|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 25, 2024 9:15:39 GMT
There are some non passenger trips on the Greenford/West Ealing showing today on Realtime trains. These appear to be operated by by SLC trains? Is the 230 battery train back from Reading and doing test runs?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 20, 2024 16:25:11 GMT
The "inside London" video presenter suggests that " passengers may get a chance to ride the battery train "probably in the autumn".
I guess the need to rack up proving mileage and complete driver training and obtain acceptance for its use from the unions is what will take most of that time.
Fundamentally the Class 230 are reworked District Line train shells - and when it comes down to it an electric motor really does not care where/how the power comes from so long as it receives enough of the right sort of electricity.
As for where else they might be deployed I assume there is some desire to provide the greatest environmental benefit to the greatest number of people. Hence they are only likely to deploy battery trains where there is no prospect of OHLE installation starting any time soon, so basically on minor routes in heavily built up areas. My bet is Thames Valley area minor routes might see the technology before more remote routes in the South West.
What is not clear is whether the fast charge technology will now be picked up by one of the major major railway works, and offer some sort of better battery train. Some are now struggling to fill order books! However new stuff is not always better - what passengers want most is reliability. Certainly the Merseyrail trial using a battery train extension to their route has proved to be nightmare so far.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 18, 2024 18:39:42 GMT
Realtime Trains shows the West Ealing to Greenford public service was operated today by unit 165124.
There does not appear to be any non-passenger service trips by the battery train.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 17, 2024 11:56:29 GMT
Thanks -I had a feeling there were some crossed wires. Hopefully it will save a wasted trip if the 230 is now back in Reading.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 16, 2024 23:09:45 GMT
The ITVX website article finishes with this wording - so you can read what you like into it...
”GWR is operating its usual service on the Greenford line alongside the trial, but it hopes fare-paying passengers will be able to travel on the battery-powered train during the programme.
That is far from clear when that "hope" might be fulfilled.
At the moment realtime trains listings for Monday services shows that all trains on the Greenford shuttle show as Class 165... If your Twitter contact is "in the know" then presumably that status will change nearer the start of services.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 16, 2024 7:50:13 GMT
Brief TV report about the project was broadcast yesterday on "London Live TV". Whilst the tests so far appear to confirm the battery 230 can operate the route, it is also reported that the train is headed back to Reading for further work and whilst it is away the charging rails installed at West Ealing will be moved further towards the platform buffer stop. How long Network Rail need for this task is not clear but doubtless completing the necessary testing and paperwork suggests it could be many weeks if not months before the class 230 returns.
Aparrently the current charging rail location is problematic when GWR need two trains to share the platform as they still need to leave a suitable gap between the two trains. No mention of when the battery train might actually start carrying passengers - other than "later this year".
Sort of two steps forward one back...
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 7, 2024 15:54:28 GMT
There is a fair bit of information about the rolling stock dimensions here. However I think you will struggle to find much regarding the actual clearances at platforms and other structures. Link amended - Tom
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 2, 2024 14:19:21 GMT
Exactly - I would not read too much into this somewhat OTT notice.
Perhaps I am being too cynical but to put it into context, on almost every occasion I ever visit any fast food outlet like McD I have almost inevitably had to avoid the presence of one or more bright yellow cones warning customers the floor may be wet/slippery. I rather suspect this is a classic example of risk mitigation by the fast food outlet lawyers - so in the event anyone slips/falls over, they have the defence that they took reasonable steps to warn the public - and any injury is therefore essentially their fault for ignoring the warning.
I am sure the West Ealing kit is the essentially the same as (or possibly is) the fast charging kit which was previously tested at Long Marston - and so far I have not heard any reports of deaths/injuries during its use.
Inevitably there is a remote risk that some clown will eventually drop their mobile phone down the gap beside the train whilst fast charging is actually underway. However even if the sign was 20 times larger, I doubt it could ever garantee it would prevent a member of the public behaving public stupidly to then try and retrieve it. Hence I rather feel this alarming notice is mostly to help keep the TFL Legal Department happy.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 29, 2024 9:21:59 GMT
" ... I see this explanation given, however 710s are apparently OK for the single-bore Kensal Green and Primrose Hill tunnels on the Euston - Watford line, whilst the Brunel tunnel on the East London line does actually have access between the two tracks. Of course, different rules may apply for Network Rail & TfL infrastructure..." The difference is those tunnels are wide enough to incorporate some sort of rudimentary escape path running through the tunnel. Where this happens you will also see that there are lights kept on inside the tunnel 24/7.
