|
Post by crusty54 on Dec 29, 2014 14:25:15 GMT
there are 3 H&C's booked to use the bay mon-fri 2 early am & 1 late evening for road training purposes. But as I said three District line trains an hour will now use it under the new timetable - extended from Tower Hill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 13:23:00 GMT
Remember under the re-signalling the bay road at Tower Hill is to go and become the westbound through road.
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jan 1, 2015 14:18:36 GMT
Remember under the re-signalling the bay road at Tower Hill is to go and become the westbound through road. So the bay platform will become a bi-directional through line, meaning that trains will be able to reverse west to east?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 14:26:31 GMT
No the points are to be removed no reversing point will be available nearest will be Embankment or Aldgate East / Whitechapel
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 15:01:21 GMT
No the points are to be removed no reversing point will be available nearest will be Embankment or Aldgate East / Whitechapel TUT isn't sure this is such a good idea!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 15:42:55 GMT
I heard that will be happening at Mansion House not Tower Hill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 15:53:20 GMT
Its both Mansion House and Tower Hill well that was the idea under the Cityflo system. As the points at Embankment are moving to the Westminster side also but I can not remember if the points at Aldgate East which are towards Whitechapel are also coming out or staying? You never know as nothing has been moved things could all change again
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jan 1, 2015 16:18:05 GMT
Why are they installing a lift on the Eastbound platform at Tower Hill?
|
|
|
Post by rdm on Jan 1, 2015 16:21:04 GMT
There are precious few 'bolt holes' (as opposed to reversing crossover points) on the DR side of the SSR now, so personally I don't think it would be a good idea to remove both MH and TH bays and leave nowhere between EC/GR and West Ham 'loop' in which to place a defective train. If anything, altering one of the two existing bays so that WB trains can be recessed might be a better idea IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 16:29:41 GMT
Hmmmm, I can see that the present layouts are inconvenient, because the PSRs required increase running times. I can see that this situation could be improved with remodelling and that the lack of freedom to move down there constrains how much tinkering you can reasonably do. So I can see the rationale, but I agree with rdm and would worry about the resilience of the service. Also none of the alternatives are as convenient for reversing a train and losing both Mansion House and Tower Hill would also reduce your options when planning engineering work.
But there's not too much point worrying about it now as, as DistrictSOM says, nothing's final yet.
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jan 1, 2015 17:37:02 GMT
Well any fool can see that taking out the reversing facilities at Mansion and Tower is an idiotic idea. I cannot believe it even got to the stage where it was discussed. As has been mentioned. Why not make the bay platform a through road, and thus improve flexibility? That would introduce a location where trains could be reversed west to east without blocking the through service.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 17:43:14 GMT
Might that have had, originally, to do with the capabilities of the cityflo system?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 17:44:34 GMT
At MH the bay hasn't got a S7 stopping mark so something is being planed for that platform.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jan 1, 2015 18:15:09 GMT
The reason the mansion house bay hasn't got a stopping mark is because it is too short to accommodate an S7, so there'd be no point putting a stoppig board in as an S7 won't be going in there. I'd imagine that any stopping boards would go up during the resignalling if it were to be used
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 18:29:18 GMT
A S7 can go into Mansion House bay road but only as a emergency the points are planned to be removed once the final D stock goes
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jan 1, 2015 18:30:09 GMT
The reason the mansion house bay hasn't got a stopping mark is because it is too short to accommodate an S7, so there'd be no point putting a stoppig board in as an S7 won't be going in there. I'd imagine that any stopping boards would go up during the resignalling if it were to be used By converting the bay road to a through platform it will be possible to get an S7 to fit. S7s currently foul the crossover at the west end of the bay road.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 18:39:33 GMT
Surely you could get an S7 to fit simply by installing a more understated set of buffer stops?
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jan 1, 2015 18:45:45 GMT
Surely you could get an S7 to fit simply by installing a more understated set of buffer stops? Don't you think they have looked at all the options? An S7 can't reverse there. Changing to an island platform platform will reduce the cost of step free access. The back of house rooms on the eastbound platform suffer from either excessive heat or severe damp. Taking the platform out of use should allow them to be closed off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 19:24:54 GMT
Well, I think that the location could be altered so that an S7 could reverse there, with the present layout retained. But it may very well be that it is much more desirable to completely remodel the station.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 20:19:42 GMT
I can confirm the back of the eastbound platform is really bad mostly suffering from damp.
|
|
|
Post by motorman on Jan 1, 2015 20:45:27 GMT
Looking long term with both MH and TH no longer being used for reversing trains, will the plan be to extend all the reversers to Barking or terminate some short at West Ham or even extend some to Dagenham East?
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jan 2, 2015 1:34:10 GMT
I believe the 3 remaining Tower Hill reverses will be extended to Barking in the medium term.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2015 20:24:40 GMT
So do H&C trains now terminate at Barking, continue East and reverse and then head west back into Barking? I was at Barking today and was surprised to see a S7 H&C train appear from the east.
So is the plan for Tower Hill and Mansion House to close the eastbound platforms and have trains just use the island platform. Are the island platforms big enough to handle that amount of passengers?
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Mar 21, 2015 21:46:05 GMT
Yes, almost all H&C trains were altered to reverse via Barking sidings from December 2014.
As mentioned up thread, under the SSR resignalling the current EB platform at Mansion House would cease to be used and all trans running through the bay and continuing EB, with adjustments at the eastern end to make the island platform wider. At Tower Hill, the bay will simply be connected at the east-end to both WB and EB tracks, allowing EB to bypass each other or provide a faster WB service with trains alternating platforms while the one ahead loads-up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2015 21:54:14 GMT
I can confirm the back of the eastbound platform is really bad mostly suffering from damp. I never knew Mansion House already had a disused platform; is it behind the wall of the eastbound?
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Mar 21, 2015 22:22:07 GMT
I never knew Mansion House already had a disused platform; is it behind the wall of the eastbound? Indeed it is.
|
|
|
Post by rsdworker on Mar 22, 2015 17:09:43 GMT
so mansion house would have new platforms - replacing the old layout - maybe a step free lifts would be possible after removal of old EB platforms simllar idea to whitechapel which would be island platforms allowing two tracks either side
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Mar 23, 2015 9:36:58 GMT
I think the plan is to leave the old eastbound bay hidden but remove the westbound road so sort of an inverse Whitechapel!
Anyway back onto topic.....
It is a real shame that a modification cannot be made to bring the bay back into use. Was the bay long enough for D stock? Is there room to extend like at Baker Street?
|
|
|
Post by rsdworker on Mar 24, 2015 7:52:37 GMT
I think the plan is to leave the old eastbound bay hidden but remove the westbound road so sort of an inverse Whitechapel! Anyway back onto topic..... It is a real shame that a modification cannot be made to bring the bay back into use. Was the bay long enough for D stock? Is there room to extend like at Baker Street? i think they could reuse empty spaces like plant rooms - simllar fate in New york stations where old side platforms was changed in plant rooms and staff rooms (one station has walkway on former platform)
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Mar 24, 2015 10:59:21 GMT
Was the bay long enough for D stock? Is there room to extend like at Baker Street? Mansion House bay is certainly long enough for D Stock and indeed the previous 7-car O/P/R Stock. Little room is available to extend except at the east-end, which is the plan for rebuild, involving removal of current EB track and widening bay/island platform at east-end.
|
|