|
Post by phil on Feb 20, 2024 0:36:11 GMT
As they already have 230001 available this ideal would entail somehow providing a further 6 or 7 further battery trains. If we focus on 3 car Class 230 battery units, the big question is where would they come from? The three former Marston Vale units are probably the best starting point although they were only created as 2 car units (23003-23005). The cabs have already been strengthened and interiors have already been extensively upgraded to modern rolling stock standards even including accessible toilet facilities. Major work would still be needed to replace the diesel engines, generators and fuel tanks from the under body rafts and install batteries, fast charging pick ups and associated control gear. Each modified unit also would need creation of a matching trailer car, so again is not a quick or cheap process. Together with 230001 – the Greenford trial unit, you would then have a fleet of 4 units. The big question is where could further battery trains be created assuming GWR really want a common fleet. Perhaps the most obvious answer may be to buy and modify the TFW units which to be honest have not been super reliable on the Bidston line. I suspect TFW may be very happy to sell them. After that I do not believe it credible that GWR would ever contemplate building further completely new Class 230 units despite the rolling stock inventory they inherited from the administrators. I suspect GWR would then go out to tender for new battery train stock built taking into account all the lessons learned from the class 230 trials as this would hopefully avoid some of the shortcomings of running Class 230s - like having to block off public use of the outermost doors because they do not have selective door control. Why this assumption that further battery units have to be 230 stock? OK I get there are potentially savings from being able to copy 230001 but lets face it converted D stock hasn't exactly been popular amongst train companies regardless of its propulsion message. As stated several times the point of the Greenford trial is to test the Battery and fast charge technology - not the train! A few years ago an Electrostar unit was given batteries and ran on the Harwich branch as a trial so its not as if it wouldn't be impossible to covert / fit something else with the fast charge technology - particularity as I can see the DfT being keen to expand this technology to other lines around the UK in time (and something like an Electrostar with AC OLE capability is much more flexible in that regard)
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 17, 2023 23:12:25 GMT
They currently have until 22.00 the night before. Have been using that notice period for years Not for 'planned'* engineering works they don't! The notice period is there so that operators can sell 'advance' tickets that are restricted to specific trains which obviously requires a guarantee the railway will be open and said trains will run. The consultation is about reducing that peroid down from a minimum of 12 weeks to 8 - which means that advance tickets will only be able to be put on sale 8 weeks before the date of travel rather than the current 12. *Note 'Planned' works are things like routine track renewals like the complete renewal of the track from the bottom up, resignalling schemes, bridge replacement etc. Works arising as a result of faults like a cracked rail which must be replaced within 72hours do not fall into the 'planned' category - they are in fact classed as 'emergency' works and its only these sorts of things where NR is allowed to give as little as 24hours notice of timetable alterations.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 17, 2023 8:27:25 GMT
Not sure why the need for bold text in that post and the bottom paragraph seems in contradiction with post #3 statement from the GwR senior management about use on other branch lines. Have you considered what GWR management may say now in public is not necessarily what they planned to happen originally. Put it this way - all GWR really needed (and all the DfT would initially allow) is the purchase from the administrators of what was necessary to allow the Greenford trial to take place. The administrators however didn’t want to be saddled with disposing of the remaining stock or dealing with the few remaining Vivarail staff - so they told the DfT and GWR it had to be ‘all or nothing’ With the Greenford trial deemed too important politically and mindful of the press / political fallout from abandoning it GWRs hand was forced. Naturally GWR (which we must remember is still operated by First Group PLC under contract to the DfT) are not going to go round saying “Well we had to buy all this extra stock we don’t know what to do with” are they - it opens up all sorts of accusations of wasting public / shareholders money. They will instead be looking to put a positive spin on acquiring all the extra stuff and as such making noises about converting more D stock for use on their Thames valley branches is hardly surprising. Against that however you have a DfT who are still demanding huge cuts (GWR is under massive pressure* to ditch its remaining HSTs for example with NO replacements - GWR is being expected to manage with its exhausting fleets) and it’s hard to see then authorising GWR to go and create extra trains in this climate. You should also note that the trial on the Greenford branch is more about testing the ‘fast charge at termini’ concept than anything else. If successful the technology is intended to be used for new build trains to replace the British Rail Sprinter DMU fleets - it is NOT a specific initiative to find homes for trains converted from D stock. * HSTs are going from XC for the same reason and there are plenty of other examples of DfT mandated cuts to rolling stock going on at other TOCs if you dig deep enough.
