|
Post by piccboy on Feb 16, 2023 11:15:07 GMT
Looks like there is still some life left in this project.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Jan 27, 2023 11:44:38 GMT
Was there any prognosis as to the cause for the outage across the line? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Nov 6, 2022 23:56:15 GMT
Don't forget that prior to there being the former Up Goods line (on the alignment of the even earlier Up L&SWR line) there was a Down L&SWR line where the WB Richmond line now runs. The last named line was originally one line further to the right (as viewed from the bridge). This line joined the aforementioned Down L&SWR line just prior to the Acton Lane road bridge. There are full details of the history of this area in the late MAC Horne's history of the Met. District Railway (part 2). ..... For those with no access to the book, can someone provide a photo of the pages concerned? The book would probably be covered by copyright, but this link is to a public domain map of the area showing the lines mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Aug 17, 2022 8:51:31 GMT
Manoeuvre can be done in passenger service provided all the shunt signals can be cleared.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Jun 25, 2022 22:13:48 GMT
The separate sign for alternative rail route to Olympia makes me wonder if there will be any point in retaining the District Line service to Olympia once Lillie Bridge sidings are closed in a few years. Maybe it will be retained for empty reversal? Olympia has always been useful as alternative destination during times of disruption on any of the District Line branches to the west. Also, possibility of using the current Depot access track and Whitely sidings as two additional stabling points, if required.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on May 19, 2022 0:42:25 GMT
96TS in the background, definitely Wembley Park, probably taken from the TCA. What is "TCA" in this context? Train Crew Accommodation.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Dec 11, 2021 15:13:55 GMT
What about having Pressure plate sensors on the concrete track bed to register anyone falling onto the track if a train is present or not? It could be installed on any platform/line, sound an alarm for the driver, station supervisor, Controller etc if such event occurs. It could even be tied-into the signalling system to stop a train leaving or entering a platform if a track incursion is detected.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Sept 4, 2021 23:54:26 GMT
It is possible that they're still considering the Piccadilly line extension to Ealing Broadway which adds another factor of deferring the CBTC extension I don't believe the Piccadilly line extension scenario would be any significant factor, as S7's would still need to go to Ealing Broadway to stable in Ealing Common Depot.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Jun 17, 2021 11:44:00 GMT
Is the four corner stair-wells the limit on station capacity, which will be overcome with two new wide stairwells in the middle of the road? Or is the station capacity limited by access down to the platforms from the ticket hall, which this doesn't appear to help? Oxford Circus main issue with station capacity is the short distance between the lower bank of escalators exit and the platform entrance on the lower circulation areas of the North and Southbound Bakerloo / Victoria lines. During Evening peak, as the Victoria line platforms get busier, it slows down how quickly customers can get onto the Platform and then starts backing up towards the escalators. Before it becomes dangerous, station control has to be initiated.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Mar 23, 2021 13:52:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Aug 11, 2020 11:20:17 GMT
The story so far: In June 2018 TfL revealed that Siemens would supply up to 250 new trains for four lines tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2018/june/siemens-mobility-limited-to-be-awarded-tfl-contract-to-design-and-manufacture-a-new-generation-of-tube-trainsUpdate: Doors order now placed for up to 310 new trains for four lines www.railwaygazette.com/vehicles/doors-ordered-for-london-undergrounds-new-piccadilly-line-trains/57088.articleWhere are these extra 60 trains intended for? Initial 3,760 door drives covers 94x9 car trains with 2 doorways per car x two sides plus four cab doors. Then 9,000+ extra door drives covers, from initial 250 train: Bakerloo 40x9 car trains = 1,600; W&C 10x5 car trains = 240; Central 100x11 car trains = 4,800: Total 6,640. Leaves 2,400+ doors = 60x9 car trains, but no extra lines mentioned! I know Picc & Central may get a few more for up to 36tph, and W&C only 6 trains, not original 10 rough figure. Is this the Lewisham/Hayes extension fleet! Where will they be stabled? Not mentioned in consultations to date. Could some of these extra door parts be spares?
