North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 13, 2015 11:38:39 GMT
Much as I don't like ATO, I don't really think it can be said to have made the Northern line less safe. If anything at all, you'd think maybe it would free a T/Op up to concentrate specifically on the PTI, rather than looking for a stopping mark or something. I suppose, there is a flip side which is that it's been noted that, when human beings aren't "in the loop", it can be hard for them to dive right into an automated process; but it's not exactly difficult to hit the emergency stop button. That really applies more to being expected to take over from a machine, e.g. when the autopilot cuts out on an aircraft. So I really doubt it's had any effect. As you've noted, emergency stop plungers were shelved because they were considered more trouble than they were worth. They're a nice idea in some ways, but I'm not sure if they'd've helped with the most recent incident. I also agree that there's a lot of potential for abuse with little real gain. The Holland Park incident demonstrated this very well. Not only were passengers unable to operate them, with people attempting to hit the cap, rather than removing it to press the button; but the emergency stop plungers would not have helped in any way. The train at Holland Park was very much already stopped. That was, in some ways, the problem. I think it's pretty clear that Central line passengers don't really understand what they're for, or how they work. Much as I don't really like ATO (although recognise the consistency it can impose by designing out the problem of slow drivers), I don't think ATO can be associated with any of the recent Northern Line incidents. Clapham South was primarily a doors incident. Having seen the footage, the main issue was that the train was fully loaded, the person tried to board when there wasn't really room for her or her belongings, and the platform also had people waiting, in position, for the next train. By all accounts the driver did everything correctly, and reacted very promptly as soon as he saw something amiss. The basic issue was too many people trying to use a limited resource. The other two incidents were basically down to the passenger's actions. Both occurred near the tailwall, and at Old Street the platform is approached round a blind curve, so the obstruction would not have come in to view until the last moment. In both cases, the drivers seem to have reacted very quickly to bring the trains to a stand. Both Old Street and Stockwell were always 35mph approaches, from personal experience I would always be aiming to hit the platform tailwall at the full 35. Under ATO, with the current software, if I recall correctly Old Street is currently also a 35 approach, Stockwell is now over 40 mph, however even under tunnel brake rates I would say the train brakes slighly earlier than I used to in both locations. Obviously differences between drivers meant not everyone drove the same, but I don't think any difference between manual and ATO is enough to change the outcome of any incident.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Mar 29, 2015 20:53:37 GMT
Excellent find, suppose they didn't know the proper start was "Most Underground carriages last a very long time, so these spanking new coaches will be carrying us when we're all fifteen years older, 'til the year 1998. Then off to Booths." In the case of the batch 2 units, rather less than 15 years, not forgetting unit 3623 which was long-term stopped by the 1990s and never ran again.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Mar 22, 2015 23:35:16 GMT
Do teachers not have targets, staff meetings or discussions on how they are doing their jobs? Yes and since Performance Related Pay has come in performance management is a big thing. Â But me getting to work on time not in my pyjamas is a contractual obligation, not something I'd expect a pat on the back for. Â I'm contractually obliged to do my job to the level expected of me - it isn't a target, it's an expectation! Surely in most jobs targets are about getting you up to the next level - not trying to reach the bottom rung? I'm sorry, but having to set targets and incentivise train ops to not pass signals at red, get to work on time and generally fulfill the most fundamental basic duties expected of them is a tad on the ridiculous side! Â And please don't tell me you get bonuses for it!! Â I think two separate things are being mixed up. P&D targets for Train Operators don't lead to any bonus as Train Ops are not on any form of PRP. Targets set are basically things for the individual to aim for - perhaps an area where they have flagged up as falling short, or maybe a development target to help the individual work towards securing a promotion. The practical use of this is open to debate, however the right targets and support from the individual's manager can help the individual - eg a day shadowing a controller could be the next step towards a promotion or sideways move. PRP is a completely different process which generally applies to managers, who have to physically demonstrate they have achieved targets. My personal view is that this does not work well at all. What tends to happen is that certain individuals spend a lot of time chasing perceived opportunities to demonstrate achieving a target and producing portfolios, whilst those who simply spend their time diligently getting on with their job don't get the PRP. So you end up with the worst people getting PRP, and the best people get demotivated and take the view "base level of pay, base level of performance". Also it opens up issues of people who don't get on with their manager not getting PRP, as well as the opportunity for performance figures to be gently worked to advantage.