|
Post by mandgc on Jun 30, 2006 0:05:11 GMT
Decentralisation-
I was not suggesting a return to separate signal boxes as such (as I'm sure you're not implying) but the Met line presumably works quite harmoniously with Decentalised Control at Harrow, Rickmansworth and Amersham. Baker Street presumably 'cracks the whip' when neccesary. In my Dream Met. when modernised these three, and Ray.La. could be combined into one "Real Met Desk" located somewhere out there.
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jun 30, 2006 10:31:01 GMT
After having thought about this issue, I think that the best option might be to simply establish remote control points in a given PSB's territory What you mean like the existing Emergency Control Rooms / Machine Rooms that a large number of both NR and LU lines already use. Let's not waste money renaming them though! They are of course only Remote Controlled when normal operation is in place. To be less pedantic though, lines with decent signalling systems (so not the JLE then) generally change manually operated staffed signal boxes with remotely controlled unstaffed boxes. However, the option to staff these boxes and operate the equipment locally is normally kept. For example, Baker Street replaced signal cabins at Stanmore, Wembley Park, Neasden and so on, and made it possible to control those areas under one roof (using one person as well). However, should it be required, each of the areas retains the original signal frame and the area can be operated locally. The only problem during incidents comes when you realise that through modernising and streamlining your railway you got rid of all the staff that could be sent to use the local control ;D Decentralisation- I was not suggesting a return to separate signal boxes as such (as I'm sure you're not implying) but the Met line presumably works quite harmoniously with Decentalised Control at Harrow, Rickmansworth and Amersham. Baker Street presumably 'cracks the whip' when neccesary. The more control of a line you have under one roof, the more reliability you have. You can see more railway at a glance and be able to provide much better service information. Baker Street would be much better had the original plans been stuck to (i.e. the whole Met Line by 2000). Of course, naturally I am slightly biased. We avoid "cracking the whip" though - except where absolutely necessary ;D The whole line (or the whole of the Sub-Surface Lines) will now never be at Baker Street, but will one day reside more or less under one roof somewhere (and hopefully I will have a job there - provided it happens in the next 25-30 years - I won't hold my breath for either prospect ;D ) No doubt modernisation of lines in order to get them under one roof could see the end of using the old local signal frames - you can imagine that the designers will hear the word "old" and decide they will get rid of it. Then purpose built emergency control rooms would be required - wasting an awful lot of money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2006 14:57:18 GMT
After having thought about this issue, I think that the best option might be to simply establish remote control points in a given PSB's territory What you mean like the existing Emergency Control Rooms / Machine Rooms that a large number of both NR and LU lines already use. Let's not waste money renaming them though! They are of course only Remote Controlled when normal operation is in place. Exactly! But in this case, certain of these rooms should be updated with the necessary circuitry (i.e. TD) to actually be truly usable as an emergency control room. To be less pedantic though, lines with decent signalling systems (so not the JLE then) generally change manually operated staffed signal boxes with remotely controlled unstaffed boxes. However, the option to staff these boxes and operate the equipment locally is normally kept. For example, Baker Street replaced signal cabins at Stanmore, Wembley Park, Neasden and so on, and made it possible to control those areas under one roof (using one person as well). However, should it be required, each of the areas retains the original signal frame and the area can be operated locally. The only problem during incidents comes when you realise that through modernising and streamlining your railway you got rid of all the staff that could be sent to use the local control ;D Precisely. Keeping the controls is one thing, keeping the staff to use them another
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jul 1, 2006 18:28:39 GMT
Exactly! But in this case, certain of these rooms should be updated with the necessary circuitry (i.e. TD) to actually be truly usable as an emergency control room. That also comes down to money, but also down to the fact that hopefully any such room is only used as an emergency on a very temporary basis and will normally have a basic emergency timetable - normally as a result of the incident itself. Besides (flexes muscles) TDs are just for the punters to know where trains are going. Real signallers know which train is which and will clear the correct signals (lack of muscular tone now becomes evident, reddening of face occurs, embarressed grin and seat re-taken ;D)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2006 4:08:16 GMT
Exactly! But in this case, certain of these rooms should be updated with the necessary circuitry (i.e. TD) to actually be truly usable as an emergency control room. That also comes down to money, but also down to the fact that hopefully any such room is only used as an emergency on a very temporary basis and will normally have a basic emergency timetable - normally as a result of the incident itself. Indeed. Example: Edgware Road. If the crossover at Royal Oak happened to be controlled from OP, a remote control point would have allowed the service that was run to take place, instead of closing the entire Hammersmith branch. This is the sort of thing I am referring to. Besides (flexes muscles) TDs are just for the punters to know where trains are going. Real signallers know which train is which and will clear the correct signals (lack of muscular tone now becomes evident, reddening of face occurs, embarressed grin and seat re-taken ;D) I suppose the good sirs of the SCC have one of the local runners check the train numbers whilst they chow down on another cucumber sandwich
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jul 2, 2006 18:21:13 GMT
I cannot speak for my fellow colleagues, but cucumber does not agree with me ;D
As for train numbers, a handful of carefully placed CCTV cameras provide us with some of the information - and of course entertainment, given that they are focused on train cabs. We can see you swearing at us ;D
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Jul 3, 2006 23:03:56 GMT
BBC News Report here - news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5117264.stmKing's Cross evacuated over fire
King's Cross railway station has been evacuated because of fears of an explosion due to a nearby fire.
About 20 firefighters are tackling the blaze in a building at a construction site near the north London terminal.
There is a 200m exclusion zone around the fire, which began at about 0830 BST, as there are fears a gas cylinder could explode.
About 630 people have been led to safety and one person has been taken to hospital suffering from burns.
Trains are currently terminating at Peterborough and Finsbury Park and motorists are being advised to avoid the area.
The Tube service is unaffected.
I could see the fire from the office window. Massive black plume of smoke and tall orange flames for a short while.
|
|