|
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.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jun 29, 2023 14:56:41 GMT
Yes, Kentish Town is an interchange but ... Additionally, Camden Town one stop to the south will gain step-free access when it is rebuilt. I fear given the current funding mess at LU/TFL there is no realistic prospect (this decade or next) of Camden Town being rebuilt. At one stage the underlying driver for the rebuild plan was to facilitate splitting the lines. TFL have since realised that would result in total bedlam at Camden Town - forcing everyone losing through services to swap platforms whilst fighting their way past a similar flow of hacked off passengers forced to change trains coming from the other branch. The impact of splitting the lines on dwell time and platform safety without fitting PEDs would doubtless give rise to some interesting timetable planning and safety discussions.
I suspect the only reason Camden Town may get a minimalist make-over is to improve peak entry/exit issues at the station especially those associated with huge crowds drawn to visit Camden Town Market.
Whilst they have already had "plans" drawn up, plans may change yet again, so that does not mean it will rebuilt any day soon. So yes if Camden Town is ever rebuilt with step free access, it would provide for some an alternative step free access option. However as Kentish Town is actually going to happen and about to close - it seems a crying shame TFL did not at least decide to make passive provision for step free access at Kentish Town now, so that once funds become available the cost and importantly passenger impact could be minimised.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jun 16, 2023 9:24:14 GMT
ALARP - As low as reasonably possible.
For existing platforms safety authorities realise that compromises may be necessary, but for new stuff that test really raises the bar. You cannot just argue - wide gaps and height differences - which may be extant elsewhere - are acceptable when building a new station/platform. Inherently the ALARP principle should mean that going forward the railways will move inexorably towards better accessibility for all.
Sadly Safety Authorities seem to have been asleep at the wheel here. Ages ago they could/should have defined the standard for all future mainline platforms and then robustly challenged the justification for anything which failed to comply. Just like the original broad gauge v standard gauge arguments - leaving private companies free to make critical decisions on anything which will form part of nationwide infrastructure does not always go well.
Without such guidelines Elizabeth (CrossRail) line neatly fell into the resulting gap, with TFL beancounters insisting on the cheapest/most convenient solution for just the new platforms which they would be creating - whilst basically ignoring the fact that they would forever be inconsistent with existing mainline platforms to the east and west.
Hey ho - perhaps the thought process was that over the ensuing five or six centuries those platforms will be slowly rebuilt to comply with TFL standard whenever they need renovation.
However given the embarassing delays and cost over-runs which were experienced during the construction of the Crossrail core, I somehow doubt anyone will ever find the funds to persuade TFL(or its successors) to progressively close and then rebuild all the core stations to comply with NR standard platform height.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on May 2, 2023 17:36:43 GMT
The surface structure appears to be a typical Leslie Green - Red brick arches effort and presumably designed to support potential development above. However in this case google earth shows that apart from some ventilation kit the roof remains empty. So in this case I wonder if they plan to remove/renew the roof which could make it easier to remove the old escalators and indeed crane in the replacements.
As for potentially reusing the old lift shafts - inevitably anything can be done if you throw enough money at something. Given the platforms are at different levels then the potential answer is to excavate the old shaft down sufficiently to offer level access to the lower platform reached via a new cross passage to the platform with a second boarding level created above that to serve the upper platform level. Again removing the roof (which must be many years old by now) could make this sort of retrofit work easier and if they intend providing escalators and lifts to offer full step free access this may explain why they need to shut the station for quite so long.
I would not be surprised to find that the facade is already a listed building, however I doubt removing and eventually replacing the roof is prohibited by any specific listing details.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on May 1, 2023 6:51:40 GMT
Moving on from the rather inconsequential debate over the actual words used in a press release - what seems clear is the escalators are going to be replaced - Yippee.
However I wonder why this work is going to take so long?
A while back Heathrow T5 was fitted out with heavy duty escalators where access was going to be very problematic. So rather than supply the escalator as a fully complete module which many firms seem to offer as their default option, Schindler provided escalators in three more manageable sections (top middle bottom) which could be more easily manouvered within the building and re-assembled on site fairly quickly with treads motors and handrails etc added later.
As is fairly common with major projects these escalators were manufactured and fully tested at the factory before being deconstructed and delivered to site to slot in with the construction schedule with the necessary resources put in place so they could be swiftly moved from truck to final installation location in just a matter of hours using skates and winches. Doubtless it took much longer to complete the fit out, testing and safety sign-offs before the escalators could actually be put into use.
