|
Post by phil on May 12, 2019 18:00:44 GMT
455 stock used 2nd (or 3rd) hand SUB motors and these were ok working at the higher voltages. They also used SUB compressors quite happily. Its extremely unlikely said motors etc. were simply transferred from the Subs to the 455s - they almost certainly were rewound / overhauled first. this would have provided the opportunity to upgrade things like the varnish / wire used in the windings to handle higher voltages and allow an increase in conductor rail voltage compared to their 'as built' state.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 10, 2019 18:33:09 GMT
Does anyone know if all current (well, built within the last 20 years, say) third rail stock - under and over ground - have 'intelligent' power systems that can handle varying voltages, and what the limits of these voltages are? Given every train produced over the past 20 years uses AC traction motors and complex control systems, dealing with under or over voltage is easy. Basically the various rectifiers and semiconductor technology necessary to generate a nice pure AC voltage for the motors will prevent over or under voltage causing problems / being passed on to the motors etc unless it gets to extreme levels. The problem with earlier stock is precisely because there was no voltage processing going on - what came off the conductor rails was fed directly into the control (or indeed carriage lighting circuits - pre 1950s build BR stock lacked batteries to keep them going if the con rail got turned off so had to keep on using oil tail lamps instead of two red blanks). If you are using basic ohms law and switching resistances in / out to control motor speed then a small change in conductor rail voltage will have a direct effect on the voltages passing through critical components.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 7, 2019 10:34:00 GMT
Sorry to be technically illiterate. What would happen if you ran a train with motors designed for 630V on a 750 supply? If the wiring insulation is not good enough then you can get short circuits, overheating and things going bang!
If basic electrical components are only rated for 630V then working at a higher rating may cause problems with arc damage or premature wear taking place going rise to more frequent failures.
If complicated electronics are involved then overvoltage is likely to trigger either an automatic shutdown or terminal damage as soon as it happens.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 6, 2019 23:31:33 GMT
The inner sections of the South Western division have historically been fed at 660V DC, because of the presence of LU trains But did they? When the LSWR started its 3rd rail electrification programme it used a nominal 630V DC (the same as the Underground). [snip] Therefore given the areas where district line trains shared tracks with BR 3rd rail stock were all originally energised at 630V its entirely possible that they remain so to this day. Well my original Network Rail training 15 years ago, and annual Network Rail refresher every year since has only ever mentioned 750v DC or 25,500v AC. What you are both saying is news to me and every other Network Rail trained driver on London Underground! From a safety perspective a 630V electric shock will do you the same amount of damage as a 750v one. The same applies as regards, say infrastructure damage through incorrect isolations or debris causing a flashover between the 3rd and running rails.
As such it makes sense to keep things simple and only use the 750V figure (which is after all only a nominal one as under certain conditions the actual voltage can drift quit a bit higher) - especially as London Underground have the long term goal of upping their traction voltage to this figure over time.
Also, given all British Rail designed stock (and everything built after privatisation of course) is quite capable of running at 750V, plus the fact that most of the BR(S) 3rd rail network required significant upgrades over a decade ago to cope with the withdrawal of the slam door fleet, then its quite possible that the only bits of the 3rd rail network not using 750V are the tiny bits still used by LU (which I'm sure will be upgraded in due course to 750V now the S stock is in service) so its hardly surprising they might have flown under the radar as it were in training terms.
However it cannot be denied that back in the 1970s, the 630V legacy of the LSWRs early electrification schemes was very real in suburban London - and as such LU stock would not have been subjected to higher voltages on lines shared with British Rail 3rd rail services.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 4, 2019 15:32:19 GMT
- Reduction in the risk of motor flashover at high speed with weak field, especially on the now 750V supplied parts of the Met line. Seems uneccessary given that D stock ran happliy for many years on Network Rail metals supplied at 750v.
But did they?
When the LSWR started its 3rd rail electrification programme it used a nominal 630V DC (the same as the Underground). This voltage was continued by the newly formed Southern Railway for all subsequent electrification projects up until the electrification of the Brighton Main Line south of Coulsdon where an increased voltage of 750V was used. However no changes were made to the already installed 630V suburban areas as the rolling stock used on said routes would have expensive requited modifications to cope with the higher voltage.
