|
Post by District Dave on Jan 5, 2007 21:31:08 GMT
Another point worth considering too of course is the original layout of London Heathrow.
When originally proposed and constructed the idea of having the terminal buildings in the central area seemed like a 'jolly good idea' and I'm sure I'm not the only 'older' member here who remembers the days when car traffic was so much lower than it was today and those (narrow!) twin bore tunnels allowing access from the A4 into the airport were free flowing.
LHR would never be designed like that today; it would be a more traditional 'buildings around the perimeter' (as indeed are T'3 4 and 5) design, which would allow much freer flowing road traffic.
So - if one extrapolates this premise - maybe the London Underground link would also have been a surface based design and thus more appropriate for a sub surface stock and running a perimeter service round the airport. Of course it would also have meant that the tunnelers would not have had to cope with the gravel nature of that area of west London and all the problems that this has caused; the tunnel collapse during the construction of the Heathrow Express as recently as the mid 1990's comes to mind! Of course the gravel nature was only one of a number of geological factors that made tube guage an 'easier' option, but I still suspect that a sub surface tunnel as deep as would have been needed would have been so much more expensive that it would have been doomed - at least at that time. Maybe with hindsight it would have now been seen as a good idea?
Of course too the original express coach service direct from the late lamented West London Air Terminal was more than adequate in the 1950's!
Ah - nostalgia! I'll be talking Vickers Viscounts, Bristol Brittanias, Lockheed Constellations, Boeing Stratocruisers et al next.............
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Dec 22, 2006 21:19:41 GMT
The suggestion that I heard was that there was an amount of late running attributed to the adverse weather conditions.... From what we saw it seemed more to do with the inability of some of our colleagues to depart from reversing points when signals were cleared in their favour
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jan 7, 2007 9:20:01 GMT
There seems to be two massive mis-understandings going round at the the moment. The first is where drivers simply lift the handset/press the PTT button, and start calling the controller like we used to - AFAIA this is futile as the line controller can't actually hear anything. Drivers are assuming they are being ignored.........well they are, because no one can hear 'em! The other one is when drivers correctly use the 'LC' button. They assume that when the 'queued' message disappears, the line controller has removed them from his 'list'. This is untrue - that message automatically disappears after 30 seconds regardless of what action (if any) the line controller has taken. Colin, I'm intrigued to know where that information has come from! It flies in the face of what I know, and I'm supposed to be a trainer for Connect! And also neither of the things you say accord with my practical experiences of the system; a Group call (i.e. press the PTT button and talk) is just that and you can be heard; it's how the stations use the system and I'm not aware that the despatcher equipment can be altered to block those calls - defeats the object of the whole system. If you prefer to PM me with the name of who told you that's fine.
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Dec 23, 2006 19:31:15 GMT
You firstly need to remember that I wasn't working for London Underground at the time and it is my recollection of memory and things I recall reading that I'm dragging up here...... I'm sure that others who visit here will be able to correct or confirm my thoughts!
I *think* this may date back to the 'old' signalling arrangements at ECT when it was possible to route trains ex-Wimbledon into P.1 (ie before the crossover was removed to P.1). As to the hours of operation I'm afraid I cannot enlighten on this, but I recall that the service would have been operational during at least the evening peak.
A degree of congestion by using the shunt from P.2 is almost innevitable, though remember that trains from P.2 can be routed via signal EC7 (the one which divides the route normally associated from P.1 to either HSK or Gloucester Road and the route taken by the Edgware Road service) so, given that traffic density was not quite that of today, it probably wouldn't have impacted as much then as it would now.
I've no idea which was the 'normal' platform at HSK when the Oly's started going that far!
Perhaps others can enlighten more?
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Dec 22, 2006 20:57:05 GMT
What is being thought of is the days when the Olympia service was an 'Exhibition only' service, and was run accordingly.
It was then Olympia <-> Earls Court only. Ex Olympia the train would arrive at Platform 2 at ECT. It would detrian, the train would draw forward to a limit of shunt mark, the driver would change ends (though I suspect that in the days of crew operation the gurad would have done this bit!) and when signals allowed, would cross over to P.3.
This move is regularly used today - indeed it is still timetabled early mornings for a number of trains - albeit they then go as timetabled; I don't recall that Olympia trains are timetabled for this, except under some specail working Time Tables.
Later this service was extended to High Street - it does cause congestion at ECT - but still only 'Exhibitions only'. Permament Olympia services followed later.
