|
Post by zcap on Sept 30, 2021 19:35:24 GMT
There is a crossover there already, unless I’ve misunderstood your post? Yeah no youre right but it goes in reverse from the southbound to the northbound. Im wondering if there is clearance for a crossover from the southbound to the northbound directly.
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Sept 30, 2021 18:30:05 GMT
Hi all,
I was standing on the northbound Northern Line platform at Charing Cross earlier on today and watched a train approaching along the southbound and it got me thinking. Is there sufficient clearence in the tunnels in advance of the Northbound Starter (EMB 009) for a direct Southbound-Northbound connection and if so, why isnt it implemented?
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Jul 7, 2021 8:15:07 GMT
Hey all,
I just passed WG150 on Southbound Putney Bridge approach and was wondering, since the layout change, is WG150 still a speed controlled signal?
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by zcap on May 8, 2021 19:21:50 GMT
btw, I know that this was filmed in the year 2000 because to get this view I was standing on the front of Met No.1, which was in the track for the bay platform *On* Met No.1? Damn, thats awesome!
|
|
|
Post by zcap on May 5, 2021 19:56:48 GMT
Well that explains why they're only fitted on the fast lines! Wonderful, well, thanks everyone for this wealth of information. And sorry for the thread duplication! Being pedantic, they’re only on the main lines. The fast lines are those south of Harrow. Nothing wrong with a bit of pedantry. I didnt know that actually, I just assumed it was fast lines straight up to Watford South junction (I *think* that is the junctions' name, please correct me if I am wrong!)
|
|
|
Post by zcap on May 4, 2021 21:28:38 GMT
Does anyone have a picture of these things? ©LURS/Brian Hardy UndergrounD News 203 November 1978: Well that explains why they're only fitted on the fast lines! Wonderful, well, thanks everyone for this wealth of information. And sorry for the thread duplication!
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Apr 30, 2021 13:50:31 GMT
I think you will find that is the auxiliary aspect no longer used but I'm sure one of the experts will confirm and give more detail. Sweet, thanks. Any clue what it was used for?
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Apr 30, 2021 8:58:25 GMT
Hey all, been a while. Hope youre all doing well.
Had to take a Met up to Croxley today and I noticed that on the Fast lines, some of the signal heads had what appeared to be a smaller, well shrouded, fifth aspect below the main signal head. I remember that the Watford DC lines had calling on aspects and these sort of reminded me of those.
I guess my question is, what are those fifth aspects and are they still used or usable?
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 18, 2020 16:32:59 GMT
I've found the 1990 Capital Transport publication Underground Official Handbook by Piers Connor. On page 78 " the original hope was that there would be extensions to Fenchurch Street, Surrey Docks and Lewisham. These did not find favour with the government of the time but an extension to Docklands and Stratford was given the go ahead by the Department of transport in November 1989, to be partly financed by private capital". On page 79 is a half page spread of the current Jubilee Line alignment. It also showed the Bank extension of the DLR under construction. Oh sweet, that sounds interesting. Where dya find it if you dont mind me asking?
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 18, 2020 16:16:34 GMT
Am I correct in assuming that the section proposed from Custom House to Woolwich would have used the former NLL alignment (including the Connaught tunnel) that is now the Elizabeth Line? Obviously Crossrail doesn't go to Thamesmead, which is a shame, but Abbey Wood certainly is a more useful interchange. Its unclear to me however I believe one proposal at some point did suggest that. There were some pretty interesting schemes proposed by the GLC in an attempt to keep the Jubilee Line "Stages" alive, in the late 70s such as the building of a single bore mainline gauge tunnel linking Woolwich to the NLL via Custom House, which was to be taken over by the Jubilee line once it reached Woolwich.
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 18, 2020 13:11:17 GMT
Ok so, I seem to have answered my own question insomuch that the fifth part of this article explains the happenings of 1989 with respect to the JLE.
Firstly, it appears the original Phased Jubilee Line extensions concept and planning was allowed to fall through by the Government in the early 80s. This meant that now the extension of the Jubilee became a bottom priority task in the Department of Transports' backlog. This is best exemplified by the fact that it is genuinely at the bottom of the list of priorities in the Central London Rail Study (CLRS) of 1988 (published 01/01/89), under Thameslink 2000 (great name), Crossrail and the Chelsea-Hackney line.
Furthermore Olympia & York (big time investors in the Docklands regeneration scheme and the main pushers of the Second Docklands Line idea or the Waterloo and Greenwich Tube, affectionately called the W&GR) were really pushing for a direct link for the Waterloo BR commuters to the Docklands, and were attempting to build a fully private tube, whose design was almost given Royal Ascent! To be fair, it became obvious that without a proper rail connection to the Docklands, namely to Canary Wharf, the development would be a bust, so it seemed in everyones interests to build a link to Canary Wharf. I feel that Government then scrambled to create a route which appealed to all and hence the old W&GR was patched to the Jubilee as best as they could. An alternative routing of the Jubilee Line was explored via Ludgate Circus to London Bridge, but this appears to have been rejected quickly by O&Y since it missed Waterloo. Hence, we get the current JLE.
