|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 9, 2018 15:49:58 GMT
... But what will happen when the Piccadilly gets its new trains and (I assume) ATO signalling? ... Given the interconnections with depots and Metropolitan and District SSR routes surely TFL cannot be thinking of doing anything other than deploying the 4LM signalling to the Piccadilly as and when new rolling stock is ordered. Is there any reason to assume that the SSR signalling system would not work on the Piccadilly? Is the potential roll out of Platform Edge door systems going to need a different system? Inherently if Thales and Bombardier are eventually going to be commissioned to supply a further x hundred TBTC systems for the new Piccadilly stock, then that would probably be the most cost effective time for the museum (or crowd funders) to arrange tag on order for a few extra units, so that some of their more popular exhibits can once again stretch their legs from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 8, 2018 7:50:32 GMT
Good to see they went with a reasonably matching colour for the TBTC aerials.
Once a stable design is achieved for an answer incorporating all the potential variants of TBTC control kit needed - so potentially all line capable - I suspect the support fleet is large enough to justify some work to reduce the computing footprint which might even end up with a single micro chip solution.
Sadly there is only so far you can go miniaturising separation gaps required by any high voltage switchgear, or control inputs from electro mechanical safety systems like trip cocks. I am guessing that box is providing an interface with a host of legacy safety systems and controls, so you will still need a pretty big box, ideally mounted at an easy working height, to ensure that all connections are reasonably spaced for easy installation and maintenance.
Looking further forward - just like aircraft flight decks went through major rationalisation and clutter improvement cycles when full glass cockpit systems (=TFT Screens) were introduced, I hope rail cabs will eventually see more ergonomic cab layouts devised to ensure mission critical stuff is best placed. However I guess it will be a long time coming for the works/support fleet, as they always seem to have to make do with service fleet cast offs, meaning any extra features required to work with new signalling systems end up bolted on wherever there is space available.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 7, 2018 7:08:13 GMT
In the past I have occasionally spotted works trains slotted in between normal services on SSL and deep lines. I know these are rare events so probably not welcomed by signallers but presumably when they do happen they really need to happen. As they usually trigger the “Special” message on platform displays, I assume paths for works trains are treated in much the same way as regular trains at least while conventional signalling remains available.
So come the switchover on SSR lines and conventional signals are decommisioned, how will these works trains talk to the new system? If they are completely banned from operation during service hours it would presumably complicate responding quickly to any urgent incident like delivering a replacement for a broken rail or set of points in any of the undergound SSR sections.
Have Thales/Bombardier been commissioned to kit out some of the DM/battery units with suitable comms equipment so they can still operate during normal service hours?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 5, 2018 19:29:44 GMT
Without any great fanfare, a photo on the VivaRail website now shows that 23001 has been fully repaired and left Long Marston for mainline tracks in the Cotswolds.
Presumably it is currently just racking up more mileage for test and performance demonstration purposes to ensure WM Trains are happy the new units will deliver. However driver training runs presumably must start fairly soon if these units are going to be ready to fully operate the passenger service on the Marston Vale line by the winter timetable which probably means it won't be long before further units will be joining 23001.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 4, 2018 8:55:21 GMT
Search for GWRA and Railwayana websites as they occasionally host the sort of specialist interest auctions which tend to attract the sort of serious buyers you need to attain a fair price for that destination blind .. or just want your car boot back.
For example at the last GWRA sale a platform roundel from Marble Arch achieved £1500, but I bet after auction fees, the seller got a fair bit less.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 1, 2018 8:36:08 GMT
Beat me to it. If you follow the software analogy there are plenty of examples of people buying into and regularly using "bug riddled software" - I have lost count of how many "updates" have been made to Windows 10 let alone Windows 7, Windows ... Inherently if it reaches the standard required by whatever specs were agreed between supplier and purchaser then the fact it cannot handle other stuff which were not covered in the spec may be unfortunate but probably never going to result in compensation to the customer. If there are evident areas where the spec is not met then legal action is often the worst solution. Almost inevitably both sides then harden their positions and the potential for a practical compromise or just reaching a deal on equitable compensation often goes out the window. Often lawyers are the only real winners.
