North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 12, 2015 13:11:07 GMT
I fear that the events in Paris could deal a fatal blow to the project due to paranoia combined with my poor general health: what @dlj83 said at www.districtdavesforum.co.uk/post/401448/thread worries me because it seems paranoia is growing. Also, I have been told that very strict health & safety guidelines means that LTM Acton is out of bounds to me when the withdrawn vehicles come in, so I may have to depend on the scrap runs, possibly at Ealing Common. I am nearly at the end of the struggle for the single-ended units, all I need now is 7010 and 7064 (hopefully by the end of this week) before I have something publishable: every single-ended unit and one side of each double-ended unit. Current status (click image to enlarge): I don't think the Paris murders should have too much bearing on taking photos on the Underground. Certainly no official guidance has been issued (to staff) which specifically mentions that photography is prohibited. LUL already had security measures in place, and has had for some years. The only difference you might encounter is staff being more interested in what you are doing, however any approach from staff should take the form of a friendly, polite, conversation, and providing you are not breaching any byelaws or causing a safety issue, then there should be no problem. Given what happened in Paris, I'd be reluctant to approach anyone who I genuinely thought might be a terrorist.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 11, 2015 20:51:07 GMT
I was at North Acton today in order to take a trip over the crossover to the west of the station used for the east-west reversing move (never been over it before). While on the platform, I noticed that the rail gap indicator fixed to the wrong-road starter at North Acton platform 2 has been bagged up. Would anybody happen to know why that is? Ta. Would normally be done either if the indicator is defective and permanently illuminated, or if section switches have been operated at a location then the indicator may be spuriously illuminated depending on which section of track the indicator is connected to. I'd suggest that in the case you describe it's more likely to be the latter reason. In either case, arrangements would normally be made that if the section in advance is discharged for any reason power control staff would also discharge the section in the rear as a precaution.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 11, 2015 15:24:12 GMT
Thought it wasn't opening until tomorrow, must of done early. Yes we got the message at around 13:30 to say it had opened I think the plan was always to have an unadvertised opening at some stage over the weekend. I believe a mock evacuation was also carried out today after the opening. Virtually all of the old passageways will be brought back into use in the fullness of time - the original ticket hall escalators become the main access to the Central Line, whilst most of the low-level passageways will become the Central <> Northern interchange, and the space taken up by the old ticket hall will eventually be absorbed into the new ticket hall. I don't think the spiral staircase and original lift landings feature, however, so presumably these will become non-public areas. Look out for the remaining fragment of the CLR surface building disappearing too.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 8, 2015 6:49:30 GMT
During a weekend in April, the line will be suspended between Queensway and North Acton. This will be a rare chance to do a bit of track bashing over the Queensway crossover. It's the only passenger move over a crossover that I haven't done on the Central. But isn't it a bit odd to terminate the whole service at a station with only lifts? Despite the notices, there will be a lot of people who will have failed to take heed, and thus find themselves at Queensway. Will it cope! Queenway was used recently during a prolonged 'one under' in the East Acton area, and it was definitely used as the use could clearly be seen on Trackernet. I haven't looked at the timetable for the weekend in question, however I'd suspect that some trains will also reverse at Marble Arch to spread the load. For those keen to cover the Queensway crossover, I'd suggest getting in there as early as possible, just in case a crowding issue develops, as the solution to that would probably be to tip out all trains at Marble Arch.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 8, 2015 6:41:09 GMT
As I understand it, in the days of colour light signalling, the south - north move from East Finchley platform 3 back to Finchley Central via No. 23 crossover had to be performed empty, as it was controlled by shunt signal NP34. I was wondering, with the introduction of TBTC, can the move now be performed in service. Either way, has the upgrade to TBTC wrought any (other) changes to the possible moves on the Northern line, or is everything exactly as it was, but with a different signalling system controlling it all? It's still an empty move, as the relevant points still don't have facing point locking. It's a very rarely used move, although it used to be timetabled for an empty train to do it on Saturday mornings, this has not been the case for some years. I've only ever seen the move done once. The n/b to s/b move over 23 crossover is quite common, however. Normally if reversing s/b to n/b at East Finchley the centre siding would be used. Generally TBTC was done like-for-like compared to what existed before, so an opportunity was missed to add additional moves. So, for example, it is still not possible to reverse s/b to n/b at Archway. In fact, some facilities were taken away, such as the crossover at Totteridge (which would be very useful at times), and Edgware 16 sidings (also a useful bolthole in times of disruption). There are two moves which weren't previously possible, as the Highgate Depot entry and exit has now been divided into two. Therefore it is possible to reverse on the reception road.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 29, 2014 15:32:16 GMT
