On 23 Nov, 18:54, "Jonathan Morton"
wrote:
Did I dream this, or is there currently talk of re-instating the Bakerloo
service to WJ?

In short, several years ago when the takeover of Silverlink/London
Overground by TfL was originally being planned, TfL proposed a major
service reconfiguration that excluded reextending the Bakerloo to
Watford and withdrawing the London Overground service so the trains
could be used elsewhere.

Evidently someone looked at the costs of doing this and decided it
wasn't worth the effort (extra Bakerloo stock, reinstating fourth
rail, signalling, etc) and it's no longer on the table. If it does
happen it'll be tied to the Bakerloo Line upgrade that's due in about
10 years time (resignalling, all new stock, etc), after all the other
tube lines have been upgraded.

U

On 23 Nov, 19:46, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 23 Nov, 18:54, "Jonathan Morton"

wrote:
Did I dream this, or is there currently talk of re-instating the Bakerloo
service to WJ?

In short, several years ago when the takeover of Silverlink/London
Overground by TfL was originally being planned, TfL proposed a major
service reconfiguration that excluded reextending the Bakerloo to
Watford and withdrawing the London Overground service so the trains
could be used elsewhere.

Evidently someone looked at the costs of doing this and decided it
wasn't worth the effort (extra Bakerloo stock, reinstating fourth
rail, signalling, etc) and it's no longer on the table. If it does
happen it'll be tied to the Bakerloo Line upgrade that's due in about
10 years time (resignalling, all new stock, etc), after all the other
tube lines have been upgraded.


You say "it's no longer on the table" but then "If it does happen
[...]". I've no desire to get into tortured metaphors about what
constitutes whether something is on or off the table, I'm just
interested in where things stand on this idea.

My impression of it was that of a somewhat vague long term
aspirational idea that had been floated a few years ago, one on which
no decision needed to be made until the Bakerloo upgrade but one that
nonetheless floated around for a while in the background and perhaps
is indeed still floating around there somewhere. You seem to sense
that it's an idea that has come and gone.

I guess that the recent temporary service reconfiguration on the NLL
and DC lines has at least provided a bit of raw data about travelling
patterns and whether the service could be withdrawn from Euston,
whether it would be workable and even desirable or not, what
passengers thought about it etc etc.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:46:41 -0800 (PST), Mr Thant
wrote:

In short, several years ago when the takeover of Silverlink/London
Overground by TfL was originally being planned, TfL proposed a major
service reconfiguration that excluded reextending the Bakerloo to
Watford and withdrawing the London Overground service so the trains
could be used elsewhere.

I do hope the Euston services stay. It's very nice that the
mid-distance commuter services from Euston are once again not rammed
full of passengers travelling to local stations around Harrow who were
taking them to there then changing, and (while LM are planning
12-car-everything-more-or-less from the next TT, having been allowed
to retain 7 321s permanently) it isn't a good use of stock to extend
those trains just to provide for a very short-distance market.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On 23 Nov, 22:18, Mizter T wrote:
You say "it's no longer on the table" but then "If it does happen
[...]". I've no desire to get into tortured metaphors about what
constitutes whether something is on or off the table, I'm just
interested in where things stand on this idea.

In 2010/11-ish, they'll have finished the East London Line to Highbury
and the various other upgrading of the NLL and WLL, and they'll be
introducing a new service pattern. If you digging online you'll find
letters between TfL and the DfT (or SRA or whoever it was) from a few
years back, arguing over what the service pattern should be. TfL were
actively pushing for the Bakerloo to Watford plan at this time. So it
*was* a near term ambition at one point.

If you look at what they've since applied for permission to run, it
looks like this:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...e-upgrade.html

i.e. No changes to the Watford service.

U

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

My impression of it was that of a somewhat vague long term
aspirational idea that had been floated a few years ago, one on which
no decision needed to be made until the Bakerloo upgrade but one that
nonetheless floated around for a while in the background and perhaps
is indeed still floating around there somewhere. You seem to sense
that it's an idea that has come and gone.

I thought the plan was to increase the Bakerloo fleet by redeploying
1972TS recovered from the Victoria Line after the new stock enters service
there. That was a bit more definite than you suggest.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 23 Nov, 22:57, (Neil Williams)
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:46:41 -0800 (PST), Mr Thant
wrote:

In short, several years ago when the takeover of Silverlink/London
Overground by TfL was originally being planned, TfL proposed a major
service reconfiguration that excluded reextending the Bakerloo to
Watford and withdrawing the London Overground service so the trains
could be used elsewhere.

