North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 15, 2015 10:45:42 GMT
The core route section (Surrey Quays to Dalston)can accommodate up to 24tph, however at the moment with 16tph it's already very mentally draining on us drivers, as morning and evening rush hours are mostly spent driving on yellow and red signals. From what I've heard it would be extra services, not diverting the New Cross paths, however as it's so early who knows what will happen. Regardless, I can't see any more increases in capacity without some form of automation. The December timetable is going to see a massive overhaul of the service and the order of trains. West Croydon and Crystal Palace trains will terminate at Highbury, New Cross and Clapham Junction trains will terminate at Dalston Junction. Supposedly this is going to help ease congestion a bit and with Southern and Thameslink's new timetable too, all the services should hopefully run smoother together. The LU setup of 2-aspect signals with repeaters where necessary is better for high-frequency railways, as it avoids the issue of always driving on yellows. The tunnel sections on Merseyrail are signalled this way for the same reason, I think the busiest there is currently 16tph on the Loop at peak times. If the busy Northern Line could achieve 30tph during the morning peak with 59 stock and signalling in places basically dating back to the 1920s, the modern ELL *should* have no problem running 20tph. If it can't achieve this, questions need to be asked about the specifications for the signalling and/or rolling stock.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 14, 2015 13:58:52 GMT
Maybe some sort of automation between Surrey Quays and Dalston Junction will be needed to cope with all the extra trains being planned? If so, the same system as Thameslink sounds like a good idea - because it will already have a safety case etc for mainline trains, even though the stations I quoted as boundary points are on sections of rail owned by TFL. Simon 20tps (I think that's what's proposed?) should be more-than possible with conventional signalling and manual driving - especially with comparatively short trains. I'd be surprised if the current signalling was not specified/designed capable of delivering at least this.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 12, 2015 18:03:14 GMT
(of course, as is at present done with "re-forming" Circles at Edgware Road to become something else, it will still be possible to divert at Camden/Kennington if the need arises - at least until signalling or rolling stock provision diverges). I think it'd be insane not to operate a split Northern line along the lines of today's Circle and Hammersmith & City lines I can see the merit of splitting at the south end, as the Victoria Line provides an opportunity for access to the west end via Stockwell. I'm less convinced at the north end, as both northern branches have heavy demand for the Bank branch. The depot provision dictates a Barnet-Morden service, and in any case the Barnet branch is the busier of the two. However Bank trains on both branches are fully loaded by Camden in the peaks, and there's no obvious alternative way of getting from the Edgware branch to the city, so I could see the amount of interchange traffic and the unloading/loading time at Camden Town negating any frequency benefit from full separation. The Barnet side also has alternative ways of reaching the city in the form of the Welwyn-Moorgate service, plus Thameslink from Kentish Town. It doesn't help that TBTC doesn't appear to push trains through Camden as efficiently as the old signalling.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 10, 2015 20:48:52 GMT
The Cobb Atlas shows the junction as "Wembley Park Junction" @chris M - not to mention the well-known Junction Road Junction... Junction names on LU are a little obscure compared to mainline. Apart from some official and well known ones, for example Hanger Lane, Watford South/North/East (etc) very few are referred to by name either by staff or in operational publications. To give an example, I've never seen or heard the Mill Hill branch junction referred to by any name at all. In the case of the Stanmore branch, I believe an old notice refers to Stanmore Junction (as others have posted), however since there's no actual junction there now I'd suggest officially it's probably not strictly correct to refer to it as that today. Certainly I suspect you'd get asked to clarify if you were a driver and reported trespassers at Stanmore Junction.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 8, 2015 23:44:43 GMT
I would guess the phrase 'terminates here' was not in the general language when these boards were installed by the District Railway in 1908/10. I think that term was still being used much more recently than that. I'm pretty sure (but not 100% certain) the now-removed illuminating indicator at Acton Town WB Picc had a 'STOPS HERE' indication, that sign also included Heathrow so can't be earlier than 1970s. Must say I much prefer the old indicators to dot-matrix. When properly maintained they were much easier to read from a distance. Only a small handful left on the system nowadays, sadly, and none at all on many lines. Some did survive until surprisingly recently, for example at Heathrow and Brixton. As for the term 'stops here', if you think of it as the *service* stopping rather than the train, it's not so incorrect, although I agree terminates is probably better. Having said that, the word defective is allegedly sufficiently unknown to enough people that LU made a policy of not using that word, one wonders if the word terminates is also beyond some people. Certainly I've had a few blank faces when attempting to tip out and have had to resort to basic language "you have to get off".
