Circles to Go

[mrfs42]

Jul 5, 2008 19:50:17 GMT tubeprune said:

There were some tentative steps. At least one timetable had District Q Stock working on the branch around 1938. I wonder if our WTT guru (calling mrfs42) knows which one. I wonder if there were any yellow perils for it.

I've certainly got WTTs of that era, both District and Met - I'll have a peruse at some point and report back.

edit: Which branch? Are you thinking of Q stock to Uxbridge?

[Deleted]

I now see (on the "London Connections" site) that the Hammersmith & Circle may be with us as soon as the end of next year.

And the "solution" to the problem of Praed Street Junction to Edgware Road? Cut back half the Wimblewares to HSK off peak.

Absurd. Either the junction can handle the additional trains or it can't. This seems to be a way of saying "it can't but we're going to do it anyway".

Hopefully the "Wimblekens" will be allowed to use platform 3 at HSK at least - platform 4 is truly unfit for purpose in terms of its linkages to the rest of the station, and there will presumably be far fewer people using the Olympia shuttle than the Wimbledons.

[Ben]

Ive been working on modeling a scenario whereby the section of line from Pread Street Junction to Edgware Road is made bi-di on both tracks, thus allowing two trains to arrive from the west, and a few other non conflicting moves. Its a very primative model (making use of the auto control feature on Trainz) but it seems to add a bit more flexibility, if indeed it increases the signalmans work at the station! With a smart automated system in place (ATO) presumably it would work a lot better though.

Is there any serious mileage in this idea?

[citysig]

Just to add something to the pot.

The latest "rumours" I have heard (and they are more or less just that I might add) are that most train operators will be relocated from Edgware Road to Hammersmith - a few will be left at the former, but the latter will become the main crew depot.

Then one of the latest ideas for the service is to run a service we tried in the 1990s for a short (very short) time during one of the covered way works at High Street Ken. Known then as the "Pan-handle" and possibly now resurrected as the "Tea-Cup" either through a softening of titles, or to rename and cover-up an old (failed) idea.

The service would operate as Hammersmith->Circle Line Outer Rail->Barking then return as Barking->Inner Rail->Hammersmith.

On paper it works. You timetable an 8 minute service from each end and work it so that the "Circles" arrive back at Edgware Road/Liverpool Street 4 minutes behind the last ex-Hammersmith/Barking service. Trouble is, have yourself a shutdown anywhere at all on the H&C, Circle or District and your entire H&C and Circle service gets to be disrupted a lot more than it does now.

Oh yeh, and the other "rumour" was a 4-7 minute frequency Edgware Road-Wimbledon service.

[Deleted]

I'd be interested to see how they intend to get any of the Edgware Road drivers to move to Hammersmith. People have been there and done that and the exodus of Hammersmith drivers back to Edgware Road is telling.

Surely Baker Street re-opening would make the most sense if we have to stable these new trains at Neasden. It would wash a lot better with the current Edgware Road drivers who come in from "the north" to Kings Cross and Euston on the BR.

I also heard word a while back of a depot opening at Aldgate. Has that idea been put to bed?

[Hutch]

the section of line from Pread Street Junction to Edgware Road is made bi-di on both tracks

I was toying with this one myself in conjunction with altering the terminal platform arrangements at Edgware Road to use the inner rail island only. This would cut down on the number conflicts between westbound Hammersmiths and eastbound terminators. Most terminators would run wrong-road from Praed St Jnc.

[DrOne]

Would that effectively create single line running between Edgware Rd and each of the Paddingtons? Each line would need to comfortably cope with at least 24tph bi-di in that case, no? Outer rail island would have 12tph - from Hammersmith and 12tph to Hamersmith. Inner rail would have 12tph to HSK and 12tph from HSK.

I wonder how workable this is to those in the know?

[cetacean]

Jul 12, 2008 11:34:33 GMT Hutch said:

Most terminators would run wrong-road from Praed St Jnc.

There are certainly places on NR where this done.

If the SSL signalling is DLR style then it's fully bidirectional out-of-the-box. I don't know if the computer is smart enough to make these kinds of optimisations on its own initiative, but I'm sure it could be programmed to.

[Deleted]

Hmmm, the amount of discussion here tends to suggest we, as fairly knowledgeable on the subject, are less than convinced it will work as set out.

