|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 19, 2021 7:47:20 GMT
I not surprised to see the DPF was found to be the source of the recent fire. It is good to see the fire supression systems were effective. Meanwhile an Internet Search quickly found Diesel Particulate Filters are involved in recalls and class actions linked to design faults and fire risks from several engine manufacturers.
I really think it will be interesting to see how long LNWR and TFW continue to stick with diesel units on their Class 230 units now that VivalRail have a proven and Network Rail approved fast charging system, which together with the modular fork lift replacement capability, should allow diesel gen sets to be quickly replaced with battery rafts which would allow the units to operate entirely emission free with any necessary charging done during dwell time at terminal stations and overnight storage. It will be interesting to see if recent rumours about a battery Class 230 units heading for the Greenford shuttle service come to pass.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 18, 2021 9:23:21 GMT
When these unusual operations are planned how about someone in the planning team notifying all affected station staff to ensure that instead of putting up poems and inspirational messages - a member of station staff is tasked with writing up a suitable message in pen/chalk on the message board (you know that school easel like thing which seems to always be placed right in the way somewhere at the station entrance). Something like .. special services will be operating today - Our normal train service calling at all stations to Barking is being extended to call at all stations to Upminster along the District line route. With a similar tannoy announcement made every few minutes which should ensure the needs of the deaf and visually impaired and confused commuters and tourists are covered. Simples...
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 7, 2021 7:23:55 GMT
Yes for the visitor and indeed many regulars, this is far from ideal hence I hope that suitable signs have been posted and station staff have been briefed to make regular PA announcements to clarify things - however personally I still see this approach as infinitely better than no service at all.
I am astonished how demanding we have all become - with for some, the world is apparently about to come to a complete end if a USB charging point or wifi is not working. Over many years of commuting I always looked forward to entering the tunnel at East Finchley at which point all those over loud portable phone conversations would halt and peace descend. Now the incessant chatter seems to continue everywhere on the planet.
Please stop this brave new world I really want to get off - ideally from the open platform on an RT bus.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 6, 2021 6:33:35 GMT
Then you run no service. That is the point of equality. You do not inconvenience the vulnerable through no fault of their own. Until there is a significant in attitudes to this problem people will continue to be barred from using the railway. As we have seen on the mainline, hard deadlines, fines and swift action is the only way that operators will even start to take things seriously. Accessibility is not optional. I am not sure how this accessibility offshoot ended up in a thread about the District Line - perhaps it should be moved to a separate thread so that its does not get lost from sight, but hey ho here is my 2p... I agree accessibility should not be optional, but when it comes to the "Law" as they say the devil is in the detail .. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/train_operators_responsibilities_4As you can see the "Law" does indeed recognise that exceptional circumstances - such as these closures - may arise, hence it incorporates a fair bit of lattitude. So for instance in any train service where an accessible toilet is required, the service can still be operated if the toilet on the intended train develops a fault - with the operator having 6 days to fix the fault. I am no lawyer but a quick scan through the legislation suggests that derogation could also apply to other accessibility requirements such as signage for exceptional workings etc but with the onus being on the operator who is expected to make reasonable efforts to fix things as soon as possible rather than wait until 6 days are up before even thinking about the problem.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jul 18, 2021 8:57:33 GMT
So who is responsible for the "final" piece of work needed to open the core?
I realise that there may be loads of preceding tasks like ensuring insurance is in place, checking the fire alarm systems work and tests completed to prove stations can be evacuated in acceptable timeframes etc - but those tasks are obviously not the "Final" task which I guess could simply entail someone being asked to sign a bit of paper (probably surrounded by a media scrum).
So who actually gives the final OK to open the core for public service?
Is it someone at TFL/LU who says it is fine to open the line, or is it the Mayor or someone at ORR who will give the final approval?
