|
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
Jack Taylor wrote:
Mojo wrote: Pardon my ignorance, but what signaling problems would affect the use of SDO, such as not releasing the doors in the rear coach? Sorry, I wasn't very clear on that, was I? Willesden Junction will only hold three cars. With four car units it would not be possible to pull forward such that the inner sets of doors in the leading and trailing cars were at the platform and the other sets cut out because of the position of the station starting signal at the end of the platform. Either that would need to be relocated or otherwise both sets of doors on the rear car would have to be cut out (as that would be off the platform) - not very desirable or customer friendly. The Rules of the Plan give the following platform lengths for Willesden Junction: Low Level: Up and Down platforms - 125m, Bay - 67m High Level: Eastbound - 55m, Westbound - 72m I don't know how they worked that out, but that gives a 5 metre overhang on the Eastbound with a 3 car set if it's accurate! Cheers, Barry |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Jul 12, 7:44 pm, asdf wrote:
I don't think the ATO thing is an issue - Victoria Line trains are already capable of being driven manually, I am aware of that. and can be equipped with tripcocks for when they need to travel over other lines (e.g. to reach the works at Acton). Presumably they would just need to be equipped with conventional power/brake handles, Nonetheless, that is a lot of expensive work for 45 years old trains. More so because the Bakerloo line also gets a signalling upgrade at some stage (which again I think ties in with the service alteration) and that means further conversion. Cascading 1967 like this does not make sense. -- Nick |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Jul 12, 11:32 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"sweek" wrote Initially, TfL may substitute the current trains running the Euston - Watford service (aged Class 313 and Class 508 trains) with some (modified) stock cascaded from the Victoria line after that line receives its new trains. i.e. substituting aged (30-year-old) Class 313 and 508 trains with modern (40-year old) Victoria line stock. Just what I was thinking, but then I thought "Don't say anything ... any plan to replace 313s and 508s must be encouraged". |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Jul 13, 5:34 am, D7666 wrote:
Nonetheless, that is a lot of expensive work for 45 years old trains. AIUI several Victoria Line units have a 1972 stock cab on the inner end, and several Bakerloo units are double ended, so quite a few extra single-ended 1972 stock units can be created with nothing more than re- marshalling (No idea about figures). More so because the Bakerloo line also gets a signalling upgrade at some stage (which again I think ties in with the service alteration) and that means further conversion. Not due to be completed until 2019, and if it's done like the Victoria Line was they'll just have both systems running in parallel, requiring no changes to the trains. I'm pretty sure the Watford extension is due long before then. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, sweek wrote (quoting ATO):
Initially, TfL may substitute the current trains running the Euston - Watford service (aged Class 313 and Class 508 trains) with some (modified) stock cascaded from the Victoria line after that line receives its new trains. Tube trains running into Euston mainline station? Seriously? Who would drive them, and how would the line be signalled and electrified? tom -- And the future is certain, give us time to work it out |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, D7666 wrote:
On Jul 11, 3:49 pm, Charles Ellson wrote: On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:12:53 GMT, "Jack Taylor" wrote: (class 416) in the interim - I don't remember any booked four car formations BICBW. structures within them there would have been difficulty in using 2x2EPBs at many stations. nickpick at extreme levels of nit-pickery For the 1988 Docklands concert of Jean Michel Jarre the NLL ran 4 car trains of both 2x2EPB and 4EPB. Best fact ever! tom -- And the future is certain, give us time to work it out |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message h.li... On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, sweek wrote (quoting ATO): Initially, TfL may substitute the current trains running the Euston - Watford service (aged Class 313 and Class 508 trains) with some (modified) stock cascaded from the Victoria line after that line receives its new trains. Tube trains running into Euston mainline station? Seriously? Who would drive them, and how would the line be signalled and electrified? 'sweek' should have put Queens Park where he had Euston. The Bakerloo line extension to Watford Junction is from Harrow and Wealdstone, with fewer trains reversing at Queens Park. South of Queens Park the existing Euston DC line service will be diverted through Primrose Hill to form a NLR service to Stratford. Paul |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
In message , asdf
