Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
MG800
Oct 1, 2005 18:36:48 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2005 18:36:48 GMT
I was at Wembley Park today, admiring the new station architecture (which is already getting dingy, scuffed and dirty ), and noticed that the draw-up on platform 5, MG800, appears to be falling apart - it's dirty, rusted and rather decrepit. Will this signal be replaced, to keep it in line with the rest of the shiny new station, or will it be left there to look ugly once the station is done?
|
|
|
MG800
Oct 2, 2005 12:48:30 GMT
Post by citysig on Oct 2, 2005 12:48:30 GMT
I was at Wembley Park today, admiring the new station architecture (which is already getting dingy, scuffed and dirty ), and noticed that the draw-up on platform 5, MG800, appears to be falling apart - it's dirty, rusted and rather decrepit. As for the station, we as the operators don't tend to mess these things up. Trains and stations would be much tidier if wasn't for the addition of passengers ;D As for the signal, that will be fixed/replaced under normal maintenance, and no priority will be given to making any signals nice and new or clean under the station refurb - apart from any that have been re-positioned or replaced directly as part of the project.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,198
|
MG800
Oct 2, 2005 12:51:10 GMT
Post by Tom on Oct 2, 2005 12:51:10 GMT
As for the signal, that will be fixed/replaced under normal maintenance, and no priority will be given to making any signals nice and new or clean under the station refurb - apart from any that have been re-positioned or replaced directly as part of the project. Unless the refurb contractor wishes to pay for it to look nice and neat.... (I'll submit my tariff now ;D)
|
|
|
MG800
Oct 2, 2005 13:26:03 GMT
Post by Harsig on Oct 2, 2005 13:26:03 GMT
Of course this particular signal may not be with us much longer depending on exactly how the proposed alterations to the connections to the depot are carried out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
MG800
Oct 2, 2005 16:29:07 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2005 16:29:07 GMT
OT: Harsig, where did you get that graphic in your sig? It looks like something that wouldn't be out of place in an IECC
|
|
|
MG800
Oct 2, 2005 16:38:27 GMT
Post by citysig on Oct 2, 2005 16:38:27 GMT
Urgh! IECC You mean it wouldn't be out of place in a SCC - Service Control Centre (except it isn't from there either). It is after all the busiest 3-sided flat junction in the world, and they don't let just anyone play with it ;D This reply is based on previous sightings of Harsig's avatar and presumes he hasn't changed it recently as it doesn't show up on the work's computer.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,775
|
MG800
Oct 2, 2005 22:19:46 GMT
Post by Chris M on Oct 2, 2005 22:19:46 GMT
His avatar does look like a plan of a three-sided junction, and so I'm sure you are right. I understood to OneKA to be asking about the image in the signature - which although it looks track plan/signalling plan type doesn't immediately appear to be three sided -
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
MG800
Oct 2, 2005 22:40:44 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2005 22:40:44 GMT
That station does say Harrow on the Hill...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
MG800
Oct 2, 2005 23:33:27 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2005 23:33:27 GMT
his avatar is aldgate area
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
MG800
Oct 3, 2005 0:00:30 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2005 0:00:30 GMT
That station does say Harrow on the Hill... Well spotted tubechallenger! I have been studying that for days, trying to guess the location!! So we have the island platform at Northwick Park to the extreme left of the diagram and the island platforms at Moor Park to the far right.... But 'hmmm', there seem to be goods yards at Harrow, Pinner, and Northwood. And the old connection from Platform 1 at Harrow to the Uxbridge branch is also visible. I'm hoping that, if he was asked nicely, Harsig would post a full-size version of that... PLEASE!! ;D
|
|
|
MG800
Oct 3, 2005 9:08:20 GMT
Post by citysig on Oct 3, 2005 9:08:20 GMT
I understood to OneKA to be asking about the image in the signature - which although it looks track plan/signalling plan type doesn't immediately appear to be three sided - I refer you to the small print in my post. This was not visible to me either and all I did was go by memory and thought it was the avatar being referred to. Occasionally all I have to rely on is work's computer as that just lately is the only place I have time to view and post. Being on an internal network it won't show everything everyday. Life in general is a bit busy at present so sometimes forums take the back seat. In any case the comments regarding the avatar still stand and the larger signature is a whole different story which I will leave my learned colleague to answer.
|
|
|
MG800
Oct 3, 2005 22:28:59 GMT
Post by Harsig on Oct 3, 2005 22:28:59 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
MG800
Oct 3, 2005 23:25:19 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2005 23:25:19 GMT
THANKS Harsig!
|
|
|
MG800
Oct 4, 2005 4:03:40 GMT
Post by q8 on Oct 4, 2005 4:03:40 GMT
This photo show a crossover between the fast lines at Moor Park. IIRC that was not there in 1973. When was it installed? i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/Harsig/HOHCabin.gifAnother thing that puzzles me is the semi's in the diagram are lettered in the 'J' series. Thats something else I can't recall as I thought they used to be in the 'M'' batch.
