|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 22, 2017 14:20:42 GMT
I doubt if tunnel size was the determining factor.
The District had stopped running to Hounslow in 1964, more than ten years before the Heathrow extension was built. It is unlikely that both lines could have served Heathrow - there would be insufficient capacity on a double-track line to support both, and new compromise-height platforms at deep-level stations would probably not have been allowed even in the 1970s. Coupled with the need to provide an adequate service to the other three District branches, and the faster service to central London available by Picadilly by virtue of skipping Chiswick Park to Ravenscourt Park inclusive, the Picc would have been the obvious choice.
Of course, it would have been possible to re-jig the services, by swapping the Piccadilly and District west of Hammersmith, but you would run into compromise height problems again on the Richmond branch, and you would need major infrastructure changes, either at Hammersmith or at Turnham Green junction, and Stamford Brook and Chiswick Park stations, to make that work.
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Nov 22, 2017 14:44:01 GMT
Slightly off topic but if the usual short-sightedness and penny-pinching attitude (as usual)had not prevailed the District line could have served Heathrow for the sake of slightly larger tunnels. I doubt if tunnel size was the determining factor. I have mentioned in these pages before, that I vividly recall the late J. Graeme Bruce giving a presentation to LURS and lamenting that during his time as Chief Operating Officer for LT Railways, one of his greatest regrets was not authorising the Heathrow extension to surface-Stock dimensions, purely on the grounds of cost.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 22, 2017 15:40:22 GMT
Sadly major expenditure in mostly hidden infrastructure like signalling, power supplies and track/formation does not make great tabloid style headlines unlike orders for extra rolling stock. While I completely agree about what is "sexy" for newspaper headlines TfL can readily point to the Victoria Line where an awful lot of money was spent on track, signalling / control system, power upgrades, tunnel cooling upgrades to allow the trains (yes OK they were new too) to run so quickly and so frequently. It would not take much effort to explain in clear terms why the "invisible stuff" is so important to allow the "visible" train service to run so well. It is the sort of message that TfL readily should be "getting out there" although it would rather take the ground from underneath their recent decision to (largely) scrap the Jub and Nor upgrades.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 22, 2017 16:53:14 GMT
one of his greatest regrets was not authorising the Heathrow extension to surface-Stock dimensions, purely on the grounds of cost. Even if they had been future-proofed by being built to main line dimensions, there would have been other hurdles to face before you could take the District to Heathrow. Would a simple swap of Ealing and Heathrow destinations been sufficient? If all District trains went to Heathrow, how would the Richmond branch be served? (or was the idea that Chelney, which was at the time proposed to take over the Wimbledon branch south of Fulham Broadway, would release enough capacity on the District?). Would there be some complicated track reorganisation at Barons Court stuff to allow the District to run non-stop between Hammersmith and Acton, with the Picc doing all stations? Would the D78 stock have been built a few years earlier to avoid the incongruity of pre-war R38 trains (or even CO/CP stock!) running on the shiny new railway?
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Nov 22, 2017 17:14:05 GMT
The ancient trains on the Piccadilly prevent the additional capacity the line so desperately needs from being provided. They need replacing ASAP. Fleet replacement on its own would not be transformational. First and foremost, the line was largely resignalled in the late 1970s/early 1980s, a time when the system was in decline. Whilst not quite as bad as places like the Baker Street to Wembley Park section of the Jubilee Line, the Picc simply isn't setup for very high frequency. This particularly applies to the Wood Green-Cockfosters section, which unfortunately places a constraint on the entire line simply because virtually every service is scheduled to run through Arnos Grove at least. Next we can't exploit even what signalling is provided due to defensive driving. All that's needed is one driver who is terrified of having a SPAD and everyone else is reduced to the same level. The line is bad in disruption due to its physical layout, but made worse by the 1990s superdepots at Arnos Grove and Acton Town, although the opening of Cockfosters and Northfields must have helped ease this a bit. Politically, the line has constant ER issues which LU management seem incapable of resolving, and ever since PPP no one knows if a line upgrade is coming or going, so it's hard to make a case for major works to the existing infrastructure, much of which is prone to unreliability. The ongoing works to the signalling control system should help a little. Address all of the above and only then are you at the point where the trains are the weakest link, and even then only because there aren't enough of them. Even this could be resolved by building some extra S stock and giving Uxbridge to the District Line. If the 73 stock was replaced and all else remained the same, all that would be gained is a bit of extra room, perhaps, by pushing out the length (subject to infrastructure works to accommodate this), and perhaps some extra space through elimination of middle cabs and the introduction of through gangways. I don't even think there would be much of a performance gain as the trains would still be constrained by existing signalling and manual driving.