But this does raise the question of why shut the whole station for so long?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 25, 2023 6:46:29 GMT
Which was slow enough even then, as I remember. Opening the doors are pretty much the same as on LUL just closing they seem to be slower The doors on the Class 230 units were modified (slowed down) so they comply with PRM/TSI accessibility regulations. Yes there might still be scope to marginally speed things up (only milliseconds) but like it or not without a formal exemption ALL future mainline trains will have doors opening pretty much as slow. LUL rolling stock is covered by different RVAR regulations. Guide dogs have been trained to expect that before any doors open there will be an audible alert beside the relevant door for 3 seconds. This helps the dog to lead the owner towards doors on the correct side of the train or help them move clear of any boarding or alighting passengers. Whilst LUL have obtained a fleet wide exemption from the RVAR rules, mainline stock like the 230s are stuck with it if they cannot demonstrate clear safety reasons to obtain an exemption. Many early comments on the TfW 230 units entering service in Wales, Marston Vale and the Island Line seem to mention the slow doors. However it seems once crews get used to the units the guards are becoming more adept at checking platform positioning and triggering the door release quickly and minimise the resulting platform dwell time.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 17, 2023 10:29:05 GMT
... And also, a lot of "emissions" are actually from the tyres... This really is the big question - where does all that dust and other pollution come from? Are we focusing on the right targets. Actually ensuring vehicle testing is rigorous would be a great start especially as the current rarely supervised testing scheme carries the risk that all you need to do is find some folding stuff and the right person to sign off your test certificate. I fear that once people start digging into this "can of worms" people will indeed realise that in addition to tyre wear other things like wear of brake disks and brake linings are also significant sources of fine particulate matter. Indeed the switch to generally much heavier EV models may actually make things a lot worse on all those counts. I also have a nasty feeling that LUL already know there may be significant issues in relation to harmful dust/particle levels lurking in many tunnel sections of the tube. Perhaps the Mayor should be just as keen to act to save Londoners from this risk especially as he is the ultimate boss and immediately close the entire system down at least until they can build a proper tunnel cleaning train and regularly clean out the immense amount of dust lurking in the tunnels. I was astonished to see just how filthy some relatively new sections were on the Hidden London visit to Finsbury Park. I hate to think what dust levels the track maintenance staff are expected to work in on a daily basis. How long will it be before the No win no fee fraternity focus on this money spinner?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 15, 2023 15:21:05 GMT
From 29 August 2023 ULEZ rules will apply to pretty much every vehicle inside the M25 - which means almost all underground stations will suddenly be inside the zone except Amersham, Chalfont & Latimer, Chesham, and Chorleywood on the Metropolitan line and Epping on the Central line.
However you only need to look at many outer stations like Hillingdon (with its car parks and easy access to the M40) to see that currently they attract a lot of commuter traffic.
Whilst doubtless many of these vehicles will already meet ULEZ standards so are unlikely to change their routine I wonder if owners of non-compliant vehicles will simply divert their commuting route from existing inside ULEZ railheads and as a result the good folk at the far end of the Met and Central may suddenly experience an unexpected increase in parking demand. Which may not be particularly welcome...
Indeed could ULEZ costs/controls significantly impact on travel patterns at other popular commuter tube railheads?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 4, 2023 7:28:24 GMT
... 70 mph north of Harrow would be beneficial, I don't think there is any point in going faster, North of Ricky northbound S stock could probably be opened up to run faster but Chiltern are slower than S stock now. I am not sure about Class 165's being slower... When new basic Class 165 (Chiltern Turbo) units were designed for a 75MPH (120kph) top speed likewise the maximum designed speed for the Bombardier S8 is 62MPH(100kph). I realise that the Turbos will not accelerate quite as fast as the S8 stock especially in poor rail adhesion conditions and that like many older vehicles the Class 165's may now struggle to reliably achieve that top speed now. Inevitably that makes timetabling decisions and programming line speeds for the S8 stock an interesting challenge on the shared route. To optimise traffic flow on a Network Rail/LUL shared route it seems likely that someone will have developed accelleration and braking profiles to work out just how close different rolling stock could operate on the shared route whilst avoiding wasteful bunching and excessive braking. This optimisation may explain why it makes sense to keep the S8 target speed at 100kph lower than the top speed on the same route allowed for the Chiltern Turbos.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 5, 2023 14:36:29 GMT
Its to keep 600v supply away from the points mechanism. - Just look at the opening few seconds of this video..
