|
Post by edb on Feb 15, 2009 19:59:38 GMT
When was the last time these sidings were used? Are they ever used to stable anything, will they be used in the future?
Finaly why are they not used, proximity to Ealing Common...
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Feb 15, 2009 20:33:24 GMT
I think some works trains used to use them, but from when I last passed they looked very rusty. CO/CP and R stock was stored in them prior to scrapping in the early 80s so maybe we'll see the D stock there in a few years
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 21:23:39 GMT
During engineering work, possibly two years ago (maybe three?) engineers trains were stabled on them. A photo was published in Underground News at the time.
As far as I know the Central-District connection at Ealing Broadway is still out of use, not having been used since resignalling?
I too remember the CO/CP four-car train stabled on them in the late-1980s. The 1960 Stock Track Recording train also stabled on them in the 1970s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 7:04:58 GMT
The sidings are technically still used in as that drivers are taught them, but in reality I don't know of any District line train that has been there in the 6 years that I've been on the District.
|
|
|
Post by happybunny on Feb 16, 2009 14:35:44 GMT
There has been times when they have stabled District trains at Northfields, or outstabled. I think in these circumstances Ealing Bdy Sidings should be used. It is more practical as its pretty easy to get an operator to the trains the next day, and a pilot isn't needed. They are very long, I think longer than a D Stock so maybe of some use when S Stock arrives.
Re the link Central to District. The assets involved were all decommissioned when Central was ATO'd .. However with the PPP malarkie Metronet were getting fined every day/week/month or whatever it was, under the terms of the contract, so they re-commissioned all the assets involved (points signals etc) .. Of course the route needs to be selected from both Wood Lane and Earls Court, and would only happen probably during engineering hours, but I am certainly led to believe it is possible these days !
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Feb 16, 2009 14:47:20 GMT
I could well be wrong (I must pay more attention! ;D), but I don't believe there is a walking route to & from the sidings at Ealing Broadway.....
|
|
|
Post by happybunny on Feb 16, 2009 14:57:14 GMT
Well I think you are right there Colin, there isn't officially ! But we are track certified anyway If it came to it the supervisor could come and 'walk us out' (that us sound like babies who can't be trusted near the track doesn't it)
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Feb 16, 2009 19:56:27 GMT
Re the link Central to District The Auto Tube Rambler was the last passenger train that I know used the link. Presumably previously it was used for stock transfers? Is it still 'padlocked out of use'?
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Feb 16, 2009 22:21:17 GMT
Re the link Central to District. The assets involved were all decommissioned when Central was ATO'd .. However with the PPP malarkie Metronet were getting fined every day/week/month or whatever it was, under the terms of the contract, so they re-commissioned all the assets involved (points signals etc) .. Of course the route needs to be selected from both Wood Lane and Earls Court, and would only happen probably during engineering hours, but I am certainly led to believe it is possible these days ! Not 100% true. The link was decommissioned for a while around the time the Central was resignalled, but was recommissioned in around 1994. There is a problem that whilst the route across will clear (at least on paper) it requires a T/O in both the Central Line SER and District Line IMR - the route cannot be selected directly from Wood Lane. Anyway, this is all academic as the crossover has been out of commission for a number of years as the requisite rusty rail moves have not taken place. It is due to be removed as part of a Points and Crossings renewal over the May Bank Holiday next year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2009 1:35:07 GMT
Not 100% true. The link was decommissioned for a while around the time the Central was resignalled, but was recommissioned in around 1994. There is a problem that whilst the route across will clear (at least on paper) it requires a T/O in both the Central Line SER and District Line IMR - the route cannot be selected directly from Wood Lane. Anyway, this is all academic as the crossover has been out of commission for a number of years as the requisite rusty rail moves have not taken place. It is due to be removed as part of a Points and Crossings renewal over the May Bank Holiday next year. Will the remaining mainline crossovers to the platform roads also be moved/lengthened/renewed in order to allow for higher entry speeds, or at the very least, less noise/bumps entering and exiting the station?
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Feb 17, 2009 4:48:00 GMT
Wasn't this crossover used extensively for stock transfers, engineer's trains, etc, in the days before the siding connecting Ruislip depot and the Met was built? I can picture in the "days of yore" such a train travelling east down the Central from Ruislip depot to North Acton, reversing there to head west to Ealing B'dway, using the crossover to enter the District, and connecting directly to the Piccadilly (or reversing in Ealing Common depot to the northbound Piccy for rayners Lane, where it possibly reversed onto the Met).
|
|
|
Post by happybunny on Feb 17, 2009 5:09:46 GMT
It is due to be removed as part of a Points and Crossings renewal over the May Bank Holiday next year. Shame
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Feb 17, 2009 13:21:17 GMT
Like many other reductions in flexibility, its removal will no doubt be regretted at some point in the future - but given it's lack of use thus far, it is quite understandable that removal is a justified course of action at this point in time.