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Nov 22, 2017 18:04:59 GMT
Personally from a holistic point of view, I think the out of sync timelines of ageing of both an infrastructure and rolling stick has been a never ending cycle across the network since it's inception as innovations in technology supersede what is already in place. It is often portrayed in the media as an unprecedented phenomena but I feel thats only because there is significantly greater media coverage reaching a wider audience even if the news covered isn't alway the most beneficial in promoting the problems in running a rapid transit system pioneered in the Victorian era.
The "Misery line", started popping up in the 80's as the Northern line struggled to keep up the with the unpredicted turn around in London's economic fortunes resulting in a surge of passenger numbers.
To me it seems that this cycle is as old as the system itself and will continue to show that it nigh impossible to comprehensively forecast passenger numbers in time before the symptoms of maximum capacity make themselves present.
|
|
|
Post by scheduler on Nov 23, 2017 17:01:33 GMT
How to make problems for yourself in 5 easy steps: 1. Delay resignalling 2. Delay new stock 3. Cancel Northern and Jub upgrades 4. Cut maintenance so that track replacement in one year isn't a 30th of the track miles operated, when track-life is 30 years 5. Cut Government grants and investment in LU just at the time the economy needs it most.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 24, 2017 0:46:54 GMT
How to make problems for yourself in 5 easy steps: 1. Delay resignalling 2. Delay new stock 3. Cancel Northern and Jub upgrades 4. Cut maintenance so that track replacement in one year isn't a 30th of the track miles operated, when track-life is 30 years 5. Cut Government grants and investment in LU just at the time the economy needs it most. Is it 1983/1984/1985/1986/1987/1988/1989 etc etc *again*?
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Nov 26, 2017 13:14:19 GMT
I'm not sure how much it takes for continual disruptions to cause serious scrutiny at the top of TfL, but the current situation on the Picc must surely be there now. These days, I actively avoid taking it as there is a fair chance of some problems.
A linked issue is communication. Messages go out stating 'minor delays' when the next train is some 20 minutes away - bearing in mind that it is very unlikely that a passenger waiting that long would be able to board such a train as it would be full, I would suggest that 'suspended' would be better to put out, so people know to use another route (which will probably help service recovery, too).
On topic of recovery, would turning trains at Wood Green in the off peak help as a quick fix? Additional station assistants being used to help with tipping out and avoiding delays.
At least this year, we have not had severe delays for 3 weeks on end due to leaf fall, so it is pleasing to see that TfL have worked out that Autumn happens.
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Nov 26, 2017 13:20:41 GMT
I'm not sure how much it takes for continual disruptions to cause serious scrutiny at the top of TfL, but the current situation on the Picc must surely be there now. These days, I actively avoid taking it as there is a fair chance of some problems. A linked issue is communication. Messages go out stating 'minor delays' when the next train is some 20 minutes away - bearing in mind that it is very unlikely that a passenger waiting that long would be able to board such a train as it would be full, I would suggest that 'suspended' would be better to put out, so people know to use another route (which will probably help service recovery, too). On topic of recovery, would turning trains at Wood Green in the off peak help as a quick fix? Additional station assistants being used to help with tipping out and avoiding delays. At least this year, we have not had severe delays for 3 weeks on end due to leaf fall, so it is pleasing to see that TfL have worked out that Autumn happens. Although not a scheduled reversing point, Wood Green is used fairly regularly at the moment to reverse late running trains. If they actually scheduled reversers there, that would remove sone flexibility.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Nov 28, 2017 23:07:18 GMT
This has come up before and the general consensus IIRC was that these messages by the nature of their chain of communication are somewhat discredited.