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jan 4, 2007 20:18:24 GMT
Well following this thread .... I was rather bemused to find, as observed by Trainop78, that a co-acting signal has been installed at Ealing Common e/b (I don't do Ealing's very often). Admittedly I stopped about 30cm past the stopping mark, however I could see neither the Signal NOR the co-acting !! That said with a correct stop the edge of the co-acting may have just been visible .....given it's been fitted one has to wonder why it wasn't put a bit more in line of sight !!! 10/10 for effort, but only 4/10 for application !!!! Playing catch up - can you tell? ? I believe that the co-acting on the starter at Ealing Common e/b was actually installed and sighted for the benefit of the Picc t/ops rather than 'us'. Having ridden through the are on Picc trains many times I will concede that their view is truly appaling!!
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Mar 28, 2007 18:47:05 GMT
Typical west end driver ...never venturing east of Tower Hill ;D ;D LOL - I'll have you know I got as far as Upminster yesterday too!! (Nothing east of Barking today - I was in shock still.)
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Mar 27, 2007 20:27:31 GMT
BUMP. I am now convinced that Metronet reads this forum - last weekend when I went through Mile End, I could see that the roof was indeed being sandblasted, allowing the dull white bricks behind the paint to be revealed. Most of the pillars were thoroughly stripped of their tiles as well. Good on them IMO - a bright vaulted ceiling with uplighters on the pillars would really improve the station atmosphere enormously. I went through Mile End today for the first time in a couple of weeks and was really surprised at how far the preparatory works have progressed! I have to say I generally agree with the comments previously posted - it's always seemed kind of 'utilitarian' to me in some ways whilst at the same time having quite a few uniques features (though I admit I've never actually used it as a station), and as mentioned was at one time a hot spot of one unders, though (fingers crossed) initiatives do seem to have addressed this. But arriving at 40mph with crowds on the platform always grabbed the attention just a little!..........
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Mar 1, 2008 20:37:51 GMT
That's good news about the J door mods prjb.
Can I ask if there's any action concerning the ater that ingresses in some quantity under the M door when it rains - it is significant!
The intruder alarm will be a nice to have, though not such a need as it was a few years ago!
The pass alarm mod will be good; I think since the low level nits went in (and I do appreciate the reason why) I've only had one 'delibeate' actuation - all the rest have been small hands unable to resist the call of that nice shiney red handle!
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Feb 20, 2008 10:35:44 GMT
And I can confirm that 7115 and the rest of that unit departed by road from Ealing Common depot at 15:30 yesterday afternoon as I was sitting at the outlet signal from the depot to bring T123 into service.
Quite nostalgic........
I did manage to get one photo on my phone, but haven't looked at it yet - don't hold out much hope though I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jan 10, 2008 17:27:36 GMT
It's a bit hard to say tbh!
There's special working this weekend with no service between Embankment and Whitechapel, so not every train will be in use; but I can assure you that it's entirely pot luck which ones they do and don't use!
I'm afraid it will just be a case of taking your chances!
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Dec 21, 2007 11:44:32 GMT
Dont you mean N.D.F. Dave? That's an alternative of course - depends how poetic the fitter is feeling !!
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Dec 19, 2007 21:05:37 GMT
Was on 7040 - 7063 this morning, its a good unit apart from the gap between the N door and the door frame - Ive reported it on numerous occasions Tested in Depot - unable to fail.
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Dec 14, 2007 11:21:24 GMT
Yeah - and I managed to work two of the unrefurbished ones today - 7060/7097 and 7128/7059. Bet that won't happen again You mean driving two trains in one day? I bet you can't remember the last time either........... Oh - you meant two unrefurbs!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Nov 29, 2007 14:23:14 GMT
A certain 7080 was removed from Ealing Common this morning, I still have my black armbands on . I saw it disappearing into the depths of the depot yesterday and wondered if it was destined for Derby; don't worry - I'm sure thay'll take care of it for you
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Oct 27, 2007 8:16:44 GMT
You may be interested in the following extract from an email I've received - slightly edited.....
"I’ve sent a description of what has been agreed with LUL for the refurbishment of 17008 to xxxxxxxx. It’ll go away early December and take quite a while to refurb. It will come back as probably the last one delivered. So the last silver train in service will actually be all silver. That will also be goodbye to strap hangers, silver grab poles, wood floors, traditional LU armrests, orange and brown décor (at least for now)."
I'll try to get details of the work planned for 17008 and the rest of the unit.
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Oct 23, 2007 19:40:56 GMT
On the subject of a farewell to the last non-refurb full train, I had a brief discussion about this today with a 'Power that Be'.
I'm told that this is still very much on the cards as being a 'special' - a good number of people recognise it's a passing of note.
Rest assured that we will probably be very early in the list of those 'in the know' here!!
