|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 17, 2005 9:55:40 GMT
 I have at last had a comprehensive look all through this site and seen some things that seem odd to my mind. 1. Firstly this "teacup" service is I think a no-no. A similar idea was tried during the covered way shut down at HSK/Triangle and look at the cock ups that that caused. 2. A better way to my mind if the Circle is to be done away with would be firstly to upgrade the H & C/Wimbleware to a full "line" status called just the plain "City" line. After all it is operated by the same rolling stock. Has already got it's own depots/sidings..Hammersmith/PG/Triangle/Farringdon/Barking. Is more or less self contained and not too long. The service operated by the new line could be Barking/Hammersmith/Wimbledon via Kings X and the Wimbledon via Embankment service provided by "D" stock. The new line can have it's own dedicated set number series 1 - 77 and not half in one series and half in the other. The half and half method infuriates me for some reason. The District trains could all then be numbered in the series 100 - 177. 3. Better timetable reliability could be achieved by having common headways for all the services. This business of trying to slot 10 minute headway service with 8 minute headway service is bloody potty and inefficient to me. We used to be allowed 80 minutes for an end-to end run and now you get 85+ and the service still don't run right. 4. Having a separate "Line" would maybe improve crew distribution too with Barking becoming a purely "City Line" depot/booking on point and crews for the west end branches being at Edgware Road. This would alliviate some of the difficulties I believe exist at Earls Court. These are only ideas but the present situation is fragmented and disorganised in my view. I will now sit back a wait for all these thoughts to be shot down with great glee. P.S. I wonder if any of the "Men who matter" at the top of the infracos ever read this site?
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Apr 17, 2005 11:49:17 GMT
I can assure you that at least a handful of "men who matter" do read forums such as this - though not sure yet about this particular one, but it wouldn't surprise me.
I know you only expressed ideas Q8, but I have said this on other forums in the past, and my comments are not without knowledge - depsite everything else you may hear from other sources.
The Circle Line as it stands will not be broken up or changed significantly in at least the next few years - if ever.
Tea-cups, Pan-Handles, and whatever else can be thought of do not, whilst appear to look like they will work, simply do not.
The most the service will be changed is by "enhancing it." There are a few ideas being tossed around in relation to this, including an extra train on each side.
Timetabling. That's a whole different issue. I'm not sure which is to blame. Current rolling stock, track, passenger numbers and attutude, driver experience. But basically, even back in the days you worked the timetable, you actually - probably without realising it - didn't have enough time!
I remember the Circles having 50 minutes to go round. A driver getting off next time could be witnessed doing it in around 40-42! But on average it just wasn't enough. They currently have 56 minutes off-peak and this is just about ok.
Numbering? Personally, having signalled the Circle Line for nearly 17 years, I would hate a change. It's easy to tell which way a Circle should be going just by its number. 21(I)x for the Inner. 20(o)x for the Outer. Simple.
I know they were ideas and the Circle does need something done to it, but I can assure you it won't be scrapped or it's pattern altered too much.
As for the headways issue. The surviving 10 minute headways will soon become very rare indeed - especially by next January, so soon they won't cause the issues you mention. But for now they can cause a few timetable headaches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2005 13:38:54 GMT
I can assure you that at least a handful of "men who matter" do read forums such as this - though not sure yet about this particular one, but it wouldn't surprise me. How else do you think these 'men who matter' get their ideas and then huge bonuses for passing them off as their own? ;D Numbering? Personally, having signalled the Circle Line for nearly 17 years, I would hate a change. It's easy to tell which way a Circle should be going just by its number. 21(I)x for the Inner. 20(o)x for the Outer. Simple. Well I'd never even noticed that before!! Shows how much notice I take of train numbers! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by piccadillypilot on Apr 17, 2005 15:33:06 GMT
The Circle Line as it stands will not be broken up or changed significantly in at least the next few years - if ever. Perhaps if the Metropolitan and the Metropolitan District Railway managers had had their way in the early 1880s we wouldn't have the problem now. They didn't want it. The link was only built under pressure from outside bodies. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2005 16:34:50 GMT
Hasn't it always been implied that the monotony of going in Circles, combined with the seven flat junctions traversed by Circle trains, is what leads to the massive unreliability of the service?