writes I don't think the ATO thing is an issue - Victoria Line trains are already capable of being driven manually, and can be equipped with tripcocks for when they need to travel over other lines (e.g. to reach the works at Acton). Presumably they would just need to be equipped with conventional power/brake handles, and have a trailer removed to reduce them to 7 cars. There were a number of units transferred to the Victoria a few years ago (72 stock from the Northern?) which were only fitted with ATO in the outer cabs. the inner cabs are not currently in normal use but are considered quite suitable with minor mods for enhancing the Bakerloo line. I'm sure I've read this being the proposed way forward in Underground News in the past year or so. -- Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building. You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK (please use the reply to address for email) |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On 13 Jul, 12:27, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message h.li... On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, sweek wrote (quoting ATO): Initially, TfL may substitute the current trains running the Euston - Watford service (aged Class 313 and Class 508 trains) with some (modified) stock cascaded from the Victoria line after that line receives its new trains. Tube trains running into Euston mainline station? Seriously? Who would drive them, and how would the line be signalled and electrified? 'sweek' should have put Queens Park where he had Euston. The Bakerloo line extension to Watford Junction is from Harrow and Wealdstone, with fewer trains reversing at Queens Park. South of Queens Park the existing Euston DC line service will be diverted through Primrose Hill to form a NLR service to Stratford. Paul It's not my own text but a quote, but in essence it's right. It is the stock that is qurrently running the Euston - Watford services that would be replaced by Vic. stock, it just wouldn't run on that whole route anymore. |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
"Steve Fitzgerald" ] wrote There were a number of units transferred to the Victoria a few years ago (72 stock from the Northern?) which were only fitted with ATO in the outer cabs. AIUI they did not fit ATO into any of the cabs transferred from the Northern, but remarshalled the trains so they would have ex-Vic cabs at the outer ends and ex-Northern cabs in the middle. Peter |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
There were a number of units transferred to the Victoria a few years ago
(72 stock Done between 1987 and 1989 - thats 20 years ago now. At *that* point in time, it was a worthwhile investment, 1967/1972 stock was yet 20/25 years old, at half life, no replacement stock or major line upgrade in sight, indeed no need for such an upgrade, and it was the *newer* [1972] cars of the two types that got rebuilt then. We are now 20 years further on, line upgrades are in plan, and this time it is the older [1967] of the two types - and I'd suggest much further along their fatigue life - that are being talked about. If it is the plan that 1967 stock goes to the Bakerloo then they will be FIFTY TWO years old at withdrawal. I can't see how doing this stacks up with Picadilly 1973 stock repalcement which is some time around 2015 either just before or just after or at the same time as line ATO. Why replace 1967 stock in 2019 and 1973 stock in 2015 ? -- Nick |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Jul 13, 9:16 pm, D7666 wrote:
Why replace 1967 stock in 2019 and 1973 stock in 2015 ? It would appear the line upgrade programmes are scheduled in order of each line's need for extra capacity. I don't think there's any suggestion the 1967 is life-expired just yet - the new stock is just part of the package of capacity-improvement measures for the Vic. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
"D7666" wrote in message ps.com... There were a number of units transferred to the Victoria a few years ago (72 stock Done between 1987 and 1989 - thats 20 years ago now. At *that* point in time, it was a worthwhile investment, 1967/1972 stock was yet 20/25 years old, at half life, no replacement stock or major line upgrade in sight, indeed no need for such an upgrade, and it was the *newer* [1972] cars of the two types that got rebuilt then. We are now 20 years further on, line upgrades are in plan, and this time it is the older [1967] of the two types - and I'd suggest much further along their fatigue life - that are being talked about. If it is the plan that 1967 stock goes to the Bakerloo then they will be FIFTY TWO years old at withdrawal. fx/Isle of Wight: 52 - is that all? Paul |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Jul 13, 2:21 pm, Mr Thant
wrote: I don't think there's any suggestion the 1967 is life-expired just yet - the new stock is just part of the package of capacity-improvement measures for the Vic. OK that makes a little more sense if kine rather than stock is the ruling factor. But then again, is there not still spare 1972 cars in store ? Why not use those for victoria line capacity ? Or is this all linked in with only having the new ATO on new trains and abandoning the old ATO system ? -- Nick |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:31:08 -0700, MIG