Finally is there a chance that what we are now seeing in recent announcements is that opening is being discretely delayed so that Her Majesty the Queen (who opened and then rode on the first Victoria line service back on 7 March 1969) can be invited to open and travel on the first Elizabeth Line public service through the core - some 53 years later, on 7 March 2022?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jul 14, 2021 13:21:29 GMT
Sadly this protracted shut-down seems totally unjustified, and if recent experience is any guide 99% certain to be extended.
I know we now live in a "safety is paramount" world, but what exactly necessitates such an extended closure other than satisfying the usual objective of contractors (just like CrossRail) to prolong the project for as long as possible to maximise their income and for their workforce to eke out as much salary as possible from what seems to be becoming yet another out of control milk cow project...
In the past London Transport showed they can manage to organise very major platform changes with minimal inconvenience for passengers. For instance when routes and platforms were re-arranged at Euston to accommodate the new Victoria line with the public impact being minimised over a weekend ...
Years later we now seem to be totally unable to schedule things anywhere near as well.
Why oh why can they not take as long as they need now to get the new southbound platform and new entrance tested, inspected and signed off as ready to use from day one?
In the meantime the two existing platforms at Bank are presumably still perfectly safe for passenger to use right now - so that cannot justify this extended closure.
If TFL project updates are to be believed, the step plate junctions for the new Southbound alignment are both seemingly virtually complete. So presumably the whole new route can now be prepared with all the relevant track & signalling balises in place and tested so that only a few metres of track at both connections would actually need to be replaced during one overnight possession to swiftly divert trains through the new southbound platform.
If extra paperwork really needs to be completed - then perhaps the admin people can for once be asked to do night shifts every day until everything is duly approved. That should provide suitable motivation! OK that may mean a short period when trains have to run through Bank non-stop in the Southbound direction only, but this should not mean inflicting months and months of inconvenience on passengers.
Obviously on the change over night someone would also need to put up a few blue hoardings to close off the old southbound platform access - but presumably the current Northbound platform and surface access routes could remain open whilst someone fills in the old southbound platform and removes the temporary blue hoardings
This protracted possession seems to be dictated by the convenience of the workforce with little or no thought, or value, being assigned to the negative impact on passengers. Driving your customers away is not a brilliant tactic...
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jul 9, 2021 7:49:32 GMT
More 484s required - I rather doubt it. Just because the old trackbed in question is vacant, does not mean it is a bright idea to reopen the route if virtually no one will ever choose to use it. It would probably make a far better cycle path. The fundamental problem with this idea is the proposed route - note they are not suggesting reinstating the reasonably direct route between Ryde and Newport (which is partially occupied by the Isle of Wight Steam Railway) - but this envisages reopening the far longer route which headed west from Sandown to Merstone before turning North to follow the Blackwater valley to eventually reach Newport. Sadly there is no real prospect of ever securing enough passenger flows to justify this. The main regular passenger flows on the Island Line are to/from Ryde and on to the mainland. Even if you timetabled very effective connections at Sandown with services on the current Ryde-Shanklin route the overall route would take far longer than the typical 30 minute trip on the route 9 bus from Newport to Ryde Esplanade bus station (its only 15 minutes by taxi/car). Moreover people without private transport living in Newport wishing to head for the mainland will probably still take the bus to the East Cowes ferry connection to Southampton which will probably be cheaper and quicker. I rather doubt VivaRail need devote any time on this fantasy idea.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jul 3, 2021 13:35:32 GMT
Meanwhile over in Wrexham it seems one of the TFW Class 230 units appears to have been sending out "smoke signals". www.deeside.com/firefighters-called-deal-with-small-fire-on-new-class-230-trains-due-to-come-into-service-later-this-year/Whilst it seems the driver spotted and rapidly dealt with the fire, the Fire Brigade were called as a precaution and once they arrived on scene escalated the impact of the failure requiring a full line closure, followed by several hours of scrutiny before eventually concluding there was nothing for them to do, and leaving Network Rail and TFW to pick up the pieces of the timetable. Ominously this is the second fire involving a class 230 unit and it will be very interesting to see if VivaRail are so open about what happened this time. I really hope this is not setting a pattern.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jun 28, 2021 19:03:35 GMT
So it looks like the power is back on for at least on some of the Island Line and sure enough the recently delivered Class 484 unit (004) was spotted today trundling around outside the depot at Ryde St Johns:
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jun 26, 2021 14:06:03 GMT
I rather doubt there is any TFL "mandated" service frequency, on any route. Yes there is a desire to deliver frequent services on most lines at peak demand periods, but I am not aware of that being stipulated by law. For instance the Waterloo and City line was completely "suspended" for many months. The choice of a suspension probably avoids getting embroiled in Act of Parliament closure procedures or indeed the need to operate some sort of "Parliamentary Service".
