|
Post by br7mt on Mar 1, 2014 10:37:14 GMT
If you are in the vicinity of Ruislip Depot on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday you will see something interesting coming in early afternoon Regards, Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Feb 19, 2014 19:37:29 GMT
The four car came over with the three car unit that suffered front end damage at Stonebridge Park Depot. That is going to be repaired using the cab front off a DM car recovered from open storage at Hainault Depot.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Jan 2, 2014 19:39:18 GMT
There was an engineers train stuck at Neasden Depot after a derailment at the weekend - so if you're quick you might be able to see those two halves (get a Met Line train heading into London from Wembley Park). Otherwise your best bet is to get a Central Line train between Ruislip Gardens and West Ruislip and look into the depot.
Lillie Bridge is only used sparodically now for some loco maintenance tasks.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Dec 29, 2013 12:49:36 GMT
"SelTrac" is the brand name of the Thales (formerly Alcatel) signalling system. In this instance it is the SelTrac S40 product used on Jubilee and Northern - it is known as Transmission Based Train Control (TBTC) and uses an inductive loop to transmit information between train and wayside. Positional information is derived from where the loop crosses over every 25 metres, backed up by data from tachometers and accelerometers. Back up location and entry onto the system is done using axle counter blocks.
The Victoria line uses the Siemens (formely Invensys and back even further Westinghouse) Distance To Go Radio (DTG-R). This uses radio based comms between train and wayside and I believe the positional information is done using a route map in the on board controller software. The trains are fitted with tachometers but I'm not sure if there are doppler radars fitted.
Basically they are different ways of achieveing the same thing.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Dec 20, 2013 21:31:40 GMT
It covers the whole system except the Waterloo & City line, with every line getting a visit on an eight weekly basis.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Dec 20, 2013 11:55:57 GMT
De-icing tank fitted along with spray nozzles to drop de-icing fluid on the conductor rails. You can see the same on other stocks.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Dec 14, 2013 13:08:41 GMT
I think that one is only being kept as strategic spares for the Central Line RATs. Noted that an additional motor car was being worked on for swapping with a trailer in one of the RATs to improve acceleration.
There was an option of converting 67 / 72TS trains into RATs for various lines using the vehicles in store at Eastleigh, but there are rumours that other uses are now being looked at for those vehicles.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Dec 12, 2013 19:42:23 GMT
As far as I am aware there are only two specific track recording trains on LU - the TRV (Track Recording Vehicle) and its replacement the AIT (Asset Inspection Train). Neither use the term TRU and neither has MPUs in the consist.
There are also two 09TS trains and a D Stock equipped with track recording equipment.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Dec 11, 2013 19:15:47 GMT
What's the TRU?
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Nov 16, 2013 14:05:26 GMT
SFU04 is currently being used at night to profile track on the JLE, operating out of Stratford.
The Schweerbau grinder was / is being used on the Victoria line and I believe moves onto the Northern soon, although I recall there are actually two different versions of the tube gauge grinder.
Not seen anything regarding the Harsco one recently.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Nov 6, 2013 19:49:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Oct 13, 2013 10:44:29 GMT
It generally runs between the morning and evening peak, except on the Jubilee and Victoria lines, when it runs at night (this will include a large part of Northern Line from late October). Runs take place every 8 weeks on each line, so in theory it is catchable but you need to know what day it is running on each line.
Thinking about it, the most likely place to see it is probably Acton Town due to the recording cycle pattern and preferred stabling locations.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Sept 30, 2013 19:56:20 GMT
I hadn't thought about using other NR bits - that would certainly help reduce duplication, but would require a vehicle that could operate on multiple traction sources. Don't think Battery Loco's at 30mph top speed could do the system in a day.
My thinking was the same up to Harrow & Wealdstone (although I think Baker Street reverse would have to be at West Hampstead), but then went:
Piccadilly Circus (reverse) -> Neasden Depot (reverse) -> Barbican -> Upminster (reverse) -> Liverpool Street (reverse) -> Edgware Road (via Temple and Gloucester Road) (reverse) -> Hammersmith (reverse) -> Edgware Road (reverse) -> Wimbledon (reverse) -> High Street Kensington (reverse) -> Kensington (Olympia) (reverse) -> Lillie Bridge Depot (reverse) -> Richmond (reverse) -> Cockfosters(reverse)
back on your suggested route, then after Brixton:
Seven Sisters (reverse) -> Finsbury Park -> Heathrow T1,2,3 via T4 (reverse) -> Heathrow T5 (reverse) -> Acton Town (reverse) -> South Harrow.