wrote: On Jul 12, 11:32 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "sweek" wrote Initially, TfL may substitute the current trains running the Euston - Watford service (aged Class 313 and Class 508 trains) with some (modified) stock cascaded from the Victoria line after that line receives its new trains. i.e. substituting aged (30-year-old) Class 313 and 508 trains with modern (40-year old) Victoria line stock. Just what I was thinking, but then I thought "Don't say anything ... any plan to replace 313s and 508s must be encouraged". Unfortunately, about the only thing that is more uncomfortable than a 313 on the DC line is a tube train. |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Jul 13, 2:24 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: be FIFTY TWO years old at withdrawal. fx/Isle of Wight: 52 - is that all? Well if you research back through my IOW comments I also take the view that perpetually replacing IOW trains with ex LU stock is not a way forward and they also should have new trains if we are to have serious investement policy in railways. Quite apart from that, running the Bakerloo with 52 year old cars day in day out is rather different than the IOW. People need to stop looking at old trains with rose timted glasses. 1938 stock on LU became desperately unreliable towards the end on the Northern Line. It had simply reached its life. Is there any proof that 1967 stock has a longer life than 1938 stock - and bear in mind 1967 stock has been hammered on a very intensive service since day 1 - at least 1938 stock had a slightly quieter early life. -- Nick |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
"D7666" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 13, 2:24 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: be FIFTY TWO years old at withdrawal. fx/Isle of Wight: 52 - is that all? Well if you research back through my IOW comments I also take the view that perpetually replacing IOW trains with ex LU stock is not a way forward and they also should have new trains if we are to have serious investement policy in railways. Quite apart from that, running the Bakerloo with 52 year old cars day in day out is rather different than the IOW. People need to stop looking at old trains with rose timted glasses. 1938 stock on LU became desperately unreliable towards the end on the Northern Line. It had simply reached its life. Is there any proof that 1967 stock has a longer life than 1938 stock - and bear in mind 1967 stock has been hammered on a very intensive service since day 1 - at least 1938 stock had a slightly quieter early life. Perhaps I should have included a few smileys there Nick... Paul |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
"Charles Ellson" wrote in message ... On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:31:08 -0700, MIG wrote: Just what I was thinking, but then I thought "Don't say anything ... any plan to replace 313s and 508s must be encouraged". Unfortunately, about the only thing that is more uncomfortable than a 313 on the DC line is a tube train. Ever since I first heard this, I wondered if passengers really want, or need, tube stock all the way out to Watford Junction, given the competing County service for 'whole route' travel. What are the loadings like on the upper reaches of the DC lines anyway - and is it possible TfL's drive for high frequency tube style services could get a bit carried away? If the 378s (4 car of courses) are in use for an intervening few years, with main line size, comfort, speed and acceleration; are tube trains, even fully refurbished, really going to cut it? Paul |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Jul 13, 2:46 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: Perhaps I should have included a few smileys there Nick... Gotcha. :o) -- Nick |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Jul 13, 10:27 pm, D7666 wrote:
But then again, is there not still spare 1972 cars in store ? Why not use those for victoria line capacity ? Or is this all linked in with only having the new ATO on new trains and abandoning the old ATO system ? There's no space to run any more trains. They need to be able to run closer together, which means new signalling and better acceleration/ braking and improved dwell times (eg bigger doors), all of which points to replacing the stock. The trains will also be slightly bigger and a few feet longer, and the aisles/vestibules will be bigger, allowing a few more people on each one. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Jul 13, 10:57 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: "Charles Ellson" wrote in message ... On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:31:08 -0700, MIG wrote: Just what I was thinking, but then I thought "Don't say anything ... any plan to replace 313s and 508s must be encouraged". Unfortunately, about the only thing that is more uncomfortable than a 313 on the DC line is a tube train. Ever since I first heard this, I wondered if passengers really want, or need, tube stock all the way out to Watford Junction, given the competing County service for 'whole route' travel. What are the loadings like on the upper reaches of the DC lines anyway - and is it possible TfL's drive for high frequency tube style services could get a bit carried away? TfL are pretty much obligated to provide a service to Watford anyway, so I think the idea is that sending Bakerloo Line trains up is cheaper than running a whole separate operation. If the 378s (4 car of courses) are in use for an intervening few years, with main line size, comfort, speed and acceleration; are tube trains, even fully refurbished, really going to cut it? The jump from 3 to 6 trains an hour should be fair compensation. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:57:56 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote: "Charles Ellson" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:31:08 -0700, MIG wrote: Just what I was thinking, but then I thought "Don't say anything ... any plan to replace 313s and 508s must be encouraged". Unfortunately, about the only thing that is more uncomfortable than a 313 on the DC line is a tube train. Ever since I first heard this, I wondered if passengers really want, or need, tube stock all the way out to Watford Junction, given the competing County service for 'whole route' travel. What are the loadings like on the upper reaches of the DC lines anyway - and is it possible TfL's drive for high frequency tube style services could get a bit carried away? Any time I have been down that way the non-rush hour loadings of the tube trains on the DC line hardly seem to exceed about a dozen people by the time they reach Harrow. Overall, I would have seen more sense in the new "Overground" services running to WJ and continuing to cover the current services into Euston with the Bakerloo services staying as they are or even reduced. In the past my impression was that outwith the rush-hours most of the passengers joining the DC line via the Bakerloo Line had left at the intervening three stations by the time the trains reached Stonebridge Park. If the 378s (4 car of courses) are in use for an intervening few years, with main line size, comfort, speed and acceleration; are tube trains, even fully refurbished, really going to cut it? |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
Barry Salter wrote:
Jack Taylor wrote: Mojo wrote: Pardon my ignorance, but what signaling problems would affect the use of SDO, such as not releasing the doors in the rear coach? Sorry, I wasn't very clear on that, was I? Willesden Junction will only hold three cars. With four car units it would not be possible to pull forward such that the inner sets of doors in the leading and trailing cars were at the platform and the other sets cut out because of the position of the station starting signal at the end of the platform. Either that would need to be relocated or otherwise both sets of doors on the rear car would have to be cut out (as that would be off the platform) - not very desirable or customer friendly. The Rules of the Plan give the following platform lengths for Willesden Junction: Low Level: Up and Down platforms - 125m, Bay - 67m High Level: Eastbound - 55m, Westbound - 72m I don't know how they worked that out, but that gives a 5 metre overhang on the Eastbound with a 3 car set if it's accurate! I did a path measurement on Google Earth for the High Level platform edges, well actually the yellow lines near the edge, and got exactly those figures. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Jul 13, 3:24 pm, Mr Thant
wrote: There's no space to run any more trains. They need to be able to run closer together, which means new signalling and better acceleration/ braking and improved dwell times (eg bigger doors), all of which points to replacing the stock. Which is E-X-A-C-T-L-Y why I say the Bakerloo too needs new trains and not cast offs. They need to get on with it now not 12 years time. -- Nick |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Jul 13, 3:57 pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
Any time I have been down that way the non-rush hour loadings of the tube trains on the DC line hardly seem to exceed about a dozen people Really IMHO what needs to be done - nay should have been done under WCML PUG - is abandon the DC out of Euston, convert it to AC and have a full 6 track railway between Euston and Watford. -- Nick |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Jul 14, 12:57 am, D7666 wrote:
On Jul 13, 3:57 pm, Charles Ellson wrote: Any time I have been down that way the non-rush hour loadings of the tube trains on the DC line hardly seem to exceed about a dozen people Really IMHO what needs to be done - nay should have been done under WCML PUG - is abandon the DC out of Euston, convert it to AC and have a full 6 track railway between Euston and Watford. Well, it's a nice idea, but not without its problems. Where, for example, would the Bakerloo terminate? More realistically, if the bit into Euston is abandoned, and the Bakerloo runs all the Watford services,it will make life a lot simpler from an electrical supply point of view. The line can go over to a proper LT 'floating' 4th rail system, rather than a 4th bonded to the running rails. That means that Bakerloo stock no longer needs enhanced insulation on the positive side (though having Stratford - Queens Park services could present a problem at the latter) . It gets rid of the nuisance bits electrified on both AC and DC on the way into Euston (and on the Down Fast at Watford Jcn), which in turn makes life simpler for S&T. Probably also an opportunity to optimise section gaps to suit Tube stock. As for the reservations about using ex-Victoria Line 1967 stock on the extended Bakerloo, while it isn't ideal, I'd guess that the fact that they have spent all their working life (apart from going to the depot at Northumberland Park) underground may mean that they have lasted rather better than would otherwise be the case. |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Jul 14, 2:49 am, wrote:
On Jul 14, 12:57 am, D7666 wrote: On Jul 13, 3:57 pm, Charles Ellson wrote: Any time I have been down that way the non-rush hour loadings of the tube trains on the DC line hardly seem to exceed about a dozen people Really IMHO what needs to be done - nay should have been done under WCML PUG - is abandon the DC out of Euston, convert it to AC and have a full 6 track railway between Euston and Watford. Well, it's a nice idea, but not without its problems. Where, for example, would the Bakerloo terminate? More realistically, if the bit into Euston is abandoned, and the Bakerloo runs all the Watford services,it will make life a lot simpler from an electrical supply point of view. The line can go over to a proper LT 'floating' 4th rail system, rather than a 4th bonded to the running rails. That means that Bakerloo stock no longer needs enhanced insulation on the positive side (though having Stratford - Queens Park services could present a problem at the latter) . It gets rid of the nuisance bits electrified on both AC and DC on the way into Euston (and on the Down Fast at Watford Jcn), which in turn makes life simpler for S&T. Probably also an opportunity to optimise section gaps to suit Tube stock. As for the reservations about using ex-Victoria Line 1967 stock on the extended Bakerloo, while it isn't ideal, I'd guess that the fact that they have spent all their working life (apart from going to the depot at Northumberland Park) underground may mean that they have lasted rather better than would otherwise be the case. I still think a new crossover between Kilburn and Queen's Park and reopening the platforms at Queen's Park would allow some kind of semi- fast services to call Euston, South Hampstead, Kilburn (cross tracks), Queens Park, Wembley, Harrow, Watford etc. All connection options would remain instead of two stations losing their connection to Euston. There would surely be enough paths between Queen's Park and Chalk Farm to include the NLL services as well. I don't understand why half of Queen's Park station is currently abandoned. As for the Victoria Line stock, it hasn't had to deal with the horrible bends that exist on the Bakerloo either, so it's probably in a better condition than a lot of stock. The 313s were never fit for any purpose, so their age is irrelevant. |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Jul 14, 12:12 am, MIG wrote:
As for the Victoria Line stock, it hasn't had to deal with the horrible bends that exist on the Bakerloo either, so it's probably in a better condition than a lot of stock. Victoria Line stock utilisation is much higher than Bakerloo. The current SX service is 38/27 peak/off-peak trains with 16286 km training running timetabled each day. Current Bakerloo is 33/29 peak/ off peak but running only 10541 km. 1967 stock is accumulating mileage and therefore approaching its fatigue limit at a rate 33% higher than 1972 stock = a 1967 car does in 3 years what a 1972 car does in 4. -- Nick |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
|
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, sweek wrote:
On 13 Jul, 12:27, "Paul Scott" wrote: "Tom Anderson" wrote in message h.li... On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, sweek wrote (quoting ATO): Initially, TfL may substitute the current trains running the Euston - Watford service (aged Class 313 and Class 508 trains) with some (modified) stock cascaded from the Victoria line after that line receives its new trains. Tube trains running into Euston mainline station? Seriously? Who would drive them, and how would the line be signalled and electrified? 