Circles to Go

[metman]

Totally agree! It's one or the other. Go T-cup and terminate the Wimbledon trains are HSK- A 'Wimbleken' service! Or scrap the silly T-cup plan and use the greater reliability of the new stock (hopefully) and operating and track changes.

[DrOne]

And so we've gone full-circle

[Deleted]

i have already brought up the potential problems about the T-Cup service on my disertation, the plan i had was to extened the wimbledon - Edgware Road services through to barking and terminate some hammersmith & city line services at Edgware road & Some at Moorgate

[Deleted]

Give the Hammersmith Branch to Crossrail and run the Wimblewares through to Barking!

[londonstuff]

People in management must be aware that Edgware Road is the pinch point of the entire plan - I hate having to travel anywhere round there and always factor in about another 15 minutes if I have to go through that area. Has any serious consideration ever been given to sorting out Praed St. and Edgware Road - with extra platforms, changing junctions, etc. or would it just not be viable at all?

[metman]

I personally think that an extra platform should be built at Edgware Road on the site of the soon to be useless sidings. This, would allow some flexibility on terminating both Wimbledon and Circle trains. This does not solve the problem of the bottle neck, but it could mean the T-cup could work with ATO. I still think the Circle line should stay as it is.

[Tom]

Nice idea, but the site is so cramped it wouldn't happen.

London Underground have a lovely set of Engineering Standards, the problem is that they're too aspirational and almost everything doesn't comply. An extra platform at Edgware Road would be one such example...

[Ben]

Standards should be broken if for the genuine and overwhelming benefit and furtherance of the integrity of the system. Surely??? What about Wood Lane depot; IIRC some standards were broken for that to take place?

[metman]

I have a question, would it be possible to do a trial of the T-cup but with only running the District Line Wimbledon-High St Ken - i.e. are there enough C stock trains?

[Chris M]

I think I remember someone saying on here that a service similar to the t-cup was tried during engineering works at some point in the past. From what I remember of the conversation it was deemed a complete failure.

[mrfs42]

Jan 12, 2009 9:55:24 GMT Chris M said:

I think I remember someone saying on here that a service similar to the t-cup was tried during engineering works at some point in the past. From what I remember of the conversation it was deemed a complete failure.

Yes - that was the Covered Way No 12 'experiment'.

[Chris M]

I don't suppose that the platform staff at Edgware Road will be happy with having to deal with the vast numbers of passengers who will be stuck waiting for a train there either.

I've posted about this before, but I can also forsee capacity problems on the footbridge at Edgware Road, the platforms and access to the platforms at Paddington Bishop's Road. Even at present levels it can be difficult to go against the flow. I can see people getting knocked onto the track at Paddington through pressure of the crowds.
What I've not seen is anything to show that either my fears are unfounded or that modifications will be made to the stations to prevent them from happening.

Typing the above has just led me to another thought. If for whatever reason the line is blocked at Paddington Bishop's Road. At present this would mean a suspension of the H&C but the Circle would be able to continue. With the T-cup though, will there be sufficient capacity to reverse west-east at Edgware Road in addition to reversing the entire t-cup and Wimbleware service from Praed Street?
If (as I suspect) there is not capacity, I can see only these possible services:

• Suspension HSK - Edgware Road. This means no SSL service at Paddington, so presumably overcrowding and delays to the Bakerloo service as a result.
  
• Suspension Edgware Road - Baker Street. Limited reversing capacity at Baker Street I believe, and pax stranded at Edgware Road, overcrowding and delays on the Bakerloo.
  
• Extend the Outer Rail service and reverse it east-west to Moorgate/Liverpool Street/Aldgate (in the latter case a Met suspension east of Baker Street or Moorgate may be needed). Probably the best solution from a passenger point of view, but probably the most disruptive from an operational point of view - is there capacity to run these extended trains e.g. reversing at Moorgate is disruptive, a train entering the bays there has to cross the inner rail on the flat. t/op hours/reliefs/etc to worry about.
  

From reading all the posts on this forum, the only way for a t-cup service to be anything other than a disaster are:

• Redevelop Moorgate so the bay platforms used for terminating trains are between the through platforms, and terminate the trains there rather than Edgware Road.*
  
• Four track or significantly upgrade the capacity of the line between Edgware Road and Praed Street Junction.
  

