|
Post by happybunny on Sept 1, 2007 16:40:42 GMT
Why is the line suspended between Rayners and Uxbridge this weekend? There can't be any works going on as the Met is running.. so why is the Picc suspended? Also why is there just a shuttle Rayners-Acton... what happened to the through trains to Cockfosters? Also I think it is running a reduced service (3tph?) Anyone know why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2007 17:24:00 GMT
I was out on the Picc most of the day today and there seemed to be 1 in 6 trains for Rayners from Arnos. They were running 4tph (I think) between Acton and Rayners, with trains reversing in the sidings at each end. 1tph was doing Rayners to Arnos and vice versa, this was to cover breaks and shift changes mostly. There weren't any Picc's to Uxbridge as the Met had more trains to cover it because of its suspension, and of course the Picc had less. By the looks of things anyway, the Rayners branch didn't need any more. It was dead when I went up there and back! However, the Heathrow branch was packed as usual.
|
|
|
Post by happybunny on Sept 1, 2007 19:57:32 GMT
By the looks of things anyway, the Rayners branch didn't need any more. It was dead when I went up there and back! However, the Heathrow branch was packed as usual. I beg to differ.... after a 10 minute wait at Ealing common this morning E/B a picc arrived which was very busy and tipped out at Acton with a further 4 min wait for a train from Heathrow. It is ridiculous that they turn most of the trains at Acton!
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Sept 1, 2007 21:39:09 GMT
By the looks of things anyway, the Rayners branch didn't need any more. It was dead when I went up there and back! However, the Heathrow branch was packed as usual. I beg to differ.... after a 10 minute wait at Ealing common this morning E/B a picc arrived which was very busy and tipped out at Acton with a further 4 min wait for a train from Heathrow. It is ridiculous that they turn most of the trains at Acton! The only way to have a reliable service on these weekends, when it is nigh on impossible to short trip trains, is to have a shuttle on the Rayners branch to and from Acton. At least you know that a train will be around in 10 or 20 minutes rather than back at Piccadilly Circus behind 20 million trains to Northfields ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by happybunny on Sept 2, 2007 6:31:42 GMT
I see you're point JTD
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Sept 2, 2007 15:02:59 GMT
Or more likely to run less trains, rather than having cancelled trains for Operator Not Available So they're suspending services under the engineering works excuse in order to cover for the fact they don't have enough staff...?
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Sept 2, 2007 15:07:18 GMT
Or more likely to run less trains, rather than having cancelled trains for Operator Not Available So they're suspending services under the engineering works excuse in order to cover for the fact they don't have enough staff...? Well..... It does help! But engineering work is happening Tom! They're not that cheeky ;D ;D ( My comments are my personal opinion by the way!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2007 15:07:52 GMT
Or more likely to run less trains, rather than having cancelled trains for Operator Not Available So they're suspending services under the engineering works excuse in order to cover for the fact they don't have enough staff...? No, the engineering works are taking place anyway, the fact that there is not enough staff is hidden when this is ongoing.
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Sept 2, 2007 15:11:51 GMT
However as said above there was nothing between Uxbridge and Rayners on the Picc, despite the Met running there, so they chose to suspend it for no apparent reason... to free up staff to cover for missing ones?
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,100
|
Post by Tom on Sept 2, 2007 16:12:51 GMT
I don't think the issue is staff Tom.
Yes, they're short staffed, but I suspect that the problem is more related to insuffient trains available (as the engineering work will lock trains in Cockfosters Depot) than the staffing levels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2007 16:40:57 GMT
Tbh, I actually thought there was Engineering work on the Met as well. I stand corrected on that fact.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,410
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 2, 2007 18:01:06 GMT
I don't think that the number of staff available is as significant in this case as the inability to get sufficient staff to the right places at the right time to provide a better service. This inability will be at least partly (possibly even majorly) a function of the lack of trains - itself a function of the engineering works.
