On 2022-03-31 11:16:29 +0000, Recliner said:

> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-03-30 13:19:46 +0000, Recliner said:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 09:56:07 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-03-29 14:00:58 +0000, Recliner said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/03/2022 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 16:38:11 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Marshall reviews the mock up:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCMZqprWIU4
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I *really* don't like the small windows. Its a massive step backwards IMO and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> will make the trains feel claustrophobic even with the walk through now
>>>>>>>>>> available (and which certain members of these newgroups claimed was
>>>>>>>>> impossible
>>>>>>>>>> to do on a tube train because [grasping at straws] and would never happen.
>>>>>>>>> Hows
>>>>>>>>>> that humble pie coming along?)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Humble pie for you. Obviously not for the people who knew what they were
>>>>>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What was stated, repeatedly, was that open gangways on small diameter tube
>>>>>>>>> trains would require articulation, which is what the new Siemens trains
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it wasn't, so stop moving goalposts to save face. Though that is your
>>>>>>>> general modus operandi so no surprises really.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fact that the new trains would be articulated with open gangways has
>>>>>>>>> been known for many years, long before Siemens won the contract. Surely
>>>>>>>>> even you remember? You've been told often enough.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviously. Just reminding you of your thrashing about claiming walk through
>>>>>>>> wouldn't be possible on a tube.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I wonder
>>>>>>>>> if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or perhaps the
>>>>>>>>> small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whatever the reason, its an ergonomic disaster not only for the lack of
>>>>>>>> daylight but because it'll make it much harder to see the station roundal
>>>>>>>> through the windows particularly if you're standing up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I remember my first trip on the Victoria Line in the sixties when I was
>>>>>>> young. We had an Underground manager sitting next to us and he pointed
>>>>>>> out that I was the only one of us who could see the station names on the
>>>>>>> upper part of the station wall.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a lot better these days, with in-train dispays and automatic
>>>>>> announcements on most lines. Some trains also say which sides the doors
>>>>>> will open at the next station, and if any doors won't open (because of
>>>>>> SED). The open gangways will also make it easier to see the displays in the
>>>>>> next car.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are any lines lacking in-train displays and announcements? I thought
>>>>> they were part of the accessibility regulations for which the
>>>>> grandfather exemptions rand out in 2020.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All lines have automated announcements but IIRC Bakerloo (and Piccadilly?)
>>>> don't have displays.
>>>
>>> The Picc does, but Central and Bakerloo don't.
>>
>> Wikipedia suggests the 92 tube stock got PIS displays in the refresh in
>> 2011/2012.
>>
>
> Aha, I should have checked what Wikipedia actually said before replying to
> you. It turns out that Wikipedia agrees with me, and the photo in the
> article confirms it:
>
> "TfL are planning a major refurbishment on the Central line units as part
> of a new 40-day programme. This includes a complete overhaul of the
> interior and adding new features such as new wheelchair spaces, PIS
> (Passenger Information Screens) and CCTV installed throughout the train.
> The London Underground corporate livery will also be repainted on these
> units as well as the replacement of the current traction motors. The
> programme was initially set to commence in summer 2020. However, due to the
> COVID-19 pandemic, these works have been postponed and a set date for
> re-commencement of the works is still not known."
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_1992_Stock#Refurbishment>
>
> Interior photo:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_1992_Stock#/media/File:Central_line_92_Tube_Stock_DM_Interior.jpg>
>

References elsewhere online suggest that the fitting of PIS displays is
required to comply with accessibility regulations, but I thought the
deadline for that had already passed. I've not been on the Central
line in some time, though, and I'm not entirely sure what the state is
right now.

Robin

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:12:03 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:

>On 2022-03-31 11:16:29 +0000, Recliner said:
>
>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-30 13:19:46 +0000, Recliner said:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 09:56:07 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-03-29 14:00:58 +0000, Recliner said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29/03/2022 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 16:38:11 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Marshall reviews the mock up:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCMZqprWIU4
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I *really* don't like the small windows. Its a massive step backwards IMO and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> will make the trains feel claustrophobic even with the walk through now
>>>>>>>>>>> available (and which certain members of these newgroups claimed was
>>>>>>>>>> impossible
>>>>>>>>>>> to do on a tube train because [grasping at straws] and would never happen.
>>>>>>>>>> Hows
>>>>>>>>>>> that humble pie coming along?)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Humble pie for you. Obviously not for the people who knew what they were
>>>>>>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What was stated, repeatedly, was that open gangways on small diameter tube
>>>>>>>>>> trains would require articulation, which is what the new Siemens trains
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, it wasn't, so stop moving goalposts to save face. Though that is your
>>>>>>>>> general modus operandi so no surprises really.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the new trains would be articulated with open gangways has
>>>>>>>>>> been known for many years, long before Siemens won the contract. Surely
>>>>>>>>>> even you remember? You've been told often enough.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obviously. Just reminding you of your thrashing about claiming walk through
>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be possible on a tube.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> flying carriages with no wheels, rather than shared Jacobs bogies. I wonder
>>>>>>>>>> if the stresses on these have forced the small windows? Or perhaps the
>>>>>>>>>> small windows are just part of the weight reduction effort?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whatever the reason, its an ergonomic disaster not only for the lack of
>>>>>>>>> daylight but because it'll make it much harder to see the station roundal
>>>>>>>>> through the windows particularly if you're standing up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I remember my first trip on the Victoria Line in the sixties when I was
>>>>>>>> young. We had an Underground manager sitting next to us and he pointed
>>>>>>>> out that I was the only one of us who could see the station names on the
>>>>>>>> upper part of the station wall.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a lot better these days, with in-train dispays and automatic
>>>>>>> announcements on most lines. Some trains also say which sides the doors
>>>>>>> will open at the next station, and if any doors won't open (because of
>>>>>>> SED). The open gangways will also make it easier to see the displays in the
>>>>>>> next car.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are any lines lacking in-train displays and announcements? I thought
>>>>>> they were part of the accessibility regulations for which the
>>>>>> grandfather exemptions rand out in 2020.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All lines have automated announcements but IIRC Bakerloo (and Piccadilly?)
>>>>> don't have displays.
>>>>
>>>> The Picc does, but Central and Bakerloo don't.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia suggests the 92 tube stock got PIS displays in the refresh in
>>> 2011/2012.
>>>
>>
>> Aha, I should have checked what Wikipedia actually said before replying to
>> you. It turns out that Wikipedia agrees with me, and the photo in the
>> article confirms it:
>>
>> "TfL are planning a major refurbishment on the Central line units as part
>> of a new 40-day programme. This includes a complete overhaul of the
>> interior and adding new features such as new wheelchair spaces, PIS
>> (Passenger Information Screens) and CCTV installed throughout the train.
>> The London Underground corporate livery will also be repainted on these
>> units as well as the replacement of the current traction motors. The
>> programme was initially set to commence in summer 2020. However, due to the
>> COVID-19 pandemic, these works have been postponed and a set date for
>> re-commencement of the works is still not known."
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_1992_Stock#Refurbishment>
>>
>> Interior photo:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_1992_Stock#/media/File:Central_line_92_Tube_Stock_DM_Interior.jpg>
>>
>
>References elsewhere online suggest that the fitting of PIS displays is
>required to comply with accessibility regulations, but I thought the
>deadline for that had already passed.

