Original Jubilee line ATO plan

If Westinghouse had implemented it, I wonder if the PEDs would be more cooperative with the train. I guess we'll never find out.

Also, the original concept for both lines was DC traction control would be in the line control room; not just the back-up desks, but the actual control. I understand they did start this at Wood Lane but later removed it; it never started at Neasden AFAIK. Back-up desks are of course at both. The Central Line traction SCADA is from ABB (it might even have been called BBC then I'm not sure) but the Jubilee system was from Transmitton (since taken over by Siemens).


--
Nick

The original Jubilee resignalling was supposed to be a Westinghouse designed "moving block" system. There was also to be a fixed block back-up system. At the time the contract was agreed in November 1993, the development of the new system had a long way to go and Westinghouse were winging it to a large extent. By mid-1996 all the parties involved were having serious doubts about progress on the moving block system but it took until February 1998 for Westinghouse to admit they couldn't do it. The extension opened with fixed block signalling in December 1999.

As I've said many times before, you just can't look at one apparently all-singing, all-dancing train control system and expect it to solve all your operating problems and offer a cure for cancer on the side! You have to understand the whole railway system, even down to such things as telling passengers which train is going to leave first and what happens when the driver changes ends.

The VLU "distance-to-go" ATP/ATO system is a direct descendent of the WRSL "moving block" system for the JLE which was never commissioned. The key difference was that on the JLE system the train determined its own position, transmitted that to the trackside, the trackside "moving block processor" calculated the limit of movement authority and transmitted that back to the train. The VLU system simplified this by using conventional track-circuit based train detection to work out train locations, which the "fixed block processor" would then transmit to the train (along with route locking info etc) so the train could determine how far ahead the track was clear. This gave a system which retained the majority of the benefits despite a significant reduction in complexity.

The VLU and JLE systems were originally hardware-compatible (the fixed block processor and moving block processor were the same hardware with different software installed, and the leaky-feeder radio sytems were identical) to the point that the first prototype demonstration of distance-to-go was on the non-commissioned JLE system between Stanmore and Canons Park. I suspect that the VLU DTG hardware has been modified since the original demonstration, so any back-compatibility would now have been lost!


However - we've failed to answer the original question! The original Jubilee Line ATO plan (in the early 1970's) was to fit a development of the system which had just been fitted to the Victoria Line! The changes were an increase in track circuit signal level (to allow reliable operation in open sections) and the introduction of a 660 code (to give a wider range of operating speed and avoid "code lock-in" effects.) Equipment rooms were built and wired at Canons Park, Queensbury and Kingsbury ready to test the kit, but the plan was abandoned.
The room at Queensbury came back into LU's consciousness in the late '90s when it had to be demolished as its foundations had started to fall down the embankment!

I was present at the demo of the Westinghouse system at Stanmore. It actually worked but only after some fiddling about with the kit. Still, it was do-able, given enough time.