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 17, 2023 5:40:36 GMT
Lots of people seem to be assuming GWR have a long term interest in the D stock - They Don't!
To be clear - the only reason that GWR happen to own all the D stock is simply that the administrators of Vivarail refused to sell 'just' the converted units and associated fast charge technology being developed for the Greenford branch to GWR (which was all GWR really wanted). Instead the administrators insisted that either GWR take absolutely everything Vivarail had or they would be told to get lost.
As such although GWR have ended up owning all the remaining D stock they have no plans to do anything with it (other than possibly scrap them). Certainly there is no intention to convert any more units and deploy them on other GWR branch lines, particularly as the fast charge trail at Greenford has yet to start!
(Edited to remove formatting)
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 31, 2023 22:39:27 GMT
Given…
(1) The Government is quite happy to allow water companies to polite our rivers and coasts with sewage while still paying directors large alarmed and shareholders handsome dividends
(2) Most rail freight companies are more than happy to fuel their locos from a road tanker on any convenient siding rather than somewhere with a proper fuel containment structure and no action is taken to stop it.
… I fail to see why a road tanker based toilet emptying solution will not be acceptable for the powers that be.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 31, 2023 22:25:51 GMT
Watford DC is entirely segregated right? Apart from some overlap of the platforms at Euston with WCML services and movements to/from the NLL to get to the depot. Given it's now entirely operated over by TfL services I could imagine a world where TfL are given sole responsibility for it and effectively operate it as a reverse branch of the Bakerloo (with two different types of trains anyway). If so they could do whatever they thought was most appropriate with the signalling, except into the throat of Euston itself. I always wondered if the proposed southern extension of the Bakerloo and the new stock would be an opportunity to extend back to Watford. I think the issue here is not the signalling - it’s more what if something goes wrong and your driverless train won’t move. Let’s imagine a driverless Bakerloo train sits down adjacent to the WCML - and passengers get fed up and ‘self evacuate’ - right onto the WCML! It’s one thing suspending a tube line - quite another bringing the WCML to a halt. If the Bakerloo trains retain a driver then it would be potentially possible to driver the train (slowly if necessary) as far as the next station. (Note I’m assuming ‘driverless’ is not shorthand for completely unstaffed. The latter is even more scary - what if your ‘Driverless’ Bakerloo train derails and is foul of the adjacent WCML fast line…)
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 6, 2022 17:07:42 GMT
<<Posts moved from Elizabeth Line (CrossRail) opened 24th May 2022 thread - goldenarrow>>
I presume the E.Line has settled into routine by now. Has it become obvious why such limited connection to Barbican station has been provided? Is it signed for passengers usage?
Mainly cost.
Given there is interchange with the subsurface lines at Farringdon and Moorgate / Liverpool Street then there is no real need for a large volume connection to the sub surface lines at Barbican as well.
Of course in an ideal world the crossrail works would have seen a western step free entrance / exit added to the existing Barbican station (thus helping with linkage between the two), but given the financial problems the project has encountered I can see why Crossrail would have wanted to steer clear of getting involved.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 25, 2022 10:15:10 GMT
TfL Funding Update - "We have today (24 June) agreed with the Government that our existing funding agreement will be extended until 13 July 2022 so these discussions can be resumed." The original terms of the Funding Package were announced on 25 February 2022. link Why can't a longer term agreement be reached in those four months, rather than limping along for another few weeks? This seems to keep happening when the deal is up for renewal!
Because the Westminster Government keep trying to impose conditions that TfL cannot, or will not deliver (be it for sound technical reasons or due to the trade unions implacable hostility).
However, the Westminster Government know that forcing TfL to effectively go bankrupt and have to start shutting down large sections of the transport network (The law does not permit local Government to carry on running up debts without there being a way of paying them back being in place first) is not really a viable option due to the Political fallout - but at the same time they are determined not to back down on the ideologically driven 'modernisation' / 'reforms' they want TfL to enact.
