|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 10, 2021 18:38:26 GMT
The guard's duty was to see the train safely move off a couple of cars, then retreat into his car. I recall a couple of times when a guard was distracted, once with his hat blowing away and another when a girl left on the platform was adjusting her clothing, both causing the guard to look back and crack their head on the tunnel wall. I can't recall if either was fatal. They resulted in the train continuing to the next station, where the passenger doors did not open! I had a feeling that open door running was not officially approved - but clearly that is wrong. I had not realised that guards were actually expected to lean out and actively monitor the train as it pulls away from a platform. However if guards are also getting injured by the train tunnel, then preventing that sort of danger is probably what lies behind the decision to only provide sliding down windows instead of cab side doors on the 1967 Tube stock used on the Victoria Line. Hopefully they also placed the start buttons too far away from the windows so the driver could not accidentally set the train underway whilst his head was still sticking out the window.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 8, 2021 10:54:10 GMT
Inevitably any decision about creating a temporary connection between the operators on the Isle of Wight will reflect the input of bean counters.
In the past there was indeed a connection to what is now the IoW Steam Railway, however that connection was lifted when the route which formed a line branch to Cowes was closed.
IOW Steam Railway now operates a section of that former route to Cowes as a heritage railway.
In our risk averse world, a section of plain line is going to be cheaper and indeed safer to operate over, especially when compared with retaining a rarely, if ever, used set of points and trap points and related signalling protection which would of course require regular inspection and maintenance.
In reality it is not about "ensuring inflexibilty" as currently the IOSW route sadly goes pretty much nowhere. It is simply the result of risk and reward evaluation.
Sadly given the amount of subsequent route encroachment it is unlikely the route to Cowes will ever be reinstated. Meantime if it is really helpful to arrange and exchange any rolling stock between the routes, then it is probably cheaper and safer to do so by road.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 8, 2021 7:49:54 GMT
Hmm I rather think people inside trains in India are probably less at risk than those travelling on the roof.
Getting back to LUL - does anyone know roughly how many drivers, guards or passengers are known to have fallen off tube trains as a result of that door being left open whilst the train was moving and indeed roughly how many of those died as a result?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 3, 2021 20:07:21 GMT
A trawl on Flickr reveals the fourth Class 484 set is now down at Eastleigh for mileage/test running on third rail. So just one more Class 484 set to outshop from VivaRail. Seems rather fitting there is a London Transport livery class 20 in the consist. www.flickr.com/photos/sparrowhawk7/51000237727/in/dateposted-public/Hopefully it won't be too long before they are ready to be shipped to the island.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 2, 2021 19:24:02 GMT
I am sure that this change of "ownership" milestone is something CrossRail chiefs and indeed all those involved will wish to celebrate especially given past delays in finishing and handing over stuff.
However from the public's point of view I assume that little or none of that new TFL infrastructure will actually be open to the public until the whole core is cleared for passenger use.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 28, 2021 18:34:29 GMT
Watching a recent you tube video of a trip through the core made me wonder if the builders were asked to provide passive provision for longer trains?
As you can see the starting signal on several platforms appears to be located short of the end of the platform doors sections - and most platforms have what appears to be storage areas before/after the platform edge sections, which could potentially be converted to platform space proper to accomodate one or more extra coaches.
Are they hoping to make the 345's even longer if the demand picks up or is it they are only planning on running 7 cars to start with through the core - so like they did on other sections of the Elizabeth Line?
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 25, 2021 18:57:15 GMT
I suspect this video already provides a fair indication of the information TFL going to provide on Class 345 services by way of audio annoucements of train destinations on the Elizabeth Line services.
