|
Metrication posted:How will engineering works happen on the '24 hours tube lines'? In cities with system-wide 24 hour service, many trackside projects can be handled in the headways between trains in the dead of night when service frequency drops significantly, before you even need to start shutting down sections for extended times. Surely that can be done here. (The NYC subway has been known to handle replacing tracks during 20-30 minute headways in the very early morning, and sometimes even redoing signaling in similar circumstances)
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
Between trains I guess, LU will have to get far more efficient in how it does renewals. Don't know how it works on the babby railway, but on the main line you have the grey period and the white period, which are few trains and no trains respectively. For the big works, you get weekend blocks. I see no issue in running a 24hr railway if you can time your preventative maintenance to suit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Hopefully this picture illustrates the problem with doing deep tube maintenance while trains are running. Good luck getting to a place of safety down one of those holes! By the time you've got to your work site (avoiding the live rails all the way) from whichever alcove, cross passage or ghost platform you've been cowering on, it'll be time to turn round and go back again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:In cities with system-wide 24 hour service, many trackside projects can be handled in the headways between trains in the dead of night when service frequency drops significantly, before you even need to start shutting down sections for extended times. Surely that can be done here. Aren't the ones that run 24 hour in NYC 4 tracked?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
If I understand this graph correctly, this seems very similar to what happened in Holland with the privatization of the Dutch railway. They split the network from the operators, and let operators bid for access. Privatizing a homogenous, non-choice public commodity makes no loving sense whatsoever and it's just as huge a mess here as it sounds like it is in the UK. And yet nobody is willing to bring up the subject of renationalization.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Does TOC 2 not have shareholders? Must be East Coast. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Metrication posted:Aren't the ones that run 24 hour in NYC 4 tracked? All lines in NYC run 24 hour whether 1, 2, 3, or 4 tracked (except for one or two short stub and shuttle lines that sometimes shut down at night). The routine overnight work gets done on not just the heart of the city 4 track mainlines that have multiple nearby paralleling lines to take the load, but also the outlying lines that have no nearby replacement services. The only line that currently shuts down completely overnight is the 0.8 mile long 42nd street shuttle, which is exactly paralleled by the 7 line running underneath it between the two stations it serves. In the past, the "north end" two stations of the 3 frequently lacked late night service, but that's back on again. The primary advantage towards maintenance that the frequent interconnections and extensive 3/4 track mainlines have is for routing around things that need major uninterrupted work done, or for retaining an acceptable level of service during weekend and late night times reserved for major projects. There's a whole system detailed track map set at http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway_Track_Maps which shows all the individual tracks and connections between them, including detail maps of complicated areas. Needless to say, there's a lot more built coherence there. (when reading the maps, remember that the numbered lines are built to a much narrower structure gauge, so trains that run on the lettered lines would be too wide to fit into stations and most of the tunnels, while the ones that do fit would be dangerously far away from the platforms for passenger loading if brought onto the lettered lines. so there's some connections available that could not be used for revenue service)  Some areas get quite complicated. And yes this does show that a portion of the platform is moveable at Times Square on the shuttle tracks to allow train movements through (which cuts off one of the exits when that happens). Because the shuttle platforms are built on top of old mainline tracks when the routing was different.
Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Endjinneer posted:Oooh, interesting question. OLE masts come from a standard catalogue so they are in theory reusable, however they are usually Of the at least five designs I recall seeing, three were gantries and two were masts. In no particular order, either. I think there was lattice column with lattice gantry, lattice column with beam gantry, beam column with beam gantry, beam mast, and some form of braced girder mast. As far as I know it was also a section of plain double track. It could have been end-of-wire related, but the inconsistency seemed to continue for quite a while. I'll try to keep an eye out for the same section on Saturday as I have the same line closure fun this weekend. It may have been just on the Chingford side of St James' Street, but I'm not particularly familiar with that branch. At any rate, it seemed unusual.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
TinTower posted:I was talking at the Northern Hub proposals in depth with an acquaintance of mine, and we touched on how the plans seem to be less ambitious than it should be. In particular, they seem content to have only one transpennine route up for electrification despite both Manchester-to-Liverpool routes and both routes out of Leeds getting wires. It seems doubly strange given how the Calder Valley route is often used as a backup route. Both Liverpool-Manchester routes are being done? I thought it was only the one via St Helens Juction. A quick google gives me nothing on the Warrington Central route. biscuits and crazy fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Cerv posted:The other 5 days of the week. Seems a bit pointless to have a 24-hour weekend service and still have weekend closures. I assume the idea is that the massive investment program plus a sensible ongoing nightly maintenance program will render longer shutdowns unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
that seems optimistic. there will always be big things like completely replacing all the points at Acton last weekend. an all night service 40-something weekends of the year with a few off is still a vast improvement over 1 night a year for whatever we're supposed to call Hogmanay down here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
Metrication posted:How will engineering works happen on the '24 hours tube lines'? With large enough headways one track can be shut down and both directions run on the other. Copenhagen does this to achieve 24/7 service, shouldn't be too hard when most days it's closed at night.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 11:03
|
|
|
That does require lines to be bi-directionally signalled and enough S&C (P&C if you're on the tube cos they are dumb) provided to run single line...