The presence of those walkways means passenger trains using the tunnel do not need end doors.
If it proved necessary to evacuate a train the driver can just open the doors on the relevant side and then advise passengers to walk out of the tunnel following the marked escape route. A quick search on Google has plenty of images of the kensal green tunnel mouths and if you look closely you can see the narrow walkway.
As for primrose hill - I assume you mean the tunnels on the Watford DC local line tunnel under Camden Bank these again have lighting and a rdudimentary walking route. this can be seen briefly right at the start of this video and between 5 and 6 minutes into the cab ride video with the Kensal Green tunnel passed around 13:30 - 14 minutes in the video
-
Doubtless in any future tunnel works (like the extension to Battersea Power Station) HSE would probably insist that tunnels and any escape route was made wide enough for wheelchair access/egress.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 9, 2024 17:25:40 GMT
An earlier post on this thread mentioned a GWR presentation to the IMEE about the Greenford branch Fast Charging Trial which has been available on YouTube since last November. -
Suffice to say I had missed this video completely, but having now watched it twice, it is perhaps worth noting that it contained several observations which may help understand where this trial might lead.
First and foremost the Greenford trial is not really about demonstrating the Class 230 rolling stock, it is actually about testing and proving the fast charging solution which had been developed by VivaRail, and which GWR subsequently purchased the intellectual property rights to (along with sundry other stuff) from the VivaRail administrators. In turn that purchase was funded by D/Transport who doubtless might be interested in its wider availability beyond the GWR network.
Also despite some earlier negotiations with UK rail regulators (RSSB) and other initiatives by VivaRail, thus far the former VivaRail Fast Charging system has not been endorsed as a UK wide standard. Hopefully this trial will move things along but currently it seems a fair way off being endorsed as such.
The presentation highlighted an important component of the project which I had not come across before. Namely the development and testing by VivaRail of the BTNS (Battery Train Network Simulator). Basically it allows operators to accurately calculate and model how much energy is left in each train as it works through its day.
As appropriate the system can be manually or automatically tweeked to account for expected loadings, and different driving styles. It seems getting drivers to trust regenerative braking to deliver the majority of any braking is an important factor in range.
The system also automatically takes into account expected hotel load (heating/AC) reflecting observed outside temperature inputs and only assumes a degraded battery capacity typical of that expected after 10 years use - so for most of its life trains will still have a fair bit of reserve capacity.
BTNS can then determine how often and how much charging time is actually be required to ensure the train has ample capacity to complete its next expected duty cycle, plus adequate reserve capacity to cover unforseen events be they a delay linked to the unit itself, or to delays due to other problems affecting the planned route. All the BTNS data has already been validated against previous test meaurement data, and will be further refined and validated with the 12 months data expected from the Greenford trial.
I suspect BTNS data will be of significant value not just to GWR but to any train manufacturers looking to offer battery trains in the UK.
The presentation also included maps showing that GWR have begun looking at the scope to extend the use of battery trains within the GWR network, and as maintainence facilities for the Greenford trial are being installed at Reading, they have so far focused on branch lines in the vicinity of Reading rather than more remote branches in Corawall. They believe that if all the Thames Valley routes went to battery powered units they would need a common fleet of 7 or 8 battery trains. As they already have 230001 available this ideal would entail somehow providing a further 6 or 7 further battery trains. If we focus on 3 car Class 230 battery units, the big question is where would they come from?
The three former Marston Vale units are probably the best starting point although they were only created as 2 car units (23003-23005). The cabs have already been strengthened and interiors have already been extensively upgraded to modern rolling stock standards even including accessible toilet facilities. Major work would still be needed to replace the diesel engines, generators and fuel tanks from the under body rafts and install batteries, fast charging pick ups and associated control gear. Each modified unit also would need creation of a matching trailer car, so again is not a quick or cheap process.