There have been numerous derogations, and this would just be another on the long list. The deadline was arbitrary, and
is easily moved at the stroke of a pen.

> I've not been on the Central
>line in some time, though, and I'm not entirely sure what the state is
>right now.

I think the state is that nothing has been done yet. Given that TfL is living on a hand-to-mouth basis, the work may
keep getting deferred.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:30:17 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:12:03 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> I've not been on the Central
>>line in some time, though, and I'm not entirely sure what the state is
>>right now.
>
>I think the state is that nothing has been done yet. Given that TfL is living
>on a hand-to-mouth basis, the work may
>keep getting deferred.

I thought the 92 stock were to be binned and replace by the NTFL. If they've
got a planned reburbishment coming up then clearly thats not the case as
refurbs arn't cheap, albeit cheaper than a new train.

In message <uf9b4h5svn33odip3922b10ho5369qo992@4ax.com>, at 14:01:20 on
Thu, 31 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 09:51:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <t22gnu$n01$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:06:06 on Wed, 30 Mar
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>>> The hypothetical being discussed is trains too crowded for someone to be
>>>>>> able to see the in-train displays, and "unable to understand the
>>>>>> announcement due to noise or language problems".
>>>>>
>>>>> Or like me in the non-touristy parts of Japan having no idea what the
>>>>> station names are so just counting the stations. The ninth station and
>>>>> the third with a passing loop was what I was trained to look for by my
>>>>> colleague on my accompanied first trip. Along with put this coin in the
>>>>> 2nd ticket machine and press the 5th button down - that sort of thing.
>>>>> Oh, and avoid the latest train that the schoolchildren can use!
>>>>
>>>> I thought that most, if not all, stations now have their names in Romaji.
>>>
>>>Yes, that's been my experience.
>>
>>Another option is to look out of the windows for local landmarks such as
>><http://www.perry.co.uk/images/fuji-building.jpg>, the tracks are in the
>>foreground, and the station just out of shot.
>>
>>Photo taken about 20yrs ago using the "stills" mode of a digital
>>camcorder.
>
>That works if you're a regular commuter on the route,

Oh, I thought it was regular commuters, with their phones, that we were
worried about.

>but doesn't really help occasional visitors.

If they are getting off there, perhaps they got on there earlier in the
day, and would recognise the surroundings.

Another option, on surface sections, is to turn on the mapping
application on their phone.

--
Roland Perry

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 09:51:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> That works if you're a regular commuter on the route, but doesn't really
> help occasional visitors.
>

Just wondering, isn’t a commuter by definition someone who travels
regularly?

GH

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:01:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:30:17 +0100
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:12:03 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>> I've not been on the Central
>>>line in some time, though, and I'm not entirely sure what the state is
>>>right now.
>>
>>I think the state is that nothing has been done yet. Given that TfL is living
>>on a hand-to-mouth basis, the work may
>>keep getting deferred.
>
>I thought the 92 stock were to be binned and replace by the NTFL. If they've
>got a planned reburbishment coming up then clearly thats not the case as
>refurbs arn't cheap, albeit cheaper than a new train.

TfL is hoping to place three follow-up orders for the Siemens trains, but none has been approved yet, and there's
currently no budget:

1. Top-up order for the Picc, to take advantage of new signalling that allows a more intensive service. There's
currently no funding for either project.

2. 1973TS Bakerloo replacement. This is needed pretty desperately, but TfL is now talking of having to keep the 1972
stock running for 70 years! That will be expensive, and might require an EHO project.

3. 1992TS Central and W&C replacement. I don't understand why this is being given a higher priority than the 72TS
replacement, as these trains are 20 years younger. But maybe the imminent reestablishment will extend their lives long
enough for the 72TS to be replaced first.

Ideally, these orders should follow in a steady sequence, so the Goole factory stays busy (and open — a long gap will
lead to its closure). That will be better all-round, but the government doesn't seem to appreciate the logic.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:36:34 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>2. 1973TS Bakerloo replacement. This is needed pretty desperately, but TfL is
>now talking of having to keep the 1972
>stock running for 70 years! That will be expensive, and might require an EHO
>project.

Probably a tribute to the original build quality that they're still running
even now at 50 years old.

>Ideally, these orders should follow in a steady sequence, so the Goole factory
>stays busy (and open — a long gap will
>lead to its closure). That will be better all-round, but the government
>doesn't seem to appreciate the logic.

Meanwhile the forecast HS2 bill has hit 12 digits and rising. Wtf are they
playing at?

On 31/03/2022 16:36, Recliner wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:01:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:30:17 +0100
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:12:03 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> I've not been on the Central
>>>> line in some time, though, and I'm not entirely sure what the state is
>>>> right now.
>>>
>>> I think the state is that nothing has been done yet. Given that TfL is living
>>> on a hand-to-mouth basis, the work may
>>> keep getting deferred.
>>
>> I thought the 92 stock were to be binned and replace by the NTFL. If they've
>> got a planned reburbishment coming up then clearly thats not the case as
>> refurbs arn't cheap, albeit cheaper than a new train.
>
> TfL is hoping to place three follow-up orders for the Siemens trains, but none has been approved yet, and there's
> currently no budget:
>
> 1. Top-up order for the Picc, to take advantage of new signalling that allows a more intensive service. There's
> currently no funding for either project.

I would have thought that Piccadilly would take priority for providing
NT4L, especially seeing that trains run out to LHR. I think that new
trains for those coming into town, be it for business or pleasure,
present a good image.

(Yes, I know that those on business normally have a car waiting for them
or take HEX.)

> 2. 1973TS Bakerloo replacement. This is needed pretty desperately, but TfL is now talking of having to keep the 1972
> stock running for 70 years! That will be expensive, and might require an EHO project.

I thought the Bakerloo used 72ts.

Would it make sense to truncate Bakerloo services to Queens Park for
now, and have the Watford DC take care of everything out to Watford
Junction, considering the age of the former's rolling stock?

