Circles to Go

[Colin]

Jun 18, 2009 21:54:18 GMT mikebuzz said:

So the increased H&C trains past Praed Street Junction and into Edgware Road are not now resulting in fewer Wimbleware trains between HSK and Edgware Road or Circle line frequency around the whole circle? I guess its wait and see if the new service is workable.

And that's where you hit the proverbial nail on the head. Praed Street junction will be under more pressure as a result the whole T-cup thing (didn't we unofficially re-name it the Circlesmith on the forum? ;D ;D) - it'll definitely be the area to watch and will determine the success or failure of the whole thing.

So bringing us back on topic as such, although the trial weekends are not really the full effect, they will be useful in terms of showing how Praed Street junction copes.

Of course there is another issue that many people don't seem to have considered - the signallers at Edgware Road cabin. Every single train movement through Praed Street junction and Edgware Road has to signalled manually (there's no auto working facility), and Edgware Road cabin has to set up all the TD's from Hammersmith. It's already a 'fast' cabin' let alone the extra work coming their way via the extra reverser's as outer rail Circles terminate and reverse via the inner rail.

In fact if you consider the reversal of both the 'Circlesmith' and 'Wimblewares' at Edgware Road, plus the working of Praed Street junction, this whole area is so critical to success or failure......

[Deleted]

I assume that would lead to a service suspension, if Praed Street Junction fails?

[Chris M]

Depending how it fails, it could suspend a lot, perhaps suspended Hammersmith-Edgware Road and HSK - Edgware Road via Paddington. The latter would obviously affect the Wimblewares, and I don't think HSK could reverse both full services - so some Wimblewares would be diverted to the city. Causing huge knock-ons.

[citysig]

Just a few little points / matters that I've seen / studied from the trial timetables and notes (which will also act as a bit of information for anyone not yet in possession of some).

(It's not all meant to be negative , but the things of note seem to come out that way )

1. The timetable is more or less what will be seen off-peak. However, much of the additional running time around the Circle is left out - the Circle being timetabled for 56 and not 60 minutes. With a reduced District service operating at least on the first weekend, this extra time is not really needed.

2. Much of the "new" running time for the H&C is included. However, whilst a Hammersmith-Plaistow trip has been padded with an average of 4 extra minutes, a Hammersmith-Barking trip typically sees only a 2 minutes increase. Surely not an allowance simply to move in and out of Plaistow bay road?

3. Whitechapel, Edgware Road sidings, Farringdon sidings all see booked usage - which won't be the case come December.

4. Every eastbound terminating train at Edgware Road (Districts and Circles) is booked to arrive between ½ and 1 minute after the booked departure of the eastbound service to Baker Street. This could go two ways. Either everyone gets to see their onward train depart as they arrive at Edgware Road. Or there will be several 1-2 minute delays eastbound at Edgware Road while staff attempt to connect the two services. This could then mean every train departing 2 minutes late on the east, thus missing it's path at Baker Street, then as the late-running increases the paths are missed at Aldgate, Tower Hill, Gloucester Road, High Street Ken and then arriving back 8+ minutes late.

5. The above could be a ploy to annoy everyone so much, they decide to switch lines at Paddington (I think I'd rather chance it at Edgware Road though). However, the booked arrivals at Paddington are 3 minutes or 8 minutes apart from the next eastbound at the Suburban station. I doubt anyone will make the walk in 3 minutes, which means the minimum additional time on your journey would be 8 minutes.

6. I saw the Train Operator duties yesterday as well. Just as spoken of on here, they are pretty appalling. All were 2-line duties (i.e. 1 train before grub, 1 after.) Some wonderful turns such as 0611-1425, or 0442-1306. One of the really rough / long ones only had 40 minutes meal-relief.

[citysig]

Jun 19, 2009 8:33:57 GMT @ltmuseumguy said:

I assume that would lead to a service suspension, if Praed Street Junction fails?

It does with today's timetable. Praed Street is one of the extremely critical junctions on the combine. There's no way around it if it fails, and the nearest reversing points coming from High Street Ken or Hammersmith are a long distance before the junction, so you end up losing huge chunks of railway.

The new timetable will make this junction even more critical.

[Chris M]

Would it be feasible (physically and economically) to install crossovers such that eastbound services could terminate at both Paddington stations?
Certainly at Bishop's Road it would be good if this didn't lead to a need to detrain, as platform space is tight there at the best of times and will not be helped if large numbers of people switch from Praed Street to avoid changing at Edgware Road (I've posted before on this thread about my safety fears at this station).

[citysig]

There is space at both Paddingtons to install crossovers.

There is also a hand-worked crossover at Royal Oak, and even converting this to power-operated and installing bi-directional signalling to Paddington would be a bonus - it is the Hammersmith-Paddington section which suffers more from not having an alternative reversing point. High Street Ken to Paddington is not as far.