I think you will find that lines like Romford-Upminster only aim to offer a half hourly service for much of the day and indeed the absence of any specified frequency probably means that TFL services are not really exposed to Delay Repay claims.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jun 26, 2021 13:36:08 GMT
Things are finally starting to come right with the VivaRail units for the Isle of Wight. Another Class 484 set has now been shipped to the island. onthewight.com/island-line-class-484-another-new-train-arrives-on-the-isle-of-wight-photos/Apparently they have fixed the software problem which had delayed their delivery and was resulting in worrying arcing from the third rail pick up shoes at rail gaps. After a period test running on the mainland to confirm the problem was solved hopefully the new unit should soon be ready for staff training sessions - once the juice rails get energised. At the moment a unimog is being used for stock moves, as sadly it seems finishing and then getting everyone to sign off the infrastructure updating work is now the hold-up. Why does this sound like Cross Rail... nearly ready but never quite opening, or a Yes Minister sketch about a super efficient hospital with no patients. At least it seems the software on the Class 484 unit which had already be delivered to the Island can be updated without needing a trip back to the mainland. If they can get a third set tested and onto the island soon, then that late Summer opening date (AKA 3 September) may just be possible, which will doubtless trigger huge demand for seats on the first public service, and doubtless a good few YouTube videos.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jun 18, 2021 8:45:09 GMT
What is the mad rush to do this now?
Ok the Mayor appears keen to showcase his pedestrian vision - but even if erect a million signs - there will doubtless be plenty of cycle couriers, electric scooters and "exempt vehicles" hurtling through - unless of course Mayor Khan intends to construct a wall as part of his plans.
Meanwhile as I understand it, the extended revenue losses due to Covid, means that loads (and I mean loads) of businesses are struggling to stay solvent - which may well mean that even Oxford Street will see stores - large and small throwing in the towel in the face of web based competion operating from cheap warehouse premises. If you think High Streets look sad now, just wait until most landlords start chasing up deferred rent bills with interest.
If this financial malaise means that one or more of the "anchor" stores financially collapses, there is a good chance that a few years from now one of the property owners decides to cut their losses and tear down one of the Oxford Circus corner plot buildings and incorporate a modern station with ample circulation area within any redevelopment as condition of the project even if they have to retain existing facades.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jun 18, 2021 8:17:55 GMT
"Simple aide memoires. That is what I am getting at."
That is indeed what we need.
To be honest all we really need is someone to Choose a Name (any name) for each overground route - some already exist - and presumably someone at County hall can dream up names which are not duplicated and ideally distinct and easy to remember. (I wonder how long it will be before we have suggestions of Charles, Camilla...) - NB just like the Elizabeth line (which I know grates with some) they are at least short and easy to remember.
As for working out which direction the trains will run - just copy the practice already widely in use on the Tube and our road network - compass points.
If the route is mostly east - west, then platforms would be marked Westbound Goblin and Eastbound Goblin...
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jun 14, 2021 18:59:47 GMT
D7666 - I fully agree with your conclusions and indeed I suspect VivaRail already have such a unit well under construction.
