|
Post by phil on Oct 18, 2019 14:03:03 GMT
What about levels of Silica dust? (produced by the cutting / grinding of concrete)
Those working on Network Rails High Output Ballast cleaning / track renewal train MUST be clean shaven and wear tight fitting dust masks to prevent the breathing in of such particles as science has shown them to be just as dangerous as Asbestos fibres with regard to the lungs.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 5, 2019 22:20:26 GMT
My son is assistant fleet engineer for the Southern franchise. The 313s will soldier on quite a bit longer yet on the coast lines! The only possibility for their replacement is if the DfT chose to continue their ‘new train’ fetish when the Southern franchise is renewed. Based on past experience then bids which do away with the 313 and 455 fleet would be looked upon favourably. Of course there is no guarantee the current decision makers will still be in there jobs next year - let alone 3/4 years hence....
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 4, 2019 8:21:48 GMT
If you look at those TOCs who operate something on Boxing Day, such as Southern who normally operate some form of a skeleton service on one or two of the Metro lines until around 6pm, is that for commercial reasons or funding from TfL? I imagine it is part of their franchise agreement with the DfT as I very much doubt that TfL would be funding non-TfL services with a £0.5bn deficit. There is nothing to stop TOCs running services outside the franchise terms if they wish - providing it does not cost the DfT anything. All the franchise agreements say is that TOCs are not legally required to run the minimum service specification which applies the rest of the year. As has been noted, in previous years running a limited service on Boxing Day has been part funded by TfL and IIRC a contribution from Gatwick airport. It may be that the revenue generated (and the good PR) is seen by Southern as worthwhile so they are now prepared to bankroll the operations themselves.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 3, 2019 21:11:02 GMT
Nice surprise that the ELL is running all the way down to West Croydon. I thought they might have trialied it between New Cross Gate and H&I, but clearly NR have given them the go ahead to go on NR metals. NR have an obligation to provide full network access if TOCs request it - Christmas or not. The key signal centres will be maned and although it can be reduced to a skelton crew if nothing is operating, that is contingent on the TOC / engineering requirements and not the other way round. What folk need to understand is that the DfT deliberate exclude Christmas Day and Boxing Day from the franchise obligations and THAT is why you don’t get National Rail services operating on those two days.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 24, 2019 9:56:26 GMT
A Minority of passengers may grumble at first - they always do to any change - but within a couple of months they will just be glad that a train turns up relatively on time and gets them to their destination in a modicum of comfort. But if they now cannot get a seat thanks to the Tube style interior then they won't have a 'modicum of comfort'!
What TfL (and quite a few posters on here) don't seem to understand is that when it comes to commuting journeys from the outer fare zones to the centre, tube style seating is only suitable if you have tube style frequencies thus thus keeping the number of seats per hour at a high level or that said train will also be traversing the central area (where short station dwell times and the ability to crush load at rush hour is important).
On the West Anglia routes there is (and won't be even after Crossrail) any extra track capacity on the Liverpool Street approaches to add any more trains - thus the number of seats per hour will drop massively after the 710s are introduced i place of the 315s / 317s.
It will also be more gulling as fares on the route will continue to increase so as to comply with the DfT rules as regards annual fare increases.
The optimal layout for the Chingford branch (particularly as it does to ravel through the centre of London) is actually 2+ 2 seating with big vestibules around the doorways - thus providing a compromise between promoting short station dwell times but also given a seat to as many folk as possible.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 3, 2019 19:16:05 GMT
Once the Elizabeth line opens fully, is the fare structure going to change to the LU model? By naming the line like a London Underground line it's bound to cause confusion if it is not. It'll have to in Central London, surely, as it'll be impossible to tell whether someone has travelled on the Elizabeth Line or LU services until someone has travelled east of Stratford / west of Ealing unless separate gatelines are to be installed? How is Thameslink fares structured within the core? Do I recall LU fares applied to that when it opened within the central area?
West of Paddington and East of Liverpool Street fares on the Elizabeth line will HAVE to mirror those currently in place on the national rail network.
Ealing Broadway will still be served by GWR and Stratford will continue to be served by GA. Any departure by TfL from National rail fares will cause differences to emerge leading to the cliff edge situation the DfT has specifically forbidden.
Yes between Paddington and Abbey Wood its TfLs railway so they can do what they want - but by virtue of operations west of Paddington and east from Liverpool St to Shenfield being takeovers of current national rail services operating on national rail infrastructure then the DfT rules as regards fares MUST stay.
