|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 1, 2021 11:27:34 GMT
If I was going to put money on it I think the Mayor will start off by curtailing lines like ........... no District to Richmond ........... they all have alternatives so won't upset too many locals. What practical alternative is there to Richmond and, more particularly, Kew Gardens? (Note that if you also close the Bakerloo north of Queens Park the nearest connection between the Overground and the Tube would be West Hampstead!). It might also come to the attention of the Lib Dem spokesperson on transport, as it's in her constituency!
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 29, 2021 15:48:39 GMT
These full numbers not normally displayed on GB main line rolling stock; the only actual example I know of is the new Mersey 777 have the 11 digit car numbers in their cabs. Some CAF-built stock carries the full number commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CAF_mk5_seated_coach_with_class_92_locomotive.jpg As most emu vehicles on NR now have six-digit numbers I did wonder whether prefixing the 38xxx to 48xxx with a "3" or a "4" would make unique numbers, but alas (3)40xxx is occupied by class 345 (3)41xxx, 42xxx, 43xxx, 44xxx and 46xxx by class 745 (4)41xxx, 442xxx, 443xxx and 444xxx by class 385 Class 755 uses the 91,96, 97, and 98 ranges (why?) and Class 399 (the Sheffield tram trains) 99xxxx so the 93xxxx and 94xxxx ranges are free - but they are completely free so why start at (9)38xxx?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 27, 2021 22:46:28 GMT
It never dawned upon me that it would matter if LU rolling stock numbers clashed with those of the mainline network. . Nor would it have to me, except for the very limited cases where one network's trains runs on another's network: Gunnersbury to Richmond East Putney to Wimbledon Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone Amersham to Harrow-on-the-Hill Rotherham Central Pelaw to Sunderland and possibly where they run alongside, and therefore may need identification if an accident were to bring them into conflict Bromley-by-Bow to Upminster Stratford (London) Wimbledon, Elmers End, and Birkbeck to Beckenham Junction Birmingham Snow Hill to the Hawthorns Bulwell to Hucknall Altrincham to Navigation Road, Deansgate to Cornbrook, and Manchester Victoria Balgreen to Edinburgh Park ....actually, there's quite a few, when you come to list them
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 27, 2021 12:02:40 GMT
..... This new numbering scheme looks pretty unique to me! Any idea why it starts at 38xxx and runs over to 48xxx at the other end of the train? Was there a reason not to start at 30xxx or 35xxx? When the S stock numbering scheme was proposed, S7 units started with a middle digit of xx2xx, but this was found to clash with some National Rail rolling stock, so was changed to commence with xx3xx. Could there have been a similar numbering clash by starting at 30xxx or 35xxx, or would this not matter since Picc trains will not work on the National system? There are indeed half a dozen Mark 1 corridor brake composites (BCK) numbered in the 212xx range registered with NR, owned by Riviera and West Coast Railways - the last survivors of a fleet originally numbering 276. A run from 38xxx to 48xxx, while missing the surviving Class 37 locomotives, overlaps with DMU and EMU vehicles in classes 378 and 380 (38xxx) and classes 139 and 395 (39xxx), the surviving HST fleet (both power cars and trailers, numbered between 41xxx and 44xxx), and Class 47 locomotives. Given the operator of Class 378, I would have thought that duplication would be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 25, 2021 8:35:09 GMT
This new numbering scheme looks pretty unique to me! Any idea why it starts at 38xxx and runs over to 48xxx at the other end of the train? Was there a reason not to start at 30xxx or 35xxx? Very odd. As far as I can see the only previous uses of the 3xxxx and 4xxxx ranges were for 1949 stock UNDMs in the 30xxx and 31xxx ranges (including some converted from 1938 stock),and the 1956 stock (originally numbered in the 4xxxx range with the second digit ranging from 0 to 5). The Class 378s used on the London Overground have car numbers in the 38xxx range, which was not a range previously used for NR emu stock but seemed to sort-of-fit of with LO's use of 1xxxx and 2xxxx for 21st century Tube and Surface stocks respectively, but this range of course overlaps with the range now proposed for 2024 TS. (Historic number ranges) 1xxx, ex-District Trailers, 1959/62 Tube stock 2xxx, ex-Metropolitan DMs, 1959/62 Tube stock 3xxx, Standard Stock DM, 1967/72/83 Tube stock 4xxx, ex-District and Q stock DMs, 1967/72/83 Tube stock 5xxx, Standard Stock ControlTrailers, A,C stock DMs 6xxx, ex-Metropolitan driving trailers, A,C stock trailers 7xxx, Standard Stock Trailers, D stock DM 8xxx, ex-District and Q stock Trailers, D stock NDM 9xxx, ex-Metropolitan trailers, 1959/62 Tube stock 10xxx, 1935/1938 stocks 11xxx,12xxx 1935/1938 stocks, 2009 stock 13xxx,14xxx, O,P stock, 2009 stock 17xxx D stock trailers 2xxxx R and S stocks 3xxxx 1938 stock (converted 9 car NDMs) 4xxxx 1956 stock 5xxxx CO/CP stock, 1995 stock 6xxxx 1992 stock (W&C) 7xxxx "58 trailer" standard stock conversions to run with 1938 stock 9xxxx 1938 stock (9 car), 1992,1996 stock