Hence short term funding deals are done to keep up the pressure on TfL (and the Mayor) - who then can't plan for the long term all the time they are living on hand to mouth funding. This is then spun for political effect by both parties as the other side being unreasonable...
Its a bit of a disgrace really - and is ultimately more about party politics than anything practical because if left alone to negotiate freely I'm sure TfL and the DfT could come up with a suitable long term deal with compromises on both sides.
Regrettably however, given the attitude of the governing party at Westminster (and their actions in blocking the solving of disputes in the wider rail industry, particularly where it gives them a chance to 'take on' / 'break the power of' trade unions) I can see this pattern of last minute short term funding deals continuing for a while yet - as I suspect its going to need a change of Administration at Westminster (or City Hall) to take politics out of the equation and thus allow compromises to be made.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 21, 2022 1:16:32 GMT
What a fascinating scenario. Did everyone who booked on get paid?
ASLEF were not on strike so all their staff are required BY LAW* to report for work as usual.
The fact that their employer (LU) is not able to give them any work to do once they get there due to the actions of another trade union is irrelevant - the ASLEF members have complied with their contracts of employment so must get paid acordingly.
*Taking secondary action (i.e. not turning in for work because another trade union is on strike with your employer was specifically outlawed in the 1980s by Mrs Thatchers reform of trade Union laws.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 8, 2022 14:58:52 GMT
There is currently a step-up method of working when a Train Driver becomes incapacitated. The following driver pulls forward behind a stalled train, secures their own train and boards the preceding train to deal with its problem. This procedure continues to occur for all following trains until a spare driver can arrive on site. Given that the new trains are designed with redundancy to avoid trains stalling between stations, and even in power failures can creep to the next station with battery power, it is unlikely that the absence of a staff member on board would usually be noticed by the public. The retention of staff on trains for such rare eventualities would provide little economy in staff costs. But if a staff member was provided only on alternate trains, staff costs could halve. If the staff member was aboard a stalled train then they would proceed to deal with it as today, but if the stalled train were unaccompanied then it would be dealt with using the current step-up method above. First and last trains would always be staffed. So, the on board staff call a strike. "Mwaa ha ha ha", go the management. "Our trains are automated so we don't need you!" Train fails in long tunnel section. Trains back up behind. The driver of the train directly behind the failed train drives his train ... oh, wait ... You would need a staff member in at least every other train so the advantage that the politicians are gunning for: Making the tube strike proof, fails to materialise. And what happens if there is a fault in the signalling system causing multiple trains to get 'stuck'? It's very likely that, at some point, a fully automated system will be developed that does not require staff, but in the meantime, positing a system which uses staff who may or may not be present is weaselly. Either they don't need to be there, in which case you've already got a fully automated system, or they do, and you have lost your 'no-strikes' advantage. Agreed - but you miss the generalised point that if you can make the on board presence 'unskilled' it becomes far easier to find people to cover for strikers*.
Amongst certain sections of political thinking (and their press backers) the holy grail would be to have on train staff on the same zero hours contracts as train cleaners meaning even if they do strike its easy to recruit cover.
Now naturally on the tube this is going to be tricky - but if you were able to strip it back to a 'bare bones' situation of merely knowing how to evacuate a train via the 4ft rather than knowing how to drive the train etc, its quite possible TfL would be able to have a reserve of people it could call on and blunt the impact of union action.
Removing any requirement for 'drivers' (in any sense of the word) is thus an important step in achieving this goal - and is also why the DfT will NOT drop the idea, regardless of how many practical issues TfL (or members of this forum) raise.
*Leaving aside the hyperbole, that was really the essence of the Southern Guard dispute a few years ago where the reality was a desire by the DfT to 'de-skill' the 2nd member of on train staff, something that had it been successful would have nullified any union action and meant wages could have been slashed. The fact the the OBS grade still requires all the safety critical competences a Guard does means it has done nothing to reduce the power of the RMT to cause disruption via industrial action (particularly as the agreement which ended the dispute specified that in the event of a OBS no show then the train would be cancelled rather than run as DOO) and so the DfTs actions can (after putting staff and passengers through several years of hell) be largely said to have failed -
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 6, 2021 4:08:25 GMT
I wouldn’t expect them to be. It seems like spare parts are becoming less frequent these days with manufacturers wanting to keep things simple. Shame really. Its all about modern batch production techniques which means spares are basically ordered to satisfy warranty claims and nothing else.
