"Spyke" wrote in message ...

On 29/01/2013 11:18, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

Rumours are that this will become a permanent arrangement this summer.

Here's hoping. I've often found the lack of a W&C a real pain when the
Jubilee is down on Sundays or in the evenings. Neither Oxford Circus nor
Tottenham Court Road are particularly easy interchanges between the
Central
and Waterloo-bound lines when tourist crushed.

Would be nice if they could provide the full weekday service before
worrying about Sundays.
Queues back beyond the top of the ramps at Waterloo at 9am today, which
usually means at least one train out of service.
Who on earth thought running a timetable that required 100% availability
was a good idea?

So you would rather they always ran a four train service, even when all five
trains are available? It seems better to run five trains when possible, and
accept that sometimes one will be out of service.

Peter Smyth

On 29/01/2013 19:45, Peter Smyth wrote:

Would be nice if they could provide the full weekday service before
worrying about Sundays.
Queues back beyond the top of the ramps at Waterloo at 9am today,
which usually means at least one train out of service.
Who on earth thought running a timetable that required 100%
availability was a good idea?

So you would rather they always ran a four train service, even when all
five trains are available? It seems better to run five trains when
possible, and accept that sometimes one will be out of service.


By all means, use all 5 when available. However, during the 2006
'upgrade', commuters were sold a 'capacity increase', which was actually
nothing more than sweating the existing assets by requiring 100% train
availability. This was never going to be realistic in the long term,
especially given the reliability of 1992 stock and the limited
maintenance facilities available.

If TfL had wanted to provide a genuine capacity increase, they should've
looked at increasing train lengths (plenty of spare platform at both
ends) or improving the signalling to allow tighter headways and faster
platform reoccupation, instead of the trains crawling along and waiting
at signals or in the depot as they do now.

The W&C seems the ideal application for ATO, or even driverless trains.
You could even have a human responsible for dispatching the trains at
each station, and still save on staff.

On 30/01/2013 02:23, Spyke wrote:
On 29/01/2013 19:45, Peter Smyth wrote:

Would be nice if they could provide the full weekday service before
worrying about Sundays.
Queues back beyond the top of the ramps at Waterloo at 9am today,
which usually means at least one train out of service.
Who on earth thought running a timetable that required 100%
availability was a good idea?

So you would rather they always ran a four train service, even when all
five trains are available? It seems better to run five trains when
possible, and accept that sometimes one will be out of service.


By all means, use all 5 when available. However, during the 2006
'upgrade', commuters were sold a 'capacity increase', which was actually
nothing more than sweating the existing assets by requiring 100% train
availability. This was never going to be realistic in the long term,
especially given the reliability of 1992 stock and the limited
maintenance facilities available.

I thought that it was summer 2005 when they shut the line for upgrading.

On 30/01/2013 13:23, wrote:
On 30/01/2013 02:23, Spyke wrote:
On 29/01/2013 19:45, Peter Smyth wrote:


I thought that it was summer 2005 when they shut the line for upgrading.

Pretty sure it was 2006, as I know it was after I started working in the
City in October 2005.

On 30/01/2013 20:20, Spyke wrote:
On 30/01/2013 13:23, wrote:
On 30/01/2013 02:23, Spyke wrote:
On 29/01/2013 19:45, Peter Smyth wrote:


I thought that it was summer 2005 when they shut the line for upgrading.

Pretty sure it was 2006, as I know it was after I started working in the
City in October 2005.

So it was.

"Spyke" wrote in message ...

On 29/01/2013 19:45, Peter Smyth wrote:

Would be nice if they could provide the full weekday service before
worrying about Sundays.
Queues back beyond the top of the ramps at Waterloo at 9am today,
which usually means at least one train out of service.
Who on earth thought running a timetable that required 100%
availability was a good idea?

So you would rather they always ran a four train service, even when all
five trains are available? It seems better to run five trains when
possible, and accept that sometimes one will be out of service.

By all means, use all 5 when available. However, during the 2006 'upgrade',
commuters were sold a 'capacity increase', which was actually nothing more
than sweating the existing assets by requiring 100% train availability.
This was never going to be realistic in the long term, especially given the
reliability of 1992 stock and the limited maintenance facilities available.

If TfL had wanted to provide a genuine capacity increase, they should've
looked at increasing train lengths (plenty of spare platform at both ends)
or improving the signalling to allow tighter headways and faster platform
reoccupation, instead of the trains crawling along and waiting at signals
or in the depot as they do now.

But they did improve the signalling during the closure - hence why they can
now run five trains at once instead of four trains.

As for increasing train lengths, I suspect the main constraint is the very
limited depot space available for stabling rather than the actual platforms.

Peter Smyth

On 30/01/2013 23:36, Peter Smyth wrote:
"Spyke" wrote in message ...