Together with 230001 – the Greenford trial unit, you would then have a fleet of 4 units. The big question is where could further battery trains be created assuming GWR really want a common fleet. Perhaps the most obvious answer may be to buy and modify the TFW units which to be honest have not been super reliable on the Bidston line. I suspect TFW may be very happy to sell them.
After that I do not believe it credible that GWR would ever contemplate building further completely new Class 230 units despite the rolling stock inventory they inherited from the administrators. I suspect GWR would then go out to tender for new battery train stock built taking into account all the lessons learned from the class 230 trials as this would hopefully avoid some of the shortcomings of running Class 230s - like having to block off public use of the outermost doors because they do not have selective door control.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 27, 2024 12:03:43 GMT
So end January 2024 is fast approaching, and apart from a few bits of rail at West Ealing the GWR trial does not seem to be "about" to begin. I guess a fairly slow a cautious approach is only to be expected, so a few months delay is not going to be the end of the world.
However in the photo above in the thread appears to show a fairly short gap between the two sets of charging rails.
I am pretty sure that when 230001 last operated in Scotland it ran as a 3 car unit which meant they were able to carry a heap of extra batteries carried beneath the middle car and this meant a fair bit extra range.
As some of the Greenford shuttle platforms are only long enough to accommodate 2 car units, presumably GWR will have no option but to remove the middle trailer car and then make whatever cabling and control adjustments are required to create a 2 car unit - presumably in DM/DM format. (Driving Motor car+Driving Motor Car). The obvious downside is the range between charges may be reduced. Even if the range is halved it should still be ample for several West Ealing/Greenford return trips. and if the fast charging system delivers reliably each time the driver swaps ends at West Ealing - it should still keep the charge level sufficient for a full day operation.
Presumably GWR will want to arrange some test runs of the 2 car format unit based on Reading or Long Marston before anything actually moves to West Ealing?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 11, 2024 14:07:56 GMT
hmm I wonder if better revenue apportionment is one reason why TFL is happy to offer free wifi?
It is no secret that perhaps except when you are underground without any cell phone signal, currently folks in Langley Virginia could pretty precisely track the location of pretty much any online mobile device should they choose.
Like it or not this is not some TV fantasy, most of the necessary technology to track passenger flows is already in place, although doubtless some CCTV feeds may need upgrading. Hence for now at least it is probably only rarely used.
However facial image recognition technology has advanced massively, and indeed there are already some Airports planning trials to use facial recognition as an alternative to physically examining passports to identify travellers boarding flights. Add in mobile data confirmation of a device carried by the traveller and you effectively have 2 factor confirmation.
So back to revenue apportionment. Lets say a mobile device is spotted at Amersham at 07.10 and sometime later the same ISN device is picked up emerging at Farringdon. Then just using that raw mobile device data you could reasonably accurately apportion revenue between Chiltern and TFL.
However it would also be fairy easy to go a fair bit further. So correlating phone + CCTV + gate information data to see if that notional journey was matched by a bank card or oyster tap in entering at Amersham and leaving at Faringdon at broadly those timings. If however they don't then in the past it would take a huge amount of revenue protection resource to review masses of CCTV recordings and gate line swipes to try and identify what individuals entered/left those stations at those times and especially look for any matching (repeating) patterns.
However the arrival of AI means that mind numbingly painful cross checking process can now be largely automated and simply by adding in mobile device data (supplied by the free wifi service) as a cross check, it can almost instantly flag up suspect journeys along with CCTV images of the traveller and related card/oyster taps.
Like it or not AI could free up a huge amount of reveneue protection resource and allow them to be in the right place at the right time to catch anyone engaging in habitual fraud.