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Mar 20, 2015 11:10:18 GMT
If there has been service disruption and stock is out of place, and if there are no engineering works occurring, are the night shift drivers ever used to balance rolling stock out? Basically no, because realistically there is never a night with no engineering work somewhere. It would only happen if the stock balance was so badly out with major consequences for the next morning and couldn't be corrected any other way. The nearest you get is if a defective train needs to be moved from siding to major depot and the nature of the defect means it can't run in traffic hours (eg stuck at slow speed, or at risk of becoming stalled). It becomes a balancing act between the need to move the train versus the consequences of cancelling or reducing engineering hours. I think most outsiders would be surprised just how much work occurs in engineering hours. Some of it is non-essential, eg trackside poster changing, whilst other stuff eg re-railing can be rescheduled, albeit wasting the cost of a night's work.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Mar 19, 2015 20:17:18 GMT
Unless I'm mistaken, there is currently a night shift (which is part of normal agreements ISTR), who will usually clock on to run the last trains, and then finish by running the first trains, and usually do shunting in-between. I'm guessing it is the people who would normally be on this shift that will be responsible for the overnight trains. There aren't all that many trains running, so I'd imagine that you'd only need a fairly small amount of T/Ops, about the same number as those on the night shift at the moment. Shunting in-between, I like to know on which line/ depot this takes place ? Train Operators are on a break after the last train is stabled and the first train starts in the morning. At High Barnet the night crews quite often end up shunting trains in and out of the shunting neck during the night, if any work overnight has resulted in the traction current being taken off for more than a short period it sends all the stabled trains NCT, requiring re-entry to the system. Another less-than-desirable feature of Seltrac. I suspect the same occurs at Stanmore. The reason is that Seltrac was specified as like-for-like, therefore sidings previously fully signalled remain so. 95 stock starts to load shed when off current, one item on the load shed list is the VOBC. I know a few managers who collar night drivers for P&Ds etc. Not popular, but technically the driver can't refuse, except during the booked half-hour meal relief.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Mar 19, 2015 0:56:18 GMT
Sorry folks, I was not asking specifically about the D stock. My query was about the SSR in general - and whether it is still energised at 660v or if this has now been raised to 750v. As an operational member of staff, I can confirm that we have not been told traction current has increased beyond 630v; so as far as I and my colleagues are concerned, it is still 630v. All I can add is there's obvious work taking place at most sub stations along the District line - on that basis I would suggest the power upgrade hasn't yet taken place. Also, for reasons which I do not fully understand it is SWT trains which are restricted in power consumption when between East Putney and Wimbledon. Simon I'm no electrician but I would suggest the reason SWT rolling stock is restricted is probably due to the number of LU trains also present and drawing power at the same time - if enough LU trains draw power on the same section on LU metals, traction current will drop out owing to overload protection, so I reckon its to prevent the same issue. The Northern Line has recently developed the superb spectacle in the Stockwell area that at peak times on certain days, move the handle to full motors and the tunnel lights come on, shut off and they go off! On the subject of the Wimbledon branch, the restrictions are a little strange, as the SA shows classes 450 and 458 as restricted, but not class 444.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Mar 19, 2015 0:41:48 GMT
