|
Post by piccboy on Feb 18, 2019 1:44:57 GMT
That is certainly isn't the whole story because you don't see the minimum staffing levels at Zone 1 stations, it might look as if they're are too many staff around the gatelines but they're keeping the station open. The staff have to go somewhere, the gatelines are where most passengers seek assistance so that is where they are told to go. Fit for the Future won't have helped, the minimum staffing levels have stayed the same but the staff that used to be in the ticket offices are now out around the gateline too. I don’t criticise them for being near the gate lines but for their positioning and focus once there. Positioning on the gatelines is a balance between being close enough to assist customers but not impede customers access to the gates themselves. Most gatelines only have one or two places where staff can stand given the issues highlighted by my previous statement, hence the reason staff tend to congregate at these locations.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Dec 21, 2018 8:50:53 GMT
You would not need to name names, alleged transgressions should be discussed in public, this would show who is being reasonable, and who is spoiling for a fight. it is not needed to make public the name of the person concerned, however, in this case either the company has been playing games to try and discredit the unions or the unions have ignored something which they probably knew and have lied about it. Had this been discussed in the open then large numbers of people would not have been inconvenienced by having to make alternative arrangements, which are not now needed, and, although not in this case a strike may have been averted. In today's world of online social media, there can never be true anonymity. Wouldn't be long before a name was put to any case. Best that any sensitive details like Medical conditions, are kept private.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Oct 18, 2018 12:12:50 GMT
Without that I can understand why they don't "do" HSK as it's busy with Wimbleware and Circle Line.... Are T/Ops trained for that route? Maybe only West end District? Think it’s already been established in this thread and I confirm that no District drivers are trained Gloucester Road-High Street via Circle. Upminster and Barking drivers are trained to High Street Ken via Earl’s Court. Only Earl’s Court, Acton drivers (and east-end I/Os) are currently trained to Edgware Road. Barking and Upminster drivers are trained to Edgware Road via Earl's Court during initial training as they would be in the pool upon joining a depot and could cover Earl's Court or Acton duties. However, as there are no duties which go to Edgware Road for Barking and Upminster duties the route knowledge cannot be maintained and a pilot would be required. Not sure when they started training East end depot drivers on this route, so some of the more established drivers may have never been trained in this route.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Oct 14, 2018 21:34:04 GMT
I think the current District drivers are not trained for the Gloucester Road to High St Kensington section. I really surprised they can't just look at a briefing and diagram for such a short section. Probably illegal in some quarters though. Only the Acton and Earls court drivers have the route knowledge between High Street Kensington and Edgware Road, both Barking and Upminster drivers do not cover that part of the district line as they have no duties with that route. I really surprised they can't just look at a briefing and diagram for such a short section. Probably illegal in some quarters though. Unions wouldn’t allow it. See past so-called “Cross Line Working” disputes such as Piccadilly line to Ealing Broadway and C&H S7 stock trains to Baker St Met Platforms. Edgware Road drivers have several duties where they either pick-up a S7 from Baker St Metropolitan platforms or drop one off. Years ago, Circle line drivers used to drive empty C stock trains up to Neasden depot for maintenance.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Sept 2, 2018 11:54:20 GMT
The solution of locking the leading cab and leaving the trailing cab unlocked would not have hindered evacuation on that occasion. The only situation where I can see a problem with that solution is where a driver became incapacitated AND a fire broke out in the middle of the train. I doubt that's ever happened. The advantage of the solution is that it is extremely cheap and easily retro-fittable. A slightly more complicated system where the lock 'timed-out' if the driver didn't respond to a request for entry would be a little more expensive but would remove the objection that passengers could not get out if the driver became incapacitated. What about the driver who has just suffered a stroke and nobody can get to him to provide assistance? As class413 said in the last line of his post, the lock could time out. Such a system could be implemented by a simple circuit which would be activated when a passenger alarm is activated but not answered within, say 2 minutes. The lock could also de-energise when the Line Controller uses the remote PA (Passenger Announcement) system on a train. Plenty of safe ways to implement this.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Aug 15, 2018 10:51:41 GMT
I'm sure I read somewhere that TfL are wanting to increase the service frequencies out of Liverpool Street, and indeed are working on it, but it's not something that can be done overnight. Am I right in thinking they are waiting for Elizabeth Line trains to start running through to Heathrow in order to free up platforms at Liverpool street to increase Overground services?
