|
Post by phil on Oct 12, 2020 7:47:27 GMT
Ask a stupid question, but is it possible to run freight through the tunnels?
No
The platforms are higher than national rail standards allow to have level boarding and no signifficant gaps between the platform and the train. This eats into space required for freight wagons - particularly those which need a lower deck level to account for the confined UK loading gauge but still retaining the ability to transport things like 9ft high containers. This is why the ELL can have level boarding north of New Cross Gate, but south of there plus the entire North London, West London and Gospel Oak - Barking cannot.
However even if the platforms weren't an issue there are a whole plethora of other issues including:-
(1) Those platform edge doors play havoc with the aerodynamics for non stopping trains - effectively passage through the stations will have to be done slowly.
(2) Freight wagon suspension is relatively crude compared to passenger standards (and not maintained as well either). The result is more wear on the rails etc. which then need to be renewed sooner as well as more vibration and noise.
(3) Freight not in sealed containers of some sort can be very messy and create high levels of dust say (aggregates) other freight might well be hazardous were an accident of some kind to occur in such a long tunnel.
(4) The acceleration, deceleration and general performance of freight (even electrically hauled ones) is pretty woeful compared to EMUs with their distributed traction power. As a result line capacity is significantly reduced where the two mix (hence the idea of taking the fastest trains off the WCML and onto the new build HS2).
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 12, 2020 7:22:50 GMT
TL core retains standard signalling in parallel with the in cab signalling. Electrical and other clearances through the TL core are very tight and the list of stock types permitted to travel through it with the overhead line energised is very small (and not that much larger with it isolated). Is that because other stock is specifically banned from the route, or because no-one has ever asked for permission to use other stock?
Read what Bomo said!
The Thameslink core was built to very tight clearances and most stock built to 'standard' National rail profiles will scrape the tunnel wall on curves or come too close to the Overhead lines. Even back in the 1950s even the standard non corridor suburban Mk1 non corridor coach wouldn't fit without modifications to the window ventilators which stuck out just a tad too much while in more modern times the BR 319 EMUs had a number of subtle alterations over their superficially similar 317 or 455 units to make them fit.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 2, 2020 17:27:47 GMT
The District Line was a shortened version of Metropolitan District which the District had adopted to gain some kudos and investors who believed the two companies were linked. The original intention was the two would merge once the circle line was completed - the creation of the Metropolitan District company basically being a way of trying to raise more capital from the markets without bankrupting the original Metropolitan railway company.
It didn't take long for that idea to fade though - because completing the circle was going to be ineradicably expensive the District concentrated on building up its own network first and these efforts morphed the company into its own entity rather than simply a financial chicle to finish the circle.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 2, 2020 17:13:39 GMT
London must be one of the last places where buses are still a major force in everyday transport. Everywhere else, they are not just of minor importance, but scarcely even credible! I doubt it.
Have a look at a map of the Leeds - area the areas to the north of the city have no railways so unless you own a car the bus is the only option. The density of housing probably generates significant custom.
Granted once you move away from big cities or are talking about corridors within cities that have good rail / tram services then bus usage may well be relatively low by comparison.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 2, 2020 17:09:48 GMT
Looking through the finance committees submission, it's clear that the timeframes have been very carefully chosen to only talk about projects deliverable within this decade to appeal to the kind of short term planning the Central Government machine is living by at the present time.
And which unlock opportunities for development. The DLR to Thamesmead has been cited as an example of this and stands as the odd man out amongst the plans given everything else is about maximising the use of the current network.
Unfortunately because the already the Bakerloo extension passes through is already heavily built up, opportunities for big housing developments are limited meaning that the overall BCR is relatively poor compared to other initiatives which although not seemingly that impressive require far less in the way of infrastructure costs.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 14, 2020 10:48:28 GMT
Don't driverless DLR trains run alongside NR trains already? they run parallel to each other but they dont share any tracks
The DLR trains might be driverless, but they ALWAYS have a member of staff on board who has the ability quickly get mainline trains stopped quickly should a DLR train derail and become foul of NR infrastructure for example (Croydon Tram drivers are required to carry GSM-R radios so that they can contact NR signallers in an emergency between Arena and Beckenham Junction to provide similar protection).
LU have therefore said they would require to keep drivers (or some other form of on train staff) East of Bow were driverless trains bought in - and thats before you consider where they run over NR infrastructure which are unlikely to permit driverless operation.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 5, 2020 16:35:30 GMT
As an aside, I see what we are currently going through as significant (in its own way) for London's railways as was WW2 and I'm hoping that no services end up suffering the same fate as the Northern Heights routes which were meant to become part of the Northern line but during WW2 were run down / temporarily suspended as a war-time coal saving economy and ended up being permanently closed. (I also have the Palace Gates branch in mind)
Unlikely because the only thing actually being built at present is Crossrail - and thats almost finished.
What will have happened is prospects of the Bakerloo line extension to Lewisham and a second Crossrail (SW - NE) will have taken a hit, but as neither has had any work done on the ground and they are both to relieve existing busy rail corridors its rather different to the post war situation where the Northern Heights works had been started on the ground and the Palace Gates line was an insignificant branch line. The other thing that could be affected is the proposed Brent Cross - Old Oak - Hounslow service although with HS2 and the Brent Cross redevelopment going ahead it has a better chance than the other two schemes of being taken forward.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 29, 2020 10:10:34 GMT
Whilst this post is inherently a follow on from the thread considering the impact of the Virus outbreak on TFL services, I did not wish to clog up that thread with a more forward looking question. One obvious consequence of this virus is that lots of jobs will never return, hence the Government is now looking at funding infrastructure projects to rapidly create employment and help get the economy started. Doubtless this will trigger a lot of road improvement projects around the country, however the big question is whether TFL have any shovel ready investment projects which they can get the green light for now? - Finish signalling upgrades on the sub surface lines and possibly also the Picaddilly? - Bakerloo Extension? - CrossRail 2 - Dare I say it Croxley link? Are there others? Shovel ready mean literally just that - i.e. construction works can start in a mater of weeks!
All the projects you mention will require many months (if not years) of work to get the enabling legislation passed contracts tendered etc and so can in no way be described as 'shovel ready' projects.
Examples of Shovel ready projects are going to be smaller scale ones - maybe a station rebuild or two.
In reality however this proposed increase in infrastructure spending is most likely to be:-
(1) focused on roads as Highways England plus local authorities are sitting on an awful lot of schemes which are 'shovel ready' and just lack funding. (2) Focused away from the South East so as the Government can seen to be paying attention to the needs of the ex labour heartlands now held by Conservative MPs
Following the Crossrail debacle, plus various policy decisions over recent years by the Mayor its fair to say that the Westminster Government is not exactly impressed with TfL and is not in the mood to chuck any more money London way unless it really has too. As such it is quite likely that the Bakerloo extension will end up being dropped anyway while the only real hope for Crossrail 2 is in the fact that it enables benefits to non Londoners (i.e. frees up train paths into Waterloo for more services from Hampshire / Dorset).
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 20, 2020 15:52:13 GMT
There would be 15 other platforms available, five in the relevant half of the station.
Liverpool Street station is used by more than TfL rail!
It has been made clear in the past that the remodelling work would permanently reduce the capacity for TfL rail services and thus would be done after crossrail was open when some services could be diverted away.
If crossrail won't be opening till the middle of next year, yet capacity at Liverpool street is going to be reduced then something has got to give and cancelling GA services to make room isn't one of them*.
Using 'other platforms' is NOT an option (or otherwise it would already be happening)
The only logical deduction is that TfL rail services will have to become less frequent from this winter till crossrail opens - but will TfL have the guts to admit it (and all the bad PR that goes with it)?
* The national rail network is not TfLs plaything like the tube or DLR. It cannot go round demanding it gets priority or things are done when it suits them however much it wants to.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 20, 2020 13:16:40 GMT
Network Rail news June 17, 2020 "TfL works to lengthen platforms 16 and 17 at Liverpool Street will begin over the Christmas period to make more platforms available for the new, longer Elizabeth line trains; Network Rail works for the Crossrail programme will continue with station upgrades taking place at Ilford and Romford this autumn." Does Elizabeth line refer to the service and Crossrail refer to the infrastructure? See: www.networkrail.co.uk/news/major-improvement-work-to-be-rolled-out-across-anglias-rail-network/Interesting - but if i recall correctly the works at Liverpool Street will reduce the number of platforms available so either they are banking on train services still being Covid reduced in 6 months time or else there will have to be a thinning out of TfL Rail services to Shenfield to suit the reduced number of platforms at Liverpool Street High Level.
As has been noted before NR are not in a position to simply wait till Crossrail is ready as the Liverpool Street works are tied in with lots of other things (in particular demands on resources) happening around the rest of the country.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 20, 2020 13:10:23 GMT
It's all overhead. The initial testing was all done on one track so bi-directional running was needed. The illuminated panels above the doors are capable of showing trains in the wrong direction. They're using conductor rail instead of standard wires, BTW. Not quite true - the actual conductor is still copper wire as per 'traditional' overhead line systems - its smoothness and electrical properties not having yet been bettered. The main change is rather than the conductor wire be suspended from a flexible Catenary system, it is clipped to a solid bar structure making the structure robust yet simple to install. This contrasts with true 'conductor rail' systems where the pick up on the train actually rubs along the rail surface.
Note as per traditional overhead systems, the bar (and thus the copper contact wire) wiggles from side to side as it goes thus avoiding wearing a grove in the pantograph head.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 16, 2020 18:08:26 GMT
Or as they used to say: "We don't use a clock, we use a calendar" The 1tpw (train per week) from Clitheroe to Hellifield (a distance of 13mi 46ch) has been cancelled for the rest of the year. Apparently this is ok because there is an alternate route: via Leeds (a distance of 86miles).
The main economic focus of Clitheroe is southwards to Blackburn not north to Settle Carlisle or Carnforth.
To be fair the service northwards was only put on to cater for Hill walkers etc wanting to spend their Sunday leisure time rambling over the fells. Hellifield was (and still is) is a tiny village - it just happened to be an important railway junction so has an absurdly grand railway station serving not a lot.
Given the Government is telling people to NOT use public transport unless essential (and pooping out for a Sunday stroll doesn't count a an essential journey) then if the trains did run they would be empty.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 30, 2020 19:27:23 GMT
London Transport has always had a rather uncomfortable relationship with politicians, and this affair is no exception. Ironically the big railway seems to be avoiding a lot of this, for now at least, which is perhaps made easier by running a more calendar service, and crucially Home Counties commuters being more readily able to work from home, and in most cases have viable car access for other journeys.
The 'big railways' as you refer to them have had their franchise* terms suspended and are now run as pure management contracts on behalf of the DfT. Thus if the DfT turns round and says 'return to 75% of normal service' then that is what the 'big railways' will do. There is also no political wrangling to take place - the DfT sets the rules and thats it.
* non franchised operators like Hull Trains have shut up shop for the duration. Unlike franchised operators they exist outside the regular state supported network good times and bad.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 22, 2020 22:16:32 GMT
Advertising needs to be kept away from essential parts of the system. This is a step too far. I remember a TV series in the Thatcher years, set in the near future. A van said 'Police plc.', with a notice below 'To advertise in this space, call ...'.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 14, 2020 18:04:57 GMT
spsmiler , I’m not too sure about the ATP response to your tweet as 345’s have been operating alongside 332’s all the time since testing started this year without incident*. HEX’s 332’s aren’t due to retire till July at the earliest. * Apart from one spectacular incident
Not in the Heathrow tunnels they haven't.
To be clear, the issue has been ECTS and the legacy BR ATP system interfering with each other in the confines of the Heathrow tunnels ONLY. This has caused significant delays and is one of the key reasons for the change strategy (GWR taking over Hex and using ECTS fitted 387s thus allowing the BR ATP system to be turned off).
Out on the GWML proper there have been no problems allowing 345s to happily co-exist with other units using the legacy BR ATP system.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 24, 2020 1:17:05 GMT
When the first Class 345 train arrived in London it had some repurposed passenger carriages known as something like 'brake force runners' and if I understand correctly their purpose was to help with braking. The report for this "ooops" did not mention such carriages, so in effect this was an unfitted goods train. Not quite. As the report noted, the rearmost loco and the front one were connected by an air pipe - if the train became divided at any stage then the brakes would automatically apply. That is NOT an unfitted train by any stretch of the imagination. An unfitted train has no brake pipe at all and if it became divided it relies on the Guard and driver noticing then applying the brake manually. What is correct is that the amount of brake force available was limited in the Loughborough incident due to only the locos having brakes. It should be noted solo locomotives are speed restricted for this reason (and the old HST sets could not exceed more than 100mph unless there were 5 or more coaches in the formation) as the more wagons / coaches in the formation, the grater the brake force available.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 30, 2020 15:13:45 GMT
A station that is covered by the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations 2009 - i.e. a station that has any platforms in "tunnel section" (underground). "Section 12" refers to Section 12 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 which allows the Secretary of State to introduce regulations for specific premises, in this case Sub-surface Railway Stations. And yes, Island Gardens is a Section 12 although the original Island Gardens station wasn't. It is actually inclusive of stations with platforms that are more than 50% covered/below ground. An example is Bow Road which counted as Section 12 whilst having some areas in the open. Main line stations like Liverpool Street are included because of the canopies. Just to note its not the canopies (or to be precise the high iron and glass train shed) which is what makes Liverpool Street (Mainline) a 'section 12' station - its the fact that half the station has been rafted over to build office blocks thus putting some platforms entirely (and others in part) in a low ceiling underground like box.
London Victoria (Central side), Charing Cross, Cannon Street plus possibly parts of Paddington and Euston also qualify as section 12 stations for the same reasons.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 16, 2020 21:45:42 GMT
But back in 1960 they were more trains than now on the Enfield town branch so it can happen and it did back then,9tph as oppose to 6tph now So what is the problem? If seven platforms at LS cannot handle an intense service for one hour to shift the crowds afterwards then the system is not fit for purpose,irrespective of what stock is used or rather the people that run it are not.
Back in the 1960s we did not have powered doors on the WA route that will not open for a second or so after the train has stopped. This means dwell times at stations these days HAVE to be longer as half the trains passengers will not have exited before it has stopped moving.
Back in the 1960s we did not have TPWS or OTMDR. These days because if a driver is proven to fall foul of these safety devices then they WILL be sacked and quite possibility be sent to prison like the Thameslink driver a few years ago drivers have no opportunity to recover from delays. In the case of Liverpool Street TPWS will enforce a 10mph along the platform rather than the 'slam the anchors on at the last minute' approch used in the 1960s
Back in the 1960s signalling design standards with respect to things like minimum overlaps and run by protection were more relaxed thus the installation included several things which are now forbidden under the design rules which had to be used for the late 1990s / early 2000s resignalling of the routes.
All these (and more) mean that the modern railway cannot have the same capacity as was achievable in the 1960s.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 16, 2020 21:02:54 GMT
The residents of Kent, East Sussex and other parts of Bromley Cant envisage many residents of East sussex going to Hayes to catch a train to london for a start!! I took ijmad's comments to be a reference that many residents of Bromley still earnestly try and pretend they are part of the posh rural-ish Kent County Council and not a London borough under the authority of the Urban Grater London Authority.
There is also a slight party political angle too - Bromley is / has always solidly been Conservative territory while the GLC / GLA has been led by Labour in the past.
A similar fiction is also perpetuated in parts of Kingston, Sutton and Croydon where some folk are most vehement that they reside in Surrey (rather than a London Borough), while residents of Bexley, like those in Bromley prefer to still think of themselves as living in Kent.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 18, 2020 8:41:11 GMT
Birmingham!
TfL did not want to extend the lease on the 172 DMUs as they were planning on electrification happening before their lease of the units ended. On the other hand the franchise covering the West Midlands desperately wanted more DMUs - so Angel who actually own the trains signed a contract to make them available to the West Midlands operator as soon as the TfL lease expired.
The fact that (1) the electrification works ran late and (ii) the new Bombardier EMUs were very late in being delivered makes no difference! A contract is a contract and hence the DMUs went north and there was sod all TfL could do about it.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 31, 2020 20:18:08 GMT
There was a crane with grab working on the derailed train on the Midland bridge over the Central Line today. What were they doing, trans-shipping stuff from the derailed wagons into empties on the adjacent line? Trying to lift / re rail a wagon full of stone is considerably more difficult than an empty(ish) one. Plus as it has been suggested that a contributory cause was some of the wagons being overweight they may need emptying a bit anyway to recover them even if they are still on the rails.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 20, 2019 23:25:59 GMT
Not sure whether this is the right place. Move it if not! I had cause to travel from Farringdon to East Croydon today. I went in via the new entrance on Cowcross St and went to buy a ticket. There are only 3 ticket machines and they don't accept East Croydon as a destination despite there being a frequent and direct train service between the two stations without changing trains. It doesn't seem to be that the machines are 'TfL/LUL destinations only' as they were very keen to offer me a ticket to Earlsfield instead. What's the story here I wonder? Something specifically against Thameslink? Given Earlsfield is a National Rail station served by SWR out of Waterloo and nothing to do with TfL/LU in the slightest then the machines are quite clearly not restricted to TfL/LU destinations.
No idea why East Croydon wasn't available though.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 7, 2019 13:01:14 GMT
Right, I suppose I'll have to go through the hassle of putting in a Freedom of Information request for them then. I wish TfL'd just publish them on their website and save everyone involved the hassle...
Why do you need to know? given the rolling stock will be exactly the same as every other Jubilee line train and Charing Cross will only be accessible by those travelling on the tour (whom LU will presumably be in touch with after the tickets has been purchased) is it really that essential to see it?
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 7, 2019 12:57:47 GMT
Does that mean platforms 1 and 2 are, in fact, normally out of use?
This is quite normal these days - on the GWML platforms facing the fast lines at suburban stations are fenced off as no trains are scheduled to call. The same is done on the BML from Victoria southwards and no doubt elsewhere too.
The idea is to try and help prevent suicides, etc by making it hard to launch yourself in front of a fast moving train. However because these fast line platforms are sometimes needed during disruption or engineering works, said platforms cannot be removed permanently.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 3, 2019 18:54:04 GMT
So are you saying that unless all of Enfield/Cheshunt/Chingford/Hertford East/Stanstead/Cambridge/Bishops Stortford are under one management (be that LO or GA) there is no scope for improvement or just all of the short distance services (Enfield/Cheshunt/Chingford/Hertford East) or something else? Given both GA and LO share the same physical infrastructure then yes they ARE effectively under the same management - in the form of Network Rail signallers and timetable planners The bottom line is that the infrastructure simply cannot handle ANY more trains - regardless of who operates them. If you want more LO services then GA trains must be removed to create room - which isn’t going to happen. There seems to be some sort of misapprehension that having TfL takeover rail services will magically enable extra trains to be run - when the cold hard truth is that the NATIONAL RAIL NETWORK in London has finite capacity which HAS to consider ALL user groups and not just pander to the needs of Londoners. Thus the only way to improve the LO services in the way many are calling for on the WA route is therefore massive spending on more tracks - be it a variant of Crossrail 2 or widening the Liverpool Street approaches plus more platforms there.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 11, 2019 21:02:27 GMT
@ stapler, Yes you are right. AND the well respected Gerard FIENNES, in his book "I tried to run a railway", states that "he would have four-tracked the Central Line" The one idea of his that would have had an "HS2" type budget and could have caused more problems than it solved Thanks CB. I once heard a lecture by Mr Gerard Francis Gisborne Twistleton-Wykeham-Fiennes. (to give his full names!) His operating knowledge did include what became the Central Line NE extension, as I think he ran the line during the war; he was responsible for its use as a GEML diversionary route (via Woodford, Fairlop, and Seven Kings). Certainly he said, a mistake to give over the GE metals to tube trains. It rather depends on what position within the LNER you held...
Despite the exploits of Mallard and having legendary trains like the 'Flying Scotsman', the LNER was by far the poorest of the 'big 4' companies. Shareholders in the company suffered considerably during and after the Great depression and expert analysis in later years has shown that if it wasn't for WW2 then the LNER would have ended up going brankrupt by the mid 1940s
The LNER board were very much aware that they had to do something about their London suburban operations (which were very inefficient compared to the electrified Newcastle system or the vast southern Railway 3rd rail network), but there simply wasn't the capital available to do so. When some finance did become available thanks to Government grants the LNER quite sensibly allocated what they had into GEML mainline electrification - which in the longer term could also be used by express trains
So while handing the Fairlop loop to LU may have made things a liitle awkward for Mr Feinnes, for the LNER as a whole it was undoubtedly a very necessary measure.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 6, 2019 10:19:17 GMT
The other thing to consider is stopping accuracy!
Its one thing stopping a train that has dry wheels on dry rails in an enclosed tunnel - quite another thing doing so when the rails and wheels are soaking wet - plus possibly suffering from contamination from debris blown onto the track like leaves (in sufficiently strong winds like those last Friday Saturday you don't have to have trees on railway property for leaf matter to cause problems!)
While computer control may be better than humans it still cannot override the laws of physics as regards friction.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 3, 2019 22:22:42 GMT
It's worth remembering that the cutting heads frequently require maintenance and repair, including replacement parts, en route. Think of them like drill bits in an electric drill.
While this is indeed true, the cutting heads on a TBM are classed as 'consumables' - just a the individual bis householder or builder might put in their latest Makita / De-walt / power tool.
Just as a householder / builder doesn't throw away the power tool after each individual job, the same is true of TBMs - many of the parts / systems which go into the 'train' behind the cutting heads will be good for multiple tunnelling jobs.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 3, 2019 20:21:18 GMT
It seems weird that since expensive monster tunnelling machines became the norm for most larger tunnel projects, relatively few have been re-used. Actually most have been!
What you need to remember is that most of the cost of TBMs is NOT the cutting head - its the sophisticated 'train' of spoil handling / segment installation, etc equipment which follows on behind.
One a TBM has completed its run, most of this expensive kit is refurnished then reused - particularly as in most cases the end of the tunnelling will be in a station box, a vent shaft where the tunnel surfaces allowing easy access for dismantling.
The channel tunnel example given above is actually very much the exception rather than he rule - and even here, much of the backroom kit was removed for reuse - what was left was basically a metal shell and worn cutting head.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 25, 2019 11:19:12 GMT
This is a strange one. I was rest day yesterday but saw plenty of posts on a c2c customer Facebook page about a bridge strike in the Elm Park area, so like everyone else I assume that's what happened. But having looked at both the Service Manager and Senior Operating Officer's daily summaries, there was no such event. The issue that suspended both railways was a rusted former overhead line structure that was in danger of imminent collapse due to excessive corrosion and had to cut down before it fell down. Why it was a reported a bridge strike is a mystery to me and is utterly bizarre!! "In danger of immediate collapse!" "Better tell them it was a bridge strike, ot they'll have the Inspectors in!"
It was more likely described as a 'bridge strike' as that is an easier thing for the media / public to understand - just as problems with point or track circuits will usually just be refereed to as "a problem with the signalling system"
|
|