Similarly when the LNWR started electrifying the North London line, they stuck to 630V and BR saw no reason to change this
While BR(Southern) did eventually instigate a programme of upping the voltage in suburban areas this had to wait until the 630V stock had all been replaced - indeed central division routes from Victoria / London Bridge to Coulsdon had to stay at 630V right up until the early 1980s when the last of the 630V rated 4SUB units were withdrawn.
Therefore given the areas where district line trains shared tracks with BR 3rd rail stock were all originally energised at 630V its entirely possible that they remain so to this day. << Londonstuff: Thread split from here when resulting conversation started to talk about voltages. This post was moved from here.>>
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 23, 2019 18:43:44 GMT
If you take a closer look at the pictures in that last tweet, you'll notice that the backdrop to the "D-Stock to D-Train" advert is about a decade older than the trains themselves! It's a tube map dating from the latter part of 1968 when the Victoria line only went as far as Highbury & Islington. The use of a 1968 map may be deliberate as the 50 year copyright will have expired. Using a more modern map may have required royalties to be paid to TfL.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 19, 2019 13:06:32 GMT
Don't rely on the Southern service, in my experience it tends to be cancelled or curtailed regularly.
Southern are outnumbered by the frequent Overground services on he WLL!
In any case if its curtailed then that usually happens at Shepherds Bush (which has a useful turnback siding just to the north - aka the old Eurostar depot access) and thus will still be available for the West Brompton - Olympia hop.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 19, 2019 10:31:12 GMT
A reliable source on another forum has posted that five class 314 units (same family as the 313s being displaced on the GN and 315s on the GE) will get C4 repairs for use on the Goblin. If true, a worrying portent for the Aventra family and its introduction.
Given the 314s cannot be used on the GoBLin without training up a batch of Guards from scratch (due to the required platform mounted CCTV dispatch equipment not existing) then I fear that your 'reliable source' is mistaken.
What HAS been said is that with the 710s running late and the less than wonderful reliability of the inherited 315 fleet, Some 314s will be going to the West Anglia routes - which DO have platform mounted CCTV kit - to bolster services. This buys time for Bombardier to get the 710s fully sorted and to prioritise the GoBLin line.
<iframe style="position: absolute; width: 34.940000000000055px; height: 3.719999999999999px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_35229153" scrolling="no" width="34.940000000000055" height="3.719999999999999"></iframe> <iframe style="position: absolute; width: 34.94px; height: 3.72px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1676px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_86690148" scrolling="no" width="34.940000000000055" height="3.719999999999999"></iframe> <iframe style="position: absolute; width: 34.94px; height: 3.72px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 126px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_14473523" scrolling="no" width="34.940000000000055" height="3.719999999999999"></iframe> <iframe style="position: absolute; width: 34.94px; height: 3.72px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1676px; top: 126px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_24592979" scrolling="no" width="34.940000000000055" height="3.719999999999999"></iframe>
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 16, 2019 21:18:10 GMT
TfL is not quite accountable to Londoners only, as it's obliged under its Act to run to from and within London. People living outside and business located outside the GLA boundary do NOT:-
(i) pay taxes to the GLA / Mayor (and thus finance TfL) (ii) have the ability to vote the Mayor / GLA out of office
THAT is what I mean by accountable.
If you live in Thetford then political accountability lies with Thetford Town Council, Norfolk County Council and the MP for for South West Norfolk.
True, said MP may take up matters relating to TfL parking with the London Mayor - but it remains the fact that as the people of Thetford do not vote for the mayor / GLA, its perfectly legitimate for said Mayor / GLA to ignore the MP.
As much as it might annoy a person from Norfolk, etc the brutal truth is they have no right to expect the Mayor / GLA to pander to their needs.
That does not mean the Mayor / GLA will necessarily ignore the needs of those commuting in from Thetford - but this will only be where the needs of commuters happen to align with the Mayors / GLAs own priorities.
Obviously there is nothing to stop the Westminster based Government and the Mayor / GLA making agreements to protect the interests non-Londoners (or indeed the interest of Londoners themselves) but this in itself doesn't change the situation as regards accountability. For example while a resident of Slough may in future use a TfL operated rail service to commute into London, political accountability for said service (and the deal done between the DfT and TfL) ultimately rests with the MP for Slough / the DfT .