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Aug 2, 2018 10:53:02 GMT
Taking that literally, it means that passenger safety is secondary to staff safety. I would hope that they are treated as of equal importance. Passenger safety is not secondary to staff safety, the incapacity of a driver caused by cab intruder puts all passengers at risk. Drivers are trained to deal with a variety of emergency scenarios in safe manner for passengers but they can only do this if they are free from interference. The current situation with cab door security does not guarantee that drivers are free from interference. I wish I could give you some examples of scenarios, but I do not want to give ideas to those who would use them for nefarious reasons.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Jul 31, 2018 11:03:56 GMT
Let's go back to my first post on this thread "For the last two years your ASLEF Health and Safety reps have been campaigning to make drivers cabs on London Underground safe and secure" ASLEF have been warning about this issue for two years, we've been telling LUL that cab security wasn't good enough and that eventually it would end with a driver being assaulted. When I became driver 15 years ago incidents where passengers entered the cabs where unheard of but in the last six months there have been several. ASLEF saw this coming and LUL ignored them. And now a driver has been assaulted. As for the retail sector (which I worked in for 12 years before I joined the Tube) if I had been assaulted then I wouldn't have left up to a thousand customers stuck in the shop with no one to take over with thousands more customers stuck in shops behind me. As for buses you don't evacuate a bus through the drivers cab. Thanks shrugged. May I ask why it is only the last two years that this has become a perceived issue? I say "perceived" because it seems to only have manifested itself as an issue in the last 6 months. Have passengers got more savvy with means of entry? Is it the night tube and therefore a correlation to beer? I ask as if we deal purely with the data that you have provided (which I have no reason to argue with), then we have several instances of passengers entering cabs in the past six months and one assault, whereas for the past 15 years these numbers have been zero. Have I got that correct? Presumably in the days of guards they had no secure place and there was no problem then (I assume). So what has changed do you think? I know you will take issue with me on this, but, if the above is correct, then one driver being assaulted out of how ever many hundreds (?) of drivers in a decade and a half doesn't seem to me to be a significant number. Whilst I would wholeheartedly agree that absolutely no-one needs to be in this position of course. I'm not sure that your analogy re retail makes sense as surely you are (rightly so) more interested in you and your colleagues staying safe than the impact on the "customers". I know i would be! Before February 1975 there were tube trains overrunning terminus stop marks, then Moorgate happened. Before November 1987 there were fires on the Underground, then Kings Cross happened. How severe an incident with a cab invasion would you need before you (and London Underground) agreed that this is an important safety issue and needs to be addressed?
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Jul 6, 2018 12:47:37 GMT
Could the Drikold system be used? It has the advantage of 'using up' the heat, rather than transferring it to the immediate surroundings. After a quick Google, a Drikold system uses Dry Ice which is the frozen solid form of Carbon Dioxide. There would be safety implications of using a Carbon Dioxide system to cool a tube train. Carbon Dioxide is a heaver than air gas as it would need to be a closed system with little or no chance of the Carbon Dioxide being able to escape and gather in low points of tunnel section of track. I would very much doubt that such a system could be installed in the very limited space available on tube stock and there would be issues with recharging the system at terminal stations in a quick and safe manner to avoid service delays. A good idea, thinking outside the box of normal cooling solutions. But IMHO not practical in a tube environment.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on May 14, 2018 10:41:10 GMT
Is it possible that Ealing Common could become a Piccadilly line depot? Extra trains on the line. Yes it would be possible. But in turn cause problems for the District Line in that they would require a new depot as there is no space anywhere else to stable and service trains. Still have my doubts about losing Ealing Broadway as the impact on the district line would be far more severe if one of the other branches were to be out of commission i.e. Signal failure on Richmond branch. No way could a single branch cope with the loss of the only other branch without a significant reduction in trains running.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Apr 17, 2018 12:09:57 GMT