Thameslink fares through the core are determined by the DfT rules - and many are still based on the premise that national rail services from the north 'terminate at Faringdon (was Moorgate) and those from the south 'terminate at City Thameslink (was Holborn Viaduct). They fit within the zonal structure because the DfT has input (via franchised operators) into the Travelcard scheme meaning TfL cannot arbiterally 'freeze fares'
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 23, 2019 11:21:45 GMT
While this may have been acceptable in the past (and the phrasing suggests we are), the current laws around industrial action are quite clear - only persons belonging to the specific trade union involved in the dispute have any protection under law should they chose to strike (and even then only for the first 6 weeks I think if you stick strictly to what the legislation says). Anyone else not coming in and citing the dispute as a reason for absence is considered to be taking ‘secondary action’ - which is illegal and they thus can be subject to disciplinary proceedings including dismissal should their employer be sufficiently hostile to trade unions to push the matter. However I am not sure how a company would know who is a union member. As part part of the Thatcherite anti trade union laws it is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT for any union taking strike action to pass on to the companies management a complete list of their members. If your name is not on the list, then the employer can take disciplinary action as you will legally be dreamed to be ‘absent without leave’ and in breach of your contract of employment. By contrast anyone on the list gets legal immunity from disciplinary action if they take strike action in the first 6 weeks after the ballot result in favour of action is announced. Beyond 6 weeks the legal protection disappears and technically a fresh ballot must be held to rest the clock. In reality (particularly in the public service sector) employers are rarely that harsh and will not take disciplinary action against union members even though 6 weeks have passed. However the longer a dispute goes on past the 6 week threshold, then the greater the chance the company will be able to argue in court that the strike mandate is no longer valid - hence in long running disputes like the current one on South Western Railway over the role of Guards, regular ballots must be held to provide legal protection to the union and its members. This is why trades unions are very proactive at telling members to ensure their details are up to date. This outlines the rules which pertain in the UK as regards strike action. www.gov.uk/industrial-action-strikeswww.gov.uk/if-your-business-faces-industrial-actionwww.gov.uk/if-your-business-faces-industrial-action/strike-pay-and-working-records
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 21, 2019 23:56:10 GMT
Even non union members could refuse to cross a picket line, gone are the days when union subs were taken from payroll While this may have been acceptable in the past (and the phrasing suggests we are), the current laws around industrial action are quite clear - only persons belonging to the specific trade union involved in the dispute have any protection under law should they chose to strike (and even then only for the first 6 weeks I think if you stick strictly to what the legislation says). Anyone else not coming in and citing the dispute as a reason for absence is considered to be taking ‘secondary action’ - which is illegal and they thus can be subject to disciplinary proceedings including dismissal should their employer be sufficiently hostile to trade unions to push the matter.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 18, 2019 18:45:54 GMT
Fair comment. So, could one actually put points in, back onto the NLL which would be set "through" when the terminating train arrived - after all there wouldn't be anything approaching on the NLL. Then the points would be reverted to mainline use when the train was safely stopped in its correct position, at the same time that the east end bay entry points were switched? Then I guess the What-If brigade will whinge at the possibility of fouling the nearby diamond cross-over... The problem you run into here is pathing - it’s not just a case of saying ‘nothing is approching’ as you would have to provide signal protection or all moves from the Barking direction. In essence any arrival into the bay (or loop as you have suggested) would prevent any moves on the NLL. Aside from the considerable resignalling costs, given the intensive use of the NLL - including the interaction with other routes by freight, there is increased risk of importing delays from the Goblin to the rest of the system. Indeed one of the downsides of the Barking Riverside branch is that Goblin services lose their dedicated bay platform at Barking and will have to mix it with frequent C2C services massively increasing the opportunities for late running. Once again the difference between the Underground style ‘single line with no interaction with any other line’ setup has significant implications as to what is realistically feasible on the national rail network.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 18, 2019 18:32:59 GMT
The 319s released as destined to become 769 Flexes. The leasing companies are very keen to make money out of units that are really life expired. Converting 360s would be more attractive. Conversions cost money - and like all responsible companies the ROSCO will only go down that route (as opposed to storage / scrapping) if the monetary sums add up. The main reason the 319 to 769 conversion was started is the fact that in principle all you needed to do was basically add a Diesel engine / alternator combo to create 750V and trick the unit to think it was working off 3rd rail. Granted as the project has gone on things have turned out to not be quite so straight forward (body shell corrosion and Diesel engine integration issues) but none of these undermine the principle that a DC EMU is an easier proposition to convert. The problem with OLE conversions to bi-modes is there has to be much more tinkering with the traction systems, as to put it crudely you cannot get a Diesel engine / alternator combo with a 25KV output to bolt on the underside of the unit. Not impossible to do of course, but more costly.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 18, 2019 6:45:37 GMT
