district, circle and hammersmith and city lines - reorganisation idea
 

My plan for the circle, district and hammersmith and city lines (feel
free to shoot it down) is based on the following:
1)existing frenquencys should be pretty much kept to.
2)olympia should have 6 trains an hour
3)lines shouldn't have lots of branches sprouting everywhere as
confusing
4)lines should be kept reasonably short, so as to try to reduce delay

here is a current off peak service diagram for the subsurface lines
(note values such as 7.5 have been rounded up)


ham----8---edg---16
| \
14 \
| \
oly hsk ls
| | |\
4 10 8 8 8
\ / \ / \
eb-6-tg-12--ec-18-gr-26-t-12-ae-20-w-16-b-12-u
/ /
6 12
| |
rich wim


I propose these services:

4tph olympia-tower hill-hammersmith
4tph wimbledon-tower hill-hammersmith
2tph wimbledon-high street ken
4tph wimbledon-edgware road-whitechapel
2tph wimbledon-edgware road-upminster
2tph olympia-edgware road-upminster
4tph ealing broadway-tower hill
2tph ealing broadway-tower hill-barking
2tph richmond-tower hill
2tph richmond-tower hill-whitechapel
2tph richmond-tower hill-barking
8tph edgware road-tower hill-upminster

to give: -


ham----8---edg---16
| \
16 \
| \
oly hsk ls
| | |\
6 10 8 8 8
\ / \ / \
eb-6-tg-12--ec-20-gr-28-t-14-ae-22-w-16-b-12-u
/ /
6 12
| |
rich wim

richmond/ealing broadway-barking line1 green
hammersmith-wimbledon/olympia line2 yellow
olympia/wimbledon-edgware road-upminster line3 pink
edgware road-upminster line4 bright green

This gives extra trains to olympia, that go further, and keep the
current service levels about the same, cept a 2tph increase from earl's
court to whitechapel (if this bit of line doesn't cope then
olympia-high street ken shuttles could replace half of the hammersmith
to olympia service) and a 2tph increase from high street ken to edgware
road, where the line should cope.
Termini would also have the same number of trains terminating, except
olympia and whitechapel, receiving an extra 2tph terminating.

line 1 and line 4 could be shown as one line, called the District Line
(for obvious reasons), though if the District was split on the diagram
then River line for line 1 and Bazalgette (bloke that made the sewage
system) line for line 4. Line 2 and 3 are hard to name, as what could
you call them without causing confusion? "Hammersmith, City and
Wimbledon line"? a bit of a mouthful, as is "Wimbledon and Barking"
tbh. One word names are nice and easy, maybe named after a person. any
ideas on what to call them?

Simon

district, circle and hammersmith and city lines - reorganisationidea
 

simon wrote:

[snip plans for reorganisation of District, Circle and H&C lines]

One word names are nice and easy, maybe named after a person. any
ideas on what to call them?

for one:

The Livingstone Line.

--
Mark Etherington

district, circle and hammersmith and city lines - reorganisation idea
 

snip

Sounds good on paper, but the only way to prove that this would ever
work is to calculate how many trains would pass through the following
junctions at peak times:

Praed Street Junction
Gloucester Road Junction
HSK Junction
Baker Street Junction
Aldgate Junction
Minories Junction
Aldgate East Junction

If you come up with the same number of trains as the junctions
currently handle, or less, send it to TfL. If you come up with more,
scrap it.

district, circle and hammersmith and city lines - reorganisation idea
 

simon wrote:
4tph wimbledon-edgware road-whitechapel
2tph wimbledon-edgware road-upminster
2tph olympia-edgware road-upminster
8tph edgware road-tower hill-upminster

Don't forget all of these would need to be 'C' stock which has a
reduced capacity compared to 'D' stock. (and are there enough 'C'
trains?)

district, circle and hammersmith and city lines - reorganisation idea
 

simon wrote:

I propose these services:

4tph olympia-tower hill-hammersmith
4tph wimbledon-tower hill-hammersmith
2tph wimbledon-high street ken
4tph wimbledon-edgware road-whitechapel
2tph wimbledon-edgware road-upminster
2tph olympia-edgware road-upminster
4tph ealing broadway-tower hill
2tph ealing broadway-tower hill-barking
2tph richmond-tower hill
2tph richmond-tower hill-whitechapel
2tph richmond-tower hill-barking
8tph edgware road-tower hill-upminster


Yeah, it's nice to see someone thinking about how things could be
improved, but as has already been mentioned, a lot more C stocks would
be required than are available!

