Future of the Bakerloo Line?

[jimbo]

Stonebridge Park depot does currently split trains for overhaul. As a guide, the new Picc depots will feature a wheel lathe road, 4 swimming pool roads, 2 winterisation roads, 3 cleaning roads (1 for underframes, the others level access), one flat road within shed, and one maintenance shed road. This is planned to be provided on the current Picc sites, during normal service operation, by closing a quarter of each large double-ended depot at a time, although this seems to be proving difficult to achieve in practice. Stonebridge Park is a single-ended depot on a cramped site, so the quickest and cheapest solution is to close down and hand the site over to the builders. A phased project working on a few roads at a time would take longer and cost more. Could the life of the current trains be made to last until the depot was prepared for new trains?

[brigham]

What will the swimming pool roads do?

[class411]

Sept 21, 2023 7:32:30 GMT brigham said:

What will the swimming pool roads do?

At a guess it's a track with an inspection pit.

If you filled the pit with water you could use it as a lap pool.

Go on, ask me what a lap pool is.

[towerman]

They’ve got them at SMD,there’s no steps down instead there’s a ramp and there’s no side walls.

[35b]

Sept 21, 2023 4:02:54 GMT jimbo said:

Stonebridge Park depot does currently split trains for overhaul. As a guide, the new Picc depots will feature a wheel lathe road, 4 swimming pool roads, 2 winterisation roads, 3 cleaning roads (1 for underframes, the others level access), one flat road within shed, and one maintenance shed road. This is planned to be provided on the current Picc sites, during normal service operation, by closing a quarter of each large double-ended depot at a time, although this seems to be proving difficult to achieve in practice. Stonebridge Park is a single-ended depot on a cramped site, so the quickest and cheapest solution is to close down and hand the site over to the builders. A phased project working on a few roads at a time would take longer and cost more. Could the life of the current trains be made to last until the depot was prepared for new trains?

There are times for blockades. But the idea of closing a line outright so the depot can be more cheaply rebuilt takes that logic beyond reasonable limits. Redevelopment of an existing service should be based on the assumption that this service will be provided during redevelopment, with a very high bar set for long term closure.

[t697]

Sept 21, 2023 7:32:30 GMT brigham said:

What will the swimming pool roads do?

Isn't this a question more about what 24TS maintenance is to be done on these roads than simply "what is a swimming pool road", which I expect the majority on here already know from many other threads over time?

[spsmiler]

Sept 20, 2023 17:48:10 GMT metman said:

I think the Overground service solely working north of Queens Park would be a return to the dark ages! I can’t see there being sufficient resources available to meet demand on the line now and I’d question if there is enough capacity at Euston for a more frequent service?

Some people might see a solution in stopping Overground trains at Queens Park or Willesden Junction (bay platform) and the rest of the route to Watford being solely for Bakerloo line trains.

This would have (possibly expensive?) fleet requirement implications.

I do NOT favour this - I see passenger-attracting benefits in as many 'one-seat' direct through services as possible, but I am alarmed that some deskbound pen-pushers would grab (with both hands) the possibility of forcing the end of this route as a jointly operated service.

[jimbo]

Is the way forward for Overground trains to non-stop Kensal Green platforms adjusted to tube train height, and for the Bakerloo to terminate in the middle two platforms at Willesden Junction, also at their height. Overground platforms could then be adjusted to standard height. Workings to and from the depot would be empty. This would probably stop the Kilburn High Road shuttles sometimes operated, as they serve the outer platforms at Queen's Park. Interchange between the two services would be available cross-platform at those two stations. The savings in trip times would save tube trains, which could pay for these modifications. Occasional Overground reversal at Willesden Junction would then be via the outer platforms and a shunt beyond there. Overground services could again become all 4-car to boost capacity.

[Tom]

No, that's not really an option. There's only one bay road at Willesden Junction these days, and it is too short to accommodate an Underground train.

[jimbo]

With the cost of the Bakerloo Upgrade project, a return to two roads would only be a small percentage of the budget, including relocation of obstacles using the space now. It would also save some new trains at some £16 million each (94 Picc train contract cost £1.5 billion).

[Tom]

Maybe so, but there's still a need to install a platform extension. The bay road berth is 111m long (according to the NR sectional appendix), and there is only c.13.5m to the points which bring trains in from the Down DC or to the Up DC, which would make for an rather tight berth.

[metman]

Sept 21, 2023 16:58:33 GMT spsmiler said:

Some people might see a solution in stopping Overground trains at Queens Park or Willesden Junction (bay platform) and the rest of the route to Watford being solely for Bakerloo line trains.