Did seem a bit quicker to be honest, but a couple of locations still seem a little slow, with the train slowing down for no apparent reason. For those interested, most of the new software is now operational. Not had a chance to see how many TSRs remain in place, however highlights are: 1) Camden Town to Golders Green now has some 40 mph in places. Also Brent Cross to Hendon Central is 50 mph although not actually attained. No new software north of Hendon Central yet. 2) Charing Cross branch has some worthwhile enhancements, in particular a rather impressive section of 50 mph between Kennington and Waterloo which is actually attained for quite a long stretch. Also some high 40s even on relatively short sections like Warren Street to Goodge Street, and Embankment to Waterloo. 3) Bank branch has some enhancements in various locations, but generally fairly minimal improvement here. 4) Barnet branch has some 40 mph running between Camden and Archway, and a very impressive 50 mph section from Highgate to East Finchley, which even on the 1 in 61 then 1 in 50 uphill gradient is attained for a long period. The 95 stock actually makes a quite satisfying roar when pulling hard up this section, I imagine even more impressive on a heavily loaded train! The sting in the tail is that this is a run of two halves, a genuinely impressive dash at 50 mph, but then starts slowing down ridiculously early for East Finchley platform, still hitting the platform at a pathetic 20 mph, completely spoiling the benefit of the fast run! North of East Finchley, 50 mph is attained between East Finchley and Finchley Central, and there's also some uplift on the West Finchley stretch. No new software north of West Finchley yet, and I haven't experienced Mill Hill yet. 5) Generally not much change on the Morden section, especially south of Stockwell. Verdict: at last some worthwhile improvements, but still spoiled by loads of lower speed restrictions all over the place, and the continuing gentle braking rate into open-section (and some tunnel) platforms. Hopefully these issues will continue to be be dealt with over time.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 29, 2014 14:53:41 GMT
thanks you all for the replies, just a few following on from them: @north End If the 92 stock electrical components are obsolete, surely the 95 and 96 stocks components are also obsolete? Surely the inidcators on the 92 stock are also larger than the 95/96? @alight What do you mean by upgrade to the CIS? I assume you mean adding dmis iniside the carriages which in any case, where would you place them? crusty54your reply implies that the 92 stock will be replaced before the 72 stock on the bakerloo? Surely this is a very odd move by tfl? Correct me if im wrong! I don't believe the 95 & 96 stocks are affected in quite the same way. Remember much of the 92 stock design dates from the 1980s. This was in an age when technology was developing fast. I know the 96 stock traction package is considered obsolete now, however the 95 stock setup is broadly the same as trains built today. Also, items like the ATO/ATP equipment date from the 1990s, whereas on the 95 & 96 stocks these systems have only just been installed. Regarding the destination displays, the 95 stock displays are deeper in size, which I would imagine better lends them to being made compliant.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 28, 2014 7:31:12 GMT
Having read a number of other threads, its seems to me that the 1996 and 1995 stocks are being treated to a far better extent than the 1992 the reason i ask if because recently, the jubilee line has had new LED indicators installed and now tfl seem to be doing the same for the 1995 stock on the northern, which on top of this have had a refurbishment despite their newer age over the 1992 stock. Whats more i am also hearing that the 1996 stock will recieve a similar refurb? Now dont get me wrong, this is great for the 1995/1996 stock, but the 1992 stock looks in awful state now, if anything, they are the trains MOST in need of a LED indicator change and most of all a PROPER refurbishment, (yes i know they got a refresh, but that has hardly changed anything when you compare it to the work on the 1995 stock) I do not understand why tfl have instead decided to concentrate on refurbishing the 1995 and i certainly hope that the 1996 stock does not get one before the 1992 stock. Anyone able to shed any light here as to why this is happening in such an odd order? Am i unaware of any future plans tfl have for all 3 stocks? Even the waterloo and city line 1992 stock got refurbished to a better extent! whats going on?! I'm not sure the lifespan of the 92 stock is relevant to them being refurbished, although it may have a bearing on how much money can be justified on less essential works. There are three main issues with the 92 stock - obsolete electrical components from the 1990s, condition of the bodyshells, and disability compliance. The fleet replacement plans are in no way finalised yet, but whatever happens it's unlikely the 92 stock will be replaced until the late 2020s at the earliest, which will give them a roughly 35-year lifespan. All of the three issues will need to be addressed well before that. The main priority, given a need to justify expenditure, is replacing the 73 stock, as part of an upgrade to increase the capacity on that line. At present the Central Line achieves 34 tph in the peaks (albeit only just), which is way above what the Picc currently achieves, this alone makes the Picc upgrade a greater priority. Remember the D stock was subject to a quite extensive, albeit less extensive than originally planned, refurbishment with roughly 10 years service life left. Whatever happens, the 92 stock has at least 10 years life left, probably quite a bit more. I think the issue is more that the 92 stock requires more extensive work to achieve disability compliance compared to the 95 & 96 stocks, which in their as-built form were already pretty compliant, and the level of work required to bring the trains up to standard was fairly minimal. In business speak, this is referred to as a "quick win". By contrast, the 92 stock will require some more substantial internal alterations. With the 95 stock being very much a 'modular' train, where components are quite literally changed out in a short space of time, something like replacing the desination indicator is a relatively quick and cheap job, as evidenced by the speed the new indicators have been rolled out. I wouldn't mind betting that the 92 stock destination indicator isn't fully compliant with current standards, and unlike the 95 & 96 stocks I would suggest it's probably not possible to fit a compliant indicator in the space available, making it a more substantial and costly piece of work on those trains.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 26, 2014 18:14:13 GMT