These days model production is outsourced - even a 'manufacturer' like Bachmann (whose parent company Kadder owns the production facilities) is required to pay others to actually produce every model or run of spare parts they make.
Furthermore the actual factories (being 3rd part entities) will ensure they always have a full order book - they aren't going to sit idle just in case Bachmann ring up and ask for a batch of working chassis to be made. As such requests to make models will have to be submitted months (if not years) in advance.
Using valuable production slots which could be used to make complete models which retail at higher prices and create grater profit for the 'manufacturer' for 'spares' is not good business practice either.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 29, 2021 0:35:08 GMT
So the Picc trains will not operate on network rail, so is this relevant? How will they be delivered from Europe, or from Goole? Maybe some NR transfer? But they would be enclosed between NR locos, so would it be relevant then?
For Piccadilly stock, I agree there is no operational need for its number sequence not to clash with any existing NR number series.
However given some of the stock is due to be assembled in Goole it may be that transfer south will be done of NR infrastructure - and for this each vehicle will have to be given a number which doesn't clash with anything already issued by NR.
That is they key point - it doesn't matter whether the entire unit is being top and tailed by locos + barrier wagons during the move - if one of the cars develops bad wheelflats during transit say and the move has to be stopped (there are devices scattered round NR which can automatically detect such things*) it will be necessary for NR to be able to identify the vehicle concerned - so it has to have a NR issued number.
Again there is no mandatory requirement for this NR number to be the same as the LU number - but there is some logic to giving them a single identity as it were to avoid confusion during the build / transfer / commissioning stages.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 28, 2021 22:33:35 GMT
Deciding upon fleet numbers for the next batch of London tube trains sounds like "very hard work". It never dawned upon me that it would matter if LU rolling stock numbers clashed with those of the mainline network. Maybe though there is a single central database which not only includes (former) BR fleet numbers but also London Underground - and possible tram / light rail fleet numbers (even if never destined to run on Network Rail metals as tram trains). It is a requirement that ALL vehicles operating on network rail are given a unique (to NR) number and that number be recorded / used on NRs systems like TOPS, TRUST, etc.
Now, its possible for one vehicle to carry two separate numbers - the most obvious examples being Heritage steam locos which are all given a 98XXX number by NR (which is painted inside the cab) but are allowed to carry historic numbers on the outside that have no relevance to NR.
So technically it would be possible for a LU train to carry two sets of numbers - but this in turn could easily cause confusion if wrongly quoted and given the frequency said LU vehicles traverse NR infrastructure (compared to a Heritage steamer say) its probably desirable to just give it one number for use on both companies systems.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 14, 2021 16:34:08 GMT
Down here in the southern wilderness, we have heard that the Boundary Commission have declared that the lsle of Wight parliamentary constituency should be split in two. This means that the I.o.Wight railway could suddenly become interesting to the two political parties that could win these two new seats Because of this, don't be surprised at promises of oodles of money being thrown at the remaining I.o.W. Line and the (remote) possibility of re-extending down to Ventor (whether practical or not, it sounds good to local voters). Whether D Stock could fit thought the Ventnor tunnel is debatable However, because of the "two constituencies" proposal for the Island, don't discount ANYTHING being promised for the I.o.W. line
Talk is cheap as the saying goes....
If the new MP ends up being of the ruling party then you might get some more money chucked at some form of feasibility study (which, lets be honest isn't going to come to a different conclusion that all the ones that have gone before it*). If the new MP is of the opposition party then the ruling party will do absolutely nothing - why reward people who didn't vote for you as it were.
* Putting back the railway would be costly - Shanklin station needs rebuilding / moving because you are not going to get away with putting in a new height restricted bridge in to replace the demolished one at the south end of the current site, the Wroxall station site needs extensive demolition or an equally expensive diversion round it, The tunnel under the downs is used to collect fresh water by the water company plus the station site at Ventnor is high above the town and not convenient for the town centre or the beach. Nothing impossble from an engineering point of view - but plenty to put the BCR well beyond what the DfT and HM Treasuary would be willing to accept!
