|
|
Post by melikepie on Dec 31, 2019 12:47:30 GMT
A bit late to post this but the Monday to Friday closures 10pm-4am until May include replacement of the signalling system to allow more trains. Does that mean the legacy LU signalling is being replaced with more standard signalling or is it even a step further and they are introducing ATO?
|
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,487
|
Post by DWS on Dec 31, 2019 14:12:33 GMT
The LT/LUL signalling was removed when BR took over the line between Drayton Park and Moorgate.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Dec 31, 2019 17:31:56 GMT
As I understand it the works mainly revolve in improving the condition of the physical infrastructure which has been crying out for attention for a very very long time.
Preparatory works for resignalling are mentioned in the scope but I am fairly resolute that this is leaning more towards ensuring that track and power systems are capable of supporting a more intensive service that any new signalling system would bring rather than the fitting of said system per say.
The position stands that any fittement of ERTMS on the Moorgate Line remains deferred indefinitely with speculation of merging resignalling of both the Moorgate and Hertford Loop lines into a future combined project.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Jun 9, 2021 21:23:25 GMT
A year and a half later, substantive information on the upgrade works has surfaced in the public domain.
The Northern City Line (NCL) is to be the pilot route for the rollout of in-cab signalling on the East Coast Main Line under a project called the East Coast Digital Programme (ECDP). The NCL is the ideal route for this initial rollout being a nice isolated enclave of the ECML with just one type of rolling stock (class 717) which were designed with in-cab signalling in mind from the start.
ECDP will implement European Train Control System (ETCS) Level 2 across its 'Tranches' of which the NCL is in Tranche 1. Unlike the Thameslink core which also operates ETCS L2 but retains conventional signalling, the NCL will eventually have all its legacy signalling removed thus removing another one of the tangible legacies of the LT-era.
ECDP Tranche 1 Timeline
June-September 2021: 6 weekend closures for installation of new signalling related equipment
Spring 2022: Testing of new signalling assets relating to ETCS on the NCL get underway
October 2022: ETCS Level 2 is commissioned on NCL initially as an overlay to legacy signalling
October 2023: Removal of legacy signalling assets begins and NCL becomes a 'no-signals' railway operating solely on ETCS
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jun 10, 2021 21:56:25 GMT
Maybe the line speed could be increased from the current 30mph?
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jun 10, 2021 22:52:35 GMT
Maybe the line speed could be increased from the current 30mph? Excellent idea, although for historic reasons there are many good reasons for southbound trains from Old Street to Moorgate to be restricted to slowish speeds. |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196 
|
Post by Tom on Jun 15, 2021 12:08:05 GMT
Excellent idea, although for historic reasons there are many good reasons for southbound trains from Old Street to Moorgate to be restricted to slowish speeds. Without wishing to reopen any debate about the events of February 1975, I would suggest that a higher speed would has been achievable even then, subject to the train protection systems available. However, there is a trade-off with calculated overlaps and signal positioning particularly around junctions. The higher the approach speed, the longer the overlap needed, and the further away the signal has to be positioned. This has a knock-on effect on headway as the run time from the protecting signal across the junction is increased. This is where LU would just add additional signals, but on NR there are strict rules regarding signal spacing so it may not have been possible without breaking those principles. It was also probably difficult (if not impossible) at the time to vary the speed limiting circuit on the Class 313s to enhance a lower speed only on the Old Street to Moorgate run. This is where modern systems have a much greater advantage about being able to enforce speed limits much more flexibly. Indeed - going off-topic here... Did the speed limiter circuit get removed when 313s were used elsewhere, such as the North London or Watford DC lines? |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jun 15, 2021 20:56:57 GMT
Indeed - going off-topic here... Did the speed limiter circuit get removed when 313s were used elsewhere, such as the North London or Watford DC lines? Pretty sure they were faster on those lines. I remember them getting up some decent speed. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jun 15, 2021 21:03:37 GMT
Indeed - going off-topic here... Did the speed limiter circuit get removed when 313s were used elsewhere, such as the North London or Watford DC lines? Pretty sure they were faster on those lines. I remember them getting up some decent speed. Yes definitely unrestricted. Same for the 313s which still operate on Southern. |
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 17, 2021 19:07:56 GMT
In practical terms is there much sense in a big speed increase on the Northern City ?
They all have to fit in with the timetable north of Drayton Park. A s/b service will still arrive there at the same time, would 45 mph (say) max south of there to Moorgate, still stopping at all shacks, and with current headways, make any REAL difference ? Ditto in reverse.
If this were a long route, or one not going to a dead end, or there was even one long inter-station run, then yes, but I can't see a worthwhile return on the expense of signalling changes as explained by Tom.
OK if going for ETCS then you incorporate such changes as principles allow, but on THIS line is it really going to make any difference apart from unecessarily increasing energy consumption ?
There really is no point in saving half a minute overall where the published public timetable is to the nearest minute, nor will saving one minute overall Moorgate to Drayton Park have any practical benefit _ in fact there is a bigger timetable performance risk.
I'd not argue this way for the majority of lines, but with this one, short, dead end, intense, what is the REAL gain ?
