|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Dec 14, 2017 2:32:02 GMT
Thanks for all the interesting replies. There's obviously more to working out possible routes than is apparent to the layman. I just wish you could still go from Bayswater direct to Liverpool St as in the past. You just walk a few yards to Queensway station and take the Central Line - faster and vastly more frequent. Bayswater and Queensway stations are almost next door neighbours. There's also the option to walk up Queensway, turn left past Paddington Library and Royal Oak is on the right hand side. Less than 5-10 mins walk from Bayswater/Queensway and is another useful, but lesser known alternative for the Circle/H&C.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2017 21:06:54 GMT
I’ve not read all the posts yet as I’m at work so I’m sure this idea will have some dismissals among you (I’ve seen the long post by Alex though) but as an SSR driver myself I thought it would be nice, once upgrades are complete, to segregate the District into sections in the off peak at least (the difficulty would be incorporating it into a map):
Richmond - Upminster 6tph Ealing Broadway - Hammersmith via Aldgate 6tph Wimbledon - Edgware Road 6tph Wimbledon - Tower Hill 6 tph Hammersmith - Barking 6tph Upminster - Upminster via High Street Kensington 12tph (6tph each direction).
Combined provides: Upminster - Barking 18 tph currently 12 Barking - Aldgate East 24 tph currently 18 Aldgate East - Liverpool Street 12 tph currently 6 Tower Hill - Aldgate 6 tph currently 6 Gloucester Road - Tower Hill 24 tph currently 24 Hammersmith - Edgware Road 12 tph currently 12 Edgware Road - HSK 12 tph currently 12 HSK - Earl’s Court 6 tph currently 6 Gloucester Road - HSK 6 tph currently 6 Earl’s Court - Wimbledon 12 tph currently 12 Ealing, Richmond branches 6 tph each currently 6 Edgware Road - Liverpool Street 18 tph not including Met
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 10:59:39 GMT
To add with existing Met off peak city frequencies of 12 tph that would equal 30 tph on the top end... perfect for ATO running frequencies that TfL probably envisage.
Worth also noting that with the enhanced service to Upminster in my idea the turnarounds with 3 available platforms would be tight with trains every 3-4 minutes in that area. Another option could be to divert every other train to Dagenham East bay (I would choose the anti-clockwise HSK loop for this as there are already Upminster trains from Richmond and the clockwise runs would provide direct runs to Upminster from the Kings Cross section for the first time). I did consider running the HSK loop around at Barking with a Hammersmith to Upminster service but this would require all day stepping back at Barking via just one bay road at a 5 minute frequency (minimum booked turnarounds would create chaos).
Note also that my idea frees up a platform at Edgware Road which could be useful for reforms PNRs etc. At present there are near daily problems with platform availability there.
As for the map I believe there is scope for incorporating a different line style in the same District green colour from Gloucester Road to Aldgate East via Kings Cross for the HSK loop and this should be named District east and another line texture but again District green from Hammersmith to Tower Hill via Kings Cross and this should be called District west. The rest of the District (Upminster to Richmond, Ealing, Wimbledon and Wimbledon to Edgware Road) would remain solid green.
As well as this train descriptions on the loops would carry District via xx (like the present circle line) until it reaches a point where only the destination is required. E.g. trains from Ealing would say District line via Victoria, and then Liverpool Street until it reached Liverpool Street at which point it would say District line Hammersmith via Wood Lane. Trains from Upminster towards the anti-clockwise loop would say District line via Kings Cross St. Pancras, and then High Street Kensington until it reached Paddington at which point it would say Upminster via Victoria until it reached Gloucester Road and then would simply say District line Upminster.