> 3. 1992TS Central and W&C replacement. I don't understand why this is being given a higher priority than the 72TS
> replacement, as these trains are 20 years younger. But maybe the imminent reestablishment will extend their lives long
> enough for the 72TS to be replaced first.

I know that the 92TS is not perfect, but I have not on the same note
heard anything terrible about them. I would thus think that they could
wait a bit longer.

Also, seeing that the Lizzie's opening is imminent, I can see Central
would be further down on the list.

As for the Drain, it is a shuttle service with all of two stations. IME,
such lines get stuck with older equipment or see any new rolling stock
only a bit later.

In message <jaluvgFjr6cU1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:17:04 on Thu, 31
Mar 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 09:51:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> That works if you're a regular commuter on the route, but doesn't really
>> help occasional visitors.
>
>Just wondering, isn’t a commuter by definition someone who travels
>regularly?

Newspapers use it to mean any rail passenger, nowadays.

Strictly speaking I suppose it's anyone with a season ticket (whose
travel cost is therefore commuted - aka discounted).

As an edge case I once bought a one-off weekly season from Nottingham to
London, because I needed to visit twice in one week, and the season was
cheaper than two walk-up tickets. Didn't buy another [any type of season
from Nottingham to London] ever again.
--
Roland Perry

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 31/03/2022 16:36, Recliner wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:01:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:30:17 +0100
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:12:03 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>> I've not been on the Central
>>>>> line in some time, though, and I'm not entirely sure what the state is
>>>>> right now.
>>>>
>>>> I think the state is that nothing has been done yet. Given that TfL is living
>>>> on a hand-to-mouth basis, the work may
>>>> keep getting deferred.
>>>
>>> I thought the 92 stock were to be binned and replace by the NTFL. If they've
>>> got a planned reburbishment coming up then clearly thats not the case as
>>> refurbs arn't cheap, albeit cheaper than a new train.
>>
>> TfL is hoping to place three follow-up orders for the Siemens trains,
>> but none has been approved yet, and there's
>> currently no budget:
>>
>> 1. Top-up order for the Picc, to take advantage of new signalling that
>> allows a more intensive service. There's
>> currently no funding for either project.
>
> I would have thought that Piccadilly would take priority for providing
> NT4L, especially seeing that trains run out to LHR. I think that new
> trains for those coming into town, be it for business or pleasure,
> present a good image.

It does. I'm talking about the top-up order, to take advantage of a more
intensive timetable, made possible by new signalling.

>
> (Yes, I know that those on business normally have a car waiting for them
> or take HEX.)
>
>> 2. 1973TS Bakerloo replacement. This is needed pretty desperately, but
>> TfL is now talking of having to keep the 1972
>> stock running for 70 years! That will be expensive, and might require an EHO project.
>
> I thought the Bakerloo used 72ts.

Yes, sorry, my typo.

>
> Would it make sense to truncate Bakerloo services to Queens Park for
> now, and have the Watford DC take care of everything out to Watford
> Junction, considering the age of the former's rolling stock?

Not really, particularly when you consider the location of the depot. The
LO route currently has a 4tph frequency, and I don't know how much more it
could be increased. I suspect 5tph may be the practical limit. H&W needs
more than that.

>
>> 3. 1992TS Central and W&C replacement. I don't understand why this is
>> being given a higher priority than the 72TS
>> replacement, as these trains are 20 years younger. But maybe the
>> imminent reestablishment will extend their lives long
>> enough for the 72TS to be replaced first.
>
> I know that the 92TS is not perfect, but I have not on the same note
> heard anything terrible about them. I would thus think that they could
> wait a bit longer.

No, I don't understand why LU is so keen to replace them. I still remember
going to a talk at LURS 30 years ago where we were told how delighted LU
was with them.

>
> Also, seeing that the Lizzie's opening is imminent, I can see Central
> would be further down on the list.

Yes

>
> As for the Drain, it is a shuttle service with all of two stations. IME,
> such lines get stuck with older equipment or see any new rolling stock
> only a bit later.

It's a candidate for driverless operation, one of our esteemed PM's pet
projects left over from his mayoralty. But, yes, otherwise I can't see any
urgency in replacing its lightly used stock. It ought to be good for
another 20 years at least.

Further down the track, the 95 and 96TS will be coming up for replacement
in about 15-20 years, and LU would like to place follow-on orders for the
new design. It would become the 21st Century's Standard Stock.

On 31/03/2022 17:25, Recliner wrote:
> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 31/03/2022 16:36, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:01:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:30:17 +0100
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:12:03 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I've not been on the Central
>>>>>> line in some time, though, and I'm not entirely sure what the state is
>>>>>> right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the state is that nothing has been done yet. Given that TfL is living
>>>>> on a hand-to-mouth basis, the work may
>>>>> keep getting deferred.
>>>>
>>>> I thought the 92 stock were to be binned and replace by the NTFL. If they've
>>>> got a planned reburbishment coming up then clearly thats not the case as
>>>> refurbs arn't cheap, albeit cheaper than a new train.
>>>
>>> TfL is hoping to place three follow-up orders for the Siemens trains,
>>> but none has been approved yet, and there's
>>> currently no budget:
>>>
>>> 1. Top-up order for the Picc, to take advantage of new signalling that
>>> allows a more intensive service. There's
>>> currently no funding for either project.
>>
>> I would have thought that Piccadilly would take priority for providing
>> NT4L, especially seeing that trains run out to LHR. I think that new
>> trains for those coming into town, be it for business or pleasure,
>> present a good image.
>
> It does. I'm talking about the top-up order, to take advantage of a more
> intensive timetable, made possible by new signalling.
>
>>
>> (Yes, I know that those on business normally have a car waiting for them
>> or take HEX.)
>>
>>> 2. 1973TS Bakerloo replacement. This is needed pretty desperately, but
>>> TfL is now talking of having to keep the 1972
>>> stock running for 70 years! That will be expensive, and might require an EHO project.
>>
>> I thought the Bakerloo used 72ts.
>
> Yes, sorry, my typo.
>
>>
>> Would it make sense to truncate Bakerloo services to Queens Park for
>> now, and have the Watford DC take care of everything out to Watford
>> Junction, considering the age of the former's rolling stock?
>
> Not really, particularly when you consider the location of the depot. The
> LO route currently has a 4tph frequency, and I don't know how much more it
> could be increased. I suspect 5tph may be the practical limit. H&W needs
> more than that.

Got it. I thought that it might help to ameliorate somewhat the mileage
requirements for the 72ts, though I guess not.

I might suggest trying to move equipment from other tube lines, but my
guess is that the numbers would not add up to make that feasible.

Cascading from elsewhere is also unlikely, as I am pretty certain that
tube lines' gauges are bespoke.

