North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jul 13, 2021 21:52:38 GMT
Bear in mind, that before 1994, it was British Rail, so would have used their terminology from an operational point of view of Up and Down. It is still signalled by Network Rail now, so presumably still does? Yes, Network Rail uses the descriptors "up" and "down" across the UK to describe directions. The Network Rail parts of the District line (East Putney to Wimbledon and Gunnersbury to Richmond) are therefore referred to as up (towards central London) or down (away from central London) internally. Up and Down is the language used by drivers and signallers. The same is true incidentally on the Bakerloo line north of Queens Park. As far as the public see's, these sections follow the convention of the given line as a whole - the District line as a whole is east/west and the Bakerloo is north/south. Actual local geography is irrelevant. From a public-facing point of view, there’s certainly signage on the east end of the Picc which refers to Northbound and Southbound. To be honest with Wimbledon being its own branch, I’m surprised the official designations for the LU part aren’t NB and SB. In the same way that the Central has IR and OR on the Hainault loop.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
ATO
Jul 2, 2021 22:17:04 GMT
via mobile
Post by North End on Jul 2, 2021 22:17:04 GMT
One advantage of a computerised high level control system is that it could (I've no idea if it does), make a decision on an acceleration as described, on the basis of proximity of other traffic to the asset in question, and whether or not the subject train is on schedule. The older ATO systems (Original Victoria, Central) couldn't do this - they simply drove the train at the highest speed possible based on the codes they received from the signalling system - though the original Victoria Line could coast on some sections as required. I'm not sure how refined the 'new' Victoria line is but I believe it to be similar. SelTrac does exactly what you describe; for each train the system looks at where things are around it, and how that particular train is doing against the timetable. If it needs to speed up a late running train, it will do so, where possible. If a train is on time or early it will hold a train or run it at a lower speed to keep the service to time. The new Vic Line system originally worked by looking at how early the train was, and for each section calculating a coasting point, from where the train would coast to the next station. Since then I know there’s been at least one software change, and I don’t really understand how it works now - indeed the trains now seem to be driven in an outwardly odd way, but still seem to keep time so a plan must have come together somewhere! The TBTC as found on the Jubilee and Northern is quite primitive. Like the Vic it looks to see if a train is going to arrive early at the next station, however in this case it simply imposed a speed ceiling which it rigidly maintains. There is a “constant headways” feature which was used extensively during the first lockdown when a special service was being run, from experience with that it doesn’t seem to work very well in practice. Certainly during the lockdown service, with the odd slow driver added in it quickly turned into a very gapped service, with the signallers having to babysit it in a quite hands-on way, the opposite of what is supposed to happen!
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jun 15, 2021 21:03:37 GMT
Indeed - going off-topic here... Did the speed limiter circuit get removed when 313s were used elsewhere, such as the North London or Watford DC lines? Pretty sure they were faster on those lines. I remember them getting up some decent speed. Yes definitely unrestricted. Same for the 313s which still operate on Southern.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jun 6, 2021 22:25:12 GMT
I could give you a really great response, as someone who actually works in the affected department, but the complete assumption of bad faith makes me think otherwise. Let’s not let facts get in the way of a good rant, eh? To be fair, the end user has every right to be aggrieved if the service isn’t being provided, which as we all know has been the case on quite a few occasions recently. There may be good reasons for that, there may not be, but either way it isn’t really the end user’s problem what issues LU are experiencing behind the scenes. One way or other, it isn’t all down to Covid, so LU need to be active, accountable and direct in their handling of this situation, which so far in my view they haven’t been. There’s been issues bubbling away within the affected department for a while. On top of all that, the scanty information isn’t really helping.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jun 1, 2021 13:19:32 GMT
Although TFL working timetables are available on the TFL website, we do not allow direct links to them to be posted on the forum as they are still officially marked "Private - for staff use only". Does anyone know why the timetables continue to be marked as "private" given they have been routinely published for some years now? "For staff use only" does make sense, given that they are indeed intended for exactly that, but they are no longer private. To be honest, I’m surprised the timetables have been made so freely available, considering not too many years ago they were sufficiently hard to get hold of that even staff couldn’t always get access. For starters they’re a potentially useful resource for anyone looking to identify when trains might be in an open-air siding for graffiti purposes. It’s very surprising LU doesn’t seem bothered about this.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on May 29, 2021 22:13:39 GMT
