|
|
Post by melikepie on Jul 3, 2014 7:53:28 GMT
With plans for eventual automation of the London Underground well underway, I am just wondering how it will work in areas where other line are still under manual control that share the same tracks.
|
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Jul 3, 2014 9:01:19 GMT
With all the inevitable snags,cock-ups,failed/corrupt sub-contractors etc: the outcome will probably not be seen by many of us of a certain age upwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jul 3, 2014 14:50:51 GMT
The only places I can think of this happening are all SSL (north met, Richmond and Wimbledon branches) so they will have a person in the cab until (at a guess) at least 2050, most likely longer, so any incidents can still be resolved. As for the actual signal integration, I suspect a clever system will be enacted, where the NR blocks are marked on top of areas in the ATO system, and will only display proceed aspects when the signal is clear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 14:53:14 GMT
The only places I can think of this happening are all SSL (north met, Richmond and Wimbledon branches) so they will have a person in the cab until (at a guess) at least 2050, most likely longer, so any incidents can still be resolved. As for the actual signal integration, I suspect a clever system will be enacted, where the NR blocks are marked on top of areas in the ATO system, and will only display proceed aspects when the signal is clear. Bakerloo? Or do you know something I don't  |
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jul 3, 2014 15:40:53 GMT
Ah yes. Of course. I suppose that with all of the promotion and interest it gets from TfL it should be easy to remember [/sarcasm] |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2014 5:43:27 GMT
The first line to go NoPO will be the Piccadilly with the first trains supposedly entering service in 2021 although because of space restrictions at the depots and sidings it will take at least a year for the last 1973ts train to be replaced. This means that you'll have the new all singing and dancing signal/control system working in parallel with antediluvian coloured lights and tripcocks so in theory using the same "hi-tech" system on NR track with a similar "lo-tech" system shouldn't present any problems.
Whether NR agrees to having the system installed on their track is another question entirely, at the moment if there is a delay on NR track then its NR's responsibility to sort it out and they incur any financial penalties, having LUL's signal system for driverless trains could throw up some interesting legal questions.
The Bakerloo presents huge problems as its main depot is Stonebridge Park; NR territory.
Using the driverless system on the same track as whatever ATO system the SSL finally gets is another question, the two "hi-tech" systems would have to be compatible otherwise they'd possibly shut down the line. At the moment LUL can't find a system to succeed where Bombardier Cityflo 650 failed, the chances of the SSLs going ATO by 2018 are fading.
Full automation is a long way off, when I retire in 2028 I suspect a combination of unforeseen problems, financial miscalculations and the usual management incompetence will mean that my last day will be on a 1992ts. By the time the Tube is fully driverless I'll have gone up the chimney!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2014 9:52:11 GMT
Using the driverless system on the same track as whatever ATO system the SSL finally gets is another question, the two "hi-tech" systems would have to be compatible otherwise they'd possibly shut down the line. Just to add, there's also the problem that London Reconnections brought up of PEDs (Platform Edge Doors). LR goes into a lot more details and poses potential workarounds but suffice it to say that the law currently requires that stations served by trains operating under full UTO have PEDs. This is obviously a large potential problem wherever the Picc shares track with the SSR because both types of trains would have to be able to line-up with doors. I should imagine it would be possible to engineer one's way around this problem, but it seems like this could be another thorn in the side. That said, the last I heard, his mayorness was still insisting that trains would be staffed at all times, but he also said he wouldn't close ticket offices so you can decide for yourselves whether you believe that. Anyway, he might well've gone by the time the first new NoPO/UTO/whoops, turns out we couldn't do it, ATO train starts running on the Picc. |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Jul 5, 2014 10:38:35 GMT
Using the driverless system on the same track as whatever ATO system the SSL finally gets is another question, the two "hi-tech" systems would have to be compatible otherwise they'd possibly shut down the line. Just to add, there's also the problem that London Reconnections brought up of PEDs (Platform Edge Doors). LR goes into a lot more details and poses potential workarounds but suffice it to say that the law currently requires that stations served by trains operating under full UTO have PEDs. This is obviously a large potential problem wherever the Picc shares track with the SSR because both types of trains would have to be able to line-up with doors. I should imagine it would be possible to engineer one's way around this problem, but it seems like this could be another thorn in the side. That said, the last I heard, his mayorness was still insisting that trains would be staffed at all times, but he also said he wouldn't close ticket offices so you can decide for yourselves whether you believe that. Anyway, he might well've gone by the time the first new NoPO/UTO/whoops, turns out we couldn't do it, ATO train starts running on the Picc. IMHO another excellent reason for building an entirely new system and ditching much of the existing network. PEDs are simply one of many issues that will or may impede automation of the existing system. The money wasted upon endless tinkering of a system that really is long past its sell by date is ridiculous. Of course such should have begun decades ago. An alternative of course is to ban all non-essential vehicular traffic from the capital and build a modern tram network with park and ride facilities at compass points around the M25. There might then be proper planning of a decently modern fully automated deep level metro system fit for purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 5, 2014 19:00:21 GMT
I imagine the option of terminating all Piccadilly trains in new platforms at Rayners Lane would become more attractive.
The new SSL trains have cabs so shared tracks are not such a big problem.