When it comes to transport systems things become even more murky as the capability of passengers to frustrate best laid plans cannot be overstated hence even something as potentially measurable as 30 trains per hour becomes pretty difficult to prove unless you were to close the whole system for a good few hours and test run it without any of those pesky passengers getting in the way and causing trains to bunch up or come to a complete halt whilst some fool decides to retrieve their iThing from the trackbed. To be honest Londoners do not really appreciate what an asset the tube and TFL is.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 31, 2018 6:39:31 GMT
Ethano - In short the answer to your question must be yes. At any one time trains can only be physically in once place, so if trains are mostly bunched up at one end of the line then without "intervention" they clearly cannot be at the other...
Underlying your question is that perennial problem of bunching - google "bus bunching" for plenty of explanations of the theory. But basically without intervention the same problem of bunching will occur with trains.
At peak hours, dwell time inevitably rises at the busiest stations meaning the train won't be able to depart quite so quickly as the one in front. Those few extra seconds delayed in platform obviously means that a few extra passengers (who would have just missed the train if it actually left on time) will instead manage to get on board just as the doors close. Meanwhile that means that when the train following behind arrives on the same platform it will find slightly fewer passengers waiting to load, so it is ready to depart a few seconds earlier, so the gap between the two trains starts to shrink as they travel along the route.
In an ideal world service control - with the benefit of experience - will know precisely when to ramp up the service frequency just before passenger numbers are expected to rise and thereby ensure trains can maintain a perfectly even spacing. Chaos theory ensures that almost never happens - especially as nowadays on many tube lines pretty much every available train is pressed into service and they are already running at peak frequency throughout the peak hours and often well beyond. Without extra resources to deploy, once services start to bunch up, it is then up to service controllers to hold the following service(s) long enough (typically at a platform) to reinstate the intended gap between services.
Add in all manner of external factors ranging from physical constraints such as the number of terminal platforms available to turn the service, train, track and equipment breakdowns and of course the endless ability of passengers to cause delays and it is a great testament to the staff that TFL can deliver a "Good Service on all lines" quite as often as they do.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 28, 2018 18:05:59 GMT
The longer this thread runs - the more it looks like VivaRail/D Stock is a favourite to be chosen simply as the least worse short term fix. It also complies with that favourite tradition of politicians of handing over ticking bombs and financial headaches to their successors.
So a laser survey indicates the D trains will fit - tick.
The route range is well within the stated battery charge capacity, so no nasty diesel emissions - tick.
Whilst not cheap, at least they will look newish and being based on redundant stock they are probably going to be a lot less than new heavy rail or tram solutions - tick.
Given the basically uphill to Shanklin route profile, even if the battery runs down, they can pretty much coast down to Ryde using regen braking to keep the lights on and this would mitigate problems with the extant voltage drop off at that end of the route - tick.
Indeed there would be no need to maintain/upgrade power supplies along the entire line perhaps just spending on upgrading the Ryde St John's grid connection to pick up enough charge - tick.
Add a second track at Brading to offer regular 30 minute service but with St Johns acting as the operating base for the line where admittedly a bit of track work would be needed to reinstate the past through connections to both platforms 2 and 3 to offer southbound passengers easy cross platform transfer to the next southbound service allowing the train arriving from the pier head to then enjoy a 30 minute at platform recharge before forming the next southbound service.
That means no need to maintain third rail power anywhere on the pier or through the tunnel - so less of an issue with corrosion to the pier supports or problems if/when the track bed does get slightly flooded.
Switching to Battery D stock units might even create the potential to operate through services over the heritage line to Wooton - shame the route on to Cowes has been lost as that would provide services to a lot more people.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 24, 2018 7:56:11 GMT
Looks like Kew railway Bridge - and its boat race day.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 18, 2018 14:15:20 GMT
Hmm - As a passenger elements of this thread are not entirely comforting.
In normal circumstances I am sure it makes sense for the computers to be left to manage the train's progress in line with whatever movement authority it was issued with. But I am concerned by the implication that the system is intentionally set up so that the "man(woman) in the cab" "cannot instantly trigger an emergency brake application" if the circumstances warrant.
