Whole Jubilee line suspended

Oh no, not again! Doesn't this equate to a good service?? ;D ;D

But surely its easier to make custom mechanical technology from scratch than to make outdated electronic componants from scratch?

That would be the end of the world for you as trains would have less performance.

Because there were no signal failures on the line prior to the introduction of TBTC, were there?

Happens sometimes on the Waterloo & City

yeah, you get part suspension on the Waterloo & City Line.... seriously ive seen it happen

TFL site said Part Suspension as the problem... obviously an error, but was funny seeing it Imagine the passengers face, you have just left bank, next stop is... bank

It's theoretically possible if one of the platforms at Waterloo is not suitable for passenger use so trains run empty in one direction.

I've also arrived at Bank when the station was being evacuated due to a fire alert, we were allowed to get off and leave the station, but I don't know if following trains already in the pipe were sent back to Waterloo or were just held in the tunnel until it cleared.

What you didn't get before was a failure which suspends the entire line.

With conventional signalling, this is extremely rare. It happened on the Northern Line last Friday, but it's is a very, very, very rare occurrence.

When the old signaling system was in operation why could trains not of run on full preformance? I know it may be due to signal overlaps but i have been on other metro systems which have used fixed block signaling and is manually driven and trains seemed to have good preformance.

Tyne and Wear metro in Newcastle

Yes not a bad system but based on low service frequencies than on tube. Also isn't it considered to be a light rail system?

Is that so? That post could equally be pertinant to another thread about the so-called-driverless trains that London wont be able to afford in the future...

Its signalling is based on very similar principles to Conventional LU signalling, including the concept of individually calculated overlaps and trainstops (though theirs are inductive, not mechanical).

Certainly a few people I know have been involved on T&WM signalling mods principally for their knowledge of LU.

Back on thread, however:

The original overlaps on the Jubilee Line were calculated for 1972TS (or probably older, in fact!) performance. 1996TS performance greatly exceeds that, especially at the higher end of the scale.

LU therefore had two choices upon introduction of 1996TS with regards to the 'original' Jubilee line:
1) Resignal it immediately with signal positions to suit higher performance (some bits only dating from 1984!), which could then have a knock-on effect on the Metropolitan line as signals on parallel lines should be co-located; or
2) Limit the train performance until the next planned resignalling.

I think the option taken was by far the more cost-effective.

Also with regards to the reliability of the Jubilee line's old signalling system; it was one of the newer conventional bits. The weakness was the throughput of trains on the extension where the signalling wasn't designed to handle large numbers of trains.