|
|
Post by jimbo on Jan 19, 2020 19:29:38 GMT
In response to a recent Freedom of Information request about the launch of SMA1+2 with untrained drivers, the reply has the expected "The train operators were fully trained and certified to operate within the new signalling system prior to its introduction. However, as part of our commitment to safety, all train operators had to be accompanied through the new section by an instructor operator the first few times they went through the new area." However, in a meeting pdf attached, top of page 21 says "Given the late notice change of Go Live date, it has not been possible to ensure all the Met T/Ops are refreshed ready for 31-Aug. 24 T/Ops will be undertake CBTC conversion training or Refreshers before 31-Aug, leaving around 20 who are >6 months since their refresher and won’t be able to drive through the CBTC area. They will be refreshed from w/c 14-Sept" One wonders if the 24 T/Ops did complete their refresher training! see: tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-2019-1920 |
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Jan 19, 2020 20:53:55 GMT
And now SMA 3 being kicked into the long grass is brewing the exact same scenario for T/Ops on the District!
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jan 20, 2020 3:50:45 GMT
Time will obviously tell, but I completed my six month refresher last week so we’re certainly maintaining our state of readiness at the east end of the District.
The west end of the District is a whole other situation however.
Due to the short sightedness of placing the boundary at Paddington rather than Notting Hill Gate, we are currently continuing to provide instructor operator support (or using “project pool” drivers that have transferred from the H&C/Circle lines) for every District line trip between Paddington & Edgware Road.
Line management are working with union reps to try and agree a process whereby those drivers who are comfortable to run without support may do so between Paddington & Edgware Road only. Any such agreement must take account of the fact that drivers would be running solo out of goodwill rather than through having completed the full qualification process. I would stress that this has been rumbling on for some time and both sides won’t agree to anything that is unsafe and importantly, this would not mean that west end District drivers could be considered fully qualified for SMA3.
Whatever happens next, my personal opinion is that whenever SMA3 eventually goes live it will be chaotic with service disruption for the first week. Given the number of trains we can fit in the SMA3 area (Monument to Stepney Green), and that instructors will actually be changing directions at Mansion House due to the location of particular facilities and cab access restrictions at Monument.....and spreading the line’s instructor operator resource across the entire traffic day.....it’s gonna be fun!
If only that Paddington boundary was at Notting Hill Gate and the west end District drivers were fully signed off properly by now......
As an instructor that’s spent a good few months at Paddington, I can’t complain as it has made a refreshing change from the mundane day to day job, and I’ve learned a lot about CBTC. But I do find it frustrating that (as is often the case with LU projects) this could have been implemented in a much better way.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jan 20, 2020 4:21:24 GMT
It seems to me that High Street reversing will have to apply whilst SMA3 is commissioned, since Instructors will be spread thinly between Monument, Stepney Green and Paddington!
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jan 20, 2020 4:37:17 GMT
As I allude to above, the hope (on the part of management) is that by the time SMA3 arrives, west end District drivers will be running Paddington to Edgware Road without support.
Should that be the case, 100% of the line’s instructor resource can be thrown at SMA3.
And before anyone asks, on paper the District line has 50 instructors across its 4 depots. Factoring in travelling time, rest days, annual leave, etc.......it doesn’t take a genius to realise just how tight things will be!
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jan 20, 2020 9:01:13 GMT
Due to the short sightedness of placing the boundary at Paddington rather than Notting Hill Gate, we are currently continuing to provide instructor operator support (or using “project pool” drivers that have transferred from the H&C/Circle lines) for every District line trip between Paddington & Edgware Road. Why would putting the boundary at Notting Hill Gate have made a difference? Wouldn't that mean support would be needed all the way from there to Edgware Road, which in turn would need more instructors would be needed to provide that support? |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jan 20, 2020 9:20:54 GMT
The minimum criteria for qualification to run solo is six trips over three or more consecutive stations with an Instructor Operator - at least two of those trips must be driven in protected manual.