Unless I'm mistaken, there is currently a night shift (which is part of normal agreements ISTR), who will usually clock on to run the last trains, and then finish by running the first trains, and usually do shunting in-between. I'm guessing it is the people who would normally be on this shift that will be responsible for the overnight trains. There aren't all that many trains running, so I'd imagine that you'd only need a fairly small amount of T/Ops, about the same number as those on the night shift at the moment. It will definitely need quite an increase in nights. On the Northern Line, for example, -IIRC currently there are only 10 night duties, 2 of which are spare turns. The planned service will require at least (bare minimum) 18 trains running, plus you can't have the same driver on the train all night as a meal relief is required. All this is a good example why Night Tube is not an efficient way of delivering public transport overnight. The running costs of LUL are immense compared to night buses. It's not efficient to have the system running to carry around a comparatively small number of people, who are currently reasonably well catered for by night buses.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Mar 18, 2015 15:37:36 GMT
Sorry folks, I was not asking specifically about the D stock. My query was about the SSR in general - and whether it is still energised at 660v or if this has now been raised to 750v. By way of a diversion however, re: the D Stock and also the former C stock, its my understanding that right from the outset their electrics were designed to be capable of safely handling as much as 900v, as the natural voltage variables of the mainline power supply system means that the third rail does sometimes get that 'hot'. Also, for reasons which I do not fully understand it is SWT trains which are restricted in power consumption when between East Putney and Wimbledon. Simon I don't believe the SSR has been uplifted at present. Regarding the Network Rail sections. This may be out of date, but it certainly used to be the case that the sections of the SW Division inwards of Richmond and Wimbledon do not have a line voltage greater than 660v because of the presence of LUL trains. The line voltage then progressively increases on a substation-by-substation basis outwards of those locations. I'm unsure how the Waterloo & City Line and Euston-Watford stand in this regard. Certainly this was enough of an issue that Network Rail had a project called something like "Separation of LUL supplies". I'm unsure if this project has progressed beyond the drawing board.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Mar 3, 2015 23:19:26 GMT
As far as I am aware only three Pacers have been written off: namely 142008 (Winsford), 142059 (Lime Street), and 143613 which was written off after a fire at Nailsea (near Weston super Mare) in 2004. Only the last of these was in passenger service at the time of the incident. 142069 sustained serious damage to its underframe in a derailment at Rhymney in 2009 (in an ECS movement), and 142091 had major front-end damage after hitting a landslide near Retford in 2012 (in passenger service), but both have been repaired and put back into service. It is perhaps a sign of the rolling stock shortage that such repairs are deemed worthwhile (the earlier incidents happened during periods when new dmus were being built, so it was easier to get a replacement (not like-for-like"!) built. 143615 has also been scrapped, also as a result of fire damage.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Pimlico
Mar 2, 2015 19:52:04 GMT
via mobile
Post by North End on Mar 2, 2015 19:52:04 GMT
I noticed this morning that the original 1960s freizes as Pimlico have started to be replaced. Bit of a shame really as it was the only Vic line station left more or less unaltered from its original configuration. I'm also surprised that a quiet station like Pimlico was more of a priority for this kind of work than the likes of Piccadilly Circus, Holborn and Charing Cross which still have their 1970s style friezes? Hardly a good use of fares income. There was nothing wrong with what was there before, and it was in good condition. More waste, just like the proposed new uniform.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Mar 1, 2015 1:04:15 GMT
Not necessarily. All of the pacers must be scrapped (as we know) - which is a total of 212 carriages across both the 142 and 144 classes. 212-120 = 92 cars that still need to come from somewhere. Some trains are expected to be cascaded to the franchise, but they are all electric and so a lot of it depends on the various electrification programs happening on time (which they probably won't!). That is before you get to details such as having to reform the class 153s back into 155s (halving the number of trains) to get around various DDA compliance issues, so the franchise will be down on stock, that is for certain! The logical choice would be the D train, just as a filler until electrification is complete at which point they can make their way to the scrapyard and the operator can use their new 319s (which are now all expected to make their way up north), or potentially even some new build. Even if the government rephrase the document and explicitly forbid the D