I should go dig up those old proposals I made for a third line from Tower Hill to Liverpool Street for the Inner Rail...
|
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Apr 17, 2005 17:08:37 GMT
, combined with the seven flat junctions traversed by Circle trains, is what leads to the massive unreliability of the service? Seven? At this precise moment I'm sitting where I can see a diagram depicting four of those junctions and I can only think of two others. Now I may be mistaken but I always thought two plus four equalled six.  That would be of very little benefit since it entirely fails to remove any of the conflicting moves encountered in the Aldgate area. Far better to provide an independant low level line from Whitechapel to Liverpool St for westboound Hammersmith trains. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2005 17:19:01 GMT
Seven? At this precise moment I'm sitting where I can see a diagram depicting four of those junctions and I can only think of two others. Now I may be mistaken but I always thought two plus four equalled six. Well, let's see: Aldgate Junction, Minories Junction, Gloucester Road Junction, HSK Junction, Praed Street Junction, Baker Street Junction.... .... is six.  That would be of very little benefit since it entirely fails to remove any of the conflicting moves encountered in the Aldgate area. Far better to provide an independant low level line from Whitechapel to Liverpool St for westboound Hammersmith trains. Really? I always thought that a third line starting at Tower Hill EB, continuing to the Inner Rail platform and then a third line to Liverpool Street through the old bay would provide extra space for easing the deadlock the triangle can get into. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Apr 17, 2005 17:40:37 GMT
They didn't want it. The link was only built under pressure from outside bodies. Historically and now in the present day, those outside bodies are influencing decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 17, 2005 17:46:30 GMT
 Mr Harsig's idea for a low level line from Whitechapel to Liverpool already exists in the ELL. If they were to hand it over to the main line companies it could be reconnected at Shoreditch and run straight into L,pool St main line (plat 17/18). As most of the punters on the ELL change to the H & C at Whitchapel anyway it may benefit them especially those who have already changed once from the southern at NX /NXG. Unless Mr Harsig means he wants to have the low level line physically connected to LU system line at both ends. Regarding Mr City sigs comments about the numbering all they have to do is lower the numbers by 200 so that outer rails become 01 - 07 inner rails 11 - 17 Hammersmith's 21 -47 and Wimblewares 51 - 77. The District could then be 101 - 177 and the Met Main 201 -277 With the Piccadilly & Jubilee in the 300 + series . Then everyone from the controller down will know, The line, the route and the stock from the set number. As an advantage it would put the lines in historically correct order as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2005 17:58:58 GMT
Mr Harsig's idea for a low level line from Whitechapel to Liverpool already exists in the ELL. If they were to hand it over to the main line companies it could be reconnected at Shoreditch and run straight into L,pool St main line (plat 17/18). As most of the punters on the ELL change to the H & C at Whitchapel anyway it may benefit them especially those who have already changed once from the southern at NX /NXG. Unless Mr Harsig means he wants to have the low level line physically connected to LU system line at both ends. There's no capacity at Liverpool Street for trains off of the ELL, and the ramp from the ELL to the NLR Broad Street route will destroy the site of the old connection anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by piccadillypilot on Apr 17, 2005 18:01:49 GMT
those outside bodies are influencing decisions. Unfortunately I think it's gone beyond mere "influencing". Those concerned are making demands and failing to provide the resources. Herbert Morrison, Albert Stanley and Frank Pick would all have something to say I suspect. |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 18, 2005 4:44:55 GMT
 . Re - my earlier posting in which I used the phrase "men who matter" For that I apologise to all and sundry as you all "matter" The thing I was trying to say was "men with clout". I hope that clears up any offence I may have given. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Apr 18, 2005 10:20:10 GMT
With the Piccadilly & Jubilee in the 300 + series . Which brings us back to the other thread concerning train numbering. For a start there are simply too many trains running on either the Picc to confine them to one small series. I know you have the ideas on numbering making things easier, but from a control point of view (and we are the ones dealing in many different numbers), they are easy enough and cause very little confusion. If the JNP one day decide to build their own control room for their 3 lines, things will have to change then. But until then, to me 201 is an outer-rail circle, but to our colleagues across the corridor at Baker Street, it may be a Queens Park reverser. . The thing I was trying to say was "men with clout". I hope that clears up any offence I may have given. ;D These days, in the current climate, those with "clout" aren't always seen as the ones who matter, and vice versa ;D |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 18, 2005 15:17:59 GMT
;D
Mr Citysigs comment (below) Is all the more reason to do away with that senseless and illogical "octal" numbering rubbish.