As you can see, a lot more doubling back! Brixton does seem a more logical place to finish though as otherwise most of the Vic line has to be traversed just to get off it again.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Sept 29, 2013 21:26:05 GMT
You're probably right, given the number of turn backs required plus mileage to reach those locations, the extra time from a full 24 hour period is unlikely to be enough. I suspect the only chance of doing it would be to start from one of the system extremities such as Amersham / Chesham, Epping or Upminster.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Sept 29, 2013 19:51:06 GMT
A little muse brought on by the new Tube Challenge record thread - if you had a train capable of running on all lines (specifically excluding Waterloo & City as there is no physical link), would it be possible to visit all stations on the LU network on that train only in a 24 hour period? What would the most optimal route be? Assuming fairly straightforward transfer between signalling systems. Some assumptions: 1) 24 hour period includes an element of cancelled engineering hours wherever required; 2) Train can run on all current and future signalling systems, therefore all link lines can be used; 3) Train can't match performance of more recent fleets therefore passenger trains can be cancelled to create paths; 4) Network Rail sections of LU network have to be visited; 5) Only signalled moves are allowed, so no wrong line working; 6) It is one train only, cannot be split and reformed. Over to you Regards, Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Sept 11, 2013 18:26:56 GMT
A 6-car C Stock train is formed of three 2-car units, each one consisting of a Driving Motor and a Trailer car. The outer ends of each unit are fitted with an autocoupler so they can couple to another unit. The windscreen wiper is there because a shunter can control movement of a 2-car unit from that position when shunting inside a depot.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Sept 3, 2013 18:07:10 GMT
The only way would be to take a possession of the line from Wembley Park to Stanmore, it would not be cost effective to retro-fit the TBTC signalling system to it.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Aug 19, 2013 18:25:35 GMT
I thought the problem with getting the 72TS out of London Road was the issues with getting access across to the Jubilee Line and up to Neasden or Ruislip? Last suggestion I heard was to cut the vehicles up on site and lift them out in large chunks.
There was also talk about using Class 20s to tow the 83TS vehicles out of South Harrow sidings (with suitable adapter coupling vehicle), but I think that is stalled on concerns about the wheelset condition.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Jul 31, 2013 19:41:58 GMT
The Baker Street - Bond Street bit is only on the s/b road and is a result of the geology and type of tunnel lining used when the line was constructed in the 70's. What you're probably seeing is cables temporarily diverted into the n/b running tunnel to permit relining works.
The water ingress issue is South of Bond Street IIRC.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Jul 6, 2013 22:00:29 GMT
Last I heard was that they had been sold for possible reuse.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Jun 30, 2013 10:22:06 GMT
There isn't any room on 72TS DM car underframes for compressors and MAs plus all the associated equipment. Unless a major re-design is done to remove the rheostatic brake resistor grids and leave a smaller set to dissipate residual energy from operating the traction equipment. All depends on how much needs to be left in place.
The 73TS will still be in pretty good shape come 2025, some known areas of structural problems but nothing that can't be fixed before it becomes a problem. The underframe equipment cases are also pretty well sealed after the fleet refurbishment.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Jun 16, 2013 15:19:29 GMT
92TS were the first modern fleet to not be designed by LU - they were effectively designed and built to a specification issued to the manufacturer.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on May 25, 2013 18:59:43 GMT
The Bakerloo and Victoria line fleets were taken to Rosyth in Scotland by rail for refurbishment around that time. Later in the 90's the Piccadilly fleet were taken by rail to Wakefield for refurbishment.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on May 25, 2013 14:36:35 GMT
96TS will get the same treatment in due course, but 95TS comes first.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on May 25, 2013 14:34:29 GMT
Can anyone here elaborate on the reason for having both a Class 20 and Sarah on each run, when in the past only the one was needed at t'other end? Chris I was working on the assumption that any breakdowns / delays on the line from HOTH to Amersham would impact on Chiltern Railways and therefor cost TFL money in 'fines' so they'd want Sarah and a 20 to enable to them to get going again. For the original Steam on the Met there was some sort of interface box that allowed the vacuum braked steam locomotive to operate with the air braked LU stock. Now that Sarah Siddons has had vacuum brakes refitted it acts as the interface between the two different brake systems. Regards, Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on May 24, 2013 9:16:34 GMT
What is the modification? A slot to bond a yellow strip onto flush with the top of the plate. Basically highlights the edge of the step IIRC. Regards, Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on May 23, 2013 18:18:23 GMT
Is that seriously what fare payers money is being spent on, re-branded step plates? There is an RVAR modification on all the step plates, I presume removing the stock type means the same plates can be used on 96TS when that refurbishment gets underway. Regards, Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Apr 28, 2013 19:36:06 GMT
That's the difference between maximum design speed of the stock and maximum line speed (or v max).