I've just realised that a ...snip... So yes - and its important to note this is my own view - this dispute is more about the Union's noses being put out of joint than supporting someone who they feel got a raw deal. Or, is it that by not objecting when agreed procedures are not followed correctly, the Union could run the risk of establishing something that English Law might recognise as a custom and practice for dealing with similar matters, or indeed other disciplinary matters, thus eroding the agreement and their members' rights? Once such rights are lost, IMHO they are very difficult to restore. Or could it be that the unique circumstances effecting the reason behind the SPADs has been handled in a way that it protects the drivers earnings, and allows him to reapply for the position to go on for a hopefully long career driving on the Underground? Is it under mining drivers rights, or an enhancement to the rights given certain "unique circumstances"? Bear in mind that the SPADs would stay on his current driving record irrespective of circumstances leading to them regarding these "unique circumstances", as the Underground has to follow guidelines on SPADs set out by the ORR (Office of Rail and Road) and any relevant laws of the Land. As such, if the driver was reinstated, and did have a 4th SPAD they could end up on a CDI if the company chose to query the answers on the questionnaire regarding the "unique circumstances" the driver would have signed as part of the training and recruitment process. To all, the reason I have not mentioned the "unique circumstances", is for the privacy of the driver involved, following company and forum guidelines (hopefully) and my own sense of respect for this drivers privacy.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Apr 17, 2018 11:16:08 GMT
On this subject, why does the PIS at Kings Cross announce a west bound Met service as 'All stations' but then follow it with 'Calling at Finchley Road, Wembley Park'.... If its all stations why omit some? I thought this was because their are two stations between Finchley Road and Wembley that the Met does no longer stop at except exceptional circumstances. These stations are Willesden Green and Neasden. Mets have stopped at Willesden Green in the past when the Jubilee was part suspended for engineering work over a weekend. I was once "evacuated" from a train at Neasden on the southbound when the Met service was suspended due to an incident towards Baker St (Signal failure if memory serves me correct), but I am led to believe that this was an exception rather than a regular thing as the stairs from the Met platforms have been taken out of passenger use. Going back to the original comment, because the Met could still stop at Willesden Green, the PIS could say All stations, Finchley Road, Willesden Green, Wembley Park and this could be the reason why it is set up to mention Finchley Road and Wembley park. Also Wembley Park some trains stop at and some don't. but during Peak some fast and Semi fast services will stop there so it is a good thing for the PIS to mention if the train is stopping there or not for customers.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Apr 16, 2018 11:17:38 GMT
Reading this thread, and particularly a couple of the most recent posts, I’m left wondering about the attitude to SPADs on the Underground. I’ve heard figures quoted that there were approximately double the number of SPADs on the Underground as on the national network, for what is obviously a much smaller network. I also understand that for a mainline driver, a SPAD is quite seriously career threatening. I get the impression of a very different attitude here. That leaves me with two questions: 1. Is my interpretation correct? 2. If so, why? To compare SPADs on the Underground and the National Network services I feel it would be useful to highlight the differences in Service and Signalling. The frequency of trains on the underground is far higher per mile of track than National rail and stations within the central zone of London are a lot nearer to each other. In order to achieve the higher frequency the Underground signalling system is designed to safely bring trains closer together, particularly near stations. This is done by decreasing the distance between signals and increasing the number of them on the Underground versus National rail. My interpretation of this means that the chance for a SPAD is greater on the underground than National rail, as there are more signals and less time that an Underground driver has to correctly interpret to avoid a SPAD.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Mar 3, 2018 23:26:10 GMT
I think that deicing units and sleet brushes are common to all fleets. Not sure that the '09 Stock fleet includes de-icing cars or whether they are fitted with sleet brushes. In theory they would still need to de-ice all the roads leading into and out of the depot as well as all the outdoor stabling roads. Wonder if they do them manually?