The announcements begin at 30 seconds in.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 17, 2021 17:00:23 GMT
Some photos of the upgrade work being carried out now on the Isle of Wight - Island Line can be seen on Southwestern Railway website here www.southwesternrailway.com/destinations-and-offers/island-line/island-line-upgradeThus far the work has mostly been at the southern end of the line with raising the platforms mostly using prefabricated sections placed onto the existing platform surface so they match the boarding height of the new trains. At Shanklin it looks like they have dug out the ballast to achieve levell access by lowering the track. Work is also underway to raise the platform height at the connection to the IoW Heritage line at Smallbrook Junction. There is also a webcam overlooking Ryde Esplanade station which shows deliveries of ballast have begun. Finally one of the SWR photos shows work underway to upgrade the fairly ancient power supply equipment.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Feb 12, 2021 15:25:22 GMT
Meantime the second class 484 unit was spotted on low loaders headed for the Bombardier test track in Derby. So it seems VivaRail are still managing some output despite the COVID impact on production at Long Marston. I recall seeing a YouTube video last year where someone from VivaRail explained that only the first three 2 car Class 484 units for the Island line would be built at Long Marston with the remaining 2 units being produced after their move to a new base at Southam. I rather suspect the hassle of relocation has also been an important factor in any delay with these units. However as IoW government only issued listed building planning consents for major platform works along the route last month - that is probably another reason why the re-opening date is slipping. If anyone is interested in following progress there is an informal Facebook page and Youtube has a couple of recent unofficial drone flights over parts of the line. These show the entire trackbed at Shanklin has been lifted and dug down extensively to allow the track to be reinstated to afford level access to the taller Class 484 units. The webcam at the Ryde end of the line has thus far shown nothing material is happening at this stage. However tackling the more major works needed at the south end of the line was the plan from the outset. Hence only a few new barriers have thus far appeared/been blown over at the pier station and occasional groups have been spotted wandering around in Hi Viz. To facilitate level boarding the recent planning approvals indicate the platforms at Ryde Pier and Esplanade stations will be raised rather than tracks being lowered. This sort of makes sense as at times the lower elements of the pier can get very wet. It does however imply some fairly steep or very long ramps will need to be installed for access from the street at both stations. Initially there was also reference to platform extenders being needed for the curved section of Esplanade Station. I wonder if that has now been dropped or why they just don't move the stop boards and access barriers along to only use the reasonably straight section of the platform which was built to accommodate 7 coach standard stock trains so the straight bit should probably be long enough to berth a 2 car Class 484.. Over at Ryde St Johns and the depot, it looks deserted and the Class 484 unit is nowhere to be seen. It is however rumoured to be locked away inside the shed - meantime all the old 483s have been evicted and parked up gathering rust on tracks outside. I am rather surprised that none of the potential new owners have arranged to get their trains moved off site, if nothing else to protect them from the weather. Perhaps the likely delay in reopening the line is actually what someone in the Government was referring to recently when they suggested it was too early to book a summer holiday...
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 30, 2021 8:33:19 GMT
I do wonder whether a senior member of TFL or one of the Mayor's mates lives nearby to justify the cost and disruption to remove Pandrol fastenings simply because of noise?
Meantime Network Rail are busy installing loads of brand new ones on their latest ECML upgrades such as the Werrington dive under, which suggests their Pandrol fastenings are safe to use for trains travelling at 120mph plus!
Obviously if there was a clear safety issue to resolve with the specific versions installed by TFL then fine. But we are repeatedly being told that TFL is in dire financial straits so if this work is really only being done just because it is a bit noisy, this decision seems totally absurd.
I wonder how long it will be before this decision gets picked up by the media and the Mayor starts facing questions about exactly what is going on, why and how much has it all cost.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 25, 2021 11:53:29 GMT
As the trains have already demonstrated they are perfectly capable of trundling around in tests from Long Marston, there is no physical reason why the trains could not be introduced now as they have been cleared for passenger use, but there are a load of practical considerations which usually means significant fleet changes are done at the major timetable changes.
Between now and then, all potential train crew will need to be trained and sign the new rolling stock - a major task in normal times made more challenging by complying with COVID rules. Drivers will also need to become familiar with the combination of rapid battery accelleration and regenerative braking system on the new trains and with 3 car units replacing current 2 car units it may meen drivers will need to learn new stopping marks. Doubtless Network Rail will have to asses whether this new rolling stock has any impact on track infrastructure like level crossings especially remotely monitored crossings on the route.
Presumably at least once the new stock will have to do a gauging run along the normal route and all potential diversions just in case they unexpectedly clout stuff. They will also confirm their performance characteristics along the route to confirm whether they are able to fit in the slots currently included in the timetabling.
I suspect the 230s may well justify a revised timetable as they should be quicker off the mark than the current Class 150s and may potentially open up extra paths along the Borderlands line.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 24, 2021 17:07:23 GMT
and then there were 4.