It appears the current Stratford terminus was indeed chosen out of the need to provide a depot east of Canary Wharf, but also because Stratford was becoming, quote "a transport hub" in the East. That, and the fact that Westcombe Park truly is nowhere in comparison to Stratford.
These latter explorations were done as part of CLRS of 1989 and the East London Rail Study (ELRS 1989) both of which were published in July 1989.
What is still unclear to me is that options to terminate at Beckton and Thamesmead were still explored into the latter stages of the JLEs planning. Statford makes sense because of the Depot but there was plenty of ground in both alternatives to sustain depots. Both alternatives also serve more of the Docklands and hence provides more of a Docklands spine for regeneration. I know that N.Greenwich has tunnels for a potential future alignment to Thamesmead, but I suspect that will never happen now. I wish I could read more about why these options were rejected and I suspect there are clues in both CLRS/ELRS 1989. If anyone has a copy or knows where I may accquire a copy of either or both of these, or any other source of information, again, id be much obliged.
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 18, 2020 11:14:04 GMT
You raise an interesting point, and its one that I too have noticed in that the Eastern arms of Crossrail do mimic past, abanadoned plans for the Jubilee/Fleet. It feels a bit as if the bits that couldnt be made to work for the Jubilee were appended onto Crossrail (ie the Abbey Wood branch). Nontheless, I still cannot see where the decision and justification to abandon Charing X came from. Wasn’t there a desire to serve Waterloo, which couldn’t be reached using the Charing Cross alignment? Ive been rereading the articles this morning, and ive just got to part five. Additional to the Central London Rail Study of 1989 mentioning a Second Docklands Line (which would originate at Waterloo and go to Canary Wharf via London Bridge, ending at Westcombe Park), the Reichmann brothers wanted a Direct tube from Waterloo to Canary Wharf, initially suggesting extending the Bakerloo Line along two branches, one to Stratford and Tottenham Hale and the other to the Royal Docks (imagine how that wouldve turned out!).
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 18, 2020 10:44:34 GMT
the creation of the Docklands Development agency in 1981 and the cheaper option of a light railway took over much of the eastern arm of the Fleet/Jubilee line starting as it did at Tower Gateway. So I would think the Jubilee alignment came out of relieving interchange points, serving dockland areas south of the Thames and back across the Thames to the growing Canary Wharf. Again the eastern extension to Abbey Wood was abandoned in favour of Crossrail that originally in the east was only going to Shenfield with a possible branch via Forest Gate Junction to the C2C (now the Riverside extension of London Overground). The unlikely turn north to Stratford was because of a need for a depot and there was available railway land at Stratford market. If the original Fleet line alignment had been built the depot would probably been where the Crossrail sidings are at Abbey Wood. You raise an interesting point, and its one that I too have noticed in that the Eastern arms of Crossrail do mimic past, abanadoned plans for the Jubilee/Fleet. It feels a bit as if the bits that couldnt be made to work for the Jubilee were appended onto Crossrail (ie the Abbey Wood branch). Nontheless, I still cannot see where the decision and justification to abandon Charing X came from.
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 18, 2020 2:40:29 GMT
Hey there folks, its been a while since ive posted. Hope we're all doing well in these troubled times.
Anyway, a question which has been spinning in my head for ages is the following: I read an excellent five part series on London Reconnections on the creation of the Fleet/Jubilee line many many moons ago, and a point which I seem to have missed is when and why in the world did they switch from a Fenchurch Street alignment to Westminster and then to Stratford? From what I understand, the planning of the Jubilee line was very heavily influenced by "business cases" for each stage and yet to abandon a preexisting station and tunnel alignment to build a new connection and routing seems kinda weird to me. Especially since the River line routing had been on the ropes since the early days of the Fleet line, if one of the main reasons for the final extension alignment was the Docklands redevelopment, why didnt the designers take the Fenchurch Street route and take the River line alignment onwards? Also why was Stratford chosen to end the extension? I know it appeared on the 1989 Central London Rail study (although in a very different way as the Whitechapel-Ilford proposal) but again why not choose the pre-chosen and arguably well studied alignment to Woolwich and Thamesmead or even Beckton? I feel like im missing a piece of the puzzle. The closest I seem to get to the current extension is in the aforementioned study where they have a propesed "Docklands Second Line" starting at Waterloo and ending at Westcombe Park almost following the current Jubilee extension to the T up to North Greenwich. If anyone knows the actual origins of the current alignment and can direct me to a study/paper from which the current alignment stems, i'd be most obliged.
Thanks and stay safe!
