S-Stock on SSL

[Deleted]

Hi all

When the S-Stock (eventually) gets rolled out (pardon the pun...) across the District and Hammersmith & City/Circle Lines, would there be more scope for drivers who are, say, currently limited to the District Line, to - provided they have the route knowledge of course - work the other lines that will be using the stock?

As far as I understand it, the only difference between the Met Ss and the H&C/Dist. Ss is that the Met ones have a different seating arrangement and an extra carraige - is the actual driving of the stock likely to be different?

Would this also mean that the 'pool' of trains used for H&C, Circle and District lines would be one, so that a train could be used on a District Line service up to Upminster in the morning, yet in the afternoon find itself on a Circle Line service? At the very least, would it mean that the 'Wimbleware' services would be District Line stock rather than H&C Line stock?

[Colin]

Aug 14, 2010 18:59:15 GMT @fairysdad said:

When the S-Stock (eventually) gets rolled out (pardon the pun...) across the District and Hammersmith & City/Circle Lines, would there be more scope for drivers who are, say, currently limited to the District Line, to - provided they have the route knowledge of course - work the other lines that will be using the stock?

Never say never, but there are no plans to change drivers current route knowledge. So it's possible, but extremely unlikely as things currently stand.

Aug 14, 2010 18:59:15 GMT @fairysdad said:

As far as I understand it, the only difference between the Met Ss and the H&C/Dist. Ss is that the Met ones have a different seating arrangement and an extra carraige - is the actual driving of the stock likely to be different?

I would imagine it would be the same.

Aug 14, 2010 18:59:15 GMT @fairysdad said:

Would this also mean that the 'pool' of trains used for H&C, Circle and District lines would be one, so that a train could be used on a District Line service up to Upminster in the morning, yet in the afternoon find itself on a Circle Line service?

That could well happen when trains are re-formed after service disruption, or swapped about to get a defective train to a depot. Of course this type of action will be far easier with one common stock - today of course, you cannot simply swap a D with a C.

AFAIK there are no plans to timetable in mass changes to service patterns such that there'd be routine swapping of services between the District and Circle/H&C lines throughout the day, but S7's will undoubtedly be moved around the SSR stabling locations and depots as C stocks are done today simply by having them start at one location and finishing at another.

Aug 14, 2010 18:59:15 GMT @fairysdad said:

At the very least, would it mean that the 'Wimbleware' services would be District Line stock rather than H&C Line stock?

The "Wimblewares" are District line stock whilst they are operating that service, and are driven by District line drivers. In fact the C77 build is nominally owned by the District line!! The C stock fleet is of course routinely mixed for operational convenience.

[Deleted]

I doubt there will be transverse seating on the S7s. The S8s have transverse and longitudinal seating and as I understand it the S7s will be all longitudinal.

[metman]

Correct.

[citysig]

Aug 14, 2010 18:59:15 GMT @fairysdad said:

Would this also mean that the 'pool' of trains used for H&C, Circle and District lines would be one, so that a train could be used on a District Line service up to Upminster in the morning, yet in the afternoon find itself on a Circle Line service? At the very least, would it mean that the 'Wimbleware' services would be District Line stock rather than H&C Line stock?

Early on in the planning stages, it was going to be a "1 train fits all" stock. There were various ideas of being able to run any train anywhere to fill a gap. A good example was if you had had a service delay which had caused an evening Amersham service from Aldgate to be cancelled, you could grab hold of the next inner-rail Circle Line/Hammersmith train and make it an Amersham (a cancelled Amersham could leave a 20 minute hole in the service further north, whereas a cancelled Circle/Hammersmith leaves just a 5 minute gap).

Good idea in theory. In practice we don't have limitless supplies of drivers who can drive anywhere we need them to.

I think, as Colin mentions, there will be a fair amount of movement when it comes to stabling trains. Having a common stock would certainly help keep maintenance on target. If a train needed to be stabled at any particular depot, it will be far easier to arrange than at present.

[citysig]

Aug 14, 2010 19:21:42 GMT Colin said:

The "Wimblewares" are District line stock whilst they are operating that service, and are driven by District line drivers. In fact the C77 build is nominally owned by the District line!! The C stock fleet is of course routinely mixed for operational convenience.

District service stock, supplied, maintained and regularly changed-over in the event of defects (often at the cost of our own service) by the Hammersmith & City Line ;D ;D

[Deleted]

I guess the line diagrams rule out much flexibility though. It would confuse people if they boarded what was announced as a Circle line train only to find it has District line diagrams on it.

Will the division of the District line be the same as it is now, with trains for the main District line and trains for the Wimbleware service pooled with the Circle and H&C?

[Deleted]

My understanding is that S7 and S8 will be exactly the same to drive, and in the event of service disruption it would be possible for any SSR driver to take any S stock train (along a route that they are trained on). So a H&C driver could shift a S8 with an incapacitated driver for example.

I wonder if a S7 could run in service on the Met main, or would this be considered a PTI risk?
Similarly, could a S8 run on the District/H&C, relying on selective door opening?

[metman]

I doubt the S8 could run of the H&C, some of it will be tight with S7s as it is. I believe however, that S7s will be stabled at Neasden too, so it may well be possible that an S7 could run to Wembley Park in service!

[Deleted]

Aug 15, 2010 20:17:21 GMT @glom said:

I guess the line diagrams rule out much flexibility though. It would confuse people if they boarded what was announced as a Circle line train only to find it has District line diagrams on it.

Will the division of the District line be the same as it is now, with trains for the main District line and trains for the Wimbleware service pooled with the Circle and H&C?

It would be sensible for all S trains (or at least all S7s) to have one line (or should I say lines) diagram: possibly with some rethink of how the lines/services are identified and distinguished. There seems no particularly good reason for Wimbleware to be green, in with the rest of the District, when the H&C and Circle are distinguished.

Also I wonder as to the merit of all S7 drivers having a common route knowledge (H&C&C & District), permitting more innovative service patterns, especially in times of disruption - not having the nonsense of trains reversing at a station from both directions (rather than running through) just because the drivers have different route knowledge.

[Deleted]

I don't believe the S7s will be segregated in terms of District Stock and C&H stock when all C and D stock have gone.

Barking depot is already being described as the "pioneer SSR depot", in respect of when it will soon pass to C&H management. District & C&H driver rosters will remain seperate... though for how long who knows?

At a meeting I was party to, to discuss District Line training relating to S stock it was certainly on the table that the opportunity would be taken to route learn District drivers on territory not part of the District Line, however with the role of Line Standards Managers dissapearing, there may be no further co-ordinated managerial imputus to progress such things.

In general terms from presentations to staff, pretty much every driver welcomed the opportunity for more route variety.

[Deleted]

Aug 15, 2010 21:54:35 GMT etr220 said:

There seems no particularly good reason for Wimbleware to be green, in with the rest of the District, when the H&C and Circle are distinguished.

There will be no need for the Wimbledon - Edgware Road service to be considered a seperate entity at all. Edgware Road trains would be equally capable of originating from Richmond, Ealing Broadway or Olympia or a mixture of all of these. No reason why a train can not be diagrammed to run; Upminster- Richmond- Edgware Road - Wimbledon - Upminster. (in which case it clearly needs to retain the green colour on the line diagram)

[Chris M]

It would certainly seem silly not to take an opportunity to train District and C&H operators so that they can all do all routes around the Earrl's Court-HSK-Gloucester Road and Tower Hill-Aldgate-Aldgate East triangles at least.
After that I'd think training the District t-ops Edgware Road-Tower Hill via the north side of the Circle and C&H operators on the Wimbledon branch and maybe one of the others as well would be the best next level of investment.

edit: Actually as an even sillier first step not to take, would be giving east end drivers route knowledge of HSK-Edgware Road, once stock knowledge is not an issue.

[citysig]

Can we keep in mind here that regardless of increased route knowledge (which don't forget costs plenty of time and money to teach and then keep up-to-date) the timetable won't be changing that much from the one we have now. There simply won't be a sudden introduction of Richmond-Moorgate services or Edgware Road-Ealing via Barking services.

The ability of the S-stock to go onto any part of the SSL, and having drivers able to go anywhere with that stock will be a bonus in the event of shutdowns - it gives you more options of where to send stuck trains. A signal failure at Tower Hill that can be avoided by sending westbound Districts via Kings Cross would mean less overall service disruption. That's the kind of thing that would come from this.

[Deleted]

Aug 15, 2010 22:13:00 GMT @aspect said:

Aug 15, 2010 21:54:35 GMT etr220 said:

There seems no particularly good reason for Wimbleware to be green, in with the rest of the District, when the H&C and Circle are distinguished.

No reason why a train can not be diagrammed to run; Upminster- Richmond- Edgware Road - Wimbledon - Upminster. (in which case it clearly needs to retain the green colour on the line diagram)

From a service viewpoint, there is a good reason to not diagram as above

Where possible off peak patterns always look to self contain the service, ie UPM-RMD (and return and more of the same) UPM - WDN (ditto), as opposed to sending a Wimbledon arrival back to RMD.

This means in the event of a problem on one of the branches, you will (in theory) be able to protect the service on the other branch, by having the services self contained in this way.

Doesn't always work like this if sheer number of trains dictate ...(Picc WTT 44 re-write in Oct 08), where the previously self contained Heathrow/Rayners branch workings were broken up due to there being effectively one train too few in order to self contain the services at Cockfosters

the new C&H (Dec 09) pattern follows on from Picc 44 in not being self contained on arrival at Hammersmith, due to the number of trains available allied with a layover allied to the total journey time of the Hammersmith arrival

Last time I looked at a Northern WTT (3 or 4 years ago) I think they were self contained on branches

Met certainly is re: Amershams/Watfords/Uxbridge's when they arrive in London (Off peak)

[Deleted]

Aug 16, 2010 19:33:55 GMT @shedcompnodosh said:

From a service viewpoint, there is a good reason to not diagram as above
This means in the event of a problem on one of the branches, you will (in theory) be able to protect the service on the other branch, by having the services self contained in this way.

Actually I don't think thats a good reason at all! In fact you are sacrificing the service on a branch with no problems just because it happens to be paired with a completely remote destination that does! It must surely be better to share the disruption equally so it is of less note, than to lump it all on one route!

By self containing the services, you force some passengers to change trains to make a through trip, where they may prefer to await a through train (because of difficulties boarding and allighting etc).

Service disruption at one end may then cause substantial dificulties in later maintaining a service to somewhere at the other end of the line.

Hypothetically because off peak trains to Richmond commence at Upminster a service disruption at Becontree, can mean in an hour or so's time you get no trains to Richmond, and when trains do start running through, they are all late and there is a reluctance to curtail Richmond trains to put them to time, however had a third of the Richmond trains started at Tower Hill (instead of all the Tower Hill off peaks going to Ealing) then a service would have been maintained without quite so much of the (skillful) intervention of the Service Controller. The disruption would have been shared equally by all the branches.

Equally under the previous timetable when during the peak all the ex-Wimbledon trains didn't go to Upminster, a disruption at Hammersmith would leave large gaps to Upminster.

Plus self containing the services tends to result in a large chunk of the duties at each depot doing the same thing, which is exceedingly dull!

I'd much rather see all trains from Upminster rotate alternately; Richmond, Olympia, Ealing Bdy, Wimbledon!

[citysig]

Self-containment is far better for a service / line as a whole than mixing everything up. Gaps created as a result of the self-containment can be fairly easily covered by using the odd train from another route.

Having everything running late and everyone "sharing the pain" is not the way to go. You soon have huge gaps to everywhere rather than the odd gap to somewhere. Look at the H&C and Circle now that is not self-contained. When it goes wrong, you end up with gaps everywhere, and if not closely monitored, you end up with all your trains clumped together at one end of the line, with nothing at the other.

Using SSL as a whole, self-containment means that, in the central area at least, if one service is disrupted, another one running to time can help it out.

On the Met, if there are gaps in the Uxbridge service, a Watford can be diverted to cover. Now, say if the Watfords are also running with gaps (because they all ran to Uxbridge last time round) what train can be used then?

This kind of diversionary gap-covering is the only "share the pain" tactic that should be needed.

The drivers boredom angle is unfortunate, but probably only one suffered by depots at line extremities.

[Colin]

From a drivers point of view, I can certainly appreciate what Aspect says in terms of the boredom factor, although I'd suggest that with the current timetable we are doing less Richmond's at Upminster these days. Just!

But I can also see that having everything following each other on the same pattern would be a nightmare when it comes to service recovery. During the off peak, with self contained services and a numbering system that makes sense, the job of service recovery is much easier and less delay is caused in getting decisions made and acted upon.

Having everything running around chasing it's arse with a random numbering system means the controller is going to get bogged down working out what's what and will most likely miss the best opportunities to make good inroads into recovering the service quickly after a shut down.

That being said, if you are a controller on the Met (well, the H&C side anyway), Bakerloo or Vic I suppose you'd be well used to working under such chaotic conditions.

Hmm....pros and cons aplenty!!....

[citysig]

Aug 17, 2010 19:12:55 GMT Colin said:

That being said, if you are a controller on the Met (well, the H&C side anyway), Bakerloo or Vic I suppose you'd be well used to working under such chaotic conditions.

Hmm....pros and cons aplenty!!....

Ahem If you're on the Met you do both the Met and the H&C side - both can be a real pain if they're up the wall, especially if they are both like that at the same time. The Bakerloo is affectionately known as the "Long Siding" and is a relatively easy service to recover (it just goes up and down after all.) The Vic is slightly worse - given it has less platforms than it has trains running. Just thought I'd point those bits out. They are quite tedious and pedantic, but I can't let the Bakerloo get away with being compared to the Met anywhere ;D ;D

Aug 17, 2010 19:12:55 GMT Colin said:

Having everything running around chasing it's arse with a random numbering system means the controller is going to get bogged down working out what's what and will most likely miss the best opportunities to make good inroads into recovering the service quickly after a shut down..

That is a good point, and it does happen. It's far easier to reform a service that you know like the back of your hand. Train 1 is followed by train 2, followed by train 3; and they go to X, then Y, then Z, and the running time is A,B,C etc.etc. It means you can more or less reform the service blindfold whilst getting on with other tasks.

One of the unfortunate problems with our current timetable is that you end up looking at a late runner, then the timetable, deciding if the train can recover on its own. If not, what does it do next. Then what does it do on the next trip after that. Flicking backwards and forwards over around 2-3 hours of trips just to work out what effect short-tripping 1 train will make.

Ok so you get used to the sort of rhythm the timetable has, but it's no substitute for knowing that a Circle Line train is meant to be on the Circle this hour, the next hour and the hour after that.

[SE13]

Aug 17, 2010 19:12:55 GMT Colin said:

From a drivers point of view, I can certainly appreciate what Aspect says in terms of the boredom factor, although I'd suggest that with the current timetable we are doing less Richmond's at Upminster these days. Just!

I think about those drivers that used to work the ELL, or those on the old Circle! Both must have been utterly tedious. But I really feel for those on the W&C!

[Chris M]

I remember it being posted on here that there are drivers who enjoy doing the W&C duties and will swap them with those wo don't.

[Oracle]

I know it is OTT but were there also crews that preferred the Aldwych shuttle to 'mainline' Picc work?

[100andthirty]

Irrespective of what the current rules, traditions and customer demand require of the service, there is an opportunity for a 7-car train to go anywhere on the sub surface. Who knows what might happen. Upminster to Ealing via Kings Cross is certainly possible. Also, in the event of a shortage of 8-car trains, 7-car trains could work to Met destinations.

None of this might be in the plan, but who knows what might happen over the next 40 years?

Edited for grammar and typing!

[citysig]

Aug 18, 2010 15:38:02 GMT 100andthirty said:

Upminster to Ealing via Kings Cross is certainly possible.

Possible. But is it really needed?

Plus 2 points spring to mind:
1) The Hammersmith-Barking service cannot, in turn, travel via Victoria, which means it will have to fit in with the additional District services.
2) If the Upminster-Ealing service runs via King's Cross, then what about Upminster and Ealing customers who travel on the south side? You cannot run both, and regular readers here will know what happens when you change a service dramatically and force people who have travelled direct for years to now have to change somewhere ;D

[Deleted]

Aug 18, 2010 15:51:11 GMT @citysig said:

Aug 18, 2010 15:38:02 GMT 100andthirty said:

Upminster to Ealing via Kings Cross is certainly possible.

Possible. But is it really needed?

Plus 2 points spring to mind:
1) The Hammersmith-Barking service cannot, in turn, travel via Victoria, which means it will have to fit in with the additional District services.
2) If the Upminster-Ealing service runs via King's Cross, then what about Upminster and Ealing customers who travel on the south side? You cannot run both, and regular readers here will know what happens when you change a service dramatically and force people who have travelled direct for years to now have to change somewhere ;D

Why can't you run Upminster-Ealing (or whatever) services both ways?

While the initial need for such services may only be for engineering work diversions, one would hope that that there will be a total review of the SSL service pattern at some stage, to see how some of those missing through links could be added, so you don't always have to change to get from Euston Sq to West Ken or Upminster.

[Chris M]

Descending further into the realms of the RIPS board, one possible pattern that occurred to me was Upminster - Victoria - HSK - Baker Street - Liverpool Street - Victoria - Richmond; and Hammersmith - Liverpool Street - Victoria - HSK - Baker Street - Liverpool Street - Barking, and vice versa both times. Both alternating with the straight through services as now.
This maintains all the links around the circle without the need for a separate Circle service, so would possibly release some of the rolling stock and operators needed to run the service.

[citysig]

It is slipping into the realms of the what if.

First and foremost, let's get the stock rolling. Next, appreciate that it can be diverted in the event of failures (subject to driver training).

After that, remember that we run London Underground as a service for everyone, and just because Joe Bloggs wants to travel from Royal Oak to Turnham Greem without changing trains, does not mean we start re-casting the timetable with him in mind. Because if we do, then later that day his brother, or his mother or someone he knows will also pipe up that they also want a direct journey.

Think of it all like currency. We have a 1p,2p,5p10p etc. We no longer have 3p pieces. We don't have 8p pieces. What we have is easily used in multiples to make up any figure we require. The network is the same. Standard services - which to some won't be direct - but they offer the same opportunities when combined.

As soon as you increase different direct services, you reduce overall capacity. Once you have too many types of service running, you also run the risk of huge gaps appearing in the event of a failure. The twice-an-hour Ealing-Tower Hill via King's Cross and Embankment gets knocked on the head in favour of a Richmond-Aldgate via Victoria and Liverpool Street. You can hear the complaints.

Not only that, you come and sit in my chair and try and keep track of them all ;D

On the other hand, create huge great long services that loop everywhere and you soon have a 2+ hour one-way trip that is impossible to manage.

Compatible stock will be a good thing, but only to help maintain what we have already. Let's keep our feet on the ground and remember you cannot please all the people all the time.

[ruislip]

All of this sounds like the plans of the original LPTB in the 1930's to integrate all the SSL's.

[Deleted]

sounds to me more like a permanent railtour of all the SSR flat junctions, pinchpoints and bottlenecks!!!

it wouldn't matter wether that service pattern was self contained or not, the Richmond branch would be constantly up the wall!!!

[Deleted]

Aug 18, 2010 20:13:56 GMT @shedcompnodosh said:

it wouldn't matter wether that service pattern was self contained or not, the Richmond branch would be constantly up the wall!!!

You may rest assured that "hell would freeze over" before the "precious" Richmond branch was allowed to be "up the wall" regardless of the mayhem it may cause elsewhere! Fortunately a lot of recovery time is now provided there!

From the perspective of the meetings I was at, the considered view was any additional driver route learning could be incorporated at no significant additional time/expense if it were done on the back of the S stock introduction and the need to retrain East End drivers on the Edgware Road branch (which was accepted as "a given"). However to do it at some later date would require expense and thus more demanding test as to costs v benefit. Of course a driver is entitled to request (though not required to) a pilot if a trained route is not traverssed within 6 months, so scheduling at least an odd train to run via any newly trained route is desirable.

I think Met Control makes clear his/the controllers job involves more work if the trains are running anywhere, when the numbers don't follow a pattern, though I am unconvinced thats a good reason not to look at the options! Again, the controllers job would be easier with better sheets/info provided to them to work with. (Though I often wonder why the "Analysis" sheets used by the DMTs don't play a bigger part in the Controllers info armoury?)