|
Post by 100andthirty on Feb 15, 2023 7:21:26 GMT
Rechecking the Particular Specification for the JLE rolling stock I see it is specifically for all new cars, at least at the issue A4 of October '93. Was there a pre-tender period when prospective tenderers were invited to put forward their proposals for all new vs. part reworked 83TS? I do seem to recall there would have been difficulty with tenderers taking on risks associated with the 83TS cars. I think you're probably right. It would make sense for this option to be discussed pre bid.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Feb 14, 2023 18:00:05 GMT
The plan was to take each 3-car set of 1983 tube stock - there were 62 of them from memory - and carry out the modifications A60stock mentions. This would have been double doors, new propulsion equipment/motors, new bogies, new train control, and an interior refurbishment. Into each 3-car set would have been inserted 3 new cars. In practice this meant that only a heavily modified carbody would have been kept. It must have seemed like a good idea at the time!
The tenderers were given the option of proposing alternative solutions and, in the end, the cost of all new trains was very little more than the cost of the refurbishment, with much less risk.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Feb 9, 2023 13:13:24 GMT
That really does put the withdrawal into context!
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Feb 8, 2023 7:12:11 GMT
Larger, straighter tunnels on the Jubilee? PED lateral offset from the track,the ex-Bakerloo tunnels from Finchley Road to Baker St, and, to a slightly lesser extent, the original Jubilee line tunnels will all constrain any new trains to roughly the same profile as today. Door spacing needs to be identical to line up with the PEDs.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Feb 7, 2023 7:19:49 GMT
As with all these capacity upgrades it’s what you do at the end of the line. Stepping back can only achieve so much…. Oft forgotten that a major key to the Jubilee Line post-TBTC timetable uplift was the third platform at Stanmore. The high TPH timetable don't work without at least 3 platforms at both Stratford and Stanmore; Stratford was already there of course. I would suggest that this consideration without the necessary civil engineering work at Elephant and Harrow (or Queens Park) would be a throttle on any ideas for such a high TPH service on the Bakerloo . I was saying that only the defined commands may be used. The scope for flexibility to deliver solutions for difficult situations is therefore limited.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Feb 6, 2023 17:55:32 GMT
It is likely that, at some point in the future, ETCS might become a de facto standard. But it currently has many gaps: It relies on 2g with gprs mobile technology (there are pland to fix this), although ATO has been implemented on some systems, it has not been adopted into the specification set yet (people have been working on this for years), and there are no interfaces for things like platform screen doors.
The thing about ETCS is that it defines in a very detailed way, the air gap rules, the nateure of messages and their meaning and action. This allows supplier A's equipment to run on supplier B's infrastructure. This is a 'good thing' but does limit flexibility. Some years a group of metros and suppliers proposed a metro version - UGTMS. I haven't heard about this system for ages.
In the meantime signalling suppliers continue to offer their tightly integrated but mutually incompatible systems that do work.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Feb 5, 2023 15:11:36 GMT
nce 4LM is finished, I guess there would be a case for reviewing tripcock tester locations. As the only tripcock areas would be at the west end of the District, I'd expect them only to be in the vicinity of entry to the tripcock area westbound and just after departing the West termini eastbound. If I were still in harness, I'd commission a risk assessment to see whether they could be elicited altogether, i.e. whether the benefit was worth the cost of maintenance given their extremely limited, if any, contribution to safety. <<<<Ducks to avoid the missiles!>>>>
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Feb 2, 2023 19:39:57 GMT
The various elements of CLIP have been discussed since circa 2007. The new traction package nearly got approved in 2009, but for a change of management. The strategy paper proposing, in principle, something like CLIP was prepared in circa 2012. As each year has passed more an more kit has been identified as needing attention. And this programme is currently forecast to end in 2027, just 6 years or so before the nominal end of life of the fleet.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 29, 2023 15:47:20 GMT
Elizabeth Line was designed to conform to the various so-called interoperability specifications. This was a requirement for all "main line" in the UK. Main line meant any railway not designated by the DfT as exempt. London Underground, for example, is exempt. The signalling requirement for new interoperable railways is ETCS, but Crossrail obtained a derogation because ETCS didn't, at the time, have the capability to do all that Crossrail required. A condition was that Crossrail/TfL produce, at intervals, an assessment that Interoperability is stil possible and that ETCS could be added. I'm sure this makes perfect sense in the world of compliance and paperwork.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 29, 2023 12:35:06 GMT
During the Olympics when I was doing Travel Ambassador duty at London Bridge, tourists frequently asked for directions to see London Bridge, and my colleagues and I always asked whether they wanted to see the bridge with a lifting roadway - ie Tower Bridge - often accompnied by exaggerated arm movements if language was a challenge. They nearly always wanted Tower Bridge! We got into the habit of telling people that they should go to London Bridge if they wanted to photograph/see Tower Bridge and go to Tower Bridge if they wanted to walk over it.
