Rob wrote:
This should throw up some interesting things

- on the linear map of the Hammersmith and City line
Paddington and Edgware Road appear twice

The platform descriptors at Edgware Road should be interesting.
"Terminates Here," "Edgware Road via Aldgate," "Hammersmith" and
"Hammersmith via Aldgate"

- Three lines to choose from between Gloucester Road and Hammersmith,
two stops on Piccadilly, three on the district, or 31 on the
Hammersmith and City

Not to mention that all the way from Gloucester Road to Tower Hill,
there are trains to Hammersmith in both directions, and the one
advertised as going there is most likely the slower one.

Similarly, the fastest way to Hammersmith from Bayswater, Notting Hill
Gate, and High Street Kensington is to take a train towards Hammersmith
only as far as Gloucester Road and change to a District/Piccadilly train
in the opposite direction.

David Lynch wrote:

The platform descriptors at Edgware Road should be interesting.
"Terminates Here," "Edgware Road via Aldgate," "Hammersmith" and
"Hammersmith via Aldgate"

I would imagine the "via Aldgate" trains will continue to be described as
Circle for much of their run.

In article , Tom
Anderson writes
Random PS - why didn't the Bakerloo get called the Regent Line, since
it runs via Regent's Park and Regent Street?

Because it was the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway.

And it's brown on the maps because the Baker Street and Waterloo bus
company had a brown livery.

'Bakerloo' makes me cringe every time i hear it.

It made Der Manejment cringe for years before they decided to live with
it.

--
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:

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Rob wrote:

This should throw up some interesting things

- on the linear map of the Hammersmith and City line
Paddington and Edgware Road appear twice

The 'linear' map might well be like the one currently seen in C stock
trains, with the loop shown as a loop. I think it'd be pretty bloody
confusing otherwise.

- Two different ways to go from Paddington to Edgware Road via
Hammersmith and City - from totally seperate platforms

- Idea of going from Embankment to Monument via Westbound Hammersmith &
City - just weird

- You could walk between Royal Oak and Bayswater in ten minutes, or
take tube - over an hour Id guess

- Three lines to choose from between Gloucester Road and Hammersmith,
two stops on Piccadilly, three on the district, or 31 on the
Hammersmith and City

- If they build the tunnel connecting Euston Sq and Euston three ways
to get from Euston to Kings Cross - Eastbound H&C Northbound Victoria
or Southbound Northern

The present Circle line arrangement throws up as many odd situations.
Although the Gloucester Road to Hammersmith one is good!

tom

--
Ensure a star-man is never constructed!

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article , Tom Anderson
writes

Random PS - why didn't the Bakerloo get called the Regent Line, since it
runs via Regent's Park and Regent Street?

Because it was the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway.

And it's brown on the maps because the Baker Street and Waterloo bus company
had a brown livery.

As Harry Hill put it, got to have a system.

'Bakerloo' makes me cringe every time i hear it.

It made Der Manejment cringe for years before they decided to live with it.

I look forward to making a similar whine about Crossrail.

tom

--
Ensure a star-man is never constructed!

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 18:17:23 +0000, Tom Anderson wrote:

Having said that, I'd hazard a guess that the Hammersmith-Aldgate
service won't run off-peak (otherwise why send the Met to Barking?),

Hang on, what? What do you mean by the 'Hammersmith-Aldgate service'?

I refer you to your previous post:

"Metropolitan trains would run through from Liverpool Street to
Barking, and the Hammersmith & City service would run partially to
Aldgate..."

Why won't it run off-peak? How is this related to the Met?

Perhaps it was a bit of a leap, but I was thinking that if the Teacup
service is 6tph off-peak, there might not be a need for additional
trains from Hammersmith as the frequency on that branch would be high
enough anyway. If the trains from Hammersmith to Barking don't run
off-peak, there would be no through service between the East End and
the northern Circle at those times - hence the Met/H&C Aldgate/Barking
swap.


Thinking about it a bit more, unless I'm missing something, the
suggested service pattern seems to be hopelessly inefficient in terms
of movements across Praed Street Junction.

Let's assume the Wimbleware frequency is 6tph (as at present), the
Teacup runs at 7tph peak / 6tph off-peak (same as the current
Circle/H&C frequency), and suppose for now the Hammersmith-Aldgate
frequency is 0tph. This results in exactly the same number of
movements across Praed St Jn as at present. The frequency of trains
from Edgware Road to each of Hammersmith, Wimbledon, and Gloucester
Road (and beyond) stays the same, but the frequency of trains through
to Baker Street and King's Cross is halved. That would, however, allow
more trains to run through from the Met to the City (perhaps that's
the whole idea?).