It’s certainly been used during service suspensions and planned engineering works. Beyond that, there are no scheduled reversers there. Didn’t something derail on it a few years ago? As far as I can recall, not since the 1990s. There were two 72 stock derailments around that time, both incidents resulting in cars being written off. One of them was during the long-term closure south of Piccadilly Circus for tunnel works. I think that was the most recent. The speed controlled signals seem to have done the trick, as I think we can infer both of the 72 stock incidents were due to excess speed. The tunnel cleaning train incident wasn’t though, that was an issue with the train itself which became an issue on the awkward angles of the crossover. I seem to remember reversing NB to SB was banned, and may still be. Again all down to the specific issues with the crossover.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on May 23, 2021 20:15:25 GMT
Thank you Tom for pointing out the difference in application of CBTC on LUL and the Flushing Line (7) [CBTC overlay] on the New York Subway. I’m much more familiar with the signaling on that network than the NL [TBTC – sole signaling system]. My wife and I travel regularly from Stoclwell to Moden. On some units we have noticed (sorry about this, can’t think of a better way of phrasing it) repeated, almost hesitant very slight accelerations and decelerations between successive stations between Clapham Common and South Wimbledon. It’s less marked than say the sudden brief acceleration of Victoria Line trains when they enter Green Park only to markedly brake some way along the platform. Am I correct in assuming that on the NL those slight bursts of acceleration and retardation are Seltrac’s attempt to maintain line speed? Other units don’t exhibit this erratic behaviour. Are they perhaps been driven by IOs or other “PM Club!” members driving to “keep their hand in”? It will be interesting to see if there are any noticeable changes after this weekend. The way TBTC drives the trains is dire, though it’s slightly less dire than when it first came in. As far as I know the system is simply set up to use motoring, braking or coasting to match the target speed - there is no anticipation or taking into account gradients. In PM the driver does have to drive to a large extent like this in order to keep time, though if the train is on time then there is scope to smooth things out slightly with only a fractional loss of time. The biggest clue to a PM train is the final stop may well be a lot smoother - most of the regular PM drivers tend to be the more thoughtful ones so you are more likely to get niceties like off & release stops (rare on LU nowadays, sadly, when it should be standard practice). 95 stock has also become a bit rougher over the years. No one seems to quite know if this is simply an age thing, a maintenance issue, or the result of modifications done over the years, but the result is some trains are very considerably more jerky when motoring and/or braking then others. I rode on one up to Barnet yesterday which was stopping with a really nasty jolt at virtually every station (and it was in ATO so not a driver issue), as well as no rheo in my car for some but not all stops. Overall though they’re still pretty fine trains, certainly miles better than 92 and 96 stocks.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on May 23, 2021 19:27:49 GMT
Certainly from a signalling perspective the points have been secured for through running on the eastbound and very minimal maintenance has taken place since the line closed in 1994. Most of the track circuit fuses on the branch are removed and the signalling is regarded to be out of commission, though not formally decommissioned. When a train is to be brought on or off the branch the points need to be manually operated on the ground. If the LTM were to run a train on the branch in passenger service the signalling will need to be retested and formally recommissioned beforehand - once or twice every three months is outside the required frequency for 'rusty rail' moves, even in tunnel sections. I had to commission some alterations to the signalling at Holborn in late 2019 and could only clear PD6 (the signal off the branch) to undertake the testing after making an irregular wiring connection. It cannot clear under normal circumstances even if the points were in commission. Do we think it could be considered acceptable to run the 38 stock under single line working - train locked in operating rules? There would still have to be some consideration given to terminal protection of course, and the points layout at Holborn looks rather dubious if being designed as a layout today, given the presence of the trap points quite close to the stopping position. Personally I’d be more interested in a ride on the 72 stock! The 1956-73 stock era isn’t too well represented in preservation, especially since the Cravens HT unit hasn’t been out and about for quite a few years. I know the museum likes to showcase the 38 stock, but for a significant generation of people the likes of unrefurbished 72 stock represents what would be to them one of two traditional Tube train interiors (the other being 59/62 stock).
