They have been rebuilding the platforms here using the usually unused
part of the platforms while the work was going on. I had assumed that
they would only being doing enough for the current 3 coach trains but I
now see that having completed the first part they are now doing the
rest of the platform.
Any chance that they intend to run longer than 3 coach trains otherwise
I don't see why they have bothered. The trains hve always seemed very
overcrowded in the rush hour. I also notice how packed the Clapham to
Willesden trains are.

Kevin

wrote in message
news:1124887457.926599.33520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> They have been rebuilding the platforms here using the usually unused
> part of the platforms while the work was going on. I had assumed that
> they would only being doing enough for the current 3 coach trains but I
> now see that having completed the first part they are now doing the
> rest of the platform.
> Any chance that they intend to run longer than 3 coach trains otherwise
> I don't see why they have bothered.


Unlikely, I would have thought. AIUI there aren't any spare 313s, and I
wouldn't have thought they would want to get more 508s. However, there are
rumours that the Watford DC line might eventually be completely taken over
by the LUL Bakerloo Line, especially if the Croxley Link gets built and Met
trains are diverted from Watford to Watford Junction.

Peter

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:00:06 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
 wrote:


>Unlikely, I would have thought. AIUI there aren't any spare 313s, and I
>wouldn't have thought they would want to get more 508s.


It's also been mentioned on this group that the power supply won't
support longer trains. (What wasn't explained is how it coped when the
Bakerloo used to run there...)


>However, there are
>rumours that the Watford DC line might eventually be completely taken over
>by the LUL Bakerloo Line, especially if the Croxley Link gets built and Met
>trains are diverted from Watford to Watford Junction.


Indeed. TfL are supposed to be getting control of Silverlink Metro
services at some point, and who knows what they have planned to
relieve the overcrowding?

Although I wouldn't read too much into the rebuilding works; just
because they trying not to preclude longer-than-3-car operation
doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Peter Masson wrote:


>
> Unlikely, I would have thought. AIUI there aren't any spare 313s, and I
> wouldn't have thought they would want to get more 508s. However, there are
> rumours that the Watford DC line might eventually be completely taken over
> by the LUL Bakerloo Line, especially if the Croxley Link gets built and Met
> trains are diverted from Watford to Watford Junction.
>
> Peter



I take it that with this move, Silverlink will be stopping their county
services at places like Wembley Central and Queens Park to connect for
Euston passengers? I don't see why they don't do that now with both
stations having perfectly adequate mainline platforms. Wembley Central
is more heavily used than Harrow & Wealdstone.

yyOn 24 Aug 2005 08:54:29 -0700, therunawayminetrain@lycos.co.uk
wrote:


>
<snip>
>
>I take it that with this move, Silverlink will be stopping their county
>services at places like Wembley Central and Queens Park to connect for
>Euston passengers? I don't see why they don't do that now with both
>stations having perfectly adequate mainline platforms. Wembley Central
>is more heavily used than Harrow & Wealdstone.


Unless they've done some re-building the platform groups at Wembley
Central have three separate entrance/barrier locations where any
common beyond-the-barrier area obstructing direct access from Wembley
High Road to Station Square.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

In article ,
    wrote:

> I take it that with this move, Silverlink will be stopping their county
> services at places like Wembley Central and Queens Park to connect for
> Euston passengers? I don't see why they don't do that now with both
> stations having perfectly adequate mainline platforms. Wembley Central
> is more heavily used than Harrow & Wealdstone.


There are two problems with Queens Park. The first is the narrow platforms,
especially on the down side, making it difficult to "sort" passengers for
different trains. The second is the absence of platforms on the fast lines,
meaning that trains can't be diverted to the fast line if there is a
blockage on the slow.

-- 
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:00:06 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
 wrote:


>Unlikely, I would have thought. AIUI there aren't any spare 313s, and I
>wouldn't have thought they would want to get more 508s. However, there are
>rumours that the Watford DC line might eventually be completely taken over
>by the LUL Bakerloo Line, especially if the Croxley Link gets built and Met
>trains are diverted from Watford to Watford Junction.


If that's seriously on the cards, I wonder why money is being spent on
rebuilding Kilburn High Road (or whatever it's called)?  Why not just
close it?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Kilburn High Road re-opened on Monday!

Burkey

On 24 Aug 2005 08:54:29 -0700, therunawayminetrain@lycos.co.uk wrote:


>> Unlikely, I would have thought. AIUI there aren't any spare 313s, and I
>> wouldn't have thought they would want to get more 508s. However, there are
>> rumours that the Watford DC line might eventually be completely taken over
>> by the LUL Bakerloo Line, especially if the Croxley Link gets built and Met
>> trains are diverted from Watford to Watford Junction.
>
>I take it that with this move, Silverlink will be stopping their county
>services at places like Wembley Central and Queens Park to connect for
>Euston passengers? I don't see why they don't do that now with both
>stations having perfectly adequate mainline platforms.


There probably aren't enough paths on the slow lines to add any more
stops, what with the assortment of services already using them. I've
always assumed this is why one of the Southern services at the height
of the morning peak skips Wembley Central, despite the ones before and
after stopping there.


