|
|
Post by upfast on Jan 17, 2009 21:09:15 GMT
Another reason why uncoupling 'on the road' will never return is the need to remove the ICB furthest from the platform. Technically they could be removed at Ealing Common before such a train set off, a train is allowed to run passenger with one missing per-side. However it would have to be remembered and you rightly point out is another obstical to the suggestion ! But, technically, could the InfraCo then offer that train for service  ;D ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2009 15:10:37 GMT
But, technically, could the InfraCo then offer that train for service ;D ;D Probably not .... officially, though it doesn't form part of the driver's pre-service checks ! I think if a 3 car sets were to be worked they'd have to start and finish as 3 car sets from Ealing Common and/or Parsons Green. ... fun discussion, though I don't favour the plan ! |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jan 19, 2009 18:11:29 GMT
In the mid-70s to early 80s ..... a Class 33 and a (nearly empty) 4TC unit. There was one train in service,the 33 normally running-round the TC (IE not using it as a control). I never saw a DMU on the service,nor a DEMU,which tended to stay on the Oxted lines or out in the sticks on the South Western. Things may have been different before 1976 or after 1981, though. Sorry to go back a day or so - I had to wait for my registration to come through. I worked overlooking the line between 1988-92. At the beginning of this period, it was always a 33+TC working in push-pull mode. After the last woking of the day it ran ecs to Waterloo where it coupled up to an 8-VEP formation to form one of the two hybrid services to Salisbury/Southampton, dividing at Basingstoke (no prizes for guessing which portion went where!). The wonders of EP-type stock and universal interconnectability! When the class 442s were introduced, the Kenny Belle initially remained operated by TCs but often with a pair of class 73s instead of a 33. For some reason 73/0s were often used "top and tail" - I understand that although the class 73s were exteremy versatile, the two subclasses had slightly different capabilities - maybe push-pull on diesel power was not one of the 73/0's talents? I recall a demu deputised on at least one occasion. The line was then electrified to Olympia and a more frequent service with 455s was run for a while, until the service was extended to Willesden. This initially required dmus as it was not electrified beyond Olympia until the coming of the Eurostars. Two WR units were used to maintain the service. The first northbound train of the day started from platform 16 at CJ as it came up from Gatwick. The WLL was always good for unusual workings - the most remarkable, and one I have seen mentioned nowhere else, was a class 55+class 73. This was c1991, when preserved diesels on the main line were as rare as hens' teeth, but it was definitely the class 55 in charge. |
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Jan 19, 2009 19:50:01 GMT
Another reason why uncoupling 'on the road' will never return is the need to remove the ICB furthest from the platform. Technically they could be removed at Ealing Common before such a train set off, a train is allowed to run passenger with one missing per-side. However it would have to be remembered and you rightly point out is another obstical to the suggestion ! Couldn't you supply the drivers with a large pole with a hook on the end, which could be used to take the barriers off from the "wrong side"? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2009 20:09:08 GMT
Technically they could be removed at Ealing Common before such a train set off, a train is allowed to run passenger with one missing per-side. However it would have to be remembered and you rightly point out is another obstical to the suggestion ! Couldn't you supply the drivers with a large pole with a hook on the end, which could be used to take the barriers off from the "wrong side"? That's a recipe for someone getting injured and suing. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on Jan 19, 2009 20:28:08 GMT
I'd have thought it easier to do from the inter-car doors, but again there would be a risk of falling off there too
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jan 19, 2009 22:09:53 GMT
Back in the day, the inter car doors were used regularly for uncoupling/shunting - I suppose it is a perception thing; bit like not runnig short trains just in case someone falls off.