>>
>>> 3. 1992TS Central and W&C replacement. I don't understand why this is
>>> being given a higher priority than the 72TS
>>> replacement, as these trains are 20 years younger. But maybe the
>>> imminent reestablishment will extend their lives long
>>> enough for the 72TS to be replaced first.
>>
>> I know that the 92TS is not perfect, but I have not on the same note
>> heard anything terrible about them. I would thus think that they could
>> wait a bit longer.
>
> No, I don't understand why LU is so keen to replace them. I still remember
> going to a talk at LURS 30 years ago where we were told how delighted LU
> was with them.

They work pretty well, I have never heard any drivers say anything about
them, and they have good pickup speeds. I don't know what their MDBF is,
but I would not be surprised to hear that it is by far not bad.

>> Also, seeing that the Lizzie's opening is imminent, I can see Central
>> would be further down on the list.
>
> Yes
>
>>
>> As for the Drain, it is a shuttle service with all of two stations. IME,
>> such lines get stuck with older equipment or see any new rolling stock
>> only a bit later.
>
> It's a candidate for driverless operation, one of our esteemed PM's pet
> projects left over from his mayoralty.

???

> But, yes, otherwise I can't see any
> urgency in replacing its lightly used stock. It ought to be good for
> another 20 years at least.

When the R-62/62A were becoming prolific across the IRT (A Division),
the 42nd Street Shuttle continued to use R-17s.

> Further down the track, the 95 and 96TS will be coming up for replacement
> in about 15-20 years, and LU would like to place follow-on orders for the
> new design. It would become the 21st Century's Standard Stock.
>
>
>

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 31/03/2022 17:25, Recliner wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 31/03/2022 16:36, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:01:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:30:17 +0100
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:12:03 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I've not been on the Central
>>>>>>> line in some time, though, and I'm not entirely sure what the state is
>>>>>>> right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the state is that nothing has been done yet. Given that TfL is living
>>>>>> on a hand-to-mouth basis, the work may
>>>>>> keep getting deferred.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought the 92 stock were to be binned and replace by the NTFL. If they've
>>>>> got a planned reburbishment coming up then clearly thats not the case as
>>>>> refurbs arn't cheap, albeit cheaper than a new train.
>>>>
>>>> TfL is hoping to place three follow-up orders for the Siemens trains,
>>>> but none has been approved yet, and there's
>>>> currently no budget:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Top-up order for the Picc, to take advantage of new signalling that
>>>> allows a more intensive service. There's
>>>> currently no funding for either project.
>>>
>>> I would have thought that Piccadilly would take priority for providing
>>> NT4L, especially seeing that trains run out to LHR. I think that new
>>> trains for those coming into town, be it for business or pleasure,
>>> present a good image.
>>
>> It does. I'm talking about the top-up order, to take advantage of a more
>> intensive timetable, made possible by new signalling.
>>
>>>
>>> (Yes, I know that those on business normally have a car waiting for them
>>> or take HEX.)
>>>
>>>> 2. 1973TS Bakerloo replacement. This is needed pretty desperately, but
>>>> TfL is now talking of having to keep the 1972
>>>> stock running for 70 years! That will be expensive, and might require an EHO project.
>>>
>>> I thought the Bakerloo used 72ts.
>>
>> Yes, sorry, my typo.
>>
>>>
>>> Would it make sense to truncate Bakerloo services to Queens Park for
>>> now, and have the Watford DC take care of everything out to Watford
>>> Junction, considering the age of the former's rolling stock?
>>
>> Not really, particularly when you consider the location of the depot. The
>> LO route currently has a 4tph frequency, and I don't know how much more it
>> could be increased. I suspect 5tph may be the practical limit. H&W needs
>> more than that.
>
> Got it. I thought that it might help to ameliorate somewhat the mileage
> requirements for the 72ts, though I guess not.
>
> I might suggest trying to move equipment from other tube lines, but my
> guess is that the numbers would not add up to make that feasible.
>
> Cascading from elsewhere is also unlikely, as I am pretty certain that
> tube lines' gauges are bespoke.

TfL has said several times that if the DfT won't agree an adequate
financial plan, it might have to shut down one complete Tube line, and I
assume that would be the Bakerloo. The same might be true if the
life-expired 72TS can't be kept running.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:25:20 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 31/03/2022 16:36, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:01:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:30:17 +0100
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:12:03 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I've not been on the Central
>>>>>> line in some time, though, and I'm not entirely sure what the state is
>>>>>> right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the state is that nothing has been done yet. Given that TfL is living
>>>>> on a hand-to-mouth basis, the work may
>>>>> keep getting deferred.
>>>>
>>>> I thought the 92 stock were to be binned and replace by the NTFL. If they've
>>>> got a planned reburbishment coming up then clearly thats not the case as
>>>> refurbs arn't cheap, albeit cheaper than a new train.
>>>
>>> TfL is hoping to place three follow-up orders for the Siemens trains,
>>> but none has been approved yet, and there's
>>> currently no budget:
>>>
>>> 1. Top-up order for the Picc, to take advantage of new signalling that
>>> allows a more intensive service. There's
>>> currently no funding for either project.
>>
>> I would have thought that Piccadilly would take priority for providing
>> NT4L, especially seeing that trains run out to LHR. I think that new
>> trains for those coming into town, be it for business or pleasure,
>> present a good image.
>
>It does. I'm talking about the top-up order, to take advantage of a more
>intensive timetable, made possible by new signalling.
>
>>
>> (Yes, I know that those on business normally have a car waiting for them
>> or take HEX.)
>>
>>> 2. 1973TS Bakerloo replacement. This is needed pretty desperately, but
>>> TfL is now talking of having to keep the 1972
>>> stock running for 70 years! That will be expensive, and might require an EHO project.
>>
>> I thought the Bakerloo used 72ts.
>
>Yes, sorry, my typo.
>
>>
>> Would it make sense to truncate Bakerloo services to Queens Park for
>> now, and have the Watford DC take care of everything out to Watford
>> Junction, considering the age of the former's rolling stock?
>
>Not really, particularly when you consider the location of the depot. The
>LO route currently has a 4tph frequency, and I don't know how much more it
>could be increased. I suspect 5tph may be the practical limit. H&W needs
>more than that.
>
Without altering services, the current DC line limit is set by what
you can get in/out of Euston (and secondarily by current stock
availability).

Alterations could involve one or more of :-
Sending trains somewhere else at the SE end, maybe re-opening Primrose
Hill and taking advantage of OSI with Chalk Farm. Camden Road is
probably the first (but not the only) practical Up to Down reversing
point for trains not going all the way to Stratford/wherever.

