Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
95TS
Jan 14, 2006 15:47:37 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2006 15:47:37 GMT
Well in 15 years, nearly the whole of LU will run in ATO, so tough luck! that will never happen, not nearly enough money is available to upgrade all the signalling and track, or the stock
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
95TS
Jan 14, 2006 16:09:28 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2006 16:09:28 GMT
Well in 15 years, nearly the whole of LU will run in ATO, so tough luck! I think it will take a lot longer than 15 years. The Jubilee and northern will be ATO within the next 4 years , and yet these are the easiest as they have new stock and are more or less self contained. The Central line took 8 years from the delivery of the 92's until full ATO, this is another simple self contained line. The rest of the manually controlled lines inter run with others, they need new stock completely before ATP then ATO gets introduced, I suspect ATO will not be introduced on the District until the mid 2020's at the earliest, and thankfully I'll be retired by then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
95TS
Jan 14, 2006 16:16:43 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2006 16:16:43 GMT
thankfully I'll be retired by then. likewise jim we can meet in our local after drawing our pension on a monday morning and reminisse
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
95TS
Jan 14, 2006 18:06:15 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2006 18:06:15 GMT
Not meaning to pick a bone with you or anything, but would you really feel safe having a computer deal with an emergency situation, such as something similar to the unfortunate events of 7/7, or a fatality for example? I know I wouldn't. I'd prefer a human to be in TOTAL control, not just confined to merely tending to doors...Anyway, that's just my outside opinion. If a train is jumped in front of when it is being run in ATO, all y'have to do is whack the emergency stop button. Easy as. If anything ATO makes it safer, as the driver is concentrating more on the platform edge than where he's going to stop! Also, if ATO thinks that anything is wrong with the code that it's being given by the ATP or any of the round train circuits, it will stop. It is completely failsafe. Sam
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
95TS
Jan 14, 2006 18:06:57 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2006 18:06:57 GMT
Well the PPP plans are looking at the District being ATO'ed by 2016. The last major line to be ATO'ed is the Bakerloo by 2020. Whether things run to time is another matter!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
95TS
Jan 14, 2006 18:58:49 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2006 18:58:49 GMT
They say in 15 years everything will be ATO - they said something similar in the 60's, didn't they? There is s difference now though, the money and contracts are in place or on there way to be going in place. The fact was the Central line project took took a lot longer than planned as well as the Jubilee, which was supposed to be ATO'ed from 1999 on the extension. Whilst I believe ATO will eventually happen, ATO timtables have as yet to be completed on time and I personally see no change in this.
|
|
|
95TS
Jan 14, 2006 19:33:47 GMT
Post by dunois on Jan 14, 2006 19:33:47 GMT
It'll be a sad thing to see the day when computers completely take over a job which humans are perfectly capable of doing. Now I know you'll probably start going on about how ATO can push through more capacity and all that mumbo jumbo, but honestly I know I'd rather have a living, breathing human being doing the driving as opposed to some heap of junk machinery. Humans may still be required to do door duties but it'll just never be the same. Ah well such is life I guess... I don't think that ATO allowing capacity increases is mumbo jumbo, as you put it. Many of the worlds metro systems including LU are severely overcrowded, and aside from spending huge amounts of money on new lines, ATO is one of the ways forward to increase the capacity on these lines. I'd actually rather use a reliable, safe, high capacity, frequent metro which tends to need modern signalling and ATO. However I would prefer humans in control of the doors, on the microphone, and for technical faults. Whether they be in a driving cab, or mobile as on the DLR, I don't mind. In cab signalling would also be fine to increase the capacity on the lines, though like an ATO massives modifications would be needed on the lines.
