SSL resignalling

[Deleted]

There doesn't seem to have been much news on this lately. I remember after the demise of Metronet the with Westinghouse was cancelled and the resignalling contract was to be reawarded.

Is there any timetable for when the contract will be re-awarded and the resignalling started? Will the opportunity be taken to use TBTC rather than Distance To Go to resolve issues of where the Met an District share tracks with the Piccadilly?

[Deleted]

Keep tripcock if you ask me, a reliable system that, is a network standard apart from the Victoria, Central and most recently the Jubilee. Though Ive seen new metal cable runs on the met alot quite recently but the hooks seem to look more traditional in design rather than the rectangular ones on the Central.

[Deleted]

Tripcock may be fairly reliable, but as is the Central Line and Victoria Line signalling. And if you keep tripcock, the capacity will not meet the increased demand, the only way forwards is ATP.

[mrfs42]

Jan 17, 2011 17:49:13 GMT @cj said:

Tripcock may be fairly reliable, but as is the Central Line and Victoria Line signalling. And if you keep tripcock, the capacity will not meet the increased demand, the only way forwards is ATP.

Intermediate eurobalises?

[Deleted]

Well if ATP is the way to go, Force all lines to have the same type, I think Central Line type would be best

[Deleted]

Jan 17, 2011 18:21:48 GMT mrfs42 said:

Jan 17, 2011 17:49:13 GMT @cj said:

Tripcock may be fairly reliable, but as is the Central Line and Victoria Line signalling. And if you keep tripcock, the capacity will not meet the increased demand, the only way forwards is ATP.

Intermediate eurobalises?

ERTCS I thought was for mainline signalling; hence not particularly suitable for LU although it would be doable.

If they can make TBTC work right, installing it on all lines would be brilliant. That way it's all truly interoperable again, as it was before the Jub resignalling.

[Deleted]

I seem to remember reading a circular in work recently that said the contract was due to be awarded fairly soon, possibly first quarter of this year. Also, they are working to include the Piccadilly line in the same contract and that line will end up using the same system as the sub surface lines, although it will be last to be upgraded. That would then tie in with the plans to relocate Piccadilly control to the new SSR control room at Hammersmith.

[Deleted]

Am I the only one that finds signalling different lines all with different signalling an incredibly stupid thing to do?

[Deleted]

Jan 17, 2011 22:13:26 GMT @bronzeonion said:

Am I the only one that finds signalling different lines all with different signalling an incredibly stupid thing to do?

No you are not. Unfortunately it is a result of differing ages of fitment and the PPP... the latter being a major flop.

[Phil]

Jan 17, 2011 22:13:26 GMT @bronzeonion said:

Am I the only one that finds signalling different lines all with different signalling an incredibly stupid thing to do?

Technology (especially electronics) moves on all the time and each new signalling install makes use of the best available at the time. If it weren't the case we'd all be stuck with 1860s signalling..........
Same applies to trains, PA systems and all the rest.

[railtechnician]

Jan 17, 2011 22:15:27 GMT @cj said:

Jan 17, 2011 22:13:26 GMT @bronzeonion said:

Am I the only one that finds signalling different lines all with different signalling an incredibly stupid thing to do?

No you are not. Unfortunately it is a result of differing ages of fitment and the PPP... the latter being a major flop.

Yes it is stupid not to have a common standard but the age of the existing equipment is not the real reason for that. The real reason must be three fold, lack of long term planning, lack of secured investment and the appearance of new technology. The first is really a consequence of the second complicated every now and again by the third. Short termism as I like to call it seems to be a very British disease which permeates so much. Having multiple line organistions with differing views also adds to the mix as each will want the most current technology and by the time it is being installed something else is available, thus even if a system remains much the same the components may be different.

As for the PPP anyone with a modicum of intelligence in the industry knew that it wouldn't work. There were better ideas advanced by a former LUL chairman but the government of the day was hell bent on getting capital investment in the Underground hidden from the taxpayer.
A few shrewd people made a great deal of money from the great outsourcing of engineering, much of which would have been better directed in a publicly owned and operated undertaking without the political strings and intermittent investment made by successive governments in the 20th century.
The PPP was bad news for Londoners, bad news for staff and very bad news for the taxpayer though it will probably never know just how much taxpayers money has been wasted on a political washing of the hands.

