|
Post by Harsig on Jun 22, 2005 20:32:07 GMT
Despite the rather apparent overtones of NIMBYism over the loss of through services, IMO, they do have several valid points. It seems to me that the most sensible option (other than a burrowing junction from the down Met&GC to the single line north of Chalfont) is to either build a footbridge to improve access between the platforms, or scrap the off-peak shuttle service and run off-peak through trains to Watford, with a combination of shuttle services and through trains as per the current timetable. The former would be expensive and the latter a potential disaster, but both appear to be reasonable solutions on the surface. Thoughts? The principle probelm with through services of any sort onto the single line is what happens when those trains are delayed before the reach the single line section. The absolute minimum time between a through train leaving Chalfont towards Chesham and returning to Chalfont is of the order of twenty minutes. Therefore if the following through train to Chesham is less than twenty minutes behind it will have to wait on the Main Line at Chalfont blocking any trains going towards Amersham and Aylesbury. While that might be acceptable when the delay is only a couple of minutes, should the trains be significantly closer together, as could easily happen, then there would be no choice but to divert one of the two trains to Amersham effectively meaning that there is cancellation to Chesham. The chance of through trains being delayed must be greater than that for a self contained shuttle as through trains can be delayed by any failure or incident that occurs anywhere throughout their journey, whereas a self contained shuttle will generally only be daelayed by failures or incidents between Chalfont & Chesham.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Aug 31, 2005 9:02:20 GMT
I often wonder why the powers that be install unecceasary sets of points at some locations. Let's start with Upminster. What is the point of having 28 points in the scissors Xover when you have 31 points further west to do the same move? Removing 28's would not affect the flexibily of the layout and would save on maintainance of point motors etc. It might not affect flexibility in terms of getting from A to B but it certainly reduces the capacity for parallel moves through the station throat which must inevitably affect the ability of the terminus to cope with a sudden rush of trains. While this idea could work, the savings in maintenance costs would probably take centuries to pay for the cost of alterations. It is simply not worth the cost of changing what is already there. Not according to my diagram they couldn't. However even if they could the same argument as at Upminster applies about reducing the capacity for parallel moves. Again as at Gloucester Road the benefits of making changes just aren't worth the cost making them.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Jun 21, 2005 12:22:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Oct 1, 2005 7:59:42 GMT
Ok. So there's a long running joke about District drivers going to South Harrow... how's about the other way? Picc drivers taking the l'il trains to Ealing Broadway? Ever happened? This question was asked and answered in this thread
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Jun 14, 2005 11:49:22 GMT
When I was an apprentice at Rayner's Lane Cabin, it was a nightmare to try and work out the numbers on the Picc trains on their LED/LCD system and sometimes they weren't on at all! You should have tried reading the unlit numbers on the unrefurbished Piccadilly trains in the dark. Now that was a challenge. Rayners Lane signal cabin was specially equipped with a torch for shining on the train numbers (which were reflective) However I never used it unless I knew the train driver had left the cab (normally to detrain) as I had some funny idea that drivers might get upset if the signalmen made a habit of shining a bright white light at the front of their train during the hours of darkness. On the subject of moving the train numbers I believe Baker St SCC may be making a request shortly to have the train numbers on C & D stocks relocated below the driver's window as suggested by Q8. The reason for this is because the CCTV camera at Aldgate East that we use to check train numbers has been moved so that it only shows the drivers side of the front of the train when it is stationary in the platform. In this confused world of PPP we probably have as much chance of solving the problem by having the numbers relocated as we do have of having the camera moved back to its proper position.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on May 21, 2005 19:47:44 GMT
I personally think Chesham is the best. It is virtually indistinguishable from a NR branch terminus (the only problem is the roundels!) In my opinion Chesham is very easily distinguishable from many NR branch termini simply because it has been reasonably well looked after.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on May 23, 2005 16:02:17 GMT