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Oct 5, 2015 10:33:20 GMT
I could be totally wrong here but the way I understand things the primary reason why Earls Court is capacity constrained is because its a timing point so trains often dwell there. Also, its a staff change over point. So, trains are less likely to depart immediately after arriving. If what I say is correct then maybe part of the solution is make (for trains travelling towards Earls Court) West Kensington, West Brompton and Gloucester Road timing points - as then there will be more capacity at Earls Court. Simon The issues mentioned above don't help, but the main reason is conflicting moves crossing on the level. The worst conflict is on the east, where every Wimbledon-Edgware Road train must cross the main line. The Olympia service worsens an already bad situation. On the west, an Olympia service has to cross the westbound main line on the level at Earl's Court, then later the eastbound at the branch junction. On the east, it adds further trains to the conflict mentioned above. Add in a political dimension - Wimbledon passengers waiting for their busy trains seeing empty Olympia trains come and go - and it's easy to see why the change was made.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 20, 2015 20:39:13 GMT
Will Tube Lines take over from Alstom as they did on the Jubilee line at Stratford Market depot ? Who knows? I'd be surprised it that wasn't one option under consideration but the NLTSC is much more involved and complex than the Jub Line set up. That was effectively just bringing outsourced work back "in house" with TUPE transfer of staff. TfL / LU have been pursuing that sort of strategy when it was financially worthwhile. Tube Lines also had a preference for short lines of command / more control over critical activities like rolling stock maintenance which is why the Picc Line maintenance was never outsourced and Jubilee Line brought back in. That was a few years ago - no idea how things are run these days and if there are any Amey people still involved in the management of JNP engineering actitivies (Ops or Projects). It's worth adding that generally the Northern arrangement works well. Whilst not perfect, I don't sense a burning desire to ditch Alstom. Things have come a long way from the early days, and the 95 stock is a solid performer, and is generally better than 96 stock in most respects. You won't find a 95 stock cab held together with hazard tape, unlike a few on the Jubilee. I've no idea on the financial situation however.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 18, 2015 23:13:31 GMT
Priv tickets are valid on SE High Speed but have time restrictions placed on the, only valid 10:00 - 16:00, 19:00 - End Of Service Monday to Friday and all weekend and Bank Holidays . Plus Priv's are valid on most NR routes there is some restrictions again on times or special services i.e Steam runs and I also believe Sleeper services Priv, in this instance, referring to a PTAC (Privileged Travel Authority Card) rather than the 'everyday' TfL Staff pass, which *is not* valid on SET. Another gateline that requires a manual swipe-through is Clapham Junction, whilst we're listing them! I'm pretty sure the restrictions on SET High Speed were removed some time back, so PRIV (or boxes) can be used at any time on any train.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 11, 2015 16:53:12 GMT
The Vic Line did a twitter session this week and the noise issue came up several times. Unforunately the lady replying was unaware of the noise problem which shows a lack of briefing and communication somewhere!! Now the local paper may have the quote wrong but I don't understand my old mate Mr McInulty's quote about needing to replace the rails. Surely they have just put in lots of new rail at the crossover? Is the problem simply that the rail *is* new and needs to wear slightly to get noise levels down? Je suis "confused of E17". It could potentially increase or alter noise levels if speed has been increased, which presumably is part of the reason for doing the work. (Or more correctly restored to something more like its original speed, since the old crossover had a TSR on it for as long as I can remember). Alternatively, has any other work been done elsewhere in the section, for example rail grinding?
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 7, 2015 20:38:13 GMT
Carrying on from my previous rant (based on jingoistic"British track is the finest in the World etc:rubbish--we invented railways and others folloiwed") There were railways in mines in Europe in the 15th century. Also we suffer from the age- old seeming necessity for L T to use 4rail power supply.If this had been once and for all standardised as 3 rail years ago, then many difficulties in inter-running etc: would be obviated. New York//Paris and many others use 3 rail flat-bottomed track with no problems about maitainence etc:in often much more complicatede situations than here.Too many little people in three-piece suits-bottle lens spectacles- bowler hats and very little imagination or foresight have been in charge of many aspects of this country's management for far too long, and the legacy persists to this day in more up to date and corrupt forms. Let that be a lesson to you all!!! Don't see why the 4-rail system is such a problem, it has the advantage of avoiding problems with stray currents and corrosion. LU generally has avoided the problems seen in, for example, the Merseyrail loop tunnel.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 28, 2015 17:35:34 GMT
No matter how hard they try, I find reproduction tiles rarely look 'right'. It doesn't help that the grout lines are nearly always too thick, which I find completely ruins the whole effect. I raised this with some figures within LU's heritage department, apparently they are aware of this, but supposedly having thinner grout lines makes the tiles more likely to become unsecure. An alternative theory is that it's to do with the modern tiles being in metric measurements. Either way for me it completely spoils any attempts to try and replicate -- to the point where at times I wish they wouldn't bother. It's like having modern smooth glass in old sash window frames - it just doesn't look right to the eye. Whilst Kennington doesn't look *too* bad, I don't know why they bothered obtaining replica tiles for Borough, when the current tiling scheme is completely different from what was there before. Same goes for Highgate - I think that looks awful too.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 28, 2015 12:59:41 GMT