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on May 22, 2021 21:36:27 GMT
. Are there subsidiary versions (for want of a better word) or editions of the Seltrac software for the line which enable subsets of it to be operated to reverse at Tooting Broadway for example, or is it planned to revert to PM driving in such circumstances. There's no need for a different version of software to run a service in such a scenario, unless the circumstances require the relevant VCC to be taken offline. As MoreToJack said, PM driving is possible at all times on the Northern line (assuming the TBTC system is functioning). If you mean manual driving without TBTC, it's possible, but only at a maximum of 10mph (16km/h). It isn't like New York where CBTC has been overlaid on top of the existing signalling; it's the only signalling system available on the Northern line. Yes there’s a bit of a misconception (including among some operational staff) that PM is some kind of backup facility. It isn’t - all PM does is give the driver an opportunity to do what the computer would otherwise do in driving the train, albeit perhaps to a more refined driving style if it’s someone reasonably proficient. PM is only really there for specific scenarios when ATO working isn’t permissible, for example if there’s people working on the track, or if someone needs dropping off at a trackside location. I’m given to believe there is going to be a slight tightening up of PM driving on the Northern, perhaps changing the current rule book wording (back in the early 2010s when all this was being done the union reps who had some input into all this were in many cases members of the “PM club”, as well as in many cases instructor operators, which allowed IOs to be able to drive in PM at any time they wanted). I’m sure in reality there won’t be much of a change, those handful who drive in PM regularly generally are very good at it, so get left alone by service control. Unlike the Jubilee where the radio will be pinging within seconds. I’ve also heard from a reliable source that the Northern may be getting the adhesion prediction software used on SSR, which might just allow some more spirited braking in the open sections. We’ll see if the ATO manages to be able to hit Brent Cross platform ramp at 40 mph like used to happen in the old days with bad old manual driving. So a good many millions and the greater part of a decade, and after all that things are almost as good as they were before!
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on May 20, 2021 0:03:00 GMT
The main line solution is skip stops to try and make up late runners at final destination, but this does nothing for passengers at or wanting to get to intermediate stations. AIUI a train is only "on time" if it arrives at its destination and has called at all booked stations. If it arrives within the time margin but has skipped stops to make up time then it doesn't count in the punctuality figures. As ever the question is whether it’s worth taking that ‘hit’ on one service if it avoids a load of reactionary or consequential delays. Control *should* be taking into account a range of factors, not least what the train and driver are scheduled to do on the next trip. It’s like playing snooker - it isn’t about being able to pot the current ball, but looking ahead to set up subsequent shots. Having said that, I’ve seen some very dubious non-stop runs on the mainline, not least stops removed but the train getting stuck behind another train so ending up getting signal checked in the very platforms being skipped! (Yes Southeastern, looking at you here!)
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on May 19, 2021 16:12:23 GMT
It does happen on Thameslink, but at the termini. As you say, you can only do things where there is a crew relief planned. On the Great Northern side you could theoretically do something at Finsbury Park on the up side with the Moorgate service - subject to every train being the same length and having crew changes there you could renumber a load of trains and then, for example, turn one at Drayton Park.
The other issue is that renumbering trains means the stock concerned may finish in a different location. Even on LU this can be a problem if a depot are expecting a particular train. Whilst control are entitled to take the view “delivering the timetable comes first”, the trouble is that this can then mean a no ok stock the next day when the train which was due an exam has ended up outstabled unexpectedly and the depot couldn’t do the exam. This is why it’s always a case of doing as little as possible to give the service the opportunity to recover naturally, rather than chasing every last minute.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on May 4, 2021 23:49:13 GMT
what a pity ... not used, not accessible to the public (maybe a future destination for a LTM hidden tour?) I very much doubt it - full of cables in the escalator shafts - H&S and all that I would assume. This may be a daft question, however does anyone have any photos (or links to same) of any of these disused areas that they’d be prepared to post or share? I’m curious to see what the disused escalator shafts in particular look like nowadays.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on May 4, 2021 10:05:27 GMT
Access was right at the west end of the Central Line platforms - now behind closed doors. Nothing to do with the present Central Line (west end) escalators. what a pity ... not used, not accessible to the public (maybe a future destination for a LTM hidden tour?) I don’t think there’s a massive amount to see nowadays, sadly. The former escalator shaft (the only disused escalator shaft on LU - discounting Earl’s Court as that’s more mothballed than disused, and Alperton as it isn’t a shaft in the proper sense!) does survive and is part of a ventilation shaft arrangement serving the Central Line. However anything at top level I believe was used for the Central Line traction substation, which in turn was itself relocated as part of the Crossrail works, which presumably means this has all changed. In amongst all this is the remains of the Met-GE curve tunnel, which also seems to have landed in the middle of Crossrail works. Some years ago I had the opportunity for a Sunday morning guided tour of either Moorgate or Liverpool Street. At the time I chose Moorgate, not sure if that was the right choice now! Looking at the station plans, the disused escalator shaft, at least, does survive.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on May 2, 2021 1:58:08 GMT