But of course, it all centres around cost - and the fact that "upstairs" they have never really thought about it - thinking that Edgware Road provides all they need to turn the service back.

Maybe a few weeks into the new timetable the thinking may change if we have a couple of failures on the junction.

[mrjrt]

Jun 18, 2009 17:43:23 GMT mikebuzz said:

2. Are there any stations on the Circle route which could be used for terminators from both directions as per Loughton? For example, could Aldgate, Tower Hill, Gloucester Road, HSK etc be a destination from both directions (clockwise and anti-clockwise)? This could be useful if a no-circle option is tried out in future where the remaining sub-surface lines take over former circle services as extra branches. Alternatively, if they want/need to reinstate the Circle but without the Hammersmith branch they could have a simple end to end terminus at one of the stations (or more flexible arrangements involving multiple destinations but all on the circle).

As stated elsewhere, currently, no. The easiest options for adding to it though would be to reinstate some of the platforms at South Kensington or Gloucester Road.

Jun 18, 2009 17:43:23 GMT mikebuzz said:

4. A costly option is linking Chiltern with Wimbleware via a new link from west of Praed Street Junction to (north of) Marylebone. This must be the shortest and cheapest way of extending Wimbleware and completely taking it away from the the circle/H&C east of Praed Street (call the whole line Chiltern). The Hammersmith branch could be linked to it too.

Is the Circle deep enough - or is there enough space - to tunnel off it from west of Praed Street? How feasible is it to divert the H&C into the new line headed for Marylebone?

The Metropolitan Railway were planning something very similar to that in the 30's before they were taken over by the London Passenger Transport Board (LPTB). The plan was to branch off after Edgware road and head north to West Hampsted/Finchley Road. They went so far as rebuilding Edgware Road with 4 platforms and adding destination indicators for Watford and Amersham, apparently. The Bakerloo extension ended up taking it's place however.

[setttt]

Jun 19, 2009 10:31:19 GMT @citysig said:

6. I saw the Train Operator duties yesterday as well. Just as spoken of on here, they are pretty appalling. All were 2-line duties (i.e. 1 train before grub, 1 after.) Some wonderful turns such as 0611-1425, or 0442-1306. One of the really rough / long ones only had 40 minutes meal-relief.

I can see why Prakash thought the District sheets had turned up by mistake... that all looks very familiar to me! ;D

[Deleted]

Those duties look very much like a Piccadilly duty book also.

[Deleted]

Jun 19, 2009 12:04:18 GMT mrjrt said:

Jun 18, 2009 17:43:23 GMT mikebuzz said:

2. Are there any stations on the Circle route which could be used for terminators from both directions as per Loughton? For example, could Aldgate, Tower Hill, Gloucester Road, HSK etc be a destination from both directions (clockwise and anti-clockwise)? This could be useful if a no-circle option is tried out in future where the remaining sub-surface lines take over former circle services as extra branches. Alternatively, if they want/need to reinstate the Circle but without the Hammersmith branch they could have a simple end to end terminus at one of the stations (or more flexible arrangements involving multiple destinations but all on the circle).

As stated elsewhere, currently, no. The easiest options for adding to it though would be to reinstate some of the platforms at South Kensington or Gloucester Road.

Jun 18, 2009 17:43:23 GMT mikebuzz said:

4. A costly option is linking Chiltern with Wimbleware via a new link from west of Praed Street Junction to (north of) Marylebone. This must be the shortest and cheapest way of extending Wimbleware and completely taking it away from the the circle/H&C east of Praed Street (call the whole line Chiltern). The Hammersmith branch could be linked to it too.

Is the Circle deep enough - or is there enough space - to tunnel off it from west of Praed Street? How feasible is it to divert the H&C into the new line headed for Marylebone?

The Metropolitan Railway were planning something very similar to that in the 30's before they were taken over by the London Passenger Transport Board (LPTB). The plan was to branch off after Edgware road and head north to West Hampsted/Finchley Road. They went so far as rebuilding Edgware Road with 4 platforms and adding destination indicators for Watford and Amersham, apparently. The Bakerloo extension ended up taking it's place however.

Looks like December could be fun...not!

[mrfs42]

Jun 19, 2009 12:04:18 GMT mrjrt said:

The Metropolitan Railway were planning something very similar to that in the 30's before they were taken over by the London Passenger Transport Board (LPTB). The plan was to branch off after Edgware road and head north to West Hampsted/Finchley Road. They went so far as rebuilding Edgware Road with 4 platforms and adding destination indicators for Watford and Amersham, apparently. The Bakerloo extension ended up taking it's place however.

Not heard about the destination indicators; however I've got a Railway Mag. image of the planned extra junction at Edgware Road. I'll have a dig around and put a link up, if I manage to find it.