From an outsiders POV it seems that those responsible for the decision making have chosen to run a restricted service timetable that they could realistically keep to, rather than a fuller one (experience has shown?) they couldn't. I would be very surprised if a timetable that is kept to is significantly less of a headache for all staff (controllers, drivers, station staff, etc as well as the big wigs) than one that isn't.
An enhanced Met service on the Uxbridge branch would have been beneficial to the traveller, but this would have required an alternative timetable for that line. This in turn would require the extra rolling stock, drivers, paths east of Harrow, and timetable planners to be available. As the engineering work on the Picc was the responsibility of TubeLines, who have nothing to do with the Met, this could quite possibly have involved complicated liaisons between them and LU and/or Metronet/whoever else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2007 18:33:45 GMT
Times like these highlight the weakness of the east end of the Picc, which lacks a station equipped to reverse trains north/east to south/west without tipping out on the main (i.e. something like Mansion House). If such a station was available I feel that many of these suspension-related problems would be significantly easier to work around.
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Sept 4, 2007 15:05:23 GMT
Times like these highlight the weakness of the east end of the Picc, which lacks a station equipped to reverse trains north/east to south/west without tipping out on the main (i.e. something like Mansion House). If such a station was available I feel that many of these suspension-related problems would be significantly easier to work around. And the service generally. At the moment lots of trains get turned at Acton, Northfields, Hounslow or Hatton Cross as there is so little flexibility on the east.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,410
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 4, 2007 19:24:07 GMT
where would you install such facilities?
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Sept 18, 2007 18:32:25 GMT
Thought they were going to install a third platform at Oakwood, in a similar way to what was done at North Acton on the Central line. This would allow trains to be reversed without disrupting the through service. It was much less of a problem reversing trains at Wood Green years ago, because they had more platform staff to tip the trains out, and there was no speed control into the siding. All this meant that the train could be put out of the way wothout delaying the service.
I've also heard a rumour about demolishing the platform at York Road disused plaform, and constructing a two way reversing siding. This would enablr trains to be terminated at Kings Cross without unduly delaying the service.
As for Rayners Lane - Uxbridge, I've always believed that the all day service was reinstated more for operational convenience than anything else - it enables Rayners Lane reversers to have more recovery time. And let's face, the Picc controllers don't give two hoots whether any of their trains make it to Uxbridge because they know that there is a 6tph Met service, and their priority is to keep the trains on time. So many Uxbridge trains get turned at Ruislip - I suppose if they had more facilities at the east end of the line, Uxbridge might fare a little better!
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,100
|
Post by Tom on Sept 18, 2007 20:38:58 GMT
I remember seeing plans for the third platform at Oakwood (and additional platforms at Cockfosters), but the whole scheme died a death with the approach of PPP.
As for York Road, the platform has been demolished for years.
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Sept 18, 2007 21:15:46 GMT
Additional platforms at Cockfosters - it'll be like Clapham Junction up there, trying to work out which platform the next train is leaving from! It's hard enough with 3 platforms. If they do expand Cockfosters, it would be the first terminal station to have more than 3 roads.
Shame they shelved Oakwood - they are in the middle of expanding Stanmore to 3 platforms as we speak, but I suppose that line has a much higher priority, what with the Olympics and impending ATO.
|
|
|
Post by trainopd78 on Sept 18, 2007 22:39:48 GMT
I don't think the issue is staff Tom. Yes, they're short staffed, but I suspect that the problem is more related to insuffient trains available (as the engineering work will lock trains in Cockfosters Depot) than the staffing levels. Thats precisely the reason for the heavily reduced service. Half the fleet was locked in Cockfosters depot. The Piccadilly is badly designed having such an intense service going east then having so few decent reversing points until you almost get to the end of the line. Not sure if these count but Wimbledon and Richmond both have 4 platforms. Seeing as we now own the Wimbledon road (although don't operate it) we do have a 4 platform termini. <pedant mode off> ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2007 23:20:08 GMT
If we're willing to talk about pie-in-the-sky ideas, I once created a signalling diagram for a four-platform station at York Road with double-ended reversing sidings and a full complement of crossovers, allowing trains to be reversed in any direction from the west or the north without having to tip out on the main.