So had the boundary been at Notting Hill Gate, yes it would have cost us more resources in the short term, but we could have had the west end District line drivers fully qualified within a month or so.
Instead we have the ongoing farce......
|
|
|
|
Post by ijmad on Jan 20, 2020 10:34:01 GMT
Is the three consecutive stations rule to ensure a driver sees one transition in, one transition out, and one fully CBTC station stop/go?
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 20, 2020 10:56:20 GMT
Is the three consecutive stations rule to ensure a driver sees one transition in, one transition out, and one fully CBTC station stop/go? All seems a bit silly to me. Two extra sections of plain line running won’t make a massive difference, particularly in ATO working. If someone can negotiate Edgware Road in PM then stopping at Bayswater and Notting Hill Gate isn’t going to provide them with any meaningful extra expertise. In any case moves form a major part of route knowledge, more so with TBTC or CBTC. People have jumped into a TBTC train on a line they’re not familiar with and happily driven from one end to the other in PM with no guidance or prompting required at all. Having said that, manual driving is a major issue on the Jubilee and Northern lines, with people losing massive amounts of time. It’s quite common for drivers to lose 4 or 5 minutes on Sundays just between Totteridge and East Finchley. Ironically newly qualified drivers are often less of an issue as they have much more opportunity for supervised practice as part of their training; established drivers got their six trips and that was it - no supervised manual driving on the rest of the line at all. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jan 20, 2020 11:10:21 GMT
Is the three consecutive stations rule to ensure a driver sees one transition in, one transition out, and one fully CBTC station stop/go? All seems a bit silly to me. Two extra sections of plain line running won’t make a massive difference, particularly in ATO working. If someone can negotiate Edgware Road in PM then stopping at Bayswater and Notting Hill Gate isn’t going to provide them with any meaningful extra expertise. I didn’t set the criteria. At some point in time somebody decided that the six trips / three stations “rule” is the benchmark that lines with TBTC / CBTC work to when qualifying existing drivers for the first time. At the end of the day, some sort of minimum has to be set. It possibly could have been one station (though let’s be honest, it was never going to be) or it could have been ten stations. It could have one trip or twenty one trips. Whatever the reasons, six & three are the numbers and that’s that! |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 20, 2020 14:08:42 GMT
Is the three consecutive stations rule to ensure a driver sees one transition in, one transition out, and one fully CBTC station stop/go? All seems a bit silly to me. Two extra sections of plain line running won’t make a massive difference, particularly in ATO working. If someone can negotiate Edgware Road in PM then stopping at Bayswater and Notting Hill Gate isn’t going to provide them with any meaningful extra expertise. I didn’t set the criteria. At some point in time somebody decided that the six trips / three stations “rule” is the benchmark that lines with TBTC / CBTC work to when qualifying existing drivers for the first time. At the end of the day, some sort of minimum has to be set. It possibly could have been one station (though let’s be honest, it was never going to be) or it could have been ten stations. It could have one trip or twenty one trips. Whatever the reasons, six & three are the numbers and that’s that! One way or other there’s an element of farce about it. Six trips isn’t enough to properly train for manual driving - as evidenced by the fact the Jubilee and Northern essentially fail to meet the timetable when manual driving is required. This will only be worse on the SSR as there’s more open running and thus more scope for manual driving being required. If there’s a corporate acceptance that no one really cares about manual driving as long as the train just about manages to get from A to B, then there’s zero practical difference between 18 trips Paddington to Edgware Road and 6 trips Notting Hill Gate to Edgware Road. Still, as you say, neither you or I devised the current plans... |
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Jan 21, 2020 2:39:23 GMT
I didn’t set the criteria. At some point in time somebody decided that the six trips / three stations “rule” is the benchmark that lines with TBTC / CBTC work to when qualifying existing drivers for the first time. At the end of the day, some sort of minimum has to be set. It possibly could have been one station (though let’s be honest, it was never going to be) or it could have been ten stations. It could have one trip or twenty one trips. Whatever the reasons, six & three are the numbers and that’s that! One way or other there’s an element of farce about it. Six trips isn’t enough to properly train for manual driving - as evidenced by the fact the Jubilee and Northern essentially fail to meet the timetable when manual driving is required. This will only be worse on the SSR as there’s more open running and thus more scope for manual driving being required. If there’s a corporate acceptance that no one really cares