|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 16, 2016 9:09:09 GMT
Correct. Thursday was the first day that the line was no longer Severe Delays to all destinations. It is good to hear services are starting to improve. I guess this means the maintenance teams are getting ahead of the wheel flats problem. I assume someone in LUL will now be arranging a post mortem to identify what more could be done to avoid or at least minimise the impact of leaf fall season in future years. It seems aggressive pruning back of lineside vegetation has not been a total success, so what else can be done? Ordering a heap of extra spare wheel sets to avoid delays waiting for access to wheel lathes? Extra wheel lathes? More RHTT visits? Identifying the hot spots where wheel flats are occurring? Additional driver training for leaf fall conditions? Temporary timetable allowing lower speed limits in high risk areas? Run less trains (eg. no night tube?) or run more trains? (eg. prior to the first service train operate a ghost train - but ensure it is given a clear run of greens and instructed not to stop at any stations or other high risk locations, which should hopefully avoid the first scheduled service encountering track with very poor adhesion.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 15, 2016 12:49:55 GMT
Successive southbound morning peak trains at Finchley Central often arrive full to overflowing with virtually no one getting off. So when it looks like a total scrum on the southbound I just take a usually empty train heading North to Mill Hill East (same fare zone) returning on the same train 10 minutes later with my guaranteed seat.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 13, 2016 14:16:03 GMT
How people navigate through underground interchanges is a somewhat overlooked area of human behaviour research.
In an increasingly crowded world, understanding and predicting likely human reactions and developing effective ways to manage people flows is becoming increasingly important. A long while ago, many larger airports realised that relying on fixed printed signs was not brilliant, and they began developing dynamic signage systems to detect and divert people flows around any crowded areas within passenger terminals.
I am not sure that similar systems will work as well in underground stations where there is often a seriously limited number of routes available, and unlike an airport, many passengers will be familiar with station layouts and tend to follow their normal route, meaning fixed signs are treated as more advisory than mandatory. I am not sure if this video has already been covered on District Dave, but it does seen to hold some promise.
Safety at interchanges may become increasingly critical once CrossRail goes live and several central area interchange stations suddenly have to adapt to manage the influx of huge numbers of passenger arriving on very frequent mainline services. Currently passageways and connections within many interchange stations are already fairly crowded during much of the day, and that's just handling the existing interchange traffic. I have a feeling that critical interchanges may be yet another piece of TFL infrastructure which will require urgent improvements once the post CrossRail modified passenger flows become fully apparent, making knowledge of the tactical pinch-points even more important than now.
This interesting intra-platform arrivals hall animation shows quite clearly how important it is to head for the correct exit route, and ideally be ahead of the pack.
I only wonder how that animation would have developed if additional trainloads disembarked those platforms at predicted 24 trains per hour Elizabeth Line frequencies.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 13, 2016 12:02:49 GMT
I am sure this is correct, and I am not really surprised.
To finance the new Mayor's "fares freeze" commitment, capital projects were always going to be at risk. Now the secret is out, I guess some sort of official line will eventually emerge that the project has "not been cancelled" and its simply been "reprioritised" (or some similar soundbite).
Let's face it Watford Junction already benefits from a choice of rail services, and it is not in London, so the Mayor does not really care too much about the impact of cancelling it. I guess the extra S stock unit will still be delivered, if nothing else it will provide the Met with some extra resilience to cover units undergoing maintenance or upgrades.
My gut feeling is the looming huge capital demands for fleet replacements and new signalling systems which cannot be deferred indefinitely, will see this project on hold until well after 2050.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 11, 2016 16:04:25 GMT
For a new route I found the "Tube Exits" app is pretty helpful to work out the best route, where to change and which part of the train lines up best with the exit you will need, that way the crowd is behind you and you can often get a clear run through the interchange.