Last year Adrian Shooter gave a long video interview providing an insight into their future plans after the Welsh Government and Isle of Wight units were delivered. Whilst most people focused on their plans to ship their two car battery demonstration unit over to the USA for use in "pop-up Metro" demonstrations, Mr Shooter rather discretely mentioned they were already in the process of building another unit with overhead pantograph - which immediately made me think that a battery unit which could be topped up from conventional OHLE power would be a great choice for the Greenford - West Ealing run.
As there is already extensive OHLE on the mainline platforms it would be relatively easy and cheap for Network Rail(or is it now GBR?) to extend the OHLE just to cover the bay platform at West Ealing.
Certainly the usual platform dwell time between services at West Ealing should be more than adequate to fully top up the batteries for the very short 5 mile round trip to Greenford. Indeed it is well inside the 40 mile demonstration runs which were achieved in Scotland despite using a second hand battery pack, and since then vivarail have sourced higher capacity Hoppecke units with even greater potential range.
If the test at Greenford goes well, I wonder how long it will be before LNWR bite the bullet and consider retrofitting battery rafts to replace the somewhat unreliable diesel gen sets on their Class 230 units on the Marston Vale (Bedford - Bletchley) run where OHLE is also present at both ends of that 16.5 mile route.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jun 10, 2021 16:19:20 GMT
At 13.40 today a Class 484 unit was hauled (by a rail/road unit) very slowly through Ryde Esplanade station on what appears to be a gauging run. Obviously this means the Class 484 does indeed fit through the Ryde tunnel and from the Ryde Esplanade Hotel webcam there was no sign of any scrapes or damage. I wonder how long it will be before they turn on the power and the unit can start training runs under its own power.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jun 3, 2021 10:40:47 GMT
Barons Court isn’t routinely used as an interchange between lines because the platforms are quite narrow. That’s why it’s not shown on maps as an interchange station. I always wondered why it was not also listed as an interchange station between Piccaddily and District. Perversely I suspect passengers would normally welcome the idea of a shorter distance when changing trains. Whilst I have not dragged out a tape measure, I suspect the Barons Court platforms are not much narrower than the platforms at Finchley Road where vast numbers of passengers interchange daily between the Met and Jubilee. Certainly after checking the few photos available online the Finchley Road platforms do not appear significantly wider despite being identified as an interchange station on the tube map. Meanwhile if you do decide to change lines at Barons Court you may also have time to discover just how uncomfortable those high back benches really are.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 28, 2021 17:32:03 GMT
Interesting to note that South Western Railway link does not actually stipulate how long this is likely to delay the project, however it seems someone at railwaytechnology magazine managed to get an answer to the question.. www.railtechnologymagazine.com/articles/delays-ps26m-isle-wight-railway-overhaulIf you add the "at least 4 month delay to the original April fools day reopening date you get to the start of August. I am tempted to head off to Ladbrokes to bet that the CrossRail core begins carrying fare paying passengers before the Island Line. It is weird to think that D stock units worked perfectly happily for many years on shared District/Network rail routes.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 24, 2021 7:36:58 GMT
Right now the finances are a mess, but who can be sure what they will be like in a few years from now. Its easy to assume and guess, I'd rather wait and see! Exactly time will tell. However none of the current Mayoral candidates have pinned their colours to the mast to save Heritage operations. The optimist would love to see funds for heritage operations, the realist doubts it will be possible whilst TFL is almost broke, the pessimist knows it will not be possible whilst TFL is broke. For now if people really want to organise charity style events - they may need to aim lower at stuff which is affordable, like sticking a plastic red-nose onto an S7 or two.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 18, 2021 7:52:22 GMT
I am sorry to say in the current financial climate I think Heritage train operations on LUL metals have pretty much had their day.
Like it or not the world increasingly operates in a silo mentality with budgets set accordingly.