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 19, 2023 11:54:02 GMT
At present the "fast charging kit has not been installed. Doubtless all plans thus far have looked at the easiest/cheapest place to locate the kit somewhere along the bay platform. However that platform is plenty long enough for 4 x 230s so if there really is a need for an occasional HEX service to utilise the bay then provided the charging kit is located at the buffer stop end of the platform there may be ample room to stable the 230 and for the HEX to enter slowly and occupy the remaining length of platform. OK this means affected HEX drivers would need retraining in addition to the Greenford shuttle staff.
But I agree that devising an approach capable of allowing the occasional use of the bay platform by HEX does not seem insurmountable always assuming people are willing to step away from a "can't" "won't" "shan't" attitude.
Then there is always the alternative whereby the fast charging kit could be located in Greenford - where there is a recently upgraded National grid to DC 700v substation nearby - which should have ample spare capacity to supply the fast charging kit assuming they also install a shore based battery pack to feed the fast charging demand. The shore battery pack would continuously bleed power slowly from the DC supply and then (just like a supersized mobile phone power pack) the battery pack would be drawn down rapidly as and when the fast charging kit is automatically engaged by the arrival of the Class 230.
I have often wondered whether it would also be possible to safely park a unit overnight on the central platform at Greenford given that it is effectively landlocked. With platforms on both sides it should even allow units to be given a quick litter clean through whilst the unit is being re-charged and the driver changes ends to get ready for the next departure time.
Moving the operational base and charging activity to Greenford might also resolve any issues with the HEX.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 12, 2023 8:27:14 GMT
Thus far the 484s seem to be reasonably reliable. Admittedly that should be fairly easy with ample back up units on the island. Yes the line was closed for several hours when a tree blocked the line in January - but that is hardly an issue with the 484s. However there was a recent (also January) issue with the wrong kind of ice - which saw all trains suspended... www.islandecho.co.uk/trains-between-ryde-and-shanklin-suspended-due-to-icy-conditions/Amusing to see some responses suggesting the return of the 38 stock - which also struggled with poor rail adhesion issues. The big challenge for Island Line is to negotiate with the staff to agree practical changes to significantly reduce platform dwell time (basically speed up the door release and closure process) which is a flaw with the 484. Until the line offers reliable turn up and go services, or at least clockface services, which give time to link to ferry and hovercraft connections, sadly I don't see any prospect of significant traffic growth, as most people will choose taxis, private cars or the island bus network.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 9, 2023 19:10:43 GMT
So near - so far.
The interiors of these recycled trains were really attractive and when they actually ran seemed well liked by passengers.
However from the outset the idea of converting a generally reliable LUL electric multiple unit to run on diesel power was risky. This was even more risky when they chose to shoe horn in road vehicle engines, generators, radiators and control gubbins all into very cramped rafts hung below the vehicle where there was often not sufficient air flow across the radiators.
Sadly towards the end of VivaRail, the right answer for Marston Vale was almost there. Dump the diesels, fuel tanks etc and fill those rafts with batteries making it a battery electric Class 230. The traction motors won't care where the power comes from and coupled with a fast charging system at each end of Bedford-Bletchley the line could have been among the first to enjoy emission free services without incurring the expense of knitting.
They were actually trialling the fast charging system at Bletchley. The 40 mile range they demonstrated by the class 230 battery demonstrator was more than adequate for a 32 mile round trip to Bedford without intermediate charging. Moving to battery power would however mean the trains would not suffer the infuriating reliability issues witnessed during the summer time whith overheating issues linked to the radiators getting clogged. It is also sad to think that the proposed Greenford battery trial using the demonstrator unit has also presumably been abandoned too. So near...
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 28, 2022 21:46:33 GMT
The web is full of interesting if not fully verified information - does this link throw any light on the very steep incline at King William Street... www.abandonedstations.org.uk/King_William_Street_2.htmlThe stated gradient of 1 in 14 seems pretty challenging but as King William street was the Northern end of the line and that extreme gradient was for the Southbound tunnel I guess trains would simply enjoy rapid accelleration gravity assist.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 23, 2022 8:07:51 GMT
Interesting that Vivarail chose to “test install” the kit initially in Bletchley. OK they do have engineering staff based at the depot.