Threads split.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 6, 2016 19:03:36 GMT
The only civil/structural works in the GOBe scope are those directly required to achieve the electrification of the route. Generally the bridge works you see are all part of renewals and other works plans, apart from the parapet height extensions you might see springing up along the route. There happen to be some significant bridge replacements on the GOB route: the Lea Viaduct, River Lea Bridge 35, Palmerston Rd, Tottenham High Rd and Wightman Rd, all on GOB but not part of the electrification scope. Platform lowering works such as at WQR have been required to match the track lowering needed to fit the OLE under the many low headroom bridges on the route. Platform extensions generally can be done in possessions so they are programmed to suit resource, but obviously they will be in place in time for the longer trains! It is a very long time since I have personally used this line, but I certainly recall that many of the platforms on the line were quite long and had been shortened mostly with barriers to block off the unmaintained extra section. I guess current HSE considerations could mean that work to reinstate the closed off platform sections might need a line possession to protect the workforce especially when fitting new style platform edges, but hopefully this sort of work can be accommodated overnight before the new longer trains become available. However I really hope they are using this extended closure to sort out the two more problematic short platforms - South Tottenham and Harringey Green Lanes. To confirm my recollection I found a reasonably recent "drivers eye" video taken of the route on YouTube - Gospel Oak - Barking - Darren J which at 8.10 and 10.30 shows that extending these platforms could well be problematic if the line was operational. At Harringey Green Lanes it appears the earlier longer platforms have been removed, leaving just decapitated concrete stubs. As for South Tottenham I suspect the junctions before and after the already staggered platforms may make extending the current platforms problematic. Network Rail have had a fair bit of bad press recently, with delayed and over budget projects like the GWR Electrification. I hope their planners have done a better job here as I doubt GOBLIN users will be keen to suffer further closures to extend platforms on a line which has already been subject to an extended closure.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 30, 2016 9:45:14 GMT
So how do we fix this? - Perhaps its time for TFL to fund a staff suggestions prize?
Obviously management action is needed now to quiz staff (not just drivers) to try and identify the location of hot spots where most of these wheel slip events occur. (Instinctively these will be mostly on open section braking areas especially on downgrades).
Given repeated efforts to cut back swathes of lineside undergrowth have not fully solved the problem. It seems the current problems may increasingly be due to leaves being blown in from adjacent land? Sort of like drifting snow on the North of Scotland route, where drivers have helped identify the most prone areas allowing snow fences to be placed where necessary to protect the line.
Once LU identifies the most high risk stretches, perhaps LU should consider screens or planting low hedges to create some sort of natural retaining fence, or even incentivising neighbours to remove or prune back trees on their properties to minimise leaf fall on the tracks.
Given the significant financial impact on businesses in London caused by recent disruption to journeys, it might be reasonable for TFL to press the Mayor to fund a fair bit of preventative work to install screens to retain and keep most leaves off the tracks, and hopefully reduce the prospect of this thread being repeated next autumn.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 24, 2016 16:49:28 GMT
The Allelys heavy haulage page on Facebook has a couple of nice photos of the units loaded up on low loader trailers, about to set off to their new mainline home in Tyseley.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Oct 17, 2016 15:32:51 GMT
Given the plans for an extension of the line well into southern territories, it may create yet a Hybrid option to swap out the Bakerloo rolling stock.
On the assumption the extended line will need extra trains, this poses the question of how is LUL likely to meet this need? I doubt they would choose placing a top up order for additional trains to match the current rolling stock to run the whole line. So it seems likely we are talking about placing an order for sufficient stock to equip the entire line with NTFL (or whatever it is called by then).
If deliveries were only made to the south end of the "extended line" that section and all the new rolling stock need only be equipped with whatever proves to be the signalling system then in vogue. The hybrid bit comes because the northern section would need to be passively equipped with the new system but it would not be activated until a big bang change-over day. The old rolling stock would simply carry on as now without modification.
Meantime the southern section could be set up temporarily as a stand alone place to both test and then store the entire new fleet for the line. Once all the new trains are ready for use, all the old stock would need to be removed via the NR connections at the northern end of the line, and the old signalling system turned off, and the new one turned on allowing stock from the south end of the line to take their place and start service the next morning.
I guess that approach might be considered a bit too brave and courageous a solution for LUL management. Hence risk could be mitigated by arranging a series of silent hours whole line trials using the new stock. Essentially arranging one or more night-time whole line possessions when the old signalling would be temporarily shut off and the new one energised allowing a single new unit to transit the line end to end, with some battery thunderbirds kept on hand - just in case.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 13, 2016 13:58:59 GMT
If nothing else a slow refurbishment programme is better than nothing. One can hope that behind the scenes someone will be reviewing the fleet operational and quality statistics to make sure that priority is given to those trains (cars) which are most in need of attention. After a few recent trips on the line it was obvious that the internal condition of some cars were far better condition than others.
I recall that someone on the forum posted a link to a Tfl paper - back in February? - where they outlined the case/process to issue an ITT for up to 17 extra trains for use on the Jubilee (increased frequency) and Northern (Battersea service requirement). At the time I noted how the paper indicated that decisions would be made in the Autumn (so not far off) and warned that they would also need to take into account any policy changes following a capital programme review.