about manual driving as long as the train just about manages to get from A to B, then there’s zero practical difference between 18 trips Paddington to Edgware Road and 6 trips Notting Hill Gate to Edgware Road. Still, as you say, neither you or I devised the current plans... There is a huge practical difference between 18 trips Paddington to Edgware Road and 6 trips Notting Hill Gate to Edgware Road. The difference is the speed the train will enter the platform and speed in between platforms. Paddington and Edgware Road are a short distance between each other, add Praed Street junction and all the point work at Edgware Road on both ends of the platforms, and there is little to no opportunity for the trains to enter a platform at normal speeds. The only place it could would be Paddington on the Westbound (inner rail), and that is probably only 25mph (based on my driving days on Circle and Hammersmith and City, under conventional signalling system). The rest of the line between Notting Hill gate and Paddington would offer faster platform entry and speeds in between stations and thus the experience train ops need. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 21, 2020 3:40:42 GMT
One way or other there’s an element of farce about it. Six trips isn’t enough to properly train for manual driving - as evidenced by the fact the Jubilee and Northern essentially fail to meet the timetable when manual driving is required. This will only be worse on the SSR as there’s more open running and thus more scope for manual driving being required. If there’s a corporate acceptance that no one really cares about manual driving as long as the train just about manages to get from A to B, then there’s zero practical difference between 18 trips Paddington to Edgware Road and 6 trips Notting Hill Gate to Edgware Road. Still, as you say, neither you or I devised the current plans... There is a huge practical difference between 18 trips Paddington to Edgware Road and 6 trips Notting Hill Gate to Edgware Road. The difference is the speed the train will enter the platform and speed in between platforms. Paddington and Edgware Road are a short distance between each other, add Praed Street junction and all the point work at Edgware Road on both ends of the platforms, and there is little to no opportunity for the trains to enter a platform at normal speeds. The only place it could would be Paddington on the Westbound (inner rail), and that is probably only 25mph (based on my driving days on Circle and Hammersmith and City, under conventional signalling system). The rest of the line between Notting Hill gate and Paddington would offer faster platform entry and speeds in between stations and thus the experience train ops need. As I say, I’m not advocating one as being adequate, just saying that neither setup is really much good in properly equipping a driver to drive to basic standards of competence (i.e. achieving timetable timings) in protected manual. Hence why to this day we have trains losing several minutes with ANP in just for two or three stations, or when there was the station staff strike and ANP was put in on the entire Northern Line the service was running two *hours* late by the afternoon for no other reason than manual driving. Meanwhile the Jubilee banned manual driving pretty much without exception at peak times and made it heavily frowned upon most other times due to the number of issues and incidents they were having. The basic principle isn’t hard - just do what the screen says, it doesn’t make much difference braking from 25 mph or 50 mph. What *is* more difficult to pick up is all the behaviours, quirks, anomalies and glitches within the software, but this is something which comes with experience over time, not from three trips over one section. It’s also something which isn’t really covered in the training. It’s a completely different story on the signalling side - seven weeks training before even touching a live desk, and even then still loads to discover. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jan 21, 2020 9:19:52 GMT
The difference is the speed the train will enter the platform and speed in between platforms. Paddington and Edgware Road are a short distance between each other, add Praed Street junction and all the point work at Edgware Road on both ends of the platforms, and there is little to no opportunity for the trains to enter a platform at normal speeds. The only place it could would be Paddington on the Westbound (inner rail), and that is probably only 25mph (based on my driving days on Circle and Hammersmith and City, under conventional signalling system). Under CBTC we depart Edgware Road at 10mph (was 15mph under legacy signalling) and we enter Paddington at 35mph (target speed 40mph) whereas like you say, we used to enter Paddington at 25mph under the legacy system. There was a 35mph sign just prior to the platform but we used to ignore it due the proximity of said platform. The basic principle isn’t hard - just do what the screen says, it doesn’t make much difference braking from 25 mph or 50 mph. What *is* more difficult to pick up is all the behaviours, quirks, anomalies and glitches within the software, but this is something which comes with experience over time, not from three trips over one section. It’s also something which isn’t really covered in the training. This is the problem with moving block and why its better suited to ATO. Under the fixed block legacy system you know where the signals are. For the most part, with experience, you know how an area behaves and can in some cases pretty much predict when the signals will clear, etc, etc. Although we're only running one stop under CBTC its already become very obvious that you can't predict where exactly the train might stop (platforms are an obvious exception, as would be a pseudo platform). You also can't always predict what the target speed will be or how far the distance to go will be, etc. Following fixed signalling is easy peasy. Following unpredictable/variable signalling isn't easy peasy. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 21, 2020 10:19:11 GMT