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 14, 2021 7:16:59 GMT
Unlike TfL, mainline TOCs are UNABLE to order any new trains unless specifically granted authorisation by the DfT in Whitehall. Apart from Merseyside where the Combined Authority bought their own, and I'm not sure if ScotRail and TfW have to ask Whitehall as well as Edinburgh/Cardiff. The majority of English TOCs are at the diktat of Whitehall though. Merseyrail is an unusual setup now as the TOC was transferred from DfT supervision to the Liverpool City Regional body and as such exists outside the regular franchising (or contracting out arrangements under GBR) overseen by the DfT. Like TfL this provides more flexibility in how things are arranged - for example if the owner of the lease for the rolling stock is the local authority but operations are contracted out then an increase in rolling stock will be easier to achieve than on the DfT administered setup where the leasing costs are paid for by the TOC and an increase in rolling stock requires an increase in subsidy from the DfT.
TfLs Overground operation is similar - they hold the rolling stock leases (or own the stock outright), but contract out operations. Unlike TfL however Merseyrail still receives some grant funding from the DfT via the aforementioned Liverpool City Regional authority
ScotRail is the responsibility of the Scottish parliament and it is moving towards a 100% Government owned and operated setup having previously been franchise setup as per the DfTs model. The Welsh Government is doing the same with TfW sponsored rail services - though in both cases rolling stock will still be leased from the private sector rather than being owned outright. Funding for Scotrail comes from the Scottish Government and funding for TfW comes from the Welsh Government - though you could argue that as they both get a large grant from the UK Treasury every year ScotRail and TfW are indirectly partly funded by the DfT
The odd one out in all this of course is England where the ideological aversion to state ownership by the ruling party means that even under the much trumpeted GBR virtually everything will remain in private hands (including the TOCs leasing rolling stock) with the DfT continuing to give out contracts (that are basically franchise agreements with the revenue risk element stripped out and placed with the taxpayer).
As with many other things (indoor smoking ban, plastic bag levy, end to capacity enhancing road building - not to be confused with schemes that address safety issues, etc) the devolved nations are leading the way in the provision of rail services while the English Governing party is more concerned about protecting their wealthy shareholding mates / the financial sector and continue to waste vast amounts of money on reshuffling the deckchairs while ignoring they key role railways (and things like electrification) can play in tackling climate change.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 13, 2021 4:05:09 GMT
The problem was lack of communications. The IOW people weren't looking beyond the practical lifespan of their existing stock, and failed to investigate the upcoming availability from their usual supplier, LT. By the time they realised the urgency of the upgrade, the LT D-stock had been bought by someone who WAS looking ahead. Erm, I think you will find 'The IOW People' (as in the ones trying to run the service) were only too well aware of the need for new stock and how knackered the 38 stock was over the last decade. If you are in the business of apportioning blame / or overlooking the problem then you need to direct your attention to the Whitehall district of London. Unlike TfL, mainline TOCs are UNABLE to order any new trains unless specifically granted authorisation by the DfT in Whitehall. This is because new or extra trains will impact the amount of money the TOC has to pay to leasing companies and thus exposes HM Treasury / DfT into paying higher subsidies (you can be as sure as hell that private shareholders won't foot the bill for something imposed on the contract retrospectively). Thus new trains have usually only come in as part of refranchising / re tendering of contracts as this allows for HM Treasury to pick the cheapest bid while still getting new trains. Unfortunately for the IOW it only returns a single MP to Parliament (and so was dismissed as 'not important' in political circles) plus the DfT have been desperately hoping they could come up with some sort of non railway solution to rid themselves of the system (and thereby avoid the problem of rolling stock replacement). therefore come franchise / contract renewal its been consistently overlooked by Whitehall mandarins while the SWT / SWR franchise doesn't have the authority to have intervened off their own bat anyway. Hence we had to wait until the Ryde to Shankin line faced the very real prospect of suspending services for good through not having any trains before the politicians in Whitehall finally got off their backsides and did what the 'IOW people' had been shouting about for over a decade and sorted some newish rolling stock.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 11, 2021 17:27:56 GMT
I would be surprised if the DLR had been built with an LRO which imposes speed limits and very simple signalling arrangements on any line. It wouldn't surprise me, tho', if an LRO wasn't considered by LDDC , who were very badly advised on transport legislation.