|
|
|
MG800
Oct 4, 2005 7:37:22 GMT
Post by Harsig on Oct 4, 2005 7:37:22 GMT
This photo show a crossover between the fast lines at Moor Park. IIRC that was not there in 1973. When was it installed? The crossover at Moor Park was there in 1962 when the the Main Lines were first brought into use but I believe it was removed fairly early on circa 1971. It was only a handworked crossover, protected solely by X signals. Even today though you can still see some traces of the crossover on the ground. The M series ran from Baker St to Uxbridge (including Stanmore at one time) however the M series skipped over Harrow which has been JB since 1948 and was the start of the J series which runs from Harrow to Amersham/Chesham/Watford. I have always assumed that it was M for Met and J for Joint Line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
MG800
Oct 4, 2005 8:48:06 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2005 8:48:06 GMT
I am surprised to see that JB45.46.84, JB21.22.77 and JB29.30.99 don't have route indicators, that JB21.22.77 additionally has got a shunt disc for a movement that I can't seem to find at Harrow North, and that there is a second trailing crossover south of the Chiltern island. Otherwise, this looks wonderful Harsig - where did you get it?
|
|
|
MG800
Oct 4, 2005 8:54:27 GMT
Post by q8 on Oct 4, 2005 8:54:27 GMT
I think you'll find TOK that the signals you describe as shunt disks are in fact disk distant signals that were extant at that time.
That diagram must be very old as it still shows the 'over the top' Uxbridge cord as well.
|
|
|
MG800
Oct 4, 2005 9:28:28 GMT
Post by Harsig on Oct 4, 2005 9:28:28 GMT
I am surprised to see that JB45.46.84, JB21.22.77 and JB29.30.99 don't have route indicators, that JB21.22.77 additionally has got a shunt disc for a movement that I can't seem to find at Harrow North, and that there is a second trailing crossover south of the Chiltern island. Otherwise, this looks wonderful Harsig - where did you get it? These signals do have route indicators, but they are not shown because the signal is at danger and the route indicator extinguished. The three routes at signal JB21/22/77 are shown here
|
|
|
MG800
Oct 4, 2005 10:23:04 GMT
Post by q8 on Oct 4, 2005 10:23:04 GMT
Now there is more confusion here then. I thought the Jubilee had taken all the 'J' series letters for themselves including 'JB' etc. Surely there are not two interlockings with the same prefix?
|
|
|
MG800
Oct 4, 2005 10:40:37 GMT
Post by Harsig on Oct 4, 2005 10:40:37 GMT
Now there is more confusion here then. I thought the Jubilee had taken all the 'J' series letters for themselves including 'JB' etc. Surely there are not two interlockings with the same prefix? No there are not. In the J series the Jubilee currently uses only JD, JE, JG, JL & JM. JD was previously in use at Pinner but became redundant when the yard closed in 1970, JE was used 1961-62 by a temporary cabin at Northwood Hills but was otherwise spare as were JL & JM while JG was in use at Moor Park until the handworked crossover there was removed in 1971. Thus all the J codes used by the Jubilee were available when the relevant sections of the Jubilee were resignalled in the mid 1980s. In fact what happened during this resignalling was that the original M code was retained for the Met signals while J was substituted for M for the jubilee signals, thus Finchley Road had been solely MD became MD/JD. The exception to this rule is Neasden. This was originally MF but became MM/JM. I'm sure that if the code JF had not still been in use at Northwood (as it still is today) then Neasden would have followed the same pattern as all the others and become MF/JF.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
MG800
Oct 4, 2005 13:46:12 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2005 13:46:12 GMT
I am surprised to see that JB45.46.84, JB21.22.77 and JB29.30.99 don't have route indicators, that JB21.22.77 additionally has got a shunt disc for a movement that I can't seem to find at Harrow North, and that there is a second trailing crossover south of the Chiltern island. Otherwise, this looks wonderful Harsig - where did you get it? These signals do have route indicators, but they are not shown because the signal is at danger and the route indicator extinguished. The three routes at signal JB21/22/77 are shown here*pounk* Heh, I thought that would be the case, based upon the remaining signals seen elsewhere. Thanks anyway Harsig. Now there is more confusion here then. I thought the Jubilee had taken all the 'J' series letters for themselves including 'JB' etc. Surely there are not two interlockings with the same prefix? No there are not. In the J series the Jubilee currently uses only JD, JE, JG, JL & JM. JD was previously in use at Pinner but became redundant when the yard closed in 1970, JE was used 1961-62 by a temporary cabin at Northwood Hills but was otherwise spare as were JL & JM while JG was in use at Moor Park until the handworked crossover there was removed in 1971. Thus all the J codes used by the Jubilee were available when the relevant sections of the Jubilee were resignalled in the mid 1980s. In fact what happened during this resignalling was that the original M code was retained for the Met signals while J was substituted for M for the jubilee signals, thus Finchley Road had been solely MD became MD/JD. The exception to this rule is Neasden. This was originally MF but became MM/JM. I'm sure that if the code JF had not still been in use at Northwood (as it still is today) then Neasden would have followed the same pattern as all the others and become MF/JF. The biggest question that I've always wanted to get an answer to is: Why was this done? Why is it so awful for the Jubilee to be signalled by Mx signals, whereas the Piccadilly doesn't seem to mind being signalled by Wx signals? The mind boggles...
|
|