North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 18, 2023 1:14:46 GMT
I feel sure that someone said on the Northern line automation thread some drivers are so skilled at manual driving that they actually outperform the computers! On the Central line I miss the ear popping sensation when a westbound train enters the tunnel after calling at Leyton station. I suspect that this is caused by the automation imposing a lower speed limit than was previously possible at this location, which is a descending gradient. Having had this post drawn to my attention, I have decided to make a one-off post here, after having drifted away from this forum after finding some of the moderation rather objectionable. Firstly, on the Jubilee and Northern TBTC the speed and performance profile available to the driver in PM is the same as ATO. Hence there is no practical reason why a driver cannot emulate ATO. Indeed I have reviewed download data which compares identical station-to-station runs in ATO and in PM with a keen driver, and overlaid on each other they were essentially identical. The main difference was the PM profile was slightly rougher due to the driver adjusting the traction/brake controller handle (remember on these trains the handles are optical so are sensitive even to very slight movements of the driver’s hand). As for bettering ATO performance, there are two ways this is possible. The obvious one is that the Thales ATO has a habit of slowing down too much when e encountering a fall in target speed. So for example if the speed drops from 40 mph to 25 mph the system has a habit of braking down to about 21-22mph, holding there for a few seconds then motoring back up again. As an aside this is one of many reasons why the passenger ride quality isn’t great in ATO. A good driver is able to judge the braking and avoid this. Secondly the ATO attempts to drive at the target speed, however the maximum safe speed is slightly above this, so again it is possible to drive at the MSS in which case the train will be travelling faster than in ATO. The snag is the driver has no indication of what the MSS is, but with trial and occasional error it is quite possible to drive within this margin. As regards the Central Line, the driving style in coded manual is rather different to TBTC, with much more reliance on actually having to look out of the windscreen. I’m not convinced it’s possible to significantly better the Central Line ATO, but it’s certainly possible to match it. There is one exception, namely that it is technically possible to reach 100kph in CM, whereas ATO will only reach 85kph. So in theory it is possible to better ATO run times where 100kph is achievable. However there is a Rule Book instruction stating that drivers must not exceed 85kph in CM, so this shouldn’t happen. ISTR the brake rate on 92 stock may be slightly higher for ATO than that available to the driver, but in practice if this is so the difference will be so small as to be insignificant. I don’t have sufficient knowledge of the Victoria Line nor CBTC to comment. I have heard it said that PM on the Victoria Line doesn’t allow full speed, but have not seen this for myself. That’s all I’m afraid.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 30, 2021 15:52:46 GMT
Black plastic bin liners do not last forever and presumably were installed at some stage during the switchover from Conventional light signalling. As a short term (potentially reversible) fix this makes sense but this late in the day I rather doubt the covered up signals will ever be considered for reinstatement. Hopefully the signal lights have all been powered down by now or there is a risk that once those plastic bags degrade after many years in sunlight then it must only be a matter of time before drivers may encounter an unexpected signal aspect light despite being told by the onboard kit that he is cleared to proceed. Is there a programe to remove these potentially distracting legacy signalling? The fuses to the legacy signal aspects are all removed shortly after commissioning, in line with LU's standards. The 4LM project team is only too aware that the bin liners degrade after a period of time and there is a project team within the 4LM portfolio dedicated to redundant assets. The problem is the availability of staff to undertake the removal works, as the same members of staff are also engaged in Earthing and Bonding alterations following the removal of the legacy track circuits, and the removal of redundant capactitors in order to comply with an Environmental Agency directive placed upon TfL. As I'm sure you'll understand, their effords need to be focussed on meeting the organisation's Health and Safety obligations before the removal of anything else. Presumably there’s still some kind of maintenance regime? A year or two after the Barnet branch went over, the entire signal head fell off a running signal near Finchley Central, fortunately without major incident. The bin liners trap water, which must considerably accentuate corrosion.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 30, 2021 15:49:08 GMT
This goes some way to explaining why entering Ealing Broadway in Coded Manual can be slightly tricky. ATP gives you 10 seconds or so to traverse the last signalling block. If you take more than a couple of seconds to berth your train than the ATP allows (ie you're ever so slightly slower) you get code tripped just as you reach the stopping mark, bringing you to a rather sudden stop than desired! One for another thread, I think, but you should have a minute to correct your stopping position before the code is taken away from you. I can attest to it being as previously described - I’ve been “got” by it, probably thanks to having spent time becoming used to the excessively gentle open-air brake rates on certain other ATO lines. Too gentle down on the mark and it loses code. Unlike those certain other ATO lines, at least on the Central this can be sorted pretty readily. This is with the caveat that this is for platform 6. No idea if same applies for platform 5.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 29, 2021 15:58:57 GMT
what you describe on the Central Line are ATP marker boards. Thanks, I've been reading Clive's Underground guide on this signalling system and he calls them block section markers. It is indeed at one of these that I saw a train come to a halt. www.davros.org/rail/signalling/articles/central.html
As an aside, he also says that for westbound trains ATP was introduced between West Acton and Ealing Broadway on 2002-03-04 and withdrawn 2002-03-11. I wonder why? I would be surprised if it has not now been reinstated (he does not say this has happened).