But why do I get the feeling that there may be something additional going on?
If nothing else, relocating the charging kit will entail twice the installation cost/effort, and additional work to de-install the kit and extra transport cost?
Is there a chance Vivarail actually hope this demonstration phase will allow them to persuade London North Western to remove the diesel generators and fuel rafts on one or more of their Marsden Vale 230s and instead install Hoppecke battery rafts together with fast charging facilities at both ends of the route? This could be a simple way to de-carbonise passenger traffic on the line especially if it is cheaper to leave the test charging kit installed in Bletchley and have a new charging kit supplied direct to West Ealing.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Sept 13, 2022 15:19:59 GMT
So does anyone know where the supply failed? Was it TFL kit or National Grid?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Sept 10, 2022 7:39:46 GMT
The real issue with old PEDs and new trains is working out the most cost effective way to produce a workable solution, and how to manage the transition.
My money is you replace the old PEDs simply because by the time new trains are actually due to arrive the existing PEDs will be pretty beat up (some are already) and over time could become a major cause of delays and extended dwell times especially if PED doors open but refuse to shut. With a dodgy train door you just offload the passengers and run it empty to the depot for repair which minimises the service impact.
That option is not available for a defective PED so presumably you close the platform and run trains non-stopping until it is repaired.
Finally by the time TFL have funds for new Jubillee trains probably someone would have downsized that automated PED installation kit used to install the PEDs on the Elizabeth Line central stations which should speed things up and reduce switchout costs. Inherently what can be done with the line operational is massively constrained by risk assessments. So I feel sure removal/replacement of the old PEDs will mean a full route closure (or at least the section from Stratford to Green Park. (Perhaps they could briefly reopen Charing Cross?)
For the transition I guess after a period for training, mixed fleet operation might be possible on the Stanmore to Green Park section - as a door is a door even if it is slightly further along the platform. The big challenge will be to ensure the new trains can be fitted to speak the same (now relatively ancient) train control system - if not the transition cost and timeline will soar.
Which begs the question which variant of TBTC is best suited to LUL lines. I assume the SSL line variant is the best choice and reflects lessons learned from the eralier installs. In which case we would probably need a major signalling switchover too which is not easy, quick, or cheap.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jul 31, 2022 7:11:05 GMT
Anyone who has had the misfortune of Project tracking will know that ominous feeling when intermediate and stage completion dates keep sliding to the right whilst the "official" project end date remains seemingly embedded in concrete despite clear evidence it won't be possible. Perhaps they decided to save money and use the same team who were tracking progess with Cross Rail...
Inherently to get this demonstration train ready on time, there are physical challenges and a heap of practical and paperwork challenges, and thus far I am not sure any of them have been fully signed off. There is no sign of the BEMU out and about on gauging runs let alone completing regular staff training runs. There is no sign of the fast charging kit being installed, or tested let alone safety instruction provided to train and station staff. Add in strikes and an unhappy workforce and it looks like this project will once again demonstrate how the fractured mess that is "Great Bitish Railways" cannot organise the proverbial ... So sad.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jul 13, 2022 10:17:40 GMT
I know most people like new things, but in the case of the South Harrow sidings is there really any need to panic if they are delayed by a few months? Presumably LU have already managed to find alternate parking places for all the current rolling stock whilst the sidings are being reworked so is it really a major disaster if that arrangement has to continue for a few extra months?
The last I heard was that the original plan for deliveries of the new Piccadilly line rolling stock had slipped significantly from early 2023 and the first unit was unlikely to be delivered to the UK in 2023 - so does it really matter if they only manage to create space for one extra train at South Harrow by the end of this year?
I realise that even when the physical work is complete, there is still a heap of related installation, testing and training work needed to commission the new points and signals, before the sidings can be fully cleared for use but I somehow doubt that this will delay the actual delivery/storage of the new trains even if the more realistic timeframes now being discussed prove accurate.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jul 1, 2022 9:44:53 GMT
Until TFL funding is put onto a sustainable footing - I doubt there is any chance of any new lines or major line upgrades in the coming decade (excluding the unavoidable replacement of clapped out rolling stock).