I know the speed limits have had to be re-calculated to modern standards, however with regard to the target speed dropping in unexpected locations, I was referring to locations where it seems to drop for a few seconds in the middle of nowhere. At first I thought this was due to catching up with a train ahead, but it happens in some locations all the time (including first train of day), and it's definitely not due to a TSR as these are all shown on the SMC screens up at Highgate. On the subject of the new software, this also seems to have brought in brake rate changes - King's Cross northbound for example now crawls in at what seems like the minimum brake rate. Before the last couple of weeks TBTC was managing to hit this platform at 30 mph, and under manual driving drivers could hit this at nearly 35 mph. Why the change now? I definitely recall 100 kph being promised for the open sections in various presentations. The £1bn figure came from a senior manager! I know a lot of effort has been carried out by the project team in getting this system up and running, with many issues having been addressed, however considering Seltrac is hardly new technology, and London has past experience on both the DLR and Jubilee Line, the product as installed on the Northern Line has a surprisingly high number of issues. I get the impression that if it weren't for the project team, and staff on the ground, many of these issues would never have been picked up by Thales, let alone addressed by them. If the target speed is dropping please make a note and pass to the operational reps on the project. It should be possible to check what's happening. If you need a name PM me. On the 100kph - yes, you're right. The 100kph testing is still ongoing but should be nearly finished now - the testing is more around braking than signalling. On the last point again you're right there are lots of issues that need to be ironed out. Thales have been supportive of investigating and fixing stuff (but then they should be as we are paying them). Just shows that off the shelf software is really nothing of the sort (though off the shelf is far better than only on the drawing board as certain other products seem to be). Based on the fact we're now nearly 2 years since the first section went over, there still seem to be simply too many issues. Interesting to read in the latest Underground News magazine, which quotes official TfL documentation, that the inductive cables and axle counters have proved a source of unreliability, and - more interestingly - that the Victoria Line system has proved more reliable.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 24, 2014 10:31:50 GMT
If 100 km/h is the promised new top speed, what was the old actually obtained top speed? 80 km/h? Line speed on the Northern was generally 35 mph from Golders Green and Archway to Morden via Bank, 30 mph on the Charing Cross branch, 40 mph north of Golders Green, and 45 mph north of East Finchley. Embankment to Kennington was raised in the 2000s to variously 35 or 40 mph. 95 stock trains could certainly reach 60 mph at certain locations, High Barnet to Totteridge being the favourite, but other fast sections were Hendon Central to Brent Cross SB, Hendon Central to Colindale NB, and East Finchley to Finchley Central NB. 40 mph could easily be exceeded in certain tunnel sections, notably Angel to King's Cross NB, and coming south from Golders Green and East Finchley. In the old days this sort of speeding was quietly encouraged, I've heard stories of instructors who used to teach their own speed limits in certain locations. However in recent years things have tightened up considerably, and speeding of this nature is nowadays taken very seriously. In the event of an incident, if a download was carried out and the train found to be speeding then the driver could expect to have action taken. By contrast, the Piccadilly Line regularly reaches 45 mph in the tunnel sections, and the Jubilee Line under conventional signalling could reach well over 50 mph in certain sections. My issue with TBTC is not so much the speed limits - I fully appreciate that it has been necessary to re-calculate everything to tie in with modern requirements - but the erratic way Seltrac drives the train. Brakes coming on in the middle of nowhere momentarily for no good reason, over-braking for speed restrictions (watch it drop down to 18 mph when reducing speed for a 25 mph restriction), ridiculously low brake rates in certain locations, and a generally atrocious driving technique all round. Unlike the Victoria Line, Seltrac is not new technology, and these issues should have been designed out by now.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 22, 2014 9:59:56 GMT
95 and 96 stock both have in-car CCTV. Not able to be viewed by the driver, but easily downloaded and viewed in depot.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 22, 2014 9:47:24 GMT
I think the software drops take place on each individual VCC, some of which have been done, others are yet to come. Therefore certain areas of the line are faster, others not yet. I believe parts of the Barnet branch and Bank branch, at least, are faster, but the Edgware branch hasn't yet changed (as far as can be seen), likewise I don't think there's any improvement south of the Clapham area. None of the increase is particularly earth-shattering. 