|
Post by downdc on Sept 8, 2021 18:26:43 GMT
Hi all, my first post under this username although I did briefly contribute to this forum around 10/11 years ago under the name ‘Metrolander’. I occasionally ‘lurk’, more so recently, and note that most of the more regular contributors are still familiar names from all those years ago, which is a good sign, as I always found the forum to be such an amazing resource for the sorts of details and insight which so many of us find intriguing.
Anyway, a recent experience travelling on the Met Line has given me cause to ask a question, as it reminds me of something I’m sure was discussed in a thread I looked at many moons ago, namely, what the usual practice is regarding trains running through platforms in service. As I’ve had to wait for admin approval, I no longer have the exact specifics but on Friday 27th August, I was waiting at HOTH, travelling to Watford having arrived there from Ruislip. The DMI on platform 3 initially showed a Watford train as arriving first, but then the display changed to a Chesham Fast. I actually wondered if this meant I would be able to use the old trick of overtaking an all stations Watford between HOTH and Moor Park… however… to my surprise shortly after leaving HOTH (somewhere around 1745), we did not switch over to the fast line. The Train Operator made a PA which wasn’t fully audible but which did mention travelling up the local lines, and this is what we did. Now, I mentioned above that I have a distant recollection of a thread which covered questions about speed etc when non-stopping a platform, and it’s testing that recollection somewhat but I think Chiltern through Moor Park was discussed, as was the comparative complete crawl through Mornington Crescent, which was closed for some time when I began using the Underground myself in the mid 90s. It was this recollection which led me to groan somewhat, presuming that even without actually stopping, our passage down the local line would be anything but fast. Turns out, I was wrong! Again, the intervening time period means I don’t recall precisely, but I can do so sufficiently to recount that we didn’t noticeably slow through the stations.
So, I have two questions, firstly, how unusual is this sort of situation? I know that things have been somewhat compromised service-wise recently, so presume that the likelihood of unusual occurrences is somewhat increased. I am by no means a frequent user of the Underground but have lived at the further reaches of the Met for most of my life, and never known of this before. Conversely, back in the days when Amersham services always went fast, I can remember numerous instances of them arriving on the usual Watford platform at Moor Park.
Secondly, are there specific practices for running through stations in traffic hours? As I mention, I’m sure I recall that Northern Line trains would have to slow as if stopping at Mornington Crsecent all those years ago, whereas of course Chiltern trains pass through Moor Park apparently at line speed (I know there are far more recent examples of trains passing through closed stations by the way, but the Mornington Crescent memory is vivid as most of my early Underground trips involved visiting Camden Town). I also wonder if the situation is any different at stations/platforms where all trains typically stop, as in the case of North Harrow-Northwood. I know that the RAT and other Engineering/Departmental trains pass through platforms in traffic hours, but I’ve never seen those going that fast!
Many thanks
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Sept 8, 2021 20:25:06 GMT
Brief version (I’m sure someone else can elaborate on practices away from the Met main):
-Running fast up the local is a fairly regular occurrence and can be instigated at the initiative of the Harrow on the Hill or Rickmansworth Service Operator if it is in the best interests of the service. On Friday 27th it would have been due to the implementation of the Harrow Hot Weather Plan, which takes the majority of all point work at Harrow out of use when railhead temperatures increase. Since the plan was altered last year to improve service resilience there is no option but for services to run fast up the local on both roads as the mains are inaccessible south of Moor Park.
-On the Met main (and at some other locations on the Met) there are full speed signalling overlaps provided on the local roads, meaning trains can pass through at line speed and there is no penalty for fast running if there is a clear run.
Apologies it’s brief - if no-one beats me I’ll try and elaborate on the practices in due course, given I’m probably best placed to comment (I was incidentally the ISO3 on duty on Friday 27th)!
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Sept 8, 2021 20:26:17 GMT
The LU rule book is quite clear in that station starting signals should be passed at 5mph by non stopping trains.
That having been said, some station starting signals do have a higher speed overlap. Some examples on the line I am most familiar with (the District line) would be at Ravenscourt Park, Stamford Brook, Turnham Green and Chiswick Park where 20mph or 25mph limits apply. These were provided to allow Piccadilly line trains to divert onto the District's tracks and still run fast (to an extent) though with the removal of points at Hammersmith this is no longer possible.
As stated above higher speed overlaps exist on the Met's local lines and this will cater for trains being diverted off the fast lines in the same way as the District/Piccadilly arrangement.
For completeness, whilst ATO lines are out of scope as their speed limits are controlled by the signalling system rather than the rule book......on the SSR's CBTC sections for example, the non stopping speed limit is 18mph. Other ATO lines will have similar higher speed limits applied by their signalling systems when non stopping stations.
**Edited as posted at the same time as MoreToJack above**
|
|
|
Post by downdc on Sept 8, 2021 21:12:04 GMT
Many thanks for the replies. MoreToJack, I have learnt from my recent reading that you are based in the box at Harrow, and I have read many of your detailed and insightful explanations, including reference to specific instances in some cases, and I did wonder if you could/would shed any light here; I appreciate it. And there we go, this is not so unusual after all; this is the first time I’ve read about the ‘Harrow Hot Weather Plan. In case it’s not clear, any elaboration would be welcomed and appreciated, whenever you are able!