|
|
|
95TS
Jan 14, 2006 19:37:58 GMT
Post by Tomcakes on Jan 14, 2006 19:37:58 GMT
They say in 15 years everything will be ATO - they said something similar in the 60's, didn't they? There is s difference now though, the money and contracts are in place or on there way to be going in place. The fact was the Central line project took took a lot longer than planned as well as the Jubilee, which was supposed to be ATO'ed from 1999 on the extension. Whilst I believe ATO will eventually happen, ATO timtables have as yet to be completed on time and I personally see no change in this. I suspected there might be something in the various contracts about it - but whilst they can penalise companies if they don't get it done in time financially, if the technology takes a long time to get right and implement there is only so much that can be done by throwing more money at it, surely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
95TS
Jan 14, 2006 20:18:24 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2006 20:18:24 GMT
I suspected there might be something in the various contracts about it - but whilst they can penalise companies if they don't get it done in time financially, if the technology takes a long time to get right and implement there is only so much that can be done by throwing more money at it, surely. I can't see Alcatel having too many problems with installing Seltrac on the Jubilee and Northern as it's quite a well established and proven product. They also have been testing the system on LU rails for about a year or so now. Westinghouse's TBS100 system to be installed on the SSLs and Victoria has apparently been installed in Madrid by their sister company Dimetronic. Westinghouse havn't had the best installation record on LU lately, given the JLE fiasco and the many problems with the Central Line's ATO installation. How much of the problem was Westinghouse's fault is though very debatable! At least this time they are not attempting to install a totally new product, but then again the SSLs and Victoria Line could have done with Moving Block instead of Distance To Go signalling! In cab signalling would also be fine to increase the capacity on the lines, though like an ATO massives modifications would be needed on the lines. ATO (in particular moving block signalling) is proven to improve capacity well beyond that of in-cab signalling, although in-cab signalling (such as coded manual on the Central) is itself proven to increase capacity over trackside signalling. In-cab signalling would not be fine for the capacity increases needed during the peak hours. These papers may be of interest (especially 13-b):- gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_13-a.pdfgulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_13-b.pdfgulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_13-c.pdfgulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_13-d.pdfgulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_13-e.pdfThey are written more for North America, and are a few years out of date, but the information is very interesting if you are interested in line capacity. Myself, and someone else on a US subway forum have picked many holes in it's turnback capacity equation though!
|
|
|
95TS
Jan 15, 2006 5:10:22 GMT
Post by ttran on Jan 15, 2006 5:10:22 GMT
BUT, if you mean there should always be a human present, who has a (big red) OVERRIDE button so he can take control if he has to, then I agree fully with you. Human presence rather than human control. Mmm, that's kinda my point. I guess I'm just biased though because here in Sydney all our trains are driven by humans. As for the comment on ABS, well that's a bit of a different ball game and a human still has control over the car apart from that. I just see it as technology going TOO far. It'll also probably make the job of becoming a T/op look MUCH less appealing and thus may prove to bring about a crisis in staffing...Once again, this's just how I see it.
|
|
|
95TS
Jan 15, 2006 12:36:24 GMT
Post by dunois on Jan 15, 2006 12:36:24 GMT
When I was talking about in cab signalling that was for a moving block signal as well and in my opinion both ATO and advanced in cab signalling should be coupled on the most busy lines. The reason for that is simple, for automatic train operation with a driver, have the driver make a few turns in the line using manual driving is just simply a guarantee of safety as they don't forget the driving and the signalling procedures.
With the proper equipment (both ATO and moving block in cab signalling) the headways could be reduced to 90 sec in the tube and in the most busy stations see a train coming in the station just behind the one (in terms on meters) which is leaving should become common.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
95TS
Jan 15, 2006 15:37:45 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2006 15:37:45 GMT
When I was talking about in cab signalling that was for a moving block signal as well and in my opinion both ATO and advanced in cab signalling should be coupled on the most busy lines. The reason for that is simple, for automatic train operation with a driver, have the driver make a few turns in the line using manual driving is just simply a guarantee of safety as they don't forget the driving and the signalling procedures. With the proper equipment (both ATO and moving block in cab signalling) the headways could be reduced to 90 sec in the tube and in the most busy stations see a train coming in the station just behind the one (in terms on meters) which is leaving should become common. There is no such thing as Moving Block In-Cab Signalling, and there probably never will be! However Moving Block ATO can be overlayed over a Distance To Go or Fixed Block system for manual driving, but the line capacity would be reduced when in manual driving mode. In-Cab signalling has to be able to give the driver a target speed, this would be extremely difficult with a constantly continuously changing target speed found in Moving Block, plus the driver wouldn't know where to aim for that target speed as there are no block markers. Moving Block only works with ATO. Distance To Go and Fixed Block can work with both ATO and In-Cab Signalling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
95TS
Jan 15, 2006 19:09:45 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2006 19:09:45 GMT
Moving block could possibly be introduced with a second needle or a HUD dictating the reccomended speed, which would apply right now, to the driver?