I think it was the most daft of all the suggested route improvements.
(Extending the Met to Barking was the most sensible, even with A stock I can't see there would be many, if any, gauging issues)

So what is the point of it all, leaving it as it is seems better than the proposed tinkering !

If the point, and the only point I can see to it, is, increasing the frequency to Hammersmith as far as I can see this can only be done at the expense of something, a general frequency reduction for other sections (from x8.5mins to x10mins) is not really the way forward in my view ! Reducing the frequency of the Wimbledon - Edgware Road service seems a total non-starter, unless more D stock will run there, but I don't see where that will be diverted from, I suppose a Wimbledon - High Street shuttle with (otherwise inter-peak stabled) D's would be possible. (in practice some Ealing's would do it, the Wimbledon's are better as through Upminster's)

The Hammersmith branch is vunerable with no reversing points and the layovers there are the only real recovery time for the line this would have to reduce if the frequency was upped from every 8 mins to every 5.

Far too much reversing at Edgware Road will be disasterous.

I agree with most of an earlier suggestion the only way to change the service pattern is to run (for the most part)

Hammersmith - Outer Rail - Edgware Road
Edgware Road - Inner Rail - Hammersmith
Wimbledon - Plaistow / Barking Sidings via Kings Cross.
with a limited supplementary shuttle Hammersmith - Edgware Road.

I'd say either a whole re-vamp with the Met/District/Pic should be done (including recasting what routes crews were trained upon) or leave the lot alone !

[Chris M]

would there be any benefit in making Paddington Bishop's Road an available reversing point? I guess the simplest way to do this would be to convert the existing hand worked points into normal powered ones.

A major way of doing it would be to move the westbound service to the adjacent NR platform 14, and convert platform 15 (currently the westbound platform) into either a bay or a terminating track accessible from both ends or one that can function as a second eastbound platform (a layout similar to Leytonstone). Physically it should be easy to do, but I don't imagine though that NR or FGW would be happy about losing a platform. I'm also not certain how much benefit there would be in doing it. Paddington Bishop's Road isn't the best place to be for onward underground connections. Removing westbound passengers from the staircase to platforms 15 and 16 would probably improve passenger flows though.

[metman]

I'd leave it ALL as it is!

Having Edgware Road as a revesing point for two services is very dangerous. I don't mind every other Wimbledon train short working to HSK, but would would the service between HSK and Edgware Road be? That section will get a raw deal anyway as a change at Edgware Road will be manditory.

A great solution would be to extend the Wimblewares to Moorgate (Wimblegate!) but I fear the Baker St-Moorgate section is already too busy!

The final option is to have more H&C trains. The only real plus point I can see is that the Hammersmith branch gets (and needs) a better service-run more trains! There are two points to consider with this however:
-Uxbridge service kept at 6tph not the 10tph as suggested.
-Whitechapel kept as a reversing point.
-H&C service runs every 5 minutes (every 10 mins to Barking).
-Circle Line and Wimbleware remains as is.

Chris, I'm surpised they didn't put a x-over at the new Wood Lane station!

[Harsig]

Jul 12, 2008 13:30:16 GMT metman said:

Chris, I'm surpised they didn't put a x-over at the new Wood Lane station!

And I'm surprised that you're surprised. What makes you think they would spend any more money than they absolutely had to.

[metman]

....because we are trying to make progress!

[programmes1]

Perhaps putting the point work back at Ladbroke Grove siding & cross over would help? and how about putting the junction back at Latimer Rd then the service could run Edgware Rd via Shepherds Bush back to Edgware Rd?

[Deleted]

Jul 11, 2008 20:13:05 GMT @citysig said:

Just to add something to the pot.

The latest "rumours" I have heard (and they are more or less just that I might add) are that most train operators will be relocated from Edgware Road to Hammersmith - a few will be left at the former, but the latter will become the main crew depot.

Then one of the latest ideas for the service is to run a service we tried in the 1990s for a short (very short) time during one of the covered way works at High Street Ken. Known then as the "Pan-handle" and possibly now resurrected as the "Tea-Cup" either through a softening of titles, or to rename and cover-up an old (failed) idea.