I know that 72TS is designed to operate at up to 60mph.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Apr 25, 2013 18:44:23 GMT
Yes that is the AIT.
If a single DM-T pair were added that would require an autocoupler to be fitted on one of the Trailer cars, and we have a lot of jumpers running over the semi-permanent couplers that would require re-routing. It would also require all the uncoupling valves and FIS equipment to be installed. The solution I have come up with means we only have to deal with jumpers on the new cars.
Re the braking - that is exactly how the 96TS works, but 92TS doesn't have that set-up as all axles are motored. Hence why the brake system would need to be reconfigured to include that functionality if Trailer cars were added.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Apr 24, 2013 18:51:21 GMT
So, given the options between: (1) a full renovation of available trailers in a production line scenario - to be inserted as a trailer pair in place of an M-M pair; with performance reprogramming of the remaining six 92ts cars; and major maintenance scheduled for the trailers at a suitable location. (2) a new build of trailers to do the same as (1); (3) a new build of 92ts compatible M-M pairs to use with existing 92ts (noting that the actual traction controls and traction motors, and quite probably bogies would be quite different - back to spares, etc); (4) Design and build a batch of maybe four or six new trains to add to the Central Line fleet. Provide for maintenance, spares and support. ... which would be the most cost-effective given an expected useful life of 17-20 years? None of them are particularly palatable: (1) I'm not convinced that 92TS can work with Trailer cars in the rake. On the 96TS under rheo / regen braking if the braking effort is not sufficient then the Trailer car friction brake is used to top up the retardation force to the required level. I don't believe 92TS has this (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), which means the brake system has to be entirely reconfigured. You when then have a small number of trains in the fleet with a unique brake set-up. So time and cost are against this one. (2) Same as (1), also I doubt Bombardier would be interested in a short production run of new vehicles. (3) New bogies aren't a problem, the fleet has just received new bogies to a relatively modern design. Traction equipment will be difficult to source. Unlikely to get a short production run. (4) Very expensive for such a short run. Unless you use this as an opportunity to test the new deep Tube train in a more challenging environment. But Piccadilly and Bakerloo Lines need them first. My preference would be to utilise any 92TS vehicles released from W&C Line from the rumoured testing of the new trains on that line. Re-wiring and re-bogieing those would be less involved. Other than that the only way of increasing capacity is concentrating on the central core and making high output turn back facilities at strategic points. Also, wouldn't it have been easier to insert a DM-T pair into the 72ts? We'd have to discount the issues you had between one being refurbished and one not. That comes down to making appropriate choices of starting materials, and thus is not inherent to the discussion. And anyway, the 72ts came in 3-car units as well: NDM-T-DM. So why not start the project with two of those, insert the 67ts DMs in exchange for the NDMs and release the NDMs for use in passenger service? (I'm presuming the 6-car train was assembled for maintenance operations, not passenger service.) The project started with an ex-Northern Line 72TS 4-car unit, which after conversion was found to have too much weight located in the Trailers, which would have been expensive and time consuming to move. We needed two motor cars for traction and to provide a means of separating the train to allow it onto the Northfields wheel lathe. Adding a pair of DM-T vehicles would have made the train too long to operate over the whole LU system. No 72TS UNDMs are available - there is only one left at Hainault and that is pretty derelict. We cannot take vehicles out of Bakerloo Fleet because that would disrupt service provision, so that left ex-Victoria Line 67 / 72TS vehicles. The 72TS middle motor cars in that fleet are valuable for future engineers train use and as we don't need operational cabs in the middle of AIT the logical choice was 67TS DM cars from a double ended unit. Regards, Dan
|
|