|
Post by zbang on Oct 1, 2019 3:33:20 GMT
I think the plan is (was?) to convert the Oyster system to a dumbcard where the card is just a unique identifier for the record in a back-office database that holds all the information about balance, journeys, discounts, etc. There is no reason, in principle, why a contactless card could be used as an identifier (unless there is issue with banking regulations). When the Oyster was introduced costs and capabilities of datacom and back-office processing would have forced some of the smarts into the card (gates wouldn't be able to query the central database quickly enough). With much better comms, faster databases, better distributed computing, etc, there isn't as much need to have an actual "smart" card so a simple token would suffice (and even now settlement happens once a day, but that seems to be often enough).
I haven't been able to find out how long contactless bank cards are valid for on average, so let's say it's three years (as that's how long all mine have been valid for). 3 years is 36 months, and if the expiry dates are evenly distributed that means about 500,000 cards will need renewing each month. I'm not sure this is a real problem, or at least an unsolved one. Most people will do it online when they jigger all of the other accounts that card is attached to and it isn't that much of a system load (avg less than 12/minute although the peak is likely to be over 100/min). BTW, it appears that Oyster and Clipper* use the same card technology- NXP Semiconductors MIFARE chips *San Francisco MTC inter-agency transit card
Now I'm probably going to spend the rest of my evening reading about this. Thanks, I think .
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Sept 26, 2019 21:34:10 GMT
Customers pay to receive a product or a service. In this case transportation; it's only the proverbial "red flag" to those who care about such things. Also in transportation, a traveler on a public or private conveyance other than the driver, pilot, or crew is known as a passenger (whether or not they're paying for the transport).
I'll be a passenger when I'm on the train/metro/bus/plane/etc. I'll be a customer when buying something at the shop.
At least this isn't as bad as some large retailers calling their employees associates and the shoppers guests (which irks me because you never ask a guest to pay for something (hotels and the like excepted).)
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Aug 29, 2019 14:15:57 GMT
Were is Great Portland station ? If you mean Great Portland Street , the Hammersmith and City , Metropolitan and Circle Lines it's all the same station . Yes, and yes, but they're all on the WTT's of different lines, so from a data standpoint, they could be considered different stations.
(And what's an order of magnitude error among friends.... )
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Aug 29, 2019 2:37:40 GMT
How much data do you really want? With 400 possibly stations, the point-to-point data is almost 400^2 (16k) points (removing things like intra-station journeys, e.g. Great Portland H&C to Great Portland Met). You could mostly make that up out of the WTTs by assuming some limited routes/transfers.
Consider reducing the set by limiting within a certain radius to the more-used station on a given line (e.g. Charing Cross vs Embankment) or to the one with better connections (ex- Queensway for central, Bayswater for circle). Or also remove most of the inter-system changes, especially on short journeys (Embankment tube to Charing Cross rail).
How would you use this?
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Aug 27, 2019 16:30:55 GMT
Perhaps this is too much topic drift- www.whitechapelsf.com/about"Whitechapel is the vision of mixologist Alex Smith (Novela, Gitane, Gather, Honor Bar), Smuggler’s Cove owner Martin Cate, and John Park (Novela, Kaiyo). Whitechapel is not just a destination for gin lovers, but for everyone looking to experience remarkable cocktails and expertly prepared food in an incredible setting." I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the decor, but I'm told both the gin collection and cocktails are amazing.
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Aug 22, 2019 2:08:00 GMT
Anyone else not coming in and citing the dispute as a reason for absence is considered to be taking ‘secondary action’ - which is illegal and they thus can be subject to disciplinary proceedings including dismissal should their employer be sufficiently hostile to trade unions to push the matter. I suspect it's not possible for TfL facilities (or even with UK laws?), but it's common over here for construction sites and large buildings to have specific entrances for various unions or contractors (which may employ members of other unions) so members of a non-striking union don't have to cross an actual picket line.
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Aug 20, 2019 16:38:32 GMT
Mostly they are drivers in other unions (laws regarding strikes in the UK are very strict and striking to support another union is illegal). But there are also drivers who are not part of a union and drivers who have chosen not to strike. Typically the way strikes on LU are run is that staff refuse to sign on to shifts that begin between set hours, but do not walk out part way through a shift. This means that if a shift runs ... Ah, thanks for the explanation. I'm kind of surprised that some drivers aren't members or that they wouldn't honor the strike. (Many questions about how the strikes are handled, picket lines and the crossing thereof, etc, but that's a different topic.) "This means that if a shift runs from"Did you mean to write "strike" instead of "shift" there? I think so.
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Aug 19, 2019 16:32:33 GMT
So, if "managers" aren't driving trains during a strike, who is? They'd have to be competent/qualified but not part of the union/labor unit striking and probably not part of another union. The set of people ticking all the requisite boxes has to be small.
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Aug 17, 2019 19:46:47 GMT
And if managers operate trains on strike days, this in itself causes disruption as it causes managers to get behind on their work causing a backlog Well, yes. OTOH ofttimes "management" isn't usually service-critical and salaried managers can be called to make up the time/work without additional pay. (Not to "derail" the thread, but a fine example of why a manager shouldn't operate unless they're deemed competent is found in the Malbone St wreck in New York City. You'll have to look that up yourself.)