The day job for LUL and its managers is to offer efficient, safe and convenient transport for the masses. Whilst signalling systems were common across lines it was possible to round up enough volunteers to operate the odd special/heritage run for enthusiasts making use of slack in weekend timetables.
Sadly now lines have effectively incompatible signalling systems and the idea of running specials across several lines moves from the inconvenient to downright unwelcome category, and worse still no one has any budget to enable them.
Yes you could possibly do something token - like allocating a siding at Acton for 38 stock to shuttle around on, or operating some sort of midnight special in a full line possession well after all regular services have cleared the route, but the days of daytime runs seem over.
If we assume life and passenger demand will return post covid then the Croxley Link decision has probably eliminated the only realistic alternative base to Acton for cheaply creating an alternative base for the heritage fleet at Watford, where they could be stored, visited and potentially operated on shuttle runs from Watford via the rarely used North Curve to Chesham.
Sadly operating heritage services can never be cost effective, but they can ensure some of the heritage fleet is kept in serviceable condition rather than quietly decaying away largely out of sight in Acton.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 17, 2021 17:41:10 GMT
I remain unconvinced this (ostensibly good idea) will happen any time soon. I guess the apparent endorsement by the current Mayor moves the idea a bit further forward - but the idea has been kicking around for ages as you can see from this suggestion roughly seven years back .. brillianttrains.com/alternative-tube-map-2015/To be honest I am not convinced by the Mayors argument that the new route names need to reflect some sort of diversity context.. My view is they should be logical and indicative of the service available. As for map colours people are already bought into the bold Orange colour so if we need to indicate the different routes then why not keep Orange as the primary colour and add short dashes of another colour. If I want a train to Watford then being the poor fool I am, I would be much more likely to follow the logic of taking a "Watford Line" train. I do not think passengers really care about the DC power supply. Likewise where a line has an existing name which is well used by the locals I see no point in changing Goblin to anything else even after the Riverside extension opens. "Rominster" probably could work for the Romford Upminster route. But hopefully others can devise logical names for the other routes... Finally I do not wish to upset the Moderators for daring to mention the fact that we really cannot ignore political dynamic between the current Mayor and Central Government. Sadly despite it being a good idea, the mayor's input could raise the spectre of the idea being intentionally dumped by his successor if he is not re-elected at the forthcoming election. Hence I doubt anyone will be changing maps or signage any time soon - especially when funds are so tight at TFL. Then there is the national context. In the past some of the current Overground routes were operated as privatised concessions by Silverlink. Sadly they became progressively run down as the operator chose to minimise operating expense and maximise profit. The transition to Overground has clearly triggered rapid passenger growth and may once again make it an interesting concession for private sector operators. Over the years Central Government attitude to National Rail has been far from consistent. Ranging from fully Independent companies, Nationalisation and via Privatisation to the current lash up. For me the big worry is that faced with the burgeoning national debt thanks to Covid etc, the Treasury will again be looking for any way to raise funds. Sadly the (Overground) routes could once again be formed into an attractive franchise for private sector operation.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 16, 2021 12:14:29 GMT
Presumably the rationale for changes at the South Harrow Sidings is to provide extra overnight stabling for trains. As all trains are likely to be identical (at least to start with) and given the usual budget pressure to avoid unneccessary expense I would thought the cheapest answer would be to simply extend the existing 6 sidings so they can store two trains on each siding rather than just the current one train per siding.
OK this would only allow the South Harrow sidings to accommodate 12 trains rather than the originally planned 18? However it would avoid the initial and maintenance cost of installing any extra points and Google earth implies that longer sidings would still end well short of the Chiltern tunnel.
