On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:09:56 +0000, asdf
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:09:27 +0000, Spyke wrote:

(Given that the platforms at Bank and Waterloo are pretty straight, I
don't understand why they didn't raise the whole platform).

Perhaps it's a trial of a hump that will be used at many other
stations?

That is exactly what it is - a trial. If you consider the LU
environment it is hugely varied and we have to start somewhere with
evaluating a relatively simple approach to providing level access into
the trains. Given that wheelchair space is at specific points in the
trains then this trial is designed with that in mind. Raising the
entire platform is not cheap and still causes issues at those points
where you exit the platform into adjoining corridors / stairs or ramps.
Solving one issue may well cause other more complex ones. The real
challenge centres on what to do with places like Bank Central Line
(curved) or compromise height locations like Hammersmith D&P where you
step up to District line trains and down into Picc Line ones.

Keeping the safety risks as low as reasonably practicable is the key
issue here and it will be interesting to see what solutions we
eventually arrive at.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Mar 16, 7:20 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
That is exactly what it is - a trial. If you consider the LU
environment it is hugely varied and we have to start somewhere with
evaluating a relatively simple approach to providing level access into
the trains. Given that wheelchair space is at specific points in the
trains then this trial is designed with that in mind. Raising the
entire platform is not cheap and still causes issues at those points
where you exit the platform into adjoining corridors / stairs or ramps.
Solving one issue may well cause other more complex ones. The real
challenge centres on what to do with places like Bank Central Line
(curved) or compromise height locations like Hammersmith D&P where you
step up to District line trains and down into Picc Line ones.

That's easy - change the level of the track on either side of the
island, so that the Picc lines are lower and the District lines are
higher.

The only disadvantage is that when trains from either line are
diverted due to disruption, the H&S nailbiters will howl because the
level access is gone...

"TheOneKEA" wrote in message
ups.com
On Mar 16, 7:20 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
That is exactly what it is - a trial. If you consider the LU
environment it is hugely varied and we have to start somewhere with
evaluating a relatively simple approach to providing level access
into the trains. Given that wheelchair space is at specific points
in the trains then this trial is designed with that in mind.
Raising the entire platform is not cheap and still causes issues at
those points where you exit the platform into adjoining corridors /
stairs or ramps. Solving one issue may well cause other more complex
ones. The real challenge centres on what to do with places like
Bank Central Line (curved) or compromise height locations like
Hammersmith D&P where you step up to District line trains and down
into Picc Line ones.

That's easy - change the level of the track on either side of the
island, so that the Picc lines are lower and the District lines are
higher.

How about Ealing Common, where the same platforms serve both Picc and
District stock, or Acton Town where Picc trains frequently use the
District platforms? Or Rayner's Lane to Uxbridge?

On Mar 18, 10:09 pm, "Recliner" wrote:
How about Ealing Common, where the same platforms serve both Picc and
District stock, or Acton Town where Picc trains frequently use the
District platforms? Or Rayner's Lane to Uxbridge?

Simple - swap the Picc and District services to Uxbridge and Ealing
Broadway.

Except it isn't that simple; it's actually a hoary old chestnut that
has been kicking around the halls of 55 Broadway for quite a while,
and is not likely to be seriously considered until either T5 finally
opens and the Picc services to Uxbridge need to be reduced further to
maintain loadings on the Heathrow branch, or when the S stock arrives
in sufficient numbers to allow Uxbridge to finally be served
adequately in terms of train availability (how an enhanced Uxbridge
service gets through Earl's Court on top of the existing services to
Richmond, Wimbledon and Olympia is a whole 'nother matter!)

On 19 Mar 2007 08:12:01 -0700, TheOneKEA wrote:

How about Ealing Common, where the same platforms serve both Picc and
District stock, or Acton Town where Picc trains frequently use the
District platforms? Or Rayner's Lane to Uxbridge?

Simple - swap the Picc and District services to Uxbridge and Ealing
Broadway.

Except it isn't that simple;

And wouldn't solve the problem at Ealing Common anyway.

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:09:56 +0000, asdf
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:09:27 +0000, Spyke wrote:

(Given that the platforms at Bank and Waterloo are pretty straight, I
don't understand why they didn't raise the whole platform).
Perhaps it's a trial of a hump that will be used at many other
stations?