Using Willesden Junction or Harrow to reverse Down to Up. One
reversing siding at Harrow was removed some years ago to "straighten
out" the Down Line but with no apparent practical advantage and things
getting royally buggered up if the current single siding has a train
deciding to sit down for the rest of the day.
Watford Junction is never at full capacity (since Croxley Green depot
went and most trains stabled further south) and also has a trackless
platform in reserve.

Other changes would probably only be the consequence of a future
significant increase in traffic :-
Stonebridge Park is a bottleneck due to trains reversing via the depot
across the Up line. That would be avoided by a central reversing
siding in the style of Willesden Green and West Hampstead on the
Jubilee Line.
The junction from the DC line to the WLL at Willesden is currently
available.
One other item which has been on wishlists for many years is a
connection at Northwick Park between the DC line and the Met/GC lines
which would replace an OSI which has existed for at least 85 years
(source - LMS 1937 ticket examiners' handbook).

<snip>

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 20:00:58 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 31/03/2022 17:25, Recliner wrote:
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 31/03/2022 16:36, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:01:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:30:17 +0100
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:12:03 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I've not been on the Central
>>>>>>>> line in some time, though, and I'm not entirely sure what the state is
>>>>>>>> right now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the state is that nothing has been done yet. Given that TfL is living
>>>>>>> on a hand-to-mouth basis, the work may
>>>>>>> keep getting deferred.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought the 92 stock were to be binned and replace by the NTFL. If they've
>>>>>> got a planned reburbishment coming up then clearly thats not the case as
>>>>>> refurbs arn't cheap, albeit cheaper than a new train.
>>>>>
>>>>> TfL is hoping to place three follow-up orders for the Siemens trains,
>>>>> but none has been approved yet, and there's
>>>>> currently no budget:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Top-up order for the Picc, to take advantage of new signalling that
>>>>> allows a more intensive service. There's
>>>>> currently no funding for either project.
>>>>
>>>> I would have thought that Piccadilly would take priority for providing
>>>> NT4L, especially seeing that trains run out to LHR. I think that new
>>>> trains for those coming into town, be it for business or pleasure,
>>>> present a good image.
>>>
>>> It does. I'm talking about the top-up order, to take advantage of a more
>>> intensive timetable, made possible by new signalling.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (Yes, I know that those on business normally have a car waiting for them
>>>> or take HEX.)
>>>>
>>>>> 2. 1973TS Bakerloo replacement. This is needed pretty desperately, but
>>>>> TfL is now talking of having to keep the 1972
>>>>> stock running for 70 years! That will be expensive, and might require an EHO project.
>>>>
>>>> I thought the Bakerloo used 72ts.
>>>
>>> Yes, sorry, my typo.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would it make sense to truncate Bakerloo services to Queens Park for
>>>> now, and have the Watford DC take care of everything out to Watford
>>>> Junction, considering the age of the former's rolling stock?
>>>
>>> Not really, particularly when you consider the location of the depot. The
>>> LO route currently has a 4tph frequency, and I don't know how much more it
>>> could be increased. I suspect 5tph may be the practical limit. H&W needs
>>> more than that.
>>
>> Got it. I thought that it might help to ameliorate somewhat the mileage
>> requirements for the 72ts, though I guess not.
>>
>> I might suggest trying to move equipment from other tube lines, but my
>> guess is that the numbers would not add up to make that feasible.
>>
>> Cascading from elsewhere is also unlikely, as I am pretty certain that
>> tube lines' gauges are bespoke.
>
>TfL has said several times that if the DfT won't agree an adequate
>financial plan, it might have to shut down one complete Tube line, and I
>assume that would be the Bakerloo. The same might be true if the
>life-expired 72TS can't be kept running.
>
Withdrawing or reducing services on sections shared with newer surface
stock seems more feasible unless the potential trouble with the
Bakerloo Line is infrastructure rather than trains.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 21:20:04 +0100, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:25:20 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 31/03/2022 16:36, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:01:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:30:17 +0100
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:12:03 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I've not been on the Central
>>>>>>> line in some time, though, and I'm not entirely sure what the state is
>>>>>>> right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the state is that nothing has been done yet. Given that TfL is living
>>>>>> on a hand-to-mouth basis, the work may
>>>>>> keep getting deferred.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought the 92 stock were to be binned and replace by the NTFL. If they've
>>>>> got a planned reburbishment coming up then clearly thats not the case as
>>>>> refurbs arn't cheap, albeit cheaper than a new train.
>>>>
>>>> TfL is hoping to place three follow-up orders for the Siemens trains,
>>>> but none has been approved yet, and there's
>>>> currently no budget:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Top-up order for the Picc, to take advantage of new signalling that
>>>> allows a more intensive service. There's
>>>> currently no funding for either project.
>>>
>>> I would have thought that Piccadilly would take priority for providing
>>> NT4L, especially seeing that trains run out to LHR. I think that new
>>> trains for those coming into town, be it for business or pleasure,
>>> present a good image.
>>
>>It does. I'm talking about the top-up order, to take advantage of a more
>>intensive timetable, made possible by new signalling.
>>
>>>
>>> (Yes, I know that those on business normally have a car waiting for them
>>> or take HEX.)
>>>
>>>> 2. 1973TS Bakerloo replacement. This is needed pretty desperately, but
>>>> TfL is now talking of having to keep the 1972
>>>> stock running for 70 years! That will be expensive, and might require an EHO project.
>>>
>>> I thought the Bakerloo used 72ts.
>>
>>Yes, sorry, my typo.
>>
>>>
>>> Would it make sense to truncate Bakerloo services to Queens Park for
>>> now, and have the Watford DC take care of everything out to Watford
>>> Junction, considering the age of the former's rolling stock?
>>
>>Not really, particularly when you consider the location of the depot. The
>>LO route currently has a 4tph frequency, and I don't know how much more it
>>could be increased. I suspect 5tph may be the practical limit. H&W needs
>>more than that.
>>
>Without altering services, the current DC line limit is set by what
>you can get in/out of Euston (and secondarily by current stock
>availability).
>
>Alterations could involve one or more of :-
>Sending trains somewhere else at the SE end, maybe re-opening Primrose
>Hill and taking advantage of OSI with Chalk Farm. Camden Road is
>probably the first (but not the only) practical Up to Down reversing
>point for trains not going all the way to Stratford/wherever.
>
>Using Willesden Junction or Harrow to reverse Down to Up. One
>reversing siding at Harrow was removed some years ago to "straighten
>out" the Down Line but with no apparent practical advantage and things
>getting royally buggered up if the current single siding has a train
>deciding to sit down for the rest of the day.
>Watford Junction is never at full capacity (since Croxley Green depot
>went and most trains stabled further south) and also has a trackless
>platform in reserve.
>
>Other changes would probably only be the consequence of a future
>significant increase in traffic :-
>Stonebridge Park is a bottleneck due to trains reversing via the depot
>across the Up line. That would be avoided by a central reversing
>siding in the style of Willesden Green and West Hampstead on the
>Jubilee Line.
>The junction from the DC line to the WLL at Willesden is currently
>available.
>
DC line to NLL !