The man in the cab may for instance spot something untoward well before any automated system knows there is a problem - just like someone drilling a building pile straight through the tunnel roof. I had previously thought that all the driver needed to do was fully release the control stick (dead man's handle) to apply the brakes. Am I wrong?
It seems strange to think the man in the cab is effectively discouraged to step in even when it becomes clear the micro-chip has got it wrong because of the time required to intervene (stuff being locked out?) or wary of the subsequent hassle to get the train moving again if they intervene.
I suspect that most of the customers who were unable to alight as planned, would have preferred a bit of late/heavy braking rather than getting carried onto the next station and having to retrace their steps. Presumably someone is actively monitoring both the frequency and locations of these events and also which units are involved just in case there is a developing fault or evidence that the approach profile at that location has been set just a bit too aggressively to ensure trains gets stopped where they should each and every time. If that data indicates specific trains (or times of trains) are responsible for a significant number of overshoots then, if nothing else, it hopefully that provides the maintenance folk with something to investigate.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 17, 2018 12:08:42 GMT
Once that train had overshot – the acceptable “opening doors” zone, then I suspect the driver had no option but to proceed to the next station without opening the doors. On stations with PEDs I suspect the size of the “acceptable zone” is probably far more restricted than that required to release the doors on S7/S8 stock, and even they encounter a similar problem of passing the mark once in a while.
I am no expert on the Jubilee line TBTC system, however in the main it seems to work fairly well. However I suspect that much like the Victoria line ATO system, the Jubilee presumably still allows the driver to intervene and apply extra braking if he spots the train is coming in a bit too hot. Like this
Undoubtedly variables like passenger loadings, rail conditions and brake efficiency can all contribute to the computer having a hard time stopping precisely at the same spot every time. Train headways and allowed platform dwell times are also factors which make the challenge harder and I guess someone in TFL towers has to decide the balance between the occasional overshoot and running a very intense service. Obviously if the service was less intense then the approach speed profile could be reduced sufficiently to pretty much guarantee you stop on the mark but with the obvious impact on line capacity. If overshoots occur frequently at that platform then hopefully someone will tweak the approach profile.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 15, 2018 9:40:15 GMT
I am getting a bit confused - are we talking about an order in May 2018 for rolling stock for the Island Line or for the DTUP?
I guess both could apply if the Island Line goes VivaRail and Kahn's recent comments about still needing a driver means they can freeze the DTUP design and order a batch for Piccadilly services.
As for funding DTUP was there not some discussion about TFL aiming to set up a sale and leaseback for some Overground or Elizabeth Line stock with one of the existing mainline ROSCO firms to free up funds to buy replacements for the deep tube lines.
Is Island Line a freestanding TOC or are they part of SWT? Nowadays, on mainline rail it seems that the scope for improvements or replacements for rolling stock seems to be limited to whenever franchises are up for renewal.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 15, 2018 9:18:11 GMT
Whilst some may see this as a waste of money if replacements are just about to be ordered, I too think this looks well worthwhile from a passengers perspective.
"...it felt like stepping onto a new train! I was very impressed.." says it all.
So its a shame that its just a couple of trains had this make-over.
Passengers just want a train which is comfortable, reliable and clean. I don't care if the rolling stock is 5 or 50 years old, if the basic mechanics still work OK, then opting for an internals only refresh is a cost effective way of providing what passengers are looking for.
Hopefully this frugal approach will help TFL to find funds to sort out the signalling and track which increasingly seems to be the Achilles heel for the Piccadilly in recent years.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 11, 2018 14:33:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 10, 2018 12:58:34 GMT
I hope Chris is right suggesting that RAIB are at least considering whether what happened raises issues for them. I suspect that as a "rare" event it may however be dealt with by non-public communication with Network Rail and the TOC(s) rather than a public investigation report.
This comment up-thread seems particularly pertinent for RAIB attention ..
"On another note re this train, the point superteacher professed we were missing strikes me to've been just how uncomfortably and possibly dangerously that train was loaded. As a matter of interest, has anyone else endured that before, outside of the Tube?"