Whilst block section marker is a decent description, “block marker board” (BMB) is the correct term.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 25, 2021 21:43:38 GMT
In simple terms yes, there's perhaps some truth in the fixed block versus moving block comparison. The actual answer though is simply that ATO (Automatic Train Operation) lines which have some colour light signals are an older technology whereas the more recently converted ATO lines (ie, Jubilee, Northern and the current Sub Surface Railway's ongoing conversion) are a much newer technology employing in cab signalling thus negating the need for lineside signalling outside of the train cab. It’s a matter for debate whether Seltrac TCTC/CBTC is a newer technology than the Victoria Line’s DTG-R, bearing in mind London has been running Seltrac since the early 90s on the DLR. The presence of signals is more to do with the system architecture, which is simply different between the systems. I seem to recall there was once some inference that the Central Line had signals as part of a very aspirational idea to allow non-ATP-fitted engineers trains to run, presumably during a possession or whatever. This did actually happen for the overnight Central Centenerian rail tour using the 1960 stock. There doesn’t seem any other obvious reason for why the longer sections on the Central Line do have occasional signals - the Victoria Line Upgrade generally didn’t bother with this.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 25, 2021 21:40:05 GMT
One could argue there are signals in the Thales product - the RM Hold boards and Route Secure signs are both authorities to proceed and passing one without authority is, as I understand it, treated the same as a SPAD. It's a similar situation to the white aspect on the Central line; if you are in either ATO or Coded Manual you can pass it. The difference between Central Line ATP and Seltrac is that the movement authority is being constantly updated with Seltrac, whereas it's more fixed with the Central (and to a lesser extent, the Victoria) and there is much less provision for degraded working on the T/CBTC lines. That said in the Zone 1 section of the Central line there is little other than starters or signals protecting points; the rest is all trackside signage. Passing an RM Hold board without authority is indeed a SPAD, though by definition only in RM. The main likelihood for it happening is either getting mixed up when carrying out a move in RM, or putting the train into RM by mistake. Both have happened, and it is potentially quite nasty as there’s nothing to stop the train so it could carry on for some distance if no one notices. An RS board isn’t an authority, it’s merely an indication to give added confidence. This is no different to how things were under signals. The authority to move will come from the signaller - he should ask the driver “are you standing at XXXboard, and can see a route secure visual illuminated with a number 2?”, and if the response is yes then authority to move would then be given. The driver would never move just on authority of an illuminated RS, in so doing this would also involve passing an RM Hold board, against which the SPAD would then be recorded. The original purpose of RS was to give the driver confidence that points didn’t need to be manually secured, with TBTC it is also acceptable for verbal authority subject to confirmation from the VCC Operator in the room - if for whatever reason an RS can’t be obtained, or if the train isn’t standing at one (or perhaps if there isn’t an RS for the move desired - this has happened a few times when they’ve wanted to bring a defective train out of Kennington siding straight onto the southbound in order to run it down to Morden without having to faff around).