[Deleted]

PPP not great, but Central Line resignalling was pre-PPP and that was years late and overbudget, so I don't think PPP is/was the only issue here.

With a good 5 years between each major upgrade, installing the same system unless it is antiquated trip-cock equipment is never going to happen. Look at the difference between Central and the now outgoing Westrace on the Jubilee and now the new on Victoria line - same fundemental system, none of it interchangeable.

Its just the modern world and technology moving on too fast for its own good (and obviously signalling manufacturers trying to cash in and make a living).

[Ben]

Surely that was the beauty of tripcock opperation though, its a somewhat timeless system in terms of technology because it can work pneumatically, electricaly, mechanicly and electronicly.

But then again I suppose thats the difference, as long as you agree on one standard interface with the train, the method by which that interface gets its info to tell the train can differ. If that makes sense

[mrfs42]

You forgot hydraulically Ben! ;D Somewhere on the continent.

[Ben]

Ahh damn lol. My favourite uni module aswell...

Is it possible that over the long term LUL may once again share a common signalling system? Perhaps in another 40 years time or so. I only ask because once the SSL+P are done on one system it'll become the most predominant. And surely there is a saturation point with how much a signaling system actually needs to develop to meet the demands?

[railtechnician]

Jan 18, 2011 21:42:34 GMT @sw206 said:

PPP not great, but Central Line resignalling was pre-PPP and that was years late and overbudget, so I don't think PPP is/was the only issue here.

With a good 5 years between each major upgrade, installing the same system unless it is antiquated trip-cock equipment is never going to happen. Look at the difference between Central and the now outgoing Westrace on the Jubilee and now the new on Victoria line - same fundemental system, none of it interchangeable.

Its just the modern world and technology moving on too fast for its own good (and obviously signalling manufacturers trying to cash in and make a living).

Quite simply it's all about investment or lack thereof and as the government holds the purse strings the government is the reason for overruns and escalated costs. It doesn't matter which colour the government it, it is as I said the British disease.
It can be see in everything a British government does, Health, Welfare, Education, Policing, National Rail, Roads, Housing, Governance et al.
No long term strategy or planning in anything because the plans change every 5 years or less, decisions are made short term and subsequently reversed or amended, none of the governing politicians over the years has really been good at spending wisely within the means of the treasury assets, hence the government is always borrowing and that is a situation always liable to be worsened by unforeseen events and lack of thrift.

The whole concept of PPP was a disaster, an out and out con simply to transfer LUL from overt accounting to covert accounting. Despite all the hype it has delivered nothing that could not have been delivered for the same or less by other means and without wasting £millions along the way.

Remember the Jubilee line which was originally the Fleet line, that project had just been renamed at vast expense when I began my LT career. The line was being built to Thamesmead and some who started with LT in 1977 applied for Thamesmead signal installation depot even though it didn't exist. We were working on Stage 1, Charing cross to Stanmore but exactly what was that? Well some new tunnel and signalling, no stations as such but knocking about five existing stations to produce four new interchange stations, resignalling and renaming Baker Street to Stanmore Bakerloo, some new rolling stock, a new substation at Bond St. IIRC there were to be three stages but the other two stages were never going to happen because the money was never there so DLR was planned and built instead, initially as part of LU but then under the LDDC and now under TfL.

It is all a con game, PR and spin as the politicians try to spend money that doesn't exist and the operators try to change a project while it is being delivered. Too much politics, incompetence and inefficiency but Britain knows no other way it seems!