There's a lot of praise for ASLEF over this night tube amalgamation with full timers business.... Many of us ASLEF members are unimpressed with the situation as the whole thing has been instigated by ASLEF and, following a number of meetings, an agreement has made by ASLEF with LU. When did they consult with their members before deciding to go to LU and set all this up?! It's no surprise that RMT haven't managed to get involved - ASLEF have taken it upon themselves to cook this whole thing up with LU without seeking any sort of mandate to do so! I must say the whole thing is rather surprising. I certainly get the impression a lot of people aren’t overly happy about it. Without wishing to reignite too much of a debate about the rights and wrongs of this, reality is the two things most people dislike working are weekends and nights, so it seems counter-intuitive for a union to be working on something which seems to result in an increase in both. One can only assume that it’s a case of some kind of ultimatum having been given behind the scenes - the only way a pay rise will happen is agree to this. From an LU perspective there was always going to be a big issue over night tube - with Covid having caused a massive backlog in training it was never going to be viable to utilise training resources on people who would only be 40% productive get require 100% cost / utilisation of training resource to get to that point.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 28, 2021 18:36:35 GMT
It's a difficult one, as the official process puts the onus on the manager overseeing the test to determine whether someone is "genuinely ill" or not. Clearly that is putting quite a burden of responsibility on someone who isn't a doctor. The D&A process isn't quite as watertight as one might think. If D&A are called when there's suspicions and the person books off, it does become a bit of a case of who said what and when, especially if there aren't copious witnesses about - bearing in mind some crew depots can be quite quiet places at certain times of day. As I mentioned the driver had already started his shift and the claim is that he did not know that the D&A team were at Loughton before he booked off sick with - I am told - "Covid-like symptoms". From memory most Loughton duties have meal reliefs at other depots as Loughton is quite small and doesn't have a canteen so possibly he booked off with the Train Manager at Leytonstone, White City, etc. As far as sending a D&A team to his home address I believe there are circumstances that allow that but I think at that point BTP would have to be involved. As for sending a doctor to check if he was really ill I'm not sure that would be legal but even if it was I don't think we have any doctors on the payroll apart from the medical staff at Occupational Health. As I say, a lot rests on who said what to who, and when, and who saw it. The process is not nearly as black & white as one might think at first glance. There was a can of worms in my area a couple of years ago which was very difficult to square up.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 27, 2021 19:28:50 GMT
3-2-1 we're back in the room The RMT rep at Loughton has been sacked for failing to attend drugs and alcohol testing although its not that simple. As I understand it he booked on for work as normal, felt unwell part way through his shift and booked off sick. The D&A team were at Loughton that day, he was among the "random" list of those to be tested but rather than going back to the accommodation block he went straight home. There is a rumour that he stopped off at the Loughton Station Supervisors' office to use the toilet and vomited on the floor (sorry). What is odd is that normally the D&A team arrive before you book on, your duty is covered by a spare while you are tested and in my 18 years on trains I have never heard of anyone starting their shift then being tested after they've done part of it. RMT claim that he's been victimised because he's a rep, they held a ballot and on Friday they announced a one day strike at Leytonstone, Loughton, West Ruislip and White City depots with no one booking on between 21:00 Wednesday 5th May 2021 until 20:59 hours on Thursday 6th May 2021. The ballot at Hainault depot did not meet the threshold so they have not been included in the action (45 eligible to vote, only 22 voted so less than 50% already, 12 for strike, 10 against). And yes, its election day. As an outsider I'd make the following observation: You obviously cannot have staff bypassing D&A testing simply by saying they are ill and going home. On the other hand, if someone is feeling seriously unwell (and you can feel extremely ill from quite trivial causes - especially with food poisoning), you can't expect them to concern themselves with getting a D&A test. Surely, in a situation such as this, the obvious, sensible, and fair, thing to do would be to send a doctor the the staff member's home to perform the required test (or certify that s/he is genuinely too ill to take it.) It's a difficult one, as the official process puts the onus on the manager overseeing the test to determine whether someone is "genuinely ill" or not. Clearly that is putting quite a burden of responsibility on someone who isn't a doctor. The D&A process isn't quite as watertight as one might think. If D&A are called when there's suspicions and the person books off, it does become a bit of a case of who said what and when, especially if there aren't copious witnesses about - bearing in mind some crew depots can be quite quiet places at certain times of day.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 27, 2021 14:56:39 GMT
I have realised that as a "late" the D&A are always going to be there before I book on but that wouldn't be the case with "dead earlies". Nail hit on head there I suspect. Late turn staff generally get a refined experience in a number of ways! :-)
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 27, 2021 9:27:57 GMT