Have the risks been magnified in a litigious world, I wonder?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on Jan 19, 2009 23:06:23 GMT
Have the risks been magnified in a litigious world, I wonder? What has changed is what we deem an acceptable risk. On almost every case this has been in the direction of a very significant reduction of what we (as a society) are prepared to accept. Litigiousness and H&S paranoia are, to my mind at least, the intertwined primary causes of this. Getting further away from the topic of service levels on the District Line to Olympia, but I see this as related to the "prohibition of failure" in education that is failing to prepare the young people for a world in which there are consequences to their actions. To the extent that society has responded to this, it has largely been in the direction of removing negative consequences where possible. Where this isn't possible (and in some cases additionally to where it has been) removing all risks that it can, and minimising those it can't, so that the situation which might have negative consequences is not allowed to happen. This is enforced through the cultures of health and safety and nothing-can-be-my-fault litigation. A product of this is that people are less able to deal with the risks that remain, meaning the likelihood of the consequences happening is increased. |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jan 19, 2009 23:15:53 GMT
Where do you stop the train at Earl's Court? Level with the current mirrors? What about the vacant half of the platform, blind persons etc? Would they have to install barriers to 'protect' the unoccupied portion of the platform whilst a 3-car is standing there?!? Why would this be a problem? Don't you have the same problem with all of the platform when there is no train there? |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jan 20, 2009 12:10:49 GMT
Why would this would be a problem? Don't you have the same problem with all of the platform when there is no train there? Quite true! exactly my point! They have provided platform end barriers at almost every LU platform to stop persons falling onto the track when a train IS there, berthed perfectly in the platform!! Once this train departs the 'risk' to persons falling suddenly evaporates!! So you have these ridiculous barriers protecting thin air when the train is not there. If you apply that to the 3-car operation in 6-car platforms as suggested at the start of this post doesn't it make a mockery of installing these barriers in the first place?! |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jan 20, 2009 12:31:40 GMT
Is that what they're there for then? I always assumed they indicated the line between the public area of the platform and non public area, with the yellow/white lines along the platform edge indicating where the public shouldn't be when a train isn't present.........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2009 19:18:07 GMT
I always thought the point of the barriers was a legal boundary so that in theory people can be prosecuted for trespass if they pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jan 23, 2009 21:26:16 GMT
I just thought that maybe the reason for running the Olympia service with one train is not that they need an extra D stock for something else, but they want to reduce the amount of trains going through Earls Court, so that trains don't get delayed too much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2009 15:18:22 GMT
I just thought that maybe the reason for running the Olympia service with one train is not that they need an extra D stock for something else, but they want to reduce the amount of trains going through Earls Court, so that trains don't get delayed too much. I think it's more to do with the need for reversing space at High Street Kensington for part of the C stock service, because they can't run all of them and the Circle Line "tea cup" service to reverse at Edgware Road ! It's all planned for the same round of WTT changes. The Olympia service would reduce to every 20 mins (already being the least frequent branch at every 15mins aprx) and be in and out of HSK pronto ! (if plans work)  |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jan 24, 2009 18:36:20 GMT
I think it's more to do with the need for reversing space at High Street Kensington for part of the C stock service, because they can't run all of them and the Circle Line "tea cup" service to reverse at Edgware Road ! It's all planned for the same round of WTT changes. The Olympia service would reduce to every 20 mins (already being the least frequent branch at every 15mins aprx) and be in and out of HSK pronto ! (if plans work) I would have thought that the Olympia service could still run as it does now, as there are two bay platforms at High Street Kensington, and the Wimblewares dont run that frequently, compared to a lot of other LU services. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jan 24, 2009 19:22:41 GMT
So this is the reason why the Olympia service is to be reduced. The Wimbledon trains will terminate at HSK? Surely this will leave Notting Hill Gate-Bayswater-Paddington with a poor service of 7-8tph?
|
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Jan 24, 2009 21:13:48 GMT
Do they use the far side platform at HSK much, I've never seen it used?
