms over kentish town road, or extend them that way, then how possible would it be to link this to the northern end of those platforms. This would provide another exit for camden town and provide proper interchange.
> 
> 3. i know these are costly but the money is there for the redevelop anyway and surely it would help the case of overground more.


I agree with both of these: the length of double track, or rather double track viaduct, is really short and although a couple of properties would need to be demolished, the benefit is enrmous... and I'd argue it's absolutely vital if any through services are ever to be run off HS1 to the WCML: squeezing LORO and international trains plus heavy freight usage through a 2-track bottleneck would be insane.

I also like the idea of creating a new entrance to Camden Town at the north end of the Barnet branch platforms, but to provide a decent interchange Camden Road would have to be moved west, or at least a new entrance provided at the west end of the platforms because the north end of camden Town barnet branch platforms are still a fair distance away from the entrance to Camden Road.


----------



## trainrover

What ever happened to the suffix & Oxey to Bushey's station name? Plus, are more than four standing passengers permitted on the double-deckers there?


----------



## fishcatdogbird

Trying to do an advanced search on TFL for traveling on Boxing day, says it will be available mid December, do you know exactly when this is? Does the tube run on boxing day but at a reduced service? I need to get to Heathrow from Mile End (pain arghhhh).


----------



## DanielFigFoz

trainrover said:


> What ever happened to the suffix & Oxey to Bushey's station name? Plus, are more than four standing passengers permitted on the double-deckers there?


ON double-deckers, people can stand downstais, but not upstairs.


----------



## sweek

fishcatdogbird said:


> Trying to do an advanced search on TFL for traveling on Boxing day, says it will be available mid December, do you know exactly when this is? Does the tube run on boxing day but at a reduced service? I need to get to Heathrow from Mile End (pain arghhhh).


The info is on the TfL homepage here
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Christmas-and-New-Year-travel-guide-2008-09.pdf

Butr don't worry, both the Central and the Piccadilly will run along the bits that you need on that day.


----------



## Tubeman

fishcatdogbird said:


> Trying to do an advanced search on TFL for traveling on Boxing day, says it will be available mid December, do you know exactly when this is? Does the tube run on boxing day but at a reduced service? I need to get to Heathrow from Mile End (pain arghhhh).


It runs, it just starts up a bit later (08:00 ish) and runs a Sunday service. Quite a few stations are closed, but Mile End and Heathrow will definitely be open (unless there's any engineering works, which I doubt).


----------



## Tubeman

trainrover said:


> What ever happened to the suffix & Oxey to Bushey's station name? Plus, are more than four standing passengers permitted on the double-deckers there?


Many stations have suffixes which have been dropped with time, and quite often you can find the suffix on the name boards but not on the map, or vice versa.

Often they came about because when the station was originally opened in open countryside they'd be named after the two nearest villages, hamlets or even farms, but when the suburbs encroached and swallowed them up one of the names became secondary or obsolete.

Bushey is certainly better known than Oxhey, for example... I'm not even too sure if there is a distinct area known as 'Oxhey'?

Re: double deckers: no standing on the stairs or top deck!


----------



## Acemcbuller

trainrover said:


> aree more than four standing passengers permitted on the double-deckers there?


Are you thinking of Routemasters?
On modern double deckers about 20 standing are allowed on the lower deck I think. It depends on the bus design. It is less if there is a wheelchair or 
pushchair.


----------



## sotonsi

Tubeman said:


> Bushey is certainly better known than Oxhey, for example... I'm not even too sure if there is a distinct area known as 'Oxhey'?


There is a distinct area called Oxhey - it's the area around Bushey station. Thanks to deciding to drop the suffix of the station 'Oxhey' is falling into disuse, with the area called Bushey Arches (after the station, viaduct and retail park).

I think Oxhey isn't better known because of the station name removing it. I wouldn't have been surprised that if Bushey itself had got a station, on the Watford and Edgware, Bushey & Oxhey would have become Oxhey.


----------



## ChrisH

When the Jubilee line extension opened, what works were done at London Bridge? The Northern line concourse seems to have been widened, because one platform has very narrow entrances and the other is much wider. Cheers.


----------



## Tubeman

ChrisH said:


> When the Jubilee line extension opened, what works were done at London Bridge? The Northern line concourse seems to have been widened, because one platform has very narrow entrances and the other is much wider. Cheers.


Huge amounts... Only the platforms are recognisable. I can't remember what the rest of the station used to look like, in fact.


----------



## iampuking

ChrisH said:


> When the Jubilee line extension opened, what works were done at London Bridge? The Northern line concourse seems to have been widened, because one platform has very narrow entrances and the other is much wider. Cheers.


The station was originally like Bank (Northern line), they built a new southbound platform and the old southbound platform was re-used as a central hall.


----------



## jarbury

I have a question.

What are the most exciting tube developments for us to look forward to in 2009?


----------



## Svartmetall

^^ Not tube per se, however, there is a bit of exciting news regarding the London Overground! A few of the new trainsets are out and about for testing!


----------



## sotonsi

jarbury said:


> I have a question.
> 
> What are the most exciting tube developments for us to look forward to in 2009?


two new stocks? 'S' and '09'


----------



## jarbury

^^ True. Yes lots of new rolling stock in the next few years.


----------



## iampuking

Something I thought was interesting...

Pic of the unusual humped platform at Finsbury Park, note the santa:


----------



## fishcatdogbird

^looks weird lol


----------



## bigbossman

why is that platform like that, and why have i never noticed...


----------



## Capzilla

^^ Looks like the line is making a descent and there was no option other than not having a station there at all. Not exactly the same but similar here in Rotterdam, Wilhelminaplein station:










It was inserted long after the line opened close to where the underground crosses the Maas river, so there's a slope across the entire platform.


----------



## sweek

Finsbury Park looks a little nicer than that now, heh. I don't know if it's because of the geology there or just to help trains with both accelerating and braking.


----------



## iampuking

sweek said:


> Finsbury Park looks a little nicer than that now, heh.


That photo was taken just over a week ago...


----------



## sweek

iampuking said:


> That photo was taken just over a week ago...


Really? I just used to commute through it every day and lived in the area... it was always a pretty grimmy station but it looks especially bad on that picture.


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> why is that platform like that, and why have i never noticed...



Can't answer the second question, but I suspect the first is because the formerly 4-car GN&CR platform was extended to accommodate 8-car Victoria Line trains, so the platform area had to be extended out to the approaching incline. This is also visible at some of the Central Line platforms where platform lengthening took up part of the 'hump' profile inclines approaching and departing the platforms (there are to assist acceleration / deceleration). I don't know if the 'hump' at Finsbury Park is for the same purpose though, as it was a terminus, maybe the GN&CR line was intended to continue northwards?


----------



## Jang0

Tubeman said:


> This is also visible at some of the Central Line platforms where platform lengthening took up part of the 'hump' profile inclines approaching and departing the platforms (there are to assist acceleration / deceleration).


Is this still done these days? If not, do you know why not? Presumably the energy savings are still worthwhile?


----------



## iampuking

sweek said:


> Really? I just used to commute through it every day and lived in the area... it was always a pretty grimmy station but it looks especially bad on that picture.


It may be being "refurbished".


----------



## Tubeman

Jang0 said:


> Is this still done these days? If not, do you know why not? Presumably the energy savings are still worthwhile?


Yes, certainly humps were used on the JLE, but not as pronounced as they appear to be on the Central Line. I can't say I've noticed them on the original 'Yerkes' Tubes or the former City & South London (Northern Bank Branch). They certainly make sense from an energy efficiency point of view.


----------



## pricemazda

ChrisH said:


> When the Jubilee line extension opened, what works were done at London Bridge? The Northern line concourse seems to have been widened, because one platform has very narrow entrances and the other is much wider. Cheers.


This is the same at Angel... Tubey am I right in thinking its because those stations had a single platform originally like at Clapham?


----------



## Tubeman

pricemazda said:


> This is the same at Angel... Tubey am I right in thinking its because those stations had a single platform originally like at Clapham?


Yes. Euston Southbound (Bank Branch) is another clear example.


----------



## Pippi444

1. I`ve been told that the tube trains never sound their horns in the tunnels? and what do they sound like?


2. what is causing those power dropouts on some of the tube trains? power rail gaps?


----------



## bigbossman

is it easier to build a new station underground, than expand it (ie lengthen the platforms)??

also the northern was shut for 2 years in the 20s to expand the tunnels, could they do this again to expand the tunnels of the tubelines in the future? would this be a massive engineering job?

cheers tubes


----------



## hoosier

Tubeman,

What are your top five most important rail expansion/improvement projects for the UK?


----------



## Tubeman

Pippi444 said:


> 1. I`ve been told that the tube trains never sound their horns in the tunnels? and what do they sound like?
> 
> 
> 2. what is causing those power dropouts on some of the tube trains? power rail gaps?


1) They can do, nothing stopping them... Just not much point. Try standing on the edge of the platform as a train approaches, you'll hear it then! (No I don't really condone this!!!)

LU train whistles are generally very high shrill affairs, compared to mainline horns which are... well... horns and much easier on the ear. Some LU stocks have just one whistle tone, but I think the newer ones have a two-tone whistle, one for generally attracting attention (lower, quieter) and one for warning (very loud, shrill, high). The whistle is generally only used above ground to warn track workers of the train's approach, or to ward off trespassers. As I alluded to, the only time you'll likely hear it in tunnel sections is if some idiot is standing on the platform edge as a train approaches. It's also used to summon station staff assistance (e.g. if there's a passenger alarm).

2) Possibly. Each line is split into several Traction current 'sections' normally 3-5 stations long, and to ensure that if a section was switched off for an emergency (e.g. fire, 'one under') a train couldn't accidentally bridge the gap and liven it up, there is a car-length gap in the current rails between each current section. These tend to be adjacent to stations, and so are not noticeable if, for example at Victoria District Line, you're travelling eastbound as the 'Rail gap' is west of the station (because the train is braking, not drawing power). When you depart westbound it is noticeable, because the train is motoring and then encounters a gap in the current rails within a few metres of the platform. 

However the driver tackles the 'Rail gap' departing a platform there is a noticeable loss of power accompanied by a 'pop' (this is the noise of the 'linebreakers' being slammed open by air pressure... as this is tantamount to opening a 630V switch, it needs to take place with force to prevent an arc being drawn and the linebreakers welding shut). Drivers are supposed to depart platforms with a rail gap in advance in 'Series' (half motors) to lessen the jolt, but some just habitually wind straight up to 'Parallel' (full motors) straight away which makes the jolt worse (and isn't very good for the Traction motors).

If it's Rail gaps you're noticing, they'll always be at the same location.

The other likely cause is loss of 'Pilot light' (Doors closed visual) as the train pulls away from a platform. To prevent trains from buggering off from a station with open doors, the doors have to be proved closed to allow the motors to work. This is achieved by a continuous circuit passing through every set of doors on the train, which when proved gives a blue light in the driver's cab (hence the term 'Pilot light', like a gas boiler). Sometimes, when a train is really busy, passengers pushing against doors or with a coat trapped in the doors will initially allow the doors to close enough to achieve a Pilot light, but as the train pulls away the additional momentum opens the doors a fraction more and the Pilot light goes out. This immediately cuts power to the motors and feels exactly like passing over a Rail gap: the linebreakers will slam open with a pop and the train feels like it lurches. In this eventuality you'll probably hear a PA from the driver asking people to stand away from the doors, and it can happen anywhere (unlike rail gaps). 

Some stocks are more prone to this: 67 (Victoria), C (Circle, H&C, District), 72 (Bakerloo) and 73 (Piccadilly) are all of a similar vintage with similar door designs and are much more prone than the newer stocks on the Central, Northern and Jubilee Lines.


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> is it easier to build a new station underground, than expand it (ie lengthen the platforms)??
> 
> also the northern was shut for 2 years in the 20s to expand the tunnels, could they do this again to expand the tunnels of the tubelines in the future? would this be a massive engineering job?
> 
> cheers tubes


I'm guessing a platform lengthening is far easier, simply because of access. Tube platforms have been built alongside existing tunnels in the past: Holborn on the Central Line is an example (I'm struggling to think of any more), I guess it's hugely expensive and an engineering nightmare.

Reagrding the C&SLR widening 1924-1926 yes of course it's possible today, but I don't know if there will ever be a legitimate cost-benefit to closing a Tube line for several years for the sake of more headroom and an emergency walkway. It would probably be less drama building a brand new line!


----------



## Tubeman

hoosier said:


> Tubeman,
> 
> What are your top five most important rail expansion/improvement projects for the UK?


Hmmm... Tricky one

Assuming Crossrail and 'Thameslink 2000' are finally going ahead...

- GWR main line electrification (beyond Heathrow)

- Midland main line electrification / upgrade (beyond Bedford)

- Quadrupling North London Line through Camden to allow segregated access between HS1 and the WCML (i.e. international trains to Birmingham and Liverpool / Manchester)

- Chord at St Pancras to allow access from HS1 to the Midland main line (i.e. International trains to Leicester, Sheffield & Leeds)

- Manchester Metrolink expansion


----------



## bigbossman

Tubeman said:


> I'm guessing a platform lengthening is far easier, simply because of access. Tube platforms have been built alongside existing tunnels in the past: Holborn on the Central Line is an example (I'm struggling to think of any more), I guess it's hugely expensive and an engineering nightmare.
> 
> Reagrding the C&SLR widening 1924-1926 yes of course it's possible today, but I don't know if there will ever be a legitimate cost-benefit to closing a Tube line for several years for the sake of more headroom and an emergency walkway. It would probably be less drama building a brand new line!


i read somewhere that we are taller on average than we were when tubelines were built, if that is true then surely tube tunnels will be redundant within 50 years...?


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> i read somewhere that we are taller on average than we were when tubelines were built, if that is true then surely tube tunnels will be redundant within 50 years...?


We are on average taller than we were 100 years ago due to better nutrition, but that was I guess more a case of people not reaching their genetic potential height due to diet, now pretty much everyone should reach their potential height.

Therefore, I don't think people are getting much 'taller' anymore, so I can't see 7 foot giamts trying to cram into Tube trains in 50 years time.


----------



## iampuking

iampuking said:


> The station was originally like Bank (Northern line), they built a new southbound platform and the old southbound platform was re-used as a central hall.


I'd also like to add: The reason the passages from the central hall to the northbound platform are narrower is because they were the original cross passages between the two platforms. Obviously when the new southbound platform was built they made the new passages significantly wider.

Speaking of expanding stations... Tubeman, what stations do you think would warrant having a "London Bridge". I think Oxford Circus (Central line) and Bank (Northern line) should be too candidates. Bond Street (Jubilee line) could do with having it's central hall lengthened.

Also, do you know anything about the new ticket hall at Kings Cross? Do you know if there will be individual banks of escalators to all lines, or if there will be one bank with corridors to the individual lines from there... Do you know if there will be a one-way system introduced, i.e. people entering use the old 'tube' ticket hall and people exiting using the new one?

Thanks for any responses!


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Speaking of expanding stations... Tubeman, what stations do you think would warrant having a "London Bridge". I think Oxford Circus (Central line) and Bank (Northern line) should be too candidates. Bond Street (Jubilee line) could do with having it's central hall lengthened.


Agreed on all three. Add Tottenham Court Road and Leicester Square too, both very congested.



iampuking said:


> Also, do you know anything about the new ticket hall at Kings Cross? Do you know if there will be individual banks of escalators to all lines, or if there will be one bank with corridors to the individual lines from there... Do you know if there will be a one-way system introduced, i.e. people entering use the old 'tube' ticket hall and people exiting using the new one?
> 
> Thanks for any responses!


I honestly don't know, sorry mate


----------



## iampuking

Don't worry about it. Hopefully we'll find out soon!


----------



## Acemcbuller

iampuking said:


> Also, do you know anything about the new ticket hall at Kings Cross? Do you know if there will be individual banks of escalators to all lines, or if there will be one bank with corridors to the individual lines from there... Do you know if there will be a one-way system introduced, i.e. people entering use the old 'tube' ticket hall and people exiting using the new one?


See http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/pro...dinterchanges/kingscrosstubestation/5553.aspx and plus, on the Publications pages, the last pages of "Six-monthly update (Nov 06 - Apr 07)" 
Looks like one bank of escalatiors/lifts then a split between the sub-surface lines and the deep lines.


----------



## bigbossman

tubeman, do you know if it is possible to extend the W & C from bank, i'm not saying it should, but is it actually possible, say to liverpool street?


----------



## iampuking

Acemcbuller said:


> See http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/pro...dinterchanges/kingscrosstubestation/5553.aspx and plus, on the Publications pages, the last pages of "Six-monthly update (Nov 06 - Apr 07)"
> Looks like one bank of escalatiors/lifts then a split between the sub-surface lines and the deep lines.


Thanks for the links.

I think you've misunderstood it. It looks like one bank of four escalators to an immediate concourse, which splits to form a combined passageway to the Piccadilly/Victoria lines and a passageway to the Northern lines which requires another escalator and a flight of stairs down to platform level.

I never realised so much tunnelling work was required...


----------



## sotonsi

pic 8 seems to be the centre rail, which isn't 'live' but is at a voltage, and does have insulator pots.


----------



## Stuu

sotonsi said:


> pic 8 seems to be the centre rail, which isn't 'live' but is at a voltage, and does have insulator pots.


It is definitely showing the centre rail, which is at a nominal -220v, and the positive rail is at +440v, to give the potential difference of 660v. It is absolutely a live rail


----------



## somersetchris

Tubeman said:


> I don't, but before I forget: is it LOROL, LORO or LORL? I've seen all 3 used!


It is LOROL.
By the way, what is the publication date for your new book and out of interest, how many did you sell of Volume 1?


----------



## Tubeman

Jang0 said:


> Yes, I think it's difficult and messy too - hence why I asked the question!
> 
> I suppose the following movements of people are the most critical:
> 1) T1,2,3 & T4 & T5 & T6 --> London
> 2) Inter-terminal travel
> 3) From HSL Hub to terminals
> 
> One option is this:
> 
> a) Scrap T4 Piccadilly loop
> b) Build T6 station on HEx/Crossrail link to GWR
> c) Build HSL Hub on ex-West Drayton Coal Depot land facing East-West. GWR and Crossrail (not LHR branch) trains would stop here.
> d) Extend Piccadilly from T5 west-bound to join with North half of Staines Branch line. Double-track this line (if possible) all the way up to HSL Hub. Scrap link to GWR, unless useful for maintenance purposes.
> e) Build 4-6 track Piccadilly station at HSL Hub. Use this as Piccadilly terminus.
> f) Build a short tunnel under Uxbridge from Piccadilly/Metropolitan line facing NE-SW. Extend overground southwards towards HSL Hub.
> g) Scrap Metropolitan line services to Uxbridge.
> h) Build better interchange at West Ruislip with Central Line
> i) Replace overground Uxbridge station with a station on the underground route through Uxbridge.
> j) Grade-separate and 4-track between Acton Town and North Ealing so that Piccadilly trains do not conflict with each other and District trains
> k) Run Piccadilly trains in both directions round this new loop - should be able to reach 12 tph if they currently run 24tph on central section.
> 
> In summary:
> i) T1,2,3 to London via HEx / Crossrail / Piccadilly
> ii) T4 to London via Crossrail or change at T1,2,3
> iii) T5 to London via HEx / Piccadilly or change at T1,2,3 or HSL Hub
> iv) T6 to London via HEx / Crossrail or change at T1,2,3
> v) T1,2,3,5 to HSL Hub via Piccadilly direct
> vi) T4,6 to HSL Hub via Crossrail to T1,2,3 and change to Piccadilly
> vii) Uxbridge to London via Piccadilly, or change at HSL Hub for Crossrail, or change at West Ruislip for Central / Chiltern services.
> viii) Uxbridge to Metropolitan stations (like Harrow-on-the-Hill) - bus services
> 
> This should be quite an easy Piccadilly service to operate since provision would be made at HSL Hub for trains to terminate. It is predicted that not too many people would want to travel from LHR-Uxbridge, and that these people would have to change at HSL Hub for the first train in the right direction. "Short-running" trains can reverse at Rayners Lane / Northfields.


Linking the Uxbridge and Heathrow branches is an interesting idea... there was a GWR branch to Uxbridge which branched off the Staines West line just before the junction with the main line, heading due north with an intermediate station at Cowley, therefore almost the entire route could be over former lines. I have a feeling though that the track bed has been built over in the Cowley area, so it might not be as straighforward as it sounds.


----------



## Tubeman

somersetchris said:


> It is LOROL.
> By the way, what is the publication date for your new book and out of interest, how many did you sell of Volume 1?


Good, got it right then 

Second edition out in July hopefully, no firm date yet. I'm down at Ian Allan tomorrow afternoon to thrash out the royalty deal, provided the trains are running of course.

The First edition has sold about 6,000 copies I think, that's in the space of 3 years.


----------



## Tubeman

Stuu said:


> It is definitely showing the centre rail, which is at a nominal -220v, and the positive rail is at +440v, to give the potential difference of 660v. It is absolutely a live rail


Sorry, pedant alert: It's -210V & +420V giving a PD of 630V


----------



## Tubeman

Quente said:


> Hi Tubeman -
> 
> If you hadn't already seen it, I thought everyone would be interested in this photo essay on the Tube that appeared in the January 9th issue of Time magazine:
> http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1870615,00.html
> 
> The photos are captioned with interesting bits of trivia; for example, within a few months of the Metropolitan Line opening in January, 1863, it was carrying over 26,000 passengers a day!
> 
> Best - Kent


Thanks for sharing Kent!


----------



## sweek

I thought of this about a year ago I think for a Heathrow solution. Just the tube, though.









blue is existing, red is new, grey not used anymore.

With a minimal number of changes to the lines you could change it into one big loop, running either clockwise or anticlockwise (the latter probably being the better option. At the same time you could also have a train or two simply connecting all the terminals with each other.


----------



## Jang0

Hi Sweek,

I saw your thoughts before, while I was trawling through the forum.

What made me pose the question was that the HSL Hub at Heathrow might present further difficulties in that it's supposed to be AT Heathrow, and yet, the link to the Heathrow terminals might not be as straightforward as it might seem...

If the HSL Hub is near the junction of Crossrail/HEx with GWR, then you can use Crossrail to link to Heathrow, but if it's at West Drayton where there appears to be more space, then the link to LHR is much harder!


----------



## Jang0

how on earth did the W&C get suspended this morning due to the snow? It's underground the whole way!


----------



## ajw373

Jang0 said:


> how on earth did the W&C get suspended this morning due to the snow? It's underground the whole way!


Maybe no staff to drive the trains etc. My local at Queensway was closed for the same reason.


----------



## ajw373

sweek said:


> I thought of this about a year ago I think for a Heathrow solution. Just the tube, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blue is existing, red is new, grey not used anymore.
> 
> With a minimal number of changes to the lines you could change it into one big loop, running either clockwise or anticlockwise (the latter probably being the better option. At the same time you could also have a train or two simply connecting all the terminals with each other.


I think the whole of Heathrow needs another re-think. For mine I say get rid of the T4 loop and just run everything to Heathrow Central and T5. From Heathrow Central there should be a rapid/regular free service to ALL terminals including T6 (or what ever it will be called) provided by BAA.

The current Central to T4 service is crap and not premium and should serve as an example of what not to do.

The hastle is the more stops you add the slower it takes, especially for the premium express services, and too many loops and options on the underground will confuse the people who need to use it. Keep it simple and it should work.


----------



## bigbossman

tubeman

visiting a friend of mine in dagenham on a sunday, the tube didn't seem that dead at least as far as heathway. Or was i just lucky in that i got a random busy train.

Also is the reason why it would be dead because there is no major station/destination east of dagenham, let alone barking?

I had a quick peruse of an A-Z and saw that surely an alignment could be built above ground to Romford from dagenham east, which would give the district line in east london some sort of destination.

Also was there a plan to 6 track from airport junction to north pole? junction? 

cheers *Tubeman*


----------



## Tubeman

Jang0 said:


> how on earth did the W&C get suspended this morning due to the snow? It's underground the whole way!


Would have been staff for sure, on such a small line all it would take is a couple of drivers running late or the sole Service Controller not being able to make it in and the line can't run. It's looking bleak for the afternoon / evening on the Bakerloo Line too.


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> tubeman
> 
> visiting a friend of mine in dagenham on a sunday, the tube didn't seem that dead at least as far as heathway. Or was i just lucky in that i got a random busy train.
> 
> Also is the reason why it would be dead because there is no major station/destination east of dagenham, let alone barking?
> 
> I had a quick peruse of an A-Z and saw that surely an alignment could be built above ground to Romford from dagenham east, which would give the district line in east london some sort of destination.
> 
> Also was there a plan to 6 track from airport junction to north pole? junction?
> 
> cheers *Tubeman*


Beyond Barking the housing is much less dense (1930's estates) so I guess the population catchment of each station is less than stations like Upton Park and East Ham which serve dense Victorian terraces. In addition the two main population centres along the route, Barking and Upminster, also have C2C fast trains so passengers for London would use C2C not the District Line. A lot of passengers from other stations just use the District Line to get to Barking or Upminster to change to C2C, e.g. someone living in Hornchurch might prefer to go 2 stops east to Upminster to catch the fast into London rather than sit on the District Line for 40 minutes.

You may have been in the front carriage too, which is always the busiest as a lot of the platform exits are at the east end of the stations. The rear of the trains are often empty travelling eastbound.

A branch to serve another destination would be better use of capacity, you're right, I guess Romford is the logical choice.

Regarding 6-tracking more of the GWR main line, I guess it's needed, but it would be pretty disruptive and expensive as there are engineering features like the tunnel under Ealing Broadway, River Brent viaduct and the 'Iron Bridge' between Ealing and Southall to widen.


----------



## Cherguevara

Tubeman - I know this isn't your expertise but as a TfL employee I thought you might have an answer.

Why have all the bus routes been suspended? I can see why service would be reduced because of numbers of drivers not being able to get to work, but I can't believe that enough drivers to run some kind of minimal night bus style service weren't able to get to the depots this morning?

Also - What improvements would be needed and how much would it cost to make the underground operable in weather conditions like those today?


----------



## Tubeman

Cherguevara said:


> Tubeman - I know this isn't your expertise but as a TfL employee I thought you might have an answer.
> 
> Why have all the bus routes been suspended? I can see why service would be reduced because of numbers of drivers not being able to get to work, but I can't believe that enough drivers to run some kind of minimal night bus style service weren't able to get to the depots this morning?
> 
> Also - What improvements would be needed and how much would it cost to make the underground operable in weather conditions like those today?



I asked my self the same question at 07:30 this morning as I stood waiting for a 63. I can only assume it was deemed that the volume of snowfall would have made buses dangerously difficult to stop / control, I certainly saw a lot of cars struggling... It was certainly a blanket instruction in the name of health & safety rather than staffing shortages.

The main issue for the Tube today is staffing: with no buses and minimal mainline services a lot of staff simply can't get in. Provided snowfall isn't too heavy without letting up once a few trains have run up and down and de-iced (roughly every other unit has sleet brushes & de-icing fluid) then the snow itself isn't a huge problem.


----------



## Cherguevara

Thanks. Living in Hackney and working in Shoreditch it wasn't such a problem for me, but my office was near dead this morning. Do you know how far TfL are expecting things to be back to normal tomorrow?


----------



## Rational Plan

ajw373 said:


> I think the whole of Heathrow needs another re-think. For mine I say get rid of the T4 loop and just run everything to Heathrow Central and T5. From Heathrow Central there should be a rapid/regular free service to ALL terminals including T6 (or what ever it will be called) provided by BAA.
> 
> The current Central to T4 service is crap and not premium and should serve as an example of what not to do.
> 
> The hastle is the more stops you add the slower it takes, especially for the premium express services, and too many loops and options on the underground will confuse the people who need to use it. Keep it simple and it should work.


I think that is too complicated and would actually be quite slow. The Problem is that only T5 and T123 are lined up neatly for the Piccadilly line from the East. T4 is to the South and T6 (if it happens) is to the North. At least the Heathrow Express tunnel passes directly underneath the T6 site, so that only T4 is stuck on the branch line. 

The could leave it as it is, and allow free transfers between T6 and the central area on the Heathrow express, like they already do for T4 and Central. 

A better solution would be a new internal transit system between the terminals and the central tube and train station. You could then also close the piccadilly line to T4 and keep all the trains to the two busiest stops and the quickest journey. A new shuttle line connecting T6 to central and then to T4 would could be quick and simple.


----------



## bigbossman

Tubeman said:


> Beyond Barking the housing is much less dense (1930's estates) so I guess the population catchment of each station is less than stations like Upton Park and East Ham which serve dense Victorian terraces. In addition the two main population centres along the route, Barking and Upminster, also have C2C fast trains so passengers for London would use C2C not the District Line. A lot of passengers from other stations just use the District Line to get to Barking or Upminster to change to C2C, e.g. someone living in Hornchurch might prefer to go 2 stops east to Upminster to catch the fast into London rather than sit on the District Line for 40 minutes.


it's very strange because if you compare the shenfield metro east of Ilford and the district line east of barking. The shenfield metro is a lot busier based on entries and exits and that's even based upon national rail undercounting. I don't know how say harold wood can be double the busyness of hornchurch?? especially as harold wood has half the trains off peak!



> You may have been in the front carriage too, which is always the busiest as a lot of the platform exits are at the east end of the stations. The rear of the trains are often empty travelling eastbound.


Probably i don't recall



> A branch to serve another destination would be better use of capacity, you're right, I guess Romford is the logical choice.


Is it just a case that the fact that the district east bound isn't busy is negligible?? because i would've though taking it to romford while not being comepletely easy would've been a target?



> Regarding 6-tracking more of the GWR main line, I guess it's needed, but it would be pretty disruptive and expensive as there are engineering features like the tunnel under Ealing Broadway, River Brent viaduct and the 'Iron Bridge' between Ealing and Southall to widen.


Are they the only 'hard' egineering parts? because that surely isn't much at all??

The buses were overevving last night, taking ages to move short distances, and sounding like they would explode


----------



## Tubeman

Cherguevara said:


> Thanks. Living in Hackney and working in Shoreditch it wasn't such a problem for me, but my office was near dead this morning. Do you know how far TfL are expecting things to be back to normal tomorrow?


It should be far better, might even be a normal day pretty much... There's no snow forecast tomorrow and fresh snow would be the main problem. main roads should be gritted and they'll run sleet trains overnight tonight to clear the DC powered lines on the Tube and Southern region.


----------



## Tubeman

bigbossman said:


> it's very strange because if you compare the shenfield metro east of Ilford and the district line east of barking. The shenfield metro is a lot busier based on entries and exits and that's even based upon national rail undercounting. I don't know how say harold wood can be double the busyness of hornchurch?? especially as harold wood has half the trains off peak!


Without wanting to sound like a snob everything between Barking and Upminster is a huge council estate... The Becontree estate and Dagenham are simply not areas where your average commuters want to live. The nice suburbs of Romford like Harold Wood and Gidea Park are much more desirable and I guess have a lot more commuters living in their catchment areas.



bigbossman said:


> Is it just a case that the fact that the district east bound isn't busy is negligible?? because i would've though taking it to romford while not being comepletely easy would've been a target?


The District Line is simply a quadrupling of the LTSR route and the slow tracks being handed over to LT after having run over then for a few decades... I guess Romford was already served by both the GER and LTSR so there was no impetus for the District Line to reach there too.



bigbossman said:


> Are they the only 'hard' egineering parts? because that surely isn't much at all??


The Ealing Broadway bit especially would be a nightmare, I guess would need a section of bored tunnel to prevent shutting down the town centre for a couple of years. I guess the viaduct and Iron Bridge would be easy enough to duplicate, but I doubt that whacking up a modern concrete viaduct alongside the original Brunel Brent viaduct would be very popular, and the fact that the Iron Bridge spans a busy road junction would also be a little tricky.


----------



## ajw373

Rational Plan said:


> A better solution would be a new internal transit system between the terminals and the central tube and train station. You could then also close the piccadilly line to T4 and keep all the trains to the two busiest stops and the quickest journey. A new shuttle line connecting T6 to central and then to T4 would could be quick and simple.


That is what I was saying!


----------



## bigbossman

Tubeman said:


> Without wanting to sound like a snob everything between Barking and Upminster is a huge council estate... The Becontree estate and Dagenham are simply not areas where your average commuters want to live. The nice suburbs of Romford like Harold Wood and Gidea Park are much more desirable and I guess have a lot more commuters living in their catchment areas.


I don't buy that really tubeman, Harold wood is essentially the station for the harold hill estate another LCC behemoth, not really much else in the area except that. And that does OK for numbers.

And not to be a pedant but i have friends who live in hornchurch and upney (really barking) areas and they are generic suburban areas, dominated by 1930s semi's (in the case of hornchurch very upmarket) and the part of dagenham my mate lives in doesn't fit your stereotype either. The becontree estate is dagenham, but dagenham is not the becontree estate!

Personally i think its down to what i said earlier the fact that there is no destination near the end of the line. I mean the hayes branch is surely the same, even with 'metrp' frequencies and branding i don't reckon that it would be that much busier than it is now, south of beckenham if not catford. That's why the southern suburban lines feel successful to me, because they mainly head for croydon and or sutton...


----------



## Jang0

erm, have you been on the hayes trains in rush hour? They are chok-full of people.

In fact, as a South-east Londoner, let me assure you that if I'm going anywhere other than to work / central London then I drive. To push people out of their cars and reduce congestion in the long term (not the short term, which is what the Congestion Charge does), then you need better frequencies and better interchanges. So, I think there's plenty of spare capacity which could be utilised in South London.


----------



## Jang0

actually, it's possible I might have misunderstood your main point.

Are you saying that south of the centres (Catford / Beckenham) that the trains are usually emptier? If so, then I think you are correct.

Remember Boris was talking about his fanciful M25 of railways after his election campaign. Well, I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that to push people out of their cars in Greater London, that might be what we actually need (leave aside the practicalities of actually building it for now!). In North London, it must be a nightmare to try to travel from Stanmore to Edgware, or Cockfosters to Woodford, or Dagenham to Romford. Similarly in the South, you cannot travel between Lewisham and Bromley on a direct train, nor Catford and Forest Hill, nor Forest Hill and Dulwich.

In the South, the railways do cross over each other a bit which in theory should help. But the reality is that often interchanges are poor, and frequencies are so bad that it really is quicker driving - even through poor South London streets.

We need a mix of semi-surburban fast trains from Outer London and beyond with metro-style Greater London trains. We need better interchanges though, not outdated stations from 19C when railway companies were fighting for supremacy.

For now, I'll keep using my car.


----------



## bigbossman

yeah you mis understood my point.

Southerns metro newtork is generally very good in tems of criss crossing and coverage. South easterns is pitiful, and the two networks don't even interchange with each other./ It's a joke.

I did say earlier in this thread, that i would divert the northern to stanmore and the jubilee from canon park to edgware and also build the northern heights to edgware.

I also said that should divert the northern high barnet branch into new barnet, and extend the piccadilly from cockfosters to new barnet.

i think it is worse in kent, in canterbury, it would be relatively easy to close west which clogs up the city with it's two level crossings, and build one station, but no, so getting from north kent to south is near impossible without 15 changes!


----------



## L2

Apologies if these seem like newbie questions:

- What are the least patronised sections of the Tube network, as well as the least frequently serviced? I already know about Hainaut-Woodford; I assume Epping-Ongar would have counted until 1994!

- If any, what sections do London Underground services interface with any other rail operations on?


----------



## Jang0

you might find some answers to your questions in the first post of this thread!


----------



## sotonsi

L2 said:


> the least frequently serviced?


Chesham never gets better than 30 minutes between trains. At peak time Amersham and Chesham have a train every 34 minutes, and its planned that Chesham gets through trains and Amersham's frequency also becomes, at best, every 30 minutes. Bear in mind that Amersham gets ~1tph Chiltern in the peaks, and 2tph off-peak.

Woodford-Hainualt is 3tph (off-peak at least). Roding Valley is the quietest station. IIRC the Olympia service has recently been changed from 4tph to 3tph, relieving Earl's Court and meaning only one train is needed for the service.

I would say that either the Chesham branch, or a section of Woodford-Hainualt is the quietest section.


> - If any, what sections do London Underground services interface with any other rail operations on?


from just north of Harrow (at the junction where the Uxbridge branch leaves) to Amersham, the fast Metropolitan line (up to Moor Park, then just the Met) shares tracks with Chiltern's trains to Aylesbury.

from Gunnersbury to Richmond, the District line shares with Overground trains
from East Putney to Wimbledon, the District line sometimes shares with South West Trains trains.

not another rail operation, but from Acton Town to north of Ealing Common, District and Piccadilly lines share tracks, and the Sub-surface lines (Met, H&C, Circle, District) share tracks where they run on the same route.


----------



## RobH

Just for fun; how many Zone 1 Tube stations can you name?

http://www.sporcle.com/games/londontubecentral.php


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> Chesham never gets better than 30 minutes between trains. At peak time Amersham and Chesham have a train every 34 minutes, and its planned that Chesham gets through trains and Amersham's frequency also becomes, at best, every 30 minutes. Bear in mind that Amersham gets ~1tph Chiltern in the peaks, and 2tph off-peak.
> 
> Woodford-Hainualt is 3tph (off-peak at least). Roding Valley is the quietest station. IIRC the Olympia service has recently been changed from 4tph to 3tph, relieving Earl's Court and meaning only one train is needed for the service.
> 
> I would say that either the Chesham branch, or a section of Woodford-Hainualt is the quietest section.from just north of Harrow (at the junction where the Uxbridge branch leaves) to Amersham, the fast Metropolitan line (up to Moor Park, then just the Met) shares tracks with Chiltern's trains to Aylesbury.
> 
> from Gunnersbury to Richmond, the District line shares with Overground trains
> from East Putney to Wimbledon, the District line sometimes shares with South West Trains trains.
> 
> not another rail operation, but from Acton Town to north of Ealing Common, District and Piccadilly lines share tracks, and the Sub-surface lines (Met, H&C, Circle, District) share tracks where they run on the same route.


You've answered L2 pretty categorically, the only real omission is Bakerloo running over the DC lines Queen's Park to Harrow & Wealdstone


----------



## Tubeman

RobH said:


> Just for fun; how many Zone 1 Tube stations can you name?
> 
> http://www.sporcle.com/games/londontubecentral.php


Not wanting to sound arrogant, but I'd get them all so have better things to do with 10 minutes


----------



## sweek

It's 4 trains per hour on the Met, 2 on the Chiltern lines, so 6 trains per hour total for Amersham. It's just Chesham that's only 2 trains per hour.

Kensington Olympia is three to four times an hour, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_Olympia#London_Underground

Hainault - Woodford is still quite frequent. Bakerloo above Harrow isn't. All the rest is 6 trains per hour at least, I suppose!


----------



## sotonsi

sweek said:


> It's 4 trains per hour on the Met, 2 on the Chiltern lines, so 6 trains per hour total for Amersham. It's just Chesham that's only 2 trains per hour.


except in peaks, where there's one Chiltern train (a couple non-stop) and 2 Mets (the other two go to Chesham, without the shuttle).

But it's worse, as there's a 68 minute timetable, not a 60 minute, so it's under 2tph.


> Hainault - Woodford is still quite frequent.


It's 3tph off peak


> Bakerloo above Harrow isn't.


Yes, it's 0tph. The Bakerloo isn't very frequent north of Queens Park, but it's more than 4.

Piccadilly to Uxbridge is 3tph off-peak. The West London Line and the Watford DC lines on Overground are 2tph and 3tph respectively.


----------



## sweek

sotonsi said:


> except in peaks, where there's one Chiltern train (a couple non-stop) and 2 Mets (the other two go to Chesham, without the shuttle).
> 
> Piccadilly to Uxbridge is 3tph off-peak. The West London Line and the Watford DC lines on Overground are 2tph and 3tph respectively.


I wouldn't count the Piccadilly to Uxbridge as there are still 6 trains up to Rayner's Lane and the Met from there on. So with an extra change you can still get to say Hammersmith 6 times per hour.

There's 2 chiltern trains per hour plus 2 mets then in the peak. Although the timetable is weird, I'll admit. Anyway, this pretty much meets the number of people on those lines so I wouldn't complain too much.


----------



## jarbury

My question is: what point of the underground network has the most trains per hour? I don't mean which station, but rather which part of which line.


----------



## sweek

jarbury said:


> My question is: what point of the underground network has the most trains per hour? I don't mean which station, but rather which part of which line.


Victoria Line between Brixton and Seven Sisters, 28 trains per hour I believe.


----------



## iampuking

sweek said:


> Victoria Line between Brixton and Seven Sisters, 28 trains per hour I believe.


Central line is higher, so is the Kennington - Morden section of the Northern.

However it seems like it's higher on the Victoria line, I don't know why.


----------



## sotonsi

aren't the Baker Street-Liverpool Street and South Kensington-Tower Hill sections of the SSLs timetabled to run something like 32tph in the peaks (4 trains every 7.5 minutes). It may be only 30tph (4 trains every 8 minutes), but I'm fairly sure it's the former. Aldgate East-Barking, as part of the upgrades was going to be similar, and during the peaks, I think Aldgate East-Whitechapel might get such an amount now.


----------



## Tubeman

Harry said:


> Forgive me, please, for being behind the times. But I do remember hearing 3 or 4 years ago of a plan to remove the Circle Line from the network by in 2009. Has this plan been completely dropped? I've never been a fan of the Circle Line, so wouldn't really miss it if it wasn't there.
> 
> Thanks.


Yeah it's definitely on the cards I think, don't know exact timescales... It's just a timetable change, I guess when the S Stock are in.


----------



## sweek

Tubeman said:


> Yeah it's definitely on the cards I think, don't know exact timescales... It's just a timetable change, I guess when the S Stock are in.


How could Edgware Road and Praed Street junction ever handle this?


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> How could Edgware Road and Praed Street junction ever handle this?



Should be ok I think, no worse than now... To me by far the simplest solution is to run everything Hammersmith - anticlockwise lap of Circle Line - Barking - clockwise lap of Circle Line - Hammersmith, which covers the entire current operations of the Circle and H&C Lines in a single line with 2 termini. The destination would be quite confusing though, I guess it would have to change a couple of times during the journey.

On the eastbound trip it could leave Hammersmith as 'Liverpool Street', then change to 'Circle' when it gets to Edgware Road EB, then change to 'Barking' when it gets back to Edgware Road EB again for the remainder of the run through to Barking. On the westbound trip it could leave Barking as 'Edgware Road', change to 'Circle' at Liverpool Street WB, then change to 'Hammersmith' upon getting round to Liverpool Street WB again for the remainder of the trip to Hammersmith.

If this service runs 8 tph then it'll double up between Edgware Rd and Liverpool St to give 16 tph, leaving room for 8 tph Wimbleware between Praed St - Edgware Rd and 8 tph Metropolitan Line Baker St - Aldgate (i.e. 24 tph total between Baker St and Liverpool St).


----------



## sweek

Tubeman said:


> Should be ok I think, no worse than now... To me by far the simplest solution is to run everything Hammersmith - anticlockwise lap of Circle Line - Barking - clockwise lap of Circle Line - Hammersmith, which covers the entire current operations of the Circle and H&C Lines in a single line with 2 termini. The destination would be quite confusing though, I guess it would have to change a couple of times during the journey.
> 
> On the eastbound trip it could leave Hammersmith as 'Liverpool Street', then change to 'Circle' when it gets to Edgware Road EB, then change to 'Barking' when it gets back to Edgware Road EB again for the remainder of the run through to Barking. On the westbound trip it could leave Barking as 'Edgware Road', change to 'Circle' at Liverpool Street WB, then change to 'Hammersmith' upon getting round to Liverpool Street WB again for the remainder of the trip to Hammersmith.
> 
> If this service runs 8 tph then it'll double up between Edgware Rd and Liverpool St to give 16 tph, leaving room for 8 tph Wimbleware between Praed St - Edgware Rd and 8 tph Metropolitan Line Baker St - Aldgate (i.e. 24 tph total between Baker St and Liverpool St).


But I thought the point was providing more services along the Hammersmith - Paddington stretch. The latest plan as far as I know was 8tph Hammersmith - Barking as now, plus 8 tph Hammersmith - Liverpool Street - victoria - Edgware Road. That'd mean Edgware Road gets 8 Hammersmith and Circle plus 6 Wimbleware terminators, on top of 8 through trains eastbound and 8 westbound. I'm just worried because trains are already so often delayed around Edgware Road without the extra terminating trains.


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> But I thought the point was providing more services along the Hammersmith - Paddington stretch. The latest plan as far as I know was 8tph Hammersmith - Barking as now, plus 8 tph Hammersmith - Liverpool Street - victoria - Edgware Road. That'd mean Edgware Road gets 8 Hammersmith and Circle plus 6 Wimbleware terminators, on top of 8 through trains eastbound and 8 westbound. I'm just worried because trains are already so often delayed around Edgware Road without the extra terminating trains.


I think the service pattern you outlined there would be problematic, yes. Maybe the only solution to provide more trains on the Hammersmith branch is to have additional trains terminating at Paddington (i.e. short of Praed St), not ideal, but at least there are onward connections from there.


----------



## juanico

How many sections of the Underground were completly abandoned?

I am aware of:
- the Charing Cross branch, closed down after the Jubilee Line was extended further south east. By the way the branch still seems to be functional, is it sometimes used, for some special service or anything like that?
- the King William Street branch on Northern Line. Wiki says the station was demolished in the 1930s and the tunnels cut through to make room for the more recent Jubilee Line.
- Hounslow Town on Piccadilly. Could see on GE the rails were removed, the former station used to be where Hounslow bus garage now stands.
- Aldwych branch on Piccadilly too. Tunnels and station still are in good repair but remain unused except as a filming location.

Any other?


----------



## iampuking

'Northern Heights' routes through Alexandra Palace.
Ongar branch of the Central line.

Those are the only ones I can think of right now, there are probably more.


----------



## sotonsi

juanico said:


> How many sections of the Underground were completly abandoned?
> 
> I am aware of:
> - the Charing Cross branch, closed down after the Jubilee Line was extended further south east. By the way the branch still seems to be functional, is it sometimes used, for some special service or anything like that?
> - the King William Street branch on Northern Line. Wiki says the station was demolished in the 1930s and the tunnels cut through to make room for the more recent Jubilee Line.
> - Hounslow Town on Piccadilly. Could see on GE the rails were removed, the former station used to be where Hounslow bus garage now stands.
> - Aldwych branch on Piccadilly too. Tunnels and station still are in good repair but remain unused except as a filming location.





iampuking said:


> 'Northern Heights' routes through Alexandra Palace.
> Ongar branch of the Central line.


South Acton-Acton Town "there-and-back-while-the-kettle-boils" shuttle.
Latimer Road to WLL (for services to Olympia)
Brill Tramway
Quainton Road-Verney Junction
ELL between Whitechapel and Shoreditch
ELL between Whitechapel and New Cross/New Cross Gate*
various short bits of tunnels used in realignments (eg Angel, creating cross-platform interchanges on the Victoria)

I don't think the Northern Heights to Ally Pally was ever underground, only planned take over of GNER.

There are quite a few services removed, but NR still run on those tracks - Southend and Windsor District line (short crossovers may have been removed at Ealing Broadway, near Bow and Upminster)
Metropolitan between Amersham and Quainton Road
Metropolitan widened lines
ELL between Whitechapel and New Cross/New Cross Gate**

*until ELR opens
**after ELR opens

I forgot the bit of the Fleet line near New Cross (short one-way experimental tunnel).


----------



## Gag Halfrunt

juanico said:


> - the Charing Cross branch, closed down after the Jubilee Line was extended further south east. By the way the branch still seems to be functional, is it sometimes used, for some special service or anything like that?


It's used for filming. For instance, in _The Bourne Ultimatum_ a scene in a Jubilee Line platform at Waterloo was actually filmed at Charing Cross. IIRC, the platforms there have also been used for testing video advertisement projection systems and things like that.


----------



## Tubeman

Gag Halfrunt said:


> It's used for filming. For instance, in _The Bourne Ultimatum_ a scene in a Jubilee Line platform at Waterloo was actually filmed at Charing Cross. IIRC, the platforms there have also been used for testing video advertisement projection systems and things like that.



And 'Creep' (filmed at Charing Cross and Aldwych)


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> I don't think the Northern Heights to Ally Pally was ever underground, only planned take over of GNER.


It never saw LU passenger trains, but the Highgate to Finsbury Park section was used for stock transfers until 1970 and was owned by LU. It was never electrified (or rather the work was never finished), so the transfers to and from the Great Northern & City Line was propelled by Battery locos.


----------



## juanico

Thanks for all your answers.


----------



## Tubeman

You saw it here first! 

Out in July


----------



## Jang0

count me in!

i have the 1st edition already, and I'm looking forward to this


----------



## juanico

I'm also looking forward to having it in my bookcase.


----------



## Justme

The cover is much nicer than the previous book. I'm also looking forward to buying this.


----------



## Tubeman

Justme said:


> The cover is much nicer than the previous book. I'm also looking forward to buying this.



Yeah the font was rubbish and the colour a bit lairy... It was a great photo though, I'll give them that.

It's the only part of the book I don't have control over, so its a bit of a lottery.


----------



## city_thing

Dear Mr Tubeman.

It was mentioned on the Australian forums that you have a great map of the Bank/Monument interchange station. I spent about a week looking for one, and the only ones I did find left a lot to be desired.

So are the rumours true? Do you have a good one?


----------



## iampuking

Have you seen this one?

Sorry if I keep stealing answers Tubeman!


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Have you seen this one?
> 
> Sorry if I keep stealing answers Tubeman!


I hadn't seen that before... This is the one that first sprang to my mind:


----------



## iampuking

It's good in that you get a sense of the complexity, but it's not particularly accurate...


----------



## Tubeman

...The East London Line extension continues apace... Some track being laid through the site of the former Shoreditch station (NLR, not the ELL one), but still some gaps in the viaduct:


----------



## hegneypl

*New rolling stock*

Pardon an out-of-touch Yankee, but I was wondering what the latest release dates for any of the new rolling stock for London's system. Been spending too much time in NYC's system and webstes.


----------



## sweek

hegneypl said:


> Pardon an out-of-touch Yankee, but I was wondering what the latest release dates for any of the new rolling stock for London's system. Been spending too much time in NYC's system and webstes.


Well the DLR stock is being rolled out right now, the Overground stock is slowly being rolled out as well I believe, although I'm not sure if they're in passenger service. They will be very soon.

The Victoria Line stock will also be arriving soon enough.

After that it'd be the Javelin trains for the CRTL and then it's the SSL stock. I may be missing out on a few here, though.


----------



## sweek

What are your thoughts on Tim O'Toole stepping down, Tubeman? Did you ever meet him in your job? Everyone seems to think he's done an amazing job and it'll be hard to replace him.


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> What are your thoughts on Tim O'Toole stepping down, Tubeman? Did you ever meet him in your job? Everyone seems to think he's done an amazing job and it'll be hard to replace him.


Genuinely gutted, he is an inspirational leader / speaker and will be an enormous loss to LU and London. If we can find half the man to fill his shoes we'd be lucky. I do believe he's left a tangible legacy which will positively affect LU for years to come, but losing him just before the next round of pay talks and at a time when we are trying to re-absorb Metronet amidst a huge financial crisis is bad timing for me.


----------



## jarbury

What do you know about talks to extend the Bakerloo like south of Elephant & Castle? Seems to be a few rumours flying around that the Crossrail TBMs could be retained and put to use on further extending this line.

http://london-underground.blogspot.com/2009/02/boris-backs-bakerloo-extension.html


----------



## iampuking

Crossrail TBMs will be far too big... won't they?

Look at the relative sizes here. Why would the Bakerloo line, which uses tube sized stock, require anything bigger than that of on the Jubilee line?

Boris is just talking shite. As usual.


----------



## city_thing

iampuking said:


> *Crossrail TBMs will be far too big... won't they?*
> 
> Look at the relative sizes here. Why would the Bakerloo line, which uses tube sized stock, require anything bigger than that of on the Jubilee line?
> 
> Boris is just talking shite. As usual.


That's what I was thinking... unless the TBM's could be adapted, or the tunnels could be used to carry more than one line... (talking shite now)


----------



## Tubeman

^^
Yeah I'll echo all that... My recollection of the JLE TBMs is that they just turn them to one side and bury them when the two meet... My understanding is that a TBM is wider than the tunnel lining behind it (because it excavates a wider diameter than the finished tunnel to allow for the lining to be put in place) and therefore cannot be extracted without being dismantled. And yes, the Crossrail tunnels will be far wider than the BLE tunnels would have to be, even with a JLE-style walkway.

Crossrail 1 will suck money out of London's transport developments for a couple of decades to come, to be blunt if any Bakerloo southern extension opens before 2030 I'll eat my hat.


----------



## sotonsi

Tubeman said:


> Crossrail 1 will suck money out of London's transport developments for a couple of decades to come, to be blunt if any Bakerloo southern extension opens before 2030 I'll eat my hat.


after Crossrail opens, they'd have to build the things that got shelved due to Crossrail - Crystal Palace tram, etc.


----------



## iampuking

Found a photo of the new 'S' Stock for the Sub-Surface lines being moved from Derby to Old Dalby test track. This will be the first LU train to have air-conditioning throughout and be fully walkthrough.

Pics here and here.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Found a photo of the new 'S' Stock for the Sub-Surface lines being moved from Derby to Old Dalby test track. This will be the first LU train to have air-conditioning throughout and be fully walkthrough.
> 
> Pics here and here.


Great find... they look 'kin smart! :happy:

...And the fact there's most definitely 8 cars in that train proves that there isn't going to be a universal 7-car compromise length for all of SSR, so I guess it will be 8 cars Met / 7 cars District / 6 cars for the current C Stock routes.


----------



## iampuking

Hopefully the C Stock routes will be upgraded to 7 cars though... Even if it means doors will be cut out at a few stations.

I'm also baffled why the train appears to have yellow poles... It's 8 cars and therefore will solely run on the Metropolitan line, purple poles would make it more distinguishable from Circle/H&C trains at stations where they share tracks and would create a more noticeable contrast between the white of the interior for the DDA.


----------



## ajw373

Why do they move the trains with those tank looking carriages at each end of the consist?


----------



## Acemcbuller

ajw373 said:


> Why do they move the trains with those tank looking carriages at each end of the consist?


Well they say barrier wagon on them. Googling for that found explanations about carrying dangerous materials. Whats dangrous about a tube train though?! Another website mentioned something about using barrier wagons because of compatibility of couplings. Maybe they just wanted to make sure if anything crashed into it the tube train would be ok!!


----------



## city_thing

Tubeman, this might sound like a stupid question coming from an entirely uneducated person. But.

How many carriages do tube trains usually have? It depends on the line, doesn't it? I remember reading that the Victoria and Northern Lines have the longest trains, but I have a shocking memory so I could be wrong.

Is the district line ever going to get new trains and a possible revamp? The District Line makes Baby Jesus cry.


----------



## ajw373

city_thing said:


> ...
> 
> Is the district line ever going to get new trains and a possible revamp? The District Line makes Baby Jesus cry.


District line stock is getting replaced with the S stock which is pictured above. But the Met, Hammersmith and City/Circle get new stock first so it will be some years before the District line sees them.

Having said that how long since you have rode a D stock on the district line? All the cars have been refurbished, the last only within the last 6-12 months and are quite nice inside. The problems (delays etc) with the district line don't seem to be cause by the rolling stock but just the complexity of operation, especially around Earls Court.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Hopefully the C Stock routes will be upgraded to 7 cars though... Even if it means doors will be cut out at a few stations.
> 
> I'm also baffled why the train appears to have yellow poles... It's 8 cars and therefore will solely run on the Metropolitan line, purple poles would make it more distinguishable from Circle/H&C trains at stations where they share tracks and would create a more noticeable contrast between the white of the interior for the DDA.


I think yellow is 'officially' the most visible colour for grabrails to the partially sighted, hence why it was chosen for the 95 & 96 Stocks (obviously line-coded grey and black wouldn't have been much good!). I assume there will be some form of movement between SSR lines from time to time so it is better to just have one universal stock interior regardless of the line. I don't know the formation, but logically the S Stocks will be produced in 3 and 4 car units such that the Met would be 4+4, District 4+3 and former C Stock routes 3+3.


----------



## Tubeman

city_thing said:


> Tubeman, this might sound like a stupid question coming from an entirely uneducated person. But.
> 
> How many carriages do tube trains usually have? It depends on the line, doesn't it? I remember reading that the Victoria and Northern Lines have the longest trains, but I have a shocking memory so I could be wrong.
> 
> Is the district line ever going to get new trains and a possible revamp? The District Line makes Baby Jesus cry.


I'm sure I've explained this before but here goes...

There are 2 approximate different car lengths on LU, I'll refer to them as 'short' and 'long'... a 'long' car is approx 15% longer than a 'short' car such that a 6-car train of 'short' cars (e.g. a Circle / H&C / Wimbleware C Stock) is only as long as 5 'long' cars (e.g. District D Stock), this is apparent when you see C and D stocks standing alongside each other at Wimbledon.

So, in actual length (to the best of my recollection)...

Metropolitan A Stock = 8 short
Victoria 67 Stock = 8 short
Central 92 Stock = 8 short

District D Stock = 6 long
Piccadilly 73 Stock = 6 long

Bakerloo 72 Stock = 7 short
Jubilee 96 Stock = 7 short

Northern 95 Stock = 6 short
Circle / C&H / Wimbleware C Stock = 6 short

Waterloo & City 92 Stock = 4 short

I think the Northern line stock might have a slightly longer car length than standard 'short' as it used to run 7 car 1959 Stocks ('short' cars) and now only runs 6, but with the 1959 stocks as a driver we'd always stop with the cab in the tunnel at most platforms and the rear cab would also be in the tunnel, whereas now the front cab is always on the platform and usually the rear cab too... I don't feel that the current stock is a whole car shorter in overall length than a 7-car '59.

The District Line D Stocks have all been refurbished and are very smart now, the C Stocks on the Edgware Rd - Wimbledon service are a bit tatty (they were the first refurb in the early 1990's).


----------



## city_thing

^^ Thanks for clearing that up for me Tubeman. I noticed in the pictures of the new Victoria stock that there's 9 carriages, so it got me thinking.



ajw373 said:


> District line stock is getting replaced with the S stock which is pictured above. But the Met, Hammersmith and City/Circle get new stock first so it will be some years before the District line sees them.
> 
> Having said that how long since you have rode a D stock on the district line? All the cars have been refurbished, the last only within the last 6-12 months and are quite nice inside. The problems (delays etc) with the district line don't seem to be cause by the rolling stock but just the complexity of operation, especially around Earls Court.


It's been 2 years since I was last in London. The District and Piccadilly lines were the ones I generally used the most, as I'd get the tube from my house in Putney and into Central London. So I'm quite out of touch with how the tube is now I'm afraid. The District line was always quite dingy and horrible though, it reminded me a lot of the NYC Subway in parts.

I miss the tube so much. You don't appreciate how good it is until you realise you living in a city on the other side of the world with a train system that breaks down every 2 days and treats overcrowding like it's an olympic sport.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> I'm sure I've explained this before but here goes...
> 
> There are 2 approximate different car lengths on LU, I'll refer to them as 'short' and 'long'... a 'long' car is approx 15% longer than a 'short' car such that a 6-car train of 'short' cars (e.g. a Circle / H&C / Wimbleware C Stock) is only as long as 5 'long' cars (e.g. District D Stock), this is apparent when you see C and D stocks standing alongside each other at Wimbledon.
> 
> So, in actual length (to the best of my recollection)...
> 
> Metropolitan A Stock = 8 short
> Victoria 67 Stock = 8 short
> Central 92 Stock = 8 short
> 
> District D Stock = 6 long
> Piccadilly 73 Stock = 6 long
> 
> Bakerloo 72 Stock = 7 short
> Jubilee 96 Stock = 7 short
> 
> Northern 95 Stock = 6 short
> Circle / C&H / Wimbleware C Stock = 6 short
> 
> Waterloo & City 92 Stock = 4 short
> 
> I think the Northern line stock might have a slightly longer car length than standard 'short' as it used to run 7 car 1959 Stocks ('short' cars) and now only runs 6, but with the 1959 stocks as a driver we'd always stop with the cab in the tunnel at most platforms and the rear cab would also be in the tunnel, whereas now the front cab is always on the platform and usually the rear cab too... I don't feel that the current stock is a whole car shorter in overall length than a 7-car '59.
> 
> The District Line D Stocks have all been refurbished and are very smart now, the C Stocks on the Edgware Rd - Wimbledon service are a bit tatty (they were the first refurb in the early 1990's).


Jubilee line is 7 long, Northern line is 6 long. 7 car 96TS is practically the same as 8 short cars. 96/95TS have the same car bodies so they can't be different!



city_thing said:



> Thanks for clearing that up for me Tubeman. I noticed in the pictures of the new Victoria stock that there's 9 carriages, so it got me thinking.


There is no chance the new Victoria line trains will be 9 cars! Me thinks it's your bad memory at work again!


----------



## city_thing

^^ lol!

I don't know what's wrong with my mind these days. I'll try hunt down the photo that I saw... not so I can prove you wrong, but for the reassurance that I don't have a goldfish's memory span.


----------



## city_thing

iampuking said:


> There is no chance the new Victoria line trains will be 9 cars! Me thinks it's your bad memory at work again!


So it appears there's 8 carriages, not nine.

Easy mistake 

http://steven76.fotopic.net/p56618802.html


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Jubilee line is 7 long, Northern line is 6 long. 7 car 96TS is practically the same as 8 short cars. 96/95TS have the same car bodies so they can't be different!


Not convinced... Means that the former Bakerloo section between Baker Street and Finchley Road must have been built with longer than standard platforms for no real reason as it joined onto the original 1906 Yerkes route which just fits 7 short cars.

If the Northern Line were 6 long then the trains would be longer than the 7 cars of 59 Stocks, and they're a fair bit shorter so I'm not convinced about that one either. As I suggested if anything the 95's and 96's have an intermediate car length between the traditional short and long.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Not convinced... Means that the former Bakerloo section between Baker Street and Finchley Road must have been built with longer than standard platforms for no real reason as it joined onto the original 1906 Yerkes route which just fits 7 short cars.
> 
> If the Northern Line were 6 long then the trains would be longer than the 7 cars of 59 Stocks, and they're a fair bit shorter so I'm not convinced about that one either. As I suggested if anything the 95's and 96's have an intermediate car length between the traditional short and long.


The 95/96TS are 17.77m per car. For other cars that you've listed long, the 73TS, are 17.6m. So if they're anything, the 95/96TS are long by your definition... Look on wikipedia for yourself.

There isn't really much difference between long cars and short cars... the 92TS for example is 16.2m...

I don't know why the Finchley - Baker Street section was built longer than the original Bakerloo line, possible the same reason Highgate station was built for 9 cars; futureproofing. All I know is that the Northern/Piccadilly platforms are the same length on the original Yerkes sections.



city_thing said:


> So it appears there's 8 carriages, not nine.
> 
> Easy mistake
> 
> http://steven76.fotopic.net/p56618802.html


You've made another mistake... the picture you've shown is of the S Stock not the 2009 Stock! :lol:


----------



## iampuking

Hey Tubeman do you know if the 95TS reliability has improved at all?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Hey Tubeman do you know if the 95TS reliability has improved at all?


Like any new stock there were a few teething problems at first, but they are pretty reliable these days. I don't think they were ever especially unreliable; most of the Northern Line's former woes were down to the timetables (now resolved).


----------



## MelbourneCity

Today's Guardian had a shot of Boris in the new District/Metropolitan/Circle line trains.
Was it a recycled photo, or was a train out and about testing lately?

It was taken at either Euston or Sloane Square judging by the station sign (half cut off).


----------



## Tubeman

MelbourneCity said:


> Today's Guardian had a shot of Boris in the new District/Metropolitan/Circle line trains.
> Was it a recycled photo, or was a train out and about testing lately?
> 
> It was taken at either Euston or Sloane Square judging by the station sign (half cut off).


It must have been the mock-up: the prototype S Stock hasn't been on LU metals yet... Must have just been a dummy sign


----------



## iampuking

Sounds like the official mock up in Euston Square (a tent above ground) a few months ago...

Tubeman, what type of ballast is used where and why? Slab, gravel or other?

Thanks for any replies.


----------



## sweek

Tubeman, since you must've spent quite a bit of time looking at Google Maps by now for your book... what do you think would be the best alignment and best terminal for a high speed line from London to Birmingham? Would you go via Heathrow?


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Sounds like the official mock up in Euston Square (a tent above ground) a few months ago...
> 
> Tubeman, what type of ballast is used where and why? Slab, gravel or other?
> 
> Thanks for any replies.


Our ballast on the overground and SSR sections looks pretty standard to me... I didn't know there were different types to be honest!


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> Tubeman, since you must've spent quite a bit of time looking at Google Maps by now for your book... what do you think would be the best alignment and best terminal for a high speed line from London to Birmingham? Would you go via Heathrow?


Heathrow's too much of a detour for me... If you draw a straight line between London and Birmingham it passes slapbang through Watford and the Tring Gap and then slightly west of Milton Keynes, so for me the London & Birmingham Railway got it spot on 170 years ago!


----------



## sotonsi

Tubeman said:


> Heathrow's too much of a detour for me... If you draw a straight line between London and Birmingham it passes slapbang through Watford and the Tring Gap and then slightly west of Milton Keynes, so for me the London & Birmingham Railway got it spot on 170 years ago!


so how come the Chiltern route is so much shorter ~10-15%?

The crow-flies line goes through the Amersham/Chesham area IIRC.

Heathrow is fine as a loop or a spur - the Birmingham direct line is much better as a route.

That said, Euston-Heathrow-High Wycombe would be probably be shorter than the WCML route.


----------



## iampuking

The roof at Earl's Court has finally revealed again after it has been refurbished and the scaffolding has been taken down:

Courtesy of Chris W 72 at Flickr:












Tubeman said:


> Our ballast on the overground and SSR sections looks pretty standard to me... I didn't know there were different types to be honest!


I didn't really convey my point very well because I don't know all the lingo!

I meant is it like, slab track like on the DLR, or concrete blocks on ballast like NR...?


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> so how come the Chiltern route is so much shorter ~10-15%?
> 
> The crow-flies line goes through the Amersham/Chesham area IIRC.
> 
> Heathrow is fine as a loop or a spur - the Birmingham direct line is much better as a route.
> 
> That said, Euston-Heathrow-High Wycombe would be probably be shorter than the WCML route.


I'd be surprised if there was that much of a distance differential between the two, I guess the WCML deviates a bit to the east of the 'crow flies' line to reach Rugby, the original GCR main line is a 'better fit' north of Aylesbury but through utilising the Tring Gap the WCML has a much straighter, flatter route than the Met / Chiltern route up and over the Chilterns.

The 'crow flies' line very much depends on where in London you're drawing it to. I lay a ruler across a map yesterday between the centre of Birmingham and London City and it went straight through Watford (WCML), Tring (WCML), Buckingham (GCR) and a few miles west of MK (WCML)... As I said the WCML then deviates a bit to the east of this line through Rugby before the Birmingham spur branches off, but this allows Coventry to be served.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> The roof at Earl's Court has finally revealed again after it has been refurbished and the scaffolding has been taken down:
> 
> Courtesy of Chris W 72 at Flickr:


Great news... It was really frustrating that no sooner had all the scaffolding come down after the station refurb was completed, it all went up again to refurbish the roof. What a waste of bloody money!


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> I didn't really convey my point very well because I don't know all the lingo!
> 
> I meant is it like, slab track like on the DLR, or concrete blocks on ballast like NR...?


Oh I see... Above ground and all of SSR are traditional sleepers on limestone ballast, with the wooden sleepers being slowly replaced with concrete and bullhead rail being replaced by flat-bottomed (i.e. coming in line with NR standards). Deep level Tubes are generally a mixture depending on age... The JLE is fully concreted in like the DLR (I believe with rubber dampers under the 'chairs' carrying the rails), while the Waterloo & City Line certainly used to be untied sleepers laying on ballast (which led to track movement and rough riding)... I think this may have been addressed when the line closed a couple of years ago. Certainly all other Tubes at least had the sleepers tied to the tunnel lining for stability.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Oh I see... Above ground and all of SSR are traditional sleepers on limestone ballast, with the wooden sleepers being slowly replaced with concrete and bullhead rail being replaced by flat-bottomed (i.e. coming in line with NR standards). Deep level Tubes are generally a mixture depending on age... The JLE is fully concreted in like the DLR (I believe with rubber dampers under the 'chairs' carrying the rails), while the Waterloo & City Line certainly used to be untied sleepers laying on ballast (which led to track movement and rough riding)... I think this may have been addressed when the line closed a couple of years ago. Certainly all other Tubes at least had the sleepers tied to the tunnel lining for stability.


Thanks a lot, I think the W&C is now concrete like the Jubilee line, I remember from pictures on the Metronet website. Do you know if track replacements are leading to more concreted in track on the old deep level lines or are they keeping the traditional sleepers? I also noticed that sometimes engineers replaced the tracks but kept the old "chairs" and others they seemed to replace the "chairs" and ballast as well, why?


----------



## Tubeman

Tubeman said:


> Not sure about a Watford - Aylesbury Link; this would be possible with the Croxley Link... where did you hear about it?


Just saw it on Wiki... Interesting; yes it is a proposed service using the Croxley Link and a little-used chord between the Metropolitan Line Watford branch and the Metropolitan / Chiltern main line.

Makes the case for the Croxley Link even more compelling, and would interestingly require diesel traction to appear on the new combined Watford Met / Croxley Green route for the Aylesbury service.

I hope that Watford High Street to Watford Junction can take it, because there'd be at least 3 services using that section then (LU Metropolitan Line, Chiltern to Aylesbury, and the current Watford DC and / or LU Bakerloo Line).


----------



## sotonsi

IIRC, the Watford-Aylesbury service is planned to be one, possibly two, trains an hour. The Bakerloo won't need to be more than 4tph, I think the 4 platforms at Watford Junction could take ~12tph. I guess if the Bakerloo was a higher frequency (eg 6tph), then having the Met alternate between Watford Met and Watford Junction would work (IIRC there are plans to keep the Met station open, originally with extended Chesham shuttles, but that's not going to happen now they will be through trains, so another solution is needed).

What's interesting is the amount these proposed services are turning Aylesbury into a hub. 2tph to Marylebone via Am, 2 towards Marylebone via HW (not all getting there), 2tph to MK (extension of the via Am trains? - I prefer linking HW to MK, as MK doesn't need a slow route to London, but a route that gets there via HW would work better - gives the little villages direct London service, plus also gives HW-MK regional services) and 2tph to Watford.

A Chiltern service to Watford Junction would be well patronised by people from Amersham, etc (I think I've taken the train from Amersham to Watford once, just because the Met station isn't good for the centre, and you have to change at Moor Park - been driven lots of times and it's quicker, despite the rubbish roads). I'm not so sure about Aylesbury traffic to Watford (and less going the other way), but it's a good regional link, and works to feed both big towns with commuter and leisure traffic (though the price of tickets to Aylesbury would have to come down for Aylesbury to get people coming from Amersham, due to being more expensive than Harrow, Watford, Finchley Road, etc). Having the Watford 'North Curve' service ending at Amersham (and thus electrified) might be better than going to Aylesbury - there's merits to both options, and problems with both.


----------



## Acemcbuller

Overground said:


> What's happening with the proposed link between Croxley and Watford Junction?


http://londonreconnections.blogspot.com/search/label/croxley rail link


----------



## Tubeman

Had a presentation from the Chief Engineering Officer yesterday so I'll try to recall some of the timescales he mentioned...

- First 2009 Stock in passenger service July 2009 (late at night)

- Delivery of first S Stock for testing on LU infrastructure September 2009

- Jubilee Line switch-over to ATO between November 2009 & January 2010

- Tendering for 1973 stock replacement early 2010

'Seltrac' ATO system will begin installation on the Northern Line as soon as the Jubilee upgrade is complete.

New central signalling centre for entire SSR network has started construction at Hammersmith (replacing 2 control centres and numerous signal boxes).

...So the upgrades are all systems go (although the Jubilee Line is looking like it might be a bit delayed), sadly 50 station upgrades have been shelved in order to safeguard the line upgrades.


----------



## Jang0

Thanks for the update Tubeman.

Interesting to know what the insiders are saying


----------



## iampuking

I saw Earl's Court Tube station tonight with the refurbished roof, it's beautiful but I think like with the trainshed at St Pancras, the lighting is too bright and too white.


----------



## Tubeman

Haven't seen it myself yet... Just grateful the scaffolding's finally down!


----------



## Tubeman

Me on BBC Radio London this morning, go forward 37 minutes: 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...ow_with_Joanne_Good_and_Paul_Ross_30_04_2009/

Celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Jubilee Line's opening tomorrow


----------



## Minato ku

Even if the most famous section of Jubilee line is the extention of 1999.
When the extention will be 10 years old ?


----------



## Tubeman

Minato ku said:


> Even if the most famous section of Jubilee line is the extention of 1999.
> When the extention will be 10 years old ?


Stratford to North Greenwich opened 14.05.99
North Greenwich to Bermondsey 17.09.99
Bermondesy to Waterloo 24.09.99
Waterloo to Green Park 20.11.99

I guess the final date is the 'true' date of the extension, as it's when the old line was joined to the new... So 20.11.09 for the 10th anniversary


----------



## Republica

Tubeman said:


> Me on BBC Radio London this morning, go forward 37 minutes:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...ow_with_Joanne_Good_and_Paul_Ross_30_04_2009/
> 
> Celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Jubilee Line's opening tomorrow


Well done Tubeman, despite the presenters.


----------



## Winterstar

*Piccadily ATO?*

Hello Tubeman,

Do you know if there is a plan for the Piccadilly line to be upgraded to ATO, and if so, when it is scheduled for?

Thanks!


----------



## Tubeman

Winterstar said:


> Hello Tubeman,
> 
> Do you know if there is a plan for the Piccadilly line to be upgraded to ATO, and if so, when it is scheduled for?
> 
> Thanks!


Hopefully 2014: the new rolling stock is being ordered early next year with signalling upgrades to ATO to coincide with delivery. Although in the current climate, slippage is to be expected.


----------



## Rachmaninov

Why does refurbishment work at Warren Street and Green Park seem to take forever?

At Warren Street I thought they were only trying to replace some lights and the escalator but it's been about a year since the roof's taken off... and it looks all the same still... and now they have a notice which says it's going to take longer than expected?