3-2-1 we're back in the room The RMT rep at Loughton has been sacked for failing to attend drugs and alcohol testing although its not that simple. As I understand it he booked on for work as normal, felt unwell part way through his shift and booked off sick. The D&A team were at Loughton that day, he was among the "random" list of those to be tested but rather than going back to the accommodation block he went straight home. There is a rumour that he stopped off at the Loughton Station Supervisors' office to use the toilet and vomited on the floor (sorry). What is odd is that normally the D&A team arrive before you book on, your duty is covered by a spare while you are tested and in my 18 years on trains I have never heard of anyone starting their shift then being tested after they've done part of it. RMT claim that he's been victimised because he's a rep, they held a ballot and on Friday they announced a one day strike at Leytonstone, Loughton, West Ruislip and White City depots with no one booking on between 21:00 Wednesday 5th May 2021 until 20:59 hours on Thursday 6th May 2021. The ballot at Hainault depot did not meet the threshold so they have not been included in the action (45 eligible to vote, only 22 voted so less than 50% already, 12 for strike, 10 against). And yes, its election day. I can’t speak for everywhere, however I’ve certainly seen D&A happen with people simply taken off their train - in some cases simply finding a spare on the platform and the driver being told “the DMT wants to see you”. No doubt on occasions this might be followed with “I think the D&A people are here”, but certainly not a given on that. Generally the management will be supplied with a list of names (which the management themselves can be on), and the objective is to test as many people as possible who are on that list without causing a delay or cancellation.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 26, 2021 19:38:14 GMT
re speeds, it would be interesting to know how fast trains will go on the met on the sections with longer gaps between stations or fast/semi fast trains. By the sounds of it, the system will make trains crawl very slowly if theyre running early, which makes it sound as if manual driving is quicker for the customer to reach their destination quicker. On the central london sections, its more important to get the frequency right as opposed to speed, but in the outer sections where frequency of trains is far lower, speed is needed regardless of late or early running The slow running when early is more to do with the system running the legacy timetable than anything else. Once the timetables are rewritten with ATC in mind it’s highly likely slow running will be seen rather less often. It doesn’t make any difference if the train is manually driven or not - what happens is the system calculates a velocity ceiling if it identifies the train will arrive early at its next station, and this is applied regardless of whether it is operating in ATO or PM. Indeed for PM driving it’s pretty unpleasant, as it essentially means having to hold the speed at something irritating like 21 mph for a long period, which if on a downhill gradient could well mean constantly having to brake. No professional driver would ever drive in that way with conventional signalling - the correct way to drive when running early is to use experience to identify a point where power can be “shut off” and then coast to the next station. A bit longer in a platform isn’t really a problem - indeed it’s useful if there’s something like a VIP getting on, or for that matter if the driver needs or wants to do anything, even as simple as having a few mouthfuls of water!
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 26, 2021 19:27:27 GMT
Initially they are left in place bagged up just in case it’s decided to revert back to the old legacy system. I believe there’s a period of something like two weeks where the CBTC system needs to prove itself as stable enough to considered as definitely remaining the permanent signalling system forevermore. Once the old assets are declared surplus to requirements they can then be removed. They’re unlikely to be removed though as there is a cost involved in such work and there just isn’t the budget available for it. I expect that removing signals, being safety critical equipment that need to be precisely sited (and sighted) and were likely designed to remain in situ for decades will not actually be a trivial job. They are probably also physically larger (and thus heavier) than you might expect given they are things you almost always see at a distance and very rarely adjacent to things you do have a good grasp of the scale of. Unless and until it becomes more expensive to maintain them such that they don't fall over/otherwise cause a danger it is going to be cheaper and less disruptive to leave them where they are. The rationale for leaving them is simply the cost of removing them. Only the Victoria Line Upgrade seemed to make a rather thorough job of removing all the old assets (I seem to remember this was specifically included in the contract), the Jubilee and Northern lines has been quite piecemeal - indeed there’s still bits in place even now. Unfortunately these old assets can become a nuisance, even a liability, quite quickly. The bags seem to collect water, but there were certainly a couple of issues on the Northern where problems arose - including on one occasion a complete signal head (at Finchley Central IIRC) falling off its post - no doubt due to corrosion. Given how much an outdoor signal head weighs, this is something which could end up turning into something more serious. In short it isn’t ideal to be having unmaintained assets sitting around for too long.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 26, 2021 9:37:51 GMT
Having done a number of trips both east & west over the weekend, I can tell you that it very much depends on whether the train is on time or late. The CBTC system runs the trains as per the timetable and the District line timetable is quite relaxed in its timings. I've found its not unusual to plod along at 21mph all the way from Temple to Blackfriars, or 19pmh each way between Aldgate East & Whitechapel as it maintains the timetabled path. Obviously it will run faster (up the the permitted maximum speed for a given section) if its looking to make up time on a late running train. Of note at the moment is that Victoria to Sloane Square w/b has been capped at the old legacy maximum of 35mph due to a long standing kink in the track approaching Sloane Square - the CBTC maximum is 40mph but it was proving to be a bit too much of a rough ride on Saturday morning. As a driver though, I still can't fathom all this fascination with speed! Until there's a timetable uplift, there's not going to be any dramatic overall difference. I echo Colin’s views about speed from a service control perspective too. Much of the reason for 4LM as a whole is about headway and frequency, not speed. These things are released by every train being driven the same way more than anything. Increased speed does, however, mean a train can complete a round trip faster, which means you can fit in more round trips with the same number of trains, in turn giving you a potential improvement in headway and frequency. This might be quite beneficial, for example, on a line where there’s an extension soon to open for which no additional trains have been built!