The difference is the speed the train will enter the platform and speed in between platforms. Paddington and Edgware Road are a short distance between each other, add Praed Street junction and all the point work at Edgware Road on both ends of the platforms, and there is little to no opportunity for the trains to enter a platform at normal speeds. The only place it could would be Paddington on the Westbound (inner rail), and that is probably only 25mph (based on my driving days on Circle and Hammersmith and City, under conventional signalling system). Under CBTC we depart Edgware Road at 10mph (was 15mph under legacy signalling) and we enter Paddington at 35mph (target speed 40mph) whereas like you say, we used to enter Paddington at 25mph under the legacy system. There was a 35mph sign just prior to the platform but we used to ignore it due the proximity of said platform. The basic principle isn’t hard - just do what the screen says, it doesn’t make much difference braking from 25 mph or 50 mph. What *is* more difficult to pick up is all the behaviours, quirks, anomalies and glitches within the software, but this is something which comes with experience over time, not from three trips over one section. It’s also something which isn’t really covered in the training. This is the problem with moving block and why its better suited to ATO. Under the fixed block legacy system you know where the signals are. For the most part, with experience, you know how an area behaves and can in some cases pretty much predict when the signals will clear, etc, etc. Although we're only running one stop under CBTC its already become very obvious that you can't predict where exactly the train might stop (platforms are an obvious exception, as would be a pseudo platform). You also can't always predict what the target speed will be or how far the distance to go will be, etc. Following fixed signalling is easy peasy. Following unpredictable/variable signalling isn't easy peasy. Absolutely. It does get better with experience and practice, but even once one has got used to things they go and change the software without telling anyone and all of a sudden your arrangements don’t work any more! There’s a whole range of braking point markers on the Northern - for example Angel NB go straight to full service at the EP board just before the platform, which if left in full service for the entire length of the platform would stop about half a car short. This will be some time after the over speed alarm has sounded, fraction of a second after passing the board and it will be a speed violation! |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jan 21, 2020 12:00:50 GMT
There is a major core software update coming just the other side of the new year and its hoping it will sort most of the gremlins. With that said they want further testing to make sure whats currently happening more in SMA2 doesn’t affect SMA3 Has the upgrade happened yet? Thanks. “Postponed indefinitely while software is rewritten by Thales”. |
|
|
|
Post by ijmad on Jan 21, 2020 13:20:38 GMT
Has the upgrade happened yet? Thanks. “Postponed indefinitely while software is rewritten by Thales”. You know what concerns me more, is all the metros around the world using Thales CBTC that must surely be carrying all these bugs in passenger service |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 21, 2020 13:56:44 GMT
“Postponed indefinitely while software is rewritten by Thales”. You know what concerns me more, is all the metros around the world using Thales CBTC that must surely be carrying all these bugs in passenger service Touch wood there shouldn’t be anything dangerous, but one does wonder if some of these metros ever wonder to themselves “why have we spent all this money on a modern (*) signalling system yet we barely meet our performance targets?”. Certainly the Northern Line is starting to ask this question. One answer may be that LU is possibly more complex than many, it’s certainly the case that many of the things LU have asked for will have been incorporated into the software sold to others as improvements. Unfortunately it’s the thin end of a wedge. (* actually 1980s!) |
|
|
|
Post by PiccNT on Jan 21, 2020 14:43:20 GMT
If I look back over 31 pages of this thread, I'm sure there will be a comment BUT, I appreciate that the Victoria line is not too complex in terms of routes, sidings, depots etc, but their ATO system gets the train going without hesitation, it accelerates, it coasts and it brakes without all of the speed up, slow down nonsense you get on the Northern and Jubilee. They seem to be able to run their trains very regularly without it seems too much trouble.