Green Park - well... the untiled section between Vic Line and Picc Line bugs me a bit. I cannot imagine what tourists would think about the tube


----------



## Tubeman

Rachmaninov said:


> Why does refurbishment work at Warren Street and Green Park seem to take forever?
> 
> At Warren Street I thought they were only trying to replace some lights and the escalator but it's been about a year since the roof's taken off... and it looks all the same still... and now they have a notice which says it's going to take longer than expected?
> 
> Green Park - well... the untiled section between Vic Line and Picc Line bugs me a bit. I cannot imagine what tourists would think about the tube



I'm not entirely sure; they're both JNP (and therefore Tubelines) stations and so the collapse of Metronet shouldn't have affected their refurbishments. Sometimes once a refurb commences, unexpected obstacles are discovered... But I honestly don't know the specifics for these two.


----------



## ajw373

Rachmaninov said:


> Why does refurbishment work at Warren Street and Green Park seem to take forever?
> 
> At Warren Street I thought they were only trying to replace some lights and the escalator but it's been about a year since the roof's taken off... and it looks all the same still... and now they have a notice which says it's going to take longer than expected?
> 
> Green Park - well... the untiled section between Vic Line and Picc Line bugs me a bit. I cannot imagine what tourists would think about the tube


Everything seems to take forever in the UK.

For example they are doing reburbishment work at Notting Hill Gate, well actually they have been doing it for 2 years, but guess it stalled because of Metronet. But anyway now they are in full swing and have signs saying it will be ready by late 2010, ie about 18 months from now. It has me beat because in the space of about 4 weeks that have managed to more or less strip the tiles on the central line platforms, so putting new ones up along with all the other work shouldn't take that long you would think. More so because a lot of the new cable trunking has been installed over the past 2 years.

The other thing that has surprised me at Notting Hill Gate is they are reburbishing the stairways that lead from the concourse tunnel to the street. There are 4 of them and they have signs saying each will be closed for 3 months. 3 months for what? I mean to say they are just concrete stairs and tiled walls, and unlike inside the station you would think they could work on these during daylight hours.

I just hope they don't do a half arsed job like Holborn. I cannot beleive they have put in new roof panels on the escalator tunnel, but only down the side, but have kept the orginal middle panels and the lights (unless they plan to come back to replace them later). It looks hidous. Also they have a new white tiled roof in the ticket hall should look great, except they couldn't be bothered to clean it, so there are builders handmarks and dirt already all over them. If they cannot clean the things when installed what hope is there it will be done regulary.


----------



## iampuking

Most of the refurbs look shit anyway. Plain white tiles everywhere. It worked on the Central line because thats what it originally looked like, but on the Victoria line? Blasphemy!


----------



## ajw373

iampuking said:


> Most of the refurbs look shit anyway. Plain white tiles everywhere. It worked on the Central line because thats what it originally looked like, but on the Victoria line? Blasphemy!


Quite true indeed. Adding a splash of colour and interest shouldn't have cost much more that plain white tiles.


----------



## Rachmaninov

Thanks Tubeman anyway for replying! 



ajw373 said:


> Quite true indeed. Adding a splash of colour and interest shouldn't have cost much more that plain white tiles.


To be quite honest, the tiles look like those in WCs...


----------



## Overground

Thanks Tubeman for the reply and Croxley info. Also thanks to Acemcbuller for that blog link. Good up-to-date info there.


----------



## Tubeman

1LONDONER said:


> Tubeman, can I ask howcome LU choose the current style for the new victoria line stock as opposed to the type of stock used for the London Oveground, where it is all walk through?
> 
> Not that I'd particularly want that style but I would have thought that they would've tried to get as much as extra capacity as possible out of what they currently have (space).
> 
> 
> Also how come some (maybe all?) tube trains are like two cars stuck together, as they have a drivers unit in the middle?


I don't know what went wrong with the 2009 Stock; we were going to get the 'Space train' with extra small wheels leading to taller cars which were all going to be articulated... Instead we've ended up with an (admittedly good looking) conventional Tube train with separate cars. The obvious answer is cost, but its a shame.

Regarding your second question, LU trains and EMUs in general are formed of 'units' of 2-4 cars, coupled together to form trains for operational reasons.

One reason is to give the ability to vary train lengths depending on demand: this is still commonplace on the mainline, and used to be on LU when shorter single-unit trains (i.e. 3 or 4 cars) were run between the peaks while monster trains of up to 9 cars were run on the Northern Line in the 1930's (selective door opening and non-stopping of some platforms).

Another reason is to avoid trains being completely stricken by a defect; if a train is actually effectively 2 trains coupled together, then if one unit gets a serious defect (e.g. air burst) which would otherwise render it immovable, it can be isolated from the 'good' unit, and the good unit can push or pull the defective unit around.

Following from this, if there's a serious issue with a train that needs heavy lifting in depot, the 'good' half can be detatched and perhaps coupled to another 'good' half of a similarly knackered train, so that rather than having two knackered trains, you effectively only have one. This sort of tinkering with formations is pretty common.

Similarly, it is useful to be able to 'split' a train in emergencies, e.g. to allow access if there's a 'one under' halfway along the train, or if a portion has derailed, or god forbid been bombed.

For this reason therefore, each unit needs to have a cab or at least driving controls at both ends. You'll notice that many LU trains don't appear to have cabs in the middle, if they don't, they will have basic driving controls at the inner end of each unit hidden inside a cabinet to allow driving if the train has been split into units.

Older Stocks, like the A60 on the Metropolitan Line, are simply formed of 2 x 4-car units with driving cabs at both ends, i.e. in the middle there are 2 driving cabs coupled together. This allows 4-cars to run on the Chesham shuttle, and also formerly on the East London Line.

Similarly, the Victoria 1967 and Bakerloo 1972 are essentially 2 trains coupled together with a pair of driving cabs in the middle... the 1967 are 4+4 while the 1972 are 4+3.

The first current stock to move away from this is the Circle / H&C / District Lines C69 Stock. These trains all consist of 3 x 2-car units coupled together, each 2 car unit has a driving cab at one end and shunting controls at the other. This means every C Stock has a single driving cab sandwiched between either cars 2 and 3, or between cars 4 and 5.

Two anomalies are the D78 (District) and 1973 (Piccadilly) where sometimes you'll see a single driving cab in the middle, but usually not. This is because both stocks were built with specific routes needing short formations in mind: the D78 for the East London Line, and the 1973 for the Aldwych shuttle. Both required a certain proportion of the fleet to be built as 3-car units with driving cabs at both ends, whilst the majority are 3-car units with a driving cab at one end and shunting controls inside a cabinet at the other. In the end all the ELL D78 stock trains were demanded back by the District Line due to timetable increases in the 1980's, and the Aldwych shuttle closed... negating the need for the 'Double ended' units on either line. Now they just run around coupled to the usual 'Single-ended' 3-car units, thus some trains with a driving cab in the middle.

Finally, the most modern stocks range from the Central 1992 stock, which is 4 x 2-car units, to the Jubilee & Northern 1995 & 1996 stocks, which are both a single 6-car train.


----------



## cle

Why's the Bakerloo down over Bank hols? Are you annoyed?


Also - are there ever any attempts to do line speed increases on LU - especially outside of the tunnelled areas? I ask becuase I think certain suburban routes could be a fair bit faster.

For example, Hammersmith to Osterley, I think you could shave a good 3 mins off by hammering it a bit more as there are some nice long stretches.


----------



## Tubeman

cle said:


> Why's the Bakerloo down over Bank hols? Are you annoyed?
> 
> 
> Also - are there ever any attempts to do line speed increases on LU - especially outside of the tunnelled areas? I ask becuase I think certain suburban routes could be a fair bit faster.
> 
> For example, Hammersmith to Osterley, I think you could shave a good 3 mins off by hammering it a bit more as there are some nice long stretches.


Bakerloo's closing primarily to replace the crossover at Piccadilly Circus; it's been out of commission since before I joined the line and essentially means if there's anything serious kicking off in Central London we lose the entire line south of Paddington (only other crossover between Queen's Park and Lambeth North). For example, yesterday a track fire between Embankment and Waterloo shut us down for 75 minutes all the way from Paddington to Elephant... If Picc Points were operational, we'd have been able to run from Piccadilly Circus to Harrow & Wealdstone.

There's other 'opportunity' works taking place, like asbestos removal at Regent's Park and loads of other track work.

Regarding speed increases above ground, the current limitation is track condition mainly. Traditional 'bullhead' rails on wooden sleepers are slowly being replaced with flat-bottomed rail on concrete sleepers, giving a far superior ride quality and allowing higher speeds, but this is pretty piecemeal.


----------



## sweek

Do the cross-overs work both ways? Would you be able to run Piccadilly Circus - Elephant and Castle, or would that not be interesting enough given that all but one of those stations are interchanges?


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> Do the cross-overs work both ways? Would you be able to run Piccadilly Circus - Elephant and Castle, or would that not be interesting enough given that all but one of those stations are interchanges?


Yes, but with an 'emergency' crossover it's easier to reverse one way than the other... But the explanation is a bit complex...

An emergency crossover (as opposed to a 'scissors' crossover) only links the two tracks in one direction. This means that one move is straightforward; a train runs the right way into a platform, stops, the driver changes ends, then is able to depart back in the other direction as the crossover takes the train over to the other track, this is the case for reversing SB to NB at Piccadilly Circus.

The opposite direction is more complicated; a train needs to stop in the platform, detrain its passengers, then depart in the same ('right') direction beyond the platform into the tunnel to a point called the 'Limit of shunt' (usually marked by a metal plate on the track or tunnel wall), before the driver changes ends and is then faced by the crossover to take them back in the opposite direction toward the station again. This is the case for NB to SB at Piccadilly Circus.

Therefore SB to NB is easier at Piccadilly Circus than NB to SB, but either is possible (or will be after Bank Holiday weekend).

Either manoevre causes delays because either manoevre involves a train being shut down on the running line while the driver changes ends, so reversing via a reversing siding (e.g. Tooting Broadway, Archway) or a reversing central platform (e.g. Golders Green, Arnos Grove, White City) is preferable, and these crossovers are literally for 'emergencies' only.


----------



## coit

If the 2009 stock had smaller wheels to give more height inside,wouldn't the floor be lower than station platforms?


----------



## Tubeman

coit said:


> If the 2009 stock had smaller wheels to give more height inside,wouldn't the floor be lower than station platforms?


Yes, but the 1967 stock floors are already about 6 inches above the platforms so maybe they wouldn't have needed to be lowered much.... The cost of platform lowering was probably one of the considerations when the 'Space train' was rejected.


----------



## chris.haynes

After hearing about the proposed battersea link i changed the future map tube map i have been working on to this ... 










whats missing at the moment:

changes to the circle line ... not sure how this works does anyone have a image drawing of what is planned ?

also comments on the above map please ... 

chris


----------



## Tubeman

chris.haynes said:


> whats missing at the moment:
> 
> changes to the circle line ... not sure how this works does anyone have a image drawing of what is planned ?
> 
> also comments on the above map please ...
> 
> chris


Very pretty 

The Circle Line will run Hammersmith to Edgware Road via a lap of the Circle and back again:


----------



## lightrail

Nice map Chris

I would change the Northern Line split though. I would join the Edgeware Branch with the westend branch to Kennington - this was the original Hamstead Tube and I would name it "Hamstead Line" to recognise it's origins.

Then I would run the Northern from Morden to High Barnett and Mill Hill East - this is the original City and South London Railway - could be renamed to this or left as Northern Line.

Queens Park Overground I would run to Stratford, abandon Euston - there is a freight only link that could be opened to connect to the existing Overground Line to Stratford.

Eurostar should be named HS1 as more than just Eurostars will use that line

I beleive there was thought of switching the District and Piccadilly north of Acton town - so that Piccadilly goes to Ealing Broadway and District to Uxbridge - better match of stock on the Uxbridge line and better use of Piccadilly trains.


----------



## sweek

Yeah it would be Edgware - Charing Cross - Kennington - Clapham Junction and High Barnet - Bank - Morden. This is to make sure that there is one depot for each line (Morden and Golders Green being the only two along the line)


----------



## lightrail

Also - Crossrail is not right - it doesn't run through Heathrow (but there is a branch) and it branches east of Liverpool Street

See this link
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/the-railway/crossrail-maps#TB_inline?height=600&width=800&inlineId=modalmaps&modal=true


----------



## chris.haynes

will the hammersmith line change ?


----------



## Tubeman

chris.haynes said:


> will the hammersmith line change ?


No, it'll still run to Barking as at present. The good thing is this new pattern will increase the frequency Hammermsith to Edgware Road, which will appease Westfield.


----------



## chris.haynes

updates:


----------



## poshbakerloo

lightrail said:


> Nice map Chris
> 
> I would change the Northern Line split though. I would join the Edgeware Branch with the westend branch to Kennington - this was the original Hamstead Tube and I would name it "Hamstead Line" to recognise it's origins.


I would call the 2 parts the City Line (Edgeware-Morden) and High Barnet or Charing Cross Line (High Barnet-Kennington)


----------



## lightrail

chris.haynes said:


> updates:


Nice - though the line to Edgeware should be the Hamstead Line as it runs under Hamstead Heath 

Nice map though.


----------



## Marathaman

Have you done consulting work in developing countries?


----------



## poshbakerloo

*I alway thought The Bakerloo Line should do this...*

Here is just a quick map to show my idea...


----------



## Bart_LCY

chris.haynes said:


> updates:


Is Crossrail on your map missing Paddington intentionally?


----------



## Tubeman

poshbakerloo said:


> I would call the 2 parts the City Line (Edgeware-Morden) and High Barnet or Charing Cross Line (High Barnet-Kennington)


As I've explained before, it would have to be Edgware - Charing Cross - Kennington versus High Barnet - Bank - Morden for operational reasons.

The latter could happily remain 'Northern' (as in Northern Heights) while I'd name the former it's historical nickname 'Hampstead Tube'. Job done


----------



## streetquark

Bart_LCY said:


> Is Crossrail on your map missing Paddington intentionally?


It's also decided to go via Mile End and alongside the District to upminster instead of Whitechapel-Stratford then the GE mainline past ilford and Romford (which would be a little further north on the map).


----------



## chris.haynes

I m thinking of drawing a brand new map soon complete with zones and maybe national rail lines if I have room ... To have crossrail as straight as possible the other lines will have to reshape like the 2016 map that went around


----------



## sweek

I think Primrose Hill could probably go on the map if we're running Queen's Park - Stratford services...


----------



## chris.haynes

sweek said:


> I think Primrose Hill could probably go on the map if we're running Queen's Park - Stratford services...


http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...40223,-0.164366&spn=0.019165,0.05476&t=h&z=15

might be possible ?


----------



## Tubeman

chris.haynes said:


> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...40223,-0.164366&spn=0.019165,0.05476&t=h&z=15
> 
> might be possible ?


More than possible... the platform was demolished fairly recently, but it should be simple enough to rebuild. I remember visiting the station before it closed, it used to be left open all day even though by then the only train was a Watford Jcn - Liverpool St service at about 08:30 which was more often than not cancelled.

If it re-opens it should be called Chalk Farm to advertise its proximity to the Northern Line station.


----------



## chris.haynes

New version :


----------



## sotavento

Have any test's or studies been done about seating arrangements and capacity vs. confort in the LUL tube trains???

I ask this because eveytime I went in rush hour it's very hard to grip a free handle ... and in the middle of the day it's not very confortable to travell in those longitudinal seats. 













































^^ Seriously .. .a lot of usefull space is lost due to the longitidinal seating:




Heres a layout for comparison (Porto light rail) ... notice the intergangway has a similar layout to most of LUL trains but that is due to the bogies/wheelsets being under the benches.

























































^^ Hope someone find's this subject worthy of discussion. :cheers:


----------



## ChrisH

The Tube stock trains are too narrow to comfortably seat 4 across. The Bakerloo and Victoria lines both have sections of latitudinal seating, but unless you’re good friends with your seatmate it’s not very comfortable! The Metropolitan line already has latitudinal seating (2+3 across) for its longer journeys in wider trains – but these are being removed in the new S stock trains.


----------



## Acemcbuller

Longtiudinal seating allows more standing room which is badly needed. 

I hate transverse seating on the tube and others seem to as well because they get filled up less readily. 
People are unwilling to squeeze past others or ask them to move over in order to sit down and get up. The result is that seats go unused. Face to face seats also mean bumping knees with the people opposite.


----------



## Tubeman

It's what you're used to I guess... The only genuine criticism I have of any stock in terms of comfort is the C Stock (2nd picture down; Circle, H&C and District Lines)... If these are crush loaded there are not adequate grabrails available if you're standing in the vestibule between the doors: just two rails above head height and too high up for shorter people to reach. People just end up bracing themselves against fellow commuters and fall all over the place if the train brakes or accelerates sharply (which the C Stocks are prone to).

The standard Tube stock arrangement of longitudinal seats facing each other is the best capacity solution. If a train was purely transverse seating, you'd get far fewer standees on during the peak so each train would carry far less passengers. On the other hand if you ripped out all seats to maximise standing room it would be a false economy as the areas of the car occupied by the seats are useless for standing (except for the very short) due to the inward curving car sides.

Therefore, the modern layout of rows of longitudinal seating facing each other and no transverse seating is by far the best solution for Tube stocks.

Surface stocks are dictated by the routes worked: C Stocks have pure longitudinal seating and no transverse (since the refurb) to maximise standing room, as they work shorter, busier, inner London routes. In contrast the Metropolitan A Stocks have pure high-backed transverse 2+3 seating because they work longer distance routes into Buckinghamshire so seating is more important.

This will be swept away when the single S Stock comes in and a compromise layout between the two will be installed.


----------



## iampuking

The compromise seating for the S Stock baffles me.

Why not have seating similar to the current A Stock on the 8 car S Stocks, and high capacity seating on the 7 car S Stocks? It's not like the 8 car and 7 car trains will be swapping services... And carriages won't be uncoupled and added to other trains, because the fully walkthrough design makes it difficult!

This logic also applies to the "compromise" line branding in the interior as well...


----------



## 1LONDONER

Tubeman said:


> On the other hand if you ripped out all seats to maximise standing room it would be a false economy as the areas of the car occupied by the seats are useless for standing (except for the very short) due to the inward curving car sides.
> 
> Therefore, the modern layout of rows of longitudinal seating facing each other and no transverse seating is by far the best solution for Tube stocks.


I often end up standing by the door on tube journeys, I think you could get a significant amount more in without the seats, and I'm not that short (about 6'2), its not comfortable mind you, but I dont expect to be on the tube in rush hour, but its bareable. Although the longitudinal seating I agree is the best compromise.


----------



## lasdun

I think it was the red train from the 92 prototype trio that had single, transfer seats either side of a wider isle in the middle section of the car - I think that was a great idea, should have been used on the new 09 stock - short journeys you only need to seat the priorty cases, and that layout maxmises the area of the carrage with useable head height. 

Of course the wheels are sticking up into the car under the end sets of seats, so not much you can do unless you go the space train route of smaller wheels.

checked - it was the blue train:


----------



## poshbakerloo

lasdun said:


> I think it was the red train from the 92 prototype trio that had single, transfer seats either side of a wider isle in the middle section of the car - I think that was a great idea, should have been used on the new 09 stock - short journeys you only need to seat the priorty cases, and that layout maxmises the area of the carrage with useable head height.
> 
> Of course the wheels are sticking up into the car under the end sets of seats, so not much you can do unless you go the space train route of smaller wheels.
> 
> checked - it was the blue train:


I love the design on those trains!


----------



## Acemcbuller

*Power feeds*

Hi tubeman

Does the power for each car come from its nearest motor car or only the powered cab? I'm guessing the former otherwise it would be a single point of failure for the whole train. I guess the lone couple of lights that stay on when all the others occasionally go out as the train goes over points etc have battery backups? Its quite fun when that happens.

James


----------



## MoritzCH

*Faulty Train at _____?*

I have question that has been fermenting in my mind. 

Whenever the TFL's live travel news section says "Severe/minor delays are occurring due to a faulty train at ____" , what kinds of things are defined as faulty trains? Is it things like doors not working properly, or is it a case of the train breaks down entirely? In that case, what happens?

TFL provides a brief glossary of terms regarding things like "good service" or "minor delays" or "part suspended" etc, but I thought it might be interesting to learn more specific details as to why trains might be delayed. I've seen things like delays due to "faulty communications equipment" or "staff shortage" or "faulty track" (although I'm sure these are a bit more specific than just "faulty train.")

Cheers,


----------



## Tubeman

Acemcbuller said:


> Hi tubeman
> 
> Does the power for each car come from its nearest motor car or only the powered cab? I'm guessing the former otherwise it would be a single point of failure for the whole train. I guess the lone couple of lights that stay on when all the others occasionally go out as the train goes over points etc have battery backups? Its quite fun when that happens.
> 
> James


Hi James

There is no continuous 630V wire the length of a train (it was outlawed at the inception of electric traction on the Tube for fear of fire risk), so each motor car supplies its own power via pickup shoes and in addition the adjacent 'trailer' car.

Very simply there are two types of Tube car: Motor and Trailer, each 'unit' will have at least one of each. For example the C Stock's 2-car units are simply one of each permanently coupled together, the D Stock's 3-car units are a Trailer sandwiched between two Motors, and the 1972 MkII's 4 car units are M-T-T-M (coupled to a 3-car unit M-T-M, giving 7 cars in total).

Motor cars have, unsurprisingly, the Traction motors on the bogies... They also have 'Motor Alternators' (MAs), which convert the 630V DC into 50V DC for control circuits and 110V AC for lighting. The MAs give the constant high-pitched whining noise, which can be heard faltering as the train passes over pointwork and rail gaps accompanied by the lights dimming (because the 110V AC supply in interrupted). The lights don't go out altogther because on each car there are some striplights powered off 50V DC supplied by batteries on each motor car. The prime role of the batteries is to ensure the 50V supply for power & control is always available, otherwise every time the 630V supply was interrupted (e.g. crossing pointwork) everything else on the train would go dead.

On Trailer cars you'll find the compressors, which run off 630V supplied from the adjacent Motor car. They keep the air supply charged (for brakes, doors, etc) and they make the whirring / chugging sound which cuts in periodically, often just after a train has come to a halt at a station (because air has been used for braking and door operation). It's especially loud on A Stocks.

You can usually tell the difference between a Motor and a Trailer car as a passenger (on older stocks at least) because on a Trailer you'll hear / feel the compressors but the Traction motors will be relatively quiet whereas on a Motor car the compressors will be quiet and you won't feel their vibration whereas the Traction motors will be loud during acceleration & braking. The clear difference looking from outside (aside from the driving cabs on Driving Motor cars) is that Motor cars have shoebeams and current collection shoes on each bogey whereas Trailer cars do not.

This is also how you'll spot a non-driving motor car (known as an UNDM): they have shoegear but no driving cab... Most middle cars (i.e. 3rd & 4th) on D Stocks and 1973 Stocks are UNDMs, although as I explained previously there are some Driving motor cars in the middle of these two stocks because a proportion of the fleet was built as 'Double ended' 3 car units for the East London Line and Aldwych shuttle.


----------



## Tubeman

MoritzCH said:


> I have question that has been fermenting in my mind.
> 
> Whenever the TFL's live travel news section says "Severe/minor delays are occurring due to a faulty train at ____" , what kinds of things are defined as faulty trains? Is it things like doors not working properly, or is it a case of the train breaks down entirely? In that case, what happens?
> 
> TFL provides a brief glossary of terms regarding things like "good service" or "minor delays" or "part suspended" etc, but I thought it might be interesting to learn more specific details as to why trains might be delayed. I've seen things like delays due to "faulty communications equipment" or "staff shortage" or "faulty track" (although I'm sure these are a bit more specific than just "faulty train.")
> 
> Cheers,


Hi 

Trains are complex machines and therefore all manner of things can go wrong with them ('defects'). Commonest defects would be:

Doors... Generally doors failing to close. This is most commonly something stuck in the door runner stopping a door from closing, or causing a slow-closing ('sticky') door. Quite often a kick from the driver will sort this out, but if it happens repeatedly the train will lose time if the driver has to keep going back so it would be withdrawn from service pretty promptly.

'Pilot light'... In a similar vein, there's a blue light in the driver's cab (called the 'Pilot light', like on a domestic boiler) which is lit when the doors are closed. Movement cannot be achieved if the light isn't lit, and often even though the doors are closed or appear to be it won't light for a number of reasons. If this is the case, the train is unsafe and must be withdrawn from service. This is also why trains often suddenly stop accelerating just as they pull away from platforms (usually when packed) accompanied by a 'pop'; this is because the pilot light has gone out due to people pressing against the doors... The jolt usually ensures the light returns and allows the motors to kick back in.

'No movement'... Quite often a driver will go to motor and nothing happens. This could be due to all manner of things: no traction current, no pilot light, insufficient air pressure, blown fuse / tripped MCB... There's a series of checks they go through to diagnose, it's normally something they can rectify themselves but there's a delay while this happens depending on what the problem is and how competent the driver is.

'Burst'... This is the biggie... Stocks have one or two air supplies; older stocks like the A, C and 1972 have two pipes ('Trainline' and 'Mainline'), the former essentially being the fail-safe brake system and the latter the standard supply for normal braking and door operation. Newer stocks just have 'mainline', the failsafe braking system is governed by an electrical circuit. In either case if there's a rupture in the air supply then the train is crippled until the burst has been isolated, and depending on the burst type or location the train may only be able to be driven from the rear at reduced speed. A bad burst can easily shut a train down for an hour, and therefore an entire line.

Of course all manner of other things can go wrong, but these are the commonest in my experience.

Any time a train is withdrawn from service for even something simple, it's cause a delay because de-training a train, especially if busy, will shut a line down for 5-10 minutes which will have repercussions for hours due to extended headways and late running.


----------



## sotavento

tubeman ... It's always a pleasure to hear your explanations on Tube related subjects. :cheers:


----------



## alonzo-ny

What do you think in terms of service? I recently visited London and have lived in NY. Im convinced that in London the trains are way more frequent. In NY even in rush hour if I just missed a train I would wait what seemed like an eternity on another train. On my trip to London I dont remember waiting more than two minutes at any time of the day.


----------



## sweek

alonzo-ny said:


> What do you think in terms of service? I recently visited London and have lived in NY. Im convinced that in London the trains are way more frequent. In NY even in rush hour if I just missed a train I would wait what seemed like an eternity on another train. On my trip to London I dont remember waiting more than two minutes at any time of the day.


Yes, London trains are generally more frequent than New York ones; on most of the lines anyway.


----------



## davidaiow

I've not been to many cities but London beats all the ones I have been to. I remember that at 5pm as soon as one train left, another entered. I was very impressed! 5pm in Sydney, Perth and Adelaide and you would need to wait 15-20 minutes! Then again, there is a greater population to serve...


----------



## London Underground

Well here in stockholm on the station T-centralen during rush hour one train is barley out of the platform before anotherone enters it. Allthough they are on diferent lines. First time i saw that i thought they were gooing to collide!


----------



## Cherguevara

Tubeman said:


> *Pros:*
> 
> Loads more visible staff
> Brighter / cleaner / more welcoming environment
> Far better branding
> Some great station architecture
> 
> *Cons:*
> 
> Not 24h
> Generally no express / local distinction
> Much hotter in Summer
> Smaller cars on Tube lines
> 
> I think the Subway is more functional while the Tube provides a friendlier and more iconic experience


I'd have thought the tube is easier to navigate as a visitor too.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

davidaiow said:


> I've not been to many cities but London beats all the ones I have been to. I remember that at 5pm as soon as one train left, another entered.


It's quite common in rush hours in many other cities: packed trains and many people waiting on the platforms usually make the operation to get in and out the convoys to last longer, over all on interchanges; the train could remain in the station even a coupple of minutes, so when it leaves the following one reaches in few seconds... apparently frequency seems to be 10 seconds, but actually it is 2/3 minutes


----------



## Tubeman

Cherguevara said:


> I'd have thought the tube is easier to navigate as a visitor too.


Yes I think it's definitely more user-friendly all round: the staff availability, the signage, the lighting, general station and train ambience. Another thing is that many Subway stations are arranged simply with separate entrances for each direction on opposite sides of the road... Logical as the tracks are just below the road surface, but can be a bit confusing nevertheless if you're not overly familiar.

Another thing that occurs is the way on Manhattan Island the lines are almost all north-south, making journeys from east to west or vice versa across the island largely impossible. This is presumably because it's alot longer north to south than it is east to west and the road system is a simple grid by and large, but a couple of diagonal or latitudinal lines, especially in Upper Manhattan, would make it more accessible.


----------



## Tubeman

alonzo-ny said:


> What do you think in terms of service? I recently visited London and have lived in NY. Im convinced that in London the trains are way more frequent. In NY even in rush hour if I just missed a train I would wait what seemed like an eternity on another train. On my trip to London I dont remember waiting more than two minutes at any time of the day.


True, you shouldn't have to wait any more than 3 minutes at any LU platform in Central London throughout much of the day.


----------



## aquablue

From videos it seems that tube lines are rather noisy inside the trains similar to the NY subway? Which lines are quieter and have the quietest rolling stock -- most pleasant to ride? It seems Jubilee line is decent, is this correct?


----------



## ajw373

davidaiow said:


> I've not been to many cities but London beats all the ones I have been to. I remember that at 5pm as soon as one train left, another entered. I was very impressed! 5pm in Sydney, Perth and Adelaide and you would need to wait 15-20 minutes! Then again, there is a greater population to serve...


Hardly a fair comparison I am afraid. The tube as you would well know is a high frequency metro system. 

The cities you mentioned all have full sized heavy railway systems but not a metro. London have these too, these are the mainline and overground system and guess what? The frequency on most of those lines is about every 15 minutes or so peak hour, some maybe a little more, but not much.

So compare apples with apples.


----------



## ajw373

aquablue said:


> From videos it seems that tube lines are rather noisy inside the trains similar to the NY subway? Which lines are quieter and have the quietest rolling stock -- most pleasant to ride? It seems Jubilee line is decent, is this correct?



All the deep level tube lines are noisy and I reckon the Jubilee on the extension is one of the noisiest followed by the whole Victoria line. Once the trains are of the the tunnels they are not too bad.

The only reasonably quiet underground trains are the sub surface lines, ie circle, district and metropolitan that is owing the the larger size of the tunnels and I gather better noise insulation in the trains owing to their larger size.


----------



## NCT

But then one _could_ argue that even though he was comparing apples with oranges the fact is that London has both apples and oranges but Sydney only has oranges. I've made a crude point I know and the geography of these cities are quite different from each other and that most Australian cities probably don't need 'apples', though I do think Sydney with its size and density perhaps could do with a simple turn-up-and-go system.


----------



## Tubeman

aquablue said:


> From videos it seems that tube lines are rather noisy inside the trains similar to the NY subway? Which lines are quieter and have the quietest rolling stock -- most pleasant to ride? It seems Jubilee line is decent, is this correct?


I'll have to disagree with ajw373 and agree with you... I think the Jubilee Extension is the quietest Tube section, and certainly the smoothest considering the speeds travelled at.

Victoria Line is the noisiest, a combination of high speeds and rail corrugation which forms due to the high speeds and low humidity in the tunnels (no overground section so no rainwater gets brought in). This leads to the high-pitched droning / moaning sound on the line.

The Bakerloo is suffereing badly from wheel screech currently, which is the ear-splitting shrieking negotiating tight bends. The Central Line 1992 stock also seems to be generally quite noisy negotiating bends.

All in all, the Tube is pretty bloody noisy... especially in the Summer when the windows in the communicating doors are open.


----------



## aquablue

Its pretty sad that they can't do anything about the noise; Is it necessary to ware ear protection if you ride every day? 

Is the older section of the Jubilee line much noisier than the new?

How come they can't add more sound insulation to the new stock tube trains?

Why can't they install continuously welded rail down there?

How does the noise compare to other subways such as NY, Paris, etc?

All in all, these old systems could be upgraded to modern standards (similar to new systems). If the political will was there the funds would be too-- ridership would be much higher due to a more comfortable commute which would reduce traffic on the roads. I think old systems should be upgraded to make sure the noise is at a safe level for commuters.


----------



## Tubeman

aquablue said:


> Its pretty sad that they can't do anything about the noise; Is it necessary to ware ear protection if you ride every day?
> 
> Is the older section of the Jubilee line much noisier than the new?
> 
> How come they can't add more sound insulation to the new stock tube trains?
> 
> Why can't they install continuously welded rail down there?
> 
> How does the noise compare to other subways such as NY, Paris, etc?
> 
> All in all, these old systems could be upgraded to modern standards (similar to new systems). If the political will was there the funds would be too-- ridership would be much higher due to a more comfortable commute which would reduce traffic on the roads. I think old systems should be upgraded to make sure the noise is at a safe level for commuters.


Ear defenders are necessary for Victoria Line staff but not others: the noise levels extrapolated across an entire working day do breach the 'Minimum action level' for ear protection. However, unless you're a customer travelling on the Victoria Line for 8 hours a day, you're fine! The standard commute on the line is way below the minimum action level.

Continuously welded rail is going in, but even then the 'Insulated block joints' (upon which the signalling depends) have to remain and generate a lot of the clattering noise. Sound insulation is only practical if the cars can be sealed, and in the absence of Air con they cannot... And allowing ventilation of course lets noise in.

By virtue of being (generally) metal wheels on metal track running on metal tunnel rings barely larger than the train, the deep-level Tubes are bound to be as noisy as it gets... exacerbated by many twists & turns on the older Tubes. Paris and New York are all generally double-track tunnel (or quadruple), which like London's subsurface lines instantly are quieter simply because there's more space for the sound to spread into, Add to this the fact that many of Paris' lines are rubber-tyred, both systems are much quieter than the older London tubes.

Any measures to address this would be hugely expensive but wouldn't help the Tube run any better... Just more pleasant.


----------



## iampuking

Continuous welded rails are just noisy in a different way. Less clackety-clack and more screamy-screach.


----------



## aquablue

NY though is known to extremely noisy and I've been on it several times. There are several scary studies that came out about the noise levels and how you need to wear ear protection. I can't believe the tube is really that much louder given the screetching in the NY stations which is appalling. If so, wouldn't you also have to wear the protection in London if its actually louder than NY?

For NY, perhaps in the trains it might be quieter due to air con and bigger tunnels like you say, but i don't know! 

Paris is reputed to be quieter, but I've checked out various paris rubber tired lines (Mp 89 line 1) you tube videos -- they didn't seem that much quieter than London's, but then again its difficult to tell from yt. 

Really, they should just re-bore a couple of the most used tube tunnels to allow bigger trains and better acoustically shielded tunnels. I know the country is in a recession and crossrail is similar to what I'm talking about, but still I think its important. However, If crossrail progresses to 3 or 4 lines crossing the capital, perhaps it won't be necessary. 

I know its probably a ridiculous statement and most people will think I'm mad, but I think that in 50-100 years when cities in China/Asia etc have amazing comfortable systems and have much more comfortable transportation, cities like NY, London etc.. will be sorry they didn't take the plunge in attempting to invest the money required to really make a difference in ride comfort now.

Shanghai/HK/Beijing/Tokyo/Dubai/Seoul, etc... all are much quieter. If the subways in these cities are pleasant to ride, it will bring more people underground and off the road --> a good incentive to reducing airborne pollution. The West needs to get their metros into a state where people actually want to ride them first, instead of their cars.


----------



## aquablue

dr


----------



## aquablue

iampuking said:


> Continuous welded rails are just noisy in a different way. Less clackety-clack and more screamy-screach.


I doubt it...how come systems in Asia (new) which use it dont exhibit this issue?


----------



## ajw373

NCT said:


> But then one _could_ argue that even though he was comparing apples with oranges the fact is that London has both apples and oranges but Sydney only has oranges. I've made a crude point I know and the geography of these cities are quite different from each other and that most Australian cities probably don't need 'apples', though I do think Sydney with its size and density perhaps could do with a simple turn-up-and-go system.


Which is exactly what they are planning in Sydney.

I still standby what I said you cannot compare frequencies on the London *Underground* and the City Rail Network in Sydney (or the other cities he mentioned). They are nothing alike so any comparison is meaningless. I mean to say Sydney's trains are generally 8 car double deckers so of course you don't need a frequency of 3 minutes like a lot of tube lines run at.

If the comparison was between the overground or main line suburban trains then fair enough.


----------



## iampuking

If you're going to put the South London line on the map you mays well stick Thameslink on it as well.


----------



## Tubeman

chris.haynes said:


> Will this happen ... ? http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/00,news,16000,185,00.htm


I very much doubt it, not least because when the ELL Phase 2 happens the South London Line service will be no more (the ELL will replace it, freeing up some capacity into Victoria and London Bridge).

If you include the SLL on the map, it's difficult to know where to stop... There's plenty of NR routes which provide good interchange options and could be shown on the map, Waterloo to Richmond and Wimbledon being one, Paddington to Greenford another.


----------



## Coccodrillo

London map is very clear except that it is sometimes difficult to understand where trains go. As example Wimbledon-Edgware Road, the Kensington Olymbia shuttle and one of the two central branches of the Northern Line should have a different name to ease understanding. And the DLR shoult have line numbers as now it is a mess. What do you think?


----------



## Tubeman

Coccodrillo said:


> London map is very clear except that it is sometimes difficult to understand where trains go. As example Wimbledon-Edgware Road, the Kensington Olymbia shuttle and one of the two central branches of the Northern Line should have a different name to ease understanding. And the DLR shoult have line numbers as now it is a mess. What do you think?


Yes, personally I think individual services should be separated out... maybe different shades of the parent line colour, for example the District Line is actually 5 different services off peak (Olympia - High St Kensington, Edgware Rd - Wimbledon, Upminster - Wimbledon, Upminster - Richmond, Ealing Broadway - Tower Hill).

It seems a bit arbitrary to differentiate between the Hammersmith & City, Circle and Metropolitan Lines when they all share the same tracks and yet all 5 District Line services get lumped together under one colour.

The DLR equally would benefit, as you note


----------



## poshbakerloo

^^ I agree!!


----------



## sweek

I would just go for dark green and light green... one for all East-West services via the bottom of the Circle, one for services via the Western end of the Circle via HSK.


----------



## iampuking

I personally think they should do away with the Olympia branch full stop. What is the point of it? If you wanted to get from the WLL to High Street Kensington or Earl's Court just change at West Brompton. 

They should also try and segregate the Wimblewares from the main District route by remodelling the junction to the west of Earl's Court so NB Wimblewares cross underneath the main route. Then the Wimblewares can terminate at High Street Kensington and anyone who wants to go further takes the Circle.


----------



## streetquark

^^

The junction should be remodelled but with Wimbledon getting both services any splitting into two colours would involve the branch having 2 lines (as per the Rayners Lane-Uxbridge).


----------



## Accura4Matalan

I used the Kensington-Olympia shuttle today. Found it very handy!


----------



## iampuking

^^ Well, that doesn't fit in with my 'SSL masterplan'...

It's supposed to reduce the complexity of the SSLs in particular, allowing them to run higher frequencies more reliably. Simplicity is why Paris, Tokyo and Moscow all manage to run 30tph+ on their lines reliably.

-Olympia branch is no more.
-Wimblewares become segregated from the District and run 24tph to High Street Kensington using the seven car Olympia shuttle platforms. Passengers heading from Wimbledon to Central London (and back) only have to cross the platform at Earl's Court.
-Hammersmith & City line is no more, the Bakerloo takes over the Hammersmith branch.
-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.
-District takes over the entire Uxbridge branch from the Piccadilly. The Piccadilly is branchless (except for Heathrow) and therefore can run more efficiently. There is also no longer a pointless section of track which the District and Piccadilly share, meaning no issues with interfacing ATO equipment. A stub continues to go to Ealing Broadway.
-Metropolitan terminates 12tph at Uxbridge. District terminates 12tph at Rayners Lane in a new segregated third platform. This could be built in the current car park south of the station.
-The other Metropolitan branch is 12tph and continues on the slow lines to Watford Junction. Chiltern takes over the Amersham branch. The patronage on the Amersham branch is not high enough to justify running a metro line through there, especially when it overcomplicates LU with it's dreaded track-sharing. 
-Circle becomes 8tph, Baker Street-High Street Kensington is lowered to 8tph because of no Wimblewares, this section of line becomes less important because of Crossrail at Paddington and the increase in frequency on the Bakerloo and Central lines (because of infraco upgrades)
-Metropolitans run at 24tph from Harrow-on-the-hill to Aldgate. The spur from Liverpool Street to Aldgate East is no longer important and therefore used as sidings off peak because of Crossrail and the aforementioned increase in frequency on the Central.

All this eliminates 6 flat junctions on the SSL network...


----------



## Tubeman

Accura4Matalan said:


> I used the Kensington-Olympia shuttle today. Found it very handy!


Yes it's well patronised, the station has a wide catchment area and the District Line is the preferred route into Central London for residents (more convenient than WLL and changing at Clapham Jcn).

The interchange issue is a moot point really.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> They should also try and segregate the Wimblewares from the main District route by remodelling the junction to the west of Earl's Court so NB Wimblewares cross underneath the main route.


This is already the case! Warwick Road Junction is 'flying' already... It's the EB junction east of Earl's Court which is flat. To achieve segregation (which I agree with), the EB line ex-platform 2 needs to burrow under the line ex-platform 1. This would result in Wimbledon trains serving platforms 2 and 4 and the 'main' serving 1 and 3. It would be tricky digging out the flyunder between the existing tracks (for the duration of the works all trains would have to run over the northernmost EB road), but I guess not unachieveable.

This would allow complete segregation of the Wimbledon service; the current Edgware Road service could remain the same frequency-wise but be extended beyond to Barking via King's X, with the alternating 'City' trains instead terminating at High Street Ken.

This would then free up capacity in the central platforms 2 & 3 at Edgware Road to make the soon to be introduced T-cup line more achieveable (the current plan is for Wimblewares and T-cups to all reverse via the same 2 platforms... asking for trouble). I'd withdraw Hammersmith-Barkings and boost the Hammersmith service with a Hammersmith-Edgware Road shuttle. 14 tph reversing via 2 platforms should be easily achieveable with 'stepping back'; instead of each train dwelling whilst the driver saunters from one ond to the other / goes for a pee / makes a cuppa / chats to his mate, each driver 'steps back' onto a couple of trains behind such that trains depart almost as soon as they arrive; this happens at Elephant & Castle and Brixton.

I'd then extend the Ealings back to Upminster (i.e. alternating Richmond-Upminsters and Ealing-Upminsters) and run an Olympia - Tower Hill shuttle.

So;

Ealing-Upminster 7 tph
Richmond-Upminster 7tph
Olympia-Tower Hill 7tph
Wimbledon-High St Ken 7tph
Wimbledon-Barking via King's X 7tph
T Cup (Hammersmith-Edgware Rd via Circle Line) 7tph
Hammersmith-Edgware Rd shuttle 7tph

This simplifies movements at Earl's Court and restores the soon to be lost direct trains to Baker St / Kings X from stations like High St Ken, Notting Hill Gate and Bayswater.


----------



## ajw373

Accura4Matalan said:


> I used the Kensington-Olympia shuttle today. Found it very handy!


It would be even more handy if it went somewhere other than Olympia!


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> This is already the case! Warwick Road Junction is 'flying' already... It's the EB junction east of Earl's Court which is flat. To achieve segregation (which I agree with), the EB line ex-platform 2 needs to burrow under the line ex-platform 1. This would result in Wimbledon trains serving platforms 2 and 4 and the 'main' serving 1 and 3. It would be tricky digging out the flyunder between the existing tracks (for the duration of the works all trains would have to run over the northernmost EB road), but I guess not unachieveable.
> 
> This would allow complete segregation of the Wimbledon service; the current Edgware Road service could remain the same frequency-wise but be extended beyond to Barking via King's X, with the alternating 'City' trains instead terminating at High Street Ken.
> 
> This would then free up capacity in the central platforms 2 & 3 at Edgware Road to make the soon to be introduced T-cup line more achieveable (the current plan is for Wimblewares and T-cups to all reverse via the same 2 platforms... asking for trouble). I'd withdraw Hammersmith-Barkings and boost the Hammersmith service with a Hammersmith-Edgware Road shuttle. 14 tph reversing via 2 platforms should be easily achieveable with 'stepping back'; instead of each train dwelling whilst the driver saunters from one ond to the other / goes for a pee / makes a cuppa / chats to his mate, each driver 'steps back' onto a couple of trains behind such that trains depart almost as soon as they arrive; this happens at Elephant & Castle and Brixton.
> 
> I'd then extend the Ealings back to Upminster (i.e. alternating Richmond-Upminsters and Ealing-Upminsters) and run an Olympia - Tower Hill shuttle.
> 
> So;
> 
> Ealing-Upminster 7 tph
> Richmond-Upminster 7tph
> Olympia-Tower Hill 7tph
> Wimbledon-High St Ken 7tph
> Wimbledon-Barking via King's X 7tph
> T Cup (Hammersmith-Edgware Rd via Circle Line) 7tph
> Hammersmith-Edgware Rd shuttle 7tph
> 
> This simplifies movements at Earl's Court and restores the soon to be lost direct trains to Baker St / Kings X from stations like High St Ken, Notting Hill Gate and Bayswater.


Mine is:

Circle = 8tph

District
Rayners Lane - Barking = 10tph
Ealing Broadway - Upminster = 14tph

Metropolitan
Uxbridge - Aldgate = 12tph
Watford Junction - Aldgate = 12tph

Wimbleware
Wimbledon - High Street Kensington = 24tph

The main trunk routes Gloucester - Tower Hill and Baker Street - Aldgate run 32tph which is the same frequency as the proposed 't-cup' service. I think mine is superior purely because there are fewer flat junctions and simpler service patterns which results in a more reliable and frequent service. I really think passengers prefer this over direct services which are significantly less reliable, it's the same logic as splitting the Northern line. The only issue with mine is reversing 24tph at Aldgate may prove difficult, but it's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility with ATO and good organisation.


----------



## L2

Pointless question for anybody to answer:

I tried doing a round trip to Upminster yesterday (Tube there, c2c express back), which went to plan until a few stops before the end where the driver announced due to a signal failure that the far tip of the line had been suspended.

Ended up bailing out at a lovely place called Elm Park after hearing there would be delays getting into the station at Hornchurch.. and had a lovely long and 'scenic' tube ride back to London.

So my question is.. did I miss anything by not seeing that last bit to Upminster? Should I be craving a journey out there? :lol:

Oh, and the LU train drivers are really good at announcing things about delays etc. I'm used to sitting between stations for five minutes, or short-terminating due to trackwork (it's happened once!), and hearing no announcement back where I live in Australia.


----------



## Tubeman

L2 said:


> Pointless question for anybody to answer:
> 
> I tried doing a round trip to Upminster yesterday (Tube there, c2c express back), which went to plan until a few stops before the end where the driver announced due to a signal failure that the far tip of the line had been suspended.
> 
> Ended up bailing out at a lovely place called Elm Park after hearing there would be delays getting into the station at Hornchurch.. and had a lovely long and 'scenic' tube ride back to London.
> 
> So my question is.. did I miss anything by not seeing that last bit to Upminster? Should I be craving a journey out there? :lol:
> 
> Oh, and the LU train drivers are really good at announcing things about delays etc. I'm used to sitting between stations for five minutes, or short-terminating due to trackwork (it's happened once!), and hearing no announcement back where I live in Australia.


Not much... Upminster is far more genteel than the stretch out to Elm Park though. It looks and feels like a reasonably affluent small town, which contrasts to the slum you passed through all the way from Barking to Elm Park (the Becontree Estate).

I'm glad you were impressed with the driver's public address... It's a major focus currently with LU drivers. They are now supposed to make a PA within 30 seconds of any delay between stations (90 in stations) and every minute thereafter. Many are toeing the line, but some stubborn buggers still resist.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Mine is:
> 
> Circle = 8tph
> 
> District
> Rayners Lane - Barking = 10tph
> Ealing Broadway - Upminster = 14tph
> 
> Metropolitan
> Uxbridge - Aldgate = 12tph
> Watford Junction - Aldgate = 12tph
> 
> Wimbleware
> Wimbledon - High Street Kensington = 24tph
> 
> The main trunk routes Gloucester - Tower Hill and Baker Street - Aldgate run 32tph which is the same frequency as the proposed 't-cup' service. I think mine is superior purely because there are fewer flat junctions and simpler service patterns which results in a more reliable and frequent service. I really think passengers prefer this over direct services which are significantly less reliable, it's the same logic as splitting the Northern line. The only issue with mine is reversing 24tph at Aldgate may prove difficult, but it's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility with ATO and good organisation.


I think customers in Richmond, Hammersmith H&C, Amersham and Olympia might have a thing or two to say about your 'superior' proposal! Where are their trains?!

You're also halving services to NHG , Bayswater and Paddington Praed St and not tackling the Circle Line operating problem of no terminus.


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> I think customers in Richmond, Hammersmith H&C, Amersham and Olympia might have a thing or two to say about your 'superior' proposal! Where are their trains?!


Richmond would be given solely to LO. Hammersmith branch becomes a branch of the Bakerloo line and the Bakerloo line is cut off from Willesden Junction leaving the DC lines to run Watford-Willesden Junction and then onto the NLL and beyond. Olympia, as i've already said, is useless in the grand scheme of things. Amersham is given to Chiltern, it's patronage is not big enough for a metro service, which is what LU is. I don't agree with this conservative principle that LU should remain an archaic institution with lines with ridiculous amounts of unused branches solely for the purpose of tradition; if branches are not necessary and overall sacrifice the reliability and efficiency of the network then ditch them.



Tubeman said:


> You're also halving services to NHG , Bayswater and Paddington Praed St


This is the long term. Post 2017 Crossrail will be running from Paddington, which will take a large proportion of passengers from Praed Street. Currently passengers at Praed Street only have the unreliable dot matrix screens to inform them of when the next train arrives, and half the chances it is a District line train that terminates at the next station! Bayswater station is only a few hundred metres from Queensway on the Central line which whips you into Central London faster than the Circle could ever dream of. Overall, halfing the frequency on a tiny section of the Circle is a moot point when you consider the overall benefits of reducing the mess at Earls Court and Edgware Road.



Tubeman said:


> and not tackling the Circle Line operating problem of no terminus.


I think the biggest operating problem of the Circle line is the fact that it has numerous flat junctions and track sharing, combined with the unreliable LU infastructure and trains. Circle lines seem to have no issues operating in other countries where none of these problems exist.


----------



## streetquark

The branching and lines out west of Earl's Court is a complicated issue, I'm not sure you can improve much that way unless you bring in an extra line (e.g. extend the H&C to take over one of the branches, or build Chelney and make it head west from Parson's Green). Both the District and Piccadilly split into 2 branches, with each having one branch sharing with another line. In the case of the Picc, it needs either to shed the Uxbridge branch, transfer the Heathrow branch to another line for its sole use (there isn't one), or share the Heathrow branch with another line (again, there isn't one). This would mean more trains to Heathrow of course.

The District doesn't need more trains to either branch. It shares Richmond LO NLL and the Ealing Bdy branch with the central, itself a split branch. Richmond has NR services to Waterloo, but taking away the District service is an inconvenience, and you wouldn't be able to add it to the NLL as this has a limit on the number of trains it can take which is probably at maximum now.

Then there's the problem of Bakerloo splitting: Paddington-Queens Park etc. would get it's service drastically cut to accommodate Hammersmith trains. This is in spite of the desire for users of the DC line to take the Bakerloo to the West End.

If the Bakerloo were to be cut back to Willesden Junction it still wouldn't help the DC service much - it would have to be cut back to Queens Park for that. Euston itself needs extra capacity which puts a question mark over the DC services beyond Primrose hill, and if the Bakerloo services get fully extended further out it would be better to find a different destination for the Watford services. I think the reason for LO taking over the DC services including the 4 tph down to Clapham Junction is partly to do with this. But this leaves a problem: what to do with the suburban stations east of Queens Park? NLL services to Willesden Junction cover this but they're low frequency.

How about the DC lines splitting into different destinations but not the WCML into Euston? One branch would be the existing WLL service, one branch the NLL via Primrose Hill. Another would head off at Harlesden to Richmond, possibly turning off at South Acton for Acton Town and Northfields (but is the capacity there along the NLL or at Richmond even if in addition to Northfields?) and the remainder services could go along the NLL to West Hampstead. These could either be linked through to the MML, especially Thameslink or to Chiltern for Marylebone. If the link is a costly option maybe simply continue down to meet the NLL at Camden Road. Ideally a link between Maiden Lane/York Way and Primrose Hill via Camden Town and another west of Queen's Park to east of Willesden Junction would mean high frequency LO services along the DC lines between Primrose Hill and Queen's Park and Bakerloo services west of Queen's Park, with DC services joining at Willesden and Harlesden. I'd also like to see high frequency services along the WLL with 4-tracking and a deviation through Earl's Court, so the Olympia line can be shut.

Without radical new construction and keeping the existing Circle (including the Hammersmith & Circle service) it's not easy to have a proper sub-surface system (or high-frequency LO). If I could get rid of the Circle/H&C and add one new route section in the west it would be a new link between Baker Street and just north of St. Pancras to join up with the 3rd pair of MML tracks, heading off north of Kentish Town and take over the Gospel Oak-Barking line where it would join up with the existing District. Wimbleware services could then run high frequency to HSK and those going beyond would share with trains from Hammersmith a full service to Barking via Gospel Oak. In the east I'd head the Met off south of Aldgate station, swinging round past tower Hill and possibly Canon Street facing south-west, curving under the Thames to face London Bridge and continue south-eastwards (OK maybe practical problems with this one). The District would also have the Upminster line all to itself and trains from Barking would get to King's X and Baker Street etc.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Richmond would be given solely to LO.


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.



iampuking said:


> Hammersmith branch becomes a branch of the Bakerloo line


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.



iampuking said:


> and the Bakerloo line is cut off from Willesden Junction leaving the DC lines to run Watford-Willesden Junction and then onto the NLL and beyond.


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. 



iampuking said:


> Olympia, as i've already said, is useless in the grand scheme of things.


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).



iampuking said:


> Amersham is given to Chiltern, it's patronage is not big enough for a metro service, which is what LU is.


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.



iampuking said:


> I don't agree with this conservative principle that LU should remain an archaic institution with lines with ridiculous amounts of unused branches solely for the purpose of tradition; if branches are not necessary and overall sacrifice the reliability and efficiency of the network then ditch them.


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.



iampuking said:


> This is the long term. Post 2017 Crossrail will be running from Paddington, which will take a large proportion of passengers from Praed Street. Currently passengers at Praed Street only have the unreliable dot matrix screens to inform them of when the next train arrives, and half the chances it is a District line train that terminates at the next station! Bayswater station is only a few hundred metres from Queensway on the Central line which whips you into Central London faster than the Circle could ever dream of. Overall, halfing the frequency on a tiny section of the Circle is a moot point when you consider the overall benefits of reducing the mess at Earls Court and Edgware Road.


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.

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?



iampuking said:


> I think the biggest operating problem of the Circle line is the fact that it has numerous flat junctions and track sharing, combined with the unreliable LU infastructure and trains. Circle lines seem to have no issues operating in other countries where none of these problems exist.


...Because in general other Circle Lines didn't evolve like ours did!


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> 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:



> *-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.*





Tubeman said:


> 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!



Tubeman said:


> 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.



Tubeman said:


> 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.



Tubeman said:


> 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.



Tubeman said:


> 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.



Tubeman said:


> 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!



Tubeman said:


> 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.



Tubeman said:


> ...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".


----------



## streetquark

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.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> 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.



iampuking said:


> 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!



iampuking said:


> 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.



iampuking said:


> 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.



iampuking said:


> 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.



iampuking said:


> 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.



iampuking said:


> 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?



iampuking said:


> 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? :laugh:



iampuking said:


> 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. 



iampuking said:


> 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!



iampuking said:


> 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.



iampuking said:


> 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


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> 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.




Tubeman said:


> 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.



Tubeman said:


> - 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.



Tubeman said:


> - 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.



Tubeman said:


> - 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.



Tubeman said:


> - 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.



Tubeman said:


> - 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.



Tubeman said:


> 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...



Tubeman said:


> 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...



Tubeman said:


> 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!



Tubeman said:


> 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!



Tubeman said:


> 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.



Tubeman said:


> 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.



Tubeman said:


> Because they get them to Edgware Road to connect with EB H&C trains perhaps? :laugh:


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.



Tubeman said:


> 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.



Tubeman said:


> 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


----------



## Tubeman

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



iampuking said:


> 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?!



iampuking said:


> 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



iampuking said:


> 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.



iampuking said:


> 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).



iampuking said:


> 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.



iampuking said:


> 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.



iampuking said:


> 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.



iampuking said:


> 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.



iampuking said:


> 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.



iampuking said:


> 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.



iampuking said:


> 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.



iampuking said:


> Because you don't.


Good response. I have provided ample, well-explained reasons why you do.



iampuking said:


> 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!



iampuking said:


> 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.



iampuking said:


> 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?



iampuking said:


> -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.



iampuking said:


> -Wimbledon branch


I've explained why you cannot increase tph to the extent you propose, and I too am suggesting segregation.



iampuking said:


> -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.



iampuking said:


> -Hammersmith branch


Just swapped one line for another as far as I can tell.



iampuking said:


> -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?!


----------



## L2

Quick one - at 23:30 on Tuesday night I was on an Uxbridge train near Eastcote station (really busy time on the Metropolitan line :lol 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.


----------



## TampaMike

In your own opinion Tubeman, what makes a good rail system and what should be required/recommended(including the stations)?


----------



## Tubeman

L2 said:


> Quick one - at 23:30 on Tuesday night I was on an Uxbridge train near Eastcote station (really busy time on the Metropolitan line :lol 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

Giant wikimedia pictures strike again!!!


----------



## Tubeman

TampaMike said:


> 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


----------



## iampuking

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.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> 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


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> 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.



Tubeman said:


> 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

S Stock delivery


----------



## Tubeman

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!


----------



## poshbakerloo

iampuking said:


> S Stock delivery


wow looking great!!!


----------



## davidaiow

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?)


----------



## Tubeman

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



davidaiow said:


> 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.












davidaiow said:


> 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.



davidaiow said:


> 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.



davidaiow said:


> 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.



davidaiow said:


> 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.



davidaiow said:


> 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.



davidaiow said:


> 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!



davidaiow said:


> (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.


----------



## ajw373

Tubeman said:


> 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.


----------



## Tubeman

^^
Thanks for the explanation... It's still pretty much lost one me though! (not your fault, should've paid more attention in Physics!)


----------



## Ele

Tubeman said:


> Just demolition currently; the most striking works are around Tottenham Court Road station, where the whole block where the Astoria nightclub was has been pulled down.
> 
> Farringdon will follow soon, the entire block south of the current station is about to be pulled down (the Gay sauna and row of shops right opposite have just come down), including a very substantial office block.
> 
> I guess once demolition turns into construction you'll see more updates on ssc.


Hi Tubeman, just one question, was it this block? 










They really demolished all those old houses? What for exactly?


----------



## Tubeman

Ele said:


> Hi Tubeman, just one question, was it this block?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They really demolished all those old houses? What for exactly?


Yes, that's the Astoria nightclub you've highlighted... But in addition the entire block to the north has also been demolished, along with the fountain in front of Centrepoint over the road:










It's not directly linked to Crossrail despite the Crossrail branding on the hoardings, it's for Tottenham Court Road station's redevelopment which is going to happen whether Crossrail does or not. The demolition is necessary due to a huge new ticket hall being excavated and big new entrances on both sides of Charing Cross Road. All that's left of the entire block is the Oxford Street entrance to TCR station.


----------



## Tubeman

Gareth said:


> Simple question:
> 
> What's the average distance between stations on an Underground line? What's the ideal distance between stations?


Approximately 1.5km, 400km total divided by 270 stations

I'm not 100% sure because the 400km is approximate and I don't know if it counts Network rail owned sections served by LU on the District and Bakerloo Lines, or if the parallel bits of the Met / Jubilee and District / Picc are counted twice.

The average is obviously much less in Central London compared to the suburbs, with the longest distance being 6.2km between Chesham and Chalfont versus just 260m between Leicester Square and Covent Garden.

This reflects the optimum... I guess Central London should be perhaps 1km and the suburbs 2km+, but so much depends on local geography.


----------



## huyahdyea

Hopefully the service can be improved over time. It doesn't seem like it will be convenient to use on the weekends


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

Hi... I wanted to know where to find (if they exist) track maps of LU simalr to these ones of NYC Subway http://www.nycsubway.org/maps/track.html

In particular I'm interested to Earl's Court junction and its interconnection with Circle Line

Thank you


----------



## Tubeman

GENIUS LOCI said:


> Hi... I wanted to know where to find (if they exist) track maps of LU simalr to these ones of NYC Subway http://www.nycsubway.org/maps/track.html
> 
> In particular I'm interested to Earl's Court junction and its interconnection with Circle Line
> 
> Thank you


Check out my signature 

I've mapped all of London's railways accurately.

I can access the 'official' track diagrams for any area of LU for you if you want, here's a link from another site of the Earl's Court area. You have the pre-1957 version above and the post-1957 version below, the latter being pretty much as it is today, pre-1957 was much more complex even with an additional curve between High Street ken and Gloucester Road parallelling the Circle Line.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

Thank you...

I was looking for a track map because in Italian forum some one was asking why in Glocester road station he saw a train enter the station just a coupple of seconds another one left (in off-peak, without crowded platforms)

Assuming that they couldn't be the planned frequencies I based my answer on my direct esperience on LU, and in particular with Earl's Court junction: I supposed the second one to be a district line train coming from Earl's Court which stopped in the 'tunnel' to let a Circle Line train pass, then enter the same track, stop again and wait for the CL train to leave the staion; finally enter the station just few seconds after
But it was a 'blind' explanation as I just supposed how the disposition of the tracks is on the junction... I wanted to be sure: apparently I was right, isn't it?


----------



## Tubeman

What happens quite often at Gloucester Road is a Circle Line train will set down and pick up passengers as normal in platform 2 (Westbound / Outer Rail / Clockwise), and then close its doors and pull up to the signal controlling the junction ahead, which is only about 5 cars distance so the last car is still on the platform. This means if there's a Circle behind, it can creep right up to the other end of the platform and wait, which in turn clears the junction behind it where the Westbound District and Circle Lines diverge between South Kensington and Gloucester Road.

So if you're stood on the platform, you'll see the back of one train still in the platform, and the headlights of the train behind just outside the platform... When the one in front gets the signal to proceed across the Eastbound District Line, the one behind and creep in, leaving only a few seconds of neither train being in platform 2.

The Circles are allowed to pull partially out of platform 2 and wait (much to the frustration of customers who just missed it), because this speeds up junction working over the diamond crossover. If the movement was controlled by the station 'starter' signal alone, you would have the Circle waiting for the green with its doors open... when it gets the green all manner of delays could ensue with people mucking about with doors, a passenger alarm, etc... and all the while the eastbound District will be shut down because the Westbound Circle has the signal to cross it.

Being forced to leave the platform and pull up to an advance signal gives the signaller assurance that if the Circle train is cleared to cross the eastbound District and run to High Street Ken, it will go right away and therefore delay the eastbound District as little as possible.

The Gloucester Road to South Kensington section on the diagrams I linked to was greatly rationalised in 1972, by the way... There's now only one eastbound line throughout, South Kensington uses only the middle 2 platforms with the central 'bay' in-filled, while on the westbound the District and Circle lines diverge into two separate tracks between South Ken and Gloucester Rd, running through platforms 1 and 2 respectively.


----------



## iampuking

pneuma said:


> Great thread, tubeman. Thanks for doing this.
> 
> I've always wondered about the actual size of tube station complexes in central London. Some seem so huge that I wonder if they're actually located directly next to each other, if you include walkways between lines. Do you know if there is an illustration anywhere showing how the tube stations are layed out in relation to one another (something like this: http://media.photobucket.com/image/bank monument station/kemptonslim/ltmonu.jpg only including more stations). THanks!


I've found a flickr set of several station cut-aways/maps here.


----------



## Tubeman

Good find... I guess that's just what pneuma was looking for!

I wonder why such diagrams are so hard to come by?


----------



## Swede

Tubeman said:


> Yes, that's the Astoria nightclub you've highlighted... But in addition the entire block to the north has also been demolished, along with the fountain in front of Centrepoint over the road:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not directly linked to Crossrail despite the Crossrail branding on the hoardings, it's for Tottenham Court Road station's redevelopment which is going to happen whether Crossrail does or not. The demolition is necessary due to a huge new ticket hall being excavated and big new entrances on both sides of Charing Cross Road. All that's left of the entire block is the Oxford Street entrance to TCR station.


A shot from when I (and my girlfriend) was in London a week ago, of that area:


----------



## capslock

Question

Why do the northern line tunnels flip round between Bank and London Bridge?You leave one station 'driving on the left' and arrive at the next on the other side - weird. (I think it's these two stations - I noticed this a while back and have been meaning to ask for some time)

THanks in advance


----------



## chris.haynes

capslock said:


> Question
> 
> Why do the northern line tunnels flip round between Bank and London Bridge?You leave one station 'driving on the left' and arrive at the next on the other side - weird. (I think it's these two stations - I noticed this a while back and have been meaning to ask for some time)
> 
> THanks in advance


This happens all across the the network .. i suppose it comes down to space avaliable at each independent station site ... no build zones / listed buildings / security zones ... foundations for buildings, water, access points at ground level, previous tunnels and war related underground bunkers ... and so on ..

Edit : Just re-read your post i think i misunderstood .... my post may explain why entry/exit doors on trains open on different sides at different stations ... 

... maybe this is due to the old King William Street station ?


----------



## trainrover

What's the maximum number of passengers allowed to be standing in London busses nowadays (I know my question's not tube-related)?

Thanking you in advance.


----------



## DanielFigFoz

Whatever it may be it's not respected.


----------



## ajw373

trainrover said:


> What's the maximum number of passengers allowed to be standing in London busses nowadays (I know my question's not tube-related)?
> 
> Thanking you in advance.



There is no single answer to this question. It will vary from bus model to bus model.


----------



## Tubeman

ajw373 said:


> There is no single answer to this question. It will vary from bus model to bus model.


Indeed... Anything from 15 or so on a standard double decker to 100+ on a bendy


----------



## Tubeman

capslock said:


> Question
> 
> Why do the northern line tunnels flip round between Bank and London Bridge?You leave one station 'driving on the left' and arrive at the next on the other side - weird. (I think it's these two stations - I noticed this a while back and have been meaning to ask for some time)
> 
> THanks in advance


Hi I'm not ignoring your very good question, I'm trying to find the right explanation because it's always bugged me too, and I'm sure I saw the reason in a book somewhere.


----------



## lightrail

Tubeman said:


> Hi I'm not ignoring your very good question, I'm trying to find the right explanation because it's always bugged me too, and I'm sure I saw the reason in a book somewhere.


The only explanation I've ever found is that back in the early 1900s, the railways had to pay "easements" to the property owners under which their train tunnels run. To avoid this, the railways followed the streets were possible, no matter how deep they were underground. On this stretch of the Northern Line, the tunnels roll over each other for "operational reasons". Some of the roads the Northern Line travels under are too narrow for side-by-side tunnels, so the tunnels needed to be stacked, I'm assuming that the tunnels roll over each other to reduce the curvature and to allow the stacking on the narrow road sections.

Anybody else have a better explanation?


----------



## Tubeman

lightrail said:


> The only explanation I've ever found is that back in the early 1900s, the railways had to pay "easements" to the property owners under which their train tunnels run. To avoid this, the railways followed the streets were possible, no matter how deep they were underground. On this stretch of the Northern Line, the tunnels roll over each other for "operational reasons". Some of the roads the Northern Line travels under are too narrow for side-by-side tunnels, so the tunnels needed to be stacked, I'm assuming that the tunnels roll over each other to reduce the curvature and to allow the stacking on the narrow road sections.
> 
> Anybody else have a better explanation?


I've had a close look at this, and casting my mind back to the line topography from my distant days as a Northern Line driver, I think you're right and here's why...

Moorgate is quite wide, so wide enough to accommodate two tracks side by side without encroaching under property, however Prince's Street is very narrow and therefore below this street the tracks would have to be stacked above one another. When you leave Moorgate southbound, you descend quite a steep gradient before the sharp turn to the left where Moorgate becomes Prince's Street. There's no perceptable uphill gradient approaching Moorgate Northbound, so it's clear to me that the Southbound is descending leaving Moorgate in order to run below the Northbound under Prince's Street. At the southern end of Prince's Street the two lines can again diverge and return to the same level, whilst doing so one needs to curve sharper than the other at the top end of Lombard Street before the platforms under King William Street, and it's logical that the sharper curve is reserved for the slower speed track, which is the Northbound because trains are accelerating on the level rather than decelerating up a gradient into the platform.

This difference in curve radii would explain why it was decided it was better for the Northbound and Southbound to switch round through Bank.

Probably.


----------



## iampuking

During the Moorgate disaster passengers who were on the platform noticed that the train raced past the station and appeared to accelerate, it would have taken more than a mistake to cause that to happen!


----------



## capslock

Tubeman said:


> I've had a close look at this, and casting my mind back to the line topography from my distant days as a Northern Line driver, I think you're right and here's why...
> 
> Moorgate is quite wide, so wide enough to accommodate two tracks side by side without encroaching under property, however Prince's Street is very narrow and therefore below this street the tracks would have to be stacked above one another. When you leave Moorgate southbound, you descend quite a steep gradient before the sharp turn to the left where Moorgate becomes Prince's Street. There's no perceptable uphill gradient approaching Moorgate Northbound, so it's clear to me that the Southbound is descending leaving Moorgate in order to run below the Northbound under Prince's Street. At the southern end of Prince's Street the two lines can again diverge and return to the same level, whilst doing so one needs to curve sharper than the other at the top end of Lombard Street before the platforms under King William Street, and it's logical that the sharper curve is reserved for the slower speed track, which is the Northbound because trains are accelerating on the level rather than decelerating up a gradient into the platform.
> 
> This difference in curve radii would explain why it was decided it was better for the Northbound and Southbound to switch round through Bank.
> 
> Probably.


Thanks both of you for your answers. It's what I'd guessed in a sense, but good to hear it confirmed. Would be interested in the geometry that means it makes more sense to spiral round each other, twice, rather than just stack, then go back to parallel.


----------



## Lucky Lukas

Whoa. Don't the trains have automatic emergency brakes if you pass a red signal?


----------



## hugh

Cheers. The 'daydream' theory and the sameness of stations seem to be one of the more commonly accepted causes.


----------



## iampuking

hugh said:


> Cheers. The 'daydream' theory and the sameness of stations seem to be one of the more commonly accepted causes.


To whom? How severe would a bog standard daydream need to be for a driver to race past a station at full speed on an otherwise all stopping train, fly over the crossover at a much faster speed than normal and then into the overrun tunnel and into a solid wall? A quick wikipedia search would provide some alternative theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorgate_tube_crash



> Newson was shown to have still been holding the dead man's handle, a device that immediately applies the brakes when released. *Not only had he not even put his hands up to protect his face from the impact, but some witnesses even claimed that he had actually increased the speed of the train. The state of the motor control gear as found after the accident indicated that power had been applied to the motors up to a point within 2 seconds of the collision.*
> The autopsy found no evidence of a medical problem such as a stroke or heart attack that could have incapacitated Newson; he did not appear to have taken alcohol, although post mortem testing for this was hampered by the 4½ days it took to retrieve his body from the wreckage. Dr P A B Raffle, the Chief Medical Officer of London Transport, gave evidence to the inquest and the official enquiry that *Newson might have been temporarily paralysed by a rare kind of brain seizure (known as "akinesis with mutism" or "transient global amnesia"). In this situation, the brain continues to function and the individual remains aware although they cannot physically move. This would certainly go some way towards explaining why Newson held down the dead man's handle right up until the point of impact and made no attempt to shield his face. This explanation also supports witness statements that Newson was sitting upright in his seat and looking straight ahead as the train passed through the station.*
> On the other hand, railway writer Piers Connor, himself a former driver who knew Newson slightly, has suggested[2] that his attention simply wandered from his driving at exactly the wrong moment (this was also the most likely explanation for a similar accident to an empty train at Tooting Broadway in 1971). *Arguing against this theory is the fact that the unusually high speed on the crossover track threw many passengers from their seats and some standing passengers fell to the floor: had Newson's mind been elsewhere, presumably this jolt would have brought him around.*


----------



## Tubeman

Lucky Lukas said:


> Whoa. Don't the trains have automatic emergency brakes if you pass a red signal?


Of course, but trains don't stop immediately, emergency brake or otherwise. At 30mph it takes a train a train's length to stop, more or less.

All signals have an 'overlap' beyond them taking this into consideration... basically, a signal protecting a train isn't immediately at its rear, it's a braking distance behind. Therefore, even if a train passes the red signal at full speed, it will come to a halt before it reaches the train in front (or junction, etc).

Therefore the incident I described wasn't dangerous, just disconcerting for the H&C driver who was just pulling out of Plaistow bay road to see a District train heading towards them.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> During the Moorgate disaster passengers who were on the platform noticed that the train raced past the station and appeared to accelerate, it would have taken more than a mistake to cause that to happen!


I've accidentally accelerated when I meant to brake before.

D Stocks have a 'deadman' which you push forward to accelerate and pull back to brake, whereas C Stocks you rotate clockwise to accelerate and anticlockwise to brake, because of the configuration of the 'deadman' on C Stocks this equates to pushing forward to brake and pulling back to accelerate, so there's a conflict.

I was coming into Putney Bridge Westbound driving a C Stock, which is a 10mph crawl all along the platform so you 'coast' all the way along (i.e. not drawing power or braking). At the last moment when I went to apply the brake to stop, I pulled back instead pf pushing forward D-Stock style and lurched forward. Again, it was an 'autopilot' issue... I must have momentarily forgotten which stock I was driving. It registered within a couple of seconds and I applied the emergency brake, just about stopping in time.

I don't think it explains Moorgate though, as he was driving a '38 Stock, which had separate brake (left) and motor (right) controls and moreover would have driven nothing but '38 stocks day in day out so I can't see how you could accidentally motor when you meant to brake. I don't know if the theory is he left Old Street in 'full parallel' and never shut off or if he was coasting and then 'wound up' for some reason as he passed through Moorgate platform. If he left Old Street in parallel and never shut off because of some sort of seizure, the train might have got up to perhaps 35-40mph by the time it reached the crossover at Moorgate, and I'm pretty certain at that speed it would have derailed. If however the theory is he was coasting into the platform and then 'wound up' and had a seizure, this is inexplicable as there is no reason why a driver would motor coming into a station, especially if by all accounts he was speeding anyway.

Maybe it was suicide after all?


----------



## hugh

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p2hy4/In_Living_Memory_Series_11_Moorgate/


----------



## trainrover

Tubeman said:


>


Thank you.

Nice photo.


----------



## Tubeman

hugh said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p2hy4/In_Living_Memory_Series_11_Moorgate/


Thanks for posting. I can't begin to imagine how awful the recovery effort must have been... It took 5 days to get the driver's body out and temperatures reached 40C down there.