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 14, 2021 2:46:07 GMT
...... The only way to smooth out run-of-the-mill issues is to do just enough intervention to get things to a point where breathing space in the timetable gets everything back to where it should be. Otherwise the service will simply never recover - there’s only so many reversing points, and only so many reform opportunities! Can someone provide a short explanation of how to reform a service? Essentially the controller or signaller will pick a location where crew reliefs are booked, make a list of what trains are approaching, note down for each train how late it is and whether or not is has a crew relief, and look to see whether there are opportunities to renumber trains in such a way which by the end of it will have made the late running situation better. The key to doing this is making use of the trains which have crew reliefs, as this gives you a fresh driver who you can assume will be ready to make up any train into their own at the time scheduled. The ideal scenario is to push all the late running onto one train, and then do something else with that train (eg turn it short, or even miss a whole round trip). You’ve essential then “righted” several trains without passengers being aware, and only one or two get hit with being turned short. So take somewhere like Golders Green. Ideally you’d only touch stuff on the northbound as (1) that’s where the crew desk is so it can be closely monitored, and (2) you don’t change destinations for southbound passengers. As an example, you have a sequence of trains on a 3-minute headway with a small amount of out-of-order running and a few running slightly late. 001 +6 no relief 002 +6 relief 003 +6 relief 004 +5 relief 006 +3 no relief 005 +7 relief You could do something like 001 x 002 (departs +3 with fresh driver) 002 x 003 (departs +3 with fresh driver) 003 x 004 (departs +3 with fresh driver) 004 x 005 (departs +2 with fresh driver) 006 - 006 (departs +3, left as is) 005 x 001 (reverse Golders Green, depart in correct order, driver gets off original train and picks up new one when it arrives) By doing the above sequence of alterations, the late running has been reduced to a point where each train is close enough to being back on time that providing it makes up a minute in the run up to Edgware and back down, they will fit into the correct order at Camden, and are likely to reach their next destinations on time. Only one train has had to be turned short. Southbound passengers should to all intents and purposes see a full service apart from one cancellation from Edgware, and once that slots in everything will head south in its right order. Notice how I’ve had to be careful with what is done with trains 001 and 006 as these two don’t have a crew relief. I can still do things with them, but only if the booked driver gets there before their train is made up. For train 001 this is fine as the driver is already there before he takes over 005 and makes it 001. 006 is not being touched, so no problem there. There’s no right and wrong way of doing things, and no doubt it might be possible to find a way of getting everything on time with perhaps a Colindale reverser thrown in, or perhaps leaving one train go north late and then divert via Charing Cross on its next trip, or perhaps reverse at Tooting Broadway, or whatever. Something like the Northern is a delight as the range of options is literally endless, so you could have a batch of late running and if there’s time for the signaller to spend a few minutes thinking and planning, it can be possible to sort out 10 or so trains in one hit by using a combination of all the various options. If there’s severe late running then it’s more a case of looking at what drivers are ready to take over a train and making up accordingly, but this is more of a firefighting measure.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 13, 2021 23:00:19 GMT
Will control move from Upminster to Romford? My understating is the transfer London Tilbury & Southend routes to Romford has now been abandoned. Upminster IECC will instead be modernised to the standard the enlarged Romford Rail Operating Centre (ROC) was due to be elevated to. It does seem like Network Rail has cooled off a little from their ROC concept. Like happened when the costs put Railtrack off their planned Network Management Centre concept, this time apparently Covid has thrown up resourcing issues at such places which were never envisaged. I’m not sure if it’s simply that a virus outbreak on an operating floor could wipe out a pretty large proportion of the network, or more nuanced than that.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 13, 2021 22:50:05 GMT
Yes, the new Watford South Junction is pants compared with the former alignment but it does allow a faster curve on the local line to Watford. Anyway I digress...... It's got to be remembered that at the time, the majority of Amersham services ran fast along the main lines, so the realignment to give a faster curve on the local made sense, as the most benefit was provided to the traffic patterns of the day. Unfortunately a year later that all changed... It annoys me that with so much money spent on new signalling, they still can't get anywhere near the end-to-end running times achieved in the 70's / 80's, although it's partly down to speed limits being more liberally observed (and enforced) back then. Yes, but there were significantly fewer trains in those days, both due to a lower demand and a shortage of stock or crews (or sometimes both). With lower