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Jan 27, 2018 12:59:13 GMT
I got well and truly stuck in this and was on my train for 4:55 for the first half of my duty. District Line train accepted a wrong signal at Acton Town and as a result headed towards Northfields. As if that wasn't bad enough, on leaving South Ealing after almost tipping everyone out (left 3 customers on in error), he then had a SPaD at WR36. if you are not familiar with that area, it can be confusing. WR36 does not clear if the route is set towards Heathrow on the WB fast. So, that resulted in him having to do a wrong direction move to get back behind WR36 and basically it caused chaos. Poor guy must be devastated. Did he not have a Pilot? a Pilot should be aware of any signalling systems and can therefore guide the District driver through.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Jan 9, 2018 13:45:50 GMT
. The required performance is switchable in software via CSDE and it'll be the performance change aspect of that which won't operate if S7s pop up north of Finchley Road. S7+1 is, for this purpose, S8 The traction packages and motors are the same on both S8 and S7. So the capability can be (realtively) simply switched in or out depending on whether the eight car is present - i.e whether the train is configured as an S7 or an S7+1 ? Configured in software I believe. The weak field flag on S7 is activated east of Bow Road, west of Turnham Green, and memory alludes me on the Wimbledon Branch of the District. In either flag up or down, the S7 are limited to 47mph. And performance wise, instead of seeing 25mph from a standing start at a platform to 7 car passing the headwall barrier flag down, flag up sees about 27/28 mph.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Dec 23, 2017 13:35:33 GMT
It seems crazy that these works are going ahead with the Picc used as the alternative route when it has been so unreliable recently - when it breaks down (as I'm sure it will at some point on these days) where do people go? Delaying these works would have a big impact on the District line reliability and the work towards the new signalling system. This time of year is the best time for this kind of project as many people are not commuting because of Christmas holidays. There would be no guarantee that the Piccadilly line would have a better service when this work is rescheduled. Any delay in rolling out the new signalling system on the District could impact the resignalling work on other lines as the staff and assets used would not be available. Finally more drivers have been granted leave because less required with shutdown, so even if the engineering work was lifted, the District would only be able to run a limited service at the best.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Oct 23, 2017 19:03:32 GMT
I believe one of the main problems with the new AIT is it is underpowered. The TRV is currently in acton works for bogie overhaul, so I think they plan to keep it a while longer. It has 4 motor cars how can it be underpowered. Just wondering if the issue with being underpowered relates to AC power for all the track inspection equipment on board? The MA's (Motor Alternator's, use DC power to create AC power). On the 72's, the MA's were only meant to supply 2 cars of lighting, battery charger and 50v control power, hence the need for 4 motor cars. 4 MA's.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Oct 20, 2017 17:11:27 GMT
Yeah, it's exactly that! For the benefit of those who haven't had the pleasure of using an S stock TCMS - it's slow. Ridiculously slow. Slow like your computer from 1992, and then slower still. If you're a bit too quick entering the destination code when logging in you can miss the last digit, resulting in the above picture. Once the train works out where it is an incorrect PIS code will flag up an 'off route' error message (I forget the exact wording), providing the train operator to adjust accordingly. If they were to keep running the interior displays and announcements will remain off until the train is back 'on route'. TCMS does suffer with some problems with slowness especially after you just liven up the train. A bad train came sometimes be fixed by tripping and resetting the TCMS2 mcb in the effected cab (TCMS Train Control Management system. MCB Miniature Circuit Breaker).
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Oct 12, 2017 12:57:41 GMT
I imagine that with careful ordering some sort of service could be maintained. There are no PEDS north of Westminster, so both stocks can run between Stanmore and Green Park, reversing at Charing Cross. This would be the first introduction to service for the new stocks and the last preserve of the old ones. Having to detrain (remove all passengers and shut the doors) at Green park would cause delays. Wonder if they would consider reopening, albeit temporarily, the platforms at Charing Cross and just reverse there in service?
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Sept 9, 2017 13:29:39 GMT
I would tunnel it. The eastbound tunnel would start where the existing inlet road to the sidings is and the westbound tunnel would join where the existing underpass is, with all points hi-speed ones to minimise delays. Finally I would not make it District, but make it Hammersmith and City line to minimise the delays currently experienced when their trains go in and out of the sidings.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Aug 18, 2017 13:05:45 GMT