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Jul 12, 2020 11:07:03 GMT
The issue of driverless trains is one that keeps returning and maybe it's time for tfl / LU to have a comprehensive answer to this. I would propose the Mayor of London asks for a sum of money from Central government in order to fully investigate and cost a driverless system being installed on all underground lines, and also the cost of installing a completely unstaffed train system. personally, I firmly believe the costs of either system in both financial and impacts to existing services whilst the works are carried out would be unpalatable to all save the most pedantic anti-unionist.
Or to put it into a slightly more political leaning statement, call Boris's bluff.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Jun 30, 2020 11:51:08 GMT
something new that I first saw a few days ago and I suspect has to be as a result of the virus situation First appeared on trains around 28 May, along with social distancing notices on the car windows. Oddly (uniquely?), ‘73 Stock have the notices on the upper part of the curved door glass. (pic later) flic.kr/p/2j87F7gflic.kr/p/2j85hLAAs from Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone, the platform height is considerably higher than the rest of the line. The placement of the notices on 73 stock to make it visible to customers from those stations as well as the rest of the line makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Mar 19, 2020 12:36:59 GMT
This morning I heard on the radio news that 40 Underground stations have closed & services reduced Altho' not travelling at the moment I was still curious to know more - so I went to the TfL website tfl.gov.ukWaste of time - no info about closed stations and all lines were showing 'a good service' except Circle and Hamm & City, these show a 15 minute frequency. btw, re: the comment about closed stations all having lifts, Redbridge does not have lifts - nor for that matter does it have escalators. Its so shallow that it only has steps. Also, a comment on the Ian Visits page suggests that local people are peeved that Blackhorse Road is closed - as its an important Goblin / Victoria line interchange station. I wonder if the stations chosen to close are partly because of local staffing issues? I am surprised to see that the Hainault - Woodford shuttle stations are still open - especially Roding Valley! I do hope that all these stations reopen again afterwards. edit to add: it looks like that both I and aslefshrugged were typing our messages at the same time... but aslefshrugged finished his message before I finished mine! On the Tfl website tfl.gov.uk, if you click on any of the Underground lines (DLR / Overground, TfL Rail), this will take you to a more detailed Service update screen. If you look towards the top, on the left side above the list of lines it has tabs for Lines and Stations. If you click on Stations, it will list all stations which are closed, and those that have restrictions, i.e. defective lifts and escalators. Here is a direct link for ease of use tfl.gov.uk/tube-dlr-overground/status/#stations-statusApologies if this post seems to be very basic, as someone who has written instructions on how to use Computer software in the past, I am aware that people reading this post would have a wide range of computer (smart device) literacy, so I have written it to include all.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Mar 18, 2020 15:00:39 GMT
As an example, the District would normally work like this: Upminster & Barking operates a 10 minute Upminster - Richmond service Earls Court operates a 10 minute Wimbledon - Edgware Road service Acton Town operates a 10 minute Ealing - High Street Ken service Other lines have pre planned ways of working like we have on the District and they'll simply implement them. I think there is a case for suspending District between High Street Kensington and Edgware Road. Last night they were only running 2/3rds of Edgware Road trains due to Operational difficulties, I believe that the resources to operate SMA 2 could be better used to support the remaining services. To offset the lack of District to Edgware Road, perhaps an enhanced Circle Line service which could be done by going old school Circle i.e. drop the Edgware Road, with step backs at Edgware Road to provide PNR facilities for Drivers. One other observation from Yesterday was that I was driving a Westbound Richmond service arriving at South Kensington just gone 5pm, and even after loading passengers there, I still had vacant seats. However, slightly earlier on the same train I observed, between Mile End and Aldgate East that Eastbound trains were pretty packed, more or less normal. So maybe we need a more East end of line enhanced Emergency timetable for this particular occasion?
