|
|
Post by citysig on May 19, 2011 22:38:17 GMT
Okay thanks  Is this new timetable a follow up to your signature then - "Go on then, you think you know how to run this thing, do it!" ;D ;D Well maybe, but unfortunately it's still me and my colleagues who will have to try and make sure everything runs as smoothly as possible, and will end up with grief from all sides when it doesn't. Saying "We told you so" doesn't normally hold any weight. |
|
|
|
Post by graeme186 on May 19, 2011 22:54:57 GMT
I travelled home on the 2134 ex Bk St to Watford this evening which was formed of 21017/18. As we ran into Finchley Road, part of the recorded auto annoucement was 'to change for fast and semi-fast Metropolitan Line trains'. Such an annoucement will clearly no longer be appropriate in Dec as it will only have any substance at peak times! I'm sure that one of the many workstreams in place for the Dec 2011 timetable change is for the 'S' Stock auto announcement software to be updated.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on May 20, 2011 0:29:14 GMT
Okay thanks Is this new timetable a follow up to your signature then - "Go on then, you think you know how to run this thing, do it!" ;D ;D Well maybe, but unfortunately it's still me and my colleagues who will have to try and make sure everything runs as smoothly as possible, and will end up with grief from all sides when it doesn't. Saying "We told you so" doesn't normally hold any weight. The words "We told you so" are being heard quite a lot around LUL at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by cooperman on May 20, 2011 7:45:43 GMT
On another note...is there a reason why the 1742 fast Aldgate to Chesham service get's delayed at Rickmansworth to let another Chiltern service through. This has happened two days in a row, you now see two Chiltern services run through L/ Chalfont in a space of 5 to 10 mins. One stops the other doesn't, a delay of 15 mins. Just intersested that's all. The first (and booked through first) Chiltern is 2B53 which is booked to non-stop Rickmansworth at 1825. Then comes your train - 446, booked at Rickmansworth 1833. Then the next train is 1B54 which is booked to pass Rickmansworth at 1839. Yesterday, your train was delayed and held due to a tresspass incident at Amersham. Once things started to move, priority was given to 1B54 which runs non-stop Marylebone to Great Missenden. Today I cannot vouch for as I wasn't there, but the pathing is such that if your train is more than 3-4 minutes late, the signaller will bring 1B54 through first as it will lose time if stuck behind 446 and incur a penalty. From December this type of thing will change, and unfortunately there will be occasions where the Chiltern will be delayed in favour of the Met. Many thanks for the explanation. Regards .. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 7:46:42 GMT
Mr and Mrs Chesham got theirs last year, this year Mr and Mrs Wembley have made a suggestion and it's been listened to. So will you be listening to Mr and Mrs Willesden Green and Mr and Mrs Neasden in the future? I doubt Chiltern will ever listen to Mr and Mrs Moor Park. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on May 20, 2011 8:51:58 GMT
I think I remember reading somewhere on here that Chiltern trains can't stop at Moor Park without some signalling alterations? Or am I misremembering something?
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on May 20, 2011 10:11:55 GMT
Chilterns can (and indeed have) stop at Moor Park. However a member of station staff has to be present to dispatch the train due to issues surrounding the OPO equipment.
Neasden and Willesden are the stations which would require altered signalling in order to be able to stop everything at both stations and still maintain a 5 minute headway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 10:27:06 GMT
Neasden and Willesden are the stations which would require altered signalling in order to be able to stop everything at both stations and still maintain a 5 minute headway. So something that could be seriously considered once CBTC is installed then? |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on May 20, 2011 13:08:15 GMT
Possibly. Never say never. But I would be very surprised if we started calling at those stations on a daily basis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 13:17:01 GMT
It did seem a bit short sighted to remove the crossovers at Finchley Road though as once the Met goes ATO it could have been an option to use the Jubilee line tracks if needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on May 20, 2011 16:48:35 GMT
Thats what I was wondering. My Timetable would be Amersham-Aldgate (calling at Wembley Park) 2tph Chesham-Baker St (calling at Wembely Park) 2tph Watford-Baker St 6tph Uxbridge-Aldgate 8tph Is this peak or off-peak? And can Aldgate really handle 10tph? If it is possible logistically, without causing a knock-on effect to the northern portion of the Circle, I would have alternating Uxbridges turn short @ Moorgate. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on May 20, 2011 18:09:38 GMT
It did seem a bit short sighted to remove the crossovers at Finchley Road though as once the Met goes ATO it could have been an option to use the Jubilee line tracks if needed. Except that the Jubilee line system is different from the planned Sub-surface railway system. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on May 20, 2011 18:17:48 GMT
Thats what I was wondering. My Timetable would be Amersham-Aldgate (calling at Wembley Park) 2tph Chesham-Baker St (calling at Wembely Park) 2tph Watford-Baker St 6tph Uxbridge-Aldgate 8tph Is this peak or off-peak? And can Aldgate really handle 10tph? If it is possible logistically, without causing a knock-on effect to the northern portion of the Circle, I would have alternating Uxbridges turn short @ Moorgate. Aldgate has the advantage that the platforms used for reversing trains are in the center of the formation, so an anti-clockwise Circle train can leave whilst a Met train is terminating (although the Hammersmith and City line direction would still be blocked). The layout at Moorgate requires terminating trains to cross all those heading in the other direction. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 19:27:55 GMT
Except that the Jubilee line system is different from the planned Sub-surface railway system. They are both going to be the same type of system though, one is called TBTC and the other CBTC. It's also possible that the Piccadilly will get TBTC and so the systems will have to be compatible as the Piccadilly shares tracks with the District and Met. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 19:30:35 GMT
Zoë - all that means is that they use radio transmission to control trains. The main workings of the systems are totally different!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 19:42:36 GMT
Zoë - all that means is that they use radio transmission to control trains. The main workings of the systems are totally different! But if the systems are going to have to be compatible due to the Piccadilly sharing tracks with the District/Met then I don't see why Met trains wouldn't be able to run on the Jubilee tracks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 19:57:35 GMT
AIUI the compatibility would be on the lineside, the two systems reporting to each other, if that would be the case.
