|
Post by phil on Mar 19, 2019 19:25:52 GMT
Courtesy of a post on Railforums UK it is now possible to get a clue as to the service level from Meridian Water and Stratford after the STAR service commences on 9th September. www.railforums.co.uk/threads/partial-west-anglia-route-additional-third-track-and-new-station-at-meridian-water.122783/page-3#post-3926507There are links on the above link to the Realtimetrains site showing the times. Sadly the service is as dreadful as I feared in the peaks with 20-30 minute gaps which is ludicrous given the cost of the scheme and how little in terms of capacity has been delivered. A passing loop and extra platform at T Hale would have worked wonders. Off peak M-F the service looks more rational with 14/16 min headways between Stratford and T Hale which are tolerable. Shame they couldn't manage a straight 15 min headway. The service out of Meridian Water itself is also not exactly stellar with half hourly headways and a smattering of M-F peak extras. It's not yet possible to confirm the weekend service on Realtimetrains but it's supposed to be half hourly to / from Meridian Water.
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!
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 16, 2019 15:27:42 GMT
Transfer at Clapham Junction is straightforward but I thought the connection at Highbury was unelectrified? That was the original intention - however from Google imagery it does look to have OLE most of the way. Whether a unit can coast from the platform (where the 3rd rail stops) far enough to be able to raise the pantograph remains an open question - as does the matter of a reverse move (i.e. drop the pan and allow momentum to carry the unit into the platform where 3rd rail is available.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 6, 2019 19:33:15 GMT
That is all very well - but surely the damn thing must be able to be run in some sort of manual mode with - as you say - a driver reacting to a light on a stick? If they can do that then get the trains out there and work on the software on any number of the trains already made and just sitting around waiting. Much of this software is probably just desirable not necessary - as long as the necessary bits work - then get them out there! If even the necessary bits don't work - even after all this time - then there must be something seriously very wrong with this company.
I think one of the problems is that up until now, most of the fundamental stuff (i.e. brake demands, throttle control, TPWS etc.) has been 'hardwired' and computerisation restricted to passenger information systems, etc. This is however 'old tech' as far as builders are concerned and there are considerable benefits for them (not least far less wiring to install) in embracing the 'smart' principle where the computer interprets the drivers controls to control multiple bits of kit via a data bus.
The difference can be likened to that between an old fashioned relay based interlocking and a modern computer one. In the former, a lot of wiring is needed plus each relay becomes a potential failure point (high resistance contacts forming) - BUT on the other hand a single relay failure is unlikely to compromise the operation of the interlocking as a whole and every function can be traced to the operation of a specific button on the control desk.
In a computer based interlocking however, everything is in software - inputs from the signallers control desk are fed in and outputs sent to the lineside kit so there is no direct linkage between the inputs and outputs. If something is missing in he software then the outputs will bot correspond to the inputs - and given the software covers the entire system that means an entire re-write (where as a deficiency in a relay based interlocking might only involve a few minor wiring mods to fix it.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 25, 2019 12:03:39 GMT
Might have to see this , not often the 73/1s get out much anymore except for RHTT and SITT. Can the 4TC work like a DBSO and control the locomotive? I understand it's top and tailed but shame can't get great shot of the driving end of the tc Erm.... Yes the 4TC end coaches are exactly the same as a DBSO in that they can be used to control a class 33/1 loco, a class 73 loco or indeed many of the 1950s / 1960s build 3rd rail EMU units!
However for the 4TC unit owned by LUL to be used in this way it requires the fitting of all current safety features demanded for driving cabs in NR infrastructure plus has to be maintained to the required standard.
As LUL use the unit simply as hauled coaching stock, I very much doubt they are investing cash in maintaining driving cabs which they have no use for.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 25, 2019 11:57:00 GMT
I wonder if the toilets will be enabled - they are normally closed on LUL heritage train events but this is not a big issue as there are many stations which have toilets and the journeys on the 4TC are not very long. But all the way to the south coast is a different issue. By the way, I can guess its some sort of speed recording device, but exactly is OTMDR? Oh and what do the letters in this acronym stand for? OTMDR is the railway equivalent of an aircraft 'black box' - and as such it monitors a lot more than speed!
