|
Post by vjaska on Oct 1, 2020 12:31:39 GMT
Without spending vast sums of money on rebuilding, one station could be served only by northbound trains and one station only by southbound trains with the opposite platform fenced off? It's only a short walk between the two. Perhaps an 'in-between solution' is to excavate one side of their station walls for a second platform plus accessibility so that the train doors then open on the left side. The existing island platform can then be maintained as it is for opposite-bound trains with a platform barrier in place seperating the side of the platform from the other train's new arrangement. I believe there's at least one station on the Glasgow Underground that was amended this way as most if not all their stations are island platforms. Overall costs would be less (compared to the Angel rebuild) as trains wouldn't need to be rerouted onto any new tracks through any new tunnels. In regards to the Glasgow Subway, all but one of the busy stations that see more than £1m passengers a year lost their island platform configuration during one of the two big rennovations the system saw between the 80's and the present day and most now have a more unorthodox layout - the quieter stations retain their island platform configurations
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Oct 1, 2020 12:31:49 GMT
King George will come first Hmph Crossrail yeah. The amount of times I've heard the generic "we won't be able to meet this target at this moment in time" strap line to last me a lifetime is hilarious. If the main people in charge of this project were the regular folk of today in normal jobs and they delayed the project like this they would have been given their marching orders for this calamity. When I first heard of the how they were going to have three different signals in place for that line I knew instantly they were not going to meet that deadline that waw originally proposed as that system is too complex to get it done in a short space of time Imagine if they'd been in charge of 'D Day', there would be rusty tanks and soldiers queing up for there pensions by now!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2020 12:44:56 GMT
They have the audacity to ask for another £1bn for a further upgrade to the Lizzie Line 😭 I really hope the DfT decide to keep all the of revenue from Crossrail in exchange for additional funding.
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Oct 1, 2020 12:52:01 GMT
They have the audacity to ask for another £1bn for a further upgrade to the Lizzie Line 😭 The amount of people that are having a field day with this project. It's almost as if they don't want this project to finish whilst they are getting paid for it.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 1, 2020 13:24:54 GMT
True, perhaps TFL could consider some sort of barrier like the ones they have on parts of the Jubilee Line. Maybe low size ones that retract platform side rather than tunnel side. Obviously they have no money for this but it’s a nice idea. I would imagine that some station works to increase capacity and safety are an integral part of the proposals and will be identified and costed in the submission. I dont disagree but the only upgrade mentioned in the Northern line separation package of improvements is the upgrade at Camden Town. The cost of the separation seems to mainly cover Camden Town upgrade and stabling.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 1, 2020 13:37:26 GMT
My concern at Clapham North and Clapham Common is more for the >30 increases. Before the next train pull in passengers from the first train will still be on the platform. The problem is twofold at these stations as you have both directions on these small islands. You also cannot underestimate the induced demand to off-peak enchantments. True, perhaps TFL could consider some sort of barrier like the ones they have on parts of the Jubilee Line. Maybe low size ones that retract platform side rather than tunnel side. Obviously they have no money for this but it’s a nice idea. I am not convinced there is enough space for platform edge equipment, this also does not resolve the issue which is overcrowding and passengers flow. I think short term greenboy idea of northbound only and southbound only stations would be easiest to implement. Long term M1104 idea is also more acceptable but i would cite two problems. One is the expense of above ground stabilisation, the other is several extended periods of line closure would be required (therefore Crossrail 2 might need to be in place for passenger displacement).