Rather stealthily - well under cover of the lockdown and awful weather - the penultimate Transport for Wales class 230 set has now been delivered.
It may however be collecting dust in Wales for quite a while, as a lot of drivers would need to be trained before they can enter revenue service. TFW would need to be really lucky if that is completed in time for the May Timetable change, with December 2021 probably the most likely point where they take over the Wrexham Bidston service.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 20, 2021 16:44:40 GMT
"There was a desire that Crossrail should be open before the blockade of the Bank branch happened.
Obviously this couldn't happen."
Assuming TFL are not intending on waiting for Godot - then with passenger levels already much lower than usual other lines should have capacity to handle diverted passenger flows without Liz-Line.
I don't see why the blockade cannot proceed as soon as the new platform and related infrastructure etc is basically ready to be connected up - which sounds like it could be very soon.
Sadly if they insist on waiting for the core to open, all that investment could well be sitting around unused until mid decade at the earliest. Time to bite the bullet and just get on with it.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 1, 2021 8:55:23 GMT
There is also a debate about minimising the potential risk of virus spread and whether this alone now justifies the decision to dump cash payment facilities at tube stations.
Just because "we have always done it this way" does not mean we should carry on doing something forever, if better and potentially safer alternatives are now available.
Whilst ticket offices are no longer manned at tube stations, and ticket office staff are less directly exposed to the virus during any remaining ticket sales activity. However presumably someone still has to go around and visit all the ticket machines which currently take cash, to empty and then bank any coins and notes paid into those machines.
Likewise someone is presumably paid to regularly sanitize all contact surfaces on ticket machine to minimise the risk of ticket machines becoming a potential virus transmission risk. Those activities are not free, and in addition to any security considerations related to moving the cash to wherever it is counted and banked, there is preumably some potential virus transmission route posed by cash handling which if possible TFL should be doing their best to eliminate.
Going further - once tube station machines no longer accept coins/notes it makes little sense for people to bother topping up an Oyster card using a bank card when most bank cards are now NFC enabled cards (Near Field Communication) meaning they can already use that card to travel through the system for the same fare, and of course for the travelling public it reduces their potential exposure to covid by removing any need to go anywhere near ticket machines.
Whilst TFL bean counters are probably quite keen to abandon Oyster entirely, there will be some people who are unable to obtain any form of bank card, but still need to use public transport, so the case for Oyster remains and like it or not the little local shop will probably be happy to cover that need in return for their cut.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 28, 2020 8:48:56 GMT
On the mainline railways it seems the Treasury has now won its behind the scenes battle to cut back service levels to reflect the reduced passenger numbers. OK they more or less directly run most lines now, and can dictate what happens, so its entirely their call and the Government should expect to take any flack from customers rather than the staff.
However I suspect that since the recent Government bail-out TFL may have been under similar pressure to take an axe to their service levels. Whether this will eventually translate into staff cuts at this stage is doubtful, but if these lockdowns etc last well into 2021 - as it seems some "experts" now forecast, then I cannot see that being entirely avoided. So apart from possibly retraining and shifting staff around between control rooms, any current staff shortages on the Bakerloo seem unlikely to be addressed quickly.
In the meantime personally I think the chaos and challenges posed this year demonstrates that everyone involved in any aspect of delivering public transport services really deserves a big Thank You.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 17, 2020 11:11:13 GMT
Seems the 38's have had enough with all service on the island line cancelled www.southwesternrailway.com/plan-my-journey/live-departures-and-arrivals/shanklinIn the past BR would have cast around for something to run even if it meant using a shunting loco to haul a few ancient coaches. It must be galling for South Western Railway to think they already have a class 484 running up and down the line racking up fault free miles at night and yet sitting around doing nothing all day whilst awaiting a bit of paper from ORR saying the units are fit for public service... I wonder if they could get around this and reinstate some service simply by using the class 484 unit to drag a single coach of 38 stock with all the passengers on board, until the Class 484 is officially signed off to carry passengers.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 13, 2020 8:52:02 GMT
Announcements work if it is clear and in your language.
They don't work when passengers have already tuned out due to incessant "safety" announcements.
They don't work if the announcement is timed to be made when it will be largely drowned out or made almost unintelligible by squeals and other noises as the train is rattling along with noises echoing from tunnel walls.