Basically, any of the services via Edgware Road would have to be C
stock, as the D stocks are too long to fit in the platforms (and I
believe they scrape the platforms!). I think there's also a
restriction on C stocks going any further east than Barking, although
I'm not sure of the reasons.

Then you'd also have the problem of training the drivers of the
relevant depots to learn the new parts, for example as a District man,
I don't sign the route between Edgware Road and Aldgate via Kings
Cross, and an Edgware Road driver doesn't sign the road west of
Gloucester Road (including Earl's Court).

Maybe such a re-organisation will come about when we eventually get a
generic stock on the sub-surface lines?

district, circle and hammersmith and city lines - reorganisationidea
 

(snip the idea)

Interesting idea. My personal quibble is the loss of direct trains from
South Kensington/Gloucester Road to Baker Street.

You also have 2 extra trains per hour crossing on the flat at the key
junctions (Edgware Road, Gloucester Road, Aldgate East). That may be a
problem at Gloucester Road Junction in particular unless either inner
"Circles" (i.e. Edgware Rd - Tower Hill - Upminsters) were timed to
approach Gloucester Road station at the same time outer "Circles" were
leaving for HSK - otherwise one or the other would get delayed by or
would delay eastbound "Districts" heading for Victoria.

Reinstating the second eastbound platform at Gloucester Road would help
as it would allow inner "Circles" to arrive at Gloucester Road
simultaneously with eastbound "Districts", with departures regulated
from there.

Unfortunately such a platform reinstatement would require expensive
reconstruction (narrowing) of the island platform at Gloucester Road.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

district, circle and hammersmith and city lines - reorganisation idea
 

DistrictDriver wrote:

Basically, any of the services via Edgware Road would have to be C
stock, as the D stocks are too long to fit in the platforms (and I
believe they scrape the platforms!). I think there's also a
restriction on C stocks going any further east than Barking, although
I'm not sure of the reasons.

UIVMM it's because C stock can't go as fast as D stock, so would cause
delays.

district, circle and hammersmith and city lines - reorganisation idea
 

Aidan Stanger wrote:
DistrictDriver wrote:

Basically, any of the services via Edgware Road would have to be C
stock, as the D stocks are too long to fit in the platforms (and I
believe they scrape the platforms!). I think there's also a
restriction on C stocks going any further east than Barking,
although
I'm not sure of the reasons.

UIVMM it's because C stock can't go as fast as D stock, so would
cause
delays.

I always thought it was a gauging issue at Dagenham East - some part of
the C stock kept getting smacked by a platform edging stone or railing.
I've seen C stock DMs with Upminster on their dest. blinds, so they've
definitely been there in the past.

district, circle and hammersmith and city lines - reorganisationidea
 

On 13 Feb 2005, TheOneKEA wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:
DistrictDriver wrote:

Basically, any of the services via Edgware Road would have to be C
stock, as the D stocks are too long to fit in the platforms (and I
believe they scrape the platforms!). I think there's also a
restriction on C stocks going any further east than Barking,
although I'm not sure of the reasons.

UIVMM it's because C stock can't go as fast as D stock, so would cause
delays.

I always thought it was a gauging issue at Dagenham East - some part of
the C stock kept getting smacked by a platform edging stone or railing.
I've seen C stock DMs with Upminster on their dest. blinds, so they've
definitely been there in the past.

We went over this a few weeks ago (search for "dull questions about
loading gauge"): once upon a time, there were speed restrictions on C
stock out there, due to some sort of gauge business. However, (a) trains
would have to slow down for the station starter anyway (no idea what that
means!) and (b) the business is now taken care of.

No idea about the speed thing, though. A stock to Upminster, is what i
say!

tom

--
Restate my assumptions

district, circle and hammersmith and city lines - reorganisation idea
 

Tom Anderson wrote:

We went over this a few weeks ago (search for "dull questions about
loading gauge"): once upon a time, there were speed restrictions on C
stock out there, due to some sort of gauge business. However, (a)
trains would have to slow down for the station starter anyway (no
idea what that means!) and (b) the business is now taken care of.

(a) is probably in reference to an approach-released station starter;
in a controlled area like Dagenham East (FG), the interlocking is
probably designed to clear the relevant starter after the platform
track circuit has been occupied for a short period. In an auto area, a
timer circuit is used.