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 29, 2021 15:27:09 GMT
As the Vivarail charging system is already subject to a patent, presumably the actual supply voltage requirements are no state secret and already out their somewhere. patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/96/86/72/bf6922b52b436a/WO2019229479A1.pdfThis looks like the one. Most of it is concerned with getting power from the shore supply to the train, but page 6 discusses energy storage in the stationary part, and page 2 discusses suitable power supplies to deliver power to the batteries in the stationary part. No mention of diesel. (Two years and one month since I last looked at a patent document.....)
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 22, 2021 7:18:00 GMT
Stabling births? Is there no room at the inn?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 19, 2021 13:50:22 GMT
Strictly speaking, the underground railways had to purchase or otherwise obtain an easement, or wayleave - the right to run under (or in some cases, above) the property - not often did they have to purchase the property itself. One of the few places where an early Tube line did have to be built under property rather than a street, because of the tight curvature of the street, was at East Road in Shoreditch. The Land Registry entry for the property includes the phrase: ‘So much of the sub-soil as was vested in the Great Northern and City Railway is excluded from the registration.’ Unfortunately, the conveyancing solicitors handling the sale of the property to developers in 2013 failed to understand the significance of this (the GN&CR company itself ceased to exist in 1913) and the local council (who were both the planning authority and, since 1963, the owners of the land) were unable to explain it. It was only after piling started on the site that anyone associated with the building work realised there was a tunnel under the site - indeed the builders only learned what had happened to their drill bit two hours after the initial penetration of the tunnel, when they got a visit from the British Transport Police. (Oh to be a fly on the wall at that conversation.......) assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c8fb940f0b60241000157/R032014_140213_Old_Street.pdf
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 18, 2021 8:46:49 GMT
[Edited now I realise the photo is linked in] The set number is an identity allocated to a physical train for a full working day (barring swaps arranged because of out-of-course working) so a train with a given identity would have run through Paddington several times - roughly every 90 to 120 minutes for the H&C. (Circle Line trains did not go to Hammersmith until 2009) The current H&C/Circle working Timetable content.tfl.gov.uk/wtt-36-circleandhammersmithandcity-12-september-2021.pdf has no Train 221 (Circle is 200-217, H&C 261-277) but the timetable was very different in 1991.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 14, 2021 10:12:05 GMT
Central line trains do not normally have driving cabs, except at each end. So two four-car trains are not simply made by splitting a full train, as was the case with their predecessors! With the previous through service there was only one extra eight-car train required due to no lay-over at Hainault. So replacing that with two four-car shuttle trains did not release a spare train! Indeed, although there are more 2-car units with driving cabs than without (175 to 165) so that some trains are normally formed with a driving cab in the middle of the train, they do not usually put two middle cabs in the same train as that would reduce its capacity - and lead to extended dwell times as passengers find cab doors where they expect passenger doors. If you do the arithmetic there are enough units to form 85 8-car trains, of which five would have an extra driving cab
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 14, 2021 9:57:49 GMT
.....but surely it must be possible to spot a long chunk of track with no power rails... ........erect some sort of warning boards ahead of those locations - IE min speed past this point of x mph to ensure a train has enough momentum to clear the gap. You are unlikely to find long gaps in the live rails on long stretches of plain track. Most gaps are at complex pointwork, where the current rails of one track have to be interrupted by the running rails of the intersecting track. Dictating a minimum speed at such complex pointwork is probably unwise. (This is less of a problem in 3rd Rail Land as there are two possible sites for the (one) current rail, one each side. On LU, there is only one place you can put the negative rail.)