(They might work better if made whilst stationary at the preceding station) - however that would conflict with so many other automated announcements - This is Edgware Road, change here for Circle and Distict line services, This is a Hammersmith and City Train to Barking ...)
They don't work when visitors are already deep in conversation and not really paying attention until the train draws to a halt and they realise it might be a good idea to peek out the window to see if it is where they need to get off.
(Hence even if platform widths are not ideal - there is a case to try and clear all that redundant kit from the closed off bit of the Eastbound platform 5 at Baker Street so that they can get at least one more door to open, which cab ride videos show could be done without any need to alter the S7 stopping mark).
Sadly as TFL now have no money - I doubt the desire to progressively eliminate selective door opening will happen any time soon, even at platforms which are known to regularly cause delays due to extended dwell times.
I suspect given the collective knowledge on here it would be pretty easy to draw up a list of those platforms where selctive door opening is having a disproportionate impact on service frequency and might even inspire someone at TFL Towers to identify any platforms where minimal expenditure would deliver a quick win.
Eseentially that would mean only considering locations where any work involved could be done quickly with minimal costs and without impact on existing service levels, without structural impact, and without affecting areas currently accessible to the public.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 7, 2020 15:27:26 GMT
No I meant the eastern end of the eastbound Circle/Hammersmith & City platform (the bit nearest the junction with the Met Mainline).
That video shows that the barrier at the western end is already at the very end of the available platform space, however there was a large gap beyond the passenger gate at the eastern end of platform. I am not certain but I suspect that much of the stuff narrowing down the platform in the gap is actually no longer needed - as it appears to house video displays used by drivers of C stock trains which of course have now been retired from service, whilst drivers of the S7 stock stop well beyond those displays and observe the platform via the in cab feed.
The other constraint which may need attention seems to be a heap of very thick cables/pipes which appear to have been running below the platform but for some reason had been diverted to run above platform level for a short section along the platform wall. It is not obvious why that transition from below to above platform level could not take place after the end of the marked platform, which would then allow space for people to pass even on the relatively narrow section, without messing with any load bearing beams holding up whatever is directly above, and without affecting the current S7 stopping point, which already looks pretty close to the junction.
Because of the proximity of the main exit & stairs and passageway links to other platforms/services I suspect regulars on the line will already crowd around the first set of doors at the front of the train which currently open which may increase dwell time. If that load can be spread out over a few more doors then it should have a side benefit of reducing dwell time.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 7, 2020 11:20:16 GMT
Baker Street needs the outer rail station platform lengthening (No.5, I think) - a big project! Most likely if this was to be done the line here would have to close for 3 months (minimum). Just need to find a magic money tree to fund this! In a way its a shame that funds are needed to maintain services instead of being used on capital projects - 'right now' when passenger numbers are low would have been the best time for such works. To be honest though, if major works were to be carried out here then they could go the whole hog and improve accessibility too. Not just for 'special needs' passengers, but for everyone. Both platforms 5 and 6. In many ways No.6 needs it even more as at busy times the staircase at the eastern end gets very crowded. Platform 6 also gets quite crowded at busy times, adding another (and wider) platform on the other side would avoid the need to break into the historic brickwork. The existing No. 6 could be used by trains that currently terminate at Edgware Road, potentially making an increase of services in the western side of the Circle possible. If Earls Court could take it then there would be a way to run a few more trains from Wimbledon or Richmond instead of diverting services from Ealing Broadway. I agree about the need to sort out the eastbound platform 5? at Baker Street on the route from Edgware Road. However I wonder whether a cheap fix could be had using grandfather rights - as there is clearly a section of marked up platform well beyond the current passenger barriers which the presenece of a painted platform edge line suggests it was presumably allowed for passengers use at some stage. You can see this at around 20 minutes in this recent cab ride video. linkYes the final bit is stupidly narrow, but if you could remove/shift whatever is located in those cabinets dumped beyond the passenger barrier you could certainly reclaim at least one extra door possibly two without having to make any structural changes. As all that lies beyond the passenger area perhaps if that suff is critical then perhaps the quick fix is to remove that section of ancient platform and dig down enough to locate all that kit below platform level, before reinstating the platform (probably with some sort of access hatch provided in the new platform surface for mantenance).