As things stand the Mayor / GLA have made it clear that affordable housing for Londoners, discouraging car use and plugging holes in TfLs budget are more important than providing car parks for non-Londoners to use when commuting
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 16, 2019 14:38:28 GMT
And when the cycle isn't practical, the bus doesn't go there and it's too far to sensibly walk? I feel for the poor so and sos living near these stations who will find that their streets get blocked up by people who would have parked in the station car parks. Not to mention the implications for the occupants of the new social housing who may "benefit" from the policy decision to ramp right down on parking provision near to stations. And, no, superteacher , I don't think that the death of the private car will be upon us for many years yet. They just meet too many needs that public transport can't sensibly deliver on. And when I drive from the country to Hounslow West to park, and find it built over, what do I do? Please don't suggest coming in by train, as that would entail a 20 mile journey to the nearest station, then a 3 hour train trip in a packed train at vast cost, and be lucky to get there by late morning. As it is, it's only 2 hours by car.
There are a number of National Rail stations not all that far from Hounslow with car parking (though I admit to not knowing how busy they get) - so there is nothing to stop you transferring to the train at Slough or Langley for example. The key difference is they would however cost you more and take a bit longer (thanks to lower train frequencies) than taking advantage of TfLs provision.
TfLs prime concern is those residing within their area - nobody is forcing you to use their facilities. The fact you prefer to save money and have a shorter commute is none of their business - its yours and if it means you have to pay more / travel for longer in future then, well, tough luck*.
* Note it works the other way to a degree because if their decisions means more traffic on Londons roads and less income then its tough luck to the Mayor / GLA. The only thing is they are in a better position to retaliate via residents parking zones and ULEZ / Congestion charging schemes.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 16, 2019 14:20:20 GMT
If the bus doesn't go there then we need a new bus route that does. As for the occupants of the new affordable (not social) housing if they're living next to the station with excellent public transport links they aren't going to need as much parking provision. Around half of London households do not have a car and it has been decreasing since the 1990s, private cars aren't dead but London is gradually moving towards other forms of transport. The car parks at stations like Epping, Cockfosters and Stanmore are used by many commuters from outside London in counties where bus services are being slashed to the bone. It is better fro London that they park up at the end of the line and use the Tube than driving closer to the heart of London.
There are other car parks you know....
Watford Junction, St Albans, Potters Bar and Brentwood to name a few all have National Rail station car parks. The key difference is the and the train service into Central London costs more than TfL services (whose fares have been frozen for the past 4 years). A large chunk of Epping commuters come significant distances from Essex (or beyond) simply to save money and I imagine the same could be said is of the other stations you mention
You cannot escape the fact that TfL is answerable TO LONDONERS ONLY - not to others who happen to find their services useful.
Yes a lack of parking at tube stations may result in other problems like increased traffic or commuters parking in residential roads - but if these become a nuisance then Londoners will be able to demand action from the Mayor / TfL (which will probably mean more permit parking round stations and more charges for driving into London similar to the ULEZ)
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 16, 2019 7:44:02 GMT
I don't doubt that - but the car parks do not belong to NR, they belong to TfL who have a direct obligation to Londoners through the GLA.
Londoners (or even non Londoners come to that) do not have any direct political relationship with NR other than via the SOS for transport who is unlikely to pay much attention to whether Virgin trains can run replacement buses / coaches to Stanmore or not.
While it might not be as quick there is nothing stopping Virgin from running coaches / buses from Milton Keynes to Luton Airport Parkway and make folk use Thameslink (which is after all a fellow NR operator) rather than TfL
Furthermore there is a well established principle that we do not base our infrastructure needs around 'just in case' scenarios or simply for their diversionary use - which is why nobody is in any rush to reopen the railway via Okehampton and Tavistock to provide a 'backup' on the few weeks a year the weather forces closure of the coastal route via Dawlish.