trains (which frankly would be a mad thing to do, a seat on a train is a seat on a train, even if the body and chassis of said train are 35 odd years old), you could still end up with them going off to some other part of the country (Devon and Cornwall, Wales etc) so it's not over The idea of scrapping large numbers of Pacers is ridiculous. One minute we're being told it's virtually impossible to specify new diesel trains, then we're looking at completely removing a large fleet. Meanwhile the small number of planned electrification projects seem to slip further and further. Pacers aren't *that* bad, in fact I prefer them to a few other classes of train, in particular class 150s which make up another large part of the Northern Rail fleet. For most people the main priority is overcrowding, removing a large number of trains to meet an artificial deadline will not help this. I'm sure many would rather have a lightly loaded old train than an overcrowded new train. Pacers would make ideal extra units to attach to other formations at busy times -- and nowadays most times are busy, even on branch lines. If a combination of electrification and (perhaps) new diesels starts to allow Pacers to be withdrawn then fine, but only if they are genuinely surplus to requirements. In other words, at a time when there are no overcrowded trains which could feasibly be lengthened. Not due a political agenda. Unfortunately, with a key and unpredictable general election just weeks away, don't expect sense to prevail. Without being cynical, it's conspicuous this issue has received political attention at this particular time.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Feb 21, 2015 10:46:59 GMT
Urgh, LU's policy makes it very clear that despite the zero tolerance, a level of 13 micrograms / 100ml or below will not result in a failure. This gives more than sufficient margin of error for any of the excuses people are trying to come up with about zero tolerance for alcohol at work. LU's official guidance is no alcohol in the 8 hours before clocking on and no more than 7 units in the 16 hours before that - if you simply follow that, it makes it near impossible to fail the test. This guidance is made clear in your induction and several other safety related courses thereafter - LU is pretty clear on it. My personal view (which is fully open to change) is that whilst I am happy with the above as far as it goes, there are two issues which I'd like resolved: 1) What safeguards are in place to mitigate against a defect with the machine itself. I'm beginning to wonder if doing a second test with the same machine is acceptable in this respect. 2) The diabetes issue needs to be resolved with professional evidence, one way or the other. The whole matter needs to be properly resolved, one way or other, to ensure everyone has full faith in the testing process. If the testing regime *is* fully robust, this needs to be demonstrated with evidence.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Feb 18, 2015 20:45:04 GMT
Woolwich Arsenal, although the business was defunct before TfL arrived. Custom House for ExCeL (this is the official name of the station) North Greenwich for the O2 (this isn't the name, but appears on signs and the tube map) Canary Wharf (this is arguable, as it's also geographical for the DLR and not far off for the JLE but the Crossrail station should be Poplar or North Quay) Crystal Palace (like White City) National Rail has several other examples Woolwich Dockyard (defunct now though) Wembley Stadium Alexandra Palace Rhoose Cardiff International Airport IBM Halt British Steel Redcar (although these are special purpose stations) Lympstone Commando (very arguably) Ashburys in Manchester is named after the Ashbury company, there is no such place. Also University in Birmingham. Treforest Estate in Cardiff although more tenuous. Loch Eil Outward Bound maybe? Thought of a couple more. Filey Holiday Camp (station still exists albeit trackless but camp long gone), Staveley Works. Also Manchester United Football Club, and Ramsline Halt in Derby. Chislet Colliery Halt in Kent. Christ's Hospital also.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Feb 18, 2015 19:11:16 GMT
Woolwich Arsenal, although the business was defunct before TfL arrived. Custom House for ExCeL (this is the official name of the station) North Greenwich for the O2 (this isn't the name, but appears on signs and the tube map) Canary Wharf (this is arguable, as it's also geographical for the DLR and not far off for the JLE but the Crossrail station should be Poplar or North Quay) Crystal Palace (like White City) National Rail has several other examples Woolwich Dockyard (defunct now though) Wembley Stadium Alexandra Palace Rhoose Cardiff International Airport IBM Halt British Steel Redcar (although these are special purpose stations) Lympstone Commando (very arguably) Ashburys in Manchester is named after the Ashbury company, there is no such place. Also University in Birmingham. Treforest Estate in Cardiff although more tenuous. Loch Eil Outward Bound maybe?
