|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 15, 2016 21:56:57 GMT
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196 
|
Post by Tom on Jan 16, 2016 1:23:16 GMT
Yes we're back into the New year's cycle of TfL official meetings with the Finance and Policy Cttee papers. A few highlights - SSR control systems update paper - content.tfl.gov.uk/fpc-160121-item11-four-lines-modernisation.pdf Wonder who the "Resident LU Engineer" in Toronto is? Hope they've taken some woolies with them for the Winter.   4.22 is a bit out of date... 4.26 is interesting too! |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jan 16, 2016 7:31:11 GMT
Wonder who the "Resident LU Engineer" in Toronto is? Hope they've taken some woolies with them for the Winter. If there's a connection and without naming names, the current Chief Operating Officer and Deputy Chief Operating Officer of the TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) are both ex-LU senior Managers, one of whom also worked for Thalys. |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jan 16, 2016 8:34:06 GMT
How can the £122m for converting the 92TS to ac be justified - what will it involve, with what consequences for the passenger?
|
|
|
|
Post by programmes1 on Jan 16, 2016 9:29:50 GMT
Wonder who the "Resident LU Engineer" in Toronto is? Hope they've taken some woolies with them for the Winter. If there's a connection and without naming names, the current Chief Operating Officer and Deputy Chief Operating Officer of the TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) are both ex-LU senior Managers, one of whom also worked for Thalys. From what I have seen most ex LU managers go to Australia, the deputy MP IIRC was giving a talk and went outside the room but his wireless mic was still on and he made some comments about the people he had been speaking to and I think he had the nickname Flora. |
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jan 16, 2016 10:18:33 GMT
How can the £122m for converting the 92TS to ac be justified - what will it involve, with what consequences for the passenger? They will be become a damn sight more reliable (in theory!) which will allow the central line to run their high frequency timetable more reliably. It will also allow for night tube to work without placing the maintenance people under a high(er) workload. What will it involve? I am guessing it will involve removing the old GTO equipment, replacing it with an IGBT system, and changing the motors. It should be a fairly easy job, but these kind of things always run into delays and teething problems (see the SWT 455 conversion project which is still at the 2 test units stage, and has been for a while now) |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jan 16, 2016 13:47:00 GMT
Thanks domh245; just that £122m seems an awful lot of money!
|
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jan 16, 2016 14:29:20 GMT
I've done a little bit of research, and my understanding is that the 92TS have 100% motored axles (700 cars in total, 2800 axles). If you break £122m down by car, it works out at £174,285 per car. Divide by 5 for 4x traction motors and the converters, and you get £34,857 per component.
It does seem a lot, but there is a bit more maths. My research suggests that the LT130 motors fitted to the 92TS are rated for 46kW. Looking at RS-Components, the going rate for a 5.5kW AC motor is between £550 and £. Scale that up to 46kW and you are looking at £4,600 per motor (assuming price scales linearly with power). So where does the other £30,257 per component come from? That would come from the design work, the actual work being done (labour doesn't come cheap), recertification and commissioning, possibly transportation to and from wherever the work is being done, as well as the need to implement a few modifications to get the things to fit together and work. Things that would need modifying, according to squarewheels include: wiring, software, bogies and underframe-attachment points. Don't forget that you will also want to order a few spares with your new traction equipment and the price is soon starting to mount up.
Finally, let's compare the cost of this to a similar project (the 455 conversion). The contract awarded to Vossloh Kiepe to retraction 90 units, with 1 motor car per (so 90 cars total) was worth £40,000,000. That works out as £444,444 per car. Admittedly, that contract calls for beefier motors, as well as the need to meet Network Rail's stringent safety testing, whilst giving Vossoh Kiepe less opportunity for bulk buying, but it looks like LU have got an absolute steal (assuming that the contract award is for £122m and doesn't go up). The real question is, will LU break even in terms of maintenance savings and delay?
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jan 16, 2016 15:58:25 GMT
domh245, that's a most interesting calculation. Will it be worth it? Perhaps this depends on how long the 92TS is retained in service, and on that we hear conflicting opinions!
Presumably the remotoring cannot be done in Hainault, etc? If so the trains would have to be lugged out of London
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2016 19:20:08 GMT
Yes we're back into the New year's cycle of TfL official meetings with the Finance and Policy Cttee papers. A few highlights - SSR control systems update paper - content.tfl.gov.uk/fpc-160121-item11-four-lines-modernisation.pdf Wonder who the "Resident LU Engineer" in Toronto is? Hope they've taken some woolies with them for the Winter. 4.22 is a bit out of date... 4.26 is interesting too! No mentioning of the removal of Hornchurch the rest has been done but Gloucester Road I believe is further on this year |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2016 19:55:05 GMT
Wonder who the "Resident LU Engineer" in Toronto is? Hope they've taken some woolies with them for the Winter. If there's a connection and without naming names, the current Chief Operating Officer and Deputy Chief Operating Officer of the TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) are both ex-LU senior Managers, one of whom also worked for Thalys. Nope, completely on the wrong track on that one, sorry. Besides, neither are engineers. Will be one of the 4LM team. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Jan 18, 2016 2:00:13 GMT
Do you think they get anything back for the scrapped motors?
|
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
|
Post by DWS on Jan 18, 2016 7:23:23 GMT
4.22 is a bit out of date... 4.26 is interesting too! No mentioning of the removal of Hornchurch the rest has been done but Gloucester Road I believe is further on this year 228a & 228b points at Gloucester Road are planed to be removed over the weekend 6 & 7 February 2016 and the track plain lined. |
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
|
Post by DWS on Jan 18, 2016 7:25:26 GMT
Do you think they get anything back for the scrapped motors? You could put in a bid for them  |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jan 18, 2016 8:20:48 GMT
Scrap value of motors-- approx 10p per pound weight, half of what it was 2-3 years ago
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Jan 19, 2016 2:14:55 GMT
Is that as bad as it looks, because it looks pretty bad...
