|
Post by abe on Mar 9, 2012 7:36:40 GMT
That's what I thought you meant The first time I read it, I was confused. I re-read it, and thought that I'd just check your meaning. And yes, the JLE was massively expensive. Another item on the list of 'infrastructure that costs far more to do in the UK than anywhere else'...
|
|
|
Post by abe on Mar 7, 2012 7:50:22 GMT
Interesting question. If they'd extended the Jubilee as planned (due East from the Charing Cross platforms), then the present JLE could have carried on through Westminster, St. James Park and Victoria. A natural continuation then would be under Eaton Square and into Chelsea - a Chelsea to Docklands link-line. I'm not sure which map you're using, but there is no way to reach Westminster by extending the original overrun tunnels east of Charing Cross. I presume that by "the present JLE" you are suggesting that there would be two lines - one from Stanmore to Fenchurch Street (and perhaps further), and another from Docklands to Chelsea. If this is the case, then I think that the original Jubilee route would have served Docklands and therefore there would have been no new line along the JLE route.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jan 31, 2012 7:56:04 GMT
This is getting OT, but just to note that I've used LM extensively over the past three years and have found them to be significantly better than Silverlink, and generally a pretty good TOC.
|
|
|
Slides
Jan 27, 2012 8:52:28 GMT
Post by abe on Jan 27, 2012 8:52:28 GMT
got to be better than sliding down the middle of a set of escalators and meeting a stop diamond on the way down! You'd get a right b*lloking for that I'd imagine........ It's been done, at least twice. As I heard, the end result on one occasions was the thigh bone pushed up rather fast through the pelvis (with both being broken in the process). Makes my eyes water just thinking about it. The other occasion of which I'm aware was someone who had a broken leg (in a cast), and didn't want to stand on the escalator. Needless to say, the following day both legs were in casts. Just don't do it...
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jan 27, 2012 8:47:11 GMT
The work at Amersham c.2010 wasn't refurbishment, but was for the installation of lifts and a new footbridge. The work was cancelled when TfL cut MIP lift works at a number of stations across the network.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jan 18, 2012 7:58:02 GMT
Don't worry, positive feedback was sent to LUL. I can't abide people who are only too happy to complain when things go wrong but then shrug and say "why should I?" when people go the extra mile to help out and it's suggested that they write to say thanks. I included train details etc. so that hopefully the train driver can be more easily thanked.
And if it highlights the good that service control do, so much the better. That's why I deliberately referred to controllers in my message to TfL.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jan 17, 2012 8:00:30 GMT
A northbound Chiltern train (ex-Marylebone 15.56) failed at Harrow-on-the-Hill platform 1. I was on the train behind, which ended up stuck on the approach to Harrow for about 15 minutes. I was impressed on how the control staff (who are LUL) handled this. Firstly, when it became apparent that the defective train was not going to move they allowed our train to enter the south end of platform 1 and draw up behind the failed unit, allowing passengers off. Secondly, they altered the next Amersham train from 'all stations' to 'fast' so as to minimize delays to passengers from the Chiltern service. Given that this problem was not of LU's making I was impressed at the speed of the reaction to the problem. The announcements on the Met line train, telling people that it was now fast were also very clear. Good job all round - and if the controller was a forum member, many thanks!
Finally, it was interesting to see how the S Stock handled the change to the service pattern. The driver didn't alter it at Harrow, so North Harrow continued to show as the next station. As we passed North Harrow on the fast lines the displays blanked out, and remained thus until we approached Moor Park, at which point they showed that station as being next (but continued to refer to the train as being 'all stations'). I presume that GPS or distance measurement is used, and if something unexpected occurs then it goes quiet until it can work out what is happening.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jan 13, 2012 8:24:01 GMT
I'm sure I've read that power to the branch is controlled separately from the main line.
Really? I wasn't aware that power had to be removed for points to be operated manually. Or is this because the points are locked in some way (padlocked?) and therefore a greater degree of contact with the track is required?
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jan 6, 2012 9:14:51 GMT
On the Brussels metro there are green arrows that illuminate at both ends of each car to show which side the doors open. These are (IIRC) adjacent to the 'next station' displays.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jan 3, 2012 10:30:42 GMT
There should be a book out later this year with more information about these clocks (amongst many other topics).
|
|
|
Post by abe on Dec 23, 2011 9:12:24 GMT
Oyster PAYG also charges off-peak for singles if touched in before 0630.
|
|
|
Bushey
Dec 23, 2011 8:44:39 GMT
Post by abe on Dec 23, 2011 8:44:39 GMT
So when was the restored platform 3 recommissioned? Was it from the introduction of the new timetable on 11 December?