Sorry if people feel this is big brother is watching you. But like it or not if you choose to keep wifi enabled then your mobile device leaves a mile wide trail wherever you go, and it is only a matter of time before one or more revenue enforcement cases demonstrate that such tracking is already being used.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 8, 2024 18:25:22 GMT
...but nothing that cannot be replaced. The good thing is that unlike other lines, London Underground still possesses the skills to do modifications in-house! That's good news, because I worry daily about whether built-obsolescence in firmware could affect some of the circuitry and software in my field in a few years. A colleague in air-transportation tells me that her company is pleading for retired COBOL and RPG programmers to return to emulate and modify software so it can embrace the latest FAA air safety provisions. There's nothing wrong with the software, it's robust and has functioned for years. I just hope that when TfL signs the modification contracts for the Bakerloo that the contract clearly specify that the supplier/integrator accepts responsibility to implement systems and training with an operational life of 50 years (like the 1972 TS!!). As it is, I've lost the overview of the versions of CBTC and commuications or DVA etc. on the Underground which are not common throughout the network. This debate reminded me of this well known phrase "the more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drains..." Sadly most of the the world is hell bent on dissapearing down a digital rabbit hole. Adding digital controls has its place in rail safety, but it must be matched by robust engineering, and thorough scrutiny of software is every bit as important. Meantime even base model EVs are increasingly kitted out with so many extras - things which are doubtless considered highly unlikely to go wrong but sods law seems to garantee it will happen eventually. Hence we should be taking great care to ensure anything people lives depend on - like digital fly by wire systems or self driving vehicles are not prone to deliberate or accidental failure. We must not overlook the basics - personally I do not think brand new planes should have pieces falling off, likewise couplings on mainline or tube rolling stock should not have been value engineered to the point where they are cracking up and failing in normal use.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 8, 2024 13:08:17 GMT
I am not sure the availability of input from ex LUL engineering staff is a very material concern for GWR.
The Greenford (DFT) test is really about proving that the fast charging concept and kit as devised by Vivarail is sufficiently safe and reliable to consider its wider application. That wider application may or may not involve Class 230/ex D Stock units.
Yes GWR got handed a heap of D78 stock thrown in as part of the deal to purchase the intellectual property rights. But be clear at this stage it is those intellectual rights which are primarily of value along with the 230001 battery prototype unit which they hope will serve as a suitable test mule and iron out any residual issues with the concept.
At the moment the ex Marston Vale kit and the masses of other unconverted D78 rolling stock which came as part of the deal might have a range of potential outcomes. Whilst the trial is ongoing I suspect it makes sense to retain them all if only to act as minimal cost parts suppliers(Christmas trees) in order to keep 230001 running right through the trial period.
However given their wholesale value as scrap and the ongoing security and storage costs I fear scrapping must be a fairly high probability outcome for most of that kit.
Whether any further D78-Class 230 variants are created is really all down to money and reliability.
Certainly the fossil fueled Class 230 variants (TFW & Marston Vale) have not covered themselves in glory. However again and again it appeared weaknesses with the fossil fuel kit was the primary reason the units failed. When they worked as intended the passenger experience was generally well received.
So if the Greenford trial goes well then I suspect there is a reasonable chance that modifying the Marston Vale units to a similar spec battery powered unit would be relatively cheap and potentially offer a far quicker entry into service date. Given the current shortages of GWR rolling stock this might offer a way to quickly augment their local services fleet and move to zero emissions.
For now - it seems that all is not lost on those units.
As for the rest - even with GWR having access to a source of free raw materials the cost of further D78 - Class 230 battery units is going to be a fairly large chunk of entirely new build battery units (quite probably using some or all of the fast charging tech being trialled at Greenford) but most importantly offering much longer life expectancy.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 24, 2023 11:03:02 GMT
I think you will find the latest map does cover many(most) National Rail services within Greater London - albeit apart from services operate by TFL like the Overground and Elizabeth Line, National Rail routes are rather inconspicuous.
Inherently the "Tube Map" still works for most station to station route finding.
But if that is all you have to hand it can be hopeless for visitors trying to work out how to get to a specific destination/address which may be a very long walk from any of the listed rail stations. That is the reason I think TFL need to relaunch the bus map especially as routes seem to change frequently and just as importantly make it available as one of more downloadable files. So rather than just one London wide bus services map it might be sensible to reinstate sectoral bus maps as well.
Basically the geographical distortion in the tube map tends to get worse the further out from the central area you go. Greenford and Reading are actually an awful long way apart!
Over time TFL have wrongly focused on cramming more and more stuff onto the "Tube Map" - which is actually a routing map, and since Elizabeth line fully opened it has massively extended the area covered by TFL services and once again there is a yawning gap which needs something (a geographically correct Map?) to put this all in context.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 17, 2023 14:16:07 GMT
Just a personal perspective but I find the latest map is fine - but the "Tube Map" name is no longer appropriate.