The second carriage sliced right through the first and the third rode up onto the second. I suspect one factor may have been the fact that on the Northern City Line at the time they were running Tube size trains through mainline size tunnels, which might have made matters worse by allowing vertical movement.

Two safety feature arose from the Moorgate Disaster which are still in place today, the first is 'Moorgate Control' which ensures trains come into termini slowly by means of speed-controlled 'Trainstops' which only lower if the train is going slow enough (if not the train is 'tripped' and emergency brakes apply). 

The second is 'override zones', these are areas above each coupler with horizontal grooves to prevent a car chassis from riding up over the one in front in the event of a collision. The fact that the second car's chassis rode up over that of the first and sliced through the first car at Moorgate was responsible for many of the deaths.

They're quite apparent on this line-up of D Stocks, which were the first stock built with them:


----------



## Swede

Tubeman said:


> Two safety feature arose from the Moorgate Disaster which are still in place today, the first is 'Moorgate Control' which ensures trains come into termini slowly by means of speed-controlled 'Trainstops' which only lower if the train is going slow enough (if not the train is 'tripped' and emergency brakes apply).


I've been annoyed by this feature, or rather some drivers inability to drive the newer cars into such stations smoothly, here in Stockholm. I don't know if it is this exact feature, but I've only ever felt it at end-stations here (slow entry, or a full stop and then slooow to the right place) and it feels like it might have been introduced here as a result of Moorgate. In conclusion: such news  and lessons do spread  the feature makes a LOT of sense and some drivers need to learn to drive into such stations better.


----------



## lightrail

Tubeman said:


> Thanks for posting. I can't begin to imagine how awful the recovery effort must have been... It took 5 days to get the driver's body out and temperatures reached 40C down there.
> 
> The second carriage sliced right through the first and the third rode up onto the second. I suspect one factor may have been the fact that on the Northern City Line at the time they were running Tube size trains through mainline size tunnels, which might have made matters worse by allowing vertical movement.
> 
> Two safety feature arose from the Moorgate Disaster which are still in place today, the first is 'Moorgate Control' which ensures trains come into termini slowly by means of speed-controlled 'Trainstops' which only lower if the train is going slow enough (if not the train is 'tripped' and emergency brakes apply).
> 
> The second is 'override zones', these are areas above each coupler with horizontal grooves to prevent a car chassis from riding up over the one in front in the event of a collision. The fact that the second car's chassis rode up over that of the first and sliced through the first car at Moorgate was responsible for many of the deaths.
> 
> They're quite apparent on this line-up of D Stocks, which were the first stock built with them:


The Moorgate Control was applied nationwide - not just on London Underground.

Given your comments on the mental state of the Moorgate driver, could he have thought he was leaving Old Street and that's why he accelerated. Maybe he blackout leaving Old Street, came to, or partly, as the trains cross over to the other tracks, but not remembering the trip from Old to Moorgate, was confused and thought he was still leaving Old Street.

It's a mystery we'll ever solve - but I strongly believe it was a mental lapse of some kind.


----------



## Tubeman

lightrail said:


> The Moorgate Control was applied nationwide - not just on London Underground.


I'm not sure about that... Especially considering the trainstop / tripcock system is to my knowledge only used on LU in the UK.



lightrail said:


> Given your comments on the mental state of the Moorgate driver, could he have thought he was leaving Old Street and that's why he accelerated. Maybe he blackout leaving Old Street, came to, or partly, as the trains cross over to the other tracks, but not remembering the trip from Old to Moorgate, was confused and thought he was still leaving Old Street.
> 
> It's a mystery we'll ever solve - but I strongly believe it was a mental lapse of some kind.


The more I think about it, the more I can only conclude it was suicide. I simply cannot see any combination of events which could have made this an accident.


----------



## London Underground

Read this: http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/Moorgate_station.html

It contains some ideas and thoughts of the cause.



Swede said:


> ...or rather some drivers inability to drive the newer cars into such stations smoothly, here in Stockholm.


Same here.


----------



## Tubeman

capslock said:


> Question
> 
> Why do the northern line tunnels flip round between Bank and London Bridge?You leave one station 'driving on the left' and arrive at the next on the other side - weird. (I think it's these two stations - I noticed this a while back and have been meaning to ask for some time)
> 
> THanks in advance


A bit more of a definite explanation...

_"Reverse running operated on part of the line; between the road junction of Newington Causeway and Borough Road (between Elephant & Castle and Borough stations) and Swan Lane (just north of the river Thames). Thus the short distance between Swan Lane and King William Street station had 'normal' left hand running. No satisfactory explanation has been given for the reverse running.

When the line was extended northwards in 1900, the right hand running continued north of Elephant & Castle until there was sufficient clearance to build a new 'righting' of the tunnels (between Bank and Moorgate stations)"_

From here

Here's a good find; Greathead's engineering drawing of the original C&SLR. You can see normal left hand running departing King William Street, then the northbound stacked on top of the southbound under the narrow Swan Lane (to minimise the uphill climb into King William Street for Northbound trains). The lines then diverge, but with reverse right-hand running under the river, remaining right-hand all the way to a point south of Borough station. Because the extension to Moorgate branched off the original King William Street tunnels north of Borough, the right-hand running was continued on the new line. I don't see why it couldn't be reversed back until north of Bank, but I guess with deep-level tube single bore tunnels it really doesn't matter which way around the tunnels are.


----------



## lightrail

Tubeman said:


> I'm not sure about that... Especially considering the trainstop / tripcock system is to my knowledge only used on LU in the UK.
> 
> .


Okay - so not exactly the same, but the crash did cause changes to the way trains are signalled into terminus stations on the then BR network.



> The then national rail company, British Rail, became concerned at the possibility of a similar event happening at a terminus. An early consequence was to change the signalling system so that a colour light signal would not show green on approach to a dead-end terminus. This effectively regarded the fixed stop light at the buffers as part of the signalling system and required an appropriate 'caution' aspect to be displayed at the preceding signal. The displaying of a caution aspect in turn caused the Automatic Warning System horn to be sounded if AWS was fitted. This had to be acknowledged or the train brakes would be automatically applied. The eventual adoption of slow speed control when appoaching dead-end platforms as part of Train Protection & Warning System can be traced back to the Moorgate tube crash.


Source: http://tripatlas.com/Moorgate_control


----------



## Tubeman

lightrail said:


> Okay - so not exactly the same, but the crash did cause changes to the way trains are signalled into terminus stations on the then BR network.
> 
> Source: http://tripatlas.com/Moorgate_control


Oh ok yes I was aware of that; for example the 'home' signals which give you the platform at Wimbledon and Richmond as a District Line driver never show green, only red or yellow... Although you can get a green on the Wimbledon one if you're being signalled across to the mainline (which you're most certainly not supposed to accept as a District Line driver, because you'd run out of 4th rail and grind to a halt!).

It's nowhere near as robust as the LU method though; any platform without an over-run beyond will have 2 or 3 speed-controlled trainstops which only lower at increasingly slow speeds; usually the first about 1/4 way down the platform is 15mph, the second halfway down is 10mph, and the final one 3/4 way down is 5mph. There's then a 'fixed' trainstop just beyond the stopping mark, followed by a pair of fixed red lights, followed by a sand drag.

Even if you were suicidal and intent on re-creating Moorgate, you couldn't, because if you cut out the tripcock to prevent the trainstops from 'tripping' the train for going too fast the speed on the train is limited to 7mph, so very worst case you could engineer a 7mph crash, and even then the sand-drag might be enough to prevent running into a solid wall beyond and would take much of the sting out if not.

Effectively all the NwR method does is give the driver a visual / audible warning they're passing a caution signal, there's nothing physically preventing them from slamming into the buffers at full pelt. Evidence is the 1991 Cannon Street crash where a train rammed into the buffers at Cannon Street, killing 2 and injuring 500. This was only at 10mph, and not helped by the low structural integrity of the aged slam-door EMUs and the fact that the busy train would have been full of standing passengers just about to disembark.


----------



## Tubeman

^^
One interesting point which springs to mind; at Gunnersbury 'up' (= Eastbound), the station starter always shows a caution (yellow) aspect when it gives the District Line route towards Turnham Green, because there is no link between the Network rail signal box and Earl's Court LU signalling centre so the starter signal has to warn that the next signal will be red (even though it never is).

It's an instant indicator to a District driver that you've been given the wrong signal at Gunnersbury, when you see a green aspect... Because that means you've been signalled toward South Acton. Fortunately there is a train's length of fourth rail heading towards South Acton just in case you accept the wrong signal.

I once had to do that move in anger; there was a major defect on the westbound track near Kew (an engineer had accidentally left a tool by the positive current rail, and it drew an arc which turned into a blowtorch, melting through the rail), so only the eastbound road was operable. I happened to be the train marooned on the Richmond branch, so I shuttled up and down the eastbound road single line working, and when the defect was finally fixed I shunted back from the eastbound road between Gunnersbury and South Acton to the westbound at Gunnersbury. It felt very weird accepting the signal at Gunnersbury to go towards South Acton!


----------



## trainrover

^^ might switching from spacious trains to cramped ones signify demotion over there?


----------



## NCT

The D-stock is a sub-surface stock, so is quite generous in terms of space, plus the Overground only runs 3 tph on that stretch anyway.


----------



## ranieri

*Operator's cabin*



lightrail said:


> The Moorgate Control was applied nationwide - not just on London Underground.
> 
> Given your comments on the mental state of the Moorgate driver, could he have thought he was leaving Old Street and that's why he accelerated. Maybe he blackout leaving Old Street, came to, or partly, as the trains cross over to the other tracks, but not remembering the trip from Old to Moorgate, was confused and thought he was still leaving Old Street.
> 
> It's a mystery we'll ever solve - but I strongly believe it was a mental lapse of some kind.


That blue inside the cab looks like a hospital color.


----------



## Tubeman

ranieri said:


> That blue inside the cab looks like a hospital color.


LOL there may be an element of that... Although newer stocks are more of a cream colour inside the cabs


----------



## Acemcbuller

Hey Tubeman

Your thread is slipping way down the boards so I thought we'd better pick it up again!

I was at Tottenham Court Road the other day. Above the northbound Northern Line platform a line of poles were sticking down from the ceiling. Some of them where joined at the bottom by rods.

Any idea what these are for? Is there a plan to add platform edge doors?

James


----------



## ChrisZwolle

I made this thread a sticky.


----------



## iampuking

Acemcbuller said:


> Hey Tubeman
> 
> Your thread is slipping way down the boards so I thought we'd better pick it up again!
> 
> I was at Tottenham Court Road the other day. Above the northbound Northern Line platform a line of poles were sticking down from the ceiling. Some of them where joined at the bottom by rods.
> 
> Any idea what these are for? Is there a plan to add platform edge doors?
> 
> James


They're probably for the new tunnel wall projection advertising (crap, I know) and certainly not for platform screen doors. There is absolutely no plan to add platform screen doors to any current LU line.

Sorry to steal your question, Tubeman.


----------



## poshbakerloo

iampuking said:


> They're probably for the new tunnel wall projection advertising (crap, I know) and certainly not for platform screen doors. There is absolutely no plan to add platform screen doors to any current LU line.
> 
> Sorry to steal your question, Tubeman.


GOOD! I hate them doors! Just make the whole place feel all closed in!


----------



## Tubeman

Acemcbuller said:


> Hey Tubeman
> 
> Your thread is slipping way down the boards so I thought we'd better pick it up again!
> 
> I was at Tottenham Court Road the other day. Above the northbound Northern Line platform a line of poles were sticking down from the ceiling. Some of them where joined at the bottom by rods.
> 
> Any idea what these are for? Is there a plan to add platform edge doors?
> 
> James


Cheers 

Definitely not PEDs, but without seeing them I don't know what they're for. Could be a temporary cable run to divert cables into while the station is refurbished?

I don't think they'd be anything to do with the XTP (cross track projection advertising)... XTP requires the installation of the projector (about 1m cubed suspended from the ceiling above the platform) and the blank wall area above the track for the image to be projected onto, doesn't fit in with what you describe.


----------



## CairnsTony

I'm sure this question's been asked before but couldn't find it...

What do you think of plans to extend the Northern Line to Battersea and is it a serious proposition that may actually go ahead?

Cheers.


----------



## John_Bull

Tubeman said:


> Definitely not PEDs, but without seeing them I don't know what they're for. Could be a temporary cable run to divert cables into while the station is refurbished?


Tubeman has it - they're there to hold all the cabling while the station upgrade project is underway.


----------



## Tubeman

CairnsTony said:


> I'm sure this question's been asked before but couldn't find it...
> 
> What do you think of plans to extend the Northern Line to Battersea and is it a serious proposition that may actually go ahead?
> 
> Cheers.


I hugely doubt it, only if TfL demand it from the Battersea Power Station developers which would I expect deter them... And I don't think anyone wants the building to remain in its sorry dilapidated state for much longer.

It's a silly, indirect route... The Northern Line is ripe for extension from Kennington, but this really isn't the right option.


----------



## CairnsTony

Tubeman said:


> I hugely doubt it, only if TfL demand it from the Battersea Power Station developers which would I expect deter them... And I don't think anyone wants the building to remain in its sorry dilapidated state for much longer.
> 
> It's a silly, indirect route... The Northern Line is ripe for extension from Kennington, but this really isn't the right option.


Thanks for that.

I agree, it seems like a daft proposal. I'd've thought anywhere in a South Easterly direction would be more useful.


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman! What is your favorite stock? Tube and/or Sub-surface.


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Tubeman! What is your favorite stock? Tube and/or Sub-surface.


My all-time favourite is the Subsurface CO/CP and R Stocks:





































My very earliest memories are of these going past my house on the District Line


----------



## London Underground

Mine too! I love the CO/CP/COP & R stocks!

But how about 1938-stock?


----------



## London Underground

I just remembered something: I have these stocks as gifs!

Here they are:

Passenger versions:























































































































































Maintanance versions:
















I also let the Q38-stock come along. HAPPY BIRTHDAY Tubeman!
Note: These are both trailers and DM:s.


----------



## Get Smart

Happy Birthday Tubeman 


:dance:


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Mine too! I love the CO/CP/COP & R stocks!
> 
> But how about 1938-stock?


...Yes and the 1938 is my favourite Tube stock 

I know I rode on them as a kid, but I don't have strong memories of them. I ended up driving their slightly poorer cousins the 1959s and 1962s when I was older though 

I mean... aren't these just a perfect design?


----------



## ranieri

Tubeman said:


> LOL there may be an element of that... Although newer stocks are more of a cream colour inside the cabs


Just ordered your book. Looking forward to adding it to my collection. Keep up your good work. Thank you. Frank


----------



## Tubeman

ranieri said:


> Just ordered your book. Looking forward to adding it to my collection. Keep up your good work. Thank you. Frank


Many thanks  Let me know what you think!


----------



## CairnsTony

ranieri said:


> Just ordered your book. Looking forward to adding it to my collection. Keep up your good work. Thank you. Frank


It's great! There's a copy of it sitting on my bookshelf here in Cairns, Australia.:cheers:


----------



## Tubeman

Sorry I haven't answered your question yet, my broadband is playing up and I've barely been online... I've already lost responses twice.


----------



## Abhishek901

This is an excellent thread :cheers:

I have a question. London Underground is said to be 400 km long. How's this length measured ? Do you simply add the length of all the 11 lines to come up with this figure or the common sections of the lines (for example common section of circle line with other lines) are counted only once instead of twice/thrice ?

Thanks.


----------



## Tubeman

Abhishek901 said:


> This is an excellent thread :cheers:
> 
> I have a question. London Underground is said to be 400 km long. How's this length measured ? Do you simply add the length of all the 11 lines to come up with this figure or the common sections of the lines (for example common section of circle line with other lines) are counted only once instead of twice/thrice ?
> 
> Thanks.


I believe that's route length, so common sections of line are not counted twice / thrice, nor are 4-track fast / slow sections like on the Metropolitan Line.

Not too sure about parallel lines like the District / Picc Barons Court to Acton Town or Met / Jub Finchley Road to Wembley Park though, or if Network Rail owned sections of the Bakerloo and District are counted.

I just added total route lengths of all lines together and got about 450km, so that's 50km of shared route I guess?


----------



## Abhishek901

Tubeman said:


> I just added total route lengths of all lines together and got about 450km, so that's 50km of shared route I guess?


Yeah, then 50 km could be the shared length and 400 km the track length.


----------



## Upminster

Upminster said:


> Thank you Tubeman, and all, for considerable and valuable information. I just joined. And just bought your book. I have been a "student" of the London Underground for many ( many ) years. Now I am developing a computer simulation of all London urban and suburban railways, using Bahn 3.85 software. Modeling the lines and routes and stations and trackwork is the easy part. The hard part is modeling the timetables and actually making the timetables work.
> 
> My question is this --- Can you tell us ( even approximately ) the peak tph on each of the London Underground lines and DLR? This would be a big help to me. Thank you.


While I am finding timetables challenging to simulate realistically, hence the question above, now that I have your wonderful book I am finding I need to go back to the trackwork and fix a few things that I missed. I had visited London in the late 80's and bought every rail atlas and map I could find at Ian Allen's Bookshop, but your book adds even more valuable information ( and more work ) for my computer simulation.

By the way, I might very well have followed the same path as you had we stayed in England. I was born and lived in Upminster, but we emigrated when I was 9 years old. Probably would not have gone to university in GB. But in the USA I was able to go to university ( degree in electrical engineering, graduate degrees in theoretical physics and management ) and had a wonderful non-railway career. Of course they don't really have railways here, and that is what I really miss about GB and Europe. Despite my "successes" I still envy you. And what a great, very professionally done book.


----------



## Tubeman

Many thanks, too kind! 

Do you still need the tph? I found it much harder to locate the information than I'd have expected, I tried using the 'timetables' section of the TfL website, but after first & last trains that just switches to vague 'every 2-4 minutes' for most lines, so that's anywhere between 15 and 30 tph.

What I do know for definite:

Bakerloo 22tph peak

All 4 main District line services run every 8 minutes off-peak (Wimbledon-Edgware Rd, Wimbledon-Upminster, Richmond-Upminster, Ealing Broadway-Tower Hill), the Kensington Olympia - High Street Kensington shuttle is every 15 minutes.

Circle Line was every 8 minutes, but the 'Extended Circle' is now only every 10 minutes

And now for the guesswork...

I'd guess the H&C Line would be about every 6 or so minutes

The Amersham service of the Metropolitan Line is 3-4 tph, I guess Watford and Uxbridge is 6-8 tph

The other 'Tube' lines would all offer approx 25tph through central London I'd expect

This is hopefully useful re: DLR


----------



## Upminster

Actually, the data you just provided is very helpful, and probably all I need for now. Even the approximations are helpful, as I can use them in my simulation to get a little bit closer to realistic. On the denser routes I have real challenges getting a timetable to work because of the somewhat variable time per platform stop. Sometimes trains arrive at the terminus earlier or later than scheduled and I have to accomodate both possibilities. More a challenge on the more frequent Underground lines than the way I simulate timetables on the above ground suburban and regional lines.

Besides, now that I have your book it will be weeks before I will finish all the corrections to my trackwork and then I will have to make adjustments in all the impacted timetables. This is so much fun. And nice to be retired so I can do this. Thanks! Very!


----------



## iampuking

I've read alot of stuff on the Underground over the years, and if memory serves me correctly:

Peak time frequency:

Bakerloo: 22tph
Central: 30tph
Jubilee: 24tph (set to increase to 30-33tph in next few years)
Northern (Central + North London branches): 20tph (Morden branch): 30tph
Piccadilly: 24tph
Victoria: 28.5tph (set to increase to 33tph in next few years)


----------



## Upminster

iampuking said:


> I've read alot of stuff on the Underground over the years, and if memory serves me correctly:
> 
> Peak time frequency:
> 
> Bakerloo: 22tph
> Central: 30tph
> Jubilee: 24tph (set to increase to 30-33tph in next few years)
> Northern (Central + North London branches): 20tph (Morden branch): 30tph
> Piccadilly: 24tph
> Victoria: 28.5tph (set to increase to 33tph in next few years)


Thank you. That is very helpful information ...

r, peter


----------



## davidaiow

Hello, I have a quick question if you don't mind.

I love the JLE but when the tube travels between Westminster and Bond Street there is this awful roar. I can barely hear myself think never mind my neighbour or the automatic announcements. Any particular reason for this and will it ever be 'fixed' ?

Thanks for all your information


----------



## Tubeman

Funny. I always noticed that the 'new' stretch of the original Jubilee Line (1979) is noisy... It seemed even worse when the 1983 Stock trains ran on it.

Must be courtesy of whatever the construction method was in favour in the 1970's I guess... It could be courtesy of the fact the tunnels are larger diameter than older Tubes; more space for the soundwaves to echo around in... That would make sense as it seems worse the further back you're sitting. I use the Jube quite a lot between Baker Street and Westminster and sit at the front of the front carriage and it's not so bad, because, crudely speaking, you're leaving the noise behind you. It's surprisingly quiet in the cab compared to even the first carriage, for instance.


----------



## davidaiow

That's interesting to note. I do that journey regularly and I find the noise is worse on the way to Baker St rather than to Westminster. It's most peculiar. I did wonder whether it was to do with tunnel size, guess it was, thanks!


----------



## cle

Tubey - I take the H&C/Circle every day to Hammersmith and whilst the frequency is much better post-T Cup, almost every day there is a 2-5 minute delay outside Hammersmith as the trains are backed up and waiting for a free platform.

I completely understand this, but why isn't the dispatch/turning around being run more successfully? Are there plans to look at this, as it is obviously a problem. Given there are three platforms, it shouldn't be too awful.

What are your thoughts on this, if you can be candid?


----------



## Tubeman

cle said:


> Tubey - I take the H&C/Circle every day to Hammersmith and whilst the frequency is much better post-T Cup, almost every day there is a 2-5 minute delay outside Hammersmith as the trains are backed up and waiting for a free platform.
> 
> I completely understand this, but why isn't the dispatch/turning around being run more successfully? Are there plans to look at this, as it is obviously a problem. Given there are three platforms, it shouldn't be too awful.
> 
> What are your thoughts on this, if you can be candid?


There clearly hasn't been sufficient time allowed for terminating at Hammersmith, as the blocking back into that station is a common complaint now. It would no doubt work on paper (i.e. the timetable), but this doesn't account for driver behaviours... Drivers are allowed 4 minutes minimum between bringing a train in to a platform and departing again, and I suspect that due to the increased tph reversing at Hammersmith, a dwell time near to that minimum was timetabled which doesn't account for making a cup of tea, going for a pee, or chatting to your mate etc. The H&C / Circle drivers have a bit of a 'reputation', which is one of the reasons why the T-cup was proposed in the first place... 'Stepping back' at Edgware Road for terminating Circles with management presence on the platform is supposed to ensure crew reliefs are snappy and punctual, whereas before delays at Edgware Road waiting for a driver to saunter down the platform at snail pace were one of the causes of perpetual late running on the Circle. The only thing I can suggest is 'stepping back' being employed at Hammersmith too, but this would require management presence on the platform there also which is a poor use of an expensive resource.

The principle of 'stepping back' is that rather than the same driver driving a train into and out of a terminus, each driver gets off upon arrival and 'steps back' a couple of trains, giving a decent interval for tea / pee / chat, thus removing the risk of late departures. It needs management though, because if the service runs late and trains end up out of sequence then you get driverless trains. This was a real headache at Elephant & Castle where we 'step back' due to 2 platforms, because often the 2/3 of trains ex-Queen's park would be on time, while the remaining third ex-Harrow or Stonebridge could run very late if there were operating problems on Network rail, so if a driver was due to step back off an ex-Harrow train onto an ex-Queen's Park train, their next pick-up could be sat in the platform at Elephant while the driver was still stuck north of Queen's Park driving their previous train. You need a manager to 'reform' the driverless train (change its number) into a train there was a driver for... but then keep track of each 'reform' to prevent two trains having the same number for too long.

Personally, I would ditch the Hammersmith & City / Circle distinction and run the service as a single Hammersmith - lap of Circle - Barking (and vice versa) service with maybe 10tph. This would necessitate more Metropolitan Line trains terminating at Baker Street, maybe 10tph beyond Baker Street to Aldgate, giving 30tph Baker Street - Liverpool Street. To boost the Hammersmith service and appease Westfield I'd have a bay platform at Paddington Suburban and run a Hammersmith - Paddington shuttle in the peak.


----------



## GavinC

What are they doing between Southfields and East Putney? Building new sidings or replacing a bridge (over Granville road)?


----------



## iampuking

Why are we spending so much money on refurbishing stations that aren't particularly in bad shape when the money could be spent on refurbishing the signalling and track which, in a lot of cases, are!


----------



## Tubeman

GavinC said:


> What are they doing between Southfields and East Putney? Building new sidings or replacing a bridge (over Granville road)?


Definitely not the former so I guess the latter... I've not seen the works, so I don't know


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Why are we spending so much money on refurbishing stations that aren't particularly in bad shape when the money could be spent on refurbishing the signalling and track which, in a lot of cases, are!


Many of the station upgrades have been shelved in order to preserve funds for track / signalling upgrades, so I don't really follow your point.


----------



## jetsetwilly

Hi Tubeman

I noticed, visiting London a couple of weeks ago, that both Farringdon and Blackfriars were closed. In both cases, the train slows as it approaches the station, then speeds up again the other side. Why is this? Is it to maintain the timetable by continuing to build in the delay, or is it a safety procedure for the workers in the station?


----------



## Tubeman

jetsetwilly said:


> Hi Tubeman
> 
> I noticed, visiting London a couple of weeks ago, that both Farringdon and Blackfriars were closed. In both cases, the train slows as it approaches the station, then speeds up again the other side. Why is this? Is it to maintain the timetable by continuing to build in the delay, or is it a safety procedure for the workers in the station?


I can't remember if I've answered this before... may have done!

Simplistically the reason is to prevent a potential crash.

Each signal has an 'overlap' beyond it which is basically the distance that a train travelling at line speed would take to stop if the signal was red and the 'trainstop' at its base 'tripped' the train (i.e. caused the emergency brakes to apply). 

To maximise signal density and therefore line capacity, the 'station starter' signal on LU has a very short 'overlap'... This is because every train should stop at every station, and therefore should be travelling at a very low speed when it passes the 'station starter', because it's accelerating from stationary. Low speed = short stopping distance, therefore the signalling can be arranged such that the rear of the train ahead could be quite close to the station behind it due to the short overlap of the 'station starter' behind.

This means that if trains were allowed to pass through closed stations at line speed, safety would be compromised because if they failed to slow down for and stop at the 'station starter' if it were red due to a train ahead, it could potentially crash into that train ahead. This is because the train which had failed to stop would be travelling much faster and the distance required to come to a halt after being 'tripped' would exceed the short overlap.

The rule is therefore that trains must slow to 5mph to pass the station starter. A lot of drivers choose to crawl through the entire platform, but this isn't necessary... They can approach the platform and brake as normal, just shut off and coast past the station starter at 5mph rather than stopping.

Network Rail doesn't have the same rules and all signals have an overlap long enough to accommodate trains braking to a halt from full line speed. This means on the NwR sections served by LU, drivers are 'allowed' to go through closed stations at full pelt (or when running empty). I used to enjoy bombing through Wimbledon Park and Southfields at full speed when running empty from Wimbledon to stable at Parson's Green late at night... It felt really 'naughty'


----------



## davidaiow

^Excellent answer! I've always wondered that myself, thanks!

Loving the idea of feeling 'naughty'. Sounds brilliant.


----------



## ranieri

*LU Propulsion*

Been reading several publications regarding rolling stock. I am reading about the very oldest and first electrified units of underground and surface stock. Let's take my favorite for example, "F" stock. What type of power was attached to the axles to make them go? I have rarely seen any mention of the manufacturer or type of propulsion. Not just the "F"'s, but any of unit of the system. This is nothing more than curiosity as it interersts me greatly as to what was used. Some of the rolling stock of the olden days was stunning. Now, with the newest models coming on-line, they are beautifully done and I hope I get to London next year to try them out. I live close to MYC and their units are a bore. Thanks


----------



## Tubeman

I guess traction motors have always had the same basic design, just with greater refinements and more compact technology with time. I'm not overly techhy when it comes to traction, but my understanding is that traction motors always used to sit atop the bogey and engage with teeth on the axles to turn them. The big shift in technology is with newer stocks, where traction motors have been designed so compact they envelop each axle, so each axle on a motor car is powered.


----------



## ranieri

*Driving those motors*

I too am not a mechanic or tech. I have seen the bogies (trucks over here) at the trasnit museum. They are very intracate. What has amazed me about the history of NY's equipment, was the recycling that went on. Not sure if the still do. Back in the beginning of electrification, when models were upgraded, they would simply switch the bogies from one unit to another. The even did that with new carriages. The old propulsion units would be tranferred to the new cars and presto, time to rock and roll. They must have really been built to last. On a side note, my 2002 PTCruiser is beginning to sound like the old elevated trains from 80 years ago. The front end is whining something fierce. Out here, in what was much farm land as far as they eye could see, we have the most minuscule public transit. I poor bus line. I miss being able to ride a train anywhere in the city of my birth. It's a shame.


----------



## iranair777

This is quite a odd question, but how on earth does London underground make money? I know its as simple as tickets and adverts, but surely they cannot cover all aspects of the railway with just these? I mean, 1400 or so S class carriages is quite a lot and thats just within one order not including the maintenance of the railway and everything else. If its not in profit, why arn't lines shut down, or is it because of the fact its govt. owned now?


----------



## future.architect

iranair777 said:


> This is quite a odd question, but how on earth does London underground make money? I know its as simple as tickets and adverts, but surely they cannot cover all aspects of the railway with just these? I mean, 1400 or so S class carriages is quite a lot and thats just within one order not including the maintenance of the railway and everything else. If its not in profit, why arn't lines shut down, or is it because of the fact its govt. owned now?


it recives about £1 billion a year in subsidies. most people in the UK agree that public transport should not have to make money and should be ran with the best interests of the passengers in mind. Saying that many public transport systems do make a profit but its been decided that £1 billion a year is worth it for the tube.

It is also worth mentioning Dr Beaching, he was made railway minister in the 1960's and was given the task of making the railways pay. The way he tried to do this was to close 1/3 of the network. This scheme was very unpopular at the time and the effects of it are still felt today in many isolated comunities which used to have a railway but now dont. Today, with the advent of modern technology and computerised ticketing so you can see the routes people are taking, many of the closures would have been unnesceray. since then about 200 miles of track has been re opened and ultimately his plan did not work, the railways will never make a profit if you want to cover most of the population.


----------



## iranair777

surely the cost of the new trains alone are more than £1billion :nuts:

so basically the underground isnt making any profit and is just there to serve the public. Then how come the prices go up so much every year when they know they wont make any extra money?


----------



## sweek

iranair777 said:


> surely the cost of the new trains alone are more than £1billion :nuts:
> 
> so basically the underground isnt making any profit and is just there to serve the public. Then how come the prices go up so much every year when they know they wont make any extra money?


Tickets and advertising pretty much cover running costs, not the cost of building new infrastructure or upgrading lines, which TfL will always have to go back to the government for.


----------



## ChrisH

There are very few metro systems in the world that make a profit*. London Underground covers about 80% of its operating costs through tickets, advertising and rental of shops within stations. As you say, the costs for expansion are sought differently, and in effect come through the government, or through borrowing against future fare income. LU is in a financial mess at the moment because of the failed public-private partnership which was intended to fund the upgrade works currently going on.

* Hong Kong’s does make a profit because the government owns all the land, gives it to the MTR for free and lets the MTR keep all the rental income from the skyscrapers built on top of the stations. It’s also more modern so has less expensive maintenance. At the other end of the spectrum is/was Moscow. During the Soviet era it was effectively free to use, with the government swallowing all of the costs of maintaining it. Of course they were running a pretty different financial system!


----------



## Tubeman

Yeah basically as Sweek says, we cover operating costs through fare and advertising revenue and as such pretty much break even. 

What we haven't got a hope in hell of financing through fare receipts is investment in new rolling stock, signalling, track replacements etc. That's where the ill-fated experiment that was PPP came in; we got private capital in to pay for the upgrades in return for a guaranteed return over a prolonged period, ultimately it was essentially taxpayers' money, only rife for exploitation by dubious sub-contracts and sub-sub contracts and any fat was channelled off into dividends for the shareholders of the constituent private companies investing the money. The result was huge debts being run up through reckless awarding of contracts and sloppy working practices, such that when Metronet eventually folded it owed over a billion that LU were obliged to find when it re-absorbed the company. To add insult to injury we've just similarly had to pay Tubelines (who remain independent) 1/2 billion at the arbiter, which is admittedly better than the 3 billion they wanted us to pay for their over-spend on the Jubilee and Northern upgrades (they wanted 7 billion off us, we only wanted to give 4... arbiter said 4.5).

All this 1.5 billion that has been foisted upon us is having to be financed by operating efficiencies, hence we're cutting 800 operational staff in the next 10 months. Basically, jobs are being lost thanks to the greed and inefficiencies of the PPP companies... and ultimately John Prescott and Gordon Brown who imposed the whole sorry system on London Underground, despite the strong protestations from Ken Livingstone and Tim O'Toole.


----------



## iranair777

Tubeman said:


> Yeah basically as Sweek says, we cover operating costs through fare and advertising revenue and as such pretty much break even.
> 
> What we haven't got a hope in hell of financing through fare receipts is investment in new rolling stock, signalling, track replacements etc. That's where the ill-fated experiment that was PPP came in; we got private capital in to pay for the upgrades in return for a guaranteed return over a prolonged period, ultimately it was essentially taxpayers' money, only rife for exploitation by dubious sub-contracts and sub-sub contracts and any fat was channelled off into dividends for the shareholders of the constituent private companies investing the money. The result was huge debts being run up through reckless awarding of contracts and sloppy working practices, such that when Metronet eventually folded it owed over a billion that LU were obliged to find when it re-absorbed the company. To add insult to injury we've just similarly had to pay Tubelines (who remain independent) 1/2 billion at the arbiter, which is admittedly better than the 3 billion they wanted us to pay for their over-spend on the Jubilee and Northern upgrades (they wanted 7 billion off us, we only wanted to give 4... arbiter said 4.5).
> 
> All this 1.5 billion that has been foisted upon us is having to be financed by operating efficiencies, hence we're cutting 800 operational staff in the next 10 months. Basically, jobs are being lost thanks to the greed and inefficiencies of the PPP companies... and ultimately John Prescott and Gordon Brown who imposed the whole sorry system on London Underground, despite the strong protestations from Ken Livingstone and Tim O'Toole.


Tis a shame really. if the underground was completely private owned it may of raised the standards of the lines and actually be in profit


----------



## ajw373

Tubeman said:


> All this 1.5 billion that has been foisted upon us is having to be financed by operating efficiencies, hence we're cutting 800 operational staff in the next 10 months. Basically, jobs are being lost thanks to the greed and inefficiencies of the PPP companies... and ultimately John Prescott and Gordon Brown who imposed the whole sorry system on London Underground, despite the strong protestations from Ken Livingstone and Tim O'Toole.


This is something I don't understand about the UK political system. Who actually owns TfL? Is it the National Government or the City of London government?


----------



## future.architect

iranair777 said:


> Tis a shame really. if the underground was completely private owned it may of raised the standards of the lines and actually be in profit


but that is the point. why should it make a profit? we dont expect schools or hospitals to make a profit? surely it is better being publicly owned and ran in the best interests of the passengers. remember private companies need to pay thier shareholders, that money could be going into improving the network, if the tube was privitesed expect 20% or more to be closed. the uk rail network was privitised in the late 1990's and that was a disaster, litteraly at least 70 people died because the private company in charge of maintaing the track was not doing its job properly.


----------



## Gag Halfrunt

ajw373 said:


> This is something I don't understand about the UK political system. Who actually owns TfL? Is it the National Government or the City of London government?


Neither - Transport for London is part of the Greater London Authority.

Note that the City of London is not the same thing as Greater London:


> The City of London is a small area within Greater London, England. It is the historic core of London around which the modern conurbation grew and has held city status since time immemorial. The City’s boundaries have remained almost unchanged since the Middle Ages, and it is now only a tiny part of the metropolis of London, though remains a notable part of Central London. It is often referred to as the City or the Square Mile, as it is just over one square mile (1.12 sq mi/2.90 km2) in area. These terms are also often used as metonyms for the United Kingdom's financial services industry, which has historically been based here.
> 
> In the medieval period, the City was the full extent of London. The term London now refers to a much larger conurbation roughly corresponding to Greater London, a local government area which includes 32 London boroughs as well as the City of London, which is not one of the 32 London boroughs. The local authority for the City, the City of London Corporation, is unique in the United Kingdom, and has some unusual responsibilities for a local authority in Britain, such as being the police authority for the City. It also has responsibilities and ownerships beyond the City's boundaries. The Corporation is headed by the Lord Mayor of the City of London, a separate (and much older) office to the Mayor of London.


----------



## lightrail

future.architect said:


> it recives about £1 billion a year in subsidies. most people in the UK agree that public transport should not have to make money and should be ran with the best interests of the passengers in mind. Saying that many public transport systems do make a profit but its been decided that £1 billion a year is worth it for the tube.
> 
> It is also worth mentioning Dr Beaching, he was made railway minister in the 1960's and was given the task of making the railways pay. The way he tried to do this was to close 1/3 of the network. This scheme was very unpopular at the time and the effects of it are still felt today in many isolated comunities which used to have a railway but now dont. Today, with the advent of modern technology and computerised ticketing so you can see the routes people are taking, many of the closures would have been unnesceray. since then about 200 miles of track has been re opened and ultimately his plan did not work, the railways will never make a profit if you want to cover most of the population.


I'm not so sure it dodn't work. Many would argue that Beaching saved the railways. Before Beaching, many railways duplicated each other, making it expensive to operate. Also, before Beaching, railways were closing. The Beaching Report recommended a systematic closure of railways with profitability being the sole reason and through that public service.

Not all of Beaching's recommended closures occured. If the Beaching Report had been followed to the letter, with the exception of long distance trains between London and northern cities, there would have been no rail service north of London.

Beaching was drastic, no doubt. And today, with many lines reopening, it's easy to say Beaching was wrong. But at the time, it made sense. 

I can't believe I'm defending Beaching - probably the most imfamous name in UK rail history.


----------



## ajw373

Gag Halfrunt said:


> Neither - Transport for London is part of the Greater London Authority.
> 
> Note that the City of London is not the same thing as Greater London:


Yeah, knew there were two 'London' governments, was meaning the one with Borris as the Mayor. Though still doesn't quite help understanding why, if TfL is part of the Greater London Authority why Whitehall has so much 'influence'.


----------



## iampuking

Hi Tubeman. 

Do you know if the new S Stock for the Circle and H&C lines will be 7 cars long like on the District. If so, what are they going to do about the 6 car platforms on the western edge of the Circle? Also do you know if the S7s will have a more capacious seating layout compared to the S8s on the Metropolitan line?


----------



## Acemcbuller

ajw373 said:


> why, if TfL is part of the Greater London Authority why Whitehall has so much 'influence'.


Because it chooses to !?!
I don't know any details but bear in mind that the GLA's money mainly comes from Whitehall. It only gets to raise a bit through Council Tax.


----------



## Damarr

iranair777 said:


> Tis a shame really. if the underground was completely private owned it may of raised the standards of the lines and actually be in profit


I can't see why private companies would raise standards since they would have a monopoly on the lines. There would be no incentive.


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> Hi Tubeman.
> 
> Do you know if the new S Stock for the Circle and H&C lines will be 7 cars long like on the District. If so, what are they going to do about the 6 car platforms on the western edge of the Circle? Also do you know if the S7s will have a more capacious seating layout compared to the S8s on the Metropolitan line?


I think the plan is currently for 7 cars to replace C and D stocks, which will require platform lengthening and / or selective door opening at Notting Hill Gate, Bayswater, and Paddington (Praed Street). It has changed a couple of times so don't quote me on that... I was under the impression all S Stocks were going to be identical 7 car trains for flexibility?


----------



## cle

They're extending platforms at Westbourne Park, and I assume the others along that stretch. Wood Lane was built longer, which you can tell if on the platform as to where the 'end of platform barrier thing' is located.

The three stations Tubey mentioned are SDO - but with articulated trains, not such a problem unless it's packed.

I think the seating might all be longditudinal? I'm not sure on the Met - but aren't these basically just 378s?


----------



## iampuking

^^ Not really. The S8s will be nearly twice as long as the 378s, have different seating layouts, different doors, etc.



Tubeman said:


> I was under the impression all S Stocks were going to be identical 7 car trains for flexibility?


Nope, I'm pretty sure the Metropolitan trains will be 8 cars long as when they were delievered, I counted...


----------



## cle

I think the inner London (your 'S7's) trains will look and feel like 378s. The interior looks quite cluttered and claustrophobic, with small windows.

And obviously they're twice as long, but it's not as if you'll often be able to see the ends!


----------



## iampuking

^^ I think the windows on the S Stock are larger than those on the 378s. Sorry to disagree, but I really don't think the 378s are particularly claustrophobic, especially compared to the 313s that they replaced...


----------



## Abhishek901

Hey Tubeman, I want to know more about :

* the capacities of all the lines of LU in terms of passengers per hour per direction. It would be nice if I get the break up also (capacity of individual train and frequency in TPH).

* how much of that capacity is tapped (like in terms of frequency and length of trains)

* how much is the usage of tapped capacity in terms of % (ie lines are over-crowded or under-crowded in terms of tapped capacity and by what margin)

* and finally what are capacity expansion plans and what you think can be the ultimate capacities of these lines.

I know that it is very long list to ask. It would help if you redirect me to some source which explains that, even if it has technical stuff and jargons. And your inputs are always welcome. Thanks 

One more thing. Is there any thread for suburban railways in London, (like the one we have for Paris' Transilien network here) in this sub-forum or the UK forum ?


----------



## 1772

Hello there. 

Is there any subway system like the one in Moscow any where ells in the world? 
meaning stations built in a classical style.


----------



## cle

iampuking said:


> ^^ I think the windows on the S Stock are larger than those on the 378s. Sorry to disagree, but I really don't think the 378s are particularly claustrophobic, especially compared to the 313s that they replaced...


Fair enough if you disagree!

I use it quite frequently, and find the new trains are pretty claustrophobic. 313s were also in a different way (the three seat rows/narrow aisles) but at least had big windows.

The 378s are very spacious when empty, but the area around the doors is very dark.


----------



## Tubeman

1772 said:


> Hello there.
> 
> Is there any subway system like the one in Moscow any where ells in the world?
> meaning stations built in a classical style.


I think Pyongyang is similar in style to Moscow:


----------



## Tubeman

Abhishek901 said:


> Hey Tubeman, I want to know more about :
> 
> * the capacities of all the lines of LU in terms of passengers per hour per direction. It would be nice if I get the break up also (capacity of individual train and frequency in TPH).
> 
> * how much of that capacity is tapped (like in terms of frequency and length of trains)
> 
> * how much is the usage of tapped capacity in terms of % (ie lines are over-crowded or under-crowded in terms of tapped capacity and by what margin)
> 
> * and finally what are capacity expansion plans and what you think can be the ultimate capacities of these lines.
> 
> I know that it is very long list to ask. It would help if you redirect me to some source which explains that, even if it has technical stuff and jargons. And your inputs are always welcome. Thanks
> 
> One more thing. Is there any thread for suburban railways in London, (like the one we have for Paris' Transilien network here) in this sub-forum or the UK forum ?


Capacity isn't easy to definitively measure as there's an absolute maximum where trains are crush loaded and physically can't get any more passengers on, and there'll be a ideal capacity where trains are full but not bursting. The former isn't ideal because dwell times become too long, which reduces the maximum tph frequency.

This aside, the TfL website does helpfully give capacities for each stock which I guess is the latter:

A = 1424
C = 1272
D = 1372
1967 = 1448
1972 = 1278
1973 = 1238
1992 = 892
1995 = 914
1996 = 964

...However I find the stated capacities for the three newest stocks very suspect: 8 cars of the Victoria Line's '67 is nearly twice that of 8 cars of the Central's '92... which is clearly rubbish. If anything the 1992 stock should have greater standing capacity as it has fewer seats (272 versus 304). I can only assume that the older stocks' standing capacities were arrived at through some form of testing (e.g. see how many people can be crammed into one car and then multiply), whereas the newer stocks is arrived at through some form of calculation of metres squared per standee, taking into account pushchairs, wheelchairs, luggage etc.

So, I think if you really went for it, you could get 1500 per train... But ideally you'd probably not want more than 1000 to avoid extended dwell times.

You can then simply multiply train capacity by tph, which varies between 20 and 30 tph... On average I guess most lines can comfortably move 25,000 passengers per hour in each direction.

Regarding unused capacity in Central London, the Southern ends of the Bakerloo and Metropolitan Lines are the only sections with any real capacity to spare.

And no I don't think there is a London Suburban rail thread on the UK transport forum, just separate ones for Crossrail, Thameslink and Overground.


----------



## 1LONDONER

Tubeman the 2009 stock's capacity is given as 1448 on wikipedia, I dont know if that is correct or not as its the same as given above in your post. 
Assuming your post (tfl) to be correct, for the 67 stock and given the claims of a 21% capacity increase, that means 2009 stock capacity of 1752! So at a push, pushing almost 2k capacity per train? 

Does that sound right?


----------



## Tubeman

1LONDONER said:


> Tubeman the 2009 stock's capacity is given as 1448 on wikipedia, I dont know if that is correct or not as its the same as given above in your post.
> Assuming your post (tfl) to be correct, for the 67 stock and given the claims of a 21% capacity increase, that means 2009 stock capacity of 1752! So at a push, pushing almost 2k capacity per train?
> 
> Does that sound right?


Ello mate... Long time no hear / see!

2000 is probably pushing it... I guess it's reasonable to predict a capacity increase of an appreciable margin of the 2009s over the 1967s due to the loss of transverse seating, but 21% sounds a bit too much to me... I just can't see another 300 people squeezing in...

I reckon 10% extra tops, so maybe up to 1600 on a 2009 stock train. This is totally unscientific mind, just a hunch.

BTW I've been hanging out in the Wig & Gown on Holloway Rd before / after games all season, in case you're wondering why I've not been in the White Swan!


----------



## Abhishek901

Tubeman said:


> Capacity isn't easy to definitively measure as there's an absolute maximum where trains are crush loaded and physically can't get any more passengers on, and there'll be a ideal capacity where trains are full but not bursting. The former isn't ideal because dwell times become too long, which reduces the maximum tph frequency.


Yep. I was talking about the latter, the ideal capacity (which many times get sacrificed).



Tubeman said:


> ...However I find the stated capacities for the three newest stocks very suspect: 8 cars of the Victoria Line's '67 is nearly twice that of 8 cars of the Central's '92... which is clearly rubbish. If anything the 1992 stock should have greater standing capacity as it has fewer seats (272 versus 304). I can only assume that the older stocks' standing capacities were arrived at through some form of testing (e.g. see how many people can be crammed into one car and then multiply), whereas the newer stocks is arrived at through some form of calculation of metres squared per standee, taking into account pushchairs, wheelchairs, luggage etc.


Still the capacity of new trains looks ridiculously low when compared to older trains. I guess it is some miscalculation.



Tubeman said:


> So, I think if you really went for it, you could get 1500 per train... But ideally you'd probably not want more than 1000 to avoid extended dwell times.


I am assuming you are talking about 8 car train with every car about 20 m long. In such a scenario 1000 looks too low (or is it that I am assuming a wrong scenario ?). 

For example Delhi metro's 8 car trains have an ideal capacity of about 2200, which can go even further if you talk about crowded situation. Length of each car is about 20-25 m and width is 3.2 m, which means 4 persons per sq m. That sounds quite fine. Maybe because they have extra width (see here) but I doubt that a small difference in width will lead to doubling of capacity. There might be some other factor which I have missed.



Tubeman said:


> You can then simply multiply train capacity by tph, which varies between 20 and 30 tph... On average I guess most lines can comfortably move 25,000 passengers per hour in each direction.


25,000 seems to be quite low when you look at face of it as many metro systems have capacities of even 80,000 PPHPD or even above, but when we look at the London's relatively small population and the huge number of lines and route length, this seems to be quite sufficient.

So, what seems to have gone wrong in terms of overcrowding ? Is it because people here travel much longer distance than their counterparts in other cities (as passenger-km matters more than just no. of passengers) or because of LU's route design, the crowd converges at some choke points creating bottlenecks and crowding in some of the sections ?



Tubeman said:


> And no I don't think there is a London Suburban rail thread on the UK transport forum, just separate ones for Crossrail, Thameslink and Overground.


Does that indicates that suburban rail in London has much less importance/significance here than its counterparts, say, Paris ?


----------



## iampuking

1772 said:


> Hello there.
> 
> Is there any subway system like the one in Moscow any where ells in the world?
> meaning stations built in a classical style.


The style is usually considered "Stalinist", and there are similar stations to the Stalinist designs on the Moscow Metro on the St Petersburg Metro.



Abhishek901 said:


> For example Delhi metro's 8 car trains have an ideal capacity of about 2200, which can go even further if you talk about crowded situation. Length of each car is about 20-25 m and width is 3.2 m, which means 4 persons per sq m. That sounds quite fine. Maybe because they have extra width (see here) but I doubt that a small difference in width will lead to doubling of capacity. There might be some other factor which I have missed.


It's not as simple as that...

7 x 16m = 112m Bakerloo line 1972 Stock
8 x 16m = 128m Central line 1992 Stock
6 x 16m = 96m Circle/H&C line C Stock
6 x 18m = 108m District line D Stock
7 x 18m = 126m Jubilee line 1995 Stock
8 x 16m = 128m Metropolitan line A Stock
6 x 18m = 108m Northern line 1995 Stock
6 x 18m = 108m Piccadilly line 1973 Stock
8 x 16m = 128m Victoria line 1967 Stock
4 x 16m = 64m W&C line 1992 Stock

I believe the new 2009 Stock for the Victoria line will be 3m longer than the current stock. 

You have to remember that the deep level lines have significantly smaller trains than normal and therefore the passenger capacity is lower. Many European metros have smaller than necessary trains (Paris and Berlin are two I can think of right now) because the networks were originally designed with revolutionary technology and for lower capacity. Most Asian metros are late developers and have learnt from our mistakes.


----------



## Abhishek901

iampuking said:


> The style is usually considered "Stalinist", and there are similar stations to the Stalinist designs on the Moscow Metro on the St Petersburg Metro.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not as simple as that...
> 
> 7 x 16m = 112m Bakerloo line 1972 Stock
> 8 x 16m = 128m Central line 1992 Stock
> 6 x 16m = 96m Circle/H&C line C Stock
> 6 x 18m = 108m District line D Stock
> 7 x 18m = 126m Jubilee line 1995 Stock
> 8 x 16m = 128m Metropolitan line A Stock
> 6 x 18m = 108m Northern line 1995 Stock
> 6 x 18m = 108m Piccadilly line 1973 Stock
> 8 x 16m = 128m Victoria line 1967 Stock
> 4 x 16m = 64m W&C line 1992 Stock


Thanks. That pretty much explains it. I was assuming similar length of cars in both cities. Here the platforms are 185 m long, so that explains higher capacity of trains.


----------



## Apoc89

Abhishek901 said:


> Does that indicates that suburban rail in London has much less importance/significance here than its counterparts, say, Paris ?


I think it's less about lack of importance/significance(indeed, London has an extensive system, and for parts that lack Underground coverage such as most of the southern half, suburban trains are the only rail link to the centre) and more a lack of a single identity.

Trains in London are run by around ten different companies each with their own brands, and the suburban "metro-style" services are usually integrated seamlessly into the National Rail network, so it's sometimes difficult to tell where suburban rail ends and intercity/regional rail begins.


----------



## Abhishek901

Apoc89 said:


> Trains in London are run by around ten different companies each with their own brands, and the suburban "metro-style" services are usually integrated seamlessly into the National Rail network, so it's sometimes difficult to tell where suburban rail ends and intercity/regional rail begins.


That means there is no single agency operating the suburban system like TfL ?


----------



## Tubeman

Abhishek901 said:


> That means there is no single agency operating the suburban system like TfL ?


Correct, although TfL are exerting increasing influence, for example the recent roll-out of Oyster across most of the suburban NwR stations.

One day perhaps all suburban services in London will have the TfL 'Overground' brand. I see no reason why not. The complexity comes in with franchises like SWT, which while operating near metro-like suburban services, also run intercity to Southampton, Portsmouth, Exeter etc. The suburban and intercity would need to be separated into separate franchises.

Practically all that is missing currently is a logical and consistent fare structure like the LU zones... Hopefully if LOROL slowly assumes control of suburban rail, the LU zones will become universal across modes.


----------



## Abhishek901

^^ Isn't overground quite different from suburban rail ? From what I have seen, Overground is a low capacity system, while suburban rails have higher capacity (maybe I am wrong). 

Also the catchment of both of them is different. Suburban caters to mostly longer distance passengers coming from areas beyond London or its outer areas to the central London, while Overground caters to same people as Underground (i.e., mainly intra-London trips).

I think if the different suburban services are linked together and they form continuous mesh instead of fragmented systems, it will have a huge impact on London. Having an RER like system will allow people to travel from one end of London area to another seamlessly. And the biggest beneficiary of this will be the Underground. A lot of people will use suburban as an express service for intra-city trips, so no need of expansion, etc in LU. 

Biggest challenge which I can see (apart from political will) is linking all the services with each other in central London and providing non-stop through-fare through central London, which may require intense tunneling in central London. It will be cost effective in long run since most of the tracks are on surface and already exist. 

After that we can have 2 hierarchies of local rail transport in London - Upper level consisting of suburban and lower level consisting of LU, LO and DLR. 

Regarding running of inter-city trains and suburban trains on same lines, there can be some rationalizing of resources if multiple tracks are available. At places where there is only 1 pair of tracks, a new pair can be added. It would be much cheaper than extending an Underground line.


----------



## ajw373

Abhishek901 said:


> ^^ Isn't overground quite different from suburban rail ? From what I have seen, Overground is a low capacity system, while suburban rails have higher capacity (maybe I am wrong).
> 
> Also the catchment of both of them is different. Suburban caters to mostly longer distance passengers coming from areas beyond London or its outer areas to the central London, while Overground caters to same people as Underground (i.e., mainly intra-London trips).


Your really cannot draw hard and fast lines between the various systems, as each has common elements. I mean to say the Overground, Underground and Suburban railway network are ALL suburban railways that serve and connect the suburbs of London. The main difference between them is who owned them and how they developed.


----------



## Abhishek901

ajw373 said:


> Your really cannot draw hard and fast lines between the various systems, as each has common elements. I mean to say the Overground, Underground and Suburban railway network are ALL suburban railways that serve and connect the suburbs of London. The main difference between them is who owned them and how they developed.


Well, we can't draw hard and fast lines between various systems sometimes but not always. You should take a look at various systems around the world and their purpose is different. For example, in Germany, purpose of U-bahn is different from S-bahn. In California, purpose of BART is different from Muni metro. In Paris, purpose of RER is different from Paris metro. 

There is definitely a reason why we have different types of railway systems instead of having one standard system. BTW, Shanghai is criticized for developing a single large metro system instead of having a 2-level system (metro and suburban rail).


----------



## lightrail

Tubeman said:


> No real reason why not, the gauge and electrification are the same... There is a significant difference in floor height though so it's not desirable. There's plenty of platforms served by both surface and tube stocks... Although you'd expect them to generally be a compromise height halfway between the two, for some reason Ealing Common is pretty much at Tube stock height, making it a huge step up / down to District Line trains:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there's 8 2009 Stock trains in operation now. The total fleet is 43 trains currently, but I think this will be more like 50 when the 2009 stock delivery is complete.
> 
> 
> 
> It might just be historical really... simple Traction motors need DC current, so I guess when technology was in its infancy and lines first started being electrified, DC was opted for. Generally the first overhead electrifications were also DC (1,500V), only being converted to 25,000V AC in the second half of the 20th century when rectifiers (converting AC to DC) or later AC motors began to be used.
> 
> 3rd / 4th rail is only suitable for lower speeds due to the 'shoes' which collect the power, at higher speeds they'd just get knocked off or cause too much friction, but it's much cheaper to install and maintain than OHLE.
> 
> I guess DC motors are cheaper and simpler, so at low speeds (i.e. metros) DC motors and 3rd / 4th rail is more cost effective.


Isn't there more leakage to ground with AC. Given the small clearance for the third rail, DC makes sense - no point using AC if you're limited in voltage through the rail. I think DC is actually cheaper option too.

On the motor side, you can run AC motors off a DC rail - many light rail vehicles are switching to AC motors with DC pickup. An advantage to AC is faster acceleration and deceleration and regenerative braking. I also read that you can use the AC motor to hold a train on a hill, whereas DC this is not possible - so AC is better in hilly situations.

Anybody else - that's as much as I've learned on the subject.


----------



## Tubeman

lightrail said:


> Isn't there more leakage to ground with AC. Given the small clearance for the third rail, DC makes sense - no point using AC if you're limited in voltage through the rail. I think DC is actually cheaper option too.
> 
> On the motor side, you can run AC motors off a DC rail - many light rail vehicles are switching to AC motors with DC pickup. An advantage to AC is faster acceleration and deceleration and regenerative braking. I also read that you can use the AC motor to hold a train on a hill, whereas DC this is not possible - so AC is better in hilly situations.
> 
> Anybody else - that's as much as I've learned on the subject.


I think the principle is, the higher the voltage, the more efficient the transmission... that's why cross-country transmission lines are very high voltage. You simply couldn't have 25kv in a 3rd rail though, as 25kv can jump up to 1.75m in an arc. That's why 3rd or 4th rail, especially running through cast-iron Tube tunnels, must be low voltage (relatively), which is much less efficient transmission-wise and wastes a lot more energy through resistance. Otherwise, it'd just arc to the tunnel lining and earth.


----------



## deasine

Because of a discussion at the DLR/Underground thread, what safety features (i.e. track intrusion systems) are present at DLR stations? I know this isn't the Underground, but I'm sure you are the best one to ask.

Cheers!


----------



## Tubeman

deasine said:


> Because of a discussion at the DLR/Underground thread, what safety features (i.e. track intrusion systems) are present at DLR stations? I know this isn't the Underground, but I'm sure you are the best one to ask.
> 
> Cheers!


Beyond CCTV, nothing I guess... No ticket barriers, no staff... So no nothing beyond CCTV


----------



## Tubeman

Having read your post in the other thread, I understand what you're asking now... No, there are no systems to detect an obstruction / person on the track on DLR to my knowledge, so they just get hit, basically.


----------



## deasine

Tubeman said:


> Having read your post in the other thread, I understand what you're asking now... No, there are no systems to detect an obstruction / person on the track on DLR to my knowledge, so they just get hit, basically.


That's just excellent.


----------



## Tubeman

I can only think of one accidental 'one under' on DLR ever, and that was a poor unfortunate Portuguese fellow who ran onto the tracks to escape a couple of muggers just as a train arrived. Some things are just so rare they're not worth the expense to mitigate against... Even with some form of detection system, I presume he ran in front of the train too late for anything to have stopped it in time.


----------



## ajw373

Tubeman said:


> I guess DC motors are cheaper and simpler, so at low speeds (i.e. metros) DC motors and 3rd / 4th rail is more cost effective.


Most modern traction motors are 3 phase AC even if the line current is DC. Indeed even on AC systems if the motors are 3 phase, which is the norm the AC is first converted to DC before being being changed back to AC, but in 3 phase form.


----------



## Apoc89

For the whole third rail discussion, after poking around a bit on Wikipedia, it seems that DC delivers 41% more power than an equivalent AC peak voltage, which would make sense as a choice with third rail being restricted to relatively low voltages.

That along with the reasons already stated seems to answer my question.


----------



## Tubeman

ajw373 said:


> Most modern traction motors are 3 phase AC even if the line current is DC. Indeed even on AC systems if the motors are 3 phase, which is the norm the AC is first converted to DC before being being changed back to AC, but in 3 phase form.


Thanks... I wonder if LU stocks are a mixture then, i.e. older stocks = DC and newer = AC?


----------



## future.architect

Tubeman, Does this kind of thing happen every time someone falls under a train?


----------



## ajw373

Tubeman said:


> Thanks... I wonder if LU stocks are a mixture then, i.e. older stocks = DC and newer = AC?


Yep, you will find the stock on the Northern and Jubilee lines have 3 phase AC traction motors, as does the new Victoria line and S stock. In this day and age 3 pahse AC motors give much better performance characteristics so is considered standard practice.

All the other stock still has single phase DC traction motors.


----------



## ajw373

Apoc89 said:


> For the whole third rail discussion, after poking around a bit on Wikipedia, it seems that DC delivers 41% more power than an equivalent AC peak voltage, which would make sense as a choice with third rail being restricted to relatively low voltages.
> 
> That along with the reasons already stated seems to answer my question.


You will find that when the choice was made there were very few other options. When it comes to electricity you just cannot perform a simple comparison as you have done, the figures are meaningless as there are so many other issues to consider. Two major ones being ability to deliver current and capacitance with DC systems.


----------



## Tubeman

future.architect said:


> Tubeman, Does this kind of thing happen every time someone falls under a train?


If they're alive then yes... The entire station is evacuated, which might seem a bit extreme for such a big station with so many platforms, but the logic is that having passengers milling around would impede the emergency services entering or exiting the station. All other lines non-stop.

If the person is alive then they're probably seriously injured, so the air ambulance is no surprise. You might think the Fire brigade are a strange emergency service to turn up, but they have specialist jacks which are often required if the person is still alive to lift part of the train.

If the person's dead, then the station still evacuates but obviously the air ambulance and LFB are a waste of time... If the person is confirmed dead, then they just drive the train back off the body and pick up the pieces.

A survivor is likely to cause a far longer delay than an obvious death due to the care that has to be taken moving them without causing further injury.


----------



## bukhrin

Hi Tubeman,

Just bought your book, had it shipped all the way to Malaysia. I'd really enjoyed it, maybe you can do an atlas on all the LU rolling stocks after this. 



Tubeman said:


> If the person's dead, then the station still evacuates but obviously the air ambulance and LFB are a waste of time... If the person is confirmed dead, then they just drive the train back off the body and pick up the pieces.


Anyhoo, don't want to sound disrespectful or anything, does TfL have a unit to clean up and 'pick up the pieces' or you really outsource it to a company that really do this sort of things.

Cheers.


----------



## Tubeman

bukhrin said:


> Hi Tubeman,
> 
> Just bought your book, had it shipped all the way to Malaysia. I'd really enjoyed it, maybe you can do an atlas on all the LU rolling stocks after this.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyhoo, don't want to sound disrespectful or anything, does TfL have a unit to clean up and 'pick up the pieces' or you really outsource it to a company that really do this sort of things.
> 
> Cheers.


Thanks for the purchase (and the dedication!) :happy:

Yes, London Underground have the in-house ERU (Emergency Response Unit), who are a testosterone-pumped unit of hairy-arsed men who turn up at all major incidents and do everything from picking up body parts to re-railing derailed trains. Speaking of outsourcing, our ERU have been called upon for several incidents on Network Rail, such as the Ladbroke Grove disaster, as they are recognised as being about as good as it gets when it comes to dealing with the business end of major incidents. We have provided this service for free as far as I'm aware, too.

It's usually the unenviable job of someone from the ERU to crawl under a train immediately after a 'one under' to locate the person and establish if they're alive or not... There must be few jobs less pleasant than crawling in an extremely confined space only to be confronted by a mangled body.


----------



## Piltup Man

Tubeman

A history question here: do you know if Sir Joseph Bazalgette was involved in the construction of the Tube? I ask because his early career was in railways, and he is of course famous for building London's sewer system; I would have thought that these two areas of expertise would have made him an obvious candidate for working on the tube, especially as it was around his time.

However I can't find any info about that, surprisingly enough. Therefore from that I assume that he had no involvment, but I find that hard to believe somehow, especially in an age where civil engineers tended to work on a variety of different projects.

Just wondering if his biggest claim to fame (the sewers) has obscured other projects he may have worked on, namely the Underground.


----------



## Tubeman

Piltup Man said:


> Tubeman
> 
> A history question here: do you know if Sir Joseph Bazalgette was involved in the construction of the Tube? I ask because his early career was in railways, and he is of course famous for building London's sewer system; I would have thought that these two areas of expertise would have made him an obvious candidate for working on the tube, especially as it was around his time.
> 
> However I can't find any info about that, surprisingly enough. Therefore from that I assume that he had no involvment, but I find that hard to believe somehow, especially in an age where civil engineers tended to work on a variety of different projects.
> 
> Just wondering if his biggest claim to fame (the sewers) has obscured other projects he may have worked on, namely the Underground.


Interesting question.

From what I can gather, although he was initially very much a railway engineer, his involvement in the 1840's predated the development of even the Metropolitan Railway, and long predated the first 'Tubes'. It appears he was totally focused on developing London's sewers from 1849 onwards, and this was undoubtedly a big enough job on its own to preclude any further involvement in the railways. He was appointed assistant surveyor to the Metropolitan Commission of Sewers in 1849, then Engineer in 1852 (bear in mind the Metropolitan Railway was still 11 years away at this point), so sewers were basically his full-time job. When the MCS became the Metropolitan Board of Works in 1856, he was chief engineer, a post which he stayed in until 2 years before his death. It simply appears that there wasn't the time for him to be involved in railways after 1849, and possibly not the inclination either, bearing in mind they led to a nervous breakdown in 1847!


----------



## heywindup

Tubeman said:


> If they're alive then yes... The entire station is evacuated, which might seem a bit extreme for such a big station with so many platforms, but the logic is that having passengers milling around would impede the emergency services entering or exiting the station. All other lines non-stop.
> 
> If the person is alive then they're probably seriously injured, so the air ambulance is no surprise. You might think the Fire brigade are a strange emergency service to turn up, but they have specialist jacks which are often required if the person is still alive to lift part of the train.
> 
> If the person's dead, then the station still evacuates but obviously the air ambulance and LFB are a waste of time... If the person is confirmed dead, then they just drive the train back off the body and pick up the pieces.
> 
> A survivor is likely to cause a far longer delay than an obvious death due to the care that has to be taken moving them without causing further injury.


Damn... why can't all stations have platform-edge doors?


----------



## Tubeman

heywindup said:


> Damn... why can't all stations have platform-edge doors?


Many platforms are too curved (there would need to be a large gap between train and PED screen to accommodate the 'throw' of the cars, just as there are large gaps between train and platform at many LU stations), and also many platforms have different stocks of trains serving them, with differing door alignments so PEDs can't be installed to line up with both.


----------



## lightrail

This is how well Vancouver's intrusion system works - those trains really stop fast, all the more reason to make sure you're holding on at all times.

For those who don't know, the Expo line uses Linear Induction technology for traction (train is pulled along by magnets), which also provides most of the braking. Trains can accelerate and decelerate fast as there's no worry about rail adhesion

From MetroNews.ca Vancouver June 22, 2010


> Three elderly women were taken to hospital after a pop can fell onto the SkyTrain track, causing the train to skid to a stop, TransLink revealed yesterday.
> 
> The incident occurred Sunday afternoon at the 29th Avenue Station on the Expo Line in East Vancouver.
> 
> Four elderly female passengers were injured when SkyTrain’s emergency brakes were triggered automatically by the weight of the pop can on the tracks.
> 
> SkyTrain president Doug Kelsey said the intrusion alarm is set to a low tolerance and prevents the train from colliding with objects or people on the track.
> 
> “Something with the weight of a pop can might also be a wallet or a cell- phone or a child’s toy,” Kelsey said. “The owner of that wallet — or cellphone or toy — could jump onto the tracks after it.”
> 
> SkyTrain had 231 intrusion alarm incidents in the past month. Of those, 80 were caused by garbage and the other 10 by people jumping onto the tracks to retrieve objects.


BTW - it also shows the absolute stupidity of people. 10 people jumping on the tracks to retrieve objects in one month. Those trains run every 3 minutes in the daytime and every 108 seconds in the peak. Not to mention the two live rails. Note that not every intrusion alarm causes a delay - depends on the location of the train - due to the moving block signalling. Also, I don't know about you, but I think the editor failed math - 80+10=231?


----------



## Tubeman

lightrail said:


> This is how well Vancouver's intrusion system works - those trains really stop fast, all the more reason to make sure you're holding on at all times.
> 
> For those who don't know, the Expo line uses Linear Induction technology for traction (train is pulled along by magnets), which also provides most of the braking. Trains can accelerate and decelerate fast as there's no worry about rail adhesion
> 
> From MetroNews.ca Vancouver June 22, 2010
> 
> 
> BTW - it also shows the absolute stupidity of people. 10 people jumping on the tracks to retrieve objects in one month. Those trains run every 3 minutes in the daytime and every 108 seconds in the peak. Not to mention the two live rails. Note that not every intrusion alarm causes a delay - depends on the location of the train - due to the moving block signalling. Also, I don't know about you, but I think the editor failed math - 80+10=231?


Well that clearly demonstrates to me that the detector is a step too far... It can cause a drinks can rolling off the edge of a platform to injure several people... How many lives has it saved in reality?


----------



## pricemazda

Tubey what does 'passenger action' mean? Does it mean when someone has jumped in front a train?


----------



## Tubeman

pricemazda said:


> Tubey what does 'passenger action' mean? Does it mean when someone has jumped in front a train?


It's a cover-all... A 'one under' would normally be referred to as a 'person under a train', whereas 'passenger action' is most often passenger alarm activation (for whatever reason), soiled trains (vomit, urine on seats), or general vandalism.


----------



## alonzo-ny

Tubey,

I have been wondering about the third rail that sits between the two rails on the tube. What happens if someone falls onto the tracks? Are they screwed?


----------



## future.architect

Tubeman, 

Thanks for answering my question about one-unders, here's another one:
The northern line and jubilee line stocks where designed and built at more or less the same time, by the same company and share identical bodyshells. So why are there so many quite major differences between them, ie different control philosophy and cab designs, different traction systems ect. 
surely it would have been cheaper to order one set of trains instead of two slightly different sets? or was it just a classic case of british bad planning?


----------



## pricemazda

Tubeman said:


> It's a cover-all... A 'one under' would normally be referred to as a 'person under a train', whereas 'passenger action' is most often passenger alarm activation (for whatever reason), soiled trains (vomit, urine on seats), or general vandalism.


Even on announcements to the public? Do they really say 'person under a train'?


----------



## sweek

pricemazda said:


> Even on announcements to the public? Do they really say 'person under a train'?


They do - I don't think there are many other systems where they're quite so blunt about it.


----------



## Apoc89

I'm pretty sure I've heard it at least once.


----------



## alonzo-ny

Why sugar coat it.


----------



## Piltup Man

In France it's known as an "incident voyageur" - passenger incident. It makes it sound vague and innocuous but everyone knows what it means.


----------



## Augusto

Tubeman said:


> Well that clearly demonstrates to me that the detector is a step too far... It can cause a drinks can rolling off the edge of a platform to injure several people... How many lives has it saved in reality?


In Lyon on line D (France's only driverless line without plateform screen doors) they do what they call the "umbrella test": the trains are supposed to stop in case of human intrusion but not if an umbrella fall onto the track.


----------



## Tubeman

alonzo-ny said:


> Tubey,
> 
> I have been wondering about the third rail that sits between the two rails on the tube. What happens if someone falls onto the tracks? Are they screwed?


Very unlikely (unless they get hit by a train of course!)

The middle rail is a mere 210V DC... Put it this way; the household mains is 230V and you'll happily grasp a cable coated in a couple of mm of plastic... So falling across the middle rail wearing even light clothing should mean you won't get a shock. Bare skin or wet clothing is a different matter... and the 'outside' 4th rail is 420V, so I guess you need slightly thicker clothing to insulate.

But no, it's pretty hard to get a shock wearing normal dry clothing.


----------



## Tubeman

future.architect said:


> Tubeman,
> 
> Thanks for answering my question about one-unders, here's another one:
> The northern line and jubilee line stocks where designed and built at more or less the same time, by the same company and share identical bodyshells. So why are there so many quite major differences between them, ie different control philosophy and cab designs, different traction systems ect.
> surely it would have been cheaper to order one set of trains instead of two slightly different sets? or was it just a classic case of british bad planning?


As I'm feeling particularly lazy after an awful day at work, I've decided to simply copy & paste from Wiki... I hang my head in shame... hno:

_There is a degree of confusion with regard to the manufacture and delivery of the Jubilee Line and London Underground's Northern Line 1995 Stock. The development programmes for both stocks was run in parallel, with detail design work undertaken by Alstom in the UK at their Birmingham and Rugby facilities, with the first six train sets manufactured in Alstom's Barcelona factory to the 1996 Stock Jubilee Line design. All type approvals for the design were conducted on these early train sets. The production of the 1995 Stock for the Northern Line subsequently followed from the factory in Barcelona. The balance of the 1996 Stock for the Jubilee Line followed the 1995 Stock Production. Both stocks were freighted to Alstom's facility at Washwood Heath in Birmingham for final assembly and equipping, with 1995 and 1996 stock assembled in adjacent production lines.
The 1996 Stock was bought to support the opening of the Jubilee Line Extension (JLE), which runs from Green Park to Stratford. However, delays in the JLE's opening meant that 1996 Stock was introduced, completely replacing the existing fleet of 1983 Stock, between Christmas Eve 1997 and July 1998 - over a year before the JLE was opened. The existing trains (1983 stock) were originally planned to be refurbished with the same exterior and interior as the new stock (1996 stock) even with double doors, but the cost proved prohibitive.
The 1996 Stock and the similar 1995 Stock found on the Northern Line have different interiors, seating layouts and cab designs designed by Warwick Design Consultants. Other differences include different traction packages (Alstom ONIX system on 1995 Northern Line stock), Train Management Systems, slight differences with Tripcock geometry and the use of LED body-side lights on the 1995 Northern Line Tube stock while 1996 Tube stock uses filament bulbs. The most apparent difference between the two stocks is the bogie. The Jubilee stock utilises an Alstom bogie with rubber suspension whereas the Northern Line has fitted AdTranz (now owned by Bombardier) bogies with air suspension to cope with the arduous track conditions encountered on the deepest and longest underground line on the network. The main technical differences occurred because the Jubilee Line 1996 Tube stock was designed as "Cheapest first cost" for LUL, while the 1995 Northern Line Tube stock was designed for "Life Cycle Cost" as Alstom had won the contract to act as service provider and maintainer of this stock._


----------



## Tubeman

pricemazda said:


> Even on announcements to the public? Do they really say 'person under a train'?


Yes... I guess it is a bit blunt, but I think it's better to say what it is, and therefore reveal the gravity of the incident, rather than just broadcast about a vague 'passenger incident' which customers will be baffled as to why it has closed a line down for two hours.


----------



## Tubeman

Augusto said:


> In Lyon on line D (France's only driverless line without plateform screen doors) they do what they call the "umbrella test": the trains are supposed to stop in case of human intrusion but not if an umbrella fall onto the track.