As you can see I have this a LOT of thought 😂
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 18, 2017 12:54:57 GMT
To add with existing Met off peak city frequencies of 12 tph that would equal 30 tph on the top end... perfect for ATO running frequencies that TfL probably envisage. Worth also noting that with the enhanced service to Upminster in my idea the turnarounds with 3 available platforms would be tight with trains every 3-4 minutes in that area. Another option could be to divert every other train to Dagenham East bay (I would choose the anti-clockwise HSK loop for this as there are already Upminster trains from Richmond and the clockwise runs would provide direct runs to Upminster from the Kings Cross section for the first time). I did consider running the HSK loop around at Barking with a Hammersmith to Upminster service but this would require all day stepping back at Barking via just one bay road at a 5 minute frequency (minimum booked turnarounds would create chaos). Note also that my idea frees up a platform at Edgware Road which could be useful for reforms PNRs etc. At present there are near daily problems with platform availability there. As for the map I believe there is scope for incorporating a different line style in the same District green colour from Gloucester Road to Aldgate East via Kings Cross for the HSK loop and this should be named District east and another line texture but again District green from Hammersmith to Tower Hill via Kings Cross and this should be called District west. The rest of the District (Upminster to Richmond, Ealing, Wimbledon and Wimbledon to Edgware Road) would remain solid green. As well as this train descriptions on the loops would carry District via xx (like the present circle line) until it reaches a point where only the destination is required. E.g. trains from Ealing would say District line via Victoria, and then Liverpool Street until it reached Liverpool Street at which point it would say District line Hammersmith via Wood Lane. Trains from Upminster towards the anti-clockwise loop would say District line via Kings Cross St. Pancras, and then High Street Kensington until it reached Paddington at which point it would say Upminster via Victoria until it reached Gloucester Road and then would simply say District line Upminster. As you can see I have this a LOT of thought 😂 I have to say that I find your proposed service pattern very complex and the forever changing destinations would cause confusion for some passengers. I also don't see the need for such a high frequency to Upminster when the western branches (bar Wimbledon) remain modestly served despite there being at least a notional case for Ealing Broadway being better served to link to Crossrail services. I appreciate the Sub Surface is extremely difficult to run well but I'm not sure overly complex service patterns are the answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 13:14:56 GMT
Oh snoggle you party pooper! The problem with Ealing is of course that there are two main other branches in the west and these need a certain level of service and because Upminster is the only branch in the east it stands that it would get a higher frequency of trains. At present it gets 12 tph, Ealing and Richmond 6tph each from that location. Increasing the service to Ealing would almost certainly have a detrimental effect on another branch so it’s not feasible, unless you have shuttles to Mansion House or HSK which I doubt would interest LU/TfL in the slightest, not least because these are better used for service recovery. With common stock, smart automated door cut outs and destination inputs the possibilities for TfL are endless, and as such it would be remiss of them not to explore options (I’m not saying MY options are the bees knees but improving capacity would be a tad difficult with linear options and retaining the circle line in its current form... not least at Edgware Road for example) I also accept that the overlaps and map design could be confusing initially but as people get used to the concept they know they will have similar travel options to the Circle and that controllers will have a greater level of options with service reformation because what you will eventually see is the staff on the entire SSR (except the Metropolitan) trained over the entire District and C&H lines allowing greater flexibility Edit: I note your forever changing destinations comment but completely disagree. They will be similar, only slightly more often, than the present Circle. I noted with interest that when there was a special Circle line service between Edgware Road and Barking via Victoria the train had a District line description by the time it arrived at HSK so it could be that they are looking at future route options.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Dec 18, 2017 13:26:13 GMT
