In message , Steve Fitzgerald
] writes
Oh no, but you do have to be in possession of a 'Wrong Direction Move
Form'
This sounds very similar to the "Wrong Line Orders" that used to be used
on BR.
--
Clive

Clive wrote:
In message , Steve Fitzgerald
] writes
Oh no, but you do have to be in possession of a 'Wrong Direction Move
Form'
This sounds very similar to the "Wrong Line Orders" that used to be
used on BR.

Same principle, different railway etc.

On 9 Jun 2005 02:45:35 -0700, "Boltar" wrote:

The queue in such a situation would be jam all the way back to White
City as that is the next nearest turning point. Reversing trains

I don't know if this is an issue on the central line but it does seem
on
some lines that some connects between the running lines have been
removed for no obvious reason , leading to less flexibility in the
service
if theres a screw up. Convent garden on the piccadilly line spings to
mind , not to mention the connection at finsbury park being lost due to
the victoria line using an ex-picc tunnel. So if theres a problem on
the line you get huge sections closed. Doesn't seem like a good
situation.

The real solution, of course, is to get the reliability and resilience
of the railway up so that failures don't happen or if they do they have
a much smaller impact because there are back up systems in place. This
is the Japanese philosophy but it is expensive.

In terms of turnbacks and crossovers - yes they can be a help but you do
need to consider what happens to the passengers at the end of a closed
part of line. I would not want to see trains terminating at Covent
Garden - the place can hardly cope with normal passenger flows. If you
look at the Jubilee Line - which has a lot of turnbacks and sidings on
old and new sections - you will see that that added flexibility does not
always provide a guarantee of quick service recovery. It does help but
it would be better not to fail in the first place. I understand that a
range of options per line are being assessed at present to boost
operational flexibility and service recovery - this includes
reinstatement of crossovers etc.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
news
In terms of turnbacks and crossovers - yes they can be a help but you do
need to consider what happens to the passengers at the end of a closed
part of line. I would not want to see trains terminating at Covent
Garden - the place can hardly cope with normal passenger flows.

I know Covent Garden isn't the most ideal place, but the Picc really does
need some form of turn-back facility in the long section between Hyde Park
Corner and King's Cross. If one of these is out of use for any reason you
have a really long length of railway closed - i.e. Hyde Park Corner to Arnos
Grove. Perhaps Covent Garden should be reinstated with trains detained at
Leicester Square or Holborn? The Picc could also do with some means of
turning eastbound trains from Heathrow back - currently there is no way of
doing this until the reception roads at Boston Manor (which us problematic
as AIUI only Acton Town drivers are trained to drive in there?), or
inconveniently at Northfields.


If you
look at the Jubilee Line - which has a lot of turnbacks and sidings on
old and new sections - you will see that that added flexibility does not
always provide a guarantee of quick service recovery. It does help but
it would be better not to fail in the first place. I understand that a
range of options per line are being assessed at present to boost
operational flexibility and service recovery - this includes
reinstatement of crossovers etc.

IME there seems to be a reluctance to use facilities even where they exist.
Even for pre-planned closures the areas of suspension seem to get wider and
wider, and not long ago I witnessed an occasion where Northern Line trains
were being reversed south-to-north at Stockwell due to an incident and yet
were not taking passengers northbound, causing massive congestion and
needless inconvenience. It has taken ten years to commission the Central
Line's crossover at Queensway, which I'm sure would have proved useful on
occasions where something has gone wrong at White City. And as far as the
Jubilee Line is concerned, whenever there is engineering work east of Canary
Wharf they only ever seem to reverse in one platform (providing a
6-minute-interval service), when reversals in both are possible.

David Splett wrote:

I know Covent Garden isn't the most ideal place, but the Picc really does
need some form of turn-back facility in the long section between Hyde Park
Corner and King's Cross. If one of these is out of use for any reason you
have a really long length of railway closed - i.e. Hyde Park Corner to
Arnos Grove.

Is there anyway that the Aldwych branch could be adapted for the purpose? Or
does that require too much work to justify?

Is there anyway that the Aldwych branch could be adapted for the purpose? Or
does that require too much work to justify?

Probably not realistic since it only links to the northbound main line
and at
holborn the north and southbound lines are at different levels so you'd
need some sloping tunnel to be bored to link up with the southbound
line. Far too expensive.

B2003

Boltar wrote:

Is there anyway that the Aldwych branch could be adapted for the purpose?
Or
does that require too much work to justify?

Probably not realistic since it only links to the northbound main line and
at
holborn the north and southbound lines are at different levels so you'd
need some sloping tunnel to be bored to link up with the southbound
line. Far too expensive.

Is it me or did someone set out to make the Aldwych branch next to useless
for the main Picadilly line?

In message , Tim Roll-Pickering
writes

Is it me or did someone set out to make the Aldwych branch next to useless
for the main Picadilly line?

Not really ... it was more historical accident. The Piccadilly started
life as two separate lines - one from Brompton to Piccadilly and the
other from Wood Green to Aldwych. Before they were finished, these two
schemes were linked by a line between Piccadilly and Holborn, creating
the first portion of what came to be called the Piccadilly line - the
consequence of this change of plan left the short stub from Holborn to
Aldwych as a none-too-useful branch.

--
Paul Terry

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Boltar wrote:

Is there anyway that the Aldwych branch could be adapted for the
purpose? Or
does that require too much work to justify?

Probably not realistic since it only links to the northbound main
line and at
holborn the north and southbound lines are at different levels so
you'd need some sloping tunnel to be bored to link up with the
southbound
line. Far too expensive.

Is it me or did someone set out to make the Aldwych branch next to
useless for the main Picadilly line?

It a remnant of the original railway from north London. The Piccadilly is
actually made up of three separate railway schemes. The first was a deep
level tube railway running under the existing District Railway to provide
express services. The second was the Piccadilly & Brompton Rly intended to
run from Air Street (near Piccadilly Circus) to a junction with the deep
level District at South Kensington and the third was the Great Northern &
Strand which was to run from Wood Green Great Northern Railway station under
the GNR to Kings Cross and over the present alignment to Strand (now
Aldwych) station.

Upon electrification the District gained sufficient capacity that they
didn't need to built the deep level line and the three schemes (icluding the
District Railway company) were bought up and combined by Charles Tyson
Yerkes, an American financier. A section was added between Piccadilly Circus
and Holborn and the section north of Finsbury Park abandoned. Hence the stub
that is the Aldwych Branch.

Paul Terry wrote:

Is it me or did someone set out to make the Aldwych branch next to useless
for the main Picadilly line?

Not really ... it was more historical accident. The Piccadilly started
life as two separate lines - one from Brompton to Piccadilly and the other
from Wood Green to Aldwych. Before they were finished, these two schemes
were linked by a line between Piccadilly and Holborn, creating the first
portion of what came to be called the Piccadilly line - the consequence of
this change of plan left the short stub from Holborn to Aldwych as a
none-too-useful branch.

Perhaps - but I recall other sections of the original railways were planned
and never built. And this doesn't explain why the Aldwych branch wasn't
properly linked to the network (surely linking to the southbound tunnel as
well would have made sense?) or why the platforms were left so short, making
a through service a non starter.