A quick look at Google satellite view (possibly out of date) suggests that the buffers could be moved almost one carriage length westwards. With no space for a platform extension, could one SDO that end? I suspect that moving the buffer stop any further westwards might fall foul of modern safety standards as an impact with the moved buffers could lead them to end up fouling the NLL. As with many things these days, if something already exists it can claim ‘grandfather rights’ to remain in use - however if it gets altered then any ‘grandfather rights’ disappear and a full upgrade is normally required.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 17, 2019 19:44:56 GMT
On the original subject, I'm actually surprised at the lack of train stops in the bay. So let's expand the question a bit, and ask - what protections exist on the DC line to ensure that Bakerloo and NR stocks don't come into conflict? Previously both the National Rail stock that usually* worked the DC lines and the Bakerloo stock had tripcocks. These days it may be that National rail stock has migrated to TPWS as SPAD / overspeed protection while tripcocks have been retained to perform the same function for Underground stock. Given both protection systems are derived from the same overall signalling system then conflict prevention is maintained even though the actual delivery is different. * I understand that in the past when the WCML proper was shut south of Watford, British Rail did occasionally use the DC lines to carry diverted WCML traffic (diesel hauled obviously)
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 17, 2019 19:34:47 GMT
There is an expectation from the public (many of whom do not have the luxury of a forceful / militant trade Union to protect them) and right wing politicians that transport operators will do their upmost to provide a service on strike days. As such it doesn’t matter what the trade unions think about the practice (from a legal perspective UK law makes it crystal clear that any attempt to intimidate those coming into work must be allowed to do so), those managers with the required competencies are expected to take on front line duties. And if managers operate trains on strike days, this in itself causes disruption as it causes managers to get behind on their work causing a backlog Indeed so - but given the negative public / political reaction to service disruption then a backlog of managerial work is a small price to pay for an operator who wants to be seen to be doing its upmost to minimise said disruption.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 17, 2019 19:32:46 GMT
There is an expectation from the public (many of whom do not have the luxury of a forceful / militant trade Union to protect them) and right wing politicians that transport operators will do their upmost to provide a service on strike days. As such it doesn’t matter what the trade unions think about the practice (from a legal perspective UK law makes it crystal clear that any attempt to intimidate those coming into work must be allowed to do so), those managers with the required competencies are expected to take on front line duties. Can you tell me when managers have operated trains in passenger service on the London Underground in the last few years , when there is a strike on a line? I use the term ‘managers’ loosely as I am not aware of the exact nature of the LU departments concerned. However it’s certainly the case that during the Southern strikes, various managers retained their train driving ability despite not regularly being in the front line and thus were sent out to drive trains during the strike. Similarly if I went on strike then my depot manager would be expected to go out of the office to fix S&T faults....
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 17, 2019 19:27:43 GMT
As far as I can tell Angel Trains own the Class 360s, they're only getting rid of the 30-year old Pacers so I don't imagine they'd want to scrap trains that are only half that age. One thing that needs to be remembered is that the TfL 360s lack things like TPWS which are mandatory for routes other than the GWML between Airport Junction and Paddington. This is because the British Rail ATP(GW) system provides superior protection. Moving the units elsewhere is thus problematic as TPWS has to be retrofitted - and much depends on whether passive provision has been made when it comes to how easy that is. I also understand they are coming up to needing a serious mid-life overhaul which needs to be factored in to their attractiveness for another operator. Then there is the ‘new train’ fetish in Whitehall which has places great emphasis on new rolling stock. Finally with the scaling back of mainline electrification 25KV powered units are not that useful - increasingly leasing companies are looking to find ways of making them bi-modes so as to attract users.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 17, 2019 18:47:35 GMT
'With South Tottenham, one could probably get round the issue with SDO to an extent, but obviously, this isn't an option at a terminus'. Is there a regulation that says that at a terminus station all doors must be opened? The problem at Gospel Oak is that a longer train cannot fit between the buffer stops and the fouling point of the entrance to the bay. And the proximity of a bridge means any extension of the bay would be mega bucks due to the bridge / embankment modifications. Realistically the only way of running longer trains on the line is to extend them onto the NLL (which prevents them calling at Gospal Oak) - but that brings in a whole other set of issues relating to pathing.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 17, 2019 18:41:39 GMT
