Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2005 12:51:22 GMT
One thing that has always bugged me about the choice of TG for Charing Cross Jubbly (and subsequently TF for Green Park Jubbly) is why they decided to start in the middle of the T-series, instead of at the beginning.
One personal theory I have is that the use of ATO for the tunnel section would make brought about the resignalling of the line at Baker Street, thus giving it the code TD. Another theory is that the Met slow lines to Stanmore would be completely disconnected (except at the depot) from the fasts and resignalled in the T series like so:
Stanmore - TA
Wembley Park - MG/JG
Neasden - MM/JM
Willesden Green - TB
West Hampstead/Finchley Road - TC
Baker Street - TD
etc...
Has anyone ever managed to figure out why this decision was taken?
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196 
|
Post by Tom on Aug 11, 2005 13:29:49 GMT
Use of ATO wouldn't have needed much work, the circuitry is fairly similar to the Victoria line already (in terms of twin relays and the style of circuitry).
I think this is one of those things that will be lost in the mists of time, similar to why the Victoria Line codes run VP - VE.
|
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Aug 11, 2005 15:50:56 GMT
Use of ATO wouldn't have needed much work, the circuitry is fairly similar to the Victoria line already (in terms of twin relays and the style of circuitry). I think this is one of those things that will be lost in the mists of time, similar to why the Victoria Line codes run VP - VE. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- VP Is Finsbury Park isn't it? The code VP was thought up by the bods as a location identification for both lines Victoria/Picc In the same way that Baker Street Bakerloo is BM and upstairs is MB. Picc Circus is the same BP. Can't think of many more coupled codes though. |
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Aug 11, 2005 17:46:24 GMT
Use of ATO wouldn't have needed much work, the circuitry is fairly similar to the Victoria line already (in terms of twin relays and the style of circuitry). I think this is one of those things that will be lost in the mists of time, similar to why the Victoria Line codes run VP - VE. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- VP Is Finsbury Park isn't it? The code VP was thought up by the bods as a location identification for both lines Victoria/Picc In the same way that Baker Street Bakerloo is BM and upstairs is MB. Picc Circus is the same BP. Can't think of many more coupled codes though. MP at Rayners Lane. However it seems a dubious proposition that this is really the reason why particular codes were allocated, since they all fall within the general alphabetic progression of the line concerned. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2005 18:55:43 GMT
Talking of the Jubilee Line, I have a photo in my collection, of Stanmore. It shows the two signals at the end of the platform. The photo is a bit blurred and undated, but I think the plate says 'YBL'. It's always amazed me why the signal numbers keep getting changed. This must cost quite a bit in modifying the actual plate, line diagrams, paperwork etc, not to mention the actual man-hours used in altering everything.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Aug 11, 2005 19:06:04 GMT
VP Is Finsbury Park isn't it? No, VP is Walthamstow. Finsbury Park is VK. The coupled code idea doesn't actually work, as in the case of Rayners Lane it only became MP on resignalling in the 1980's. Likewise the facillity for BP cabin to control two signals on the Picc was reflected in the appropriate signals being 'BPZ'. In a lot of the cases, the codes were originally single letter and only had the first letter added much later. Talking of the Jubilee Line, I have a photo in my collection, of Stanmore. It shows the two signals at the end of the platform. The photo is a bit blurred and undated, but I think the plate says 'YBL'. It's always amazed me why the signal numbers keep getting changed. This must cost quite a bit in modifying the actual plate, line diagrams, paperwork etc, not to mention the actual man-hours used in altering everything. YBL? I'm surprised. It was MK prior to resignalling and JL afterwards. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Aug 11, 2005 19:19:22 GMT
Talking of the Jubilee Line, I have a photo in my collection, of Stanmore. It shows the two signals at the end of the platform. The photo is a bit blurred and undated, but I think the plate says 'YBL'. It's always amazed me why the signal numbers keep getting changed. This must cost quite a bit in modifying the actual plate, line diagrams, paperwork etc, not to mention the actual man-hours used in altering everything. If it is a very old photo, between 1932 and 1938, maybe the plate is connected with the area once being coded as "Y" prior to the newer IMR being opened and new code MK. Don't have all the details of the area then though, but just a thought. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2005 19:37:01 GMT
I think it must be an old photo - theres certainly an 'unfinished' air about it. There's part of the station nameboard too - looks like a diamond.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Aug 11, 2005 21:08:31 GMT
Possibly taken in the days of the short-lived CTC at Wembley Park then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2005 2:25:31 GMT
I think it must be an old photo - theres certainly an 'unfinished' air about it. There's part of the station nameboard too - looks like a diamond. If the station sign is a diamond, it's pre-1933. The Met used signs similar to the Underground group, but with a diamond instead of a circle. Needless to say, when the Underground got its hands on the Met, the signs were changed PDQ. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2005 9:03:24 GMT
While we are on the subject of Jubilee cabin codes, whose idea was it to reuse the J-series on the Met slow lines? It seems like a rather useless exercise as it disrupted the M-series for the Met Uxbridge axis and also conflicted with the Met&GC J-series.
