|
|
ato
Jul 2, 2007 21:31:00 GMT
Post by tube10 on Jul 2, 2007 21:31:00 GMT
Which part of the metro line has ato and which part is conventional also how can I tell?
|
|
|
|
ato
Jul 2, 2007 21:55:01 GMT
Post by suncloud on Jul 2, 2007 21:55:01 GMT
None of the metropolitan line has ATO... Only the Victoria and Central lines have ATO on LU as it stands.
|
|
|
|
ato
Jul 2, 2007 22:29:18 GMT
Post by signalfailure on Jul 2, 2007 22:29:18 GMT
When the S-Stock comes in and eventually new signalling the met will have ATO capabilities. HOWEVER.
There is a lot of discussion at the moment wether to have it or not because the met being sub-surface it would take a long time to make up route scripts because when wether suddenly changed, aka leaf fall, adverse weather.
Know what im saying?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
ato
Jul 3, 2007 13:56:30 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2007 13:56:30 GMT
Yup. I for one would not be surprised if ATO capability was only provided for the slow lines to Watford north of Harrow - balancing the needs of manually-driven NR stock with ATO-operated LU stock in the leaf fall season and winter would be a nightmare IMO.
|
|
|
|
ato
Jul 3, 2007 15:24:53 GMT
Post by signalfailure on Jul 3, 2007 15:24:53 GMT
Certainly would call up a lot of disruptions to the service if ATO rears its ugly head onto the met. I hate the idea of ATO. Takes the fun out of train driving.
Manually driving trains to a way which you think is safe is what drivers should be doing. NOT pressing ATO Start and Doors Offside/Nearside Open/Close.
God if i ever get the T/Op position at LUL I dont want ATO lines. I think i will make that very clear
|
|
|
|
ato
Jul 3, 2007 16:22:49 GMT
Post by c5 on Jul 3, 2007 16:22:49 GMT
Certainly would call up a lot of disruptions to the service if ATO rears its ugly head onto the met. I hate the idea of ATO. Takes the fun out of train driving. Manually driving trains to a way which you think is safe is what drivers should be doing. NOT pressing ATO Start and Doors Offside/Nearside Open/Close. God if i ever get the T/Op position at LUL I dont want ATO lines. I think i will make that very clear In a few years time, you won't have a choice! ATO has the ability to increase the numbers of trains in service and frequency, as they can run close together, because they have the quicker thinking times..... unless there are poor weather conditions that is! ;D ;D ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
ato
Jul 3, 2007 16:43:46 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2007 16:43:46 GMT
As JTD just said, ten years from now they will all be ATO, you better just hope they all include coded manual!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
ato
Jul 3, 2007 16:53:07 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2007 16:53:07 GMT
the last few years of the beutiful a stock maybe ato operated
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
ato
Jul 3, 2007 16:58:28 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2007 16:58:28 GMT
the last few years of the beutiful a stock maybe ato operated it definitely won't! |
|
|
|
ato
Jul 3, 2007 21:02:38 GMT
Post by signalfailure on Jul 3, 2007 21:02:38 GMT
I agree, Definatly not.
Whats the point in fitting new signalling and train borne equipment to an old stock when they can get the S stock in already with ATO. Saves time and money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
ato
Jul 8, 2007 10:46:45 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2007 10:46:45 GMT
As far as I can see Chiltern will never go through the trouble of spending money to fit their Class 165 and 168 with ATO. As far as I am aware (please correct me if I am wrong) nobody has ever attempted to run a diesel unit on ATO. However since installing ATO implies installing some sort of ATP as well (for running on coded manual) there could be a possibility of Chiltern adapting his ATP (although it will cost lots of money since also they will have to modify the Neasden South Jct to Aynho Jct section as well, unless they want to end up with two systems). I imagine that at the end of the day it will be LUL attitude as the landlord: i.e. to allow Chilterns as now (tripcocks) or forced them to modify ATP or fit ATO if they want to be allowed on the Met.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
ato
Jul 13, 2007 23:45:48 GMT
Post by prjb on Jul 13, 2007 23:45:48 GMT
When the S-Stock comes in and eventually new signalling the met will have ATO capabilities. HOWEVER. There is a lot of discussion at the moment wether to have it or not because the met being sub-surface it would take a long time to make up route scripts because when wether suddenly changed, aka leaf fall, adverse weather. Know what im saying? There is no HOWEVER about it. The Met will be ATO and the system is already being installed ready for the migration to 'S' Stock. I'm not sure where you think there is lots of discussion but it certainly isn't between LU, MRSSL, BTUK, or WRSL. The only way for LU to get the required service level and for the Infraco (and their suppliers) to meet their JTC targets is to run a full ATO system. MRSSL are currently working on their adhesion strategy and they will be ensuring that it allows for ATO in order for them to get paid. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