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Jan 31, 2020 15:45:06 GMT
Excuse my ignorance (both with regards to the question and as to whether it was asked earlier in the thread) but what actually has changed in track layout to now make 4-Car 92 Stock being gapped a real possibility? Especially considering these shuttles were run in the past with even shorter trains (eg 3-Car 60 Stock)?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 19, 2019 2:04:13 GMT
A158 only requires the approach to the platform clear for the signal to be clear, if there is a train in the platform the signal will clear as normal ED300 is to allow a train to go upto ED3 if its speed checked correctly when a train is sitting in the platform at HSK or reversing at ED14 (main line shunt just past ED4) Legend! Thank you so much for that clarification
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 18, 2019 7:26:54 GMT
Off topic I know but I didnt realise the Northern line ran '38 stock parallel to '59 and '72 stock? Unless the unit at 44:25 was not a '38 stock? How long did all three run together? Great video btw, loved the ending
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 17, 2019 23:24:32 GMT
ED300 is speed checked but if ED3 is cleared then ED300 automatically clears and no speed check is necessary like other speed control signals on the main. I have a feeling if a train is still in HSK platform then the train would be held at A158 until it moves off. The way HSK works is that to clear ED3 you must select ED4rt1 or ED4rt2 first this is in the non safety circuitry and always catches out a new signaller when in push button mode on the programme machine. I will check tomorrow what happens when a train is in the platform with A158 and ED300 No RED3 btw Ahh thank you so much for all the information, I really appreciate you checking it out! I eagerly await your response.
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 17, 2019 16:53:49 GMT
From memory of commuting from Notting Hill Gate several years ago, A158 and ED300 are both visible. ED3 is only just before High Street Kensington platform. Depending on where the signals are mounted and the brightness of them, it might be that you saw the first of the two clearing - there is an optical illusion that can happen sometimes. Legend! Thank you so much! A weird thing Ive noticed a number of times now is that often it looks like A158 is being held at danger (but its an Auto?) with ED300 being clear. I didnt think this would be possible since its an Auto, unless it too is approach controlled? (Im assuming ED300 is approach controlled based on its signal number). Which leads me to my next question. If a Train is at High Street Ken, Inner Circle, would a train waiting to enter the platform be held at ED300 or ED3? (Lastly, just from memory, there doesnt exist a RED3 does there?) Many thanks!
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 16, 2019 22:26:53 GMT
Fair enough. Thanks a bunch, ill wait and see if a T/Op drops by the thread
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 16, 2019 21:23:39 GMT
Thanks buddy! Would you by any chance know which ones are visible from the NHG inner circle platform (excluding ofc A162)?
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 16, 2019 15:52:42 GMT
ED300 then ED3 then ED4 starter at HSK Are there no autos between NHG starter and ED300?
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 16, 2019 12:13:37 GMT
Hey all,
I was standing at NHG last night and looked down the tunnels and saw two signals at danger towards Hight Street Kensington. Then to my surprise it looked like the second of the signals cleared whilst the first one didnt. I was wondering if anyone can tell me how many signals there are between the Notting Hill Gate starter and ED4 and their signal numbers please?
Many thanks! I hope you are all well!
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Sept 17, 2019 9:22:51 GMT
This is awesome!
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Jul 2, 2019 19:00:08 GMT
Hey all,
I was in Farringdon earlier and noticed that the Outer to Inner circle line points were removed!
When was this work done?
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 19, 2018 19:02:08 GMT
Stairs are always numbered in the same series as escalators. Oh, I didnt know! Fanks for that!
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 19, 2018 18:55:58 GMT
Why do you think it was retrofitted? Since Victoria lube was built on the cheap, it is more likely it was always a staircase! Tbh I thought so since the handrails are installed and its even numbered in accordance with the other escalators. But I remember reading it was built on the cheapo, I thought either it mightve just never been built or a "Brixton in the early 2000s situation" that went wrong and, instead of repairing the escalator, they made it a staircase.
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 19, 2018 17:53:03 GMT
Hi all. Ive noticed that escalator 8 (middle staircase from middle mezzanine level to Victoria Line platforms) appears to have never been commissioned into use and instead was retrofitted as a staircase. Anyone know why this was? Many thanks, zcap
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Jul 9, 2018 19:41:48 GMT
6110 is surviving on for the time being. There is, apparently, a plan that will see it remain in one piece, but it is very unlikely that it will see passenger use - and certainly not on the LU network. This sounds intriguing Can you give any more information?
|
|
|
Post by zcap on May 11, 2018 20:08:01 GMT
Something similar occurs with Austrian signalling. When the train stops at the station, when the green light is given and the guard is satisfied that the train is ready to depart, he/she goes to a button and presses it, and a smaller green light flashes by the main green light to act as a starter. A bit off topic but that sounds rather unsafe! How does the driver know the guard is back on the train? Or is it platform staff that press the button for the miniature green signal (similar to the mainline CD/RA indicators?)
|
|