For London Eye from Tower Bridge, it's well worth exiting at Embankment and walking across the footbridge alongside Hungerford rail bridge. There's a splendid view of the Thames and Royal Festival (concert) Hall. There are plenty of signs to the London Eye.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 28, 2023 13:24:02 GMT
It would be surprising if the project team hadn't translated into colloquial English
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 28, 2023 8:14:07 GMT
"In December, Siemens completed the surface for the Key (intermediate) Motor car body for the first new Piccadilly line train, followed by the shell assembly for the first Direct (driving?) Motor car in January. This keeps us on target for the first train to be fully formed and ready to start testing from summer." [TfL Commissioner’s report - February 2023] So looks like they are building the three car types which will make one end of the train. Will need to repeat these for the other end of the train, and build the three middle cars, which will be two more bridge cars with a middle intermediate motor car with different equipment to the other two key motor cars. Having finally read the Commissioner's report for myself, I really do wonder whether the project team submitted something from a mobile phone with strange auto correct. What on earth does "completed the surface of....." actually mean and what is a "Direct motor car" although Jimbo's guess is probably right. Interestingly, all the cars are motor cars 8n a sense. All the bogie cars have motors (inner bogie only on end cars) and all the bridge cars carry three phase traction converters for the adjacent motor bogies on each end.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 26, 2023 11:11:02 GMT
But not too much more battery capacity - Don't forget the weight and space of all the multiple ATP equipments to allow it to operate on all the different LUL lines these days! Indeed, I know I mustn't upset signalling engineers but trainborne signalling kit does seem to be extraordianarily big/heavy!
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 26, 2023 6:31:10 GMT
Weight reduction is not a priority for locomotives. If, say, a 60t l9c is required to provide enough traction effort, then reducing the weight reduces traction effort, all other things remaining equal. On big freight locos ballast is sometimes added to bring the loco up to the weight limit or to balance the load end to end/side to side or both.
In the event lighter batteries led to a lighter loco, I'd increase the battery capacity.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 24, 2023 21:57:04 GMT
Experiments with through control were carried out using on the 1985 battery locos which had "all mod cons" like no volt relays. I recall taking a hopper wagon train full of ballast with powered locos front and rear, on battery power alone from Ruislip Depot to Ongar and back to test the battery range.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 24, 2023 21:52:18 GMT
When PEAs & public address were fitted to 56/59/62TS the integrity of the auto couplers weren’t trusted hence an inter unit jumper being fitted. Sorry to disappoint. Those mods were carried out in a hurry and a conscious decision was made to use jumpers rather than re-engineer the autocoupler stud panels to increase the number of studs for the extra circuits.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 24, 2023 12:12:00 GMT
Another challenge, solved for the 1992 tube stock onwards was to incorporate communications grade contacts in the autocouplers. However with very high frequencies now in use for on-train comms systems on S stock I am glad there there are no autocouplers within the train.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 23, 2023 20:15:47 GMT
As we know from other train introductions, what gets accepted on mock ups sometimes doesn't look right when the real train gets onto real track.#!
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 23, 2023 15:35:43 GMT
Having looked again at the video of the mock up, I think there are going to be some interesting converstaions with Passener Services Agents about: The spacing of the seat relative to the controls; the size of the windscreens; and, in particular, the view of the platform mirrors/monitors providing a view of the platform when these controls are in use.