On 29/01/2013 19:45, Peter Smyth wrote:

Would be nice if they could provide the full weekday service before
worrying about Sundays.
Queues back beyond the top of the ramps at Waterloo at 9am today,
which usually means at least one train out of service.
Who on earth thought running a timetable that required 100%
availability was a good idea?

So you would rather they always ran a four train service, even when all
five trains are available? It seems better to run five trains when
possible, and accept that sometimes one will be out of service.

By all means, use all 5 when available. However, during the 2006
'upgrade', commuters were sold a 'capacity increase', which was
actually nothing more than sweating the existing assets by requiring
100% train availability. This was never going to be realistic in the
long term, especially given the reliability of 1992 stock and the
limited maintenance facilities available.

If TfL had wanted to provide a genuine capacity increase, they
should've looked at increasing train lengths (plenty of spare platform
at both ends) or improving the signalling to allow tighter headways
and faster platform reoccupation, instead of the trains crawling along
and waiting at signals or in the depot as they do now.

But they did improve the signalling during the closure - hence why they
can now run five trains at once instead of four trains.

As for increasing train lengths, I suspect the main constraint is the
very limited depot space available for stabling rather than the actual
platforms.

Peter Smyth

Err ... the platforms at Bank can only take four-car trains.

In article , () wrote:

On 30/01/2013 23:36, Peter Smyth wrote:
"Spyke" wrote in message ...

On 29/01/2013 19:45, Peter Smyth wrote:

Would be nice if they could provide the full weekday service before
worrying about Sundays.
Queues back beyond the top of the ramps at Waterloo at 9am today,
which usually means at least one train out of service.
Who on earth thought running a timetable that required 100%
availability was a good idea?

So you would rather they always ran a four train service, even when
all five trains are available? It seems better to run five trains when
possible, and accept that sometimes one will be out of service.

By all means, use all 5 when available. However, during the 2006
'upgrade', commuters were sold a 'capacity increase', which was
actually nothing more than sweating the existing assets by requiring
100% train availability. This was never going to be realistic in the
long term, especially given the reliability of 1992 stock and the
limited maintenance facilities available.

If TfL had wanted to provide a genuine capacity increase, they
should've looked at increasing train lengths (plenty of spare platform
at both ends) or improving the signalling to allow tighter headways
and faster platform reoccupation, instead of the trains crawling along
and waiting at signals or in the depot as they do now.

But they did improve the signalling during the closure - hence why they
can now run five trains at once instead of four trains.

As for increasing train lengths, I suspect the main constraint is the
very limited depot space available for stabling rather than the actual
platforms.

Err ... the platforms at Bank can only take four-car trains.

Really? How did they manage with 5-car trains of 1940 stock?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 30/01/2013 23:36, Peter Smyth wrote:

But they did improve the signalling during the closure - hence why they
can now run five trains at once instead of four trains.

As for increasing train lengths, I suspect the main constraint is the
very limited depot space available for stabling rather than the actual
platforms.


My understanding is that the signalling was replaced like-for-like
rather than there being a fundamental redesign.

I believe 5 car trains of the old (1940) stock were possible, but the
individual cars were slightly shorter than those of the 1992 stock, and
the platforms at Bank have since been reduced in length to give longer
safety overlaps.

Perhaps the Southern railway had it right with the 1940 stock, with a
mixture of motor and trailer coaches that could be remarshalled as
needed so a failure on one car wouldn't take out a whole train set!

wrote:
In article , () wrote:

On 30/01/2013 23:36, Peter Smyth wrote:
"Spyke" wrote in message ...

On 29/01/2013 19:45, Peter Smyth wrote:

Would be nice if they could provide the full weekday service before
worrying about Sundays.
Queues back beyond the top of the ramps at Waterloo at 9am today,
which usually means at least one train out of service.
Who on earth thought running a timetable that required 100%
availability was a good idea?

So you would rather they always ran a four train service, even when
all five trains are available? It seems better to run five trains when
possible, and accept that sometimes one will be out of service.

By all means, use all 5 when available. However, during the 2006
'upgrade', commuters were sold a 'capacity increase', which was
actually nothing more than sweating the existing assets by requiring
100% train availability. This was never going to be realistic in the
long term, especially given the reliability of 1992 stock and the
limited maintenance facilities available.

If TfL had wanted to provide a genuine capacity increase, they
should've looked at increasing train lengths (plenty of spare platform
at both ends) or improving the signalling to allow tighter headways
and faster platform reoccupation, instead of the trains crawling along
and waiting at signals or in the depot as they do now.

But they did improve the signalling during the closure - hence why they
can now run five trains at once instead of four trains.

As for increasing train lengths, I suspect the main constraint is the
very limited depot space available for stabling rather than the actual
platforms.

Err ... the platforms at Bank can only take four-car trains.

Really? How did they manage with 5-car trains of 1940 stock?

I don't think you can have 5-car 1992 stock trains, as they are made up of
sets of two car units.