Sam
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
95TS
Jan 15, 2006 19:36:45 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2006 19:36:45 GMT
Moving block could possibly be introduced with a second needle or a HUD dictating the reccomended speed, which would apply right now, to the driver? Sam But how would the driver know where that recommended speed limit changed without there being any block markers (which are non-existant on Moving Block)? It may be possible for the continuously changing ATP code a set distance ahead (or variable distance to compensate for reaction times at different speeds) to be transmitted to the driver, but this would require extreme concentration by the driver who would not be able to concentrate on the road ahead for things such as obstructions on the track. This method would result in the train being driven well within the ATP codes, unlike ATO which can drive almost to the edge. So it really would be quite pointless. As I said in my last post, there is no such thing as In-Cab Moving Block signalling! If you think otherwise, then you really don't understand the principle of Moving Block signalling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
95TS
Jan 15, 2006 22:43:55 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2006 22:43:55 GMT
If anything ATO makes it safer, as the driver is concentrating more on the platform edge than where he's going to stop! yeah right of course they are ---- NOT I travel on the vic line every day on the way to work , and the operator has his/her head buried in a book or a newspaper , the last thing they are doing is looking at the platform edge
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
95TS
Jan 16, 2006 17:56:03 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2006 17:56:03 GMT
If anything ATO makes it safer, as the driver is concentrating more on the platform edge than where he's going to stop! yeah right of course they are ---- NOT I travel on the vic line every day on the way to work , and the operator has his/her head buried in a book or a newspaper , the last thing they are doing is looking at the platform edge That's the theory anyway... Sam
|
|
|
95TS
Jan 16, 2006 23:11:47 GMT
Post by dunois on Jan 16, 2006 23:11:47 GMT
When I was talking about in cab signalling that was for a moving block signal as well and in my opinion both ATO and advanced in cab signalling should be coupled on the most busy lines. The reason for that is simple, for automatic train operation with a driver, have the driver make a few turns in the line using manual driving is just simply a guarantee of safety as they don't forget the driving and the signalling procedures. With the proper equipment (both ATO and moving block in cab signalling) the headways could be reduced to 90 sec in the tube and in the most busy stations see a train coming in the station just behind the one (in terms on meters) which is leaving should become common. There is no such thing as Moving Block In-Cab Signalling, and there probably never will be! However Moving Block ATO can be overlayed over a Distance To Go or Fixed Block system for manual driving, but the line capacity would be reduced when in manual driving mode. In-Cab signalling has to be able to give the driver a target speed, this would be extremely difficult with a constantly continuously changing target speed found in Moving Block, plus the driver wouldn't know where to aim for that target speed as there are no block markers. Moving Block only works with ATO. Distance To Go and Fixed Block can work with both ATO and In-Cab Signalling. Stephenk moving block in cab signalling actually exists in the Paris line A of the RER, true classical light signalling is maintained on the line in case of emergency (or if there is a failure on a train and I was lucky enough to see that one day in the cab). The speed is notified in the cab and for example if 100 km/h is shown then the train can run at a maximum speed of 100km/h. When the indicated speed change there is a change of ligh of the signal and a sound warning. Space between the train can be reduced to 10 m and it is not uncommn to see in case of troubles on the line more than 2 trains queing almost front to front of each others. This is a genuine moving block system and I consider it as cab signalling because the information is displayed in the cab. And in my opinion a system like this one (more advanced of course) would be fine for LU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
95TS
Jan 16, 2006 23:51:22 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2006 23:51:22 GMT
Stephenk moving block in cab signalling actually exists in the Paris line A of the RER, true classical light signalling is maintained on the line in case of emergency (or if there is a failure on a train and I was lucky enough to see that one day in the cab). This is a genuine moving block system and I consider it as cab signalling because the information is displayed in the cab. SACEM (used on RER A) does NOT use Moving Block Signalling! SACEM uses a Distance To Go type of signalling system, which uses short fixed block sections, with decreasing target speeds in each block as the train approaches the train ahead. Just type " SACEM moving block " into Google, and you will see that there are many websites which show that I am right on this matter.