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 12, 2021 22:29:04 GMT
It perhaps doesn’t help that LU have tagged their own requirements onto the system, one being that a train must only be signalled for its final entry into a platform once it can be assured of not having to be brought to a stand part way in (does this apply on the JLE at PED stations?). This requirement in particular is quite destructive. This has existed as a requirement (though not always expressed as such!) since the early Victoria line days, though it was possibly less noticeable there. It certainly exists on the Central line. It’s certainly more noticeable with TBTC / CBTC, partly as the train will manage to close up quite closely but then be brought to a stand, often for what seems like an age (far longer than one would have waited for the inner home signal to clear in olden times), then the train has to restart from a stand. Whereas with signals the inner home would normally clear with the train still moving, which if the driver was responsive would normally result in a fairly quick re-occupation. The final speed-control signalling installation at Oval was wonderful if used as designed, but the problem latterly was this meant getting very close to anticipating signal clearance, which had become increasingly unacceptable. So you’d only really get to see it working if the train in front was detained in the platform for some reason. This particular location could certainly deliver a better reoccupation time then compared to now.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 12, 2021 22:22:47 GMT
Is my memory perhaps faulty? I recall an original Victoria Line train following another into the platform, perhaps a 4-car length between them? I think so. While it's been a few years I'm fairly sure you couldn't get two trains in the same platform - I'll recheck my old notes. It did happen, sort of. If a train was right up the back of another, the home signal would clear from red to white and the second train would follow the first quite closely, relying on nothing out of course happening to slow or stop the first. If something did happen then the second train would sooner or later encounter a track circuit with no code and get tripped, which if the first train was “pulled down” leaving the platform could well result in two trains in a platform length. Needless to say in the final years of the old Vic signalling this exact scenario happened, which resulted in much jumping up and down from the RMT, and of course no one able to explain what had *actually* happened!
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 11, 2021 23:11:17 GMT
No, because the software is designed assuming a specific commissioning order. There's no opportunity to deviate from that. The current issues are with the commissioned area and the intention is to sort that out before commissioning SMA5. I am convinced from a passenger’s perspective waiting on the platform each evening the new system brings trains into the westbound platform at Westminster with a greater time gap between trains than the old system, even when they are clearly stacked behind each other as shown on the indicator board. Is that one? It’s certainly the case on the Northern that many locations have a worse platform re-occupation time than what existed before, and even more unfortunately some of these coincide with some pinchpoint locations where this is particularly undesirable. There is work going on to address this, however in terms of timescales this seems to be measured in decades. In reality much of this work is what could be said to be timetable-led - they will do the minimum possible to allow a proposed timetable to be achieved. This is why the Northern has seen a few tweaks plus some easing of speed restrictions, as part of the preparation for the current WTT. If a timetable appears which needs either a more intense headway and/or quicker running times to squeeze more mileage out of the same fleet size, then more mods will happen. But generally Seltrac isn’t anything that shouts wow - on the contrary it’s pretty mediocre in my view. It is, of course, 1980s technology, albeit with refinements. It perhaps doesn’t help that LU have tagged their own requirements onto the system, one being that a train must only be signalled for its final entry into a platform once it can be assured of not having to be brought to a stand part way in (does this apply on the JLE at PED stations?). This requirement in particular is quite destructive.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 29, 2021 18:11:39 GMT
No, Boris doesn't want driverless trains because that's what other cities have, he wants them because he lost the battle to bring them in when he was mayor of London. He wanted them then because drivers are expensive and go on strike. That driverless trains are actually even more susceptible to strike disruption and would cost more are facts that don't accord with ideology and so don't matter to him. This is exactly it - it’s ideological. If you or I were building LU today, we’d probably want to go with unmanned operation. The benefits in terms of cost and operating simplicity are very attractive - indeed we saw elements of this during the Covid lockdown special services when lines were able to recover from lengthy suspensions in the blink of an eye, the difficulty being this is only possible when you are only running a handful of trains. In the real world, LU as it exists simply isn’t built for unmanned operation. The physical characteristics simply aren’t setup for it, and the only way to rectify that would be to essentially rebuild the whole system from scratch. The stations are a