Minor point - but having a LRO in itself didn't* mandate low speeds and simple signalling! Some lines authorised under a LRO were in fact indistinguishable in such matters from branch lines authorised via the normal process.
What the LRO process was streamline the process and make it easier for the promoter to offer up lower speeds and simple signalling as a trade off in exchange for not being subject to all the usual requirements. The exact details would be bespoke to each line rather than being set in stone and although 25mph has come to be seen as the 'ideal' figure a LRO could easily be for a higher or lower speed depending on the railway build / proposed operating methods.
*The legislation to issue LROs has been revoked for many years now. Railways which already have one can keep operating under the LRO they have - but should they extend or a new railway start up then a Transport and works Act will be needed to authorise it.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 5, 2021 18:00:25 GMT
Satellite imagery suggests that platform extensions would be possible..... but would require track and signalling alterations plus the demolition of what looks like some sort of railway equipment room, none of which will come cheap.
not equipment room just staff facilities on platform 12.
I'm talking about the building with the greenish roof beside the tracks backing onto Montfitchet Road seen not the buildings on the end of the platform
That would allow the tracks to be moved apart and the island platform extended westward by a significant amount between the tracks (something the current alignment doesn't permit) thus allowing two 5 car trains to platform share.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 2, 2021 18:01:44 GMT
Is this also because whilst it was possible to fit two 3 carriage Class 378 trains in one platform (either 1 or 2) this is no longer an option with 5 car trains? Yes.. Very poor planning in the early days from TfL.
Satellite imagery suggests that platform extensions would be possible..... but would require track and signalling alterations plus the demolition of what looks like some sort of railway equipment room, none of which will come cheap.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 2, 2021 17:56:10 GMT
Is there no stepping back facility for London Overground services at Stratford or are the platform clearance times so slow that it wouldn’t make that much difference? It's generally safest to assume that Stratford is a mess. It's such a shame that the combination of Olympics and Crossrail was not taken as an opportunity to demolish the lot and start again.
That wouldn't have helped much with the locations of the actual platforms - which are where they are because of the way the separate lines physically approach Stratford.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 2, 2021 12:24:49 GMT
Hello all!
I'm trying to figure out some text I read eons ago where it was stated that the minimum mandated rail service frequency in London for TfL services was 4tph (i.e. 15 min intervals), but I'm not sure where I read this snippet of information
My question therefore: is there a minimum mandated service frequency that TfL services and/or non-tfl rail stations in London should have? Whilst I do understand some stations don't recieve the 4tph (i.e. Northolt Park, WOD-HAI etc) I'm sure I read somewhere that there are minimum mandated service frequencies?
Thanks
TfL can 'mandate' all they like - they don't own the national rail infrastructure and whats more the laws / regulations put in place since the privatisation of British Rail safeguard the rights of freight operators to use the tracks off peak so they cannot be squeezed out by passenger operations.
Minimum service levels for National Rail services (including those subsequently taken on by TfL), typically no grater than 2tph, are laid down in law and changes to them involve an onerous / costly formal legal process.
What is actually the case is that TfL have an 'aspiration' for a minimum of 4 tph based on the fact that research shows this is the minimum interval for which a service can be regarded as 'turn up and go' (i.e. you don't need to consult a timetable).
That aspiration is entirely dependent on (i) The infrastructure being available (e.g. passing loops) and (ii) It not preventing the rights of other train operators to use the same infrastructure when desired in off peak times. If the infrastructure / spare train paths don't exist then TfL has to put up with a less than 4 tph service or bankroll extra infrastructure to create space.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 11, 2021 22:18:28 GMT
A good place to start might be the removal of the obstructions which rendered this main-line loading-gauge tunnel unable to take main-line trains in the first place.
Please remember that the tunnel at Ryde (and various overbridges) were NOT to 'main line loading gauge' as you put it!