Well that's certainly better than an errant drinks can causing several injuries in Vancouver...


----------



## alonzo-ny

Tubeman said:


> Very unlikely (unless they get hit by a train of course!)
> 
> The middle rail is a mere 210V DC... Put it this way; the household mains is 230V and you'll happily grasp a cable coated in a couple of mm of plastic... So falling across the middle rail wearing even light clothing should mean you won't get a shock. Bare skin or wet clothing is a different matter... and the 'outside' 4th rail is 420V, so I guess you need slightly thicker clothing to insulate.
> 
> But no, it's pretty hard to get a shock wearing normal dry clothing.


Would you die if your hands grabbed it? Which I guess would be a pretty normal thing to do when falling several feet.


----------



## deasine

Tubeman said:


> Well that's certainly better than an errant drinks can causing several injuries in Vancouver...


Agreed. I'm interested on how this technology works. Even as a Vancouverite, I'm surprised the old intrusion system, which uses weight sensors instead of lasers, are THAT sensitive.


----------



## Tubeman

alonzo-ny said:


> Would you die if your hands grabbed it? Which I guess would be a pretty normal thing to do when falling several feet.


If you grabbed it with bare hands and didn't (or couldn't) let go, then yes it could kill you. Although the voltage is low, the current is high.


----------



## alonzo-ny

Has it happened before? Or do people who fall on the tracks normal get out ok. (Not including the ones of fall in front of a train.)


----------



## ajw373

Tubeman said:


> In a word, no... Although I stand to be corrected. Those frequencies are insane! Although I guess the plus for trams is they can just pull up to each other into a queue, so it is achievable but would I assume be very stop-start (quicker walking!).


It happens in St Kilda road Melbourne on a daily basis where they can in peak hour get 60 trams/h through. It only works for the reason you said above, plus clearly you can have multiple trams loading at the same time.


----------



## Tubeman

ajw373 said:


> It happens in St Kilda road Melbourne on a daily basis where they can in peak hour get 60 trams/h through. It only works for the reason you said above, plus clearly you can have multiple trams loading at the same time.


I guess they should extend the platforms in Manchester city centre then... To my recollection they're just a tram's length long, but I guess if they could accommodate 2 or 3 trams at once it would be better. You run the risk as a passenger of missing your tram because it's at the back of a line of three though... A similar principle to several bendy buses turning up at once in London, often you're oblivious to the fact that your bus has come and gone because it was so far away from the actual bus stop.


----------



## WatcherZero

The platforms are all two tram lengths long (a few are 3 or 4 lengths long) and a tram will share a platform on city sections but not former rail sections due to (not for long) absoloute block signalling. Doubles do operate in morning and afternoon peaks, the vehicles can be driven in multiples of 4 but besides the normal double working and when coupled towing and pushing a disabled vehicle its not done, would love to see a 116m long tram going down the street though


----------



## the zohan

If there was an incident down a tunnel, and the train operator couldn't get through to the line controller then what is the proceedure? can the train op just get everyone down the tunnel on his/her own if there was a serious emergency or would they always have to wait for ages for station staff to arrive?
and those tunnel telephone wires (the two little copper ones) can you still use them to discharge traction current / call the controller?
ta


----------



## Tubeman

the zohan said:


> If there was an incident down a tunnel, and the train operator couldn't get through to the line controller then what is the proceedure? can the train op just get everyone down the tunnel on his/her own if there was a serious emergency or would they always have to wait for ages for station staff to arrive?
> and those tunnel telephone wires (the two little copper ones) can you still use them to discharge traction current / call the controller?
> ta


Hi 

With no contact at all, a driver can detrain off their own backs but this is only if there is real risk to leaving them on board because the train is generally the safest place for them. Provided it's simple single bore tunnel, the train forms the 'protection', so the driver would place SCDs (short circuiting devices, essentially a metal bar which is placed across the current rails short circuiting / tripping out current and ensuring it remains so) front and rear of the train and walk passengers forwards. It is pretty unlikely that such a detrainment would ever occur however.

The Tunnel Telephone Wires (the pair of insulated copper wires running at cab height along all tunnels) should still trip out traction current if pinched together regardless, and if the radio isn't working the telephone handset which is clipped provides another way of contacting control.


----------



## ajw373

Tubeman said:


> Hi
> The Tunnel Telephone Wires (the pair of insulated copper wires running at cab height along all tunnels) should still trip out traction current if pinched together regardless, and if the radio isn't working the telephone handset which is clipped provides another way of contacting control.


I would hope these are uninsulated, otherwise it would be impossible to clip a phone to them or to short them out.


----------



## Tubeman

ajw373 said:


> I would hope these are uninsulated, otherwise it would be impossible to clip a phone to them or to short them out.


Sorry I meant insulated as in they're insulated from the tunnel lining; every few metres they're fixed to the tunnel wall via white circular porcelain insulators similar in appearance (but much smaller than) those supporting the current rails.

Yes the wires themselves are of course uninsulated, although the procedure is to pinch them together and then rub them against each other in case a build-up of tunnel dust is forming an insulating layer.

With the advent of 'Connect' radio, the Tunnel telephone wire system is pretty much obsolete. Once upon a time the wires were not only the only way for a driver to turn of current in an emergency in tunnel section apart from throwing down an SCD on live track (which is understandably potentially dangerous), they were also the only method of communication with anyone else from tunnel sections.

An interesting old photo of the Tunnel telephone wires in use: here a driver has clipped his phone handset onto the wires (faintly apparent just above the cable run) and is talking to Control in this obviously staged photo (Standard Stock, Piccadilly Line):


----------



## mtj73

That is an interesting photo. Not much room between the train and the tunnel.

While I am here, How is new 2009 stock settling in on the Victoria line? I really like the look of them.


----------



## Tubeman

mtj73 said:


> That is an interesting photo. Not much room between the train and the tunnel.
> 
> While I am here, How is new 2009 stock settling in on the Victoria line? I really like the look of them.


Certainly isn't! You can appreciate why designing new rolling stock can be a potential minefield with a few extra mm here and their potentially snagging on the tunnel lining or cables.

Regarding the '09 stock, they're still in the bedding in period and are not managing an acceptable mean km between failures, but this is perfectly normal. They're making more and more forays into daytime, with (I think) 7 now running, or about 20% of the fleet.


----------



## mtj73

Tubeman said:


> Certainly isn't! You can appreciate why designing new rolling stock can be a potential minefield with a few extra mm here and their potentially snagging on the tunnel lining or cables.
> 
> Regarding the '09 stock, they're still in the bedding in period and are not managing an acceptable mean km between failures, but this is perfectly normal. They're making more and more forays into daytime, with (I think) 7 now running, or about 20% of the fleet.


Yes there will always be teething problems, and it's normally got something to do with doors, they can't be doing that bad then if they account for 20% of the fleet already.

Can you tell me if the stock upgrade has been effected by the spending cuts? Not so much the signaling works, I have already read about that but mainly the s stock program on lines other than the Metropolitan, is that going ahead as planned? I can't remember who was due for s stock after the Met.


----------



## Tubeman

mtj73 said:


> Yes there will always be teething problems, and it's normally got something to do with doors, they can't be doing that bad then if they account for 20% of the fleet already.
> 
> Can you tell me if the stock upgrade has been effected by the spending cuts? Not so much the signaling works, I have already read about that but mainly the s stock program on lines other than the Metropolitan, is that going ahead as planned? I can't remember who was due for s stock after the Met.


The S Stock order is in so there's no going back... After the A Stock will be the C Stock (Circle / Hammersmith & City Lines), then finally the D Stock.

A and C are pretty urgent (1960 and 1969 respectively), but D (1978) has only just been refurbished and is very reliable and I think could have another 15-20 years squeezed out of them.

...So fortunately the Victoria and subsurface rolling stock upgrades were too far advanced to be affected by the current financial woes, it's the Piccadilly (1973) and Bakerloo (1972) which will likely suffer... And potentially the Central Line when the 1992 Stock is replaced which was seriously being considered a couple of years back due to several major problems (e.g. motors falling off, leading to the Chancery Lane derailment).


----------



## heywindup

Hey Tubeman, do you happen to have a map showing the unused railroad/underground tracks in London? I just want to see what the network would look like if all the unused tracks are brought back into the network.


----------



## Tubeman

heywindup said:


> Hey Tubeman, do you happen to have a map showing the unused railroad/underground tracks in London? I just want to see what the network would look like if all the unused tracks are brought back into the network.


Check out my signature


----------



## makita09

Tubeman said:


> ....but D (1978) has only just been refurbished and is very reliable and I think could have another 15-20 years squeezed out of them.


Always been my favourite stock for some reason, ever since a kid, and I don't know why. Went on a refurbed one the other day for the first time, quite impressed.


----------



## mtj73

makita09 said:


> Always been my favourite stock for some reason, ever since a kid, and I don't know why. Went on a refurbed one the other day for the first time, quite impressed.


I agree, they seem to be refurbed to high standard, should be no rush to replace them at all.



> The S Stock order is in so there's no going back... After the A Stock will be the C Stock (Circle / Hammersmith & City Lines), then finally the D Stock.


Thank's, I thought that would be the case.


----------



## Tubeman

makita09 said:


> Always been my favourite stock for some reason, ever since a kid, and I don't know why. Went on a refurbed one the other day for the first time, quite impressed.


I remember them first appearing in the early 1980's rumbling past my house and being really excited at how modern they looked compared to the R and CO/CP stocks ('silver' and 'red' trains, respectively, to the very young Tubeman). Little did I know that I'd be driving them within 20 years.

They are easy to drive, reliable, robust, simple fault diagnostics... Arguably the pinnacle of LU rolling stock technology (although not aesthetic design... They are plain and functional without being ugly). Subsequent stocks will have a far shorter shelf life than the D78.


----------



## heywindup

Tubeman said:


> Check out my signature



Do you have a "free" map to share?


----------



## makita09

Tubeman said:


> I remember them first appearing in the early 1980's rumbling past my house and being really excited at how modern they looked compared to the R and CO/CP stocks ('silver' and 'red' trains, respectively, to the very young Tubeman). Little did I know that I'd be driving them within 20 years.
> 
> They are easy to drive, reliable, robust, simple fault diagnostics... Arguably the pinnacle of LU rolling stock technology (although not aesthetic design... They are plain and functional without being ugly). Subsequent stocks will have a far shorter shelf life than the D78.


I first remember them going to my Dad's at Palmers Green as a kid, would have been mid-80s. They were obviously quite new then, and had a better livery (imo), plain white (grey/dirt) with the red beard at the front. As a kid I was flabbergasted at the scene at Earl's Court - I couldn't believe so much was going on in just one station that was not even close to being the most important transport interchange in London.

At the time it was my dream to work at Earls Court controlling them all - it seems 20 years later you fulfilled not only your dreams but mine as well.


----------



## Tubeman

heywindup said:


> Do you have a "free" map to share?


Not really... Not because I'm being difficult or trying to boost sales, but because my work is very detailed and spread over 60 pages so I haven't got a single-page map giving an overview. I have stitched every page together into one enormous Visio document which can in turn be PDF'd, but its true dimensions are about 200cm by 150cm so its impossible to share it really.

Is there any particular area you're interested in?

Truth be know there really isn't a huge number of abandoned lines in London of any significant length, loads of closed stations and goods facilities, but a significant proportion of closed lines have been subsequently re-used and re-opened e.g. by DLR, Tramlink and most recently the East London Line extension.

The main stretches of unused closed railway are:

Nunhead - Crystal Palace High level (largely built over)
Seven Sisters - Palace Gates Wood Green (almost entirely built over)
Finsbury park - Alexandra Palace via Highgate ('Parkland Walk')
Stratford - North Woolwich (will almost entirely become DLR and Crossrail)
West Drayton - Uxbridge Vine Street
Denham - Uxbridge High Street
Harrow & Wealdstone - Stanmore Village


----------



## Tubeman

makita09 said:


> I first remember them going to my Dad's at Palmers Green as a kid, would have been mid-80s. They were obviously quite new then, and had a better livery (imo), plain white (grey/dirt) with the red beard at the front. As a kid I was flabbergasted at the scene at Earl's Court - I couldn't believe so much was going on in just one station that was not even close to being the most important transport interchange in London.
> 
> At the time it was my dream to work at Earls Court controlling them all - it seems 20 years later you fulfilled not only your dreams but mine as well.


I aim to please


----------



## the zohan

What about the D stocks ill fated tube stock counterparts on the jubilee (1983 stock)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE-Poj9zhnE
heres a video of one on a railtour and goes through earls court and olympia, you can see how similar the two are
I think there are still a few of these units hanging around south harrow sidings and there is one in the london transport museums depot in acton.


----------



## Tubeman

the zohan said:


> What about the D stocks ill fated tube stock counterparts on the jubilee (1983 stock)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE-Poj9zhnE
> heres a video of one on a railtour and goes through earls court and olympia, you can see how similar the two are
> I think there are still a few of these units hanging around south harrow sidings and there is one in the london transport museums depot in acton.


Despite being ostensibly very similar to the super reliable D Stock, for some reason... I guess maybe miniaturisation to Tube stock size... they were not deemed very good trains in terms of reliability, maintenance etc. Certainly the single leaf doors common to both stocks proved woefully inadequate for a Tube stock in terms of dwell times.

That said I'm surprised that the Isle of Wight line didn't take a few to replace the antique 1938 stock *still* running there, at least that would have represented a 45 year leap forwards in technology.

Not too sure if any have been preserved in working order, but quite possibly the weirdest sight in London is the 1983 Stock cars plonked on top of the remaining stub of the Broad Street viaduct not used by the East London Line, overlooking Great Eastern Street:




























They're part of Village Underground, basically a set of artists' workspaces in uber trendy Shoreditch / Hoxton.


----------



## Tubeman

the zohan said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE-Poj9zhnE


Just watched the video... Two of my former Duty Manager colleagues at Earl's Court at 3'10"... Jerry Williams and Vijay Patel... I think I'll send them the link


----------



## Dobbo

Hi Tubey,

Have read your thread with some interest. the history and querks of the Tube certainly make fascinating reading and finding out about some of these certainly make the daily commute less dull.

My curiosity these days surrounds the future (long term) plans for the network, and your opinion on this. Of course the modernisation of the existing network has to be undertaken - especially the signalling - first in order that any extension or new lines can have a common operating system.

My questions really are:

What is your opinion on the impact Crossrail will have on the Tube network? Will it form the template for new lines in the future, given the potentially massive capacity it will bring.

On the prospect of new lines, do you think the proposed "Chelney" line will go ahead, and if so do you think it will be a "Tube" or a "Crossrail 2"?

Are we likely to see the "split" of the Northern line branches so that the Charing + branch winds up at Nine Elms?

Is it a realistic prospect that the Victoria and Bakerloo line will be extended south in the near future - once the upgrades are completed?


----------



## Tubeman

Hi Dobbo 

Crossrail impact:

I'd certainly expect an appreciable relief to the Central, Bakerloo, Northern half of the Circle, Jubilee and Piccadilly Lines, the Central is a no-brainer and I'd expect a dent to be made in Bakerloo usership by Crossrail taking away a lot of the Paddington > West End traffic. Likewise the Paddington > City traffic will be relieved off the Circle / H&C Lines. The Piccadilly will lose a lot of its Heathrow traffic unless BAA keep the fares to the airport inflated like with the Heathrow Express, and the Jubilee will be relieved by virtue of Crossrail serving Canary Wharf with 'better' destinations.

The remaining questions all have a similar answer:

No

I guess the best chance is for the Northern Line to Battersea, and only then if the developers pay for it.

Otherwise any form of public expenditure of the scale of a new Tube line or significant extension is out of the question at present.


----------



## London Underground

Hey, Tubeman. Im wondering, what trains where called "Bushey/Bushy trains"? Trains to Shepards Bush or the trains planned to go to Bushey Heath?


----------



## Dobbo

Tubeman said:


> Hi Dobbo
> 
> Crossrail impact:
> 
> I'd certainly expect an appreciable relief to the Central, Bakerloo, Northern half of the Circle, Jubilee and Piccadilly Lines, the Central is a no-brainer and I'd expect a dent to be made in Bakerloo usership by Crossrail taking away a lot of the Paddington > West End traffic. Likewise the Paddington > City traffic will be relieved off the Circle / H&C Lines. The Piccadilly will lose a lot of its Heathrow traffic unless BAA keep the fares to the airport inflated like with the Heathrow Express, and the Jubilee will be relieved by virtue of Crossrail serving Canary Wharf with 'better' destinations.
> 
> The remaining questions all have a similar answer:
> 
> No
> 
> I guess the best chance is for the Northern Line to Battersea, and only then if the developers pay for it.
> 
> Otherwise any form of public expenditure of the scale of a new Tube line or significant extension is out of the question at present.



Of course - i doubt that a new line would be built for at least a few years after Crossrail - so that would make a 2020 ish timeframe. Do you think the Crossrail is the new way forward for underground rail in London? i.e. mainline gague, huge capacity etc?


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Hey, Tubeman. Im wondering, what trains where called "Bushey/Bushy trains"? Trains to Shepards Bush or the trains planned to go to Bushey Heath?


I presume the latter if either... Bit of a random question, what prompted it?

The Bakerloo Line used to serve Bushey station en route to Watford Junction, and this would have been the destination for trains stabling in Croxley Depot... So I guess Bakerloo trains used to show a 'Bushey' destination at times?


----------



## Tubeman

Dobbo said:


> Of course - i doubt that a new line would be built for at least a few years after Crossrail - so that would make a 2020 ish timeframe. Do you think the Crossrail is the new way forward for underground rail in London? i.e. mainline gague, huge capacity etc?


Yes, personally I think this is definitely the way forwards... I think LU expansion should be limited to a couple of extensions to improve efficiency or utilise unused capacity (e.g. Bakerloo southern extension) with the focus on line / station upgrades.

Any significant infrastructure investment in terms of new tunnels should be crossrail-type projects linking existing suburban routes to one another.


----------



## sotonsi

I think Chelney ought to be tube, if a crossrail will remove Piccadilly Circus - not to have a south/central West End station is a bigger mistake than not having big trains. Also relieving the Central (which Crossrail fails to do completely (note - not "completely fails to do"), especially with only 12tph due to the branching), by taking another branch, is needed, ditto relieving Crossrail between Stratford and central London - Epping needs to be on Chelney, with a cross-platform interchange at Leytonstone for Hainualt traffic - AFAICS, this isn't on Crossrail 2 proposals, which seem to be about other routes in the north.

However, other than Chelney, I feel we should be going with more crossrail type lines, with the exception of extensions of existing ones.


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> I presume the latter if either... Bit of a random question, what prompted it?
> 
> The Bakerloo Line used to serve Bushey station en route to Watford Junction, and this would have been the destination for trains stabling in Croxley Depot... So I guess Bakerloo trains used to show a 'Bushey' destination at times?


Thanks for the info.
What prombted it was that i was looking through abbandoned stations and the northern heights plan, and started thinking of a comment on my "History of the London Underground" video.
They where filming at Wood Lane when they said it.


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Thanks for the info.
> What prombted it was that i was looking through abbandoned stations and the northern heights plan, and started thinking of a comment on my "History of the London Underground" video.
> They where filming at Wood Lane when they said it.


I guess it must have been reference to the Edgware - Bushey Heath extension... I've never heard 'Bushy / Bushey' used in connection with Shepherd's Bush before, not even colloquially.


----------



## Dobbo

Tubeman said:


> Yes, personally I think this is definitely the way forwards... I think LU expansion should be limited to a couple of extensions to improve efficiency or utilise unused capacity (e.g. Bakerloo southern extension) with the focus on line / station upgrades.
> 
> Any significant infrastructure investment in terms of new tunnels should be crossrail-type projects linking existing suburban routes to one another.


Cheers. Would this have an effect on the station locations as stated by sotonsi? How could a mainline gague not fit in at Piccadilly Circus - could you not go under the three existing lines?

On an aside - interesting about the runaway train on the Northern... it sounds almost as though it was rolling downhill all the way!


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> I guess it must have been reference to the Edgware - Bushey Heath extension... I've never heard 'Bushy / Bushey' used in connection with Shepherd's Bush before, not even colloquially.


Ok. Thanks, Tubeman.


----------



## kleinhond

Dobbo said:


> Cheers. Would this have an effect on the station locations as stated by sotonsi? How could a mainline gague not fit in at Piccadilly Circus - could you not go under the three existing lines?


Yeah, I've never quite understood this either.


----------



## Tubeman

Dobbo said:


> Cheers. Would this have an effect on the station locations as stated by sotonsi? How could a mainline gague not fit in at Piccadilly Circus - could you not go under the three existing lines?


It's not an engineering issue... it's just that stations at Piccadilly Circus and Tottenham Court Road would be too close together once you factor in 12 car platforms, and also the fact that the current concourse and entrances for Piccadilly Circus are not adequate to cope with the additional traffic... hence every Crossrail 1 / LU interchange station is seeing a huge redevelopment in consequence to allow for the huge increase in entries / exits. 



Dobbo said:


> On an aside - interesting about the runaway train on the Northern... it sounds almost as though it was rolling downhill all the way!


It was!


----------



## WatcherZero

Tubeman said:


> Yes, personally I think this is definitely the way forwards... I think LU expansion should be limited to a couple of extensions to improve efficiency or utilise unused capacity (e.g. Bakerloo southern extension) with the focus on line / station upgrades.
> 
> Any significant infrastructure investment in terms of new tunnels should be crossrail-type projects linking existing suburban routes to one another.


There was some group recently calling for all Londons main rail terminus to be joined by Crossrail style connections to allow proper through services for the city and to integrate heavy rail better.


----------



## Dobbo

Tubeman said:


> It's not an engineering issue... it's just that stations at Piccadilly Circus and Tottenham Court Road would be too close together once you factor in 12 car platforms, and also the fact that the current concourse and entrances for Piccadilly Circus are not adequate to cope with the additional traffic... hence every Crossrail 1 / LU interchange station is seeing a huge redevelopment in consequence to allow for the huge increase in entries / exits.


Would it not be possible to have a joint station? e.g. exit towards the front of a north-east train would be TCR and rear fr PC? (assuming i have my geography right!)


----------



## CairnsTony

WatcherZero said:


> There was some group recently calling for all Londons main rail terminus to be joined by Crossrail style connections to allow proper through services for the city and to integrate heavy rail better.


I guess, roughly speaking, CR1 joins Paddington with Liverpool Street (though not all services of course...); CR2 could potentially link services btw Victoria and Kings Cross. I've also heard it mooted that a CR3 could link Waterloo services with Euston; and whilst we're in the realms of fantasy, how about a CR4 linking ChX and Marleybone? A shorter link could perhaps join Cannon St with Moorgate. Well maybe not in my lifetime...


----------



## Tubeman

I'd love to see a Crossrail that 'does' something with the C2C route... The attraction being that the entire C2C network feeds along 2 tracks between Barking and just outside Fenchurch Street, so putting it underground could completely remove the need for Fenchurch Street station. Ideally, at the other end the tunnel would connect with the Chiltern route into Marylebone and thus completely overtake that network, but it would entail a lot of investment in terms of electrification... Potentially all the way to Kidderminster if service patterns remain the same. Would also allow the Met to be cut back to Watford / Uxbridge only and full segregation between NR and LU along the 4-track section Watford South Junction to Harrow-on-the-hill.

Maybe electrification could initially just take place to Aylesbury (both routes), with longer-distance trains to Banbury and Birmingham remaining diesel and working via the original GWR Birmingham main line from South Ruislip to Old Oak Common and thence to Paddington (I guess Crossrail 1 will free up some platform capacity at Paddington).

Between Fenchurch St and Marylebone the tunnel section could serve Bank (with Fenchurch St closed completely), City Thameslink, Tottenham Court Road and Baker Street (with Marylebone NR closing completely).

A pretty useful cross-London route with good City and West End station locations, relatively short tunnel (compared to Crossrail 1 and 2), interchanges with Crossrails 1, 2 and Thameslink, and a growing hinterland with towns like Basildon, High Wycombe, Aylesbury, Grays and Southend served.


----------



## sweek

I like the idea, but would really keep Marylebone open as a station for slower Birmingham services and other trains that won't be able to fit into Euston anymore come HS2.


----------



## Gareth

What is the arrangement of the small parts of the Underground that lie outside of the GLA boundary? Do the local councils have to financially contribute?

Also, how many instances does the Underground share tracks with National Rail services and what is the arrangement in terms of ownership & maintenence etc?


----------



## sotonsi

Fenchurch Street is currently 8tph off peak, and 20tph peak. Marylebone (ignoring Wrexham and Shropshire) is currently 8tph off peak and ~20tph peak (I just counted trains this hour 1800-1900 and it was 20) - add in higher frequencies on inner services (West Ruislip, Grays, etc) and the Chesham/Amersham Met line services, you'll get perhaps 12tph (3x4tph:Shoeburyness, Laindon and Grays) off peak on c2c, but then 16tph on the other end, unless you drop Birmingham (2tph, but I haven't got the 2tph Oxford trains, so drop them as well) and Bicester North (1tph) - you can get rid of the 1tph Wycombe stoppers, so I guess if you just stick with the 2 Aylesbury routes, then that's 12tph (4 West Ruislip, 2 Aylesbury via Am, 2 Aylesbury via HW, 2 Amersham, 2 Chesham). Peak with the upped frequencies you could get 20tph (you'd have it as a branch of the CML, so you have to allow for 5 or 6 trains on the core bit from the Portal to Neasden Junction) through Central London. Now all you need is a route - how about Tower (sort of under current Fenchurch Street ish), Bank/Cannon Street (with exits from the ends of the platforms to Mansion House and Monument), Ludgate Circus (with the west exit being near the Temple, and the east one at Blackfriars and City Thameslink), Tottenham Court Road (after all, that is megahub number 1 - southeastern exit towards Covent Garden) and Baker Street/Marylebone?

My preferred plan for c2c would be to, having split Crossrail into 2, is to take the Grays via Rainham branch, up the frequency and have that go via Stratford and onto that Crossrail route (on a new alignment through Central London to SWT area). The rest (Upminster routes) would be served by a new tunnel from the Isle of Dogs to West Ham. West Ham to Fenchurch Street would be either removed, or DLRed (you can extend it along the Northern Outfall Sewer if you want). You'd do something else with the Marylebone routes.

AFAICS, at least one of the four routes (DLR/c2c/West Anglia-Lea Valley/GEML fast) needs extending to the West End, if not beyond. The GEML fasts have Stratford to change onto, but congestion will always be a problem unless you take the Jubilee. The West Anglia and Lea Valley services have the Victoria line for quick access to the West End, I guess, but that's pretty congested. c2c has change at Barking/West Ham onto the District, which isn't the fastest and is rather congested. The DLR has the JLE and Crossrail, and while the latter will be congested, the former will be quiet enough.

The DLR is probably the worst choice, not least because making the current crowding heading into Bank worse would suck - Barbican or Liverpool Street (providing some distribution of passengers, so it doesn't all get dumped at Bank) would be a far better extension than Charing Cross and Victoria. This leaves the Lea Valley, GEML fasts and c2c - c2c is nicely self-contained, and brilliant for extending westwards.


----------



## Tubeman

Gareth said:


> What is the arrangement of the small parts of the Underground that lie outside of the GLA boundary? Do the local councils have to financially contribute?


That would make sense although I don't know for sure.



Gareth said:


> Also, how many instances does the Underground share tracks with National Rail services and what is the arrangement in terms of ownership & maintenence etc?


1) Gunnersbury to Richmond (District Line / LOROL) - Owned / maintained by NR. The ownership boundary is in fact halfway between Gunnersbury and Turnham Green, at the former site of Acton lane Junction. Signalled by Richmond signal box.

2) East Putney to Wimbledon (District Line / SWT) - Owned by LU / maintained, signalled and electrified by NR. No timetabled passenger SWT services, but plenty of empties to / from Wimbledon Park Depot. Was BR property until 1994 (the boundary used to be halfway across Putney Bridge), when LU purchased the branch for £1. It was a nominal price because the 'Thames bubbler' aeration barge (for the benefit of Thames wildlife in summer) rammed Putney Bridge, which required millions of pounds worth of repairs, which BR were not prepared to pay for as their trains didn't use the bridge. The agreement was that BR would continue to control signalling on the branch from Wimbledon Signalling Control Centre, and as a consequence NR rules apply even though LU own it.

3) Queen's Park to Harrow & Wealdstone (Bakerloo Line / LOROL) - Owned / maintained by NR, although Stonebridge Park Depot is LU property. Signalled by Wembley Signalling Control Centre (used to be Willesden Suburban box).

4) Harrow-on-the-Hill to Amersham (Metropolitan Line / Chiltern) - Owned / maintained / signalled by LU. The actual boundary is a 2km distance beyond Amersham at Mantles Wood.


----------



## Rational Plan

Tubeman said:


> I'd love to see a Crossrail that 'does' something with the C2C route... The attraction being that the entire C2C network feeds along 2 tracks between Barking and just outside Fenchurch Street, so putting it underground could completely remove the need for Fenchurch Street station. Ideally, at the other end the tunnel would connect with the Chiltern route into Marylebone and thus completely overtake that network, but it would entail a lot of investment in terms of electrification... Potentially all the way to Kidderminster if service patterns remain the same. Would also allow the Met to be cut back to Watford / Uxbridge only and full segregation between NR and LU along the 4-track section Watford South Junction to Harrow-on-the-hill.
> 
> Maybe electrification could initially just take place to Aylesbury (both routes), with longer-distance trains to Banbury and Birmingham remaining diesel and working via the original GWR Birmingham main line from South Ruislip to Old Oak Common and thence to Paddington (I guess Crossrail 1 will free up some platform capacity at Paddington).
> 
> Between Fenchurch St and Marylebone the tunnel section could serve Bank (with Fenchurch St closed completely), City Thameslink, Tottenham Court Road and Baker Street (with Marylebone NR closing completely).
> 
> A pretty useful cross-London route with good City and West End station locations, relatively short tunnel (compared to Crossrail 1 and 2), interchanges with Crossrails 1, 2 and Thameslink, and a growing hinterland with towns like Basildon, High Wycombe, Aylesbury, Grays and Southend served.


Considering the constraints on all London terminals and their approaches, I would never consider closing a London terminal. C2C train paths are full Chiltern still has some growth left with the current infrastructure investment. 

So I agree with Sotonsi that the tunnel needs to go as far a the split for the Rainham loop. But I don't think we should divert anything in to Liverpool street. A new tunnel would effectively mean a four track approach to Fenchurch street, with it becoming a peak only terminal. 

I don't think we can suddenly divert services to other terminals because of crossrail, as the release in capacity it provides, would be very useful for longer distance services for their own lines. 

By the time we are discussing a crossrail between Fenchurch St and marleybone I suspect the Chiltern Mainline will have already been electrified anyway. The idea for cutting back the Met to just Watford and Uxbridge with the new branch taking over all services to Aylesbury was effectively the strategy for the first crossrail scheme when there were two branches in the West and one in the East to Shenfield. with the paths Watford and Uxbridge could a cuple of extra trains an hour.


----------



## metroranger

Talking about Fenchurch Street, would it be possible to terminate a new overground service there using the link between Stratford and Limehouse.
Fenchurch Street - Stratford - Angel Lane - Waltham Cross.
With the Olympics and Stratford City east London could do with some more north south services.


----------



## allurban

Tubeman said:


> I presume the latter if either... Bit of a random question, what prompted it?
> 
> The Bakerloo Line used to serve Bushey station en route to Watford Junction, and this would have been the destination for trains stabling in Croxley Depot... So I guess Bakerloo trains used to show a 'Bushey' destination at times?


funny, one of my relatives (living in London) is nicknamed "Bushey" (or Bushi, or Bushy - never saw anyone spell his nickname) - now I know where the name might have come from.

Tubeman, what do you think of the issue of HS2 being tunneled under Primrose Hill (among other neighbourhoods, I guess) - I read a few papers that said that this was a big concern for the residents but they were afraid of speaking out.

Also, is there a plan to extend the DLR westwards from Bank to service the city? I recall seeing something like that on a map of proposed extension, about 1 year back.

Cheers, m


----------



## sotonsi

Bank is right in the middle of the city - do you mean the Charing Cross & Victoria extension - that seems to be a long term aim (one of the worst DLR extensions from Bank that gave a positive BCR with another bit added on and the worst line for that corridor - Crossrail closely parallels it and the Jubilee helps too), but is really little more than a TfL pipedream.


----------



## allurban

sotonsi said:


> Bank is right in the middle of the city - do you mean the Charing Cross & Victoria extension - that seems to be a long term aim (one of the worst DLR extensions from Bank that gave a positive BCR with another bit added on and the worst line for that corridor - Crossrail closely parallels it and the Jubilee helps too), but is really little more than a TfL pipedream.


yeah, that is the one that I'm referring to. I sometimes forget that "city" means "The City" when it comes to London.

But yes, the extension to Charing Cross and Victoria is the one I am referring to.

Cheers, m


----------



## Tubeman

metroranger said:


> Talking about Fenchurch Street, would it be possible to terminate a new overground service there using the link between Stratford and Limehouse.
> Fenchurch Street - Stratford - Angel Lane - Waltham Cross.
> With the Olympics and Stratford City east London could do with some more north south services.


The two problems with that service are that the Gas Factory Junction - Bow Junction section is single track (not an enormous problem), and that these trains would have to cross the GER main line on the level between Bow Junction and Stratford... The crossover is there, but there would be a lot of conflicting train movements as a result.

The latter is a show-stopper I fear.


----------



## Tubeman

allurban said:


> Tubeman, what do you think of the issue of HS2 being tunneled under Primrose Hill (among other neighbourhoods, I guess) - I read a few papers that said that this was a big concern for the residents but they were afraid of speaking out.


I'm aghast at how much money is being proposed to be spent on HS2 when so many billions of £ have just been spent on the WCML upgrade.

I guess the Primrose Hill objectors are just being fairly typical nimbys... Yes they might have a bit of vibration during tunnelling, but large tracts of east London has had HS1 tunnelled underneath and although there was a famous sinkhole appear in some back gardens (in Manor Park I think?), beyond that I'm not aware of any lasting issues from trains passing below property.


----------



## Harrow + London

^^Surely trains passing under Primrose Hill would be too close to Euston to be travelling fast enough to disturb residents above

Also, how deep underground could a sub-surface train run? Would it be possible to dig a tunnel deep underground? Cos I was thinking if the Isle of Dogs becomes heavily developed with high-rises (as it currently is) it would need a transport solution to absorb the heavy traffic expected (which the DLR wouldn't be able to handle). A sub-surface line running north to South along the Isle would do this well, and the Metropolitan line, from Aldgate, could run south-east along Commercial Road, onto the Canary Wharf stations, and then on to the south of the Isle. Far-fetched, but extending the Met line to Canary Wharf has been talked about briefly somewhere. I just wanted to know if the line could be dug deep enough to traverse the Docks and avoid digging up roads and demolishing buildings.


----------



## allurban

Tubeman said:


> *I guess the Primrose Hill objectors are just being fairly typical nimbys...*


heheheh from what I got from the article, the residents who are speaking out (anonymously, it seems) are not "typical" nimbys (many are famous residents of London, celebrities, etc) but are quick to point out that theirs is a mixed neighbourhood with all levels of incomes - in other words, they are trying to be typical nimbys.

Anyways, thanks for the reply. HS2 interests me alot because of the potential of High Speed Rail to revive English cities from the northwest of London up to Birmingham. 

Cheers, m


----------



## metroranger

Tubeman said:


> The two problems with that service are that the Gas Factory Junction - Bow Junction section is single track (not an enormous problem), and that these trains would have to cross the GER main line on the level between Bow Junction and Stratford... The crossover is there, but there would be a lot of conflicting train movements as a result.
> 
> The latter is a show-stopper I fear.


Thanks Tubeman - just Stratford to Broxbourne perhaps?


----------



## Tubeman

Harrow + London said:


> ^^Surely trains passing under Primrose Hill would be too close to Euston to be travelling fast enough to disturb residents above
> 
> Also, how deep underground could a sub-surface train run? Would it be possible to dig a tunnel deep underground? Cos I was thinking if the Isle of Dogs becomes heavily developed with high-rises (as it currently is) it would need a transport solution to absorb the heavy traffic expected (which the DLR wouldn't be able to handle). A sub-surface line running north to South along the Isle would do this well, and the Metropolitan line, from Aldgate, could run south-east along Commercial Road, onto the Canary Wharf stations, and then on to the south of the Isle. Far-fetched, but extending the Met line to Canary Wharf has been talked about briefly somewhere. I just wanted to know if the line could be dug deep enough to traverse the Docks and avoid digging up roads and demolishing buildings.


Provided TBMs are utilised and the tunnels bored no limit really... I assume you're referring to a north-south route traversing the Isle of Dogs? Yes certainly the Metropolitan Line ending at Aldgate leads to wasted capacity, but the trouble with extending a subsurface line as opposed to a Tube line is cost, as the tunnels need to be much larger diameter. Ventilation would be a consideration also, as the S Stock have air con so there'd be a build-up of heat in the tunnels unless there was effective extraction.

The office / commercial area of the Isle of Dogs is discrete and dense, and will be well served by Jubilee Line, Crossrail and DLR. The rest of the island is residential, with some very large council estates which I assume don't house much in the way of Canary Wharf workers... The private apartments are typically around the perimeter of the island along the river front so I don't think an arterial railway 'spine' down the middle of the island would help that much moving these people to their offices, certainly if anything DLR serves this purpose already.

I guess many CW workers who live on the island just walk to work, I guess nowhere on the island is more than 30 minutes walk from CW.


----------



## Tubeman

metroranger said:


> Thanks Tubeman - just Stratford to Broxbourne perhaps?


There already is a Broxbourne-Stratford service! 1tph


----------



## Tubeman

Rational Plan said:


> Considering the constraints on all London terminals and their approaches, I would never consider closing a London terminal. C2C train paths are full Chiltern still has some growth left with the current infrastructure investment.
> 
> So I agree with Sotonsi that the tunnel needs to go as far a the split for the Rainham loop. But I don't think we should divert anything in to Liverpool street. A new tunnel would effectively mean a four track approach to Fenchurch street, with it becoming a peak only terminal.
> 
> I don't think we can suddenly divert services to other terminals because of crossrail, as the release in capacity it provides, would be very useful for longer distance services for their own lines.
> 
> By the time we are discussing a crossrail between Fenchurch St and marleybone I suspect the Chiltern Mainline will have already been electrified anyway. The idea for cutting back the Met to just Watford and Uxbridge with the new branch taking over all services to Aylesbury was effectively the strategy for the first crossrail scheme when there were two branches in the West and one in the East to Shenfield. with the paths Watford and Uxbridge could a cuple of extra trains an hour.


I just like the idea of 'tidying up' the number of termini, especially as Marylebone and Fenchurch Street aren't particularly well connected to the Tube. Of course if we're talking tunnels from Barking to Neasden then yes there's a doubling of potential capacity on the C2C and Chiltern routes, but a tunnel this length defeats the point on my 'cheapo Crossrail' notion as it's several times longer.

Marylebone is a pretty significant chunk of prime real estate which would be a plus in terms of financing the project too.


----------



## MiaM

Tubeman said:


> Provided TBMs are utilised and the tunnels bored no limit really... I assume you're referring to a north-south route traversing the Isle of Dogs? Yes certainly the Metropolitan Line ending at Aldgate leads to wasted capacity, but the trouble with extending a subsurface line as opposed to a Tube line is cost, as the tunnels need to be much larger diameter. Ventilation would be a consideration also, as the S Stock have air con so there'd be a build-up of heat in the tunnels unless there was effective extraction.


The air con issue could probably be solved by some automatic system that turns the AC off when traveling in deep level tunnels. Perhaps it could be included in track-to-train-data transmitted by a future signaling system? Compared to the lenght of Baker Street - Watford/Amersham/Uxbridge, a deep level extention is probably only a short part of the total line. If the air con is switched on for most of the line.

(In theory, empty stock movements could even have the air con running in reverse mode, I.E. heating the train thus cooling off the tunnels a tiny bit. In practice doing so probably have a negligible effect).


How big is the cost difference between subsurface and tube size when using TBM's?


----------



## Tubeman

MiaM said:


> The air con issue could probably be solved by some automatic system that turns the AC off when traveling in deep level tunnels. Perhaps it could be included in track-to-train-data transmitted by a future signaling system? Compared to the lenght of Baker Street - Watford/Amersham/Uxbridge, a deep level extention is probably only a short part of the total line. If the air con is switched on for most of the line.
> 
> (In theory, empty stock movements could even have the air con running in reverse mode, I.E. heating the train thus cooling off the tunnels a tiny bit. In practice doing so probably have a negligible effect).
> 
> 
> How big is the cost difference between subsurface and tube size when using TBM's?


Blimey... Dunno...

Tube tunnels are about 3.5m diameter whereas surface stock single bore tunnels (e.g. Crossrail) are 6.2m... My rudimentary maths makes that a cross-sectional area of 9.6m2 versus 30.2m2, so a pretty big differential.

Of course the vast bulk of the cost will be stations, track, signalling, etc which have to be built regardless of tunnel diameter and so it's not as if Crossrail will cost 3 x a Tube line per km built just because there's 3 x spoil removed.

It is a definite that a Tube tunnel is cheaper to build per km than a full-size tunnel, but I don't know by how much.

Regarding air con being switched off for deep-level sections, yes of course it can be... I'd suggest an opening at the southern end (e.g. continuing to Lewisham to take over the Hayes branch) would be desirable otherwise it'd just end up being a dead-end stuffy tunnel like the Bakerloo Line is (and very hot as a consequence).


----------



## JohnNotts

*Plaistow*

An incident (probably over dramatised) has been reported where a train that had "turned" at Plaistow proceeded westwards on the eastbound line.

My recollection is that a train that turns there leaves the station on the eastbound line and then crosses over, so presumably the signal cleared with the crossover points set wrongly.

Shouldn't that be prevented by interlocking?


----------



## ajw373

Tubeman said:


> I saw a snippet in the paper today too...
> 
> Well yes not a penny should come out of the public purse... It's a vehicle to make the mobile companies money, end of story.


It is a service to the public, who in 2010 expect coverage, but yes should be funded by the phone companies.

As for the articles above, if we are talking about tunnels then a leaky coax and base stations are all that is needed, no need for antenna's in the carriages. For something like the Eurostar, different matter, the better solution there (except the London tunnels) would be for a micro cell in each carriage.


----------



## chris.haynes

chris.haynes said:


> New version :


hi all ... 

Just wondering if my map above ^ needs any amendments or updates ? ...

any comments for how it looks at the moment ?

thanks, chris


----------



## Spam King

Nice map!

The only thing I can think of is that Edgware Road is actually two separate stations. One for Circle/H&C/District Lines, and another station for the Bakerloo Line. Although they both have the same name are are really close to each other, they are completely different stations.


----------



## davidaiow

^this is true, but like Euston Square & Euston, I just wish they'd raise the funds and interchange the two!

Wonderful map! One can but dream!


----------



## MelbourneCity

Great map! Really well done. I think perhaps the Thameslink route should be shown as well, but it really is a fantastic map.


----------



## chris.haynes

MelbourneCity said:


> Great map! Really well done. I think perhaps the Thameslink route should be shown as well, but it really is a fantastic map.


Thanks for the compliments on the map ... i will update it with thameslink included and i think crossrail 2 line(s) ... 

are there any other changes ?


----------



## Tubeman

You shouldn't show both Watford and Watford Junction on the Met... It's either / or


----------



## chris.haynes

Tubeman said:


> You shouldn't show both Watford and Watford Junction on the Met... It's either / or


ok ... is there anything else youd like to change tubeman ?


----------



## sweek

Kennington looks a bit wrong because the Charing Cross line turns 'in the dot', so to speak, which is a bit confusing. Look at the Victoria at Green Park for example, where the turn is made right before the station/dot and the line is straight through the dot itself - that makes more sense and is how it works everywhere else on the map. Might be worth changing?

I think that, like with Watford, the old terminal in Beckton would also be removed if the line was extended to Dagenham.
Great map anyhow!


----------



## Tubeman

chris.haynes said:


> ok ... is there anything else youd like to change tubeman ?


You've got two Hackney Centrals and no Hackney Wick

Gunnersbury instead of Queensbury

No Osterley

Ladbroke Grove & Westbourne Park wrong way around

Canonbury spelt wrong

Canons Park spelt wrong

Colliers Wood spelt wrong

Met line to Watford Junction also serves Watford High Street

Bounds Green shown with NwR interchange

I wouldn't show Dalston Kingsland & Junction as an interchange (they only are currently until the west curve is reinstated)

...Well you did ask!


----------



## chris.haynes

Tubeman said:


> You've got two Hackney Centrals and no Hackney Wick
> 
> Gunnersbury instead of Queensbury
> 
> No Osterley
> 
> Ladbroke Grove & Westbourne Park wrong way around
> 
> Canonbury spelt wrong
> 
> Canons Park spelt wrong
> 
> Colliers Wood spelt wrong
> 
> Met line to Watford Junction also serves Watford High Street
> 
> Bounds Green shown with NwR interchange
> 
> I wouldn't show Dalston Kingsland & Junction as an interchange (they only are currently until the west curve is reinstated)
> 
> ...Well you did ask!


nah thats great im a perfectionist i want the map to be correct


----------



## Acemcbuller

Mill Hill is not on Northern Line B
Cross Rail stations in the centre appear unlabelled and don't indicate that they interchange with two tube stops.
You can't go straight through Gospel Oak from Barking - or is that intended to change in future?
Why the triangle on the Jubilee line?

Finally - Shouldn't this be in a different thread?


----------



## Paul Easton

Spam King said:


> Nice map!
> 
> The only thing I can think of is that Edgware Road is actually two separate stations. One for Circle/H&C/District Lines, and another station for the Bakerloo Line. Although they both have the same name are are really close to each other, they are completely different stations.


I would also make the same point about Paddington - the H&C (and Circle from Hammersmith) platforms are at the opposite end of the mainline station to those for the Bakerloo/District/Circle (via Notting Hill Gate).

I agree, though, it's a nice map.


----------



## Dobbo

Tubey,

What (if anything) was up with the Northern Line this morning!? Terrible!

The sooner it is split to two lines and upgraded the better - absolute nightmare!! Any update on when this work may occur?


----------



## chris.haynes

hi all ... im now drawing up a future london connections map 

including crossrail, tramlink, all national rail lines dlr and tube lines ... will need to add in the zone lines to this aswell 

first draft will be ready soon


----------



## Tubeman

Dobbo said:


> Tubey,
> 
> What (if anything) was up with the Northern Line this morning!? Terrible!
> 
> The sooner it is split to two lines and upgraded the better - absolute nightmare!! Any update on when this work may occur?


Honestly don't know... Was more preoccupied with the one-under on the Bakerloo this afternoon!

As far as I was aware, on my way in this morning only the Circle / H&C were knackered... But that's all I care about when I'm trying to get to work!


----------



## Dobbo

Haha! Fair play!


----------



## chris.haynes

*updated map [draft]*

[broken link]


----------



## sotonsi

a working link would be good - I can't actually find the photo, even when I go to the user page.


----------



## chris.haynes

[edit] ...

link to latest map ... http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/346/tuben.jpg


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Ok, let me put it this way: I saw a picture of a model of the third(green) prototype painted in the current red, white and blue corporate livery.
> 
> Does that ring any bells?


Hmmm no, sorry... It seems a bit odd, as the corporate livery wasn't invented until the 1990's so the 1986 stock precede it. In the early 1990's there were still several variations of the red, white & blue (some with no red aside from the cab ends) being trialled. Quite a few of the 1972 and 1959 stock trains on the Northern Line when I worked it had odd liveries that had been applied for customer feedback before the current corporate livery was settled on.

I have the LU handbook from 1997 when I joined (all new entrants used to get a copy) and there's no photo of a corporate livery 1986 model in there.

Are you sure it wasn't an early model of a 1995 or 1996 stock prototype before they went into production? Would make more sense to me.


----------



## London Underground

It looked exactly like the green 1986 prototype, with exactly the same livery as the current trains, but i did'nt read the text underneath... It might have been supposed to look like a 1995/96 stock car, but i dont know. I did'nt see when the book was made either.

But, would that make any differance?


----------



## Tubeman

Only because the photos in the handbook would be changed each new edition I'd expect.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 1995/96 stocks looked very similar to the 1986 stock when they were on the drawing board, just in corporate livery.

I'm guessing maybe you saw a version of the handbook from the early to mid 1990's when there was a model of the then proposed future train for the Northern / Jubilee Lines photographed in it?

:dunno:


----------



## London Underground

I think you're right. Misstaken identity, i guess. There's no need for the little :dunno:


----------



## MiaM

I'm back!

The reason why I asked most of the questions in my old post (4154) was that I had a perhaps crazy idea to make it possible to increase train frequency on the circle up to what's practically possible on a line without grade junctions.

As 30 TPH probably is good enough today then my idea is't really useable today, but sometime in the future it might be. Anyway, here it goes:

Let all trains running counter clockwise be circle trains.

Let all trains running clockwise be district trains, and let the district line take over both the northern and the southern part of the circle line. This would sadly mean bad interchanges between Hammersmith&City and the circle at Paddnington, and all travelers on the Metropolitan line would have to change at Baker Street.

By running this way there will be no conflicts at flat junction and therefore, with the right signalling equipment and probably ATO, train frequency could increase. As an increased frequency is only needed in the rush hours, this way of running trains would only be needed in the rush hour.

Some slight alternations could perhaps be done, for example in the moring rush ours some Metropolitan line trains could be let onto the circle away in the Upminster direction, but those trains would then be "lost" from the Metropolitan line until the morning rush is over.
Also, if there is a need for it, at Algate it would be possible to also running some clockwise circle trains, and in the Gloucester Road - High Street Kensington - Earls Court area it would be possible to choose between running some clockwise circle trains or some counterclockwise district trains. Another option in this area, if the sum of train frequency required on the District to Turnham Green and to Wimbledon would be higher than the maximum train frequency on the circle, would be to reconfigure platform usage and switches at Gloucester Road and (probably more complicated) at High Street Kensington so for example the Wimbledon trains could run from Earls Court to High Street Kensington, reverse there and go to Gloucester Road, and reverse again and go back to Wimbledon (or vice versa), while trains from Turnham Green goes to the northern part of the circle, and trains from the southern part of the circle goes to Turnham Green. (I'm using Turnham Green as a common name both for Richmond and Ealing Broadway services).



I also have a few new questions:

Has there been or are there any plans of a track connection between Hammersmith on the District line and Hammersmith on the Hammersmith and City line?

Has there been or are there any plans of building platforms at places where underground lines cross each other or where underground and NR lines cross each other? For example the Central line crosses the Metropolitan and the Picadilly line at Ruislip, Metropolitan crosses Bakerloo and NR near Northwick Park / Kenton, and the North London Line part of Overground, and also the Goblin, crosses underground lines at quite a few places without (good) interchange possibilites.

I understand that adding an interchange point would only be sensible if it would provide more benefits than drawbacks, and assume that it's a question of cost...


----------



## London Underground

Ok, another question then:
Have you ever seen, in real life or in a picture, the 1973 stock units with the special Concorde side stickers and Terminal 4 destination blinds? It was according to the book* units 864 and 195.

**London Underground Stock* from 1997


----------



## Triple C

OK, maybe my questions aren't about London but rail system.

1 - Are there any underground rails constructed with cut-cover method in London? In Antalya, Antray's Çallı-Meydan part works overground on former 2x2 avenues, and that cause bad traffic problems. The current mayor of city (the rail system was built before his election) said it costs € ~90m to set the line underground. (And the whole rail costed € ~150m)
2 - Is it true that bus lines can't operate near the public transport rail?


----------



## _BPS_

Do you live in a tube?


----------



## sotonsi

Triple C said:


> Are there any underground rails constructed with cut-cover method in London?


There's rather a lot. For a start, there's all the underground sections of the Circle, District, Metropolitan and Hammersmith & City lines (The so-called Sub-surface lines), plus a few parts of other tube lines outside the centre, not to mention a lot of the tunnels on the rest of the rail network (though some of them are bored, or just dug by hand).


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Ok, another question then:
> Have you ever seen, in real life or in a picture, the 1973 stock units with the special Concorde side stickers and Terminal 4 destination blinds? It was according to the book* units 864 and 195.
> 
> **London Underground Stock* from 1997


Doesn't ring a bell... I remember the 'United Airlines' liveried '73 train quite fondly, that looked pretty smart... But I don't recall a 'Concorde' one.


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> There's rather a lot. For a start, there's all the underground sections of the Circle, District, Metropolitan and Hammersmith & City lines (The so-called Sub-surface lines), plus a few parts of other tube lines outside the centre, not to mention a lot of the tunnels on the rest of the rail network (though some of them are bored, or just dug by hand).


To expand on this, there are some stretches of 'genuine' tunnel (i.e. no disruption at ground level) on the subsurface lines due to the topography above, for example Mount Pleasant tunnel between King's Cross and Farringdon (which I live practically on top of), and Campden Hill Tunnel between High Street Kensington and Notting Hill Gate, but yes otherwise all the rest of the so-called 'subsurface' lines, where subterranean, are cut & cover. One slight deviation from this rule of thumb is the District / Circle Line between Westminster and Blackfriars, here the railway was actually effectively built along the River Thames foreshore behind a retaining wall and huge sewer, with the roadway (the Embankment) then being built above.

The vast majority of main-line tunnels in London are purely the result of topography (i.e. passing through hilly ground), and resulted in no disruption at ground level.


----------



## Tubeman

Triple C said:


> 2 - Is it true that bus lines can't operate near the public transport rail?


No... Buses in London are fully integrated with the Tube / rail networks where possible and act as 'feeders' of Tube / rail passengers onto the system


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> Doesn't ring a bell... I remember the 'United Airlines' liveried '73 train quite fondly, that looked pretty smart... But I don't recall a 'Concorde' one.


Ok. That was a beautiful train. Thanks anyway.


----------



## Tubeman

MiaM said:


> I'm back!
> 
> The reason why I asked most of the questions in my old post (4154) was that I had a perhaps crazy idea to make it possible to increase train frequency on the circle up to what's practically possible on a line without grade junctions.
> 
> As 30 TPH probably is good enough today then my idea is't really useable today, but sometime in the future it might be. Anyway, here it goes:
> 
> Let all trains running counter clockwise be circle trains.
> 
> Let all trains running clockwise be district trains, and let the district line take over both the northern and the southern part of the circle line. This would sadly mean bad interchanges between Hammersmith&City and the circle at Paddnington, and all travelers on the Metropolitan line would have to change at Baker Street.
> 
> By running this way there will be no conflicts at flat junction and therefore, with the right signalling equipment and probably ATO, train frequency could increase. As an increased frequency is only needed in the rush hours, this way of running trains would only be needed in the rush hour.
> 
> Some slight alternations could perhaps be done, for example in the moring rush ours some Metropolitan line trains could be let onto the circle away in the Upminster direction, but those trains would then be "lost" from the Metropolitan line until the morning rush is over.
> Also, if there is a need for it, at Algate it would be possible to also running some clockwise circle trains, and in the Gloucester Road - High Street Kensington - Earls Court area it would be possible to choose between running some clockwise circle trains or some counterclockwise district trains. Another option in this area, if the sum of train frequency required on the District to Turnham Green and to Wimbledon would be higher than the maximum train frequency on the circle, would be to reconfigure platform usage and switches at Gloucester Road and (probably more complicated) at High Street Kensington so for example the Wimbledon trains could run from Earls Court to High Street Kensington, reverse there and go to Gloucester Road, and reverse again and go back to Wimbledon (or vice versa), while trains from Turnham Green goes to the northern part of the circle, and trains from the southern part of the circle goes to Turnham Green. (I'm using Turnham Green as a common name both for Richmond and Ealing Broadway services).


Hello! 

I'm a little confused by what you're proposing, but it sounds devilishly complicated!

One small 'fix' I've proposed for SSR is to combine the H&C and Circle Lines into a single route thus:

Hammersmith - Edgware Road - Liverpool Street - clockwise lap of Circle Line - Edgware Road - Liverpool Street - Aldgate East - Barking

...Then back the other way. This would be a pretty long run (not far off 2 hours), but at least it's a single service with two 'ends' to allow service recovery and would remove the current need to change trains at Edgware Road for customers travelling between, for example, Notting Hill Gate and Baker Street.

I'd run it at perhaps 8tph, which is slightly better than the 'old' Circle Line and a fair bit better than the current Circle Line. Much more than this would impact too much on the District Line. This doubles up to 16tph Edgware Road to Liverpool Street, leaving plenty of capacity for the Metropolitan Line between Baker Street and Aldgate (i.e. at least 10tph can run beyond Baker Street). Makes for a simpler service pattern, the only disadvantage is a reduction in tph between Edgware Road and Hammersmith, which I would address by building a terminating 'bay' platform at Paddington H&C for a Hammersmith - Paddington shuttle service to appease Westfield.



MiaM said:


> I also have a few new questions:
> 
> Has there been or are there any plans of a track connection between Hammersmith on the District line and Hammersmith on the Hammersmith and City line?


Not that I'm aware of. The H&C got there first, and descends from viaduct at Goldhawk Road down to ground level at Hammersmith terminus. However the District / Piccadilly Lines are in cutting with a tunnel immediately to the west of the platforms so the lines are on different levels; if the H&C were to continue south to join the District, the junction would need to be quite far east of the Hammersmith stations to accommodate the difference in level. Also, the fact that the H&C buffer stops are on the same level as Hammersmith Broadway a few metres beyond is a problem.



MiaM said:


> Has there been or are there any plans of building platforms at places where underground lines cross each other or where underground and NR lines cross each other? For example the Central line crosses the Metropolitan and the Picadilly line at Ruislip, Metropolitan crosses Bakerloo and NR near Northwick Park / Kenton, and the North London Line part of Overground, and also the Goblin, crosses underground lines at quite a few places without (good) interchange possibilites.


There have been some... You have to bear in mind that originally most railways were separate competing companies and as such interchanges were to be discouraged... For example the Central and Piccadilly Lines used to cross each other at what is now Holborn with no interchange until the 1930's, and many other examples there were simply two completely separate stations next door to each other (e.g. the Central and Bakerloo Line stations at Oxford Circus), so to change you'd need to get the lift up to street level, walk along the pavement, enter the other station, and get the lift back down to Tube level. Many other examples of this existed: Elephant & Castle, Euston, Tottenham Court Road... Where practicable these inconveniences have been since rectified.

In the suburbs as you note there are still a few examples of lines crossing with no interchange, one of the main reasons is I guess that the point where they cross is remote from the nearest town centres... So to close West Ruislip and Ruislip stations to open an interchange where the lines cross, you'd end up with a very poorly located station remote from the town centre, buses, etc.

Some other examples are just too expensive... For example the North London Line and Northern Line 'missing' each other at Camden... The North London Line is on viaducts and therefore diversion would be grotesquely disruptive, and likewise relocating the Northern Line platforms further north is not a realistic option.

The only two realistic contemporary options I've heard about are re-opening Junction Road station on the GOBLIN as an interchange with Tufnell Park, and a combined Central / Piccadilly station to replace Park Royal and Hanger Lane, but again it's a worse location than Hanger Lane being remote from the roundabout and buses.



MiaM said:


> I understand that adding an interchange point would only be sensible if it would provide more benefits than drawbacks, and assume that it's a question of cost...


And that's basically the crux of it: £££


----------



## Jang0

Sometimes, a good interchange (perhaps even as an additional station in some cases) must be more beneficial than where it is situated in relation to the outside world?


----------



## Tubeman

Jang0 said:


> Sometimes, a good interchange (perhaps even as an additional station in some cases) must be more beneficial than where it is situated in relation to the outside world?


Yes of course, it's not all bad... There are pros and cons which need to be weighed up.

Closing British Museum and opening Central Line platforms at Holborn undoubtedly had a lot more benefits than not doing it, but somewhere like a Ruislip interchange is much more balanced... Open the interchange with no associated closures of existing stations, then journey times worsen, but close adjacent stations then you have a new station much worse situated and much less accessible... And it all costs £ too.


----------



## MiaM

Tubeman said:


> Hello!
> 
> I'm a little confused by what you're proposing, but it sounds devilishly complicated!


Well, I'm known for making things sound a lot more complicated than they are when I'm trying to explain something (especially the first times). An image says more than a thousand words:


London-SSL1 by muppfoto, on Flickr

Cons:
* Metropolitan reverses at Baker Street.
* Hammersmith & City reverses at Paddington, leaving the passengers to a rather long walk to change trains.
* I have no really good idea of that to to with the Kensington Olympia Shuttle. On the map it's shown as a separate line.
* There is no real place for service recovery for the circle line

Pros:
* No conflicts at flat junctions on the central subsurface network, thus:
* Number of trains per hour can increase to the level of the best deep level lines, thus:
* Number of passengers able to use the system (before severe overcrowding) increases.

As said before, this would only be used in peak hours where there is a real need to be able to run more trains than the flat junctions allow.

I'l draw a "phase 2" later 




Tubeman said:


> Not that I'm aware of. The H&C got there first, and descends from viaduct at Goldhawk Road down to ground level at Hammersmith terminus. However the District / Piccadilly Lines are in cutting with a tunnel immediately to the west of the platforms so the lines are on different levels; if the H&C were to continue south to join the District, the junction would need to be quite far east of the Hammersmith stations to accommodate the difference in level. Also, the fact that the H&C buffer stops are on the same level as Hammersmith Broadway a few metres beyond is a problem.


Oh, I were not aware of the level difference. In other words it would probably cost a lot of £££ to make a good connection. On the other hand the level difference could perhaps be used to make the junction level separated. (I'm sure there would be a lot of NIMBY against raising Hammersmith Broadway a few meters up...). Anyway a connection here would brobably not be that useable, especially in that direction.



Tubeman said:


> In the suburbs as you note there are still a few examples of lines crossing with no interchange, one of the main reasons is I guess that the point where they cross is remote from the nearest town centres... So to close West Ruislip and Ruislip stations to open an interchange where the lines cross, you'd end up with a very poorly located station remote from the town centre, buses, etc.


If such interchange would be built, I'd leave the existing stations in place. The interchange would "cost" 2-3 minutes travel time for existing travelers using West Ruislip, Ickenham, Hillingdon and Uxbridge, and would probably also cost TfL a few more trains and drivers to keep existing service frequency and ability to recovery from delays. There is probably not enough demand/use to justify building that interchange...



Tubeman said:


> Some other examples are just too expensive... For example the North London Line and Northern Line 'missing' each other at Camden... The North London Line is on viaducts and therefore diversion would be grotesquely disruptive, and likewise relocating the Northern Line platforms further north is not a realistic option.


I understand that it would be really expensive to move the platforms of a tube line, but would building platforms on existing rail lines on viaduct be that expensive? (On the other hand, as it would be expensive and disrputive to build new platforms on the Northern tube line, it probably wouldn't do any good to move the overground/rail station anyway).

Bonus question: Why itn't the four track configuration restored from the junction left of Camden Road station up to the junction where the tracks to St. Pancras diverge southwards?



Tubeman said:


> The only two realistic contemporary options I've heard about are re-opening Junction Road station on the GOBLIN as an interchange with Tufnell Park,


Interesting! That would probably not be that expensive. Would the new station be where the old was? It looks like it would be a shorter walk if a reopened station would have exits to Darthmout Park Hill.


How about a move of Harringay Green Lanes Rail closer to Harringay Rail?



Tubeman said:


> and a combined Central / Piccadilly station to replace Park Royal and Hanger Lane, but again it's a worse location than Hanger Lane being remote from the roundabout and buses.


Aha.

How about moving North Ealing station a bit southwards and add plattforms to the Central and Disttrict lines there? (I understand that you can change at Ealing Broadway, but an interchange here would probaby be better for most people.

Perhaps such interchange would make it possible to do some major changes of the network?
How about letting the District line go all the way up to Rayners Lane and Uxbridge, and either remove the Acton - North Ealing - Ealing Broadway service completely or make it a branch of the Picadilly?
That would remove the (accessability) problem of running both tube and subsurface stock on the Rainers Lane - Uxbridge line, and would make more Picadilly trains able to go to Heathrow.



Tubeman said:


> And that's basically the crux of it: £££


I understand that...


----------



## RedArkady

MiaM said:


> How about a move of Harringay Green Lanes Rail closer to Harringay Rail?


They should do that - move it to where the lines cross and open up pedestrian connections to the surrounding streets and Finsbury Park (the actual park, not the station), plus a short walkway to the Harringay Rail platforms.

The Piccadilly Line must run under Harringay Green Lanes, could it not take over the existing station? The gap between Manor House and Turnpike Lane is huge.


----------



## davidaiow

I've got a horrible feeling that I have asked, or at least somebody else has asked, before but are they going to fix that massive ROAR on the JLE? It's worse northbound, especially between Westminster and Green Park and Canary Wharf - Bermondsey.
ta


----------



## Tubeman

davidaiow said:


> I've got a horrible feeling that I have asked, or at least somebody else has asked, before but are they going to fix that massive ROAR on the JLE? It's worse northbound, especially between Westminster and Green Park and Canary Wharf - Bermondsey.
> ta


It's probably railhead corrugation, and is fixed by a visit from the rail grinding train.

Corrugation forms on curved sections with high speeds where the wheels begin oscillating gently from side to side, with each passing train wearing the same pattern into the railhead which in turn guides the next train's wheels to follow the same pattern of oscillation, so the unevenness (and noise) gets worse and worse.

The rail grinding train (incidentally this was the train that rolled away on the Northern Line and nearly caused a disaster a few months back) visits the whole network in rotation and grinds the railhead back into an even shape, giving a smoother, quieter ride. Obviously this can't be done again and again or there'd be no rail left, so eventually re-railing is required every few years.


----------



## Tubeman

MiaM said:


> Well, I'm known for making things sound a lot more complicated than they are when I'm trying to explain something (especially the first times). An image says more than a thousand words:


Ah yes I get it now... a picture does indeed paint a thousand words.

An interesting idea, but I guess grossly unpopular with customers! For instance, anyone living on the western branches of the District Line wishing to travel in to the West End or City would have to change at High St Ken and cross over the footbridge to the Circle Line to continue their journey, really inconvenient.


----------



## davidaiow

Ah! Very interesting. Thank you. Every time I pass it seems to be there. I suppose it drowns out the sound of some of the more ignorant conversations!


----------



## Tubeman

Tubeman said:


> It's probably railhead corrugation, and is fixed by a visit from the rail grinding train.
> 
> Corrugation forms on curved sections with high speeds where the wheels begin oscillating gently from side to side, with each passing train wearing the same pattern into the railhead which in turn guides the next train's wheels to follow the same pattern of oscillation, so the unevenness (and noise) gets worse and worse.
> 
> The rail grinding train (incidentally this was the train that rolled away on the Northern Line and nearly caused a disaster a few months back) visits the whole network in rotation and grinds the railhead back into an even shape, giving a smoother, quieter ride. Obviously this can't be done again and again or there'd be no rail left, so eventually re-railing is required every few years.


You're welcome davidaiow 

Here's a photo of railhead corrugation:


----------



## Winchester

Hi Tubeman.

How many emergency exits are there on The Underground, outside of the stations themselves? I've seen some odd looking buildings with signs in Johnston Sans, and was wondering if there was any rhyme or reason as to where they are and how frequently (and where) you'd find them.


----------



## Tubeman

Winchester said:


> Hi Tubeman.
> 
> How many emergency exits are there on The Underground, outside of the stations themselves? I've seen some odd looking buildings with signs in Johnston Sans, and was wondering if there was any rhyme or reason as to where they are and how frequently (and where) you'd find them.


I think there are intervention points halfway between each Jubilee Line extension tunnel station to allow evacuation if necessary, but I think these are the only purpose-built ones. There are other locations with street access to tunnels, but these are all as far as I'm aware simply the locations of closed stations / station entrances. In addition, you'll see some LU electricity substations at street level, for instance there's one immediately north of 'Suicide Bridge' over the A1 between Archway and Highgate, so the building has Johnson font signage on it as it's LU property.

There are a few air shafts too, which may have ladders down to track level for inspection / maintenance... I think there's a few on the Victoria Line, and there's definitely one down to the very end of the Bakerloo Line beyond Elephant & Castle (where the over-run sidings end on the abandoned Camberwell extension), as it was being used for access to trains in the sidings by graffiti 'artists'.


----------



## RedArkady

chris.haynes said:


> hi all ...
> 
> http://api.photoshop.com/home_6c5a1...be-px-assets/f34804398ecb4047a1ff33b5d8754923
> 
> Just wondering if my map above ^ needs any amendments or updates ? ...
> 
> any comments for how it looks at the moment ?
> 
> thanks, chris


I think I like this version better than your later 'rail connections' map, which doesn't mark the stations as well, or have the proposed Northern Line extension to Battersea and beyond... though you probably should place Nine Elms station west of Vauxhall...


----------



## MiaM

Tubeman said:


> There are other locations with street access to tunnels, but these are all as far as I'm aware simply the locations of closed stations / station entrances.


... or in atleast one case never even opened :

http://underground-history.co.uk/bullbush.php


----------



## Tubeman

MiaM said:


> ... or in atleast one case never even opened :
> 
> http://underground-history.co.uk/bullbush.php


Learn a new thing every day... I didn't know they'd built access stairs here!


----------



## London Underground

Hi.
Are the reverser keys personal, as i just read about the final day of 59-stock opperations and the authosr said "...my reverser key instead of his own"?


----------



## Winchester

Tubeman said:


> I think there are intervention points halfway between each Jubilee Line extension tunnel station to allow evacuation if necessary, but I think these are the only purpose-built ones. There are other locations with street access to tunnels, but these are all as far as I'm aware simply the locations of closed stations / station entrances. In addition, you'll see some LU electricity substations at street level, for instance there's one immediately north of 'Suicide Bridge' over the A1 between Archway and Highgate, so the building has Johnson font signage on it as it's LU property.
> 
> There are a few air shafts too, which may have ladders down to track level for inspection / maintenance... I think there's a few on the Victoria Line, and there's definitely one down to the very end of the Bakerloo Line beyond Elephant & Castle (where the over-run sidings end on the abandoned Camberwell extension), as it was being used for access to trains in the sidings by graffiti 'artists'.


Thanks Tubeman, I'd assume the cut and cover lines just have open sections here and there, where the vents for the deep level must be a little more thought out.


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Hi.
> Are the reverser keys personal, as i just read about the final day of 59-stock opperations and the authosr said "...my reverser key instead of his own"?


The RKL220 key used on modern stocks (D Stock and later) are personal issue, but on older stocks (as was the case with 1959 stocks) effectively you'd get a new set of keys every time you were relieved in a platform, because to remove the keys from a train you'd need to shut it down and on older stocks it took a couple of minutes to 'open up' a train again. So every time you were relieved in a platform, the relieving driver would simply hand you a set of keys (Control and Reverser). The same applied when Guards relieved each other (the Guard's key would change hands), but that was just laziness really as the only effect of removing the Guard's key was to make the guard's panel go dead.

So in short, it doesn't make sense for a 1959 stock driver to refer to their 'own' reverser key, as usually a couple of different reverser keys would pass through your hands every day.


----------



## MiaM

Tubeman said:


> The RKL220 key used on modern stocks (D Stock and later) are personal issue, but on older stocks (as was the case with 1959 stocks) effectively you'd get a new set of keys every time you were relieved in a platform, because to remove the keys from a train you'd need to shut it down and on older stocks it took a couple of minutes to 'open up' a train again.


Interesting!

Today many (atleast in rail forums in Sweden) blame "the computers" when there is a discussion about that it takes so long to activate ('open up') a train... :bash:


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> The RKL220 key used on modern stocks (D Stock and later) are personal issue, but on older stocks (as was the case with 1959 stocks) effectively you'd get a new set of keys every time you were relieved in a platform, because to remove the keys from a train you'd need to shut it down and on older stocks it took a couple of minutes to 'open up' a train again. So every time you were relieved in a platform, the relieving driver would simply hand you a set of keys (Control and Reverser). The same applied when Guards relieved each other (the Guard's key would change hands), but that was just laziness really as the only effect of removing the Guard's key was to make the guard's panel go dead.


Interesting indeed, MiaM. I had no idea.



Tubeman said:


> So in short, it doesn't make sense for a 1959 stock driver to refer to their 'own' reverser key, as usually a couple of different reverser keys would pass through your hands every day.


Maybe, just maybe since this was the last journey he might have "borrowed" a set of keys? Oh well.


----------



## RedArkady

Tubeman! Hope you had a good festive break.

I received your railway atlas for Christmas... what an awesome piece of work! On the other hand I think my missus may be having second thoughts now.

One question - The insert from page 22 found on page 54. What is the purpose of the new (2011) tunnel running from the main line under the former KX railway lands to St Pancras? Is this for the future extension of Thamelink up through Finsbury Park? Where can I find info about it?

Page 12 made me very sad - I live near the former Stroud Green station.

A


----------



## Tubeman

Hi! Glad you liked it 

Yes the '2011' tunnel is for the future expansion of Thameslink up the ECML. Don't think 2011's going to happen now! It's actually now going to be 2018 I think. For what it's worth the entire tunnel, including 'flying' junction at St Pancras Thameslink (visible just north of the station from a train) has been built, and the portal can clearly be seen at the northern end of the tunnel on Google maps (satellite). Just needs tracks and wires.

According to the Thameslink programme website, the reason why it's not been connected yet is because London Bridge won't be able to cope with the additional trains until it's been remodelled in 2018.

My sister lives very close to Stroud Green station too... Ossian Road (off Ferme Park Road)... Nice area!


----------



## RedArkady

Tubeman said:


> Hi! Glad you liked it
> 
> Yes the '2011' tunnel is for the future expansion of Thameslink up the ECML. Don't think 2011's going to happen now! It's actually now going to be 2018 I think. For what it's worth the entire tunnel, including 'flying' junction at St Pancras Thameslink (visible just north of the station from a train) has been built, and the portal can clearly be seen at the northern end of the tunnel on Google maps (satellite). Just needs tracks and wires.
> 
> According to the Thameslink programme website, the reason why it's not been connected yet is because London Bridge won't be able to cope with the additional trains until it's been remodelled in 2018.
> 
> My sister lives very close to Stroud Green station too... Ossian Road (off Ferme Park Road)... Nice area!



Ah thanks for that. Yes I noticed the portal (I've been following the KX railway lands redevelopment very closely) and referred to your atlas to work it out what it was...

I'm just up Ferme Park road from Ossian, on Mount View. Have you ever walked the Parkland Walk? Beautiful, buit also heartbreaking...