long way apart in many places, most of the system has no smoke control measures, and there is no dedicated emergency access in the tunnels. Even relatively recent stuff like DLR to Bank or the JLE has design issues - in particular the trackside walkways are too narrow to avoid a conflict between escaping passengers and arriving emergency services staff. I think I’m right in saying that there’s only *one* part of LU whose design adequately provides for this, and that’s the Northern Line to Battersea. Perhaps Heathrow Terminal 5 as well, I can’t remember. These factors essentially exclude unmanned operation, at least in the tunnel sections. Now you have a human on the train, you’re back to the territory of duty schedules, the abolition of which is probably the single biggest prize of trying to eliminate the traditional train operator, simply because it makes operation more flexible. There’s also an argument to say that if you’re going to have a member of staff on the train, a cab is the optimum place for them to be located, even if their role might be more focussed on monitoring CCTV than observing the road ahead. Covid only reinforces this - look at the issues operators have had where there has not been a cab for staff to work from, we’ve seen all sorts of abominations like areas having to be cordoned off, or in some cases entire carriages being designated for staff use. Not having a place of safety for a member of staff is poor practice, and DLR only get away with it because “that’s how it is” on a system built as a bit of a toy railway, one of a number of features which probably wouldn’t be acceptable if one were designing the system from scratch today. The following is a personal point not a party political one. The crusade for abolishing the traditional train operator flows from the ideology of one individual - Alexander Boris Johnson. He has form for having a personal grudge against train drivers, I remember coming across an article of his when he was simply lowly editor of the Spectator, slagging off the driver of the turbo at Ladbroke Grove for “ignoring three danger signals”. At the time I found this at best ignorant and poorly informed, and at worst crass and insensitive, when there has never been any suggestion the Ladbroke Grove driver “ignored” the warning aspects. As we all know, the subsequent investigations uncovered numerous deficiencies in both the infrastructure and the driver’s training, so Johnson got that one very wrong indeed. As for where this will go, this same individual has presided over a period where well over 100,000 people have lost their lives. Notwithstanding whether things could have been done differently or not, I’m not sure any leader could or should expect to remain in power long-term after such an event. As a country we are going to have to move on from Covid, and the events of the past week have perhaps highlighted this. Fresh leadership is bound to be sought as part of the moving-on process. I can’t see this individual lasting in power too long, and with his demise I predict the fad for driverless trains will go the same way. We just have to hope not too much money and time gets wasted on it in the meantime, or we don’t get lumbered with something like a fleet of trains which are then unfit for purpose for 40 years thanks to one man’s pet ideology. In the meantime, at the moment LU has a list of issues as long as your arm, and the distraction of pet projects is extremely unhelpful all round.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 28, 2021 18:17:57 GMT
So when you have already got a report which says your brilliant idea is actually totally stupid - DAFT decide to just get another report... THIS is public money - Stop wasting it! Listen to transport experts and rather than wasting more on the latest politicians vanity project - only spend money on stuff we really need - like replacing clapped out rolling stock and signals and delivering a frequent and credible public transport offer which is the only way to finally get people out of their fossil fuel burning cars.. It’s absolutely maddening as a taxpayer to see our government wasting time and money in this way. If nothing else it’s likely to cause IR issues, which isn’t really to the benefit of anyone. This isn’t the only nonsense going on at the moment. Look at the situation with chronic stock shortages on the mainline network as a result of failure to meet the accessibility deadline, whilst meanwhile 20-years-in-service Networkers are reported to be going for scrap this week as there’s no work for them. Where’s the brick wall to bang the head against?...
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 25, 2021 3:11:47 GMT
There’s no issue with DLR going on there. It’s mainline rail services which is one of the things causing excess clutter. The simple reality is there’s only so much room on the piece of paper, and we’re pretty much at the point where the page is full. There is no way something like SE or SW suburban would be able to fit if they ever go Overground. On the contrary, the Tube Map is highly misleading by omitting high-frequency NR services in Zones 1 and 2, especially where they provide a quicker or more direct route than TfL do. I would suggest, as a minimum, - the Northern City Line, - Thameslink between West Hampstead and Elephant/Greenwich (only) - possibly Woolwich - Ealing/Greenford, - Victoria to Clapham Junction (possibly on to Balham, Crystal Place and West Croydon), - Waterloo to Clapham Junction (and probably Wimbledon and Richmond), - Charing Cross/Cannon Street to Greenwich/Lewisham (possibly Woolwich) - and London Bridge to New Cross Gate. So you show Thameslink south of West