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Feb 1, 2020 19:01:00 GMT
How about a system which senses unusual movement of any one (or more) wagons in a freight train? For example take sensors like an accelerometer (used in devices such as fit bits, and mobile phones), mount one (or more) on each engine and wagon in a train. As the train travels along, the accelerometers would naturally encounter some readings, but these would be in a logical order, i.e. the engine passes over a poor piece of track, then 1.5 seconds later wagon 1 registers the poor piece of track, 3 seconds later wagon 2 the same, 4.5 seconds later wagon 3 etc. However, if a wagon was to derail, the system would recognise this derailment because the readings from this wagon do not match others. Even if multiple wagons derailed, there would be a noticeable pattern to the derailment which does not match other wagons.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Jan 21, 2020 2:39:23 GMT
I didn’t set the criteria. At some point in time somebody decided that the six trips / three stations “rule” is the benchmark that lines with TBTC / CBTC work to when qualifying existing drivers for the first time. At the end of the day, some sort of minimum has to be set. It possibly could have been one station (though let’s be honest, it was never going to be) or it could have been ten stations. It could have one trip or twenty one trips. Whatever the reasons, six & three are the numbers and that’s that! One way or other there’s an element of farce about it. Six trips isn’t enough to properly train for manual driving - as evidenced by the fact the Jubilee and Northern essentially fail to meet the timetable when manual driving is required. This will only be worse on the SSR as there’s more open running and thus more scope for manual driving being required. If there’s a corporate acceptance that no one really cares about manual driving as long as the train just about manages to get from A to B, then there’s zero practical difference between 18 trips Paddington to Edgware Road and 6 trips Notting Hill Gate to Edgware Road. Still, as you say, neither you or I devised the current plans... There is a huge practical difference between 18 trips Paddington to Edgware Road and 6 trips Notting Hill Gate to Edgware Road. The difference is the speed the train will enter the platform and speed in between platforms. Paddington and Edgware Road are a short distance between each other, add Praed Street junction and all the point work at Edgware Road on both ends of the platforms, and there is little to no opportunity for the trains to enter a platform at normal speeds. The only place it could would be Paddington on the Westbound (inner rail), and that is probably only 25mph (based on my driving days on Circle and Hammersmith and City, under conventional signalling system). The rest of the line between Notting Hill gate and Paddington would offer faster platform entry and speeds in between stations and thus the experience train ops need.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Jan 7, 2020 17:54:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Dec 30, 2019 1:00:11 GMT
I suspect that rather than any of these potential train modifications and reconfigurations it will be easier to adjust current rail gaps in the very few locations it's possible to come to a stand with all cars that feed air compressors gapped. As I pointed out earlier, S stock is not special in this respect. Yes, I do agree adjusting rails gaps to minimise DM cars (Driving Motor) both being gapped would be a sensible precaution. However, with increasing customers being carried and the need for new ATO signalling systems to run more trains per hour, then anything that could adversely effect the running of the service should be looked into. You are correct that S stock is not special in respect of gapping at both DM, but as the newest train on the network, it does have a number of features which improve on previous stocks e.g. being able to reset the tripcock BOTH ends from the cab the driver is currently in. In the event of a rear trip, no more shutting down, going back to the other cab, resetting the tripcock, returning to the driving end, and reopening up. It therefore leads me in my belief that making the S Stock and/or future stock gap proof would be a very desirable thing to do to minimise delays.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Dec 27, 2019 13:56:08 GMT
So, back to the earlier point; the compressors don't work off the traction bus cables, because there ARE no traction bus cables. It might be an idea, on new builds at least, to provide a 400v supply from an intermediate car also. The chances of three cars being gapped is fairly unlikely. The problem with traction bus cables is the interconnections between cars. It is all very well for us to sit at computers thinking they are a good idea, but 1. Someone needs to connect and disconnect them. 2. This need to be done safely (Note all the warnings and regulations about leads in depots...) 3. How many EMUs on the southern caught fire because of arcing on Traction bus cables? 4. who is going to clean the connections to prevent deposits building up leading to arcing? Automate it on the train. Have the train determine if the leading cars have both gapped and the train is stationary. If so the feeds would be energised. As soon as the train moves or leading cars detect traction current then the link is de-energised.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Dec 19, 2019 14:01:32 GMT
Surprised Driver(s) didn't notice 8 cars instead of 7 displayed on the TCMS (Train Control Management Screen).