|
|
|
Post by scheduler on Nov 29, 2017 2:07:02 GMT
How to make problems for yourself in 5 easy steps: 1. Delay resignalling 2. Delay new stock 3. Cancel Northern and Jub upgrades 4. Cut maintenance so that track replacement in one year isn't a 30th of the track miles operated, when track-life is 30 years 5. Cut Government grants and investment in LU just at the time the economy needs it most. Is it 1983/1984/1985/1986/1987/1988/1989 etc etc *again*? Errr....could well be, some people need history lessons, and it sure isn't me!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 17:02:10 GMT
AS I type this no service Acton Town to Uxbridge signal failure at Hanger Lane Junction
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2017 21:55:41 GMT
Here's a question that might help answer the initial idea: In the same way the 96's were built as a cheap replica of the 95's, were 72's were built for longer use and the 73's built to quickly and cheaply replace the old fleet? If they were then TfL can't have seen this dire need of an upgrade as a surprise. The 73ts were a new design compared to the 72ts. In fact, it is the 72ts (especially the late mk1 variety) that were the quick bodge to an existing design (67ts) to enable fleet replacement (38ts) (but also keep Met Cam's accounts ticking over). The 73ts is arguably the ultimate development of the conventional Underground train. Technologically it is about 6 years newer than the 67/72ts, reverting to a single camshaft design for traction and brake control, compared to the double design for the 67/72ts. Even its cost reducing elements (such as total reduction in train length for future OMO, longer cars reducing equipment amounts, twin door rodding) seem to have been more durable than the subsequent fleet's similar attempts to do the job with less expenditure. EDIT: where have you got the idea that 'the 96's were built as a cheap replica of the 95's' Sure the conversation has moved quite drastically on but I found where I got that thing about the 96's from. It was in a city metric article explaining the different tube stocks for beginners (from when I was trying to explain the different stocks to my friends). Whether city metric is a reliable source is, however, a conversation for another day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2017 22:02:13 GMT
What do TFL consider threshold for a good service? Does it differ from line to line. Minor delays on the Vic would be like 5 minutes but on the picc, that's good. I was at south Ken and I saw the next train was in 13mins and the one after in 15. The train before had just left as I entered the platform. Is outdated equipment really the answer to all of the Piccs problems, why do such gaps occur. Surely if it's passenger related you can expect to see it on other lines but you don't as much so it had to be mostly related to the equipment the picc uses. I'd understand in a transition period, new trains would keep catching up with old but when all the stock is is as capable as each other, why is there often such large gaps. Writing this, I've realised it must be passenger related as old stock as equipment may lead to equally spaced out infrequent trains but not massive gaps.
|
|
|
Post by holborncentral on Dec 20, 2017 22:06:46 GMT
The 73ts were a new design compared to the 72ts. In fact, it is the 72ts (especially the late mk1 variety) that were the quick bodge to an existing design (67ts) to enable fleet replacement (38ts) (but also keep Met Cam's accounts ticking over). The 73ts is arguably the ultimate development of the conventional Underground train. Technologically it is about 6 years newer than the 67/72ts, reverting to a single camshaft design for traction and brake control, compared to the double design for the 67/72ts. Even its cost reducing elements (such as total reduction in train length for future OMO, longer cars reducing equipment amounts, twin door rodding) seem to have been more durable than the subsequent fleet's similar attempts to do the job with less expenditure. EDIT: where have you got the idea that 'the 96's were built as a cheap replica of the 95's' Sure the conversation has moved quite drastically on but I found where I got that thing about the 96's from. It was in a city metric article explaining the different tube stocks for beginners (from when I was trying to explain the different stocks to my friends). Whether city metric is a reliable source is, however, a conversation for another day. I sometimes read City Metric and I follow them on Twitter. They have some interesting articles but I'm not sure how accurate or reliable they are. I read a piece on there once about all the abandoned tube stations. I wouldn't mind reading that article about the different tube stocks. Have you still got the link to it?
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Dec 20, 2017 22:08:36 GMT
What do TFL consider threshold for a good service? Does it differ from line to line. Minor delays on the Vic would be like 5 minutes but on the picc, that's good. I was at south Ken and I saw the next train was in 13mins and the one after in 15. The train before had just left as I entered the platform. Is outdated equipment really the answer to all of the Piccs problems, why do such gaps occur. Surely if it's passenger related you can expect to see it on other lines but you don't as much so it had to be mostly related to the equipment the picc uses. I'd understand in a transition period, new trains would keep catching up with old but when all the stock is is as capable as each other, why is there often such large gaps. Writing this, I've realised it must be passenger related as old stock as equipment may lead to equally spaced out infrequent trains but not massive gaps. I don’t think anybody understands the criteria for the service statuses. It seems extremely arbitrary and in many cases, plain wrong. In terms of the gaps in service, that could be down to a number of issues. Also, bear in mind that presently, the platform DMI’s are overestimating the time between trains. I saw a train advertised as being 10 minutes away, but in reality it was around 5 minutes away.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,225
|
Post by rincew1nd on Dec 20, 2017 22:15:13 GMT
Chris M has in the past posted his own (rather good) definitions of the differing service levels. I'm not sure I've ever seen any official definitions though.
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Dec 20, 2017 22:50:21 GMT
The 73ts were a new design compared to the 72ts. In fact, it is the 72ts (especially the late mk1 variety) that were the quick bodge to an existing design (67ts) to enable fleet replacement (38ts) (but also keep Met Cam's accounts ticking over). The 73ts is arguably the ultimate development of the conventional Underground train. Technologically it is about 6 years newer than the 67/72ts, reverting to a single camshaft design for traction and brake control, compared to the double design for the 67/72ts. Even its cost reducing elements (such as total reduction in train length for future OMO, longer cars reducing equipment amounts, twin door rodding) seem to have been more durable than the subsequent fleet's similar attempts to do the job with less expenditure. EDIT: where have you got the idea that 'the 96's were built as a cheap replica of the 95's' Sure the conversation has moved quite drastically on but I found where I got that thing about the 96's from. It was in a city metric article explaining the different tube stocks for beginners (from when I was trying to explain the different stocks to my friends). Whether city metric is a reliable source is, however, a conversation for another day. Briefly, the main difference between the 1995 and 1996 stocks are that the former was built to "cheapest lifetime cost" and the latter built to "cheapest initial cost". The 1995 stock remain owned and maintained by Alstom as part of the design, build, maintain contract, which also recognises why they have slightly more modern technology (IGBTs) on board. Despite their name, they are newer and more modern than the 1996 stock, which use GTO thyristors on the traction equipment, at the time the more reliable AC traction and cheaper than newer IGBTs - but now with higher maintenance costs. *slaps own wrist* - please create a new thread if you want to discuss these stock further. Thanks.As for CityMetric - like another popular London "news" site they're excellent at providing basic information for interested Londoners, but they lack a certain quality and accuracy once things start to get more technical. It's a fine balance between being engaging and boring, but it's a shame when things are effectively made up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2017 23:46:28 GMT
Sure the conversation has moved quite drastically on but I found where I got that thing about the 96's from. It was in a city metric article explaining the different tube stocks for beginners (from when I was trying to explain the different stocks to my friends). Whether city metric is a reliable source is, however, a conversation for another day. I sometimes read City Metric and I follow them on Twitter. They have some interesting articles but I'm not sure how accurate or reliable they are. I read a piece on there once about all the abandoned tube stations. I wouldn't mind reading that article about the different tube stocks. Have you still got the link to it? Yes I do: Here it is. Here is another one for other TFL run services
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 20, 2017 23:49:03 GMT
What do TFL consider threshold for a good service? Does it differ from line to line. Minor delays on the Vic would be like 5 minutes but on the picc, that's good. I was at south Ken and I saw the next train was in 13mins and the one after in 15. The train before had just left as I entered the platform. Is outdated equipment really the answer to all of the Piccs problems, why do such gaps occur. Surely if it's passenger related you can expect to see it on other lines but you don't as much so it had to be mostly related to the equipment the picc uses. I'd understand in a transition period, new trains would keep catching up with old but when all the stock is is as capable as each other, why is there often such large gaps. Writing this, I've realised it must be passenger related as old stock as equipment may lead to equally spaced out infrequent trains but not massive gaps. The whole combine is seeing a lot of cancellations at the moment due to shortage of drivers. Cancellations cause gaps, and there’s only so much the controllers and signallers can do to work round this. Sometimes a gap may simply be missed, or no matter how much other trains are regulated the gap reasserts itself. With things being so busy nowadays it doesn’t take much of an initial gap in front for a train to start losing shed loads of time due to taking longer in stations, having to reopen doors, not getting pilot light, losing pilot light when moving, train accelerating slightly slower because it has more people on, more chance of a person ill, etc etc etc. Secondly (and it hurts to say this) it may well be partly due to manual driving. There are simply some really slow drivers nowadays on the Picc. For both of the above issues the toxic ER atmosphere on the Piccadilly Line in recent years certainly doesn’t help.
|
|
|
Post by PiccNT on Dec 21, 2017 0:47:04 GMT
Manual driving is an issue. Whilst I consider myself a fairly competent driver (others may disagree) capable of driving at up to line speed when possible, I do sit up front with other drivers as I travel to my pick up points or just cadging a lift. As North End states, there are some really slow drivers around. Saying that, the timetable is very forgiving (especially the Autumn Timetable) and unless you are driving extremely slowly, you will probably not be pulled up for it. There were some posts advertised recently for assessors that will sit in the car and then with the driver to assess their driving. Whether this will improve things, I have no idea.
The other issue with manual driving is the fear of having a SPaD and this will slow some drivers down especially if they have a bit of history in this area. Along with signal failures (seems to be a lot recently at Acton Town), incorrect signals lowered holding things up, passenger emergency alarms, vomit, defective trains, no cover for some duties and the list goes on, plus the fact that some of the dot matrix's are pretty inaccurate (Picc Circus EB is a particularly bad one), these are some reasons why there are gaps. Fortunately, we have quite a few reversing points where the service can be recovered a little easier. An example of this was last Saturday, I was on my way to Uxbridge and was told to reverse at Barons Court as there were gaps on the EB. I'm not sure I've seen as many people on the platforms at Knightsbridge, Hyde Park Corner, Green Park and all the way to Kings X. Thank you Winter Wonderland!
|
|
|
Post by holborncentral on Dec 21, 2017 0:57:11 GMT
I sometimes read City Metric and I follow them on Twitter. They have some interesting articles but I'm not sure how accurate or reliable they are. I read a piece on there once about all the abandoned tube stations. I wouldn't mind reading that article about the different tube stocks. Have you still got the link to it? Yes I do: Here it is. Here is another one for other TFL run servicesThanks. That's my bedtime reading sorted for tonight! I must admit I found their articles useful when I first started learning about LU.
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Dec 21, 2017 9:16:22 GMT
One of the problems as I see it with the Picc is that it has a high demand off peak - albeit I know that off peak travel in general is increasing, but owing to the nature of where the line connects (Heathrow, everywhere between SK and KX), tourist traffic throughout the day is high. I assume that this makes recovery from a morning issue more difficult as there is less capacity to try and put things right before the evening peak.
|
|
|
Post by scheduler on Dec 21, 2017 23:34:36 GMT
One of the problems as I see it with the Picc is that it has a high demand off peak - albeit I know that off peak travel in general is increasing, but owing to the nature of where the line connects (Heathrow, everywhere between SK and KX), tourist traffic throughout the day is high. I assume that this makes recovery from a morning issue more difficult as there is less capacity to try and put things right before the evening peak. Recovering from any service disruption is awkward on the Picc for a multitude of reasons but the main one is: The line's length. When a train is dumped into a siding due to a problem elsewhere, the line's length means it is ages before that train's slot comes back around. An average major disruption is let's say approx 1hr. The roundabout time 1 and half hours so drivers end up massively displaced. So even if you could get the trains back in the right place, getting this to work with drivers back into the right place is extremely difficult, and so recovering disruption on the Picc is difficult. Due to the large number of trains and frequency the number of reversing spots and sidings to thin the service are too few and far between. Let me put it this way I've been observing in the control room when an incident occurred on a Friday at the tail end of the peak. An approx 45mins - 1 hour incident. When the night-turn controllers arrived late evening (2 or 3 hours later) - the service was still massively displaced. I went home at this point, but until Night-Tube proper started the line was showing Severe Delays some 4 hours after the incident. The other problem is turning short.... you can get away with east end reversing short - density of service gives quite a lot of chances for this, not the west end of the line is a problem for this. Heathrow NEEDS a service. Also Rayners Lane branch NEEDS a service - you could reverse Uxbridge trains at Rayners Lane, but there's only one siding, which makes it tricky. Short of making T5 serviced a shuttle from 1,2,3 and running T4 at full length, there's not a lot else to do, but run all the Heathrow's. I can't imagine that idea would go down very well with anyone anyway.