There is a reason the Southern railway chopped off the 'birdcages' from ex SECR stock that was transferred, that BR were unable to introduce 57ft suburban Mk1s to replace the wooden coaching stock in the 1950s and a reason the Ivatt 2MTs which were being looked at at one stage would have needed their cab roof and boiler fittings lowering.
As such although tube stock technically wasn't a necessity, something with a lower profile than standard BR designed was needed - and there simply wasn't the cash to go round designing 'bespoke' stock for a line BR wanted to shut down completely anyway!
The Standard tube stock merely represented a cheap and easy source of rolling stock rather than being chose because it needed to be tube gauge stock.
You should also note that at some point consideration was given to using ex Merseyrail EMUs after they were replaced by the 507s and 508s. Although not taken forward by BR it did show that the 'alterations' made to accommodate tube stock were not as restrictive as you assume and is why the D stock has been found to fit with relatively few infrastructure modifications.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 21, 2021 10:26:16 GMT
For mainline trains to dispense with the yellow panel then they must have a very specific arrangement of headlights set in a prescribed distance apart (simply being mounted triangular in arrangement is not enough) which produce a very specific set of light levels.
Much like text in passenger displays being a couple of mm too short meaning the units are not complaint with disability regs, so it is with headlight positions and yellow fronts.
Given the 378s have already been given a revised livery but kept the yellow front end I would deduce that they don't meet the stringent requirements for drooping the yellow front end - and also that its not worth the expense in making them compliant
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 5, 2021 1:23:50 GMT
Alas only step free to the platform. I'm still shocked, given how long this project has been coming, that Crossrail doesn't have level boarding throughout.
Level boarding is effectively impossible to achieve if you still want to run UK gauge freight trains or non stoppers on the same tracks due to clearance requirements from platform edges!
Yes clever design can lower the floor height of the train to some extent - but that won't help with the large gap which must be maintained between the two horizontally speaking and is just as much of an issue as vertical ones.
West of Acton and east of Stratford Crossrail is renting space off the National Rail network and must therefore comply with the requirements of NR - which includes the ability to allow the full range of rolling stock be used on all lines - be it intermodal container trains, lengthy stone trains, GWR express services, GA services, etc.
What happens in between occurs on TfL infrastructure, and as with the ELL, the infrastructure can be more closely designed to exclusively suit TfLs passenger operation.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 9, 2021 10:56:37 GMT
with the recent track rationalisation and installation of heavy buffer stops I doubt anything will be possible now. Oh! Another example. There's no problem installing a connection; the PW and signalling techniques are long established. It's a matter of will. In the case of different operators, it invariably seems as though 'my pink half of the drainpipe' mentality comes into play.
And cost!
Even if it is not signalled, Network Rail will bill the 3rd party to the tune of several thousands of pounds each year for the simple privilege of having such a connection. The Island line is not going to be any different even if the actual day to day infrastructure maintenance is the responsibility of the TOC.
On the mainland this can be a price worth paying principally because it allows the visiting engines and engineering plant to come in as well as facilitating deals like the one the Bluebell has done with Balfour Beatty to test / get staff familiar with some start of the art Tamping machines. However on the island such opportunities don't exist and putting one in for 6 months simply isn't cost effective compared to a low loader shuttling between Havenstreet and Sandown.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 10, 2020 1:07:48 GMT
A cheaper expedient might be resorted to, e.g. Chelsea-Hackney. I never understood how 20+ tph up the protected Lea Valley made sense I agree - also include one or several London Overground destinations out of Liverpool Street and a less ambitious range of destinations / works in south-west London. Perhaps the Central Line Epping branch too - but, after many decades of the present-day service right through the centre of London would passengers on the Epping service welcome having their existing travel patterns dramatically changed?
Thing is Liverpool Street and Waterloo are good candidates to link - both have an extensive suburban network but constrained approaches and a finite platform capacity. Thats why linking the two makes a lot of sense.... BUT, not if you are going to be sent round the houses and diverted away from traditional commuting hubs like the City.