My view is the risk of iced rails on this day was not "out of the blue" - it was well forecast so something the TOCs Roscos and NR needed to take into account in their service planning. If the stock they choose to use in those circumstances is not fully or at least mostly equipped with de-icing kit - like many S7/S8 units are (I think from the same manufacturer?) then surely they are the ones making unwise decisions - which may justify de-icing kit being retrofitted to the fleet.
If you ALSO choose to thin down the usually frequent train service, then surely that will give a greater risk of ice formation? I suspect RAIB may well focus on how what happened matches up with the relevant "Safety cases" and perhaps call (discretely) for urgent review and update to reflect the OBVIOUS risk of self evacuation if a crowded train is stuck behind a stalled train etc and passengers are in distress.
The simplest answer (bearing in mind we are talking about a service departing a central London terminus is to force TOCs to only run de-icing equipped units during periods identified as at severe risk of poor rail condition, or simply stop access to at least the relevant terminal platform once the number of passengers entering exceeds 50% of the seating capacity. This should ensure that everyone on the service has a seat and leaves sensible space for anyone joining at subsequent stations.
As I mentioned up thread, this whole thread would not exist IF passengers on the train had not been crush loaded and had access to toilet facilities.
On a side note I would expect RAIB will be interested to know why the "Command" failed to permit several requests by the driver to allow the train stopped just short of an empty platform to move forward at limited speed to allow passengers to get off and find alternative routes. It is time that the defence of "only following orders" is challenged when such an action would evidently have REDUCED the safety risk of people taking matters into their own hands as they VERY obviously will do if (when) this sort of issue of crush loaded stalled trains is repeated. Perhaps at the very least RAIB need to convene a workshop to learn lessons and review/update safety cases.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 10, 2018 8:05:25 GMT
The elephant in the room is of course property values on the IoW. I suspect there are some who would be very happy to see the whole thing degrade to a point where for "safety reasons" the railway closes permanently and they can set about selling off some VERY valuable real estate. The lack of investment in this line over many years may not be entirely accidental especially when you weigh up the investment which would be needed to provide the line with a decent long term future especially with the vast sums politicians are happy to waste on projects like the Croxley extension which will never carry a passenger.
I spent a few hours last night working through several pre and post electrification videos of the route on YouTube. Two things were evident
On bridge clearances - the cab ride view does indeed show road over-bridges before and after Brading station and that the line here was at one stage dual track. A very substantial increase in clearance through the arched bridge could be achieved simply by slewing the alignment to occupy the centre of the arch rather than the current position hard up against one side to leave space for the second long gone track. A similar solution is possible even with the more modern concrete beam bridge on the other side of Brading station as it slopes slightly to one side and at the moment the line occupies the lower side of the span. If we accept full size stock would need the tunnel track floor/ballast height to be lowered then it is not beyond the wit of Network Rail to arrange for all three changes to be achieved during a brief out of season shut down.
On loco hauled workings the top of the chimney is noticeably higher than even the roof vents on the coaching stock. As one of those locos is still present on the IoW Heritage line then a few minutes with a tape measure would confirm how far the chimney was above rail head level. This should show what could be achieved by simply reversing whatever track raising took place in the tunnel, and importantly indicate if that would be sufficient to accommodate former D Stock trains.
The current situation is particularly sad as once the bean counters kill off Island Line it will never come back. The impact is very clear in Ventnor where the steam hauled arrivals were particularly well patronised indeed seemingly exceeding numbers alighting at Sandown and Shanklin. Since the line through to Ventnor closed, even more visitors took to hiring vehicles or bringing their own vehicle over by ferry to chronically clog up roads which were never designed to handle the sort of traffic they now endure. Loosing the railway in Ventnor had a significant impact on access for groups who did not drive. Delays on the narrow roads means bus services struggle to make progress with timetables duly eligible as works of fiction. You only need to wait 40+ minutes from scheduled arrival time before you give up on the bus too. At least the train service provide visitors with reasonable confidence they would make their ferry booking. Chris neatly summed it up "a bit of targeted investment" is needed, and needed now.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 6, 2018 17:07:17 GMT
I somehow doubt batteries or other modes of propulsion will ever stop this happening again unless/until RAIB wake up to reality - the reality so well described by Chris.