The Piccadilly, Central and W&C then being self contained would be easier to work on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2014 1:04:34 GMT
Just to add, there's also the problem that London Reconnections brought up of PEDs (Platform Edge Doors). LR goes into a lot more details and poses potential workarounds but suffice it to say that the law currently requires that stations served by trains operating under full UTO have PEDs. This is obviously a large potential problem wherever the Picc shares track with the SSR because both types of trains would have to be able to line-up with doors. I should imagine it would be possible to engineer one's way around this problem, but it seems like this could be another thorn in the side. That said, the last I heard, his mayorness was still insisting that trains would be staffed at all times, but he also said he wouldn't close ticket offices so you can decide for yourselves whether you believe that. Anyway, he might well've gone by the time the first new NoPO/UTO/whoops, turns out we couldn't do it, ATO train starts running on the Picc. There is no legal requirement for PEDs on UTO lines, if there were then at the very least the DLR extension to Stratford International would have them, possibly the Woolwich Arsenal extension too. In the LR article Pedantic of Purley merely states that "once a system is designed to be UTO-capable then a mandatory requirement almost always now follows – the network or line in question should have platform-edge doors at all stations". I wouldn't worry about Boris, he really doesn't understand public transport but then none of this is anything to do with him or anyone other than LUL. Ticket offices would have been closed in 2008/09, all Boris did was delay the inevitable, driverless trains will come later rather than sooner regardless of who is in City Hall. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2014 1:18:13 GMT
Just to add, there's also the problem that London Reconnections brought up of PEDs (Platform Edge Doors). LR goes into a lot more details and poses potential workarounds but suffice it to say that the law currently requires that stations served by trains operating under full UTO have PEDs. This is obviously a large potential problem wherever the Picc shares track with the SSR because both types of trains would have to be able to line-up with doors. I should imagine it would be possible to engineer one's way around this problem, but it seems like this could be another thorn in the side. That said, the last I heard, his mayorness was still insisting that trains would be staffed at all times, but he also said he wouldn't close ticket offices so you can decide for yourselves whether you believe that. Anyway, he might well've gone by the time the first new NoPO/UTO/whoops, turns out we couldn't do it, ATO train starts running on the Picc. There is no legal requirement for PEDs on UTO lines, if there were then at the very least the DLR extension to Stratford International would have them, possibly the Woolwich Arsenal extension too. In the LR article Pedantic of Purley merely states that "once a system is designed to be UTO-capable then a mandatory requirement almost always now follows – the network or line in question should have platform-edge doors at all stations". I wouldn't worry about Boris, he really doesn't understand public transport but then none of this is anything to do with him or anyone other than LUL. Ticket offices would have been closed in 2008/09, all Boris did was delay the inevitable, driverless trains will come later rather than sooner regardless of who is in City Hall. I suspect the requirement for PEDs only kicks in if it really is Unattended - not a single homo sapiens supervising, operating, driving, or in any other way looking after the train - or, for that matter, looking after its passengers. The DLR, of course, has a human looking after the train and in charge of it and - most importantly - taking care of that troublesome PTI. Although I must admit I haven't chased up PoP's claim and I can't really see that such a legal requirement would be necessary myself, so you could easily be right. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2014 1:30:50 GMT
There is no intention for the trains to be unstaffed, I think it was Mike Brown who mentioned the proposed "Train Attendant" grade, the LUL equivalent of the DLR PSAs but even if there wasn't anyone on board or on the platform there is no legal requirement for PEDs.
How the hell they're going to manage on the Central Line between Stratford and Chancery Lane at 8am on a Monday morning is beyond me, step off to check the doors at Mile End and they'll never get back on again!
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 6, 2014 7:09:56 GMT
I imagine the option of terminating all Piccadilly trains in new platforms at Rayners Lane would become more attractive. The Piccadilly,.then being self contained would be easier to work on. two words: "Ealing" and "Common" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2014 7:33:16 GMT
The simpler option would be for Acton Town to Uxbridge be transferred to the District and the Piccadilly to run Heathrow to Cockfosters which would avoid having two different systems covering the same track.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2014 9:19:25 GMT
The simpler option would be for Acton Town to Uxbridge be transferred to the District and the Piccadilly to run Heathrow to Cockfosters which would avoid having two different systems covering the same track. I tend to agree with you, they'd have to add a few more S7s to the order (shouldn't be a huge problem) and I don't know if the transition from blue to green could be made to slot in nicely with the SSR resignalling, but neither of these are really big obstacles. I think one of the trickiest parts would be making the line suitable for S7s. There are definitely clearance issues with a bridge that'd need sorting out. Comments on this thread suggest that a PSR (like they have for the Ds, I believe) won't do, so I've a feeling that this could become expensive. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 6, 2014 9:54:20 GMT
Cheapest (and therefore most likely) solution would be to only have one or other line call at Ealing Common. If it's the Picc, passengers would be protected from the non-stopping District trains by the PEDs.
|
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Jul 6, 2014 11:33:59 GMT
All they need to do is to reduce the ballast to it's origional depth.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Jul 6, 2014 18:16:19 GMT
Just to add, there's also the problem that London Reconnections brought up of PEDs (Platform Edge Doors). LR goes into a lot more details and poses potential workarounds but suffice it to say that the law currently requires that stations served by trains operating under full UTO have PEDs. This is obviously a large potential problem wherever the Picc shares track with the SSR because both types of trains would have to be able to line-up with doors. I should imagine it would be possible to engineer one's way around this problem, but it seems like this could be another thorn in the side. My bold. I seriously doubt there is a law mandating PEDs for full UTO on railways. It may be advantagous for an operator to install PEDs in conjuction with UTO implementation but I suspect there is no such law forcing railways to adopt PEDs when adopting UTO. In Nuremberg, Lines U2 and U3 are under full UTO with no need for staff on trains yet there are no PEDs on platforms. PEDs were considered but found to be impractical so a laser based obstacle detection system was installed instead. I suspect my point is moot as there aren't any plans fo full UTO on LUL, rather more limited UTO with train captains like on the DLR. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2014 18:53:14 GMT
Fair enough  |
|
