Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2012 14:45:10 GMT
Hello, this is my first post. I'm an LUL (formally Metronet) employee working at Victoria (not the station).
I have a gripe with the Central Line.
I've been travelling to and from Epping for about nine years and there's one issue that angers me, and many others, more than anything else.
Epping has two platforms, Numbers 1 and 2. Number two houses the main entrance / exit to the buses, taxis and carpark. Number 1, nothing - until recently - now it has an exit gate.
Why, when there is no train on No.2 are incoming trains routed into No.1? At peak times this leads to a trainload of passengers struggling to get over the footbridge to their buses and cars whilst, at the same time, the passengers who were waiting on No.2 (no one trusts the indicator board) struggle to go against the tide to get their train. I've seen people actually miss their train on No.1 due to the congestion. After a long day at work this issue really does make people angry. And of course, when it's wet / dark / late it makes it seem even worse.
Is it not beyond the wit of the people who control these things to spot that No.2 is unoccupied and route the incoming train to park there and allow the platform to clear quickly?
So, can someone explain the reason or rationale behind this? I emailed LUL some years ago and the reply mumbled something vague about signalling issues.
Any offers?
All the best,
Sp
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Dec 19, 2012 16:27:45 GMT
It might be that with the train ready to depart platform 1, simultaneously a train can arrive in platform 2.
If you already have a train ready to depart platform 2, but you have another arriving in platform 1, that train in platform 2 can't go anywhere until the arriving train has fully berthed in platform 1.
So operating as per my first example, you can effectively run two trains closer together and get the next westbound away as an eastbound is arriving.........in the second example, the eastbound arrival must arrive before anything can go west.
Hope all that makes sense.....
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 19, 2012 17:36:35 GMT
Hello, this is my first post. I'm an LUL (formally Metronet) employee working at Victoria (not the station). I have a gripe with the Central Line. I've been travelling to and from Epping for about nine years and there's one issue that angers me, and many others, more than anything else. Epping has two platforms, Numbers 1 and 2. Number two houses the main entrance / exit to the buses, taxis and carpark. Number 1, nothing - until recently - now it has an exit gate. Why, when there is no train on No.2 are incoming trains routed into No.1? At peak times this leads to a trainload of passengers struggling to get over the footbridge to their buses and cars whilst, at the same time, the passengers who were waiting on No.2 (no one trusts the indicator board) struggle to go against the tide to get their train. I've seen people actually miss their train on No.1 due to the congestion. After a long day at work this issue really does make people angry. And of course, when it's wet / dark / late it makes it seem even worse. Is it not beyond the wit of the people who control these things to spot that No.2 is unoccupied and route the incoming train to park there and allow the platform to clear quickly? So, can someone explain the reason or rationale behind this? I emailed LUL some years ago and the reply mumbled something vague about signalling issues. Any offers? All the best, Sp Two reasons: 1) Trains will generally be routed into the platform booked in the Working Timetable. I would imagine at Epping the timetable would use no.2 where possible, but only where there is no operational reason to use no.1. 2) At any terminus, if all platforms are unoccupied then it is generally desirable for an incoming train be be routed into the right-hand most available platform. This means that the next train can enter at the same time as the initial train is leaving. The exception would be where no second train is likely to arrive during that time, in which case it does not matter. |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Dec 19, 2012 18:14:22 GMT
Epping is booked to alternate platforms, regardless of WTT density.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2012 19:02:14 GMT
I hate it too when I have to use a footbridge at a station!  XF |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Dec 19, 2012 21:12:20 GMT
Don't forget though, if you're using Platform 1 at Epping you could always visit the Tea Point!  (click for a larger version) |
|
|
|
Post by miff on Dec 19, 2012 23:59:26 GMT
When I was a lad that door was labelled Motorman's Mess - has he cleaned it up?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2012 0:03:38 GMT
Don't forget though, if you're using Platform 1 at Epping you could always visit the Tea Point! (click for a larger version) If I knew the combination ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Dec 20, 2012 4:49:36 GMT
In the "good old days" was one platform designated for Ongar trains and the other designated for trains coming in from London and reversing back westbound?
|
|
neilw
now that's what I call a garden railway
Posts: 284
|
Post by neilw on Dec 20, 2012 7:44:27 GMT
yes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2012 7:50:43 GMT
In the "good old days" was one platform designated for Ongar trains and the other designated for trains coming in from London and reversing back westbound? Whenever I went to Ongar from Epping (20 or so occasions in my distant youth) it was always from platform 1 although I couldn't swear this had always been the case. According to the picture in this link there were points north of platform 2 to allow through running from there. **EDIT: Link fixed and further image added due to crushing pressure from londonstuff........... commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Epping_station_high_northbound_from_road_bridge.JPGHere's a more forum friendly sized image of the above full sized version.  |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Dec 20, 2012 12:33:22 GMT
At opening, Ongar trains could be signalled from or to either platform, I'm pretty sure that this ability remained until the branch closed, though in latter years there was very little variation.