Fast reply as about to dash out of the house...... unless you have shuttles to Mansion House Not any more you can't! Mansion House bay road was lifted a while back staff on the entire SSR (except the Metropolitan) trained over the entire District and C&H lines allowing greater flexibility [/quote] That does come up every now and again, the last document I saw in 2015 had various scenarios (drivers at certain depots being trained on certain parts of the 'other person's' line, with the complete SSR trained railway as a last resort), but won't happen until the signalling upgrade is complete. I have to agree with Snoggle, the way it is at the minute is about as straightforward as it could get - even the Circle in it's present form (i.e not actually running as a circle) causes confusion and any changing of routes would add to it - mind you, London Overground seem to get away with it (with the most complicated line diagrams I think I have ever seen)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 13:35:10 GMT
Thanks alex, totally forgot about Mansion House! Big mistake IMO, HSK bay roads even more vital now!! I’m not saying changing the dynamic around won’t cause confusion but as you rightly say the Circle line itself causes that and even seeing Upminster on a District line train evokes fear in the eyes of the travelling public. There is always confusion and in a way it’s not a bad thing because I’m part it’s keeping staff in jobs. My entire point is that with greater flexibility of the stock and routeings trains can take that weren’t possible in the yesteryears, TfL will most certainly look at its options. With timely, well advertised changes will be well received if it gives people better options for more frequent, direct services.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 18, 2017 22:54:31 GMT
I’ve not read all the posts yet as I’m at work so I’m sure this idea will have some dismissals among you (I’ve seen the long post by Alex though) but as an SSR driver myself I thought it would be nice, once upgrades are complete, to segregate the District into sections in the off peak at least (the difficulty would be incorporating it into a map): Richmond - Upminster 6tph Ealing Broadway - Hammersmith via Aldgate 6tph Wimbledon - Edgware Road 6tph Wimbledon - Tower Hill 6 tph Hammersmith - Barking 6tph Upminster - Upminster via High Street Kensington 12tph (6tph each direction). Combined provides: Upminster - Barking 18 tph currently 12 Barking - Aldgate East 24 tph currently 18 Aldgate East - Liverpool Street 12 tph currently 6 Tower Hill - Aldgate 6 tph currently 6 Gloucester Road - Tower Hill 24 tph currently 24 Hammersmith - Edgware Road 12 tph currently 12 Edgware Road - HSK 12 tph currently 12 HSK - Earl’s Court 6 tph currently 6 Gloucester Road - HSK 6 tph currently 6 Earl’s Court - Wimbledon 12 tph currently 12 Ealing, Richmond branches 6 tph each currently 6 Edgware Road - Liverpool Street 18 tph not including Met This all sounds very good assuming the junction at Aldgate East can cope with the extra 6tph? The Upminster service might be a bit excessive though, would it be possible to reverse 12tph at Barking if 6tph used the bay platform and 6tph used the sidings to the east?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 8:27:04 GMT
sid the problem would potentially be detainments in the through platform. Staff woul need to be on hand throughout the day and on the ball regularly. During the evenings when Barking siding reversers are regular they often delayed trains continuing through but then so does the jubilee at Wembley. Personally I wouldn’t be a fan of it but it all depends on whether or not there is scope for mitigating dwell time at Dagenham or Hornchurch (incorporated into the regular timetable, which passengers and LU won’t want) or whether it will be swallowed by a shorter turnaround at Upminster, the latter being hated by drivers of course
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 19, 2017 10:17:30 GMT
sid the problem would potentially be detainments in the through platform. Staff woul need to be on hand throughout the day and on the ball regularly. During the evenings when Barking siding reversers are regular they often delayed trains continuing through but then so does the jubilee at Wembley. Personally I wouldn’t be a fan of it but it all depends on whether or not there is scope for mitigating dwell time at Dagenham or Hornchurch (incorporated into the regular timetable, which passengers and LU won’t want) or whether it will be swallowed by a shorter turnaround at Upminster, the latter being hated by drivers of course Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the existing 6tph on the H&C that terminate at Barking empty out on platform 2 and go into the sidings and the bay platform is only used at peak times?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 10:40:52 GMT
Not sure if that’s the case now but certainly wasn’t during my time there. They went into and out of the bay and the common sense rationale for this is that they wouldn’t hold up anything. In addition there was the risk of opening the doors on both sides which is not ideal for the platform close detraining facility and the temperamental nature of the software made delays longer as drivers often closed doors on one side using cab buttons then failed to reinitialise platform close. District line drivers were more used to remembering only to open on one side because of the number of evening siding reversers there.