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 4, 2020 16:46:40 GMT
Assuming the first unit tests out OK, I can see this upgrade proceeding for the whole fleet, simply on the Triggers Broom principle, that there is no money to buy new units, so you keep replacing worn out stuff so the maintenance teams will probably be messing with 92s well beyond 2030.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Dec 4, 2020 16:27:32 GMT
So what are they doing on the Piccadilly over the Christmas and New Year gap? This announcement does not even bother to tell people why they are closing chunks of the line. tfl.gov.uk/tube-dlr-overground/status/?Input=&lineIds=&dateTypeSelect=Future%20date&direction=&startDate=2020-12-29T00%3a00%3a00&endDate=2020-12-29T23%3a59%3a59#line-lul-piccadillyNormally I would understand that this period is the sensible time to carry out track renewals etc, however this year it seems exactly the wrong time to do these works because the Government has effectively said the COVID movement restrictions will be briefly lifted and people will finally be free to travel between Christmas Eve and New Year. There have been loads of posts suggesting the tube and TFL rail services are currently quite lightly loaded - which to be honest is what you might expect with the Government stressing that people stay home and avoid non essential travel. I wonder if the right time to be closing lines is actually right now before the holidays - as come the point when people are allowed to travel in the Christmas-New Year gap, lines could be suddenly overwhelmed with passengers wanting to visit relatives around the country/capital - especially those they have been prevented from visiting for many months. I really hope all those planned rail replacement buses will have lots of extra capacity with many seats blocked off to ensure social distancing.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 29, 2020 9:17:27 GMT
In the current financial setting I agree spend on any new branding ideas will be minimised for quite a while.
However beneath that concept lies a more interesting question of what can be done to improve route differentiation. Yes this applies right across TFL Rail services, so Elizabeth Line is just a start, but the rumoured planned service pattern already looks complicated on just Elizabeth line destinations.
If there really is money to be had then it really should be spent on service brand names.
Apart from "change to the GOBLIN line" we don't have the same routing simplicity to offer visitors who need to use the rest of TFL rail. Sometime a global brand concept is not ideal - just tell anyone unfamiliar with Britain you to need go to Victoria Coach station and get the National Express service...
If (or hopefully when) Elizabeth Line opens fully, it will eventually be serving multiple destinations east and west of the capital and we will doubtless get annoyed foreign passengers missing flights after visiting Reading rather than Heathrow...
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 21, 2020 19:19:21 GMT
So what on earth is going on now?
This time last month we were alerted that ..
"The druids have gathered at the stone circle of Sunkenkirk where a full moon told them of a predicted core opening of late 2021*
Now the article referred to directly above now states that date has slipped to first half of 2022, and presumably Andy Byfords comments mean that date is at risk, as it assumes someone stumps up a shed load of extra money very soon - or key workers will start to jump ship.
I am beginning to wonder if there is someone out there unbuilding this railway?
Perhaps people will finally realise TFL need to start earning some income from this moneypit.
In short we need TFL to take an axe to all the "would be nice stuff" which currently provides a convenient excuse to say stuff cannot open. Stuff which goes way beyond what HSE require for Thameslink trains which have been running under London for years.
Almost every day there are undoubtely things which are not working on other TFL lines - faulty lifts, faulty escalators, cones around trip hazards.. and yet somehow no one suggest the whole line is shut down. Perhaps it is time to go for a less super duper railway and realise that we really need TFL to open the line with some unresolved flaws, with some accessiblity constraints, for a brief period and allow all residual stuff to be fixed as and when.
COVID is the only reason people are not screaming at TFL to get that railway carrying people now.
We have already seen pretty videos showing that trains can arrive at platforms. doors can open, doors can close and the train depart without anyone dying. So you do not need any fancy software upgrades especially if you constrain the core operation to just two trains with just one train allocated per running tunnel so they can run back and forward on a single engine in steam principle.
It may not be perfect but at last this jinxed project will be of use to the people of London rather than simply providing a never ending job creation scheme.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 15, 2020 17:54:34 GMT
Interesting indeed, but I am not sure how replacing the signalling would make much difference in that location if the true problem is platform dwell time.