Night Tube staff are not allowed to book on before 20:30 on Friday/Saturday so what happens is the I/Ops works up to their own duty time and that's it so the CAP is perhaps 2 x 2 or 3 hours. We have one I/Op that pretty much disregards this and is willing to work overnight but this strictly speaking breaches the (ridiculous) oil & water agreement. I think sometimes a bit of common sense should prevail mainly for the sake of the inexperienced drivers. Firstly there's no such thing as common sense, if there was we'd all agree on everything but secondly if the agreement to keep Night Tube separate from the rest isn't working then its up to management to renegotiate it, not for us to work outside the agreements. How does the IOp manage to work overnight if there are no Friday and Saturday night duties on the "normal" roster? Piccadilly line still has full time night turns for first and last trains just like most other lines. When I did my TO training, IO and myself did one night to get a couple of Northfields depot moves done. IO = Instructor Operator TO = Train Operator
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Aug 8, 2017 9:51:51 GMT
For info,Date: 25 November 2016 Issued to: All London Underground employees An update on current Piccadilly line disruption Not all rumours memo from the boss last year Dear All I wanted to update you all on the current challenges we are facing on the Piccadilly line and the actions we are taking to improve things for our customers. During the last few days, an unusually high proportion of trains on the Piccadilly line have had to be taken out of service as a result of ‘flatted’ wheels. Train wheels that slide on a rail can pick up a flat-spot that can affect the smooth running of the train and in severe cases, can actually damage both the track and the train. There is a greater risk of this type of sliding during the autumn leaf fall season due to reduced levels of adhesion (the rails become more slippery). When the wheel flats reach a certain size, the train has to be taken out of service. This is not unique to the Piccadilly line or indeed the Underground and presents a challenge to engineers and operations staff every year. As of this morning, the Piccadilly line is operating with over half of its train fleet unavailable as a result of flatted wheels. As a consequence, we have had to suspend customer services between Acton Town and Uxbridge on the Piccadilly line and the other parts of the line are operating at ‘Severe Delays’. We have strengthened bus services in the affected areas to help our customers and also introduced ticket acceptance until further notice. Everyone is working hard to repair the trains and get us back to a Good Service across the line as quickly as possible while trying to minimise the effect on our customers in the mean time. However, with so many trains affected, it could take some time for the line to fully recover. Clearly this is having a really significant impact for thousands of our customers and we need to take urgent action to address the root causes and get our service back to normal. To support this, Tony Matthews, the Piccadilly line General Manager has commissioned a Formal Investigation Report (FIR) into this disruption. This investigation will be forensic in its examination of the facts and will involve asset and operational staff, engineering specialists, the British Transport Police, the ORR and trade union representatives. It will seek to identify why this has happened and make recommendations that will stop it happening again. Thank you to all of the teams working hard to repair the trains and those supporting our customers through this significant disruption. Regards Steve Steve Griffiths Chief Operating Officer, London Underground Is there any idea of when this investigation is going to be completed?
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Aug 8, 2017 8:44:55 GMT
Also gets used if a train is running early. This can happen when Heathrow Terminal 4 or Terminal 5 are down because of a signal failure, and trains are turned at Terminal 123 thus are running early. The resulting early train are than held at Northfields station on the local (test track) until their correct time.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Aug 2, 2017 18:35:14 GMT
You are onto something there trt. As you and indeed I suspect Mayor Khan realise the real benefits for this project will fall to Watford and its environs, so if they really want better transport, then its their pocket that needs to find the missing cash for the current project to proceed. Just reinstating the old Croxley Green line without the viaduct link seems an ill thought through plea to reinstate an economic Albatross which BR was very pleased to let wither on the vine. One might indeed speculate what really lies behind this idea emerging now. Did the planners give unwise assurances to developers about the new link to trigger the recent wave of new building near the proposed route? Sadly the overheads of heavy rail means you need to be able to garantee it will see strong and predictable patronage to be viable - especially on a route which is largely doubled by a regular subsidised bus service which but for a few trips per day is rarely full. The fact some of the right of way may be available for free is only a marginal plus as clearly the old route is still going to need massive and costly renovation without the viaduct. Just look at some of the web-blogs and you will see much of the old infrastructure is in a dire state which in the current H&S environment cannot be sorted with a few gallons of weedkiller! While I agree Watford would be a major beneficiary from this extension, London would also be a beneficiary as Millions of London jobs are held by people who commute from outside London. Numerous housing developments have sprung up over the years in this area and so the patronage of this extension would be greater than that of the old BR line, which was basically a single line branch only used by those who worked in the various industrial sites. One final thought, if this should not be done by the Mayor of London because it is outside London, then wouldn't his desire to take over other commuter routes (which all start from outside London) be a bit of a double standard?