While its functionality is somewhat limited on older stock, it will still show whether the driver was trying to accelerate or brake, when the horn was used, when the AWPS was cancelled, whether the TPWS was activated, etc.
No driving cab is permitted to be used on the national rail network unless OTMDR is fitted (with the possible exception of certain tube stock which presumably has grandfather rights for particular sections of NR infrastructure or NYMR Heritage locos used on the Grosmont - Whitby section of the Esk Valley Branchline)
(AWS - Automatic Warnin System) (TPWS - Train Protection and Warning System)
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 9, 2019 18:43:57 GMT
The smaller of the two proposed areas has some logic - rather more than the existing area which includes Gatwick (27 miles from Victoria) and Amersham (24 miles from Marylebone) but not, for example Sunbury (16 Miles from Waterloo via Richmond) or Radlett (16 miles from St Pancras) But the larger one introduces more anomalies - Oxford (63), Cambridge (58) and Brighton (51) are in, but not Canterbury (61), Huntingdon (58), Colchester (51), Basingstoke (47), Horsham (38), Reading West (37) or (the extreme example I've found) Battlesbridge (31) The problem with distance or local authority schemes (e.g. Oyster) is that basing things on distance (or LA boundaries) rarely for with the operational needs of the railway.
Oyster may not have been valid to Dartford or Cheshunt initially for example even though there was no way of curtailing the services within the GLA area. Similarly on the GN section, suburban trains on the ECML must continue well beyond the GLA boundary to get to a suitable reversing point. As noted the Sheperton branch in not Oysterised due to most of it being in Surrey - yet its quite clearly impractical to reverse trains anywhere other than the end of the line.
The likes of Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone have been picked due to a significant proportion of services terminating at those locations - so they make logical boundaries.
Similarly with the larger area, Brighton and Cambridge see significant numbers of terminating trains (if you count Hove as part of Brighton then some trains do go further along the cost to West Worthing from London while Kings Lyn trains obviously go further than Cambridge). Canterbury by contrast rarely sees terminating services - they virtually all through workings to the Kent Coast.
On the ECML, unless you include Peterborough you run into a repeat of a Shepperton branch scenario - with PAYG valid at say St Neots but not at Huntingdon
The DfT are also mindful of the implications for fare revenue. Although Brighton may be thought of as a main line, it is actually quite a short line distance wise, with less stations to worry about and less problems when it comes to making the changes "revenue neutral* / zero increase in taxpayer subsidy
* Take careful note of that - there will be no 'fare cut' like we saw with Oyster, for every fare that gets cheaper another must rise to compensate....
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 9, 2019 12:51:08 GMT
They should have done this before each company started their own versions. It is not beyond the wit (or maybe it is) of the rail industry to have one system which is compatible throughout the whole of Great Britain
Erm, I think you will find that the whole reason there are different versions in the first place is the DfT, having seen the success of Oyster (and were a bit miffed that a 'socialist London Mayor had started something so successful), the DfT started writing 'Smart ticketing' into franchise (or direct award for the likes of TSGN or franchise extension) contracts, but in true Thatcherite style neglected to take an active role in driving forward the specifications (presumably for fear of constraining that 'private sector dynamism' they love)
As has long been pointed out by those with a modicum of knowledge, despite all the Government bluster, National Rail fares are largely the way they are precisely because of HM Government because:-
(i) The legislation passed to enable privatisation which did not envisage the rise of smartphones or contactless payments and thus assumed most transactions would take place at ticket offices or the distinctly basic BR ticket machines and which requires the passage of further primary legislation at Westminster to fix. This legislation, while not preventing split ticketing does make it clear that passengers should be sold a 'end to end' ticket where possible - a legal device to ensure that privatisation would not end up with a passenger from Hitchin to Grantham having to by separate tickets from TSGN and LNER to cover their journey
(ii) The nature of the rail franchises themselves where revenue risk is supposedly to be transferred to the private sector and is an important part of awarding franchises by the DfT.