This would have (possibly expensive?) fleet requirement implications.

I do NOT favour this - I see passenger-attracting benefits in as many 'one-seat' direct through services as possible, but I am alarmed that some deskbound pen-pushers would grab (with both hands) the possibility of forcing the end of this route as a jointly operated service.

There was a lot of noise around extending the Bakerloo to Watford Junction years back but for operational success planners like to keep the routes as short as possible for reliability sake.

At one time in the early 2000s there was a plan to use retired 1967 tube stock in 6 car formations on the Watford-Euston line to displace the class 313/508 Silverlink/Overground trains. Now that would have been interesting…

[jimbo]

Sept 21, 2023 20:37:40 GMT jimbo said:

Is the way forward for Overground trains to non-stop Kensal Green platforms adjusted to tube train height, and for the Bakerloo to terminate in the middle two platforms at Willesden Junction, also at their height. Overground platforms could then be adjusted to standard height. Workings to and from the depot would be empty. This would probably stop the Kilburn High Road shuttles sometimes operated, as they serve the outer platforms at Queen's Park. Interchange between the two services would be available cross-platform at those two stations. The savings in trip times would save tube trains, which could pay for these modifications. Occasional Overground reversal at Willesden Junction would then be via the outer platforms and a shunt beyond there. Overground services could again become all 4-car to boost capacity.

It would be good if at least one of the extended bay platforms connected through to the running lines at the north end so that workings to and from the depot served a tube height platform, else they would need to entrain or detrain at Kensal Green. Interchange would still be preferred at Queen's Park because up to London you might catch a reversing Bakerloo train there, and returning north you could be sure of cross-platform interchange rather than gambling on which centre platform was used at Willesden Junction.

[Chris M]

Two bay platforms at Willesden Junction long enough for 5-car Class 178s would require a lot of work on the station, which is why it was reduced to 1 bay.
One bay platform long enough for a 1972-stock would require very significant works to the station.
Two bay platforms long enough for a 1972-stock train and/or converting one or more bays to through platforms would require rebuilding at least most, possibly (nearly) all of the current low-level station, reconfiguration/rebuilding of walkways and the installation of at least one additional lift and (probably) walkway to it. My guess would be that construction would take 6-12 months, with either months of weekend closures or at least one longer blockade.

All options would require at least some track realignment and none would be cheap.

[croxleyn]

Naive/simplistic question: Several comments have been made about "x"-stock being too long. Can not single/double etc. carriages be taken out, and maybe railing/barriers installed on the ends of platforms? Surely a reduced capacity would be far preferable to nothing at all?

[jimbo]

It is planned to replace the current trains with a further build of new Piccadilly Line trains, which are of similar length to the Bakerloo trains. Willesden Junction has a short centre bay platform used by Overground trains, much shorter than Bakerloo trains. It has been suggested that lengthening that would provide a useful reversing point for Bakerloo trains in the future, short of Stonebridge Park depot, currently used to reverse some of the service.

[Tom]

Sept 22, 2023 22:55:34 GMT Chris M said:

Two bay platforms at Willesden Junction long enough for 5-car Class 178s would require a lot of work on the station, which is why it was reduced to 1 bay.

I can remember it as one bay back in the 1990s, when three-car class 313 untis were in charge!

[melikepie]

If people are worried about platforms being too short, surely some sort of SDO could be used?

[jimbo]

SDO could be used in Willesden bay road, but that wouldn't help clear the points for the following through train, or to reverse back out onto the other direction. That is the only short platform we are talking about.

[spsmiler]

Sept 22, 2023 22:55:34 GMT Chris M said:

Two bay platforms at Willesden Junction long enough for 5-car Class 178s would require a lot of work on the station, which is why it was reduced to 1 bay.

I remember things differently - the empty space that at one time had been the trackbed for a second bay was seen as offering a place for a food outlet and toilets

For longer Class 378s the remaining bay was lengthened - I think at both ends, if not then certainly at the London end.

If the toilets and food outlets were relocated then this part of the station could be made accessible ... two island platforms with Bakerloo trains at one platform face, overground at the other platform face. As I see it the only issues are finance and human wetware ('not invented here' type of thinking), however someone else might know of other impediments to what I said.

[d7666]

Sept 21, 2023 4:02:54 GMT jimbo said:

Stonebridge Park depot does currently split trains for overhaul.