So in terms of introducing a system that appears to work quite nicely, why did LU go for TBTC and CBTC? Was it cost or not technically suitable?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2020 15:14:35 GMT
SSL was going to get DTG-R but Invensys as they were called then couldn’t get the system to work correctly plus LU has had nightmares in the past with Westinghouse i.e Jubilee extension so they decided to go with Bombardier that never worked out so off the trotted to Thales
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 21, 2020 16:44:12 GMT
If I look back over 31 pages of this thread, I'm sure there will be a comment BUT, I appreciate that the Victoria line is not too complex in terms of routes, sidings, depots etc, but their ATO system gets the train going without hesitation, it accelerates, it coasts and it brakes without all of the speed up, slow down nonsense you get on the Northern and Jubilee. They seem to be able to run their trains very regularly without it seems too much trouble. So in terms of introducing a system that appears to work quite nicely, why did LU go for TBTC and CBTC? Was it cost or not technically suitable? By the time LU had dithered over the abortive Westinghouse and Bombardier contracts, Thales was pretty much the only option left. The original Westinghouse contract went largely thanks to LU taking over Metronet and at the time taking a "not invented here" attitude, combined with at the time the Westinghouse contract being seen as expensive. With hindsight ditching the Westinghouse contract will almost certainly be seen to have been a rather injudicious decision. At the time LU wasn't the most informed client, with most of the engineering expertise having been dumped into the infracos. |
|
|
|
Post by ijmad on Jan 21, 2020 17:14:01 GMT
You know what concerns me more, is all the metros around the world using Thales CBTC that must surely be carrying all these bugs in passenger service Touch wood there shouldn’t be anything dangerous, but one does wonder if some of these metros ever wonder to themselves “why have we spent all this money on a modern (*) signalling system yet we barely meet our performance targets?”. Certainly the Northern Line is starting to ask this question. One answer may be that LU is possibly more complex than many, it’s certainly the case that many of the things LU have asked for will have been incorporated into the software sold to others as improvements. Unfortunately it’s the thin end of a wedge. (* actually 1980s!) Yeah, I'm sure these systems are generally designed to fail safe. Except when they aren't... |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jan 21, 2020 18:51:49 GMT
If I look back over 31 pages of this thread, I'm sure there will be a comment BUT, I appreciate that the Victoria line is not too complex in terms of routes, sidings, depots etc, but their ATO system gets the train going without hesitation, it accelerates, it coasts and it brakes without all of the speed up, slow down nonsense you get on the Northern and Jubilee. They seem to be able to run their trains very regularly without it seems too much trouble. So in terms of introducing a system that appears to work quite nicely, why did LU go for TBTC and CBTC? Was it cost or not technically suitable? Yes, this was definitely raised. And yes, the point still stands! |
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Jan 21, 2020 20:26:52 GMT
Touch wood there shouldn’t be anything dangerous, but one does wonder if some of these metros ever wonder to themselves “why have we spent all this money on a modern (*) signalling system yet we barely meet our performance targets?”. Certainly the Northern Line is starting to ask this question. One answer may be that LU is possibly more complex than many, it’s certainly the case that many of the things LU have asked for will have been incorporated into the software sold to others as improvements. Unfortunately it’s the thin end of a wedge. (* actually 1980s!) Yeah, I'm sure these systems are generally designed to fail safe. Except when they aren't... MTR have a habit of putting to much trust in technology in general. The myth that technology always has your back is a dangerous one and in many cases is simply not true. At the end of the day humans aren't infallible, therefore the products they produce won't be either, ignore that frame of mind and you will produce forced errors like the kind that the report focuses on. |
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jan 22, 2020 9:35:03 GMT