(iii) The fact that franchises are let at different times meaning that changes to fares cannot be neatly 'synced' with changes in operator due to the integrated fares system privatisation sought to protect. Any change to the fares structure, unless planed a decade ir more in advance, will require modification of existing franchises / direct awards and compensation payable the private sector companies (unless it is written into them at the commencement of the contract)
TfL by contrast not only has a single National Rail Franchise to manage (thus giving nice and easy syncing opportunities for changes) but it also retains all fare risk and so does not need to compensate the concession holder in the same way as the DfT (miss)managed system does.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 31, 2019 18:29:24 GMT
Anyone know if the 4TC set is still able to control a loco/other unit? I would guess if a 4-car set has to be topped and tailed by two class 73s, the answer is, sadly, probably no. One Class 73 should be adequate to operate in push-pull mode on electric power o the SWML, and also on diesel power at the speeds permitted on the Swanage Railway. (Of course, the second 73 could simply be there for insurance, but despite their age 73s are entrusted to handle the West Highland Sleeper single-handed - these do, of course, have new - and much bigger - diesel engines)
A more vital question is "does the LUL 4TC unit have working TPWS and OTMDR loggers in the cabs?"
It is forbidden for ANY driving cabs to be used on the national rail network unless the above is fitted - though agreements with LUL mean that older tripcock fitted stock may be used (I imagine the S stock on the subsurface lines do have OTMDR)
The TC unit was used as hauled coaching stock last year between Wareham and Swanage but had to be top & tailed if I recall correctly.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 28, 2019 18:59:58 GMT
Correct, see here for examples: www.railsigns.uk/sect20page1/sect20page1.htmlMy understanding is that RA can only illuminate when the associated signal is showing a proceed aspect. I would assume for ATO-type signalling there is a similar interlock. No you can on signals I've dispatched from have RA on a red. It will only clear tho after a signal goes back. CD is not linked to the signalling however and is a simple light box.
Due to several incidents with drivers trying to pull away after having received the 'all clear' / right away from station staff or guards despite the signal showing a red aspect it has long been accepted that the RA must ONLY be illuminated when the signal to which it pertains is showing a proceed aspect. Anything else is to be treated as a wrong side failure and must be fully investigated.
While early installations may not have been interlocked in this way British Rail went round and modified all such indicators as a SPAD prevention measure back in the 1980s and such a feature was designed into all interlockings commissioned from then on as it was an obvious SPAD trap and in the pre TPWS days a pretty deadly one at that!
As you say, traditionally CD indicators have not been interlocked with the starting signal as it does not give permission for the driver to move and is only there for units operated Driver Only Operation - however the current signalling design standards say that a CD indicator must only illuminate when the signal is showing a proceed aspect.
Furthermore it is now also a requirement for new schemes that the CD or RA can only be shown if the track circuit / axle counter section in the platform is proved to be occupied. This change has been facilitated by the use of computer based signalling such as SSI, WestLoc, Smartloc which eliminates the need for extra wiring / relays as all the conditions / requirements are simply written into the software.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 28, 2019 18:43:38 GMT
Folk should remember that there is a crossover north of Drayton Park allowing a train to depart north from what is normally the Southbound platform.
While obviously it will cause disruption, its quite possible that should the unit fail to change onto DC then it could be terminated at Drayton Park and driven back north under AC. This is the standard procedure in the Thameslink core should a unit fail to swap AC-DC or DC-AC as the 12 car units are too long for the Smithfield sidings and both the traction supplies overlap between City Thameslink and Farringdon with suitable crossovers provided in this section.