The service would operate as Hammersmith->Circle Line Outer Rail->Barking then return as Barking->Inner Rail->Hammersmith.

On paper it works. You timetable an 8 minute service from each end and work it so that the "Circles" arrive back at Edgware Road/Liverpool Street 4 minutes behind the last ex-Hammersmith/Barking service. Trouble is, have yourself a shutdown anywhere at all on the H&C, Circle or District and your entire H&C and Circle service gets to be disrupted a lot more than it does now.

Oh yeh, and the other "rumour" was a 4-7 minute frequency Edgware Road-Wimbledon service.

This sounds like a much more sensible idea than the teacup. It means that the Wimbleware can maintain a good frequency, and the pressure on Praed St Junction and Edgware Rd is not increased significantly.

Was there an issue with long driving times when the panhandle was tested?

If there was a signal failure or closure on the lower half of the circle, then the panhandle trains could just skip the lower half and run as an existing Hammersmith & City. The resulting early arrival at the termini would just result in the trains having to be stored in the depot at Barking, or in a spare platform or depot at Hammersmith.

[Colin]

Jul 12, 2008 12:45:28 GMT @aspect said:

So what is the point of it all, leaving it as it is seems better than the proposed tinkering !

The point is that the Circle line has no chance of recovery once trains run late (be it though a service suspension, equipment failure or whatever else) - all they can do is reforms at Edgware Road.

So the whole idea is to create a proper terminus for each train, with turn around time, which can then be taken advantage of for service recovery, etc.

I have to say, I too like the principle of the 'Pan Handle' (as described by Citysig) over the 'Tea Cup' (what next? a spoon in a mug perhaps? ;D ;D)...

[c5]

Jul 13, 2008 1:35:02 GMT Colin said:

Jul 12, 2008 12:45:28 GMT @aspect said:

So what is the point of it all, leaving it as it is seems better than the proposed tinkering !

The point is that the Circle line has no chance of recovery once trains run late (be it though a service suspension, equipment failure or whatever else) - all they can do is reforms at Edgware Road.

So the whole idea is to create a proper terminus for each train, with turn around time, which can then be taken advantage of for service recovery, etc.

That's not true at all!

Trains can be diverted to Moorgate or Hammersmith andback to Edgware Road for their own working or as you say, can be refomed, though on the Circle you can reform up all 7 each side (if the pick ups or spares are available) and don't even have to turn a single train or just by doing as many as you can!

And I bet you that on this new service that if a train is running late, it wil just be sent to Hammersmith for its next trip!

[uzairjubilee]

I always thought they would build a crossover at Wood Lane, but no.. How about Latimer Road or Ladbroke Grove?
I don't actually see the benefits this has. Okay yes there will be double the amount of services between Edgware Road and Hammersmith. But I don't really think that is necessary.
There will be an increase in trains using Praed Street Junction and there has been no progress of the Wimbledon - Edgware Road services terminating short at High Street Kensington at off peak times.
Will cutting the Circle between Edgware Road and Baker Street really help?
I just dont see the benefits here.
Could someone explain all of this please
Thanks
Uzair

[cetacean]

The panhandle doesn't improve frequency on the Hammersmith branch though. Which is something you can't do without increasing traffic over Praed Street junction or reducing the service from the HSK direction.

[Deleted]

They used to run the pan handle on the Notting Hill carnival weekend and the late running was chronic. One time the controller came over the radio and said "I've had enough of this, they insist on running this pan handle and trying to get it to work, I'm not going to reform the service any more, contact your DMT when you are due for relief".

[Deleted]

How busy is the Hammersmith and City line between Paddington and Hammersmith? Are these extra trains needed now with the new station opening up and the massive shopping centre in Shepherd's Bush?

[Deleted]

Jul 13, 2008 20:16:48 GMT @sweek said:

How busy is the Hammersmith and City line between Paddington and Hammersmith? Are these extra trains needed now with the new station opening up and the massive shopping centre in Shepherd's Bush?

The line is VERY busy at certain times and with the jobs created and all the predicted visitors to the new monolith it will only get busier. It's pretty dead late at night though.

Of course we could ask ourselves if, in this time of tightening of purse strings and recession, if what we really need is another shrine to consumerism and the associated battering the credit cards of the weak-willed will take...