I know that in the aborted automation there were 4 programme machines planned, which would indicate the likelihood of the Ongar branch being reduced to one platform (unless of course you don't bother with a time coincidence machine).
|
|
neilw
now that's what I call a garden railway
Posts: 284
|
Post by neilw on Dec 20, 2012 17:17:05 GMT
correct, the route from plt 2 was available until the end, it was used for trains taking up service on the line in the morning and for supplementing the peak service to two trains when this was done (with the passing loop at North Weald)
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Dec 21, 2012 14:51:56 GMT
Even when the Ongar branch was open, trains to Central London still used platform 1, but of course could only do so when the Ongar shuttle was not using it. The frequency of trains from Epping to Central London was much less than nowadays, so it was less of a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by motorman on Dec 21, 2012 22:21:02 GMT
Looking at the photo supplied by whistlekiller the tracks to the north of Epping station would appear to be unused. A long term solution could be to provide buffer stops at the end of platcforms 1 & 2 and have a passenger walkway behind the stops thus making the footbridge redundant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2012 22:31:44 GMT
Looking at the photo supplied by whistlekiller the tracks to the north of Epping station would appear to be unused. A long term solution could be to provide buffer stops at the end of platcforms 1 & 2 and have a passenger walkway behind the stops thus making the footbridge redundant. What a good idea! Then (with a few hundred grand!!!!) they could build up the old siding (to the left) to provide a platform and station for the EOR. Pigs may fly!!  |
|
|
|
Post by rsdworker on Dec 21, 2012 22:36:56 GMT
Looking at the photo supplied by whistlekiller the tracks to the north of Epping station would appear to be unused. A long term solution could be to provide buffer stops at the end of platcforms 1 & 2 and have a passenger walkway behind the stops thus making the footbridge redundant. What a good idea! Then (with a few hundred grand!!!!) they could build up the old siding (to the left) to provide a platform and station for the EOR. Pigs may fly!! yeah sounds easier and more wheelchair accessible - currently - disabled persons have to request the accessible platform but if they arrive at platform 1 - there exit gate which unlocked by staff |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Dec 21, 2012 23:13:30 GMT
The problem with that is that it would result in shortening the available overrun at Epping - currently trains can approach the platforms at line speed in the knowledge there is a full speed overrun beyond. To relocate the buffer stops closer to Epping would require significant redesign of the signalling on the approaches and increase journey time.
A few hundred grand? I think you're looking closer to a million.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2012 10:09:48 GMT
They have a passenger walkway behind the buffers (for step-free access reasons) at High Barnet, but nobody really uses it, with it being quicker to go over the footbridge.
At High Barnet I'd say they do prioritise putting a train on Platform 1 (on which the step-free exit is located) if all the platforms are empty. But that is a rare occurrence. Increasingly we find ourselves waiting for a short time outside the station, whilst a platform becomes available. Time to squeeze a fourth platform in and do away with some of the (mostly disused) sidings?