The bigger problem at Drayton Park is if the unit fails to change from DC to AC, as rescuing it will most likely require the following unit to be used to push the defective one up to Finsbury Park.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 28, 2019 18:27:46 GMT
I'm assuming that all the new units still need to accumulate their fault free miles before being handed over to Arriva Rail London. If so, is it permissible to couple units together given that the units will still run under their own power? I can't believe they will run mileage accumulation coupled together. Surely the point is that each unit is driven *individually* and is proven to be fault free on its own? Indeed it is BUT the only thing not being tested when two units are ruining in multiple is one driving cab on each unit. Things like the traction power system, door control systems,air conditioning / heating, on board computers, etc are individual to each unit and as such will be fully tested even when running in multiple - and you could also say the running in multiple also additionally proves the couplers between the two units are reliable
Its worth remembering that the point of these mileage runs are to test the train as a whole, not just what may be present in the cab.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 22, 2019 10:22:59 GMT
No - at least while they are operated on the national rail network (remember the ELL from Dalton to New Cross is owned by TfL not NR) Please remember that despite all the branding / marketing the London Overground is an integral part of our national rail network 99% of which does not have any form of CSDE fitted despite employing trains with automatic doors which are basically no different from the 345s for decades. There is very little difference whether it is a 345 with its doors opened on the wrong side a 455 at Sutton, a 313 at Worthing or even a 170 at Grantham - a person falling out of them is highly likely to suffer death or injury (being hit by a 100mph LNER express is just as fatal as being electrocuted on conductor rails) There are some places where Selective Door Opperation (SDO) beacons can also provide CSDE information as an add on so to speak - but if no SDO is required and the trains are still driven manually (as opposed to Automatic Train Opperation (ATO) as found on the Thameslink core) then no beacon will be fitted. And before people get all upset about it, if CSDE is desired to be fitted to the national rail network then that applies just as well to Salford, Saltcross or Salisbury as it does to Stratford. This is relevant in so much as the amount of money it takes to retro fit such a system to the mainline fleet of trains, many of which have no provision for said equipment plus installing beacon infrastructure across the country would be enormous. There's a rather valuable point you've missed, SDO is enabled on modern stock at all stations, on Bombardier stock this started on the 375/377 fleets and on everything since. Now as SDO is GPS based it uses a signal from GPS to work out where it is and then opens doors to a set length based on its database. While it is true that modern stock does have the potential for CSDE to be fitted, that is not the case for the likes of the 455, 321, 319, 156, 150, etc fleets of EMUs / DMUs built by British Rail. Yes some of these are being replaced by new stock CDSE capable but plenty are not - and as I said, I don't see why London is such a special case. If CSDE is deemed necessary at Stratford then it is also required at the likes of Birmingham International, Doncaster or Cardiff Central.
As you also correctly noted however, the fixed infrastructure needed on track is also not exactly cheap or easy to install - particularly at stations where space is tight.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 21, 2019 17:41:34 GMT
to become part of the circuit you need to touch the 3rd rail / overheads AND the running rails at the same time to have traction current flowing through you Doesn't have to be the running rails. Touching anything at earth potential at the same time as the live rail/ live wire will have the same effect. But touching the running rail and earth together would have about the same effect as touching the rails of a Hornby train set. I deliberately left any references to earth potential out of my post as both track circuits and the traction circuits are specifically designed to be 'earth free' and in an ideal world be totally insulated from earth at all times.
Obviously in the real world there is some connection between the running rails and earth through the track fittings through the chairs and sleepers - but this is accidental rather than a specifically designed in feature of the traction supply circuit and consequently will rarely result in harm to folk touching one or both running rails while earthed.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 21, 2019 15:38:23 GMT
One small point, if I may. spsmiler said: This isn't true. The area is track circuited and the runnong rails are used for the traction return path - just because there is no conductor rail doesn't mean that the running rails are dead. yes, but if someone made physical contact with the rails , would they experience an electric shock in the same way that they would if it were an electric conductor rail?
No
The voltages used for track circuits rarely exceed 10V on the rails and currents also rarely exceed 1 Amp.