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Nov 11, 2019 17:44:46 GMT
Wonder if these were in the car where the Guards panels used to be?
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Oct 25, 2019 11:46:00 GMT
The best article I have seen in the public domain about this incident. www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/c2c-delays-on-october-24-caused-by-damaged-bridge-in-elm-park-1-6339841Quoted from article "The report goes on to reveal that on Tuesday afternoon, a Network Rail team on proactive patrol discovered severe damage to a structure next to the railway bridge at Elm Park. A speed restriction was imposed on c2c and District line trains while a specialist structural engineer was sent to the scene. When the specialist engineer arrived and inspected the structure, they concluded the structure was unstable and needed immediate removal. At around 4.35pm the overhead power lines were turned off to allow the structure to be removed safely."
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Sept 5, 2019 21:01:14 GMT
Wouldn’t have to be the old control room by any chance ? Wasn't the old control room building demolished to make way for the new platforms for HS2 at Euston?
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Jun 25, 2019 23:58:53 GMT
Hello everyone! Thank you for accepting me into this Forum/ Website! May I just ask if any of you have any information on the Piccadilly Circus' Disused Lift Shafts and the Blocked-up Spiral Staircase?
I have seen the locked-up entrances to the disused lift shafts on the Piccadilly Platforms and the Northbound Bakerloo Platform but no sign of any locked-up entrance on the Southbound Bakerloo Platform. Do you know anything about it?
There is also a Spiral Staircase which is quite often used as a Shortcut from the Bakerloo to the Piccadilly Line Platforms, but I noticed that the Spiral Staircase goes up to the ticket hall/ booking office but is again, blocked. I also found out that it goes further down as well when I looked closely albeit it is now blocked too. The southbound platforms access was always a matter of debate. During my time of working at Piccadilly Circus, I was shown around the disused sections of the station. I can remember that the Bakerloo lift lobby was higher than the Bakerloo Platforms and the Piccadilly line lift lobby lower than Piccadilly Platforms. I was always curious about the "platform dispatchers box" on the southbound platform, as it is partially sunken into the wall, it was my personal suspicion that this was the entrance to the southbound Bakerloo platform from the lifts, however, others stated that the entrance was via the existing staircase down to the platform. The spiral staircase going up to the ticket hall which is blocked would need a lot of work to bring it into passenger use, as it has been used to run various wiring from ticket hall level to platforms. The spiral staircase does not go any further down and is simply blocked off to stop people loitering under the stairs. I wonder if the lift shafts could be brought back into use for the various 'special needs' people (including tourists with heavy suitcases!) , I suspect that the answer is that there are steps between the lower landings and the platforms, but maybe (finance apart) there are other constraints preventing this. The lifts shafts exit was sealed off (more or less) when the original station building was demolished and was located approximately where the Little Britannia shop is. Trivia the basement entrance from Piccadilly Circus to Little Britannia was originally the connection between the old station and the newer 1920's ticket hall and escalators, it even includes a heritage sign which points towards Little Britannia as the exit. The lift shafts have been re-purposed over the years, one is used for ventilation and has a large fan installed with ducting at the top leading outside. The other, has a room built across it at the Bakerloo lift lobby level. One additional piece of info, there was another spiral staircase over by the lifts that went from the old station level all the way down to the Piccadilly level, the shaft still exists, but the stairs were removed many years ago. I think you'd just have to take the opportunity of an existing building near the station being redeveloped and integrate a small street-level entrance (probably just enough for lift and stairs) into the replacement. Many of the buildings around the junction are listed though which will reduce opportunities. The existing ticket hall and entrances are also listed so integration will not be easy either. One suggestion made by a supervisor, who previously worked at the station, was to remove the Spiral staircase and use this shaft for a lift from ticket hall level to platforms. Ticket hall to street level would be via another lift, possibly in the building formerly known as London Trocadero, which already has an entrance into the ticket hall directly.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Apr 16, 2019 23:35:43 GMT
A few points that I don't believe have been raised so far. If this scheme goes ahead across the entire network, what are the financial implications of the one-off sum of capital raised selling this land, versus the steady trickle of parking fees raised by these car parks?