It has evolved into a hybrid London public transport services map but without the buses.
I would leave the Tube Map alone and focus on getting TFL to once again realise that providing a decent bus services map is important for travellers to identify whatever bus routes link to services shown on the "Tube Map",
I hear the argumentthat everyone now uses some sort of Journey planner app - but not everyone has a smart phone, and digital mapping is only as good as its programming algorithm, and working with a typical mobile phone screen makes it hard to spot if there are alternative routes just off the screen.
PS leave the dangleway alone. It has only become almost exclusively a tourist service, because it is not treated and charged to users as other zone one Oyster journeys. In the alps similar equipment reliably and efficiently carries thousands of passengers per day and indeed requires far less manpower than operating a bus shuttle to carry similar numbers of passengers. Given the hardware costs have already been incurred it really should not be inordinately to expensive to operate.
Eventually someone at TFL will be brave enough to realise that the Dangleway could almost overnight become a hugely popular transport resource provided they drop the premium pricing approach and treat it as a trip within zone one and therefore dangleway deserves its place on the "Tube Map".
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 13, 2023 13:28:03 GMT
Does anyone know whether on not TFL are still inviting/considering proposals for major housing development on land owned by TFL in Acton which includes the potential to "relocate" the Museum Acton Depot - to somewhere unspecified. Back in 2020 Ian Visits set out some of the potential options being touted at the time. But I cannot see any follow up. www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/london-transport-museums-acton-depot-may-need-to-be-rebuilt-38078/Has this idea now been dropped?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 11, 2023 8:45:18 GMT
Thank you Sir Humphrey for that enlightening explanation...
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 9, 2023 15:44:29 GMT
After a quick read, it seems the "thread title" needs updating?
I am guessing that it should read December rather than September. Is this something the Mods can fix or is it something only the person who created the thread who can fix? -done-
I saw various newspaper reports suggesting that the chaos was somehow due to a managment person driving the GWR train instead of a regular member of staff (who may or may not) have been on strike.
This perpective seems somewhat perverse as I am unconviced that ANY driver would have been able to do anything to dodge a section of live OHLE cable dangling down in front of the train.
Assuming the train was travelling at typical line speed I rather doubt the driver(any driver) could even spot that hazard and actually do something to bring their train to a halt before it was totally tangled up in the knitting.
My gut feeling is that once again Government penny pinching is the underlying villain here.
It seems undeniable that the frequency of electric services departing Paddington has seen an enormous increase in recent years. This is certainly good news for the environment but it seems the bean counters (Department of Transport/HM Treasury) chose not to substantially upgrade the OHLE in this section to be fit for the new far more intense service.
I know against the background of a strike - it is perhaps tempting to fire off accusations that "blame the driver".
However the far more important and largely unspoken question is why a single defect ended up affecting pretty much all services out of Paddington. The media needs to focus on why the impact was so extreme and start to demand that Network Rail are urgently given the funds by the Treasury to rapidly upgrade the OHLE so it is fit for purpose.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Oct 8, 2023 17:35:30 GMT
The real shame is there used to be a motive power depot near the top of the Bakerloo line (Croxley Green Junction depot) which mostly served BR local line services to Watford Junction from Euston but was also used to stable occasional tube trains from the Bakerloo so was already accessible to 4 rail rolling stock. www.flickr.com/photos/curly42/5329351039Sadly it has completely dissapeared under what is now the Wiggenhall trading site.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 22, 2023 9:43:30 GMT
Those workarounds are decidedly non-trivial ... e.g. non-stopping Covent Garden in the contra-peak direction (I don't know which direction that is), exit only at.. For years now some central stations have been restricting entry at peak times - basically when the platforms below are not clearing quickly - with increased risk of passengers stuck on the platform being crushed or worse still falling onto the tracks. I am surprised that HSE has not picked up on this - do they really need to await fatalities to step in and say enough - fix X or stop calling at the station? I fear that TFL have got away with it for too long now and yet is is probably only HSE who can get TFL to prioritize significant station rebuilds to permit safe passenger flows. Doubtless a lot more connecting passageways will need to be threaded in between existing services etc with the objective of fully segregating entry/exit (and ideally interchange) passenger flows on all these central area stations. Importantly they need to position these new passages to dissipate access to platforms along the full length of the train. Only then will platform dwell time reduce sufficiently to justify spend on increased frequency. TFL really need to be putting out tenders now for contractors to design and deliver a rolling program where one station at a time is completely closed with clear signage for visitors to alternates. Then platforms would be walled off with temporary hoardings to allow major changes to the platform to be carried out rapidly whilst trains pass through non-stop. Whilst you might be tempted to start work on the most problematic station - there might be a case to start by tackling one of the easier stations. This would allow the contractor to devise and refine working practices in order to minimise the time needed to tackle the more problematic stations.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 19, 2023 9:21:28 GMT
Whilst the passenger dynamics of the new trains is definitely worth assessing (and I assume has already been) this thread is of course about the "Line Upgrade" so it is important not to overlook passenger dynamics within the most overcrowded core section stations. So yes some people will always lurk by the doorways and avoid "moving down inside the car" despite endless requests from platform staff. But this is not the underlying problem with line capacity.