I guess a pause or delay in the ITT may not be entirely surprising given the enormous recent investment made in the sub surface stock. However if the extra rolling stock order is deferred/cancelled then presumably the Jubilee stock will end up needing several more important overhauls before they are eventually replaced. The worrying outcome could be that any saving on capital spend could be more than offset by increased operating costs just to keep the fleet safe let alone attractive. Obviously if the extra 10 Jubilee trains are ordered, it should provide the line management with greater flexibility and probably allow subsequent overhauls to be completed in less time.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jun 13, 2016 14:59:55 GMT
The article predicting such dire outcomes seems to ignore another "elephant" the looming sea change in surface transport. Within that 15 years timescale - relatively few people (except for the ultra rich) will bother owning a vehicle as ownership costs will inevitably rise severely to tackle air quality issues. That is why all the big vehicle manufacturers are busy preparing for the public to switch in droves to cost effective on demand autonomous(self driving) mostly electric cars. These will eventually see off Uber etc (and indeed taxis within most urban areas) and also free up the roads for use rather than parking. Operating intelligently - pattern recognition systems will ensure vehicles will rarely need a parking space - just access to a net work of rapid recharging locations - with obvious implications for the Barclays Bike Network. Vehicles will be pre-positioned - so they are where people want them just before they tap their app to demand their ride to the station/home. The effect will be that with relatively cheap improvements to our surface transport network (compared with new tube lines) could mean the streets are finally de-congested and able to carry a whole lot more people.
20 years back very few people would have believed you if you described the impact of technology which we now take for granted. There is nothing to suggest the pace of developments will slow any time soon. Inevitably if there is a recession - the financial sector will not be unaffected and you can be certain that many firms will increasingly take advantage of high speed data networks to axe a lot of their office accommodation overheads with many office workers increasingly telecommuters.
The upshot of all this is that yes many interchange stations may need improvements to handle increased passenger numbers, but the system is not going to fall to bits. As others have said if the conditions get too bad for passengers they will find other solutions including simply not commuting into the city.
The weird bit for me is how TFL appear to have largely overlooked the changing transport needs of a rapidly ageing population. The baby boom years are boosting the retired population, and inevitably this will result in rapidly increasing numbers of London's population who are mobility impaired. Remember in one year time we will all be one year older or dead - there are no other outcomes - so we really need TFL to start adapting to handle this looming challenge if they are to still be able to get out and about and enjoy the brilliant attractions the city has to offer.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on May 7, 2016 10:15:49 GMT
I was passing under the Roding Rd bridge just north of Loughton station yesterday, and particularly noted the bridge defenders. They are set about 18 in from the main structure and see off the worst offenders - eg an EOS double decker last year, which was fit to join the Hoho fleet once the defences had done their work, and a brand new Biffa dustcart. This would be a very costly road to lower, because of trunk water mains below the carriageway From the broad tenor of several posts on here, there appears to be a general acceptance that on cost/convenience grounds, nothing material is going to be done to remove this evident risk to railway users, at least until there has been a serious loss of life incident. Assuming there is a list somewhere identifying the bridges which are hit most often, it would seem a fair strategy to press for a rolling action plan to remove at least the top 5 most frequent locations within the next 5 years, before moving on to the next 5 etc. I guess the potential for action is really down to politicians, and political pressure felt in response to any injuries, deaths or disruption being caused to road and rail users (including of course train drivers who are possibly most at risk). Hence it seems strange that the rail unions are not visibly pressing Ministers for action on this as forcefully as they seem to be with efforts to remove level crossings. Hey Ho - I guess that's life.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on May 6, 2016 8:40:51 GMT
Once again the Evening Standard is reporting an impact on the Network Rail/District Line bridge over the A205 in Kew. www.standard.co.uk/news/london/south-circular-crash-busy-road-shuts-after-lorry-hits-bridge-for-second-time-in-three-days-a3241276.htmlAs this road appears to be part of a major route across South London it seems strange that steps have not been taken to physically tackle this bridge, by either raising it or lowering the road, or at the very least rapidly installing a very high profile and fully automatic stand off protection system to ensure that drivers of approaching over height vehicles are visibly and loudly alerted in time to stop and turn back before clouting the bridge. Currently it seems TFL are unwilling to act, yet time after time large vehicles are hitting this bridge causing delays and occasionally chaos on both road and rail routes. OK it seems they got away with it this time - but this is happening far too often, and seems almost inevitable there will eventually be an incident here where a truck carrying a rather more solid load manages to displace the track just as a train is approaching with potentially calamitous consequences. I realise the idea of closing the road or the rail line for several weeks to lower the road surface will cause wails of complaint but surely something which "happens often" and has "potential for severe consequences" should be right at the top of TFL Roads action list.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on May 2, 2016 11:41:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 30, 2016 7:00:26 GMT
It's a real shame that LUL do not have the vision to see the potential value of Watford as a proper base for their Heritage fleet. Sadly rarely moved kit just collecting dust tends to seize up over time, eventually requiring expensive renovation or like some of the Mk1 Jubilee cars simply scrapping. An occasional run over the north curve to Chesham would be a great way to keep heritage stock active, generate extra income from the heritage fleet, and free up space at Acton which is crammed to the gunnels. Indeed running a few peak hour shuttle trips would probably remove much of the local closure opposition.