But they don't start overhauling trains for years after entry to service => no need to split NTFL stock for years, plenty of time to sort out, this need only be the last stage, way after NTFL in squadron service.

The overhaul interval with modern stock is also longer than the clockwork trains so will take a longer time to get to this need.

Sept 21, 2023 4:02:54 GMT jimbo said:

As a guide, the new Picc depots will feature a wheel lathe road,

I'd question too that is needed at Day One of start of NTFL stock service.

(( Is there wheel lathe now at Stonebridge ? ))

Sept 21, 2023 4:02:54 GMT jimbo said:

4 swimming pool roads, 2 winterisation roads, 3 cleaning roads (1 for underframes, the others level access), one flat road within shed, and one maintenance shed road. This is planned to be provided on the current Picc sites, during normal service operation, by closing a quarter of each large double-ended depot at a time, although this seems to be proving difficult to achieve in practice. Stonebridge Park is a single-ended depot on a cramped site, so the quickest and cheapest solution is to close down and hand the site over to the builders. A phased project working on a few roads at a time would take longer and cost more.

Closing one quarter of a single ended shed is not different to closing one quarter of a double ended shed. Both close one quarter of the shedded roads - the ways in and out are irrelevant surely ? What is the point here ?

Sept 21, 2023 4:02:54 GMT jimbo said:

Could the life of the current trains be made to last until the depot was prepared for new trains?

The depot need only be part prepared, quarter by quarter per above comments, for new trains as they are delivered, itself that will be in phases. You don't keep the entire 72TS complete for the end of depot works to T -1 and then operate the complete NTFL fleet at T +1.


Sorry but I still don't see this.

[d7666]

Of course, if you really must close the Bakerloo and enhance the Watford DC lines, for 2 years, what you do is go off to Long Marston, round up the remaining D78s, convert to a 484 type unit for appropriate length trains for 2 years, and build a tent over a couple of the bay platforms at Watford JUnction (they really do not need 4 for service) and do the 484 depot bashing stuff there.

[jimbo]

The Picc line has two large double-ended depots, meaning the whole land area including stabling roads, not just the depot shed. Extra stabling has been provided at South Harrow and west of Northfields station, and will be provided at Cockfosters nearer to the running lines. These new roads can take trains displaced whilst works are undertaken. The Bakerloo has no spare stabling roads and no obvious space to build them. When a quarter of a double-ended depot's roads are closed, the remainder can be accessed from the other end. At Stonebridge Park if the station end is closed, the far end cannot be accessed. With two major depots on the Picc, if works are staged between them, then a quarter of roads in one depot is an eighth of roads on the line. The Bakerloo does not have this luxury. Even so, the Picc is finding it hard to schedule work to avoid service disruption. Thus the plan to close the Bakerloo completely and get it over as quick as possible.

[DWS]

The extra sidings west of Northfields station are still being built and are not available for train stabling yet.

[jimbo]

Wikipedia says the Class 378 5-car were 101.35 metres, whilst the new Picc trains will be 113 metres, so 11.65 metres longer to fit in the Willesden bay road. I also see that the 4-car Class 710 4-car now carry 678, whilst the 5-car Class 378 carry 1,178, or 500 more, +74%. So if the Bakerloo service is withdrawn for depot reconstruction, that would be an easy way to increase Overground capacity without additional paths into Euston.

[towerman]

Can the Cl378s run as 10 cars to increase capacity?

[A60stock]

Sept 25, 2023 9:49:21 GMT towerman said:

Can the Cl378s run as 10 cars to increase capacity?

I am not sure 10 cars would fit at many of the platforms along the route and would require significant platform extensions at some places. Would the line need 10 cars on each train though? I can't imagine that being needed, especially off peak.

However, running 4 car 710s as doubles to create an 8 car train might be possible, albeit with some slight platform extension work. However, it might be a bit of a task to extend platforms such as Queens Park, Wembley Cntl and Stonebridge park where there are restrictions at both ends.

[Chris M]

nig I think you might have quoted the wrong post?

[jimbo]

Sept 21, 2023 22:37:23 GMT Tom said:

..... The bay road berth is 111m long (according to the NR sectional appendix), and there is only c.13.5m to the points which bring trains in from the Down DC or to the Up DC, which would make for an rather tight berth.

The new Picc trains will be 113 metres, so 2 metres extra than the bay road. Not much to find! 

[nig]

Sept 25, 2023 19:00:17 GMT Chris M said:

nig I think you might have quoted the wrong post?

Cheers I misread post deleted it now