Wouldn't a "local-to-fast" (facing point?) crossover just west of 40 points add a lot of flexibility? A local could then gain the fast prior to the pfm and thus reverse in 26 siding and back to the EB local. Just out of curiosity, supposing pfm 4 (WB local) were blocked for some reason. Can a local service get to the fast line prior to ACT? (I don't have my charts to hand). Such a crossover used to exist but has long since been removed. I imagine it was one of a number removed to simplify the layout in order to allow operation by programme machine. A picture of the full diagram as it once was can be seen here. www.piccadillypilot.co.uk/ATn/1934ActonTnDiagram.jpgThis is a link originally posted by Piccadilly Pilot in the thread districtdave.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=History&action=display&thread=1112903856
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on May 6, 2005 9:18:29 GMT
Really? I always thought it was taken off for other reasons. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Not according to an old publication that I have . I'll try to find it/scan it/post it. According to my information the Uxbridge Barking service was introduced from 17th July 1939 and lasted until 1941. The document I've taken this from cites unreliabilty of the service as the reason it was withdrawn . In fact it also implies that the only reason that it managed to last for two years was that for significant periods the through service was unable to operate due to bomb damage to the line in the city. This prevented the operational impracticalities of the service from becoming apparent as soon as they might otherwise have done. A former colleague who, while not being sufficiently senior to remember the service himself, but who, early in his career, worked with those who did, told me that they always said that when the trains went east you'd never know when they'd come back, which of course is not totally disimilar to the situation that still afflicts the Hammersmith-Barking service that replaced the Uxbridge-Barking service on the east end of the district in 1941.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Apr 27, 2005 16:21:50 GMT
The thing I can't understand is Mr Harsig's obsession with cost. If they spend the money and do the job properly in the first place then they won't have to spend more in the long run correcting odd bits and pieces they left out to begin with. The thing I can't understand is the context of this comment. In this thread the only comment I'd previously made with respect to costs was the cost of bringing St Pancras Chambers (the old Midland Grand Hotel) up to modern standards to permit its re-use. This doesn't really have any relevance to the main subject of the thread but was merely mentioned to show the unsuitability of that one building for housing the SSL control centre as had been suggested by one of the other contributors. Having said that cost is innevitably going to be a very big factor in determining the location of any such control centre. To think otherwise just ignores the reality of the railway today.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Apr 27, 2005 9:52:24 GMT
Regarding King's Cross for the SSL CCTC. Isn't that central tunnel where the booking office is now only half used? I seem t remember years ago that it was a long as both the platform tunnels. If that is the case then what is to stop them putting the control room in the unused bit? I believe thar far greater use will be made of that area once the current rebuilding of the station is complete. In any case I wouldn't really want to work in a control room that was placed underground.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Apr 27, 2005 8:24:48 GMT
When I said King's Cross, I was thinking more along the lines of the Midland Hotel next door - it became offices years ago didn't it? Funnily enough I had a tour round the Midland Grand Hotel a few weeks ago. The reason it is no longer used as offices is because it failed its fire safety certificate and it was too expensive to carry out the necessary alterations. That same problem still applies to anyone wishing to use the building and has virtually ruled out the possiblilty of it again being used for railway offices. There are, I understand, active plans to convert the lower floors back into a hotel, while the upper floors are likely to be converterd into loft style apartments. In both cases the companies involved presumably expect to make a return on the investment required to bring the building up to modern standards. Anyone else who might like a short tour of the building should look at the following link www.lcrproperties.com/html/outers/spc/intro.html
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Apr 26, 2005 15:06:08 GMT
Wouldn't Kings Cross be better than Baker Street considering more lines converge there? On the other hand I would have thought Liverpool St would be pretty good as well - especially if crossrail comes to fruition... Ah but Kings Cross LUL is one the underground's smaller stations; only eight platforms compared with ten at Baker St ;D More seriously LUL has a lot of office space at Baker St (historically due to it being the headquarters the senior underground railway) whereas I'm not aware of anywhere at Kings Cross that a control centre could be conveniently accomodated.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Apr 25, 2005 14:23:02 GMT
I have to say that if I can't have it at my local station then Harrow is my preferred option.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Apr 27, 2005 10:01:24 GMT