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Feb 18, 2015 19:04:29 GMT
Something else that they've started doing is saying "severe delays whilst we fix a signal failure" - is there really a need to say that "we" are fixing it, it sounds a bit cheesy in my opinion, but I suppose it reassures customers that TfL are attempting to rectify the situation. Particularly good when the failure is on a Network Rail section... I'm sure I read somewhere that they have stopped saying that there's been a person under a train on the advice of The Samaritans. I can't personally confirm that this is the case, though. I don't know about the Samaritans advice bit, however I believe it has been noted that one unders seem to occur in clusters, so not publicising them as such I imagine would definitely be a good preventative measure.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Feb 18, 2015 11:40:07 GMT
Personally, I dislike the white LED lighting used on roads nowadays. It's far too similar to car headlights and gives the impression that you're going to meet another vehicle round the bend when you see it reflected off door panels etc. Agreed 100%. I'm not sure if some of the LED street lighting is deliberately dimmer than what it replaced, however I find it doesn't light up the road nearly as well. My car retains conventional headlights, and I'm very glad it does. As an aside I also find some of the fittings highly unattractive in appearance, but obviously this is my personal view.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Feb 18, 2015 10:38:35 GMT
If they are LED tubes they may just be faulty. Power surges can affect them. An LED cannot change colour. The colour is fundamental to the materials used. (Similarly, sodium and mercury lamps cannot change colour.) I doubt it LED's are low voltage devices and are more robust than the filament bulbs they replaced! "White" LED's tend to have a blue tinge to them as well 'White' LED's can be many shades of white depending on the method used to generate white - either mixing RGB, or using blue or UV with a fluorescent coating. At home I have warm wihte LED lighting in all rooms except the kitchen which is 'daylight' I must say I totally despair at how in the last couple of years the simple subject of train lighting has become such a 'fad' that virtually every type of train now seems to have a different type or colour of lighting, including some wholly ghastly and vile designs which appear blue or "daylight". Last year I rode on 205032 on the Dartmoor Railway, which still retains what appear to be the same flourescant tubes as on the day it was withdrawn, so nice just to have a train with 'normal' lighting, not too bright, and no silly colours. Felt like I was 10 years younger again. For what it's worth, my home remains very nearly 100% tungsten, and will be for many years to come! :-)
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Feb 17, 2015 10:13:22 GMT
If we assume that the driver's story about having a glass of wine the night before his shift is true, that this was consumed 8 hours before the test ... That's the thing, everyone seems to think the driver's telling the truth. From personal experience, I've know people to deny they've been drinking yet they've later admitted to it. The problem is that whilst we can never be sure of that one, there are now a number of possibilities which have been put on the table: 1) He knowingly drunk more. 2) He drunk more units than be believed he had. 3) He complied with the guidance of no more than 7 units in the period from 24 to 8 hours, but somehow still failed the test. 4) The test was not carried out correctly. 5) The equipment was defective. 6) His medical condition contributed to the result. It shouldn't have been difficult to rule out 4 & 5, and I'd like to see some qualified evidence regarding 6. So far I've seen nothing really definitive from either side.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Feb 16, 2015 13:04:02 GMT
Mr Hedley comes across poorly, however I'm not convinced the interviewer was entirely blameless, as the tone of voice when he asked the first question comes across as confrontational. Since there appears to be a considerable amount of debate over the issue I find it hard to take a firm view, not being a medical expert nor expert on the technology. However, somehow the issue needs to be resolved, to ensure staff have full faith in the testing process. Thusfar neither side has provided anything which I'd regard as conclusive. With this in mind, as things stand I think the best way forward is an employment tribunal.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Feb 4, 2015 21:33:31 GMT