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 11:35
|
|
|
It's best practices to have those anyway, because something's always gonna end up hosed on one track or the other at the worst possible time. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:It's best practices to have those anyway, because something's always gonna end up hosed on one track or the other at the worst possible time. The Jubilee Line Extension certainly is but I've no idea about the rest of the lines - I have a sneaking suspicion that quite a few aren't, based only on the apparent lack of signals at the "wrong" end of the platform at most stations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Also there are less crossovers than it seems due to the deep level tubes being in separate running tunnels, have a poke around here http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-tram-london/ and you'll see the problem, exacerbated by the cash-starved London Transport of the late 1980s/early 90s removing pointwork and junctions to reduce maintenance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:Also there are less crossovers than it seems due to the deep level tubes being in separate running tunnels, have a poke around here http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-tram-london/ I love this map, the most fascinating thing is the removed stations and lines. Not sure how they managed to find the exact track layout of the 'St. Helier Estate Railway' in South West London (I understand this was built just to supply building materials) but good on them. Why hasn't anyone reopened the Camberwell and Walworth Road stations? They'd be provide at least some relief the inner South London transport desert.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Because £££, you'd have to build entirely new wheelchair accessible stations around four tracks of busy railway at Camberwell and Walworth, and kick out the businesses who occupy the surrounding areas for access whilst works are underway. And all the tories who live in Wimbledon would be annoyed that their trains to Blackfriars and the City would be [a] slightly slower [b] used by more poor people. An easier sell would be to reopen the platforms at Loughborough Junction as an interchange sort-of-near Brixton for the London Overground but it'd still be a massive engineering ballache. At least Camberwell still has Camberwell Station Road, even if it doesn't have a station.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:And all the tories who live in Wimbledon would be annoyed that their trains to Blackfriars and the City would be [a] slightly slower [b] used by more poor people. I recall seeing this point made before but the service in that area is already so slow I can't see how the addition of two minutes would cause that much opposition. You can get off a southbound train to Sutton (Via Wimbledon) at Blackfriars, walk to Waterloo and speed to Wimbledon from there before your Sutton connection arrives (with some time to spare IIRC). As for the rich tories, don't they all use the District line to wealthier parts anyway?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
I dunno, it was their bitching and moaning to MPs that made the DfT keep through services at Blackfriars on the thameslink, even though Network Rail said "Consistent with the recommendations of the South London RUS, operational analysis indicates that services routed via Herne Hill will need to operate into the new London Blackfriars bay platforms, whilst services routed via Catford will need to operate through the Thameslink core. Given the track and station layout currently under construction at London Blackfriars, reversing this arrangement would not be operationally viable." So now everyone going through there has a worse service more prone to delays, thanks Wimbledon rail users! It's covered super in-depth on the amazing London Reconnections site http://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/thameslink-losing-the-plot-whilst-looping-the-loop/
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:I dunno, it was their bitching and moaning to MPs that made the DfT keep through services at Blackfriars on the thameslink, even though Network Rail said "Consistent with the recommendations of the South London RUS, operational analysis indicates that services routed via Herne Hill will need to operate into the new London Blackfriars bay platforms, whilst services routed via Catford will need to operate through the Thameslink core. Given the track and station layout currently under construction at London Blackfriars, reversing this arrangement would not be operationally viable." To be fair, if Network Rail and the DfT had articulated the potential benefits (more reliable service on account of cutting out 50km of countryside north of London etc) then there probably wouldn't have been so much opposition. They could have even won the argument if they actually tried. I ended up at a meeting held by one of the London boroughs affected and no one there made the case for ending through service. The combination of very excited rail enthusiasts and angry and confused commuters is only ever going to go one way (the status quo at all costs). That whole thing was a lot of politics anyway because all the local politicians could make it look as if they were fighting for their constituents (while actually doing nothing at all).
