|
|
Post by stapler on Oct 7, 2020 7:38:04 GMT
Notice the report says Central Line stock replacement would be "late 2020s". The clock seems to have moved forward as all other recent aspirations have been early 2030s. Is that just preparation for when the Govt says "no"?
|
|
vincenture
Quiz tryhard, and an advocate for simpler, less complicated rail routes
Posts: 885
|
Post by vincenture on Oct 7, 2020 8:52:22 GMT
I wonder though, would some 1996 stock be used on the Piccadilly as emergency replacement stock since I doubt the 73 would last any looooonger reliably...or at least the 1995s can be transported via the King’s Cross loop onto the picc
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Oct 7, 2020 10:21:00 GMT
I wonder though, would some 1996 stock be used on the Piccadilly as emergency replacement stock since I doubt the 73 would last any looooonger reliably...or at least the 1995s can be transported via the King’s Cross loop onto the picc If you transferred 1996 or 1995 stock to the Piccadilly you'd first have to train the Piccadilly IOps on that stock then they'd have to train the other TOps. By the time they've done that it wouldn't be long before the new stock arrived (2023) and the whole training process would have to start again. During that time the IOps and TOps would have to spend time away from their normal duties and I suspect the Piccadilly is just as short of drivers as the Central Line. The 1995/96s would also need to be refitted with tripcocks which I believe were removed (please correct me if I'm wrong) |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,197 
|
Post by Tom on Oct 7, 2020 13:25:27 GMT
There are also other issues, such as the Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) between the 1995/6 stocks and the Piccadilly Line signalling. They would have to be prohibited from working to Rayners Lane, and there are restrictions on track circuit lengths due to EMC concerns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 15:48:20 GMT
The joys of having a 33 1/3hz supply
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Oct 7, 2020 17:28:03 GMT
The joys of having maximum inflexibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by xplaistow on Oct 7, 2020 18:40:10 GMT
Here are a few thoughts I had about the whole idea of a new fleet for the Jubilee, transfer of the 96TS to the Northern and the subsequent split of the latter into two lines:
1) Because of the door spacing problem posed by the PEDs, it seems likely that in order to fit with the existing infrastructure the new fleet would be more akin design-wise to the S stock as opposed to the new Piccadilly fleet i.e. with walkthrough carriages but not fully articulated, each car has its own pair of bogies instead of bogies effectively being shared between cars.
2) With the transfer of the 96TS, would it make sense to keep them all on one branch of the Northern instead of completely mixing the combined 95/96TS fleet?
3) How many changes would be necessary (other than the obvious loss of a carriage) to make the 96TS compatible with the Northern line?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 7, 2020 18:42:56 GMT
A higher capacity Jubilee line fleet to follow upon the new Picc trains must mean new platform edge door layout, and overnight change from old to new trains at the extension tunnel stations. I believe the change from 6-car to 7-car trains was done over the Christmas/New Year break. I imagine that the door layout of the new trains will be identical to that of the 1996 stock as changing the PEDs would be ridiculously expensive, would take weeks/months with massive disruption to services. We are promised a 25% capacity uplift from 30tph to 36tph, but that is only 20% tph uplift, so the extra 5% must come from "higher capacity" trains. Vic line style trains would fit the wider tunnels with gentle curves, or more likely the coming lightweight Picc style trains. Either way the door spacing will be different. If you limit new trains to the current door spacing of platform doors, how do you get the promised 5% higher capacity uplift? |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,773
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 7, 2020 19:24:01 GMT
If you limit new trains to the current door spacing of platform doors, how do you get the promised 5% higher capacity uplift? Walkthrough trains will add a bit of capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by nig on Oct 7, 2020 19:47:23 GMT
I wonder though, would some 1996 stock be used on the Piccadilly as emergency replacement stock since I doubt the 73 would last any looooonger reliably...or at least the 1995s can be transported via the King’s Cross loop onto the picc The new pic trains have already been ordered and paid for so they will already be running before any spare 1996 stock become available |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 8, 2020 3:25:54 GMT
The argument seems to go that the Jubilee line is an important line, but its trains are becoming unreliable lately, so it is time to replace them. But never mind because we can use them on the Northern line, the most used of all lines! As if unreliability doesn't matter over there!