demand and fewer trains running around there are less opportunities for delay and less need for recovery time. The introduction of the various Migration Areas are linked to potential improvement in JTC (Journey Time capability - nothing like an old PPP acronym one in a while), once SMA5 goes in I expect we will see a timetable change on the SSR taking advantage of the performance improvements that CBTC offers. The point about recovery times is well made. If we take the Northern Line, there’s now an all-day 3-minute service to every terminus. For the likes of Barnet and Edgware with their three platforms this means in reality the turnaround time is at best never going to be better than about 6 minutes. Add in real-life issues like your occasional driver being slow to change ends, someone holding a door open, a minor defect appearing as the new cab is opened up or whatever, and all too often this is getting down to the point where there is no breathing space at all. Drivers are allowed four minutes, but this isn’t really very long - it allows a quick toilet visit or a quick snack, but not both, and it doesn’t take much else for example finding some lost property or coming across a passenger issue for things to get very tight indeed. So it doesn’t take much in the way of late running before you pass the point where late running won’t naturally “ride out”. In the old days if there was 10-15 minutes at the terminus, this would sort out a lot of things naturally. You simply can’t do this on railways where a late arrival at a terminus is likely to result in a similarly late departure. Something like Merseyrail is the same with its notoriously tight timetables on certain routes - how do you manage a service like Chester to Liverpool where one end is a loop with no recovery time at all, and the other is a turnaround where the driver barely has time to walk from one cab to the other? You don’t want to turn short as both ends are the major traffic destinations. The answer is that Merseyrail sometimes remove stops, but on LU this isn’t a done thing (we once did it on the TBTC simulator when someone forgot to put it on pause during a rest break, and it did actually work rather well!). As a passenger I hate recovery time as much as anyone else, especially if I’m on my way home. But seeing things from the other side unfortunately with the nature of today’s railway where we are really running more trains than the infrastructure ideally supports, there’s not much alternative. If you can’t build it in at the termini then it has to be elsewhere, that is the bottom line unfortunately. The only way to smooth out run-of-the-mill issues is to do just enough intervention to get things to a point where breathing space in the timetable gets everything back to where it should be. Otherwise the service will simply never recover - there’s only so many reversing points, and only so many reform opportunities!
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 13, 2021 21:04:29 GMT
It annoys me that with so much money spent on new signalling, they still can't get anywhere near the end-to-end running times achieved in the 70's / 80's, although it's partly down to speed limits being more liberally observed (and enforced) back then. Perhaps speed limits were breached - not being a train driver I cannot really comment. But, if this was happening then what is significant is that it was done in perfect safety - therefore since the speeds which might have been being travelled at were proven 'safe' they should become the normal limits. Especially since train speeds nowadays are very tightly monitored and controlled with automated systems preventing breaching the limits. As an aside, I was on the SSR today and noted that the trains seem to accelerate more rapidly than before, but they were running so close to each other that it was not possible to experience the newer top speeds (where they exist). Whilst waiting on the platform at Kings Cross (eastbound) the trains seemed to be entering the station more slowly than before and there was at least one train where the white lights did not illuminate immediately prior to door closure. However that may have been my fault (LOL) because it only happened when I had a still image camera in my hand hoping to film the white lights in action! I also noted that the new track to the east of Tower Hill's bay platform is still not available for use. Whether it was done in perfect safety is a matter for debate. It’s worth remembering that the Central Line had a collision at Holborn in 1980 where the design of the signalling was insufficient to prevent a collision occurring after a signal aspect was disregarded. The traditional LU signalling was superb, and over the years standards changed to design out more and more of the few holes which did exist in it. But it should never be regarded as infallible - sooner or later a combination of circumstances could occur where someone finds a route through all the layers of protection built in, or something happens which simply no one had thought of (eg Moorgate). Yes liberal interpretations of speed limits was rife as recently as the 1990s. Likewise the speed limits themselves were less scientific than today. However the philosophy tended to be that things were designed on the basis that you needed a few things to go wrong in order for an accident to happen - so perhaps a driver going a little bit faster than the limit, train with slightly weak brakes, a tired driver, an overlap not to modern standards, a train stopped in an unusual place, and perhaps even more besides. One could