Inherently even with fancy new signalling and enough drivers and serviceable trains lined up waiting to enter the station you still cannot shove any more peak hour trains through that platform whilst passengers still insist on trying to cram into one section of the platform/train.
If we assume TFL is not going to copy the Tokyo Metro and recruit a sumo wrestling team to help speed up boarding at critical stations, then the immediate prospect of service improvement looks like it will come from the greater crush capacity of the new trains, which together with a few more doors may reduce platform dwell times without new signalling.
I wonder whether merging town bound flows from the two branches at Acton Town actually poses a more tricky challenge for signallers to deliver an even flow of peak hour services into town.
It does seem a shame they did not modify the old Platform 5 to become a through platform to handle all town bound District services. That would allow the piccadilly to use platforms 3 and 4. Then whenever a bunch of town bound piccadilly trains arrives at Acton Town, passengers can cross the platform to board the train due to leave first, allowing the other train to be held in the other platform to regulate the service intervals without backing up following services.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 13, 2020 10:36:41 GMT
When it comes to bridge strikes I really do not think there is great merit in focusing attention on somehow automatically monitoring the track alignment and triggering the signals to red if/whenever they happen.
Basic physics cannot be avoided - a HST travelling at 125 miles per hour covers 176 feet of track every second! Also..
Mr. Redwood
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the safe braking distance is of a 125 mph diesel train to stop from maximum speed. [81247]
Mr. Spellar The Health and Safety Executive have advised that, assuming a standard-load diesel commuter train, on a flat gradient with good rail/wheel adhesion conditions, approximately:
2,568 metres using defensive driving brake application; 1,713 Metres using full service brake application; and 1,283 Metres using with an emergency brake application.
So to bring that HST to rest using the full emergency brake application would take at least 4203 feet (assuming dry rails and an alert driver) - (sorry I still think in imperial measurements).
So what happens if a dozy driver smashes his overheight truck into a bridge travelling fast enough to distort the track. Your automatic laser monitoring system will instantly detect the problem and set signals to red. BUT it will really only help if can garantee that there are no trains within 0.8 miles of the bridge - as there is a risk that any trains within that distance are going to reach the defective track even using maximum braking.
Trains just cannot defy momentum.
The answer must be to bite the bullet and make sure we prevent any over-height vehicles hitting the bridge in the first place. Sadly imposing massive fines and driving bans are inherently "after the fact" sanctions - they do not prevent idiot drivers potentially killing rail passengers.
Sadly those RAIB statistics suggest it is really only a matter of time before we have yet another Ladbrook Grove/Hatfield type disaster moment which will finally get Government to properly address this risk.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 12, 2020 19:30:35 GMT
rincew1nd I know for height restrictions there is always a minimum of 3-6 inches between the bottom of the bridge and the height of a vehicle that is the same height as on the sign (the maximum legal height) and that the measurements are taken at the lowest point (i.e. on pavements if there are any). I imagine that width restrictions are similar but I don't know. Knowing that last year a vehicle managed to pass unscathed under a low bridge seems a dangerous attitude if you are actually exceeding the official height limit and are relying on making use of the notional leeway built into the max height displayed on signs. Presumably a bus returning empty to its depot will a bit be taller than a fully laden one, and of course there is always the risk that the road surface may be raised as a result of subsequent resurfacing works which may reduce the available clearance with potentially disasterous results. If councils seem unwilling to prevent damage to low bridges then it may be time for fresh legislation to equip them all with stand off beam protection located several metres before the actual bridge structure and precisely set at a height which is perhaps just 5 cm above the permitted height limit. This should ensure that actual railway bridges and train traffic will remain unaffected even if truck after truck gets their roof ripped off by the stand off beams. Perhaps vehicle owners will finally justify the investment in installing quality GPS over height warning systems to all their potentially over-height vehicles.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 12, 2020 19:00:17 GMT
Apologies if this has already been mentioned on DD but whilst everyone was focused on the Mothballing of CrossRail 2 project - there was a mention in the following tweet from Philip Haigh which reports that Andy Byford says they now have funds for the Piccadilly Line signalling upgrade. Phew! link
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 11, 2020 21:17:55 GMT
Personally I think doing more stuff to prevent bridge strikes is the right way to go. Fines and bans are all well and good but they are clearly not actually stopping the crashes.
