Circles to Go

[astock5000]

Nov 2, 2008 22:51:44 GMT metman said:

I don't think 10tph will happen on the Uxbridge service now, at least until ATO comes in. There won't be enough trains. Only 58 S8s are expected-the same as the initial A60/62 order!

But there were more A stock trains than were needed for the Met. Before the East London closed, there were 6 4-car trains (so 3 8-car) on the ELL, so there were only 53 trains that the Met could use, as there are now 56 8-car trains of A stock, not including 5173.
How many extra trains would need to be in service for 10tph to Uxbridge?

[metman]

Not initially there weren't. It was expected that a high service frequency would operate, in the end, levels dropped. I would say that an extra 9 trains-perhaps 23 trains in total to run Uxbridge-Aldgate. I don't know what the peak frequencies would be like!

I don't think there would be enough trains actually, not with spares etc.

[Deleted]

As a matter of interest, when the A Stock was new, there were 58 8-car trains - 31xA60 and 27xA62 which, of course, were treated as one fleet.

This was for a service provision in the rush hours for 52x8 and 1x4, giving 5½ spare trains.

However, this was short-lived, because from WTT 209 from 12/10.64, the requirement was drastically reduced to 44x8 and 1x4 in the peaks. It crept up by one the following October and stayed much like that until the drastic reductions (Fares Fair debacle and all that) of 6/12/82. Now, of course, it is 46x8 and 1x4.

Some readers will recall the off-peak service provision from 12/10/64, which was 2x4 (Amersham - hourly), 7x4 (Watford - 15 mins) and 6x4 (Uxbridge - 15 mins). In eight-car terms this equates to just 7½ full-length trains with the other 50½ laying idle in depots and sidings.

It is amazing that today, the off-peak service is 33x8 and 1x4.

[Deleted]

Thanks for the answer upfast.

If the Met had 10tph going to Uxbridge would there be any point in the Piccadilly going beyond Rayners Lane? The interchange is on the same platform, there is sufficient shelter, and passengers wouldn't have to wait more than 6 minutes for a connecting service.

[Chris M]

Is there sufficient reversing capacity at Rayners to turn the entire peak Picc service? Reversing there involves tipping out and reversing via a siding - is there time for 10tph Mets and tipping out the Picc?

[ruislip]

Nov 4, 2008 1:37:05 GMT Chris M said:

Is there sufficient reversing capacity at Rayners to turn the entire peak Picc service? Reversing there involves tipping out and reversing via a siding - is there time for 10tph Mets and tipping out the Picc?

You could always use Ruislip as a reversing point for Piccies, but then again the awkward positioning of the reversing siding may not work out with 10tph on the Met.

[Deleted]

From my experience the Picc service is so poor up there anyway that the regular 30 minute intervals between trains they haven't diverted to Heathrow will be more than enough! ;-)

[metman]

I'd like to think the Picc service would be better under ATO-but as you say -you never know!

[suncloud]

Radical suggestion, but I reckon it's not impossible to remodel Rayners Lane to have a reversing platform, so less disruption is caused by detraining. You can get a two platform three road station (like Loughton) by moving everything West and perhaps using some of the car park to the south of the running lanes.
Alternatively keep the Eastbound platform as is, but demolish the Westbound, and move it West to create an Island platform with continuing (Met) trains using the south face, and Terminating (Picc) trains use the north face to detrain, before reversing and picking up passengers from the Eastbound platform.
The benefit of this is that the terminating trains are immediately out the way of any continuing services, with X-platform interchange. Also, in the staggered layout, a full detrain may not be deemed neccesary (although would be a courtesy), as the reversing train will be moving directly into the Eastbound platform, so any overcarried pax would be back in a platform as soon as they realise they're heading the wrong way.

[astock5000]

Nov 3, 2008 18:38:19 GMT metman said:

Not initially there weren't. It was expected that a high service frequency would operate, in the end, levels dropped. I would say that an extra 9 trains-perhaps 23 trains in total to run Uxbridge-Aldgate. I don't know what the peak frequencies would be like!

I don't think there would be enough trains actually, not with spares etc.

But couldn't the off-peak service be increased, without needing more trains. How many spare trains does there need to be?

[Colin]

Nov 4, 2008 12:42:17 GMT suncloud said:

Radical suggestion, but I reckon it's not impossible to remodel Rayners Lane

Trouble is, everyone's answer to a problem is to suggest re-building; so here's a challenge....

You now have the same budget as in the real world.....£0. I think members need to start 'thinking outside the box' when suggesting new ways of doing things - you never know, if it's actually workable LU may well use it!

Nov 4, 2008 16:43:51 GMT astock5000 said:

How many spare trains does there need to be?