Isn't there also an issue with the points - I'm sure I remember someone on here (was it atearlscourt?) who said that if one set of points fail it affects quite a wide area?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2009 22:41:10 GMT
Do they use the far side platform at HSK much, I've never seen it used? I believe it's used quite a lot at the start and end of the day and also if there are engineering works resulting in lots of trains reversing at HSK. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on Jan 24, 2009 23:26:41 GMT
Isn't there also an issue with the points - I'm sure I remember someone on here (was it atearlscourt?) who said that if one set of points fail it affects quite a wide area? From memory, the points concerned are the ones that allow reversing north-south in platform 2 (northbound Wimbleware/outer rail Circle) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2009 11:45:12 GMT
So this is the reason why the Olympia service is to be reduced. The Wimbledon trains will terminate at HSK? Surely this will leave Notting Hill Gate-Bayswater-Paddington with a poor service of 7-8tph? I don't think anything is set in stone yet, but I think the proposal has alternate Wimbledon - Edgware Road trains terminating at High Street Kensington. The stations you mention will get a worse service anyway as there will be no through trains from them to Baker Street. Perhaps a reduction in the District is required to source the additional C stock needed to double the frequency between Hammersmith and Edgware Road (via Wood Lane). I don't want to duplicate the thread in the Circle / H & C section mind you, though the two threads are related (Though the Circle one is now tough reading having drifted into fantasy land - outside of the board for that purpose!) Platform 4 at HSK is the least used, but it is used usually when C or D stocks are being curtailed and at the peak shoulders in which case it is as likely to be used by the Olympia shuttle as the curtailed or end of peak train. If congestion at Earls Court is the problem, they should stop trying to regulate trains there. I find it very frustrating to get to Earl's e/b say 3 early and they hold me, then a C stock arrives next to me, late, it gets the route first and goes on my departure time and I am then released 2 late, missing my path through the city ! They also put far to much effort into getting trains in the right order and delay loads in the process. They will quite happilly delay an Upminster service to put a late Tower Hill infront which they'll probably still curtail at Mansion House but the Upminster will not be curtailable and runs later and later ! They also seem to afford a priority to C stock workings despite them having a load of turnaround time at Wimbledon on their shorter rounders when I'd suggest the much less flexible Upminster service should be the priority !  |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jan 25, 2009 12:21:36 GMT
They also put far to much effort into getting trains in the right order and delay loads in the process. Whilst I generally agree with what you say Aspect, I cannot let the quoted bit above slip by without comment. I very much share your view from the drivers seat; but having done the signaller training, I can also equally see the signallers view point too - and to be fair, signallers rely heavily on trains running in the correct order. Signalling is based on the assumption that everything is running in order and you simply signal as per your box sheet (or program roll) - if a train is missing, running out of turn or diverted, every signaller involved in that train's trip has to be informed by telephone. It therefore ought to go without saying that if the service goes way off book, signalling can be damm hard/stressful. And vaguely linked to the thread, spare a thought for the Edgware Road signallers - they have to fully signal every single train movement manually (there's no auto working option), set up all the TD's for the District reverser's and trains coming off the Hammersmith branch, log each train movement on the electronic train register (computerised box sheet) and find time to communicate any variations to/from Hammersmith cabin and Baker Street/Earls Court SCC's. It's known as a fast cabin......I can assure you, it's damm fast!! in fact I would highly recommend a visit to Edgware Road cabin before tarring all signallers with the same brush! So yes, it's bloomin' annoying - but it's the way it has to be done given the technology in use. |
|
|
|
Post by upfast on Jan 25, 2009 12:36:48 GMT
They also put far to much effort into getting trains in the right order and delay loads in the process. Whilst I generally agree with what you say Aspect, I cannot let the quoted bit above slip by without comment. I very much share your view from the drivers seat; but having done the signaller training, I can also equally see the signallers view point too - and to be fair, signallers rely heavily on trains running in the correct order. Signalling is based on the assumption that everything is running in order and you simply signal as per your box sheet (or program roll) - if a train is missing, running out of turn or diverted, every signaller involved in that train's trip has to be informed by telephone. It therefore ought to go without saying that if the service goes way off book, signalling can be damm hard/stressful. And vaguely linked to the thread, spare a thought for the Edgware Road signallers - they have to fully signal every single train movement manually (there's no auto working option), set up all the TD's for the District reverser's and trains coming off the Hammersmith branch, log each train movement on the electronic train register (computerised box sheet) and find time to communicate any variations to/from Hammersmith cabin and Baker Street/Earls Court SCC's. It's known as a fast cabin......I can assure you, it's damm fast!! in fact I would highly recommend a visit to Edgware Road cabin before tarring all signallers with the same brush! So yes, it's bloomin' annoying - but it's the way it has to be done given the technology in use. Edgware Road may be fast, but it's easier than Acton Town and Earl's Court signalling desks, but in a different sort of way! It's a good idea to keep trains in turn to the same destination if possible, but not by delaying other trains (if possible). Sometime's you'll send a pair (train out of turn) to keep things going and even out headways, the first one will make time, end up having a crew relief and delaying the one behind!  