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 13, 2021 19:23:09 GMT
I'm no expert, but I'd expect adding more pickup shoes to a train to be a very expensive and possibly time-consuming job, That would only be effective if the existing shoes were not all in the same gap. Adding more shoes in between the ends would not help if the gap was longer than the train. (The problem of gapping was the reason for the "booster" design on the Class 70 and 71 electric locos on the Southern, as the locos were shorter than some of the gaps - for example at level crossings - which had been laid out with a two-car unit's length as the minimum distance between shoegears. The booster was essentially a motor-generator set with a big flywheel to keep it turning if power was lost. I recall the Gatwick Express service ran into difficulties in its early days because of fires caused when a loco bridged a gap in which voltages were significantly different in the two conductors. Two shoegears close together on one vehicle left not enough cabling to handle the voltage drop, and power surges as supply was lost and regained too quickly for the control gear to handle, resulting in flashovers resulted. sremg.org.uk/electric/class73.shtml
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 11, 2021 19:07:00 GMT
If 1 and 2 are both occupied, for some reason? (Out of course running, or a failed train) Note that if a train off the South London Line can't access platform 2 because it's already occupied, the signaller has little alternative than to send it to Platform 1. Trains from the West London Line can use Platform 17, but not those from the SLL (in extremis they could use the Windsor Line platforms 3 to 6, I suppose...............)
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 8, 2021 10:26:26 GMT
You can get fog in a tunnel. In the picture the platforms are clearly wet. The fog could simply be spray thrown up by a departing train, but if the air is near saturation point it would not take much for some water to condense out - the drop in air pressure in the slipstream behind a departing train could trigger it. This drop in pressure is the cause of con-trails behind aircraft, or above their wings (the lower pressure being what causes lift).
A small drop in temperature can also do it, which could be caused by a cold wet train entering a warm tunnel. However, since the picture appears to be of a northbound platform on the Northern Line, it is unlikely any train using it has been exposed to the weather recently, so I suspect some artistic licence has been used.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 7, 2021 8:59:06 GMT
This is 1923 trailer No. 7296, painted in a 1930s livery (with red doors) which included naming the line it ran on. This is 1925 control trailer No. 5279, painted in 1923 livery Carrying its original number, I see. I can't make out the number on the trailer, but the original number of 7296 was 846,which doesnot appear to be the number on the side of the car.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 5, 2021 13:36:09 GMT
The DR must have had to go some to build the curve in one day! And all that without the machinery we have these days. I suspect quite a lot of planning went into it. As it was already MDR land, they could be doing work on it without necessarily arousing the Met's suspicion. (Maybe they thought it was going to be a couple of sidings until the MDR added junctions at both ends?)