|
|
|
95TS
Jan 17, 2006 14:38:21 GMT
Post by dunois on Jan 17, 2006 14:38:21 GMT
Stephenk moving block in cab signalling actually exists in the Paris line A of the RER, true classical light signalling is maintained on the line in case of emergency (or if there is a failure on a train and I was lucky enough to see that one day in the cab). This is a genuine moving block system and I consider it as cab signalling because the information is displayed in the cab. SACEM (used on RER A) does NOT use Moving Block Signalling! SACEM uses a Distance To Go type of signalling system, which uses short fixed block sections, with decreasing target speeds in each block as the train approaches the train ahead. Just type " SACEM moving block " into Google, and you will see that there are many websites which show that I am right on this matter. I must admit that I don't clearly see the frontier between moving block and non mobile block, on SACEM as you have said the speed depends on the distance which separate the differents trains so we can consider that there are blocks between the trains and that's perfectly true as the speed decrease depending on the distance but as theses blocks depends on the train ahead which is constantly moving we can't say that they are fixed. So personally I would say that the SACEM is half half. But now the point is, what do you think about putting a similar system on LU?? As with the new ones (like OURAGAN in Paris metro, to be deployed in 2007/8) reduces the intervals between the trains to only 90 sec my answer is that such a system would be perfect for LU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
95TS
Jan 17, 2006 17:32:39 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2006 17:32:39 GMT
I must admit that I don't clearly see the frontier between moving block and non mobile block, on SACEM as you have said the speed depends on the distance which separate the differents trains so we can consider that there are blocks between the trains and that's perfectly true as the speed decrease depending on the distance but as theses blocks depends on the train ahead which is constantly moving we can't say that they are fixed. So personally I would say that the SACEM is half half. But now the point is, what do you think about putting a similar system on LU?? As with the new ones (like OURAGAN in Paris metro, to be deployed in 2007/8) reduces the intervals between the trains to only 90 sec my answer is that such a system would be perfect for LU. A Distance To Go system such as SACEM uses short blocks with lower speeds in each block as the train approaches the train ahead, which tends to result in stepped braking profile as it approaches the train ahead. The blocks are in fixed positions, but the speed code in each block can change in relation to the distance from the train ahead (thus the name Distance To Go). The more speed steps that there are, can allow for a good driver or ATO computer to have a more curved braking profile. SACEM has enough steps to allow for an almost curved braking profile, compared to for example the Central Line's Distance To Go ATO/ATP where the fixed blocks are too long to allow for a truly curved braking profile. What puts a good Distance To Go system above Moving Block is that it can allow the trains to be driven in manual or in ATO. Of course if the train is driven in ATO, the line will be able to be run at a slightly higher frequency as the computers can drive to train closer to it's ATP limits than manual driving. A Moving Block system such as Seltrac has no fixed block sections, and thus can allow for a smooth curved braking profile as the train approaches the train in front. This allows for a higher line capacity than Distance To Go (but not neccesarily by too much), but restricts the train to be run only in ATO, or very restrictive manual modes using a back up fixed block system (usually using axle counters for train location). However it is possible to overlay a Moving Block ATO system over a conventional fixed block system for manual driving. So really it's a choice of getting a system which is most suitable for your metro. If you just want a high capacity ATO or driverless operation, then Moving Block is probably the system of choice. If you want trains to be run in ATO at peak times, and manual off peak (as in Paris), then Distance To Go would probably be your signalling system of choice. My personal opinion is that given the recent spate of accidents on ATO systems when inexperienced drivers have been operating the train in manual (Washington Metrorail, Bangkok Subway, New York JFK Airtrain). Then either a line should use ATO at all times using a Moving Block system, or use Distance To Go ATO at peak times with manual operatin using Distance To Go ATP at off-peak times so that the drivers remain proficient. I don't think that any busy metro system worth it's salt, should be using manual driving instead of ATO during peak hours in the near future, simply because it is proven that ATO allows trains to be run more safely and at a higher frequency.