I think what Tom is getting at is that on the national rail network, one or both running rails form part of the traction power circuit (i.e. Substation - Overhead line / 3rd rail - traction motor - axle - wheel - running rails - substation.) Traction voltages and currents are obviously very large and will easily kill - but to become part of the circuit you need to touch the 3rd rail / overheads AND the running rails at the same time to have traction current flowing through you
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 20, 2019 4:01:11 GMT
Yes, I think there are more thick High Voltage cables. LU has an internal HV distribution network, rather than NR who seem to take power from the grid locally. All NR electrical power is taken in from the National Grid at strategic locations then distributed along the line. However it’s not simply a case of taking a feed off any old pole / pylon route - Traction power has to come from the 33KV super grid.... ....which is why Overhead electrification on the GWR will go as far as Chippenham - it’s the only place NR can tap into a suitable HV supply between Swindon and Bristol. Similarly the overhead supply at Kettering will actually be fed from a location near Market Harborough as there is no suitible 33KV route at Kettering. Obviously with DC electrification being as inefficient as it is, more frequent substations are needed - which means that some HV distribution is still handled by NR as the local grid supply is not powerful enough to act as a supply point to the substation* * This is a particular problem in places line Dorset and East Sussex - which is part of the reason the late 1980s electrification schemes have significant limitations on the length / number of trains that can be supported. In fact this is one of
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 20, 2019 3:44:34 GMT
Throughout the LU network, including the open sections, there are cables running alongside the tracks, all in different colours. What are these cables, and why aren’t they needed on National Rail routes (including electrifed railways?) on Network Rail (and British Rail before them) lineside cabling is usually placed in concrete troughing at ground level - which can be hard to see as they can get camouflaged by excess ballast / vegetation or dirt from cutting sides. In in some parts of the North East, cable theft was such a problem NR have had to restore to burying them 10ft underground! One big advantage of putting such cabling low down is it facilitates the use of flails and other mechanised vegetation clearance plus it’s supposedly maintance free. On the other had having it enclosed in close proximity to the ground makes damage by rodents / rabbits (the treat the troughing as handy transport routes away from predators).
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 20, 2019 3:22:11 GMT
I would expect so. Do these trains have what I think on the Underground is called "correct side door enable" (CDSE)? No - at least while they are operated on the national rail network (remember the ELL from Dalton to New Cross is owned by TfL not NR) Please remember that despite all the branding / marketing the London Overground is an integral part of our national rail network 99% of which does not have any form of CSDE fitted despite employing trains with automatic doors which are basically no different from the 345s for decades. There is very little difference whether it is a 345 with its doors opened on the wrong side a 455 at Sutton, a 313 at Worthing or even a 170 at Grantham - a person falling out of them is highly likely to suffer death or injury (being hit by a 100mph LNER express is just as fatal as being electrocuted on conductor rails) There are some places where Selective Door Opperation (SDO) beacons can also provide CSDE information as an add on so to speak - but if no SDO is required and the trains are still driven manually (as opposed to Automatic Train Opperation (ATO) as found on the Thameslink core) then no beacon will be fitted. And before people get all upset about it, if CSDE is desired to be fitted to the national rail network then that applies just as well to Salford, Saltcross or Salisbury as it does to Stratford. This is relevant in so much as the amount of money it takes to retro fit such a system to the mainline fleet of trains, many of which have no provision for said equipment plus installing beacon infrastructure across the country would be enormous.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 17, 2018 21:39:20 GMT
I don't think there are any issues with length at Paddington mainline (unlike Liverpool Street mainline)? There are some curvature issues these aren't any different to those encountered with 7-car trains. If there are though then they could run 7-car trains out to Reading. For Crossrail's signalling issues, it's basically irrelevant how far west a train starts - it only matters whether it takes the high or low routes at Royal Oak. In another thread it was quite clearly stated that 9 car crossrail stock could not be used to Hayes as the platforms they use at Paddington are too short and that it was not possible to re-platform said trains without wrecking the GWR timetable as the longer platforms are fully utilised.
As such Paddington station in general does have length issues* - the question is what bits of it do GWRs Thames Valley services currently use and how long are those platforms?
If those platforms are also restricted in length then it will effectively prevent a takeover of GWR services by TfL untill Paddington low level is open, if however said GWR services currently use platforms long enough for HST sets or 12 car Electrostars then clearly there would be no issue in 9 car crossrail trains taking over in December.
* and its far from alone in this respect. Waterloo used to vary between 8 and 14 Mk1 coaches depending on which bit of the station you were talking about while Victoria (Eastern) also has a mix of lengths. Liverpool Street also has a combination of long and short platforms, as does Kings Cross etc.....