In third rail territory the risk of trains being stalled for protracted periods in adverse rail conditions is NOT an unknown event. So the lack of a well rehearsed and RAPIDLY deployed response in this incident seems something which RAIB should be taking a very close look at.
Lurking beneath Chris's comments is the weird disconnect when it comes to trains which somehow needs to be resolved. In this day and age it still seems entirely reasonable for TOCs to make masses of money carting passengers around in totally overloaded trains without access to toilets. Yet if you proposed carrying livestock in those conditions they would be castigated by Animal rights groups.
Lets be clear, if that train had been provided with working toilets and ample seats for all the passengers being carried, then people would have been far less stressed and far more willing to sit and wait patiently until the rail industry got their act together. Indeed this entire thread and predictable "OMG reporting" would have never occurred.
What we are really seeing is that self evacuation is a totally PREDICTABLE consequence of the appalling service supplied to those passengers which the TOCs should be taken to task for.
If I want to travel by car, coach, or aircraft I will not be allowed to travel if there is not a seat available. Perhaps the real answer is for RAIB to demand a halt to crush loading trains which in effect allows TOCs to profit by selling far more tickets than their services can carry.
Is this incident perhaps the trigger for RAIB to finally demand a seat per passenger on all trains.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 1, 2018 12:13:16 GMT
Nice photo which prompted a left field suggestion regarding the Piccadilly RAT operation.
It seems that each year the current plan entails reducing the regular fleet available for passenger use by one full train for several weeks to first equip it with portable RAT kit and then operate it as needed and then once the leaf fall season is passed spending even more time and money removing all that kit and converting the train back so that it is available for normal passenger service.
So rather than messing with a train from the passenger carrying fleet why not put those portable kit into the AIT which has recently been suggested as of no further use and possibly destined for Booths?
AIT is a 6 car unit with a pair of 72 units at each end with a pair of 67DMs in the middle - so plenty of powered axles and GRIP which should make it a great choice for greasy rail locations.
If wiki is correct then the AIT units are all smaller in every dimensions than current Piccadilly 73 stock. So they should definitely fit down any tunnel which Piccadilly stock operates on.
Earlier photos of the extra kit inside the RAT suggest that it should be a relatively easy task to transfer it over and install it permanently on one of the AIT cars. AIT apparently already has a kitchen installed somewhere so should have ample electrical power supply available to meet the needs of the portable RAT kit. Indeed once installed the RAT can be pretty much left in-situ between RAT seasons.
So apart from training up a few existing Piccadilly line crew to operate the AIT (72) units this would avoid the need to reduce passenger services during the RAT season.
There are bound to be some other costs but as 72 stock is still in use on the Bakerloo presumably there is a maintenance team and parts inventory somewhere which would be able to keep at least the basic unit operational.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 28, 2018 17:40:44 GMT
OK there are some people who love stuff being totally correct. But in this case does it really matter if signage at Heathrow still refers to Terminal 1?
Any money spent on removing and replacing signs or changing diagrams on trains is money which cannot be spent on fixing stuff which really MUST be fixed - like the increasingly unreliable signalling on the Piccadilly. OK it won't be a massive saving, but people need to wake up to the dire financial straits which TFL are now in and encourage TFL to focus what little money they have on fixing the core infrastructure.
As I understand it for many years airlines have stopped referring to terminal 1 on their passenger tickets. So I bet most passengers will ONLY ever be looking for signs to whatever terminal their ticket actually says they need to go to and just as importantly they will be totally ignoring signs for any other terminals - regardless of whether they still exist or not.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 26, 2018 21:25:36 GMT
I found a few very grainy photos showing up on a google search for IOW pre tube rolling stock which shows examples of steam hauled Mk1 type slam door coaches on the Ryde pier so they must have made it through the tunnel. However they look like they are the shorter 57 foot long version of the MK1 stock so about 3 feet shorter than D Stock units.
