Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on May 15, 2010 13:03:13 GMT
'numbered'... was that a pointwork pun?
Suddenly occured to me that if it had remained for another couple of years they could have had a send off for the A stock out of hours along its original test route. Now that would have sold out...
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on May 16, 2010 0:30:52 GMT
Nice idea, but there are a few problems.
You can't carry passengers over the crossover - despite the fact it was a colour light signalled move (via WP14) only shunt signals ran up to it. The colour light was provided more because there was a full speed overlap on the next signal (A2056) rather than a sign passengers could be carried over the crossover.
It was never possible to clear any signals over the crossover without both the IMR and SER at Ealing Bdy being staffed.
Last but not least, sadly LU is a business and to keep a crossover for an A stock send-off versus improving journey time and ride quality does not make a good business case.
No pun was intended though I have been wondering if the crossover's point numbers (2015 and 2106) are divisible by their remaining life in days...
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on May 16, 2010 11:59:10 GMT
Nice idea, but there are a few problems. It was never possible to clear any signals over the crossover without both the IMR and SER at Ealing Bdy being staffed. Well of course it was very possible prior to the Central Line Project and one has to wonder how CLP was allowed to leave the signalling in an unusable state. It has always seemed obvious to me that some checks and balances were missing somewhere. I have to say I would make similar comments about systems on the Jubilee line after the JLE project team had 'finished' the extension although many of my thoughts would be directed to comms in that regard. In both cases I get the idea that Safety was the priority, as it should be, but that non-safety was simply not integrity checked to a suitable level i.e. function didn't necessarily seem to matter, hence on JLE such things as SPTs were left run down and not working while at Ealing Broadway the non-safety control of the District-Central crossover moves could never have been checked and proved working during whatever commissioning was undertaken. |
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on May 17, 2010 10:30:03 GMT
I'm certain I went over the crossover on a railtour back in the 70's or 80's ---anyone else remember?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on May 17, 2010 12:00:24 GMT
I'm certain I went over the crossover on a railtour back in the 70's or 80's ---anyone else remember? Possibly reply #12 above? |
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on May 17, 2010 12:47:01 GMT
www.sixbellsjunction.co.uk/70s/790603lt.htmNow, I was not aware (I must have forgotten) that there were two tours! Which was I on then? I was just about to do my exams in June '79 and had finished, and had two weeks on the North Norfolk Railway in September '79, learning to drive and fire steam locos and drive diesels. www.trainweb.org/districtdave/html/railtours_17.htmlHowever, my brain is clearly playing tricks as I thought that the train ran from Ruislip Siding via the depot Level Crossing to the Central rather than the other way round unless that was the Northern Line 1959 Stock tour? Whichever tour I was on can be identified as the reversal in Hammersmith Siding ncessitated the unique journey into the sand drag [straight ahead at the east end] as the rear cars would not clear the points. I am sure that this could not have happened on the other tour.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Jun 1, 2010 6:41:40 GMT
Well, the crossover is no more. When I arrived at Ealing Broadway last night at 2100 both sets of points had been replaced with plain line. View from the District Line to the Central Line:  View from the Central Line to the District Line:  Again, looking towards the platform:  After all that, I'm now going to bed! |
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Jun 1, 2010 12:00:02 GMT
Obviously not as simple as it sounds, but given the costs of equipment, huge amounts of labour as seen above, costs associated with planning it all and inconvenience to the travelling public of a 3 day shutdown to two lines, would it not just have been simpler to leave it as it was? Surely, by the time the (no longer needed) maintenance costs to points is recouped, someone somewhere will want them reinstated  |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Jun 1, 2010 12:28:50 GMT
Not really. You have to bear in mind that it was out of commission for years and was in a very poor condition. If you look closely at the first photo you can see the rail around the stainless steel zig-zags has actually worn so much that the stainless steel has become detatched from the rail.
To retain it would have meant making it work correctly and if it wasn't used once every six weeks it would have to be taken out of commission again. Also, the new alignment as seen in photo three will later allow a higher speed for trains leaving Ealing Broadway.