Controllers are like an insurance policy. Ideally they should be sat there doing nothing - this means the service is running as booked with no issues. The plan should just work with no intervention. Controllers should only need to intervene when something happens outside the plan (which tends to be a lot of the time!). With industrial action, a plan might be produced with limited resources that can be guaranteed. Sometimes these will be managers operating trains who have limited experience who are more likely to have operational incidents. Sometimes management might want to introduce more trains into the plan if more drivers turn up to work than expected - this is a huge workload for controllers, as putting trains into a timetable is more work than taking them out! If managers operate trains it’s likely to upset the unions and prolong the strike . There is an expectation from the public (many of whom do not have the luxury of a forceful / militant trade Union to protect them) and right wing politicians that transport operators will do their upmost to provide a service on strike days. As such it doesn’t matter what the trade unions think about the practice (from a legal perspective UK law makes it crystal clear that any attempt to intimidate those coming into work is prohibited and will result in large fines), those managers with the required competencies are expected to take on front line duties.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 14, 2019 9:07:01 GMT
The reason that Undergroud trains have more positive shoes is because the positive rail can be on the right or left side of the running rails. Erm.... the same applies to National Rail
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 13, 2019 21:15:31 GMT
Think you have your positives and negatives mixed up? The (centre) negative rail would have gaps cut in for TPWS grids and 378s do not require a separate negative rail, they return the positive current (outside rail) back via the running rails. oops good job I'm not track trained at any level isn't it !!!! the question remains though...... let's simplify it, why has Willesden Junction bay road got 3rd and 4th rails ? You are getting yourself in a bit of a muddle over this. The outside 3rd rail is required for BOTH Underground and National Rail stock. It is charged up to either 420V positive polarity for routes only used by Underground stock, but becomes charged at 630V positive polarity for areas where both Underground and National Rail* services operate as National Rail services do not use negatively charged rails. The 4th rail is required for Underground stock ONLY and is either charged to 210V negative polarity, or it carries no charge (0V) but is connected to both running rails where both Underground and National Rail stock operate. This is because the electrical current path ALL current National Rail conductor rail powered stock use is:- substation - 3rd rail - traction motors - running rails - substation By contrast the electrical path used by ALL Underground trains is:- Substation - 3rd rail - traction motors - 4th rail - substation. As far as the bay platform at Willesden Junction is concerned then:- (1) If it is only to be used by National Rail trains then it dies not need a 4th rail** or Underground safety systems like tripcocks. It will require National Rail systems like TPWS though. (2) If it is only to be used by Underground services then it will need 4th rail and tripcocks - but not National Rail systems like TPWS. (3) If it is to be used by both Underground and National Rail services then it needs both organisations safety systems plus 4th rail. NOTE:- * London Overground services are legally part of the UKs National Rail Operation and not something TfL have the freedom to organise as they wish. ** Even if the 4th rail is not technically required for the operation of National Rail services, it can simplify maintenance or other engineering aspects to retain it - even if rack renewal has taken place. As with most railway oddities there will be a reason (though not necessarily a logical one) but such cases normally require specialist knowledge of the area concerned.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 11, 2019 7:38:41 GMT
GTR = Grater Thameslink Railway, the holding company that runs Southern, Gatwick Express, Thameslink and Great Northern brands
OLE = Overhead line electrification.
The reason I gave the detailed explanation of the national rail problems was the implication that GTR were lazy / incompetent in restoring the service compared to London Underground when in reality the failure modes experienced were different and thus impacted service recovery times accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 10, 2019 18:25:11 GMT
Without going into too much detail, the issue was similar to that experienced on Thameslink/Great Northern - trains temporarily disabled as a result of the power surge, as opposed to a loss of traction power. All trains were successfully reset and on the move within thirty minutes (unlike GTR). As far as I am aware Victoria line trains do not use OLE and Siemens multiple units. The reason for the chaos on Thameslink north of City Thameslink is entirely down to the design of the Siemens class 700 / 717 stock when working from OLE. Acording to informed sources, the problem with the 700s and 717s was not the loss of power, or the rebooting. It was the premature rebooting before the overheads were reset that caused the problem. If they don't detect line voltage, the pantograph will automatically drop after 90 seconds. Try that three times and the 4 quadrant chopper, part of the power equipment, will think there's a problem and will lock itself out. It can then only be reset with a laptop. Now, it doesn’t take a genius to realise that if drivers were not awere of this (and most weren't) their attempts to get moving before the OLE power was properly restored means you now have large quantities of trains without air conditioning, working toilets, proper lighting stranded all over the place - blocking junctions, inside tunnels etc. Neuther GTR nor NR have vast armies of technicians with laptops standing by - and those few that GTR do have at Hornsy or Three Bridges are going to take a long time to getting to the trains stuck, particularly the further away they are. Additionally you have to remember that if de-training occurs (either supervised by NR / the TOC or unauthorised as passengers get fed up staying on trains with no power for hours) then the railway must be closed to train movements. Hence even though LNER and East Midlands Trains rolling stock was not affected by the outage - the mass stranding of the GTR / GN fleet still resulted in line closures with no services permitted south of Bedford / Peterborough for a considerable period of time.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 10, 2019 9:10:11 GMT
If the same journies mentioned by the OP were made, would these "fare disparities" exist if an oyster travelcard was used, or a contactless card with weekly capping?