Whilst planners might point to the long lead time for all new line projects and projected population growth in London adding as much as 1 million residents by 2035 already makes a strong case for work now to identify where a new line would have the most positive effect. That seems a highly unlikely development in the current finacial circumstances where feeder bus services and other TFL services are being "right sized".
Sadly the current national and mayoral election cycles provide no great incentive to actually pay for stuff which will not come to fruition until well after our political masters have moved onto pastures new.
Perversely the reverse applies, as in the run up to any election, the spin doctors tend to start seeding the media with all manner of "projects" which will be "possible" (but not actually garanteed to happen) if you vote for them.
Time and again TFL money is spent on drawing up detailed plans to meet the latest "politicians" wish list of what is likely to benefit their supporters - rather than actually focus on best meeting the needs of Londoners as a whole.
It is likely that someone at LU Towers already has dusty plans showing what and where the Capital should be investing in next. Indeed only recently one of the "secrets of the underground" episodes briefly showed the presence of historic plans for new routes etc lurking in the Acton archive. Clearly this is not a new conumdrum.
Sadly time and again money gets thrown by the latest politicians at their pet project instead. Does anyone really think HM Treasury will step forward and fund extension of the Bakerloo any time soon?
Just like the Croxley rail link (which seems primarily to benefit Home Counties voters - NOT Londoners) TFL have ended up spending scare funds on a potential rail link which will probably never get built, meanwhile the systems which Londoners are actually using on a daily basis are being given minimal investment and indeed progressively thinned down ("managed decline") despite the inevitable consquence of people switching to private cars instead - probably never to return to regular public transport use. This is all so sad.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 13, 2022 14:34:59 GMT
What is the maximum speed limit which the computer can let the train run on the section between Baker Street & Finchley Road? The speed targets on any section of track are basically a function of any infrastructure limitations which are in turn determined by the Permanent Way people and are then reflected in the programming.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 6, 2022 21:35:13 GMT
A quick and presumably relatively cheap fix for this would be to simply halve the programmed CBTC target speeds in all the noisy sections.
As they say "beware what you wish for!"
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 6, 2022 14:12:24 GMT
I clocked 105db between Stratford and Leyton EB. Its no wonder why there are quite a few drivers failing the medical with hearing problems. Several have already been fitted with hearing aids. Hmm so that seems roughly similar to the sound level you might encounter operating a typical electric drill without any ear defenders.? Having commuted for decades I have no doubt the noise is loud but you do not state what "device" or "approved software" you are using to assess the decibels. As this link explains.. www.safetynewsalert.com/do-smartphone-apps-provide-accurate-noise-measurement/There are no android apps which have been certified as accurate, and only a couple of costly iphone apps which have been tested to deliver reasonably accurate noise level assessments. Likewise it would be interesting to know where and why the operator chose to take their video from. I can easily locate several places where there are high sound levels in my VW car if I was to place my iphone right beside the rubber door seal. However if I moved the phone just a few inches away from the door seal then the monitored noise level is substantially lower. Likewise sound levels can be massively higher if the windows are open rather than closed. Another factor to consider is that the generally poor quality of audio pickups installed in most mobile phones which means that many videos produce rather misleading audio especially when compared with real life. This has been remarked upon in several railway related youtube videos. For instance the early videos of the Class 230 battery demonstrator suggested the unit was producing an almost unbearable unpleasant high pitched whining noise as it accellerated, however this was not just observed with my own ears. I suspect that most regular commuters already know the places where their route is noisy, and they probably do not go out of their way to stick their ear right beside the door seal. Indeed many seem largely isolated from the planet, often wearing noise cancelling headphones whilst immersed in a movie on their mobile device. My guess is that most commuters actually choose to sit or stand well clear of the doors and areas where the most extreme noise levels are present.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 2, 2022 14:06:11 GMT
Location A looks like DLR track looking towards Victoria Dock Road - Those gates with the round trim in the distance standout.
No idea about the inset
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 25, 2022 16:39:57 GMT
Aggh - Crossed lines following a conversation with a T4 contractor. The public will not be using the terminal this weekend although hundreds of contract staff are now on site every day recommissioning the Terminal in time for extensive use over the summer.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 25, 2022 15:24:26 GMT
Heathrow Terminal 4 is reported to be reopening on Sunday. I assume this will see the Piccadilly service pattern revert to [ast operations round the loop.