Because of the tight geography of the site, the time taken to renew the other crossovers would have been the same regardless of whether the crossover was retained or not - likewise the staffing requirements. The people you can see in the photo were related to the conductor rail installation and cabling - and you need a lot of people to lift the 630v cabling.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Jun 1, 2010 12:36:45 GMT
That's really clear - thanks. I wasn't having a go (especially after you obviously just finishing doing a nightshift like that), just curious.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jun 1, 2010 13:15:05 GMT
To retain it would have meant making it work correctly and if it wasn't used once every six weeks it would have to be taken out of commission again. Does this apply to the likes of the ground frame crossover at Totteridge? It certainly doesn't get used every six weeks and I doubt it gets tested regularly (or at all). Looked very rusty when I last visited it. |
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Jun 1, 2010 14:16:48 GMT
I suppose the East Putney GF comes under NR control? The only other one I can think of is the Royal Oak GF.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2010 17:28:25 GMT
Does anyone have a date when the District-Central connection became 'disused' many years ago?
|
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
|
Post by DWS on Jun 1, 2010 18:17:40 GMT
I suppose the East Putney GF comes under NR control? The only other one I can think of is the Royal Oak GF. Royal Oak does not have a ground frame, its just a hand worked crossover. |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Jun 1, 2010 20:47:18 GMT
To retain it would have meant making it work correctly and if it wasn't used once every six weeks it would have to be taken out of commission again. Does this apply to the likes of the ground frame crossover at Totteridge? It certainly doesn't get used every six weeks and I doubt it gets tested regularly (or at all). Looked very rusty when I last visited it. Yes - though the timescales vary depending on what traffic uses the relevant routes. Main passenger lines must have a train move every three days, non-passenger can (IIRC) go for up to six weeks. Does anyone have a date when the District-Central connection became 'disused' many years ago? Not to hand; I know it was offically decommissioned upon resignalling and later re-commissioned (I can provide dates if needed), but I don't know at what date the crossover fell into disuse and was offically taken out of commission. I do have dates for the decommissioning in its various stages, of course! |
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Jun 1, 2010 21:36:31 GMT
Thanks for correcting my memory!
|
|
|
|
Post by auxsetreq on Jun 3, 2010 20:35:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by plasmid on Jun 4, 2010 0:26:24 GMT
good, at least the Central Line trains can now achieve a higher speed whilst going over that section. every little helps if they ever one day try to achieve 33tph...sigh.
your evidently a cab operator. what kind of speed improvements will there be over this section or have the trains not been programmed to run faster over this section yet? or are the speed restrictions still the same?
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jun 4, 2010 1:03:53 GMT
what kind of speed improvements will there be over this section or have the trains not been programmed to run faster over this section yet? or are the speed restrictions still the same? I'm not a central Line employee, but I wouldn't have thought there would be any increase in permitted speed. For starters, when going westbound you are entering a terminal station so there's no way an increase in speed would be permitted. Whilst it is feasible to increase the permitted speed on departure, subject to the design of the pointwork, the 92ts already leave there at a fair rate of knots and I would suspect any potential increase would be so small as to not be worth the bother of implementing... |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 4, 2010 8:44:04 GMT
I was (maybe incorrectly) under the impression that 2104 points (trailing into the EB) were going to be moved to where 2105 points (DR/E&SB/CLR connection) had been so the exit speed from platform 5 could be substantially improved.
Of course, 'substantially improved' is a subjective term.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 4, 2010 8:46:47 GMT
Indeed, as reply #9.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Jun 4, 2010 19:14:06 GMT
what kind of speed improvements will there be over this section or have the trains not been programmed to run faster over this section yet? or are the speed restrictions still the same? The programming is done in the signalling, not on the trains. I'm not a central Line employee, but I wouldn't have thought there would be any increase in permitted speed. For starters, when going westbound you are entering a terminal station so there's no way an increase in speed would be permitted. Whilst it is feasible to increase the permitted speed on departure, subject to the design of the pointwork, the 92ts already leave there at a fair rate of knots and I would suspect any potential increase would be so small as to not be worth the bother of implementing... Current departure speeds at Ealing Broadway are unrestricted acceleration to 68km/h leaving platform 6 and acceleration to 28km/h leaving platform 5. The speed then increases to 68km/h once the train is clear of the pointwork. The track is now good for 100+km/h leaving platform 6 and 43km/h leaving platform 5. However, the overall speeds are constrained by the rest of the track and the existing 68km/h will remain unchanged. The 28km/h restriction from platform 5 is due to be increased to 36km/h later in the year. Wewould have liked to go higher, but the next available code allows 59km/h which is far in excess of the design speed. As MRFS states, 2104 points were relocated 17.4m east to improve the exit speed, as per TC22. (For the techie types, we replaced a C with a DV.) One of my photos from Monday night was taken at the toes of 2104; this is roughly the same position as 2105's crossing nose. |
|
|
|
Post by plasmid on Jun 6, 2010 0:49:18 GMT
nice to know regarding the speed being controlled by the signalling.
the new track is suitable for 100km/h? are the 92ts permitted to do such speeds?
one would like to think with all the monies being spent on new bogies...
|
|