|
|
|
Post by abe on Dec 23, 2011 7:45:26 GMT
If the residents of South Buckingshire would really like to all cram onto a 2 car DMU to a backwater London terminus with poor public transport links, and spend the journey tutting loudly over their copy of the Telegraph and licking each other's armpits then fine. That's more seats for me on my direct train to the City. I've had a seat on Chiltern for every journey I've taken since swapping across. In fact, the Met trains I was taking in the morning l ast weekwere more crowded with "armpit lickers" (a lovely phrase - I must remember that!) because they're collecting people at every station, so I'm actually rather happy with the situation. The journey only takes 31 minutes, compared to limping along for 48 on the Met; I consider a 17-minute saving (35%) and a less-crowded train to be a double-win.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Dec 22, 2011 8:12:09 GMT
I usually only post here on historical matters, and have very rarely given opinions, but now that this timetable has been in operation for over a week I feel compelled to comment. I've given up on travelling on the Met line. I've used it all my life, and I'm sad to be giving up. I've switched to Chiltern, which might be the intention of the LU management who imposed the new timetable. I catch the 06.25 from Chorleywood in the morning, which has now become all-stations. I know that it only takes about 8 minutes longer to get to Baker Street. But psychologically it feels much longer. The train is much colder, because all the doors are opened at all stations; previously some heat built up on the non-stop sections. On the way home, I find it iniquitous that LU only start running the fast services from 1655 (ex-Baker Street), and yet charge a peak fare from 16.00. If I tried something like that in my business it would be called fraud, and punished appropriately. I've also had a situation where my SB morning train has arrived at Harrow, waited whilst another SB train has arrived alongside, and then been held whilst the latter train departs (with doors open, chilling the passengers further). Now, I know that we might have been late, and were perhaps held to avoid delaying the other service which was on time, but from a passenger perspective this isn't a good situation. There's an empty track in front of us - why can't we use it. The new timetable seems to be pushing far more service via less infrastructure (the local lines) which is a waste of a capital asset (the fast lines) and is wasting a significant amount of passenger time. I do appreciate the information provided by LU staff on this forum, and I'm not in any way intending this as a dig at them. For example, the explanation that the new timetable is more robust has not been clearly made to the public, and I recognize that this has to be a good thing. But the 'spin' put out by LU (e.g., "more trains from Amersham" - no, you've put the service back to where it was before the introduction of all-day through Chesham trains) is just wrong. Given that a consultation was held for the through Chesham services, which were asked for by locals, how come no consultation was held with all users north of Harrow for these changes? Of course, the fact that the MP for Amersham and Chesham is fixated on trains that don't exist (HS2) might have something to do with it... Anyhow, I've said my piece now, and my spleen is feeling better. Merry Christmas everyone!
|
|
|
Post by abe on Dec 7, 2011 13:21:39 GMT
There is a safety policy on the Underground that goes back probably about 80 years that you avoid crossovers/junctions unless absolutely necessary. It was a recommendation from the Board of Trade in a report issued in 1904, partly as a response to the Couronnes fire (Paris Metro, 1903), and partly (probably) as a slightly belated response to the glut of tube railway schemes being proposed. And in answer to the original question, lack of space. Because the C&SLR and GN&CR were/are one above the other, any connection would mean tunnels out to the sides, under property. This implies lots of cost, especially in the pre-Victoria line days of having to acquire wayleaves. Also, the gradients involved would, at a guess, make this difficult to achieve between the existing stations.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Dec 2, 2011 9:54:31 GMT
As a (non-transport) related example, the FCO received an FoI inquiry asking how much each Embassy had spend on Ferrero Rocher chocolates in 2010. Whilst I accept your serious point, I have to ask: what was the answer? I have no idea. I'm just aware that the question was asked from the eye-rolling that it caused.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 30, 2011 20:31:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 25, 2011 9:58:29 GMT
The working timetables can be found by hitting foi@tube.tfl.gov.uk (Freedom of Information Act), or by using the journey planner? Correct me if I'm wrong. I must admit that, as a taxpayer, I find it objectionable that people are using the FoI Act to obtain working timetables. Why should LUL be put to the expense of the staff time, printing, and postage to send them to people who have an interest, but who don't actually 'need' them (unlike LUL staff). Also, why are so many of the FoI requestors so rude? Many of the requests are along the lines of 'Please supply the following information ... You have 20 days to comply', followed by (when the 20 days have elapsed) 'I demand that the request be fulfilled and an internal review be held'. This all costs money which would be better spent on providing services. As a (non-transport) related example, the FCO received an FoI inquiry asking how much each Embassy had spend on Ferrero Rocher chocolates in 2010. Whilst being mildly amusing, in these times of austerity, what possible use can it be getting a civil servant to send an e-mail to 270 posts around the world and then collate the response and send it back. Sorry. Rant over.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 25, 2011 9:42:39 GMT
Lead-based batteries lose their capacity as well. That's why cars need to have their batteries changed every few years.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 23, 2011 10:21:43 GMT
If you place the button and switch on the door you need to have an electrical circuit running to the button. Since the door moves, this either requires a cable, which runs the risk of catching in the mechanism or, more likely, chafing or just breaking due to the repeated movement of the door, OR, rubbing contacts, which have the risk of failure of the button through dirt on the contacts (likely given the environment).
