|
|
Post by vjaska on May 19, 2021 2:08:05 GMT
So in other words it is to save money, let's hope all the passengers don't back at once!!! Come 21st June who knows what will happen. But people will flock to nighclubs and bars. In regards to 21st June supposed lifting of all remaining restrictions, I'll believe it when I see it  |
|
|
|
Post by MoEnviro on May 19, 2021 9:24:32 GMT
So in other words it is to save money, let's hope all the passengers don't back at once!!! The official reason for the new timetable is to fix the long running issue on the northern section of the line of conflicts between LO and LU. This timetable has a perfect 4 tph LO, 8 tph LU to Stonebridge and 4 LU to Harrow service. |
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on May 19, 2021 11:04:02 GMT
So in other words it is to save money, let's hope all the passengers don't back at once!!! The official reason for the new timetable is to fix the long running issue on the northern section of the line of conflicts between LO and LU. This timetable has a perfect 4 tph LO, 8 tph LU to Stonebridge and 4 LU to Harrow service. Very this. Not an expert on Bakerloo timetables but the Bakerloo is a pain as the Network Rail signalling north of Queen's Park doesn't allow for very close intervals between trains. North of Stonebridge Park trains can only be timetabled 4 minutes apart IIRC. This causes problems at Harrow and Wealdstone where trains need to be de-trained to head to the siding, with minimal reversal time, so the last timetable wasn't as reliable. The new timetable allows a cleaner constant 15 minute interval between Watford DC trains instead of the 13-17 intervals (apart from MF peaks where peak service levels are unchanged). If only the NR signalling on that stretch was to a higher standard, allowing 2 minute headways. That would solve a lot of the pain. But thankfully Bakerloo is not a line I have to worry about  |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on May 20, 2021 18:10:41 GMT
The official reason for the new timetable is to fix the long running issue on the northern section of the line of conflicts between LO and LU. This timetable has a perfect 4 tph LO, 8 tph LU to Stonebridge and 4 LU to Harrow service. Very this. Not an expert on Bakerloo timetables but the Bakerloo is a pain as the Network Rail signalling north of Queen's Park doesn't allow for very close intervals between trains. North of Stonebridge Park trains can only be timetabled 4 minutes apart IIRC. This causes problems at Harrow and Wealdstone where trains need to be de-trained to head to the siding, with minimal reversal time, so the last timetable wasn't as reliable. The new timetable allows a cleaner constant 15 minute interval between Watford DC trains instead of the 13-17 intervals (apart from MF peaks where peak service levels are unchanged). If only the NR signalling on that stretch was to a higher standard, allowing 2 minute headways. That would solve a lot of the pain. But thankfully Bakerloo is not a line I have to worry about I am afraid that none of this matters much in my view because as I understand matters the service south of Queens Park is also reduced. The service south of Queens Park could be modified slightly to give a more even service north of Queens Park without impacting the overall frequency south of Queens Park. The number of trains per hour is critical in the current environment of social distancing and trying to get people back onto public transport, now is not the time to reduce frequencies. Sadly those in charge appear to have completely lost the plot. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 20, 2021 18:23:04 GMT
Very this. Not an expert on Bakerloo timetables but the Bakerloo is a pain as the Network Rail signalling north of Queen's Park doesn't allow for very close intervals between trains. North of Stonebridge Park trains can only be timetabled 4 minutes apart IIRC. This causes problems at Harrow and Wealdstone where trains need to be de-trained to head to the siding, with minimal reversal time, so the last timetable wasn't as reliable. The new timetable allows a cleaner constant 15 minute interval between Watford DC trains instead of the 13-17 intervals (apart from MF peaks where peak service levels are unchanged). If only the NR signalling on that stretch was to a higher standard, allowing 2 minute headways. That would solve a lot of the pain. But thankfully Bakerloo is not a line I have to worry about I am afraid that none of this matters much in my view because as I understand matters the service south of Queens Park is also reduced. The service south of Queens Park could be modified slightly to give a more even service north of Queens Park without impacting the overall frequency south of Queens Park. The number of trains per hour is critical in the current environment of social distancing and trying to get people back onto public transport, now is not the time to reduce frequencies. Sadly those in charge appear to have completely lost the plot. I wonder if a desperate attempt was also made at TfL HQ to also take aim at the tube for cuts so that someone doesn't end up accusing TfL at only depriving the bus network. I would imagine if figures were to be observed that they'd have gone for the lines near the bottom of the usage tables, those being the W&C, Metropolitan and the Bakerloo lines. The Metropolitan line having many branches and the fast/semi/all stations workings could be a pain to reduce so the next target became the Bakerloo line instead, which was relatively easy in the end due to only one branch of the line. You could also disguise it quite well citing interworking at the northern end. The Bakerloo also has quite a few alternatives throughout Central London, the Paddington to Baker Street section would probably suffer the most. But even that has the District line running to Edgware Road which helps bridge the gap. Baker Street to Waterloo has the Jubilee Line, which also stops at Bond Street which is close to Oxford Circus, alongside Westminster which is near Embankment. Should anyone still want a direct train they can still use the Bakerloo. Obviously this all shouldn't be happening in the first place, but I think a line was bound to get reductions somewhere and the Bakerloo line seems like the most obvious line to do it to. A reduction on another single branch line such as the Jubilee or Victoria would be far worse. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jun 7, 2021 22:58:41 GMT
Is Edgware Road for the Bakerloo line and Edgware Road for District, Circle and Ham and City lines considered as on station or two different stations?
|
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Jun 7, 2021 23:05:46 GMT
Is Edgware Road for the Bakerloo line and Edgware Road for District, Circle and Ham and City lines considered as on station or two different stations? Two distinct stations. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jun 8, 2021 0:18:57 GMT
Is Edgware Road for the Bakerloo line and Edgware Road for District, Circle and Ham and City lines considered as on station or two different stations? Two distinct stations. Those two stations should have a connector blob on the map. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 8, 2021 7:29:29 GMT
Those two stations should have a connector blob on the map. There's no need as all connections can be made at Paddington. |
|