[Deleted]

Jun 19, 2009 12:04:18 GMT mrjrt said:

The Metropolitan Railway were planning something very similar to that in the 30's before they were taken over by the London Passenger Transport Board (LPTB). The plan was to branch off after Edgware road and head north to West Hampsted/Finchley Road. They went so far as rebuilding Edgware Road with 4 platforms and adding destination indicators for Watford and Amersham, apparently. The Bakerloo extension ended up taking it's place however.

I don't know if Amersham was on the indicators, but I always understood that Verney Junction was (and was still there until long after services had been cut back to Amersham). But was there a slot to indicate service with Pullman car?

[mrfs42]

Jun 19, 2009 16:28:27 GMT etr220 said:

I don't know if Amersham was on the indicators, but I always understood that Verney Junction was (and was still there until long after services had been cut back to Amersham). But was there a slot to indicate service with Pullman car?

I don't think so, as the Pullman trains were on *very* specific workings that were enumerated in the preamble to the WTT and I'm not too sure that they worked through Edgware Road (although obviously they would if the extension was built) - would be nice to know if it ever happened. The only specific instruction for illuminated signs by location I can find after a quick search is for Liverpool St, and that's for eastbound traffic.

However, diagram for Edgware Road, including the never-built relief line to Willesden Green: linky

[Chris M]

That would be putting a lot of strain on Edgware Road station if that had been built, even more so at today's service frequencies.

Isn't this getting a bit off-topic for this thread though?

[mikebuzz]

Yes it is.

The solution to adding more trains through metland routes doesn't now need another pair of tracks from Finchley road or Harrow but to use better what's already there and to make sure it goes to where the circle can take it. Anti-clockwise is good but it should join after Praed Street Jcn instead of before Edgware Road and link to the Hammersmith branch. A good idea for the circle because basically you end up with 3 main branches/networks coming into it (from Earl's court, Met Extension/Chiltern and Aldgate East) in both directions and meaning the 2-track circle gets 2 services round every point except a couple of gaps like Aldgate-Tower Hill. The Hammersmitth services would be terminated at Paddington or split between the northern Circle and Chiltern.

IMO it's what's needed taking SSL as one network but with easy to understand lines, but dropping Hammersmith & City and combining with Circle (over-simplification service-wise I know) is a good option on paper if the infrastructure is going to remain more or less the same. So T-Cup it is. Actually makes sense except it didn't work before.

[21146]

I recall how Baker Street, Edgware Road and Wembley Park all had the same 'sectioned' train describers free-standing on the plaforms and of wondering what the unused panels were for.

[Dstock7080]

Jun 19, 2009 18:50:17 GMT @21146 said:

I recall how Baker Street, Edgware Road and Wembley Park all had the same 'sectioned' train describers free-standing on the plaforms and of wondering what the unused panels were for.

tinyurl.com/ksbg96

tinyurl.com/l4838e

[21146]

Wonderful.

[mrfs42]

Jun 19, 2009 17:33:21 GMT Chris M said:

That would be putting a lot of strain on Edgware Road station if that had been built, even more so at today's service frequencies.

Isn't this getting a bit off-topic for this thread though?

Indeed; it belongs in Historical really; but AFAICR Edgware Road is still broadly the same

Ditto for the TD/Train Indicator panels, which answers (and possibly poses) a few more questions about Circle TDs. I note that there are 15 slots for possible indications. How very, very, interesting - fifteen, eh?

Thank-you Dstock7080, that goes a long way to explaining a hunch about the current system.

[Colin]

Jun 19, 2009 23:49:26 GMT mrfs42 said:

but AFAICR Edgware Road is still broadly the same

Indeed - the frame used by the signallers dates from 1923 (IIRC); that's why there is no auto working and movements are manually signalled.

Quite something really when you consider how many movements there are, and what it'll be like come December....

[Deleted]

The frame may be dated 1923, but as far as my records show -

* Edgware Road old box decommissioned 23.05.26
* Edgware Road new cabin (i.e. the existing one!) commissioned 10.10.26 controlling only Praed Street Junction (with Praed Street Junction box closed).
* 01.11.26 Edgware Road station and sidings added to new cabin.

And here we are 83 years on!

[citysig]

Indeed, when I was one of the resident signalmen there years ago, I often used to tell visitors how it was one of the oldest signal cabins on the system. There were always tales (and some have been said on this forum before) that the frame was never intended for Edgware Road, which is why the layout of the frame and cabin equipment is how it is.

The frame / cabin will more than adequately cope with December's new timetable. Infact, signalman permitting, it could cope with alot more.

The real foreseen problem is the outside equipment - in particular 26 and 27 points which are Praed Street Junction. These were renewed recently (last year) and instead of being air-operated points, they are electric and take slightly longer to throw.