60 mph was promised, however at present the fastest speed achieved seems to be 50 mph. Remember this is only 5 mph faster than hitherto, whilst the Central Line used to routinely achieve 50 mph with 1962 stock and conventional signalling! There remain many issues with the system, not least the speed dropping in the middle of nowhere for no obvious reason with Thales seemingly unable to explain why. Not impressive for £1bn! If there are speed restrictions in the software they will all be perfectly well known and with the right diagrams it is easy to tell where the speed restrictions are (and with some extra info, and more importantly, why they are there). There were a lot of legacy speed restrictions and also some new ones as a result of having to apply all of the latest gauging limitations (no "grandfather rights" for new signalling). The overall run times are a little less than originally predicted (about 10 years ago) but not wildly out so it may be unrealistic expectations and I don't think 60mph was ever promised line wide. You're right the software is applied VCC by VCC and it is the VCC software that contains the permanent speed restrictions. I'm not directly involved anymore so I'm not sure how far the rollout had got though would guess it is almost complete. Not sure where you get the £1bn from. The cost of the Northern line resignalling (at least the Thales cost) is orders of magnitude less than this. I know the speed limits have had to be re-calculated to modern standards, however with regard to the target speed dropping in unexpected locations, I was referring to locations where it seems to drop for a few seconds in the middle of nowhere. At first I thought this was due to catching up with a train ahead, but it happens in some locations all the time (including first train of day), and it's definitely not due to a TSR as these are all shown on the SMC screens up at Highgate. On the subject of the new software, this also seems to have brought in brake rate changes - King's Cross northbound for example now crawls in at what seems like the minimum brake rate. Before the last couple of weeks TBTC was managing to hit this platform at 30 mph, and under manual driving drivers could hit this at nearly 35 mph. Why the change now? I definitely recall 100 kph being promised for the open sections in various presentations. The £1bn figure came from a senior manager! I know a lot of effort has been carried out by the project team in getting this system up and running, with many issues having been addressed, however considering Seltrac is hardly new technology, and London has past experience on both the DLR and Jubilee Line, the product as installed on the Northern Line has a surprisingly high number of issues. I get the impression that if it weren't for the project team, and staff on the ground, many of these issues would never have been picked up by Thales, let alone addressed by them.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 20, 2014 12:10:46 GMT
Did seem a bit quicker to be honest, but a couple of locations still seem a little slow, with the train slowing down for no apparent reason. I think the software drops take place on each individual VCC, some of which have been done, others are yet to come. Therefore certain areas of the line are faster, others not yet. I believe parts of the Barnet branch and Bank branch, at least, are faster, but the Edgware branch hasn't yet changed (as far as can be seen), likewise I don't think there's any improvement south of the Clapham area. None of the increase is particularly earth-shattering. 60 mph was promised, however at present the fastest speed achieved seems to be 50 mph. Remember this is only 5 mph faster than hitherto, whilst the Central Line used to routinely achieve 50 mph with 1962 stock and conventional signalling! There remain many issues with the system, not least the speed dropping in the middle of nowhere for no obvious reason with Thales seemingly unable to explain why. Not impressive for £1bn!
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 17, 2014 1:14:43 GMT
The main changes to the room are the Wood Green-Cockfosters desk has been moved to a separate room elsewhere in the building, the District Line controller, LIA and manager have moved to a new room at Baker Street, the diagram has been renewed, T5 added, and the CTFS system installed. The basic setup remains unchanged otherwise. What's CTFS? Centralised Train Following System. It's a computer system that displays and follows train number and description, displaying it to the control staff on a computer screen. Prior to this the signallers relied on train description only.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 17, 2014 0:52:49 GMT
Control room still out of date, dont know how it is still keeping up with the demand placed on it. HI the control room I think has been updated and the video is about 10 years old and my be more and video is out of date plus bob everard has gone from the picc FISH7373 The main changes to the room are the Wood Green-Cockfosters desk has been moved to a separate room elsewhere in the building, the District Line controller, LIA and manager have moved to a new room at Baker Street, the diagram has been renewed, T5 added, and the CTFS system installed. The basic setup remains unchanged otherwise.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 16, 2014 4:27:24 GMT
I'd have thought they'd just record everything unique once and then stitch all the bits together as necessary, but there definitely appears to be some duplication - sometimes the announcement says "The next station is Euston" and sometimes it's "The next station <pause> is Green Park". Any idea why it would've been done like this? It still sounds pieced together most of the time so I can't believe the voiceover lady has recorded every announcement in full. I'm not sure of the exact answer to the question, however there are definitely multiple versions of the same station names, not just for "next station" and "this is", but also for when the station is being read as a destination, and also if the train is terminating. If you listen very carefully, she also says "The next station is" in at least 2 different ways. I suppose as technology has progressed, compared to older trains these trains probably have a larger storage capability. I think the messages are still assembled together in various components rather than being recorded whole, but I wouldn't swear to this.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 16, 2014 3:20:23 GMT