If LUL really need to fit in 18 trains into those sidings then addding three more sidings looks possible if we can assume that all the area of trees visible on Google earth could be developed, with possibly one extra siding slotted in the dead space alongside the current running lines. This would obviously entail installing additional points etc but again should not entail any of the new sidings extending over the Chiltern tunnel.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 12, 2021 7:59:42 GMT
That is an intersting observation as a quick look at the site using Google Earth suggests that there is (or was) a fence running across the site just beyond the existing siding complex - which sort of suggests the land beyond that fence did not form part of the "operational railway". Doubtless that could provide some fun for the lawyers if the locals are really getting stressed out. www.google.co.uk/maps/place/South+Harrow+tube+station/@51.5598301,-0.3497095,508m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x8ad122fe253be21c!8m2!3d51.5646375!4d-0.352982 Given earlier references to extending beyond the Chiltern Tunnel (which can be seen at the bottom of the overhead view) it implies that LUL (or some other railway interest) actually already owns the huge area of woodland extending over the tunnel, and they have given LUL approval to make use of it for extra sidings. It is fairly obvious from the overhead view that there is ample space to extend all the existing 6 or should it be 5 sidings? One existing siding does not seem to have 4 rails along much of its length. Either way there is ample space to extend the current sidings to accommodate an additional full length train on each track without getting close to the tunnel and indeed possibly two on each siding if the alignment is slewed sufficiently to avoid passing over the tunnel. Indeed if LUL apply a bit of common sense and leave sufficient screening trees around the area actually being developed for the sidings then I doubt there are any nearby neighbours to be annoyed. Hopefully LUL will remember to install decent fences and extensive cctv cover and ideally have some sort of base for BTPB (British Transport Police) to on occasions provide an on-site overnight presence!
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 4, 2021 15:29:48 GMT
My personal experience on SE is that after about a minute the driver will say something along the lines of "I've just spoken to the signaller and we should be on the move soon due to a slow train etc etc etc" On the DLR, I think the PSA says that there's a problem somewhere beforehand. Those bings are actually rather reassuring, in a way. Absolutely - reassurance is the motive here. Left to their own devices we all know that without adequate information it is only a matter of time before customers start taking matters into their own hands - prising open doors and alighting to the permanent way especially if they are in close proximity to a station or roadway. I bet most railway staff on here - who doubtless will make or hear similar announcements far more frequently than even the most committed commuter - are happy to live with the occasional annoyance of making potentially rather trite announcements to keep the passengers reassured rather than face having to deal with the chaos of passengers deciding they are out of here...
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 4, 2021 15:12:00 GMT
Photos of the platform rationalisation/extension works at Liverpool Street Mainline station getting underway. Click here if Tweet fails to load Interesting photos - it looks like platform 17 is being filled over with the tracks at platform 18 retained but with potential separate loading/unloading sides - like occasionally happens at Golders Green. Whilst to accommodate full length Elizabeth Line trains they have lost a platform at Liverpool Street, I guess they can partially offset that capacity impact by being able to reduce the turn-around dwell time significantly, simply by opening the doors on the narrower exit side platform shortly before opening the doors on the boarding side. The new platform widths suggests the much wider platform 17 will normally be used for boarding with platform 18 becoming the exit side, and presumably the favourite side for the driver to change ends quickly assuming they will not be stepping back. Also on the east side of Elizabethe line I see a planning application for a massively enlarged housing development at Romford have just been announced/ linkI suspect the developer hopes both the core and the new Liverpool Street platform are open and fully bedded in well before the "Urban Village" development actually opens for residents.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 1, 2021 12:05:02 GMT
So I assume the City branch closure from 2 - 5 April which is listed in the latest TFL weekend travel email has nothing to do with opening up the new platform at Bank?