*With trains running Hammersmith - Kings Cross - Liverpool Street - Tower Hill - Vcitoria - HSK - Edgware Road - Kings Cross - Moorgate, only passengers then inconvenienced over the existing Circle Line are those travelling from Bayswater to Liverpool Street, who will and already do have a quicker journey using the Central from Queensway (less than 2 minutes walk away at street level). Journey times from High Street Kensington to Liverpool Street via Victoria are, iirc, about 1-2 minutes longer than via Baker Street, so passengers here would be very slightly inconvenienced, but a more reliable service would almost certainly result in a quicker journey anyway.
With the t-cup as proposed, passengers from roughly Bayswater - Embankment travelling to stations on the northern side of the circle (Baker Street to Liverpool Street) and vice versa have an inferior service.

[metman]

Quite true, Chris, the problem with terminating at Moorgate is that the next lap of trains from Hammersmith will clash with the Moorgate terminators, but I like the idea. I personally would like to see the Circle Line kept but with better planning if the service goes wrong, such as spare trains and more platforms with multiple roads so trains can be held for up to 10 mins.

[Deleted]

Well, Bayswater (and Notting Hill Gate) are well-used stations so I am at a loss to see the logic of reducing the service to them. AIUI there's a legal process involved if it's proposed to close a station, but not for a service reduction.

So there are no effective channels for us passengers to protest the loss of trains between Edgware Road and Earl's Court. I shall go to Putney by bus and serve you right!

[slugabed]

Jan 12, 2009 13:26:16 GMT Chris M said:

Reversing at Moorgate is disruptive, a train entering the bays there has to cross the inner rail on the flat.

Redevelop Moorgate so the bay platforms used for terminating trains are between the through platforms, and terminate the trains there rather than Edgware Road.*

A couple of months ago, we were discussing the CWL,and it was said that,prior to the re-siting of King's X Circle/Met,there was a connection between the Outer-rail Circle and the Eastbound CWL to enable precisely this move to be done without fouling the Inner Rail Circle.
The same post stated that the current Outer-rail Circle platform at the new King's Cross was formed inside the unused CWL extension under St.Pancras station,so,presumably,access to the current CWL running tunnels should be just behind the wall across the track beyond the eastern end of the platform.
I'll try and track the exact post down.
Given that the CWL between Farringdon and Moorgate will soon be abandoned,I wonder if there would be enough paths available between King's X and the junction east of Farringdon to run your service?

I've found the original post.This thread,Nov15th 2008,written by Harsig,in answer to a point made by yours truly.

[Harsig]

Jan 12, 2009 23:08:01 GMT slugabed said:

Given that the CWL between Farringdon and Moorgate will soon be abandoned,I wonder if there would be enough paths available between King's X and the junction east of Farringdon to run your service?

I should be very surprised indeed if there were any paths available between Kings Cross and Farringdon as the lack of paths on this section (or rather the lack of trains on the southern section of the route because some have gone to Moorgate) following that line's upgrade is as far as I am aware, one of the principle reasons for the withdrawal of services over the Farringdon-Moorgate section.

[metman]

Yes, any diversions would have to be confined to the disused tracks.

[astock5000]

Jan 12, 2009 13:26:16 GMT Chris M said:

Reversing at Moorgate is disruptive, a train entering the bays there has to cross the inner rail on the flat.

There are a lot of flat junctions on the Circle, so why is it that everyone says reversing at Moorgate causes problems when there are a lot more places where trains have to wait, for example at Baker Street (the Met NB crosses the outer rail) that are busier than Moorgate?

[metman]

No, but it is something that cannot be altered! The Met has to run to Aldgate and the City, trains do not terminate at Moorgate at the same frequency.

[Ben]

T cups achelies heel is the 2 sucessive junctions at Baker Street and Paddington, with no clear route having priority at either. Grade seperation would only partially help, because it would mean trains couldn't turn at Edgware Road.

The easiest method I can see would be to take the Westbound (Ex) Hammersmith line to a level below that of the main formation west of Praed Street Junction, and keep it at such level until after Baker Street, where it would rise and form a junction before GPS. One new platform at Baker Street and Edgware Road each, however platform 1 or 2 at Baker Street would become disused. The pro of this is that the other plat could then be extended to 8car length without extra expensive civils of relocating the sewer. Does this make sense? Drawbacks: Epic cost, trains ex HSK must terminate at Edgware Road, disused plat at Baker Street

[amershamsi]

Jan 14, 2009 4:07:30 GMT Ben said:

T cups achelies heel is the 2 sucessive junctions at Baker Street and Paddington, with no clear route having priority at either. Grade seperation would only partially help, because it would mean trains couldn't turn at Edgware Road.

why would grade-seperation mean that trains *have* to terminate at Edgware Road - it would cost little more to build a junction that would allow through trains from HSK-Baker Street.