Thus if the GLA / Mayor believe they have an obligation to the people of London to free up as much land as possible for affordable housing, the occasional use of Underground station car parks by NR operators is an irrelevance
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 13, 2019 4:33:17 GMT
I believe Rail Replacement coaches are not provided for TfL services The posters I saw for the Wimbledon branch closure on the District Line last weekend mentioned there would be rail replacement buses. I wonder if phil is making a distinction between buses and coaches? Rail-replacement buses are common for TfL services outside zone 1 (possibly even the norm) but I don't recall ever seeing a TfL replacement coach. I was under the impression that thanks to the relatively extensive bus network in London (which is also organised by the same folk who run the Underground) TfL took the view that dedicated ‘rail replacement services’ were not usually needed when bits of the tube were shut for engineering work. On the national rail network the rules mandate replacement bus / coach services and telling folk to use local busses is not permitted.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 12, 2019 20:03:25 GMT
Interesting to note the exclusion of CSDE (Correct Side Door Enable) and ASDO (Automatic Selective Door Operation) - jumping to a conclusion here, but does that suggest a lack of infrastructure or a lack of testing of these facilities? Also slightly worried about the refusal to allow sleet brushes and de-icing equipment. Hopefully we have a mild winter...
CSDE is not usually fitted to network Rail infrastructure, so that is a non issue for North / West London line, Watford or GoBlin operations.
ASDO is nit required as all platforms on said routes are long enough for 4 car units to open all doors.
Sleet brushes - these are only required for DC conductor rail operation, which is not permitted yet for these units.
Similarly the de-icing equipment is only for use with conductor rails for which permission has yet to be granted.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 11, 2019 20:36:47 GMT
Obviously train operators would need a lot more training that they currently get and it might take rather a long time to train the 3500 or whatever drivers on how to prep a train. Would you suggest the operators do the prep at the end of a duty when they stable a train or at the start of a duty before its brought into service, either way it means they're going to be doing a lot less actual driving. If its at the start of a duty then what would a train operator do if the train they've been allocated is faulty? And what do you do if a train operator fails their "prep" training?
I guess to some extent it depends on whether defects are identified and what they are.
For example takes no more than 30 seconds to check the wiper and screen wash works, but rather more time to check the levels and even more time if a top up is needed or the jets are blocked or the rubber blades need changing.
Some elements could be mitigated against by having filler caps easily accessible and canisters of screenwash at the end of every siding say or having larger screenwash bottles (possibly with a low level indicator like some cars have) on board, but other situations might be more awkward to solve where tools are required or consumables take time to get to the train.
That said its also true that sometimes folk are prevented from doing logical things for no good reason. For example I am qualified to work on exposed power supplies and change lamps in signal heads / bulkheads etc (so not all low voltage ones) as part of my job - yet we are not permitted to change a florescent tube in the mess room and need to call in someone from the property department at a large extra cost to the company. Many Underground train drivers also have motor cars and will be familiar with topping up the screenwash when necessary so in principle it wouldn't be hard to do if supplies were readily available.
However if the driver takes longer to prep the train than it does a specialist depot person then you have to ask is it worth it? (obviously things like rates of pay etc have an impact here too).
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 11, 2019 19:38:07 GMT
Hence the palpable lack of progress on the Picc Line upgrade, the abandonment of the Northern and Jubilee upgrades, no progress on the Bakerloo Line extension and no large scale station capacity works started. Not to mention the Croxley Link. As has been noted before this project lies totally outside the Mayor / GLA area of political accountability (the entire scheme was located in Hertfordshire!)
It should NEVER have been a TfL led project and only became one because a previous Mayor wanted to help out his fellow party member (the MP for Watford).
By contrast projects like the Northern / Jubilee upgrades or a modest extension of the Bakerloo line to Lewisham are most definitely projects which are there to fundamentally London borough residents who elect the Mayor / GLA
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 11, 2019 19:30:10 GMT
TfL is more than just the Tube, of course. They are responsible for roads and certain rail services now. If they WANT the roads clogged up by coaches coming in from Hemel, for example, that's up to them of course. As for "non-Londoners"... by the time you get out to the ends of the lines, tube stations can be pretty far from houses. Of course, buses are an option, but again, out in the sticks there can be quite a walk to the nearest bus route. As for the statement that they plan to retain commuter parking... do they plan to retain all of it or just some of it? Reduce it to just disabled? Expand it, even? What about landing zones for the air ambulance? Minor consideration of course, but still worth thinking about. Or it could be related to THIS news article...
Outer London is hardly short of open spaces to land the air ambulance if needed.
For example in the vicinity of Stanmore station a check on satellite imaginary shows Alward Primary school playing fields, Stanmore Country Park, Stanmore Recreation Ground, Collegiate School playing fields or Cannons Park as having space to land a helicopter.