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 2, 2020 12:27:13 GMT
Transport for London is currently considering its submission to the Government's latest Comprehensive Spending Review. It looks like the Bakerloo Line Extension to Lewisham and Crossrail 2 will not make the list this time round due to "affordability constraints", but the sites of the proposed tunnels and stations will be "safeguarded". However resignalling of the existing Bakerloo Line and a fleet of new trains to be delivered in the late 2020s will be submitted. However one surprise is a likely submission to upgrade the Jubilee Line with a new fleet of trains at a cost of £2billion, which would increase capacity by up to 25% and reduce overcrowding at key locations. The beauty of this plan is that it then allows the existing trains to be reallocated to the Northern Line, where the long-held aspiration to split the line into two at Camden Town and increase capacity on each branch from 24 to 30+trains an hour could be realised. Also likely to be submitted is an extension of the DLR to Thamesmead, as the Government already has funding for transport upgrades that unlock new housing development. www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2020/09/30/london-undergrounds-bakerloo-line-extension-put-on-hold/I think there was a missed opportunity when the 2009 stock were built for a greater plan to replace or reallocate rolling stock, to meet capacity requirements and replace older stock. For example, a variant of the 2009 stock could have been built for the Jubilee Line, fully replacing the 96 stock here. Some of the 96 stock could then have moved to the Bakerloo line, with the 1972 stock in need of replacement. With the rest of the 96 then going to supplement the Northern line's fleet (with necessary modifications made), with the possibility of splitting the line. I also wonder if the 2009 stock could have been designed at the time to have walk-through carriages. The similar S-stock was only built a few years later, but doesn't have separated carriages. Or - as the 1967 stock was a similar design/age to the 1972 & 1973 stocks, perhaps the 2009 stock could have been introduced on the Bakerloo, Piccadilly and Victoria lines? I would say a major opportunity was missed not storing and re-using the 67 stock. This could have been used to boost Piccadilly line and use it for RAT trains. They also could have been used on the central line. The 2009 stock cannot be used on other deep tube lines as they are wider and taller.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 2, 2020 15:53:17 GMT
I think there was a missed opportunity when the 2009 stock were built for a greater plan to replace or reallocate rolling stock, to meet capacity requirements and replace older stock. For example, a variant of the 2009 stock could have been built for the Jubilee Line, fully replacing the 96 stock here. Some of the 96 stock could then have moved to the Bakerloo line, with the 1972 stock in need of replacement. With the rest of the 96 then going to supplement the Northern line's fleet (with necessary modifications made), with the possibility of splitting the line. I also wonder if the 2009 stock could have been designed at the time to have walk-through carriages. The similar S-stock was only built a few years later, but doesn't have separated carriages. Or - as the 1967 stock was a similar design/age to the 1972 & 1973 stocks, perhaps the 2009 stock could have been introduced on the Bakerloo, Piccadilly and Victoria lines? I would say a major opportunity was missed not storing and re-using the 67 stock. This could have been used to boost Piccadilly line and use it for RAT trains. They also could have been used on the central line. The 2009 stock cannot be used on other deep tube lines as they are wider and taller.
I'm aware the 2009 would not fit on other lines, but a smaller variant of the stock could have been built for use on other lines. With the 1967 stock withdrawn, I think it might have made sense to also withdraw the 1972/73 stock at the same time, with the narrower/shorter version of the 2009 stock for the Bakerloo and Piccadilly lines. The New Tube for London, which may well be delayed like other infrastructure projects, could then have been focused on the Central and Waterloo & City lines, and possibly the Jubilee as well.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 2, 2020 16:48:35 GMT
I would say a major opportunity was missed not storing and re-using the 67 stock. This could have been used to boost Piccadilly line and use it for RAT trains. They also could have been used on the central line. The 2009 stock cannot be used on other deep tube lines as they are wider and taller.
I'm aware the 2009 would not fit on other lines, but a smaller variant of the stock could have been built for use on other lines. With the 1967 stock withdrawn, I think it might have made sense to also withdraw the 1972/73 stock at the same time, with the narrower/shorter version of the 2009 stock for the Bakerloo and Piccadilly lines. The New Tube for London, which may well be delayed like other infrastructure projects, could then have been focused on the Central and Waterloo & City lines, and possibly the Jubilee as well. Because the 72 stock on the Bakerloo Line had only been refurbished in the early 00's whilst the 67 stock started it's refurb in 1989 so it would of made little sense to order stock for the Bakerloo. I suspect the other reason is the Bakerloo is on one of the less intensive lines on the network whilst the Victoria Line is up there with the Jubilee & Central in terms of intensiveness. Likewise, the 73 stock on the Piccadilly were refurbished and even more so than the 67 & 71 stock during 1995-2000 so again, would of made little sense.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 5, 2020 23:01:59 GMT
I would say a major opportunity was missed not storing and re-using the 67 stock. This could have been used to boost Piccadilly line and use it for RAT trains. They also could have been used on the central line. The 2009 stock cannot be used on other deep tube lines as they are wider and taller.