If you think about it, York Road would actually be a fantastic place to put in a scheduled reversing point - it would be like Tower Hill on the District. From my personal experiences on the east end of the Picc, patronage drops by at least a third in the weekday off-peak and by half in the weekend off-peak, and the drops always start north of KXStP. Adding flyovers and platforms and whatnot at Oakwood and Cockfosters is just a band-aid for a more fundamental problem with the east end of the Picc.
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Sept 19, 2007 12:45:52 GMT
I suppose the extra platform at Oakwood would be no use when reversing very late trains - skipping Cockfosters would only save 10 minutes!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2007 13:33:39 GMT
I think Wood Green would be a much more sensible reversing point. There is still quite a lot of patronage north of King's Cross, in my experience up to at least Finsbury Park, Manor House and Turnpike Lane. I rarely go north of there, but this the statistics say that Turnpike Lane and Wood Green both have around 8 to 9 million passengers per year, which are very high numbers for zone 3. That's more than Blackfriars or Moorgate! I have seen the northbound Picc. platform at King's Cross completely full early in the morning after an Eastbound terminating at King's Cross before. I really don't see the point in terminating right in the centre of a city.
|
|
|
Post by programmes1 on Sept 19, 2007 13:38:46 GMT
I seem to remember reading somewhere that a siding was proposed at Manor House, also a connection with the Vic?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2007 22:22:36 GMT
Why not do summat with the abandoned tunnels around South Ken and Finny P? I'm not sure as to the actual space/ length of the disused tunnels in the area?
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 20, 2007 7:17:29 GMT
There are certainly abandoned tunnels south of Finsbury Pk; some realignment at the north end would be required to connect them with the Picc, but the problem is that they would only be effective for south-to-north reversing (otherwise a triple shunt would be needed).
At South Kensington the only disused tunnel was the ~120ft constructed for the deep-level District. This has been absorbed into the lower concourse for the escalators now, so there's nothing there worth talking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2007 7:51:30 GMT
Additional platforms at Cockfosters - it'll be like Clapham Junction up there, trying to work out which platform the next train is leaving from! It's hard enough with 3 platforms. If they do expand Cockfosters, it would be the first terminal station to have more than 3 roads. Shame they shelved Oakwood - they are in the middle of expanding Stanmore to 3 platforms as we speak, but I suppose that line has a much higher priority, what with the Olympics and impending ATO. 3 platform termini actually have a higher reversing capacity than 4 platform termini. This is because there are less conflicting movements, and a slightly shorter crossover with 3 platform termini. Rather than spending loads of money on new construction, maybe stepping back should be introduced at Cockfosters? If money is to be spent, then instead of adding more platforms at Cockfosters, the station should be rebuilt with longer overruns, and faster track geometry in the crossover.
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Oct 3, 2007 17:04:25 GMT
Whatever became of the plans for an additional platform at Oakwood?
There is the abandoned tunnel near Arsenal where the Picc was diverted into a different platform at FPK.
Of course in the general area of FPK are the abandoned tunnels of the GN which run for a considerable distance and are of 16' diameter. I would've thought these would be ideal candidates for sidings.
Brian
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2007 17:36:49 GMT
How about using the disused platform at Holborn as an East to West reversing point, or is not long enough/wrong location?.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,410
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 3, 2007 17:43:38 GMT
Stephen's track maps and Underground History suggest that at least one more crossover would be needed, and that it would probably work better as a West to East reversing point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2007 18:03:10 GMT
Holborn platform 5 would seem to be a very good west to east reversing platform. It's right alongside the existing eastbound platform and the points are already in place. But if IIRC there is a mess room or something built on part of the platform.
|
|