The real test of whether they would fit is of course the Kinetic envelope taking into account bogie locations and resulting overhangs which might arise at speed on the significant curves within the Ryde tunnel. Whilst we might hope that people will have checked carefully before devoting any great effort to assess the use of Class 230 stock, even SNCF have been known to get things badly wrong and as a result they have been busy sawing bits off many regional station platforms.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 25, 2018 13:11:01 GMT
VivaRail's website has an update giving an insight on developments with the battery variant of the Class 230 units. vivarail.co.uk/battery-train-update/It seems they have found solutions to several of the concerns mentioned in this thread. The island line is only 8.5 miles long but mostly downhill to Ryde. I guess battery demand will be a lot higher on the trip to Shanklin but fairly minimal on the return trip. So that should be well within their stated 40mile battery range needing an 8 minutes top up at each end of the trip to keep the battery full, or a 10 minute charge offering 50 miles range. I can understand why several TOCs are taking close interest on developments at the Quinton Technology Centre. Coupled with the potential to fast charge from battery packs in areas with poor main power supply, these things could eliminate a lot of branch line OHLE proposals - perhaps GOBLIN may be one of the last infill projects to get rid of diesel as it was only 14 miles long. Even adding on the 4km riverside extension the out and back length will still be within the battery variant capability. A bit like the arrival of practical and reliable (but not cheap) Tesla battery cars, those new figures from VivaRail seem quite a game changer when it comes to the future shape of rail vehicles. Once VivaRail have run out of D stock to convert, I suspect that at least one of the major manufacturers will be keen to use their battery technology in new build or indeed just buy VivaRail.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 24, 2018 16:07:43 GMT
I have no idea what instrumentation or data streams is installed on S7/S8 rolling stock. But it might be worth mentioning that the somewhat similar style class 700 stock on Thameslink services already has automated coach by coach loading displays INSIDE these often 12 coach trains. Given the very long distances involved I suspect this is a sensible solution as if people see the display shows loads of space elsewhere in the train they may well use the interconnected carriages to relocate to less crowded areas whilst on the move.
Uneven loadings on the Tube is a different problem, which really needs a different solution, as currently, apart from the S7/S8 stock, people are basically trapped in whatever coach they first board, hence the value of loading information could be quite significant to passengers on the deep tube lines especially at peak times.
Others have already correctly observed how very few people actually make any response to typical please move on down inside the cars type advice. Indeed years of tube commuting has somewhat confirmed my personal view that most regulars have very fixed patterns and no amount of "General encouragement" will get them to abandon their commuting approach. In short what you are trying to overcome, is the entrenched behaviour which leads to "I intend to stand right by the first door on the third carriage come what may as it is where I need to be for my exit" behaviour. This sort of behaviour is probably why uneven loadings often occur on the tube.
IF people really want to tackle this problem then the fix needs pertinent information to be provided to passengers waiting the platform BEFORE a train approaches.
Whilst people ignore most tannoy announcements IF there was some sort of automated system operating which can accurately provide passengers in advance with clear loading information on the approaching train then people (including the regulars) will soon start to pay close attention especially if it gives them a chance of a seat.
So passengers waiting for a Northbound Northern line train at Charing Cross really would appreciate (even if not being happy to hear) an automated announcement telling them the next train is virtually full but there was some space in the first three cars and also the last car. Inevitably commuters may be mistrustful to start with, but if such predictions were consistently borne out, people will quickly figure out where to move to and over time trains will see far more consistent loadings.
Just my 2p
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 23, 2018 12:05:40 GMT
Is the rolling stock the real issue or is it power supplies? The line switched to third rail in 1967? I suspect that little has been done to upgrade the power supply equipment subsequently so most of it could be at least 40 years old. However if BR was happy to equip the line with second hand rolling stock, then it seems quite likely that they also reused a lot of the power supply equipment. If the line needs both new rolling stock and major expense on power supplies, then the case for a VivaRail solution increases significantly especially the potential to use a battery/diesel variant.