That is exactly what it is - a trial. If you consider the LU
environment it is hugely varied and we have to start somewhere with
evaluating a relatively simple approach to providing level access into
the trains. Given that wheelchair space is at specific points in the
trains then this trial is designed with that in mind. Raising the
entire platform is not cheap and still causes issues at those points
where you exit the platform into adjoining corridors / stairs or ramps.
Solving one issue may well cause other more complex ones.

Why don't the platforms already line up with the trains?

The real
challenge centres on what to do with places like Bank Central Line
(curved) or compromise height locations like Hammersmith D&P where you
step up to District line trains and down into Picc Line ones.

Agreed.

For curved platforms, you could try gap fillers:
http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?246
http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?27026
http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?29324

Most of the compromise height locations have subsurface trains on one
track and tube trains on the other -- if one of the tracks were raised a
bit and the other lowered, the problem would be largely solved (except
when trains are rerouted to the other track). But that still leaves
Uxbridge through Rayners Lane and Ealing Common.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:31:19 -0400, David of Broadway
wrote:

Most of the compromise height locations have subsurface trains on one
track and tube trains on the other -- if one of the tracks were raised a
bit and the other lowered, the problem would be largely solved (except
when trains are rerouted to the other track). But that still leaves
Uxbridge through Rayners Lane and Ealing Common.

And Acton Town, where Piccadilly Line trains use all four platforms.

James Farrar wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:31:19 -0400, David of Broadway
wrote:

Most of the compromise height locations have subsurface trains on one
track and tube trains on the other -- if one of the tracks were raised a
bit and the other lowered, the problem would be largely solved (except
when trains are rerouted to the other track). But that still leaves
Uxbridge through Rayners Lane and Ealing Common.

And Acton Town, where Piccadilly Line trains use all four platforms.

Yes, that occurred to me after posting. But do Piccadilly line trains
really have to use the side tracks? I realize that doing so can reduce
delays for eastbound passengers getting off at Acton Town, but it
doesn't actually speed up train service much, does it? One train still
has to wait for the other before leaving the station. I suppose the
practice is useful when the Rayners Lane shuttle is running -- but when
that happened to me, the connecting Piccadilly line train across the
platform closed up and pulled out as soon as we pulled in. (It felt
just like home!)

Also, Silverlink shares trackage with the District line between
Gunnersbury and Richmond and with the Bakerloo line between Queen's Park
and Harrow & Wealdstone. I don't remember exactly what the floor height
of those trains is, but it's obviously not the same as both District and
Bakerloo trains. (Silverlink Metro runs Class 313 stock on all of its
electrified routes, right?)
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

On 18 Mar, 19:02, David of Broadway
wrote:
Yes, that occurred to me after posting. But do Piccadilly line trains
really have to use the side tracks? I realize that doing so can reduce
delays for eastbound passengers getting off at Acton Town, but it
doesn't actually speed up train service much, does it? One train still
has to wait for the other before leaving the station. I suppose the
practice is useful when the Rayners Lane shuttle is running -- but when
that happened to me, the connecting Piccadilly line train across the
platform closed up and pulled out as soon as we pulled in. (It felt
just like home!)

The S Stock (to be used on all non-tube lines) will be low floor, so
this problem goes away by itself once you rebuild all platforms to
tube height.

Also, Silverlink shares trackage with the District line between
Gunnersbury and Richmond and with the Bakerloo line between Queen's Park
and Harrow & Wealdstone.

Don't forget that one day the Bakerloo will take over the whole route
to Watford.

(Silverlink Metro runs Class 313 stock on all of its
electrified routes, right?)

Yes, and the odd 508, which are roughly the same design. High floor.

U

wrote:
On 18 Mar, 19:02, David of Broadway
wrote:
Yes, that occurred to me after posting. But do Piccadilly line
trains really have to use the side tracks? I realize that doing
so can reduce delays for eastbound passengers getting off at Acton
Town, but it doesn't actually speed up train service much, does
it? One train still has to wait for the other before leaving the
station. I suppose the practice is useful when the Rayners Lane
shuttle is running -- but when that happened to me, the connecting
Piccadilly line train across the platform closed up and pulled out
as soon as we pulled in. (It felt just like home!)

The S Stock (to be used on all non-tube lines) will be low floor, so
this problem goes away by itself once you rebuild all platforms to
tube height.

But until you do, you can't use the new stock! To accommodate the two
heights at a single platform, the platform level needs to be a
compromise. If it's level with either stock, the other stock would be
unreasonably low or high. Anyway, where does it say that S stock floors
will be at tube stock height? I don't believe that's true.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)