Automated Driverless Railway Upgrade Taking 12 Years!

[spsmiler]

Although not about London I thought that this might be of interest

I've been reading about a legacy driverless urban metro which has also been going through an upgrade process ... The Lille VAL system opened in 1986 and it uses 26 metre trains which at busy times run at approx 60 second intervals.

In 2012 a contract was signed to upgrade Line 1 with 27 new trains which will be twice as long (52 metres) and a new train control system - Alstom's new simplified CBTC system called Urbalis Fluence.

One of the important requirements is for trains to continue running at the same frequency.

The plan was for the new trains to enter service in January 2016 and the whole project to be completed in 2017.

From what I've been reading the new train control system passed its final testing phase on the weekend of 19th / 20th October 2024 (just a few days ago) and will now start being used in earnest in mid-November (2024) - 7 years later than originally planned.

[roythebus]

That's progress for you. I cn't see any system being capable of doing 60tph as people take longer than that to board and alight. The District Railway managed 42 tph at Mansion house in the days of steam with semaphore signalling and trains terminating needins turnovr locos to be provided. I don't think any of the current tube lines can match that at the moment.

[t697]

I'm always doubtful about these claims of 40 and 42 tph. Seen the same claimed for 1920 stock possibly on the Bakerloo. I think they'd need to be quite short trains, the signalling to be more permissive than we now have, the platform dwells to be really well managed and probably other things not allowed under current rules and standards.

[linus]

Oct 25, 2024 16:14:09 GMT t697 said:

I'm always doubtful about these claims of 40 and 42 tph. Seen the same claimed for 1920 stock possibly on the Bakerloo. I think they'd need to be quite short trains, the signalling to be more permissive than we now have, the platform dwells to be really well managed and probably other things not allowed under current rules and standards.

There was certainly a 40tph peak service on the District in the 60s west from Mansion House. 7½min services to each of Ealing, Richmond, Hounslow, Wimbledon and Circle. Some skip-stopped after Sloane Square. I still have the timetable.

[Chris M]

Oct 25, 2024 16:14:09 GMT t697 said:

and probably other things not allowed under current rules and standards.

The attitude to SPADs was very significantly laxer than today, especially if the train was brought to a stand within the overlap. I believe it was a "please try not to SPAD" rather than a "Thou shalt never SPAD".
The layout was more flexible so there were more options for service recovery and I wouldn't be surprised if there was more flexibility in terms of crew working times and practices too which would also help keep things running.

[programmes1]

Oct 31, 2024 11:43:04 GMT Chris M said:

Oct 25, 2024 16:14:09 GMT t697 said:

and probably other things not allowed under current rules and standards.

The attitude to SPADs was very significantly laxer than today, especially if the train was brought to a stand within the overlap. I believe it was a "please try not to SPAD" rather than a "Thou shalt never SPAD".
The layout was more flexible so there were more options for service recovery and I wouldn't be surprised if there was more flexibility in terms of crew working times and practices too which would also help keep things running.

I don't suppose you have a reference for that Chris sounds interesting.

[t697]

Oct 31, 2024 10:46:07 GMT linus said:

There was certainly a 40tph peak service on the District in the 60s west from Mansion House. 7½min services to each of Ealing, Richmond, Hounslow, Wimbledon and Circle. Some skip-stopped after Sloane Square. I still have the timetable.

Interesting. And with 8 car trains too I suppose.  I wonder how long that was sustained for each peak and how often the peak actually finished with trains still running on time.

As a young rolling stock engineer we used to be told the intensive service areas were signalled for 90 second headways (implying 40tph) to support a realistic 2 minute service (i.e. 30tph).

In the 60s that District line area would probably have been signalled to the pre-1983 overlap formula too which is a little more permissive.  And I think such schemes tended to include more station approach signals than recent 'legacy' schemes and features like speed control signals in platforms which are frowned at now by Operations who don't like the idea of bringing a train to a halt part in a platform then moving on to the proper stopping position when such a signal clears.  Too much risk of passenger confusion apparently.

The skip stopping must have been potentially confusing to unfamiliar passengers.  Which were non-stopped?  We have enough moans about confusion even today with frequent automated CIS announcements about Met line fast or semi-fast stopping patterns and SDO door cut-outs.  In those days passengers may have applied sensible thought about their journey rather better on average perhaps.