Thanks for that North End A SPAD is a SPAD, and is always regarded as a safety-related incident because it has the potential to compromise safety. You can't alter the process. You're right, I mean, I can't really argue with that, I would expect them to be fully investigated and appropriate steps to be taken, as required. But, if the RMT are framing this accurately, I can understand their point of view, in that I would also expect the exceptional circumstances to be taken into account when it came to the disciplinary aspect and probably some consequent clemency. This is particularly true if that was - rightly or wrongly - part of the agreement to operate the service in the first place. If it didn't happen, I know I'd feel a bit nervous and if we chuck the other issues raised by the RMT onto the fire, I'm not sure how 'incentivised' I'd feel to drive an unfamiliar route, with relatively small benefits to the service and with my job on the line if I mess it up. It's gotta be like doing a sweat day over again, hasn't it? From an industrial relations point of view, I'd be tempted to allow the working to Ealing Broadway (with appropriate training or pilots provided), and then use it as an example to demonstrate Train Operator flexibility, a useful tool in any pay negotiation, or in any forthcoming media battle if a "Fit for the Future - Trains" appears. There's a difference between forcing people to move location and asking people to drive down an unusual section of track when required (with appropriate training or mitigation in place, of course). Despite PPP's efforts to break everything up into little business units, we are still one railway! Hmmmm, I suppose it's a matter of tactics, really. I kind of understand the RMT's fears on this one, the agreement about cross line working is, I gather, an old one, and an understandable one, as it's obviously important that you're fully trained up and practised if you're gonna be regularly working over a line (and ideal that this is true even for occasional workings) and it's understandable that the unions don't want to have the situation where drivers are having to be trained on all kinds of irregular routes which they rarely drive over (with potential for drivers to become rusty because of lack of practise). It's equally understandable that the unions wouldn't want to get into a situation where drivers are no longer confined to one line, but 'sign' several lines, at least unless they get a pay rise to go with the additional training, knowledge, etc. required. Also, you are obviously involved in fit for the future and stuff personally, whereas I'm just an armchair apologist, but I can certainly understand why the unions would not want to show just how flexible T/Ops can be with the Piccadilly line upgrade and fit for the future on the horizon, precisely because of how easily liberties could be taken. Reading the blogs of Messrs Shrugged and Auxsetreq and some of the comments on the former, one comes away with the impression that there is a sentiment that management takes, but it does not give, it demands its back be scratched, but it deigns to do no scratching. I struggle to doubt this so I can understand the frustration of the RMT and its membership. There again others are happy to be a little less hardline about it. I'm not involved, I can only say I appreciate the position of the RMT, based on what little I can see from afar. Others will feel differently, but I suppose, in this case, it seems the sentiment is strong enough for the special working to've been cancelled. I sympathise entirely and I don't think it's gonna spoil anybody's Christmas, but my current relative confidence that the RMT's tactics aren't too far off the mark may soon be proven wrong when the upgrade of the Picc begins. The thing is, we don't 'discipline' over SPADs unless a procedure has been deliberately violated or the driver has done something seriously unsafe like not followed the correct follow-up procedure. A SPAD will be investigated and normally the driver will receive an action plan to address any shortcomings. It will be recorded as a safety-related incident, and if the driver accrues 4 of those within 2 years then the driver's record will be considered formally which could lead to being removed from driving duties. Part of the company's justification for taking this approach is that SPADs are considered unsafe, so it's hypocritical to then say that it's not such a safety issue just because the driver was carrying out a move he wasn't properly trained to carry out. That's why this situation should never arise, any driver should always be properly trained and familiar with the route and move they are driving over -- always. I can see the point about cross-line working, but in the current climate where changes to many grades are certainly under consideration, any extra feather in the cap is a good thing, and anything which creates extra work for a grade of staff is good. More route knowledge means more time training, which potentially means more drivers! So long as the driver starts and finishes at their home depot, and is fully trained on any routes and stock they will drive, I can't see any issue. Up until now the different stocks have tended not to make it worthwhile, but I don't see what difference it would make to, say, a Barking driver whether they worked an H&C train or a District train on a particular shift. Issues surrounding movements and book on/off locations are a completely separate issue as far as I am concerned. (PS - I feel I should add these are my personal views, and I'm certainly not part of any Fit For The Future team!) ;-)
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 16, 2014 1:40:59 GMT
Reading the RMT release, it seems that the dispute is more one of industrial relations than safety concerns. There are long standing agreements about cross line working. Also, I've learned to be a little wary of RMT releases, but if it's true that SPADs on the District line were treated like any other SPAD, that seems a little out of order. Obviously each SPAD must be assessed on a case by case basis, but if I were a Picc Train Op I'm not sure I'd feel all that happy about working over a section I've not been road trained on, knowing that if I have a SPAD on this unfamiliar section, I'll be in trouble. Obviously trainees spend plenty of time driving over unfamiliar sections and you, also, obviously need to be careful on unfamiliar track and they had pilots. But equally, you'd expect it to be taken into account, as - according to RMT - was promised, that you were on an unfamiliar section. The other thing is, I can't imagine Picc line T/Ops are gonna be in the mood to bend over backwards to help out management and it's hard to see the necessity of it. It was a fun novelty last year, but I'm not sure it needs to happen again. I can see various elements to the issue. A few thoughts: A SPAD is a SPAD, and is always regarded as a safety-related incident because it has the potential to compromise safety. You can't alter the process. My understanding is all Picc drivers are trained for the local lines, so I can't see this part being the issue. It is the responsibility of both management and individual drivers to ensure route knowledge is up to