>Wembley Central is more heavily used than Harrow & Wealdstone.


But H&W is further out, so more of a time penalty for taking a
stopping train instead of a fast. Stopping there is also handier for
places like Hatch End (don't have to travel so far on a Metro before
having an opportunity to change to a fast).


Besides, unless there is enough spare Bakerloo stock to run a full
peak service to Watford Junction, the Metro service to Euston probably
couldn't be withdrawn entirely. (Perhaps when the Victoria line stock
is replaced in 2008(?), some of it could be converted to run on the
Bakerloo?)

They could even run just a Metro shuttle between Queens Park and
Euston for connections to Euston - the track layout at Queens Park
would permit this without interfering with the Bakerloo service, the
change to/from the Bakerloo would be cross-platform, and South
Hampstead and the shiny new Kilburn High Road wouldn't have to close.

On 24 Aug 2005 15:58:51 -0700, "burkey"  wrote:


>Kilburn High Road re-opened on Monday!


Crikey, they sneaked that in....

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Peter Masson wrote:

>  wrote in message
> news:1124887457.926599.33520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > They have been rebuilding the platforms here using the usually unused
> > part of the platforms while the work was going on. I had assumed that
> > they would only being doing enough for the current 3 coach trains but I
> > now see that having completed the first part they are now doing the
> > rest of the platform.
> > Any chance that they intend to run longer than 3 coach trains otherwise
> > I don't see why they have bothered.
>
> Unlikely, I would have thought. AIUI there aren't any spare 313s, and I
> wouldn't have thought they would want to get more 508s. However, there are
> rumours that the Watford DC line might eventually be completely taken over
> by the LUL Bakerloo Line, especially if the Croxley Link gets built and Met
> trains are diverted from Watford to Watford Junction.
>
> Peter

If they built new coaches for SWT and released the 508 coaches that
they have how many 4 coach 313 sets would you get?

Kevin

God as much as I hate 313's imagine having to ride a Bakerloo Line
train all the eay from Bushey to London. I know that it was done before
but peoples minimum standards ar so much higher now.

Kevin

wrote


> If they built new coaches for SWT and released the 508 coaches that
> they have how many 4 coach 313 sets would you get?
>

That's some ifs. SWT are in the process of refurbing their 455s, so they
aren't going to replace them anytime soon. The 508 coaches in some of the
SWT 455s are older than the 455 coaches themselves, so are likely to go to
the breakers at the same time as the 455s themselves.

Part of the issue for Silverlink are the proposals to increase the NLL
service (frequency and train length) which are linked with the 2012
Olympics. They'll need more stock for this, even if they'll have ceased to
operate Stratford - North Woolwich by then (to be served by DLR to Canning
Town, then to City Airport and George V via the new route more or less along
the line of the Silvertown Tramway). Moving Euston - Watford DC stock to the
NLL and replacing the DC with the Bakerloo Line might be part of the
strategy.

What is the timescale for replacing the existing Bakerloo stock? - although
it's quite a bit newer than the Met, Vic, or Circle stock, it must be
getting to the stage when thought must be given to its replacement.

Peter

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:32:03 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
 wrote:


>What is the timescale for replacing the existing Bakerloo stock? - although
>it's quite a bit newer than the Met, Vic, or Circle stock, it must be
>getting to the stage when thought must be given to its replacement.


According to the Metronet website, "by 2019"

Peter Masson wrote:

>  wrote
>
> > If they built new coaches for SWT and released the 508 coaches that
> > they have how many 4 coach 313 sets would you get?
> >
> That's some ifs. SWT are in the process of refurbing their 455s, so they
> aren't going to replace them anytime soon. The 508 coaches in some of the
> SWT 455s are older than the 455 coaches themselves, so are likely to go to
> the breakers at the same time as the 455s themselves.
>
> Part of the issue for Silverlink are the proposals to increase the NLL
> service (frequency and train length) which are linked with the 2012
> Olympics. They'll need more stock for this, even if they'll have ceased to
> operate Stratford - North Woolwich by then (to be served by DLR to Canning
> Town, then to City Airport and George V via the new route more or less along
> the line of the Silvertown Tramway). Moving Euston - Watford DC stock to the
> NLL and replacing the DC with the Bakerloo Line might be part of the
> strategy.



That would leave three or so 508s spare though, because they are no use
on the NLL.  But then again, I wish the whole class could be scrapped.

Given how much work needs to be done on the 313s to make them
acceptable in terms of fittings (but not windows), wouldn't it be
easier and much more acceptable to convert the 458s for overhead for
the NLL and outer-suburban services and scap the 313s (hooray)?

Or have we done that one and there are clearance problems or something?

On 24 Aug 2005 15:58:51 -0700, "burkey"  wrote:


>Kilburn High Road re-opened on Monday!
>

Hopefully with nothing combustible remaining after all this time and a
few previous incinerations.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

"MIG"  wrote

>
> Given how much work needs to be done on the 313s to make them
> acceptable in terms of fittings (but not windows), wouldn't it be
> easier and much more acceptable to convert the 458s for overhead for
> the NLL and outer-suburban services and scap the 313s (hooray)?
>

The rumour is that the 458s are earmarked for the East London Line when it
is extended - though a couple might go to GatEx (presumably with a thorough
interior refurb, if the idea is for them to cover for the existing GatEx
stock).