Handedness matters very little on modern (S, 1995, 1996 stocks) since they are not made up of units that are expected to be separated. In any case S stock can and does get reversed on the Aldgate, Kensington and Watford triangles, and 1995 stock on the Kennington loop. For commissioning purposes Ruislip may need them one way round rather than the other as the two halves of an S7 are not identical (one of them only has three cars....), but it seems unlikely. As I understand it handedness was simply easier to design in the limited space between cars, avoiding the need to duplicate connections on both sides of the car ends. The GN&CR and C@SLR as first built were very assymetric - the CSLR had an off-centre conductor rail (to avoid fouling the couplings) and the GNCR had a positive rail on one side and a negative on the other. So it was just as well there was no way the trains could be turned round. 96 stock does get shunted around on a regular basis - and if I recall correctly the couplers on these are handed. (Can anyone confirm for definite?). The Jubilee has no way of turning the trains however. 95 stock was the first stock where the decision was made to leave the trains in delivered formations as far as possible. Generally this has held true, even on the handful of occasions where trains have swapped about they have eventually been reformed back. I think as I write this all 106 trains are 'correct'. The 09 stock has also avoided reformation, never seen one of them not in delivered formation.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 31, 2015 19:54:44 GMT
Thank you both very much If no one else does I'll post the VCC sections when I have the relevant documentation to hand. That'd be much appreciated - ta! Jubilee: VCC1 - Stratford to North Greenwich (inclusive) VCC2 - Canary Wharf to Westminster VCC3 - Charing Cross to West Hampstead VCC4 - Kilburn to Wembley Park VCC5 - Kingsbury to Stanmore Northern: VCC1 - Morden to Stockwell (inclusive) VCC2 - Oval to Old Street / Waterloo VCC3 - Embankment to Euston CX VCC4 - Highgate to West Finchley / Mill Hill East VCC5 - Woodside Park to High Barnet VCC6 - Angel to Archway VCC7 - Chalk Farm to Brent Cross VCC8 - Hendon Central to Edgware
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 30, 2015 0:13:47 GMT
My knowledge of TBTC is pretty basic and rusty, so I dare say that I'll be corrected on a few of the answers below, but I'll have a go at a few anyway! Everything you've said there is correct as far as I can see. Each VCC has three computers, and two of the three have to 'agree' in order for a command to be sent out to a train. To my understanding, the VCC operators are Thales staff, who sit in their own area in the SCC at Neasden. Not sure exactly what they do, but one thing they are responsible for is reopening tracks after they've been closed. Tracks may become closed for a number of reasons. A PED door sending a message via the SCS that is has remained open will close a platform track. As far as I know, VCC operators are the only people in the SCC who can close/reopen tracks. Tracks may also be closed on purpose in certain situations. An engineers train stabled during the day at Charing Cross normally has the tracks giving the route into its platform closed, therefore only allowing the VCC to set a route into the other (unoccupied) platform, thus protecting the engineers train. The equivalent to a signal operator is the signaller, who can perform all of the tasks that you've already listed above, all from his computer in the SCC. Signallers authorise you to switch into RM. When in RM, you are 'outside' the signalling system, which is why RM moves have to be so strictly controlled. In terms of being authorised to move in RM, this is through the signaller again, using the trackside RM hold boards. When in RM, a train cannot be automatically Emercency braked as they would normally be when in PM or ATO. This obviously means that a train being driven in RM could inadvertently carry on into a discharged traction current section (providing the driver fails to notice the rail gap indicator), or carry on into a closed track. When in PM or ATO, the train would be automatically emergency braked to prevent it entering a discharged traction current section or closed track. I can't remember the VCC boundaries, but I'm sure someone else will be along very soon to enlighten us all! Just had a very brief skim through both posts, can't see any glaring errors. On the Northern the VCC operators are Tube Lines staff, generally ex Technical Officers either with a trackside or control room background. Their role is to input commands in to the VCC at the request of the controller or signallers. Generally anyone in the control room can close a track, apply ATO Not Permitted on a section, bring in a TSR, etc. However only the VCC operator can remove. The VCC operator can also confirm things like point positions, as the VCC terminal is safety critical whereas the SMC is not quite up to the same standard (can freeze etc). I presume what I have written above applies equally to the Jubilee. If no one else does I'll post the VCC sections when I have the relevant documentation to hand.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 30, 2015 0:06:30 GMT
