On Jun 18, 11:03*pm, D7666 wrote:
IMHO what the Circle Line desperately needs is some kind of relief
location where trains can be regulated.




But old films are perhaps more interesting.

I'm surprised no-one commented on Cambridge Oxford with Derby
lightweights yet.

--
Nick

"D7666" wrote

But if you slightly displaced the suggested regulation locations
clockwise around the Circle, you could use *Barbican* and South Ken.
The latter has I think room for 4 tracks still within the existing
structure/cutting, although it would need some shifting around of
trackside kit.

Thus a more sensible use of the redundant ''widened lines'' going east
of Farringdon would be to diverge from the Met-City to 4 platforms
through Barbican and converge back to 2 through lines through
Moorgate. I suggest there is enough space to do this but would need a
certain amount of significant work east of Barbican to achieve.

Ideally for bifurcating working you need an island for each direction
with both platform faces going the same way - neither South Ken nor
Barbican would offer this, so any trains being recessed or tipping out
would cause passenger to have to use crossways, but I suggest overall
this is an advantage : it train X is in the existing platform train Y
is stuck in tunnel behind. With 2 platform tracks, Y might get in
allowing passengers to cross to X while Y recesses. Overall it keep
passengers moving even if one train does not.

The whole point of this suggestion is to address the fundamental weak
point of the Circle - it has zero resilience. If you have 4 track
locations it allows sort of elasticity for the operators.

Far too subtle a point for uk.railway ''but we've always done it his
way'' die hards of course.

I can just about remember South Ken with 4 District/Circle platforms. What
would be possible, and probably not too difficult, would be to put in an
additional westbound (clockwise)track and platform at South Kensington, so
that District trains have their own track, separate from the Circle, from
here through Gloucester Road. Useful when Earls Court is blocked, perhaps
with trains waiting for a change of driver, as Circle trains could overtake
the queue. Exceptionally a District train could use the Circle track to
overtake a queue if this helped regulating the service.

If the westbound (anticlockwise} track through Barbican was diverted to the
former Up Moorgate Widened line trains would simply call at the other side
of the island platform. The existing westbound line could then be used as a
recess line, or as a turnback line in either direction. At worst passengers
on an eastbound train which was being turned back would be advised to change
at Farringdon if they were travelling beyond Barbican, or have to cross the
bridge at Barbican if they weren't given or didn't heed this advice. No
worse than trains turning back at Mansion House or Tower Hill.

Peter

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:03:37 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote:
IMHO what the Circle Line desperately needs is some kind of relief
location where trains can be regulated.

Aldgate?

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

On Jun 18, 11:30*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:

I can just about remember South Ken with 4 District/Circle platforms. What
would be possible, and probably not too difficult, would be to put in an
additional westbound (clockwise)track and platform at South Kensington, so
that District trains have their own track, separate from the Circle, from
here through Gloucester Road. Useful when Earls Court is blocked, perhaps
with trains waiting for a change of driver, as Circle trains could overtake
the queue. Exceptionally a District train could use the Circle track to
overtake a queue if this helped regulating the service.

If the westbound (anticlockwise} track through Barbican was diverted to the
former Up Moorgate Widened line trains would simply call at the other side
of the island platform. The existing westbound line could then be used as a
recess line, or as a turnback line in either direction. At worst passengers
on an eastbound train which was being turned back would be advised to change
at Farringdon if they were travelling beyond Barbican, or have to cross the
bridge at Barbican if they weren't given or didn't heed this advice. No
worse than trains turning back at Mansion House or Tower Hill.


Aha!

Someone understands what I'm on about )

Agreed with all you say. South Ken and Barbican offer as much relief
to the District and Met. using the circle tracks as to the Circle
Line, and Barbican + Moorgate + Aldgate or South Ken + Earls Court +
HS Ken would give them all some serious service recovery options when
things do go astray.

--
Nick

In article ,
(Peter Masson) wrote:

I can just about remember South Ken with 4 District/Circle
platforms. What would be possible, and probably not too difficult,
would be to put in an additional westbound (clockwise)track and
platform at South Kensington, so that District trains have their
own track, separate from the Circle, from here through Gloucester
Road. Useful when Earls Court is blocked, perhaps with trains
waiting for a change of driver, as Circle trains could overtake the
queue. Exceptionally a District train could use the Circle track to
overtake a queue if this helped regulating the service.

I remember the East-facing bay at South Ken. I never saw a train in it
other than on Sundays.

I think the problem there is that the escalator to the Piccadilly
platforms has blocked part of the old District formation. The old
Eastbound District platform is still available, though. That would allow
separation of District and Circle again.

If the westbound (anticlockwise} track through Barbican was
diverted to the former Up Moorgate Widened line trains would simply
call at the other side of the island platform. The existing
westbound line could then be used as a recess line, or as a
turnback line in either direction. At worst passengers on an
eastbound train which was being turned back would be advised to
change at Farringdon if they were travelling beyond Barbican, or
have to cross the bridge at Barbican if they weren't given or
didn't heed this advice. No worse than trains turning back at
Mansion House or Tower Hill.

Given the track layouts at Farringdon and Moorgate, how easy would it be
to use to old Widened Lines Barbican up platform as a loop?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , Peter Masson
wrote:
I can just about remember South Ken with 4 District/Circle platforms.
What would be possible, and probably not too difficult, would be to put
in an additional westbound (clockwise)track and platform at South
Kensington, so that District trains have their own track, separate from
the Circle, from here through Gloucester Road. Useful when Earls Court
is blocked, perhaps with trains waiting for a change of driver, as
Circle trains could overtake the queue. Exceptionally a District train
could use the Circle track to overtake a queue if this helped
regulating the service.

This arrangement already exists, just starting immediately west of South
Kensington rather that immediately east of it. I'm not at all convinced
that the extra platform at SK would have benefit.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

"Martin Rich" wrote

also wondered what sort of freight, apart from meat to and from
Smithfield, would have used the lines in the 1950s.

Freight through to the Southern. 51 southbound trips a day in 1951 (I am not
sure whether this includes trains to Smithfield). A bank engine was
maintained at Farringdon to assist trains up to Ludgate Hill.

Peter

On 21 June, 12:18, wrote:
Not to sure of there locations but was it the Midland/LMS that had
owned a couple of coal yards in *South London or a bit further that
were only accessible along the tracks of southern companies? Would
they have been a source of traffic for the Widened Lines route?

Also when did pre-Thameslink-revival passenger services stop running
over the Farringdon to/from Southern Region section, what services
were latterly provided and by which BR Region(s) - or if pre-BR which
Railway Company(ies) provided the services?

--
gordon

In article
,
() wrote:

On 21 June, 12:18, wrote:
Not to sure of there locations but was it the Midland/LMS that had
owned a couple of coal yards in *South London or a bit further that
were only accessible along the tracks of southern companies? Would
they have been a source of traffic for the Widened Lines route?

Also when did pre-Thameslink-revival passenger services stop running
over the Farringdon to/from Southern Region section, what services
were latterly provided and by which BR Region(s) - or if pre-BR which
Railway Company(ies) provided the services?

Were there any passenger services via the Snow Hill tunnel after the First
World war?
I didn't think there were any.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Jun 21, 12:18*pm, wrote:

Not to sure of there locations but was it the Midland/LMS that had
owned a couple of coal yards in *South London or a bit further that
were only accessible along the tracks of southern companies?

There were, but by far the *bulk* of traffic carried was simply cross
London inter marshalling yard traffic, not to loading/unloading yards
handling coal or other commodities.


--
Nick