'sweek' should have put Queens Park where he had Euston. The Bakerloo line extension to Watford Junction is from Harrow and Wealdstone, with fewer trains reversing at Queens Park. South of Queens Park the existing Euston DC line service will be diverted through Primrose Hill to form a NLR service to Stratford. It's not my own text but a quote, but in essence it's right. It is the stock that is qurrently running the Euston - Watford services that would be replaced by Vic. stock, it just wouldn't run on that whole route anymore. Okay, that's what i thought was going to happen. Phew. They way it's phrased on ATO implies otherwise - it talks about trains being substituted, which doesn't say anything about a route change. tom -- The girlfriend of my friend is my enemy. |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Mr Thant wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:57 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: "Charles Ellson" wrote in message ... On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:31:08 -0700, MIG wrote: Just what I was thinking, but then I thought "Don't say anything ... any plan to replace 313s and 508s must be encouraged". Unfortunately, about the only thing that is more uncomfortable than a 313 on the DC line is a tube train. Ever since I first heard this, I wondered if passengers really want, or need, tube stock all the way out to Watford Junction, given the competing County service for 'whole route' travel. What are the loadings like on the upper reaches of the DC lines anyway - and is it possible TfL's drive for high frequency tube style services could get a bit carried away? Isn't the theory that these services will be for local travel around Watford - people commuting in to Watford from the south etc? I've certainly heard that idea in connection with the Croxley Link, so i assume something similar applies here to some extent. If not, i'd agree. Tube stock is not really suitable for this service. TfL are pretty much obligated to provide a service to Watford anyway, so I think the idea is that sending Bakerloo Line trains up is cheaper than running a whole separate operation. TfL are going to be running proper trains along the NLR as well, so no whole separate operation is needed. tom -- The girlfriend of my friend is my enemy. |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, D7666 wrote:
On Jul 13, 3:57 pm, Charles Ellson wrote: Any time I have been down that way the non-rush hour loadings of the tube trains on the DC line hardly seem to exceed about a dozen people Really IMHO what needs to be done - nay should have been done under WCML PUG - is abandon the DC out of Euston, convert it to AC and have a full 6 track railway between Euston and Watford. To what end? It's 4-track north of Watford Junction, so having six tracks between Euston and there doesn't increase the functional capacity of the line. The only thing i can think of that you could use these new OHLE tracks for would be a local service to WJ - and they're doing that pretty well with DC electrification. Unless you're suggesting a rather more frequent service to St Albans Abbey? :) tom -- The girlfriend of my friend is my enemy. |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:56:36 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote: On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, D7666 wrote: On Jul 13, 3:57 pm, Charles Ellson wrote: Any time I have been down that way the non-rush hour loadings of the tube trains on the DC line hardly seem to exceed about a dozen people Really IMHO what needs to be done - nay should have been done under WCML PUG - is abandon the DC out of Euston, convert it to AC and have a full 6 track railway between Euston and Watford. To what end? It's 4-track north of Watford Junction, so having six tracks between Euston and there doesn't increase the functional capacity of the line. The only thing i can think of that you could use these new OHLE tracks for would be a local service to WJ - and they're doing that pretty well with DC electrification. Unless you're suggesting a rather more frequent service to St Albans Abbey? :) Kensal Green and South Hampstead tunnels might knacker the provision of OHLE if the clearances aren't sufficient although dual-voltage stock would cure that (i.e. proper stuff, not 313s). ISTR someone else has already suggesting converting St.Albans to trams, which if done Karlsruhe-style cures the problem of getting from the east side of Watford to the DC line (i.e. go via the streets rather than provide a flyover/under) and provides an excuse for at least partial provision of AC electrification on the north end of the DC line and the outer parts of the Met. |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
On Jul 4, 3:16 pm, Mr Thant
wrote: TfL have announced a follow on order for Electrostars, mainly for 4th cars for their North London Railway fleet:http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/5432.aspx Is air conditioning really necessary? These trains will be stopping more frequently than 376s after all. Adding weight and fuel consumption should be considered very carefully in these energy conscious days. Rumours are that SWT is turning up Desiro thermostats due to its electricity bill... |
North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
EE507 wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:16 pm, Mr Thant wrote: TfL have announced a follow on order for Electrostars, mainly for 4th cars for their North London Railway fleet:http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/5432.aspx Is air conditioning really necessary? Presumably you haven't travelled on the North London Line in the rush hour in summer, otherwise you wouldn't have needed to ask that question. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk