|
|
Post by q8 on Oct 17, 2005 10:40:29 GMT
A little bird who still works for LUL has whspered in my ear that Whitechapel and Upminster signal boxes are to be closed and the District line east of Tower Hill (Including Minories/Aldgate East) is to be controlled from Barking. Apparently using the part of the building formerly occupied by the LTS signal box.
I dunno where this came from but is there any basis for it. (If there is it'll please Citysig and Harsig no end.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2005 11:14:21 GMT
whitechapel is going to be the first area to be re-signalled and the signal cabin is going but where who knows?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2005 11:44:56 GMT
Barking would be sensible - as I recall, when Epping was switched out and the new signalling kit installed, it was controlled from a temporary control panel at Loughton, before the signalling controls were rerouted to Wood Lane. If the good old-fashioned interlockings between Whitechapel and Upminster are going to be removed and replaced with new-fangled SSIs, concentrating their control at Barking would make sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 17, 2005 18:43:30 GMT
It's another one of those rumours ;D
To be honest, I don't care where they put it - as long as it's not with us. The quality of information won't change (apart from the odd reliable signal operator who still works Whitechapel of course).
Whitechapel was to be our next site, but the plan disappeared a few years back, closely followed by the Uxbridge branch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2005 19:13:38 GMT
They were going to transfer the Uxbridge branch to _Baker_ _Street_? That sounds a bit like the reverse of the current arrangement for the District Line at Aldgate East  |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,095 
|
Post by Tom on Oct 17, 2005 21:01:07 GMT
Rayners Lane cabin still uses the temporary panels, a similar design of which was in use on the Bakerloo during the Interim. I think the only other one floating around these days in in Queen's Park IMR.
Uxbridge even has the local site computers and their interface installed...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2005 8:42:19 GMT
Interesting. I did hear that Rayners Lane had the necessary rackmounts and connections for a site computer, but that it was never installed. I never heard that Uxbridge had a site computer installed - is that why they kept the signal box and didn't build an IMR? Is the site computer actually in use and controlled from Rayners Lane?
|
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Oct 18, 2005 9:35:07 GMT
. I never heard that Uxbridge had a site computer installed - is that why they kept the signal box and didn't build an IMR? They didn't keep the signalbox (for signalling purposes although they didn't knock it down either) and they did build an IMR. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2005 10:42:01 GMT
Oh? Where is the IMR then? I always thought that they simply gutted the 'box and put the IMR in place of the original frame.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,095
|
Post by Tom on Oct 18, 2005 11:09:17 GMT
Oh? Where is the IMR then? I always thought that they simply gutted the 'box and put the IMR in place of the original frame. In the sidings, next to the entrance to Sainsbury's car park. |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Oct 18, 2005 11:30:06 GMT
Oh? Where is the IMR then? I always thought that they simply gutted the 'box and put the IMR in place of the original frame.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
They can't always do that TOK on account that some of the gubbins under the box may still be in use even if the box is closed. Remote control of the frame for instance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2005 11:42:48 GMT
Ah - I never did consider that. I figured that all of the IMR control circuits were simply routed to Rayners Lane and that there was no local control available.
As an aside, are _all_ of the old-style IMRs (i.e. before the construction of the Victoria Line) similar to the IMR at Earls Court, in that they are simply an air-operated signal frame that can be handworked? I know that many of the new ones aren't necessarily so, but what about the others? Ever since reading about the thread where EC IMR was handworked due to a lever op failure, I've always wondered about whether or not such a facility has ever been used elsewhere when provided.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2005 15:46:42 GMT
earls court interlocking machine is the same as the one at parsons green this can be seen here aetearlscourt.fotopic.net/p15538933.htmlthe district only has one air worked convential frame and thats at west kensington east (up in lillie bridge depot) this frame is the same as the whitechapel frame but is air worked it is known as a N style frame where as earls court and the rest of the line's frame are known as V style |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,095
|
Post by Tom on Oct 18, 2005 16:07:43 GMT
Most sites post 1954 used V style frames as at Earl's Court. There were a few exceptions, most including Charing X Northern, Liverpool St Circle, West Ken East and possibly Archway, which were motorised B or N frames.
The last V style frame to be commissioned for passenger use was at Waterloo (Bakerloo) in 1991.
|
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Oct 18, 2005 17:20:10 GMT
Actually I remember the AET at Upminster (smashing guy and really nice man, initials DN) telling me that they wasted a lot of money building IMR's. In his opinion all they had to do was was retain the frame that was extant and transfer the control of it elsewhere be it another cabin or programme machine.
EDIT : This method could be employed very rapidly and cost effectively if Barking were to take control of Upminster and Whitechapel. (Metronet readers please take note)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2005 17:29:54 GMT
Most sites post 1954 used V style frames as at Earl's Court. There were a few exceptions, most including Charing X Northern, Liverpool St Circle, West Ken East and possibly Archway, which were motorised B or N frames. As described by CDWF in the binary clock thread on u.t.l., Archway's frame appears to be similar to Parsons Green's frame - vertical bars that are rotated via a small handle. As Q8 has alluded to, why was it felt necessary to decommision so many frames and replace them with IMRs, when the existing frame (if suitable, of course) could have simply been converted for remote air operation? |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,095
|
Post by Tom on Oct 18, 2005 20:40:46 GMT
Upminster already has two IMR's, so we're about 47 years too late there ;D WRT Whitechapel, there are a number of things that need to be looked at when considering conversion. Ease of conversion of the frame to motorised operation, for a start. Not easy to plan or do when there are only five locking fitters left on the system, nor when there is very little room to install the additional kit which would be needed, such as lever op circuits, site computer, interfaces etc. The advantage of a purpose built IMR over a conveted cabin are numerous, including having all the kit (generally) on one floor. Whitechapel is difficult as all the TD equipment is under the cabin, so you have to go out, downstairs and in again to access the TD gear, and goodness knows where the relay room is. Then you have the issue of a site being non-standard to the rest of the line, and if converted is the room being put into a new function. If so, the traditional arrangement may not be allowed, in terms of provision of access etc (this applies to a lot of old relay rooms). Then of course you have the site specific details to consider, such as the interface to the East London Line and St. Mary's curve. Whilst I know a number of cabins were converted to IMR's (most notably on the Northern Line), I'm not sure if this would be the best approach available today. As Q8 has alluded to, why was it felt necessary to decommision so many frames and replace them with IMRs, when the existing frame (if suitable, of course) could have simply been converted for remote air operation? The idea was to modernise. To go from an old cabin to a new IMR with different circuits and centralised control in a 'big bang' is easer to plan, design and interface than lots of changes to an existing interlocking, which could result in a protracted changeover period far longer and more involved than it needs to be. I personally don't believe that Q8's suggestion that remote controlling existing cabins is a cost effective method, and I doubt the money men would either. |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Oct 19, 2005 6:17:08 GMT
I still say the the perfect place to have a whole-line District Line signalling control room would be Tower Hill disused station. It's almost exactly at the halfway point of the line. That eastbound platform is ideal in length for all the gubbins if it were walled off from the track. But no, myopia will reign supreme once again. They'll go to all the expense of building a dedicated structure at some out-of-the-way point nowhere near the bloody line. What a waste of cash when an empty building is going begging.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2005 9:50:57 GMT
Upminster already has two IMR's, so we're about 47 years too late there ;D WRT Whitechapel, there are a number of things that need to be looked at when considering conversion. Ease of conversion of the frame to motorised operation, for a start. Not easy to plan or do when there are only five locking fitters left on the system, nor when there is very little room to install the additional kit which would be needed, such as lever op circuits, site computer, interfaces etc. The advantage of a purpose built IMR over a conveted cabin are numerous, including having all the kit (generally) on one floor. Whitechapel is difficult as all the TD equipment is under the cabin, so you have to go out, downstairs and in again to access the TD gear, and goodness knows where the relay room is. Then you have the issue of a site being non-standard to the rest of the line, and if converted is the room being put into a new function. If so, the traditional arrangement may not be allowed, in terms of provision of access etc (this applies to a lot of old relay rooms). Then of course you have the site specific details to consider, such as the interface to the East London Line and St. Mary's curve. Whilst I know a number of cabins were converted to IMR's (most notably on the Northern Line), I'm not sure if this would be the best approach available today. I understand now, and thanks for the explanation. As Q8 has alluded to, why was it felt necessary to decommision so many frames and replace them with IMRs, when the existing frame (if suitable, of course) could have simply been converted for remote air operation? The idea was to modernise. To go from an old cabin to a new IMR with different circuits and centralised control in a 'big bang' is easer to plan, design and interface than lots of changes to an existing interlocking, which could result in a protracted changeover period far longer and more involved than it needs to be. I personally don't believe that Q8's suggestion that remote controlling existing cabins is a cost effective method, and I doubt the money men would either. I understand what you're saying, but doesn't this depend on how old the existing interlocking is? Take the Northern Line for example - you stated that many of the cabins were converted 'like-for-like' into IMRs. Was this because the interlockings were only about 15-20 years old, and thus nowhere near obsolete? |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 19, 2005 10:26:02 GMT
At the end of the day, as has been found when a few quiet words were had between me and someone else a week or two ago...