Of course changes to the signalling now mean the crossover can only be used in a possession - and that'll be made doubly so when the SSR eventually gets its version of ATO/ATP.
So a good or bad move? time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by upfast on Feb 17, 2009 16:01:33 GMT
Like many other reductions in flexibility, its removal will no doubt be regretted at some point in the future - but given it's lack of use thus far, it is quite understandable that removal is a justified course of action at this point in time. Of course changes to the signalling now mean the crossover can only be used in a possession - and that'll be made doubly so when the SSR eventually gets its version of ATO/ATP. So a good or bad move? time will tell. It may not have to be used in a possesion. There are ATP test loops and plungers on the District side to test trains before going to the Central. You can still see the light boxes for these in the four foot. I am not not sure that they still work though, but did when the Central first went ATP.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Feb 17, 2009 16:13:50 GMT
In which case I stand corrected on my understanding - and no, they don't light up any more.
|
|
|
Post by upfast on Feb 17, 2009 16:25:14 GMT
In which case I stand corrected on my understanding - and no, they don't light up any more. They're mostly smashed aren't they?
|
|
|
Post by happybunny on Feb 17, 2009 16:28:58 GMT
I think there is one on the east end that is smashed, but on the west end, near the FRL's there is one on each track in the 4 foot that lights up 'ATP TEST READY' .. or something like that ! and they still work, on at least 2 platforms anyway, and still light up when a train arrives in the platform !
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Feb 17, 2009 17:28:49 GMT
Re the link Central to District. The assets involved were all decommissioned when Central was ATO'd .. However with the PPP malarkie Metronet were getting fined every day/week/month or whatever it was, under the terms of the contract, so they re-commissioned all the assets involved (points signals etc) .. Of course the route needs to be selected from both Wood Lane and Earls Court, and would only happen probably during engineering hours, but I am certainly led to believe it is possible these days ! Not 100% true. The link was decommissioned for a while around the time the Central was resignalled, but was recommissioned in around 1994. There is a problem that whilst the route across will clear (at least on paper) it requires a T/O in both the Central Line SER and District Line IMR - the route cannot be selected directly from Wood Lane. Anyway, this is all academic as the crossover has been out of commission for a number of years as the requisite rusty rail moves have not taken place. It is due to be removed as part of a Points and Crossings renewal over the May Bank Holiday next year. Interesting! Ealing Broadway was one of my signal maintenance sites (Picc Line Signals) where I did regular point maintenance. My belief and that of my colleagues at the time was that the route from District to Central was simply not properly recommissioned at all. I recall the problems we encountered, all with Wood Lane as I recall when trying to test it in order to prepare for the transfer of stock which was a relatively regular feature for a short while in the late 1990s. IIRC the control or lack thereof was due to incorrect Central Line non-safety circuitry. Earls Court could offer the slot when requested but Wood Lane were unable to request it. Thus two TOs were required to set this up in the EAB SER and IMR although in practice there was usually a supervisor in the SER when we employed in such stock transfers. At the time we generally did manual routing at the IMRs anyway as a TO was required to get stock out of the South Harrow sidings (track fuses were removed due to rusty rails and so had to be replaced/removed each time a train entered or exited the sidings). It was then a race to drive from South Harrow to Ealing Broadway and beat the train, although the train reversed in the sidings at Acton. My recollection is that the crossover went out of use because the route could not be used without Signal staff to assist and it thus relied upon staff availability and Picc Signals was always a few TOs light which eventually led to the closure of Heathrow, Northfields, Hammersmith and King's Cross TO depots. It didn't help that at the time we were also responsible for Jubilee line (not JLE) maintenance which we covered from the three remaining depots at Acton, Earls Court and Arnos Grove to support our colleagues at the only Jub depot at Wembley Park. So to hear that the crossover at EAB is going does make me wonder if this is simply one of those chicken and egg situations. I'm sure it will be missed at some future time and I can't help wondering why Metronet seemed so disinterested (at the time) in getting the route to work as it did before CLPT interfered with it.
