|
Post by route53 on Oct 2, 2020 10:56:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Oct 2, 2020 11:48:08 GMT
Not being too clued up on tube tech would the Jubilee Line's 96 stock be compatible on the Northern Line with their existing 'plesantly noisy' traction motors? I'd hate for them to loose that aspect of them, else in bus terms that would be like allocating 06 reg Es to Merton only to then retrofit them with ZF. The 'selfish enthusiasm' in me would ideally love those noisy 96s to be based at Morden. ;D
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 2, 2020 14:13:29 GMT
Not being too clued up on tube tech would the Jubilee Line's 96 stock be compatible on the Northern Line with their existing 'plesantly noisy' traction motors? I'd hate for them to loose that aspect of them, else in bus terms that would be like allocating 06 reg Es to Merton only to then retrofit them with ZF. The 'selfish enthusiasm' in me would ideally love those noisy 96s to be based at Morden. ;D According to wikipedia (pinch of salt of course), the 1995 & 1996 stocks have a number of differences but I've no idea how much difference that makes? - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_1996_Stock should be in the overview section
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 2, 2020 16:00:11 GMT
Not being too clued up on tube tech would the Jubilee Line's 96 stock be compatible on the Northern Line with their existing 'plesantly noisy' traction motors? I'd hate for them to loose that aspect of them, else in bus terms that would be like allocating 06 reg Es to Merton only to then retrofit them with ZF. The 'selfish enthusiasm' in me would ideally love those noisy 96s to be based at Morden. ;D Perhaps if the Northern line were to be split into two lines, even if just operationally, a different type could be used on each. The current 1995 stock could be used only on the longer High Barnet to Morden section, but at an increased frequency. This could even involve re-introducing direct Mill Hill East services, as High Barnet may not need a full 30tph. Then the Jubilee's 1996 stock could be used for the Edgware to Battersea services.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Oct 2, 2020 18:39:22 GMT
Not being too clued up on tube tech would the Jubilee Line's 96 stock be compatible on the Northern Line with their existing 'plesantly noisy' traction motors? I'd hate for them to loose that aspect of them, else in bus terms that would be like allocating 06 reg Es to Merton only to then retrofit them with ZF. The 'selfish enthusiasm' in me would ideally love those noisy 96s to be based at Morden. ;D According to wikipedia (pinch of salt of course), the 1995 & 1996 stocks have a number of differences but I've no idea how much difference that makes? - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_1996_Stock should be in the overview section I know there was a 96 stock the other day doing routine brake testing around Northfields on the Piccadilly Line so in terms of operating on the Northern Line in general service i imagine they'll work the same as the 95 stock. With routine maintenance i imagine the relevant depot(s) would need to cater for both 95 and 96 stocks.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Oct 2, 2020 18:59:32 GMT
Not being too clued up on tube tech would the Jubilee Line's 96 stock be compatible on the Northern Line with their existing 'plesantly noisy' traction motors? I'd hate for them to loose that aspect of them, else in bus terms that would be like allocating 06 reg Es to Merton only to then retrofit them with ZF. The 'selfish enthusiasm' in me would ideally love those noisy 96s to be based at Morden. ;D Perhaps if the Northern line were to be split into two lines, even if just operationally, a different type could be used on each. The current 1995 stock could be used only on the longer High Barnet to Morden section, but at an increased frequency. This could even involve re-introducing direct Mill Hill East services, as High Barnet may not need a full 30tph. Then the Jubilee's 1996 stock could be used for the Edgware to Battersea services. As I understand it the line's destined to be split anyway once the Camden Town upgrade's done. I wouldn't be surprised if the 96 stock would still intermix with the 95 stock as they may not be enough from the Jubilee Line to fully operate a section of the present Northern Line by themselves.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 2, 2020 21:11:27 GMT
Perhaps if the Northern line were to be split into two lines, even if just operationally, a different type could be used on each. The current 1995 stock could be used only on the longer High Barnet to Morden section, but at an increased frequency. This could even involve re-introducing direct Mill Hill East services, as High Barnet may not need a full 30tph. Then the Jubilee's 1996 stock could be used for the Edgware to Battersea services. As I understand it the line's destined to be split anyway once the Camden Town upgrade's done. I wouldn't be surprised if the 96 stock would still intermix with the 95 stock as they may not be enough from the Jubilee Line to fully operate a section of the present Northern Line by themselves. I think the Edgware-Battersea section would be doable with the 1996 stock, that route is shorter than the Jubilee line (which is already quite frequent).