I do hope the Euston services stay. *It's very nice that the
mid-distance commuter services from Euston are once again not rammed
full of passengers travelling to local stations around Harrow who were
taking them to there then changing, and (while LM are planning
12-car-everything-more-or-less from the next TT, having been allowed
to retain 7 321s permanently) it isn't a good use of stock to extend
those trains just to provide for a very short-distance market.


I've been intending on asking about how you perceive things went with
regards to LO pax switching to LM trains in and out of Euston from
Harrow, Bletchley and Watford Jn now that the whole exercise is over -
I take it from your comments that you have noticed loadings noticeably
for these journeys decrease since things got back to normal a week
ago. That said I dare say that "rammed full of [local] passengers"
might be something of an exaggeration, given that I understand that
LM's commuter trains are noted for being rather tranquil affairs where
nearly everyone gets a seat!

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:04:24 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

I've been intending on asking about how you perceive things went with
regards to LO pax switching to LM trains in and out of Euston from
Harrow, Bletchley and Watford Jn now that the whole exercise is over -
I take it from your comments that you have noticed loadings noticeably
for these journeys decrease since things got back to normal a week
ago. That said I dare say that "rammed full of [local] passengers"
might be something of an exaggeration, given that I understand that
LM's commuter trains are noted for being rather tranquil affairs where
nearly everyone gets a seat!

True

The effect on Monday was noticeable - there were free seats on the
1824 in the front coach (no middles-of-3 taken at all, I think),
whereas prior to that there was usually a small standing load.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On 24 Nov, 06:24, (Neil Williams)
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:04:24 -0800 (PST), Mizter T

wrote:
I've been intending on asking about how you perceive things went with
regards to LO pax switching to LM trains in and out of Euston from
Harrow, Bletchley and Watford Jn now that the whole exercise is over -
I take it from your comments that you have noticed loadings noticeably
for these journeys decrease since things got back to normal a week
ago. That said I dare say that "rammed full of [local] passengers"
might be something of an exaggeration, given that I understand that
LM's commuter trains are noted for being rather tranquil affairs where
nearly everyone gets a seat!

(Argh - what a tortuous paragraph I managed to construct!)


True

The effect on Monday was noticeable - there were free seats on the
1824 in the front coach (no middles-of-3 taken at all, I think),
whereas prior to that there was usually a small standing load.


FWIW in the past I had an open mind on the issue but I think I've now
shifted over to being of the opinion that withdrawing local trains to
and from Euston on a permanent basis ain't really on - the notion that
one simply couldn't catch a local train service from Euston just seems
rather absurd (esp having actually experienced it!). The Bakerloo line
into central London isn't really close enough to being a similar route
to act as a replacement for the DC lines service.

On Nov 23, 7:46 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
Evidently someone looked at the costs of doing this and decided it
wasn't worth the effort (extra Bakerloo stock, reinstating fourth
rail, signalling, etc) and it's no longer on the table. If it does

I don't see why it should cost much at all. The line is in constant
use already - its not as if its been mothballed so the signalling
should all be working fine. All they'll need to do is replace the 4th
rail and put a few LU stickers on the walls of the stations. As for
extra stock - where did it all go when the line was cut back to
wealdstone? Sounds more like a case of they can't be arsed.

B2003

On 24 Nov, 09:37, Boltar wrote:
I don't see why it should cost much at all. The line is in constant
use already - its not as if its been mothballed so the signalling
should all be working fine. All they'll need to do is replace the 4th
rail and put a few LU stickers on the walls of the stations.

Replacing the fourth rail isn't going to be cheap. You also have stuff
like installing one-person-operation equipment (Bakerloo trains have
lost their guards since the line closed. London Overground hasn't) and
communication systems and so on.

As for
extra stock - where did it all go when the line was cut back to
wealdstone?

It still had 1959 and 1938 stock back then, so the answer is either
for scrap or the Isle of Wight.

Sounds more like a case of they can't be arsed.

"Too expensive" and "poor cost/benefit ratio" and "can't be arsed" are
pretty much the same thing.

U