B


----------



## Tubeman

RedArkady said:


> Ah thanks for that. Yes I noticed the portal (I've been following the KX railway lands redevelopment very closely) and referred to your atlas to work it out what it was...
> 
> I'm just up Ferme Park road from Ossian, on Mount View. Have you ever walked the Parkland Walk? Beautiful, buit also heartbreaking...
> 
> B


Never walked the entire length, but have walked bits of it. It is gutting, the fact that there are even LT cable runs and an electricity substation installed is galling... LT trains even used to trundle along the line until 1970, pulled by battery locos between the Northern and Northern City Lines... So near and yet so far


----------



## MiaM

Tubeman said:


> According to the Thameslink programme website, the reason why it's not been connected yet is because London Bridge won't be able to cope with the additional trains until it's been remodelled in 2018


How did they come up with that idea?

As London Bridge obviously can handle todays peak TPH today, adding the ECML-Thameslink would make it possible to run ECML-Thameslink in off-peak hours. (I assume that there isn't a lot of continous maintenance work going on at London Bridge at evere off-peak moment...).

I believe that doing such things is a good way to create political opinion for making more investments in the railways - that could perhaps make railway investment money available earlier.


P.S. how come London Bridge can't cope with more trains? I thought that Farringdon, City Thameslink, St. Pancras Thameslink and perhaps Blackfriars that would be the bottleneck as all those stations (perhaps except Blackfriars) only have one platform for each direction. Is the problem that London Bridge has far more passengers, or is the problem in reality somewhere east of London Bridge?


----------



## sotonsi

MiaM said:


> As London Bridge obviously can handle todays peak TPH today,


Barely...hence why Thameslink trains avoid it


> Is the problem that London Bridge has far more passengers, or is the problem in reality somewhere east of London Bridge?


West of London Bridge, at London Bridge and east of London Bridge.

West - Thameslink trains share tracks with Charing Cross trains. This makes those tracks the busiest 2-track mainline railway in the world (IIRC) and certainly at frequencies that's equal to, or even higher than, the District or Met lines on their shared bits with the circle line. They are building the expensive and controversial Borough Market Viaduct to move the Charing Cross trains onto new tracks.

At - there's only 6 through tracks (5 through platforms) - 3 for Cannon Street, 2 for Charing Cross and Blackfriars. Even if the new Borough Market viaduct was open, you still would have serious problems with increasing Thameslink frequency. The main point of the rebuild is to swap some terminating platforms for through ones. And no that isn't easy, due to different levels and all sorts. IIRC, Cannon Street will be reduced to 2 platforms, and thus able to turn less trains accordingly.

East - lots of flat junctions that Thameslink trains would have to cross other trains' paths on the flat. They will build some grade-separation, so that the major conflicts are removed.


----------



## ajw373

It then begs the question why it was only suddenly realised that London Bridge was a bottleneck?


----------



## Wilhem275

NCT said:


> ...I do hasten to add I am not a rail professional though .


I think I will get over it  Thank you


----------



## Rational Plan

MiaM said:


> Well, if Waterloo has good enough tube connections, then todays passengers to Charing Cross could just as well use the excellent tube links from Waterloo?


But why? 

People in South and South East London often have a choice of at least two sometimes three terminals in Central London. Either Victoria/ Charring Cross, for the West End and Cannon Street/Blackfriars/London Bridge for the City. A large percentage of people on these routes complete their journey on foot as the stations are very convenient to where they want to go. Forcing them transfer to a tube does not seem to be a good idea. 

Meanwhile Waterloo customers will still get off at Waterloo to catch a tube to the West End or the city there is no point to trundle along a train to London Bridge to then either walk or try and fit a seriously overcrowded Northern Line, when the Waterloo and citys trains are empty waiting on the platform. 
It would be extremely difficult to connect Waterloo trains to Charring Cross

It's a lot of expense for little benefit



> Through trains serves atleast two purposes. One is that passengers from both sides will get more usable central stations, thus balancing the load on the stations. Another is that the stations don't have to be that large. A through station can handle far more trains per hour and platform than a termini station


The Problem is that they are all on the same side of Central London, all the commuter want to go North or East. Paris is not as unbalanced as London their "South Bank" is much more developed than London's. 

Instead of empty trains turning round at Waterloo they would just run empty to out of London further out. 

Yes it would release platform space at Waterloo, it would not make any difference to the other Stations, plus the tracks into Waterloo and London Bridge are full.






> An interesting question is why Canon Street isn't linked to Moorgate. I know that such link would not be as good as for example Waterloo - Liverpool Street or Waterloo - Euston, but it would also probably be far cheaper to build as it's shorter...


The tunnel for Cannon street would have start far outside London Bridge as their no space near to town. I'm not sure about Moorgate but I'm sure their is a tube line blocking it.



> Yes, and that's part of the reason why I think a "south of the Thames RER" would be good, the capcity demand is probably distributed rather equaly on such a line.
> )
> (I assume high quality signal system also, making "metro" frequency of 20-30 TPH possible


I don't think the demand would be, it's primary fault it does not go where people want to go.





> In some places the do it the oppisite way, run all long distance services through the central area, and let some of the less important suburban services terminate somewher in the central area. For example look at Berlin where some suburban/regional trains end at Lichtenberg and some at Ostbahnhof, but all long distance trains run through the central area.
> 
> I have no idea if this is good or bad. I assume it's a question of track capacity and where the depots are.


I'm sure.


----------



## Tubeman

NCT said:


> An island platform would indeed be the correct term for No. 1, and I think for No. 2, the junction itself would be described as 'grade separated', and the individual track that's not on the surface would either be a flyover or a dive-under. Hope I've been of some help, I do hasten to add I am not a rail professional though .


Yes, 1 = Island platform, 2 = Grade separated junction or 'Flying' junction

I tend to use 'Flying' junction myself, less clumsy term but it seems less in favour these days


----------



## Wilhem275

I like "Flying junction"  Thanks again


----------



## makita09

My main concern with linking Waterloo and Charing Cross line is that you increase the complexity of the network, potentially linking cascade delays from the SouthEastern region to the SWT region. I don't think benefits outweigh the negatives.


----------



## RedArkady

Tubeman, your thread's gone a bit quiet. Here's a question which I don't think has been asked here before (though I think I've asked it elsewhere online, so ignore me if it was here):

What's the likelyhood of the Canonbury curve from the NLL/ELL to Finsbury Park being converted for passenger use? I understand that it was planned to be part of the curretn extension, but there were 'operational difficulties'. FP would be a useful alternative terminus, and a catalyst for London Overground augmenting or taking over suburban services on the Main Line and Northern City Line. It pisses me off that the NCL has no late evening or weekend services.

A


----------



## Tubeman

RedArkady said:


> Tubeman, your thread's gone a bit quiet. Here's a question which I don't think has been asked here before (though I think I've asked it elsewhere online, so ignore me if it was here):
> 
> What's the likelyhood of the Canonbury curve from the NLL/ELL to Finsbury Park being converted for passenger use? I understand that it was planned to be part of the curretn extension, but there were 'operational difficulties'. FP would be a useful alternative terminus, and a catalyst for London Overground augmenting or taking over suburban services on the Main Line and Northern City Line. It pisses me off that the NCL has no late evening or weekend services.
> 
> A


It was passenger use until 1976, for suburban diesel services ex-GNR lines to work into Broad Street, but these were all diverted to King's Cross or Moorgate via the GNCR upon electrification... and of course Broad Street subsequently withered and died completely in the 1980's.

The main issue is the fact that when the curve was electrified with OHLE, it had to be singled because there wasn't enough clearance through the Canonbury Tunnel to allow OHLE above double track. It's a common problem when electrifying through tunnels (usually the track has to be lowered), but as this was by now a freight-only route, it was deemed acceptable to single and electrify rather than lower double track.

I guess it could be re-doubled and the OHLE removed in favour of 3rd rail, as certainly very little freight haulage actually appears to be electric, but if this is only in order to reach Finsbury Park I guess it may not be worth the effort as reversing there would be a headache and the soon to open LOROL route to Highbury & Islington will provide decent interchange opportunity.

At one point a long time ago, the ELL was projected to re-open the 'Northern heights' route through Finsbury Park, Stroud Green, Crouch End, and on to Highgate and Muswell Hill, which I think would be very useful, but unbelievably there was an outcry from users of 'Parkland Walk' (the former trackbed) who didn't want to lose the public right of way. This would certainly have justified re-doubling the Canonbury Curve, but sadly I can't see it happening.


----------



## MiaM

Tubeman said:


> It was passenger use until 1976, for suburban diesel services ex-GNR lines to work into Broad Street, but these were all diverted to King's Cross or Moorgate via the GNCR upon electrification... and of course Broad Street subsequently withered and died completely in the 1980's.
> 
> The main issue is the fact that when the curve was electrified with OHLE, it had to be singled because there wasn't enough clearance through the Canonbury Tunnel to allow OHLE above double track. It's a common problem when electrifying through tunnels (usually the track has to be lowered), but as this was by now a freight-only route, it was deemed acceptable to single and electrify rather than lower double track.
> 
> I guess it could be re-doubled and the OHLE removed in favour of 3rd rail, as certainly very little freight haulage actually appears to be electric, but if this is only in order to reach Finsbury Park I guess it may not be worth the effort as reversing there would be a headache and the soon to open LOROL route to Highbury & Islington will provide decent interchange opportunity.


You'd probably need a rather high number of TPH to justify doubling a short stretch of an otherwise double track route. If it for example takes 2 minutes to run through that curve, one delay train can only cause at most 2 minutes delay to another train if the number of TPH is low enough to allow for a quick restoration of a good service.



Tubeman said:


> At one point a long time ago, the ELL was projected to re-open the 'Northern heights' route through Finsbury Park, Stroud Green, Crouch End, and on to Highgate and Muswell Hill, which I think would be very useful, but unbelievably there was an outcry from users of 'Parkland Walk' (the former trackbed) who didn't want to lose the public right of way. This would certainly have justified re-doubling the Canonbury Curve, but sadly I can't see it happening.


Interesteing to hear! Do you remember/know approximately when this outcry happened? Perhaps the public opinion may have changed today.

Would it be a good idea to build this line today, perhaps together with rebuilding Mill Hill East to Edgware and doubling Finchley Central - Mill Hill East and possibly the type of 3rd and 4th rail arrangemant that makes it possible to run both underground and NR trains from Finchley Central to Edgware road?


----------



## Tubeman

It was when the East London Line extension was on the drawing board in the 1990's... The outcry wasn't the sole reason, of course... There would be a bit of engineering (reinstatement of the flyover north of Finsbury Park, re-doubling the Canonbury Curve, and of course re-laying the route to Muswell Hill and rebuilding platforms) and also the headache of trains running ex-ELL crossing the North London Line somewhere between Dalston Western Junction and Canonbury West Junction to access the Canonbury Curve... conflicting train movements, basically.

Perhaps this latter issue could be solved by running the ex-Muswell Hill trains to Stratford?

So basically...

Muswell Hill - Stratford
Richmond - Stratford
ELL destinations - Highbury & Islington (and hopefully beyond)

...No conflicting train movements then...


----------



## RedArkady

It's been discussed on StroudGreen.org and the response was not positive. People love their Parkland Walk, that's for sure.


----------



## Tubeman

They're mad. Have they any idea how much re-opening Stroud Green station would increase their property prices?


----------



## RedArkady

A large minority of Stroud Green's houses back onto the old line, so it might be a trade-off. We must also consider the bizarre, abhorrent thought that some people might prioritise the environment and use of a pleasant footpath over mass transit. Mad I know.


----------



## MiaM

Would the flyover north of Finsbury Park really be necessary?

If the images on Google Maps are correct, it seems like a service between Canonbury Curve and Highgate through Finsbury Park could use the tracks in the western side of Finsbury park and then atmost have crossing paths with freight trains using the tracks in the western side of the station. Perhaps the platform that looks disused would need to be refurbished.

How many trains per hour is there today between Canonbury and Dalston, and what would it be with an addition of the Northern Heights?

I assume the TPH is lower than on the flat junctions on the central parts of the SSR network, therefore it would probably work with flat junctions here too (but a flat junction next to a single track curve would be a bad thing, the flat junction would preferably be near Dalston rather than near Canonbury.

Re the Parkland Walk, perhaps people see value in something else than money, cudos to them if so.


----------



## RedArkady

@MiaM
Without the restoration of the Northern Heights I agree that it would make more sense to use the abandoned western platform at Finsbury Park, currently on the freight-only line. However, the difference in height of the track-beds would presumably require restoration of the fly-over if the NH were brought back into play. I regularly walk the footbridge that replaced the flyover, and it's hard to imagine it working any other way. If you look at Google Maps you can see how the flyover ran from a curve that swung into the park where the tennis courts are now. The NH platforms were east of all of the current ones, on the site of the current covered eastern concourse overlooking the bus station. The bridge supports can still be seen on Stroud Green Road, next to the bike storage facility.

One thing to consider, though, is that an extension to Finsbury Park need not be a 'one station only' project. New platforms at Drayton Park would all the incorporationof that intermediate station, an extremely useful thing to do considering its proximity to the Emirates Stadium, the fact that it is currently closed on weekends and late evenings, and the overcrowding at all other stations on match-days. Presumably Arsenal could be tapped for contributions.

Also, without the restored flyover, extension to Finsbury Park would also allow the ELL and NLL to be linked to suburban services on the Main Line, something mooted by FirstCapitalConnect anyway due to capacity limitations at Moorgate. Living near Harringay Rail this would appeal to me greatly - it would give passengers between Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace (and potentially further north) a choice between direct services to Kings Cross, Moorgate, Stratford or New Cross. This would relieve the interchanges at Finsbury Park and Highbury and Islington too. An extension to FP would allow London Overground to wrestle those suburban services from FirstCapitalConnect, who are famously rubbish.


----------



## RedArkady

The above programme could be delivered in the following stages as new London Overland stock becomes available:

1)	Extension of ELL to Finsbury Park via Drayton Park along the Canonbury Curve. The additional eastbound trains currently starting at Highbury & Islington start at FP instead. Cross-platform ELL/NLL interchange for eastbound passengers encouraged at Canonbury rather than multiple-level interchange at Hi&I.
2)	2tph LO service from Finsbury Park to Moorgate commences operation on Northern City Line at late evening and weekends when FirstCapitalConnect services do not operate. Funded through redevelopment of Drayton Park and Essex Road.
3)	LO takes over Mainline suburban services from FCC, allowing the latter to concentrate on Thameslink. As the mainline splits at Alexandra Palace, simplicity of service might suggest sending Hadley Wood (Welwyn) trains down the NCL to Moorgate and Crews Hill (Hertford Loop) trains to the ELL&NLL, or vice versa.

The original Finsbury Park proposal can be seen here: http://www.urbantransport-technology.com/projects/london/images/LONDON-8.jpg


----------



## Jang0

It's a shame that a local pressure group was able to exert enough force that the Northern Heights plan for the ELL was to put to bed.

London is devoid enough of suitable transport corridors as it stands. They are being built over even now (see Catford, between the railway stations for an example).

My view is that transport corridors, past and present, should be protected from both future non-transport related development and should be protected from NIMBY-like behaviour from individuals who do not recognise wider benefits than can be obtained from reusing transport corridors for transport purposes.

To put it simply, Parkland Walk was once a transport corridor and was released temporarily for use as a footpath, and one day hopefully should hopefully be reused as a corridor.

There are plenty of other places to walk your dog, but NOT plenty of other places to build a railway.


----------



## mayflower232

Tubeman, any idea when in 2011 the refurbishment of the Central line will take place?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10586117


----------



## Tubeman

mayflower232 said:


> Tubeman, any idea when in 2011 the refurbishment of the Central line will take place?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10586117


I could be very trite and unhelpful and say "2011"

...However I don't know... This may just be a very simple case of replacing the moquette fabric across the 92TS fleet which would take a few weeks, I wasn't aware that they were due for a full-on refurb, although many units are beginning to look tatty with corrosion on the exterior so it may be due.

At one point, they were just going to be scrapped & replaced rather than throwing good money after bad refurbing, but the current thrifty climate may require "mend and make do".


----------



## mayflower232

Its interesting to hear that. Would you be able to tell me bit about the 92 central line stock as I have heard from many people about how it is perhaps the worst of the 'newish' stock?

What have the past problems and proposals been? What are they like to drive?

Weren't the bogies replaced with new siemens ones a few years ago?

Many thanks btw - love the thread.


----------



## Tubeman

mayflower232 said:


> Its interesting to hear that. Would you be able to tell me bit about the 92 central line stock as I have heard from many people about how it is perhaps the worst of the 'newish' stock?
> 
> What have the past problems and proposals been? What are they like to drive?
> 
> Weren't the bogies replaced with new siemens ones a few years ago?
> 
> Many thanks btw - love the thread.


They simply weren't very well built, culminating famously with the Chancery lane derailment in 2003 when a motor fell off a bogie due to defective bolts; the entire Central and Waterloo & City Lines were consequently closed for some months during modifications.

Within a few weeks of introduction, the armrests between chairs started to all be kicked off by vandals so they were all simply removed, and there is evident corrosion around seams in the exterior bodywork on a lot of units.

I guess the state of flux of the manufacturer didn't help, it had been BREL in Derby (British Rail Engineering Ltd), but this was bought by a consortium just before this order, and subsequently became part of Bombardier.

As far as I am aware the bogies are original, just heavily modified.


----------



## Gareth

Is there a particular policy on level boarding in the Underground? For example, is it uniform or does the level difference between the train & the platform vary from line to line and train model to train model?


----------



## sotonsi

differs from platform to platform, line to line and stock to stock.


----------



## Gareth

Is the difference a lot though? Merseyrail trains, for example, seem to have quite a big step, meaning a member of staff is required to provide a ramp for disabled passengers.

I assume that any new lines & trains must feature level boarding?


----------



## Tubeman

Gareth said:


> Is the difference a lot though? Merseyrail trains, for example, seem to have quite a big step, meaning a member of staff is required to provide a ramp for disabled passengers.
> 
> I assume that any new lines & trains must feature level boarding?


New lines yes, new trains not really, although rolling stock design will endeavour to minimise the step / gap.

Don't forget some platforms are served by Tube and Surface stock trains (Ealing Common & Rayners Lane to Uxbridge) so a compromise height between the two is required... Same applies to the Bakerloo Line north of Queen's Park.

On some Victoria Line platforms small ramps have now been built to give a portion of the platform step-free access, a bit messy but cheaper than raising every platform.


----------



## Tubeman

Gareth said:


> Is the difference a lot though? Merseyrail trains, for example, seem to have quite a big step, meaning a member of staff is required to provide a ramp for disabled passengers.
> 
> I assume that any new lines & trains must feature level boarding?


Some are huge... Ealing Common to step up / down to a District Line D Stock was massive, some elderly people would literally just stand there staring at the height difference and refuse to get on / off... I think the station refurb a few years ago evened out the step a bit though...


----------



## sotonsi

plus you have the problem where the platform curves, so in places the train hangs over the platform and in others there's a huge gap.


----------



## mayflower232

On the central line, some parts around Leyton and Stratford are very rough and use the old wooden sleeper tracks. Are these likely to be replaced anytime soon?

Also the other morning (I get the 5:40) I noticed on my phone that the train which passed through Buckhurst hill station before me was listed as 'Special'. Does this mean it was some form of engineering train or would it simple be a standard train which needs to get to a certain siding?

Also why I am on the subject of Buckhurst Hill station, have you ever walked around this station? Its such a shame, for it is a great example of a late victorian station, yet due to the collapse of Metronet the planned refurbishment that was suppose to take place about 2 years ago never came to fruition. The station is really starting to fall apart, plaster falling off walls, damp bricks falling apart, paint flaking off.... For what I presume is a listed building, they really have got away with murder.


----------



## Tubeman

mayflower232 said:


> On the central line, some parts around Leyton and Stratford are very rough and use the old wooden sleeper tracks. Are these likely to be replaced anytime soon?
> 
> Also the other morning (I get the 5:40) I noticed on my phone that the train which passed through Buckhurst hill station before me was listed as 'Special'. Does this mean it was some form of engineering train or would it simple be a standard train which needs to get to a certain siding?
> 
> Also why I am on the subject of Buckhurst Hill station, have you ever walked around this station? Its such a shame, for it is a great example of a late victorian station, yet due to the collapse of Metronet the planned refurbishment that was suppose to take place about 2 years ago never came to fruition. The station is really starting to fall apart, plaster falling off walls, damp bricks falling apart, paint flaking off.... For what I presume is a listed building, they really have got away with murder.


I think you've answered your first question yourself with your observation of Buckhurst Hill station becoming tatty due to lack of investment post-Metronet collapse. There is a rolling programme of track replacement resulting in concrete sleepers and continuously welded flat-bottomed rail, but the foot has come off the pedal due to financial constraints and we appear to be returning to the 'mend and make do' culture of replacing sections of worn bullhead rail on the worst sections which is just a temporary fix.

Regarding the 'special' train, does your app work off the timetable or off actual train positions do you know?

If it's a timetabled 'special' at the same time daily it's most likely just a timetabled empty stock move at that time of day, maybe ex-Loughton sidings. If it was from live information, it could have been an engineers train returning towards West Ruislip after an overnight engineering job, or simply a train running empty due to a defect, graffiti, etc.


----------



## Dobbo

If i saw one of the engineering trains going through a station in central the urge to jump on one of the flatbeds would be very strong!!!

If it was a late train on a friday or saturday - i could well be in trouble!!!


----------



## Tubeman

Dobbo said:


> If i saw one of the engineering trains going through a station in central the urge to jump on one of the flatbeds would be very strong!!!
> 
> If it was a late train on a friday or saturday - i could well be in trouble!!!


Happens all the time... That's why there's a battery loco at both ends with a driver in each... the rear driver is watching out for just that sort of high jinks.

Try it and you'll get a loud blast of the horn followed by some very colourful language :yes:


----------



## CharlieP

Tubes, can you help me out here please?

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=72920679



mtj73 said:


> http://www.flickr.com/photos/fridgemonkey/5453634322/in/photostream/


Does anybody know what the third arch is/was/has ever been used for? From Google Earth I can see that the LUL lines pass beneath the photographer on a diverging angle - would this arch have had other lines through it before all the Smithfield sidings were removed to leave just two running lines?

On page 55 of my Brown (2nd edition), you can see the layout of the old sidings, but without any geographic references - maybe the author can help?


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> Does anybody know what the third arch is/was/has ever been used for? From Google Earth I can see that the LUL lines pass beneath the photographer on a diverging angle - would this arch have had other lines through it before all the Smithfield sidings were removed to leave just two running lines?
> 
> On page 55 of my Brown (2nd edition), you can see the layout of the old sidings, but without any geographic references - maybe the author can help?


As far as I can tell, the two running lines are positioned as they have always been, with the line toward Farringdon on the left entering double track portal 1, the line toward Barbican in the middle coming out of single track portal 2, and the empty double track portal 3 only ever having accommodated a single siding (recorded on P55 of my atlas). Smithfield sidings diverged off the left-hand track and in the map below you can just see the points positioned just outside of this portal.

The map's from 1877 and is useful because it predates this section being covered over, I've rotated it 90 degrees so it aligns with the picture view, as you note in the modern photograph the Circle / Met / H&C Lines remain covered and are not visible.


----------



## CharlieP

Cheers, much appreciated!


----------



## Tubeman

No worries... It is / was a bit of an odd set-up

The Smithfield Central market buildings which the 'Widened Lines' (now abandoned ex-Thameslink route) skirts underneath are the same vintage (widened lines were completed 1866, market buildings built 1866-1868), maybe there was just a bit of futureproofing with room for an additional 2 roads provided for under the market? I'd be interested to see if all 3 tunnels emerge at the Farringdon end, or if the one I designated 'portal 3' is a dead end.


----------



## CharlieP

Tubeman said:


> No worries... It is / was a bit of an odd set-up
> 
> The Smithfield Central market buildings which the 'Widened Lines' (now abandoned ex-Thameslink route) skirts underneath are the same vintage (widened lines were completed 1866, market buildings built 1866-1868), maybe there was just a bit of futureproofing with room for an additional 2 roads provided for under the market? I'd be interested to see if all 3 tunnels emerge at the Farringdon end, or if the one I designated 'portal 3' is a dead end.


Interested enough to go and take a look?


----------



## Tubeman

It's only about 10 minutes walk away, but I think it would be hard to get a clear view with the hoardings at the moment.

This would be a good view but for the bloody crane in the way 










Anyway looks like the ramp down to the worksite obliterates the old tunnel portals so it might be hard to ascertain. I'll thumb through a few books I own to see if I can get any old views of the portals...


----------



## sotonsi

The tunnel portal for the route southwards (Snow Hill Tunnel?) looks to be quite a bit wider than two tracks there.


----------



## makita09

It is, there are or were sidings there, used for peak stock when Blackfriars terminators continue to City Thameslink. All in the past now I think.


----------



## Tubeman

makita09 said:


> It is, there are or were sidings there, used for peak stock when Blackfriars terminators continue to City Thameslink. All in the past now I think.


The sidings always were accessed from the south (City Thameslink) end, known as Smithfield Sidings there were once 4, now 2. What you can is the raft which covers them; until recent demolition there was a building with foundations at track level which effectively limited the northern portal of Snow Hill Tunnel to 2 roads, and I don't think it was ever any different to this.

Here's a mid-20th century view looking north towards Farringdon out of the northern portal of the Snow Hill tunnel, the little siding was where a banking engine resided to help push goods trains up the steep incline to Ludgate Hill Station. The banking engine is here in the photo, about to couple onto the rear of the train from which the photo is taken to push it up the gradient.


----------



## CharlieP

Tubeman said:


> It's only about 10 minutes walk away, but I think it would be hard to get a clear view with the hoardings at the moment.
> 
> This would be a good view but for the bloody crane in the way
> 
> ...
> 
> Anyway looks like the ramp down to the worksite obliterates the old tunnel portals so it might be hard to ascertain. I'll thumb through a few books I own to see if I can get any old views of the portals...


Ah, you're a good 'un.


----------



## TitanSound

Just a quick one..

Do you know what the new part of the station building at Highbury & Islington is for? I ask because the construction boards inside and out have been taken down. When I saw inside it was a new control room being fitted with an empty space next to it. And from outside it does not look like it is an access extension. 

Unless they are demolishing the current ticket office it does not make much sense!


----------



## Tubeman

TitanSound said:


> Just a quick one..
> 
> Do you know what the new part of the station building at Highbury & Islington is for? I ask because the construction boards inside and out have been taken down. When I saw inside it was a new control room being fitted with an empty space next to it. And from outside it does not look like it is an access extension.
> 
> Unless they are demolishing the current ticket office it does not make much sense!


Honestly don't know... Maybe an improved Control room due to football traffic, maybe with provision for the BTP? Guesswork on my part, I hasten to add.


----------



## leverarch

TitanSound said:


> Just a quick one..
> 
> Do you know what the new part of the station building at Highbury & Islington is for? I ask because the construction boards inside and out have been taken down. When I saw inside it was a new control room being fitted with an empty space next to it. And from outside it does not look like it is an access extension.
> 
> Unless they are demolishing the current ticket office it does not make much sense!


They are building the additional control room that is now visible, and another exit/entrance, which is bricked up at the moment. The idea is to use this as the station exit, and the current entrance/exit as an entrance only, once it has been finished. This will certainly come in handy when Arsenal are playing! In the planning documents it says this will be bricked up until the secondary barriers are required. 

The plans are on the council website...

https://www.islington.gov.uk/onlineplanning/apas/run/wphappcriteria.display

Application number: P100427

It seems like a more temporary, short term solution for this horrible station, there has long been talk of redeveloping the whole station when the part of Highbury Corner is pedestrianised and the road re-routed to get rid of the roundabout and the Post Office knocked down. Who knows when this will now happen given the economic climate!

And to think this is what once stood on the site hno:



















rather than this...


----------



## mr_jrt

Tubeman said:


> Within London I'd hazard a guess at Class 313, 1976-77 vintage on the ECML suburban routes and GNCR. Can't think of anything older in regular use.


Ok, it's out of London, but surely Chiltern's Bubble Car deserves a mention! There must also be an odd HST or two as well that are older than the late-70's ECML suburban stock. You're probably right about the ECML for the oldest NR electrics though.

If you count the lines between Harrow and Amersham as quasi-NR you could also include the Met's A-Stock, from the early 60's.

...and there's probably a few odd old diesel shunters around Old Oak too.

...and that's without even including the LUL hackjobs from withdrawn stock used for the engineering trains


----------



## RedArkady

A heartbreaking loss, Leverarch.


----------



## TitanSound

Thanks for your answers!!

When construction started I did think it was for additional exit/entrance capacity for the Arsenal games. But when I saw it was blocked off it made me wonder what the point was! 

And I had NO idea that a building of that granduer was on the site prior to the current structure. A quick look on Wikipedia states that:

The NLR station was damaged by a V-1 flying bomb on 27 June 1944, but its main building remained in use until demolished in the 1960s during the building of the Victoria line.

A tragedy!

I have seen the plans for re-modelling Highbury corner as I live in the area and received a consultation document and I think it would make so much sense. It gets horribly cramped when busy. 

It also states on Wikipedia:

Islington Borough Council is considering redeveloping the site of the current station, and Highbury Corner generally, possibly covering the North London Line tracks with an office block above the site.

Seems a bit silly to build an office block over the tracks though. The line would need to be closed to allow for construction!!


----------



## leverarch

Not necessarily! I live on Arundel Square, where they just finished a massive block of apartments on the side of the square that the NLL is on. They built a concrete platform over the tracks to extend the square, without any disruption to the line as far as I'm aware. The whole stretch of land along the north side of Highbury Station Rd seems like a bit of a waste since its only a couple minutes from Upper Street and the tube.


----------



## London Underground

Hi Tubey.

I have got just one question for you today: I just watched Ghosts in the Underground on youtube, and in one part they mention South Island Place.

What is/was SIP and what is/was it used for?


----------



## MiaM

Tubeman said:


> A1: Yes, better interchange at H&I. The reason why it goes no further (at present) is capacity; the East London Line service is completely segregated between Dalston Western Junction and H&I (dedicated to the southern pair of tracks... the northern pair are for Stratford trains and freight).
> 
> A2 & 3: Here's (to the best of my knowledge) the new layout (at the bottom)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see the plan (middle) was to reinstate the 4-track section through Camden Road station (it always has bottle-necked down to 2 tracks just west of there), but I believe the bridge east of the station has deteriorated too much to be re-used and would need to be replaced. I believe that if High Speed 2 is built, this will be looked at again and the original 2-track bottle neck west of Camden Road removed, as this would form the link between HS1 and HS2. It involves a short new stretch of viaduct and some property demolition, but regardless this would result in the LOROL and freight services still being restricted to 2 tracks between Camden Road East Junction (where the link to HS1 joins) and Camden Road West Junction (where the lines to Kentish Town West and Primrose Hill diverge) as I assume the southern pair of tracks would be dedicated HS2 / HS1 link.
> 
> A4: Not to my knowledge. I've always liked the idea of using the western half of GOBLIN as a Thameslink extension to Stansted Airport, by reinstating the curve between Kentish Town and Junction Road and also the curve between South Tottenham and Tottenham Hale (and of course electrification). That means potentially you'd have the Thameslink connecting Gatwick to Luton and Stansted, and Crossrail connecting Heathrow to City Airport, so all 5 of London's airports linked to cross-London NR services interchanging at Farringdon.


Thanks for the reply.

I assume the upper part of the track map is how it was a few years ago. But what does the lower part show?

In theory a Thameslink-Stansted service could be introduced using the connecting tracks to NLL eastwards at St. Pancras (If they are installed?) and run down the curve to London Fields station, and do a direction change there. I assume it's not worth the effort to do so.

I like the idea to connect the airports, for example it satisfies my taste for symetry , but is that a service that real people would actually use?

I understand that it would cost a lot of money but to connect Stansted to Gatwick I'd vote for a "Thameslink 2" connecting Canon Street to Liverpool Street.
(I'm not sure but probably this has already been discussed in this thread?)


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Hi Tubey.
> 
> I have got just one question for you today: I just watched Ghosts in the Underground on youtube, and in one part they mention South Island Place.
> 
> What is/was SIP and what is/was it used for?


I believe it's the pumping station halfway between Stockwell and Oval on the Northern Line, it's just about visible as it whizzes by, but more noticeable the train lurches slightly as it passes in either direction as the tracks slew toward each other as they pass the pump room on otherwise straight, fast track. There are several pumping stations dotted around the system at low points of the deep level system to remove the continual groundwater ingress.


----------



## Tubeman

MiaM said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> I assume the upper part of the track map is how it was a few years ago. But what does the lower part show?


(I think... )

Top: situation before recent work
Middle: aspirational situation (too expensive)
Bottom: situation now post-work

I'll ask somersetchris, he's a LOROL driver... I think we might have ended up with a hybrid between middle and bottom.


----------



## MiaM

Tubeman said:


> (I think... )
> 
> Top: situation before recent work
> Middle: aspirational situation (too expensive)
> Bottom: situation now post-work


The picture on the wikipedia page of Caledonian Road & Barnsbury railway station shows four tracks. I don't find any info regarding when the picture was taken, but it was uploaded last summer.

I assume they didn't remove a fourth track since then :nuts:

(In the



Tubeman said:


> I'll ask somersetchris, he's a LOROL driver... I think we might have ended up with a hybrid between middle and bottom.


Thanks!

P.S. where did you find the picture in the first place?


----------



## Tubeman

No, that's very recent, after the 4th was reinstated... I believe what we ended up with is a hybrid between the middle and bottom diagrams, with essentially quadruple track throughout, but the junction between quadruple and double track east not west of Camden Road platforms (because of the aforementioned dilapidated bridge).

I think the diagram was on London Reconnections somewhere, but when I tried to search for it again I couldn't find it.


----------



## Tubeman

Scrub that, I've found it


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> I believe it's the pumping station halfway between Stockwell and Oval on the Northern Line, it's just about visible as it whizzes by, but more noticeable the train lurches slightly as it passes in either direction as the tracks slew toward each other as they pass the pump room on otherwise straight, fast track. There are several pumping stations dotted around the system at low points of the deep level system to remove the continual groundwater ingress.


Thanks.

I just found something i have never seen before: A doubletrack tube tunnel, with a crossover and a station. What station is that?


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I just found something i have never seen before: A doubletrack tube tunnel, with a crossover and a station. What station is that?


Formerly Stockwell, Angel, Clapham Common and Euston (Bank Branch), all were termini of the City & South London Railway at some point, but none have this arrangement remaining (i.e. with the crossover), and only Clapham Common retains the double-track station tunnel with an island platform (as does Clapham North, but this was never a terminus nor had a crossover to my knowledge). King William Street (the original northern terminus) had the same arrangement also.

The portion hosting the crossovers beyond the respective platforms would have been used for platform extension during the 1922-24 tunnel widening / platform lengthening of the CSLR, the crossovers were no longer required at Euston and Clapham Common (the 1922 termini) as the line was extended beyond these two stations to Camden Town and Morden respectively. 

The original 1900's station bores remain at Angel and Euston, hosting the southbound track and extra wide platforms. Stockwell is in situ but trains just run through as the station was relocated slightly south with side platforms giving cross-platform access to the Victoria Line when that was built. At this time, the Euston arrangement was altered with a new northbound tunnel and platform built with the original northbound tunnel becoming a long siding connecting the new northbound and original southbound tunnels ('Euston Loop', long enough to accommodate 1 train).

Angel was finally tackled in 1992, as the island platform was becoming dangerously crowded, so a new northbound tunnel and platform were built.

Original Angel (post-1924 platform lengthening)... the crossover would have been at the far end of the platform:










Current arrangement at Euston (Bank branch only), the truncated stub of the former northbound track is apparent, along with the diversion to the south:










Euston (Bank branch) in 1950, before the Victoria Line work re-routed the northbound tunnel:


----------



## London Underground

Thanks. I had forgoten about Angel. I had no idea those had crossovers.

Allthough i just noticed i had missed one important detail: it wasn't an island platform. It was just one platform at each side.

It can be seen at 7:47 and 8:57 here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWL8c7zP0dc&feature=related


----------



## Paul Easton

London Underground said:


> Allthough i just noticed i had missed one important detail: it wasn't an island platform. It was just one platform at each side.
> 
> It can be seen at 7:47 and 8:57 here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWL8c7zP0dc&feature=related


Looks like Piccadilly Circus (Bakerloo) where because of the crossover you can see part of the northbound platform from a southbound train.


----------



## London Underground

Paul Easton said:


> Looks like Piccadilly Circus (Bakerloo) where because of the crossover you can see part of the northbound platform from a southbound train.


Yeah, that sounds about right compared to wikipedias pic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piccadilly_Circus_-_Bakerloo_crossover_01.jpg Thanks.


----------



## Tubeman

^^
Correct!

The 'scissors' crossover is now just a single crossover from southbound to northbound, however.


----------



## London Underground

Single crossover? Why change it? What if they need the NB to SB crossover sometime?


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Single crossover? Why change it? What if they need the NB to SB crossover sometime?


Cost of maintenance, lots of crossovers have been removed over the years. It does make LU lines less operationally flexible unfortunately, bus this is balanced against reduced cost and risk of equipment failure.

Not too sure when the Piccadilly Circus 'scissors' were removed and replaced with the current single crossover. Even the single crossover was completely off limits for use until a recent replacement, as there was a derailment risk. Over August Bank holiday weekend 2008 (or was it 2009, I forget?!) the crossover was replaced with new 'house top' points, not found anywhere else in the UK. Even now it's only available for the SB platform - NB track move; the opposite move (detrain NB platform, shunt forwards, reverse back across into SB platform) still hasn't been commissioned yet.


----------



## London Underground

Uh-huh. I see. Looks like all the traffic companies in the world are using the same principal: anything to save a couple of bucks.

But how big was the risk for derailment? 1 out of 2 trains?


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Uh-huh. I see. Looks like all the traffic companies in the world are using the same principal: anything to save a couple of bucks.
> 
> But how big was the risk for derailment? 1 out of 2 trains?


Quite high, there had been a few at that point over the years, but usually engineers trains. There are issues with the track geometry due to the tight curves and constrained space of the crossover cavern.

The 'House top' points are designed to prevent derailment, the design was imported from US freight yards where they are common, Piccadilly Circus is the only UK example.


----------



## London Underground

I see. Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## ajw373

London Underground said:


> Uh-huh. I see. Looks like all the traffic companies in the world are using the same principal: anything to save a couple of bucks.
> 
> But how big was the risk for derailment? 1 out of 2 trains?


Not everything is about money. As Tubeman said (paraphrasing here) it does also reduce complexity which in turn can reduce incidents and delays. So it essense it is a balancing act between operational flexibility, cost and complexity.


----------



## London Underground

Yeah, but he also said that it was "to reduce maintenance costs".


----------



## ajw373

London Underground said:


> Yeah, but he also said that it was "to reduce maintenance costs".


One of MANY factors, that's the difference.


----------



## CharlieP

Hey Tubes, will the third edition of London Railway Atlas show the new Thameslink track layout through Borough Market?


----------



## davidaiow

A JLE question.
Northbound into Westminster station, there is a lighted passageway on the right hand side. Any idea what it is? Whenever I see a tunnel on the tube I get so inquisitive.
Thanks


----------



## London Underground

ajw373 said:


> One of MANY factors, that's the difference.


Fine, you made your point. Now lets get back on topic.


----------



## ajw373

London Underground said:


> Fine, you made your point. Now lets get back on topic.


Who died and made you boss? Or do you not like being put in your place?


----------



## Tubeman

Sad news today, District Dave passed away this morning while waiting for heart surgery. One of the most knowledgeable men on earth of London Underground, and one of the nicest guys you could ever wish to meet.


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> Hey Tubes, will the third edition of London Railway Atlas show the new Thameslink track layout through Borough Market?


Yes, although maybe not precisely. Haven't seen any 'final' track diagrams yet, and it's likely too early for the finished layout to have been decided upon.


----------



## Tubeman

davidaiow said:


> A JLE question.
> Northbound into Westminster station, there is a lighted passageway on the right hand side. Any idea what it is? Whenever I see a tunnel on the tube I get so inquisitive.
> Thanks


There seems to be quite a few of these large dimly-lit caverns off the end of JLE platforms... I guess nothing more exciting than substations / signalling machine rooms.


----------



## davidaiow

^Thank you. Sad news about District Dave too


----------



## NCT

Tubeman said:


> Sad news today, District Dave passed away this morning while waiting for heart surgery. One of the most knowledgeable men on earth of London Underground, and one of the nicest guys you could ever wish to meet.


Never knew Dave personally but visited his very informative website a few times. Such a tragic loss to the Underground community. RIP.


----------



## London Underground

ajw373 said:


> Who died and made you boss? Or do you not like being put in your place?


No one. Just think we're done with this. And no i don't.:bash:



Tubeman said:


> Sad news today, District Dave passed away this morning while waiting for heart surgery. One of the most knowledgeable men on earth of London Underground, and one of the nicest guys you could ever wish to meet.


:badnews:


----------



## nr23Derek

This has almost certainly been posted somewhere in the past 222 pages, but I don't' remember seeing it.

Detailed map of London Tube, Underground, Overground & DLR: Document non trouvé

And this from Wikipedia is nice and almost certainly has been posted

Derek


----------



## CharlieP

nr23Derek said:


> Document non trouvé


French for "Document not found". :lol:


----------



## nr23Derek

CharlieP said:


> French for "Document not found". :lol:


oops

"Detailed map of London Tube, Underground, Overground & DLR" 

It does work 

Derek


----------



## Tubeman

Anyway, stop advertising my 'competition' :sly: :shifty:

Damned cartographers giving their work away for nothing...


----------



## Blackraven

It's my first time in this thread. Anyways, just three questions.

1) The Olympic games for your country is scheduled next year. How are things going on with regards to preparations in regards to rail transportation? (aside from the "Olympic Javelin" bullet train courtesy of Hitachi Corporation)

2) Platform doors and gates in train stations in the country: Jubilee Line has them. With that said, who's next in line to get them? And, how many more are left to be constructed?

3) Not to start any panic or anything but if I may ask: United Kingdom is not that seismologically destructive by nature. However, in light of recent earthquake, tsunami and natural disasters that happened in Japan, would you care to give your opinion, analysis and evaluation regarding the safety and stability of rail transportation infrastructure in United Kingdom as well as any info or explanation on how these are kept safe and secure in the event of natural disasters like what happened in Japan

Of course, such event may not be as damaging and may not be a frequent occurrence in the United Kingdom, but still, it's best to be prepared in a worst-case scenario even happens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_the_United_Kingdom

And I hope that such an event would never have to happen in the first place

Thanks


----------



## Tubeman

Blackraven said:


> It's my first time in this thread. Anyways, just three questions.
> 
> 1) The Olympic games for your country is scheduled next year. How are things going on with regards to preparations in regards to rail transportation? (aside from the "Olympic Javelin" bullet train courtesy of Hitachi Corporation)


Hi 

It's difficult to say which developments are strictly Olympic-related and which were happening anyway, but improvements serving the Olympic park are:

Jubilee Line signalling upgrade (to ATO)
DLR Stratford International extension (opening next month, maybe... still no date)
1992 Stock refurb (Central Line)
Platform 3a at Stratford (additional westbound Central Line platform)
New turnback facility between West Ham and Plaistow (District and H&C Lines)

...But this would all have happened Olympics or not (except maybe the extra platform at Stratford), the games just give a bit more impetus



Blackraven said:


> 2) Platform doors and gates in train stations in the country: Jubilee Line has them. With that said, who's next in line to get them? And, how many more are left to be constructed?


Just Crossrail 1 underground stations... There are no plans to install PEDs on any other LU lines, or even the remainder of the Jubilee Line (pre-1999 extension). Buried somewhere in this thread are I think discussions about this... Basically the curvature of many LU platforms preclude from PED installation (big gap between train and platform edge), as does the fact that mixed stocks serve the same platforms currently (i.e. doors in different places)... The latter issue will disappear when the S Stock is universally rolled out across the SSR lines.

They're very expensive, introduce more things that can go wrong operationally, and to be blunt if they can't be installed everywhere then they aren't really worth installing anywhere. They obviously prevent access to the track where they are installed (e.g. suicides), as well as rubbish blowing down tunnels (which can cause fires), but someone intent on jumping will just go to the nearest non-PED station... and sharply curved platforms like (for example) Bank on the Central Line could never realistically have PEDs installed.

The number of accidental falls onto the track or malicious pushes are minimal compared to genuine 'jumpers', it's a very expensive solution to a small problem.



Blackraven said:


> 3) Not to start any panic or anything but if I may ask: United Kingdom is not that seismologically destructive by nature. However, in light of recent earthquake, tsunami and natural disasters that happened in Japan, would you care to give your opinion, analysis and evaluation regarding the safety and stability of rail transportation infrastructure in United Kingdom as well as any info or explanation on how these are kept safe and secure in the event of natural disasters like what happened in Japan
> 
> Of course, such event may not be as damaging and may not be a frequent occurrence in the United Kingdom, but still, it's best to be prepared in a worst-case scenario even happens
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_the_United_Kingdom
> 
> And I hope that such an event would never have to happen in the first place
> 
> Thanks


The earthquake issue is beyond the limits of what we should be reasonably trying to mitigate against... I've felt 1 earthquake in 34 years in the UK, and that event (Market Rasen) caused one chimney on one house to topple over in the entire country. It's safe to say we'll be wiped out by an asteroid before an earthquake causes any significant damage in the UK!

The biggest natural risk to the rail infrastructure is flooding I guess. London Underground tunnels are in places below sea level let alone below the level of the Thames (very little in it), and are well below the water table. The constant water ingress is continually being pumped out by pumping stations, and this issue is getting worse as the London water table rises (up until the mid-20th century there was a vast amount of industrial groundwater extraction which kept levels down, this has stopped with the death of heavy industry in London). In addition, during WW2 the risk of a bomb landing on the Thames river bed above an LU tunnel and breaching it was identified, so a system of floodgates which rolled across to block the tunnels in such an eventuality was installed. These are all still in place, but I'm unsure how functional they are if at all. Somewhat callously the plan was for them to be rolled across either side of the Thames sealing the under-river section immediately that a breach occurred... any train(s) which happened to be sealed between the floodgates would be entombed and flooded... sacrificing the few to save the many.

On the National Rail network during major flood events the odd bridge here and there might get washed away... The only recent event I can think of was the 1987 Llandeilo disaster where a bridge over the River Towy was washed away as a train crossed, drowning 4 (this was during the infamous 'Great Storm' of 1987). Historically, the only really significant loss of life on Britain's railways due to nature was the 1879 Tay Bridge Disaster when the Tay Bridge in Dundee, Scotland, collapsed as a train crossed killing c.75 passengers. Again, this was during a violent windstorm and I have read elsewhere that the bridge was hit by a tornado as the train crossed, which combined with some structural flaws caused the disaster.

I guess we could always be hit by a tsunami... more likely from a landslide / volcanic eruption in the Atlantic (e.g. the Canaries) than an earthquake, as the Mid-Atlantic ridge is a constructive plate boundary so much less prone to big earthquakes than the destructive boundaries around the Pacific rim. In this eventuality, the only stretch of track I'd worry about is the GWR main line along the sea front between Dawlish and Teignmouth, although I guess a tsunami from the south-west could be dramatically funnelled up the Severn estuary and inundate the flat land in Somerset, Gloucestershire, and South Wales and therefore the rail lines in the area... It is speculated that the 1607 Bristol Channel flood was caused by just such a tsunami, originating from an undersea landslide or earthquake off Ireland.

Anyway, as they say on 'Crimewatch': "don't have nightmares!"


----------



## sotonsi

Tubeman said:


> The latter issue [different height stock] will disappear when the S Stock is universally rolled out across the SSR lines.


Is S stock the same height as '73 stock (Ealing Common, Rayners Lane, Eastcote, Ruislip Manor, Ruislip, Ickenham, Hillingdon and Uxbridge), Class 165/168 (Rickmansworth, Chorleywood, Chalfont & Latimer and Amersham) and Class 378 (Gunnersbury, Kew Gardens and Richmond) trains? Likewise '72 stock and Class 378 trains (Harrow & Wealdstone, Kenton, South Kenton, North Wembley, Wembley Central, Stonebridge Park, Harlesden, Willesden Junction and Kensal Rise)?

Of course, all these are open air stations and wouldn't have PEDs anyway (as the JLE stations in the open air didn't either).


----------



## MiaM

In theory you could have a "sort of" semi-PED that is installed a bit into the platform. On the Liseberg railway station in Gothenburg this is used, thus any stock may be used. The doors can always be opened from the track side of the doors, but somehow they are locked in the other direction when there are no trains on the platform. Perhaps train staff has to manually control the doors, I don't know.

That station sees about 4TPH peak hours and it's not that busy on the commuter train line that serves it, so this arrangement works there.

I assume such solution would never work on Londons underground stations as it requires 50-100cm wider platform...

Edit: regarding problems with bridges... It's rather easy to install a electrical wire among the bridge structure that gets cut if the structure has problems, and connect the wire to the signalling system so an approaching train sees stop/danger if the bridge has some problems.

However there needs to be a reason to believe that the bridge could be damaged to justify the cost of such a system...


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> Of course, all these are open air stations and wouldn't have PEDs anyway


You could have saved yourself a lot of typing then!


----------



## Tubeman

And I was talking about doors being in different positions depending on the stock, which would currently preclude Wimbledon - Barking and Great Portland Street - Liverpool Street from having PEDs due to C & D Stocks and A & C Stocks calling at the same platforms respectively...


----------



## sotonsi

Tubeman said:


> You could have saved yourself a lot of typing then!


But I wanted to know if the trains serving the shared platforms have the same floor height. So if you were so concerned about me typing more, rather than effectively saying 'that was a pointless post', you could have actually answered my questions. Thanks to your pointless - and rude - post, you also have to type more now.


Tubeman said:


> And I was talking about doors being in different positions depending on the stock, which would currently preclude Wimbledon - Barking and Great Portland Street - Liverpool Street from having PEDs due to C & D Stocks and A & C Stocks calling at the same platforms respectively...


So you were, but the train floor heights issue is also there as well (solved with S stock on stations that are actually underground). Also raises accessibility questions with level boarding and such like.

IIRC Heathrow Terminal 5 also has PEDs. Does Woolwich Arsenal DLR (the only other below ground station to have opened since the JLE) have them too?


----------



## MiaM

MiaM said:


> In theory you could have a "sort of" semi-PED that is installed a bit into the platform. On the Liseberg railway station in Gothenburg this is used, thus any stock may be used. The doors can always be opened from the track side of the doors, but somehow they are locked in the other direction when there are no trains on the platform. Perhaps train staff has to manually control the doors, I don't know.


On the wikipedia page of the station there is a picture showing this semi-PED arrangement.

Sorry for going off-topic, but is this arrangement used anywhere else in the world?


----------



## Tubeman

No, not seen them anywhere... Odd set-up

Bit worrying that someone could end up between train and PED screen too (gap looks wide enough), does seem to be a lot of effort for something rather pointless.

I've seen pictures of outdoors PEDs... Hong Kong I think... the screen is roughly chest height.


----------



## flare

Tubeman, do you know anything about the extent of planned closures on the Northern line as a result of the upgrade? Also, is it more likely to affect the northern stretches or southern stretches or will it be complete line closure?


----------



## Tubeman

flare said:


> Tubeman, do you know anything about the extent of planned closures on the Northern line as a result of the upgrade? Also, is it more likely to affect the northern stretches or southern stretches or will it be complete line closure?


I know the extent of closures has been dramatically scaled back, it was going to be early closing daily for months with pretty much every weekend closed too, but this is now not happening after push-back from the Mayor. I guess this now means the upgrade will take longer...


----------



## sweek

Anything happening on your own little line at the moment, Tubeman? Never hear much about the Bakerloo apart from the odd south-eastern extension which never seems to be more than just a long-term intention.


----------



## Tubeman

sweek said:


> Anything happening on your own little line at the moment, Tubeman? Never hear much about the Bakerloo apart from the odd south-eastern extension which never seems to be more than just a long-term intention.


Still back of the queue I'm afraid... No realistic improvements for (I reckon) at least a decade.

Anyway, I've been seconded to Head office now so the Bakerloo is in my past


----------



## davidaiow

Is the Bakerloo actually as slow as it seems when I ride it (ie, is it the slowest)? Or is it more to do with the more local stations compared to say, the Jubilee line? The Central always seems the fastest to me. Though thinking about it, I think sound has a lot to do with the psychology of speed.


----------



## Tubeman

davidaiow said:


> Is the Bakerloo actually as slow as it seems when I ride it (ie, is it the slowest)? Or is it more to do with the more local stations compared to say, the Jubilee line? The Central always seems the fastest to me. Though thinking about it, I think sound has a lot to do with the psychology of speed.


The Central has the fastest acceleration / hardest braking so you aren't imagining it... the ATO is the prime reason, combined with newer stock (the Victoria Line's 1967 stock are also ATO but can't muster the same acceleration / braking performance).

The Jubilee has wider spaced stations and gentler curvature on account of being newer (the three tunnel sections date from 1939, 1979 and 1999)... It came after the levy that used to be charged to Tube builders for tunnelling below private property, which restricted tunnels by and large to following streets and their twists & turns. The Central is lucky in that it follows a roman road all the way from Shepherd's Bush to Bank, so is pretty straight between these two stations despite being one of the first tubes.

The Bakerloo suffers from closely spaced stations and several torturous curves derived from following the streets above along the original 1900's section, you can follow the route on an A to Z:

Elephant & Castle station > follows London Road to St Georges Circus *tight curve* > follows Westminster Bridge Road > *tight curve* into Lambeth North station > follows Westminster Bridge Road to where the Waterloo main line crosses *tight curve* deviating away from Westminster Bridge Road and under Waterloo station *Waterloo platforms on another tight curve* > crosses under Thames parallel with Hungerford Bridge > Embankment station > follows Northumberland Avenue onto Cockspur Street > Charing Cross station > continues under Cockspur Street *very tight curve* onto Haymarket > up Haymarket *tight curve into Piccadilly Circus station* > *gentler curve under southern end of Regent Street* > follows Regent Street > Oxford Circus station > continues up Regent Street *tight curves one way then the other to follow Langham Place onto Portland Place* > up Portland Place > Regent's Park station *gentler curve 90 degrees under Park Crescent* > York Terrace > Baker Street Station > Melcombe Street > Harewood Row > Bell Street > Edgware Road station *then a long arcing southward curve followed by a very sharp northward curve into Paddington station*

The curves at Paddington, Picc Circus > Charing Cross, Waterloo > Lambeth and the one under St Georges Circus are the real killers, there aren't many decent straight runs unimpeded by speed restrictions anywhere on the original stretch of line. That being said, the 1972 stocks are quite zippy for their age (decent acceleration and strong braking).


----------



## iampuking

sotonsi said:


> IIRC Heathrow Terminal 5 also has PEDs. Does Woolwich Arsenal DLR (the only other below ground station to have opened since the JLE) have them too?


Heathrow T5 and Woolwich Arsenal both don't have PEDs.


----------



## MiaM

Tubeman said:


> No, not seen them anywhere... Odd set-up


I think it's done this way to make it work more or less with any stock. Usually the same kind of local commuter trains stop here, but at some occations other stock stop here.



Tubeman said:


> Bit worrying that someone could end up between train and PED screen too (gap looks wide enough), does seem to be a lot of effort for something rather pointless.


I think that it's up to the guard to wait until the area between the train and PED is cleared before the train departs, but I'm not sure.

AFAIK this is the only PED installation in Sweden. I believe that it's installed because there is a mix of local stopping trains and regional/intercity passing through at full speed on the same two track station, and as it's in a tunnel there is no way for a driver of a non-stopping train to see if the platforms are too overcrowded before it's too late to slow down.


----------



## davidaiow

Thanks once again Tubeman for your comprehensive answer.


----------



## Tubeman

davidaiow said:


> Thanks once again Tubeman for your comprehensive answer.


You're welcome


----------



## Damarr

Hi Tubeman, I've a question about national rail that I hope you can answer:

I live in Herne Hill, near the railway viaduct, and was woken at 3am this morning by what sounded like a massive vacuum cleaner. There was a brightly lit engineering train moving along the track and stopping incrementally, which is when the hoover kicked in - it sounded like it was sucking up the gravel from the trackbed.

Any idea what this bizarro train was doing?


----------



## mayflower232

How big is London Undergrounds electricity bill?


----------



## Rachmaninov

Is it true that tube drivers earn £40k a year and are still calling for strikes?


----------



## Tubeman

Damarr said:


> Hi Tubeman, I've a question about national rail that I hope you can answer:
> 
> I live in Herne Hill, near the railway viaduct, and was woken at 3am this morning by what sounded like a massive vacuum cleaner. There was a brightly lit engineering train moving along the track and stopping incrementally, which is when the hoover kicked in - it sounded like it was sucking up the gravel from the trackbed.
> 
> Any idea what this bizarro train was doing?


I'm guessing a 'Ballast cleaner'

Ballast needs to be angular without finer particles in the voids between to aid drainage. Over time through wear, fine particles are produced much like sand is produced by the sea... if this is allowed to build up, ballast stops draining as effectively and also it encourages plant life by providing a better substrate for growth... So the fine particles need to be sucked up periodically...










Or possibly a Tamping machine?










...But these bang (to shake ballast into a more stable, compact formation usually after new track is laid), not suck!


----------



## Tubeman

mayflower232 said:


> How big is London Undergrounds electricity bill?


Big!

We used to generate our own at Lots Road (Chelsea) and Greenwich power stations, but Lots Road was decommissioned a few years ago... I think Greenwich is still going, but most of our electricity comes from the National Grid now. Works out cheaper than maintaining our own power stations.

Found some 2004 figures:

Annual usage = 1,087 gigawatt hours (so over 1 billion kwh) of which 90% is for train traction.

The 2004 figures quote 5p per kwh, so the annual bill back then was £54.35million. I guess energy prices have risen since then to some extent, although usage would probably be the same give or take, as timetables are similar today to what they were back then (although they are about to be enhanced on several lines via the upgrades, off-set somewhat by newer stock and ATO operation).


----------



## Tubeman

Rachmaninov said:


> Is it true that tube drivers earn £40k a year and are still calling for strikes?


£41k, and sort of

The recent strikes (September - December 2010) were called by RMT and TSSA (the two main station staff unions) due to significant cuts to station positions / ticket office opening hours across the business. As a consequence, RMT drivers (about 50% of all drivers) also went out on strike in support, leaving the other 50% (ASLEF members) to come in and drive trains. So they weren't striking about their pay or conditions, it was in support of station staff colleagues.

ASLEF went on strike on Boxing Day on the pretense of demanding additional payment and time in lieu for working Boxing Day (knowing full well this was very unlikely)... Because to be blunt everyone likes having Boxing day off!

In the current climate, I don't think you'll find many LUL drivers who honestly have any gripes about their pay and conditions.


----------



## London Underground

Are the strikes allowed by the union?

Becouse over here, if you are in the/a union, you are not allowed to go on strike.


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Are the strikes allowed by the union?
> 
> Becouse over here, if you are in the/a union, you are not allowed to go on strike.


Sounds like a pretty pointless union then!

Strikes are called by the unions: they ballot their members to get the mandate, they simply need more 'yes' than 'no' votes irrespective of how many votes are returned. Once they have the mandate, they call dates.

You often have the situation, like the recent set of 4 strikes I mentioned, where a minority of members of each union votes 'yes' but the union still gets the mandate because so many didn't bother returning their papers so there were still more 'yes' than 'no' votes. Members then grumble about losing money; they should have voted 'no' when they had the chance!


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> Sounds like a pretty pointless union then!
> 
> Strikes are called by the unions: they ballot their members to get the mandate, they simply need more 'yes' than 'no' votes irrespective of how many votes are returned. Once they have the mandate, they call dates.


Sounds good.
And you are absolutley right, we have a pretty pointless union. Sure, they discuss matters like pay, hours, etc. but without strikes.



Tubeman said:


> You often have the situation, like the recent set of 4 strikes I mentioned, where a minority of members of each union votes 'yes' but the union still gets the mandate because so many didn't bother returning their papers so there were still more 'yes' than 'no' votes. Members then grumble about losing money; they should have voted 'no' when they had the chance!


Sounds like they should have. But if they want to vote no, then return the papers!


----------



## Rachmaninov

Tubeman said:


> £41k, and sort of
> 
> The recent strikes (September - December 2010) were called by RMT and TSSA (the two main station staff unions) due to significant cuts to station positions / ticket office opening hours across the business. As a consequence, RMT drivers (about 50% of all drivers) also went out on strike in support, leaving the other 50% (ASLEF members) to come in and drive trains. So they weren't striking about their pay or conditions, it was in support of station staff colleagues.
> 
> ASLEF went on strike on Boxing Day on the pretense of demanding additional payment and time in lieu for working Boxing Day (knowing full well this was very unlikely)... Because to be blunt everyone likes having Boxing day off!
> 
> In the current climate, I don't think you'll find many LUL drivers who honestly have any gripes about their pay and conditions.


Never heard of ASLEF before, cheers!
So RMT & TSSA guys strike to say they want to secure their positions, and ASLEF people strike to say they want to take an extra day off?
I agree that everyone likes having Boxing day off, but again, to be blunt, when you're doing something for the society you have to make sacrifices. What would happen if all policemen/firemen/doctors etc. go on strike to get their boxing day off?


----------



## Tubeman

Rachmaninov said:


> Never heard of ASLEF before, cheers!
> So RMT & TSSA guys strike to say they want to secure their positions, and ASLEF people strike to say they want to take an extra day off?
> I agree that everyone likes having Boxing day off, but again, to be blunt, when you're doing something for the society you have to make sacrifices. What would happen if all policemen/firemen/doctors etc. go on strike to get their boxing day off?


ASLEF are a drivers / guards union and have a lot of members amongst main line TOCs also, it stands for 'Association of Locomotive engineers and Firemen'... I always use to think it was odd that Firemen were lumped together with train drivers, until someone explained it was the type of 'Fireman' that used to tend the fires on steam locos, not the kind who put out fires! :|

I'm not defending or criticising anyone's position here, it would unprofessional of me to on a public forum... I'm just saying it like it is!


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Sounds good.
> And you are absolutley right, we have a pretty pointless union. Sure, they discuss matters like pay, hours, etc. but without strikes.


So what happens if they don't get what they want? They complain? Is there an independent body who makes a judgement when pay and / or conditions are being negotiated? Otherwise I can't see how it works:

Union: "Give us more money"
Employer: "No"
Union: "Ok then"

Can they do what is known as 'Action short of a strike'? This is basically the removal of all goodwill, primarily the refusal of overtime by workers. Obviously you're perfectly entitled to refuse overtime, but many employers rely heavily on it to run their operations, so all workers simultaneously refusing overtime can be very damaging.


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> So what happens if they don't get what they want? They complain? Is there an independent body who makes a judgement when pay and / or conditions are being negotiated? Otherwise I can't see how it works:
> 
> Union: "Give us more money"
> Employer: "No"
> Union: "Ok then"


Acctually, i have no idea how they do it. From what my mom has told me they have a representative hwo talks to, i don't know if it's the CEO, of the company and if they don't get what they want they'll keep on negotiate.



Tubeman said:


> Can they do what is known as 'Action short of a strike'? This is basically the removal of all goodwill, primarily the refusal of overtime by workers. Obviously you're perfectly entitled to refuse overtime, but many employers rely heavily on it to run their operations, so all workers simultaneously refusing overtime can be very damaging.


No idea. I know they can, and sometimes do, stop going to work, but they are not allowed to call strikes.


----------



## Tubeman

Without unions or the right to strike disenfranchised staff could simply co-ordinate sick days to make their point... Striking is the better of two evils as at least it's democratic, there's sufficient warning, and the strikers lose a day's pay for withdrawing their labour.

Every single employee could go sick tomorrow and take 7 days off self-certificated (i.e. don't need to see a doctor), the company would have no staff for a week and they'd still have to pay the wages... That would be disastrous.

I understand other countries conduct negotiations with trade unions differently... In France there's a system which I think is great where the two sides table their demand / offer and an adjudicator chooses either one or the other. It forces both sides to be reasonable and realistic, because the side which makes an unreasonable demand / offer loses out (e.g. if the union demands a 100% pay rise or the employers offers a 0.01% pay rise).


----------



## Rachmaninov

Tubeman said:


> ASLEF are a drivers / guards union and have a lot of members amongst main line TOCs also, it stands for 'Association of Locomotive engineers and Firemen'... I always use to think it was odd that Firemen were lumped together with train drivers, until someone explained it was the type of 'Fireman' that used to tend the fires on steam locos, not the kind who put out fires! :|
> 
> I'm not defending or criticising anyone's position here, it would unprofessional of me to on a public forum... I'm just saying it like it is!


Cool thanks for answering my questions! :cheers:
I hope you won't mind me whining all the time about the tube!


----------



## Tubeman

Rachmaninov said:


> Cool thanks for answering my questions! :cheers:
> I hope you won't mind me whining all the time about the tube!


Haha no worries... why deprive yourself of every Londoner's favourite pastime? :colgate:


----------



## RedArkady

Any idea why the Dalston Curve was closed last Sunday? They've only just opened the bloody thing, and I fancied a pint at the Prospect of Mortimer.


----------



## Tubeman

RedArkady said:


> Any idea why the Dalston Curve was closed last Sunday? They've only just opened the bloody thing, and I fancied a pint at the Prospect of Mortimer.


No... seems strange as you say so soon after opening

Maybe some teething problem?


----------



## ajw373

Tubeman said:


> So what happens if they don't get what they want? They complain? Is there an independent body who makes a judgement when pay and / or conditions are being negotiated? Otherwise I can't see how it works:


Tubeman outside of the UK (and most of mainland Europe) industrial relations work in very different ways with strikes as a very last resort rather than a negotiating tactic as seems to be the case in the UK. Unions still play a very important role in negotiating terms and conditions so still very much have a role but they cannot get away with absolute and utter bastardry like they seem to do in the UK.


----------



## Tubeman

leverarch said:


> Tubeman, why are there no services now on the North London Line from Camden Road through to the Primrose Hill junction and the stations on the Watford DC line, which is less circuitous to Willesden Junction than via Gospel Oak, and what is this link currently used for? Is it simply due to lack of patronage, and/or capacity on the line into Euston?


The line is very heavily used for freight currently, lots of container traffic from the North Sea ports to the Midlands and North.

I guess one reason is that the Watford DC line customers would rather all their meagre 3 trains per hour go into central London (Euston) than around the North London Line to Stratford. These 3tph combined with 6tph Bakerloo Line between Queen's Park and Stonebridge Park / Harrow & Wealdstone is adequate.

Once upon a time, trains would run down the DC lines via Primrose Hill to Broad Street, which was a useful service as it provided direct City trains... by the time Broad Street had closed and these trains were diverted to Liverpool Street, Network Southeast had run the service down to the point of destruction such that by the end there was one train, in one direction, each day... and that was often cancelled.

The only station that closed (Primrose Hill) was never well used due to the proximity of Chalk Farm tube, so not a huge loss.

There have been proposals to run a Stratford to Queen's Park LOROL service using this line if / when the Bakerloo Line takes complete control of Queen's Park to Watford Junction, thus keeping open Kilburn High Road, South Hampstead, and allowing Primrose Hill to re-open. This would mean the end of the Watford DC service.


----------



## leverarch

Thanks!


----------



## TitanSound

Tubeman said:


> Dunno... but there certainly seems to be a hell of a lot!
> 
> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/livetravelnews/realtime/rail/rail-all-future.html



I wonder why this is still happening? I thought they carried out all essential work during the three month closure?


----------



## Tubeman

TitanSound said:


> I wonder why this is still happening? I thought they carried out all essential work during the three month closure?


Really don't know, passed over the line between Highbury and Canonbury on a 19 bus on Sunday and there were workmen all over the track by Canonbury West Junction (where the goods-only Canonbury Curve to Finsbury Park joins). I noted that the curve had been lifted for a few weeks over the Winter but has now re-appeared, so maybe it's just track-laying or resignalling.

There's a UK forumer who's a LOROL driver along that route, I can ask him.


----------



## RedArkady

If only they double-tracked and electrified the Curve to Finsbury Park at the same time!


----------



## Tubeman

RedArkady said:


> If only they double-tracked and electrified the Curve to Finsbury Park at the same time!


Its is electrified, and that's why it's only single track... It was originally double, but when OHLE was installed it was singled due to clearance. If it were to remain double, the track would have needed to be lowered, which is no mean feat (was done through the Hampstead Tunnel in 1995-1996).


----------



## RedArkady

Well they should do that then. I won't be satisfied until I can catch a train at Finsbury Park and head down to Shoreditch without changing. That change at Hi&I is *such* a drag ;-)

Here's a question - how do you feel about the Overland increasingly being dubbed 'The Ginger Line'? it seems to be catching on...


----------



## Tubeman

RedArkady said:


> Well they should do that then. I won't be satisfied until I can catch a train at Finsbury Park and head down to Shoreditch without changing. That change at Hi&I is *such* a drag ;-)
> 
> Here's a question - how do you feel about the Overland increasingly being dubbed 'The Ginger Line'? it seems to be catching on...


That was proposed originally, but you end up with conflicting train paths at Canonbury with the Stratford - Richmond / Clapham Junction and East London Line - Finsbury park trains crossing, which can only be resolved with an expensive flyover or diveunder.

Regarding 'Ginger Line'... that colloquialism has passed me by!


----------



## MiaM

RedArkady said:


> Well they should do that then. I won't be satisfied until I can catch a train at Finsbury Park and head down to Shoreditch without changing. That change at Hi&I is *such* a drag ;-)


You have to run a lot of trains to justify doubling such short bit of track if it costs a lot to double that part.

(deja vu...)

If it for example takes 3 minutes for a train to go through that curve, any delayed train in one direction cannot delay a train in oppisite direction more than 3 minutes, and if the trains ain't that much delayed in the first place then there is no extra delays introduced at the short single track section.

I assume the crossing paths that Tubeman refers to is a bigger problem here... (On the other hand, in theory the Stratford service could be diverted to Finsbury Park and the Richmond service diverted to Shoreditch, but that would probably not make much sense...)


----------



## davidaiow

I wondered why the Overground Watford-Euston didn't go from South Hampstead to Camden Rd, and then continue onto the ELL. Also, are there any plans to number or code the lines on the tube map? Would it be beneficial? Same with the DLR.


----------



## CairnsTony

davidaiow said:


> I wondered why the Overground Watford-Euston didn't go from South Hampstead to Camden Rd, and then continue onto the ELL. Also, are there any plans to number or code the lines on the tube map? Would it be beneficial? Same with the DLR.


I would suspect the majority of commuters would prefer that service to take them to Euston.

As for line numbers/codes, I do feel that a certainly amount of increased clarity would be useful throughout the service. On the DLR and Overground, it is not immediately apparent to the uninitiated where some of those services run, especially as those networks grow with new branches appearing over time.

Similarly, the District Line especially could be teased apart, rather like the Hammersmith and City has been distinguished from the Metropolitan with a separate colour code and name. I think it's currently five distinct services treated as one line. I know the New York subway has complex services which are distinguished by letter and number codes.

Any good ideas for increasing clarity?


----------



## Tubeman

davidaiow said:


> I wondered why the Overground Watford-Euston didn't go from South Hampstead to Camden Rd, and then continue onto the ELL. Also, are there any plans to number or code the lines on the tube map? Would it be beneficial? Same with the DLR.


As CairnsTony says... the customers would rather have a direct Central London train than an orbital service, they only get 3tph as it is.

If / when the Bakerloo service takes over the entire DC line north of Queen's Park, I think the plan would be for LOROL services to start from Queen's Park and run to the NLL via Primrose Hill, keeping Kilburn High Road and S Hampstead open, and re-opening Primrose Hill... although to be brutally honest all 3 stations have adjacent LU stations and wouldn't be a huge loss if they were not open, especially if they've lost direct trains to Central London.

Regarding numbering different services on LU lines and DLR, yes I think there is benefit to it, as stations like Earl's Court are utterly bewildering to tourists. We are driving to make our customers more and more self-sufficient (i.e. less reliant on staff), and making the presentation of the Tube map more logical in this manner is one obvious way to reduce customer / staff interactions.

I think there'd be resistance to it internally though, as it would depart too far from Beck's classic design and be unpopular with Londoners (who know where they're going, but value the map as a design icon)... But the map should be functional first and foremost.

The slight fly in the ointment is that while service patterns settle down off-peak, they do funny things in the peaks and at the extremes of the traffic day so the enhanced Tube map would only be depicting off-peak / weekend patterns (which to be honest is the most useful for tourists / leisure users anyway, daily commuters don't need the map).

But yes, I think elements of each line should be numbered. Lines can still retain their name / colour identity, but then have services numbered within that... I like the NYC way of displaying this:










Simple and unmissable for a confused tourist. In this example, Purple 7 could be Metropolitan Line Amersham to Baker Street fast (for example).


----------



## London Underground

Th only downside to the NY system is that they have two symbols for each line. The dot mean the train is a local, and the diamond means the train is an express.

Plus, since they introduced the "New Tech" cars the dots have become circles and the circles are sometimes not complete. I don't know what that means, but that's how it is.


----------



## CairnsTony

London Underground said:


> Th only downside to the NY system is that they have two symbols for each line. The dot mean the train is a local, and the diamond means the train is an express.
> 
> Plus, since they introduced the "New Tech" cars the dots have become circles and the circles are sometimes not complete. I don't know what that means, but that's how it is.


But since you don't have 'local' and 'express' services in London, that shouldn't be an issue. A simple numbering system would be great for increased clarity of the different service patterns on the more complex lines I reckon.


----------



## CharlieP

Tubeman said:


> If / when the Bakerloo service takes over the entire DC line north of Queen's Park


I hadn't heard of such a plan. Would that mean removing the 313s from service entirely, and if so, what would become of the DC lines from Primrose Hill to Euston? Would they just be converted to AC, or is the plan to completely configure the Euston "throat" as part of High Speed 2?


----------



## RedArkady

Tubeman: http://londonist.com/2011/05/tfl-moots-new-dlr-routes-including-victoria-and-st-pancras.php

Thoughts?


----------



## MiaM

I'd like a map where the thickness of the lines is proportional to the number of TPH.

It was a bummer to arrive at Clapham Junction on a sunday and realise that the train to Kew Bridge only has 1TPH and it's something like 45 minutes to the next departure... Of course the TFL journey planner could probably had solved the problem in a more elegant way than waiting 45 minutes, but I don't have a smartphone and the phone shops I visited weren't willing to sell a PAYG mobile broadband sim card witouth also selling an unneccesary dongle, so my netbook had to stay at the hotel...




CairnsTony said:


> But since you don't have 'local' and 'express' services in London, that shouldn't be an issue. A simple numbering system would be great for increased clarity of the different service patterns on the more complex lines I reckon.


Metropolitan has local and express services... but that's an exception...


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> I hadn't heard of such a plan. Would that mean removing the 313s from service entirely, and if so, what would become of the DC lines from Primrose Hill to Euston? Would they just be converted to AC, or is the plan to completely configure the Euston "throat" as part of High Speed 2?


Class 313s have already been replaced by Class 378s, but they battle on operating the ex-Great Northern & City line into Moorgate (now London's oldest NR train stock as established before).

The DC lines from Camden Junction to Euston are dual-electrified anyway... Primrose Hill to Kilburn High Road is 3rd rail, then 4th rail from there to Harrow & Wealdstone.

The deep tunnels at Camden Junction which take the DC lines under the shallower main line junctions to provide grade-separated routes to Primrose Hill and towards Euston, and the northernmost Primrose Hill tunnels used by the DC lines only, are all fairly unusual on NR as they are purpose-built deep level single bore cast iron tubes (so like older LU tubes but bigger diameter - the only other example I know of is the GNCR). This precludes 25kv AC OHLE without the enormous expense of widening, so any trains passing through these tunnels always will need to be 3rd rail, so a potential Queen's Park to Stratford service would need to raise / lower pantographs at Primrose Hill.

By virtue of linking the AC North London Line with the DC southern region, LOROL will probably always need dual electrified stock, although minimising pantograph raising / lowering is desirable so (for example) a Queen's Park to New Cross service would be a bit silly, with the route going DC - AC - DC every single trip.


----------



## Tubeman

RedArkady said:


> Tubeman: http://londonist.com/2011/05/tfl-moots-new-dlr-routes-including-victoria-and-st-pancras.php
> 
> Thoughts?


Well for a start that's a metro system most decent sized cities would be envious of!

What can I say?... if realised, this would be great. However, Crossrail 1 removes some of the impetus from DLR having any expensive westward extensions. Even the relatively cheap (because it's mostly above ground and crossing brownfield land) Dagenham Dock extension has been shelved under the current mayorship, so I don't think any tunnelled options with expensive deep-level interchanges in Central London have got a hope in my lifetime.


----------



## London Underground

CairnsTony said:


> But since you don't have 'local' and 'express' services in London, that shouldn't be an issue. A simple numbering system would be great for increased clarity of the different service patterns on the more complex lines I reckon.





MiaM said:


> Metropolitan has local and express services... but that's an exception...


I don't know if this counts as an "express" but look at this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pGqtWhcLMc


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> I don't know if this counts as an "express" but look at this one:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pGqtWhcLMc


Network Rail stations can be passed through at line speed, unlike LU stations.

LU stations have a 5mph speed limit at the station starter signal due to a short 'overlap' beyond the signal (increases capacity)... I explain the principle a bit here (Q2)... the exception is platforms designed for through running like Turnham Green and Ravenscourt Park on the Piccadilly Line, there are a couple of other anomalous examples like West Brompton westbound, because the station used to be closed sundays, you are allowed to non-stop at 25mph.

Long and short, if an LU train is running empty back to depot anywhere between Queen's Park and Harrow & Wealdstone, between Wimbledon and East Putney (signalled by NR), or between Gunnersbury and Richmond, the drivers don't need to slow to 5mph passing through the stations, they just have to observe line speed whatever that is.

A few late-night trains on the District Line used to detrain at Wimbledon and run empty to Parson's Green... I used to love hammering through Wimbledon Park and Southfields at 45mph :happy:


----------



## lapsang79

tubeman, can you get this javelin train from st pancras to stratford yet?


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> Network Rail stations can be passed through at line speed, unlike LU stations.


I only now noticed that it was an Network Rail station. I had to look again after i saw this. :lol:

But where exactly is the LU and NR connected?



Tubeman said:


> LU stations have a 5mph speed limit at the station starter signal due to a short 'overlap' beyond the signal (increases capacity)... I explain the principle a bit here (Q2)... the exception is platforms designed for through running like Turnham Green and Ravenscourt Park on the Piccadilly Line, there are a couple of other anomalous examples like West Brompton westbound, because the station used to be closed sundays, you are allowed to non-stop at 25mph.
> 
> Long and short, if an LU train is running empty back to depot anywhere between Queen's Park and Harrow & Wealdstone, between Wimbledon and East Putney (signalled by NR), or between Gunnersbury and Richmond, the drivers don't need to slow to 5mph passing through the stations, they just have to observe line speed whatever that is.
> 
> A few late-night trains on the District Line used to detrain at Wimbledon and run empty to Parson's Green... I used to love hammering through Wimbledon Park and Southfields at 45mph :happy:


Huh. I had no idea. I knew that none of the tube stations were designed for through running(at speed), but i thought most(if not all) of the outdoor stations were. I learn something new every time i come here.


----------



## Tubeman

lapsang79 said:


> tubeman, can you get this javelin train from st pancras to stratford yet?


You can catch a Southeastern commuter service which does the same job (St Pancras to Stratford non-stop), same trains. I'm not sure if they'll be shuttling just between St Pancras and Stratford during the games, I presume so.


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> I only now noticed that it was an Network Rail station. I had to look again after i saw this. :lol:
> 
> But where exactly is the LU and NR connected?


There used to be many more connections... But to my recollection:

West Ruislip (beyond end of Central Line onto Chiltern)
Barking (new connection between eastbound District and NR GOBLIN route)
Queen's Park (Bakerloo runs over NR beyond here to Harrow & Wealdstone)
Gunnersbury (District runs over NR beyond here to Richmond)
East Putney (curve from here to Wandsworth Town)
Wimbledon Park (access to SWT Wimbledon Park depot washer road)
Wimbledon (link from District Line across to NR)
...and between Harrow-on-the-hill and Amersham Chiltern run over LU tracks

Regarding the two examples of LU trains running over NR tracks, there are additional connections (technically NR to NR) at Richmond (indirect via platform 3), and Willesden Junction (to Kensal Rise).

As I say, there used to be many more. London Transport went on a big purge of isolating itself from British Rail in 1972 and cut many connections (e.g. Ealing Broadway, Leyton)... there used to be many British rail goods yards served via LT lines until the mid-1960's, a vestige of the fact that some LT routes used to be BR or its predecessors (i.e. the Northern Line Barnet branch and east end of the Central Line).


----------



## London Underground

Like i said: I learn something new every time im here! Thanks Joe.


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Like i said: I learn something new every time im here! Thanks Joe.


No problem, I aim to please


----------



## sotonsi

Tubeman said:


> ...and between Harrow & Wealdstone and Amersham Chiltern run over LU tracks


you mean from just north of Harrow-on-the-Hill to just north of Amersham (Mantles Wood Junction).


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> you mean from just north of Harrow-on-the-Hill to just north of Amersham (Mantles Wood Junction).


That too :colgate:


----------



## mr_jrt

Tubeman said:


> By virtue of linking the AC North London Line with the DC southern region, LOROL will probably always need dual electrified stock, although minimising pantograph raising / lowering is desirable so (for example) a Queen's Park to New Cross service would be a bit silly, with the route going DC - AC - DC every single trip.


Unless you just restored the 3rd rail from H&I to Primrose Hill and had the northern pair of lines as AC, segregating the services


----------



## Tubeman

mr_jrt said:


> Unless you just restored the 3rd rail from H&I to Primrose Hill and had the northern pair of lines as AC, segregating the services


Re-installing recently removed conductor rails is a bit daft though, surely?


----------



## mr_jrt

Tubeman said:


> Re-installing recently removed conductor rails is a bit daft though, surely?


Wouldn't go so far as to call it daft. Case in point, they removed Canonbury Junction for quite some time during the LO works, and IIRC, have just restored it.

They removed the conductor rails because the overarching principle is to run as much as possible on AC (one of the reasons being, as you say, to minimise changes), which is why the NLL is now only DC south of both Westway (near Shepard's Bush) and Acton Central, and Westway is only because of the H&C Line's signalling (apparently). Once that's sorted, Clapham Junction becomes possible. South of Acton Central will always be a problem due to the need to share with the District Line.

The plan is to use the northern pair between Camden Road and H&I for freight only though, so all four need to be AC. If plans change (and I think they might, over time), then as I say, there will be Watford-Primrose Hill on DC, Primrose Hill-Canonbury on AC, then either Canonbury-Stratford on AC, or Canonbury-ELL on DC. For the sake of a tiny stretch of railway and the loss of the freight loops, you get to remove the changeover and run the whole route Watford-ELL as one long DC stretch with very little extra infrastructure required.

The freight loops can be added elsewhere. I think a rebuilt Primrose Hill could easily manage a pair of loops on the outside of the platform lines...not sure if they'd be long enough though. I'm sure creative options could solve the problem though.


----------



## Tubeman

mr_jrt said:


> Wouldn't go so far as to call it daft. Case in point, they removed Canonbury Junction for quite some time during the LO works, and IIRC, have just restored it.
> 
> They removed the conductor rails because the overarching principle is to run as much as possible on AC (one of the reasons being, as you say, to minimise changes), which is why the NLL is now only DC south of both Westway (near Shepard's Bush) and Acton Central, and Westway is only because of the H&C Line's signalling (apparently). Once that's sorted, Clapham Junction becomes possible. South of Acton Central will always be a problem due to the need to share with the District Line.
> 
> The plan is to use the northern pair between Camden Road and H&I for freight only though, so all four need to be AC. If plans change (and I think they might, over time), then as I say, there will be Watford-Primrose Hill on DC, Primrose Hill-Canonbury on AC, then either Canonbury-Stratford on AC, or Canonbury-ELL on DC. For the sake of a tiny stretch of railway and the loss of the freight loops, you get to remove the changeover and run the whole route Watford-ELL as one long DC stretch with very little extra infrastructure required.
> 
> The freight loops can be added elsewhere. I think a rebuilt Primrose Hill could easily manage a pair of loops on the outside of the platform lines...not sure if they'd be long enough though. I'm sure creative options could solve the problem though.


Hmmm... The Canonbury Curve was recently lifted then restored to renew the track, not really analogous with the 3rd rail being ripped up on the NLL which was supposed to be permanent.

The current configuration between H&I and Camden Rd sees a pair of 'up' and a pair of 'down' roads, not goods to the north and passenger to the south like before (up/down/up/down). The two middle roads are passenger, the two outer roads are effectively very long goods loops (hence Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury was recently reconfigured from having side platforms flanking the southern tracks to a single island platform between the central passenger roads).


----------



## London Underground

Hey Joe, has there ever been a systemwide power failiure in the Underground?

We had one a couple of days ago.


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Hey Joe, has there ever been a systemwide power failiure in the Underground?
> 
> We had one a couple of days ago.


Yes I do remember one a few years ago when I was on the District Line, it was pretty disastrous... fortunately I wasn't on shift at the time. It was a wider National Grid issue rather than anything to do with LU infrastructure.


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> Yes I do remember one a few years ago when I was on the District Line, it was pretty disastrous... fortunately I wasn't on shift at the time. It was a wider National Grid issue rather than anything to do with LU infrastructure.


Wow. I imagine that must have been pretty stressful for those working.


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Wow. I imagine that must have been pretty stressful for those working.


Pretty chaotic... Obviously electricity is any metro's life-blood, it goes much further than just power to trains, it's signalling (including knowing which trains are where), communications, lighting in stations...

Very bad time of day too (18:20)


----------



## MiaM

Tubeman said:


> Pretty chaotic... Obviously electricity is any metro's life-blood, it goes much further than just power to trains, it's signalling (including knowing which trains are where), communications, lighting in stations...
> 
> Very bad time of day too (18:20)


The obvious bonus question is how much does have battery/diesel backup?

I assume atleast emergency lights have some alternative power source, but does anything else have alternative power?

For example it would probably be a rahter good thing to have battery/diesel power for the signalling system on the Metropolitan line that is shared with Chiltern... On the other hand, Metropolitan trains would probably be stuck on the tracks so Chiltern wouldn't be able to run anyway?

(Bonus-bonus-question: can a chiltern DMU coulple with LU S-stock or A-stock and would it be ok to run that way when DC power is lost, or are there safety/brake issues preventing this (with or without passengers))?

I understand if some questions can't be answered in a public forum if they for some reason are considered classified somehow.


----------



## Tubeman

MiaM said:


> The obvious bonus question is how much does have battery/diesel backup?
> 
> I assume atleast emergency lights have some alternative power source, but does anything else have alternative power?
> 
> For example it would probably be a rahter good thing to have battery/diesel power for the signalling system on the Metropolitan line that is shared with Chiltern... On the other hand, Metropolitan trains would probably be stuck on the tracks so Chiltern wouldn't be able to run anyway?
> 
> (Bonus-bonus-question: can a chiltern DMU coulple with LU S-stock or A-stock and would it be ok to run that way when DC power is lost, or are there safety/brake issues preventing this (with or without passengers))?
> 
> I understand if some questions can't be answered in a public forum if they for some reason are considered classified somehow.


Emergency lights on trains and stations are fed off batteries, which are charged by mains power when it's on. They last for a while, but are obviously finite. Train batteries feed a small number of strip lights in each car, maybe 4, you can see which ones when the train goes over rail gaps (e.g. crossing pointwork), not all car lights will go out. Station batteries are called 'OLBI'... forget what that stands for... but they power emergency lighting, communications equipment, and fire detection equipment.

There are no back-up generators on trains or stations, but I guess the Network Operations Centre (NOC) and signalling control rooms might have some sort of generator back-up.

LU and NR train stocks can't push / pull each other in an emergency, but incompatible LU stocks can do so via an 'emergency coupler'... basically just a lump of metal which clamps onto the coupler 'tongues' (but only surface-surface or tube-tube). It was one of these that failed, nearly causing disaster on the Northern Line a few months ago, when the defective rail grinding train broke away from the 1995TS that was towing it and ran downhill from Archway.


----------



## mayflower232

> Train batteries feed a small number of strip lights in each car, maybe 4, you can see which ones when the train goes over rail gaps (e.g. crossing pointwork),


Why is this not the case on the central line?


----------



## Tubeman

siamu maharaj said:


> Hey Tubeman!
> 
> Can you please tell me why do fully automated subways have light signalling? I've noticed it in Singapore. Without a driver what's the point in red/green lights?


It is not uncommon to still have a colour light station starter signal to indicate whether the road ahead is clear enough for a train to depart and clear the platform area. This would be an instant indication to staff either on the train or platform if the train hasn't moved off past its usual dwell time (i.e. because the train ahead is too close).

They can also be used if the ATO fails and trains have to be driven manually, but obviously this would be at much lower speeds / frequencies than under ATO.


----------



## siamu maharaj

Tubeman said:


> It is not uncommon to still have a colour light station starter signal to indicate whether the road ahead is clear enough for a train to depart and clear the platform area. This would be an instant indication to staff either on the train or platform if the train hasn't moved off past its usual dwell time (i.e. because the train ahead is too close).
> 
> They can also be used if the ATO fails and trains have to be driven manually, but obviously this would be at much lower speeds / frequencies than under ATO.


Thanks. A sorta related question - I know it's almost 100% impossible, but let's suppose an automated train starts moving while the light's red, is it expected from the passengers (because the one at the front can see the lights) to use the emergency stop button/lever in the train? I personally wouldn't do that myself but always wondered about it when in the subway.


----------



## Tubeman

siamu maharaj said:


> Thanks. A sorta related question - I know it's almost 100% impossible, but let's suppose an automated train starts moving while the light's red, is it expected from the passengers (because the one at the front can see the lights) to use the emergency stop button/lever in the train? I personally wouldn't do that myself but always wondered about it when in the subway.


Well I guess there's nothing stopping a passenger operating the Emergency alarm on the train or emergency stop plunger on the platform any time they see fit... They'd just better have a good reason!

IIRC on the Victoria and Central Lines the 'station starter' signal is a simple white light that is either on or off, so there'd never be a red light.

The Jubilee Line doesn't even have this, as all signals are in the cab (when it's time to depart, a 'target point' distance ahead flashes up on the console). All the conventional signals south of Dollis Hill have been covered up pending removal. The other difference between the Jubilee and existing ATO lines is the absence of emergency stop plungers on the platform.


----------



## Acemcbuller

Hi

Do you have any idea what the working happening at Kings Cross sub-surface line platforms are, and why they're it taking so long??

Thanks
James


----------



## iampuking

Tubeman said:


> Well I guess there's nothing stopping a passenger operating the Emergency alarm on the train or emergency stop plunger on the platform any time they see fit... They'd just better have a good reason!
> 
> IIRC on the Victoria and Central Lines the 'station starter' signal is a simple white light that is either on or off, so there'd never be a red light.


At Oxford Circus WB on the Central the station starter is three aspects. Green, White and Red.


----------



## Tubeman

Acemcbuller said:


> Hi
> 
> Do you have any idea what the working happening at Kings Cross sub-surface line platforms are, and why they're it taking so long??
> 
> Thanks
> James


I have no idea. I stepped off the front of a Met train on the Eastbound last Monday for my usual speedy exit to street level, only to be greeted by a hoarding and a horrible throng of people trying to get out of the one remaining exit halfway down the platform.

It seems very strange as that exit, along with the entire station, has only just been refurbished. The hoardings say 'Network Rail', so I can only assume it's to do with the new ticket hall on the side of King's Cross station... and access to it.

Hope it's short-lived... it's a pain in the arse!


----------



## Tubeman

iampuking said:


> At Oxford Circus WB on the Central the station starter is three aspects. Green, White and Red.


There's an article on Central Line signalling here

Still doesn't quite explain why there are 3-aspect signals and why they're in the locations they're found though


----------



## CairnsTony

I was having another look at your rail atlas today and was reminded of just how many tube stations have actually closed for good. Some I'm sure were due to lack of patronage (I think this applies to Brompton Road and City Road, say) and others were requisitioned during the war (Down Street); but were there any that perhaps should have stayed open? How about Lords station for example? And would reopening City Road station take pressure off the busy Angel station? What are your thoughts?


----------



## Tubeman

CairnsTony said:


> I was having another look at your rail atlas today and was reminded of just how many tube stations have actually closed for good. Some I'm sure were due to lack of patronage (I think this applies to Brompton Road and City Road, say) and others were requisitioned during the war (Down Street); but were there any that perhaps should have stayed open? How about Lords station for example? And would reopening City Road station take pressure off the busy Angel station? What are your thoughts?


Lord's and Marlborough Road were effectively replaced by St John's Wood / Swiss Cottage (locations not identical, but close enough), so the current arrangement is superior as the Metropolitan Line acts as the express service and the Jubilee the local (even though the Met isn't the fastest between Baker St and Finchley Rd).

City Road would I guess pick up a reasonable number of passengers as it serves a very densely populated area, but it would require so much development it would be tantamount to building a new station (platforms would need lengthening, and I guess escalators would need to be sunk as lifts alone would not be fit for purpose).

York Road was mooted for re-opening due to the development of the adjacent King's Cross railway lands, and I think it's certainly the re-opening with the best case (the only one with any decent case, I think). However, the proposal was quietly dropped due to impact on Piccadilly Line running times between Caledonian Road and KXSP... I'm not convinced by this argument... It's a very long run currently and yes it would make that journey inevitably longer, but nothing that couldn't be compensated when the line goes ATO.

The fabric of the station is intact, but again escalators would need to be sunk in addition to the original lift shaft which is a big job.

No other closed LU stations have a cost-benefit to re-opening in my opinion.

I would re-open some NR stations given a magic wand though: Walworth Road, Camberwell, Old Kent Road, Junction Road (for Tufnell Park), Battersea (West London Line), St Quintin Park & Wormwood Scrubs.


----------



## CairnsTony

Cool! That's pretty much as I thought but I guess stations on the tube are often further apart than say Paris where there is a very dense network of lines in the centre in a remarkably small area. Maybe that reflects the more high-rise living there.

Obviously significant capacity improvements are underway all over the system, but even with Crossrail 1 and (we hope) 2 do you think there is a significant need for any other new lines crossing the centre of London itself? 

How about some of the 'lost' proposals for lines along corridors not currently served by tube? I know at least one that gets oft mooted is the DLR to CharingX for example; a route that has been part of more than one tube scheme in the past. But how about entirely new lines?


----------



## Acemcbuller

Tubeman said:


> I have no idea. I stepped off the front of a Met train on the Eastbound last Monday for my usual speedy exit to street level, only to be greeted by a hoarding and a horrible throng of people trying to get out of the one remaining exit halfway down the platform.
> 
> It seems very strange as that exit, along with the entire station, has only just been refurbished. The hoardings say 'Network Rail', so I can only assume it's to do with the new ticket hall on the side of King's Cross station... and access to it.
> 
> Hope it's short-lived... it's a pain in the arse!


Indeed. The hoardings were first blocking the eastern staircase of the St Pancras exit (I don't know if it was previously on the western staircase) and are now blocking the staircase to interchange with the deep lines. Been like that for over a week. It looked like merely re-tiling when I looked through a couple of times.


----------



## RedArkady

http://londonreconnections.blogspot.com/2011/06/north-by-north-west-ruislip.html

What do you make of this propsal Tubeman? I don't undertand why they don't create a new interchange station where the two lines cross instead... or move West Ruislip.


----------



## CairnsTony

RedArkady said:


> http://londonreconnections.blogspot.com/2011/06/north-by-north-west-ruislip.html
> 
> What do you make of this propsal Tubeman? I don't undertand why they don't create a new interchange station where the two lines cross instead... or move West Ruislip.


One suggestion that came up in that discussion was extending the Central to Uxbridge via the old Uxbridge High St. branch. Interesting alternative from using the Depot chord, but would it be too round about a route I wonder...


----------



## Paul Easton

RedArkady said:


> http://londonreconnections.blogspot.com/2011/06/north-by-north-west-ruislip.html
> 
> What do you make of this propsal Tubeman? I don't undertand why they don't create a new interchange station where the two lines cross instead... or move West Ruislip.


Had to smile at the comment _"We feel that compared to other metropolitan town centres in London, such as Kingston, Uxbridge could be better served by the tube"_

I live in the Kingston area and Uxbridge already has two more tube lines than we do - so it already is better served.


----------



## Tubeman

CairnsTony said:


> Cool! That's pretty much as I thought but I guess stations on the tube are often further apart than say Paris where there is a very dense network of lines in the centre in a remarkably small area. Maybe that reflects the more high-rise living there.
> 
> Obviously significant capacity improvements are underway all over the system, but even with Crossrail 1 and (we hope) 2 do you think there is a significant need for any other new lines crossing the centre of London itself?
> 
> How about some of the 'lost' proposals for lines along corridors not currently served by tube? I know at least one that gets oft mooted is the DLR to CharingX for example; a route that has been part of more than one tube scheme in the past. But how about entirely new lines?


I think Crossrail1 / Thameslink will go a long way to relieving the Tube system, combined with ATO and therefore increased frequencies on the LU lines themselves. All I can see happening in the next century in terms of purely LU expansion are a couple of extensions to utilise underused capacity, e.g. Bakerloo southern extension and Northern Line Charing Cross branch extension from Kennington. I very much doubt there'll be any entirely new LU lines, I'm dubious about whether I'll see Crossrail2 in my lifetime either.

I'd expect a little DLR expansion, but probably not on the scale of the past 15 years.


----------



## Tubeman

RedArkady said:


> http://londonreconnections.blogspot.com/2011/06/north-by-north-west-ruislip.html
> 
> What do you make of this propsal Tubeman? I don't undertand why they don't create a new interchange station where the two lines cross instead... or move West Ruislip.


The four stations either side of the interchange are all in respective town centres / on main roads / served by buses etc... Assuming the interchange would replace at least two of these (I guess West Ruislip and Ruislip due to their proximity), I don't think there's a cost-benefit there as you'd trade in 2 well sited stations for one poorly sited one purely so that the residents of Hillingdon and Uxbridge can have yet another route into Central London. I certainly think that a Park Royal interchange delivers pretty much the same interchange options with much less mess, certainly any talk of diverting the Central Line onto the Uxbridge route is just daft.

If anything, I'd enhance the Chiltern service stopping at West Ruislip and divert the Central Line to terminate at Ickenham, with (if possible) an arrangement where arriving terminating trains have cross-platform interchange with Uxbridge-bound Met / Picc trains before diving under the Met / Picc west of Ickenham station to access reversing sidings, reversing back into a departing platform with cross-platform interchange with the London-bound Met / Picc. This would be the next best thing to Central trains running into Uxbridge itself, without having to complicate matters by actually doing it.


----------



## Tubeman

CairnsTony said:


> One suggestion that came up in that discussion was extending the Central to Uxbridge via the old Uxbridge High St. branch. Interesting alternative from using the Depot chord, but would it be too round about a route I wonder...


Very roundabout route with potential traffic between West Ruislip and an inferior sited Uxbridge station of virtually nil... it's all Green Belt, and the entire abandoned Uxbridge High Street branch is flanked by flooded gravel pits along the Colne Valley so the only potential passengers are ducks... I just can't see the circuitous route into London from Uxbridge High Street being attractive to anyone.


----------



## Tubeman

Paul Easton said:


> Had to smile at the comment _"We feel that compared to other metropolitan town centres in London, such as Kingston, Uxbridge could be better served by the tube"_
> 
> I live in the Kingston area and Uxbridge already has two more tube lines than we do - so it already is better served.


The ignorance of our local government officials can be frightening...


----------



## MiaM

Tubeman said:


> If anything, I'd enhance the Chiltern service stopping at West Ruislip and divert the Central Line to terminate at Ickenham, with (if possible) an arrangement where arriving terminating trains have cross-platform interchange with Uxbridge-bound Met / Picc trains before diving under the Met / Picc west of Ickenham station to access reversing sidings, reversing back into a departing platform with cross-platform interchange with the London-bound Met / Picc. This would be the next best thing to Central trains running into Uxbridge itself, without having to complicate matters by actually doing it.


Wouldn't it be better to terminate Metropolitan line at Ickenhamn and have Picadilly and Central line terminate at Uxbridge? It would reduce the number of platforms shared by SSL and tube stock and thus reduce the height difference problem.


----------



## sotonsi

@ MiaM:
but then you have the Piccadilly journey from Uxbridge to central London share tracks with three other lines, rather than 2.


----------



## MiaM

Would that be a problem? How many TPH would run on each of the shared tracks?


----------



## mayflower232

Trains were not stopping at Buckhurst Hill this morning Eastbound, had a look on twitter for reasons why and all I could find was 'Buckhurst Hill closed due to damaged lapdog?'

Is a lapdog some sort of railway equipment?


----------



## mayflower232

> There was fears that temperatures on the London Underground could reach more than 40C - 13C hotter than the legal limit for cattle to travel.
> A London Underground spokesman admitted passengers would need for up to four years for new air-con trains on the Circle, District, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines. Roll-out will not complete until 2016.
> Bosses are also upgrading 13 ventilation shafts along the Victoria line, *restoring 83 out-of-order ventilation fans across the network* and has also installed portable fans.


Just thought I would post this snippet I read in the Telegraph, I was rather shocked that 83 ventilation shafts have been allowed to go out of order in the first place. Ventilation shafts are installed for a reason?! Why not use them.

Also with all this heat the Central Line becomes a no-go. Now we all long ago concluded that the trains cannot be cooled but why not the stations? Surely LU could air condition the station concourses during the summer? Also why could they not drill new shafts along deep level lines and install high speed fans blowing water-cooled air down?


----------



## Tubeman

mayflower232 said:


> Trains were not stopping at Buckhurst Hill this morning Eastbound, had a look on twitter for reasons why and all I could find was 'Buckhurst Hill closed due to damaged lapdog?'
> 
> Is a lapdog some sort of railway equipment?



LOL... it was damaged platform... maybe a Tweeter with defective hearing?


----------



## Tubeman

mayflower232 said:


> Just thought I would post this snippet I read in the Telegraph, I was rather shocked that 83 ventilation shafts have been allowed to go out of order in the first place. Ventilation shafts are installed for a reason?! Why not use them.
> 
> Also with all this heat the Central Line becomes a no-go. Now we all long ago concluded that the trains cannot be cooled but why not the stations? Surely LU could air condition the station concourses during the summer? Also why could they not drill new shafts along deep level lines and install high speed fans blowing water-cooled air down?


I'm unsure exactly what types of shaft are being referred to... generally there are none on older Tubes to my knowledge, they were not deemed necessary before the Victoria Line. The only one I know about on an older line is at the end of Elephant & Castle sidings at the end of the Bakerloo Line, I don't know when this was sunk though... My hunch would be when work started on the aborted Camberwell extension. It was always assumed that flat-fronted trains would push sufficient fresh air in / out of Tube tunnels.

It may be a reference to using the numerous abandoned lift shafts at Tube stations that subsequently had escalators installed?


----------



## MiaM

mayflower232 said:


> Just thought I would post this snippet I read in the Telegraph, I was rather shocked that 83 ventilation shafts have been allowed to go out of order in the first place. Ventilation shafts are installed for a reason?! Why not use them.
> 
> Also with all this heat the Central Line becomes a no-go. Now we all long ago concluded that the trains cannot be cooled but why not the stations? Surely LU could air condition the station concourses during the summer? Also why could they not drill new shafts along deep level lines and install high speed fans blowing water-cooled air down?


Your quote says 83 fans, not neccesary 83 shafts. (I'm not sure but perhaps more than one fan could be used on a single shaft?)

Installing portable fans seems lika an idea equally good as peeing your pants to get warm. The only two things they will do is move the already hot air around and their motors will also generate (a small quantity of) heat :bash:

I'd (still) like to get some more facts from someone who knows a bit of thermo energy storage coeffecients in clay and such things. My idea is to run the ventilation shaft fans on max speed even in freezing winter, accepting a rather cool temperature in the winter and especially in the spring season, to cool down the tunnel/station structures and the surrounding clay.

Maybe this doesn't work with clay, and only works if the tunnels go through rock?


----------



## TheAnalyst

You mentioned overhead lines have the disadvantage of being able to "jump" quite far, thus being a hazard.

What does that mean? Can someone can get zapped without touching them?


----------



## iampuking

MiaM said:


> Installing portable fans seems lika an idea equally good as peeing your pants to get warm. The only two things they will do is move the already hot air around and their motors will also generate (a small quantity of) heat


And in my experience they are absolutely useless unless you're standing directly in front of them. Which on a typical day is a few milliseconds.


----------



## ajw373

TheAnalyst said:


> You mentioned overhead lines have the disadvantage of being able to "jump" quite far, thus being a hazard.
> 
> What does that mean? Can someone can get zapped without touching them?


In theory the higher the voltage the larger the air gap that can be bridged between a live conductor and someone or something at ground potential.

You only need to look at the size of the insulators that hold up power lines to see this. At residential supply voltage (~240) they are quite small, and at power station voltages (~250KV+) they can be a good metre long. The reason being the higher the voltage the easier it can jump.

Now is this a hazard? Don't think so. 

Now seeing as overhead train wires can be as high as 25KV and 3rd rail ~600V DC you could say there is a greater risk with 25KV. However in reality 25KV would struggle to jump more than a few cm so is not really that much of a hazard, unless you were already that close to them AND were somehow connected to ground at the same time.

On the other hand 3rd rail systems are more dangerous, not by their ability to jump, by buy the ease in which one could easily touch one and also be touching ground, simply because they are located just off the ground.


----------



## Tubeman

TheAnalyst said:


> You mentioned overhead lines have the disadvantage of being able to "jump" quite far, thus being a hazard.
> 
> What does that mean? Can someone can get zapped without touching them?


Yes... The 'safe' distance if I remember my Network Rail rules & regs correctly is a whopping 1.9m... i.e. you or anything you're carrying is not to come any closer than 1.9m to the live portions of OHLE (it's not just the wires the pantograph contacts, quite a few other bits are live too).

Of course the current can't jump anywhere near this far in reality, but that's Health & Safety for you.

You'll notice on any 25Kv AC EMU, loco, or any stock which runs under 25Kv OHLE (so that includes many diesel locos and DMUs too), a thin orange stripe just below roof level... this denotes the line beyond which people or equipment must not encroach when under 25Kv OHLE.


----------



## RedArkady

Tubeman: I saw this on Saturday and thought of you:










There are few things more striking than a 6 foot 5 man in full Marie-Antoinette drag crammed into a tube seat. Especially one giving you the come-on.

Arky


----------



## RedArkady

Other than electrification, are there significant infrastructure issues that prevent the GOBLIN from being linked to the NLL for passenger routes? Would there be much advantage in running a Barking to, say, Willesden Junction service, or would it overly complicate the NLL timetable?


----------



## Tubeman

RedArkady said:


> Tubeman: I saw this on Saturday and thought of you:
> 
> There are few things more striking than a 6 foot 5 man in full Marie-Antoinette drag crammed into a tube seat. Especially one giving you the come-on.
> 
> Arky


LOL, only at weekends


----------



## Tubeman

RedArkady said:


> Other than electrification, are there significant infrastructure issues that prevent the GOBLIN from being linked to the NLL for passenger routes? Would there be much advantage in running a Barking to, say, Willesden Junction service, or would it overly complicate the NLL timetable?


Yes, I'd like it looked at...

I have a few 'fantasy' blueprints for Overground service patterns, here's one which avoids the need to electrify GOBLIN by linking it to the unelectrified Dudding Hill Loop via the Midland mainline, thence along the similarly unelectrified goods-only South Acton to Kew Bridge line to continue via the Hounslow Loop to Clapham Junction.

The Dudding Hill Loop is relatively useless in its current form, but passes very close to both Neasden and Harlesden stations, so if interchange platforms are built, could become a useful orbital line. The biggest fly in the ointment is getting trains across the Midland mainline 'fast' tracks, and possible congestion through the Belsize tunnel. In addition to the new Harlesden and Neasden interchanges, it would stop at West Hampstead and a re-opened Junction Road (for Tufnell Park), making it a very well connected and hopefully useful orbital line.

I also propose re-opening the Dalston Eastern Curve and the extension of Stratford services up the Lea valley Line and curves either side if South Tottenham to Seven Sisters, again also providing some useful interchanges.


----------



## Tubeman

Here's a slight variation on that theme, without the 'line 1' running via Kew Bridge (which I suspect might cause some issues between Kew Bridge and Clapham Junction).


----------



## RedArkady

Fascinating stuff, thanks. I didn't know about the Dudding Hill Loop.

Reopening Junction Road strikes me as very sensible. Perhaps as the Overground orbital concept settles into the public conciousness campaigns to reopen old stations and create new ones will get off the ground, especially at potential interchanges.


----------



## CairnsTony

Some very interesting ideas there Tubeman.

I reckon there's the potential for more stations along that line too, between Harlesden and Neasden and between Neasden and Cricklewood.

If I read your map correctly, have you got the West, North and South London lines linking together to form a full loop starting and finishing at Clapham Junction?

EDIT: It's just occurred to me that separating the lines out the way you have makes it much more like the tube map. Would fully incorporating the London Overground graphically into the tube map be a help or hindrance do you think? In other words, give each of those lines its own colour (if you can find enough shades to avoid confusion!) and its own name?


----------



## RedArkady

@CairnsTony: I suspect that splitting up the Overground routes on the tube map would be difficult as the routes overlap so much. There might be room for doing so on the ‘Overgound only’ map shown inside the trains though. When they take over the South London Line they will need to completely overhaul the design.

I quite like this idea: http://ccs-pk.chace-school.net/2010/06/london-overground.html - though I recognise that it’s problematic for showing actual routes.

These guys have thrashed out some ideas: http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/london_overground_maps.html

@Tubeman: Any word on the prospect of the Bakerloo extension to Watford and the impact on the parallel Overground service?


----------



## RedArkady

Oh, and have they actually started the Surrey Quays extension work yet? News is thin on the ground.


----------



## 1956

*London Overground*

RedArkady - work has begun on the Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction (via South London Line) extension - including the new piece of railway through Bridgehouse Meadows.


----------



## Tubeman

Agreed... and for this reason I'd advocate splitting Charing Cross back apart into the original Bakerloo (Trafalgar Square) and Northern (I'd keep this as Charing Cross) stations... by all means keep the miles-long connecting passageway open a la Monument / Bank, but it shouldn't be shown as an interchange anymore when Embankment is far more convenient.


----------



## davidaiow

Finally, somebody agrees! How much influence do you have over these things. So often it's those not in charge who speak the most sense


----------



## Tubeman

davidaiow said:


> Finally, somebody agrees! How much influence do you have over these things. So often it's those not in charge who speak the most sense


Well it would cost a bomb, I guess it could be attached onto the Bakerloo upgrade as the cost would be swallowed up, and it would be a logical opportunity to change a station name if there are other changes at the same time e.g. Watford Junction extension.

The costs are DVA changes on trains, station management re-organisation, new maps, new station enamels... it all mounts up.


----------



## davidaiow

Surely it was a short-sighted thing to do to begin with? Though I guess it was to benefit an interchange with the Jubilee originally. You are right of course, it would be a lot, and is it really necessary? Though perhaps it would help tourists and newcomers.


----------



## CairnsTony

davidaiow said:


> Surely it was a short-sighted thing to do to begin with? Though *I guess it was to benefit an interchange with the Jubilee originally.* You are right of course, it would be a lot, and is it really necessary? Though perhaps it would help tourists and newcomers.


I always assumed that was the reason. If the DLR ever heads that way, how would that then connect up with existing lines especially as seems likely it would use widened ex-Jubilee tunnels and the old platforms at CharingX.


----------



## MiaM

Tubeman said:


> Yes, sound ideas for overlapping services... there are so many potential routes using the LOROL infrastructure it's mind-boggling... I guess someone should analyse the movement of people in London (i.e. their door-to-door journeys) to see which routes would give the most cost-benefit, while keeping it simple.


I assume oyster data gives a rather good picture about how people travel. All rail travel should have check-in and check-out data, and for bus and tram you could probably assume that people get off at the place the get on the bus/tram in the other direction / part of the day.

Are this data used today?



Tubeman said:


> West Croydon is necessary to provide a Croydon station on the line towards Sutton... and I guess was chosen over East Croydon as a terminus due to operating constraints at East Croydon (much busier line and no real reversing facilities). West Croydon used to be the terminus of the Wimbledon trains, and so had the reversing capacity already. I agree that East Croydon is the better placed station for Croydon town centre however.


Would it be reasonable to convert the line to Sutton to a part of Tramlink (and run the trains via Mitcham Junction, or would that be a bad idea?

If that line could be converted to Tramlink and the capacity problem East Croydon - South Croydon (-Purley) would be solved then East Croydon would be a better idea. I'm not only thinking about Croydon itself but also the interchange possibilities with fast trains at East Croydon but only a few slower trains at West Croydon.

If LOROL will stick to West Croydon for a while then perhaps another entrance to the station could be opened somewhere near the tram stop / bus station? Although it's not really a long walk between a train and a tram/bus it's a bit silly to have to round the N End / Station Rd corner when you almost can see the trains next to the tram stop.


----------



## MiaM

iampuking said:


> ^^I disagree. The interchange between LOROL and the Jubilee at West Hampstead is much quicker, so why would you want to encourage passengers to change at Kilburn/Brondesbury? I live in this area so I know what i'm talking about.


If those stations were buildt to be a good interchange, the LU station would have its entrance/exit on the west and not the east side of the road. As it's now you have to cross the road to change between the LU station and the Overground and NR stations.

If Google Street View is correct the NR station signs still refers to Overground as "Silverlik". (Google Street View correctly shows Overground signs at the Overground station) :cheers:

How about adding Metropolitan/fast platforms at West Hampstead to make it easier to change to Overground there? Perhaps remove Finchley Road from Metropolitan services?


----------



## davidaiow

^Don't say that! I love my 2 tube options!


----------



## Tubeman

davidaiow said:


> Surely it was a short-sighted thing to do to begin with? Though I guess it was to benefit an interchange with the Jubilee originally. You are right of course, it would be a lot, and is it really necessary? Though perhaps it would help tourists and newcomers.


Yes, Strand and Trafalgar Square stations were conjoined with effect from 01/05/1979, with the Jubilee Line opening.

The closure of Charing Cross as a Jubilee Line station reversed this.

I guess the complex serves a purpose by giving Charing Cross two Tube lines rather than one (ignoring Embankment station), removing the 1979 deep level passageway between the two stations would mean that Charing Cross mainline to the Bakerloo Line would have to be done at street level.

I guess it's analogous to the two Paddington LU stations, and could be depicted as such... show the interchange between NR and LU for both stations while discouraging interchange between the LU stations there.


----------



## Tubeman

CairnsTony said:


> I always assumed that was the reason. If the DLR ever heads that way, how would that then connect up with existing lines especially as seems likely it would use widened ex-Jubilee tunnels and the old platforms at CharingX.


Straight swap for the Jubilee Line... doesn't make the Bakerloo and Northern Line platforms any closer together though!


----------



## Tubeman

MiaM said:


> I assume oyster data gives a rather good picture about how people travel. All rail travel should have check-in and check-out data, and for bus and tram you could probably assume that people get off at the place the get on the bus/tram in the other direction / part of the day.
> 
> Are this data used today?


I hope so... would make sense to!



MiaM said:


> Would it be reasonable to convert the line to Sutton to a part of Tramlink (and run the trains via Mitcham Junction, or would that be a bad idea?
> 
> If that line could be converted to Tramlink and the capacity problem East Croydon - South Croydon (-Purley) would be solved then East Croydon would be a better idea. I'm not only thinking about Croydon itself but also the interchange possibilities with fast trains at East Croydon but only a few slower trains at West Croydon.
> 
> If LOROL will stick to West Croydon for a while then perhaps another entrance to the station could be opened somewhere near the tram stop / bus station? Although it's not really a long walk between a train and a tram/bus it's a bit silly to have to round the N End / Station Rd corner when you almost can see the trains next to the tram stop.


No, it's a good idea... Tramlink taking over West Croydon to Epsom Downs via Sutton, with the line via Mitcham Junction remaining NR. I guess the only drawback to continued Tramlink expansion is what is happening in Manchester... more and more suburban branches being added onto the existing central street-running core leading to congestion... the same will happen in Croydon is they aren't careful.


----------



## mr_jrt

Given the 5th track between Norwood Junction and South Croydon, would the benefit of laying an additional track (a 6th) which the LO services could then use to operate segregated away from the "mainline" services down to South Croydon permit a LO extension/diversion in that direction?

...additionally, I don't fully understand why East Croydon hasn't been expanded yet. There's a lot of vacant land to the west of the station suitable for terminating platforms (and a lot of railway land north of it for the flyovers required to reach the western side), and with the demolition of 1...maybe 2 buildings on the south western side of the station (on the other side of the road bridge)...several of these new platforms could quite easily be new through platforms, you could probably manage 1 (2 at a real stretch) without the demolition at all...


----------



## RedArkady

Fantastic London Overground round-up at London Reconnections, focussing on ELL Phase II: http://londonreconnections.blogspot.com/2011/07/ell-and-nll-overground-roundup.html


----------



## Tubeman

mr_jrt said:


> Given the 5th track between Norwood Junction and South Croydon, would the benefit of laying an additional track (a 6th) which the LO services could then use to operate segregated away from the "mainline" services down to South Croydon permit a LO extension/diversion in that direction?
> 
> ...additionally, I don't fully understand why East Croydon hasn't been expanded yet. There's a lot of vacant land to the west of the station suitable for terminating platforms (and a lot of railway land north of it for the flyovers required to reach the western side), and with the demolition of 1...maybe 2 buildings on the south western side of the station (on the other side of the road bridge)...several of these new platforms could quite easily be new through platforms, you could probably manage 1 (2 at a real stretch) without the demolition at all...


Yes, there's heaps of room on the former goods yard site for terminal platforms if need be. I guess better use would be adding a 6th track... ideally being 6-track all the way to Purley... so that the Caterham and Tattenham Corner Branches could be segregated and become LOROL. I guess driving the 6th track under the overbridge south of E Croydon is the really disruptive bit. An alternative could be to tunnel from Selhurst / Norwood Junction to Purley and sink the 'fast' roads below ground, i.e. quadruple 'slow' tracks at ground level and deep-level 'fast' by-passing East Croydon.


----------



## Tubeman

RedArkady said:


> Fantastic London Overground round-up at London Reconnections, focussing on ELL Phase II: http://londonreconnections.blogspot.com/2011/07/ell-and-nll-overground-roundup.html


Yes, brilliant... saves me the bother of traipsing around my new manor with a camera!


----------



## mr_jrt

Tubeman said:


> Yes, there's heaps of room on the former goods yard site for terminal platforms if need be. I guess better use would be adding a 6th track... ideally being 6-track all the way to Purley... so that the Caterham and Tattenham Corner Branches could be segregated and become LOROL. I guess driving the 6th track under the overbridge south of E Croydon is the really disruptive bit. An alternative could be to tunnel from Selhurst / Norwood Junction to Purley and sink the 'fast' roads below ground, i.e. quadruple 'slow' tracks at ground level and deep-level 'fast' by-passing East Croydon.


Luckily, there's actually 6 tracks through East Croydon already


----------



## RedArkady

Tubeman said:


> Yes, brilliant... saves me the bother of traipsing around my new manor with a camera!


Don't be lazy, we demand pictures as well as answers! ;-)


----------



## Tubeman

mr_jrt said:


> Luckily, there's actually 6 tracks through East Croydon already


Well hurry up and bring my ideas to fruition then! :happy:


----------



## Tubeman

RedArkady said:


> Don't be lazy, we demand pictures as well as answers! ;-)


It chucked it down today, so I just got drunk instead


----------



## lemmo

> ...re-establish the Mortimer Street Curve (between Kentish Town and GOBLIN) and run the western half of GOBLIN as a Thameslink branch (electrified 25Kv OHLE), by re-laying the Tottenham North curve (South Tottenham to Tottenham Hale), trains could continue up the Lea Valley Line to Stansted Airport... This means that Thameslink would serve Stansted, Luton, and Gatwick while Crossrail serves Heathrow and London City... connecting all 5 main international airports with cross-London heavy rail. Intermediate stations at Upper Holloway, Crouch Hill, Harringay Green Lanes, and South Tottenham would gain hugely improved services, tapping into I think large potential in that area of London.


Great idea, have been thinking about that for years, why did they not propose it in the new Thameslink program?

However, Thameslink will max out at 24tph (and they may not even achieve that with the pinchpoint flat junction south of Blackfriars). If 10 of those go to the Great Northern mainline, that leaves only 14 for the Midland route... so not enough paths. Shame


----------



## ill tonkso

Ahhhhhh! Right


----------



## ChrisH

I have a question about ATO lines, especially the Victoria. As I understand it, each train knows how far ahead the next train is and varies its speed accordingly. What I don’t understand is why the process can be so jerky. This is especially noticeable on the entrance to a station. If the train ahead has left the station, then by definition the path for the train arriving is clear – as it will stop at the end of the platform anyway. So why do trains often crawl into a platform, then accelerate for a few seconds, before stopping?

Thanks


----------



## Tubeman

ChrisH said:


> I have a question about ATO lines, especially the Victoria. As I understand it, each train knows how far ahead the next train is and varies its speed accordingly. What I don’t understand is why the process can be so jerky. This is especially noticeable on the entrance to a station. If the train ahead has left the station, then by definition the path for the train arriving is clear – as it will stop at the end of the platform anyway. So why do trains often crawl into a platform, then accelerate for a few seconds, before stopping?
> 
> Thanks


The original Victoria Line ATO just gave the trains one of three commands: stop, go full speed (parallel), and go slowly (series), depending on on how close the train was to the train in front / the stopping mark of the next station.

If we have a train in a platform and another stationary train waiting a braking distance to the rear in the tunnel, then initially the train in the platform moves off and a few moments later the train behind does, initially in series as it's still close behind the train in front. As the train departing the platform leaves in parallel and down a gradient due to the 'hump' profile, it picks up speed rapidly, opening up the gap between the two trains (as the one behind is on an uphill gradient) to the point that the train behind then accelerates further into parallel. The system 'knows' how fast the train should be going at each point along the platform and so the train will accelerate to achieve this speed, doing so until it matches the maximum speed permissable at some point along the platform, the motors drop out, and the brakes apply.

So what you'll often see is a train leave a platform, the train behind crawl towards the platform, then accelerate fully along the platform, then start braking about halfway down.

This is needless acceleration and braking, but it does keep the distance between trains to an absolute minimum and speed up the service, however marginally. A manual driver will accelerate and brake less harshly if they've caught up the train in front, saving energy, but spreading the service out more and compounding late running.

Jubilee Line TBTC is a lot more 'intelligent' and does not appear to behave like this as noticeably. In fact, it's so 'intelligent' that normal line speed is a reasonable margin below what can be achieved, so that if a train is running to time it sticks to this somewhat impaired speed, but if it's running late, it'll belt along at full pelt until it catches up with its timetabled path. The timetable can effectively heal itself after a small-ish delay without any human intervention.


----------



## Coccodrillo

Hi, I have some questions about the DLR:

1) Why the Tower Gateway station was built on a branch, and not on the line between Bank and Tower Hill so to give more trains and more direct services to both?

2) The past two days there weren't direct Stradtford International-Beckton trains, and the Stratford-Lewisham service was limited to Canary Wharf. Why?

3) When the latter goeas to Lewisham, does it use always the central platform at Canary Wharf?

4) Why West India Quays does exist, being attached to Canary Wharf, and why some Bank-Lewisham services stop there and others not? When these trains stop there? Maybe at off peak times, when the train use the flat junction instead of the flyover?

Thank you in advance!


----------



## sotonsi

1)It was the original terminus, with the Bank branch coming later. A terminus there is still needed as Bank wouldn't be able to cope with turning all the trains without Tower Gateway taking some
2)Stratford Int-Beckton services only run 0530-0630, 1000-1600 and 1930-0030 - were you only looking at those times? (Stratford Int-Woolwich Arsenal trains only run at peak times - 0630-1000 and 1600-1930).
3)Stratford to Lewisham is every 12 minutes, morning peak-only, with all other services on that branch terminating at Canary Wharf
4)It's not attached to Canary Wharf, and (unlike Heron Quays nowadays) isn't that easy to get over the other side of the dock to Canary Wharf - from trains it's not blatant that there's water between the two stations on the ground. And yes, the flyover means that Docklands-bound trains using it (all of them before 1900) cannot stop at West India Quay.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/gettingaround/1125.aspx <- here's a page with DLR service patterns and frequencies on it.


----------



## ChrisH

Tubeman said:


> The original Victoria Line ATO just gave the trains one of three commands: stop, go full speed (parallel), and go slowly (series), depending on on how close the train was to the train in front / the stopping mark of the next station.
> 
> If we have a train in a platform and another stationary train waiting a braking distance to the rear in the tunnel, then initially the train in the platform moves off and a few moments later the train behind does, initially in series as it's still close behind the train in front. As the train departing the platform leaves in parallel and down a gradient due to the 'hump' profile, it picks up speed rapidly, opening up the gap between the two trains (as the one behind is on an uphill gradient) to the point that the train behind then accelerates further into parallel. The system 'knows' how fast the train should be going at each point along the platform and so the train will accelerate to achieve this speed, doing so until it matches the maximum speed permissable at some point along the platform, the motors drop out, and the brakes apply.
> 
> So what you'll often see is a train leave a platform, the train behind crawl towards the platform, then accelerate fully along the platform, then start braking about halfway down.
> 
> This is needless acceleration and braking, but it does keep the distance between trains to an absolute minimum and speed up the service, however marginally. A manual driver will accelerate and brake less harshly if they've caught up the train in front, saving energy, but spreading the service out more and compounding late running.
> 
> Jubilee Line TBTC is a lot more 'intelligent' and does not appear to behave like this as noticeably. In fact, it's so 'intelligent' that normal line speed is a reasonable margin below what can be achieved, so that if a train is running to time it sticks to this somewhat impaired speed, but if it's running late, it'll belt along at full pelt until it catches up with its timetabled path. The timetable can effectively heal itself after a small-ish delay without any human intervention.


Thanks, that makes sense – except that when the train in front has moved off from a station, shouldn’t it be considered parallel rather than series, ie. the train waiting in the tunnel behind accelerates hard straightaway?

I agree that the Jubilee seems to work better and be more intelligent, with trains knowing where several trains ahead are, as well as stations, so that they drive cleanly from one station to the next.


----------



## Tubeman

ChrisH said:


> Thanks, that makes sense – except that when the train in front has moved off from a station, shouldn’t it be considered parallel rather than series, ie. the train waiting in the tunnel behind accelerates hard straightaway?


I think there's also something around a train not being allowed to occupy any part of a platform until the train ahead has got a safe braking distance away from the station, combined with the fact that a train will not leave a platform until there is sufficient distance ahead for it to completely clear the platform before stopping again. This is to prevent a train departing then stopping half in half out, which creates the risk of people trying to board the rear cars, or equally stopping halfway down a platform as it enters, meaning people on the front cars pulling emergency alarms because they think the doors aren't opening.

Initially, as the train in the platform moves off, the train behind can creep up in series, but no further than the 'tailwall' (i.e. the start of the platform). It is only when the train in front has cleared the platform sufficiently that it has a safe braking distance between its rear and the platform headwall, that the train following it can wind up to parallel, as it is now allowed to occupy the platform. It will then motor in parallel until it reaches the maximum permissible speed at some point along the platform, and start braking.

If that makes any sense?!


----------



## ChrisH

I think so. Thanks for the explanation!


----------



## Spam King

Will it be possible to extend the DLR Tower Gateway branch in the future? I realize it's an elevated terminus, but would it be possible to put it underground and continue into central london, perhaps to liverpool street (although that would duplicate the circle line from tower hill, metropolitan line from aldgate and h&c line from aldgate east, all within walking distance) or to kings x? or is it planned for the bank branch to be extended?


----------



## adam_b

*Mysterious tube noises north of Kennington?*

I live in an area just off Renfrew Road SE11, near Kennington Lane. There's an area of ex-council bungalows between some higher buildings - I live in one of the bungalows.

From time to time I can hear tube trains underground, and I know that the Charing Cross branch of the Northern line must run fairly close by. However, the sounds don't seem to be frequent enough to be caused by regular trains - I can go for several hours without hearing them (though one just went by as I wrote that).

A friend suggested that as a lot of trains do short turns at Kennington, perhaps there was an underground marshalling yard in my area - which could explain the single-floor houses. I know there's a loop at Kennington, but is there anything else under here that isn't obvious?

It gives a good excuse for quoting Annie Lennox songs, but... I'd just like to know


----------



## Tubeman

adam_b said:


> I live in an area just off Renfrew Road SE11, near Kennington Lane. There's an area of ex-council bungalows between some higher buildings - I live in one of the bungalows.
> 
> From time to time I can hear tube trains underground, and I know that the Charing Cross branch of the Northern line must run fairly close by. However, the sounds don't seem to be frequent enough to be caused by regular trains - I can go for several hours without hearing them (though one just went by as I wrote that).
> 
> A friend suggested that as a lot of trains do short turns at Kennington, perhaps there was an underground marshalling yard in my area - which could explain the single-floor houses. I know there's a loop at Kennington, but is there anything else under here that isn't obvious?
> 
> It gives a good excuse for quoting Annie Lennox songs, but... I'd just like to know


You're right on top of the Charing Cross Branch there (Waterloo < > Kennington), so you should have frequent trains 19 hours a day... not too sure why it's so sporadic. Might just be a perception thing, if you're concentrating on other stuff you can easily tune things out... I grew up under the Heathrow flightpath and next to the District Line and only noticed the planes / trains when I had trouble sleeping and it was otherwise quiet.

There's no other Tube infrastructure nearby, so it's definitely the Charing Cross branch you can hear and nothing else.

Kennington Loop / siding are south of Kennington station.


----------



## Tubeman

Spam King said:


> Will it be possible to extend the DLR Tower Gateway branch in the future? I realize it's an elevated terminus, but would it be possible to put it underground and continue into central london, perhaps to liverpool street (although that would duplicate the circle line from tower hill, metropolitan line from aldgate and h&c line from aldgate east, all within walking distance) or to kings x? or is it planned for the bank branch to be extended?


The Bank Branch effectively is an extension from Tower Gateway... or rather as close as they could get it. Tower Gateway itself will never be extended... the site is too constrained and there'd be too much prime property destruction.

The Bank branch remains the subject of extension talk, with one to the abandoned Jubilee platforms at Charing Cross being the most frequently suggested... I'm sure it will happen one day, just not sure when.


----------



## Coccodrillo

An alternative might be building a new station just outside the tunnel of the Bank branch to replace Tower Gateway station. The problem is that it would be on a ramp and quite far from the existing station, the advantage that it would increase the service to both Tower and bank areas.


----------



## Spike88bcn

I'm not sure if its the right topic, but I have a question... What is the fastest and best way from Waterloo to London St.Pancras station?


----------



## sotonsi

Changing at Oxford Circus (from the Bakerloo line to the Victoria line) is the winner - not only is it (according to TfL) a minute quicker than changing at Leicester Square, but it is a very easy change.


----------



## Spike88bcn

thank you very much!!!


----------



## MiaM

If you are planning to change between rail and underground at Waterloo and don't have any errand in Waterloo you might be able to change at Vauxhall instead of Waterloo. Then you have a direct connection to St. Pancras.

Similary if you don't have any errand at St. Pancras you might use Jubilee line to West Hampstead or Northern Line to Kentish town and change to rail there. Some St. Pancras trains call at Elephant and Castle, if that's the case for your train you might use Bakerloo line from Waterloo to Elephant and Castle.

Observe that only some trains call at Vauxhall, Kentish Town and West Hampstead. Check what apllies to your specific train. However all these suggestions has one less interchange than going from Waterloo to St. Pancras.


----------



## Tubeman

MiaM said:


> If you are planning to change between rail and underground at Waterloo and don't have any errand in Waterloo you might be able to change at Vauxhall instead of Waterloo. Then you have a direct connection to St. Pancras.
> 
> Similary if you don't have any errand at St. Pancras you might use Jubilee line to West Hampstead or Northern Line to Kentish town and change to rail there. Some St. Pancras trains call at Elephant and Castle, if that's the case for your train you might use Bakerloo line from Waterloo to Elephant and Castle.
> 
> Observe that only some trains call at Vauxhall, Kentish Town and West Hampstead. Check what apllies to your specific train. However all these suggestions has one less interchange than going from Waterloo to St. Pancras.


Good call re: Vauxhall

Yes if the SWT service stops there, then change there. Most slower services do (e.g. Hampton Court, Hounslow Loop, Kingston Loop, etc).

But that is assuming you're changing to a SWT service... I guess you may just be arriving at St Pancras and staying in Waterloo?


----------



## 1956

Tubeman - don't know if this is outside your wide area of expertise but do you have a view on how "season tickets" would be handled if TFL moved over completely to "Wave + Pay". Would it mean that each journey would be charged seperately or would it still be possible to buy a years worth of "all you can eat" travel?


----------



## Mostly Lurking

I can't speak for Tubeman, but surely any season tickets would still be available and loaded onto the card - and 'wave and pay' would just replace PAYG?


----------



## Tubeman

Yes I see no reason why it would work any differently to a Gold card (annual season ticket) loaded on to an Oyster... you can get PAYG put on the same card now, so that every time you go outside of your Gold card zones you get charged the extra.


----------



## macattack

Few questions that have been bugging me:

Does anybody know what the series of abandoned lines that run from Romford almost as far as Ilford were for?

At the point where the c2c into Fenchurch moves from 4 tracks to 2, there is an abandoned viaduct on the right hand side that looks at though it points towards Liverpool St. Originally I thought it was perhaps something to do with the old Leman St station but it is too far east. 

Is the Dlr extension to Dagenham Dock likely to ever be built per the 2020 Horizon? I assume its a case of waiting for the demand from the Thames Gateway project.


----------



## lemmo

macattack, see this Railway Clearing House diagram for the various goods depots on the run into Fenchurch St 



Aldgate, Bishopsgate, Haydon Square, Liverpool Street, Mansion House, Spitalfields & Whitechapel RJD 45, from Wikimedia Commons


----------



## macattack

Ah, that would be why I couldnt find anything, hadn't appreciated quite how many old goods yards were in the area. Thanks Lemmo.

Id imagine the Romford - Ilford tracks are probably for something similar.


----------



## Tubeman

Hi mac

The most prominent remains of these goods stations is the stub of viaduct accessing Commercial Road Goods parallel with Pinchin Street:










Regarding Romford to Ilford, there are several different facilities, both abandoned and in situ... starting at Romford on the south side you had the goods yard immediately west of the station (abandoned), which was at street level. Part of the throat of the yard is still technically in use as an engineering depot. West of that parallel to the main line is the former gasworks, now partly an overhead line maintenance depot. Both of these look pretty disused on satellite photos.

There was then nothing between here and Chadwell Heath, barring the foundations for a never-opened station at Crowlands (on Jutsums lane).

East of Chadwell Heath, also on the south side, was the goods yard there, then to the west there still is a single siding which once accessed the Becontree Estate light railway (used for construction of the vast housing estate in the late 1920's / early 1930's). Between Chadwell Heath and Goodmayes, on both sides of the main line, there used to be a large goods marshalling yard.

Then there was nothing between Goodmayes and Seven Kings, then between here and Ilford there was a goods yard on the south side opposite the extant depot.


----------



## macattack

Excellent, thanks for that. 
I've done a bit more digging and it seems that most of Romford has changed dramatically in the last 40 years or so.
I only remember from about 1992 onwards (aged 5) when the black inter-citys used to barrell past.


----------



## dingsongdead

Tubeman! Im new to hear and you're the reason I've joined.

Im in dire need of a sideways/profile/landscape image of the ICONIC 1938 London Underground Stock. It needs to the 'famous/iconic' one with the correct red paintwork. I need this to complete am illustration brief I've been set.

My client and I are having an awful time trying to source one of these. We've contacted the travel museum but we're waiting to hear back from them.

Any help would be amazing! If you have a link to an image or have one you could email me then let me know and I'll send you my email address!

Many thanks.


----------



## Tubeman

Hi there, I know I replied to your PM with an image, but I didn't realise you needed a profile picture... I'm struggling to find this too.

Search for 'British Rail Class 483' too, as this is the class number of the 1938 stocks still working on the Isle of Wight... the car bodies are virtually unchanged.

Regarding colour, it seemed to vary between a bright pillarbox red to a more burned red colour over the years. At the point of retiring in the 1980's, the Bakerloo Line 38's were more of a bright red with white roundels halfway down the car bodies.

The only full profile images I can find are of scale models, e.g.: http://www.southernelectric.org.uk/modelling/efe1938_lt007a_l.jpg


----------



## dingsongdead

yeah theyre the only profile images i can find also. ill give that search a go too, thanks very much.

we did manage to find a diagram of what we think could be the correct train but the windows are very different. is there anyway i can send you an email of said image so you can say yes or no as to whether its the correct one or not?

if you PM me your email i'll send it when i get back from work this evening


----------



## Acemcbuller

*Wembley stadium and arena arrangements*

Hi Tubeman

What if any kind of special arrangements if are made to get the hoards away by train from Wembley stadium and arena by when games and concerts end?

James


----------



## trainrover

I've been meaning to congratulate the integrity of this thread since yesterday evening ... congratulations Britishness and to you, tubeman :applause:


----------



## Tubeman

Acemcbuller said:


> Hi Tubeman
> 
> What if any kind of special arrangements if are made to get the hoards away by train from Wembley stadium and arena by when games and concerts end?
> 
> James


Nothing too spectacular... Just a couple of spare trains / drivers available on the Met and Jub lines in Neasden depot to run as required.

As with any big event, trains are generally held by platform staff until full to maximise capacity usage... so the timetable suffers a bit during event mode.


----------



## MiaM

Re: Acemcbuller:

Somewhere I've read that there is a function on the oyster system where barriers can be left open for huge masses of travelers exiting a station, for example to see a sports event with loads of spectators.

The problem is AFAIK that every traveler has to enter that station (or perhaps any station in a limited area) again in the next couple of days to avoid getting a maximum fare penality charge. It probably works good for the crowds visiting a huge event but not good for those who live in the area and only travel by tube/rail once in a while (for example if they commute by bike e.t.c.).

I think I read it on this site, however I can't find the exapt text now:
http://www.oyster-rail.org.uk/
It might have been on anoter blog (if so probably London Reconnections, Ian Visits or Diamond Geezer)


----------



## Tubeman

MiaM said:


> Re: Acemcbuller:
> 
> Somewhere I've read that there is a function on the oyster system where barriers can be left open for huge masses of travelers exiting a station, for example to see a sports event with loads of spectators.
> 
> The problem is AFAIK that every traveler has to enter that station (or perhaps any station in a limited area) again in the next couple of days to avoid getting a maximum fare penality charge. It probably works good for the crowds visiting a huge event but not good for those who live in the area and only travel by tube/rail once in a while (for example if they commute by bike e.t.c.).
> 
> I think I read it on this site, however I can't find the exapt text now:
> http://www.oyster-rail.org.uk/
> It might have been on anoter blog (if so probably London Reconnections, Ian Visits or Diamond Geezer)


Can't see how that works to be honest... They open some gates (or usually just the WAG - Wide Aisle gate) and filter paper ticket holders through them, and direct Oyster holders to touch out normally.

It's impossible to prevent an unresolved journey otherwise.

I've passed through Wembley Park as a customer for cup final and regularly through Highbury & Islington for Arsenal matches, and always have to touch out.


----------



## MiaM

AFAIK it works like this:
When a station has had all gates open for exit, the oyster readers for entry is programmed to work like a combination of entry reader and something like a "route validator" reader. When someone enters such station close enough to the time the exit gates were open, the entry reader will automatically resolve an unresolved / "maximum fare" journey before starting a new journey, if that unresolved journey could reasonably had been to the station where the gates were open.

This is just from my memory of what I've read earlier, I may remember incorrectly.


----------



## Tubeman

MiaM said:


> AFAIK it works like this:
> When a station has had all gates open for exit, the oyster readers for entry is programmed to work like a combination of entry reader and something like a "route validator" reader. When someone enters such station close enough to the time the exit gates were open, the entry reader will automatically resolve an unresolved / "maximum fare" journey before starting a new journey, if that unresolved journey could reasonably had been to the station where the gates were open.
> 
> This is just from my memory of what I've read earlier, I may remember incorrectly.


Oh I see, so when you touch back in, it's taken to also be your touch out prior to that... That makes sense then

Well I can't say I've ever witnessed it first hand... When I was a stations manager, none of my stations were ever really affected by events... maybe just Marylebone a bit for a Wembley event, and Warwick Avenue for Lord's (again, a bit).


----------



## lancelot000

What altitute above or below sea level are the highest and lowest parts of the track and what is the maximum incline the train can climb


----------



## Tubeman

Highest altitude above sea level = Metropolitan Line at Amersham = 147m (as the LU / NR boundary is some way west of Amersham, the actual highest point is about 150m)

Lowest depth below sea level = Jubilee Line = 32m... Not sure exactly where, I'm guessing Waterloo as it passes below the Bakerloo and Northern Lines there... the westbound platform at Westminster is extremely deep, a whole flight of escalators deeper than the eastbound, so maybe here

Steepest gradient = 1/28 between Bow Road and Bromley-By-Bow

Some useful facts

Also here


----------



## Gazza2

Hi Tubeman,
Something I have wondered, but why was the Victoria line built with such narrow tunnels?

Obviously the network built prior in the 19th C / Early 20th C would have been dictated by the engineering and construction methods of the time, and the population being smaller in stature back then (Hence getting away with narrow, low roofed trains)

But for a independent line being built in the 60s I thought they'd have built the whole thing at a more comfortable scale.

.....Or is it simply that the Victoria line reused existing tunnels in some portions, so rather than widening them, they just built the whole line to match the width of the segments they were 'recycling' ?


----------



## CairnsTony

This is a myth. The average height in the 19th Century was most likely little different from today. It had far more to do with pioneering methods of tunnelling plus the commercial incentive to build the tunnels as cost-effectively as possible.





Gazza2 said:


> Hi Tubeman,
> Something I have wondered, but why was the Victoria line built with such narrow tunnels?
> 
> Obviously the network built prior in the 19th C / Early 20th C would have been dictated by the engineering and construction methods of the time, and *the population being smaller in stature back then* (Hence getting away with narrow, low roofed trains)
> 
> But for a independent line being built in the 60s I thought they'd have built the whole thing at a more comfortable scale.
> 
> .....Or is it simply that the Victoria line reused existing tunnels in some portions, so rather than widening them, they just built the whole line to match the width of the segments they were 'recycling' ?


----------



## trainrover

^^ Weren't, e.g., the Stockwell, tube tunnels enlarged some 20 years into service?

Tell me, please, was any mitigation devised into the platform-edge doors on the Jubilee Line extension to minimise pestersome draught? For instance, what's the likelihood of the back-and-forth suctions buckling the door and panel frames over the years? I'm curious, because the elderly are more often the ones hurt (bruisings, fractures, concussions) when entering or exiting Montreal's (entirely indoor) metro station doorways at street level.


----------



## lancelot000

Tubeman said:


> Highest altitude above sea level = Metropolitan Line at Amersham = 147m (as the LU / NR boundary is some way west of Amersham, the actual highest point is about 150m)
> 
> Lowest depth below sea level = Jubilee Line = 32m... Not sure exactly where, I'm guessing Waterloo as it passes below the Bakerloo and Northern Lines there... the westbound platform at Westminster is extremely deep, a whole flight of escalators deeper than the eastbound, so maybe here
> 
> Steepest gradient = 1/28 between Bow Road and Bromley-By-Bow
> 
> Some useful facts
> 
> Also here


Thankyou sir.


----------



## Tubeman

Gazza2 said:


> Hi Tubeman,
> Something I have wondered, but why was the Victoria line built with such narrow tunnels?
> 
> Obviously the network built prior in the 19th C / Early 20th C would have been dictated by the engineering and construction methods of the time, and the population being smaller in stature back then (Hence getting away with narrow, low roofed trains)
> 
> But for a independent line being built in the 60s I thought they'd have built the whole thing at a more comfortable scale.
> 
> .....Or is it simply that the Victoria line reused existing tunnels in some portions, so rather than widening them, they just built the whole line to match the width of the segments they were 'recycling' ?


The only significant bits of pre-existing tunnel used by the Victoria Line were built by the Great Northern & City Line, but these are surface stock size ironically.

To be fair, while Tube carriages feel claustrophobic, only a small minority of people are too tall to board without stooping. It's a very economical use of space... far less volume of tunnelling work required.

Another consideration is that the Victoria Line is only accessible via the Piccadilly Line, so the trains can't be any bigger than their tunnels. I guess this could have been addressed by simply connecting Northumberland Park depot to British Rail for rolling stock delivery, but unless the line was totally self-contained, there'd still be the issue of getting rolling stock to Acton Works for heavy maintenance.

A final economy is the fact that by being Tube-sized, the Victoria Line rolling stock can be more cheaply devised... for example the 1967 stock car bodies were pretty much identical to 1972 stock.


----------



## Tubeman

trainrover said:


> ^^ Weren't, e.g., the Stockwell, tube tunnels enlarged some 20 years into service?


The entire City & South London Railway (Euston to Clapham Common via Bank) was enlarged 1922-24 because the tunnels were originally even smaller than current standard Tube size.



trainrover said:


> Tell me, please, was any mitigation devised into the platform-edge doors on the Jubilee Line extension to minimise pestersome draught? For instance, what's the likelihood of the back-and-forth suctions buckling the door and panel frames over the years? I'm curious, because the elderly are more often the ones hurt (bruisings, fractures, concussions) when entering or exiting Montreal's (entirely indoor) metro station doorways at street level.


The doors seem pretty robust, but with the TBTC system increasing acceleration / deceleration and train speeds I guess they must be taking a bit more of a battering these days.


----------



## trainrover

Hmph, Montreal's authority wanted to raise maximum speed to 50MPH from 45MPH, but it would appear they got too much flack for it (years later, it hasn't happened) :dunno: I don't think their tracks could take the hammering, considering their newer fleet's the one *without* suspension.


----------



## Blackraven

Hmm......

Any plans to increase the maximum limit for Oyster cards (the current max limit is 90 British Pounds)?

I figured that, unless you're using Travelcards, the GBP90 limit may be a bit too little (?) relative to the cost/price range of a train ride/journey in the United Kingdom

Just a thought 

P.S.
Technically, it should be possible. Philips MIFARE can store as much as up to 10,000 units of currency (i.e. Easy Card by Taipei Smart Card Corporation of Taiwan)


----------



## Tubeman

Blackraven said:


> Hmm......
> 
> Any plans to increase the maximum limit for Oyster cards (the current max limit is 90 British Pounds)?
> 
> I figured that, unless you're using Travelcards, the GBP90 limit may be a bit too little (?) relative to the cost/price range of a train ride/journey in the United Kingdom
> 
> Just a thought
> 
> P.S.
> Technically, it should be possible. Philips MIFARE can store as much as up to 10,000 units of currency (i.e. Easy Card by Taipei Smart Card Corporation of Taiwan)


Dunno... for me it's a bit moot, as you can put on auto top-up so it's effectively limitless... I can't see why such an amount would be necessary really... of course you can technically put thousands of pounds on by putting a year's zones 1-6 travelcard onto Oyster; and then obviously you'd never pay anything additional for any journeys as they're already paid for.

I guess if inter-city travel became covered by Oyster then you might have a point, but until then the limit seems sufficient.


----------



## Blackraven

Ah I see.

I reckon though that some additional services (like as you mentioned auto top-up for linking the Oyster card to an online account) are only available to locals. Hence, I was thinking that it it will not apply for cardholders who are foreign tourists or any other non-UK resident or outsider.

Just a thought.

Perhaps maybe a small bump wouldn't hurt, now would it? (maybe until GBP100)

P.S.
Off-topic:
I was browsing fare tables a while ago:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/14416.aspx


----------



## ill tonkso

Tubeman said:


> The only significant bits of pre-existing tunnel used by the Victoria Line were built by the Great Northern & City Line, but these are surface stock size ironically.
> 
> To be fair, while Tube carriages feel claustrophobic, only a small minority of people are too tall to board without stooping. It's a very economical use of space... far less volume of tunnelling work required.
> 
> Another consideration is that the Victoria Line is only accessible via the Piccadilly Line, so the trains can't be any bigger than their tunnels. I guess this could have been addressed by simply connecting Northumberland Park depot to British Rail for rolling stock delivery, but unless the line was totally self-contained, there'd still be the issue of getting rolling stock to Acton Works for heavy maintenance.
> 
> A final economy is the fact that by being Tube-sized, the Victoria Line rolling stock can be more cheaply devised... for example the 1967 stock car bodies were pretty much identical to 1972 stock.


Where does this link with the Picadilly occur? Is it a connecting tunnel?


----------



## Tubeman

ill tonkso said:


> Where does this link with the Picadilly occur? Is it a connecting tunnel?


Finsbury Park, just south of the platforms

The four tube platforms at FPK are all 1900's vintage.

Pre-Victoria Line, the western pair of platforms were the Piccadilly platforms, and the eastern the Great Northern & City Line. With the advent of the Victoria Line, the western pair became the northbound Pic/Vic platforms with cross platform interchange, and the eastern pair the southbound. This allowed the crossover caverns south of each former terminus to accommodate NB-NB and SB-SB links between the Pic and Vic Lines.

...if that makes sense?


----------



## RedArkady

Was Finsbury Park the terminus of the Northern City Line, or did it to emerge to join the ECML?


----------



## sotonsi

it ended there - IIRC Great Northern's mood changed on it, and blocked the GN&C from taking over the Northern Heights, so the GN&C changed their plans for a sub-terrainous station at Finsbury Park. When they (well BR a lot later) re-extended the line north of Drayton Park (as the Victoria line cut it off), they finally did what was the original plan (though taking over different routes as the Northern Heights had closed).


----------



## ill tonkso

Tubeman said:


> Finsbury Park, just south of the platforms
> 
> The four tube platforms at FPK are all 1900's vintage.
> 
> Pre-Victoria Line, the western pair of platforms were the Piccadilly platforms, and the eastern the Great Northern & City Line. With the advent of the Victoria Line, the western pair became the northbound Pic/Vic platforms with cross platform interchange, and the eastern pair the southbound. This allowed the crossover caverns south of each former terminus to accommodate NB-NB and SB-SB links between the Pic and Vic Lines.
> 
> ...if that makes sense?


OOHHH that, I actually knew that. Thanks for the memory jog. Finsbury Park is quite an interesting situation when you look at it. Surface lines too.


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> it ended there - IIRC Great Northern's mood changed on it, and blocked the GN&C from taking over the Northern Heights, so the GN&C changed their plans for a sub-terrainous station at Finsbury Park. When they (well BR a lot later) re-extended the line north of Drayton Park (as the Victoria line cut it off), they finally did what was the original plan (though taking over different routes as the Northern Heights had closed).


Correct, the only connection in the end was a single track between Ashburton Grove goods (now Emirates stadium) and Drayton Park Depot for stock transfer. Earthworks for the ramps between the GNCR and GNR finally started to be built as part of the LT 'new works' programmes pre-WW2, but these were abandoned without seeing rails when the plug was pulled on the Northern Line 'Northern Heights' take-over. The connection was finally realised in 1976 courtesy of BR.


----------



## trainrover

spsmiler said:


> OK, so flood barriers were installed to protect the system in case a WW2 bomb breached a section of tunnel which passes under the Thames - but is that all?


Tell me, what's the state of the Underground's floodgates, e.g., are their bearings oiled, are they tested periodically?


----------



## Tubeman

trainrover said:


> Tell me, what's the state of the Underground's floodgates, e.g., are their bearings oiled, are they tested periodically?


As far as I am aware, they are technically functional, at least they were on the District Line when I worked on it... But I'm not aware of them being tested. I guess testing is deemed too risky (e.g. the risk of them failing 'down' and buggering up the service).

Certainly on the District there were still signals associated with floodgates... Normally a driver can pass a signal remaining at danger without authority if they have had no contact or explanation for 2 minutes, provided it is an A-series automatic signal (basically any signal protecting plain line with no points). However, the last signal before a 'controlled' or semi-automatic area has an 'X' prefix and a driver cannot pass this without authority... and there are still a handful of working X signals associated with floodgates... obviously you don't want a train passing under a floodgate as it closes.


----------



## CairnsTony

What's your take on the success or otherwise of the 'Teacup' service on the Circle Line? Is there improved reliability and are there any capacity/turnaround problems at Edgware Road?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## trainrover

Tubeman said:


> obviously you don't want a train passing under a floodgate as it closes.


:lol:

Thank you.


----------



## future.architect

Hi Tubeman. I'm sure this question has been asked before but I can't find it!

Anyway. I have been in London over the weekend and couldn't help noticing the Lazer measurement devices and mirrors on various platforms and escalator shafts. Obviously they are for measuring something but what exactly? Movement in the tunnels?


----------



## Tubeman

future.architect said:


> Hi Tubeman. I'm sure this question has been asked before but I can't find it!
> 
> Anyway. I have been in London over the weekend and couldn't help noticing the Lazer measurement devices and mirrors on various platforms and escalator shafts. Obviously they are for measuring something but what exactly? Movement in the tunnels?


Yes, movement in existing tunnels in the vicinity of building works... so there'll be plenty anywhere near Crossrail... There were loads at King's Cross St Pancras during the huge rebuilding there too.

I used to watch the little gizmo housing the infrared beam waiting for my Piccadilly train to Earl's Court... every few seconds it whirrs and moves to bounce a beam of a different prism, so continually taking a series of measurements. There at least it was a small greenish contraption suspended above the track, looking a bit like those telescopes you get on the seafront (just a lot smaller).


----------



## Tubeman

CairnsTony said:


> What's your take on the success or otherwise of the 'Teacup' service on the Circle Line? Is there improved reliability and are there any capacity/turnaround problems at Edgware Road?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


The service is definitely more reliable, but at the cost of being less frequent.

I assumed Edgware Road would be a disaster, but have been pleasantly surprised at how it works. I thought having a single platform for the Circles to reverse and a single platform for the Districts to reverse was asking for trouble combined with 'stepping back' (I think I explained this before, but basically to minimise dwell time of reversing trains, drivers 'step back' from the train they bring in onto the train or two trains behind to depart, so they're theoretically in position to immediately depart as soon as their train comes in, rather than there being a delay while they change ends / have a pee / make a cuppa etc).

It's labour intensive, mind, and there needs to be a constant management presence on the platforms which was not needed before just to manage crews. When it's running on time, it should run itself (drivers know which trains they're stepping back onto), but when there's disruption with trains late / out of turn, it becomes a logistical nightmare... e.g. a driver can end up behind their next train. In this instance, the manager needs to 'reform' the driverless train... change its set number into a number of train they do have a crew for. This means temporarily there are two trains with the same number, which can be confusing, so the manager needs to keep tabs on their reformations to eliminate duplicates.


----------



## CairnsTony

Interesting. Like you I was wondering if it would really work in reality. I guess overall the benefits have out weighed the costs.

Thanks!


----------



## NCT

Tubeman, I notice the London Overground trains accelerate and decelerate rather 'modestly' - are the trains already operating at their maximum performance yet or are there upgrade plans? Thanks!


----------



## Tubeman

NCT said:


> Tubeman, I notice the London Overground trains accelerate and decelerate rather 'modestly' - are the trains already operating at their maximum performance yet or are there upgrade plans? Thanks!


I'd noticed that too... and I honestly can't answer whether this will improve. It certainly feels pedestrian compared to riding an LU line like the Central. I ride it from Surrey Quays to / from Highbury & Islington on match days and find myself egging the train to get a move on.

Might be partly perception: the track is brand new and so extremely smooth, and also don't forget some of the stations are very closely spaced, not allowing much chance to get up a decent speed.


----------



## NCT

The way trains enter and leave station definitely feels pedestrian compared to upgraded LU lines. The new section of the Jubilee also feels pretty smooth yet the quick acceleration and deceleration are very noticeable.

On a related note, I hear the Northern Line 95-stock trains are governed due to old transformers and power supply cables. Though the 95 and 96-stock trains are different, will there ever be a day when a 95-stock train flies away like a 96? Cheers! :cheers:


----------



## trainrover

CairnsTony said:


> 'Teacup' service on the Circle Line


The first time I encountered a trailing circle line was Vancouver's panhandle, then the Montreal area's proposal for a bogey, yet the teacup's the best  Anyhow, here's my own circles:


trainrover said:


> ​^^
> Chapter 1 (stand alone, slowed)
> Chapter 2 (stand alone)
> w/ track a-recommended ...


----------



## Dobbo

Tubey,

Thoughts on the latest strike action?

(that you are able to iterate on a public forum!)


----------



## trainrover

Tubeman said:


> obviously you don't want a train passing under a floodgate as it closes.


Hmmm ... whereabouts between stations are the floodgates on the District Line, because I remember there being an unstaffed, rush-hour-only exit off of Temple's eastbound (anticlockwise) platform?


----------



## trainrover

(Chapter 2 now finished, tables also included ... I'd meant to add that Mile End station would make a comeback after missing for at least 80 years )


----------



## Tubeman

trainrover said:


> Hmmm ... whereabouts between stations are the floodgates on the District Line, because I remember there being an unstaffed, rush-hour-only exit off of Temple's eastbound (anticlockwise) platform?


I can remember floodgates at South Kensington (at the tunnel mouth east of the station), and Embankment... I can't recall any others strangely, there must have been one east of these too I guess.

The big risk would naturally be the Westminster to Blackfriars section, as this was built along the original river bed. I assume South Kensington was associated with the River Westbourne, which crosses above the platforms at Sloane Square in a pipe.


----------



## trainrover

Altogether interesting. I only knew of those that I passed through entering the Northern and/or(?) Bakerloon line platform entrances(?) at Embankment/Charing Cross(?). Thank you.


----------



## London Underground

What is your least favorite stock, and why? :?

Edit: Happy new year!


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> What is your least favorite stock, and why? :?
> 
> Edit: Happy new year!


Hmmm tricky one... I think the former Jubilee Line 1983 stock was a low point... bland design with flaws (single leaf doors, and unreliable)


----------



## London Underground

So you don't like the "Junior Ds", huh. Can't blame you. From what i've heard they were rubbish.


----------



## Tubeman

I think a lot of the problems arose from miniaturising the D Stock to Tube dimensions... the stocks were supposed to have as many interchangeable components as possible for ease of / cost effective maintenance... hence the bogeys were the same which is why D stocks have Tube-size wheels and bogeys (noticeably much smaller than A or C Stocks, for example).

Although equally spartan in design, I have a soft spot for D Stocks as I grew up with them passing my house and went on to drive them:


----------



## London Underground

Wow. I never noticed that they used the same bogeys. But, if they were supposed to use so many interchangeable parts, how come the 83ts were so unreliable and not the Ds?


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Wow. I never noticed that they used the same bogeys. But, if they were supposed to use so many interchangeable parts, how come the 83ts were so unreliable and not the Ds?


I guess the compromises of trying to squeeze the same components into a much smaller space... sorry I can't be any more technical!


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> I guess the compromises of trying to squeeze the same components into a much smaller space... sorry I can't be any more technical!


Don't be sorry, i think i understand.


----------



## trainrover

Isn't making a sandite unit into eight cars overkill? :?



trainrover said:


> trainrover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5'23": Odd, TfL having taken great pain to switch an eight-car Cravens 1962 sandite train to their corporate livery :sly:*​
Click to expand...


----------



## London Underground

Just my guess, but i think they have the same "problem" as here in Stockholm: gaps in the third rail to long for 3,4,5 car units.


----------



## midnemesis

Hi, Tubeman! First of all, sorry for my bad English, it's not my native language.

I'm a big railroad fan, and I have some specific questions about the London Tube.

I got an amazing (IMHO) railroad simulator - "World Of Subways Vol.3 - London Underground" by TML-Studios. There is the Circle Line and the C69/C77 Stock to operate. The sim is quite realistic, but there is no complete instructions, how to operate the train like in real life.

The first thing I don't understand - what is the right order of operations when the driver takes a train into service? The game manual says, that when I'm in driver's cab, I have to turn the reverser key to "Auto", turn the CT/BC to "Service Applicaton", switch on the cab light, dashboard light, destination light, head lights and the cab ventilation, switch on the passenger light and saloon heatng, perform brake test (btw, is this necessary? I've read, that drivers skip this step in real life), set the destination board and then program the DVA. But I'm not sure it's right order, because there is another instructions in tutorial mission, so I wonder, what is right.

Another question is about the reverser key. Russian trains have 3 positions of it: "Forward", "Neutral" and "Reverse". C-Stock has 2 more: "Off" and "Auto". I understand what means "Off" position, but I wonder what means "Auto" and when the driver uses it.


----------



## Tubeman

4 car units can certainly go anywhere despite railgaps, although they are more vulnerable to 'gapping'.

Perhaps 8 cars helps to distribute the sandite better?

4 motor cars needed to overcome slippery railheads?


----------



## London Underground

If the Mill Hill East to Edgeware line was already in use for steam trains, why couldn't it be kept as an LU line instead of being cut short?

That's been buging me for some time. I can understand why they didn't finish the Edgeware to Bushy Heath section, but why shorten a line that's already in use? I can't understand it.


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> If the Mill Hill East to Edgeware line was already in use for steam trains, why couldn't it be kept as an LU line instead of being cut short?
> 
> That's been buging me for some time. I can understand why they didn't finish the Edgeware to Bushy Heath section, but why shorten a line that's already in use? I can't understand it.


Finchley Central to Edgware was only single track. LT were in the process of doubling & electrifying it but ran out of money with the double track as far as Mill Hill (The Hale) during wartime austerity years. The second track was never used and then lifted.

There would have been some merit to the full line staying open, but not a huge amount. After 1924 Edgware had its Tube station anyway, Mill Hill (The Hale) is right next to Mill Hill Broadway with fast electric trains across Central London, so only Mill Hill East really exclusively serves a population centre.

It was initially only re-opened on the cheap by LU to serve the barracks at Mill Hill East, so a single track with no signals was deemed sufficient, and this has stuck to this day.


----------



## RedArkady

I don't suppose anyone knows the date that the eastern-most railway bridge was lifted at Finsbury Park? I assumed it was after the Northern Heights stopped being used for stock movements (1970?) but this cool old video of a rail crash shows that it was gone by 1959: http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=67353

How was the Finsbury Park- Highgate line used for stock movements if its link to FP was missing?


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> Finchley Central to Edgware was only single track. LT were in the process of doubling & electrifying it but ran out of money with the double track as far as Mill Hill (The Hale) during wartime austerity years. The second track was never used and then lifted.
> 
> There would have been some merit to the full line staying open, but not a huge amount. After 1924 Edgware had its Tube station anyway, Mill Hill (The Hale) is right next to Mill Hill Broadway with fast electric trains across Central London, so only Mill Hill East really exclusively serves a population centre.
> 
> It was initially only re-opened on the cheap by LU to serve the barracks at Mill Hill East, so a single track with no signals was deemed sufficient, and this has stuck to this day.


Ran out of money? Really? Never heard that, i know the war started and interupted construction, but i thought there were funds avalible.

Just thinking out loud now, but wouldn't it be profitable to re-open the line from Edgware to Mill Hill East? I mean, if there is enough space and funds for it.


----------



## Tubeman

RedArkady said:


> I don't suppose anyone knows the date that the eastern-most railway bridge was lifted at Finsbury Park? I assumed it was after the Northern Heights stopped being used for stock movements (1970?) but this cool old video of a rail crash shows that it was gone by 1959: http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=67353
> 
> How was the Finsbury Park- Highgate line used for stock movements if its link to FP was missing?


The easternmost bridge span at Finsbury Park never had rails laid on it... it was supposed to host dedicated Northern heights lines and a new island platform to segregate LT from BR, but as it and the earthworks south of it were never completed, the stock movements to and from the GNCR continued to use the existing connections north of Finsbury Park, with access to Drayton Park depot being via a siding from Ashburton Grove goods yard (in the vee between the converging lines south of the station, where Emirates stadium is today).


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Ran out of money? Really? Never heard that, i know the war started and interupted construction, but i thought there were funds avalible.
> 
> Just thinking out loud now, but wouldn't it be profitable to re-open the line from Edgware to Mill Hill East? I mean, if there is enough space and funds for it.


I don't think so, really... it wouldn't open up any new areas as I already described. I guess an interchange at Mill Hill Broadway with the Edgware - Mill Hill - Finchley axis being connected might be slightly useful.

I suppose if Northern heights re-opened and East Finchley to Finchley Central was quadrupled to segregate Edgware - Northern heights from the Barnet branch, then there could be some merit to it.


----------



## RedArkady

Tubeman said:


> The easternmost bridge span at Finsbury Park never had rails laid on it... it was supposed to host dedicated Northern heights lines and a new island platform to segregate LT from BR, but as it and the earthworks south of it were never completed, the stock movements to and from the GNCR continued to use the existing connections north of Finsbury Park, with access to Drayton Park depot being via a siding from Ashburton Grove goods yard (in the vee between the converging lines south of the station, where Emirates stadium is today).



Thanks. what did the 'existing connections' look like north of Finsbury Park? It's hard to envisage where the LT line merged with the ECML if that bridge wasn't there.


----------



## mr_jrt

There was a (double track?) ramp on the western side and a single track bridge across the mainline coming down onto the eastern side. A fair amount of usage was to terminate at Finsbury Park (which used the ramp and the partially demolished platforms), but there were also latterly services to Kings Cross, (which is why the bridge was required).


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> I don't think so, really... it wouldn't open up any new areas as I already described. I guess an interchange at Mill Hill Broadway with the Edgware - Mill Hill - Finchley axis being connected might be slightly useful.
> 
> I suppose if Northern heights re-opened and East Finchley to Finchley Central was quadrupled to segregate Edgware - Northern heights from the Barnet branch, then there could be some merit to it.


So you don't think this branch will opened again. I actually hope the Northern Heights plan gets the go-ahead in the future. I know about the Greenbelt legislation, but every city needs to expand, and i think NH would be a necessary part of it.


----------



## Tubeman

RedArkady said:


> Thanks. what did the 'existing connections' look like north of Finsbury Park? It's hard to envisage where the LT line merged with the ECML if that bridge wasn't there.


Here's an Ordnance survey map from 1954, the year passenger trains were withdrawn from NH:










The 'up' flyover was originally single track, but was doubled by the late 19th century. This would have ultimately carried the LT NH across the entire ECML so it could pass through the never-used dedicated easternmost platforms at Finsbury Park.


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> So you don't think this branch will opened again. I actually hope the Northern Heights plan gets the go-ahead in the future. I know about the Greenbelt legislation, but every city needs to expand, and i think NH would be a necessary part of it.


It was mooted as a northern terminus of the East London Line, but conflicting movements in the Canonbury area would have necessitated expensive grade separation, so in the end it has terminated at Highbury & Islington.

Stroud Green, Crouch End, and Muswell Hill stations are all crying out to be re-opened... untapped (by rail) commuter areas with very desirable housing, and the trackbed from Muswell Hill to Finsbury Park is all intact (obviously Highgate high level would re-open too for interchange).

Funnily enough nimbys are vocally protective of the trackbed in its current guise (Parkland Walk) and oppose their serene abandoned railway becoming (shock horror) a railway again... somewhat bizarre as I'm sure it would inflate yet further already steep property prices in the area.

I'd never say never, but Crossrail and HS2 will be bleeding transport budgets dry for decades so I won't hold my breath. My money would definitely be on a LOROL extension, presumably via the Canonbury Curve.


----------



## RedArkady

Thanks Tubeman. I didn't realise there was a connection other than the flyover. Quite the gradient, I would have thought.


----------



## London Underground

I see. I never stop learning, thanks Joe.



Tubeman said:


> Stroud Green, Crouch End, and Muswell Hill stations are all crying out to be re-opened... untapped (by rail) commuter areas with very desirable housing, and the trackbed from Muswell Hill to Finsbury Park is all intact (obviously Highgate high level would re-open too for interchange).


Now that's something i'd like to see! The Underground *finally* reaching Highgate high level as it was intended.


----------



## RedArkady

Tubeman, I don’t suppose you have the OS map for the rest of the station, i.e. due south of there?

Do you know when they will start laying the track in the St Pancras- Finsbury park Thameslink tunnel? I know it has to be ready by 2018 for passengers, but I understand it may be needed earlier for access to the new Hornsey depot.


----------



## RedArkady

London Underground said:


> I see. I never stop learning, thanks Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's something i'd like to see! The Underground *finally* reaching Highgate high level as it was intended.


It would really cause a war. I’m from Stroud Green and the idea is *not* popular. A group was founded in Muswell Hill to campaign for the re-opening and the chair was receiving serious threats to life and limb.


----------



## London Underground

RedArkady said:


> It would really cause a war. I’m from Stroud Green and the idea is *not* popular. A group was founded in Muswell Hill to campaign for the re-opening and the chair was receiving serious threats to life and limb.


I don't really see the problem. It would open up a "new" link to the city and would make journeys easier.


----------



## mr_jrt

RedArkady said:


> It would really cause a war. I’m from Stroud Green and the idea is *not* popular. A group was founded in Muswell Hill to campaign for the re-opening and the chair was receiving serious threats to life and limb.


Perhaps these people should be told that we're going to remove all the roads in the area and convert them to parks as they are so fond of them. Cars banned, of course. Perhaps it'll hammer the point home.


----------



## RedArkady

London Underground said:


> I don't really see the problem. It would open up a "new" link to the city and would make journeys easier.


As well as the loss of an amenity (which really is gorgeous, I'd recommend the walk) it is precisely the new transport link that upsets some people. the Muswell Hill elite fear that rail access would swamp them with chavs.


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> You wouldn't happen to know how many ends of the Aldwych unit are painted red, one or both?
> The only info i've found on that is that "the inner end was painted red". That was all i found about this.


I'm guessing just the one, so there's a red end and an aluminium end... The poster for the film 'Creep' is definitely unpainted, and as it's a single unit, it only has two cabs.


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> I'm guessing just the one, so there's a red end and an aluminium end... The poster for the film 'Creep' is definitely unpainted, and as it's a single unit, it only has two cabs.


Thanks mate. That's been driving me nuts.:lol:


----------



## ill tonkso

Tubeman said:


> Possibly the service it becomes when it departs (i.e. the next trip runs over unelectrified)? :dunno:
> 
> Have a look next time to see where that unit is going to next (should be on the departures)
> 
> Of course it may be rolling stock shortage, but you'd have thought they'd chose a less busy service.


SWT don't run any unelectrified services out of Portsmouth, the only non-electric service is the Cardiff Central train. That's Last Great Western. It could be a rolling stock shortage I suppose, though as you say it seems odd to choose such a busy service (it really is packed). Unfortunately I can't check its next destination as I get off at Portsmouth Southsea not Portsmouth Harbour where it terminates. It has been bugging me for years.


----------



## London Underground

I just remembered something. My mom has visited London a couple of times and she has told me that Bayswater and Queensway stations are located on the others namesake(Bayswater on Queensway and the other way around). Why is that?


----------



## sotonsi

London Underground said:


> I just remembered something. My mom has visited London a couple of times and she has told me that Bayswater and Queensway stations are located on the others namesake(Bayswater on Queensway and the other way around). Why is that?


Bayswater is an area, and the Central line runs under Bayswater Road between Marble Arch and just east of Notting Hill Gate. Bayswater station is named after the area, not the road through the area. Queensway station is named after the road that ends on Bayswater road as the station, as 1)Bayswater is taken and 2)Lancaster Gate station could be called Bayswater as well.


----------



## London Underground

sotonsi said:


> Bayswater is an area, and the Central line runs under Bayswater Road between Marble Arch and just east of Notting Hill Gate. Bayswater station is named after the area, not the road through the area. Queensway station is named after the road that ends on Bayswater road as the station, as 1)Bayswater is taken and 2)Lancaster Gate station could be called Bayswater as well.


Huh. I thought the names were switched between them. Thanks mate.


----------



## MiaM

ill tonkso said:


> SWT don't run any unelectrified services out of Portsmouth, the only non-electric service is the Cardiff Central train. That's Last Great Western. It could be a rolling stock shortage I suppose, though as you say it seems odd to choose such a busy service (it really is packed). Unfortunately I can't check its next destination as I get off at Portsmouth Southsea not Portsmouth Harbour where it terminates. It has been bugging me for years.


If there are detailed timetables available for Portsmouth Harbour you might be able to do a qualified guess by checking how many electric and diesel services arrive and depart around the time "your" train arrives.

Another way would be to look at the timetables for the station the train originates from.


----------



## London Underground

Just yesterday i recived a copy of "London Underground rolling stock in colour for the modeller and histiorian" and i saw a photo of something i've never seen before: a 1962ts DM with half its front painted red "like the D78", as it says in the book.

I was a bit surprised to see that and i started wondering: How many cars had this?


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Just yesterday i recived a copy of "London Underground rolling stock in colour for the modeller and histiorian" and i saw a photo of something i've never seen before: a 1962ts DM with half its front painted red "like the D78", as it says in the book.
> 
> I was a bit surprised to see that and i started wondering: How many cars had this?


Just one train / 2 units if I remember correctly... there were a few experimental variations of the corporate colours tried out on the Northern Line, so there were 59's, 62's and 72's with various combinations of red, white & blue, as well as the lovely 'vintage' livery 59 which sadly ended up having to be split into its respective units and coupled to unpainted units as when coupled together, the vintage units were defect prone.

When I was a Northern Line driver, technically I could get any one of four different stocks (56, 59, 62 & 72MkI), although there were only subtle differences between the first three.


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> Just one train / 2 units if I remember correctly... there were a few experimental variations of the corporate colours tried out on the Northern Line, so there were 59's, 62's and 72's with various combinations of red, white & blue, as well as the lovely 'vintage' livery 59 which sadly ended up having to be split into its respective units and coupled to unpainted units as when coupled together, the vintage units were defect prone.


Thanks mate. I never stop learning, that's for sure. I knew about the corporate colours test liveries on the ELL, Met and Picc, was it? But i never knew about the Northern line.

Ah yes, the retro train... A beautiful livery applied to a great looking train. Sorry to hear they split it up, both in service and afterwards...



Tubeman said:


> When I was a Northern Line driver, technically I could get any one of four different stocks (56, 59, 62 & 72MkI), although there were only subtle differences between the first three.


Really? All four at one time? I know the 72MkIs did roll on the Northern for a while, though i can't remember how long, but i thought it was only those and the 62ts at one time.


----------



## Tubeman

Yes, the 1956 were the prototype for the Piccadilly Line... I think just three trains... which were then followed by the main production run of 1959 stock. These were displaced off the Picc by the 1973 stock and ended up on the Northern Line, but as there were not enough 56+59 for the Northern Line, the rest of the fleet were made up by 1938. It was these 38's which the 1972 MkIs were ordered to replace... which were joined much later by a stream of 1962 stock displaced off the Central Line by 1992 stock.

So when I rocked up there in 1997, there was a mixture of four different stocks. When the 1995's started to roll out in 1999(?) the 72MkI were withdrawn first... As my transfer to the District was imminent, they never bothered training me for 1995 stock, much to my delight if I was given a job when 'spare' and a '95 rolled into the platform "sorry guv, can't drive it!"... otherwise I could claim to have driven five different stocks on the same line in the space of just 18 months.


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> Yes, the 1956 were the prototype for the Piccadilly Line... I think just three trains... which were then followed by the main production run of 1959 stock. These were displaced off the Picc by the 1973 stock and ended up on the Northern Line, but as there were not enough 56+59 for the Northern Line, the rest of the fleet were made up by 1938. It was these 38's which the 1972 MkIs were ordered to replace... which were joined much later by a stream of 1962 stock displaced off the Central Line by 1992 stock.


Is there any reason for LT/TfL making things so difficult? :nuts:



Tubeman said:


> So when I rocked up there in 1997, there was a mixture of four different stocks. When the 1995's started to roll out in 1999(?) the 72MkI were withdrawn first... As my transfer to the District was imminent, they never bothered training me for 1995 stock, much to my delight if I was given a job when 'spare' and a '95 rolled into the platform "sorry guv, can't drive it!"... otherwise I could claim to have driven five different stocks on the same line in the space of just 18 months.


lol. :lol:

Four different stocks in 18 months is still pretty impressive. But five? Wow.


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> Is there any reason for LT/TfL making things so difficult? :nuts:


Strapped for cash, there was a crazy merry-go-round of various tube stocks between the 1970's and 1990's, a nightmare from a maintenance and training point of view.

So for example, the 73 stock order for the Picc cascaded the 59's to the Northern, with the shortfall made up with the new 72mkI, which were cheaply knocked out as manual, crew-operated, versions of the Vic's 67's. The Jubilee required a new order for its 1979 opening, so the 72MkIIs were trotted out. These were then displaced off the Jubilee by the 83 stock, allowing the 72MkII fleet to cascade to the Bakerloo and finally retire the 38's in the mid-80's... and of course the 83's were relatively very short-lived, being replaced by the 96's.


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> Strapped for cash, there was a crazy merry-go-round of various tube stocks between the 1970's and 1990's, a nightmare from a maintenance and training point of view.
> 
> So for example, the 73 stock order for the Picc cascaded the 59's to the Northern, with the shortfall made up with the new 72mkI, which were cheaply knocked out as manual, crew-operated, versions of the Vic's 67's. The Jubilee required a new order for its 1979 opening, so the 72MkIIs were trotted out. These were then displaced off the Jubilee by the 83 stock, allowing the 72MkII fleet to cascade to the Bakerloo and finally retire the 38's in the mid-80's... and of course the 83's were relatively very short-lived, being replaced by the 96's.


Sounds allmost like what's going on here.


----------



## lemmo

Hi Tubeman, when are you planning to publish a Third edition of your Atlas?


----------



## Tubeman

lemmo said:


> Hi Tubeman, when are you planning to publish a Third edition of your Atlas?


Certainly am... I'm working on it right now all hours because my deadline is in 3 weeks... I've had a timely 2 week lay-off due to an appendectomy so hopefully I'm on target. It'll be published during the summer, I've expanded the coverage geographically and re-drawn the entire atlas with better accuracy, plus have converted all dates from simple YYYY to DD/MM/YYYY


----------



## Damarr

Cool, looking forward to it. Will it have the full ELL extension (including the new section of track from Surrey Quays)?


----------



## MiaM

Tubeman said:


> plus have converted all dates from simple YYYY to DD/MM/YYYY


Please put in some kind of note that shows what format you use where there is room for ambigouity.

For me who lives and is grown up i a country (Sweden) where dates is and has always been written as YYYY-MM-DD or even YYYYMMDD without slashes/dashes the other formats are confusing, especially as there seems to be a format where the date is between month and year...

(Since Sweden entered the EU in the 90's this has actually been a minor problem regaring "best before" dates on groceries, although I don't know of any case of food poisining related to date format confusion. However I wounder how much food gets thrown away just to be on the safe side, for example something thats best before april the 3:rd of may get thrown away in the middle of march because the date might be interpreted as mars the 4:th)


----------



## cslusarc

I thnk the best system of dates is DD/MMM/YYYY where MMM is three letters like JAN, FEB, MAR, APR, MAY, JUN, JUL, AUG, SEP, OCT, NOV or DEC.


----------



## Tubeman

Damarr said:


> Cool, looking forward to it. Will it have the full ELL extension (including the new section of track from Surrey Quays)?


Yes, and Crossrail 1, the Croxley Link, and Thameslink works e.g. Bermondsey diveunder


----------



## sotonsi

Highcliff said:


> tubeman
> as I can see in this picture, the tube lines stock can ride on the subsurface lines, but the subsurface lines stock can ride the tube lines only at surface, right?


yes.

That picture of Rayners Lane seems quiet. Then again there could be a lot of people running across the footbridge trying to make the interchange as both trains are about to depart. Has to be one of the most dangerous stations on the tube - popular (perhaps 1/3 of traffic) interchange movements that you have to move quickly (often run) to make, or wait 7 or 8 minutes - up stairs with exiting traffic. Well worth rebuilding it as an island if you could it for under £100 million - certainly ought to be looked at and costed. Or timetable the trains so that they don't cross there, so you don't pull in and see the train you want in/pulling into the other platform and then run to get aboard it.


SO143 said:


> it's expensive and some staffs are very unreliable like the one who sold me the wrong ticket although i did explain him my plans and everything.


You were mis-sold the ticket. You'd have been stopped at Stratford as well (zone 3). You should win the appeal, but it's designed to be annoying to see it through to completion to get people to not bother and just pay the fine.

I'm highly surprised the ticket office didn't make lots of comments about how you should get an Oyster card - I had it several times in the past when trying to buy paper tickets.

Now I've got one, I can't be mis-sold a ticket, though the only time I did with LU was being given a child ticket aged 17, rather than an adult (given my pre-Oyster tube journeys started in zone-C or D, I was never going to not get enough zones), so I was quids in.


----------



## MiaM

Oh, the annoying system of complaining on errors made by TfL & co is almost a reason good enough to not choose London for any vacation in the foreseeable future...

(The other reason is that hotels are either really expensive or crap like no mixer taps and beds worse than a €10 flea market sofa)


----------



## trainrover

Once upon a time, weren't Rayners Lane's platforms *strictly* eastbound/inbound and westbound/outbound? Is sotonsi saying that a Rayners Lane-bound Met train can terminate there on the 'eastbound/inbound' platform? Is changing trains dangerous there because people dashing for the opposite platform both ways simultaneously risk colliding into one another on the footbridge?


----------



## sotonsi

The platforms are still strictly east-/south- and west-/north- (ie Uxbridge-) bound. Also Met trains don't terminate at Rayners Lane (at least not normally) - it's Piccadilly line trains.

I'm talking about West Harrow <-> South Harrow movements* and they are always one way (ie from the Uxbridge-bound platform to the other one). It's not the conflict of flows (though obviously there'd be people going the other way to the interchange-flow), but that you have dangerous dashing up and down stairs and round blind corners.

*Yes, it's surprising, but they really are popular - certainly in the teens at shoulder-peak times. Which for zone 5 in NW London beats the number of people leaving the train at many stations. It's typically around about 30-40% of people leaving each train.


----------



## CityCat

I'm new here, just joined. Enjoyed reading Tubeman's FAQ. 

I have a question for Tubeman - or for that matter for anyone else, about the London tube... 

Are there any plans to install platform gates along the platform edges at the stations? They've been installed on the new sections of the Jubilee. 

I ask this because passenger levels are rising so much and the situation is surely getting dangerous especially on the deep level platforms. Couldn't lower height gates be installed on these lines, like they have on some lines in other countries?


----------



## trainrover

sotonsi said:


> *Yes, it's surprising, but they really are popular - certainly in the teens at shoulder-peak times. Which for zone 5 in NW London beats the number of people leaving the train at many stations. It's typically around about 30-40% of people leaving each train.


:doh: My shortsightedness is what's surprising me ... my imagination was limited to long-haul commuter trips


----------



## NCT

CityCat said:


> I'm new here, just joined. Enjoyed reading Tubeman's FAQ.
> 
> I have a question for Tubeman - or for that matter for anyone else, about the London tube...
> 
> Are there any plans to install platform gates along the platform edges at the stations? They've been installed on the new sections of the Jubilee.
> 
> I ask this because passenger levels are rising so much and the situation is surely getting dangerous especially on the deep level platforms. Couldn't lower height gates be installed on these lines, like they have on some lines in other countries?


PSDs are unlikely to be installed at existing stations due to several reasons. Many stations are too curved and platforms are generally lower than the train floor. There are also stations served by a variety of stocks with different door positions.


----------



## MiaM

Is the inflow of passengers from outside of stations regulated so platforms don't get too crowded?

(I.E. if only one gate would let people in, or if the gates would open extra slow on purpose, less people per time unit will be able to get in and thus the overcrowding will probably not be so severe)


----------



## London Underground

MiaM said:


> Is the inflow of passengers from outside of stations regulated so platforms don't get too crowded?
> 
> (I.E. if only one gate would let people in, or if the gates would open extra slow on purpose, less people per time unit will be able to get in and thus the overcrowding will probably not be so severe)


Indeed it is. You'll see it happen quite often if you look at "The Tube" on Youtube.


----------



## trainrover

trainrover said:


> (as featured in that BBC series), that whole cat-n-mouse game of manually closing a subterranean passageway gate on users inside Bank station before a bottleneck up ahead


----------



## Busfotodotnl

Why is this topic always sticky? In my opinion, London or her network is not more important than other cities.


----------



## ajw373

London Underground said:


> Indeed it is. You'll see it happen quite often if you look at "The Tube" on Youtube.


You would think considering how regularly it occurs they would have some mechanism outside the station to advise which line is causing the issue. 

When I lived in London I used to use the central line from Holborn and the number of times I got to the station to find it was being regulated wasn't funny, but as I said you have no idea what line the problem was on. The reason why it is important to know is it allows you to work out a plan B to get home. For example if I got to Holborn and found out the problem was with the Piccadilly line then it would be a simple matter of walking to Chancery Lane station to get the tube. If it was the central line causing issues then I could have walked to Temple and got a Circle Line train (I lived near Notting Hill Gate) or got the bus. 

But oh no, no idea what line was causing grief unless of course you decided to join the srum waiting to get in only to turn around if it was your line in trouble, which of course just made the srum worse as many people would then turn around and go back through the queue.


----------



## NCT

ajw373 said:


> You would think considering how regularly it occurs they would have some mechanism outside the station to advise which line is causing the issue.
> 
> When I lived in London I used to use the central line from Holborn and the number of times I got to the station to find it was being regulated wasn't funny, but as I said you have no idea what line the problem was on. The reason why it is important to know is it allows you to work out a plan B to get home. For example if I got to Holborn and found out the problem was with the Piccadilly line then it would be a simple matter of walking to Chancery Lane station to get the tube. If it was the central line causing issues then I could have walked to Temple and got a Circle Line train (I lived near Notting Hill Gate) or got the bus.
> 
> But oh no, no idea what line was causing grief unless of course you decided to join the srum waiting to get in only to turn around if it was your line in trouble, which of course just made the srum worse as many people would then turn around and go back through the queue.


These days there are service status boards at the entrances of stations showing which lines have severe delays or which lines have good service. Reduced entry at Holborn is normally caused by escalator works now.


----------



## ajw373

NCT said:


> These days there are service status boards at the entrances of stations showing which lines have severe delays or which lines have good service. Reduced entry at Holborn is normally caused by escalator works now.


That's exactly my point the signs are at the entrances, meaning you have to get to the entrance first to work out where the issue is. Why not have one of these cast of thousands of staff move out of the station when it gets bad (like I have seen dozens of times at Holborn) with a megaphone advising what line has the issue and if we really want some good customer service advise alternatives. For example if the Picc is down advise central line customers to walk up the road to Chancery Lane rather than wait and make the queue to Holborn worse.

As for the delays I was talking about they were service delays with either the Central or Piccadilly lines, don't see why there would be any less of them now than before.


----------



## NCT

London's streets probably doesn't need any more noise coming out of megaphones.


----------



## MiaM

London streets could however probably cope with a display where station staff can publish free-text?


----------



## trainrover

Do any of the four fenced-in corners themselves at the intersection of Regent and Oxford Streets happen to suffer bottlenecks (serious pedestrian traffic jams such that nobody gets to go anywhere) outside the Xmas shopping period nowadays?


----------



## ill tonkso

Busfotodotnl said:


> Why is this topic always sticky? In my opinion, London or her network is not more important than other cities.


Because the thread is run by one of London Undergrounds managers. It isn't just a discussion thread like the others, it's an 'ask the inside guy' thread. If another city had the same thing, it would be stickied too.


----------



## ill tonkso

SO143 said:


> i was really really really disappointed by the london underground fares. i got a problem when i visited london 2 days ago. ok that happened at the wellesden green station, i asked a staff to give me the cheapest ticket and i did mention that i am travelling to central london, stratford olympic site and i also said that i am going to wembley stadium as well. he then gave me a one day ticket which cost me almost 10 quids as far as i remember. i took the train at wellesden green station then i got off at the wembley park station, i put my travel ticket in the machine at the gate but it didn't work then i looked at the front page of the ticket and found that it is valid only for zone 1-2, i was like wow the ticket is so expensive and i didn't realise it earlier. in the mean time 2 station staffs came to me, took my ticket and they told me to give £80 for penalty. i was alone and i was so scared at the time although i believed i didn't do anything wrong. i explained them about my journeys and everything and i refused to pay that massive amount of fine, after a few mins 2 policemen came in and took all the personal details and one of the station staffs gave me an appeal form as well. i haven't appealed yet, all i know is that i was massively disappointed by that london underground experience though and i was so angry for the fact that two cops took my details. it's expensive and some staffs are very unreliable like the one who sold me the wrong ticket although i did explain him my plans and everything.


The Max tube fair is an all day all zone travelcard which costs about 5-6 quid.


----------



## sotonsi

ill tonkso said:


> The Max tube fair is an all day all zone travelcard which costs about 5-6 quid.


The zone 1 off-peak Oyster cap/day travelcard (now the same) is £7. £20.20 is a peak all zones (1-9) plus Watford Junction or Grays ticket, and a zones 1-9 travelcard is £19.60 peak.

If you exclude anything outside zone 6, off-peak is £8.50, peak is £15.80.

There's an evening peak that starts at 4 (even if you go counter peak, annoyingly) as well as the morning peak.


----------



## Tubeman

CityCat said:


> I'm new here, just joined. Enjoyed reading Tubeman's FAQ.
> 
> I have a question for Tubeman - or for that matter for anyone else, about the London tube...
> 
> Are there any plans to install platform gates along the platform edges at the stations? They've been installed on the new sections of the Jubilee.
> 
> I ask this because passenger levels are rising so much and the situation is surely getting dangerous especially on the deep level platforms. Couldn't lower height gates be installed on these lines, like they have on some lines in other countries?


As has already been answered, this is highly unlikely in general.

However, I suspect that if a line is chosen to go 'driverless' in the future, then this might prompt retro-fitting. The Victoria Line is the ideal candidate; all deep level, one stock, sensitive edge doors, no excessively curved platforms.


----------



## SO143

sotonsi said:


> The zone 1 off-peak Oyster cap/day travelcard (now the same) is £7. £20.20 is a peak all zones (1-9) plus Watford Junction or Grays ticket, and a zones 1-9 travelcard is £19.60 peak.
> 
> If you exclude anything outside zone 6, off-peak is £8.50, peak is £15.80.
> 
> There's an evening peak that starts at 4 (even if you go counter peak, annoyingly) as well as the morning peak.


i thought new york subway fare was expensive but i was wrong, in fact LU offers the most *ridiculous* fares


----------



## MiaM

SO143 said:


> i thought new york subway fare was expensive but i was wrong, in fact LU offers the most *ridiculous* fares


But then zone 1-9 is about twice the geographical end-to-end distance compared to New York subway (according to a simple visual measurement on google maps...).

I'm not sure what TfL zones is comparable to the area NY subway covers, perhaps 1-4 or 1-3?


----------



## SO143

http://nyctourismsvt.com/wp-content/uploads/new-york-city-subway-map-large.jpg

*468 stations are served 24 hours a day*


----------



## ajw373

SO143 said:


> http://nyctourismsvt.com/wp-content/uploads/new-york-city-subway-map-large.jpg
> 
> *468 stations are served 24 hours a day*


You missed the point. It isn't about the number of stations, but about the distance the service goes to, using the theory the further the distance travelled the greater the cost and the higher the fare.

Having said that the tube (and rail services in the UK in general), using cash fares is incredibly expensive. Cannot think of too many places in the world that are more expensive.


----------



## ill tonkso

Regarding Platform Edge Doors, they have just been announced for the Glasgow Circle.


----------



## ill tonkso

I have made an observation. On the line I use in Portsmouth, there are no weeds in between the tracks except at stations... in a sort of 'splattered corpse' pattern... where people have jumped in front of trains.

Are these actually what I have now taken to calling 'Suicide Plantations'?


----------



## Tubeman

ill tonkso said:


> I have made an observation. On the line I use in Portsmouth, there are no weeds in between the tracks except at stations... in a sort of 'splattered corpse' pattern... where people have jumped in front of trains.
> 
> Are these actually what I have now taken to calling 'Suicide Plantations'?


That's pretty twisted!

The real reason is that weed killing trains have to reduce their spray passing through platforms so they don't douse them (and / or passengers) in hazardous chemicals, so the spread is less effective through stations.

The pattern is otherwise coincidental, I guess much like weeds randomly popping up on a lawn, they grow randomly on ballast.


----------



## ill tonkso

Ah fair enough, somewhat less macabre. Still, there is something oddly beautiful about life emerging from death and all that jazz.


----------



## Tubeman

There may be a little truth to your theory I guess... Sand is thrown down over blood after a one-under when all the 'bits' have been picked up, so I guess at those locations the sand would settle into the gaps between the ballast, forming a better substrate for weeds to take root.


----------



## CairnsTony

Tubeman said:


> There may be a little truth to your theory I guess... Sand is thrown down over blood after a one-under when all the 'bits' have been picked up, so I guess at those locations the sand would settle into the gaps between the ballast, forming a better substrate for weeds to take root.


It would be a rather macabre subject for a research paper, especially if a correlation was found!


----------



## ill tonkso

What are your thoughts on this? http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/...o-be-installed-as-part-of-250million.17283990

There are a lot of miserable people in Glasgow who think it is a waste of money, but I think adding Platform Edge Doors is a much needed upgrade to their system. The current modernisation screen is expected to see a major increase in patronage from 13m a year to 18m. Glasgows narrow subway platforms would be a nightmare on a busy day. Plus this is tied into their system going Automatic.

Makes you think actually, Glasgow - with Driverless Trains, fully refurbished stations and Platform Edge Doors - will have the most advanced system in the UK come 2014 when all this is finished.


----------



## Tubeman

ill tonkso said:


> What are your thoughts on this? http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/...o-be-installed-as-part-of-250million.17283990
> 
> There are a lot of miserable people in Glasgow who think it is a waste of money, but I think adding Platform Edge Doors is a much needed upgrade to their system. The current modernisation screen is expected to see a major increase in patronage from 13m a year to 18m. Glasgows narrow subway platforms would be a nightmare on a busy day. Plus this is tied into their system going Automatic.
> 
> Makes you think actually, Glasgow - with Driverless Trains, fully refurbished stations and Platform Edge Doors - will have the most advanced system in the UK come 2014 when all this is finished.


Downside: removes some of the system's character
Upside: makes sure the perilously narrow platforms are safer and allows full automation

I guess it's 'the future'


----------



## CityCat

Tubeman said:


> Downside: removes some of the system's character
> Upside: makes sure the perilously narrow platforms are safer and allows full automation
> 
> I guess it's 'the future'


If the Glasgow Unterground can introduce platform doors with their small tunnel and platform size... 

then it makes redundant the argument that the London Tube doesnt have any room for platform doors on it's larger platforms.

I think they are certainly the future.

Future generations will be amazed to hear that tube trains used to drive into packed station platforms with no platform doors fitted.

'ealth and safety, innit!


----------



## ill tonkso

I think Glasgows platforms are generally straighter though, not entirely but not so much as to make it impractical. The Central Line could though, and should IMHO.


----------



## MiaM

What would the problem with platform doors on a non-straight platform be?

The gap between the train and the platform will be there regardless of if there are any platform doors or not. The curvation of the platform is certainly even enough that platform doors formed to the platform edge can slide away.

Is the problem that someone might be trapped between the platform doors and the trains doors when they are closing? That must surely be detectable either by CCTV cameras or some kind of clearance/prescence detector?


----------



## scalatrava89

First time posting in your thread Tubeman. 

I stumbled across this video of ghosts on the Underground, I am fascinated by all things paranormal. But it's a subject which I think is rather overlooked, certainly on the London Underground. I would like to know if you have any paranormal stories or know anyone who has seen or felt anything.


----------



## Tubeman

CityCat said:


> then it makes redundant the argument that the London Tube doesnt have any room for platform doors on it's larger platforms.


That never really has been a counter-argument to be fair


----------



## Tubeman

scalatrava89 said:


> First time posting in your thread Tubeman.
> 
> I stumbled across this video of ghosts on the Underground, I am fascinated by all things paranormal. But it's a subject which I think is rather overlooked, certainly on the London Underground. I would like to know if you have any paranormal stories or know anyone who has seen or felt anything.


From my FAQ... to be fair this post is over five years old!

As for me, nothing, and I've spent a lot of time alone on night shifts and doing track walks in the past


----------



## Tubeman

ill tonkso said:


> I think Glasgows platforms are generally straighter though, not entirely but not so much as to make it impractical. The Central Line could though, and should IMHO.


It's got one of the sharpest curved set of platforms though (Bank)

I guess there's nothing stopping just Bank being omitted however, the Jubilee is a mixture of PED and non-PED stations... no technical reason why not


----------



## Tubeman

MiaM said:


> What would the problem with platform doors on a non-straight platform be?
> 
> The gap between the train and the platform will be there regardless of if there are any platform doors or not. The curvation of the platform is certainly even enough that platform doors formed to the platform edge can slide away.
> 
> Is the problem that someone might be trapped between the platform doors and the trains doors when they are closing? That must surely be detectable either by CCTV cameras or some kind of clearance/prescence detector?


That's the main issue; at Bank Central Line, Embankment Northern Line northbound, etc, due to the 'throw' of cars rounding the curve at some sets of doors a person could easily fall between train and PED screen, but would be potentially shielded from view of the driver's CCTV by the PED screen. You could have the horrific notion of someone being trapped between PED screen and train, which is a pretty unpleasant death.

Of course technology could be introduced to overcome this, but each new layer of detection system is an added potential fault which could cause delays (and adds to cost)


----------



## MiaM

What happends if someone falls down the gap at a curved station today? Is that easily visible on the drivers CCTV system?


A bonus question: Old-fashion analogue CCTV system can probably never fail in a "freeze picture" style. Is there any special considerations done to make sure that frozen picture don't happend on modern CCTV systems?


----------



## Tubeman

MiaM said:


> What happends if someone falls down the gap at a curved station today? Is that easily visible on the drivers CCTV system?


Unless they're *very* small and manage to completely fall down the gap, then yes.



MiaM said:


> A bonus question: Old-fashion analogue CCTV system can probably never fail in a "freeze picture" style. Is there any special considerations done to make sure that frozen picture don't happend on modern CCTV systems?


I'm not sure, but it's not a failure mode I've ever heard of with our equipment.

Bearing in mind a driver is watching as their train departs from a platform, it would be pretty obvious if the image has frozen (the train wouldn't be moving!)


----------



## CityCat

Tubeman said:


> That's the main issue; at Bank Central Line, Embankment Northern Line northbound, etc, due to the 'throw' of cars rounding the curve at some sets of doors a person could easily fall between train and PED screen, but would be potentially shielded from view of the driver's CCTV by the PED screen. You could have the horrific notion of someone being trapped between PED screen and train, which is a pretty unpleasant death.
> 
> Of course technology could be introduced to overcome this, but each new layer of detection system is an added potential fault which could cause delays (and adds to cost)


Someone getting trapped between PED and train leading to a pretty unpleasant death also causes delay (and adds to cost).


----------



## trainrover

Following this 13-Dec-2010







:


trainrover said:


> news like this here televised report (warning: has some disturbing images -- same Lexington-Ave station featured)



^^ clickable...​this 19-Jan-2011 updating







:
_Man Crushed By 4 Train To Sue MTA_​


----------



## Dobbo

Exciting morning on the Bakerloo...


----------



## trainrover

The Central Line being converted to ATO is news to me :uh:


----------



## Tubeman

trainrover said:


> The Central Line being converted to ATO is news to me :uh:


It's old news... 15 years old!


----------



## Tubeman

Dobbo said:


> Exciting morning on the Bakerloo...


Yes it made last night on the Jubilee pale into insignificance...

We had a customer die on a train at Stanmore, a person under a train at Finchley Road (admittedly on the Met Line), a defective train at North Greenwich and a signalling problem between Neasden and Wembley Park all at the same time... that's what happens when I work lates!


----------



## cpwken

Hi Tubeman

Pulling into Ealing Broadway yesterday reminded me of something I've wondered about before.

How come the Central Line platforms are south of the District Line platforms, when for the rest of the route through west London the Central is north of the District? 

I guess that as the District is older the gap between the mainline and District platforms was the only available space at the station? 

However, that just raises the question why the District is also north of the mainline!

Do you know?


----------



## Tubeman

cpwken said:


> Hi Tubeman
> 
> Pulling into Ealing Broadway yesterday reminded me of something I've wondered about before.
> 
> How come the Central Line platforms are south of the District Line platforms, when for the rest of the route through west London the Central is north of the District?
> 
> I guess that as the District is older the gap between the mainline and District platforms was the only available space at the station?
> 
> However, that just raises the question why the District is also north of the mainline!
> 
> Do you know?


The Central Line platforms are on the site of the original District Railway terminus... quite simply when the Central Line reached there in 1920, a new District Line terminus with the current trainshed was built to the north of the original.

The Central Line all the way from Wood Lane (just south of the current White City) to Ealing Broadway was built by the GWR and was originally a goods-only route from the West London Line at Viaduct Junction to a point east of Ealing Broadway. The Central Line runs parallel to the GWR main line from where the original goods route and main line merged, so it follows that the Central Line terminus would be adjacent to the GWR station.

I guess the question really is why the District Railway decided its Ealing Broadway route needed to cross over the GWR main line and have its terminus on the north side of Ealing Broadway station. I suspect the answer is simply that the northern pair of GWR tracks are the 'slow' lines, and this therefore allowed District trains to run west to Slough & Windsor without crossing the southern 'fast' lines on the level.


----------



## cpwken

Tubeman said:


> I suspect the answer is simply that the northern pair of GWR tracks are the 'slow' lines, and this therefore allowed District trains to run west to Slough & Windsor without crossing the southern 'fast' lines on the level.


Makes sense. I thougth possibly it wasdue to a lack of available land south of the mainline, it's quite close to Uxbridge road. 

Anyway, thanks for the very comprehensive answer, I'm duly impressed!


----------



## Woonsocket54

This is ridiculous....LU map is selling itself to the Arabs










http://www.economist.com/node/21554260


----------



## sotonsi

The folded paper tube maps used to be sponsored by Yellow Pages, with adverts front and back - was that not OK? after all Yellow Pages was British.

My Oyster card plastic wallet is IKEA branded, as they paid to sponsor those - are the Swedes OK, or is it just Arabs that you don't like?

And there's advertising all over the tube - they ***** out the trains, the walls of the station, etc. Is that not OK?

The LU map isn't selling itself to the Arabs, just that a line on the tube map is sponsored by them - Emirates agreed to pay millions to sponsor the cable car to get it built in time for the Olympics (though TfL themselves had to pay way more than they were going to to get it built by the Olympics).


----------



## MiaM

How about democracy and human rights in Brittain, Sweden and the Emirates?


----------



## Tubeman

Not for this thread thank you


----------



## Highcliff

Tubeman
I have realized the elevated ways aren't very tall, they are low, around 15feet...Why?
Are they projected for low impact in the urban landscape?
What are under the elevated ways? Soil? Empty? Is there any use the space under the elevated ways?

Look at the example of a tall elevated way...What do you think about? London doesn´t have elevated ways at the same high, does it?


mopc said:


> New Line 10/2 Tamanduateí Station pics (opened last Tuesday) by Eduardo GJF


----------



## ill tonkso

Dollis Brook is the highest point on the Tube.








It also - from that picture - doesn't look like it is in London, but it is.

The London Overground has this too.










Then the DLR runs a lot on this.










It's a shame the DLR is so ugly (subjective I admit) though. I understand that the DLR was built very cheaply and is a fantastic piece of infrastructure in its own right, but cold concrete just doesn't capture the imagination like Cast Iron or Brick. But I guess a Brick viaduct was hardly an affordable option. The DLR lacks 'statement' that the older railways have. It has its moments, granted. Canary Wharf DLR is an impressive space, as is Heron Quays, but the rest of it lacks any real character. I feel the same way about the Shepherds Bush stations on the Sub-Surface lines too.


----------



## Highcliff

Hi, ill tonkso
The DLR was built very cheaply...but was there lack of money to build a nicer and very well project for DLR? Do you think the DLR could be underground, not elevated?

In DLR what was made under the elevated? Is there parking lot?


----------



## ill tonkso

Roads mainly. It wasnt a lack of money issue, more of a build what we can.


----------



## MiaM

1LONDONER said:


> Hi Tubeman.
> 
> I was reading a page about the Seven Sisters platforms on London Reconnections, and came across this comment, underneath the article.


Read the (two) articles about Farringdon on London Reconnections, that should shed some light on everything except the Northern City "tube style" NR Line.


----------



## Tubeman

Manchester77 said:


> The "tube line that isn't on the tube map" probably refers to the northern city line which was part of London underground until 1975 when it was sold to British Rail. The platforms along that section are still in Network Southeasts corporate platform design. At the moment it is operates by First Capital Connect (the thameslink franchise). The disused platforms are probably the former thameslink terminus platforms. A short branch along the city widened lines leaving at Faringdon used to go fom Faringdon to Moorgate via Barbican. This service was withdrawn in 2009 as part of the thameslink program.The bits that are disused I'm not sure about but I honk that when the station was built by the metropolitan railway they had a lot of back passages around the northern city line area. I went on a tour to that bit and the were large over runs around the platforms and a lot of old CSLR tiles up. There was also an old direction sign for the metropolitan railway.


I think that's pretty much the long & short of it... the comment 1Londoner saw was using a little artistic licence I think!

Like many interchange stations, I would assume that Moorgate was actually once three separate stations, each with their own street level entrance, lifts (CSLR and GNCR), and emergency stairs. This is certainly the case for Oxford Circus (original CLR entrance / shafts abandoned) and Euston (original CCEHR entrance / shafts abandoned), and no doubt several more where original yet defunct station buildings survive. It follows that there are a wealth of redundant passageways and shafts at these stations, where once originally independent and competing companies amalgamated and therefore subsurface interchange passageways were provided for ease of interchange. This often led to one set of surface buildings and lifts to be abandoned.


----------



## 1LONDONER

Thanks for the responses guys! kay:

Tubeman you renewing for the upcoming season? I gave up my Silver end of season before last but kept my membership for away games :cheers:, seems to be loads of people sacking it in. £61 (not inc fees) min next season for a Cat A.


----------



## Tubeman

1LONDONER said:


> Thanks for the responses guys! kay:
> 
> Tubeman you renewing for the upcoming season? I gave up my Silver end of season before last but kept my membership for away games :cheers:, seems to be loads of people sacking it in. £61 (not inc fees) min next season for a Cat A.


Yeah, I've renewed my season ticket... £1,075


----------



## lemmo

Tubeman, looking at Moorgate, do you have any 3D / isometric images of the station? I'd like to clarify how the Crossrail works block any potential extension of the GN&City line southwards, but I think the station deserves a more thorough exploration, a bit like we've just done on Smithfield and Farringdon at London Reconnections.


----------



## Tubeman

These two are online



















The barrier to southward extension may well be the H&C / Circle / Met, depending on how much room there is between the top of the Northern tubes and the bottom of the subsurface tunnel. As you can see, the GNCR is directly above the Northern... I guess it could drop to run alongside the Northern on the same level, thus weaving below the Circle / H&C / Met and above the Crossrail tunnels, but there appears to be very limited room for this.


----------



## MiaM

Would GNCR have been buildt over Northern Line if there weren't space to extend southwards under the Circle?

Would the proposed and approved extention to Lothbury even been suggested if it weren't possible to extend without moving the platform tunnels at Moorgate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothbury_tube_station

It would have been nice if the 3D model had been released as a 3D cad file of some kind, so you could rotate the view.

Perhaps the Post Office Railway is in the way, but that line could possible be cut (and perhaps moved if it were to be re-used as a tunnel for wires e.t.c).


----------



## London Underground

Not exactly an LU question, but seeing the pics above made me wonder: as the post office railway isn't in use anymore, why not find another way to use the tunnels?


----------



## Tubeman

MiaM said:


> Would GNCR have been buildt over Northern Line if there weren't space to extend southwards under the Circle?
> 
> Would the proposed and approved extention to Lothbury even been suggested if it weren't possible to extend without moving the platform tunnels at Moorgate?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothbury_tube_station
> 
> It would have been nice if the 3D model had been released as a 3D cad file of some kind, so you could rotate the view.
> 
> Perhaps the Post Office Railway is in the way, but that line could possible be cut (and perhaps moved if it were to be re-used as a tunnel for wires e.t.c).


There must have been enough room below the Circle tunnel then, if Lothbury was in progress. This probably sums up why it was abandoned:

_One peculiarity of the scheme was that the running tunnels between Moorgate and Lothbury stations were to have been shorter than the platform tunnels at the two stations; meaning that the front of a full length train would have arrived at Lothbury before the end would have left Moorgate. _

The Post office railway's tunnels are too small a bore to have any human transportation use... maybe like the Tower subway they'll end up with something boring like pipes or cables passing through.

As it stands, the system is merely 'mothballed'... I do hope it's reused for its proper purpose, a great piece of infrastructure which would sure take a lot of Post office vans off the roads of London


----------



## CairnsTony

Tubeman said:


> As it stands, the system is merely 'mothballed'... I do hope it's reused for its proper purpose, a great piece of infrastructure which would sure take a lot of Post office vans off the roads of London


Out of curiosity, why was it mothballed in the first place?


----------



## Tubeman

Money... the excuse was that it was 5 x more expensive than road transport

However, I'm sure if there was a bit of investment in automation, it could be very cost-efficient in the long run

Clearly far faster, cleaner, and less labour intensive than a fleet of Royal mail vans with the right investment


----------



## trainrover

Maybe worming around underneath a capital's perceived a blemish on royal branding


----------



## MiaM

Wasn't the problem that sorting offices moved so they weren't connected to the railway - and the move was ironically made because of road cognestion around the old sorting offices?

I may well remember everything wrong about this :bash:


----------



## Tubeman

MiaM said:


> Wasn't the problem that sorting offices moved so they weren't connected to the railway - and the move was ironically made because of road cognestion around the old sorting offices?
> 
> I may well remember everything wrong about this :bash:


No, I think the sorting offices are in the same places still, but maybe there has been rationalisation so that movement between remaining offices is less.

Mount Pleasant is certainly still very much in operation, I used to live next to it. It's such a large chunk of prime central London real estate that it's inevitable it's going to one day be redeveloped though. Bizarrely, when I lived next door to it, any undelivered mail for us would go to Rathbone Place sorting office near Tottenham Court Road... Mount Pleasant didn't even deal with my postcode (WC1).


----------



## davidaiow

Bus question so perhaps not the best place.

Is there a system when it comes to numbering the routes? Things around clapham and Brixton seem to have threes, for examples and finchley road 13. I reckon that if there was a pattern I could spot it, I just don't want to look if there isn't one there to begin with!


----------



## NCT

davidaiow said:


> Bus question so perhaps not the best place.
> 
> Is there a system when it comes to numbering the routes? Things around clapham and Brixton seem to have threes, for examples and finchley road 13. I reckon that if there was a pattern I could spot it, I just don't want to look if there isn't one there to begin with!


There are some 'rules' but most of the process is pretty organic. Generally routes under 200 are the old traditional routes. The 2xx series started out as single deck routes but many have since been converted to double deck owing to increased usage. The 3xx and 4xx series routes are typically results of splitting the traditional routes, with 3xx and 4xx used for derived routes north and south of the river respectively. For example the 29 (a north London route) became 29 and 329; and the 68 (a south London route) became 68 and 468 (loosely speaking only). The north and south distinction doesn't really apply anymore, as you have the 444 in the north and 312 in the south.

There isn't really any geographical pattern. The only patterns are as a result of routes evolving and splitting. When new routes are created sometimes a number related to existing routes are chosen.


----------



## Tubeman

Good thing NCT's around, because I didn't have a clue 

All I'd ever noticed is overlapping routes one with a 2-digit number and the other prefixed, e.g. my local 63 and 363, 53 and 453... interestingly this sort of goes against what NCT just said about north / south as all are basically south London routes:

63 = Honor Oak Park to King's Cross
363 = Crystal Palace to Elephant & Castle

53 = Plumstead to Whitehall
453 = Deptford Bridge to Marylebone

Don't forget the numerous routes with letter prefixes associated with suburban centres, e.g. 'E' = Ealing, 'W' = Walthamstow etc


----------



## davidaiow

The letters used to confuse me too, but I guessed as much. Thanks guys! Very interesting! As Tubeman said, it's mainly things like 13 and 113 Finchley Road, 82 and 2 (BS-Victoria), 3, 35 and 355 (Brixton). 37, 137, 417 (Clapham Common).

It's a shame there isn't a pattern. It could make guessing whether a bus is the right one for you easier when you are running to catch it!


----------



## CairnsTony

davidaiow said:


> The letters used to confuse me too, but I guessed as much. Thanks guys! Very interesting! As Tubeman said, it's mainly things like 13 and 113 Finchley Road, 82 and 2 (BS-Victoria), 3, 35 and 355 (Brixton). 37, 137, 417 (Clapham Common).
> 
> It's a shame there isn't a pattern. It could make guessing whether a bus is the right one for you easier when you are running to catch it!


I doubt any system could be devised that would do that due to the complex nature of routing.

I grew up in Clapham in the 70s and remember the buses that went through Clapham Common were the 37, 137 (as mentioned above), but also the 35 (to Brixton), the 45 (to Clapham Junction one way, Brixton via Stockwell the other), the 155 which followed the route of the Northern Line and the 88, which was the most frequent bus along the high street and down to Clapham South. There was also an infrequent 189 which turned down Nightingale Lane to who knows where as I never used it.

I'm not sure what that says about the bus numbering and if there are any discernible patterns!


----------



## Paul Easton

NCT said:


> There are some 'rules' but most of the process is pretty organic. Generally routes under 200 are the old traditional routes. The 2xx series started out as single deck routes but many have since been converted to double deck owing to increased usage. The 3xx and 4xx series routes are typically results of splitting the traditional routes, with 3xx and 4xx used for derived routes north and south of the river respectively.


I'm casting my mind back to my younger days in the 60s and from what I can remember:

1-299 were routes inside Greater London and were operated by red buses.

300-499 were London Transport's 'country routes' and operated by green buses. These became 'London Country' in 1970 (?).

The 5xx were the 'Red Arrow' express buses in central London.

7xx were 'Green Line' routes.


----------



## NCT

Tubeman said:


> Good thing NCT's around, because I didn't have a clue
> 
> All I'd ever noticed is overlapping routes one with a 2-digit number and the other prefixed, e.g. my local 63 and 363, 53 and 453... interestingly this sort of goes against what NCT just said about north / south as all are basically south London routes:


Yeah IIRC the 3xx and 4xx series were initially reserved for north and south of the river but from looking at things that rule fell by the wayside eventually. The 363 is a very young route, created only in 2003, by which time probably nobody remembered this 'rule'. Also route 463 was already in existence by then.


----------



## Manchester77

Hey does anyone know if we've had our first A stockless day?
Is it true that one unit will be preserved?
Is the fair well tour actually going to happen?


----------



## ill tonkso

I have come across an oddity, u just walked the legnth of the Weymouth Tramway (odd already as it is part the south west mainline, built for proper mainline trains yet all on street). According to Wikipedia, the last train to use it was in 1999, however it appears both well maintained and the signals ate still live!! Seems unusual to maintain it when it isn't used. Would be a great light railway if it could share tracks with mainline services to Dorchester, then serving its suburban developments such as Poundbury.


----------



## Tubeman

Manchester77 said:


> Hey does anyone know if we've had our first A stockless day?
> Is it true that one unit will be preserved?
> Is the fair well tour actually going to happen?


It's a bit confusing, because I got on an A Stock a couple of days after the supposed first A Stock-less day, and then I heard that 4 trains were being used for the Olympics before scrapping... but I haven't seen one for about 2 weeks (and I work at Wembley Park and use the Met every day).

I suspect the 'official' last day is yet to come, but the A's are being used as a last resort which hasn't happened yet (basically, fleet need to offer for example 50 trains + 5 spares for service each day, but the spares haven't had to be used as the trains offered for service haven't failed). There would certainly be a decent amount of publicity when they do finally bow out, as 52 years service is pretty darned impressive. They're also the last 2-handed trains (separate brake and motor handles).


----------



## Tubeman

ill tonkso said:


> I have come across an oddity, u just walked the legnth of the Weymouth Tramway (odd already as it is part the south west mainline, built for proper mainline trains yet all on street). According to Wikipedia, the last train to use it was in 1999, however it appears both well maintained and the signals ate still live!! Seems unusual to maintain it when it isn't used. Would be a great light railway if it could share tracks with mainline services to Dorchester, then serving its suburban developments such as Poundbury.


I guess unless it can be officially 'closed' (which is no mean feat), NR are obliged to maintain it... as it's tramway (i.e. street running) it won't end up overgrown, so it will look in good nick even if it hasn't seen a train for 13 years

I remember seeing photos of the Charleroi metro (Belgium) elsewhere on ssc where the signals are still illuminated despite the system never having been completed, let alone used... quite surreal


----------



## Tubeman

London Railway Atlas Third edition now out!


----------



## Manchester77

Tubeman said:


> It's a bit confusing, because I got on an A Stock a couple of days after the supposed first A Stock-less day, and then I heard that 4 trains were being used for the Olympics before scrapping... but I haven't seen one for about 2 weeks (and I work at Wembley Park and use the Met every day).
> 
> I suspect the 'official' last day is yet to come, but the A's are being used as a last resort which hasn't happened yet (basically, fleet need to offer for example 50 trains + 5 spares for service each day, but the spares haven't had to be used as the trains offered for service haven't failed). There would certainly be a decent amount of publicity when they do finally bow out, as 52 years service is pretty darned impressive. They're also the last 2-handed trains (separate brake and motor handles).


Thanks tubeman


----------



## sotonsi

Tubeman said:


> It's a bit confusing, because I got on an A Stock a couple of days after the supposed first A Stock-less day, and then I heard that 4 trains were being used for the Olympics before scrapping...


Surely they are keeping at least one for museum/heritage?

Anything else just isn't on.

PS, given the 3rd edition blurb says "All changes which have affected both the surface and underground networks have been included and the atlas is intended to reflect the network at the point of the Olympic opening ceremony.", I take it that the correct station closures, eg Pudding Mill Lane, are in play ;P


----------



## ill tonkso

Tubeman said:


> I guess unless it can be officially 'closed' (which is no mean feat), NR are obliged to maintain it... as it's tramway (i.e. street running) it won't end up overgrown, so it will look in good nick even if it hasn't seen a train for 13 years
> 
> I remember seeing photos of the Charleroi metro (Belgium) elsewhere on ssc where the signals are still illuminated despite the system never having been completed, let alone used... quite surreal


I know the system, a whole unfinished line with subway connection ro the existing, finished stations, the lot.

Any thoughts on a Weyight rail? As the land between Dorchester and Weymouth are further developed (as is happening) the 8 mile system carrying onto Weymouth Quay and potentially to Poundbury via the Hospital at the north end could have a market and already is busy with busses.


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> Surely they are keeping at least one for museum/heritage?
> 
> Anything else just isn't on.
> 
> PS, given the 3rd edition blurb says "All changes which have affected both the surface and underground networks have been included and the atlas is intended to reflect the network at the point of the Olympic opening ceremony.", I take it that the correct station closures, eg Pudding Mill Lane, are in play ;P


Pudding Mill Lane's current closure is noted in the index, but it's shown as 'open' as the closure is only temporary

The ELL phase 2 is in a weird limbo at publication: it's energised and has test trains running up & down, but it probably won't see a passenger train until the Winter timetable in December... I've shown it as 'open', but with a 09/12/12 opening date... hopefully the accompanying note explains all


----------



## Tubeman

And sorry re: preserving an A Stock... I bloody hope so... I'd expect a power car at least will end up in the LT Museum Depot, but it would be nice to have a surface stock heritage train that can venture out. I think the A Stock are pretty limited to where they can go on the SSR due to car width.


----------



## Tubeman

ill tonkso said:


> I know the system, a whole unfinished line with subway connection ro the existing, finished stations, the lot.
> 
> Any thoughts on a Weyight rail? As the land between Dorchester and Weymouth are further developed (as is happening) the 8 mile system carrying onto Weymouth Quay and potentially to Poundbury via the Hospital at the north end could have a market and already is busy with busses.


So as a tram system? Don't see why not


----------



## makita09

I assume that the timings of the S Stock so far has been restricted to A Stock timings - is there going to be a speed increase and timetable change to utilise the higher top speed, or has that already happened?


----------



## MiaM

ill tonkso said:


> I have come across an oddity, u just walked the legnth of the Weymouth Tramway (odd already as it is part the south west mainline, built for proper mainline trains yet all on street). According to Wikipedia, the last train to use it was in 1999, however it appears both well maintained and the signals ate still live!! Seems unusual to maintain it when it isn't used.


This is probably not the case in this case, but sometimes atleast signals are kept alive because they are part of a larger signal system and it would be more expensive to do a proper disconnection of the signals than retaining them.


----------



## Tubeman

makita09 said:


> I assume that the timings of the S Stock so far has been restricted to A Stock timings - is there going to be a speed increase and timetable change to utilise the higher top speed, or has that already happened?


Unfortunately the constraint is the track, not the stock, so I don't anticipate a timetable change with significantly reduced run times. The Met Line speed was reduced from 70mph to 60mph a few years back because of the state of the track. The only improvement is acceleration / braking, which will certainly help matters between Baker St and Aldgate with high tph and frequent stops.


----------



## makita09

^^ Yeah but I thought the A-stock was reduced from their design speed of 50mph to 40mph like a decade ago?


----------



## sotonsi

Top speed/design speed of A stock was 70mph, though the stock was limited to 50mph a couple of years ago due to age.

S stock is limited to 62mph (100km/h), so track speed improvements are unlikely, unless TfL want to reinvest those track-access fees that Chiltern pay on the tracks that Chiltern use (which would be a big u-turn in policy, which has been to focus more on the rest of the Met line).


----------



## CharlieP

Tubeman said:


> London Railway Atlas Third edition now out!


Will you be doing a book-signing tour of the UK?


----------



## makita09

So, to repeat my question (which has nothing to do with the track), I assume that the timings of the S Stock so far has been restricted to A Stock timings (ie 50mph) - is there going to be a speed increase and timetable change to utilise the higher top speed, or has that already happened?


----------



## Tubeman

makita09 said:


> So, to repeat my question (which has nothing to do with the track), I assume that the timings of the S Stock so far has been restricted to A Stock timings (ie 50mph) - is there going to be a speed increase and timetable change to utilise the higher top speed, or has that already happened?


I was correct in what I stated, the line speed used to be 70mph on the faster sections matching the A Stock top speed, but this was reduced due to track quality.

These are the Line speeds currently:

Amersham - north of Rickmansworth: 60mph
Watford South Junction - Harrow North Junction: 60mph on fasts, 50mph on slows
Harrow South - Wembley Park: 50mph on both slow and fasts
Wembley Park - Finchley Road: 50mph
City sections: 30 or 35mph
Chesham Branch: 35mph
Watford Branch: 50mph

So there was only any 'curtailment' on fasts north of Harrow or trains north of Ricky in general, so maybe these will be marginally re-timed.

Bear in mind also that as far as I'm aware it's not a case that A Stock drivers were told to shut off at 50mph lest their trains shake to bits, it was more that some of the A's were so clapped out that they couldn't get above 50mph if you tried, so timetables had to be adjusted accordingly to the lowest common denominator.

A Stocks were routinely going above 60mph until the end, just I guess these trains would have excessive standing times at places like Harrow to get back on timetable, or would simply come up against red signals.

It's amazing with older trains how much variation there is from train to train... when you handed your train over, you'd always tell the relieving driver whether they had a 'goodun' or not. Even though all motors were technically working, some were just simply really sluggish.


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> Will you be doing a book-signing tour of the UK?


If by 'UK' you mean the Ian Allan bookstore and London Transport Museum, then yes


----------



## makita09

Thanks Tubeman


----------



## mr_jrt

Tubeman said:


> Bear in mind also that as far as I'm aware it's not a case that A Stock drivers were told to shut off at 50mph lest their trains shake to bits, it was more that some of the A's were so clapped out that they couldn't get above 50mph if you tried, so timetables had to be adjusted accordingly to the lowest common denominator.


I was of the understanding the restrictions came in due to cracks being found in the bogies?


----------



## Tubeman

Ah actually that rings a bell now... well if that was the case, it was often ignored!


----------



## sotonsi

Tubeman said:


> Pudding Mill Lane's current closure is noted in the index


Looking at my copy of this excellent resource that arrived today banana, the note for Pudding Mill Lane says "Planned opening 02/01/1996, but delayed. To be re-sited south in connection with 'Crossrail 1' works 2013".

Another pendatry niggle - the EOR is marked as opening in 2004, whereas the ELLX phase 2 is marked as opening in 1871 with a note. The Central line at Leyton is given a 1947 date, with ECR dates in red from 18xx-1970. Surely the ELLX phase 2 should have had the 2012 date, with the history in red (and the note), especially given tracks were lifted, rather than just disused/electrified?

I note the inclusion of the Battersea Northern Line branch and DLR to Dagenham Dock, but nothing of HS2 or Crystal Palace Tramlink. There's also SWML and Lea Valley plans in the SE RUS.

A 4th edition request - level crossing locations, and the "electrification and gauge maps of all of London (i.e. all of London on a single page showing different electrification and gauges over the years)" that Amazon suggests, but I can't find in there.


----------



## Tubeman

sotonsi said:


> Looking at my copy of this excellent resource that arrived today banana, the note for Pudding Mill Lane says "Planned opening 02/01/1996, but delayed. To be re-sited south in connection with 'Crossrail 1' works 2013".
> 
> Another pendatry niggle - the EOR is marked as opening in 2004, whereas the ELLX phase 2 is marked as opening in 1871 with a note. The Central line at Leyton is given a 1947 date, with ECR dates in red from 18xx-1970. Surely the ELLX phase 2 should have had the 2012 date, with the history in red (and the note), especially given tracks were lifted, rather than just disused/electrified?
> 
> I note the inclusion of the Battersea Northern Line branch and DLR to Dagenham Dock, but nothing of HS2 or Crystal Palace Tramlink. There's also SWML and Lea Valley plans in the SE RUS.
> 
> A 4th edition request - level crossing locations, and the "electrification and gauge maps of all of London (i.e. all of London on a single page showing different electrification and gauges over the years)" that Amazon suggests, but I can't find in there.


Yes sorry I forgot that I'd entered the current closure of Pudding Mill Lane into my 'live' version of the atlas (basically what will become the first reprint of the Third edition), but that this wasn't in the final version I sent to Ian Allan in April... To be fair I didn't know about the closure until after the deadline.

Regarding the apparent inconsistencies with dating, I often tied myself in knots figuring out how to best depict this. The principle I settled on was that if a line (like the Broad Street viaduct) was opened by a mainline rail company, was closed, then re-opened as a part of the current NR network, then I'd enter the original opening date. The same principle applies to stations like Homerton, Dalston Junction, etc. That being said, that section is a funny one... (I think) owned by TfL but operated as a piece of NR infrastructure.

Conversely, EOR was opened by a mainline company, transferred to LT, closed, then re-opened by the EOR. As I chose to reflect with the rest of the ex-GER east end of the Central Line, the mainline period was shown in red, with the current LUL incarnation shown in black (same applied to much of the High Barnet branch). Following this logic, Epping to Ongar is shown with two extinct incarnations (GER and LUL) with the current EOR incarnation thus:

EOR 10.10.2004 / GER 24.04.1865 – 25.09.1949 (_18.04.1966_) LTE 25.09.1949 – 30.09.1994

In short, it became a but headfucky but I hope I opted for the best way of depicting such complex histories.

One section I didn't have a hope of tackling was Ravenscourt Park to Turnham Green, I had to give the original LSWR opening date alongside the line and explain the very convoluted history in a lengthy text box.

The omission of HS2 was really because by the time it was announced, I'd drawn the pages in question and if you look at page 24 especially, hopefully you can appreciate I just looked at this page, which I'd spent hours and hours tweaking to get just right, and felt like crying at the prospect of trying to squeeze HS2 in. It would have destroyed a lot of painstaking work, and made a map page which I'd tried to hard to make as clear as possible even more complex. It was the same with Crossrail... I only finally incorporated it once they'd started building the thing... plenty of time for HS2 to be cancelled or altered, so I'll hold fire.

Dagenham Dock had been on there for ages, at one point it seemed a dead cert, as there's still a hope, and as it's far sparser area of the atlas, I didn't see the harm in keeping it. Ditto I squeezed in Battersea when it was all systems go... now it's hit the buffers, maybe temporarily... it may have to go. You might note that Airtrack was depicted in the Second edition, but now all that's left is the platforms they built at T5, because there has been an official announcement by BAA that it's dead.

Finally, the gauge / electrification maps blurb on Amazon is sloppiness by Ian Allan. They've basically just copied and pasted an email I sent to IA some months ago when I was extolling the virtues of the Third edition I was working on. At that stage, I was hoping to incorporate gauge and electrification maps, but in the end I ran out of time and pages (you ideally have to work in multiples of 16 pages, hence 128).

I am drawing them now, however, so they'll be in the 4th for sure.

Thanks for the feedback, anything else you spot please let me know


----------



## CairnsTony

It might be slightly outside your remit but since you mentioned Airtrack: has there ever been talk of adding a rail chord north of Heathrow to enable trains to run from the west onto the Heathrow Express tracks? This would provide a direct service from Reading and perhaps other points west and would seem a relatively inexpensive way of increasing accessibility to the airport, albeit not from London.


----------



## Tubeman

CairnsTony said:


> It might be slightly outside your remit but since you mentioned Airtrack: has there ever been talk of adding a rail chord north of Heathrow to enable trains to run from the west onto the Heathrow Express tracks? This would provide a direct service from Reading and perhaps other points west and would seem a relatively inexpensive way of increasing accessibility to the airport, albeit not from London.


I've seen it mooted, but I guess there is a risk of congesting the Heathrow branch. Headways are currently approx 7 minutes with two overlapping 15 minute services.

The other consideration is electrification: anything coming east from Reading would currently be diesel, and I don't think diesels running through deep level tunnels is a very good idea! (I would assume prohibited)

Maybe with GWR main line electrification we could see an Oxford to Heathrow service? For passengers coming in from Wales and the West Country, Reading could be the interchange point to avoid going into Paddington and back out again, as pretty much everything seems to stop at Reading.


----------



## ill tonkso

Reading makes sense. At the moment it has 2 or 3 third rail electrified platforms, however these are essentially there own station (and in fact used to be) and do not serve the GWR but in fact the suburban lines into Waterloo. There will be no electric link to Heathrow for some time yet.


----------



## sotonsi

Tubeman - thanks for clarifying on my minor niggles and I quite agree that HS2 would have been messy (you'd have needed a 2026 Old Oak area map - an additional page). You didn't explain Crystal Palace tramlink, but that is a minor addition anyway.

I did assume that the over-hyping wasn't your fault.


CairnsTony said:


> It might be slightly outside your remit but since you mentioned Airtrack: has there ever been talk of adding a rail chord north of Heathrow to enable trains to run from the west onto the Heathrow Express tracks? This would provide a direct service from Reading and perhaps other points west and would seem a relatively inexpensive way of increasing accessibility to the airport, albeit not from London.


Google/search SSC for WRAtH (Western Rail Access to Heathrow) - it's been talked about recently in the Crossrail thread. A larger project, being a couple of miles and to the west of Heathrow, rather than 50 chains and to the north.


Tubeman said:


> The other consideration is electrification: anything coming east from Reading would currently be diesel, and I don't think diesels running through deep level tunnels is a very good idea! (I would assume prohibited)


Yes, diesel wouldn't be permitted, given that the tunnels have a station - there's an amount of backwards-compatibleness and grandfathering in, but that wouldn't apply to new build. Of course, the length of time it takes to go from drawing board to completing construction of such a curve (though it's more likely to be WRAtH that's built, due to the headways problem you mention) would mean that it won't happen until after electrification anyway - especially given that they will start putting up wires soon.


----------



## MiaM

HLOS talks about eletrifying a lot of GWR, thus enabling electric services Heathrow-Reading

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/hlos-highlights-part-2-final-points/


----------



## 1956

Tubeman - Do you know if it would be technically possible to re-double the Canonbury Curve by either lowering the track level, or expanding the tunnel bore? Does the Corsica Street ventilation shaft and/or the Eurostar HS1 line prevent this? The point of doing this would be to allow two freights to pass in the tunnel (with OHLE on both tracks). Obviously re-instatement of passenger services would be needed to justify the cost as doing it for a short goods curve would not cost in. A related question, is it possible to have BOTH OHLE and 3rd rail on the same stretch of line? Thanks.


----------



## Tubeman

1956 said:


> Tubeman - Do you know if it would be technically possible to re-double the Canonbury Curve by either lowering the track level, or expanding the tunnel bore? Does the Corsica Street ventilation shaft and/or the Eurostar HS1 line prevent this? The point of doing this would be to allow two freights to pass in the tunnel (with OHLE on both tracks). Obviously re-instatement of passenger services would be needed to justify the cost as doing it for a short goods curve would not cost in. A related question, is it possible to have BOTH OHLE and 3rd rail on the same stretch of line? Thanks.


Nothing's impossible, it just needs to have a cost-benefit

Corsica Road shaft is very close, but it appears that the former 'down' line alignment is the one in use, so the 'up' trackbed is still available (it's where all the track is being stored on the current Google maps satellite photo)

Bear in mind that hundreds of tunnels and bridges would have needed attention when the OHLE was installed along the WCML, ECML, LTSR, GER, etc... Indeed as I type the Connaught Tunnel under the Royal Docks is having the track bed lowered to accommodate Crossrail trains. So yes, the Canonbury curve could be redoubled by lowering the track for OHLE clearance.

Regarding dual OHLE / 3rd rail DC, much of the North London Line was, but recent developments have seen much of the 3rd rail removed as Stratford - Richmond trains can run all the way from Stratford to Acton Central AC under OHLE whereas the former Richmond to North Woolwich service had to use 3rd rail DC at both ends with AC in the middle.

I need to look into the current set-up, but as far as I am aware, the entire NLL from Acton Central to Stratford is OHLE only (with the parallel ELL Highbury to Dalston Western Junction being 3rd rail only). The only dual bit left might be part of the connection between the 'DC Lines' and NLL via Primrose Hill... The tunnels on the DC lines between South Hampstead and Camden Junctions are deep-level 'tubes' so cannot have OHLE, I'm just not sure where the 3rd rail stops and stock moves between NLL and the DC lines raise / lower their pantographs (the site of Primrose Hill station?).


----------



## 1956

*Canonbury Curve - Thanks*

Many thanks for the reply, and congrats on the 3rd Edition.


----------



## Tubeman

No problem, and thank you! Feel free to review me on Amazon


----------



## arfamoe

The island platforms for the proposed Northern Heights extension from Drayton Park to Highgate were never part of the original Finsbury Park platforms. Hence I do not believe that the bridge serving the platforms were ever built. Stock transfers were made via the original GNR/LNER overpass to Highgate and beyond.


----------



## Tubeman

arfamoe said:


> The island platforms for the proposed Northern Heights extension from Drayton Park to Highgate were never part of the original Finsbury Park platforms. Hence I do not believe that the bridge serving the platforms were ever built. Stock transfers were made via the original GNR/LNER overpass to Highgate and beyond.


It was partially built, the structure to carry the lines / platforms was constructed but the platforms and lines themselves never were.

_As part of the 1935 New Works plan two new platforms were to be built on the east side of Finsbury Park Station. A substantial steel structure seen here in 1969 was build for the new station facade and platforms but the platforms were never built; a stairway to nowhere can be seen in this picture. The rusting structure was finally demolished in 1972 and a new station facade built on the site in 1983/4_

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/f/finsbury_park/index.shtml


----------



## arfamoe

Tubeman said:


> It was partially built, the structure to carry the lines / platforms was constructed but the platforms and lines themselves never were.
> 
> _As part of the 1935 New Works plan two new platforms were to be built on the east side of Finsbury Park Station. A substantial steel structure seen here in 1969 was build for the new station facade and platforms but the platforms were never built; a stairway to nowhere can be seen in this picture. The rusting structure was finally demolished in 1972 and a new station facade built on the site in 1983/4_
> 
> http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/f/finsbury_park/index.shtml


Thanks Mr. T. Right on with the platform and facade structure. I was referencing the actual bridges across Seven Sisters Road and at the other end across Stroud Green Road. It's amazing how much interest and fascination the proposed Northern Heights extensions still generate.. I think I am the only one in the Boston USA however!


----------



## mr_jrt

arfamoe said:


> Thanks Mr. T. Right on with the platform and facade structure. I was referencing the actual bridges across Seven Sisters Road and at the other end across Stroud Green Road. It's amazing how much interest and fascination the proposed Northern Heights extensions still generate.. I think I am the only one in the Boston USA however!


If you go to getmapping and switch to the highres 1940's layer, you can see them from above


----------



## Christopher125

CairnsTony said:


> ...has there ever been talk of adding a rail chord north of Heathrow to enable trains to run from the west onto the Heathrow Express tracks?


Not only has WRATH been talked about, its recently received government approval - the £500m scheme to provide access to Heathrow from the west is in the recently announced HLOS, to be built in Control Period 5 (2014-19), complementing electrification of the GWML.

Chris


----------



## alserrod

Thanks to all of you. 
I take the words of "intermodal interchange". I think it is the closest to the definitions given in my surroundings.

They are those kind of words not used frequently, not read on newspapers, books or that stuff and not easy to find an accurate translation.


----------



## Tubeman

ajw373 said:


> Gee wizz some people really want to over complicate things (see answers above). The simple answer to your question is one word. Interchange.


Tell me about it!

'Interchange' is the word used in the UK (although I think 'exchange' is favoured in North America)

'Intermodal' only applies if you mean different forms of transport


----------



## makita09

alserrod said:


> Thanks to all of you.
> I take the words of "intermodal interchange". I think it is the closest to the definitions given in my surroundings.


"Intermodal" is most commonly used in transport to describe containerised freight traffic. If you use the word to describe passenger traffic it will be misunderstood and confusing. "Interchange" is sufficient for any passenger transport nodes, as it describes modal changes as well as non-modal changes.


----------



## jesinej

Carissimo, riusciresti a caricare una carta della metropolitana di Londra attuale e inserendo sulla cartina TUTTE LE STAZIONI ABBANDONATE E CHIUSE DAL 1909?

Dear, could you upload a map of the London Underground map on the current and entering ALL STATIONS ABANDONED AND CLOSED FROM 1909?


----------



## sotonsi

That's quite an ask, especially with TfL copyright meaning that someone can't just add stations to an existing map and publish it here without risking legal problems.

http://www.clarksbury.com/cdl/maps.html has old tube maps scanned.

You'd modify an existing map by the following (not dealing with service changes such as line switches and chords, or rebuildings):

Jubilee: Green Park to Charing Cross now closed
East London Line:
currently Overground New Cross/New Cross Gate and Whitechapel.
Whitechapel - Shoreditch closed

District:
South Acton - Acton Town shuttle.
Upminster - various intermediate stations - Southend.

Piccadilly:
Holborn - Aldwych branch.
Down Street between Green Park and Piccadilly Circus.
York Street between Kings Cross and Caledonian Road.

Central: Epping - North Weald - Blake Hall - Ongar
Bakerloo: Harrow & Wealdstone - Headstone Lane - Hatch End - Carpenders Park - Bushey - Watford High Street - Watford Junction
H&C: Latimer Road - Uxbridge Road - Kensington (Olympia)
Northern:
Moorgate - Old Street - Essex Road - Highbury & Islington - Drayton Park - Finsbury Park - Stroud Green - Crouch End - Highgate - Cranley Gardens - Muswell Hill - Alexandra Palace.
Mill Hill East - Mill Hill (The Hale) - Edgware.
City Road between Angel and Old Street.
South Kentish Town between Camden Town and Kentish Town

Met:
Baker Street - St Johns Wood - Marlborough Road - Swiss Cottage - Finchley Road (stations on Jubilee with same name more than just resitings).
Amersham - Great Missenden - Wendover - Stoke Mandeville - Aylesbury - Waddeston Manor - Quainton Road - Granborough Road - Winslow Road - Verney Junction.
Quainton Road - Waddeston Road - Wescott - Wooton - Church Siding - Wood Siding - Brill

I may have missed some things out.


----------



## NCT

Or buy Tubemans' book. :happy:


----------



## Tubeman

NCT said:


> Or buy Tubemans' book. :happy:


:yes: http://www.amazon.co.uk/London-Railway-Atlas-3rd-Brown/dp/0711037280/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Although if I'm honest it sounds like Doug Rose's map is more what you're looking for http://www.amazon.co.uk/London-Unde...=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354487109&sr=1-4


----------



## NCT

Why did I put the apostrophe after the s? hno:


----------



## CharlieP

NCT said:


> Why did I put the apostrophe after the s? hno:


Relax, everybody makes mistakes.


----------



## trainrover

Tubeman said:


> I think 'exchange' is favoured in North America


Transfer station seems to be current here :dunno:


----------



## nr23Derek

Yeah OK I could buy Tubies book - and probably will anyway - but having seen a report (in the Daily Mail so it must be true) about the Aldwych station my curiosity about this station has been rekindled.

First: The long disused platform has tracks laid on the ground - without the usual suicide trench. I'd never thought about that before, but the idea seems to be someone doing a "one under" simply drops below the train. So question is, were these retro fitted and if so when were these added?

Second I've never understood why Aldwych was built. Was it intended to carry the line on to Waterloo? The double tracks seem to indicate bigger things were planned, but the "extension" doesn't simply carry on from Holborn.

Sorry if all this has been covered somewhere in the wad of pages before

Derek


----------



## sotonsi

nr23Derek said:


> Second I've never understood why Aldwych was built. Was it intended to carry the line on to Waterloo? The double tracks seem to indicate bigger things were planned, but the "extension" doesn't simply carry on from Holborn.


Yea but no but.

The Piccadilly is a bodge of three lines - the Great Northern and Strand (Aldwych - Finsbury Park and Wood Green), the Brompton and Piccadilly Circus railway (Piccadilly Circus - South Ken and beyond) and the Metropolitan District Deep Level railway (Mansion House - South Ken - Hammersmith). These lines were merged into one route with a stump at Aldwych and some ability to built other sections that were dropped from the Hammersmith - Finsbury Park route.

The Waterloo extension looks to have been first proposed in 1905, when the B&PC route to Shepherds Bush (and Acton) and Hammersmith via High Street Ken, Walham Green, Angel and the Deep Level District at Charing Cross also were proposed. Given the Piccadilly line opened in 1906, Aldwych was simply built as the massive Strand terminus of the GN&S, rather than as a line that was going anywhere. One imagines that the B&PC was planned to be extended beyond Holborn and the connection to the GN&S was only temporary, but it became a huge success and so Aldwych got relegated.


----------



## Manchester77

Iya
Could you answer the following if its not too much trouble please?...
- When does the new timetable begin for the SSL (with full S7 use on the Hammersmith)


----------



## nr23Derek

Aldwych:



sotonsi said:


> Yea but no but.


The thing I find odd though is the line to Aldwych isn't simply a continuation of the line from the north (GN&S line). This map from Urban 75










I would have expected the lines form the north to simply run through to Aldwych, with a branch off west, but no.

Has Holborn been re-modeled at some point or something?

Derek


----------



## London Underground

That depends on what you mean by remodeled. The stub end platform has been closed and that track has been removed. The platform is now used as a storage room.


----------



## nr23Derek

London Underground said:


> That depends on what you mean by remodeled. The stub end platform has been closed and that track has been removed. The platform is now used as a storage room.


No no no!

If Aldwych were simply built as the terminus for the line from the north, the tunnels running south would line up with the tunnels from the north, but they don't.

So the line south must have been built as a separate concept, never intended to have been a part of the main route.

Derek


----------



## London Underground

nr23Derek said:


> No no no!
> 
> If Aldwych were simply built as the terminus for the line from the north, the tunnels running south would line up with the tunnels from the north, but they don't.
> 
> So the line south must have been built as a separate concept, never intended to have been a part of the main route.
> 
> Derek


I have no idea what you mean. You asked if Holborn had been remodeled and that's what i replied about.


----------



## Tubeman

nr23Derek said:


> First: The long disused platform has tracks laid on the ground - without the usual suicide trench. I'd never thought about that before, but the idea seems to be someone doing a "one under" simply drops below the train. So question is, were these retro fitted and if so when were these added?


Yes, the suicide pits were retro-fitted... There was a spate of suicides due to the Great Depression so they were installed in the early 1930's.

They allow emergency services to crawl under the train to the person to see if they're still alive or not... if they're pronounced dead, the train is simply driven off them, but if they're still alive then decisions need to be made whether to try to treat them initially under the train (if it might injure them more to move the train), or whether it's safe to recharge current and move the train.

I'm guessing that pre-suicide pits there must have been harrowing examples where 'jumpers' were still obviously alive under a train, but then killed when the train was moved to get to them.

The other benefit is that someone accidentally falling onto the track has somewhere to lie without being struck.


----------



## Tubeman

Manchester77 said:


> Iya
> Could you answer the following if its not too much trouble please?...
> - When does the new timetable begin for the SSL (with full S7 use on the Hammersmith)


I'll try to find out when I'm next at work... S7 introduction doesn't necessitate a new timetable per se... for the time being it's just a case of C Stocks being sent for scrap and S7 stocks replacing them, there would be no distinct C or S7 working in the timetable.

The S Stock themselves don't deliver any significant timetabling benefits, it's the future SSR-wide resignalling which will do this... and that is many years off.


----------



## Tubeman

Regarding Holborn...

Here's an alternative diagram:










My understanding is that the station is laid out on 2 levels to facilitate a grade separated junction between the two routes. The northbound Aldwych branch assumedly could have continued to join the northbound main, and the southbound Aldwych branch could have diverged off the SB main instead (whether the relevant tunnels / step plate junctions were built for this I don't know).

The answer to the eventual configuration may lie in platform extensions... the original platforms were 250ft, when they were extended to 350ft I suppose they encroached into space originally occupied by the potential junction locations.

I suspect the answer is in the Capital Transport 'Piccadilly Line - An illustrated history' somewhere, I'll see if it is.


----------



## Kolony

I have a very big question: 

Is the London Underground on debt??? because extensions come so slowly. And why do the extensions come so slowly??? For example In Moscow an average of 2-3 stations open every year. 

Oh, and P.S., my uncle worked on the London Underground as an engineer/mechanic/technician???


----------



## Christopher125

London Underground said:


> Im no expert on the subject, but the event of Steam on the Met doesn't actually use steam engines. They use the electric Sarah Siddons and two Class 20 diesels.


As the name suggests, Steam on the Met involved preserved steam locos operating trains on the outer reaches of the met from 1989 to 2000 and there are a number of youtube videos showing these.

In recent years Sarah Siddons has worked heritage trains with a Class 20 but this has never been described as 'steam on the met', for obvious reasons.

Chris


----------



## Tubeman

Kolony said:


> I have a very big question:
> 
> Is the London Underground on debt??? because extensions come so slowly. And why do the extensions come so slowly??? For example In Moscow an average of 2-3 stations open every year.
> 
> Oh, and P.S., my uncle worked on the London Underground as an engineer/mechanic/technician???


We break even in terms of day to day operating costs (i.e. fare revenue exceeds wages), but what we don't come close to is being able to finance things like new rolling stock, line upgrades, extensions, etc... for these we have to go cap in hand to get the finance, hence it's a slow process.

Bear in mind that London is not growing geographically... it cannot due to the Green Belt... so it is unlikely that there will ever be the need for significant extensions of the LU network. The current emphasis is the upgrade of current infrastructure to ATO with new trains: getting the most out of the tunnels we already had through increased tph and reliability.


----------



## Kolony

Tubeman said:


> We break even in terms of day to day operating costs (i.e. fare revenue exceeds wages), but what we don't come close to is being able to finance things like new rolling stock, line upgrades, extensions, etc... for these we have to go cap in hand to get the finance, hence it's a slow process.
> 
> Bear in mind that London is not growing geographically... it cannot due to the Green Belt... so it is unlikely that there will ever be the need for significant extensions of the LU network. The current emphasis is the upgrade of current infrastructure to ATO with new trains: getting the most out of the tunnels we already had through increased tph and reliability.


^^ You are definetely right. Ive been on the Underground and i think they should spend money on renovating stations and uprgrading rolling stock. I mean, it gets so stuffy it gets nerve-breaking. :gaah::gaah::gaah:


----------



## makita09

Kolony said:


> ^^ You are definetely right. Ive been on the *Undergoround* and i think they should spend money on renovating stations and uprgrading rolling stock. I mean, it gets so stuffy it gets nerve-breaking. :gaah::gaah::gaah:


A new name for the Circle line methinks?

UnderGoRound


----------



## Kolony

makita09 said:


> A new name for the Circle line methinks?
> 
> UnderGoRound


*Underground. My mistake. :lol:=:bash:


----------



## CairnsTony

Kolony said:


> I have a very big question:
> 
> Is the London Underground on debt??? because extensions come so slowly. And why do the extensions come so slowly??? For example In Moscow an average of 2-3 stations open every year.
> 
> Oh, and P.S., my uncle worked on the London Underground as an engineer/mechanic/technician???


New stations are opening: in the last 20 years or so, an 11 station extension of the Jubilee Line was opened; quite a few new lines and extensions on the DLR; and several new stations on the LO. In a few more years time of course, several massive new stations will open on Crossrail.

I know they're not all 'tube' lines, but they are all new urban stations in London which is what matters.


----------



## Swede

Tubeman said:


> Bear in mind that London is not growing geographically... it cannot due to the Green Belt... so it is unlikely that there will ever be the need for significant extensions of the LU network. The current emphasis is the upgrade of current infrastructure to ATO with new trains: getting the most out of the tunnels we already had through increased tph and reliability.


So, considering increasing population without increasing surface area...

Priorites: 
- Upgrade the current lines to modern standards (where possible) to increase capacity and reliability. 
- New lines through the city center to increase capacity where it is needed now and where it is seen to be needed going forward.
- extending lines within the urban area that would create better connections.

NOT a priority
- extending existing lines further out.

Am I understanding things right?


----------



## makita09

^^ yes. This is also precisely what is happening. Although the new lines* are not part of London Underground, they are part of the mainline railway network.

* I say lines, but only one is new, Crossrail, the Thameslink project is an upgrade that will double capacity, plus the London Overground developments are also an upgrade of sorts with some new sections.


----------



## Tubeman

Swede said:


> So, considering increasing population without increasing surface area...
> 
> Priorites:
> - Upgrade the current lines to modern standards (where possible) to increase capacity and reliability.
> - New lines through the city center to increase capacity where it is needed now and where it is seen to be needed going forward.
> - extending lines within the urban area that would create better connections.
> 
> NOT a priority
> - extending existing lines further out.
> 
> Am I understanding things right?


Yes, correct

There are a couple of exceptions... The Northern Line Charing Cross branch and Bakerloo Line at the southern end could both bear significant extension into South London. The former is looking likely to go on a somewhat wasteful foray west to Battersea (money talks), and the latter has been long planned to extend, most recently to Hayes via Peckham and Lewisham.

In all honesty, I'd say that once these two extensions happen, the traditional LU network is ostensibly complete (as future tunnel building will be in the Crossrail vein, linking existing NR routes).


----------



## Swede

The way I see it those two extension are to cover areas that while they don't have tube now, aren't any less central than many places that do have the tube. Extending them within that "should-be-tube-covered area" and also then connecting to other rail lines (i.e. interchange stations) makes sense within the priorities I listed. Sure, they're outwards extension, but they aren't going to go anywhere near as far out as most other lines do already.

I can see your point on creating new Crossrail/Thameslink tunnels instead of going for new tube lines through the core, that makes a lot of sense. Not that there never will be a good case for a new tube line, just that the emphasis now should be Crossrail style connections. Once those are done (that'll take a while) it'll be time to look at new tube lines. Unless we all teleport our way around by then.

On that note: how do you see the needs/possibilities for Crossrail2 (and 3, and 4...)? I know there's been talk of a SW-NE line for a long time, is that the "preferred" Crossrail2 now? What stations/lines would that link up (i.e. like Paddington and Liverpool Street for Crossrail1) ?

Also: happy 150 years and a day to the Tube!


----------



## CharlieP

How many "shared" sections of track are there on the Underground network, either with main line services or between Tube and subsurface stock?

I can think of:

Part of the Watford DC line (Bakerloo and London Overground).

North and South of Ealing Common (District and Piccadilly), possibly including Acton Town.

The Richmond branch of the District line (District and London Overground).

Am I missing anything?


----------



## Christopher125

Swede said:


> On that note: how do you see the needs/possibilities for Crossrail2 (and 3, and 4...)?


Crossrail 2, or the Chelsea-Hackney line, is currently being developed by TfL and is expected to have a SW-NE alignment.

There are two options being actively considered - a conventional automatic metro, or a longer, more expensive but much more beneficial Crossrail-type line connecting suburban services on the South West Mainline and West Anglia Mainline via Central London. This releases much needed capacity on the surface lines into Waterloo and Liverpool Street and is expected to be the favoured option - a map of how the latter could look can be found here

Chris


----------



## Swede

So the vibe now is that the Chelney line will be Crossrail2 and not a tube line (automatic or not)? I know of the line, but how far into the future are we talking and how sure can one be that it'll be in the Crossrail-format?


----------



## makita09

^^ Well it will be crossrail format thats for sure - ie standard mainline loading gauge an stock.


----------



## Tubeman

CharlieP said:


> How many "shared" sections of track are there on the Underground network, either with main line services or between Tube and subsurface stock?
> 
> I can think of:
> 
> Part of the Watford DC line (Bakerloo and London Overground).
> 
> North and South of Ealing Common (District and Piccadilly), possibly including Acton Town.
> 
> The Richmond branch of the District line (District and London Overground).
> 
> Am I missing anything?


Rayners Lane to Uxbridge

South of East Putney on the Wimbledon branch is used daily for SWT stock moves, and occasionally wholesale for SWT passenger diversions much to the District Line's annoyance (NR signal this section so can do as they please).

Technically the entire District / Piccadilly Line section from West Kensington to Hanger Lane Junction (north of Ealing Common) is shared, with trains running on each other's routes due to disruption (e.g. if there's a 'one under' at Turnham Green Picc, Picc trains can be diverted down the District, or vice versa). There used to be an early morning Picc train that reversed east to west at West Kensington (don't know if there still is), I guess a strange vestige of when Lillie Bridge was the Piccadilly Line's only depot. Obviously the short section through Ealing Common is shared on a daily basis.


----------



## MiaM

CharlieP said:


> How many "shared" sections of track are there on the Underground network, either with main line services or between Tube and subsurface stock?
> 
> I can think of:
> 
> Part of the Watford DC line (Bakerloo and London Overground).
> 
> North and South of Ealing Common (District and Piccadilly), possibly including Acton Town.
> 
> The Richmond branch of the District line (District and London Overground).
> 
> Am I missing anything?


Harrow-Amersham (Chiltern, Subsurface)

If Croxley link will be built there would probably be Chiltern trains operating Aylesbury-Watford.

Neasden depot are connected both to subsurface and tube lines (Metropolitan and Jubilee line).

There's also some connections between LU and NR that's not used for passenger services, for example at the west end of West Ruislip station


----------



## sotonsi

MiaM said:


> If Croxley link will be built there would probably be Chiltern trains operating Aylesbury-Watford.


Not to mention the Met/Overground shared running through Watford High Street (I'd imagine that they would use 2 dedicated platforms each at Watford Junction, though obviously there's the case of disruption and being able to share).


Tubeman said:


> Obviously the short section through Ealing Common is shared on a daily basis.


Which, to answer Charlie P's question, does include the platforms at Acton Town - the Piccadilly can and does use all 4 (or at least both the westbound ones).

Similar to the Piccadilly and District in West London, the Jubilee and Met used to run a similar arraignment in North London. There was even a token weekly (or was it more often) Met train that stopped at stops between Wembley Park and Finchley Road, as well as several early morning/late night ones that stopped at Neasden's Met line platforms.


----------



## Spam King

Tubeman said:


> Yes, correct
> 
> There are a couple of exceptions... The Northern Line Charing Cross branch and Bakerloo Line at the southern end could both bear significant extension into South London. The former is looking likely to go on a somewhat wasteful foray west to Battersea (money talks), and the latter has been long planned to extend, most recently to Hayes via Peckham and Lewisham.
> 
> In all honesty, I'd say that once these two extensions happen, the traditional LU network is ostensibly complete (as future tunnel building will be in the Crossrail vein, linking existing NR routes).


Is there any chance that the Northern Line will be split in the foreseeable future? It seems awfully inefficient he way it's run. I realize this would need massive reconstruction of Camden Town.


----------



## Tubeman

Spam King said:


> Is there any chance that the Northern Line will be split in the foreseeable future? It seems awfully inefficient he way it's run. I realize this would need massive reconstruction of Camden Town.


I'd assume if / when the Battersea extension opens, the line will be split 'officially'.


----------



## Tubeman

Here's me with Met No.1 yesterday while I was on steward duty 

It was an awesome day, really enjoyed it. Believe it or not, it was the first time I'd ever been on a steam-hauled train.


----------



## London Underground

With all the preservated railways in the UK, this is your first steam train journey? Cool!


----------



## davidaiow

Tubeman! You're much younger than I imagined! I completely forgot this was going on- I wish I'd remembered so that I could have seen it.

Also, re: N/L split- it won't until Camden, no?


----------



## Manchester77

davidaiow said:


> Tubeman! You're much younger than I imagined! I completely forgot this was going on- I wish I'd remembered so that I could have seen it.
> 
> Also, re: N/L split- it won't until Camden, no?


That's is correct as capacity and interchange is poor at Camden town.


----------



## CairnsTony

Manchester77 said:


> That's is correct as capacity and interchange is poor at Camden town.


As I understood it, one of the biggest passenger flow problems at Camden Town was people stopping to check the arrivals board to see which platform to head for thus clogging up the passageway. With separation of the lines they wouldn't need to do this anymore plus the track infrastructure is fine as it is. 

I know Camden Town needs a rebuild because it is no longer fit for purpose but can the lines not be separated sooner?


----------



## Tubeman

London Underground said:


> With all the preservated railways in the UK, this is your first steam train journey? Cool!


I know... To be honest I'm not a huge steam nut... but I got the bug a bit on Sunday. Steam preservation is making way a little for diesel now, as enthusiasts who actually grew up with steam die out. Diesel galas are becoming ever more popular.

I've said this elsewhere before, but I wish that the Epping-Ongar Railway was re-electrified and became a unique LT preserved railway. I'd love to ride 38 Stocks, A Stocks, and whatever else is still in working condition... Plus Met No.1 and the Chesham coaches / car 393 can become a permanent fixture, Sarah Siddons, etc...


----------



## Tubeman

davidaiow said:


> Tubeman! You're much younger than I imagined! I completely forgot this was going on- I wish I'd remembered so that I could have seen it.
> 
> Also, re: N/L split- it won't until Camden, no?


It's happening again next Sunday 20th, let me know if you want the details of the train working (it'll be the evening only, nothing in daylight hours I'm afraid).


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> I know... To be honest I'm not a huge steam nut... but I got the bug a bit on Sunday.


One can't escape the steam bug.



Tubeman said:


> Steam preservation is making way a little for diesel now, as enthusiasts who actually grew up with steam die out. Diesel galas are becoming ever more popular.


That is a shame... I may be a huge diesel fan, but i am crazy about steam engines. I might not actually want to work in the cab of one, but seeing them flying down the line at high speed, blowing steam hundreds of feet up in the air... It's an indescribable feeling.



Tubeman said:


> I've said this elsewhere before, but I wish that the Epping-Ongar Railway was re-electrified and became a unique LT preserved railway. I'd love to ride 38 Stocks, A Stocks, and whatever else is still in working condition... Plus Met No.1 and the Chesham coaches / car 393 can become a permanent fixture, Sarah Siddons, etc...


That would be awesome. Might be a bit tight on space, but that could be fixed.


----------



## NCT

Tubeman said:


> It's happening again next Sunday 20th, let me know if you want the details of the train working (it'll be the evening only, nothing in daylight hours I'm afraid).


Will you be stewarding again Tubes?


----------



## davidaiow

Tubeman said:


> It's happening again next Sunday 20th, let me know if you want the details of the train working (it'll be the evening only, nothing in daylight hours I'm afraid).


That would be brilliant if you could! Thanks. I'd love to get a glimpse.


----------



## Tubeman

NCT said:


> Will you be stewarding again Tubes?


No, I had my turn last Sunday


----------



## Tubeman

davidaiow said:


> That would be brilliant if you could! Thanks. I'd love to get a glimpse.


Timetable for 20th January 2013:

Met No. 1 Steam locomotive (for first 6 minutes only)

Hauled by Sarah Siddons electric locomotive
Depart Kensington Olympia: 18.19
Arrive Moorgate: 18.56

Met No. 1 Steam locomotive

Hauled by Sarah Siddons electric locomotive for return journey
Shuttle service from Moorgate to Edgware Road
Depart Moorgate: 19.15
Arrive Moorgate: 19.52

Met No. 1 Steam locomotive

Hauled by Sarah Siddons electric locomotive for return journey
Shuttle service from Moorgate to Edgware Road
Depart Moorgate: 20.25
Arrive Moorgate: 21.02

Met No. 1 Steam locomotive

Hauled by Sarah Siddons electric locomotive for return journey
Shuttle service from Moorgate to Edgware Road
Depart Moorgate: 21.35
Arrive Moorgate: 22.12

Met No. 1 Steam locomotive

Final run from Moorgate to Earls Court via Edgware Road
Depart Moorgate: 22.35
Arrive Earls Court: 23.05 (the continues to reverse at Olympia and stable in Lillie Bridge)


----------



## MiaM

Tubeman said:


> I've said this elsewhere before, but I wish that the Epping-Ongar Railway was re-electrified and became a unique LT preserved railway. I'd love to ride 38 Stocks, A Stocks, and whatever else is still in working condition... Plus Met No.1 and the Chesham coaches / car 393 can become a permanent fixture, Sarah Siddons, etc...


I totally agree. If that would eventually happend, how would stock transfers of SSL stock work? Perhaps a connection between LU and NR north of Stratford, where the northern tunnel mouths are on the tunnels for Central Line northeast of Stratford?


Otherwise:
How about running more museum/veteran trains on Northfields-Acton Town?

That stretch is near the museum depot and has four tracks even though only one branch of the Picadilly line runs regulary there. (Yes, I know that all four tracks are used for exampe for movements to/from the depot at Northfields, but the operational problems if a museum/veteran train would break down would probably be far less than at any other place on the network).

With some alterations at Acton Town the museum/veteran trains might even be able to have their own platform (but that would probably involve some demolition and rebuilding of non-rail infrastructure)


----------



## London Underground

MiaM said:


> I totally agree. If that would eventually happend, how would stock transfers of SSL stock work? Perhaps a connection between LU and NR north of Stratford, where the northern tunnel mouths are on the tunnels for Central Line northeast of Stratford?


Truck transport perhaps?



MiaM said:


> Otherwise:
> How about running more museum/veteran trains on Northfields-Acton Town?
> 
> That stretch is near the museum depot and has four tracks even though only one branch of the Picadilly line runs regulary there. (Yes, I know that all four tracks are used for exampe for movements to/from the depot at Northfields, but the operational problems if a museum/veteran train would break down would probably be far less than at any other place on the network).
> 
> With some alterations at Acton Town the museum/veteran trains might even be able to have their own platform (but that would probably involve some demolition and rebuilding of non-rail infrastructure)


Sounds like a pretty good plan to me.


----------



## Harrington

Dear Tube Man,

Which is your favourite London Underground line and why?

Regards,

Harrington


----------



## Tubeman

MiaM said:


> I totally agree. If that would eventually happend, how would stock transfers of SSL stock work? Perhaps a connection between LU and NR north of Stratford, where the northern tunnel mouths are on the tunnels for Central Line northeast of Stratford?
> 
> 
> Otherwise:
> How about running more museum/veteran trains on Northfields-Acton Town?
> 
> That stretch is near the museum depot and has four tracks even though only one branch of the Picadilly line runs regulary there. (Yes, I know that all four tracks are used for exampe for movements to/from the depot at Northfields, but the operational problems if a museum/veteran train would break down would probably be far less than at any other place on the network).
> 
> With some alterations at Acton Town the museum/veteran trains might even be able to have their own platform (but that would probably involve some demolition and rebuilding of non-rail infrastructure)


The big problem with running over the Central Line is signalling incompatibility, as it's ATO. The connection you describe at Leyton was in situ until the early 1970's, in fact British Rail used to run a token diesel service to Epping until 1970 (just the first train in the morning), and goods trains ran to several stations on the Epping branch and Hainault Loop until the mid-1960's.

Now all the conventional signals have been long removed, any heritage trains and Central Line cannot mix. One option which is workable is to carry out transfers after all Central Line services have ceased for the night, essentially take out a 'possession' of the line from Leyton to Epping and run the train under no signals (acceptable as long as the train is 'locked in' and the only one on the line).

Your second suggestion has occurred to me before also, and is a great one... I think it's pretty work-able to be honest, and has the added benefit of conventional signalling. Passengers could board heritage trains at Northfields in the eastbound 'slow' platforms, where they could idle for as long as is needed as they're not blocking anything, they could run to Acton Town and reverse via the East Sidings and back to Northfields (reversing again via the depot). The only conflicts with regular train movements would be at Acton Town where the trains would run through the eastbound District platform (only 7 tph) and cross the eastbound Piccadilly to access the sidings, then crossing the westbound Picc on the way back out. Assuming this would be weekends, I don't think it poses much of a headache operationally.

I think LU have missed a bit of a trick in terms of preserving its trains. As far as I am aware, the only electric stock preserved and in working order (aside from Sarah Siddons) is a 4-car '38 stock (ignoring the track recording and rail adhesion trains). I'm not sure if any surface stock is in working order? At very least an A, a C and a D stock should be preserved from the current S Stock roll-out... perhaps with the corporate livery cleaned off and the trains restored to original bare aluminium.

It's a shame, there have been some beautiful surface stocks like the R, CO/CP, F, Q, etc... Single motor cars survive, but we'll never see them running again.


----------



## MiaM

Tubeman said:


> I think LU have missed a bit of a trick in terms of preserving its trains. As far as I am aware, the only electric stock preserved and in working order (aside from Sarah Siddons) is a 4-car '38 stock (ignoring the track recording and rail adhesion trains). I'm not sure if any surface stock is in working order? At very least an A, a C and a D stock should be preserved from the current S Stock roll-out... perhaps with the corporate livery cleaned off and the trains restored to original bare aluminium.


This is just a guess, but I think there is a correlation between how hard it seems to be to get train paths for heritage/museum trains and lack of preserved working stock.

Other rail wehicles and trams are preserved in working order here and there because there are dedicated museum/veteran infrastructure to run on. Noone except health&safety and the board/owners of the museum/veteran organisation can say "stop, you cannot restore and run that train/tram". With underground stock there is no other infrastructure except TfL's and they can do as they please and always being able to hide behind a number of reasons to deny museum/veteran trains to run on their infrastructure.

We have the same problem in Sweden/Stockholm. There is one museum/heritage underground train (with just four cars, of different but compatible stocks) that is taken out on a few runs sometimes and then it just sits in a depot for a few years becaus of all kinds of buerocratic and organisational reasons. The last silly thing was that the train is owned by SL ("Stockholms TfL") and while they have permission from the rail authority to run trains they don't have permission to run trains with passengers (because it's only their contractors who run ordinary passenger trains and they in turn of course have permission to run trains with passengers). At the same time we have loads of different locomotives, rail cars and trams preserved in working order around the country, some running on their own infrastructure and some on infrastructure shared with ordinary trains/trams.

This is why a re-electrified Epping-Ongar would be so great.

Could perhaps one of the Northfields - Acton Town tracks somehow be transfered to the museum? (Single train working on that track) or are all four tracks needed?


----------



## Piltup Man

In Marseille, we have no trouble running our heritage tube trains... that's because all the trains are no more recent than 1976 and 1983! (the metro dates from 1976). What with the orange and brown plastic seats and interior, it is like stepping straight into the 1970s.


----------



## Tubeman

MiaM said:


> This is just a guess, but I think there is a correlation between how hard it seems to be to get train paths for heritage/museum trains and lack of preserved working stock.
> 
> Other rail wehicles and trams are preserved in working order here and there because there are dedicated museum/veteran infrastructure to run on. Noone except health&safety and the board/owners of the museum/veteran organisation can say "stop, you cannot restore and run that train/tram". With underground stock there is no other infrastructure except TfL's and they can do as they please and always being able to hide behind a number of reasons to deny museum/veteran trains to run on their infrastructure.
> 
> We have the same problem in Sweden/Stockholm. There is one museum/heritage underground train (with just four cars, of different but compatible stocks) that is taken out on a few runs sometimes and then it just sits in a depot for a few years becaus of all kinds of buerocratic and organisational reasons. The last silly thing was that the train is owned by SL ("Stockholms TfL") and while they have permission from the rail authority to run trains they don't have permission to run trains with passengers (because it's only their contractors who run ordinary passenger trains and they in turn of course have permission to run trains with passengers). At the same time we have loads of different locomotives, rail cars and trams preserved in working order around the country, some running on their own infrastructure and some on infrastructure shared with ordinary trains/trams.
> 
> This is why a re-electrified Epping-Ongar would be so great.
> 
> Could perhaps one of the Northfields - Acton Town tracks somehow be transfered to the museum? (Single train working on that track) or are all four tracks needed?


Makes pulling off a steam engine running through London Underground tunnels with slam-door coaches well over 100 years old, during traffic hours, in passenger service, truly remarkable. We laugh about being so 'Elf n' Safety conscious in the UK, the amount of work devoted to making this happen is truly commendable.

The four tracks between Acton Town and Northfields really are not all needed, so yes equally a single road operating under single line working could work.


----------



## Tubeman

Harrington said:


> Dear Tube Man,
> 
> Which is your favourite London Underground line and why?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Harrington


I should say the Jubilee Line (as I work on it)... but for me it's definitely the District Line... I grew up next to it, travelled it to school, drove on it for 2 years, and was a Duty manager on it for 6 years... Definitely 'home'


----------



## davidaiow

Tubeman, thanks for the times. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to come on recently so completely missed it


----------



## Tubeman

There's going to be runs of this train formation all year, apparently... Although I'm not sure if there will be any more along the 1863 Metropolitan route.


----------



## Tubeman

Love this photo from my friend who's a test train operator (one of the Sarah Siddons drivers), Met No.1 in Lillie Bridge Depot in the snow










(credit to Ian Blake)


----------



## Harrington

Does the Waterloo and City line have all of its own staffing and systems or is it under the jurisdiction of another line because it is so short?


----------



## Tubeman

Harrington said:


> Does the Waterloo and City line have all of its own staffing and systems or is it under the jurisdiction of another line because it is so short?


It's operated by the Central Line, with drivers belonging to Leytonstone Depot... makes sense as they both use 1992 Stock.

It is completely isolated however, stock needs to be lifted down to Waterloo Depot one car at a time by crane... there used to be a lift on the north side of Waterloo mainline, but this was swept away by the Eurostar platforms.


----------



## London Underground

Tubeman said:


> ...but this was swept away by the Eurostar platforms.


I've always wondered why they removed that!


----------



## Manchester77

London Underground said:


> I've always wondered why they removed that!


Because it was very rarely used. It probably saw most use under NSE when they had class 487s up in waterloo for network day and then to refurbish them into NSE livery. Apart from that it would have only been used once every 10 years, it's not really worth it for that


----------



## Tubeman

It became much less relevant when the W&C was transferred from BR to LUL, as the trains are no longer compatible with the Southern Region. There's a fantastic video here of the lift in action, swapping the original 1898 stock for new trains in 1940, which ultimately lasted until the current 1992 Stock... You can see a shiny new train running towards Waterloo under its own power, as the W&C was 3rd rail.


----------



## Tubeman

...oh... and the small detail that 1992 stock cars were too long for the lift!


----------



## Christopher125

Tubeman said:


> There's going to be runs of this train formation all year, apparently... Although I'm not sure if there will be any more along the 1863 Metropolitan route.


I haven't heard of anything more involving the Bluebell's Ashbury set, the lack of secondary door locks restricts them to 25mph unfortunately. 

Chris


----------



## London Underground

*Manchester77:* And for various maintenance equipment. That i do know.

*Tubeman:* Hard to believe these days that something lasted more than a year or two in the past.
I never thought about the length of the car as a reason for its removal.


----------



## Tubeman

Christopher125 said:


> I haven't heard of anything more involving the Bluebell's Ashbury set, the lack of secondary door locks restricts them to 25mph unfortunately.
> 
> Chris


I got the impression when I did the Steward training that the formation would be kept intact and on LU metals for the Summer, but I could be mistaken.

I think it was going to be outer sections, which would be a headache along the 2-track sections of the Met... I guess maybe Harrow to Watford along the 'slow' or the Chesham shuttle?


----------



## Martin S

Tubeman said:


> ...oh... and the small detail that 1992 stock cars were too long for the lift!


By 1992, work was well underway on the Waterloo International Terminal and the lift was gone.

I was working on the refurbishment of the W & C at that time and the spur that led to the old lift was still in place but closed off. 

Part of the refurbishment works that was done ahead of the introduction of the 1992 London Underground stock was the construction of a new opening in the covered way by Spur Road, Waterloo, where the vehicles are now craned in and out.

Interesting to see the Bulleid stock when it was new. We always described travelling on the W & C as the 'white knuckle ride' as the coaches used to sway so alarmingly that you felt sure they would touch the sides of the tunnel.


----------



## Christopher125

Tubeman said:


> I got the impression when I did the Steward training that the formation would be kept intact and on LU metals for the Summer, but I could be mistaken.
> 
> I think it was going to be outer sections, which would be a headache along the 2-track sections of the Met... I guess maybe Harrow to Watford along the 'slow' or the Chesham shuttle?


Alas it seems he was mistaken, the Ashbury set is already back at the Bluebell and even without the speed restriction would presumably be needed for their services. 

According to the latest reports the 'Steam on the Met' runs will be Harrow-Amersham at up to 50mph, and will involve the 4TC set and probably the Jubilee carriage too, though locked out of use. Apparently Acton-Uxbridge is also a possibility later in the year.

Chris


----------



## ObiUbamba

When will we see security screening on the tube??


----------



## Tubeman

ObiUbamba said:


> When will we see security screening on the tube??


Never?


----------



## K-Bien

Hey!

Can you please edit the title of this thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=478266

It says "Subway" but officially Santo Domingo's mass transit system is called Metro. 

Thanks!


----------



## Tubeman

Feel free to ask me something else


----------



## Harrington

How often does engineering stock use LU lines in zone 1?

Does engineering stock travel along operational lines often, or is movement of such stock restricted to times when lines are closed?

Have you been involved in the movement of engineering stock? What operational differences are there between engineering and passenger stock?


----------



## Tubeman

Harrington said:


> How often does engineering stock use LU lines in zone 1?
> 
> Does engineering stock travel along operational lines often, or is movement of such stock restricted to times when lines are closed?
> 
> Have you been involved in the movement of engineering stock? What operational differences are there between engineering and passenger stock?


Often... certainly before and after every closure, there'll be various engineering vehicles travelling to and from site. So, say there's a weekend shutdown for track renewal, there'll be numerous trains dropping off plant, equipment and materials on site in the run up, then during the works trains bringing out old ballast, sleepers, rails, and bringing in new.

In consequence, the prime times for seeing engineers trains are late night / early morning, with a peak on Friday night and Monday morning related to weekend closures. There's no restrictions on them mixing with 'normal' trains, they all have ATP, although as they can be prone to failure more than the average passenger train and are generally pretty slow, they are kept away from the main traffic day as much as possible.

My business has always been passenger trains, so I've not had any direct involvement with engineers trains... plenty of indirect involvement however (e.g. if they delay our services). Operationally, they are no different to the average Tube train, have to abide by the same procedures, follow the same signals etc. I think there certainly used to be a peculiarity with the Victoria Line where engineers trains could not run in traffic hours as they could not operate on the old ATO system (so basically had to run in a 'possession' in engineering hours), this may have changed with the new ATO system. Certainly a couple of 'battery locos' (the familiar yellow Tube-sized locomotives which haul engineers trains) have been equipped with Jubilee (and now Northern) Line TBTC, as this allows for manual driving at line speed reading an in-cab display rather than trackside signals. The Victoria Line certainly used to have only two modes: full ATO, or manual driving at caution speed by sight alone (i.e. you're looking out for a train ahead).


----------



## Swede

Seeing as how the Crossrail 2 scheme is moving forward with a round of public consultation, have you seen any maps showing both Crossrail lines, Thameslink and the Overground? I'm thinking those put together would create a very impressive network on their own.


----------



## Tubeman

Swede said:


> Seeing as how the Crossrail 2 scheme is moving forward with a round of public consultation, have you seen any maps showing both Crossrail lines, Thameslink and the Overground? I'm thinking those put together would create a very impressive network on their own.


What, just those without the Tube? No... I've seen nothing like that

There's a few with Crossrail 1 on, like this however...


----------



## Swede

Yeah, I was thinking without the tube, or maybe the tube just as shadowy lines in the background. 
My thought was that it'd underscore the fact that those lines in and of themselves form an impressive urban rail system.


----------



## MiaM

Q1: What's your opinion on the proposed station at Old Oak Common?

Q2: How will the Ealing Broadway branch of the Central line be affected by Crossrail? Crossrail and the Central line gives almost the same travel options between Ealing Broadway and central London (i.e. the city and west end). Would more central line trains be routed to Ruislip and less to Ealing?


----------



## sotonsi

MiaM said:


> Q2: How will the Ealing Broadway branch of the Central line be affected by Crossrail? Crossrail and the Central line gives almost the same travel options between Ealing Broadway and central London (i.e. the city and west end). Would more central line trains be routed to Ruislip and less to Ealing?


Neither are that busy now: the 2007 crowding map shows 1 passenger/m^2 from West Acton to North Acton, East Acton to White City, Holland Park to Lancaster Gate and Chancery Lane to St Pauls, with 2 pass/m^2 (busy, but not officially Crowded) between Lancaster Gate and Chancery Lane. I've not listed the more crowded westbound peak flows, just eastbound.

This reduces come 2021 and 2031 to 1 pass/m^2 from Notting Hill Gate to Chancery Lane. Only the H&C/Circle and the Bakerloo north of Paddington are that empty when they arrive at zone 1.

I can't imagine that, unless there is new construction making a new branch, service levels on the Central will change much with Crossrail, which relieves both branches (passengers approaching the Ruislip branch from the south will approach Crossrail from the north, similar to the Heathrow branch of the Piccadilly, though with directions swapped). Perhaps more White City terminators, especially off-peak, but no extra trains to Ruislip, as it just doesn't need them.


----------



## Tubeman

MiaM said:


> Q1: What's your opinion on the proposed station at Old Oak Common?
> 
> Q2: How will the Ealing Broadway branch of the Central line be affected by Crossrail? Crossrail and the Central line gives almost the same travel options between Ealing Broadway and central London (i.e. the city and west end). Would more central line trains be routed to Ruislip and less to Ealing?


Q1: It's evidently pointless unless HS2 gets built, and even then I'd think that having an additional stop a couple of miles out from Euston will defeat the point of it being a high speed route to an extent. Really the whole idea is to compensate for HS2 not having a branch to Heathrow airport by interchanging with Crossrail, but I think the thought of having to board a commuter train with your luggage in order to change at OOC onto HS2 would be a pretty big deterrent to passengers travelling to Heathrow from the Midlands / North.

Q2: We have a similar question re: the Jubilee Line and Canary Wharf... It goes without saying that Crossrail will be an attractive alternative, but bearing in mind projected population and consequent Tube travel growth, in reality all that will probably happen will be a temporary dent in passenger numbers, perhaps from pre-2018 levels back to 2013 levels. The main issue with reducing the number of Ealing Broadway trains is lack of reversing space between North Acton and West Ruislip, in essence the Ealing Broadway stub becomes a glorified turnback facility, as certainly West Acton is a sleepy station on a suburban road.


----------



## Manchester77

Read somewhere that Old Oak Common was to be used as HS2s terminal while Euston was rebuilt but though that Eustons rebuilding would be times to finish in time for the opening of phase one of HS2 including delays?


----------



## Tubeman

Had a grand day out visiting First Great Western today, rode to Greenford and back on a Thames Turbo and Reading and back on an IC125


----------



## Acemcbuller

Very nice Tubeman!

What if any rules does LU have regarding 'reasonable use' around use of the tube for moving freight? This question was prompted by seeing someone on a platform today with what looked like a carpet on a handcart!


----------



## Swede

With the S-stock now starting to roll out on the circle line, how are the S-stock doing in terms of over-coming any initial reliability issues?


----------



## future.architect

Señor Tubeman

A few questions,

What is your private opinion on the Holland Park incident a few weeks ago:






Also, is there any more information on the timescales for the S stock introduction on the Circle and District line?


----------



## Manchester77

It's in full service on the circle line now. There's a fair few S7s currently sat at Derby (or there was last time I checked the TfL forum thingy) so I'd imagine once delivered the C stocks demise can really begin. I'd imagine that the next few WTT will phase in more S Stocks for the district line, currently the only S Stock working is Train 753 West Ham - Earls Court / Olympia, and with S Stocks seen in day light on the Wimbledon Branch I'd imagine that'd be one if the first places of S Stock take over in the district


----------



## BringMe

Sr tubeman

Does the London underground have any semi underground line? for example the first lines who were built from the above?


----------



## Swede

BringMe said:


> Sr tubeman
> 
> Does the London underground have any semi underground line? for example the first lines who were built from the above?


What do you mean by "semi underground"? A line that's not entirely in a tunnel? if so, then Yes, London has many such. Iirc most lines are partly at or above ground level.


----------



## BringMe

Swede said:


> What do you mean by "semi underground"? A line that's not entirely in a tunnel? if so, then Yes, London has many such. Iirc most lines are partly at or above ground level.


I mean that they are not very deep but can you please show me a few example of those that you are referring to? thanks


----------



## sotonsi

BringMe - the subsurface lines (District, Hammersmith & City, Circle and Metropolitan) in Central London were built with the cut-and-cover method.

The circle and out to Finchley Road, Earl's Court and Bow Road were built by this method.

In a few places, the cut wasn't covered.


----------



## Swede

BringMe said:


> I mean that they are not very deep but can you please show me a few example of those that you are referring to? thanks


Here's the Underground station Wembley Park (next to Wembley stadium), which is above ground:
https://maps.google.se/?ll=51.563424,-0.279534&spn=0.003212,0.004823&t=h&z=18


----------



## sotonsi

Above ground sections of Underground, excluding uncovered cut and cover tunnels on the Subsurface lines.
Bakerloo line: Queens Park - Harrow & Wealdstone
Central line: West Ruislip/Ealing Broadway - White City; Stratford; Leyton - Epping; Newbury Park - Hainault - Woodford
Circle line: Hammersmith - Paddington
District line: Ealing Broadway/Richmond - West Kensington; Bow Road - Upminster
Hammersmith & City line: Hammersmith - Paddington; Bow Road - Barking
Jubilee line: Stanmore - Finchley Road; Canning Town - Stratford
Metropolitan line: Amersham/Chesham/Watford/Uxbridge - Finchley Road
Northern line: Edgware - Golders Green; High Barnet/Mill Hill East - just north of Highgate; Morden
Piccadilly line: Uxbridge/just east of Hounslow West - Barons Court; Arnos Grove - s of Southgate; just n of Southgate - Cockfosters​
Many of these sections were originally operated as suburban rail (or were created to remove suburban rail services from the line by four-tracking it)


----------



## BringMe

thanks you guys!


----------



## Swede

BringMe said:


> thanks you guys!


I knew I'd seen a map clearly showing underground vs above ground sections somewhere. Turns out it was right here ar SSC:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=107576812&postcount=759


----------



## MiaM

AFAIK all maps on urbanrail.net have markers where the lines enter/exit tunnels. Not as clear as the "grey = underground"-map linked above, but still...

http://urbanrail.net/eu/uk/lon/all-london-map.htm


----------



## Canadian Lover

Dear tubeman, what is your opinion on Transport for London's policy of being required to purchase a second fare when transferring from bus to Tube? Here in Vancouver Canada, with the introduction of the new Compass card, we will be subject to a tax grab. Ever since the Olympics this city is getting more and more expensive.


----------



## Manchester77

London has the oyster which has been around since 2003 you just touch in when getting on a bus and then again when going through the barriers at the tube stations. Think bus fares on oyster are flat but vary for LU so you have to touch out


----------



## CharlieP

You should be good at this. 

http://www.sporcle.com/games/poco/tube-logic-puzzle


----------



## CharlieP

And this. 

http://www.sporcle.com/games/geshmonkey/cs_london-underground


----------



## isaidso

While visiting the City of Toronto website for Union Station I noticed it mention that this station handles 250,000 passengers/day. That works out to 91,250,000 passengers/year. If that's accurate, that would make it busier than any airport in the world. Is it normal for large rail terminals to be busier than main airports? It also makes me wonder how many passengers the big rail hubs in Europe handle. Surely they're well past 100,000,000?


http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=f50e962c8c3f0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD


----------



## Manchester77

I did some quick googling and comparing Waterloo SWT & Waterloo LU (Busiest Rail & Tube Stations (source TfL & Wiki)) with Heathrow and Gatwick
Waterloo SWT: 94.1 million
Waterloo LU: 57,000 (daily), 82 million (yearly)

Gatwick Airport: 34.2 (source Gatwick Website)
Heathrow Airport: 70.1 million (source Heathrow Website)

That's just some rough work but I guess in the case of Waterloo it's down the the number of people everyday who commute in from basically the entire south west and suburban London to work in the city


----------



## isaidso

Thanks so much. SWT and LU are two different modes of transportation out of the same station, Waterloo? So total yearly passengers at Waterloo would be 176.1 million? Btw, wouldn't 57,000/day translate to 20,805,000/year, not 82 million/year?


----------



## Swede

isaidso said:


> Thanks so much. SWT and LU are two different modes of transportation out of the same station, Waterloo? So total yearly passengers at Waterloo would be 176.1 million? Btw, wouldn't 57,000/day translate to 20,805,000/year, not 82 million/year?


SWT is SouthWestTrains iirc, commuter rail. 
LU is London Underground, i.e the Underground.


----------



## isaidso

Thanks.


----------



## sotonsi

isaidso said:


> SWT and LU are two different modes of transportation out of the same station, Waterloo?


Yes


> So total yearly passengers at Waterloo would be 176.1 million?


No. For instance I travelled through Waterloo twice yesterday, but would count 4 times if you add the LU and NR figures.


----------



## MiaM

Some of the SWT and LU Waterloo passengers are the same passengers, so it's not like "82+94= Waterloo total".

I would have thought that the airports had far fewer passengers. Even the bigger planes take AFAIK far fewer passengers than the trains...


----------



## nr23Derek

Happy new year tuby

The mystery of Aldwych tube station and the way it connects to the mainline of the present day Piccadilly line has taken an interesting twist with this interesting video of a guided tour of the station.






At 30' 56" there's a map of the whole station, quite a lot of which was never opened or finished. But Adlwych was clearly planned to be a big station when it was designed. 

The guide also explains how the original plan was for the mainline to come from the north to end at Aldwych (Strand) as we know, so I'm very curious as to why the tunnels don't line up at Holborn.

Derek


----------



## CNB30

Dear tubeman, Have you been to every single station?

also, about how long do you think it would take to ride the entire system on average (not necessarily the tube challenge record) taking in things such as average congestion.


----------



## MiaM

nr23Derek said:


> At 30' 56" there's a map of the whole station, quite a lot of which was never opened or finished.


That map is also on the Wikipedia page about Aldwych station


----------



## TopWatch

Señor TubeMan:

We can make an updated list, with population data of the largest cities in the world still do not have this type of service (Metro / Urban Train).


I Have This, but are data 2007:




> *ferguz*
> 
> this cities need metro or subway:
> 
> 
> *Latin America*:
> 
> Puebla
> Guatemala City
> San Salvador
> Tegucigalpa
> Managua
> San José
> Panama City 90% of Advance
> Bogotá
> Cali
> Guayaquil
> Quito Under Construction
> Lima Already Finished Line 1, under Construction Line 2
> Arequipa
> Rosario
> Cordoba
> Salvador
> La Habana
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Europe*:
> 
> Dulin
> Manchester
> Birminhgam
> Liverpool
> Zagreb
> Belgrade
> Vilnous
> Malmo
> Toulouse
> 
> 
> 
> *Asia*:
> 
> Tel Aviv
> Beirut
> Riyadh
> Dubai
> Kuwait City
> Esfahan
> Karachi
> Lahore
> Almaty
> Bangalore
> Jaipur
> Lucknow
> Dhaka
> Chittatong
> Ho Chi Minh City
> Hanoi
> Yakarta
> Surabaya
> Medan
> Bandung
> Cebu
> Chengdu
> Dalian
> Fuzhou
> Hangzhou
> Qingdao
> Kaohsiung
> 
> 
> *Africa*:
> 
> Algiers
> Casablanca
> Rabat
> Trípoli
> Lagos
> Johannesburg
> Cape Town
> Durban
> Nairobi
> Kinshasa
> Harare
> Dakar
> Dar Es-Saalam
> 
> 
> 
> *Oceania*:
> 
> Brisbane
> Perth
> Adelaida
> Auckland.


... btw, I update some Latin American Cities.


Thank you!
Saludos!


----------



## Manchester77

Liverpool have MerseyRail and manchester has metrolink which is set to become the UKs largest tram network


----------



## lightrail

Canadian Lover said:


> Dear tubeman, what is your opinion on Transport for London's policy of being required to purchase a second fare when transferring from bus to Tube? Here in Vancouver Canada, with the introduction of the new Compass card, we will be subject to a tax grab. Ever since the Olympics this city is getting more and more expensive.


Just need to correct you. If you use a pay-as-you-go card (Compass Cared in Vancouver) - the transfers will be free. If you pay on the bus with cash, then you will need to pay again to board the trains. It's a matter of technology, not really a cash grab. If you pay cash on the train, you can still get on the bus for free.

In England, there never has been any free transfer between bus and trains. And in most cases, no free transfer between buses either.


----------



## ajw373

TopWatch said:


> Señor TubeMan:
> 
> We can make an updated list, with population data of the largest cities in the world still do not have this type of service (Metro / Urban Train).
> 
> 
> I Have This, but are data 2007:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... btw, I update some Latin American Cities.
> 
> 
> Thank you!
> Saludos!


Not sure the purpose of your list, but with Oceania all 4 of the cities you mentioned, vis Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and Auckland have urban rail.

If you are talking a metro system then there are no cities in the whole of Oceania that have a metro system, though Sydney is preparing to build one from Chatswood to the north west of the city. From Chatswood to Epping they will take over the current heavy rail tunnel and convert to single deck metro and extend the line, in tunnel, on viaduct and on the ground from Epping to just beyond a suburb in the north west called Rouse Hill.


----------



## CharlieP

Hey Tubey, I came across this:










at

http://www.chegg.com/textbooks/london-railway-atlas-1st-edition-9780711031371-0711031371

I hadn't seen that cover before - was it an early draft?


----------



## Jim856796

A rail rapid transit line having one or multiple branches: Will this affect the line's frequency/headway in any way?


----------



## sotonsi

Having a branch will alter the reliability of the line, though it is more terminus capacity (how many trains can you turn around), signalling, and the capacity of the branch's junctions that will affect frequency rather that merely the branch.

In London, the Victoria line has just recently reached 34tph for an hour in the am peak - with no branches, and you won't get more down it or the Jubilee. There's lots of talk about branching tube lines reaching 32tph in the near future - even flat junctions don't seem to be too much of an issue if signalled and managed properly.

And the most frequent ever metro line was the District line 100 years ago: despite (and partially because of the need to serve) several branches, it ran at over 40tph. Of course it was much slower and less reliable because of the short headways, and so they stopped running that high level of service when the Piccadilly removed some branches in 1932. It will be 32tph come 2018, up from the current 28tph.


----------



## Jim856796

I meant will the metro line's headway have to be increased or lowered because the it has a branch line? Also, can frequencies/headways of a metro route be affected by one or more metro lines sharing the same track?

A train attempting to merge from the branch line to the main line collides with a train travelling on the main line; Can such an accident really occur? For example, a train running on the Hammersmith & City Line collides with a train running on the Circle Line. That would be tragic. hno:


----------



## Manchester77

sotonsi said:


> In London, the Victoria line has just recently reached 34tph for an hour in the am peak - with no branches, and you won't get more down it or the Jubilee. There's lots of talk about branching tube lines reaching 32tph in the near future - even flat junctions don't seem to be too much of an issue if signalled and managed properly.


The jubilee line is planned to go up the 36tph by the end of this decade as it's been mentioned in the bond street cooling program documents as well as the reason behind the OJEU for clones of the 1996 stock.



Jim856796 said:


> I meant will the metro line's headway have to be increased or lowered because the it has a branch line? Also, can frequencies/headways of a metro route be affected by one or more metro lines sharing the same track?
> 
> A train attempting to merge from the branch line to the main line collides with a train travelling on the main line; Can such an accident really occur? For example, a train running on the Hammersmith & City Line collides with a train running on the Circle Line. That would be tragic. hno:


Depends, many branches running over one section results in a higher frequency: from example the northern stretch of the circle has a higher frequency because it also interfaces with the Hammersmith and City and the met which increase the frequency. Yes because if say lines a and b share track and line a suffers a delay then trains will miss their paths through the shared section delaying line Bs trains.

No because the London Underground is signalled and fitted with many different safety systems. On the circle and Hammersmith lines you have the traditional LU tripcock system where if a train passes a signal at danger the tripcock will activate and stop the train. On lines using ATO you have ATP which protects the trains (while ATO drives them)


----------



## Jim856796

The capacity of the London Underground's S Stock is 856 passengers (in a 7-car trainset) and 1,003 (in an 8-car trainset). I would assume that these capacity figures would include both seated _and_ standing passengers?


----------



## Manchester77

Yes


----------



## Jim856796

Do some rail rapid transit lines have to be built underground because of aesthetic reasons? Also, I would think that, if a city has a high water table, having to build an overground rail rapid transit line is practically unavoidable.


----------



## sotonsi

Jim856796 said:


> Do some rail rapid transit lines have to be built underground because of aesthetic reasons?


Yes. Though aesthetics is not the only reason to build underground.


> Also, I would think that, if a city has a high water table, having to build an overground rail rapid transit line is practically unavoidable.


Yet it was London, with its sodden clay, that pionereed underground railways...


----------



## Jim856796

Any other reasons/factors in building rail transit lines underground (despite potential expenses)?


----------



## Manchester77

Jim856796 said:


> Any other reasons/factors in building rail transit lines underground (despite potential expenses)?


Could you imagine trying to put an elevated railway line through London. We're not the US with their neatly laid out roads, it's still got a medieval street plan in some places. I'd doubt so many people would want to go shopping underneath a metal bridge which would also obscure the façade of the buildings. For it to serve all our railway terminals would mean a bridge in front of their grand façades. In the case of Euston it's not much of a bother but can you imagine sitting in kings cross square under the shadow of the overhead tube line.


----------



## London Underground

Londona729 said:


> If you're spending more than 10 minutes at a station you should ask for the Station supervisor for permission


Alright, thanks for the advice.


----------



## 1084790

Accura4Matalan said:


> wtf is the tube? :?


..


----------



## metroranger

*TfL to re-zone Stratford stations*

TfL to re-zone Stratford stations

Stratford, Stratford International and Stratford High Street stations will all become part of Zone 2 from January 2016.

Transport for London will re-zone Stratford as part of the Mayor's plans to create a new cultural hub in the Queen Elizabeth Park called "Olympicopolis".

The move into Zone 2/3 will cost Transport for London about £7m annually, but it's hoped Stratford will become more accessible as part of the Olympic legacy.










The Mayor's team is searching for designers to create the so-called 'Olympicopolis' - a new cultural and educational quarter which will feature installments from Sadler's Wells and The Victoria and Albert Museum.

The idea for the new quarter on the Olympic park site is inspired by the achievements of Prince Albert, who used the proceeds of the 1851 Great Exhibition to create ‘Albertopolis’ – the 86 acre site around Exhibition Road in South Kensington.

"Our goal is to create thousands of new jobs whilst driving up the life chances and opportunities of local people to match those enjoyed across the capital. Huge progress is being made with Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park now re-opened and the planned move of the Financial Conduct Authority and Transport for London bringing 5,500 jobs to new offices into area. The launch today of a global hunt for top design talent to create a world class cultural and higher educational quarter on Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park will stimulate even further growth."

– THE MAYOR OF LONDON, BORIS JOHNSON

Olympicopolis

From ITV News


----------



## Jim856796

Is there any idea what the frequencies/headways are of some of the suburban railway networks of Oceanian and South African cities, such as Sydney, Auckland, Johannesburg, Melbourne and Cape Town?


----------



## franco53

Does anyone know a good source of photos of London's tube system? I am looking to share them on a facebook subway page. I am not crazed nor am I demented. I am an American. lol But I have worn out the collections of wikipedia and wikimedia. I am especially seeking older stuff, from before 1950, but I will be happy to see any source of anything tube related. Thank you.


----------



## Build It Up

Jim856796 said:


> Is there any idea what the frequencies/headways are of some of the suburban railway networks of Oceanian and South African cities, such as Sydney, Auckland, Johannesburg, Melbourne and Cape Town?


I can answer on behalf of Sydney: The Sydney network is pretty much a suburban commuter railway, a regional railway and an inner city metro rolled into one so frequency varies a great deal depending on which part of the network you're talking about. In the inner part of the network services are typically quite frequent - in peak 20 trains per hour, but in outer parts or where there are constraints such as sharing tracks with freight and other lines, line frequency can drop to as few as two trains per hour. There's even one line that is still only single track and therefore can only manage one service an hour!


----------



## metroranger

New signage for the tube?!

https://imgur.com/a/lUWTG


----------



## Jim856796

Which of these can carry more people: A controlled-access highway (freeway/expressway), or a single rail rapid transit line?

Assuming these factors:
* The highway and rail line are of similar length.
* Dependent on how many lanes the controlled access highway has.
* Dependent on the size of the trains on the metro line, or how many stations the metro line has.


----------



## Thorum

2200 cars per lane per hour, 800 people per subway car (in Brussels), 1 each 1.5 min (good performance), so 32000 persons.

Assuming 2 people per car (VERY optimistic), that equals about 7.5 lanes.


----------



## swimmer_spe

Mr Tubman, Could this forum be segregated into regions? It would make it easier to find the various systems.


----------