Rather than re-equip the whole line with new power supplies, batteries could be recharged on the move whilst passing over relatively short sections of energised third rail in the vicinity of a handful of feeder stations which would also significantly reduce the transmission losses which third rail systems typically suffer from on longer routes. Indeed the rest of the third rail could be lifted and sold off. Likewise the most at risk section - the pier head section - could be converted to wholly battery operation with the added benefit of reducing galvanic damage to metal elements of the pier structure.
Inherently the big ticket expense would then be the Class 230 units and a short probably over winter closure needed to lower tracks right through the Ryde tunnel so the tunnels can again accommodate mainline gauge (modified D Stock) and also install suitable enhanced drainage to prevent flooding.
I recall reading about the vast water flows which Brunel somehow managed to overcome with the Severn tunnel project, so with access to big enough pumping capacity it should be possible to keep that tunnel dry and allow Class 230 operations on the Island. Not quite full circle or as quaint as the 38s - but perhaps yes we could yet see another former underground rolling stock operating on the island - but please no dinosaur livery!
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 23, 2018 11:29:17 GMT
Personally I have no problem trusting a computer to do predictable tasks with incredible reliability. Indeed, dare I say it, for boring repetitive tasks, I would generally trust them far more than a human. Computers don’t get tired, they don’t need meal breaks, comfort breaks, holidays, or fall ill – they probably won’t have SPADs. They just boringly do the job they are programmed to do.
What computers are unable to do and the real reason why Khan is right is they can never be programmed to handle “unprogrammable events” which can and do happen! Like it or not totally unpredictable things happen - we even have earthquakes in Britain. Not long back some fool installing concrete piles managed to drill right through the roof of a tube line with debris ending on the track – I doubt any computer would have noticed until too late. Thankfully an alert driver reported unusual water cascading from the roof and stopped services. Regardless of the job title we need someone present.
So I have no issue with NTFL or Deep Tube for London or whatever acronym is the latest, being designed to let computers do pretty much all the boring tasks of driving a train from station A to station B whether we are talking about Bakerloo or any other line.
BUT even on routes fitted with end to end platform edge doors we still need someone competent onboard somewhere to oversee safe boarding and respond and provide advice to passengers in response to totally unexpected events like a total communications and power failure underground, which unlike the DLR might leave a train without any external communication from a remotely based signalling staff. As for above ground sections risks seem even higher with mindless acts of vandalism seemingly a right of passage for some. How can you programme a computer chip to spot, react to, and as necessary report fools throwing stuff on the track?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 19, 2018 20:25:01 GMT
Just spotted a typically dramatic Evening Standard report of an incident today on the DLR at Pontoon Dock Station. I hope this link works Evening Standard ArticleI am sure the sound of two loud bangs from directly beneath a carriage accompanied by smoke would be more than enough encouragement for me to voluntarily vacate the train with all due haste. As for passengers being terrified or forced to flee rather sounds a bit like someone engaging in some journo alarmist hype. It will be quite interesting to see what the DLR staff find went wrong.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 19, 2018 13:23:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 19, 2018 11:55:12 GMT
Reverting rapidly to topic..
I have just ploughed through this very long and occasionally painfully accurate thread. The inevitable conclusion is that CR2 is “at least for now” a lost cause, “needed” arguably, but seemingly too politically unwelcome/unaffordable at present.
If that is indeed the inevitable direction of travel, then if nothing else, I hope the CR2 project team is given enough time to ensure its findings are properly documented and shut down so that the planning work done so far, is not simply thrown away. Just in case actual passenger growth eventually demonstrates that “arguable need” has become a palpable need.
If we step away from politics, the elephant in the room is just how much extra capacity will CR2 really add?
The underlying Crossrail “theory” implies that most of the “extra capacity” will come from utilising the contra-peak flow “empty seats” from terminal stations and eliminating the rolling stock and line capacity lost when reversing services at terminal stations.
I am not the first person to ponder how this will pan out in practice (others far more learned than I have warned that Elizabeth Line will be full almost immediately) so perhaps there may be a case for delaying any commitment to spades on the ground until we at least see how Elizabeth(CR1) works in practice.