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Sept 6, 2007 7:30:45 GMT
By the way, there has been a suggestion (from someone in Metronet!) that LU should mark the last silver train on the Underground in some way. But don't hold your breath! I put forward a proposal for this some time ago - and right up to the Line General Manager. I need to remind the powers that be about it, once I can get an accurate idea of when the last non-refurb is due to be withdrawn from service. Time will tell - and I'm saying no more about my idea!
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jun 5, 2007 20:18:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Apr 10, 2007 20:24:37 GMT
That sounds all good prjb, and thanks for your efforts.
I think you know those of us here who can add support to the case.
From a business case point of view, I think I'd personally take the position that it was a defect in the spec, and therefore the reinstatement (for that is what it is) should not be to the cost of LU!
An option of course is that each time there is an ingress of fluids under the J door the train should be withdrawn from service, as the nature of the fluid is unknown?
Perhaps 'devils advocate', but a design fault - a recall is needed!!
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Mar 27, 2007 14:13:14 GMT
Ok, Ok!! Let me talk to the project team about this and get back to you. My CPO contact for refurb 'D' is currently off sick but when he gets back (hopefully this week) I will see what can be done. It is a problem and all parties concerned have acknowledged this, I can't promise miracles but I can ask the questions. Thanks prjb - it's nice to know who to speak too about these matters Anyway - whilst on the subject of the refurbs, the following list has just dropped into my Inbox........ Train DM Trailer UNDM UNDM Trailer DM Released to Fleet 1 7002 17002 8002 8021 17021 7021 01/06/2005 2 7012 17012 8012 8081 17081 7081 01/06/2005 3 7074 17074 8074 8003 17003 7003 01/06/2005 4 7088 17088 8088 8005 17005 7005 24/08/2005 5 7106 17106 8106 8119 17119 7119 23/09/2005 6 7116 17116 8116 8027 17027 7027 19/10/2005 7 7124 17124 8124 8047 17047 7047 10/11/2005 8 7114 17114 8114 8107 17107 7107 23/11/2005 9 7104 17104 8104 8061 17061 7061 09/12/2005 10 7098 17098 8098 8037 17037 7037 28/12/2005 11 7110 17110 8110 8015 17015 7015 26/01/2006 12 7118 17118 8118 8099 17099 7099 09/02/2006 13 7120 17120 8120 8031 17031 7031 20/02/2006 14 7508 17508 7509 7528 17528 7529 10/03/2006 15 7090 17090 8090 8033 17033 7033 17/03/2006 16 7082 17082 8082 8007 17007 7007 28/03/2006 17 7086 17086 8086 8001 17001 7001 02/04/2006 18 7052 17052 8052 8125 17125 7125 08/05/2006 19 7058 17058 8058 8129 17129 7129 18/05/2006 20 7518 17519 7519 7522 17522 7523 02/06/2006 21 7084 17084 8084 8069 17069 7069 27/06/06 //22/06/06 22 7076 17076 8076 8049 17049 7049 06/07/06 //03/07/06 23 7122 17122 8122 8057 17057 7057 14/07/06 //18/07/06 24 7006 17006 8006 8045 17045 7045 28/07/06 // 03/08/06 25 7014 17014 8014 8127 17127 7127 16/08/06//21/08/06 26 7536 17536 7537 7500 17500 7501 01/09/06//06/09/06 27 7016 17016 8016 8087 17087 7087 13/09/06//19/09/06 28 7020 17020 8020 8019 17019 7019 27/09/06//05/10/06 29 7032 17032 8032 8117 17117 7117 09/10/06//12/10/06 30 7000 17000 8000 8085 17085 7085 18/10/06//25/10/06 31 7004 17004 8004 8121 17121 7121 02/11/06//08/11/06 32 7520 17520 7521 7513 17512 7512 20/11/06//24/11/06 33 7096 17096 8096 8029 17029 7029 29/11/06//04/12/06 34 7024 17024 8024 8105 17105 7105 08/12/06//13/12/06 35 7062 17062 8062 8113 17113 7113 19/12/06// 22/12/06 36 7072 17072 8072 8064 17064 7064 10/01/07//16/01/07 37 7041 17041 8041 8013 17013 7013 24/01/07//29/01/07 38 7510 17510 7511 7515 17514 7514 05/02/07/ 12/02/07 39 7102 17102 8102 8101 17101 7101 23/02/07 19/02/07 40 7022 17022 8022 8091 17091 7091 03/03/07 08/03/07 41 7054 17054 8054 8111 17111 7111 13/03/07 19/03/07 42 7038 17038 8038 8126 17126 7126 AT DERBY 43 7065 17065 8065 8075 17075 7075 AT DERBY 44 7516 17516 7517 7507 17506 7506 AT DERBY 45 7092 17092 8092 8043 17043 7043 46 7050 17050 8050 8079 17079 7079 47 7108 17108 8108 8083 17083 7083 48 7064 17064 8064 8035 17035 7035 Apologies that the alignment isn't great - but I'm sure you get the gist; just done an 0445 start and am knackered rather tired!