>One other item which has been on wishlists for many years is a
>connection at Northwick Park between the DC line and the Met/GC lines
>which would replace an OSI which has existed for at least 85 years
>(source - LMS 1937 ticket examiners' handbook).
>
><snip>

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:25:20 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 31/03/2022 16:36, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:01:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:30:17 +0100
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:12:03 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I've not been on the Central
>>>>>>> line in some time, though, and I'm not entirely sure what the state is
>>>>>>> right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the state is that nothing has been done yet. Given that TfL is living
>>>>>> on a hand-to-mouth basis, the work may
>>>>>> keep getting deferred.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought the 92 stock were to be binned and replace by the NTFL. If they've
>>>>> got a planned reburbishment coming up then clearly thats not the case as
>>>>> refurbs arn't cheap, albeit cheaper than a new train.
>>>>
>>>> TfL is hoping to place three follow-up orders for the Siemens trains,
>>>> but none has been approved yet, and there's
>>>> currently no budget:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Top-up order for the Picc, to take advantage of new signalling that
>>>> allows a more intensive service. There's
>>>> currently no funding for either project.
>>>
>>> I would have thought that Piccadilly would take priority for providing
>>> NT4L, especially seeing that trains run out to LHR. I think that new
>>> trains for those coming into town, be it for business or pleasure,
>>> present a good image.
>>
>> It does. I'm talking about the top-up order, to take advantage of a more
>> intensive timetable, made possible by new signalling.
>>
>>>
>>> (Yes, I know that those on business normally have a car waiting for them
>>> or take HEX.)
>>>
>>>> 2. 1973TS Bakerloo replacement. This is needed pretty desperately, but
>>>> TfL is now talking of having to keep the 1972
>>>> stock running for 70 years! That will be expensive, and might require an EHO project.
>>>
>>> I thought the Bakerloo used 72ts.
>>
>> Yes, sorry, my typo.
>>
>>>
>>> Would it make sense to truncate Bakerloo services to Queens Park for
>>> now, and have the Watford DC take care of everything out to Watford
>>> Junction, considering the age of the former's rolling stock?
>>
>> Not really, particularly when you consider the location of the depot. The
>> LO route currently has a 4tph frequency, and I don't know how much more it
>> could be increased. I suspect 5tph may be the practical limit. H&W needs
>> more than that.
>>
> Without altering services, the current DC line limit is set by what
> you can get in/out of Euston (and secondarily by current stock
> availability).

Yes, I suspect Euston platform capacity sets the main constraint. And that
might get tighter during the next decade's HS2 construction work
disruption.

>
> Alterations could involve one or more of :-
> Sending trains somewhere else at the SE end, maybe re-opening Primrose
> Hill and taking advantage of OSI with Chalk Farm. Camden Road is
> probably the first (but not the only) practical Up to Down reversing
> point for trains not going all the way to Stratford/wherever.

I guess that would still involve building a new platform?

>
> Using Willesden Junction or Harrow to reverse Down to Up. One
> reversing siding at Harrow was removed some years ago to "straighten
> out" the Down Line but with no apparent practical advantage and things
> getting royally buggered up if the current single siding has a train
> deciding to sit down for the rest of the day.
> Watford Junction is never at full capacity (since Croxley Green depot
> went and most trains stabled further south) and also has a trackless
> platform in reserve.

Yes, I don't think WFJ is a constraint on service levels. After all, it has
space for the Met extension trains that are unlikely ever to arrive.

>
> Other changes would probably only be the consequence of a future
> significant increase in traffic :-
> Stonebridge Park is a bottleneck due to trains reversing via the depot
> across the Up line. That would be avoided by a central reversing
> siding in the style of Willesden Green and West Hampstead on the
> Jubilee Line.

Yes, that would be doable, but doesn't do anything to solve the problem of
life-expired Bakerloo trains.

> The junction from the DC line to the WLL at Willesden is currently
> available.

> One other item which has been on wishlists for many years is a
> connection at Northwick Park between the DC line and the Met/GC lines
> which would replace an OSI which has existed for at least 85 years
> (source - LMS 1937 ticket examiners' handbook).

I really can't see those lines ever being linked, but hadn't realised the
OSI went that far back!

On 31/03/2022 21:00, Recliner wrote:
> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 31/03/2022 17:25, Recliner wrote:
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 31/03/2022 16:36, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:01:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:30:17 +0100
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:12:03 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I've not been on the Central
>>>>>>>> line in some time, though, and I'm not entirely sure what the state is
>>>>>>>> right now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the state is that nothing has been done yet. Given that TfL is living
>>>>>>> on a hand-to-mouth basis, the work may
>>>>>>> keep getting deferred.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought the 92 stock were to be binned and replace by the NTFL. If they've
>>>>>> got a planned reburbishment coming up then clearly thats not the case as
>>>>>> refurbs arn't cheap, albeit cheaper than a new train.
>>>>>
>>>>> TfL is hoping to place three follow-up orders for the Siemens trains,
>>>>> but none has been approved yet, and there's
>>>>> currently no budget:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Top-up order for the Picc, to take advantage of new signalling that
>>>>> allows a more intensive service. There's
>>>>> currently no funding for either project.
>>>>
>>>> I would have thought that Piccadilly would take priority for providing
>>>> NT4L, especially seeing that trains run out to LHR. I think that new
>>>> trains for those coming into town, be it for business or pleasure,
>>>> present a good image.
>>>
>>> It does. I'm talking about the top-up order, to take advantage of a more
>>> intensive timetable, made possible by new signalling.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (Yes, I know that those on business normally have a car waiting for them
>>>> or take HEX.)
>>>>
>>>>> 2. 1973TS Bakerloo replacement. This is needed pretty desperately, but
>>>>> TfL is now talking of having to keep the 1972
>>>>> stock running for 70 years! That will be expensive, and might require an EHO project.
>>>>
>>>> I thought the Bakerloo used 72ts.
>>>
>>> Yes, sorry, my typo.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would it make sense to truncate Bakerloo services to Queens Park for
>>>> now, and have the Watford DC take care of everything out to Watford
>>>> Junction, considering the age of the former's rolling stock?
>>>
>>> Not really, particularly when you consider the location of the depot. The
>>> LO route currently has a 4tph frequency, and I don't know how much more it
>>> could be increased. I suspect 5tph may be the practical limit. H&W needs
>>> more than that.
>>
>> Got it. I thought that it might help to ameliorate somewhat the mileage
>> requirements for the 72ts, though I guess not.
>>
>> I might suggest trying to move equipment from other tube lines, but my
>> guess is that the numbers would not add up to make that feasible.
>>
>> Cascading from elsewhere is also unlikely, as I am pretty certain that
>> tube lines' gauges are bespoke.
>
> TfL has said several times that if the DfT won't agree an adequate
> financial plan, it might have to shut down one complete Tube line, and I
> assume that would be the Bakerloo. The same might be true if the
> life-expired 72TS can't be kept running.
>