Hampstead, and someone wishing to travel to Mill Hill will end up going down to Kentish Town and then using the Northern Line to Mill Hill East, rather than three stops on a northbound Thameslink service, which has exactly the same frequency as going south? This makes no sense to me at all. If we’re having a map which includes *all* London rail services then fine - this is the “London Connections” map some people here have mentioned. Picking selected services based on very arbitrary criteria in my view is utterly unhelpful, as it simply leads to confusion as to what services actually exist. Meanwhile no one has really addressed the point that the map is now running out of space in its current form - there simply isn’t space to include all these rail services people are talking about. Just putting Thameslink on there has caused a mess. LU is a mode, and in my view the map should reflect this. There’s a case to include DLR (and as it happens this area of the map has plenty of room to accommodate it). That’s as far as I’d go. Even Crossrail IMO needs some thought - I’d on balance probably include Ealing to Abbey Wood and Stratford, but that’s about as far as I’d go.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 22, 2021 22:35:54 GMT
I'm surprised a little more wasn't made of the individual being intoxicated. The railway is always going to be a hazardous environment, and passengers need to take their share of responsibility like anyone would when interacting with heavy machinery. I think it would be appropriate for reference purposes to provide a link to some evidence suggesting that the passenger was drunk - I can't find anything in the report to say so. Never mind, found it on my second readthrough - paragraph 39, page 17. In terms of your point, I very much would like to agree with you. I would avoid using the tube drunk. However I think it simply isn't acceptable to have a transport system only safe for non-intoxicated people - they need to be accepted as a reality of the operating environment - "part and parcel" if you like. Many rely on the tube to get home after a night out - discouraging and preventing these people from using the tube might increase overall increase risk as, without public transport home, more people may be inclined to drive when they shouldn't. That's notwithstanding, among many other things, that many uncontrollable medical conditions can have effects such as dizziness, faintness or uneasiness that are similar to being drunk. The RAIB report itself describes one incident where a person was fatally injured in similar circumstances after suffering a medical episode. If I'm going into proper old man grumbly mode, even being on your phone can lead to a comparable loss of attention and reaction time.
I’m not saying that mitigations shouldn’t be implemented, and it’s certainly the case that intoxication is by no means the only reason things happen. However from the point of view of a taxpayer, I’m not overly impressed with my tax being used to protect people from the consequences of a decision to intoxicate their self. I suspect one would find it a hard sell to, for example, justify highly expensive measures such as PEDs or re-boring a curved platform on that basis alone. Obviously we here tend to look at things from a transport point of view, but personally looking at the bigger picture I’d rather money was directed to something like cancer research.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 22, 2021 22:30:54 GMT
That's what the old 'London Connections' map was for - is it even produced these days? Exactly. This was the sensible way of doing it before the politicians stuck their nose in.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 22, 2021 22:29:46 GMT
At some point there will have to be a push to return to LU and central London only. So what then for the tourists wanting to get to a meal in Shoreditch, visit Maritime Greenwich and check out Crystal Palace (all examples friends of mine from outside London have asked me the best way to get to)? The LU-only map, and indeed the fare zones, for historical and geological reasons are heavily north and west biased. There’s no issue with DLR going on there. It’s mainline rail services which is one of the things causing excess clutter. So in the case of Crystal Palace, your tourist will have to manage in the same way as someone wanting to visit Alexandra Palace has done - just one of those facts of life unfortunately. The simple reality is there’s only so much room on the piece of paper, and we’re pretty much at the point where the page is full. There is no way something like SE or SW suburban would be able to fit if they ever go Overground.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 22, 2021 16:37:35 GMT
There are only two potentially realistic ways of reliably preventing this sort of accident. 1) preventing people falling underneath the train 2) detecting people in the act of falling underneath the train (and, if detection is other than by the driver, making them aware). The first is obviously preferable but is also harder. Unfortunately solutions doesn't currently exist to do that in a way that is both reliable and proportionately affordable (busy platforms are affordable but not reliable, gap fillers are expensive and not reliable enough). This is why the RAIB's recommendations were not along the lines of "install technology to fix this" but "do better risk assessments so when technology improves your benefit-cost calculations are correct". Indeed; my reading of the report is of a deep wish that the original builders hadn't built the Bakerloo platforms as they did, and left a nigh on insuperable problem for future generations to manage. I'm surprised a little more wasn't made of the individual being intoxicated. The railway is always going to be a hazardous environment, and passengers need to take their share of responsibility like anyone would when interacting with heavy machinery.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 22, 2021 16:34:20 GMT