ato
Jul 13, 2007 23:49:19 GMT
Post by prjb on Jul 13, 2007 23:49:19 GMT
the last few years of the beutiful a stock maybe ato operated No it won't. There are no, and have never been, any plans to fit ATO equipment to any current Sub-Surface Stock as part of the upgrade. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
ato
Jul 13, 2007 23:50:18 GMT
Post by prjb on Jul 13, 2007 23:50:18 GMT
Yup. I for one would not be surprised if ATO capability was only provided for the slow lines to Watford north of Harrow - balancing the needs of manually-driven NR stock with ATO-operated LU stock in the leaf fall season and winter would be a nightmare IMO. MRSSL will be running ATO in all weather conditions. Their adhesion strategy will have to bear this out. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
ato
Jul 13, 2007 23:53:28 GMT
Post by prjb on Jul 13, 2007 23:53:28 GMT
As far as I can see Chiltern will never go through the trouble of spending money to fit their Class 165 and 168 with ATO. As far as I am aware (please correct me if I am wrong) nobody has ever attempted to run a diesel unit on ATO. However since installing ATO implies installing some sort of ATP as well (for running on coded manual) there could be a possibility of Chiltern adapting his ATP (although it will cost lots of money since also they will have to modify the Neasden South Jct to Aynho Jct section as well, unless they want to end up with two systems). I imagine that at the end of the day it will be LUL attitude as the landlord: i.e. to allow Chilterns as now (tripcocks) or forced them to modify ATP or fit ATO if they want to be allowed on the Met. It is my understanding (I'm rolling stock not signalling bear in mind) that Chiltern do not have to fit ATP to their stock once the Met has gone full ATO. LU have an obligationunder the service agreement to allow Chiltern to maintain their service pattern and that will be, I imagine, under tripcock protection. Remember, currently tripcocks stay even after full migration to ATO (although this isn't LU's desire). |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,198 
|
ato
Jul 13, 2007 23:55:58 GMT
Post by Tom on Jul 13, 2007 23:55:58 GMT
Remember, currently tripcocks stay even after full migration to ATO (although this isn't LU's desire). We've still got most of the circuitry needed for trainstops on the central line, and that went ATP years ago...! |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
ato
Jul 13, 2007 23:58:58 GMT
Post by prjb on Jul 13, 2007 23:58:58 GMT
Yes, but tripcock protection is not desired for the future. It is currently in the plans however to leave the trainstops in place for alien trains etc.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,198
|
ato
Jul 14, 2007 20:10:02 GMT
Post by Tom on Jul 14, 2007 20:10:02 GMT
I quite agree that it isn't desirable. Personally, the concept sounds a bit naff.
Though on the central, we are lacking the important bit of the circuitry needed for trainstops - the valve and trainstop themselves.
|
|
|
|
ato
Jul 24, 2007 23:54:29 GMT
Post by signalfailure on Jul 24, 2007 23:54:29 GMT
ATO has not been agreed as a full time working operation on the met. FACT. From a met T/Op
|
|
|
|
ato
Jul 25, 2007 0:49:14 GMT
Post by citysig on Jul 25, 2007 0:49:14 GMT
A reliable source I'm sure. Hopefully not the one I spoke to tonight to remind him of his road-training.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
ato
Jul 25, 2007 1:04:23 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2007 1:04:23 GMT
Forgive me here but I have little idea how ATO works. How is it possible to run one line on ATO, when that line shares tracks with other lines that are non ATO? For example, the Met shares tracks with the Circle, Hammersmith & City and Piccadilly Line's, so won't these require it to without causing conflict between running each line?  ATO has not been agreed as a full time working operation on the met. FACT. From a met T/Op No offence signalfailure, but I trust the words of prjb much more than yourself or a Met T/OP!  |
|
|
|
ato
Jul 25, 2007 5:16:59 GMT
Post by c5 on Jul 25, 2007 5:16:59 GMT
Forgive me here but I have little idea how ATO works. How is it possible to run one line on ATO, when that line shares tracks with other lines that are non ATO? For example, the Met shares tracks with the Circle, Hammersmith & City and Piccadilly Line's, so won't these require it to without causing conflict between running each line? ATO has not been agreed as a full time working operation on the met. FACT. From a met T/Op No offence signalfailure, but I trust the words of prjb much more than yourself or a Met T/OP! Eventually under PPP, everything will be ATO, though I think that Tubeline's lines will use a different type to the BCV/SSL, so there must be a solution to that! And the last point - I quite agree! ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