They kept the 38ts running for about 80 years, though I imagine that
things are quite different on LUL.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 20:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:25:20 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 31/03/2022 16:36, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:01:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:30:17 +0100
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:12:03 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I've not been on the Central
>>>>>>>> line in some time, though, and I'm not entirely sure what the state is
>>>>>>>> right now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the state is that nothing has been done yet. Given that TfL is living
>>>>>>> on a hand-to-mouth basis, the work may
>>>>>>> keep getting deferred.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought the 92 stock were to be binned and replace by the NTFL. If they've
>>>>>> got a planned reburbishment coming up then clearly thats not the case as
>>>>>> refurbs arn't cheap, albeit cheaper than a new train.
>>>>>
>>>>> TfL is hoping to place three follow-up orders for the Siemens trains,
>>>>> but none has been approved yet, and there's
>>>>> currently no budget:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Top-up order for the Picc, to take advantage of new signalling that
>>>>> allows a more intensive service. There's
>>>>> currently no funding for either project.
>>>>
>>>> I would have thought that Piccadilly would take priority for providing
>>>> NT4L, especially seeing that trains run out to LHR. I think that new
>>>> trains for those coming into town, be it for business or pleasure,
>>>> present a good image.
>>>
>>> It does. I'm talking about the top-up order, to take advantage of a more
>>> intensive timetable, made possible by new signalling.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (Yes, I know that those on business normally have a car waiting for them
>>>> or take HEX.)
>>>>
>>>>> 2. 1973TS Bakerloo replacement. This is needed pretty desperately, but
>>>>> TfL is now talking of having to keep the 1972
>>>>> stock running for 70 years! That will be expensive, and might require an EHO project.
>>>>
>>>> I thought the Bakerloo used 72ts.
>>>
>>> Yes, sorry, my typo.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would it make sense to truncate Bakerloo services to Queens Park for
>>>> now, and have the Watford DC take care of everything out to Watford
>>>> Junction, considering the age of the former's rolling stock?
>>>
>>> Not really, particularly when you consider the location of the depot. The
>>> LO route currently has a 4tph frequency, and I don't know how much more it
>>> could be increased. I suspect 5tph may be the practical limit. H&W needs
>>> more than that.
>>>
>> Without altering services, the current DC line limit is set by what
>> you can get in/out of Euston (and secondarily by current stock
>> availability).
>
>Yes, I suspect Euston platform capacity sets the main constraint. And that
>might get tighter during the next decade's HS2 construction work
>disruption.
>
>>
>> Alterations could involve one or more of :-
>> Sending trains somewhere else at the SE end, maybe re-opening Primrose
>> Hill and taking advantage of OSI with Chalk Farm. Camden Road is
>> probably the first (but not the only) practical Up to Down reversing
>> point for trains not going all the way to Stratford/wherever.
>
>I guess that would still involve building a new platform?
>
Reinstatement rather than new build.

>>
>> Using Willesden Junction or Harrow to reverse Down to Up. One
>> reversing siding at Harrow was removed some years ago to "straighten
>> out" the Down Line but with no apparent practical advantage and things
>> getting royally buggered up if the current single siding has a train
>> deciding to sit down for the rest of the day.
>> Watford Junction is never at full capacity (since Croxley Green depot
>> went and most trains stabled further south) and also has a trackless
>> platform in reserve.
>
>Yes, I don't think WFJ is a constraint on service levels. After all, it has
>space for the Met extension trains that are unlikely ever to arrive.
>
>>
>> Other changes would probably only be the consequence of a future
>> significant increase in traffic :-
>> Stonebridge Park is a bottleneck due to trains reversing via the depot
>> across the Up line. That would be avoided by a central reversing
>> siding in the style of Willesden Green and West Hampstead on the
>> Jubilee Line.
>
>Yes, that would be doable, but doesn't do anything to solve the problem of
>life-expired Bakerloo trains.
>
They do seem to have an element of immortality.

>> The junction from the DC line to the WLL at Willesden is currently
>> available.
>
>> One other item which has been on wishlists for many years is a
>> connection at Northwick Park between the DC line and the Met/GC lines
>> which would replace an OSI which has existed for at least 85 years
>> (source - LMS 1937 ticket examiners' handbook).
>
>I really can't see those lines ever being linked, but hadn't realised the
>OSI went that far back!
>
There are various others. I suspect many/most originated as standing
arrangements between the various railway companies to cope with
disruption without requiring specific authorisation when needed as the
"plan B" enabled by them would often have caused a somewhat longer
journey.
Also IIRC, unlike Oyster** the alternative route would have needed to
be "sensible" thus cutting out e.g. travelling from Croxley to Watford
Junction (instead of Watford Met.) via Kenton and Northwick Park.

**
TfL Single Fare Finder Peak/off peak
WFJ - Kenton 3.70/2.10 (peak 06.30-09.30)
WFJ - Watford 3.70/2.10 (peak 6.30-9.30, 16.00-19.00)
(WFJ - Queens Park is 5.10/3.20 so the system is clearly ignoring the
longer non-OSI route via London)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 20:00:58 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I might suggest trying to move equipment from other tube lines, but my
>> guess is that the numbers would not add up to make that feasible.
>>
>> Cascading from elsewhere is also unlikely, as I am pretty certain that
>> tube lines' gauges are bespoke.
>
>TfL has said several times that if the DfT won't agree an adequate
>financial plan, it might have to shut down one complete Tube line, and I
>assume that would be the Bakerloo. The same might be true if the
>life-expired 72TS can't be kept running.