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 2, 2020 21:16:12 GMT
I know there was one the other day doing routine brake testing around Northfields on the Piccadilly Line so in terms of operating on the Northern Line in general service i imagine they'll work the same as the 95 stock. With routine maintenance i imagine the relevant depot would need to cater for both 95 and 96 stocks. Not sure what the size of each depot is, but I wonder if it would be possible for the Edgware-Battersea route to entirely use the Golders Green depot, and the Barnet-Morden route to entirely use Morden depot? Plus relevant sidings for further storage.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Oct 2, 2020 23:24:49 GMT
I know there was one the other day doing routine brake testing around Northfields on the Piccadilly Line so in terms of operating on the Northern Line in general service i imagine they'll work the same as the 95 stock. With routine maintenance i imagine the relevant depot would need to cater for both 95 and 96 stocks. Not sure what the size of each depot is, but I wonder if it would be possible for the Edgware-Battersea route to entirely use the Golders Green depot, and the Barnet-Morden route to entirely use Morden depot? Plus relevant sidings for further storage. I believe Morden can take thirty-eight trains, at least that's how many it had when the line consisted of the 59 and 72 stocks. Golders Green I imagine is probably half that amount as the depot does looks considerably smaller than Morden.
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Oct 3, 2020 1:25:52 GMT
I believe Morden can take thirty-eight trains. At least that's how many it had when the line consisted of the 59 and 72 stocks. Golders Green I imagine is probably half that amount as the depot does looks considerably smaller than Morden. Current timetables show: Morden 41 starting AM Highgate 16 “ “ Barnet 8 “ “ Edgware 13 starting AM Golders Grn 17 “ “
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Oct 4, 2020 9:41:46 GMT
Under current constraints this is entirely sensible in my opinion. Thamesmead has pretty woeful transport links, comprehensive buses not withstanding, so the DLR will be very welcome, and I am pleased this has got a high priority to be completed. A bit trivial I know, but it will be nice to see a new colour and name on the Underground map when the Northern line split is complete!
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Oct 4, 2020 10:42:18 GMT
Under current constraints this is entirely sensible in my opinion. Thamesmead has pretty woeful transport links, comprehensive buses not withstanding, so the DLR will be very welcome, and I am pleased this has got a high priority to be completed. A bit trivial I know, but it will be nice to see a new colour and name on the Underground map when the Northern line split is complete! A pity the Jubilee Line wasn't extended to Thamesmead as intended, hence the future-proofing of North Greenwich Station with the third platform. However the DLR plan's still a good gig. Regarding possible new names for the Northern Line split, I'd he happy with South London Line, Southern¹ Line or South Line for the Barnet/Mill to Morden section. ¹ - Bearing in mind that could be mistaken with Southern Railways
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Oct 4, 2020 11:19:56 GMT
Under current constraints this is entirely sensible in my opinion. Thamesmead has pretty woeful transport links, comprehensive buses not withstanding, so the DLR will be very welcome, and I am pleased this has got a high priority to be completed. A bit trivial I know, but it will be nice to see a new colour and name on the Underground map when the Northern line split is complete! A pity the Jubilee Line wasn't extended to Thamesmead as intended, hence the future-proofing of North Greenwich Station with the third platform. However the DLR plan's still a good gig. Regarding possible new names for the Northern Line split, I'd he happy with South London Line, Southern¹ Line or South Line for the Barnet/Mill to Morden section. ¹ - Bearing in mind that could be mistaken with Southern Railways I think the Barnet-Morden route should remain as the Northern Line as it was the planned takeover of the Great Northern suburban branches that inspired its naming (in the event, only High Barnet and the short stub to Mill Hill East were completed). Perhaps the Battersea-Edgware route could take inspiration from the Bakerloo (Baker Street & Waterloo Railway), and become the Batterdware. On second thoughts, maybe not ....
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 4, 2020 11:42:03 GMT
A pity the Jubilee Line wasn't extended to Thamesmead as intended, hence the future-proofing of North Greenwich Station with the third platform. However the DLR plan's still a good gig. Regarding possible new names for the Northern Line split, I'd he happy with South London Line, Southern¹ Line or South Line for the Barnet/Mill to Morden section. ¹ - Bearing in mind that could be mistaken with Southern Railways I think the Barnet-Morden route should remain as the Northern Line as it was the planned takeover of the Great Northern suburban branches that inspired its naming (in the event, only High Barnet and the short stub to Mill Hill East were completed). Perhaps the Battersea-Edgware route could take inspiration from the Bakerloo (Baker Street & Waterloo Railway), and become the Batterdware. On second thoughts, maybe not .... My suggestion would be to remove the 'Northern line' name completely, as the line equally serves South London towards Morden - then rename each section after the original railway companies. 'Hampstead line' for Edgware-Battersea, and 'City line' for Barnet-Morden. I would keep the City line in black as this route has always been black on the tube map, and give a new colour to the Hampstead line, which used various colours before merging with the Bank branch. Lime green has often been suggested, though this might clash with the Trams colour. Or perhaps re-use the East London line's amber colour? This appeared alongside the Overground's orange for several years so wouldn't necessarily clash.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Oct 4, 2020 11:46:28 GMT
Perhaps the Battersea-Edgware route could take inspiration from the Bakerloo (Baker Street & Waterloo Railway), and become the Batterdware. On second thoughts, maybe not .... Charing Cross Line perhaps? Inspiration from the Victoria and Piccadilly Lines with their respective stations
|
|