In terms of S stock, that would very much depend on maintenance regimes, and in the case of the Met, how Neasden depot carries out it's maintenance.

I wouldn't mind betting that certain things are done with trains which go away between the peaks (otherwise known as midday stablers) - if the depot is deprived of the opportunity to do maintenance, the fleets reliability could be in question.

Also, it's quite likely that one or two of the midday stablers are used for stock training purposes too.

Perhaps prjb or the like could give an indication of the expected maintenance requirements?

[max]

Budget of £0? Which real world are you talking about? We've had a bad couple of months, but the way that politics goes, things will swing back. That extra platform at Stanmore wasn't built from charitable donations, so clearly there is money available for substantial civil engineering works if they offer the right solution.

[mrfs42]

WRT Rayners, there are two <errrr.....> 'low budget' possibilities; both with pros and cons:

• Tip out every third Met in the platform and turnback wrong road via MP6 - needs tipping out assistance and if regular there would need to be some tinkering with berths on MP19/MP22 to allow the Piccs to close in; second stick for MP20/RMP19 on Met side to allow the Mets to close in.
  
• how much room is there at Rayners to extend the siding and move the arrestor back the 23m to squeeze the A stock in? Speed restrictions and an extra pleeceman could be fitted in the siding for shorter distance TETS...
  
• Er..... I might have some more thoughts, but I'd need to look at some WTTs first.
  

[Colin]

Nov 4, 2008 17:26:42 GMT max said:

Budget of £0? Which real world are you talking about? We've had a bad couple of months, but the way that politics goes, things will swing back. That extra platform at Stanmore wasn't built from charitable donations, so clearly there is money available for substantial civil engineering works if they offer the right solution.

Quite true, but I just don't see any money being spent on re-modelling Rayners Lane when reversing facilities are already available.

For the sort of sums required to do whats been suggested, you'd need a damm good business case to justify it. I can imagine a sound business case for the third platform Stanmore as it benefits the whole Jubilee service - I can't see the same level of benefit at Rayners Lane and therefore re-modelling, IMHO, isn't feasible.

[mrfs42]

Nov 4, 2008 3:05:12 GMT ruislip said:

You could always use Ruislip as a reversing point for Piccies, but then again the awkward positioning of the reversing siding may not work out with 10tph on the Met.

Snag with that is the need to tip out at Ruislip and the cumulative dead mileage Ruislip - Ruislip Siding - Ruislip.

[metman]

My solution for Rayners would be to built a new running line where the sidings are now. This would mean making the Westbound platform into an island. The cost would be tunnelling under the road to create a new train for terminating picc trains.

i100.photobucket.com/albums/m6/Adthelad/DSCN0693.jpg

The present off peak service is fine IMO

Currently there are 14 trains used on the Uxbridge service off peak.

[Chris M]

Nov 4, 2008 17:29:52 GMT mrfs42 said:

[/li][li] how much room is there at Rayners to extend the siding and move the arrestor back the 23m to squeeze the A stock in?[/quote]

Looking at google air photos, I think that you could extend it about 15 metres or so with ease. Beyond that you'd probably need to expand the running lines outwards, for which there is space. The problem is that about 70 metres west of the current end of the siding is what appear to be abutments for an old or never built bridge. If you move the running lines you will either have to increase the angle of transition between the 16ft (6ft+4ft+6ft) and 6ft spacings, or demolish one or both of the adbutments.
Obviously the former would be cheaper, but I have no idea whether this would require any reductions in speed or anything of that nature.

The oblique air photos ("birds eye view") on maps.live.com seem to suggest that adding a third platform behind the current westbound platform would be a comparatively simple matter, using the disused sidings to the south of the station should not require the loss of any car parking. What I can't see though is how to avoid a flat crossing of the through westbound line by terminating trains, although it could be positioned either east or west of the station.

Other possible layouts, all requiring a new platform and all with disadvantages are illustrated below (not to scale):


Option 1 would probably be the simplest to build, but it involves a long walk for interchanging westbound passengers. It also necessitates at flat crossing of the westbound. If the crossing is signalled to passenger standards then tipping out probably wont be required, but if it is then this can be done without blocking the westbound line.
The existing siding would become the westbound running line, and the existing westbound line converted to a siding, a junction at the western end would enable through trains to run from either platform.

Option 2 would involve swapping the eastbound line with the siding, and involve reversing trains making a flat crossing of the eastbound. The train were to stop for a normal length of time in the existing westbound platform, allowing on-the-ball interchanging passengers to exit, and then proceed to the reversing platform via a passenger-signalled crossover then no tipping out would be required, a same platform interchange for South to West Harrow passengers would be a side effect.
Trains could run east from the reversing platform and/or the existing eastbound platform.