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Jul 31, 2019 21:54:43 GMT
Ah, thanks. (And even after all that "PAYG is so great!!" advertizing, you'd think they had it setup already.)
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Jul 31, 2019 19:14:42 GMT
I thought that at least the SSR/tube lines were already capped, or were a couple of summers ago (I'm pretty sure by touch-card statement showed a week-end cap). OTOH I haven't kept close watch here.
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Jul 30, 2019 2:09:08 GMT
And here I thought DNO was "Do Not Operate".
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Jul 30, 2019 2:07:13 GMT
I'm sure there are also bonds between the running rails and the neutral wire which are charged, though they are usually insulated so present less hazard to an evacuating passenger than they do to a member of the P-way gang with a spade. If the running rails are also the return conductor (and "neutral"), then they're already at effectively at zero potential unless there's a hefty current in them at the time; then they're probably only a few volts above ground. I'd be a lot more concerned about tripping hazards than electrical ones (as I understand from previous comments, this was in overhead-power-only territory; no 3rd or 4th rails).
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Jul 29, 2019 21:12:38 GMT
I'm sure there's a minimum distance from the overhead lines to any place a person can normally stand (something like 2 or 2.5m?). Unless you climb up the structure or onto the carriage, you shouldn'y be able to touch anything energized.
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Jul 28, 2019 17:57:32 GMT
Rail and wheel profiles are intensively studied, there's even an annual "rail/wheel interaction" conference. I'm very much not an authority, but with tapered profiles, you should hardly need the flange at all and certainly not be running it up onto the railhead.
If you search for "rail wheel profile" there's quite a lot of info about that.
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Jul 27, 2019 1:17:15 GMT
Following up here- Have there been any actual incidences with the rails going out of line, points machines jamming, or signal problems (attributed to heat)?
(I'm not saying this doesn't happen or that caution isn't mandated. Just curious how the infrastructure has behaved.)
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Jul 23, 2019 20:31:02 GMT
...wonders what the actual rail temperatures will be...
If not built for 40C ambient temps, what temps were expected on the not-underground lines? Surely in the last 30-40 years the permanent way forces would have taken hot weather into account on renewal projects (or not?). At least in the southern counties, even winter temps don't drop below -10C, so rail tensions shouldn't need to be slack enough to avoid cold-related pull-aparts.
OTOH, and there always is one, if jointed rail is just laid down at whatever temperature today happens to be, lines set in a 5C winter could have problems in a 35C summer. (A lot of the western US lines have this problem although they're mostly CWR.)
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Jul 22, 2019 23:34:50 GMT
How badly does rail around London get sun kinks? Normally I don't think of that as a problem below at least 40. (And, by extension, how much bolted rail is left in the system or is it 100% welded?) Apropos of that, I found a spec about in the Central Florida Rail Corridor that has the desired rail neutral temperature at 40C and indicated a speed restriction if the actual is 23 over that. Don't know how that translates to UK practice. corporate.sunrail.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CFRC-CWR-Plan-Rev-3-11-27-13.pdf
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Jun 20, 2019 2:34:27 GMT
So.... the obvious directions are reversed?
The less-clueful person here asks- wouldn't it make more sense to label them with cardinal direction of travel (I thought they were)? Or is this a legacy of the original lines? (I still have trouble with the up/down directions of lines.)
|
|
|
SPADs
May 29, 2019 16:01:26 GMT
Post by zbang on May 29, 2019 16:01:26 GMT
And when a train sits in the station for no apparent reason they/we start to wonder and "keeping to time" isn't high on the list of reasons. From the railway perspective its the complete opposite, as drivers we're required to run to the timetable not ahead of it. But most of the passengers aren't railway people. We expect the trains to move, not to sit; any wait is seen as a delay regardless of what's announced. (As also seen in bank or grocery store lines.) (I don't think I've ever heard "We're running early, so need to wait a minute before leaving." but my sample size is quite small.) This gets back to regulating the speed so there aren't long "delays" at the stations.
|
|
|
SPADs
May 28, 2019 15:43:29 GMT
Post by zbang on May 28, 2019 15:43:29 GMT
(Perhaps this should be split off?) What is the point of saving several seconds at stations? All lines have timing points which keep a train to the timetable, turn up early and you just spend longer waiting for the signal to clear. Turn up early and wait; turn up late and you get chewed out. Pretty much guarantees more of the former. There's also the question of how long the waits are- 10 seconds is one thing, 60 is quite another. I suggest that timing points have little to no meaning to the average rider. Few will know of them, and other than first/last trains, it's unlikely anyone is going to time their travels to them*. And when a train sits in the station for no apparent reason they/we start to wonder and "keeping to time" isn't high on the list of reasons. *this isn't the same as "leave the shop at xx:yy to catch the next train"
|
|
|
Post by zbang on May 24, 2019 20:42:09 GMT
Could you say a word or two about why signalling would be based on timing, rather than occupancy of track sections, please? In addition to the minimum-time-in-block mentioned, some systems also have a minimum-block-is-empty time (once a train passes out, none are allowed in for that time; don't know if the lines mentioned use this). IIRC this is often used for short blocks where that block doesn't have a "look forward" option or doesn't have an slow/approach aspect.