Which brings us back to the other thread concerning train numbering. For a start there are simply too many trains running on either the Picc to confine them to one small series.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196 
|
Post by Tom on Apr 18, 2005 17:18:38 GMT
The days of Octal numbering is numbered, (excuse the pun), however it isn't financially viable to upgrade all the programme machine circuitry left so late on in the system's life.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Apr 18, 2005 19:41:59 GMT
;D Mr Citysigs comment (below) Is all the more reason to do away with that senseless and illogical "octal" numbering rubbish. Like a number 8, ever feel like you're going round in Circles and ending up back where you started ;D Despite what Tom says, this may be true at design level, but it's taken 50-odd years to get the control rooms we have. It's going to be certainly another few before any new rooms open. So in the meantime, it's working with the old stuff and only being able to count up to 7 or, if you like 777 ;D (of course missing out a few numbers along the way) |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 19, 2005 1:57:04 GMT
Despite what Tom says, this may be true at design level, but it's taken 50-odd years to get the control rooms we have. It's going to be certainly another few before any new rooms open. So in the meantime, it's working with the old stuff and only being able to count up to 7 or, if you like 777 (of course missing out a few numbers along the way) I thought that was all that PPP was started for. To Provide the dosh to upgrade the whole caboodle. That numbering system just DOES NOT MAKE SENSE and should removed ASAP. Nobody's got 8 fingers unless they are amputees. I was told recently by someone who works for one of the main line companies at director level that an ordinary domecstic home PC with a large hard drive is more than capable of dealing with signalling and associated tasks at most locations. If that's the case why waste money on these big main frames when all that's needed is to connect the technoogy to the signal hardware. I.E. Let the computer work the frame! I believe that some of the bus firms in London have a little gadget on the bus whereby a driver taps in his duty and running numbers and the computer works out everything from there.Why not apply that to the tube. The driver knows (or should) where he is going and a machine does not always. That is the main reason for WRA's. The machine says one thing when the truth is another. Time to sort things out. Right I've said me piece. 
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Apr 19, 2005 8:51:37 GMT
The huge mainframes we have at Baker Street were, at the time, the only machines capable of doing the job - and the cheapest.
Stanmore area, as an example, could be signalled by a very old Commondore 64.
The newer technology has been used in such a way that it is compatible with the combine as a whole. The newer stuff would only require a few tweaks to give those magic numbers.
As for PPP. We know what the theory was. Now look at it from one view on the Met.
There are currently few plans to add more onto Baker Street. Why? Because it would cost the infracos money and after installation, they would not see much back. They will only upgrade if it will save them money.
The way in which more will be added to Baker Street is if the opsco approach the infraco and ask to have it done - so that the opsco can save money (staff wages etc.) However, going down this route means the opsco will have to pay for the upgrade out of the money it saves from staff wages.
In short, we will never see any improvement that the infracos have done "off their own back" so to speak. There must be something they will get out of it.
Ok so it's good business to only do things to make money, but I'm not so sure the railway will survive long enough for them to achieve just this aim.
|
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 19, 2005 16:45:55 GMT
 See Mr Citysig. Your last post on this subject now convinces me it's all b*llocks and just another scam. and it INFURIATES me. 
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Apr 19, 2005 17:38:08 GMT
The technical reasons behind Octal numbering are explained at: tinyurl.com/8sqv3Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Apr 19, 2005 18:26:03 GMT
See Mr Citysig. Your last post on this subject now convinces me it's all b*llocks and just another scam. and it INFURIATES me. It was never going to be anything other than a scam. If things were going to continue in an honest and straightforward manner, with the (albeit limited) funding split properly, and if it were decided that all aspects of the railway would receive attention (not just tarting up stations) then PPP would never have existed. I would say let the ballot box speak in a few weeks, but let's be honest, none of the front-running parties are likely to scrap PPP - no matter what they may say today. As for numbering, daft as it may look to others, those of us in service control have got used to what we deal with. If you changed it all now, who knows what signals we may clear! |
|
solidbond
Staff Emeritus
'Give me 118 reasons for an Audible Warning on a C Stock'
Posts: 1,215
|
Post by solidbond on Apr 19, 2005 21:54:54 GMT
As for numbering, daft as it may look to others, those of us in service control have got used to what we deal with. If you changed it all now, who knows what signals we may clear! Indeed - you may even end up with District trains heading for Met territory  Oh - hang on - you don't need to change the numbers for that to happen do you Dave? ;D ;D |
|
Mr Harsig's idea for a low level line from Whitechapel to Liverpool already exists in the ELL. If they were to hand it over to the main line companies it could be reconnected at Shoreditch and run straight into L,pool St main line (plat 17/18). As most of the punters on the ELL change to the H & C at Whitchapel anyway it may benefit them especially those who have already changed once from the southern at NX /NXG. Unless Mr Harsig means he wants to have the low level line physically connected to LU system line at both ends.
.
Oh - hang on - you don't need to change the numbers for that to happen do you Dave? ;D ;D