Shame as a 4 day closure should have been enough to lift the old track and connect it up to the new platform. From here on in, passenger levels seem likely to be on a rising trend and deferring the new Bank platform opening until next January seems counter productive.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 31, 2021 11:16:20 GMT
Filming of TV and films has managed to continue with close contact scenes through intensive testing regimes, daily health declarations and temperature checks (PCR test every 4 days, starting a week before contact cohort begins, advised to isolate as much as possible outside of cohort) with very few cases of on-set transmission. It is a sizeable cost, however at some point so is failing to run the service due to lack of training - it can't be beyond the wit of man to work something out to allow training by now. With the greatest of respect, a line control room is not a TV or film set. LU already has a testing process in place for training purposes (ie, in cab training) but the way in which line controller training is carried out is very much hands on - quite literally. In the early stages of training instructors and trainees will use the same telephones and radio handsets for example. Granted equipment can be wiped clean but how practical is that when dealing with an incident in real time - particularly if the instructor needs to make a timely intervention? I could list more examples similar to that above but I hope you get the idea of what I'm saying. Just because something works in one environment, it doesn't mean it'll work in another! I can understand the mounting frustration of both staff and passengers(customers if you must). The elephant in this room is undoubtedly money - or lack of any. I recall seeing a video of the new SSR control centre for the Thales system which seems a step up from past control rooms but as has been pointed out the current "training" approach is to mostly do it live in the real control room but under supervision - which inevitably means close proximity. However am I right in assuming that the current problems are actually in the rural sections of the SSR which are not yet supervised by that spacious new control centre and it is availability of legacy control room staff where the problem lies? So perhaps the time has come for TFL to realise this problem is not going to go away and they really need to create a covid friendly training suite specifically for legacy signalling controllers basically with mock ups of the legacy signalling controls which will allow instructors to be completely separated by Perspex screens but with good quality audio links to allow easy communication. Obviously building a legacy system simulator would not be cheap - so hopefully they can simply seek tenders to demonstrate to Whitehall that providing the funds to complete the 4LM/SSR signalling upgrade asap is actually cheaper than paying for custom legacy training facilities. Otherwise Whitehall will continue to play the "not my problem" card.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 28, 2021 11:29:13 GMT
The downloadable pdf gives the train length as 113.7m which is roughly 5m longer than 1973TS. Curously, the vehicle in the artist's impression looks to be a similar length to the existing stock, instead of only two thirds the length as those figures imply. Or will the end cars be longer than the intermediate ones? I am not sure about the NTFL being longer than existing Piccadilly line stock? If the latest TFL data sheets are correct the 72 stock length over couplers is 119.03 metres whilst the latest NTFL PDF shows the length over couplers as 113.7 metres. This suggests the new NTFL trains will actually be slightly shorter and this should minimise or avoid entirely the need to cut out doors at shorter platforms. The big question is the length from coupling to coupling to add/subtract an individual non-driving segment to a train - sadly that is not revealed on the latest Siemens PDF. If they get that right (which presumably Siemens will have carefully considered) it should then allow them to offer TFL the ability to choose custom train lengths by simply adding/subtracting segments (cars if you must). So the same production line can then deliver train lengths which get reasonably close to the existing rolling stock lengths for use on lines like the Bakerloo which ihopefully will be ordered soon as a follow-on to the Piccadilly fleet. Further flexibility seems possible due to the length before there are any passenger doors at the cab ends. Assuming the NTFL will eventually get in platform video feeds for boarding monitoring - like the S7/S8 cabs have - it is presumably not essential if the non boarding section at the non driving end and possibly even the front of the train are still in tunnel. Obviously someone will need to assess whether current signal placement/view is acceptible for conventional driving of NTFL trains during the period before lines move to fully ATO operation at which point presumably they abandon/cover conventional signals like they did on the Jubillee.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 24, 2021 8:46:25 GMT
So back to topic - apart from cost is there any technical reason why the SSR signalling system could not be progressively installed on the Piccadilly and other deep tube routes to make best use of any new trains they are able to afford?
Replacing conventional signalling with automatic control should allow closer headway between trains and assuming TFL can recruit extra staff and afford extra rolling stock increasing the service frequency is probably the cheapest way to deliver extra seats.