As regards rail replacement coaches 'clogging up' London's roads - just as with the Air ambulance its not as if such things are routinely scheduled and in any case its far more likely that said coaches would run from Hemel to Watford Junction in the event of a WCML blockage between Watford and Milton Keynes.
Yes folk may have to walk further to get to the stations (good exercise) or uses buses but we are hardly talking miles here.
Oh and by 'non- Londoners' I mean those not residing in a London borough and thus who have no right to dictate what the Maylor / GLA / TfL decide to do with regards station parking - which is there to serve the needs of said borough residents, not those who travel in from outside (e.g. Hemel Hempstead) because they find national rail fares / parking too expensive.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 11, 2019 19:10:17 GMT
Croxley Metropolitan station car park is always included in the Three Rivers building land assessments, so it's not just SK! There have even been rumours to build right across the tracks + platforms. Remember Tesco at Gerrards Cross? Didn't it collapse?
It did - but the entire thing was rebuilt to an alternative design. The Tesco's store was therefore built and has now been open for quite a while now....
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 11, 2019 17:33:00 GMT
I believe that Enhanced TPWS (fitting it to every signal) is regarded to be as safe as GW-ATP. Here is a report from 2015. While officials may have decided to say that, it remains a fact that Enhanced TPWS it is NOT 'as safe' in the technical sense because TPWS is only active when the train is approaching a red signal where as ECTS or the BR ATP system continuously monitors the drivers speed throughout each signal section]
Yes enhanced TPWS will prevent crashes but it will NOT prevent SPADs occurring in the first place - TPWS is designed to usually stop trains within the signal overlap (usually 200yards PAST the signal). Note that word usually...
If the driver misjudges their breaking once past the initial Overspeed sensor then they can easily end up well past the signal. ECTS and BR ATP ensure this cannot happen due to the contentious speed monitoring the speed and will intervene if the speed curve does not decline as required.
The enhanced TPWS route was only permitted because there was a firm plan to fit ECTS to the GWML within a decade and enhanced TPWS can capture all non BR ATP fitted stock (like the freight locos used on the stone trains to Acton yard). It is not a long term solution and was explicitly ruled out as a solution in the Heathrow tunnels (which do not of course carry freight etc like the GWML).
It should also be noted that:-
All GWR stock (be they Hitachi 800 series units, the new 387 Electrostars, the remaining Turbo DMUs, the 319 tri mode conversions) have / will have BR ATP fitted for as long as it remains in use. - All GWR stock being retained for use of the GWML will have ECTS installed at some stage.
As ECTS is going to be the long term future for all signalling (the removal of all lineside signals on the ECML is supposed to happen within a decade) work is underway to find a way of fitting it into the likes of the 59 diesel locos.
Thus enhanced TPWS is very much a sticking plaster and its use on the GWML proper is a 'one off' job.
Therefore the intended sequence for crossrail trains going from west to east will be:-
ECTS (Heathrow), Enhanced TPWS (GWML), CBTC (Core), Regular TPWS (GEML)
Which will become:-
ECTS (Heathrow + GWML), CBTC (core), Regular TPWS (GEML)
And eventually:-
ECTS (Heathrow + GWML), CBTC (Core), ECTS (GEML)
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 11, 2019 16:58:07 GMT
Related to this? Utter lunacy, of course, seeing as how these car parks are used for the rail replacement coaches. I believe Rail Replacement coaches are not provided for TfL services - and as such the inability to handle those procured by mainline train operators has nothing to do with TfL
TfL has major cashflow problems and London as a whole lacks housing (particularly of the 'affordable type') are far more important to the GLA / Mayor than indulging the whims of non Londoners who drive to TfL stations to save money (rather than pay higher National rail fares) ir providing occasional backup for NR problems / engineering work.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 10, 2019 22:53:39 GMT
The plan is to install ECTS (a new signalling system) in the Heathrow tunnels alongside ATP (ATP will eventually be switched off as it's legacy), but the engineers need to stop ATP interfering with ECTS before it can be switched on. Class 332 is due to be replaced with Class 387 in the next year I think, which will also only use ECTS, but that doesn't help the current situation. The Heathrow tunnel is being fitted with traditional AWS/TPWS to allow the 345s to operate manually to Heathrow.
Please can you provide the source for you assertion as that represents a downgrade in safety compared to what is there at present.