|
|
|
95TS
Jan 17, 2006 18:00:07 GMT
Post by q8 on Jan 17, 2006 18:00:07 GMT
This distance to go thing seems to be reminiscent of the old speed control signals we had on the District line. Whereby if you checked your speed and had it verified you could get closer to the guy in front. The district system was much better the the tube timing track circuit one and worked very well if you did it right. You could bang along at full line speed until you got the first speed sign [25mph] and the shut off and give it full brake and 'pop' off would come the first home. Then so on until you were in the platform. Oh happy days! ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
95TS
Jan 17, 2006 20:56:34 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2006 20:56:34 GMT
This distance to go thing seems to be reminiscent of the old speed control signals we had on the District line. Whereby if you checked your speed and had it verified you could get closer to the guy in front. The district system was much better the the tube timing track circuit one and worked very well if you did it right. You could bang along at full line speed until you got the first speed sign [25mph] and the shut off and give it full brake and 'pop' off would come the first home. Then so on until you were in the platform. Oh happy days! ;D It is really a modern day version of speed signalled / multiple home approach, but allowing for continuous ATP and ATO. The train throughput is fairly similar too.
|
|
|
95TS
Jan 17, 2006 21:46:42 GMT
Post by dunois on Jan 17, 2006 21:46:42 GMT
Stephenk in Paris metro ATO and manual driving are both used during the peak hours, because since an accident in 2000 where a driver lose his attention in a curve, do one "turn" (from terminus to the another terminus and back; there can be up to 6 of them depending on the length of the line) in manual driving is compulsory so that mean that approximately 1/4 of the trains of a line are operated in manual during the peaks hours. Plus you have some drivers who tend to only use manual driving to remain thoughtful. The line 10 is only used only with manual driving as the ATO system has never been installed on the line.
For the RER, ATO Operation was envisionned for section of the line A who would have been shared with the line D as that shared operation would have put up to 50 trains per hour on this particular section. Instead a separate tunnel was build later but there is a common operation between Gare du Nord and Châtelet les Halles with the lines B and D with 32 trains per hour in the tunnel; as all is operated with classical signalling and manual driving needless to say that they are often problems on that section of the network.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
95TS
Jan 18, 2006 18:32:06 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2006 18:32:06 GMT
Stephenk in Paris metro ATO and manual driving are both used during the peak hours, because since an accident in 2000 where a driver lose his attention in a curve, do one "turn" (from terminus to the another terminus and back; there can be up to 6 of them depending on the length of the line) in manual driving is compulsory so that mean that approximately 1/4 of the trains of a line are operated in manual during the peaks hours. Plus you have some drivers who tend to only use manual driving to remain thoughtful. The line 10 is only used only with manual driving as the ATO system has never been installed on the line. For the RER, ATO Operation was envisionned for section of the line A who would have been shared with the line D as that shared operation would have put up to 50 trains per hour on this particular section. Instead a separate tunnel was build later but there is a common operation between Gare du Nord and Châtelet les Halles with the lines B and D with 32 trains per hour in the tunnel; as all is operated with classical signalling and manual driving needless to say that they are often problems on that section of the network. Interesting, thanks. So has the re-introduction of some manual driving during peak hours had any negaitive impact on line capacity or service reliability? Also, do you know of any websites that have in depth information on OURAGAN? I have seen the usual press releases from RATP, and the various manufacturers involved, as well as an article on Alcatel's website, but that is about it.
|
|