Obviously if TFL cannot afford new rolling stock, I am not sure there is much merit in debates about different styles and layouts of seats in older/new trains, as like it or not, I suspect we are going to be stuck with what we have for a very very long time.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 13, 2021 8:36:09 GMT
Hmm - I have often wondered if better platform information could also help late running trains.
From the passengers perspective many times a gap in the service is very obvious from the next train indicator. So Northbound at Tottenham Court Road on the Northern the display may cycle through High Barnet - 8 minutes, Edgware - 9 minutes, Edgware - 10 minutes. That is both helpful and unhelpful because passengers do not know how full those trains are and where that space is? At busy times a late running train tends to experience extended platform dwell times as more and more people attenpt to crowd onto the first train, which simply adds to the late running, and no amount of tweeking with the permitted line speeds can ever regain lost time.
In the above example it means many people wanting the Barnet branch will go to great lengths to squeeze onto that first train as there is no further listing for that route, whilst people needing the Edgware route may also decide to board just in case the next train is even more crowded than the one already in the platform.
In the past train loadings were unknowable, but I think the S7/S8 trains now gather some sort of load level information in digital format presumably to assist breaking and acceleration and minimise wheel slip. What is not clear is whether that information could also be relayed ahead, especially in central area stations when there is a service gap developing basically to encourage passengers to move towards the less crowded coaches or indeed to wait for a following service if it shows plenty of space.
I know it would probably mean replacing the current displays so they could display something like High Barnet 8 Minutes @ 99% , Edgware 9 Minutes @ 80%, Edgware 10 Minutes @ 55% which would allow passengers waiting on the platform to make informed decisions.
Thameslink already does something like this at a few stations even showing diagrams of which cars are less busy - which obviously needs the position of relevent cars to be marked on the platform. However if loading information could be shared by the Thales system it could reduce dwell times a busy platforms and better information could have a major impact on service recovery after any sort of incident.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 12, 2021 8:23:56 GMT
Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere in this thread - maybe my search criteria were off - but I was wondering if it would have made matters easier for the section of the Piccadilly line between Ealing Common and Rayners Lane to be transferred to the District line. My thinking is that it would avoid complications of different stock running between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge and only require one signalling system rather than two, along with modifications to the '73 stock. No doubt it's too late for such an idea to be implemented, but I wonder if it would have been beneficial or was even considered during planning? It was one of the proposals examined in 2014 for the New Tube for London Feasibility Report and was subsequently deemed to represent poor value for money. Aside from the infrastructure changes, this option would take capacity away from the other branches unless more trains were precured. The more favoured option which came out of that report was to have the Piccadilly line take over the service to Ealing Broadway with the western limit of the District line being Richmond which would get an enhanced service. Part of the current frame of thought behind deffereing 4LM west of Barons Court (including the interoperable ares shared by the District and Piccadilly) was specifically to give flexibility going forwards with the Piccadilly line due to receive new rolling stock in the next five years and re-signalling being an aspiration for that too. Is there any reason why the Thales 4LM system could not be used/installed on the new Tube for London? It has always seemed strange that TFL has not settled on a single form of automated train signalling? OK it won't happen over night, but given Thales will eventually be on all Sub surface routes, it may make sense to extend it to the deep tube routes as and when they come up for rolling stock renewal. In addition to moving towards a single pool of signal maintenance staff and standard spare parts, it could presumably simplify Permanent Way operations if their rolling stock can once again be arranged to travel to sites within the normal running hours. In addition to bluntly dismissing (with no real detail) the idea of the District taking over the Piccadilly branch to Uxbridge that Feasibility Report does contain an interesting diagram on Page 7 showing peak hours crowding levels on all lines - ie can I get a seat at rush hour? Sadly Pag 47 of the report simply dismisses as a "radical option" the notion of the District taking over the Uxbridge branch services and implies the need to increase services on the "crowded" Richmond and Wimbledon branches is of greater importance presumably compared to commuters from other "crowded" branches.
|
|