[21146]

Jul 13, 2008 13:03:00 GMT @jim said:

I've had enough of this

Ah - that was S*******n, yes?

[ruislip]

Jul 5, 2008 20:17:02 GMT mrfs42 said:

Jul 5, 2008 19:50:17 GMT tubeprune said:

edit: Which branch? Are you thinking of Q stock to Uxbridge?

When did the Qs work to Uxbridge?

[Deleted]

Jul 13, 2008 13:03:00 GMT @jim said:

They used to run the pan handle on the Notting Hill carnival weekend and the late running was chronic. One time the controller came over the radio and said "I've had enough of this, they insist on running this pan handle and trying to get it to work, I'm not going to reform the service any more, contact your DMT when you are due for relief".

With sufficient trains and crews, at 8 min headways, then up to around 20mins dwell time at Hammersmith could be timetabled, and possibly even more at Barking. Of course this would be a huge waste of resources, and wouldn't only get the train back on time for its next run rather than the run it's on.

[Deleted]

i was talking with the erd dmt last night and was told that steppimg back between then wimblewares and circle was a possible idea for it to work but look at aldgate when the mets step back in rush hour even that is proved it can go pear shaped

[citysig]

Jul 12, 2008 22:29:18 GMT @stephenk said:

If there was a signal failure or closure on the lower half of the circle, then the panhandle trains could just skip the lower half and run as an existing Hammersmith & City. The resulting early arrival at the termini would just result in the trains having to be stored in the depot at Barking, or in a spare platform or depot at Hammersmith.

That sounds simple enough until you find all of your trains are running early and you don't have the correct drivers available (for instance, all the trains were due relief at their correct time.)

This can then lead you to have a very large gap until the drivers become available. Missing out the Circle part of the trip could mean a train is running an hour early!

You could of course run the train somewhere else to lose the early running, but where?

Jul 13, 2008 6:34:08 GMT @c5 said:

That's not true at all!

Trains can be diverted to Moorgate or Hammersmith andback to Edgware Road for their own working or as you say, can be refomed, though on the Circle you can reform up all 7 each side (if the pick ups or spares are available) and don't even have to turn a single train or just by doing as many as you can!

And I bet you that on this new service that if a train is running late, it wil just be sent to Hammersmith for its next trip!

And as you know, diverting a train, short-tripping a train or even reformations, all give you a technically cancelled train. During the course of an average day, these "cancellations" far outnumber the combined cancellations on the Met, H&C and District.

[Chris M]

After a 13 minute wait on Paddington (Praed Street) outer rail platform in the late afternoon (but before the rush hour) today I boarded a District Line train that arrived into platform 3 at Edgware Road. The platform got very busy, and the footbridge was filled to capacity with interchanging passengers heading for platform 1, and a good number of people elected to stay on the platform at Paddington (despite the next train being an alleged 5 minutes behind and also terminating at Edgware Road).
I fail to see how the station will cope with the number of passengers who will be forced to interchange here with a T-cup service. Unless of course there is a massive effort to redirect most customers to the out-of-the-way Bishop's Road platform at Paddington, which struggles to cope with the traffic it currently gets in the rush hour (but even this is better than the access to/from the platform).

[Deleted]

Jul 13, 2008 23:21:23 GMT @21146 said:

Jul 13, 2008 13:03:00 GMT @jim said:

I've had enough of this

Ah - that was S*******n, yes?

Indeed it was. A man who never shied away from airing his views and rants on the radio.

[metman]

Jul 14, 2008 3:34:48 GMT ruislip said:

Jul 5, 2008 20:17:02 GMT mrfs42 said:

Jul 5, 2008 19:50:17 GMT tubeprune said:

edit: Which branch? Are you thinking of Q stock to Uxbridge?

When did the Qs work to Uxbridge?

When first delivered I believe 3x 8 car trains of Q38 (motors and trailers, plus a spare DM) were sent to Neasden and used on the new Uxbridge-Barking service in DM-T-T-DM+(one train was DM-T-T-DM+DM-T-T-DM)T-DM+T-DM. They were moved to the District when sufficient P stock had been delivered, bar the spare DM which was moved a month later.

It is believed that a mixture of M and N stock also ran the Uxbridge-Barking service too (this may well have included the Ashbury stock in 8 car formations!).