Still can't see the need for 24hr running at weekends,there's a perfectly adequate night bus service in most areas of London. ........which will get most people nearer to their door than the Tube ever could. And it will be less frequent in future. And cheaper as well. Bear in mind the Night Tube is supposedly aimed at "low-paid shift workers". I don't see the point in it. Night Buses are generally fast as they don't stop as frequently as buses during the day, and generally don't get impeded by traffic congestion. In government terms, the reported economic benefits of Night Tube are minimal.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 28, 2015 12:55:18 GMT
I'm trying to recall whether 1972 stock was built with provision for possible future ATO conversion in mind? Yes, although it wasn't fitted with any of the actual equipment. At the time it was hoped the Fleet Line would get ATO, but in the event that never happened. Some of the signals even had blanked-off lunar white aspects.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 28, 2015 1:18:21 GMT
Chalfont & Latimer bay road? Too small for S8. Farringdon Sidings? Too small for S7 / S8. I believe that A stock can no longer go south of Wembley Park. So that rules out Farringdon. How long until it gets tagged in Chalfont bay, how to do you prep/maintain it, how do you move it on or off? Realistically the only people who could take it on are the Museum. But they - yep, you guessed it - have no space. Don't get me wrong; I would love to see a full A stock preserved in an operational capacity on the network. But at the end of the day LU is a business and an A stock is never going to have a business need once its use as a RAT is over. The well-documented tribulations with the Cravens' 1960 & 1962 stocks and the LTM's '38, Standard and Q stocks all show just how much of a challenge (And non-starter, imo) this would be. I think the only realistic, remote, possibility is if the museum could take ownership, with the unit(s) being based at a LU depot. The only suitable depots are Neasden and Ruislip. Neasden already is filled with S stock. Not so long ago Ruislip was full of redundant stock, and has never been used to capacity by the Central Line, but since those days Lillie Bridge has started being used by S stock, so I suspect Ruislip could be more full of engineers trains than was once the case. It's a shame they can't just keep the A stock in their current adhesion role, and sell the two D stocks to Vivarail. At least that would get round the space issue. Maybe a car or more could be placed somewhere on the Met Line as a static exhibit. It's not without precedent - the Northern Line still plays host to one solitary 59 stock car in Morden Depot. In the past a C&SLR loco was kept for many years at Moorgate as an exhibit. As an aside, and only slightly less unrealistically, I'd love to see the Aldwych 72 stock return to the Northern Line.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 26, 2015 7:08:24 GMT
It certainly seems that todays Jubilee line signalling system is far more fragile and vulnerable compared to past traditional systems. An interesting observation - I wonder what makes you say that? There's certainly a lot that can go wrong with good old-fashioned colour-light signalling - even something as simple as a lamp failure. There are a lot of moving parts with traditional systems and the fact that TBTC does away with a lot of line side assets should certainly help reduce its fragility. It also has quite a bit of redundancy, e.g. the two VOBCs (Vehicle On Board Controllers) on every train and the three computers that make up each VCC (Vehicle Control Centre). One of the weak points, of course, is the two orange wires, which are a wee bit too cut-through-able. Having said that, each loop can apparently "sustain a flat-bottom rail being dropped on it from 2 metres in height, people walking on it, rain, etc." ( The Jubilee Line Upgrade - LURS) All too frequently the line has more than its fare share of incidents of total or partial paralysis. Again, I'm not entirely sure I can agree with this. One of the problems, though, is that - as has been mentioned - most of the eggs are distributed among very few baskets. Also, the way that the system works is quite 'all or nothing'. In the old days, failures tended to be actually fairly common, but more confined. With TBTC, the system works by frequent (once per second) communication between all trains in an area and the VCC responsible. The trains send information, such as their position, to the VCC. It then sends instructions to the trains. Because the VCC knows where the trains are, it can calculate the appropriate speed for each train to travel at to keep them all a safe distance apart. If one train falls off the system, then it (the train) has no way of knowing where other trains in the area or, or how fast it is permitted to travel. This means that it has to be restricted to 17.5 kph and driven on line of sight, until it can re-enter the system. If, however, the VCC fails, well then you have a bit more of a problem, because the whole basis of the system goes out of the window (communication between the trains and the VCC). Then everyone has to be restricted to 17.5 kph. Because VCCs look after quite big areas, it can mean disruption to quite a large area. But such disruption is quite rare, as we've said already. It also feels like a slow line compared to the Bakerloo or Victoria for example, where you seem to fly along and only spend the minimal time at a station. I think this attributed to the Jubilee lines tediously drawn out arrival/departure ceremony at the newer stations with the anti-suicide doors along their platforms. These doors appear to be a necessary safety measure nowadays with the increase in some members of the publics desire for devilment and stupid anti-social behaviour. As I've said before, I am all for progress and technology so long as it at the very least equals what it is replacing (although preferably is an improvement). Hmmm, "slow" seems a strange choice of adjective to me. Line speeds on the Jubilee are actually really quite high. I'm not sure what the average line speed is - nor the maximum - but I can tell you that the Working Time