Sounds like an empty threat to me. They could cascade the 73 stock which is
in much better condition and wouldn't require any signalling work due to
inteference from modern traction systems.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 18:15:47 +0100
"hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 31/03/2022 17:25, Recliner wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 31/03/2022 16:36, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:01:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:30:17 +0100
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:12:03 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I've not been on the Central
>>>>>>> line in some time, though, and I'm not entirely sure what the state is
>>>>>>> right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the state is that nothing has been done yet. Given that TfL is
>living
>>>>>> on a hand-to-mouth basis, the work may
>>>>>> keep getting deferred.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought the 92 stock were to be binned and replace by the NTFL. If
>they've
>>>>> got a planned reburbishment coming up then clearly thats not the case as
>>>>> refurbs arn't cheap, albeit cheaper than a new train.
>>>>
>>>> TfL is hoping to place three follow-up orders for the Siemens trains,
>>>> but none has been approved yet, and there's
>>>> currently no budget:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Top-up order for the Picc, to take advantage of new signalling that
>>>> allows a more intensive service. There's
>>>> currently no funding for either project.
>>>
>>> I would have thought that Piccadilly would take priority for providing
>>> NT4L, especially seeing that trains run out to LHR. I think that new
>>> trains for those coming into town, be it for business or pleasure,
>>> present a good image.
>>
>> It does. I'm talking about the top-up order, to take advantage of a more
>> intensive timetable, made possible by new signalling.
>>
>>>
>>> (Yes, I know that those on business normally have a car waiting for them
>>> or take HEX.)
>>>
>>>> 2. 1973TS Bakerloo replacement. This is needed pretty desperately, but
>>>> TfL is now talking of having to keep the 1972
>>>> stock running for 70 years! That will be expensive, and might require an
>EHO project.
>>>
>>> I thought the Bakerloo used 72ts.
>>
>> Yes, sorry, my typo.
>>
>>>
>>> Would it make sense to truncate Bakerloo services to Queens Park for
>>> now, and have the Watford DC take care of everything out to Watford
>>> Junction, considering the age of the former's rolling stock?
>>
>> Not really, particularly when you consider the location of the depot. The
>> LO route currently has a 4tph frequency, and I don't know how much more it
>> could be increased. I suspect 5tph may be the practical limit. H&W needs
>> more than that.
>
>Got it. I thought that it might help to ameliorate somewhat the mileage
>requirements for the 72ts, though I guess not.
>
>I might suggest trying to move equipment from other tube lines, but my
>guess is that the numbers would not add up to make that feasible.
>
>Cascading from elsewhere is also unlikely, as I am pretty certain that
>tube lines' gauges are bespoke.

Not really. AFAIK only the victoria line stock is stuck on its own line due
to metronets decision to give it a different profile to other stocks due to
the victoria lines slighlty larger tunnels. Whether that will turn out to be a
good or bad idea long run is anyones guess. It does make standing next to the
doors more comfortable however which I can attest to.

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. 1973TS Bakerloo replacement. This is needed pretty desperately, but
>>>>>> TfL is now talking of having to keep the 1972
>>>>>> stock running for 70 years! That will be expensive, and might require an EHO project.
>>>>>

>>
>> TfL has said several times that if the DfT won't agree an adequate
>> financial plan, it might have to shut down one complete Tube line, and I
>> assume that would be the Bakerloo. The same might be true if the
>> life-expired 72TS can't be kept running.
>>
>
> They kept the 38ts running for about 80 years, though I imagine that
> things are quite different on LUL.
>

To be fair they were only on the Underground for 50 years being withdrawn
in 1988, a service period the 72 stock has reached and will exceed with
much less fanfare.

The units that went to the I.O.W benefitted from being put through a very
thorough refurbishment for their new role which was much less arduous than
the miles that would have been racked up on a normal London tube service.
And those that made it to 80 years only did so because of extensive
cannibalisation of other units with a decline in service levels and
reliability that could not have been tolerated in London. In the last few
months of I.OW service bus substitution was frequent, it was touch and go
that any would be available for the last day of operation before the line
closed for refurbishment. In the end Ryde depot worked wonders and got two
units out on the last day ,one of them by running it with at least one
traction motor non functional.

GH

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 18:15:47 +0100
> "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 31/03/2022 17:25, Recliner wrote:
>>
>> I might suggest trying to move equipment from other tube lines, but my
>> guess is that the numbers would not add up to make that feasible.
>>
>> Cascading from elsewhere is also unlikely, as I am pretty certain that
>> tube lines' gauges are bespoke.
>
> Not really. AFAIK only the victoria line stock is stuck on its own line due
> to metronets decision to give it a different profile to other stocks due to
> the victoria lines slighlty larger tunnels.

Central Line has the 3rd rail mounted higher and would require alterations
to shoegear to cascade stock.

Jubilee obviously requires stock which can communicate with the platform
doors.

Central line ATO is different to the other lines; is the
Vic/Jubilee/Northern signalling all compatible?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 12:30:23 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 18:15:47 +0100
>> "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 31/03/2022 17:25, Recliner wrote:
>>>
>>> I might suggest trying to move equipment from other tube lines, but my
>>> guess is that the numbers would not add up to make that feasible.
>>>
>>> Cascading from elsewhere is also unlikely, as I am pretty certain that
>>> tube lines' gauges are bespoke.
>>
>> Not really. AFAIK only the victoria line stock is stuck on its own line due
>> to metronets decision to give it a different profile to other stocks due to
>> the victoria lines slighlty larger tunnels.
>
>Central Line has the 3rd rail mounted higher and would require alterations
>to shoegear to cascade stock.

Probably not that onorous a task though.

>Jubilee obviously requires stock which can communicate with the platform
>doors.
>
>Central line ATO is different to the other lines; is the
>Vic/Jubilee/Northern signalling all compatible?

Probably not, that would be too sensible. This is TfL we're talking about.

Op 28-3-2022 om 18:17 schreef Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> Geoff Marshall reviews the mock up:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCMZqprWIU4
>
> I *really* don't like the small windows. Its a massive step backwards IMO and
> will make the trains feel claustrophobic even with the walk through now
> available (and which certain members of these newgroups claimed was impossible
> to do on a tube train because [grasping at straws] and would never happen. Hows
> that humble pie coming along?)
>

Always a pleasure to see a video from Geoff.

Thank you!

Rink

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 16:14:14 +0200, Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote:

>Op 28-3-2022 om 18:17 schreef Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>> Geoff Marshall reviews the mock up:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCMZqprWIU4
>>
>> I *really* don't like the small windows. Its a massive step backwards IMO and
>> will make the trains feel claustrophobic even with the walk through now
>> available (and which certain members of these newgroups claimed was impossible
>> to do on a tube train because [grasping at straws] and would never happen. Hows
>> that humble pie coming along?)
>>
>
>
>Always a pleasure to see a video from Geoff.
>
>Thank you!

I imagine he's working on a series for when Crossrail opens. He did one on the press preview, but there must be scope to
do one on each of the huge new underground stations.