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 5, 2021 9:28:26 GMT
No, because the ticket machine on the bus should have had the relevant PrePay code entered. I don't now exactly how this works (this was more Snoggle's (RIP) area of knowledge), but if you've touched in correctly, and are following a reasonable route for the closure, there shouldn't be an issue. However, if you *are* incorrectly charged, although inconvenient, you should be able to claim any overpayment back. Thanks for that clarification, but how out of five passengers boarding the C1 at Victoria for Earls Court, does the system know that one is on his or her way to Fulham Broadway and the system needs to look up the special prepaid code. I have never heard an announcement telling non-savvy passengers to tell the driver of their intended destination due a to disrupted service. ‘Paper Tickets’ has been answered, but PAYG not. Put another way, how does the system differentiate between a passenger whose journey was disrupted, as described and the one who deliberately intended to use the bus for part of the total journey? Or is there a fee-adjusted OSI interchange between bus and train that I’m not aware of? Frome Elsomberrie's reply below, it seems the system can't differentiate, so |I would guess everyone who has recently touched out at an affected tube station gets a free bus ride, whether they are entitled to one or not.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 3, 2021 7:25:25 GMT
Hmm, please be aware though that if you are making a point to point journey and are asked to travel by bus instead (for the entire journey) then you will almost certainly end up paying a cheaper fare on the bus than the train! The only possible exception to this is for people with railcard discounts (on Oystercards) which only apply to train travel - not to bus travel. Unlikely though - very few rail fares, even when discounted, would be less than £1.55. A more likely outcome is that you might end up paying for a bus fare as well as a train fare if you have to complete your journey by bus, or even paying for a second train fare as well if you use a bus to bridge a gap in train services.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 1, 2021 10:59:09 GMT
Perhaps the Wedgelock couplers have been 'rationalised' out? Still fully operational and upgraded on the previously single-ended cabs, from the emergency only ones originally fitted According to Wikipedia, all ten class 484 cars are from single-ended units, so none of them would have had automatic couplers in their previous lives. (Double-enders were numbered in the 75xx series) The references I have to hand say that five 75xx cars have been used so far, one each in 230001 (demonstrator), 230004 (WMR) and 230006/7/9 (TfW) 484001 131 (ex 7086) 231 (ex 7011) 484002 132 (ex 7068) 232 (ex 7002) 484003 133 (ex 7051) 233 (ex 7083) 484004 134 (ex 7074) 234 (ex 7111) 484005 135 (ex 7124) 235 (ex 7093)
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 28, 2021 18:33:09 GMT
£130,000 for a two-month contract? They're not going to get much original thinking for that money and timescale.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 28, 2021 13:29:38 GMT
Mantion of the "High Frequency" maps is topical, as SWR seem to be hell-bent on removing half of the stations that currently meet that criterion (minimum 4tph off-peak) leaving only the lines to Motspur Park, Teddington via Kingston, and Hounslow via Brentford, plus outposts at Richmond, Twickenham and Surbiton where outer suburban services call. Seven stations (Ewell West, Mortlake, North Sheen, St Margarest, Stoneleigh, Whitton, Worcester Park), would drop from 4tph to 2tph, two more (Barnes and Mostpur Park) from 6 to 4, and three more (Putney, Richmond and Twickenham) from 8 to 6.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 25, 2021 11:34:28 GMT
Let's use your suggestion of Greenwich as an example of why it can't be added to the Tube map. There are no trains from Charing Cross/Waterloo East. There is a fairly frequent service from Cannon Street (but there is a much more interesting service for tourists on the DLR from nearby Bank). Pre COVID it was every 10/20 minutes to allow for the 2 trains an hour on Thameslink which is shown on the map. Which station do you head for? Not a simple message. So you show and Charing Cross to Lewisham, and Cannon Street to Greenwich - the latter very simple to add since the line from London Bridge to Greenwich is already shown, and there should be no need to differentiate between operators as it will all be GBR soon anyway. And the message is "take the first train to London Bridge and change if necessary" A message seen (with different interchanges) all over the Tube. The main thing that needs to be shown is where NR provides a short cut with a reasonable frequency between stations on the Tube map on different lines, for example Moorgate to Finsbury Park, Clapham Junction to Wimbledon or, as has just been added, Kings Cross to Blackfriars.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 25, 2021 8:37:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 24, 2021 20:58:26 GMT