Table lists off-peak running time as 57 minutes in the northbound direction. This is a distance of 38.03 km and so that's an average speed of 40 kph which is about 25 mph. By way of comparison the entire length of the Bakerloo line is 23.23 km and the off-peak running time is 48 minutes in the northbound direction. So that's an average speed of 29 kph, which is about 18 mph. The Vic really does shift, mind you. One thing you may have been noticing - as has also already been mentioned - is that the Seltrac system currently uses quite a low brake rate in the open sections. This is a precautionary measure against station overruns, intended for conditions of low adhesion. At the present time, the brake rate for the open sections is always left at a gentle setting, even though the system is capable of stopping more quickly in good conditions. This is a bit of a nuisance. It's not really got much to do with the platform edge doors, though, which shouldn't represent much of a problem for Auto. Indeed, we managed fine with them when we had manual driving as well. You do need to be accurate, for obvious reasons. But then, there are a number of CSDE loops on the network which aren't exactly as long as a canoe, either. According to the Video125 Driver's Eye View, one must stop accurately to within half a metre, which is very much possible for Auto and human alike, without taking an inordinately long time. Video125 have been known to make mistakes, though, and half a metre sounds very generous, though I guess it must surely equate to 25 cm either side of the ideal stopping point, which seems fair. Another thing to bare in mind is the relative busy-ness of stations. Busier stations means longer dwell times (or very unhappy passengers), quieter stations means shorter dwell times. On the extension the 'anti-suicide doors' aren't actually that at all, they were included at the time of building to reduce the amount of air flow in stations. I think this was also mentioned in the Driver's Eye View DVD. This is quite true. As Rob Curling puts it: It's worth noting that they were not provided at the overground stations on the extension, nor were they retrofitted to any other part of the line. However, the PTI (Platform Train Interface) is where most incidents on the tube occur and PEDs are being increasingly looked at as an important potential solution. I am not actually, personally, a huge fan of PEDs, but if they keep accidents down, then that's a very important factor to keep in mind. It's not just bad behaviour that causes PTI incidents! All too often managers are sucked in and mesmerized by the sparkling razzle dazzle digital sale technique, without stopping to check if the system is actually up to the job. I could be more cynical and suggest that dubious financial arrangements may also come into play which override the main objective. Considering the amount of work and money that has been spent on the Jubilee line, it should be one of the most reliable and flagship lines on the network. I think @tridentalx - who has a lot of experience with the system - has made some very fair comments, however, we like to be a bit more accommodating and friendly, especially towards newer members. I'm very glad to have you here, I just need you to remember that there are a number of experienced railway professionals here. This site prides itself on being the premier place for serious, informed discussion about London Underground (and a few other railways in London as well). We don't generally go for conspiracy theories here. If you remember that simple rule, I'm sure you'll do just fine. As you can probably tell from a few avatars, there are plenty of people here who share your appreciation for the traditional, older aspects of LU.And, you know, for what it's worth, I'm going to have to go against the grain here. I don't personally relish the present Jubilee line experience much. Bring back the tripcock? Sadly, I think that horse has well and truly bolted. I don't think it's fair to make any speed comparison between the Bakerloo and Jubilee. One line was built in the early-1900s, required to run mostly beneath roads, and with many sharp curves as a result. By contrast most of the Jubilee was not constrained by this, and was specifically designed and aligned for high-speed running. So the Jubilee really should have a faster average speed. A comparison between the Jubilee and Victoria lines is more valid. We wait to see if the Jubilee will be able to match the Vic's 34tph, reliably delivered on a daily basis. Looking at the Victoria Line, one sees no gentle brake rate at certain tunnel platforms for no good reason (eg Oval, Chalk Farm, Mornington Crescent, Archway, Highgate, King's Cross, Camden Town, Moorgate, Waterloo, Leicester Square, TCR), no annoying wait of a second or more at every station for the train to get 'AS' before the driver can open the doors, no speed dropping in the middle of nowhere because Thales has failed to deliver a glitch-free system, and a superior ATO experience.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 25, 2015 22:40:32 GMT
Leytonstone - what a negative post! On the extension the 'anti-suicide doors' aren't actually that at all, they were included at the time of building to reduce the amount of air flow in stations. I think this was also mentioned in the Driver's Eye View DVD. Elements of what you say could be true - with the SSR signal contract, for example, the technology wasn't up to the complexity of the system and had to be retendered. As Tridentalx alludes to, the Jub did suffering the beginning, mainly as their system had only ever been installed on brand new lines before. Personally, I'm surprised they can't fit more TPH on the Jub given the modern signalling, three platform terminal stations and no real branches, but I think that's been discussed elsewhere before. Chill, man It isn't correct that Seltrac has only ever been installed on new systems. It was, of course, retrofitted to the DLR in the early 1990s. Personally I think Seltrac, as we currently see on the Jubilee and Northern, will struggle to achieve much above the TPH it currently achieves. Stockwell southbound now blocks back in the evening peak far worse than it did under the old signalling, with not a massive increase in frequency. There are plenty of places where the driver would previously have been halfway towards the platform with a string of green home signals, where under TBTC the train still hasn't even started moving. Worse in the open sections where you then waste more time with the pathetic gentle brake rate.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 25, 2015 13:05:32 GMT