Prospects for the AIT aren't looking too healthy either...
|
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Jan 19, 2016 12:55:21 GMT
Is that as bad as it looks, because it looks pretty bad... Probably not, to be totally honest. Only two trains were ever scoped to receive ATC fitment (Sarah Siddons & the 1938 stock) and, with the descoping of the extent of ATC operation (i.e. retaining some tripcock-compatible areas of railway, notably the top end of the Met) heritage operations will still be possible over the "traditional" stomping ground for such events. It will mean no opportunities to take the vehicles into the City, although - for now - the '38TS does remain compatible with the Piccadilly line too. Ultimately TfL are here to run an intensive metro service, not to play trains, so any options for the heritage fleet to remain operational are above and beyond the minimum. Prospects for the AIT aren't looking too healthy either... Unsurprising. The AIT project has been under "strategic review" for at least a year now, owing to its numerous delays and spiralling costs. Other projects are looking at adding many of the functions of both the Track Recording Train and AIT to passenger stock - temporarily or permanently - as a possible alternative. Considering the AIT made its first movements back in 2010 - with the project commencing some years before that - it's clear that it is taking far too long to deliver at a reasonable price; a hang-over from Tube Lines' time as PPP contractor, no doubt... |
|
|
|
Post by patrickb on Jan 19, 2016 17:40:44 GMT
Surely there's a business aspect to it too. How much in revenue does LTM get out of Heritage Vehicle Outings. If any costs need to be covered, then what are these and to who?
I think that the incident with the Cravens unit has put the nail in the coffin for future HVO's.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Jan 19, 2016 19:38:03 GMT
Surely there's a business aspect to it too. How much in revenue does LTM get out of Heritage Vehicle Outings. If any costs need to be covered, then what are these and to who? I think that the incident with the Cravens unit has put the nail in the coffin for future HVO's. The heritage trips do not cover their costs, which are written off. Considering there were trips between Watford and Chesham last year - after the Cravens incident - your closing statement is unlikely, and I have it on good authority that more electric and steam trips are being planned for the future. |
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jan 19, 2016 20:51:14 GMT
MoreToJack is correct
Heritage and other such trips lose a shedload of money every time
The reason is the phenomenal cost of special liability insurance policies and the Health & Safety stipulations accompanying them which are required for the cover to be put on risk. These policies have to be placed through Lloyds of London underwriters, and you are looking at serious money for premiums which wont be covered by ticket sales.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 19, 2016 23:30:05 GMT
MoreToJack is correct Heritage and other such trips lose a shedload of money every time The reason is the phenomenal cost of special liability insurance policies and the Health & Safety stipulations accompanying them which are required for the cover to be put on risk. These policies have to be placed through Lloyds of London underwriters, and you are looking at serious money for premiums which wont be covered by ticket sales. I may well be very ill informed but I thought TfL effectively self insured. It has its own Insurance Company "London Transport Insurance Guernsey". I am slightly surprised that running, for example, 38 stock on a tube line would require such elaborate provisions. Steam workings are somewhat different and bring additional risks but again not so great that it needs special liability insurance. Happy to be correct / enlightened as necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by patrickb on Jan 20, 2016 0:55:16 GMT
Yes, I too am surprised to learn this. Particularly with Electric Stock. 38TS maybe costly to run because of age but surely, 62' or 72's, however unlikely that they will run again, would not impose many risks if they were able to run.
Was Cravens Heritage Trains faced with the same issues when they did a tour of various lines? I know that this was under 'London Transport' so thing might of been different then.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jan 20, 2016 8:36:16 GMT
I might be of date regarding liability re-insurance for all heritage trips, so an FOI request would seem to be the only way to discover why ticket sale revenue falls short of the cost of running them. I am not disagreeing with snoggle, but I suspect the H&S requirements are a major factor. Also, LTIG's day to day cover will be separate for these "specials".
Although after Kings Cross and Moorgate, all risk is being removed from the system as much as it can be, H&S and re-insurance risk are both worlds away from those days now.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Jan 21, 2016 23:37:16 GMT
No mentioning of the removal of Hornchurch the rest has been done but Gloucester Road I believe is further on this year 228a & 228b points at Gloucester Road are planed to be removed over the weekend 6 & 7 February 2016 and the track plain lined. Oh, really? You might get a surprise if you turn up at Gloucester Road on Sunday morning then... |
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
|
Post by DWS on Jan 22, 2016 15:45:53 GMT
228a & 228b points at Gloucester Road are planed to be removed over the weekend 6 & 7 February 2016 and the track plain lined. Oh, really? You might get a surprise if you turn up at Gloucester Road on Sunday morning then... The points are to be secured out of use and alterations made to signals on site at G.R. and a new diagram showing the end state layout is being done in the Earl's Court control room on This Weekend. Unless you're saying the plans have been changed for some reason ? |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Jan 26, 2016 20:28:47 GMT
Well, sort of.
The plan was never to remove the points on the weekend of 6/7th Feb, it was always to plain line in stages over the nights of 23/24/25 Jan (228B) and 30/31 Jan and 1st Feb (228A). The 6th was always going to be a 'signalling only' weekend where the points were already gone and the signalling alterations not really visible. The noticeable alterations were during the previous two weeks.
|
|
- tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/fpc-160121-item13-p1-new-routemasters.pdf
- tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/fpc-160121-item13-p1-new-routemasters.pdf