In principle quite true. But in that particular case think about the implications for the pre-existing platforms and how much additional space would be needed for the junction. I was just trying to demonstrate the principle. I certainly wasn't attempting to suggest it was a realistic proposition
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Apr 27, 2005 9:56:01 GMT
Agreed, Harsig. Would there be any discernible advantage from an operating perspective to do such a thing? There would be a slight improvement, but I should be very suprised if it was anywhere close to being sufficient to justify the cost.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Apr 27, 2005 8:41:55 GMT
Wotcha you lot! Also if that was done along with making the two MIDDLE roads at Aldgate the through routes with the sides as the bays then it may be possible to have the Uxbridge Met service extended round to Mansion House and reduce the number of circles each way to 4. Having the middle roads at Aldgate as the through platforms would also (maybe) remove the bugbear for the signal control centre of having Districts blocking the outer rail exit. Is that a bum idea? Let me know. (As no doubt you will) As a matter of general principle any station which has one or more bay platforms for reversing should have those platforms in the centre with the through platforms on the outside. This seriously reduces the number of conflicting moves for trains arriving at and leaving the bays. Baker St Met would be a good bit easier to operate if the through platforms to the city were 4&1 with the terminal bays being 2&3.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Apr 17, 2005 17:08:37 GMT
, combined with the seven flat junctions traversed by Circle trains, is what leads to the massive unreliability of the service? Seven? At this precise moment I'm sitting where I can see a diagram depicting four of those junctions and I can only think of two others. Now I may be mistaken but I always thought two plus four equalled six. That would be of very little benefit since it entirely fails to remove any of the conflicting moves encountered in the Aldgate area. Far better to provide an independant low level line from Whitechapel to Liverpool St for westboound Hammersmith trains.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Apr 12, 2005 17:33:47 GMT
The lowest number is A50, on the Kennington Loop. The numbering scheme is shown on a drawing somewhere (I've only ever seen it once). A50 may well be the lowest now but there was a time when even lower numbers could be found. Signal A1, for example, could be found on the northbound (local) between Harrow and North Harrow until 27th January 1962 and there may well have been other signals with the same number on other lines that could have survived even longer.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Apr 12, 2005 11:07:37 GMT
Gentelmen. can you tell me the highest known automatic signal number on the combine please? I know the 99x numbers are in the upminster area but are there any higher than 998? Also whats the lowest number you know of? No prizes just curious I think the winner these days must be on the Central Line. I believe the answer is probably A9154 A quick check of some yellow perils shows signal A9153 on the inner rail between Grange Hill and Chigwell while another plan shows the outer rail starter at Chigwell as LLX9154. This latter plan dates from the resignalling of Woodford to Chigwell in May 1997 but prior to the resignalling of Grange Hill in October 1997 and I would imagine that LLX9154 became A9154 when this latter work took place.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Apr 21, 2005 20:49:14 GMT
*Thinks*... Laptop with a wireless connection and roaming for networks..... hmmmmm... well, maybe not! I don't know. It would give you something to do while sitting at OB31.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Mar 26, 2005 10:30:50 GMT
Well they are called tapes, i dont know for sure what they do look like, for all i know they could be CDs! The first computer systems loaded timetable data sent out from the timetable office from magnetic tapes and although all systems have probably now been updated the old name has stuck for referring to the base timetable as sent out from the timetable office. As Tom says at Baker St (for Met & Jubilee as well as the BAkerloo) the whole timetable is sent by email, copied onto a floppy disk and loaded onto the system which has no network connection.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Mar 25, 2005 19:32:14 GMT
Only to say that since programme machines are still widely used it will be some time before such a change becomes possible across the whole system. Indeed some of the computer systems installed after programme machine installation had ceased have the same restrictions on train numbering built into them although I suspect this was because of a desire to maintain compatibilty with the old system rather than any real technical requirement.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Mar 13, 2005 10:29:08 GMT
I think the NUR came around a bit later, I've got an RMT DVD which I think covers the history. According to a book I have in front of me the NUR was founded in 1913 and was created by the amalgamation of three earlier unions, the United Pointsmen's & Signalmen's Society (founded 1880), the General Railway Workers Union (founded 1890) and the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (founded 1871)
|
|