Can't speak for the Piccadilly line, but as this is in the rolling stock section, I'll add a few thoughts on the general situation. All trains into/out of the west end of Ruislip depot on the Central line are booked to run via the wash road. This theme of regular washing is continued on the Bakerloo line. Quoting from the Working Time Table: Additionally, all trains scheduled to stable in Stonebridge Park depot are booked to run via the washing machine. On the other hand, the number of Jubilee line trains marked in the Working Time Table with JW ("Train may run via wash plant in Stratford Market Depot as required.") seems to be quite small. Finally, on the Waterloo & City line: N.B.: These are just (I hope) informative notes from the Working Time Tables, provided as is. The lines I don't mention simply don't have any explicit information in the Working Time Table. More importantly, the lines I do mention (with the exception of the Waterloo & City line) have other depots, some of which have washing plants that aren't made mention of in the Working Time Table. So the fact that only a few Jubilee line trains are marked with JW, for example, doesn't mean that only a few Jubilee line trains are washed each day, as some may (or may not) be washed at Neasden, for example. Similarly, Hainault depot on the Central line also has a wash road and, in my experience, trains generally run to the depot via the wash road. It's just that Hainault isn't talked about in the Working Time Table. Just thought I'd better point that out, because I realised I gave the impression that Jubilee line trains don't get washed much, which I'm sure isn't true. For the Northern Line, Morden provides 42 trains out of 96. All trains entering service from Morden Depot will wash via one of two wash plants on the reception roads. This means each train will be washed on average every 2 to 3 days. A further 8 trains enter service from Morden Depot during the evening peak, as per the timetable all but 2 of these are trains which came in from elsewhere -- although in reality things can and do vary due to reformations in service, and also for example the train going in as T160 at the end of the morning might then become stopped for work and a different train might come out. Compared to some mainline operations, and considering the tunnel environment, in my opinion LU trains are generally turned out in a pretty presentable state. The A and C stocks in their final years were an exception.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 25, 2015 12:52:07 GMT
You'd be surprised at what goes on for the 3 hourly snapshot purposes. It's been known to bring a train out of Upminster depot and put it back in again.......whilst it was in the platform it was counted as in service for the relevant snapshot!! I've heard it all now . . . It's always "interesting" how so many trains seem to enter service at times like 11:59, or be withdrawn from service at 12:01. Meanwhile, when planning cancellations, it's often the case that cancellations are arranged on the basis of avoiding trains which should be in service at snapshot times, rather than which trains will cause the least impact to the passenger. This is why, sadly, I take it with a pinch of salt whenever any press release comes out boasting about "improved reliability" or such like. The technology is there to ensure these figures are accurate, but unfortunately the process in place to monitor shapshots (conveniently?) seems to rely on honesty. A sad state of affairs.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 22, 2015 23:12:30 GMT
When driving a car, would you choose to brake with the notched hand brake, or notch-less foot brake #NotATrainOp Well it's an interesting question. When I'm driving a car, I don't have hundreds of standing passengers behind me, so it doesn't matter so much if I vary the brake rate, or do not stop very smoothly. I also don't have to stop particularly accurately, generally speaking, and if I choose to edge forwards a little when parking it's not very embarrassing and nor will it hold up any cars behind me. So the extent to which I'm very bothered about the difference between 40% of braking effort and 50% is very little, because if I pull up 50 cm too short, it's not going to make any difference. If I pull up 50 cm too late, that obviously would be more of a problem, but stepping very hard on the brakes in the last few moments will just be a little bit uncomfortable for me and maybe a passenger or two; whereas if train drivers make a habit of this, it may not foster their career development. So here again I'm quite interested to see which is preferable, because like I say in the premise of my question I can see advantages to both. It must be nice to have fine-grained control over how much braking effort you command. On the other hand, the difference between too much and too little could be a very small difference in the position of the TBC in some cases and I would think it's quite handy to have discrete notches you can slot into and have a good idea how much brake effort you're going to get. Or, at least, that's how things are in my mind, but I've never actually a manipulated the controls of a train, so I don't know. When I watch video125's videos, it sounds like the TBC is moved quite a lot and I recall seeing a Piccadilly line T/Op moving rapidly between notches. At the same time, I also remember seeing a Bakerloo line T/Op regularly leaving the handle in a position for the last few seconds so that it will stop with an absolutely constant amount of brakes, which seems quite nice if you want a super smooth ride. It also seems to demonstrate an ability to identify a point where you can say: from now on, this amount of brakes will do. Whereas, with a brake pedal on a car, I may think it's in just the right place, but actually it's a little bit higher than I wanted it and so I have to brake a bit more, but then I brake too much and it's not so good. If I could select braking level 1, that might actually help me to stop more accurately, because I know what I'm getting. But it may make me less accurate as well, because if I select braking level 1 half a second too late I'm going to stop in the wrong