I'm aware the 2009 would not fit on other lines, but a smaller variant of the stock could have been built for use on other lines. With the 1967 stock withdrawn, I think it might have made sense to also withdraw the 1972/73 stock at the same time, with the narrower/shorter version of the 2009 stock for the Bakerloo and Piccadilly lines. The New Tube for London, which may well be delayed like other infrastructure projects, could then have been focused on the Central and Waterloo & City lines, and possibly the Jubilee as well. I would see it as a big waste of money to replace any of the Jubilee line stock, that should not be talked off until at least in the 2030's lol. The Jubilee line over the years has been spoilt compared to other lines. Did it not start off in 1977 with 72/73 stock then got replaced by 83 stock to be then replaced by 96 stock.
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Oct 6, 2020 5:51:31 GMT
I'm aware the 2009 would not fit on other lines, but a smaller variant of the stock could have been built for use on other lines. With the 1967 stock withdrawn, I think it might have made sense to also withdraw the 1972/73 stock at the same time, with the narrower/shorter version of the 2009 stock for the Bakerloo and Piccadilly lines. The New Tube for London, which may well be delayed like other infrastructure projects, could then have been focused on the Central and Waterloo & City lines, and possibly the Jubilee as well. I would see it as a big waste of money to replace any of the Jubilee line stock, that should not be talked off until at least in the 2030's lol. The Jubilee line over the years has been spoilt compared to other lines. Did it not start off in 1977 with 72/73 stock then got replaced by 83 stock to be then replaced by 96 stock.
I believe it did yeah. Considering that the Piccadilly and Bakerloo are still running around with trains from the 70’s that can’t keep up any longer, they should higher on the priority list than the Jubilee.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Oct 6, 2020 8:00:48 GMT
I would see it as a big waste of money to replace any of the Jubilee line stock, that should not be talked off until at least in the 2030's lol. The Jubilee line over the years has been spoilt compared to other lines. Did it not start off in 1977 with 72/73 stock then got replaced by 83 stock to be then replaced by 96 stock.
I believe it did yeah. Considering that the Piccadilly and Bakerloo are still running around with trains from the 70’s that can’t keep up any longer, they should higher on the priority list than the Jubilee. The point of ordering new stock for the Jubilee is that it would be of a "walk-through" design that would increase capacity by up to 25%. This would ease the crowding problems at pinch-points such as London Bridge and Canary Wharf. The displaced 1996 stock would then transfer to the Northern Line, whose 1995 stock is very similar, this would enable London Underground to meet its aspiration to operate 30tph on the central sections. Rolling stock replacement on the Bakerloo and Piccadilly Lines only replaces life-expired stock on a like-for-like basis, with an element of capacity increase. New stock for the Jubilee Line brings capacity increases not only for the Jubilee Line but also for the Northern Line, which as London's busiest accounts for around 15% of all daily journeys. As such there is a compelling case for the investment.