Based on my foreigner experience, it only fascinates kids that love trains and maps. Adults find it horribly unreadable. The 2012 map was already feeling congested Absolutely true. The map is absolutely full of abominations nowadays which make it very difficult to use. Stuff like Thameslink and Overground really is unhelpful for visitors, the illusion of Reading being a stone's throw from Ruislip is unhelpful to anyone, whilst Londoners are quite capable of working out what rail services exist in their local area, TFL operated or otherwise. At some point there will have to be a push to return to LU and central London only.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 22, 2021 16:27:47 GMT
We have such a station on the Tyneside Metro. The station is called 'Central Station'. ... which is another example of a poor name for a station. I was up there recently and was directing someone to travel from Tynemouth to Hartlepool, where the directions were given as take the metro and then Northern from Newcastle station down to Hartlepool. I soon got a phone call "where do I need to get off the Metro, there's no Newcastle station on here?". "Central station" is highly localised, but not immediately obvious to non-locals.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 22, 2021 10:25:47 GMT
Sorry, I was meaning the old-style guard. The one that was ON the train, and physically watched the platform to see if it was safe to give the 'right away'. Somebody else watching TV would be of little improvement. I’m not sure this would have helped, given that at the time the passenger fell the driver wasn’t looking at the CCTV, nor was required to be doing so. The same could well have applied to a guard - he would quite probably have been on the laudaphone to the driver to find out what the delay was. The dispatch process is very much set up to focus on doors. It’s fair to say it isn’t really designed to detect people falling beneath the train. If someone essentially disappears, as is what happens here, they’re unlikely to be noticed.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 21, 2021 22:30:19 GMT
I guess by the time two platforms becomes a serious limitation, it will be worth extending the line further (towards Clapham Junction?), where sufficient platforms can be built for the demand by then. Alternatively, maybe we will have moved away from more or less requiring all reversing to occur at platforms. With future walk-through trains, there is no real reason to require a train that is reversing straight back into the station to be cleared so diligently of passengers. Then you could build a few extra reversing sidings behind the station, which are significantly cheaper than extra platforms and would provide far more capacity. I realise that may be a slightly controversial opinion here, but termini configured in this way on metro systems are standard practice around the world - and given the NLE is new, the arguments about it not being possible due to the age of the system don't really hold. I don’t think any of this need be too much of an issue. It is quite possible to run very high frequencies off two platforms, with stepping back and sharp operating. Indeed there’s an argument to say that two platforms are better than three as it makes it easier to keep on top of what’s going on - you don’t suddenly have an issue if a train comes into the wrong platform and a driver needs to cross a footbridge. The benefit of a third platform is more as a bolthole if a train should sit down for any reason. I suspect the decision not to provide the overrun sidings may come back to bite in time.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 21, 2021 1:06:13 GMT
According to Geoff's video, the service to BPSS will be increased to 10tph/12tph before the Bank blockade next year. Kind of surprising. Maybe the pandemic has worked in TfL's favour and they expect to cope with the AM peak from Morden with only 20tph after all. Or could they turn some northbound trains from Morden at Kennington using the siding? Looks like a very convoluted move, if it's even possible. Or maybe the TfL rep just misspoke. It isn’t possible to do that move via the siding. It’s possible to get in there from the NB (albeit blocking everything for the duration of the move), but there is no signalled move back out to the SB. Generally TBTC replicated what existed hitherto - very little additional functionality was provided. It would be a useful signalled move for when a defective train gets dumped in the siding and needs to get to Morden Depot at or near close of traffic. It is possible to authorise the train out as an unsignalled move, but this isn’t really ideal - it has happened a few times though. TBTC allows the points to be keyed on the system (known in Seltrac terminology as being “reserved”), and subject to appropriate confirmation and safeguards then the signalman can authorise the move verbally. I’ll see if I can find the plans for the Bank closure service - the quoted figures seem a little suspect to me, even with the SARS-CoV-2 drops in passenger numbers.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 20, 2021 17:13:16 GMT