The ORR have made it VERY clear in the past that any new system MUST provide the same or better protection than the British Rail 1990s era ATP
TPWS and (certainly AWS) don't come close to the comprehensive protection offered by ATP which is active throughout the speed range not just on the approach to red or yellow signals.
ECTS does provide the same or garter protection than ATP which is why it is being installed in the Heathrow tunnels. The 387 Electrostars were built to accommodate ECTS and the legacy ATP system - which is why they can take progressively take over from the current Heathrow trains. When sufficient 387s are in service the ATP can be turned off and the ECTS turned on.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 10, 2019 16:20:15 GMT
I think you're missing the point. My question is whether all of the things on the "24-hour" check list need to be on it. Simply, I posit it's likely that not every one of the tasks need to be done daily, either because they aren't as safety-related as other parts or because their failure rate is quite low. Or, because things change (i.e. LED indicator lamps do not "burn out" as often as incandescent ones, most industries acknowledge that and don't check them as often). Check lists are reevaluated all the time. That said, I'm not advocating that a daily check be abandoned, only that it check the right things. BTW, this is nothing like the 373MAX debacle, which was poor system design (a single point of failure; had two sensors, ignored one of them). Actually, it’s you who’s perhaps missing the point. The daily train prep carried out by depot staff is all about checking safety related systems. That’s literally all it is. It’s not about checking brake block wear or such like; there are separate exams at set intervals for that sort of thing. Without an exact list of everything which is currently checked its hard for an outsider to be precise about what may or may not need to be checked quite so frequently. As such it would be better to be less dismissive of those who quite legitimately question whether things must stay as now simply based on your assurances.
Its all very well for the unions and fitters to cry wolf over this but as it happens I refuse to believe that everything must stay exactly the same as now (which is the unions default position with pretty much everything*) or there are not some things which can be checked less often without compromising passenger safety* when considered in detail.
The reality is that things do not stay the same forever and the philosophy of 'continuous improvement' based on a constant re-examination of current practice is necessary regardless of whether we are talking about a car factory, a train, or an airliner and regardless of whether we are considering safety critical kit or not. Yes some things need to be resisted but in many cases its not the principle which is the problem - its the execution of it / lack of mitigating measures which is at fault, a subtlety the trade union in question doesn't always appreciate.
Granted the timing of these changes (TfL being in deep financial difficulty) and the massively extended interval (i.e. moving to 96hr intervals rather than 48hrs) is suspicious and does nothing to allay any fears the Union has over job losses or recruitment freezes - and I suspect that is the real reason there is so much hostility to any change.
A compromise would be to trial a shorter (e.g. 48hrs) extended service interval on one line and see what happens. If serious problems start emerging then mitigating measures can be introduced or the trial stopped - but if it doesn't cause problems then it can be rolled out across the network.
* For clarity I am a member of the union in question and work on the mainline system dealing with safety critical kit (signalling) so this observation is made with plenty of first hand observations / knowledge
** Note passenger safety and train reliability are not necessarily the same thing - given the whole point of safety devices is the fundamental design requires them to 'fail safe' its perfectly possible to end up with one where reduced checks do nothing to lower safety but do a lot to make it less reliable.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 10, 2019 13:58:24 GMT
Back to the big picture. Crossrail is still guzzling money and the indefinite delay to the core section is presumably causing havoc to TFLs budget. Meanwhile a heap of very expensive trains are presumably somewhere quietly rusting away, still needing periodic maintenance expense, all of which is not good. Inherently if the core section is not yet complete “enough” to safely open, then why on earth have TFL not arranged to at the very least get those trains earning some income on trips into Heathrow and Reading? The current focus on the core seems to have diverted attention from a potential quick win which would give TFL some presumably very welcome extra income. Some of my reply will repeat what others have said. - signalling is not compatible with the 345s in the Heathrow tunnel. Work continues to allow operation of 345s at some point. I have completely lost the plot now as to what is actually being done in the tunnels and what has to be done to rolling stock to allow their operation into H'row. I've seen so many conflicting reports I've given up. In the meantime TfL have to struggle on with class 360s and HEX use their 332s - both of which work with the legacy BR ATP fitted in the Heathrow tunnels. Basically whats happened is that Crossrail / Network Rail have effectively given up on ever getting the BR 1990s era ATP to co-exist with the Crosrail's own safety system.