Sod's Law! (Oh and I'm sure that Colin and Aspect still haven't visited Earls Court, let alone Edgware Road  ) |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jan 25, 2009 12:48:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by upfast on Jan 25, 2009 12:56:48 GMT
I could tell you something about Coburg - but not on the internet ;D ;D ;D Anyway, you'll be happy soon as most of them will probably come to Earl's Court when Coburg closes, bringing with them their reputation as "The World's Best Control Room"... |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jan 25, 2009 13:38:45 GMT
They also seem to afford a priority to C stock workings despite them having a load of turnaround time at Wimbledon on their shorter rounders Are you sure? When I've been on Wimblewares between High Street Kensington and Earls Court, they nearly always have to wait to the east of Earls Court. One time, several D stocks coming from the city went past before the train moved into platform 4. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2009 21:17:33 GMT
Colin / All : I have no doubt as to why they prefer to keep trains in order, but thats a case of tail wagging dog ! I sympathyse with the technology issues, but it isn't really on, delaying an Upminster service to run a Tower Hill train in order, when the Barking signaller will later have to deal with that Upminster service reversing at Dagenham East and passengers are inconvenienced in the process, further a gap in the peak hours city service can result in longer delays as that train suffers extended dwell time at each platform. (Not that this happens all the time, often I don't check what order we should be in, or i can't see the set number of the other train, I just know I arrived on time and was released late !). With the complexities of the District line branches and the priorities given at other junctions do you ever get any sort of extended period where all trains appear in order anyway ?? ?
A Stock5000 : All I can say is I always seem to get to Earls Court pl1 and have to await a C stock appear after, get the route, take an eterninty to perform a crew change, finally mosey off on it's way, whilst I then sit on a red, eventually being cleared now missing my path and having to wait for a Circle to go first ! Changing a -2 to a +7 in the process !
Upfast : I have, over time, been to Earls Court (twice) and Coburg Street (twice) Amersham (once) Wood Lane (once) Whitechapel (once) Barking (twice) and Upminster (lots of times).
Last year I went to Baker Street (District Control) for about three hours and (Met / H&C signallers) for about an hour, loved it ! I've never been to Edgware Road.
I'll have to have another visit to Earl's some time when you are on the desk. ;D
Coburg were alway superb in my time on the Victoria Line, several times I took the trouble to phone the controller after my shift to thank the signallers for their efforts !
Anyway ...we detract from the thread ..... ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by myoldmansamushroom on Jan 25, 2009 22:06:18 GMT
The latest proposal (and the timetable to go with it has been written) is to run the Olympia service at 20 minute intervals using one double-ended train. The previous proposal to terminate 50% of the Wimbledon - Edgware Road service has been scrapped, which means that there will be a 12tph service between High Street Kensington and Edgware Road, with all of those trains terminating at Edgware Road. It's going to be very, very busy there.
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Jan 25, 2009 22:25:33 GMT
Has there ever been a regular Olympia - Edgware Road service?
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jan 25, 2009 22:26:56 GMT
So what is the point of reducing the Olympia service then? Also, I don't think there will be enough C stock to run T cup, if all Wimblewares run to Edgware Road. If some did terminate at High Street Kensington, it would all make sense, as there would be less Olympias terminating there, and also the 'spare' D stock could be used on the Wimbledon - HSK service, and that would mean there would be enough C stock for T cup. I don't think it will work with all Wimblewares going to Edgware Road, at least until some 7-car S stock is delivered, and that won't be for a few years. Then, there is the problem of too many trains terminating at Edgware Road.
|
|
|
|
Post by myoldmansamushroom on Jan 25, 2009 22:39:19 GMT
The District line had an issue with reversing half of the Wimblewares at HSK, as it meant that they lost a 'bolt-hole' - basically somewhere to bung eastbound D Stocks if there was a problem east of Gloucester Road. On reflection, I'm not exactly sure why they want to lose one of the Olympias, as it leaves one less available train should a changeover be required at Earl's Court.
It will also mean modification is required to the programme machine at HSK which controls westbound departures - the machine is set to allow trains a minumum 4 minute turnaround time, but some of the Olympias will only get 2 minutes during the peak.
The H&C people say that this teacup Circle line service is the only way that they can boost the service between Edgware Road and Hammersmith given the amount of C Stocks they have available.
|
|
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