If CityFlo 650 proves to be good I think it should be standardised on for future resignalling, tbh...
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on May 20, 2011 21:24:13 GMT
Zoë - all that means is that they use radio transmission to control trains. The main workings of the systems are totally different! But if the systems are going to have to be compatible due to the Piccadilly sharing tracks with the District/Met then I don't see why Met trains wouldn't be able to run on the Jubilee tracks. The difference is that the Piccadilly trains will still be using conventional signals which are easy(ish) to keep on top of/alongside a transmission based system. When the Piccadilly itself is resignalled, things will be more difficult unless the Piccadilly ends up using a system compatible with that on the Sub-surface lines (as mentioned by Charlie J). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 22:01:03 GMT
Couldnt the Picc stock just use 2 different types? Rayners Lane station being equipped with both types and then a swithover at Rayers for Uxbridge?
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on May 21, 2011 0:21:47 GMT
Come the next few weeks or so, Met trains will be using the entrances and exits to Neasden depot alongside Jubilee Line trains. There will also be crossovers at Wembley, Neasden and Baker Street (Jub/Bakerloo) which can handle the interfaces between each line.
Having the Jub running ABC, the Met running DEF, Chiltern running GHI, the Picc running JKL, is not ideal but the hurdles associated with the interfaces have already been though about and worked around.
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on May 21, 2011 1:38:44 GMT
Couldnt the Picc stock just use 2 different types? Rayners Lane station being equipped with both types and then a swithover at Rayers for Uxbridge? The problem may well be fitting both sets of equipment, including the antennae etc., into a Tube stock sized train. Also, it wouldn't just be Rayners Lane - Uxbridge, there would also be the parallel tracks (Piccadilly / District) from Baron's Court - Hanger Lane Junction to consider (including the shared tracks 'west' of Acton Town). |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on May 21, 2011 11:31:11 GMT
Couldnt the Picc stock just use 2 different types? Rayners Lane station being equipped with both types and then a swithover at Rayers for Uxbridge? The problem may well be fitting both sets of equipment, including the antennae etc., into a Tube stock sized train.. Since the early '40s we have had seventy years of all LU lines being intercompatible, even to the extent that BR trains can run over some sections of LU track. Now it seems this is all being thrown away. Is there any technical reason (as distinct from having the latest thing, and letting backwards compatibility go hang) why each line now seems to be being delivered with a signalling system completely incompatible with the rest? I can see some logic where the line is essentially isolated (Northern, Vic, W&C, Central) but the Picc and the Jubbly really do need to have the same system as the SSL. Why do they not? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2011 11:56:24 GMT
It's quite simple, contracts have to be put out to tender throughout the EU. There were separate contracts for different lines and they were won by different companies. Not much you can do about that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2011 12:07:42 GMT
How about they just stick out a contract for the whole bunch, then...
Might sound silly but it'd work so much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on May 21, 2011 12:29:03 GMT
It's quite simple, contracts have to be put out to tender throughout the EU. There were separate contracts for different lines and they were won by different companies. Not much you can do about that. Actually, you can make sure that the systems installed are compatible, after all British Rail managed it with trains/equipment from different manufacturers (for example the class 465 units from BREL and GEC Alsthom). The problems originally came from the Jubilee and Piccadilly being part of Tubelines when PPP came in, whilst the Sub-surface railways were with Metronet. Meaning that different companies were specifying the systems to be used in the planned upgrades. TfL could have insisted in the use of compatible systems (if not manufacturers) for future resignallings. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on May 21, 2011 12:32:17 GMT
The problem may well be fitting both sets of equipment, including the antennae etc., into a Tube stock sized train.. Since the early '40s we have had seventy years of all LU lines being intercompatible, even to the extent that BR trains can run over some sections of LU track. Now it seems this is all being thrown away. Is there any technical reason (as distinct from having the latest thing, and letting backwards compatibility go hang) why each line now seems to be being delivered with a signalling system completely incompatible with the rest? I can see some logic where the line is essentially isolated (Northern, Vic, W&C, Central) but the Picc and the Jubbly really do need to have the same system as the SSL. Why do they not? PPP. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2011 12:46:32 GMT
Couldn't the PPP have specified that compatible systems must be used so metronet and Tube Lines would had to have selected compatible systems?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2011 12:47:56 GMT
Given how the PPP went, do you think they were intelligent enough to think of that in the first place?
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on May 21, 2011 13:21:40 GMT
Couldn't the PPP have specified that compatible systems must be used so metronet and Tube Lines would had to have selected compatible systems? There's a lot of things that should have been done differently as part of the failed PPP. London will be suffering the consequences, and paying the bill for this expensive failure, for some years to come. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2011 13:29:10 GMT
London will be suffering the consequences, and paying the bill for this expensive failure, for some years to come. And it wasn't even what the government of London wanted. Ken Livingstone was against it and tried to stop it going through but Gordon Brown thought he knew best and forced it through. |
|
Is this new timetable a follow up to your signature then - "Go on then, you think you know how to run this thing, do it!" ;D