Instead the decision has been taken to dump the older trains which allows the removal of the BR ATP system in favour of a European Train Control System (ETCS) based system with which both Crossrail and modern EMUs like the 387s can be fitted with.
However this in turn means the 345s cannot run into Heathrow until the ATP system is turned off - which in turn cannot happen until enough GWR 387s have been converted to displace said older trains.
Once enough 387 trains are ready then things should start to happen fairly quickly, but till then its a waiting game.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 10, 2019 13:42:49 GMT
Back to the big picture. Crossrail is still guzzling money and the indefinite delay to the core section is presumably causing havoc to TFLs budget. Meanwhile a heap of very expensive trains are presumably somewhere quietly rusting away, still needing periodic maintenance expense, all of which is not good. Inherently if the core section is not yet complete “enough” to safely open, then why on earth have TFL not arranged to at the very least get those trains earning some income on trips into Heathrow and Reading? The current focus on the core seems to have diverted attention from a potential quick win which would give TFL some presumably very welcome extra income.
Because the Paddington to Reading service is currently run by GWR who do not have drivers or a safety case to operate the 345s.
In any case GWR have a long lease on their 387s so why on earth would they pay someone else to store them for a few months then pay again to hire in TfL drivers and trains?
Equally why would TfL hire out trains and drivers when they get none of the fare revenue*? - and with GWR having a perfectly adequate fleet of 387s they are not in a position of 'needing' TfLs assistance so will not pay very much.
National rail services within London have NOTHING to do with TfL (other than those which the DfT have specifically given to TfL -i.e. those branded as London Overground / TfL Rail). TfL can ask all they want, it makes sod all difference unless the DfT /HM Treasury / the SoS likes what they hear.
Please remember that ALL revenue between Hayes and Reading currently goes to GWR and this cannot be taken away from them without it being provided for in the GWR franchise / management contract or without the DfT paying lots of compensation to GWR for altering the previously awarded contract.
Therefore the GWR Reading services will only transfer to TfL in accordance with the date originally written in to the GWR contract with the DfT - which is the December timetable change this year IIRC) and no earlier. It will then fall on TfL to provide the service with their drivers and 345s
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 27, 2019 11:28:01 GMT
Museums are to keep children informed, not amused. Actually its a bit of both
Children generally have short attention spans (something lots of adults forget about their own childhood) and equally most do not enjoy being 'lectured' about stuff. Professionals in the field of education have long realised that the best way of getting children to absorb information is to make sure they have fun (i.e. are 'amused') while doing so. Therefore interactive and simple displays are very much preferred to wordy display boards and 'do not touch' exhibits. The LT museum is only following current best practice (as does the Scienece Museum, the Railway Museum in York, etc) in engaging with the young.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 26, 2019 23:53:46 GMT
Recently visited The London Transport Museum and, must admit, was somewhat disappointed. It seems to have been ‘dumbed down’ since my last visit (a long time ago!). Guess it’s location means it’s now trying to attract the hordes of tourists that flock to Covent Garden, rather than the genuine enthusiast. Wondering whether to try the depot at Acton. Are there displays there about the more technical aspects of the Underground, or is it just a storage facility for stock and buses that cannot be displayed at the main Museum? As far as I remember Action is basically a big storage shed which folk have access to a couple of times a year. While things are indeed on display (with a limited amount of information about them), its certainly not a 'museum' in the traditional sense of the word.
Definitely worth a visit - but its primary purpose is simply to store stuff the Museum cannot display in a secure, dry climate controlled environment.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 26, 2019 23:34:29 GMT
One big thing that TfL have NOT addressed in this is Engineering access.
Basically on lines like the Brighton main line, the engineering strategy for routine maintenance (including rail renewal etc) is built round two of the tracks ALWAYS being available.
It doesn't take a genius to realise that having one authority responsible for the 'slows' and another for the fasts causes problems. What if NR decide to remove the fast line platforms at the likes of Norbury (on the basis that nothing they provide infrastructure for calls there) or TfL decide they can drop the line speed on the slows?
The Crystal Palace - Balham section provides a valuable back up in the event of say, a fatality or major infrastructure fault at Streatham?
I note TfL say that because of fast InterCity services on the ECML, it would be impractical to take over infrastructure on that route (though they don't say anything about the Herford loop, the availability of which performs an important part of the engineering access strategy) - why is the BML not also recognised as a 'main line' in a similar way? is there a magic 65mph ceiling which makes all lines below that speed fair game?