As for the Central Line resignalling that was not done by LUL signals as such but by the CLPT with an amalgam of contractors and former LU engineering staff on vastly inflated salaries from the top management downwards, several of my former colleagues found nice cosy jobs there. I was seconded to CLPT for a few weeks myself to design, install and commission a temporary TT rack at the new Alperton substation and 'over and back' transfer the Wood Lane-Park Royal TT circuits ready for the closure of Old Oak Common substation, this involved recabling all the way from Wood Lane susbstation to Park Royal substation via East Acton track parallelling hut and even though the cable run contractors had apparently finished and been paid off at the time the runs were incomplete as I discovered.
What I saw in the CLPT offices at the time was not the same dedication and work ethic that I had become used to at LU. For some reason people seem to think that the PPP idea began in 2002 and while it is true that Tube Lines took over JNP in 2002 it is not true that that is when privatisiation of engineering began, that started at the end of the 1980s with the selling off of data networks and transfer of staff, then selling off power generation and distribution and so on. By 1991/2 the vast majority of installation staff had retired without replacement, been given voluntary severance, transfered to other departments, left to join contract companies or placed in the redeployment pool awaiting an internal vacancy or redundancy. None of these people were involved in the Central Line resignalling, the last big wholly LUL resignalling was that of the Bakerloo line in the late 1980s.

Under PPP the existing maintenance staffs were transferred to Tube Lines and Metronet doing exactly the same jobs as they had under JNP, BCV and SSL and even though their wages remained the same they were actually costing LUL more, that is the point. The book keepers will say that not having to pay for 'in house' staff with the provision of necessary facilities, cover arrangements etc etc is cheaper but that is a fallacy as contract costs include all the variables plus a contingency and a profit for the shareholders on top, as I said 'short termism' !

Modern technology does move fast but it is driven by demand, any sensible person must realise that if you always want the best you will never have it because while what is being installed is quickly losing its cutting edge it is also paying for its development investment overhead and that is being invested in new technology R&D. So it is best to have a long term planning strategy that takes into account potential advances in technology and makes allowances for their integration with existing systems for a reasonable future period. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is simply wasteful and indeed unnecessary. There are some great examples of old technology still in everyday use at LU, think of a set of points for example, the basic mechanism is over 100 years old and still extant in numbers despite several later designs working alongside it across the network.

[Deleted]

Very good example, so would making all of the different signalling systes compatible work?

[railtechnician]

Jan 19, 2011 7:31:18 GMT @bronzeonion said:

Very good example, so would making all of the different signalling systes compatible work?

You'd have to ask the line operators that but I bet each would have different requirements and with different organisations in place today the only real commonality is the corporate image. However, there is no logical or practical reason why the same basic building blocks couldn't be used on all lines and not just for signalling systems. The same should be true for rolling stock, there should really be no need for more than one surface and one tube stock. A good design that will last could be designed such that it could easily accommodate future improvements in technology instead of re-inventing the wheel every time replacement stock needs to be ordered. To my mind in this day and age everything should be manufactured with recycling and reuse in mind. The Routemaster bus was a great example of good design, there really ought to be a rail equivalent.

[phillw48]

Not just the Routemaster, the 1938/59/62 stock was also a good design.

[railtechnician]

Jan 19, 2011 15:26:32 GMT phillw48 said:

Not just the Routemaster, the 1938/59/62 stock was also a good design.

Yep but was it one basic stock or two or three different ones?

[Deleted]

Jan 19, 2011 15:26:32 GMT phillw48 said:

Not just the Routemaster, the 1938/59/62 stock was also a good design.

I expect they were designed primarily by engineers.

[Ben]

RT, just out of interest would you standardise on a 52½' frame for tube stock, or a 58' frame? The former would be more flexible and have more doors, but the latter would supposedly reduce build price and componant purchase.

[phillw48]

Why not take the 'Ford Transit' approach with many common components but the flexibility to be 'tailored' for a particular line. You can have common cabs, ends, doors, windows, seating etc. with side, roof and floor panels in different lengths which you could 'mix and match' to achieve the desired result. It worked with the Routemaster and the Leyland National buses and it works with a lot of the current main line stock. (It also worked with the BR Mk1 stock.)

[Deleted]

Jan 19, 2011 18:11:21 GMT phillw48 said:

Why not take the 'Ford Transit' approach with many common components but the flexibility to be 'tailored' for a particular line.

Is that what Bombarder are doing now with the latest trains? The 2009 and S stock are both from the Movia family. Unfortunately every time a new order is made though it will have to be tendered throughout the EU and another company could win.