It's always difficut to judge from a video but all three points look worse than the existing trains.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 22, 2023 14:48:57 GMT
A feature of the 1972 mk1 stock on the Northern line was a novel solution to the reversible train requirement. In essence a UNDM on the 3-car could couple to wither the north or south cab on the 4 car depending on its orientation. There was a but........as far as I recall two three car units could couple to each other but the electrical systems wouldn't work.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 22, 2023 14:42:36 GMT
AIUI it's about the electrical and air connectors in the coupler - reversible trains have duplicate connectors while handed trains do not. While the latter are obviously cheaper to build (and maybe maintain, I don't know) it does lead to significant operational inconveniences. On some of the older trains such as 1938 and 1959/62 tube stock, there were other constraints too. At autocoupler positions one end had a spring buffer and the other had a fixed buffer. The spring buffer protruded further from the underframe than the fixed buffer. As a result, if, as a result of a wrong way round train, two spring buffers tried to couple they were not all that compatible. What I don't remember is whether a coupling adaptor was needed in this situation or whether a 'mighty shove' would get the coupling made.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 18, 2023 18:05:07 GMT
I don't believe the Sentinels ever worked on LU without the wagon attached as, on their own, they were too short to reliably operate some track circuits. Does anyone know if the match wagon is also to be produced by Hornby?
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 13, 2023 18:01:43 GMT
Apropos the question about taking the trains through the Channel Tunnel, are there any physical connections between DLR and the main line network? I can't think of any.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 13, 2023 14:23:57 GMT
Car 201D and one other arrived in Beckton depot this morning. On the back of lorries!
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 10, 2023 6:50:38 GMT
I presume all this sealed area business is to guard against leaks during emptying operations?
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 8, 2023 9:22:18 GMT
As all heritage operators will be gradually fitting CETs to their coaches, I expect that they will all require a solution to emptying and replenishing them. I'm guessing but I see no reason not to adopt a lorry mounted method providing that the coaches can be aligned with a road. Lorry mounted machines and tanks are often used to empty aircraft 'foul waste' tanks. They are often known as 'honey wagons' I believe.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Jan 1, 2023 16:49:43 GMT
Looks like my memory was, indeed, dodgy. I'll edit an upstream post when I can find out when the work was brought in house. You might recall that although LUL bought the Jubilee 96TS, maintenance of them went out to separate tender and Alstom won it. Unfortunately I forget the contract duration which is the point at issue here. On the renewal, it was brought back in house, which may prompt someone to recall the relevant date. Perhaps the thread drift into 96TS maintenance arrangements should be moved!
Done! - TomFirstly, apologies for my defective memory. As t697 has reminded us, the 1996 tube stock was maintained by Alstom, from its delivery and through the PPP. After PPP ended and at the time a contract review was required it was decided to bring the work in house with the Alstom staff TUPE'd into LU. Having double checked, this happened in 2011.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Dec 30, 2022 13:29:26 GMT
Looks like my memory was, indeed, dodgy. I'll edit an upstream post when I can find out when the work was brought in house.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Dec 30, 2022 8:00:52 GMT
The fleet maintenance staff at SMD always told us they were Alstom couple of them transferred from Golders Green as they lived in East London. I clearly need to revisit my records to check what may be a dodgy memory.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Dec 29, 2022 8:48:42 GMT
Way off topic and pedantic, but:
Northern line: Staff from LU transferred to The then GEC Alsthom (now Alstom) about 6 months after the 1995 tube stock contract between LU and GEC Alstom was signed. When the Tube Lines PPP contract started, the contract was transferred to Tube Lines. When the PPP ended, the contract was transferred back to LU. The staff remained employees of Alstom thoughout.
Jubilee line: on delivery, LU was responsible for maintianing the 1996 tube stock with 'technical support' from Alstom. When the Tube Lines contract started, the staff were transferred from LU to Tube Lines. At some time during the PPP contract Tube lines took technical support in house. At the ond of the PPP, the staff were transferred back to LU.
|
|