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 22, 2012 10:32:40 GMT
They have a passenger walkway behind the buffers (for step-free access reasons) at High Barnet, but nobody really uses it, with it being quicker to go over the footbridge. At High Barnet I'd say they do prioritise putting a train on Platform 1 (on which the step-free exit is located) if all the platforms are empty. But that is a rare occurrence. Increasingly we find ourselves waiting for a short time outside the station, whilst a platform becomes available. Time to squeeze a fourth platform in and do away with some of the (mostly disused) sidings? The sidings are not disused, they are used for stabling trains every night, and also for trains being 'put away' unplanned, especially now there is a train crew depot at High Barnet. 3 of the sidings have never been commissioned. They were designed for additional trains as part of the 95 stock project, however my understanding is they were never commissioned because it would have meant altering the interlocking. The PPP project dictates assets should be upgraded 'like for like', so we will still have 3 uncommissioned sidings well in to the future... |
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
|
Post by DWS on Dec 22, 2012 16:22:19 GMT
They have a passenger walkway behind the buffers (for step-free access reasons) at High Barnet, but nobody really uses it, with it being quicker to go over the footbridge. At High Barnet I'd say they do prioritise putting a train on Platform 1 (on which the step-free exit is located) if all the platforms are empty. But that is a rare occurrence. Increasingly we find ourselves waiting for a short time outside the station, whilst a platform becomes available. Time to squeeze a fourth platform in and do away with some of the (mostly disused) sidings? The sidings are not disused, they are used for stabling trains every night, and also for trains being 'put away' unplanned, especially now there is a train crew depot at High Barnet. 3 of the sidings have never been commissioned. They were designed for additional trains as part of the 95 stock project, however my understanding is they were never commissioned because it would have meant altering the interlocking. The PPP project dictates assets should be upgraded 'like for like', so we will still have 3 uncommissioned sidings well in to the future... The PPP project is dead, but not yet in the grave ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2012 7:59:08 GMT
The first EB train to Ongar from Loughton for both the morning and evening services ran from platform 2 and after that used platform 1 for the rest of the service.
|
|
|
|
Post by JR 15secs on Dec 23, 2012 11:48:15 GMT
I know that in the aborted automation there were 4 programme machines planned, which would indicate the likelihood of the Ongar branch being reduced to one platform (unless of course you don't bother with a time coincidence machine). My notes show 3 PMs were planned 1 for each direction and 1 for TD, no mention of a Time machine as these had been done away with by the time the Central was going to be programmed. I know there are still 3 sites that have Time machines but there days are numbered (Watford 1/Putney B 1/Parsons Green 2) |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Dec 23, 2012 13:35:15 GMT
I know that in the aborted automation there were 4 programme machines planned, which would indicate the likelihood of the Ongar branch being reduced to one platform (unless of course you don't bother with a time coincidence machine). My notes show 3 PMs were planned 1 for each direction and 1 for TD, no mention of a Time machine as these had been done away with by the time the Central was going to be programmed. I know there are still 3 sites that have Time machines but there days are numbered (Watford 1/Putney B 1/Parsons Green 2) Do you have any more details on the Central PMs, please? I'm pretty sure that I've given you the allocation numbers as in total per site and which are push button; but I have no more detail than that, and I also gave the details to Mike Horne. |
|
|
|
Post by JR 15secs on Dec 23, 2012 14:01:20 GMT
My notes show 3 PMs were planned 1 for each direction and 1 for TD, no mention of a Time machine as these had been done away with by the time the Central was going to be programmed. I know there are still 3 sites that have Time machines but there days are numbered (Watford 1/Putney B 1/Parsons Green 2) Do you have any more details on the Central PMs, please? I'm pretty sure that I've given you the allocation numbers as in total per site and which are push button; but I have no more detail than that, and I also gave the details to Mike Horne. Exactly what details are you after as it will save me going through my loft to check. Can you clarify what you mean by giving me the allocation numbers and which are push button? |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Dec 23, 2012 14:06:06 GMT
Do you have any more details on the Central PMs, please? I'm pretty sure that I've given you the allocation numbers as in total per site and which are push button; but I have no more detail than that, and I also gave the details to Mike Horne. Exactly what details are you after as it will save me going through my loft to check. Can you clarify what you mean by giving me the allocation numbers and which are push button? Will do - but it'll be in a day or so, as it's open season on bellringing at the moment, as I'm in two ¼s this afternoon. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 23:34:05 GMT
Looking at the photo supplied by whistlekiller the tracks to the north of Epping station would appear to be unused. A long term solution could be to provide buffer stops at the end of platcforms 1 & 2 and have a passenger walkway behind the stops thus making the footbridge redundant.
Funny you should mention that, There is a current piece of work ( yes i hate the term too ) looking at this very issue, there will be trials over the next few weeks of different ways of platform working, although, entirely personally, I don't think it'll make a jot of difference, some trains will still end up over the wrong side of the footbridge, and it will always be so !
My suggestion is along the lines you've suggested, a nice wide walkway around the back of the stops, and we'll bite the slower run-in speed, and theres a cost/benefit analysis going along those very lines as we speak.
The good yo-folk of Epping will still moan, they'll just have to find another subject.
Charmed
Phil
|
|