place and it won't be so easy to add just enough brakes. The car is also much less affected by gradients and things like that, so it seems like I would have to take more into account when stopping a train. Of course, it means that brakes level 1 at Embankment eastbound may not be the same as brakes level 1 at Earl's Court westbound, so here I might like more control than could be achieved with notches. But then, if I learn the road really well, I'll be able to say: when I get to this point I go to level 1 and that'll get me in exactly the right place. Although, of course, it doesn't always work like that, because some trains will have better brakes and on some occasions I'm going to have more passengers. But for me, I mean, does not a train have a lot lot more inertia? So varying the amount of brakes you use on a train makes a big difference to ride quality, you can easily feel it can't you? This doesn't come into play in quite the same way with a car, I would not notice so much if I changed the amount by which I braked by a small amount, because I don't have five carriages full of people pushing on me as I try to slow down. As a passenger I genuinely find it interesting. It can be quite obvious on the Bakerloo line, for example. You can feel the changes between steps quite easily and it can be a little uncomfortable when you start swaying and you can feel the driver switching between notch one and coast as the train approaches the stopping mark and you think how great it would be if there was some way of choosing notch 0.5 or notch 0.125 and then you wouldn't have to keep putting the brakes on and taking them off again. But, on the other hand, with the S stock, I actually feel like I notice a bit of a difference. Maybe it's all in my head, or maybe it has less to do with TBC and more to do with the train, I'm really not sure. But you can the train rock as the brakes seem to be applied and then eased off and then maybe a little more brakes and then maybe a little less. I used to find it quite common on the northern Circle to get most of the way into the platform and then we'd coast slowly up to the stopping mark and then brake actually quite hard. And I never used to experience this so much on the old A and C stocks, or maybe I just didn't notice it. But they felt like trains that were stopping - at least in the final few feet - with the same amount of braking force. Which was nice. On the other hand, on the Central line, the 1992 stock often stop exquisitely smoothly in Coded in the last few feet, soft as anything. However, on the way down to 0 kph, it's quite common to detect a kind of swaying as - I presume - the brake rate is altered. On the Northern with the 1995 stock again it was always very nice under tripcock protection. Similarly with keeping speed. Obviously, if you've got a handful of discrete power settings, it's not so easy to maintain exactly 30 mph. You might coast down to 28 mph and then go to notch one and after a few seconds you're back at 32 mph and you have to coast again and it's not great. Interestingly, it's quite rare for me to notice this happening. But it would seem very nice to be able to select an exact amount of power to maintain an exact speed. On the other hand, it also seems like it would be nice to select a notch and be able to keep it there and draw the same amount of power every time. In a car, it is genuinely hard for me to say. I feel like I could be a lot smoother with notches, but a lot more accurate with pedals. But I've never really experienced driving with notches outside the world of OpenBVE and I've not done much driving with pedals, either, as I failed my test five years ago and haven't been in a car since, really. So I can't really compare, which is why I'm interested in what the pros prefer. My personal view is that I don't think it makes that much difference, the driver will adapt to whatever type of controls the train has, and drive accordingly. On a 95 stock, I tend to drive as if the TBC has notches. Before TBTC I tended to use half motors for the first couple of seconds when starting off, then I wouldn't ever use any other motoring position other than full motors, so the TBC being notchless was irrelevant for motoring. Some drivers reverted to the 'shunt' position after building up speed, but this was more to do with hand comfort than anything else. Under TBTC I use full motors for gaining speed, and generally the shunt position to maintain speed where necessary, full motoring now being too much for this since the motors are now uncapped. Note when I refer to the 'shunt' position, this is *not* the same as on older stocks. As far as braking goes, notches or otherwise, the most important thing for me is how good the full service position is on that particular train. I normally go straight to full service, and partially release / re-apply as necessary, whether the train has notches or not wouldn't make that much difference, the result is the same. One thing I have noticed is that S stock often seems to produce very jerky motoring and braking compared to all other stocks (perhaps except C stock). I've never driven an S stock, but I've often wondered if the physically small size of the TBC makes it harder for the driver to control the train smoothly. Perhaps those who have driven S stock can comment on this? The joystick appearance of the TBC looks very awkward to me, but perhaps it's not as bad as it looks? One thing to add, is that on the post 92 stocks, it's possible to go from full motors to less without having to go via 'off & release' (or a rail gap!). Whilst this may sound like an advantage, perhaps I drive in an old fashioned way, but even though a 95 stock has the ability to do it, I'd say it's a feature I very rarely, if ever, utilise.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 20, 2015 20:29:45 GMT
A far better option would be an extra platform at Oakwood. Something will need to give at the east end of the line, if the Picc is to reliably operate more than its current frequency through town. The new crew depot at Cockfosters should help ease the blocking back through Arnos Grove that occurs during disruption, but to improve things beyond that some *serious* money will need to be spent.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 20, 2015 10:10:02 GMT