Option 3 removes the flat junction, but has the limited capacity of a single line terminus, although no tipping out is required. It unfortunately removes the cross-platform interchange for eastbound passengers though. This would probably be the most complicated and expensive of the three.

Option 4 is the same as option 3, but retaining the centre reversing siding (and thus tipping out). With the platforms as in option three there would need to be a flat cross over west of the station.

Option 5 is again like option 3, but with flat crossover east of the station and swapping the westbound Met and bi-di Picc Platforms. With the reversing siding, trains would tip out on the existing westbound Met, reverse in the siding and then run east from the eastbound platform as now. Trains could also or alternatively run east from the existing westbound platform without tipping out but also without cross platform interchange from the eastbound Met. The two types of reversing could perhaps be combined to reverse more trains (enhanced Piccadilly service, or reverse both Met and Picc).

[Ben]

I think Rayners is actually the subject of quite a few proposals in the organisation. The most recent I heard was a month back, and it sounded extremely daft...

The station was built with the ability to go four track, as was Ruislip. The space is not a problem, just the logistics and the money.

[Deleted]

There's enough space for a fourth track on the south side of the station, so:
EB Platform
=== Met E==========================M/P E
=== Met W==========/===============M/P W
=== P R/S=======/ WB Platform
=== P R/S===/

Two reversing sidings to the west of the station, only issue is crossing the through tracks but this would allow two trains to stable and get out the way of the 10tph Met. Doesn't take long to construct or cost as much as a tunnel would. Bear in mind I'm not that good on the technical stuff so maybe there's not enough room for that many points but I wouldn't know that.

Alternative is cut and cover tunnel either side of the station and have two inner platforms to terminate.

[mrfs42]

I still think that the lowest cost option would be to short trip one in every three Mets.

Aside from building castles in the air - what are the Picc loadings like out of Uxbridge these days? Is the Uxbridge option used to get room for the Rayners option which is used to get room for the South Harrow option which is used in preference to the Northfields/Arnos interpeak stablers to get the trains out of the central area during (EDIT: in the run up to) peak?

Or am I being too jaded after reading 75+ years of Picc. timetabling? ;D ;D [1]

*back to watching that Election footage*

[1] I won't claim the 102 years of Met. timetabling, as I've been too absorbed (of late) in the Circle/Ham & City/ELL to take much notice of the outlying services

[Deleted]

A pedant writes: This thread is called "Circles to go". To go to Rayners Lane according to you lot ;D

[mrfs42]

Nov 6, 2008 11:41:29 GMT @innocentabroad said:

A pedant writes: This thread is called "Circles to go". To go to Rayners Lane according to you lot ;D

True - but it gives a flavour of the inter-relatedness of the Circle; often complained about as a 'special case' in timetabling terms Glover et seq particularly. Rayners Lane is almost a 'text book' example of how the following feeds into the Circle:

[(end-to-end running time x 2) + layover at Rayners + layover at other end] / frequency in minutes = number of trains needed.

From a timetable regulating point of view (and I'm talking TT construction here, not service control), Rayners affects the Circle in two ways - Mets. feeding into the Baker Street/Aldgate area and the Picc. running through Hanger Lane Junction - which in turn affects the District.

You're quite right that on first glance Rayners has nothing to do with the Circle service, but if you dig deeper you'll find there is a subtle influence here. All part of the factors in designing a robust (a vile word) service.

[Deleted]

The problem is that about 70 metres west of the current end of the siding is what appear to be abutments for an old or never built bridge.

The bridge that was there was removed a while ago, cannot remember when but at least 2 years ago.

Rayners is the frustrating part of the Uxbridge branch, always guaranteed to get held outside. I hope they do option 3 but leave enough space NOT to have a drawup halfway down the platform. There is loads of room for this option to be considered.

[Deleted]

Nov 6, 2008 14:53:08 GMT mrfs42 said:

[quote author=innocentabroad board=hc thread=8139 post=179478 time=1225971689You're quite right that on first glance Rayners has nothing to do with the Circle service, but if you dig deeper you'll find there is a subtle influence here. All part of the factors in designing a robust (a vile word) service.

I don't have the slightest problem with any of that

I just think that the elephant in the room is Praed St Junction to Edgware Road. I know others disagree, but I'm still not convinced that that section can carry much more traffic than it presently does.

[metman]

I agree! That's what worries me-a terrible bottleneck-it is now!

[stanmorek]

On subject of Rayners Lane, the whole station including the platforms are grade 2 listed. It would take a lot of arm twisting to change the mind of English Heritage to allow anything to change the appearance of the station. Metronet couldn't do it. Maybe the full might of TfL/LUL can they had quite an ambitious proposal 2 years ago. There is a lot of existing infrastructure in the way. Cost of diversions would cost more than the civil engineering itself.