My knowledge of TBTC is pretty basic and rusty, so I dare say that I'll be corrected on a few of the answers below, but I'll have a go at a few anyway! Everything you've said there is correct as far as I can see. Each VCC has three computers, and two of the three have to 'agree' in order for a command to be sent out to a train. To my understanding, the VCC operators are Thales staff, who sit in their own area in the SCC at Neasden. Not sure exactly what they do, but one thing they are responsible for is reopening tracks after they've been closed. Tracks may become closed for a number of reasons. A PED door sending a message via the SCS that is has remained open will close a platform track. As far as I know, VCC operators are the only people in the SCC who can close/reopen tracks. Tracks may also be closed on purpose in certain situations. An engineers train stabled during the day at Charing Cross normally has the tracks giving the route into its platform closed, therefore only allowing the VCC to set a route into the other (unoccupied) platform, thus protecting the engineers train. The equivalent to a signal operator is the signaller, who can perform all of the tasks that you've already listed above, all from his computer in the SCC. Signallers authorise you to switch into RM. When in RM, you are 'outside' the signalling system, which is why RM moves have to be so strictly controlled. In terms of being authorised to move in RM, this is through the signaller again, using the trackside RM hold boards. When in RM, a train cannot be automatically Emercency braked as they would normally be when in PM or ATO. This obviously means that a train being driven in RM could inadvertently carry on into a discharged traction current section (providing the driver fails to notice the rail gap indicator), or carry on into a closed track. When in PM or ATO, the train would be automatically emergency braked to prevent it entering a discharged traction current section or closed track. I can't remember the VCC boundaries, but I'm sure someone else will be along very soon to enlighten us all!
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 29, 2015 23:57:16 GMT
I'd noticed that too. In Another Place it was noted that Google and Open Street Map show different alignments for the City branch of the Northern Line between Euston and Camden Town. Google shows it following Hampstead Road and Camden High Street, passing very close to Mornington Crescent station. OSM has it passing about 200m further west .Does anyone know which is correct? I haven't been able to load either of the maps quoted, however I can say from civils plans I've seen that the city branch passes much closer to Mornington Crescent than 200m. On the city branch there are two empty construction tunnels, one for each tunnel, which head off east towards Mornington Crescent station. From the plans it appears there were working shafts which actually went up between the two Mornington Crescent platforms, the city branch being slightly deeper at this point. The shafts are now backfilled, which presumably happened as soon as construction work finished. The empty connecting tunnels I would estimate are no more than about 25 metres. Today there is no connexion between the branches at Mornington Crescent, and as far as I can tell there never was, as the shafts would have gone straight to street level. There was also a similar working shaft which surfaced at Ampthill Square, off Hampstead Road. This was also backfilled, although evidence of the site's location can be seen at track level. Similar features can be seen at various locations on the Northern Line if one knows where to look.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 26, 2015 20:43:23 GMT
I always assumed the 1972 Mk1 stock cars which were transferred to the Victoria Line (as middle DMs) happened in the late 1980s, prior to refurbishment of the 1967TS fleet. Did a further batch get transferred later on? I think you are right, as only 3 72MkI stock trains were refurbished for the Northern Line, and these are all accounted for on the Bakerloo Line. If someone doesn't beat me to it, when I get a spare hour I will dig out the relevant Underground News magazines and have a look for the exact dates. Off the top of my head I know that of the four Bakerloo trains, one was definitely transferred pre-refurbishment (3264/3564). The remaining three are the Northern Line refurbished trains, albeit unit 3266 contains two cars from MkII unit 3249 - the unit involved in the first of the (1990s!) Piccadilly Circus derailments (22/04/1994). The remaining two cars of each unit were scrapped, the MkI unit (3224) was involved in a collision in Morden Depot on 24/02/1994 with unit 3204.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
WTT37
Jan 26, 2015 20:21:32 GMT
Post by North End on Jan 26, 2015 20:21:32 GMT
So if 36tph is to be introduced with WTT39 in April 2016 what will be different in WTT37?
what track work is required at Wathamstow, will anything major have to be done to turn around 36tph there more so than Brixton. Thanks The work at Walthamstow would be replacement of the scissors crossover. The need to replace this crossover has been a headache for some time, such that it has been put off as far as possible. If I recall correctly it has had a 'temporary' speed restriction on it for many years now. A faster run in/run out would enable an increase in service. I know an aspiration for the Victoria Line is for as many trains as possible to run through to Walthamstow. Good news for Walthamstow, but it will upset a few from the likes of Finsbury Park who know that they stand much more chance of a seat if they wait for a Seven Sisters starter!