Anyone who has visited the amazing oxford road building up at the Quainton Road Railway centre can get an idea of what could be done at Watford. With regular tube connections it even has the potential to become a major all day long tourist attraction in its own right.
Obviously stabling is the main driver for LUL decisions, but a quick look at Google earth shows the fence-lines on the run in beyond the River Gade are pretty generous - suggesting LUL may already own enough land to build perfect stabling alongside the existing tracks into Watford. Sadly it seems the bean counters will win and a listed building will be left to slowly rot a bit like the old Croxley stations.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 9, 2016 12:16:16 GMT
I have just spotted a recent article in the "construction enquirer" which suggests that the start date for tunneling has gone back several months. In this context I am not sure what they mean by the "Battersea crossover box" but it seems that whoever is building it is seemingly the reason for the delayed start to tunneling. As for the "modifications sometimes need to be made" comment by TFL if nothing else it confirms they are aware of this development, and at this stage are not greatly exercised by a delay to this element of the overall project. I hope the following link works: www.constructionenquirer.com/2016/04/05/northern-line-extension-tunnel-drive-delayed-over-6-months/
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 7, 2016 16:20:57 GMT
I am not sure where this post should go - but some of you might like to see the first trailer for the new Star Wars series movie due out in December. Rogue One TrailerAt approximately 1.11 seconds in, the background looks very like it was filmed somewhere on a station on the Jubilee Line extension - does any one know where?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 5, 2016 19:41:49 GMT
I dint think there is a preference, although it's annoying when trains get routed into platform 9, even when 7 and 8 are both vacant. TBTC is no better. During the stepping back at Morden, you can have all three platforms empty, yet an incoming train will be routed into the middle if that's the booked platform. To force it into platform 5 requires a fiddly set of button clicks, and relies on the signaller noticing quite early. (It's generally preferable to use the right-hand most platform if everything is empty, as the train's departure won't be blocked by the next incoming arrival, and in the case of Morden you get a slightly quicker turnround on platform 5 as doors are only opened on one side - these few seconds all add up especially when you're trying to achieve a 30tph service). That is a very revealing comment. Not wanting to stray off topic - that observation suggests that in terminal locations such as Ealing Broadway there may already be a very evident practical rule of thumb (used by the current signalling team) as to which platform assignment is operationally optimum. What worries me is the extent to which this sort of knowledge may simply be lost (and subsequently re-learnt) if TFL just go out to tender and buy the cheapest off-the shelf Sub Surface lines signalling system without ensuring that whoever delivers the new system actively works to ensure the new system is built with extensive input from the current front-line signalling staff. I fear that without their early involvement, known bottlenecks, capacity constraints and potential areas for service improvements may be overlooked when it comes to rolling out the replacement SSL signalling systems.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 25, 2016 19:58:18 GMT
I think the recent article in Construction Enquirer linked below may be of some interest: Construction Enquirer
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 27, 2015 19:34:25 GMT
Its a long time since I used it but I just had a quick look on Google maps which when last filmed confirmed there was still a cycle storage area within the official station car park. I cannot vouch for how secure it is, but there is a steel shelter which you could possibly chain your bike to and I guess the CCTV may be operational. maps.google.co.uk/maps?ll=51.65152,-0.14915&z=15&cid=15278133234753026021&q=cockfosters+tube+station&output=classic&dg=ntvo Hope that helps
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 1, 2015 16:32:11 GMT
The way I read that is that bidders will be able to use the D-train option to replace Pacers.. How do you read para 5.2.2.4 - "These must be newly-built (not re-using components from existing rolling stock)" - to allow the use of D-trains? If that small selection which you quote from the tender was all that the tender said on the matter, I agree it would rule out the Vivarail offer, but I think everyone likely to submit a bid will also take full account the final part of the same section of the tender document which reads as follows.. "Bidders proposing to meet some or all of this requirement with vehicles other than conventional DMUs, may (but are not obliged to) raise a confidential BCQ and if they do the Department will provide a view on whether the proposal would be acceptable in fulfilment of this requirement." Which I think may leave the door potentially open for bidders to propose the use of Vivarail vehicles... Just my 2p
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 11, 2014 17:08:23 GMT
This might be of interest in any of you living in former MetroLand territory - way beyond Aylesbury. I have just spotted the Network Rail are holding a consultation at Swanbourne on 13 August as part of the East West rail project studies. The consultation will examine views on public road and footpath crossings to the east of Winslow - and if recent trends are a guide - then NR may be keen to close most if not all the level crossings along the route. More here - NR Study