Detrainments were also risky via the through platform for several reasons:
- no detrainment staff would mean a minimum 3 minutes (most likely 4) detraining by the driver and would start to delay through services
- people refusing to get off would result in delays to through trains as well (drivers can now drive people into and out of sidings but drivers still have the right to refuse on safety grounds). Of course this wouldn’t be an issue in the bay road unless the train were to run OOS
- a points failure would result in delays and in the absence of a ‘wrong road’ option the train would have to continue to Upney and reverse through the depot (not a big deal in itself but it would require a District line driver to complete this move as H&C are not route trained to Upney, even worse when Ds and Cs were around so the H&C driver would have to be piloted, more work for two people! The other option is to secure points which is time consuming.
If you’ve seen H&Cs in the through eastbound platforms it is probably because either:
- reform into a District
- points problem into the bay road
- cancelled to siding, various and common reasons for this one!
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 19, 2017 10:54:42 GMT
Not sure if that’s the case now but certainly wasn’t during my time there. They went into and out of the bay and the common sense rationale for this is that they wouldn’t hold up anything. In addition there was the risk of opening the doors on both sides which is not ideal for the platform close detraining facility and the temperamental nature of the software made delays longer as drivers often closed doors on one side using cab buttons then failed to reinitialise platform close. District line drivers were more used to remembering only to open on one side because of the number of evening siding reversers there. Detrainments were also risky via the through platform for several reasons: - no detrainment staff would mean a minimum 3 minutes (most likely 4) detraining by the driver and would start to delay through services - people refusing to get off would result in delays to through trains as well (drivers can now drive people into and out of sidings but drivers still have the right to refuse on safety grounds). Of course this wouldn’t be an issue in the bay road unless the train were to run OOS - a points failure would result in delays and in the absence of a ‘wrong road’ option the train would have to continue to Upney and reverse through the depot (not a big deal in itself but it would require a District line driver to complete this move as H&C are not route trained to Upney, even worse when Ds and Cs were around so the H&C driver would have to be piloted, more work for two people! The other option is to secure points which is time consuming. If you’ve seen H&Cs in the through eastbound platforms it is probably because either: - reform into a District - points problem into the bay road - cancelled to siding, various and common reasons for this one! I understand what you're saying, I'll have a look next time I'm at Barking if I remember. There were platform staff on hand and the train was quickly despatched the open design of the H&C stock must make it easier to ensure everybody is off. On the other hand I have seen the delays it can cause at places like Queens Park on the Bakerloo Line. Anyway as you said previously some trains could be terminated at Dagenham East rather than send too many trains to Upminster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 11:01:38 GMT
Yes but another issue with Dagenham of course is that it’s better as an emergency turnaround as opposed to regular and frequent occupation of trains. Then a point failure occurs and we are back to using Barking which gives the same aforementioned issues.
I’m sure LU will increase the level of service to Upminster but will wait until ATO is complete as the signals that way are not suitable for a large train capacity but who knows how long that will take.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 19, 2017 14:06:31 GMT
Yes but another issue with Dagenham of course is that it’s better as an emergency turnaround as opposed to regular and frequent occupation of trains. Then a point failure occurs and we are back to using Barking which gives the same aforementioned issues. I’m sure LU will increase the level of service to Upminster but will wait until ATO is complete as the signals that way are not suitable for a large train capacity but who knows how long that will take. That was my thinking behind turning 12tph at Barking so that Dagenham East can be kept as an emergency turn back along with Plaistow and West Ham. I suppose 18tph to Upminster is possible but it does seem a little bit excessive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 14:22:29 GMT
Ha! Ask the late turn west end based District drivers about excessive runs to Upminster and they’ll tell you how excessive it is
|
|