The button on door / switch on body beneath is an elegant solution to the problem.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 23, 2011 10:14:51 GMT
This year for instance we get an extra Bank Holiday as Christmas Day is on a Saturday. According to my calendar, Christmas Day is on Sunday this year...
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 17, 2011 9:43:36 GMT
Have you checked the early records of the CLR? Many are held at the London Metropolitan Archive under the accession reference ACC/1297/CLR.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 17, 2011 8:43:46 GMT
But the CLR and BS&WR weren't in competition - they run at right-angles at Oxford Circus. They were separate companies, so built separate buildings. Do you complain when Starbucks and Costa open in separate buildings, rather than sharing?
Both buildings had lifts down to their respective lines. The CLR could have offered to modify its station to accommodate the BS&WR when that opened 6 years later, but it would not have benefited the CLR (more congested station and inconvenience for its passengers). More lifts would have been required anyhow, so the building would have needed to expand. So we ended up with two buildings across the street, rather than one building. Hardly a major problem, especially as the companies did cooperate in providing low-level interchange.
Not a waste, just an historical quirk. It's good that they've both survived.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 15, 2011 9:12:39 GMT
A syringe is very unlikely to puncture a tyre. It simply would not be strong enough or heavy enough to do so. Agreed. Also, a syringe is most likely to fall flat (especially on the flat surfaces used by rubber-tyred stock), and so would merely be crushed by the tyres. And even if a puncture occurs it isn't a problem; there are sufficient other tyres to take the load, and a normal steel wheel behind the tyre that can drop onto the regular rail. Punctures and flat tyres occur very occasionally on the Paris Metro, and yet there aren't derailments or accidents. It's ridiculous to think that they would - no one would deploy a system like they do if it couldn't handle a component failure.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 14, 2011 10:13:26 GMT
ELL platforms were/are four cars long, not three.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 14, 2011 9:53:08 GMT
Yes, for the cancelled West London Tram project. It was to have a major interchange with the Central line and West London line at Shepherd's Bush.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Nov 9, 2011 8:58:20 GMT
Unpainted aluminium trains were cleaned with phosphoric acid. That's the same stuff you'll find in a can of cola...
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 27, 2011 9:32:12 GMT
And Heron Quays DLR should become Canary Wharf DLR because it's closer? No! Canary Wharf DLR is located at Canary Wharf. Why rename a station to somewhere it isn't? You'd be better off renaming the Jubilee line station as Heron Quays. But then people coming from central London, on the Jubilee line, would get confused because the Jubilee station is the station on the Jubilee line closest to Canary Wharf. This whole thread is worrying about something that really doesn't matter. As others have pointed out, other systems overseas cope just as well with worse signage and more confusing station complexes. The best example is probably Paris, where St Augustin (L9) connects to St Lazare (L3, L12, L13, L14), which connects to Haussman-St Lazare (RER E), which connects to Harve Caumartin (L3, L9), and this connects on to Auber (RER A), which finally has a connection to Opera (L3, L7, L8). The French seem to cope, as do Parisian tourists; it is being suggested that Londoners and tourists in London can't cope with three stations being linked. Bring back common sense!
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 21, 2011 10:59:16 GMT
The story about the passenger being killed that led to the installation of the inter-car barriers was not at Kennington. It happened at Liverpool Street over 10 years ago, and was a passenger trying to get out of a train that was entering the sidings. They tried to get onto the platform by getting through the end doors of one car, but slipped and fell (possibly as the train went over the points). This led to (i) more stringent checks of trains before entering sidings, and (ii) the introduction of the inter-car barriers.
The 'haunted' stories about Kennington are misinformed rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 20, 2011 8:04:25 GMT
The list of codes from the Trackernet document isn't what the OP requested (although it is interesting). The four digit codes are called National Location Codes, and cover all stations in the UK, plus some other sites. LU and the DLR have codes in the range 0500 - 0999. A complete list, in Excel format, can be downloaded here. More information on NLCs at Wikipedia.
|
|