It was mentioned up thread that there are through Edgware branch trains at certain times: I am surprised that most Battersea trains serve the Barnet/MHE branch, because if the Northern Line is ever split, the layout at Kennington and the locations of the two depots at Morden and Golders Green (on the Edgware branch) would make Battersea-Charing Cross-Edgware and Morden-Bank-High Barnet the only practical way of doing it. A Battersea-Barnet line would require a new depot. (Indeed, I assume the through Edgware trains in the WTT are in order to get trains to and from Golders Green depot) No idea what any official rationale was, but there is some logic to it. The Kennington via CX services tend to get stuck in a rut where if they get themselves out of turn it can be difficult to put them right. The Edgware branch isn’t great because Colindale is awkward to use for various reasons, and Golders Green loses a bit too much just to put a train in turn. But the Barnet branch only has Finchley Central as a reversing point, with many trains needing to go to Barnet for crew reliefs. On that score I’d say running Barnet trains to Battersea is preferable. The extra branch, and the reintroduction of through running to Mill Hill, means the Northern really does need to focus on chasing minor late running, as left untouched it tends to quietly build up reactionary delays quite quickly.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 20, 2021 15:30:19 GMT
I wasn't so keen as to be there for the opening but did visit later in the morning. Nine Elms has the barriers and ticket machines at street level and is quite a pleasing building: All trains are assumed to run via Charing Cross: The barriers and ticket machines are below street level at Battersea Power Station so on the surface it is a rather more modest building: and finally: Personal opinion, however I can’t say I find either of the surface structures smart. To me they look rather awkward. Perhaps the inevitable over-site development will help. The colour chosen for the roofing and canopies looks okay when lit at night, but IMO awful under daylight. I tend to feel that a lot of what’s being built at the moment will in the future be looked upon like we do with 1960s stuff - cheap and drab.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 19, 2021 20:59:34 GMT
Wasn't the B to indicate they could run in the tunnels to/from Bank? The older trains contained materials that were considered unsafe if there was a fire in the tunnels. This came up a while ago, I think the general view is that B denotes Beckton (Depot), but I don’t think anyone swears by it, especially as the B90 stock pre-dates Beckton by some while. The P89 stock could work to Bank, but the P86 couldn’t. By the early 1990s P89 stock to Bank was rare, but it did happen. Front seats on the P stock were better than the B stock as there wasn’t the emergency door to hinder views.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 19, 2021 13:41:54 GMT
Im sure that some P86 or P89 Stock where converted to SELTRAC and was running on the Beckton Extension on the day of opening I don’t think so. I was there on the opening day, and only saw B90 / 92 stock. It was definitely B stock only to Beckton. Indeed I’m not even sure to what extent the B90 stock was fitted with the new signalling at that point, ISTR only the B92 stock had it from new. During the first half of the 1990s it tended to be B stock to Bank, P86 stock to Tower Gateway and P89 stock to Stratford. Looking back an amazing amount of variety for a small system. Almost incredibly given how busy the DLR is today, around this time the entire system was Mondays to Fridays only to allow for resignalling work.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 15, 2021 19:56:28 GMT
I know a little bit about this. I was involved with scoping the Holborn points for a renewal and conversion to Surelock electric points about ten years ago. Most definitely technically possible, the biggest issue was the need for a very large cable to counteract the line losses on the point machine drives and ensure a decent voltage level on the motor. Alternatively, put a small kiosk with some repeater relays at British Museum Disused like there is at the end of Leytonstone loop to limit the voltage drop - this wasn't very popular because it would be in a tunnel, but it had been done in the tunnel at Heathrow T123 a few years earlier. In 2013/14 we scoped it again, with similar conclusions. The decision to remove them was made by the then Head of the Track Renewals programme who was an ex-Operator who thought they knew best and had a point to prove, who persuaded the line management to agree to it. Needless to say, the cost to remove all the associated signalling wasn't factored in and when it was, the decision was made to outsource the work to the original design contractor, who put some of their most junior staff on it and charged us market rate for experienced staff, rather than use the in-house team who were by then reasonably familiar with the Central line. We are still dealing with the repercussions of this, I attended a meeting earlier this year on the issue. The redundant wiring still hasn't been completely removed (and likely never will be), the cost to date on the recovery works is far in excess of what the renewal would have cost, and the manager whose ego forced us down this path has now left TfL for a better position elsewhere leaving a trail of destruction and wasted money in their wake. Are there any more plans to renew some tracks in the eastern tunnel part of the Central Line? I know it's incredibly noisy down there and it would be nice if the track got replaced. A massive amount of track renewal has taken place over the last decade or more. I managed a couple of walks Liverpool St to Leyton and Leytonstone to Newbury Park fairly recently, and it was noticeable how little bull-head rail was left. A lot of noise now results from the high amount of rail grinding which is now programmed on LU.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 15, 2021 14:03:57 GMT