Now add in say 6tph Hammersmith-Aldgate. This restores the frequency
on all routes to present levels, except it doubles the frequency on
the Hammersmith branch. This is, of course, good. However, Praed St Jn
is now hopelessly congested.

What am I missing here?

asdf wrote:
Now add in say 6tph Hammersmith-Aldgate. This restores the frequency
on all routes to present levels, except it doubles the frequency on
the Hammersmith branch. This is, of course, good. However, Praed St Jn
is now hopelessly congested.

What am I missing here?

Two possibilities:
- Hammermsith to Aldgate is a transitional stage before the T-Cup is
introduced
- Hammermsith to Aldgate will be an extension of the T-Cup service (ie
trains will do a lap of the circle before terminating)

U

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:52:10 +0000, Colin McKenzie wrote:

It doesn't make much sense to make the longer line the slowest one here,
and the shorter (Ealing Broadway) line the express.

Surely Ealing Broadway would remain District too... the point of the plan is
to increase Picc frequency to Heathrow, and sending Picc trains to Ealing
Broadway would defeat the point of ceasing to serve Uxbridge.

Anyway, didn't they rebuild a Sudbury station or two to have platforms level
with the tube stock a few years ago?

Maybe, but District to Ealing Broadway AND Uxbridge is the only
solution that could eliminate all platforms served by trains of both
sizes. Without this change, level wheelchair access cannot be achieved
at Ealing Common or between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge.

The southern Circle couldn't handle a fifth western destination - the
frequency on each is bad enough with 4. Perhaps Ealing Broadway could
be served instead by an Ealing Broadway - High Street Kensington
service. Or the District service could even become a bit like the Met,
with a proportion of trains from all branches terminating at HSK (cf
Baker Street) instead of running onto the Circle.

Here's an alternative idea, though it's a bit off the wall. By this
time, the District will run under ATO. The driver won't actually drive
the train (under normal circumstances), but will just press "go" and
the train will drive itself to the next station. This would mean that,
just like on the DLR, the driver wouldn't need to be sitting at the
front end of the train - he could reside in an area with door controls
(like the guard's areas on pre-DOO Tube stock), or roam the train
(like on the DLR).

Build a west-to-north curve so that trains can run through from Ealing
Broadway to North Ealing. District trains to Uxbridge would run
Central London - Ealing Common - Ealing Broadway (reverse) - North
Ealing - Uxbridge. A reversal en route wouldn't be a problem as
there'd be no need for the driver to change ends.

Result: Ealing Broadway and Uxbridge branches both served; new local
service to Ealing Broadway from the north; faster journey for London
commuters (by changing to Crossrail at Ealing Broadway).

You need less trains for an Ealing Broadway picc. branch than an
Uxbridge picc. branch. Those extra trains could go towards the
increased Heathrow frequency.
I don't think complicating the District line even more is ever a good
idea.

Arguably, when Crossrail is built, Ealing Broadway won't need both
District and Central trains to central London.

Not everyone who takes the District goes to central London, though.

The capacity might be
better used to create north-south links to Richmond and Uxbridge,
Harrow, or Willesden Junction.

How do you mean? A Harrow-Ealing-Richmond orbital line would be very
handy for a lot of people, but...

On 3 Jan 2007 14:02:26 -0800, chunky munky wrote:

There are a number of reasons why the District will end up at Uxbridge
eventually (with the Picc going to Ealing Bdway?).
- The Piccadilly will benefit from the additional rolling stock, when
Terminal 5 opens. There is no new stock for many years yet.

Some 1967 stock will become available soon. Some is going to the
Bakerloo (for the Watford Junction extension), but I'm sure there'd be
enough left for the Picc.

There's also the 1983 stock still around that was supposed to be
refurbished for use on the Picc.

- The platform to train heights will be "level/ step free" between
Rayners Lane and Uxbridge. As set out in the PPP Contract

Curtail the Picc to Rayners Lane, with new platforms where the goods
yard is now?

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 14:16:03 -0000, John Rowland wrote:

Personally I dont see why the Met line has to run to Barking?

Because at the moment, the Met trains empty out in one direction and fill up
in the other. It's better to have them filling up with new people as the old
ones get out.

And by swapping the eastern destinations of the Met and H&C, exactly
the same thing happens with the H&C...