quite reasonably argue that the level of risk was sufficiently minimal to be acceptable, especially if the trade-off was faster journey times, or perhaps more usefully greater throughout of trains on a crowded railway. So a tolerable level of safety quite probably (LT had an excellent safety record for sure and collisions between trains under normal working have been rare as hens teeth), but I’m not sure one could go quite as far as to say perfect safety. Having said all that, I do share an element of frustration that we do struggle nowadays to match some of what was done in the past, either in terms of journey time or throughput of trains. Credit is very much due to the Victoria Line Upgrade project for actually managing to design and commission something genuinely impressive, that seems to actually give as a good taste of past wonders, but with modern levels of safety / risk management at the same time. As a footnote, it’s also worth adding that dwell times are a factor too. Firstly there’s simply more passengers than in the past, which doesn’t help. There’s also things like mobility impaired passengers who in the past had to be very committed to dare try using the system. Thirdly guard operation of doors was probably a bit quicker than driver operation (with a good guard anyway!), and of course perhaps controversially it’s fair to say there wasn’t quite as much focus on platform/train interface safety, and if there was there was less CCTV so being brutally realistic if something did happen it was less likely to result in a manslaughter charge. Where we don’t help ourselves today is with systems like TBTC wasting a couple of seconds before the driver can open the doors, something again the Victoria Line managed to not have.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 11, 2021 22:16:14 GMT
That's not what the unioin reps are saying still be interesting to see what it looks like in the end as doesn't look wide enough for 12 sidings and seems a waste of natural habitat with the ammount of trees they cut down on the east end of the sidings I was a bit surprised too, but the land footprint is quite wide at the buffer stop end, and with the 'six foots' of the sidings squeezed it could be done. As for what the union reps are saying - I think the drawings prepared by the Project Team are a more reliable source over Union hearsay. Thanks I don't think the locals will be happy unless some sort of sound deflection boards are put in. They're already not happy, and not much has been done yet! Must admit it does seem tight, but if that’s what the plans say. One presumes there will be some provision for some substantial security measures, given this location has quite a history of issues in that respect!
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 10, 2021 18:09:52 GMT
Hyde Park Corner is listed as a means of accessing Down Street siding (though one wonders if this ever happens in practice - surely easier to be taken by train and dropped off at the points?). For Brixton the official means of entry is walking from the platforms, there’s no mention anywhere of anything else. It does happen in practice have done that walk myself a few years ago it only normally happens if there is a defective train is in there as current has to get turned off before walking in there Fair enough. I was wondering as at Kennington the official access route used to be much further than the easy way, perhaps reflecting past operating practices. Certainly I never knew the official way happen, and by the time TBTC came in the easy way had been made official.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 10, 2021 11:18:17 GMT
Just to add to your examples there, there is also the small tunnel at the very end of the Down Street siding, which links through to the Hyde Park Corner crossover. That's not to mention Down Street station itself, though the main beneficiaries of its signage and designated escape route are more likely to be the contractors working down there on the IMR as opposed a T/Op using the siding or indeed having to evacuate a train (I don't think there have been any recorded evacuations down there). I suspect in the case of Somerleyton Road on the Victoria line, the T/Ops are more likely to leave the train by performing a track walk back to Brixton once the traction current is switched off. Certainly this is what happens on the Bakerloo line at E&C. Hyde Park Corner is listed as a means of accessing Down Street siding (though one wonders if this ever happens in practice - surely easier to be taken by train and dropped off at the points?). For Brixton the official means of entry is walking from the platforms, there’s no mention anywhere of anything else.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 9, 2021 21:48:40 GMT
The story of redundant Victoria line rails being extracted at Drayton Park was in the Metronet staff magazine "Metronet Matters" a couple of times. It mentioned coming out into the light. Could it have been from the Highbury end, and through the operational Network Rail tunnels reaching Drayton Park that way? Especially if the Northern City Line was still closed at weekends in those days, and Metronet had GBRF-contracted ballast trains for some of their projects?
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 9, 2021 12:48:59 GMT
Not surprising. It’s very much in the too difficult box, and they’re absolutely right to be prioritising resources where the most value can be derived. I’d say it’s still a fair bet that at some point a “difficult decision” will be taken not to restore it.
|
|