This sort of problem is of course not one TfL usually have to consider what with all their trains on any given line usually being exactly the same in terms of length, etc
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 12, 2018 12:26:00 GMT
Also not transferring Southeastern, South West, Southern and Great Northern "Metro" services to London Overground which had been agreed with Cameron/Osborne but was scrapped by Grayling, how much would that have added to TfL's coffers?
It would have cost TfL MUCH more than they got in revenue to bring said services up to 'Overground' standards - look at how much they are having to fork out on the Chingford / Endfield / Chesunt services they took over from GA.
Having set the bar high when they took over the North London lines users would expect heavy investment in new trains and upgraded stations - not simply a new livery on the 455s....
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 4, 2018 20:33:38 GMT
Some disused platform faces are fenced off - Earlsfield and Wimbledon on SWR for example, and someone has mentioned the former LTSR platforms on the District.
Be careful about the term 'disused'
The fast line platforms at Wimbledon are not 'disused' - they are still maintained to exactly the same standard as the rest of the station (i.e. have fully working lighting, a smooth surface, coping stones set at the correct distance from the track to allow boarding etc) and could be used at any time should engineering work or an emergency or a train defect cause them to be used for passengers to leave / join trains.
The fencing off of fast line platforms at Wimbledon, Purley, South Croydon, Norbury, etc is all about trying to prevent suicides, etc.
Platforms that are truly 'disused' include the likes of Bromley-by-Bow on LTSR side where it is blatantly obvious that they can never be used by passengers other than in a significant emergency situation due to the lack of normal platform features.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 28, 2018 17:35:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 25, 2018 11:58:54 GMT
Hmm that video inspires a light bulb moment. As stock on the Bakerloo gets older I guess the risk of wheel flats will rise for any rolling stock which lacks any form of wheel slip detection. That video suggests that you could quickly and easily implement a very cheap wheel flat detection system - assuming there are still signalling staff employed somewhere. Basically as trains shuttle back and forth along the same route it would only take providing the signallers cabin with a simple video camera feed with sound from a nearby platform which all trains are expected to transit. I suspect it would not take very long for the signalling staff to notice any train producing such a loud thump thump sound, and likewise will pretty much ignore the sound of any which don't. Sort of like most car drivers quickly get tuned to what sounds are normal. As and when a train sounds weird, presumably the signallers are ideally placed to identify the affected unit and get the maintenance staff to intervene to swap it out with another train whilst the problem is resolved. For very little investment the Bakerloo could potentially achieve very rapid pay-back through reduced track damage.
Ahem... Wheelchex and Gotcha
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 10, 2018 10:50:50 GMT
Is there an intended ultimate outer bound for the Oyster system? Although there is no reason why it couldn't handle point to point fares, and thus work anywhere, they would need to do something about the already iniquitous 'maximum fare' system. And increase the maximum fare payable for incomplete journeys to a ridiculous amount to deter long distance travellers from “forgetting” to touch in or out! As I understand it, Oyster works by taking the maximum amount from your account when you start your journey then refunds the overpayment when you touch out.
This is fine for fairly low amounts of money - but the further out from London you go, the higher fares get and grater is the time between touching in and touching out.
There was an incident where a lady ended up incurring all sorts of bank charges because a supermarket 'pay at pump' setup was changed to work on a similar basis as Oyster and pulled £99 (rather than the usual £1) from the ladys account causing her to go overdrawn.
At the moment, the maximum fare taken by Oyster is relatively small and unlikely to cause financial issues to most people.
With many unrestricted rail tickets well into double or even treble figures on some InterCity routes, the Oyster method of processing payments becomes unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 5, 2018 16:48:02 GMT
I always think yellow is a bit of a nursery colour and should be avoided on rolling stock, so far as is compatible with safety of trackworkers (which should be greater now that bright headlights are more the norm...) While a staunch supporter of the yellow panel, I have to say that in this particular case it could probably be entirely replaced with Overground Orange (which is quite a bright colour) as such a colour would still stand out from the black upper cab section and the Blue skirt below.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 4, 2018 0:27:45 GMT
Certainly any station that opens where there wasn't a station recently is new from a passenger point of view. Meridian Water will be seen as a new station, even though it's effectively just Angel Road being moved a few hundred metres or so. However when the Lea Valley railway was opened in 1840 there were no plans for a station at Meridian Water!