date. I'm not sure what process applies on the Picc regarding the local lines, but I would *assume* that the route would be discussed by I/Os during training, and covered at least once during training by requesting the train be diverted along the local lines. Once qualified, the Train Operator has the option to request a diversion if they feel they need to refresh their knowledge. Obviously Ealing Broadway is another matter, and for this move I would always expect a pilot to be provided or the driver to be shown the route in advance. Actually, it would be preferable for all Piccadilly drivers to be trained to Ealing Broadway, with a few scheduled empty moves in the timetable to provide training / refresher paths. There is always the possibility of a Picc train reaching the junction signal and being unable to get the North Ealing route, so it would be better for the train to be able to be diverted to Ealing Broadway rather than having to be wrong roaded back to Ealing Common, waiting for a pilot, or the driver "winging it" (in reality it's a simple move, but even simple moves can go pear shaped if something out-of-course happens which can be the start of a slippery slops towards a safety incident). As an example, not all speed limits or speed restrictions are signed, and there's always the possibility the sign could be missing or covered with graffiti. Although gradually phased out over time, many 'T' boards remain which indicate line speed, which the driver knows from their knowledge. From an industrial relations point of view, I'd be tempted to allow the working to Ealing Broadway (with appropriate training or pilots provided), and then use it as an example to demonstrate Train Operator flexibility, a useful tool in any pay negotiation, or in any forthcoming media battle if a "Fit for the Future - Trains" appears. There's a difference between forcing people to move location and asking people to drive down an unusual section of track when required (with appropriate training or mitigation in place, of course). Despite PPP's efforts to break everything up into little business units, we are still one railway!
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 10, 2014 14:13:07 GMT
I would hope that the S Stock aren't going to be replaced any time soon! [/pedant] Same. I like the D Stock but I utterly disliked the C Stock when I used to ride between King's X and Great Portland Street. I noticed that on the last few days of the C Stock, the doors struggled to close and there was this deafening sound which hurt my ears when the doors eventually closed. I never understand why so many people seem to hate C stock. Sure not the best train ever built, but good crowd shifters, and very satisfying to drive. Their biggest weakness was only being 6-cars long -- although of course the DM-T design was intended for ease of formation into 8-car trains. By contrast, the S stock has some good design features, but in my view is ruined by a horrible interior. (Also I find the front end looks incredibly displeasing, but this has no effect on the passenger).
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 8, 2014 13:52:53 GMT
Jubilee Line is also slow into platforms at Canning Town and West Ham for some reason. I maybe wrong but at C T & W H I think it has something to do with wet weather and the trains over shooting the platforms It's never been officially explained, however it seems the issue is that if the train starts to slide, even by a relatively modest amount, the system design results in the VOBCs throwing up an error and the train goes non-communicating, requiring a lengthy re-entry process which involves having to work in RM to the next loop, wherever that may be. To be honest, from a personal point of view I'm sick of the glitches, blips and issues that seem to be associated with the Seltrac product. The ATO is slow, uncomfortable and erratic compared to other systems. Meanwhile a *lot* of time and work has had to be done by the 'customer' in identifying issues, some of which have been fixed, others have been dealt with by 'workarounds', some have been 'improved', but there are still a lot of issues with this system. If I were the 'customer', I would definitely not be buying more, but unfortunately Thales are now the only supplier who seem able to take on the SSR project. Not a good position to be in at all. Meanwhile, the Victoria Line seems to get better all the time, first it coped with 33tph with almost no trouble, now it is doing even more. (For balance I will add that the Victoria Line did have the benefit of the trains and signalling being specified as part of the same project).
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 7, 2014 20:21:54 GMT
Some small speed increases on the Barnet branch, noticed Highgate to Archway SB has increased from 40 mph to 45 mph for a small section, also Archway to Tufnell Park SB up from 35 mph to 37 mph. Nothing spectacular though. Still pathetically slow coming in to platforms in the open, and some tunnel platforms as well; we're coming up to 2 years since NMA1 came in and this really should have been addressed by now. The Central Line does not suffer this issue, so since the 1990s we have regressed! The new timetable doesn't come in until next Sunday, so I'm assuming things will speec up to fit in with the new reduced running times. I hope so! I know there are various software drops planned for the coming days and weeks which hopefully will increase speed at various locations. I'm not banking on any noticeable improvement in open section brake rates however - as ever I hope to be proved wrong..
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 7, 2014 19:21:40 GMT
The quote is "running times adjusted to reflect performance under TBTC". I would need to check actual times between WTT54 and 55 to make a comparison. OK thanks. I do hope that there has been a reduction, since the TBTC under WTT54 is quite pedestrian in places! Some small speed increases on the Barnet branch, noticed Highgate to Archway SB has increased from 40 mph to 45 mph for a small section, also Archway to Tufnell Park SB up from 35 mph to 37 mph. Nothing spectacular though. Still pathetically slow coming in to platforms in the open, and some tunnel platforms as well; we're coming up to 2 years since NMA1 came in and this really should have been addressed by now. The Central Line does not suffer this issue, so since the 1990s we have regressed!