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jun 19, 2021 7:42:30 GMT
In practical terms is there much sense in a big speed increase on the Northern City ? They all have to fit in with the timetable north of Drayton Park. A s/b service will still arrive there at the same time, would 45 mph (say) max south of there to Moorgate, still stopping at all shacks, and with current headways, make any REAL difference ? Ditto in reverse. If this were a long route, or one not going to a dead end, or there was even one long inter-station run, then yes, but I can't see a worthwhile return on the expense of signalling changes as explained by Tom. OK if going for ETCS then you incorporate such changes as principles allow, but on THIS line is it really going to make any difference apart from unecessarily increasing energy consumption ? There really is no point in saving half a minute overall where the published public timetable is to the nearest minute, nor will saving one minute overall Moorgate to Drayton Park have any practical benefit _ in fact there is a bigger timetable performance risk. I'd not argue this way for the majority of lines, but with this one, short, dead end, intense, what is the REAL gain ? That makes sense. But on the other hand, if the new signalling allows it and no other works are required, then why not? |
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 19, 2021 17:51:28 GMT
In practical terms is there much sense in a big speed increase on the Northern City ? , but I can't see a worthwhile return on the expense of signalling changes as explained by Tom. OK i f going for ETCS then you incorporate such changes as principles allow, but on THIS line is it really going to make any difference apart from unecessarily increasing energy consumption ? That makes sense. But on the other hand, if the new signalling allows it and no other works are required, then why not? I have allowed for that, see the highlighted text. But even so, I'd have to be convinced that there is much timetable advantage to it, and certainly increased energy burn will result. This is an area I have some real experience of - energy burn of ATO trains (not their signalling!) - having done much data collection and collation on one ATO tube line. As much as you can make minor twiddles to point to point running adding handful of seconds by coasting before each stop actually saves quite a lot of energy, the reverse is also true, very minor twiddles to accelerate something by a few secs wastes energy. If you have a large number of consecutive stations, saving a few secs at every station en route adds up to minutes, those save minutes free white space and you gain another TPH. Overall there is a low end cut off point, a small number of stations, and heading towards a terminal point, it is neither effective or efficient. The Northern City timetable works, or at least seems to, and "if it ain't broke don't fix it" IMHO . So while ETCS while almost certainly allow a minor gain, I'd predict at expense of energy, while the time gain is not tangible to the public. Lastly, my view on this is one of asking a question. It could just be that ETCS alone does permit a speed up to do something like say save a whole train (and hence crew) on end-to-end running, in which case it is worth it. I could be convinced otherwise. But right now I can't see it here, not even after ETCS extends over the main line to Welwyn \ Hertford \ etc. |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Jun 19, 2021 19:00:53 GMT
Whether or not the line speed will be increased is, I think, irrelevant. ETCS is an enabler to a speed uplift, and it seems that this is more about the line being a good trial site for it in an urban environment, with only one stock which is designed for the technology, and, perhaps crucially, a diversion route somewhere else if necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 19, 2021 23:18:37 GMT
Whether or not the line speed will be increased is, I think, irrelevant. ETCS is an enabler to a speed uplift, and it seems that this is more about the line being a good trial site for it in an urban environment, with only one stock which is designed for the technology, and, perhaps crucially, a diversion route somewhere else if necessary. Speed is a side issue yes, I'm just responding to the comments on that point. You've lost me with the diversion comment. Once ETCS, if you divert a 717 somewhere else away from NCL and it's usual destinations, then that'll be conventional Mk.1 human driver, which is no different to now, and does not trial anything. If the other route is ETCS, then that's also not a trial, since it is already itself ETCS. If you mean diversion of other services to Moorgate, what would those be ? Even 700s don't fit, a 717 is 6car, the shortest 700 is 8car, ASDO is all very well at intermediate stations but not terminals like Moorgate, and any other train that does go there needs to be comply with all the emergency egress rules for single bore tunnels, which actually rules out a 700 anyway (no end of train exits). ETCS won't overcome that. Or have I misunderstood ? |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jun 20, 2021 11:22:27 GMT
Whether or not the line speed will be increased is, I think, irrelevant. ETCS is an enabler to a speed uplift, and it seems that this is more about the line being a good trial site for it in an urban environment, with only one stock which is designed for the technology, and, perhaps crucially, a diversion route somewhere else if necessary. Speed is a side issue yes, I'm just responding to the comments on that point. You've lost me with the diversion comment. Once ETCS, if you divert a 717 somewhere else away from NCL and it's usual destinations, then that'll be conventional Mk.1 human driver, which is no different to now, and does not trial anything. If the other route is ETCS, then that's also not a trial, since it is already itself ETCS. If you mean diversion of other services to Moorgate, what would those be ? Even 700s don't fit, a 717 is 6car, the shortest 700 is 8car, ASDO is all very well at intermediate stations but not terminals like Moorgate, and any other train that does go there needs to be comply with all the emergency egress rules for single bore tunnels, which actually rules out a 700 anyway (no end of train exits). ETCS won't overcome that. Or have I misunderstood ? I think he meant diversion in the sense that if the signalling fails in the trial period, Moorgate services can be diverted to Kings Cross. |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Jun 20, 2021 11:25:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jun 20, 2021 12:23:05 GMT
As previously stated, the benefit of a diversion is in case of unforeseen issues affecting the ECTS that temporarily closes the line to all trains.
Faster acceleration combined with higher speed capability are useful when trains are running late, even if not used as a part of the daily timetable.
Whilst the closely spaced stations mean that the benefits will not be significant if only applied to the tunnelled route but if part of a route / system-wide speed uplift then (to parody an advertising slogan) 'every little bit helps'!
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 20, 2021 16:53:09 GMT
Ahhh, failing IN the trial period . Got it now. D'uh!!! |
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Mar 13, 2022 20:15:57 GMT
Once ETCS is running what will happen to the tunnel telephone system?
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Apr 1, 2022 13:43:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on May 3, 2022 20:04:17 GMT
As planned, TPWS has now superseded use of legacy tripcocks/train stops on the Northern City Line. Testing of ETCS Level 2 (block markers already visible) is planned to get underway in the coming weeks eventually dispensing with the routes colour light signals.
|
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Feb 4, 2023 0:16:53 GMT
Any updates on how the Northern City Line New Signalling is going?
|
|