|
|
|
|
Post by will on Oct 8, 2020 11:33:17 GMT
The argument seems to go that the Jubilee line is an important line, but its trains are becoming unreliable lately, so it is time to replace them. But never mind because we can use them on the Northern line, the most used of all lines! As if unreliability doesn't matter over there! Focusing on the proposed 96ts transfer to the Northern that would mean a total fleet size of 169 trains (106 95ts + 63 96ts). Would the Northern require all these trains in peak service or would this create a larger pool of spare trains that aren't required in peak service? Would this provide an opportunity to weed out and remove a number of particularly unreliable units on both the 95 and 96 stocks increasing reliability? The 7th added car would be removed and would the 96ts be based at one depot and the 95 at the others. I assume due to the high degree of similarity that both fleets would interwork but return to a specific depot out of service? Thanks for any knowledge as always  |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Oct 8, 2020 12:56:55 GMT
The argument seems to go that the Jubilee line is an important line, but its trains are becoming unreliable lately, so it is time to replace them. But never mind because we can use them on the Northern line, the most used of all lines! As if unreliability doesn't matter over there! Focusing on the proposed 96ts transfer to the Northern that would mean a total fleet size of 169 trains (106 95ts + 63 96ts). Would the Northern require all these trains in peak service or would this create a larger pool of spare trains that aren't required in peak service? Would this provide an opportunity to weed out and remove a number of particularly unreliable units on both the 95 and 96 stocks increasing reliability? The 7th added car would be removed and would the 96ts be based at one depot and the 95 at the others. I assume due to the high degree of similarity that both fleets would interwork but return to a specific depot out of service? Thanks for any knowledge as always Where are they going to fit them all? They've got Morden, Golders Green (depots), Edgware, Highgate and High Barnet (sidings) plus I seem to recall there are going to be two sidings at Battersea. How many trains do they actually have room for? |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,197
|
Post by Tom on Oct 8, 2020 23:15:43 GMT
The joys of having a 33 1/3hz supply Indeed, but there is also a restriction on 125Hz Track circuit lengths too, around the King's Cross to Caledonian Road area. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 10, 2020 7:14:22 GMT
I am surprised that the Waterloo & City line does not get a mention in this presentation, when the other parts of DTUP do; the new trains for Bakerloo & Central lines. The demo driverless trains scheme for the line may have attracted support from Boris! But perhaps it is just unachievable within the decade, which seems to be the target for most projects included, which will please many people. Perhaps six new short trains were considered insignificant alongside the larger lines. Or perhaps talk of spending on a line unused now for over six months would be an embarrassment! Maybe the City could eventually be persuaded to contribute as they did for the current trains?
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 10, 2020 15:09:53 GMT
This has just been posted in the quarterly "Ealing Matters" by the Borough of Ealing council. It is dated October 2020 .
It states the museum site could be worth £320 million, and thus money is obviously needed.
I make no comment as to the rights and wrongs, nor regarding the loss of the museum, but as they say "Money talks",
and we now know £320 million is talking
London Transport Museum’s Acton Depot
The London Transport Museum’s collection store next to the District line train depot in Acton and opposite
Acton Town station houses 90% of the museum’s collection, some 320,000 items. As part of its development
along Bollo Lane, TfL has earmarked the depot site for development. Pre-application discussions with Ealing
Council have determined that around 800 new homes plus a replacement storage facility for the museum
would be viable. TfL has now published a Prior Information Notice, which it says will help gauge market
demand and identify a joint venture property developer. According to the notice the 2.6-hectare site could
be worth more than £320 million. The Museum Depot will be open to visitors this month.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,197
|
Post by Tom on Oct 10, 2020 20:52:10 GMT
Right now the pointwork at Camden Town Junction could already be set to completely separate the routes into the Mordware and Batternet branches. |
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Oct 10, 2020 20:59:11 GMT
Right now the pointwork at Camden Town Junction could already be set to completely separate the routes into the Mordware and Batternet branches. We love a bit of Wimbleware on this forum. 😂 |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,197
|
Post by Tom on Oct 10, 2020 21:09:17 GMT
We love a bit of Wimbleware on this forum. 😂 Don't you start! |
|
|
|
Post by johnlinford on Oct 10, 2020 22:10:55 GMT
Someone needs to trademark Wimbleware as a Womble Memorial fashion line so noone else is allowed to use it...
|
|
vincenture
Quiz tryhard, and an advocate for simpler, less complicated rail routes
Posts: 885
|
Post by vincenture on Oct 11, 2020 7:26:16 GMT
Folks, can we try to avoid using unofficial portmanteau names, and instead stick to full names or descriptions (e.g. Battersea - Barnet and Morden - Edgware). A number of portmanteau names for Morden-Edgware were proposed in the 1930s and none of them caught on then either! We love a bit of Wimbleware on this forum. 😂 Shhhhh we love our humour heehee |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Oct 11, 2020 10:41:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Oct 15, 2020 7:15:37 GMT
Just been reading the CSR Prospectus. I see that it's realistic in accepting the Bakerloo extension has to be pushed a long way into the future. It does seem keen however on a new Jubilee line fleet and talks of using some of the present 96TS fleet to augment the Northern line, which has been discussed above and in the Northern line Split thread.