[railtechnician]

Jan 19, 2011 18:11:21 GMT phillw48 said:

Why not take the 'Ford Transit' approach with many common components but the flexibility to be 'tailored' for a particular line. You can have common cabs, ends, doors, windows, seating etc. with side roof and floor panels in different lengths which you could 'mix and match' to achieve the desired result. It worked with the Routemaster and the Leyland National buses and it works with a lot of the current main line stock. (It also worked with the BR Mk1 stock.)

Rolling stock is not my forte but your comment is exactly the point I was making. I think it is a common sense approach that can be applied to many things.

[Tom]

Jan 19, 2011 14:52:39 GMT railtechnician said:

Jan 19, 2011 7:31:18 GMT @bronzeonion said:

Very good example, so would making all of the different signalling systes compatible work?

You'd have to ask the line operators that but I bet each would have different requirements and with different organisations in place today the only real commonality is the corporate image. However, there is no logical or practical reason why the same basic building blocks couldn't be used on all lines and not just for signalling systems. The same should be true for rolling stock, there should really be no need for more than one surface and one tube stock.

The question of interoperability and compatibility between various new systems is being closely looked at, especially for the interfaces in the Ealing Common area.

Regarding your point about single stocks railtechnician, what do you do when a complete fleet of stock has to be stopped as happened with the 1992TS a few years ago? Stop all tube or sub-surface stock, depending on which is affected?

[plasmid]

Not being funny but technology has come a long way in the last 15 years! I doubt they are making trains with ATO that slam from full acceleration to full braking in a manner that isn't possible in manual mode.

Also the trains were budget. Even so for budget...name me a car that has ran for 364 days of the year for almost 20 years and looks better than the 92ts...none. Also that car would have had tonnes of worn out components and would have been looked at as a common fault.

[railtechnician]

Jan 19, 2011 22:36:25 GMT Tom said:

Jan 19, 2011 14:52:39 GMT railtechnician said:

You'd have to ask the line operators that but I bet each would have different requirements and with different organisations in place today the only real commonality is the corporate image. However, there is no logical or practical reason why the same basic building blocks couldn't be used on all lines and not just for signalling systems. The same should be true for rolling stock, there should really be no need for more than one surface and one tube stock.

The question of interoperability and compatibility between various new systems is being closely looked at, especially for the interfaces in the Ealing Common area.

Regarding your point about single stocks railtechnician, what do you do when a complete fleet of stock has to be stopped as happened with the 1992TS a few years ago? Stop all tube or sub-surface stock, depending on which is affected?

Right off the bat the answer must be 'yes', however, it should never come to that because if it did it would show that there was never a proper evaluation of the design, maintenance was universally poor or some similar issue.

The money that should be saved by using common building blocks should allow better monitoring and more comprehensive maintenance and still save money.

I really don't think it a valid argument to suggest that having to shut the entire network down for a 'universal' fault is a valid reason not to use common components. That is rather negative, a more positive approach would be to invest in better design, better materials, better maintenance procedures etc.

Mind you I would have to say that in modern Britain it does require a huge leap of faith to believe such a seed change is possible.

[railtechnician]

Tom,

I meant to mention the concept of having the common components of any assembly or system made by two or more manufacturers to the same standard specification. Thus unless a fault or failure is attributable to a poor design it must lie elsewhere and having more than one manufacturing facility should mitigate such faults to one manufacturing line or another. In such a way having a fleet of identical rolling stock would not necessarily force the whole fleet out of service while an issue is identified and rectified.

I appreciate that getting manufacturers to co-operate in this fashion is perhaps not so easy but it is not impossible. The GPO/PO did it for decades with everything from an electronic component to complete telephone exchanges. I am not sure that it still applies under BT as many of the former independent manufacturers have been swallowed up by industry giants or simply gone out of business. However, I believe the principle is still valid and could be applied to any manufacturing process where there is a will to do so.

[Deleted]

New York City Transit actually tried the "two or more manufacturers with a common specification" approach to TBTC. It took a lot of work, and there was a lot of complaining on the part of the manufacturers, but they eventually kind of made their TBTC system work. Perhaps the only reasonable way to deal with it is to have LU do the system integration, and the vendors would only sell parts, rather than turnkey "solutions" that may work well when you're building an all-new system, but not nearly as well when you have to integrate with existing infrastructure.