|
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Aug 12, 2005 9:08:00 GMT
While we are on the subject of Jubilee cabin codes, whose idea was it to reuse the J-series on the Met slow lines? It seems like a rather useless exercise as it disrupted the M-series for the Met Uxbridge axis and also conflicted with the Met&GC J-series. ********************************************* Don't forget Mr 1 that they are separate companies now so divisiveness, confusion and deception are the order of the day.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2005 9:31:13 GMT
While we are on the subject of Jubilee cabin codes, whose idea was it to reuse the J-series on the Met slow lines? It seems like a rather useless exercise as it disrupted the M-series for the Met Uxbridge axis and also conflicted with the Met&GC J-series. ********************************************* Don't forget Mr 1 that they are separate companies now so divisiveness, confusion and deception are the order of the day. True, but seeing as how this change was made before PPP was even thought of I somehow doubt that it could be responsible... ======================================== Q8 Mod Oh was it? I did not know that so I offer my apologies to you. Mind you though there has ALWAYS been this obfustication between "BIG railway boys" and "little tunnel men" |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Aug 12, 2005 10:03:25 GMT
J when applied north of Harrow refers to the old Met & GC Joint line.
The re-use of J codes was actually on the Jubilee in the 1980s, the Met was the original.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2005 12:28:10 GMT
J when applied north of Harrow refers to the old Met & GC Joint line. The re-use of J codes was actually on the Jubilee in the 1980s, the Met was the original. Indeed. But why would the LT signalling department willingly bring about a namespace collision of that sort? |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Aug 12, 2005 12:51:10 GMT
Indeed. But why would the LT signalling department willingly bring about a namespace collision of that sort?
========================================
It was Old Man Horace's idea. He wanted to re-name the Fleet to Jubillee as it was Jubillee year and "his" railway had to be all new and pin-shiney!!
|
|
|
|
Post by motormanmet on Nov 8, 2006 13:40:01 GMT
In relation to this: Talking of the Jubilee Line, I have a photo in my collection, of Stanmore. It shows the two signals at the end of the platform. The photo is a bit blurred and undated, but I think the plate says 'YBL'. It's always amazed me why the signal numbers keep getting changed. This must cost quite a bit in modifying the actual plate, line diagrams, paperwork etc, not to mention the actual man-hours used in altering everything. The signal in this picture (i also have a copy) is Y8L. The code for Stanmore between 1932-39 was 'Y' when it was 'remote-controlled' by Wembley Pk. This follows on from the original Met-series codes, ending at 'W' uxbridge, coded in 1930. 'X' was unused but i'm certain the Met wasn't using 'X' signals as we know them today. When the Stanmore branch was resignalled normally (and Stanmore cabin built) in 1938-39, it was coded 'MK' at Stanmore and 'MJ' for the emergency crossover at Canons Park. The original Met-series codes by now had an 'M' added in front (not beyond Preston Road though at this time). |
|
|
|
Post by motormanmet on Nov 8, 2006 13:41:55 GMT
Forgot to add - the L after 'Y8' refers to push-pull working of the levers, L denoting the lever worked that signal when in the reverse? position. Correct me if wrong...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2006 15:39:16 GMT
|
|