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 7, 2014 14:19:40 GMT
Hmm, I'm not entirely convinced Seltrac achieves this. It certainly works hard to prevent early running, but I can think of three specific examples of times when very minor out-of-course running has given me massive gaps in front during peak times, with consequential massive loss of time due to long unloading/loading times. Having said that, it goes without saying that the system is only as good as the signaller operating it! You're right Seltrac on its own doesn't solve this. It does generally keep even headways without signaller intervention but if there's a gap appearing in front of any train the signaller will have to intervene to hold an earlier train back or send a train out of a reversing location early. Not many options to do this on the Northern but there are plenty on the Jubilee. The interventions needed to get such trains running on each other's time are easier than for legacy signalling, as you probably know. For example reschedule the late train to run 2 minutes late and the train leaving a reversing location rescheduled as 2 minutes early and the system will hold them to this for the rest of the journey. It seems to occur from time to time at Camden southbound and Kennington northbound. In the examples I'm thinking of, a train has been held up coming south from Edgware by the train in front. Once that train has gone on to the Charing Cross branch, the delayed train has then been signalled on to the Bank branch in order, whilst at the same time a Barnet train has been held in Platform 4 which could have been run in front to avoid the gap. In this example at the time the Bank train left Camden, the train in front of that was at Old Street, which is approx 8 minutes, and this was in the middle of the evening peak! It doesn't help that the system appears to require the train leaving Camden Platform 2 to fully clear the platform and overlap before the following train gets a target point, I've seen this effect standing on the platform, and also in the cab when the target speed jumps straight from Stop to 35 mph. This is the equivalent of having a railway with every platform having multi-home signals but one stuck in the middle having only one home signal! Not impressive. I'm not sure if this is a known issue or if this may get addressed in some kind of software drop? I've seen the same happen at Kennington northbound, leave Morden on time heading for the CX branch, catch up with the train in front somewhere around the Claphams (just like you used to under manual signalling!), lose 2 or 3 minutes between there and Kennington in consequence, then cross over to the Charing Cross branch to find a packed platform at Kennington, and then lose masses of time going north. Meanwhile, at the time of crossing over at Kennington there were 2 or 3 trains in the loop which could have been run out in front. As I said, the system is only as good as the signallers, but I'm beginning to observe this starting to form a trend.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 6, 2014 20:29:04 GMT
North End is right. Although it does seem a roundabout way of inferring passengers are an inconvenience, it is a fact that the constraint on service headways at some locations is not signalling or track but dwell times (Canary Wharf and probably Kings Cross C&H are good examples). Plans to increasing the tph on the Jubilee will need to be coupled with careful management of dwell times at Canary Wharf and no doubt in the future the same will be true of some Sub Surface locations too. One positive effect of new signalling however is that headways are better managed by automatic regulation so the random long gaps that result in heavy loadings should be reduced. Hmm, I'm not entirely convinced Seltrac achieves this. It certainly works hard to prevent early running, but I can think of three specific examples of times when very minor out-of-course running has given me massive gaps in front during peak times, with consequential massive loss of time due to long unloading/loading times. Having said that, it goes without saying that the system is only as good as the signaller operating it!
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 6, 2014 18:00:12 GMT
Some of these middle motor cars have had equipment robbed from them such as drivers seats so will be confined to the middle portions of trains. This is not uncommon on fleets and the same happened with the 1967 stock although this was done on a more official bases. There is a historic thread about 1992 stock middle DMs floating about. I was under the impression that the 1992 stock DM's are all still operational. I have seen a DM in the middle of the train, but the next time I've seen the same DM it's been at the front. All the driving cars are officially operational, however from time to time it's not uncommon for a particular unit to be confined to the middle of a train if there's a defect or issue with equipment in a particular cab. Ideally it shouldn't happen, but if it's a choice between that or cancelling a train then the former is preferable, especially if it's a comparatively minor issue like for example a scratched windscreen or defective windscreen wiper, etc. In the more extreme cases this restriction can occur for longer, many on here will be familiar with the C stock unit 5555 which was confined to the middle for many years and in the end the issue never got repaired. It happens on the mainline as well, sometimes a particular cab may be confined to the middle of a train, for example due to defective AWS, this may mean it has to be confined to diagrams which do not split/join.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 5, 2014 19:04:11 GMT
Hopped on a train the other day at my local Central Line station, onto the the third car which - hang on! i noticed was a driving cab. Number 91133 - what's it doing as the third carriage down in a set? Just wondered, if this is normal, or not - a maintenance thing, or if this set will be like this always! never seen that before on the Central Line. Yes it is normal, the fleet was built with slightly more driving units than non-driving units to give flexibility. I can't remember the exact number off hand, but there will always be a small handful of trains with at least one cab in the middle.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 5, 2014 13:38:54 GMT
