In article , Steve Fitzgerald
] writes
Or is there a logical explanation for this instruction?
Perhaps the train was withdrawn as defective?

I don't think so. The driver announced it as "control has told me", not
"there's a problem with the train". Oh, and the signal was red until
part way through the detrainment (until then I'd assumed it was going
into the siding).

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article , Mike Bristow
writes
I've seen southbound train terminate at East Fincley often[1], but
I've never seen a southbound train terminate at Finchley Central.

I have, but only either in platform 1 or to then go into the siding.

A failure of equipment which makes the train unsutable for passenger
use between West Finchley and Finchley Central? At that point it's
probably better to run empty to the depot than run into the nearest
siding and try and fix it there.

See previous post.

[1] I go from Finchley to Archway, and as almost all southbound
trains at Finchley go at least that far, I usually ignore the
platform indicator. This means I get on the fisrt southbound train,
and occasionally change at East Finchley. I've done this perhaps
five or six times in the last year.

There's a scheduled one somewhere in the early evening; about 6pm, I
think.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

But how would going one extra stop and then detraining avoid any
hold up? It would just mean the hold up would be delayed by a couple of
minutes.

Why do I think someone doesn't know the track layout at East Finchley?

Hey thats why I was asking! The basic answer would have to be, there
is a reason. Whether its obvious to punters or not, LU aren't going to
cause chaos just for fun.

Like its been said, it was quite possibly a defective train, and in
such instances it would be unsafe to keep the train in customer service.

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote
Mike Bristow writes
Pedantically, Finchley Central has three plaform faces; two of which
can be used by southbound trains (I think: can a north-to-south
reversal be done by a train running south from platform 2?

No, it can't. I'm 96% sure (the signalling plan isn't with me) that the
arrangements a
[almost accurate details snipped]

I'm amused by your "96%". Most people would have typed 90 or 99 without
thinking about the accuracy. How did you arrive at 96?

Quail suggests you can't get to 1 from the south siding.

Reason 99.9% most likely because the train HAD to be emptied at that
station because of a defect. As you say if it was possible the
Controller would run the train to East Finchley to tip it out to save
congestion behind it.

Second memo to Northern Line controller: why on earth do you choose to
run six trains via Charing Cross in ten minutes, with none via Bank? I
was at Kentish Town at 2210 on Friday night, thinking I'd left ample
time to get to London Bridge by 2249. At Kentish Town station had an
eight minute wait for a train, which was a Charing Cross one. The next
two were also Charing Cross services. No problem, I thought, I'll
change at Camden Town. Got off at Camden and crossed over, to find
exactly the same situation for trains coming from Edgware. Finally a
Bank train pulled in just after 2230. By Angel it was packed worse
than peak hour. Got to London Bridge, sprinted up to the main
platforms, only got my train as it was four minutes late.

Why do the Northern Line controllers let this sort of situation arise?
It was very annoying for me, but it could have been so easily rectified
by rerouting a couple of the trains via Bank.

Patrick

Why do the Northern Line controllers let this sort of situation arise?
It was very annoying for me, but it could have been so easily rectified
by rerouting a couple of the trains via Bank.

I think the better question is why didn't they split it into 2 separate
lines?

alex_t wrote:
Why do the Northern Line controllers let this sort of situation arise?
It was very annoying for me, but it could have been so easily rectified
by rerouting a couple of the trains via Bank.

I think the better question is why didn't they split it into 2 separate
lines?

Because that would make Camden (even) unsafe(r) in the peaks and
weekend afternoons. Until Camden Town is rebuilt, the Northern Line
can't feasibly be split (Kennington is less of a problem, but I think
the peak loads even there might cause problems).

Unfortunately, assorted local NIMBYs are being troublesome about the
Camden Town redevelopment - apparently the scheme might displace the
vendors of pirated CDs and poorly-stitched T-shirts in the pikey Buck
Street market near the station (NB not the rather more worthwhile Lock
Market). So it's been rejected and is in limbo for the time being, as
are Northern Line commuters.

(see he http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/62 ; see also the
Thameslink 2K+n enquiry for other deranged "who gives a monkey's about
transport links when we've got a market to preserve?" NIMBYism holding
up essential public transport projects).

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:
alex_t wrote:
I think the better question is why didn't they split it into 2 separate
lines?

Because that would make Camden (even) unsafe(r) in the peaks and
weekend afternoons. Until Camden Town is rebuilt, the Northern Line
can't feasibly be split (Kennington is less of a problem, but I think
the peak loads even there might cause problems).

Unfortunately, assorted local NIMBYs are being troublesome about the
Camden Town redevelopment

IIRC the main problem they had was that the proposed development was
out of scale (and it certainly looks it in the first picture on the
alwaystouchout link, less so in the second). Camden Town really needs
a Mile End style flat, open platform interchange, with the two
northbound branches sharing one platform, and the other platform having
trains going southwards from both sides. I suppose the reason above
ground demolition would be "needed" is access and, maybe, to pay for
the whole redevelopment in the form of property sale & rental.

Patrick

wrote:
Unfortunately, assorted local NIMBYs are being troublesome about the
Camden Town redevelopment

IIRC the main problem they had was that the proposed development was
out of scale (and it certainly looks it in the first picture on the
alwaystouchout link, less so in the second).

I'd disagree - I think the LUL plans would have taken a pretty scabby
part of London and provided a nice new focal point, taking some of the
focus away from the hordes of weed dealers, goths and Japanese
teenagers...

Camden Town really needs
a Mile End style flat, open platform interchange, with the two
northbound branches sharing one platform, and the other platform having
trains going southwards from both sides.

Yes, this would be the ideal final layout - although a Highbury-style
interchange (ie the same cross-platform layout but in tubes) would be
functionally equivalent if a total rebuild and realignment to match
Mile End were unfeasible. I'm 95% certain that the plans involve the
latter.

I suppose the reason above
ground demolition would be "needed" is access and, maybe, to pay for
the whole redevelopment in the form of property sale & rental.

Also to provide an interim station on the Buck Street market site - but
you're right, the reason they want to build a big thing above the
station is so they can make back some of the cost of the redevelopment,
which seems fair enough.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org