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 21, 2015 14:29:12 GMT
It's worth noting that the 72MkI stock on the Bakerloo and Victoria lines was all removed from the Northern Line by the mid-1990s. Of the four trains on the Bakerloo Line, one was moved in the early 1990s in unrefurbished state, the other three are made up from the three trains refurbished for the Northern Line before the programme was stopped, less 2 collision damaged cars which were scrapped. Likewise, one car excepted all the Victoria Line 72 stock was moved off the Northern Line by the mid 1990s in unrefurbished state. Of the 72MkI stock which survived on the Northern Line until the final withdrawal programme, (thusfar) only one car has ever again seen passenger service, car 3312, which replaced a 67 stock car damaged in Northumberland Park Depot - 3184. I have seen proposals to provide some additional trains for the Bakerloo Line, which would utilise two UNDM cars, one from unit 3299 (ex 3439) and, amazingly, the stored UNDM at Hainault 3411. Combined with stored 67 stock cars 2 further trains could be made up. This was some months ago, so I've no idea if this was ever a serious plan, or whether it is still on the books.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 19, 2015 11:09:22 GMT
I've never had any confrontations and I hope to keep it that way, but then again I've only filmed on two occasions, one of the H&C 150th specials and the C Stock Farewell tour. What with such events being well known about, with photographers and videographers going across multiple stations, would it be fair to say that stations expect an increase in photties at these times? Generally I'd probably not go through the hassle of registering unless I'm going to be spending a significant (1h+) amount of time at any one station. Certainly when the 38 stock ran on the Northern Line in 2013, a circular was issued specifically reminding station staff that there would be people wishing to photograph the train. In fact, if I recall correctly the exact wording used the words "please encourage".
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 19, 2015 11:07:56 GMT
I speak as LU Staff and as an enthusiast. The incident at Rayners Lane is an outrage. The Supervisor says the permission needs to come from another supervisor??? Eh? Either he's a jobsworth and likes throwing his weight round or he doesn't have a clue. Why does he need back up? Pathetic. As I work in a control room, I'm usually the first member of staff that sees people taking pictures. Photography Rules preclude flash or tripods. Let's not forget it's not just enthusiasts taking pictures. Tourists, people on a night out, even fans of design. I personally don't mind people taking pictures or filming, especially if they're just passing through and not hanging around. Most people taking pictures/filming in my 12 years experience don't ask for permission and feel they are not doing any harm, which in most cases is the case. I have found most supervisors to be accommodating as well. If a supervisor does feel irked, it's usually because the person concerned hasn't told anyone. So in my humble opinion, ask permission, especially if you're staying for a while. Where I do have a problem, and this isn't really enthusiasts is where parties of college students come in with huge video cameras and start blocking exits/escalators. Where you politely have a word, they are usually fine, but there's always one...... Sounds like it was the event of the month for the Rayners Lane supervisor? Not exactly the busiest of stations. I agree with Tubeboy that it's not unreasonable to speak to station staff first if you plan to be in a particular location for a long period of time, but as has been posted here numerous times before *it's not necessary*. Station staff do not have the right to make up their own rules, and someone going round hassling photographers (assuming no safety rules are being broken) is by definition making themselves unavailable to delivering customer service to other passengers.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 16, 2015 11:53:39 GMT
on a conventionally signalled line after five minutes if the train op is unable to make contact and get information about the delay he/she should apply the rule, providing the signal is an auto, trip past it and continue on to the next signal or train ahead. I have no idea about ato lines. There is no facility with Seltrac for this. The only time a train can be driven on sight is under the specific authority of the signaller, whether there are points involved or not. (Another reason why I am firmly of the opinion that Seltrac is an inadequate and poorly suitable system).
|
|