There is a huge practical difference between 18 trips Paddington to Edgware Road and 6 trips Notting Hill Gate to Edgware Road. The difference is the speed the train will enter the platform and speed in between platforms. Paddington and Edgware Road are a short distance between each other, add Praed Street junction and all the point work at Edgware Road on both ends of the platforms, and there is little to no opportunity for the trains to enter a platform at normal speeds. The only place it could would be Paddington on the Westbound (inner rail), and that is probably only 25mph (based on my driving days on Circle and Hammersmith and City, under conventional signalling system). The rest of the line between Notting Hill gate and Paddington would offer faster platform entry and speeds in between stations and thus the experience train ops need. As I say, I’m not advocating one as being adequate, just saying that neither setup is really much good in properly equipping a driver to drive to basic standards of competence (i.e. achieving timetable timings) in protected manual. Hence why to this day we have trains losing several minutes with ANP in just for two or three stations, or when there was the station staff strike and ANP was put in on the entire Northern Line the service was running two *hours* late by the afternoon for no other reason than manual driving. Meanwhile the Jubilee banned manual driving pretty much without exception at peak times and made it heavily frowned upon most other times due to the number of issues and incidents they were having. The basic principle isn’t hard - just do what the screen says, it doesn’t make much difference braking from 25 mph or 50 mph. What *is* more difficult to pick up is all the behaviours, quirks, anomalies and glitches within the software, but this is something which comes with experience over time, not from three trips over one section. It’s also something which isn’t really covered in the training. It’s a completely different story on the signalling side - seven weeks training before even touching a live desk, and even then still loads to discover. If you imagine a car with a computer on board, running to the speed limits all the time it would arrive at the end of a journey much more quickly than one driven by a human as the human has not got tha ability to drive right on the limit, especially when overspeeding causes a brake application which has to be released by the signaller. While training could probably be better it is too much to ask that drivers will perform to the same standard as computers while using a system designed for computers. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 22, 2020 10:03:58 GMT
As I say, I’m not advocating one as being adequate, just saying that neither setup is really much good in properly equipping a driver to drive to basic standards of competence (i.e. achieving timetable timings) in protected manual. Hence why to this day we have trains losing several minutes with ANP in just for two or three stations, or when there was the station staff strike and ANP was put in on the entire Northern Line the service was running two *hours* late by the afternoon for no other reason than manual driving. Meanwhile the Jubilee banned manual driving pretty much without exception at peak times and made it heavily frowned upon most other times due to the number of issues and incidents they were having. The basic principle isn’t hard - just do what the screen says, it doesn’t make much difference braking from 25 mph or 50 mph. What *is* more difficult to pick up is all the behaviours, quirks, anomalies and glitches within the software, but this is something which comes with experience over time, not from three trips over one section. It’s also something which isn’t really covered in the training. It’s a completely different story on the signalling side - seven weeks training before even touching a live desk, and even then still loads to discover. If you imagine a car with a computer on board, running to the speed limits all the time it would arrive at the end of a journey much more quickly than one driven by a human as the human has not got tha ability to drive right on the limit, especially when overspeeding causes a brake application which has to be released by the signaller. While training could probably be better it is too much to ask that drivers will perform to the same standard as computers while using a system designed for computers. It’s perfectly possible to keep up on the Jubilee and Northern lines, a decent driver can drive to exactly the same profile, indeed it’s even possible to slightly better it. Whether this is possible on the S stock I couldn’t comment, the TBC has always looked a bit awkward to me but people who have driven them seem to say this isn’t an issue. I suspect the Victoria Line would be another matter, as their system really does push things to the limits. |