In truth Thameslink already provides a prototype for how it might work. One where the theory is fine but the intensity of services is such that one failure in the core section can quickly cause havoc not just on the Thameslink route but can bottle up traffic across junctions and impact services on adjacent routes quickly leaving some commuters with no credible alternative access to the city. Those risks seem even higher with the CR2 plans when you factor in the hideously complex service patterns implicit with servicing the tangle of South West London lines which it is suggested will feed into CR2.
I suspect politicians of all persuasions have been busily pressing for “their route” to benefit from CR2 services especially if it means constituents enjoy new rolling stock. But it seems the law of unforeseen consequences is far more likely to rear its ugly head the more stuff gets bolted onto a simple idea and the more complex a system becomes. To my untrained eye, CR2 is no longer just a single NE-SW link and has burgeoned to become a horrendous tangle with far too many common mode failure points to offer passengers consistent and reliable services.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 16, 2018 16:17:06 GMT
I recently had the misfortune of needing to get from Oakwood to Kensington a couple of weeks back. After a 20 minute delay in platform, my train then crawled into town taking a further 30 minutes to reach Kings Cross. After taking 74 minutes to reach Knightsbridge I abandoned ship and took the bus. I’m old enough to remember when the Northern line got that bad by the early nineties. The new trains were used as a catalyst for a coordinated campaign of tunnel widening, rail replacement and other infrastructure work. Hopefully the same can be done here because the Pic is fast becoming an embarrassment.
Intriguing.. I well remember the Northern line at its worst - but don't recall any tunnel widening proposed as an integral part of the solution? Where did this happen?
I know Angel got a new platform at some stage but that was presumably done in response to ever growing passenger numbers on a very narrow island platform.
I don't think that new platform tunnel work was really linked to resolving reliability on the Northern which at the time seemed mostly due to track and signalling failures and the 38 stock. Sadly the 38s were becoming so problematic that for years most regular Northern commuters quickly realised that it made sense to push shut any doors which were not co-operating rather than do nothing with the inevitable consequence that everyone was turfed off the train and the unit was withdrawn from service by which time delays to following services usually meant it would be impossible for many of the detrained passengers to board for ages. After that happened several times to me I took to automatically travelling back up the line one stop in order to board a following service before it reached a platform totally stacked with commuters.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 8, 2018 18:19:06 GMT
Interesting you mention Eastleigh..
So if the rumours are true and the AIT project is pretty much dead then that leaves at least one (admittedly randomly modified) 6 car set of Mk1 1972 stock clogging up a siding presumably until like the other Mk1s they get heavily vandalised and eventually expensively craned away for scrap.
So why not bite the bullet and offer the whole unit (along with any residual Mk1 72 bits) to the Island Line operator at scrap value cost.
The Island Line (ex LUL stock) is virtually falling apart (sea air not helping much) and passenger numbers are so low they are usually only operated as two car sets. I am guessing that as photos show AIT out on the tracks not too many years back, then at least the driving end motor cars are still serviceable and more importantly still set up for manual driving rather than TBTC systems. So even if someone has enthusiastically painted over some of the windows/doorways and carried out other modifications to bolt on extra lights etc - I doubt they are irreversible. Indeed by raiding parts from a few of the trailer cars it should be possible to round up enough seats, doors and any other displaced kit, so they could equip just the driving two end units and effectively cobble together at least one vaguely modern 2 car unit which presumably the folks at Eastleigh would then be able to convert to third rail operations.
I don't know if there are any other Mk1s still languishing in sidings if so perhaps they too could be donated to Island Line if only to free up valuable siding space on LUL depots. Sadly it seems the idea of permanent Bustitution is almost inevitable without some source of cheap and more reliable rolling stock being found and found soon.
I accept LUL will be duty bound to try and get VFM but as the AIT is now effectively a negative value asset clogging up siding space in London - why sell it off to Booths if the Island line could match that scrap price?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 5, 2018 8:03:58 GMT
If however they were just passing through France, then my guess is that they are actually heading for display at the 6th International Rail Summit in Prague - 21-23 February. Other manufacturers have presented units at past events and indeed TFL, and virtually all major European rail operators have sent participants. I guess Bombardier are keen to display their latest kit.
|
|