On a typical signal frame such as the one in Edgware Road, you pull the points lever from the normal, alllow the indication to drop out, then a second or so later the reverse indication shows, and you pul the lever fully reverse. There can be a tendancy to allow the points to "tell you" when they are thrown. By this I mean that you will be able to "feel" the reverse indication pop up, and move the lever without having to specifically look at the frame visual.

With the electric points, the original levers are used, but this time the signalman has to exercise caution to ensure the points have properly thrown, with full indication etc. before attempting to move the lever fully reverse. The feeling is not identical to the air operated ones. If the signalman simply tugs on the lever before they have done their stuff (as you can with air-operated points) the points and point circuitry lose themselves, and become stuck in the "mid." This is the classic faiure.

It is by no means the signallers fault if this happens. The points are designed to be thrown by non-human means. For example, via a keyswitch, which takes away the human element and allows a remote system to look after the throwing of the levers / points etc.

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2009 9:26:54 GMT @reganorak said:

The frame may be dated 1923, but as far as my records show -

* Edgware Road old box decommissioned 23.05.26
* Edgware Road new cabin (i.e. the existing one!) commissioned 10.10.26 controlling only Praed Street Junction (with Praed Street Junction box closed).
* 01.11.26 Edgware Road station and sidings added to new cabin.

And here we are 83 years on!

So how was Edgware Road signalled in the meantime, between the old box being decommissioned late May, and the new one taking over on 1st November?

One assumes that the new (current) box had (has) spare leavers for the junction to the proposed line to Finchley Road/West Hampstead. Re which one thing that surprised me (on the posted diagram) was that it was to be a flat (rather than burrowing) junction.

[21146]

Jun 19, 2009 23:49:26 GMT mrfs42 said:

Jun 19, 2009 17:33:21 GMT Chris M said:

That would be putting a lot of strain on Edgware Road station if that had been built, even more so at today's service frequencies.

Isn't this getting a bit off-topic for this thread though?

Indeed; it belongs in Historical really; but AFAICR Edgware Road is still broadly the same

Ditto for the TD/Train Indicator panels, which answers (and possibly poses) a few more questions about Circle TDs. I note that there are 15 slots for possible indications. How very, very, interesting - fifteen, eh?

Thank-you Dstock7080, that goes a long way to explaining a hunch about the current system.

The 15 panels were intended to show the non-stopping pattern of Met Main services, not just destinations.

[mrfs42]

Jun 20, 2009 12:25:08 GMT @21146 said:

The 15 panels were intended to show the non-stopping pattern of Met Main services, not just destinations.

Oh yes, I understand that; I might touch on this one day in the signalling board, but the important thing is the 15, rather than 12 or 31 panels.

[Deleted]

According to the Traffic Notices of the time, it was 'automatic' after the old box closed with no points, crossings or sidings until 01.11.26.

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2009 10:40:59 GMT @citysig said:

Indeed, when I was one of the resident signalmen there years ago, I often used to tell visitors how it was one of the oldest signal cabins on the system.

Would that have been around late 1926 when you started in there then?

[citysig]

Jun 20, 2009 12:25:51 GMT etr220 said:

One assumes that the new (current) box had (has) spare leavers for the junction to the proposed line to Finchley Road/West Hampstead. Re which one thing that surprised me (on the posted diagram) was that it was to be a flat (rather than burrowing) junction.

If memory serves, until 1997, the box had just 2 spare levers. One was utilised during the 1997 re-signalling as a 2nd Emergency Release lever (the release was split to be Eastbound or Westbound).

Somewhere in the depths of this forum I remember discussions over what the spare levers were originally for.

As for burrowing junctions, there are relatively few on the sub-surface lines. Much as they can be a huge benefit, we leave all that up and down, round and round stuff to the toy railways that run deeper underground ;D

Jun 20, 2009 17:28:07 GMT @linecontroller66 said:

Would that have been around late 1926 when you started in there then?

No don't be silly. I didn't join the job until mid-1927 ;D ;D

[norbitonflyer]

Jun 20, 2009 19:07:02 GMT @citysig said:

As for burrowing junctions, there are relatively few on the sub-surface lines. Much as they can be a huge benefit, we leave all that up and down, round and round stuff to the toy railways that run deeper underground ;D

I feel a list coming on:

Acton Town*
Turnham Green
Barons Court*
Earls Court (two)
Finchley Road*
Wembley Park*
Harrow on the Hill
(*junction between SSL and tube line)

Getting back on topic, TfL's "forthcoming service disruptions" webpage makes no mention of the changes to the Circle Line planned for travellers' amusement next weekend.

Without prior warning I expect we will see lots of Kings Cross or Baker St to Notting Hill passengers either ending up at Hammersmith (if the T-cups are called "Circle Line") or waiting for ever for a Circle Line train (if the T-cups are called "Hammersmith").