I was there last week and they seem to be holding their age (five years or so?) Five, more like thirty five! Though they did have the big refurb just over ten years back. ...though there were signs everywhere saying what you couldn't do on them. Mind you, getting on the Wirral line maybe these were better stock. The whole 507/508 fleet is now mixed between the Northern and Wirral lines, which means you can enjoy the sound of the motors either pulling up the incline to the surface at Leeds St, or from under the river into Hamilton Square. Not forgetting the compressors on the class 508s which sound rather nice. (I believe this is a relic of these units starting life on the Southern Region). Up until recently Merseyrail was a bit of a step back to the 1970s, it's a shame the tunnel stations have recently been refurbished to a rather bland finish, I thought they were much nicer with their original décor.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 19, 2015 13:31:14 GMT
A - I'm unsure of the former purpose of the building. But it's located SB between Stonebridge Park and Harlesden, visible from the DC Lines. It's a traction substation, and (as far as I know) is still very much in use.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 17, 2015 23:10:59 GMT
A stock in original condition gave a poor ride with rattling windows. S stock is a big improvement. Once the signalling is sorted there will be more trains and more seats as a result. Personally I much preferred A stock, and I find S stock generally an inferior train. The track ride is marginally better (although bear in mind the track condition is much better now than it was 10 years ago), but the motoring/braking on S stock is very jerky. By comparison A stock was much more refined in this respect. I find the seating layout unhelpful, and I hate the way when sitting in transverse seats you have people sitting to your side - it just doesn't feel right for some reason. I also find the trains noisy. The motors are louder than A stock in an annoying way, along with other annoyances like the sound of air cooling, and the walk-through design means any annoying passenger noises carry further through the train. I'm not keen on the way the trains have a strange platform/train interface at some platforms, sitting low relative to platforms. And they have a minor but annoying feature that there is a time lag between the door open sounder sounding and the door actually opening, so one instinctively prepares to alight only to have to stop and pause for a second. And the ridiculous design feature of the doorway nearest the cabs being narrower than all the others. I can only think of one positive feature of these trains, and that is that they are longer than C and D stock. But even this was a missed opportunity to go to 8 cars. C stock was originally envisaged as running in 8-car formations once platform extensions were done, and the District has run 8 cars in the past.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 17, 2015 7:50:49 GMT
It will be interesting to see how the trains are reversed now in the peaks, though if as MoreToJack says, one siding has been out of use recently I guess the situation is already well rehearsed.
As a slight side point I recall back in 2000 that a timetable change (not sure if May or September) saw most (all?) weekend met trains reverse in the platforms rather than using the sidings. I initially thought it was a temporary measure for a few weekends but it carried on permanently, hence I assume timetabled. At this time Amersham had 2pth fasts to Aldgate, 2tph semi-fasts to Baker Street and 2tph Chilterns (1tph Sundays + the 1tph Amersham-Aylesbury pm shuttle). As I recall the scheduled operation on a Saturday seemed to be: A northbound Chiltern would pull into Platform 1 and go on its way. The next met train to arrive would then go into platform 1 and reverse back south before the next Chiltern was due. The second met train meanwhile would pull into platform 2 for its reversal. It somehow made the station feel much busier than with regular turnarounds through the sidings. I expect it kept the signallers busier as well in times of even slight disruption.
This platform reversal procedure at weekends carried on until 2002, though in May 2001 the timetable reduced the 4tph met trains to just 2tph Baker Street fasts, so easier to manage. I never understood why this platform reversal procedure came in, I think the sidings were used as normal during weekdays (or at least the peaks).
Back to the main point, in the current peak timetable there's a max of 4 met trains per hour from/to Amersham so one siding should seemingly cope. It could be interesting if the Chesham branch gets blocked for some reason, and those trains divert to Amersham. That's one fairly recent reason I have seen trains together in both of the north sidings. I guess severe disruption could now more likely mean trains terminated at Rickmansworth.
The advantage of going off the platform is a quicker turnround, as well as removing the need to detrain via porter buttons - giving the train and the driver extra time. The other benefit is the driver has better opportunity to access facilities such as tea point and toilets.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 17, 2015 7:44:12 GMT
No. Distinct lack of conductor rails. Nothing a battery loco couldn't overcome, but that would presumably have required a lot more planning (among other things). As long as the gradient is not unfavourable, there is the possibility of coasting a train in to a dead siding. Can potentially get it back out using jumper leads, although this would potentially take some time in this situation, so would almost certainly have to happen overnight.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 16, 2015 8:49:37 GMT
Neasden and Ricky men used to work the Circle; Parsons Green me used to work the Circle on Sundays, but didn't sign Aldgate East-Liverpool Street. Baker Street men used to do the whole of the Met/H&C/Circle. Don't know about these days! Nowadays it's the case that no one signs more than their own line(s) - indeed on some lines some depots don't even know all moves, for example on the Northern Line only Golders Green drivers know Edgware Depot, and on the Picc I think I'm right that Arnos Grove drivers won't do Northfields Depot coming in from the Boston Manor end. Having said that, I believe SSR Instructor Operators have recently started having an extended route knowledge, for example some District Line I/Os know the C&H. Is this correct?