Yes! The DfT requirements as regards Overground fare policy must be maintained whatever the payment method (cash, Oyster, Contactless or Travelcard) used. As I said earlier even though TfL like to pretend they are in total control of Overground services, the reality is somewhat different.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 9, 2019 17:39:26 GMT
Short answer: Politics. Slightly longer answer: TfL don't fully control the fares on National Rail routes and on routes with parallel NR services they are set in combination with the relevant other operator(s) and the DfT. They are also not allowed to allow cliff-edge fare differences at the Greater London zonal boundary. Like anything to do with rail fares in the UK though it's all very complicated. I can see that, but there are no other routes paralleling the Chingford line. So it must just be the DFT (there is an A missing from that, surely?) It’s a point lots of people (including quite a few on this fourm) fail to appreciate - that despite all the ‘Overground’ branding (and TfLs attempts to act as though the national rail network doesn’t exist publicity wise), the transfer of said ‘Overground’ services to TfL from the DfT is contingent on certain things being done (and continuing to be done) as the DfT dictate. It is a legal requirement (of the deal between the DfT and TfL) that ‘Overground’ fares must broadly in line with national fares policy (e.g. year on year increases, no ‘cliff edges’ at / close to the TfL boundary, no reduction in the revues accruing to other TOCs as part of the Travelcard scheme, etc. Yes TfL have some wiggle room - but due to differing fares polices between the DfT and TfL that room is reducing year on year. Incidentally it’s being part of the national rail setup that has saved quite a few ticket offices as under the 1994 privatisation legislation there are a lot more legally mandated hoops that must be jumped through compared to ‘pure’ TfL operations like the Tube. Were TfL to try and do there own thing then powers exist for the DfT to take back control of the Overground concession - though obviously relations would have to have completely broken down for this event to take place. As such Mayor Khan’s ‘fare freeze’ is impossible to implement on the Overground - if he kept fares low on the Chingford branch say then you would get a ‘cliff edge’ situation emerging between Walthamstow and Hackney Downs (the later being shared with the DfT run Grater Anglia franchise who are expected to increase fares up to 1% above inflation every year by said DfT).
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 6, 2019 15:15:05 GMT
So just like every other Overground decision regarding train and platform lengths! But it isn't (just) an Overground decision is it? It is down to Network Rail to price and find the money for it. Gospel Oak should be do-able, but would need track and signalling alterations. South Tottenham would always be the most difficult owing to the position of the A10 bridge and the junction to the east. Given the costs, increasing the frequency would be a cheaper first option, especially once Barking Riverside opens.
The problem with this is that LO need to share the route with other operators - and in particularly freight companies whose long trains will also have an impact on the radial main lines and require careful timetabling to make our National Rail network work effectively for ALL users - not just GLA voters. Simply stuffing lots more short LO trains on a line may go down well with passengers, but it potentially wrecks the ability of the line to cope with disruption, prevents minor maintenance checks from being carried out or the ability to accommodate other operations - which is why Network Rail generally prefer an increase in train length rather than an increase in frequency.
Thats not to say an increase in service frequency is not possible or not desirable of course - but rather its a reminder that when we are talking about the national rail network it must be viewed / judged very differently from the self contained LU owned / operated, passenger only tube network where high frequencies are much easier to implement.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 7, 2019 16:12:00 GMT
So why can't the occasional National Rail trains run over LU controlled infrastructure rather than frequent LU trains run over LU owned but NR controlled infrastructure. What advantage was gained by LU buying the branch? There is no reason in theory why LU could not ‘control’ the south end of the branch and give SWR ‘running powers’ over it like they do with Chiltern and the Met. However:- (1) The signaling on the branch is installed to BR / NR standards NOT LU standards (and we are not just talking the visible bits here - it’s quite likely there are fundamental design / wiring / technical / nomenclature differences too all of which require the S&T from LU to learn a whole new way of doing things. (2) The aforementioned signaling was modernised in the late 1980s / early 1990s by BR and is fully intergrated with the signalling installed on the SWML. It is far from life expired and renewal now is a massive waste of money. (3) Likewise the conductor rail feeding arrangements are fully integrated into the SWML control infrastructure and have been heavily enhanced to BR/NR standards in recent years to cope with the change from slam door stock to the power hungry Desiros. (5) If LU kept things as they are as regards signaling / power but tried to ‘take control’ of the infrastructure and rapid response it makes things very difficult as you end up with a bespoke structure - which requires bespoke training, etc. Far better to keep things as they are and let NR handle all aspects of the branch which signaled / controlled / supplied from the SWML in accordance with NR standards (4) Even if LU did spend vast amounts of money re-arranging the signaling / power side of things to confirm to their norms not only would they still have to find a way of catering for SWR moves* but also due to the shared use of the NLL beyond Gunnersbury LU stock would still need to be able to work with BR/NR signalling / power control. Now it may be that when the SWML signalling interlockings / power distribution setup require replacement in two or three decades time, then LU could instead install their own systems - but in the meantime it’s simply not worth the money. *remember SWR would have ‘grandfather rights’ so to speak which means it would be necessary for LU to fit the SWT fleet with LU style tripcocks, etc