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Feb 17, 2009 19:20:04 GMT
I can't help thinking that, as with North Ealing cross-over, the removal will prove to be a mistake in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2009 19:25:42 GMT
Will the remaining mainline crossovers to the platform roads also be moved/lengthened/renewed in order to allow for higher entry speeds, or at the very least, less noise/bumps entering and exiting the station? I doubt you could safely get much faster entry speeds into those dead end platforms.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Feb 17, 2009 19:38:16 GMT
Did the move with 67TS from Northumberland Pk to Acton Works or Ealing Common.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Feb 17, 2009 20:20:25 GMT
I can't help wondering why Metronet seemed so disinterested (at the time) in getting the route to work as it did before CLPT interfered with it. There were a few who were interested - indeed it did work in a fashion via a frig at Wood Lane. However, it fell foul of the 'rusty rails' standards, it would need a principles test to recomission it and there were other issues preventing it from happening. Ironically it will have to be used as part of the work to remove it - there isn't enough room to stack all the engineer's trains up when the crossovers at EAB are being renewed!
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Feb 17, 2009 20:21:45 GMT
Will the remaining mainline crossovers to the platform roads also be moved/lengthened/renewed in order to allow for higher entry speeds, or at the very least, less noise/bumps entering and exiting the station? I doubt you could safely get much faster entry speeds into those dead end platforms. You can't; the arrestors are already positioned such that a train which passes the FRLs and loses code will collide with them. The aim is to raise line speeds out from platform 5, but how much by is still to be determined.
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Feb 19, 2009 22:34:57 GMT
The sidigs at Ealing Broadway were used to stable 2 car units when trians were coupled and uncoupled for rush hours, in the good old days when we ran 6 or 8 cars.
The last train I ran in there was 2 pairs of Q38 pilot motors with 4 car R stock in between just after the conversion of r stock to 7 cars. Ironically all the scrap cars were R59's! What a waste. We brought the train from Upminster Depot, motorman Thomas for PG and motorman Patel from Acton bringing up the rear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2009 22:52:43 GMT
Ironically all the scrap cars were R59's! What a waste. My manager has told me the R59's had smaller cabs than the R38's and R49's and were thus less popular. (not sure why they differed ?) (Also said, however, that R stock was more popular than CO and CP stock due to the brake system. He told me you never wanted an R as your spare or someone would always find something wrong with their CO or CP, if the spare was a CO or CP then it'd sit there unused, then when D's come along, if the spare was a D they'd find something wrong with the R, but no-one would trade a D for an R. Then when we had refurb D's if the spare was a refurb an unrefurbed D would soon be found with a fault but, again, no trading downwards !) ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Feb 19, 2009 23:30:32 GMT
Ironically all the scrap cars were R59's! What a waste. My manager has told me the R59's had smaller cabs than the R38's and R49's and were thus less popular. (not sure why they differed ?) (Also said, however, that R stock was more popular than CO and CP stock due to the brake system. He told me you never wanted an R as your spare or someone would always find something wrong with their CO or CP, if the spare was a CO or CP then it'd sit there unused, then when D's come along, if the spare was a D they'd find something wrong with the R, but no-one would trade a D for an R. Then when we had refurb D's if the spare was a refurb an unrefurbed D would soon be found with a fault but, again, no trading downwards !) ;D ;D ;D ;D Yes there was an extra longitudinal seat somewhere that narrowed the cab of an R49, but surely the R59s were all trailers? And as '21146' I should know a bit!
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Feb 19, 2009 23:33:05 GMT
Sorry, I traded downwards many times to get a CO/CP instead of a D or even R!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2009 23:40:25 GMT
Yes there was an extra longitudinal seat somewhere that narrowed the cab of an R49, but surely the R59s were all trailers? And as '21146' I should know a bit! Your right he must have said R49 cabs were smaller, R59's were all NDM's. I didn't realise more Q38's were converted in 1959 hence the R49's appearing in the middle of the R38 number sequence ! Yeah, I dare say I'd have traded down too, but probably have been in a minority ;D ;D
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Feb 19, 2009 23:46:05 GMT
I was under the impression that the R59 and 49 DM were the same. The R38 cars were of course ex Q38 trailers. When the R stock was reduced to 7 car trains, 21 NDM cars (compressor equipped position 2 cars) were scrapped. I don't know how many were R59 cars however, only 20 were built.
The R stock was latterly formed as DM-NDM-NDM-NDM-UNDM+UNUM-DM
or DM-NDM-UNDM+UNDM-DM+UNDM-DM
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Feb 20, 2009 9:19:28 GMT
Sorry, I traded downwards many times to get a CO/CP instead of a D or even R! Yes, quite right too! Trading a 'biscuit tin' (D Stock) for an CO/CP or an R was regarded as a "result"!
|
|