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Apr 9, 2019 16:42:11 GMT
All the tests that are carried out by the maintenance staff on a daily basis were introduced to improve safety and reliability of all trains across the network. Decreasing the frequency of these checks from 24 hours to 96 hours will eventually be seen as a wrong move, once the inevitable incident that negates any saving happens. The transport industry is littered with "cost saving initiatives" that turn out to be a false economy, as Boeing is (hopefully) learning with the 737 Max tragedies. I think you're missing the point. My question is whether all of the things on the "24-hour" check list need to be on it. Simply, I posit it's likely that not every one of the tasks need to be done daily, either because they aren't as safety-related as other parts or because their failure rate is quite low. Or, because things change (i.e. LED indicator lamps do not "burn out" as often as incandescent ones, most industries acknowledge that and don't check them as often). Check lists are reevaluated all the time. That said, I'm not advocating that a daily check be abandoned, only that it check the right things. BTW, this is nothing like the 373MAX debacle, which was poor system design (a single point of failure; had two sensors, ignored one of them).
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Apr 8, 2019 3:43:57 GMT
My angle, and I suspect that of RMT's is that the proposed increase in time between inpections will lead to failed equipment taking longer to detect; thus there's an increased risk of trains running round with safety related defects that might have been detected and rectified sooner. Now I read that back to myself, perhaps we're saying the same thing in different ways..... What is the correct regime? Daily? weekly? Given the number of different items/systems that are checked, it would be quite a study to determine a proper answer to the question IMO. Is doing these checks daily really that important? I think so, yes. Can I back up that answer with a techical argument? Well not really if I'm honest. This is the question I asked some few posts ago, and in many places it has been answered (it's all about statistics). For instance, I'm fairly sure that most railways know just how long a brake block/shoe will last on given equipment & line; let's call that 48-50 weeks for discussion. With the rate of wear, if you check them every week (or after certain events, such as emergency application), you will always find the replace-now ones before they're down to the nubs and know that daily checks are not necessary. Is this acceptable? I'll suggest that it is because a given train will have multiple brakes. Contrast with "do the brakes operate?" which is different from the block wear. Likewise you do want all the doors to close (and open) correctly and they're prone to failure and abuse; test them daily. Tripcock? There's only one active on a train and it's essential safety gear; test daily. Destination signs? They're not always right anyway..... What evidence do I have of all this? None at my fingertips, however a perusal of existing procedures, failure and discovery rates, and RAIB reports will probably point the way.
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Apr 5, 2019 0:46:54 GMT
1)Where is the evidence that this increase in time intervals wil have no effect on reliability AND safety? 2)What actions will be taken if a driver refuses to take out a unit? 3)God forbid it will happen, but if anything serious happens due to this extended time interval, Who's going to take ULTIMATE responsibilty(Silly question) (1) is a good question. Part of it should be how many items are found during these checks and how serious they are. For instance, how often do passenger emergency alarms fail? How often are they used? Yes, they should always work, but if fail once in 1000 days, is a daily test really necessary? Discuss .
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Mar 31, 2019 0:21:02 GMT
... one industrial museum I am involved in earns about half its ticket income from families with young children and a further big chunk from tourists - "expert" visitors come third. As someone who often fits both "expert" and tourist groups at once, I'm happy to pay a reasonable amount for a museum ticket, but paying 25 quid for a "good 12 months" ticket is not usually reasonable since I'm not coming back anytime soon. When the museum only holds my interest for 2 hours, that's another poke in the eye. Sadly, the last time I went into the Covent Garden museum may be my last for those reasons. The bookshop, on the other hand, cost me at least £50. (Which suggests that an industrial museum should have a bookshop of hard-to-get-elsewhere and relevant materials.)
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Mar 17, 2019 23:11:52 GMT
Yes the ride was smooth - unusually so. But if its because regen braking was not used then this is a bad thing - the energy consumption savings are important! This may be a digression, but do these cars have regenerative (push the energy back into the supply rails) or rheostatic (dump the energy into resistors)? Either way, I'd expect that dynamic breaking would be at least as gentle as mechanical methods unless the control methods are from circa 1900.
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Mar 12, 2019 21:27:11 GMT
and Kernel Loadable Module (although that sometimes appears as Loadable Kernel module). .....and TLA stands for "Three Letter Acronym". Not to ignore the eTLA (extended Three Letter Acronym) for times when an extra letter is needed.
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Mar 6, 2019 0:35:29 GMT
You've found the right audience to make that unlikely Make that highly unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Feb 17, 2019 20:44:49 GMT
Also consider that sometimes spending a few pounds to avoid a change (or two) or an extra stairway might be well spent. (I'd much rather change at CJ than at some of the tube stations, even with the lift maps they can still confuse.)
|
|