On two occasions recently myself and other passengers have had great difficulty boarding at Farringdon (Eastbound) in the morning peak because it takes so long for the people to get off the train that the doors are closing before we can get on. I appeciate that there is a timetable to attempt to keep to but it would be nice to actually pick up the passengers waiting for the train! My perception is that the problem has got worse with the introduction of the S stock, possibly because more people can get on the train (further up the line than previously. Maybe some slight timetable adjustments are needed to allow for a slightly longer stop at busy stations? Phil The problem is that if you include too much dwell time in the timetable then it restricts the number of trains which can be run through the location - in extreme cases this can restrict the throughput for the entire line. However, if you don't include the dwell time in the timetable then trains will likely just dwell anyway, and then run late, so you can't win either way, but obviously passengers boarding and alighting as quickly as possible helps. From a driver's point of view, the driver will attempt to allow everyone to board - but the bigger picture sometimes comes in to play, if the train has a large gap in front then there are likely to be a number of trains close behind, therefore in this situation is can make sense to leave people behind. It's frustrating to those left behind, but if not done the train can accrue 30-60 extra seconds at each successive station, so the problem just gets worse and worse.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 5, 2014 13:24:08 GMT
Whether or not it has happened, LUL takes this risk sufficiently seriously that there is an extremely thorough and lengthy procedure to be followed in the event of a wrong-side door opening, which includes discharging traction current and carrying out a visual track check. Certainly wrong-side door openings do occur from time to time, and of course remember during the Chancery Lane derailment doors opened on one or more cars due to wiring damage caused during the derailment. I have certainly investigated and written quite a few reports where people have fallen out of opening doors in platforms, in most cases the passengers have themselves stated "I was leaning against the doors when they opened...", so it certainly can and does happen. My point remains. No one has died as a result of falling out of a train because of an unexpected door opening. I should certainly hope that LU do take wrong side door openings seriously. They could be terrifying for any passengers of a nervous disposition. Not to mention the fact that ensuring safety is a cumulative process and all steps that can be taken to ensure it, should be taken, rather than relying on the final safeguard - that people seem to be able to take action to avoid falling out of opening doors even if they are leaning on them. Fatalities or not, there have certainly been some fairly serious injuries, including one that I can think of where the person involved became paralysed.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 5, 2014 12:55:12 GMT
The big issue with the S7 & S8's for me is the risks associated with having full width access through the train with no end bulkheads. In the dangerous the World we live in we appear to have learnt nothing about train design and potential threats! It amuses me that train designers have gone to considerable lengths in recent years to ensure people are retained inside the train in the unlikely event of an accident (one of the biggest causes of injury or death is being ejected from the vehicle), then on recent designs carriages have been specified which are open at one or both ends. Maybe not a high risk at low speed, but S stock can reach 60 mph, and the forthcoming Thameslink trains will reach 100 mph, which is certainly enough for people to be thrown around violently during a collision or derailment.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Dec 5, 2014 12:52:22 GMT
If only things were so simple ... On the older trains, doors are designed to be able to open slightly, in order to allow any trapped items (e.g. coat strings) to be removed. This feature has been replaced on the 09 and S stocks with sensitive edge (allowing the doors to be locked closed), however the trade-off with this is spurious sensitive edge activations which cause delay. Regarding the older trains, the pushback has to be sufficiently strong that it doesn't happen all the time, but weak enough that people can push the door if in emergency they need to remove something. So it's not hard to see that, sometimes, someone leaning against a door will cause the door to open slightly, hence the train will then lost pilot light. The engineering trade-offs required for this are, like much railway engineering, something of a compromise, so when operating in a harsh environment occasionally things will break, Certainly if a train is repeatedly losing pilot lights, drivers may make an announcement asking people to avoid leaning against the doors. The alternative is to withdraw the train from service, which tends to resolve the issue allowing it to re-enter at the next station! Personally, I wouldn't lean against a door just in case they are opened in error, it shouldn't happen, and there are safety systems built in to ensure it doesn't, but if the unthinkable happens and you happen to be leaning against the door at the time, guess who might end up falling straight on the +ve rail! My comment was directed at the statement that the doors might be damaged by people leaning on them. Given that that happens all the time it clearly is being allowed for in the design of the mechanisms, and only an idiot would design a mechanism that could not cope. As to falling out of the train if the door open unexpectedly - meh - I don't know how many billions of underground journeys have been undertaken over the years but I've never heard of it happening. The doors really don't open fast enough for anyone not to adjust their stance to cope. I know this from personal experience. Even if you are leaning on the centre divide you don't come vaguely close to losing your balance. Whether or not it has happened, LUL takes this risk sufficiently seriously that there is an extremely thorough and lengthy procedure to be followed in the event of a wrong-side door opening, which includes discharging traction current and carrying out a visual track check. Certainly wrong-side door openings do occur from time to time, and of course remember during the Chancery Lane derailment doors opened on one or more cars due to wiring damage caused during the derailment. I have certainly investigated and written quite a few reports where people have fallen out of opening doors in platforms, in most cases the passengers have themselves stated "I was leaning against the doors when they opened...", so it certainly can and does happen.
|
|