The TFL paper linked above by Jimbo reports that there are several core area stations on the Piccadilly where inadequate station design (entry/exit capacity) is the real limiting factor rather than boarding issues with the existing trains. Providing passengers a more consistent pattern of doors on trains may help slightly but won't deal with the issue where everyone is bundled up at one end of the platforms because that is where they need to go to enter/exit or interchange.
Whilst we all like to ride around on nice new trains - I have a feeling TFL now need to look at (and fund urgently) making physical changes to improve passnger flows in the worst stations. I have a feeling that despite being every bit as important to "upgrading the line" it seems that significant investment in things like making boring structural changes to bottlenecked stations (just like reworking the Northern Line Bank station) rarely have the political kudos/visibility and are being sidelined for more sexy ribbon cutting projects.
I really wish TFL were able to negotiate a deal now with the 4LM team(supplier) to rapidly extend their signalling system to the Piccadilly rather than messing about trying to eke fractional gains from the existing almost time expired signalling on the line.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 17, 2023 10:43:17 GMT
I should imagine that people find 'broken down freight train' easier to visualise than 'broken down multi-purpose maintenance vehicle' and thus being the preferred language for the service status. Engineering train would at least be accurate. Hmm - Does this level of precision really matter for most passengers? Looking at this as an ordinary traveller whenever I see a message - "delays/line blocked due to broken train at xxx" - I don't get worked up about the apparent lack of precision on what sort of train has broken down. Personally I just start to think through my options to avoid the problem area and work out how long I am prepared to wait around before switching to an alternate route. As Elizabeth line is actually part of National Railway system I assume National Railway descriptions apply to trains. So if you pop over to Realtime trains you will see the typical descriptors give you a choice of "passenger services", "non passenger services", and "freight". Given that choice of descriptor I have a feeling this may explain why the message to passengers simply repeats what the IT system is telling staff.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 7, 2023 7:12:57 GMT
I have a feeling that the issue with single bore tunnels and bans on operating units like the 365s is (as has already been mentioned) inherently about means of egress. Some (not all) single bore tunnels are still wide enough to incorporate a rudimentary walkway along one side of the tunnel. This means that despite the lack of cab end doors or intercar doors, in emergency passengers can still exit through the normal doors onto the walkway. Where walkways are provided, they tend to have tunnel lights operating day and night, and there is no issue operating units like 365s through them.
As for bus bars - doubtless whoever designs the New Train for London rolling stock will be very aware of potential risks associated with linked bus bars. I guess we can only hope they have devised a system that is safe for passengers and staff in normal operating configurations and indeed in any abnormal configuration (potentially over length) such as where two trains are coupled up to rescue a failed train.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 7, 2023 6:40:07 GMT
Personally I would much prefer the mayor to focus on stuff which is badly overdue - such as updating the Bakerloo stock. I do find it worrying that the officially cash strapped TFL is happy to spend a lot of money (£4million +) on naming the overground services.