Station dwells must have been short.  There seems to have been more of a 'close the doors on time and only re-open if you don't get a pilot light' mentality rather than the more safety conscious methods today.  Places like Victoria or Sloane Sq WB must have been near impossible for the guard to assess to today's safety standards. No CCTV then to cover the parts not in direct sightline.

[jimbo]

There was a mix of 6- and 8-car trains. Any idea how many of each? 8-car peak only operation required an additional platform attendant to give the clear to the guard. That was a reason for dropping to 7-car trains, apart from all the staff time taken (un-)coupling. I worked guard in the rear cab on C-stock. Westminster westbound was a nightmare. Even walking forward to the 5th car you couldn't see the front of the train. That would be the position of the guard on a 6-car District train. You closed up, and with the pilot light gave the start signal. If you heard no shouting, you assumed all was OK as the train departed.

Underground News October 2024 has 1962 timetable summaries, which shows peak District Line was 44 8-car, 38 6-car which would include Edgware Road branch (but the Circles were 6-car). Also, 8-cars would be concentrated in central area at busiest times. So around half and half. Underground News October 2023 has details of District Line platform indicators which show non-stopping patterns for such trains: Ealing non-stop S.Kensington & Gloucester Rd; Wimbledon n/s W.Brompton; Hounslow n/s Ravenscourt Pk & Stamford Brook; Richmond n/s W.Kensington & Barons Court, which ceased from 1964.

[brigham]

"... Places like Victoria or Sloane Sq WB must have been near impossible for the guard to assess to today's safety standards."

Although not as difficult as today!

[jimbo]

There was no level boarding in those days; you stepped up into the train. So the guard's position was somewhat elevated to look down upon the crowd on the platform. Once people were off or on the train, a gap appeared between those still waiting for another train and the side of the train. That was the cue to press the close buttons. Quite different to the driver's seated position today, which depends on TV monitors to see anything.

[t697]

Good point about train floor heights. Back then, no need to design for full range of adult heights. A 5th%ile female would have that train floor height advantage cancelled out! Any minimum height requirement to qualify as Guard I wonder.

[jimbo]

Perhaps you are thinking of the 6'2" requirement for Grenadier Guards, but no female train crew in my day.

[spsmiler]

Oct 31, 2024 20:56:12 GMT t697 said:

And I think such schemes tended to include more station approach signals than recent 'legacy' schemes and features like speed control signals in platforms which are frowned at now by Operations who don't like the idea of bringing a train to a halt part in a platform then moving on to the proper stopping position when such a signal clears.  Too much risk of passenger confusion apparently.

Trains stopping at red signals with half the train in the platform still happens at Gloucester Road outer rail Circle line. However it is the back of the train that is still alongside the platform whereas the text I quoted would have been referring to the front half of a train being at the platform. 

If it was thought to possibly be successful passengers wanting that train at Gloucester Road would try to force a door open to board it!

[Tom]

Nov 2, 2024 18:34:17 GMT spsmiler said:

Trains stopping at red signals with half the train in the platform still happens at Gloucester Road outer rail Circle line.

Not since 26th March 2022 when CBTC was commissioned. They may still depart and stop at a target point short of the junction, but it isn't a red signal...

[spsmiler]

I must admit that I've not revisited this station since the start of the CBTC.

So if stopping at the target point before junction means that the train has fully cleared the platform then I need to return to see (and possibly film) this change.

[Dstock7080]

Nov 4, 2024 11:24:18 GMT spsmiler said:

So if stopping at the target point before junction means that the train has fully cleared the platform then I need to return to see (and possibly film) this change.

You need to re-read the reply from Tom , trains could still stop at the imaginary (non-visible) target point and still be within the platform.

[brigham]

An emulation of a red signal, if you will!

[spsmiler]

Yes now I understand ... at first read I thought that Tom was suggesting that the target point / emulated red signal is nearer to the junction than the real red signal had been, and therefore when they stop at it the rear of the train would now be fully beyond the station.

Thanks for the clarification - and apologies to Tom.

[jimbo]

That junction is so close to the platform that I don't think a train can fit between them!

[starlight73]

From a rough look on Google Maps it seems to be about 80m from the junction to the western end of the platform

[Tom]

Nov 5, 2024 20:31:56 GMT jimbo said:

That junction is so close to the platform that I don't think a train can fit between them!

It can't!