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 12, 2015 19:46:34 GMT
I'm in the RMT and totally support the strikes for the reasons I put earlier in this thread. Rumours, true or not is that ASLEF are closer to a deal than the other unions. Of course that's typical of LU with their divide and rule tactics. ASLEF might not represent station staff, but if I were a train op and in ASLEF I'd be very concerned of the plan to remove 838 station posts. That's 838 less qualified staff to help a driver when dealing with a passenger alarm, stalled train, customer incident etc. I draw your attention to DOO. The drivers union did not cause to much of a fuss when guards went on the Overground - and provided they are suitably rewarded I doubt they will cause to much of a problem with DOO / DCO as required by the latest Northern franchise being put out to tender at the moment. As such, it makes perfect sense to try and come to a deal with ASLEF if they are amiable to it and remove them from the equation. Divide and rule it might be - but the National Rail system has been working that way for 20 years now and I don't see why LU should be any different. I'm not keen on the way, on the mainline, the driving grade has become aloof to other grades. It's true that drivers carry a heavy safety responsibility, but other grades do too, right down to platform dispatch staff. Fortunately LUL hasn't really gone the same way, largely I think due to the fact that station staff are still fully trained in operational procedures - unlike the mainline where sadly station staff are now largely either dispatch, gateline or booking office. This is partly why disruption on the mainline is often handled badly as many staff simply aren't trained in how the railway works. I hope LU doesn't follow this unsatisfactory state of affairs. It's in the railway's best interest for all grades to work well together, and for everyone to know and respect each other's job. Sadly I'm getting the impression LU may eventually go down the same road. As an example of why we should resist this path, in the last couple of years I've seen a noticeable increase in station staff reporting train staff for alleged wrongdoing. I've no problem with this if there is a safety issue which needs to be addressed, but the issues I've dealt with have not been safety related, and upon investigation have generally been found to be unfounded, basically the result of the complainant not understanding the train staff's responsibilities. I can also think of examples where the same has happened the other way round. As a company we could do without this unpleasantness, all grades should stick together.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 9, 2015 16:02:42 GMT
The most common reason for a short enlargement is where the extra size was required for the erection of a tunneling shield. Quite often such enlargements are associated with a former construction shaft, even if the shaft was backfilled afterwards. If you post the exact locations of the photos I may be able to shed more light, the first appears to be on the Northern Line somewhere between Clapham South and Euston? What made you guess that location; does the tunnel reveal anything? Its actually somewhere between Moorgate and Angel (I think its between Angel and Old street on the SB). I have however seen dozens of this formation across JNP in random locations. What they all have in common is they don't show any evidence of a backfilled shaft at all, I'll try and look harder next time but 100% sure this is true. Is there somewhere which lists backfilled shafts? (I could use these shafts now with the project I'm working on!) The reason for knowing it was somewhere on that section is, looking at the section of tunnel beyond the enlargment, one can see the four additional segments in each ring, installed when the tunnel was enlarged in the 1920s. In fact, it's 5 'new' segments, as the key piece is a slightly different profile to the original. This tunnel formation is unique to that section of the Northern. Regarding the location in question, it's noticeable that the section beyond the enlargment has the 'enlarged' profile, but the section in the foreground doesn't. This would suggest this is the transition between a section of enlarged original tunnel, and a section which has been completely rebuilt using all-new segments. I'm not totally sure I recognise the location, but could it be approaching Moorgate crossover, on the southbound? This would add up, as the crossover was installed at the same time the tunnels were rebuilt. There are plans on the intranet showing the location of shafts, but they can be inconsistent. Some are obvious (eg on the Northern around Euston), but others are difficult or impossible to detect even if you know exactly where to look (eg Green Park on Jubilee, or the two temporary shafts at Kennington).
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 8, 2015 21:36:41 GMT
I've worked for LU for nearly the past year in track and while on site visits, I have come across a number of curious standard across the Jubilee, Northern and Picc lines which as been bugging me and my co-workers. I surprisingly haven't taken a clear photo of what I am enquiring about, however the following image is as close as I have to a clear image. If you look closely, you can see the tunnel widens for about 10-15m (note, no access to anywhere else or the other road, just the tunnel rings suddenly widen out) then goes back to 'normal'. Anyone know why the tunnels do this? I suggested that maybe its the point where the tunnels joined up when tunneling from both sides, but it doesn't make sense to have something like this for that reason? i.imgur.com/hU3ypXh.jpgFurthermore, I was between Wood Green and Bounds green and noticed the tunnels come close enough together to cause, well I'll let the image speak for itself. I've never seen anything like this mid way between two stations (I have just after the head/tailwall, but not half way between stations). Is there an engineering reason behind it? Maybe the tunnels being close to one another causes instability (although I don't see this as being a definitive answer)? There is no access or shaft anywhere in the vicinity of where the image was taken, however there were a few cross passages before and after; why they couldn't just build a cross passage I don't know. i.imgur.com/jLR7ga1.jpgAnyone able to shed any light? The most common reason for a short enlargement is where the extra size was required for the erection of a tunneling shield. Quite often such enlargements are associated with a former construction shaft, even if the shaft was backfilled afterwards. If you post the exact locations of the photos I may be able to shed more light, the first appears to be on the Northern Line somewhere between Clapham South and Euston?
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Aug 6, 2015 22:02:30 GMT
A brilliant article from the telegraph hereAbsolutely hilarious. Some of the comments are just as bad! I counted at least 6 clichés, including gems such as: and I'm not aware of the unions insisting that driver vacancies are only advertised internally, indeed LU have certainly recruited 'off the street' in the past. What it generally accepted however is that when this did happen, many of the so-called 'direct recruit' drivers found the training difficult, and struggled once in the job. Even as little as 6 months in a stations position is enough to give people a decent idea of how the railway works, as well as testing whether individuals can cope with aspects of the job such as shifts.
|
|