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:Because £££, you'd have to build entirely new wheelchair accessible stations around four tracks of busy railway at Camberwell and Walworth, and kick out the businesses who occupy the surrounding areas for access whilst works are underway. And all the tories who live in Wimbledon would be annoyed that their trains to Blackfriars and the City would be [a] slightly slower [b] used by more poor people. An easier sell would be to reopen the platforms at Loughborough Junction as an interchange sort-of-near Brixton for the London Overground but it'd still be a massive engineering ballache. I can't remember if it was this thread I saw it discussed in, but why doesn't the Overground stop at Brixton? Seems like it would be a good interchange. I have some good reason involving bridges in my head.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Bobstar posted:I have some good reason involving bridges in my head. Yeah, reasons involving bridges is pretty much it. The Overground line actually runs directly over the platforms at Brixton station:  Since the main line is already elevated, extending the station to have platforms on the upper line would be a pretty major undertaking - here's what it looks like from street level:  Another possibility that some have suggested is reinstating (well, rebuilding from scratch, since it was completely demolished in the 70s) the old station at East Brixton, which would be more-or-less directly between both Brixton station and Loughborough Junction, so could serve as an interchange (with a bit of walking) for both the Victoria Line and Thameslink. But the height of the bridges still makes building a new station pretty unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:Because £££, you'd have to build entirely new wheelchair accessible stations around four tracks of busy railway at Camberwell and Walworth, and kick out the businesses who occupy the surrounding areas for access whilst works are underway. And all the tories who live in Wimbledon would be annoyed that their trains to Blackfriars and the City would be [a] slightly slower [b] used by more poor people. Metrication posted:To be fair, if Network Rail and the DfT had articulated the potential benefits (more reliable service on account of cutting out 50km of countryside north of London etc) then there probably wouldn't have been so much opposition. quote:An easier sell would be to reopen the platforms at Loughborough Junction as an interchange sort-of-near Brixton for the London Overground but it'd still be a massive engineering ballache.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 13:41
|
|
|
HTJ posted:It's amazing that regular loop users haven't yet realised that FCC will always prioritise the mainline over the loop when things are going to poo poo (e.g. lack of drivers in bad weather) and that they would benefit from having dedicated trains. All FCC services were cancelled after the recent storm, but there wasn't a single obstruction on the loop - all of the trains were stuck north of London. FCC get so much poo poo from people because of the terrible service, it's surprising they haven't put in any support for severing the loop. Though I suppose they would get more anger on account of doing so (they are bastards anyway so they deserve it all, but even so).
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
HTJ posted:They're legally stuffed at Loughborough Junction - because the platforms were closed, they can't benefit from the exemption for modern specifications (like completely straight platforms) that are given to existing infrastructure. Is that actually the case? Look at the new Wood Lane Station, that's on a slight curve.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
Fairly sure modern standards allow curvature of platforms. edit: they do, as per GC/RT5212, the guidance note states: quote:Station platforms are a special case of structures that are designed to come into close proximity to trains. GI/RT7016 sets out requirements for the design and maintenance of station platforms for their safe interface with trains.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
HTJ posted:They're legally stuffed at Loughborough Junction - because the platforms were closed, they can't benefit from the exemption for modern specifications (like completely straight platforms) that are given to existing infrastructure. The Inner South London Line seems low effort compared to the rest of the Overground orbital project. They seemed to have run out of money and chutzpah after the East London Line extension. I read somewhere that TfL didn't want a connection to Victoria line at Brixton because it will overload the tube there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Metrication posted:The Inner South London Line seems low effort compared to the rest of the Overground orbital project. They seemed to have run out of money and chutzpah after the East London Line extension. I read somewhere that TfL didn't want a connection to Victoria line at Brixton because it will overload the tube there. same reason the battersea extension of the northern line takes a swerve to avoid 
Cerv fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Nov 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 11:05
|
|
|
Metrication posted:The Inner South London Line seems low effort compared to the rest of the Overground orbital project. They seemed to have run out of money and chutzpah after the East London Line extension. I read somewhere that TfL didn't want a connection to Victoria line at Brixton because it will overload the tube there. No, it's just really drat hard to actually build a station in Brixton. At least they're building Queen's Road Peckham now. Overcrowding is the main reason for not extending the Victoria line, though. Not until Crossrail 2 is completed anyway. And Cerv: the Battersea extension goes nowhere near Brixton? Do you mean Vauxhall?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 13:22
|
|
|
err, yes i did. oops. one of the rejected options in the NL consultation had it link up at vauxhall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 13:30
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:At least they're building Queen's Road Peckham now. ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
Yeah Queens Road has existed since... er.. 1866  e: oh you mean Surrey Canal Road http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrey_Canal_Road_railway_station
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Incidentally, is the Canary Wharf branch of Crossrail following the safeguarded Jubilee route to Thamesmead via Custom House? Diamond Geezer linked a UCL profile of the JLE and it looks similar, although didn't the NLL stump use that route til 2006?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:Yeah Queens Road has existed since... er.. 1866 Ah yes, that one. Sorry, not my part of London. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 14:29
|
|
|
Is the greater anglia metro service that runs from Shenfield to Liverpool St still going to be run in parallel to Crossrail or is that planned to be scrapped?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 14:40
|
|
|
Needs a new colour to split the Overground into Orbital / Dangly Bits. Far too awkward to read in the top right. Also lof if the Emirates cable car is still running then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Incidentally, is the Canary Wharf branch of Crossrail following the safeguarded Jubilee route to Thamesmead via Custom House? Diamond Geezer linked a UCL profile of the JLE and it looks similar, although didn't the NLL stump use that route til 2006? They're currently digging up what used to be the line to Silvertown/North Woolwich and there's crossrail signs everywhere, if that helps any. Cerv posted:Also lof if the Emirates cable car is still running then. Maybe they'll build a Butlins in North Greenwich.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
What about the Chelsea-Hackney line (aka the hipster express)? Is this predicted to not happen until after 2021, or not ever?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 15:08
|
|