It occurs to me that if the Northern line took a sensible number, there would still be towards 40 trains left over. With no Bakerloo line extension imminent, one could consider using 96TS on the Bakerloo for 10 - 20 years to delay the expenditure on that new fleet. There are infrastructure constraints of course like the curves at Piccadilly Circus and no doubt some EMC issues to resolve but it doesn't seem a totally unreasonable stock cascade in straitened times. Perhaps Piccadilly Circus SB and Waterloo platforms could be fitted with Automated Gap Fillers to help mitigate the PTI gaps with the longer cars.
Retrofit tripcocks again! Install CSDE kit, maybe continue using platform OPO mirrors and monitors? Traction pack software tweak to revert to pre-ATC performance. CIS data set for the Bakerloo:- Not difficult, it's a simple end-to-end line like the Jubilee. Etc., etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Oct 15, 2020 7:28:56 GMT
Re-install tripcocks?
Don't you know that, once you've had the latest gimmick, everything previous automatically becomes 'highly dangerous' or 'lethal'.
It would be like using a mains plug with (gasp) unsleeved pins!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Oct 15, 2020 8:47:21 GMT
Install CSDE kit, maybe continue using platform OPO mirrors and monitors? Traction pack software tweak to revert to pre-ATC performance. CIS data set for the Bakerloo:- Not difficult, it's a simple end-to-end line like the Jubilee. Etc., etc. I also like the idea of using surplus ‘96 Stock on the Bakerloo. hopefully retaining in-cab CCTV so that train cabs could be slightly in tunnel at the tight stations, as the difference of 123cm (4’) maybe significant. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Oct 15, 2020 9:54:35 GMT
Delivery of new trains for the Jubilee Line is scheduled for 2024-29 (page 21) while splitting the Northern Line and transfer of 1996s is scheduled for 2024-28 (page 33). New trains for the Bakerloo Line are scheduled for delivery "late 2020s" (page 19).
Sending 1996s to the Northern Line is pretty simple as they're similar to the 1995s so the drivers won't require much stock training (if any). Sending 1996s to the Bakerloo would mean every driver retraining on the stock and by the time they'd finished that it would be time to start retraining for the new "Piccadilly/Bakerloo/Central/W&C" trains.
Plus all the additional kit that would have to be installed on stations for in-cab CCTV, refitting trip cocks, etc. that's a lot of expenditure for trains that would only be there for a limited time
|
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Oct 15, 2020 12:04:56 GMT
Delivery of new trains for the Jubilee Line is scheduled for 2024-29 (page 21) while splitting the Northern Line and transfer of 1996s is scheduled for 2024-28 (page 33). New trains for the Bakerloo Line are scheduled for delivery "late 2020s" (page 19). Sending 1996s to the Northern Line is pretty simple as they're similar to the 1995s so the drivers won't require much stock training (if any). Sending 1996s to the Bakerloo would mean every driver retraining on the stock and by the time they'd finished that it would be time to start retraining for the new "Piccadilly/Bakerloo/Central/W&C" trains. Plus all the additional kit that would have to be installed on stations for in-cab CCTV, refitting trip cocks, etc. that's a lot of expenditure for trains that would only be there for a limited time In the current financial mess, I fear TFL are not going to be allowed to commit to spending on new stuff unless/until Bakerloo stock is clapped out and has reached pretty much a similar standard of delapidation as the 38 stock down on the Island Line. I am sure creative financing options will be explored and they might bring that date earlier, but inevitably such deals just add to the financial burden down the line (Pardon the pun).
So making best use of what you already have does indeed seem unavoidable and may indeed trigger rolling stock cascades of still serviceable stock. But I have my doubts about using former Jubillee Line stock on the Bakerloo Line - as they may not fit! The official dimensions in the publicly available TFL Rolling Stock Information Sheets (v4) show the "length over car ends" for Jubillee and Northern stock is a fair bit longer than the current Bakerloo 1972 stock. The longest cars 1995/1996 stock cars on Northern/Jubillee (they are the same) come in at 1.69 Metres longer than the longest 1972 cars (5 feet 6 1/2 inches old money). Sadly this is a bit more significant than the few inches mentioned above, and raises the question of whether they will fit the same kinetic envelope? Also sections of the Bakerloo include some fairly severe reverse curves (usually accompanied by squealing wheels) hence these locations may require some tunnel surgery to allow any longer stock regardless of whether it was taken from Jubillee or Northern fleets. The big attraction of the new walk-through trains ordered for the Piccadilly is they comprise relatively short segments which should help with the platform/train gap issue and also means they should fit the Bakerloo tunnels without any costly modification.