Fundamentally the "Overground Franchise" is NOT owned by TFL, and just like other mainline franchises when it comes up for retendering it presumably could pass to another operator who just might decide to rebrand stations etc with their own corporate colours and indeed could potentially chose other names.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jul 24, 2023 6:50:14 GMT
So trainstops must remain on the track between Harrow fast lines to Amersham for Chiltern, and Rayners Lane to Uxbridge for Piccadilly line trains. Correct - at least for now. Doubtless there are plans somewhere to eventually replace the signalling on the Piccadilly. Given the current TFL financial reality I suspect that will be delayed as long as possible - even it means providing somewhat less reliable service. However whenever that day dawns, the cost of just replacing like with like - with no improvement in capacity probably will finally justify moving to some version of moving block signalling. If that was being done right now then there might be a strong case for simply extending the sub surface system to the Piccadilly whilst the hardware installation and software programming expertise is still to hand. Sadly that window of opportunity is fast closing. However ERTMS is the preferred option on the mainline - so at such time as Chiltern gets funding for a signalling upgrade that may also need to be overlaid on the Amersham route into Marylebone at which point the trainstops could become largely redundant. By then I assume most movements for Permanent Way purposes will use LUL battery units equipped with the sub surface lines signalling system, with any exceptional movements covered under a possession. However technology is moving at such a fast pace, that who knows what will be the most cost effective/go to system on offer many years from now.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jul 23, 2023 7:01:29 GMT
However as Dstock7080 mentions above the Chiltern services rely on conventional signals and tripcocks - so that will limit the extent to which savings can be had by the removal of trip-cocks from Met line tracks - assuming LUL does not have an agreement with Chiltern for someone to install CBTC in their fleet.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jul 8, 2023 7:23:21 GMT
I thought the old DVA was knackered! It was faded and unclear so this might be an improvement of sorts! Yes the old system was far from ideal - especially when announcements coincided with the train passing over points or other noisy sections of tunnel. As for switching to a male voice the new announcements seem to work. By way of background the following observation comes from someone who has spent too much of their early life riding noisy motorbikes and exposed to noisy activity, and with hindsight, this was largely without adequate hearing protection. I am lucky that my hearing loss is mild, but for many tinnitus sufferers the impact is greater on higher pitched sounds, and indeed over time your brain adapts and effectively tunes out a lot of the high pitched hissing sound. One side effect of this natural blocking of higher pitched sounds is that male voices end up being a lot clearer than female voices. Whilst this observation may not align with politically correct aspirations as Al Gore would say it is nevertheless an inconvenient truth.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jul 5, 2023 14:20:31 GMT
Well they're looking to rename the LO services at the moment, so there's an opportunity there. I agree - However the real need now is to sort out workable names for the LO routes - not provide passengers with extraneous information - they just need to know what line takes them to their destination - most passengers don't care whether its a mainline gauge service or tube stock - they just want to reach their destination swiftly and safely. I am not sure if the folks in TFL towers like it - but I really hope that when they finally announce their choices for LO that they stick with GOBLIN even if services now run beyond Barking. It would be mad to fight against decades of common usage. It is interesting to see just how often people still use CrossRail rather than refer to the Elizabeth Line line. Perhaps the other LO routes could end up with other mythical creature names. As for ever changing the existing line names on the Tube Map you are wasting your time as that ship sailed long ago. If anything the tube map is already badly cluttered with ephemera, and I would be happy to see it to revert to just a simple tube only map with information on all the other TFL services provided on an entirely separate TFL services map.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jul 4, 2023 8:43:15 GMT
Probably best to move on from Hayfever.
I came across this recent video regarding the GWR battery train trial on the Greenford-West Ealing service. Most of this is already well known, but they do have a bit of video showing the Fast Charging shoe system lowering to pick up power and mentions that once the charging system and related shore battery power bank and trickle charge system is approved by Network Rail, GWR hope Network Rail will install the charging kit at West Ealing by the end of 2023 allowing the single unit 230001 to potentially enter passenger use on the line early in 2024.
Other new stuff is confirmation that the former Vivarail staff and servicing is planned at Reading depot. So it seems a further charging facility(or some other way of top up charging) will probably need to be provided at Reading given the video mentions that the one way trip from West Ealing to Reading will drain roughly half of the battery capacity. So without charging at Reading it risks potentially see the unit fail or arrive virtually out of power when returning to West Ealing to resume service.
|
|