if LU ditched the BR / NR signalling - an expense that LU can ill afford. NR work in a ‘very different way’ for sound reasons. Firstly train operation and infrastructure on the national network are not intergrated - NR cannot turn round to SWR and demand the use of one of their trains to take response staff to site* due to the franchise system. Neither will said TOC be prepared to have their train sat there for an extended period of time - they will want it cautioned through the area and sent on its way. Secondly having a SWR train sat there to act as protection is unnecessary as much of the railway infrastructure on NR can be accessed using the traditional lookout warning setup as there is space to stand clear of the line when an approching train is sighted. By contrast lots of LU is in tunnels or brick lined cuttings where it is unsafe for staff to be present. If line blockages are required on the national network it is relatively simple to do so via the signaller. Due to the ability to gain access to the lineside between stations plus the use of lookout warning sending staff straight to site via Road is logical. It is disappointing that some don’t appreciate that what works well for a vertically intergrated urban metro system (which only runs ‘all station’ stoping services using identical rolling stock) does not work for a national system that has to cater for express, semi-fast, freight, light loco and charter services as well as all station stoppers - all using rolling stock with very different performance charichteristics and all operated by someone other than the infrastructure provider. Yes there are undoubtably things which LU do which NR could use to improve itself - but equally there are bound to be examples of things NR does which may be of benefit to LU, however given the very different structural approach put in place for each it’s unwise to assume everything is transferable. LU = Opperations + infrastructure vertically intergrated, under direct control of the regional transport body, strong mayoral oversight NR = Opperations franchised out, infrastructure losely controlled by the DfT, very little direct political accountability i.e. we don’t vote in the Secretary of State for Transport like the London Mayor * Very occasionally infrastructure staff may be taken to site where the faulty equipment is in the middle of a tunnel say, but this is the exception rather than the rule and still requires a sign off by the senoir on duty management of the TOC. I’m fully aware of the differences thank you, no need to show off your knowledge. However, the necessity of taking line blocks in many cases has prolonged an incident and L.U.L are often more than happy to allow people to take a taxi train to the site and hold it there in section because it’s quicker than walking to site and also allows the D.R.M or N.I.R.M to give updates to the service manager and senior operating officer about what is going on with the incident. Network Rail do not have the same or even similar incident management processes or experience in managing incidents in a reasonable timeframe as London Underground do. If you are awere of the differences why did you put up a post which implied ignorance of said differences. Let me repeat, NR and LU have very different cooperate structures as a direct result of how HM Government have decided they want to run things. LU are a vertically intergrated organisation - they can do what they like with trains - use them to block the line, use them as Taxis precisely because doing so does not involve any outside parties. The privatisation of British Rail deliberately broke that link and ANY decisions regarding train Opperations require the explicit agreement of the external operator who not only has to right to say ‘no, get lost’ but who can also demand large wads of monetary compensation. If you want NR to start behaving like LU then you had better start campaigning for a certain political party to be elected - because sorry, until the national rail network is re-intergrated / nationalised then moving closer to the LU style response is not remotely feasible due the legal / contractural and cost implications. Also the fact that the majority of the LU network is in tunnels or brick lined cuttings where staff cannot work while trains are running CANNOT be dismissed as lightly as you seem to think. Yes it’s not a deal breaker, but it is very relevant when it comes to response techniques. Doom & gloom surrounds 4LM!! Of course it'll happen! They've built new SER's at East Putney and Wimbledon and have installed the new cable runs. "They" are far too deep into it now to pull out. As @aetearlscourt says, the Wimbledon branch will still operate under Network Rail rules just as it does today. The CBTC system that S stock will operate under will take its information from the current signalling system which isn't going anywhere as it's still needed by SWR trains that operate empty stock moves along the branch. The reason why the branch operates under Network Rail rules and with Network Rail traction supplies is that it was formerly owned by British Rail/Railtrack until London Underground bought it for £1 in 1994. Fully aware of this but Im not sure /that/ is the sole reason, given that the Waterloo + City was in the same boat, but is operated under L.U.L rules (with the exception that when traction current is requested OFF, the Controller calls the Raynes Park Network rail electrical control room rather than the L.U.L power control room (colloquially known as Leicester Square even though it’s no longer there!) and there are other tube lines that are ex-BR (and predecessors) that don’t run under N.R rules It’s a shame that the line will continue to run under N.R rules. Incidents on their network are managed so inefficiently compared to on the underground. The Waterloo & City is actually very different to the Wimbledon branch because when BR modernised it back in 1992, they actually used LU kit and standards - even putting back the 4th rail that had been removed at the time of the late 1930s modernisation by the Southern Railway. This was done so BR could take advantage of LUs order for new Central Line trains rather than have to spend a fortune on their own bespoke designs. Obviously the other factor is the W&C is self contained and has no interaction with any other BR/NR services - after the Eurostar rebuild got rid of the old hoist to the surface even overalls were done underground or with the stock cranked out and put on road vehicles. This again facilitated the use of LU standard kit. Therefore come privatisation, the transfer of the W&C to full LU control was pretty easy - very different from the Wimbledon branch LU purchased at the same time. <<superteacher: Three consecutive posts merged into one.>>
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 4, 2019 14:26:45 GMT
goldenarrow The DLR do certainly use their flexibility to the max during disruption. The other week there was a failed train at Elverson Road, as part of the working around it they terminated trains from London in Mudchute platform 3, ran a two-train shuttle service between there and Greenwich with one train on each line, and a one-train service bidirectionally on one line between Greenwich and Lewisham. Seems ironic that the opposite is being done on the Underground with the removal of useful crossovers and sidings! To be fair none of the Opperations Chris M described required the use of emergency crossovers (even if it is not used much these days the turnback platform at Mudchute isn’t technically an ‘emergency’ facility. What makes the DLR very flexible is actually the fact that it’s train control system treets all tracks as potentially bi-directional - unlike the traditionally signaled tube / surface railways where bi-directional capability means a massive jump in signalling costs due to all the extra lineside kit required, and in the days of relay based interlockings significantly increased backroom kit too.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 1, 2019 13:40:15 GMT
There incident teams cover massive areas compared to LU which are line based and usually have atleast 2 teams on duty at all times per line They also work in a completely different way, (e.g. Needing to take like blocks rather than travel on a train to site and hold it there for protection). It’s very disappointing for long suffering customers that the inefficiencies of Network Rail will continue even after the LU system takes over. NR work in a ‘very different way’ for sound reasons. Firstly train operation and infrastructure on the national network are not intergrated - NR cannot turn round to SWR and demand the use of one of their trains to take response staff to site* due to the franchise system. Neither will said TOC be prepared to have their train sat there for an extended period of time - they will want it cautioned through the area and sent on its way. Secondly having a SWR train sat there to act as protection is unnecessary as much of the railway infrastructure on NR can be accessed using the traditional lookout warning setup as there is space to stand clear of the line when an approching train is sighted. By contrast lots of LU is in tunnels or brick lined cuttings where it is unsafe for staff to be present. If line blockages are required on the national network it is relatively simple to do so via the signaller. Due to the ability to gain access to the lineside between stations plus the use of lookout warning sending staff straight to site via Road is logical. It is disappointing that some don’t appreciate that what works well for a vertically intergrated urban metro system (which only runs ‘all station’ stoping services using identical rolling stock) does not work for a national system that has to cater for express, semi-fast, freight, light loco and charter services as well as all station stoppers - all using rolling stock with very different performance charichteristics and all operated by someone other than the infrastructure provider. Yes there are undoubtably things which LU do which NR could use to improve itself - but equally there are bound to be examples of things NR does which may be of benefit to LU, however given the very different structural approach put in place for each it’s unwise to assume everything is transferable. LU = Opperations + infrastructure vertically intergrated, under direct control of the regional transport body, strong mayoral oversight NR = Opperations franchised out, infrastructure losely controlled by the DfT, very little direct political accountability i.e. we don’t vote in the Secretary of State for Transport like the London Mayor * Very occasionally infrastructure staff may be taken to site where the faulty equipment is in the middle of a tunnel say, but this is the exception rather than the rule and still requires a sign off by the senoir on duty management of the TOC.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 10, 2019 0:03:02 GMT
The section west of Dalston Junction is indeed NR property. The signalling is controlled from NXG which is TfL BUT the signalling staff are provided by NR who also provide the electrical power, and own all the structures as well as the stations at H&I and Canonbury. P2 at Highbury is still designated as the ELL/NLL connection line; however, it was never brought into use and at present there are no plans to do so, unless the DC line is diverted away from Euston then, as the legend has it, 2 of its trains might be routed to NX (via this connecting line) and 2 to Stratford. Of course, to run such a service the DC line would need more than its intended 7 Class 710/2s. There are some people (including me) who would see a through service from New Cross to Willesden Junction as a good idea that passengers would appreciate. Via a reopened Primrose Hill (its shorter than going via Hampstead Heath), and 'in addition to' the existing Euston service - not instead of. The passengers who use the service into Euston very much want this to remain as it offers the fastest way to this part of London and the West End. Yes passengers may well welcome such a link - but the National Rail Network in London is not there to be the sole plaything of TfL / Overground services! Just because something can be physically done doesn't mean it is a good idea once you start looking beyond the London centric / passenger only / tube aping mindset and consider the wider situation.
Firstly the NLL is a key freight artery round London linking several radial main lines each with a different timetable which may well require freights to be recessed out the way awaiting suitable slots. As has been noted the Primrose Hill line is one such place where freights (or other departmental workings) can be recessed clear of the busy NLL or WCML which helps ensure passenger services are not held up. Yes it is possible to sometimes mitigate the issue with careful timetabling but it should not be assumed there are any easy solutions or that expensive new infrastructure would not be needed (particularly bearing in mind the next paragraph).