Two things above caught my eye - the idea of discharging some sort of fog in front of an overheight vehicle superimposed with a ruddy great stop message just might work - without upsetting the neighbours.
I despair to hear that companies invest in preventative kit only to have it sabotaged. Surely this should be an instant dismissal offence. Your summary of nature of drivers when these strikes happen is revealing in several ways, and whilst additional training or massive fines against operators may help a bit - it is never going to stop all impacts.
That is why someone in D/Transport should be asked to add up all the costs and make a case for the Treasury to fund a massive but once off investment in improved preventative measures specifically tailored to each and every at risk bridge. I really cannot believe Essex Highways should be allowed to take such a stance when so many lives could be lost as a result of a disasterous bridge strike especially if HSE seems hell bent on fitting PEDs on tube station platforms to tackle a far less significant risk in terms of the number of potential lives at risk in each incident.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 11, 2020 14:36:15 GMT
Is it time to ask whether the road network can learn from railway practice?
Like it or not - regular bridge impacts show that "on their own" Signs, even flashing warning signs, get ignored by some drivers.
The sad fact is that loads of "professional" drivers and a fair few novices who have been let loose with a rental truck, can find themseleves driving in auto-pilot mode, blindly following the "in 100 metres turn left" instructions from a GPS. Sadly if it is a £49 bargain GPS it is probably just a basic car unit and very unlikely to have any overheight routing option.
So how do you wake people up?
On the railway, Permanent Way worksites are often protected not just by lights etc but also by a string of detonators. Three extremely loud bangs seems very effective way to get the attention of even the most zoned out train driver.
So if the average cost of each bridge strike is now well over £10,000 per incident, then surely that would be more than enough to cover protecting every affected site with a few extra protection devices. Like installing a sequence of movement sensors along the approach to every low bridge, but with additional repeater signs installed specifically at TRUCK window height which are equipped with a ballistic set of loudspeakers to instantly replay and direct the noise of a collossal BANG BANG BANG towards the cab of any approaching over height vehicle, if the movement sensors confirm they are ignoring the earlier signs and still approaching the bridge.
Rather than initially displaying a complex messages like OVER HEIGHT why not simply illuminate a blindingly bright - big red STOP (No Entry) sign directed aimed at truck cab level height. Once the sensors determine the vehicle is slowing, more complex messages can be conveyed - like over height turn right NOW. The key point to stress is thst it is now possible to accurately focus noise and the signage at truck cab level. Hence it should minimise the shock impact on any nearby pedestrians or regular car drivers but hopefully be ample to wake the driver in time to ensure they do stop before they hit any part of the bridge.
Sadly we all know bridges strikes have the potential to derail a train, perhaps with collossal loss of life, so whilst potentially giving the odd driver a nasty wake up call may sound a harsh response, if it actually saves a single life, then it is perhaps worthwhile. In short if detonators are deemed appropriate and permitted for use on the railway tracks passing over the bridge, then surely it is reasonable to take a similar approach to protect the railways from inattentive truck drivers. Indeed it cannot be any worse than the typical Guy Fawkes and Diwali noise warfare affecting much of Britain this week.
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Nov 8, 2020 20:10:57 GMT
I see from a Twitter feed that they managed to get 6 trains running at the same time in the central area last week. As this is considerably more than NIL, then this clearly represents some sort of progress - even if there are none of those nasty passengers to worry about. However the ability for 6 trains to operate simultaneously when spread out somewhere along the 5 core stations (Paddington-Liverpool Street) so potentially spread over 10 platforms, does not really sound like there is any great sense of urgency about the testing process. One might wonder if they are actually aiming for a pasenger service launch sometime in the mid 2030's rather than the mid 2020's. I thought the whole point of all this fancy computerised train control system was that it was designed from the outset to allow an incredibly intense service through the core. The belated introduction of 710s on GOBLIN was a nightmare I am sure none of us wish to see again.
Yet I have this horrible feeling of deja vous when it comes to sorting out the software problems on the 345s so they play nicely with the multiple signalling systems along the Elizabeth Line. 345's seem to already have had plenty of problems just delivering a reliable service trunding between Paddington and Heathrow.
Any bets on whether the next phase of software testing with the 345's running through the core is about to become the latest reason for further delays and cost over-runs?
|
|