The easiest method I can see would be to take the Westbound (Ex) Hammersmith line to a level below that of the main formation west of Praed Street Junction, and keep it at such level until after Baker Street, where it would rise and form a junction before GPS. One new platform at Baker Street and Edgware Road each, however platform 1 or 2 at Baker Street would become disused. The pro of this is that the other plat could then be extended to 8car length without extra expensive civils of relocating the sewer. Does this make sense? Drawbacks: Epic cost, trains ex HSK must terminate at Edgware Road, disused plat at Baker Street

And the fact that you've wasted a load of money doing something pointless - there's no point in lowering the Westbound east of Edgware Road, as it doesn't conflict - the Eastbound does.

[Ben]

Thats not quite what I ment...I'll post a diagram up to explain my point.

[Ben]

First off what I ment by grade seperation meaning trains couldn't terminate at Edgware Road is that if westbound and eastbound were above each other you'd have to have seperate junctions and ramps and horizontal space to cross between the two. If they were next to each other no extra width would be needed in formation, only the crossovers.

Its only in the diagram below that trains ex HSK would have to turn at Edgware Road, since the eastbound line allowing them to go towards the city is now missing. This shouldnt be too much a problem though, since all advertised services with T cup ex HSK would stop at Edgware Road.

My apologies though, I did mean Eastbound. I was tinkering with the idea of swapping the polarity of tracks on the Hammersmith branch to see if it would help at the junctions, and confused myself!

However, looking back at the diagram now, it could be further improved by swapping the polarity of tracks from HSK...

[Chris M]

Probably more expensive than your idea, is the layout below which should give maximum flexibility. For example allows the existing eastbound Circle platform at Baker Street to become a bi-di reversing platform, taking some reversing pressure off Edgware Road.



Trains to and from HSK will normally use the centre platforms at Edgware Road, while Hammersmith branch trains will use the outside platforms.

About the only restrictions are that you can't get to Hammersmith from the centre platforms at Edgware Road, and ex-Hammersmith trains can't reverse east-west at Edgware Road other than via a mainline shunt, instead these trains would continue to Baker Street and reverse there.

Edit: I've realised that with the addition of a single trailing crossover between Bishop's Road and the flyunder you can get even more flexibility, including revsersing ex-Hammersmith trains at Edgware Road.

[Ben]

All of the comments and proposals so far really beg the question of how easy it would be to triple or quadruple the track between Praed Street Junction and Edgware Road.

[Deleted]

Allowing for the fact that there is almost nothing wrong with the way the service works now !!! (And that could be overcome by stepping back each Circle operator 2 trains on each pass of Edgware Road).

The only way I can see of keeping a tea cup with no additional stock or paths is ...

Run the tea cup as planned Hammersmith - Circle - Edgware Road and reverse. With Wimbledon - Edgware Road - Plaistow - Barking.

and effectively abandon the H&C all together.

It would need Barking and Edgware Road operators trained Triangle - Wimbledon and District operators Edgware Road - Aldgate East via Kings Cross. But that would add flexibility anyway !

The Wimbledon C stocks run every 10 mins and that would allow a 15min extra Hammersmith - Edgware Road shuttle to provide the desired increase on that branch.

It would provide through running from all locations and doesn't overload Edgware Road's reversing capacity !

I don't give the plan as intended much of a life span !!

[Deleted]

Sounds like common sense to me aspect.

I wonder how much Westfield are paying LUL for this hare-brained scheme...?

[Deleted]

Chris, your solution is ingenious if expensive and would I think preserve the Wimblewares (which is what I really care about - perhaps I'll have to spend a few weeks going up and down the line getting folk to sign a petition...)

However, it looks to me as if there would be three separate platforms, none very near to another, from which trains would leave Baker for Great Portland and stations east... should make for some interesting customer information boards...

[Chris M]

That exact situation happens (with even greater separation) currently at Paddington and pax there manage.

Also, if you slewed the westbound Circle at Baker Street across to the current eastbound platform and use the current westbound as the reversing platform this would improve the westbound interchange. The downsides would be a lower speed entry into the platform and the reversers and westbound through trains would have to cross each others' path.

[Chris M]

Also, another thing that needs to be considered is the issue of how much vertical space there is at Baker Street - is there room for a platform tunnel between the existing Circle Line and the highest of the Bakerloo/Jubilee tunnels?