I find it quaint that the platforms built during new works programme on that branch are held up by bullhead rail sections complete with fish plate joints.

The former overbridge to the west was taken down late 2002.

[mrfs42]

Nov 6, 2008 22:30:35 GMT @innocentabroad said:

Nov 6, 2008 14:53:08 GMT mrfs42 said:

[quote author=innocentabroad board=hc thread=8139 post=179478 time=1225971689You're quite right that on first glance Rayners has nothing to do with the Circle service, but if you dig deeper you'll find there is a subtle influence here. All part of the factors in designing a robust (a vile word) service.

I don't have the slightest problem with any of that

I just think that the elephant in the room is Praed St Junction to Edgware Road. I know others disagree, but I'm still not convinced that that section can carry much more traffic than it presently does.

It can - split headways!

EDIT: having applied my mind to this; rather than playing around with the headways Edgware Road - Praed Street (and vice versa) I'd actually tinker with the headways on the approach to Praed St. - think of the combination of [ROB3400/1, ROB3400/2|34, OB3400, OB34/ROB35, OB35] and [ROB3700, OB3700/ROB37, OB37/ROB38, OB38] on the two approaches to Aldgate East; rather than the current arrangment of just the 'X' signal and the junction homes with standalone repeaters on the convergence to Praed St.

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2008 19:42:33 GMT Chris M said:

Nov 4, 2008 17:29:52 GMT mrfs42 said:

[/li][li] how much room is there at Rayners to extend the siding and move the arrestor back the 23m to squeeze the A stock in?[/quote]

Looking at google air photos, I think that you could extend it about 15 metres or so with ease. Beyond that you'd probably need to expand the running lines outwards, for which there is space. The problem is that about 70 metres west of the current end of the siding is what appear to be abutments for an old or never built bridge. If you move the running lines you will either have to increase the angle of transition between the 16ft (6ft+4ft+6ft) and 6ft spacings, or demolish one or both of the adbutments.
Obviously the former would be cheaper, but I have no idea whether this would require any reductions in speed or anything of that nature.

The oblique air photos ("birds eye view") on maps.live.com seem to suggest that adding a third platform behind the current westbound platform would be a comparatively simple matter, using the disused sidings to the south of the station should not require the loss of any car parking. What I can't see though is how to avoid a flat crossing of the through westbound line by terminating trains, although it could be positioned either east or west of the station.

Other possible layouts, all requiring a new platform and all with disadvantages are illustrated below (not to scale):


Option 1 would probably be the simplest to build, but it involves a long walk for interchanging westbound passengers. It also necessitates at flat crossing of the westbound. If the crossing is signalled to passenger standards then tipping out probably wont be required, but if it is then this can be done without blocking the westbound line.
The existing siding would become the westbound running line, and the existing westbound line converted to a siding, a junction at the western end would enable through trains to run from either platform.

Option 2 would involve swapping the eastbound line with the siding, and involve reversing trains making a flat crossing of the eastbound. The train were to stop for a normal length of time in the existing westbound platform, allowing on-the-ball interchanging passengers to exit, and then proceed to the reversing platform via a passenger-signalled crossover then no tipping out would be required, a same platform interchange for South to West Harrow passengers would be a side effect.
Trains could run east from the reversing platform and/or the existing eastbound platform.

Option 3 removes the flat junction, but has the limited capacity of a single line terminus, although no tipping out is required. It unfortunately removes the cross-platform interchange for eastbound passengers though. This would probably be the most complicated and expensive of the three.

Option 4 is the same as option 3, but retaining the centre reversing siding (and thus tipping out). With the platforms as in option three there would need to be a flat cross over west of the station.

Option 5 is again like option 3, but with flat crossover east of the station and swapping the westbound Met and bi-di Picc Platforms. With the reversing siding, trains would tip out on the existing westbound Met, reverse in the siding and then run east from the eastbound platform as now. Trains could also or alternatively run east from the existing westbound platform without tipping out but also without cross platform interchange from the eastbound Met. The two types of reversing could perhaps be combined to reverse more trains (enhanced Piccadilly service, or reverse both Met and Picc).
[/quote]

Those look like they would cause more an operational problem (and long walks) than the existing layout.

Just extending the siding for higher speed entry, and providing extra staff for tipping out would be a much more cost effective solution.

[Deleted]

Just extending the siding for higher speed entry, and providing extra staff for tipping out would be a much more cost effective solution.

The siding is already long because it can hold an 8 car A stock, and, if they add more staff they will soon take them away to make cut-backs like what they did at Harrow on the hill.

[mrfs42]

Only just - 2.4m over the length of an A stock berth, hence the timing section and 'policeman'.