The second thing to consider is the problem of 'performance pollution' where delays on one route get rapidly transferred to another. Thameslink is perhaps the best example of this problem where the ECML, the MML and the BML (plus various Kent routes and the Wimbledon Loop) are all tied together and where a points failure at Windmill Bridge Junction (just to the north of East Croydon) could delay trains as far away as Derby, Leeds or Edinburgh! At present the ELL is basically an extension of the Southern suburban network - if something goes wrong on that section then the NLL is completely unaffected. If you link the ELL to the NLL then you potentially screw up the NLL - which in turn could screw up the GEML and WCML if freights get caught up in the mess......
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 9, 2019 23:38:09 GMT
The section west of Dalston Junction is indeed NR property. The signalling is controlled from NXG which is TfL BUT the signalling staff are provided by NR who also provide the electrical power, and own all the structures as well as the stations at H&I and Canonbury. P2 at Highbury is still designated as the ELL/NLL connection line; however, it was never brought into use and at present there are no plans to do so, unless the DC line is diverted away from Euston then, as the legend has it, 2 of its trains might be routed to NX (via this connecting line) and 2 to Stratford. Of course, to run such a service the DC line would need more than its intended 7 Class 710/2s. I recall this topic being discussed some years ago - when the present track layout was created. It was said at the time that 'someone' (I am not sure who) was concerned that if such a link was operable it would lead to calls for it to be used by frequent passenger trains. This makes me think of British Railways, who apparently were 'very angry' when the Beeching plan to close the North London Line was thwarted by ordinary people campaigning to keep it open and even to provide a better service so as to attract more passengers! As history has proven, these campaigners were absolutely right and the professionals* who wanted the line closed were totally wrong. (* in what industry they were professionals I have no idea - obviously it cannot have been in providing decent, attractive public transport which aims to meet the needs of the travelling public. Maybe it was [redacted])
You are trying to judge history by modern ideals - not as the prevailing attitudes were at the time.
Such a 'revisionist' approach to the past does no favours and can blind future generations to the REAL causes of the continued attempts to remove railway services in the past.
You need to remember that throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, the view of HM Government (i.e. the people who gave BR cash and set the priorities) was that railways were done for - British Rail was merely there to facilitate a managed decline of the UK rail network in favour of the private car.
British Railways WAS part of UK Government machine - and although it acted as a sort of firebreak against Politicians meddling too much in operational matters (something which is sorely missed today), like any Government department it was expected that British Rail organisation would toes the party line and absorb a lot of the criticism which really should have been laid at the door of Westminster.
In such a situation the 'professionals' as you put it, actually were indeed professional - they did what their political masters demanded and progressively tried to kill off passenger services that required lots of Treasury support. It was no doubt most frustrating to the Bean counters in Whitehall that the professionals in British Rail were unsuccessfully in this aim as regards the NLL, though they would be consoled by successes outside London which saw several routes not even mentioned the Beeching report closed.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 7, 2019 12:54:13 GMT
That’s what I thought too but it’s an unconventional set up for what is a fairly unique set of circumstances. I bet there is a quirk in the overlap of safety regulations. This is just a guess, perhaps whilst the ELL is worked to mirror operations on NR in-terms of signalling , the fact that TfL are the owners of the operational infrastructure means that there is a desire to keep the two systems isolated save for this tiny price of track which I can see no reason for other than the occasional emergency stock move. I’m not even sure what other classes are authorised onto ELL metals even if it’s just in the open section over the former Broad Street lines. My memory is hazy on this so I could be misremembering, however something tells me the TFL/NR boundary is actually at Kingsland Road, just north of Dalston Junction. If so then the Highbury connexion is entirely within NR infrastructure. Something else tells me that a full AC/DC interface was planned but wasn’t fully completed. Modern requirements dictate special arrangements to separate the AC and DC sections, specifically the different earthing arrangements, normally achieved by means of isolation transformers, and unless something has changed fairly recently I don’t believe this was ever provided. I don’t claim to know much about this so I could be wide of the mark, but it does tie in with the mention upthread of bagged-up assets. The LAND boundary between TfL owned land and NR owned land is indeed just to the north of Dalston Junction. Between that point and just to the West of Highbury, TfL effectively rent the land from NR to provide the ELL infrastructure - all of which remains the property of TfL. NR retain ownership of the trackbed on this section and certain other things like Bridge structures. The railway systems however (signalling, rails, electrification, etc) are separately controlled depending on the owner. This is no different to the DLR who ‘rent’ part of the viaduct between Limehouseand Cannon Street Road Junction from NR. Now in theory TfL could maintain all their property in the Dalston - Highbury section ‘in house’ house if they wished - but given the equipment is all of the type used on the National Rail Network, it makes perfect sense to contract out maintenance to NR.
|
|