Peter

>> Given how much work needs to be done on the 313s to make them
> acceptable in terms of fittings (but not windows), wouldn't it be
> easier and much more acceptable to convert the 458s for overhead for
> the NLL and outer-suburban services and scap the 313s (hooray)?




The rumour is that the 458s are earmarked for the East London Line when
it
is extended - though a couple might go to GatEx (presumably with a
thorough
interior refurb, if the idea is for them to cover for the existing
GatEx
stock). <

Queens Park, or Watford, would be a good final destination for the East
London Extension.  Euston and the West End could still be accessed by
changing at Chalk Farm/Priomrose Hill.  Indeed the Platforms of these
stations cannot be far appart.  One would think constructing a
pedestrian tunnel for interchange would be fairly straightforward.

Of course it would help in the North London Line had a at least one
electrification system stretching from Primrose Hill to Dalston!

A.

On 25 Aug 2005 12:15:28 -0700, "Adrian Auer-Hudson"
 wrote:



>Queens Park, or Watford, would be a good final destination for the East
>London Extension.
>
>Of course it would help in the North London Line had a at least one
>electrification system stretching from Primrose Hill to Dalston!


It does, doesn't it?

asdf wrote:
adrian_h_hud...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>>Of course it would help in the North London Line had a at least one
>electrification system stretching from Primrose Hill to Dalston!


It does, doesn't it? <


You are right.  I was assuming trains arriving from south of the Thames
at Dalston would be third rail.  The Metro service from Euston to
Queens park is third rail.  So, I am thinking trains would have to be
dual voltage to use the NL stretch.  It was not always the case.

A.

Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote:

> >> Given how much work needs to be done on the 313s to make them
> > acceptable in terms of fittings (but not windows), wouldn't it be
> > easier and much more acceptable to convert the 458s for overhead for
> > the NLL and outer-suburban services and scap the 313s (hooray)?
>
>
>
> The rumour is that the 458s are earmarked for the East London Line when
> it
> is extended - though a couple might go to GatEx (presumably with a
> thorough
> interior refurb, if the idea is for them to cover for the existing
> GatEx
> stock). <
>
> Queens Park, or Watford, would be a good final destination for the East
> London Extension.  Euston and the West End could still be accessed by
> changing at Chalk Farm/Priomrose Hill.  Indeed the Platforms of these
> stations cannot be far appart.  One would think constructing a
> pedestrian tunnel for interchange would be fairly straightforward.
>
> Of course it would help in the North London Line had a at least one
> electrification system stretching from Primrose Hill to Dalston!
>
> A.

I don't think that anybody only going to Euston would be happy about
the additional expense of the Chalk Farm-Euston(Northern)bit apart from
the increased journey time.

Kevin

>The rumour is that the 458s are earmarked for the East London Line when it
>is extended - though a couple might go to GatEx (presumably with a thorough
>interior refurb, if the idea is for them to cover for the existing GatEx
>stock).



But for a little suburban line, muchly underground, rubbish units like
the 313s would be much more suitable.  Or less unsuitable.  The 458s
would be much better for a main line.

But I think we've done this before and the unit length may be the issue.

"MIG"  wrote

>
> But for a little suburban line, muchly underground, rubbish units like
> the 313s would be much more suitable.  Or less unsuitable.  The 458s
> would be much better for a main line.
>
> But I think we've done this before and the unit length may be the issue.
>

Perhaps also that there are no spare 313s; the 458s would need some
investment to give them AC or dual capability; and SWT, Southern, and SET
don't perceive a use for them (once SWT gets its 455s back from refurb.

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:

> "MIG"  wrote
> >
> > But for a little suburban line, muchly underground, rubbish units like
> > the 313s would be much more suitable.  Or less unsuitable.  The 458s
> > would be much better for a main line.
> >
> > But I think we've done this before and the unit length may be the issue.
> >
> Perhaps also that there are no spare 313s; the 458s would need some
> investment to give them AC or dual capability; and SWT, Southern, and SET
> don't perceive a use for them (once SWT gets its 455s back from refurb.
>
> Peter



I don't know if there are any technical restrictions, but it seems to
me that 458s could take over the Euston-Watford services very soon and
could, at leisure, be converted for AC (which was meant to be easy and
they were designed for it).

This would free up 313s for much-needed redecoration and improvement of
services on the NLL, or scrapping of the excess (freeing up some
trailer coaches for lengthening perhaps).

In the longer term, with the Bakerloo taking over the Watford line and
the ELL extension opening, the converted 458s could take over the NLL
and allow for some additional slightly-stopping connecting services
from Euston, leaving the 313s to take over the ELL.  (If they are too
old for that, they'd need to be replaced where they currently are
anyway.)

The alternative, as apparently proposed now, is to put 100 mph units
with reasonably good windows on an underground commuter line, leaving
tacky, claustrophobic 313s on what will be an increasingly important
main line.  That seems completely incongrous to me, particularly with
the Olympics coming.