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Jan 24, 2020 15:49:48 GMT
Whatever the current status of SMA2 and associated software patches, installation of CBTC equipment continues unimpeded. Over/since the festive period, West Harrow has gained its boundary signs and migration signal, Preston Road is ready to be “armed” and more Network Rail spec signals (like the one at Preston Rd SB Fast) have been installed on the Main Lines between Harrow and Moor Park, most of these take the place of their 1960’s fore-bearers but some are completely new positions. West Harrow  Harrow-on-the-Hill Main Line platforms with new signals and Route Secure Indicators  |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jan 25, 2020 19:31:32 GMT
If I look back over 31 pages of this thread, I'm sure there will be a comment BUT, I appreciate that the Victoria line is not too complex in terms of routes, sidings, depots etc, but their ATO system gets the train going without hesitation, it accelerates, it coasts and it brakes without all of the speed up, slow down nonsense you get on the Northern and Jubilee. They seem to be able to run their trains very regularly without it seems too much trouble. So in terms of introducing a system that appears to work quite nicely, why did LU go for TBTC and CBTC? Was it cost or not technically suitable? Yes, this was definitely raised. And yes, the point still stands! Since none of the Central, Bakerloo or Waterloo & City lines interact with other *automated* lines so maybe these should receive the same system as the Victoria line when they get new trains. As a regular Central line passenger I would much prefer this to become the reality than for this line to be given what in my own pov view is a system (Thales TBTC / CBTC) that is less good than what is already there. I say this on the assumption that the plan is for the Central line to be resignalled - if cash is tight it would make better sense to retain what already exists and provides good service. Its not so easy with the Piccadilly line as its trains share tracks with SSR services. NB: Whilst the Bakerloo shares tracks with London Overground trains, the latter are not automated - although perhaps track capacity would be enhanced if the shared route was automated with blue lamp signals for Bakerloo line trains and colour lamps for all others. |
|
|
|
Post by ijmad on Jan 25, 2020 22:25:53 GMT
Most metro systems have simpler line configurations than London. Look at the Paris metro. Barely any branches, let alone lines sharing tracks with any other lines or anything else for that matter. Paris is old, but most newer metros seem to be built along those sorts of principles. I'm sure Thalys CBTC performs absolutely perfectly in those sorts of environments. London is old and our tube, especially the SSR, has myriads of flat junctions and is often in close proximity to other railway systems. It's not a surprise to me it's a more challenging environment. I'm only surprised that Thalys and LU are surprised.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jan 26, 2020 3:17:45 GMT
Yes, this was definitely raised. And yes, the point still stands! Since none of the Central, Bakerloo or Waterloo & City lines interact with other *automated* lines so maybe these should receive the same system as the Victoria line when they get new trains. As a regular Central line passenger I would much prefer this to become the reality than for this line to be given what in my own pov view is a system (Thales TBTC / CBTC) that is less good than what is already there. I say this on the assumption that the plan is for the Central line to be resignalled - if cash is tight it would make better sense to retain what already exists and provides good service. Its not so easy with the Piccadilly line as its trains share tracks with SSR services. NB: Whilst the Bakerloo shares tracks with London Overground trains, the latter are not automated - although perhaps track capacity would be enhanced if the shared route was automated with blue lamp signals for Bakerloo line trains and colour lamps for all others. Just as a common design of tube trains from Siemens is planned, a common signalling system and central control room is also intended for these lines. The Central line system will be due for renewal by then. Since the Piccadilly resignalling is now postponed maybe ten years for financial reasons, new systems will be developed by the time tenders are called and the Picc will need to interwork with the current SSR CBTC system in some way. |
|