ato
Jul 25, 2007 8:26:06 GMT
Post by cetacean on Jul 25, 2007 8:26:06 GMT
How is it possible to run one line on ATO, when that line shares tracks with other lines that are non ATO? For example, the Met shares tracks with the Circle, Hammersmith & City and Piccadilly Line's, so won't these require it to without causing conflict between running each line? As long as the signalling system the ATO system is connected to is aware of the presence/location of the other trains, it's not a problem. Eventually under PPP, everything will be ATO Slightly OT, but does this apply to the W&C, and if so shouldn't it have got it last year? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
ato
Jul 25, 2007 8:51:43 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2007 8:51:43 GMT
Forgive me here but I have little idea how ATO works. How is it possible to run one line on ATO, when that line shares tracks with other lines that are non ATO? For example, the Met shares tracks with the Circle, Hammersmith & City and Piccadilly Line's, so won't these require it to without causing conflict between running each line? It is possible for non-ATO and ATO trains to run together. The ATO trains run to their limit of movement authority. The non-ATO trains run to the light signals. As long as the ATO system can locate the trains, and all trains have ATP in some form, there is not too much of a problem. It is also possible to interface two different ATO systems. In Hong Kong, there is a stretch of track where trains running under either SACEM or Seltrac run on the same line. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
ato
Jul 25, 2007 10:21:03 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2007 10:21:03 GMT
Ah, I see. But isn't an advantage of the S stock that it can be used across all the sub-surface lines, meaning at short notice, for example, a Met service cab become a Circle service, and won't the addition of ATO prevent this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
ato
Jul 25, 2007 10:24:06 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2007 10:24:06 GMT
The Met services would be 8-car though but a circle could become a District quite easily as the circles will be 7-cars as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
ato
Jul 25, 2007 10:56:58 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2007 10:56:58 GMT
Ah, I see. But isn't an advantage of the S stock that it can be used across all the sub-surface lines, meaning at short notice, for example, a Met service cab become a Circle service, and won't the addition of ATO prevent this? As Rob mentioned the District/Circle/H&C/Teacup 7-car trains may be able to be swapped around. However, the 8-car trains will remain on Met services. The new signalling should be in place before the trains run, as on the Victoria Line. The new trains will operate on the new ATO system. The old trains will operate on the existing signalling system. These can occur at the same time, as the new and old signalling will be interfaced. |
|
|
|
ato
Jul 25, 2007 14:28:43 GMT
Post by tubeprune on Jul 25, 2007 14:28:43 GMT
Ah, I see. But isn't an advantage of the S stock that it can be used across all the sub-surface lines, meaning at short notice, for example, a Met service cab become a Circle service, and won't the addition of ATO prevent this? As Rob mentioned the District/Circle/H&C/Teacup 7-car trains may be able to be swapped around. However, the 8-car trains will remain on Met services. The new signalling should be in place before the trains run, as on the Victoria Line. The new trains will operate on the new ATO system. The old trains will operate on the existing signalling system. These can occur at the same time, as the new and old signalling will be interfaced. It will not be like the Victoria Line. It will be impossible for all the new signalling to be installed over such a large area before the first of the new trains is put into passenger service. The plan was to introduce new signalling, retaining trainstops and run new and old trains together. When all old trains have gone over a section, that section will go over to ATO in stages like the Central Line did. Once all the old trains have gone, the trains and signalling will be adjusted for the new train performance profile. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
ato
Jul 25, 2007 22:22:39 GMT
Post by Ben on Jul 25, 2007 22:22:39 GMT
Out of interest why is it undesireable for trainstops to remain on key routes if they allow backwards and sideways compatability to remain? Is it purely an ecconomy measure about maintainance costs?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
ato
Oct 30, 2007 13:05:59 GMT
Post by metman on Oct 30, 2007 13:05:59 GMT
Trainstops need to remain on the Met, after all Chiltern need them- but it would be nice to have Steam on the met post 2013! They could even have Electric on the met using old restored trains (hopefully some A/C/D/Q stock!). It will be nice to show my kids what proper trains looked and sounded like!
|
|