|
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 478
|
Post by londoner on Dec 22, 2017 0:23:30 GMT
One of the problems as I see it with the Picc is that it has a high demand off peak - albeit I know that off peak travel in general is increasing, but owing to the nature of where the line connects (Heathrow, everywhere between SK and KX), tourist traffic throughout the day is high. I assume that this makes recovery from a morning issue more difficult as there is less capacity to try and put things right before the evening peak. Recovering from any service disruption is awkward on the Picc for a multitude of reasons but the main one is: The line's length. When a train is dumped into a siding due to a problem elsewhere, the line's length means it is ages before that train's slot comes back around. An average major disruption is let's say approx 1hr. The roundabout time 1 and half hours so drivers end up massively displaced. So even if you could get the trains back in the right place, getting this to work with drivers back into the right place is extremely difficult, and so recovering disruption on the Picc is difficult. Due to the large number of trains and frequency the number of reversing spots and sidings to thin the service are too few and far between. Let me put it this way I've been observing in the control room when an incident occurred on a Friday at the tail end of the peak. An approx 45mins - 1 hour incident. When the night-turn controllers arrived late evening (2 or 3 hours later) - the service was still massively displaced. I went home at this point, but until Night-Tube proper started the line was showing Severe Delays some 4 hours after the incident. The other problem is turning short.... you can get away with east end reversing short - density of service gives quite a lot of chances for this, not the west end of the line is a problem for this. Heathrow NEEDS a service. Also Rayners Lane branch NEEDS a service - you could reverse Uxbridge trains at Rayners Lane, but there's only one siding, which makes it tricky. Short of making T5 serviced a shuttle from 1,2,3 and running T4 at full length, there's not a lot else to do, but run all the Heathrow's. I can't imagine that idea would go down very well with anyone anyway. Are the tracks into Aldwych still used to detrain? Also, just after leaving Hammersmith towards Acton Town), there is an abandoned piece of infrastructure which used to take trains into Hammersmith Grove Rd station (also abanadoned). There appears to be enough space here for some sidings, as opposed to using the ones at Hammersmith which I gather is quite difficult. I also see Acton Town rarely has trains in its sidings, compared to previous years. Are trains terminated at Acton Town less often these days?
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Dec 22, 2017 8:10:38 GMT
Also, because the evening service isn’t drastically less than the peak, there is less wiggle room for recovery by reforming stabling trains into evening runners.
|
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 478
|
Post by londoner on Dec 22, 2017 12:46:29 GMT
I would recommend avoiding the Piccadilly line over Christmas because it might get very crowded. The district and circle lines are out large sections (24-30), and rail to Heathrow is out for several days too (24-27 dec).
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Dec 23, 2017 9:41:06 GMT
It seems crazy that these works are going ahead with the Picc used as the alternative route when it has been so unreliable recently - when it breaks down (as I'm sure it will at some point on these days) where do people go?
|
|
|
Post by roman80 on Dec 23, 2017 10:01:42 GMT
It seems crazy that these works are going ahead with the Picc used as the alternative route when it has been so unreliable recently - when it breaks down (as I'm sure it will at some point on these days) where do people go? Of recent weeks, the district has seen almost daily issues, particularly on the branches west of Earls Court. The Wimbledon branch has seen particular misery of late. I can't remember a worse year on the Western end of district in twenty years for repeated signal failures. It must be close to official Misery Line status also.
|
|