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Jun 20, 2017 10:27:04 GMT
The trains are still double-staffed when operating in the normal direction, but only because the second member needs to get back! Otherwise we'd end up leaving all our train operators at the wrong end... Tripcocks are functioning normally with trains obeying all signals and operating at linespeed in the normal direction. (You have to have two additional members of staff as trains will be working bang road simultaneously, so it's not a case of devising a system where one is effectively a pilot... and pilot working is an entirely separate procedure!) I believe the trains would be double staffed because of there being no tripcock tester between Hammersmith and Wood Lane, nearest one is Ladbrooke Grove. I don't know enough about the CBTC implementation if it could be done as a fully-signalled operation (in theory CBTC is bi-di, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Underground have had that functionality removed, as they have on at least one of the TBTC installs). It could otherwise be done with RM but by that stage the service starts to significantly slow down. We can manage a 15-minute headway as one direction is at linespeed. You'd be struggling to maintain that if having to run at max 10mph in both directions, or for any further length. Beyond a 15 minute headway you might as well not bother. I think we've covered this before. Seltrac has bi-directional functionality built in and it hasn't been removed for any project (there are some bi-directional moves on both Jubilee and Northern for example at terminii). However, for full speed bi-directional working two things are needed (1) track infrastructure that supports it for example current rail ramps and (2) all the planned moves need to be tested ... a lot. This adds a lot of cost to the project and so no new bi-directional working was added to Jubilee and Northern (except I seem to recall around Stratford) and none will be added to 4LM apart from a couple of requested reversing moves. Whilst bi-di would be incredibly useful for instances like the Hammersmith to Wood Lane service there are few other regular benefits as there aren't enough crossovers to allow running of a frequent service around a blockage on one track. Agree that trying to maintain a service in RM is almost impossible though. I understand that the Chesham branch on the Metropolitan would be the only full bi-directional implementation on the 4LM project.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Jun 19, 2017 11:07:02 GMT
MoreToJack I think @rdsworker's comment was a combination of what the TfL social media people said ("until further notice", which is what the website currently says) and their own interpretation of that ("the shuttle will remain for a long time"). The shuttle will remain until TfL are given notice (by the police and/or fire brigade) that the lines through Latimer Road station can reopen, plus however long it takes for shuttle working to be withdrawn and normal working reintroduced. TfL have no knowledge of how long it will be before the lines can reopen. As far as the general public knows it could be hours it could be weeks - whether TfL know any more precisely than that I don't know. I don't know how long the conversion will take, but if the train on the westbound road happens to be running westbound (and vice versa) when the all clear is given then it could be quicker than if they're both running opposite. Very doubtful that the service would just resume with trains in the shuttle service continuing there current journey as there are a number of things to be done before this can happen. For example, after getting the all clear from the London Fire Brigade all assets deployed on the track to enable single line working would need to be removed. The section of track closed between Edgware Road and Wood Lane would need to be inspected for any obstructions and Duty Managers would need to organise Train Operators who may have already been redeployed for the existing service.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on May 29, 2017 19:17:00 GMT
Isn't the crossover partly in the platforms? I'm assuming this would mean that the service wouldn't be able to run from there as a result, which would mean a service Charing Cross - Embankment - Waterloo - Lambeth North - Elephant. There seems little point in running something as limited as this, particularly as it's mirrored for most of the time by the Northern Line. Trains can berth fully in the platform at Piccadilly and still use the crossover. This is quite correct with a few notes:- The South to North manoeuvre the train has to stop at the advanced stopping mark to clear the points. The North to South manoeuvre would require a train to detrain (remove all passengers from the train), go up to the limit of shunt (marker to show where to stop for a reversing manoeuvre), shut down (traditional stock, air has to be destroyed), driver change ends liven up cab (replenish air), negotiate crossover and fully berth train before the next train can arrive at the Northbound platform as the stopping position for trains on the northbound is too near the crossover and would foul the crossover (but not the points). To add even further delay to this, there is a strict 5mph speed limit on this crossover. In all, not a practical place to run a service with North to South turning.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on May 26, 2017 1:08:36 GMT
Why have the P2 andP3 been switched around on the 22nd of May 2017? How does this make the service more reliable/frequent?? Anything to do with ease of Cross platform interchange? The new timetable introduced on 21 May swapped the platforms around to give the Circle Line drivers easier access to toilet facilities on platform 3. A Circle train from Edgware Road to Hammersmith takes 69½ mins, a District train to Wimbledon is 29 mins, facilities also exist at both Hammersmith and Wimbledon. Does also add some flexibility for turning trains early to recover timetable as Platform 3 is the only bi-directional platform at Edgware Rd, i.e. trains can enter platform from the East or West and leave the platform East or West. Platform 2 of course, can have trains enter from the West only, but depart East or West.
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on May 17, 2017 22:54:33 GMT
Interesting, found this YouTube clip Repoint which demonstrates the principals.
|
|