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jul 15, 2014 10:09:28 GMT
The Standard has a report of a Moscow metro train derailment which if the report is accurate seems something the Railway Inspectorate may need to keep tabs on. Standard article hereSadly the accident has claimed lives and left others injured. The worrying aspect of the article is the derailment being attributed to a "power surge". OK I can understand an over voltage incident might cause systems to "fail safe" - so possibly leaving a train(s) stranded, but how would that cause it to derail? I can only think the excess volts had some unexpected impact on points. <<Rincew1nd: Thread title tidied a little>>
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Oct 29, 2013 15:58:17 GMT
I am not sure if this thread is in the right place, but I have just spotted this interesting report of plans by the British Postal Museum and Archive - which may see part of the old Mail Rail system used for passengers. If it is of interest, there is plenty of information here www.londonreconnections.com/2013/reopening-londons-mail-rail/I have always wondered what the Mail Rail system would look like superimposed on the Underground map.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 21, 2013 16:51:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jul 4, 2013 13:01:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on May 26, 2013 20:25:34 GMT
I was wondering where this project has got to. The last on the TFL website was that the Public Enquiry report would be with the secretary of state in time for a decision on the project in the spring - which I guess means now or very shortly. I see that TFL have recently announced a contract with Taylor Woodrow to work up the actual design for the link so it seems they must be fairly confident of what the inspector has recommended and what the minister will decide.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 19, 2013 20:05:40 GMT
Wow - Just seen an article in the Standard reporting Mayor - Boris Johnson thinks "time has come" for plans to extend the Bakerloo Line on to Peckham. Standard Article The article then rather damps down the comment when it suggests it could take 10 years to sort out funding. So I guess its going to be a long time before any Bakerloo trains run to Peckham. I wonder if this idea will turn out like his plans for a "New Bus for London" something people spent a lot of time dismissing as never going to happen, but sure enough some are out there now with hundreds more on order. So what do you folks running the line think about the idea. Is this just another dream project, how will it impact existing infrastructure - depots, rolling stock, signalling and servicing and perhaps the big question what route and intermediate stations makes best sense?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 12, 2013 19:32:12 GMT
I used to use the outer section of the Met and don't recall ever travelling on, or indeed spotting this curve - (although I did spend a fair bit of time fast asleep). Anyway it got me thinking and I wonder if it creates a neat solution to some current "issues". For instance how to continue to provide sensible services to Chesham and Watford Met especially once the Croxley link opens, and whether it might provide a base for some of the heritage fleet to actually be put into regular (albeit very light) use. I always find it rather sad to see heritage transport largely consigned to static display in a museum.
I don't know the technical complexities, but wonder if it would still be possible after the Met line is extended to Watford Junction, to also retain access to Watford Met - mainly for use as a safe(ish) overnight stabling location for S8 stock, and also retain one of the terminal platforms primarily to introduce a couple of morning peak hour fast services into Baker Street or Aldgate (using S8 stock) and with a couple of evening peak hour services booked to return in the evening again simply to stable overnight.
It would be interesting to see the hour by hour footfall data at Watford Met, but I suspect that just a handfull of trains could accomodate the majority of passengers using the station. However it would be interesting to see whether Watford Met could also be set up to house some of the heritage fleet. But rather than treat them as museum pieces to bring out every 50 years or so, it would be great if at least some heritage units could be maintained and used in public service to provide a full day heritage shuttle between Chesham and Watford Met.
It would be nice to rotate between heritage tube and sub surface heritage units to operate an all day two train shuttle service from Watford Met to Chesham with an S7/8 in reserve to cover any failures. Away from the peaks, I doubt it would matter to the passengers if you operated a mix of 7 and 8 coach stock, and they would probably enjoy travelling on a random choice of C stock, A stock, 38 etc - as it would be a bit like travelling on the Island Line.
Again it would be interesting to see the hour by hour footfall data for Chesham where again I suspect that by offering just two or three peak hour fast services into/from Baker Street or Aldgate would meet the bulk of current commuting passengers, and for the rest of the day, the Heritage shuttle would provide non-commuters with a reasonable link to the mainline service.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 1, 2013 18:25:32 GMT
|
|