Colin, thank you - your mention of the 5mph limit rings a bell, and of course tallies with the aforementioned experience of travelling through closed stations. I did wonder if there might be some similarities between the four-track section I was travelling on, and the one you mention, even though the specific arrangement and use of tracks differs between the two
|
|
|
Post by A60stock on Sept 15, 2021 16:35:55 GMT
I was actually about to create a thread on this topic until seeing someone had already done so. I am happy they had a positive experience but unfortunately I have not, having travelled on the 8th September on Chesham Fast which was diverted along the slow lines. The train slowed down before almost every station between Harrow and Moor Park which was clearly due to it following a stopper (can control room signallers do much about this?). The journey was slowed down as a result and you may as well have just allowed the train to call at all stations....
Sorry but why was the decision taken to alter the Harrow hot working plan? It used to be only Southbound services and now its Northbound ones too. When will the points in the Harrow area (the ones allowing crossing between local and fast trains) be replaced so that they are not reliant on weather conditions? I recall there were plans to change these at some point.
Or is this simply some sort of plan to slow the fast services to such an extent that they seem "useless" and gives an excuse to scrap them entirely in future?
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Sept 15, 2021 18:15:47 GMT
I was actually about to create a thread on this topic until seeing someone had already done so. I am happy they had a positive experience but unfortunately I have not, having travelled on the 8th September on Chesham Fast which was diverted along the slow lines. The train slowed down before almost every station between Harrow and Moor Park which was clearly due to it following a stopper (can control room signallers do much about this?). The journey was slowed down as a result and you may as well have just allowed the train to call at all stations.... Sorry but why was the decision taken to alter the Harrow hot working plan? It used to be only Southbound services and now its Northbound ones too. When will the points in the Harrow area (the ones allowing crossing between local and fast trains) be replaced so that they are not reliant on weather conditions? I recall there were plans to change these at some point. Or is this simply some sort of plan to slow the fast services to such an extent that they seem "useless" and gives an excuse to scrap them entirely in future? Hand the fast tracks over to Network Rail and convert Marylebone - Moor Park to AC traction? (Plus Chiltern get some trains that can use it, as part of a policy to end the use of diesel transports within the London Low Emissions Zone).
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Sept 16, 2021 7:40:14 GMT
OR, you could continue the LU electrification to Marylebone, and terminate the 'fasts' there, to ease the crowding at Baker Street.
Chiltern could eventually obtain some dual-power stock for use in the 'forbidden zone'.
|
|
|
Post by quex on Sept 16, 2021 8:00:11 GMT
OR, you could continue the LU electrification to Marylebone, and terminate the 'fasts' there, to ease the crowding at Baker Street. Chiltern could eventually obtain some duel-power stock for use in the 'forbidden zone'. Marylebone's platform capacity is already stretched by Chiltern's timetable, with little room to expand. I think Marylebone's fewer onward connection opportunities would also make it a very unpopular place to terminate LU trains. That's notwithstanding the difficulty you might have justifying an extension of a unique electrification sysyem onto NR metals. NR-standard third rail systems are already difficult enough to extend as they are seen to have a dubious safety case.
|
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 480
|
Post by londoner on Sept 16, 2021 11:45:48 GMT
It happened yesterday afternoon for a train listed as "not in service" but unlike the experiences above, it did not seem to slow down by much.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Sept 17, 2021 23:10:54 GMT
OR, you could continue the LU electrification to Marylebone, and terminate the 'fasts' there, to ease the crowding at Baker Street. Chiltern could eventually obtain some dual-power stock for use in the 'forbidden zone'. Would be cheaper than overhead - especially in the tunnels just outside Marylebone. The overcrowding at Baker Street could be cured by revisiting the proposals to build a route to Edgware Road.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Sept 17, 2021 23:21:22 GMT
Marylebone's platform capacity is already stretched by Chiltern's timetable, with little room to expand. I think Marylebone's fewer onward connection opportunities would also make it a very unpopular place to terminate LU trains. That's notwithstanding the difficulty you might have justifying an extension of a unique electrification sysyem onto NR metals. NR-standard third rail systems are already difficult enough to extend as they are seen to have a dubious safety case. Yes connectivity is poor - but it could be worse (eg: Fenchurch Street, no LU services at all!) I've got an idea .. need crayons .. pure fantasy but to join up some missing links and make better use of existing infrastructure. The Horseshoe line to provide connectivity with Victoria, Waterloo and more. I'll explain more elsewhere here at DD (but only when I've formalised my ideas).
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Sept 18, 2021 9:56:32 GMT
1) ORR are strongly opposed to any new 3rd (and presumably by extension 4th) rail surface electrification on account of the health & safety risks involved.
2) This is not a RIPAS board, back on topic please.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 18, 2021 13:23:53 GMT
1) ORR are strongly opposed to any new 3rd (and presumably by extension 4th) rail surface electrification on account of the health & safety risks involved. Which is not to say that it is absolutely forbidden - extensions/infills to existing systems are allowed if it can be shown that it is required and safer alternatives are not viable, however there is a very strong presumption against it. The East London Line extension installed new third rail between Whitechapel and Highbury & Islington as it needed to integrate with the existing third rail network south of New Cross Gate (and there would likely have been issues with OLE through the Thames Tunnel). However work began on that in 2005 and authorisations were presumably granted before then and technology has moved one since then. These days by far the most realistic option for electrifying Marylebone is for Chiltern trains to use battery power over the Met.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Sept 18, 2021 13:30:53 GMT
In many ways the ELL extension to Highbury & Islington was a reinstatement of what was there 'until very recently' - and not something brand new.
|
|