S stock stabling

AFAIK nothing has yet been decided.

South Kensington was pencilled in for some sidings to replace the one's lost at Triangle (Triangle was to be re-modelled, not lost completely)...........but I did hear that the idea had been dropped.

There is still a lot (trust me, I mean A LOT) of discussion about all issue's related to S stock. They way things are progressing, I can foresee some major problems ahead unless someone somewhere starts making some decisions. Trouble is, thanks to PPP, no single person is really responsible any more - everything has to agreed between LUL and the infraco's (Metronet in this case). If something is not agreed, it dosen't get done. Simple as that!

Just to complicate matters, I'm led to believe that much of the infrastructure work needed for S stock isn't actually part of the PPP because it's not a current asset - the infraco's are not actually obliged to lift a finger unless PPP say's so. That's my understanding anyway.

Remember you read it here first - S stock will be late due to necessary infrastructure not being in place in time. If it all comes together, I will drive my car into the Thames - that's how confident I am of being right.

Lots of things have been decided around stabling and all the issues that have yet to be finalised are on the table which means MRSSL and LU are aware of them. As an example (rather than going through everything) Hammersmith is subject to a study instigated by MRSSL and we are expecting a proposal in due course.


No, South Kensington is still very much on the cards. There are some outstanding issues to finalise but it is still under serious consideration.


The stock itself is coming to the end of the design phase in the next few months and build commences in June. Decisions are being made but it is fair to say that we still have some issues to resolve, these are not insurmountable though and we are on track.
The PPP is very clear where responsibility lies for the majority of areas in the upgrade. Where there are question marks LU and MRSSL are going through a rigorous process (candidate requirements etc) to close these out. The PPP has provision for out of scope items and there are 77 use cases which financially incentivise the Infraco's to provide more than the contract.
In addition I have to say that MRSSL are being very forward thinking with their actions and in a lot of cases are including things which they consider not to be their responsibility in their Invitation To Tender (ITT) on the basis that we will sort it all out later. This means that there is no program delay while we have a 'bun fight' to decide who pays for what.


Not strictly true but broadly correct, as usual with PPP it's a bit more complicated than that! Some specific infrastructure work will not be finished by the time the first train hits London in all likelyhood, but this is not an issue and the program was designed this way in any case.
The Infraco are aware of all the things that need to completed in order to implement 'S' Stock operations and are dealing with them through various different mechanisms (depending on the particular issue). At the end of the day if they miss program then there are financial penalties for them to face, so it's in no ones interest to miss targets. Currently the program is on time.


If the 'S' Stock is late, I don't think it will be down to the infrastructure. Currently we are on program.
The first 'S' is due in 2008 for testing (most likely at Old Dalby) and the first passenger will board in 2010. If we are late your car won't be around anyway - It's a Ford and would have rusted away to nothing by then! ;D
_{I'm off!}

To be honest this isn't really my area, so I will pass on your comments to my colleague to look over (if thats ok with you?). The main problem for stabling will be for S7's so whilst your ideas are good they don't, in the main, solve our major headache.
Wembley Park sidings is almost a dead cert to take S7's in the future AIUI.

Yes, sorry - I was on the 07:25 to Derby this morning (and will be tomorrow and Thursday too ) so I'm a bit slow on the uptake tonight! Thanks.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I actually can't think of anything in reply to that ;D ;D

As for the rest of your replies, prjb, you have certainly cleared a few things up - ta for that Thanks also for the corrections to my post & I shall try to be more positive in future with regard to Metronet

Farringdon is already in the "wrong" position to reverse a current C-stock directly over. The same is true of Liverpool Street when it comes to A-stock. Therefore, given that the crossovers have always been in the "wrong" place I can't see why they would move them now.

Out of curisoty.... Was there ever a stock (pre A & C) that could reverse Inner to Outer, and depart the Outer in passenger service? Or when the Platform to Train Interface wasn't as impressed upon as it is now did they depart in passenger....?

Ta

I'm only kidding, it looks like a really nice car. I can't talk too much anyway because, despite always buying Vauxhalls previously, I currently run a motor from a Ford owned company.


Not at all, why wouldn't you be sceptical? After all you are basing your opinions/remarks on pretty sound experience of the Infraco so far. Not to mention the fact you are probably correct, this could be a record in 2011 for the oldest re-activated thread when you post 'I told you so'!!
I love the fact that we don't always completely agree, although in this instance it is anyones guess who is going to be right!

They'll just retire some old stock there.....

From what I understand the entire depot will be flattened (in the next few months). There will also be office accomadation for lots of Metronet staff, I did hear 1500, but dont know how correct that is.

It will be a shame to see the old building go, but the new "sheds" will be able to have an entire train raised up from the floor.

The original plans kept the steam sheds as a training centre.

S stock trains are also too long for most roads in Hammersmith Depot, Farringdon Sidings, Edgware Road Sidings, Triangle Sidings and Parsons Green 29rd. They will also not fit into most of the platforms between Hammersmith and Baker Street as well as Bayswater.
The person responsible for the S Stock programme in my opinion lacks common sense and is in the wrong job.

Yes but the simpler way to do this would have to use 6 car S stock for the services now operated by C stock, thus being able to use all platforms and sidings as now without wasting billions re engineering five or six locations, this money could be better spent by building non conflicting junctions on the Circle or extending a tube line or an additional platform at Victoria or Liverpool Street etc to alleviate overcrowding.

What about the sidings at Edgwaer Road, Farringdon, PG, Triangle and Barking as well as the bay at Putney Bridge that will cease to be operational!