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Mar 25, 2007 19:38:50 GMT
Am I missing something? A 2mm lip would at least stop most liquids from running into the cab, atm we have nothing. No Jim, you're missing nothing. It would have to be a veritable tidal wave of coffee, Red Bull, soft drinks ex-McDonalds, Stella Artois, vomit (allocate time of day as appropriate) for that to not be adequate. I don't do 'militant' - but this is a case of two steps back - and I intend posing the question to my H&S rep at the next opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Mar 25, 2007 15:05:40 GMT
It seems that the 'lip' was not acceptable as it was a trip hazard - nothing higher than 3 mm is allowed Now , perhaps this is a stupid observation but..... Before the trains were refurbished didn't they have this 'lip' installed and, IIRC, I don't recall of ever hearing of anyone tripping over it or it being declared a H&S hazard? So, this being the case, surely begs the question 'what's changed?'
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Mar 25, 2007 8:43:03 GMT
Not to mention the floods of water that come under the 'M' door when it rains - woe betide if you've left your bag in that area!
The floors get very slippery - there have been a number if instances of T/Ops taking a tumble.
Oh, and there's no longer a 'lip' on the floor under the 'J' door either - so spilt fluids flow freely into the cabs from that direction too.
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Mar 14, 2007 20:01:26 GMT
Glad to see you back in the saddle - I trust there's no ill effects.
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Mar 6, 2007 21:43:44 GMT
I don't think you need to worry Jim - I'm sure he'd have done the same to us!
As you say, looks like the plan's have been changed since 'my' list was produced.
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Mar 6, 2007 20:13:57 GMT
Unfortunately he's been unwell - was taken ill at work a week or so ago. I beleive he's now back at home.
But - the following is the last list I've been passed (this was about a month ago):
Train 40 7022 7091 AWAY Train 41 7054 7111 Train 42 7126 7075 Train 43 7068 7065 Train 44 7516 7506 Train 45 7092 7043 Train 46 7050 7079 Train 47 7108 7083 Train 48 7064 Train 49 Train 50 7526 75xx
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Mar 4, 2008 8:38:24 GMT
Ah - so dear old Boris is doing the 'jumping on London's Transport system' bandwagon is he? Always guaranteed to get some media attention.....
PSCO's - I assume you mean PCSO's - Police Community Support Officers; the uniformed 'support' for proper Police Officers. They have very limited powers but at least look look 'real' police from a distance. Actually they do seem to have made a difference in BTP as they've increased police visibility on the network - the statistics in the reduction of vandalism at the east end of the District for example appear to bear witness to that.
Routemasters (or the modern equivalent) with conductors for bendy buses? Not too sure about that, though I do agree they were never designed for London roads; they're a menace along the Uxbridge Road IMHO! I have t agree with Kens spokesperson though - I think Boris' costings look as if they were done on a dysfuntional abacus!
Air con on the underground? Errr - hello? This is being worked on so that's another bandwagon he can jump on (along with the rest of the Undergrounf upgrades, Crossrail etc. etc.
Later running on the Underground; IRRC Ken tried this only to let it drop quietly a couple of years ago (he blamed it on the Unions but it would be hellishly complex to schedule and roster) let alone the continuing accusations that we'd be running a service later to get a few p**s heads home to the detriment of real people needing to get to work at unearthly o'clock on Saturday and Sunday mornings. Popular with the Horray Henry's maybe though?
Time to head back to Henly Boris; I really can't see you convincing too many of the London electorate with a revamp of current policies/practices and a few semi right wing headline grabbers.
Won't get onto the subject of some of Paddick (the lib dem bloke's) 'bright ideas' on transport - they were IMHO equally daft and unworkable!
Ken ain't perfect (by any means) but he's still the only one of the three who has real experience of London and how it ticks.
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Feb 21, 2008 11:23:08 GMT
I can't see air-conditioning working very well on some of the SSLs tunnels... I think you'll find that there will be a programme of regular filter replacement to ensure it functions correctly. Other systems will have coped with dust at these levels in the past and I'm sure it will be within the abilities of the manufacturers.
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Feb 21, 2008 11:19:48 GMT
I'm pretty sure that when on early turns I've noted something that looks suspiciously like a tunnel cleaning train wending its way back towards Ruislip.
It certainly seems to have what look like large intakes and storage 'bins' being propelled by battery locos.
Or is it my imagination?.......
|
|