|
|
|
Post by rebbelhead on Oct 6, 2020 17:58:54 GMT
I believe it did yeah. Considering that the Piccadilly and Bakerloo are still running around with trains from the 70’s that can’t keep up any longer, they should higher on the priority list than the Jubilee. The point of ordering new stock for the Jubilee is that it would be of a "walk-through" design that would increase capacity by up to 25%. This would ease the crowding problems at pinch-points such as London Bridge and Canary Wharf. The displaced 1996 stock would then transfer to the Northern Line, whose 1995 stock is very similar, this would enable London Underground to meet its aspiration to operate 30tph on the central sections. Rolling stock replacement on the Bakerloo and Piccadilly Lines only replaces life-expired stock on a like-for-like basis, with an element of capacity increase. New stock for the Jubilee Line brings capacity increases not only for the Jubilee Line but also for the Northern Line, which as London's busiest accounts for around 15% of all daily journeys. As such there is a compelling case for the investment. True that a major capacity increase will influence the priority of stock replacement (among many other factors) but you are wrong about the Piccadilly replacement stock - it will also be walk-through and, combined with slightly greater length overall than the '73s, will give a big capacity increase in its own right. The biggest benefit though will be when the signalling can be replaced, allowing the new trains to exploit their full performance ... and who knows when that will be! Although the Jubilee and Northern stocks share the same structure they are very different technically - the Jubilee design was "frozen" while the government dithered over pressing the "go" button; in the meantime the Northern got the go-ahead so although they are actually older, technically their design is of a later generation. Both should be compatible with the signalling system, which is similar to both lines, but the big trouble comes if the fleet is mixed and one breaks down - if the following train can't be couple up to push out it a can be a very long delay, as it used to be on the District and Northern when fleets were mixed. I'm sure all that could be overcome though. Incidentally, someone earlier in the thread said the Jubilee had 1973 stock - it didn't! When new it had Mk11 1972s, the ones originally with red doors. This was a hasty follow-on order from the 30 1972 Mk1s for the Northern - themselves a quick re-hash of the Victoria line stock to get an order in quickly when the cash became available. The 1973s on the Piccadilly are very different, physically (dimensions) and technically. Ironically it was the 1983s on the Jubilee that were similar, and there was at one time a thought of using them on an Uxbridge to ?? (Acton? Earls Court?) service to release 1973s to increase the trunk Cockfosters to Heathrow service, but it had too many problems and never got anywhere near taking off. A pity I think!
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 6, 2020 23:16:56 GMT
I believe it did yeah. Considering that the Piccadilly and Bakerloo are still running around with trains from the 70’s that can’t keep up any longer, they should higher on the priority list than the Jubilee. The point of ordering new stock for the Jubilee is that it would be of a "walk-through" design that would increase capacity by up to 25%. This would ease the crowding problems at pinch-points such as London Bridge and Canary Wharf. The displaced 1996 stock would then transfer to the Northern Line, whose 1995 stock is very similar, this would enable London Underground to meet its aspiration to operate 30tph on the central sections. Rolling stock replacement on the Bakerloo and Piccadilly Lines only replaces life-expired stock on a like-for-like basis, with an element of capacity increase. New stock for the Jubilee Line brings capacity increases not only for the Jubilee Line but also for the Northern Line, which as London's busiest accounts for around 15% of all daily journeys. As such there is a compelling case for the investment. I would rather see the Northern line stock transferred to the Jubilee and new stock ordered in part for the Northern line. Why should the Jubilee be spoilt with new trains so much more than any other line.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Oct 7, 2020 17:53:00 GMT
Perhaps call the line going via Charing Cross the West End line and and the Bank branch London Bridge and City!
Now putting my head above the parapet, is it right to split the Northern line? Is the TfL aspiration of 30 tph still needed? Post Covid-19 there are likely to be far fewer office workers and this will impact the Northern line. 30 tph is only really needed for the morning and evening peaks, a relatively short time. If there is less demand in the peaks, 30 tph may not be required. It will cost millions to modify Camden Town and that money could be saved. I also wonder the expansion of Bank station will actually be required. The splitting of the line will upset LOTS and LOTS of customers who will no longer have a direct train. Keeping the line as it is may well be the best way forward.
Further if a capacity increase really is needed, let the Jubilee line keep its trains and put the new trains on the Northern line. The new walk-through trains would increase Northern line capacity. Following Covid-19 the Jubilee line may not the capacity increase. I think TfL should wait and see what happens post Covid-19 before making such decisions. Whatever money there is for capital projects will need to be spent wisely and effectively, and it is less than clear that these are the best uses.
|
|