Queensway to Liverpool Street, I doubt that's very time useful Well if someone went wrong with the Queensway crossover, wouldn't it be useful if the service was congested? Demand patterns are different today compared to the past, which is why regular Liverpool Street reversing disappeared some years ago. It certainly used to be common up to around the 2000s. There’s a lot more off-peak demand east of Liverpool Street nowadays, not least to Westfield / Stratford. Why anyone would want to go there is beyond me, but seemingly people do. Stratford is also a major interchange. This may change a little when Crossrail opens though.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 15, 2021 0:21:07 GMT
We should have a sweepstake; how long before the points at Queensway fail Here is an off the wall idea: If they are so important, why doesn’t someone make sure they are thoroughly checked? Just a thought. I think the original comments were slightly in jest. From what I gather, the current Queensway crossover was something the Central Line project decided to put in. In many ways it was a bit of an odd choice given the proximity to Marble Arch, and indeed it would be interesting to know what the justification was for providing it. Perhaps when combined with Marble Arch it was thought worthwhile to be able to offer a higher frequency service through the Oxford Street area during a closure at White City - exactly as is in fact happening during the forthcoming engineering works. No doubt this “not really needed” situation contributed to the Central Line Project leaving a couple of issues hanging, with resources likely being targeted to resolving other snags at places where there was actually an impact on the service, as opposed to an obscure reversing facility which the line had quite happily managed without for many years. I think I’m right in saying these issues were at some stage resolved in the 2000s, hence Queensway getting used occasionally from then on, a decade or so after the crossover was put in. As to whether the points are *still* unreliable, we’ll find out the answer to that in a couple of weekends time! Some of the other Central Line project track layouts could also certainly be seen as odd choices. The loop layout at Debden has never really been explained - the ability to reverse a train directly off the westbound platform back to Epping certainly isn’t a valuable move, and I’m not sure the lack of buffer stops contributes in practice to a faster run-in to the siding if that was ever the intention. Ditto Woodford where access to the bay road requires running through 21 road, which wasn’t necessary under the old layout. Having said all that, most of the other layouts I’d say are pretty spot on.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 13, 2021 10:54:15 GMT
As we've discussed on another thread there is currently a shortage of drivers and training new recruits is being delayed partly by a shortage of Instructor Operators so its unlikely they are going to allow existing IOps to move to other roles until they get some more IOps or at least get enough TOps trained to run a full service. Last year management proposed re-hiring retired control room staff on zero hour contracts to plug the gaps at Hammersmith but that was opposed by RMT. Let me get this straight. The Union is AGAINST re-hiring retired members to overcome a short-term staff shortage, caused by factors outside of management control? I wouldn’t say all the problems are outside management’s control. SARS-CoV-2 for sure hasn’t helped, but it has tended to amplify issues which were already there. I’m not sure the idea would have worked particularly well anyway - why would a retiree on a final-salary pension want to return for a day to deal with 50 cancellations? I’m not sure there would have been that many takers.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 12, 2021 22:17:16 GMT
I started the process for promotion to Line Controller in May 2019. Since October 2019, having passed the first three assessments, I've been waiting to start the next part of the selection process which became stalled once Covid fully hit us. I asked for an update last month and was told I won't be progressed yet as I'm needed by the business in my current Instructor Operator role. To say I'm not impressed is putting it mildly and it makes absolutely no sense at all given the service affecting shortages at service control level. In all my years on LU I've never known logic or common sense to play a part in anything but the current situation really does defy comprehension. Why on earth they wouldn’t want to progress people through the application / selection process at least is beyond me. At least then they know who they are potentially getting. The powers that be don’t get that they are desperate for people to fill this role, and the usual “applicants should be grateful” isn’t going to work here. There’s already people who have lost interest because of the intransigence. They will need to reach out in order to get the right people with the right mindset. Failing to do this will simply result in many “doing it for the money” candidates. Those prepared to put the effort in for something other than monetary gain will quickly find themselves turned off, and unfortunately these are the people most likely to pass the training. Just because they get a big number of applications doesn’t mean there is wriggle room to nark people off.
|
|