Finally freight traffic requires considerably different permanent way standards to a light weight EMU operated railway. TfL may well have experience of maintaining tracks for passenger traffic but that means nothing when you start to consider the needs of heavy stone or intermodal traffic.
So while TfL are making some very good points as regards service simplification / concession operation - their land grab for infrastructure brings with it more questions than answers and displays a certain nieavity as to the difficulties in managing a rail network truly open to all needs.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 26, 2019 22:44:06 GMT
The second pass (northbound) also shows the mid-platform CCTV displays for driver only operation of single unit Class 313 trains. I do wonder why similar does not exist for 717's here - it would help with the sighting issues!
The 717s (like ALL new EMUs designed with the possibility of Driver Only Operation (DOO) in mind) have bodyside mounted cameras and in cab monitors rather than monitors and cameras mounted on platforms.
This approach facilitates the easy extension of DOO and also means less stuff to be vandalised by yobs or maintained by Network Rail.
The 313s (as with all such British Rail designed DOO EMUs, relied on the provision of platform mounted equipment - which, in the case of the 313s had to be duplicated to facilitate both 3 and 6car trains.
In any case the issue with the 717s is signal sighting from the cab - nothing to do with DOO equipment.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 20, 2019 8:45:14 GMT
Lets not divert this service to a political destination, it never ends well and there are forum rules that do not allow political discussion. Thanks <iframe style="position: absolute; width: 34.940000000000055px; height: 3px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_25663751" scrolling="no" width="34.940000000000055" height="3"></iframe> <iframe style="position: absolute; width: 34.94px; height: 3px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1676px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_15208733" scrolling="no" width="34.940000000000055" height="3"></iframe> <iframe style="position: absolute; width: 34.94px; height: 3px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 91px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_60342967" scrolling="no" width="34.940000000000055" height="3"></iframe> <iframe style="position: absolute; width: 34.94px; height: 3px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1676px; top: 91px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_45240656" scrolling="no" width="34.940000000000055" height="3"></iframe>
Its not 'political' to say that the DfT would not provide sufficient funding to provide double track throughout to support a 15 minute even interval service!
Nor is it 'political' to point out that the DfTs definition of a 'frequent service' lags well behind what TfL aspire to in this regard.
Nor is it political to say that if folk disagree with the service provision / amount of extra infrastructure provided then they need to be making their feelings known to the DfT who franchise the Lea Valley train service and who have provided a significant quantity of the funding for the STAR project.
Nor is it 'political' to draw folks attention to the fact it is important to differentiate between things which TfL fund (for which the GLA / Mayor are the responsible body to which complaints about the quality, capacity, etc ) and schemes which are co-funded from the DfT - where any shortcomings are the responsibility of said department and its boss.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 20, 2019 8:33:53 GMT
Please remember that a significant part of the monies for the scheme come from the DfT - who also specify the train service by virtue of it remaining part of the GA franchise. To Whitehall a 30minute interval service IS a perfectly adequate to service an urban area (every 15 mins is an over provision in their eyes) and they were NOT going o provide infrastructure which facilitated anything much better. If you dislike the approach taken then please forward all complaints to a certain Chris Grayling - because like quite a few things transport related the powers of the GLA / mayor to do what they want are heavily compromised by the need to secure Central Government funding and all the conditions that come with it! I expressed a personal opinion. I don't like how the DfT specify things. That's a perfectly valid viewpoint just as the opposite one is. I am well aware where the funding has come from - I have read the old funding and approval papers that used to be on the City Hall website. I really don't need to be told to complain to the Secretary of State nor be given the "A to Z of railway funding" lecture. I'm not stupid nor ignorant thanks very much.
Of course your viewpoint is valid - and from a Londoners perspective a 30 minute interval service is not really satisfactory.
However you post implied that the the service frequency was an afterthought and that it could somehow change between what was used to specify the amount of extra infrastructure to be built and opening - with the implication you were dismayed it wasn't increased.
If you were fully aware of the design spec / funding constraints / role of the DFT why then didn't you say so? Persons less well informed could easily assume you were suggesting TfL were to blame somehow, that the infrastructure could support a grater service than its original design spec assumed, that someone had gone back on their word over the train service which would be provided or that you were ignorant of the schemes original design.
|
|