LU will only change the method of control of an area if it would save them money (i.e. staff wages etc.) However, to do this, they will have to stump up the original cash to pay for the work - because it's a project that "LU want."
Metronet will only change the method of control of an area if it would save money (i.e. more reliable system = less failures.) But again, they would have to pay for it as it would be a project that "Metronet want." As already mentioned, Metronet do not intend to spend any money unless they really have to.
So you see, thanks to privatisation, there is no longer the "teamwork" needed to put areas under centralised control.
LU simply would not save enough money to justify such a project on it's own. Don't forget that although you may close one signal box, you may need additional staff to cover the site in the new signalling centre.
This is why there are currently no solid plans for further centralised control on the Sub-Surface Lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Oct 19, 2005 10:38:00 GMT
Thank you Citysig for putting the thing into context. So much for the 'addtional finance' being available under
PPP.
But 'want' or not Metronet are, before long, going to have to ask their oh-so-generous and charitable shareholders to dip into the cashpot to fund some signalling renewals at the east end of the District line as well as buy new trains (which IMHO are not needed, just a re-equipping of the 'D' stock to modern kit)
The reason I say that a signalling upgrade is due is because east of Tower Hill all the infrastructure of the signal system is more that 45 years old now and will increasingly become prone to failure. I assume that any modernisation will be to 'auto train' mode? If so Metronet are going the right way in adopting the Westinghouse system rather than the stupid kit Tublines are going to use. Let's hope that when the new set-up is implemented it will transfer Minories/Aldgate East to the new control centre and make provison for 75 second headways!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Oct 19, 2005 15:44:57 GMT
The reason I say that a signalling upgrade is due is because east of Tower Hill all the infrastructure of the signal system is more that 45 years old now and will increasingly become prone to failure. Even if age of equipment were the sole criteria for determining priority of replacement I doubt the signalling east of Aldgate would be at the head of the queue. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2005 16:20:33 GMT
i think corect me if i am wrong but high st ken prior to 1992 had push - pull levers (n style) but according to the site plan it was resignalled in 1992 with a v style frame the IMR at high st ken is split into 3 parts the first section has the interlocking machine and all the safety circuits, the 2nd section is completely empty, and the last section has the all the programme machine and t/d gubbins.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2005 16:24:00 GMT
btw the relay room at whitechapel tom is on the next level above the cabin as you walk up the stairs from the cabin there is a door there its all in there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2005 17:16:59 GMT
i think corect me if i am wrong but high st ken prior to 1992 had push - pull levers (n style) but according to the site plan it was resignalled in 1992 with a v style frame the IMR at high st ken is split into 3 parts the first section has the interlocking machine and all the safety circuits, the 2nd section is completely empty, and the last section has the all the programme machine and t/d gubbins. Indeed, aetearlscourt - the programme machines get a nice maroon brick building with a big LTE-style enamel plate stating "HIGH STREET KENSINGTON PROGRAMME MACHINE ROOM (ED)", whereas the frame gets a maroon corrugated shack with a tiny enamel plate stating "I.M.R. 'ED' HIGH STREET KENSINGTON)". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2005 17:50:12 GMT
i think onekea its the reverse to what you said the part of the building with the frame in it (1st section) is the brick part its the end closet to the platform 1 the programme machine room is the furthest away and the bit in the middle is empty (would make a good snooker or pool room) ;D ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2005 18:12:13 GMT
i think onekea its the reverse to what you said the part of the building with the frame in it (1st section) is the brick part its the end closet to the platform 1 the programme machine room is the furthest away and the bit in the middle is empty (would make a good snooker or pool room) ;D ;D So what's the corrugated iron shack for? And why does it have the IMR plate, when the IMR is in the building with the programme machine plate? The average punter sees the following on a w/b Wimbleware service: platform 1 ramp corrugated shack with "I.M.R. 'ED' HIGH STREET KENSINGTON" space maroon brick building with "HIGH STREET KENSINGTON PROGRAMME MACHINE ROOM 'ED' " retaining wall |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2005 16:36:46 GMT
it is the other way around the first building the punters would see is the IMR the programme machine room is at the back this has always been the case
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2005 17:23:42 GMT
Right. Isn't that what I said?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2005 5:57:51 GMT
you did but the imr is not the corrugated shack as you put it its the newer brick building
|
|