There was admittedly station called 'Edmonton' planned (and duly constructed for the opening of the railway) - now known as Angel Road.
The DLR however opened with every intention of building a station at Thames Wharf in the future - just as Landon Park was planned in from the start on the Stratford branch.
True passengers might regard the stations as 'new' (and obviously from a physical perspective they will be new), they manifestly are not from a planning perspective.
While the distinction might not master to the wider public - I would generally expect better of members of this site, who are by their nature more interested in the history, planning and operational side of the railways and not just whatever press release TfL may say.
Thames Wharf and Langdon Park are thus not 'new' stations - they are ones where construction was postponed / paused / deferred for a decade or two till certain things were settled and it became favourable to commence construction. Meridian Water is (using the 250 yards rule) not 'new' either - it is a relocated and renamed Angel Road station.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 2, 2018 18:53:23 GMT
Just because passive provision is going to be utilised doesn't mean the station will not be new. Langdon Park was passively provided for from when the DLR first opened in 1987 until construction started in 2006 - it was still a new station when opened. The station itself may be physically new - but the idea itself is not, which is kind of the point I was making. On most UK rail based transport networks, a ‘new’ station is just that (I.e. it was not planned to be there from the onset of the project (though I guess a station closed in the 1960s cuts but reopened in recent times could be said to have been ‘planed in’ from the beginning so to speak). Naturally the fact TfL / DLR are going to press forward and realise their previously made plans is to be welcomed but they are still not ‘new’ in concept.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 2, 2018 16:41:13 GMT
IIRC this 'new' station was actually planned to be built as part of the London City airport branch over a decade ago!
However due to uncertainty as to the exact path of the northern approach to long proposed Silvertown / Blackwall relief tunnel, it was felt prudent not to go ahead with it. There was also the fact that said uncertainty of the road tunnel meant that no redevelopment could occur in the immediate area depressing passenger volumes.
With the alignment of the Silvertown tunnel northern approach now fixed, the DLR station (and redevelopment of the immediate area) can now go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 20, 2018 20:23:04 GMT
Anybody know why these modern, sliding door units haven't been reserved by Vivarail as likely candidates for re-engineering?
Because
(1) The units are NOT 'Modern' - they are around 40 years old and suffering from corrosion plus other age related problems. (2) they have never been updated - unlike the D stock which received brand new bogies only a decade before withdrawal by TfL.
(2) They are 25KV units and consequently the traction gear cannot be fooled into thinking its working off 750V 3rd rail as per the 319flex units or the D stock via the installation of batteries / diesel engines.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 4, 2018 16:48:44 GMT
Why has the yellow front also made a comeback? A 1m² area of a specific shade of yellow is mandatory unless a satisfactory risk assessment has been carried out for the routes involved. There is one obvious answer to your question: nobody has done the necessary risk assessment. It's also possible that someone in authority simply thought it looked better and thus there was no point spending time/money doing the risk assessment.
There are also some VERY stringent requirements as to headlight / marker light intensity and alignment which must be met for yellow ends to be dispensed with. While the latest builds of rolling stock comply with this standard its quite likely that the Electrostar builds do not.
Folk should note that both Northern and Grater Anglia have decided to retain yellow despite their trains not technically needing it - it is thought this is related to the large number of footpath crossings in the operators area where just headlights is not considered good enough for users to be able to make an accurate assessment of whether it is safe to cross
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 1, 2018 19:57:41 GMT
InterCity in its latter days required certain minimal levels of comfort including air conditioned coaches. As such the slam door EMUs used in Kent were not up to the job and maps of the 1990s make it clear that BR regarded 'InterCity' services to be those on the WCML, ECML, MML, GWML, GEML (Norwich Only), Gatwick Express and Cross Country.
The Chiltern route at that time was also regarded as an outer suburban service - the potental for it to become a serious compeitor to the WCML was only realised with the introduction of Chiltern's 'Mainline' brand using 'InterCity' standard rolling stock.
|
|