Given that x amount of these car park users are commuters from outside London, with no parking at London Underground stations, what would be the impact on fare revenue if these commuters choice to park at a National Rail station car park and use their trains instead?
Finally, I have observed that a number of car parks across the network have track access points, for maintenance workers. What would be the impact of these points being no longer available?
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Apr 8, 2019 13:07:55 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. The things you have mentioned like Tripcock testing are part of the daily checks, but brake block wear is not. The tests do include checking things like the Emergency brake circuits, Passenger Emergency Alarms, Motor package operation, etc. Which of these need to be checked daily? Well, all of them. For example Passenger Emergency Alarm, if an incident happens on a train and passengers try to alert the driver, would be a bad thing if the system failed. Motor package's, while a failure of one car would not impact too much, if not picked up, would result in higher brake wear, as all Underground Stock use motors as a dynamic brake and if this doesn't work resort to using the air applied brakes instead. n.b. Motor packages would be the actual electric motor, and associated equipment that provide power or enable the motor to be used as a dynamic brake. 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.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Mar 20, 2019 15:54:05 GMT
VOBC = Vehicle On-Board Computer. C Controller Haven't had my ATO training yet. That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it!
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Mar 20, 2019 12:14:26 GMT
Just to avoid concern; The CSDE function is provided by the ATC in the ATC commissioned areas. The Door Not in Use indicators come on relatively briefly if the ATC controller (VOBC) that is the Active one is changing to the other one, or at the entry station, when the VOBC becomes Active as the mode is switched from tripcock to an ATC mode. Currently there is normally a change from the front VOBC to the rear one at Wood Lane WB. More generically it's at the first station after the boundary. No plan to change this. Count it as a feature! VOBC, anyone? VOBC = Vehicle On-Board Computer.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Mar 1, 2019 11:09:59 GMT
Network Rail have run into political issues with tree felling after they cut down a tree (on their land) which was at the bottom of the garden belonging to a national newspaper's environment correspondent. The (now former) minister got involved as did The Woodland Trust and for a while tree felling stopped. The Office of Road & Rail then got involved, being concerned that not cutting down the trees was a safety risk. It definitely seems that the mistake was allowing trees to grow in the first place, but I suspect that's a result of funding cuts at the time. I agree, but once environments are created that have an overall effect on the wider local area, then taking away an important part of that environment could be argued 'irresponsible'. It most certainly is a political issue, and one being played on a global scale at the moment, and for years to come too..... Interesting though, was walking through the Coopersale woods beside the EOR other day, and couldn't help notice there's a tree tunnel formed over the rails, would almost say the railway has been 'accepted' into the environment than imposed upon it and changing it to suit. Its all about balance, and I don't think the current collective mindset of TfL is mature enough to cope with it 🤔 What would be the impact on the railways by not removing the trees? I would suspect most people here would know someone who has had subsidence of a property from tree roots, would they same issue of subsidence effect track beds, cuttings and embankments of railway lines? What about the annual disruption caused by "leaves on the line" causing delays to services? What about disruption caused by branches and whole trees falling or fouling railway lines? I don't think this is just about saving money, there are also safety and service issues to consider.
|
|