Hopefully someone in TFL saw this coming and has made sure that all affected drivers have retained appropriate route familiarisation to use the T4 platforms. I don't think this will be an issue for Elizabeth Line services to Heathrow as they have been operating some empty services into T4 for a while.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 12, 2022 8:21:52 GMT
Whilst this application has been rejected, it seems highly likely amended plans will be swiftly appear with slightly fewer parking spaces being lost which sure enough Shapps can then approve.
This appears to be yet another example of a very typical developers tactic. Always prepare two plans. You first post up plans for some outrageous mega development which you know will never be accepted and indeed you never intend to build. In the meantime you already have the real plans drawn up and ready to issue as soon as your initial application is rejected.
In a few months time look out for the usual soundbites .. "we have listened carefully to local concerns ... our revised plan is far smaller ... safeguards more car parking spaces... better for the environment... ". (oh and our pockets)
Guess what, people forget that all those displaced commuters - do not dissapear they will quickly clog up local roads with parked cars instead, until that triggers yet another outbreak of yellow lines and controlled parking zones. Removing a heavily used car park does not solve parking issues it displaces it.
Perversely over in Europe pretty much the exact opposite is happening - with park and ride facilities being discretely created and expanded at many outlying railway stations and feeder bus routes around Geneva which has resulted in a huge leap in ridership, less congested roads, and indeed less pollution in the city.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 6, 2022 7:49:00 GMT
How exactly would driverless operation work on the Bakerloo while sharing the track north of Queens Park with London Overground trains running on conventional coloured light signals and without PEDs fitted to the platforms? Option one - (the cheapskate option which HM Treasury would push for) terminate the Bakerloo at Queens Park Option two - keep digging - in the Utopian "money no object" world Politicians are descending into, there is no reason not to tunnel all the way Harrow and Wealdstone or Watford Junction or perhaps even Glasgow Central. Entertaining though it may be, discussing the details of such madness, it adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge - perhaps this thread and all such like it deserves a transfer to the "Fantasy Ideas" section.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 5, 2022 12:09:45 GMT
"Then it's just a matter of finding a few billions of pounds slopping about to implement it all." And that in a nutshell is the problem - money - or lack of it. Thanks to Covid the UK national debt is nearly 100% of our GDP (ref = www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/)The highest it has been for decades and almost unsustainable - so this must surely be the time to cut back on wasteful vanity projects. How can it make sense to squander any more money on this nonsense of driverless trains - when we are being told the TFL cupboard is already bare? Yes if TFL were to propose a completely new line - then just like recent metro lines in Paris, you can build the trains, tunnels, tracks and stations with fully automated operation as an integral design feature. But to stand any chance of passing HSE strictures this will probably be a lot more expensive than the last completely new deep tube line (aka Victoria) which was constructed to comply with far less challenging requirements. So yes I can see Full ATO being the norm on any totally new line, but retrofitting it to the current system would be insanely expensive and disruptive. Perhaps TFL should apply to HM Treasury for the funds for a rolling programme of total line replacement to meet any driverless train edict, so perhaps they can start by building a completely new fully automated Bakerloo line, and when operational, close down the current one. Repeat with the other lines... My guess it would be sometime mid 2330 before we could all be enjoying a fully driverless tube network. I feel certain I won't be around to see it.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 4, 2022 11:41:52 GMT
Last September there was a report on this thread that DFT was paying for a 2 month long investigation into driverless trains.
Whilst the subsequent exchange on this forum suggested this would not produce the result some politicians were looking for, I am perplexed to hear that TFL are now being forced to spend "scare public money" on this idea, whilst we still have no idea of the findings of that earlier publicly funded research project. Has it been published?
If public money was really used to fund this research then surely the findings should have been made public? My maths suggest a 2 month study starting last September should have delivered its findings by now so where is it?
Does Department for Transport really have the right to surpress reports which do not align with their objectives?
Is there a role for the Office for Budget Responsibility to censor the Permanent Secretary of any Government Department which simply decides to ignore report after report explaining that an idea is bonkers and worse still force another semi-publicly funded body to waste yet more money on what so obviously is a totally daft idea?
Perhaps it is time for a Select Committee to step in and pose some serious questions about precisely who is accountable for the decision to continue to waste public money on this madness? Perhaps if the idea is so good the Permanent Secretary can be invited to fund all further work from their own salary?
|
|