On the contrary, the Tube Map is highly misleading by omitting high-frequency NR services in Zones 1 and 2, especially where they provide a quicker or more direct route than TfL do. I would suggest, as a minimum, (snip) - Ealing/Greenford Anyone sensible who wants to go between the town centres of Ealing and Greenford gets a bus rather a train. It's not about local journeys. It's about connections with Crossrail at one end and the Central Line at the other. And I know all the NR lines I mentioned are on the "London Connections" map, but that is not as widely known or distributed. Tourists wanting to visit Greenwich or Richmond, for example, should not be put off by a map that appears to show them at the end of a tedious and (depending on their starting point) possibly circuitous journey when they are both just three stops from Waterloo. The omission of NR services in inner London is no more logical than it would be for RATP's Paris metro map to omit those RER lines run by SNCF (the whole of lines C, D and E, and parts of the other two). It is supposed to be a guide for the traveller, not an exercise in corporate flag-waving.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 24, 2021 15:19:01 GMT
There’s no issue with DLR going on there. It’s mainline rail services which is one of the things causing excess clutter. The simple reality is there’s only so much room on the piece of paper, and we’re pretty much at the point where the page is full. There is no way something like SE or SW suburban would be able to fit if they ever go Overground. On the contrary, the Tube Map is highly misleading by omitting high-frequency NR services in Zones 1 and 2, especially where they provide a quicker or more direct route than TfL do. I would suggest, as a minimum, - the Northern City Line, - Thameslink between West Hampstead and Elephant/Greenwich (only) - possibly Woolwich - Ealing/Greenford, - Victoria to Clapham Junction (possibly on to Balham, Crystal Place and West Croydon), - Waterloo to Clapham Junction (and probably Wimbledon and Richmond), - Charing Cross/Cannon Street to Greenwich/Lewisham (possibly Woolwich) - and London Bridge to New Cross Gate.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 24, 2021 9:36:32 GMT
In the French examples, stops on the Paris Metro are "Stations de Metro" so we have for example 'Station de Metro "Gare de Lyon"', and the only word repeated is "de". However, a literal English translation would be "Lyon station metro station".
(Most Parisian termini are named for the regions of France they serve, rather than their locations within Paris, hence the Gare de Lyon, and the Gare du Nord (the station for the North), (which is right next door to the Gare de l'Est).
A confusing one to non-Francophones in bilingual Brussels is that the Gare du Midi (French) and the Centraal Station (Flemish) are not the same place. "Midi" in French means "noon" and is also used for the direction of the Sun at that time of day. The Flemish equivalent of the Gare du Midi is the Zuidstation.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 20, 2021 11:25:50 GMT
I can confirm from observations this morning (and I was down there for a good while) that there were no Edgware branch destinations. It was all High Barnet with the odd MHE. It was mentioned up thread that there are through Edgware branch trains at certain times: I am surprised that most Battersea trains serve the Barnet/MHE branch, because if the Northern Line is ever split, the layout at Kennington and the locations of the two depots at Morden and Golders Green (on the Edgware branch) would make Battersea-Charing Cross-Edgware and Morden-Bank-High Barnet the only practical way of doing it. A Battersea-Barnet line would require a new depot. (Indeed, I assume the through Edgware trains in the WTT are in order to get trains to and from Golders Green depot)
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 20, 2021 8:42:54 GMT
Well, I don't know where you would find it written down, but so far when a service runs between two points on line, a continuous line of the correct colour is shown on the map between them. . Croxley to Rickmansworth?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 20, 2021 6:47:12 GMT
it wasn't because they were designed by a different manufacturer, but more that the P86s were an older design which didn't comply with the requirements that were developed post King's Cross and after the P86s were introduced? The P86 were designed long before any tunnel working was envisaged.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 9, 2021 6:46:29 GMT
Opening ceremonies do not have to coincide with first trains, there can be days or even weeks between them. Quite, but the press release refers to the first train, not an opening ceremony. There may be other reasons for not starting the public service at 05:28.
|
|