Only when Bakerloo stock becomes political embarrasing (anyone remember the "Misery Line") - which current politicians will conclude will be someone else's problem - then those in charge at the time will just have to find funds to place a run on order of the new Piccadily rolling stock trains but suitably shortened to fit Bakerloo platforms lengths. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Oct 15, 2020 12:20:38 GMT
Delivery of new trains for the Jubilee Line is scheduled for 2024-29 (page 21) while splitting the Northern Line and transfer of 1996s is scheduled for 2024-28 (page 33). New trains for the Bakerloo Line are scheduled for delivery "late 2020s" (page 19). Sending 1996s to the Northern Line is pretty simple as they're similar to the 1995s so the drivers won't require much stock training (if any). Sending 1996s to the Bakerloo would mean every driver retraining on the stock and by the time they'd finished that it would be time to start retraining for the new "Piccadilly/Bakerloo/Central/W&C" trains. Plus all the additional kit that would have to be installed on stations for in-cab CCTV, refitting trip cocks, etc. that's a lot of expenditure for trains that would only be there for a limited time In the current financial mess, I fear TFL are not going to be allowed to commit to spending on new stuff unless/until Bakerloo stock is clapped out and has reached pretty much a similar standard of delapidation as the 38 stock down on the Island Line. I am sure creative financing options will be explored and they might bring that date earlier, but inevitably such deals just add to the financial burden down the line (Pardon the pun).
So making best use of what you already have does indeed seem unavoidable and may indeed trigger rolling stock cascades of still serviceable stock. But I have my doubts about using former Jubillee Line stock on the Bakerloo Line - as they may not fit! The official dimensions in the publicly available TFL Rolling Stock Information Sheets (v4) show the "length over car ends" for Jubillee and Northern stock is a fair bit longer than the current Bakerloo 1972 stock. The longest cars 1995/1996 stock cars on Northern/Jubillee (they are the same) come in at 1.69 Metres longer than the longest 1972 cars (5 feet 6 1/2 inches old money). Sadly this is a bit more significant than the few inches mentioned above, and raises the question of whether they will fit the same kinetic envelope? Also sections of the Bakerloo include some fairly severe reverse curves (usually accompanied by squealing wheels) hence these locations may require some tunnel surgery to allow any longer stock regardless of whether it was taken from Jubillee or Northern fleets. The big attraction of the new walk-through trains ordered for the Piccadilly is they comprise relatively short segments which should help with the platform/train gap issue and also means they should fit the Bakerloo tunnels without any costly modification.
Only when Bakerloo stock becomes political embarrasing (anyone remember the "Misery Line") - which current politicians will conclude will be someone else's problem - then those in charge at the time will just have to find funds to place a run on order of the new Piccadily rolling stock trains but suitably shortened to fit Bakerloo platforms lengths. TfL's CSR submission included new stock for the Bakerloo and Central Lines (page 19) plus the new stock (aka "New Train for London) is designed for the Piccadilly, Central/W&C and Bakerloo lines so they won't need to be shortened. |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,197
|
Post by Tom on Oct 15, 2020 13:04:28 GMT
There are infrastructure constraints of course like the curves at Piccadilly Circus and no doubt some EMC issues to resolve but it doesn't seem a totally unreasonable stock cascade in straitened times. I'm not sure there would be much of an issue from an EMC perspective. The Bakerloo line uses Jointless Track Circuits so there wouldn't be the usual 33 1/3Hz issue, the only problem might be that the Bakerloo uses a 50Hz signalling supply rather than a 125Hz one. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 15, 2020 19:03:25 GMT
TfL's CSR submission does include new stock for the Bakerloo, but a case still has to be made that the investment is the best use of that money. When the case for all four lines was drafted out, the Bakerloo didn't come up to scratch! The solution was to blend it with the Lewisham extension plans, since they must include a new fleet of trains to provide enough to interwork with the existing line. Now Lewisham fades into the distance, and the replacement fleet for current Bakerloo again stands alone. Last time the continual patching of the current fleet made more sense than a new fleet for such a short, relatively quiet line.
Would there be enough of the 63 old Jubilee trains for the Bakerloo to get 36+? The Northern NLU2 wanted 17 more trains for 30tph on current service pattern, but CSR submission talks of line split for 30+tph. 36tph business case required 44 trains, and the lowest split option was 30 extra trains, so not enough for the Bakerloo. But assuming money for Camden station improved interchange is not available, the best no split service required 26 trains which leaves 37 for the Bakerloo. So it still remains a possibility in hard times!
|
|