From a national rail commuter perspective the optimal route is to have CR2 run below CR1 from Liverpool St to Tottenham Court Road before turning south towards Victoria and Clapham Junc. This however would be a gross over provision on on the east -west axis and does nothing to assist the regeneration of Hackney etc.
Ultimately what London probably needs from a transport perspective is a traditional Chelsea - hackney tube AND a Clapham - Vic - TCR - LS mainline crossrail scheme. Unfortunately money isn't going to be available for both leading to a hybrid scheme that quite frankly doesn't satisfy either need properly.
NOTE:- The above is written without reference to any post Covid employment changes in the City of London as its too early to make a meaningful amassment of where we will be in 10 years time with respect to that.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 10, 2020 0:57:18 GMT
A cheaper expedient might be resorted to, e.g. Chelsea-Hackney. I never understood how 20+ tph up the protected Lea Valley made sense
It doesn't!
The main problem is the decision to head via Dalston. If you want to pick up services via Stoke Newington and then you need to put the portal between Liverpool & Bethnal Green (as per the British Rail proposal for Crossrail).
If you want to keep the Dalston routing but want to include the Chingford line as an option then you have to surface NE of Clapton just as the existing line enters the Lea Valley.
The secondary problem is that sending the route via Dalston and Kings Cross means you miss out on service the City of London - Crossrail for all its issues doesn't have any effect on travel patterns from the GEML - if you have always got a train from Ilford to Liverpool Street then you will be able to do the same with Crossrail - by contrast a person from the lea Valley wanting to get to Liverpool Street would find CR2 of no use whatsoever. Similar problems occur with CR2 taking over services to Epping....
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 9, 2020 19:47:26 GMT
I hope this is the correct place for this. There's an article on the BBC news site about trial bridge hits. Apparently there is one (not LU) that has been hit 25 times this year! Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a system whereby beams and photoelectric detectors placed shortly before problem bridges could activate a 'STOP TOO HIGH' signal? Perhaps someone here knows why that simple solution would not work.
Because drivers IGNORE them. This is despite the fact that the courts have found that Network Rail can claim back the compensation it has to dish out to train operators from the haulage company (or its insurers)*
Network Rail has in fact spent a fortune in installing collision protection beams at the worst affected bridges - they do nothing to stop the lorry / bus hitting the bridge, but do mean that the railway itself can be swiftly reopened as the bridge itself will be safe**.
Such beams have to be installed where there is no chance of them falling and hitting other motorists / pedestrians - so its impractical to put them anywhere other than right at the bridge itself. Yes you could put up a set of bells on a wire or rubber flaps hung from a 16ft 6 structure (the height below which everything has to be signed) but the chances are most drivers would still ignore them.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 7, 2020 0:04:01 GMT
I believe I read somewhere (it might even have the business case) that if the DLR began operations today the ORR would have made PEDS a requirement and its allowed to continue (and expand) due to "grandfather rights". Indeed
Thing is the original DLR system had straight platforms and level gradients at stations which make for the easy installation of PEDs.
Unfortunately the expansion of the system over the years has rather ruined that with several stations now on curves, gradients or both.
If the DLR ever gets a further extension though I can see them being insisted on - just as the Jubilee line extension to Stratford has them even though the earlier bits don't
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 7, 2020 0:00:36 GMT
5 pages on and it seems people here are still cautiously dancing around the underlying message which The Government are trying to seed. Namely they would love to have a totally automated railway where trains can be left to operate without any onboard staff, with the true message being they want to eliminate the prospect of strikes by train drivers. Given how brilliantly well D/Transport's franchising solution is working on the mainline railway system, perhaps it really is time for the Mayor to call there bluff and simply say - fine - over to you it is all your problem.
Except he can't
Unlike mainline railways there is no provision legally for 'operator of last resort' on TfL (apart from London Overground routes that although the responsibility of TfL have certain legal guarantees dating back to the privatisation of British Rail).
For the DfT to take back control of TfL would require new legislation at Westminster - and for as long as the Mayor is of a different political outlook there is absolutely no incentive for Central Government to do that. Far better in their eyes to let the Mayor crash and burn in confrontation with trade unions or financially enforced shutdowns than step in and take charge of a project they privately know is unaffordable, impractical and ultimately a waste of the nations cash.
|
|