Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2005 22:11:16 GMT
The recent closure of the Picc highlighted the massive inflexibilities of the central section between Hyde Park Corner and Arnos Grove. Has any thought been given to the restoration of the trailing crossovers at Covent Garden, and additionally, York Road (disused)?
|
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,415
|
Post by DWS on Aug 6, 2005 22:22:15 GMT
The recent closure of the Picc highlighted the massive inflexibilities of the central section between Hyde Park Corner and Arnos Grove. Has any thought been given to the restoration of the trailing crossovers at Covent Garden, and additionally, York Road (disused)? Yes some years ago it was proposed to restore the crossover at Covent Garden, but due to the high cost, it was never done.
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Aug 7, 2005 6:32:32 GMT
Yes some years ago it was proposed to restore the crossover at Covent Garden, but due to the high cost, it was never done. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OOOOHHHH!!! It REALLY pi$$es me off when cost is allowed to overrule necessity when things are assessed. "We have safety as our primary concern" say the infracos. That's complete toffeeapple and they know it. Their only concern is how to line private pockets with public money. No I will NOT shut up>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2005 9:41:30 GMT
What exactly is the high cost? The tunnel needed is already present, and the old signal box could probably be adapted to hold the IMR and associated cooling machinery. I suppose the cost is all of the red tape?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2005 10:09:50 GMT
It's not just the cost of installing the crossover and associated signalling. Points cost significantly more to maintain than plain track. And, if they are facing points, there is always the danger that parts of the train will go in different directions.
What's the tradeoff between cost and convenience? If the crossover at Covent Garden had been left in place, it would have cost a significant amount in maintenance each year. Normally, this money would have been wasted as there is no normal call to reverse at Covent Garden. Then, for four weeks in 2005, it could have been used to turn the western section of the Picc at Covent Garden instead of hyde Park Cnr. This probably would not greatly help the travelling punters, as there would still have been no service from Covent Garden to Arnos Grove.
Granda complains about cost overruling necessity, but really how necessary is a turnback at Covent Garden?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2005 10:45:43 GMT
I can agree that the points and signals would probably be somewhat expensive in terms of cost:benefit ratios, but the additional flexibility would be welcomed, especially when KxStP is unavailable.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,309
|
Post by Colin on Aug 7, 2005 11:21:07 GMT
To put this in context - you'd be looking at two, probably three weekend possessions to actually install the physical elements of the pointwork and new track. then there is the time spent on designing and installing the associated signaling as well as a new interlocking machine room. You'd most likely be talking the best part of half a million pounds just for all that. Then, because of the possessions, you would need rail replacement buses, extra publicity etc. Now the cost would be approaching three quarters of a million. A lot of money for a crossover that might, or might not be used.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by Tom on Aug 7, 2005 12:23:35 GMT
What exactly is the high cost? The tunnel needed is already present, and the old signal box could probably be adapted to hold the IMR and associated cooling machinery. I suppose the cost is all of the red tape? Assurance paperwork is one thing, having enough of the required skilled staff to design install and test and then maintain it every six weeks is another. A big issue is that for it to be controlled from Earl's Court the desks would need to be modified and a lot of additional work would be needed. As E/Ct control room is filled with asbestos this pushes the price up even more, as does the need for the operator interface to match the existing. The chances are the new equipment room wouldn't be a traditional IMR as we no longer have the skills to build lever frames, so a relay interlocking or Westrace would be needed and they take up considerably more space. The old cabin and relay room would not be big enough or suitable to meet the requirements of the Electricity at Work act for adequate space. (Very few relay rooms anywhere would.) Any replacement of the crossover would also have other effects, such as if the whole train service was needed to reverse there would the station become so overloaded that it is forced to close? It isn't like this is an uncommon occurance at the moment with the number of people using the station. Now when it comes to timescales: I'd say a three day possession for installation of the trackwork, and then two or three weekend possessions for commissioning. Then take into account the times for installation of the majority of the trackside components during engineering hours, the installation of the required SER (easily four weeks of 24 hour working) it adds up and doesn't bring any quick benefits. Cost wise, for just trackside signalling components you're looking at in excess of £500k. Include rails, rooms equipment etc and you're looking at a lot more. Design costs for a preparer, checker and approver for the best part of three months (at least) come out to around £37k, plus project managers, installation staff etc you're looking at easily another £500k. The benefits simply do not outweigh the costs, especially when this is additional work under the PPP contract which will require scarce staff resources to be diverted from other work which is required by the contract. What is more effective is to do what has been done at Wood Green and simply add an additional route to the siding outlet signal and give an W-E reversing capability. The most expensive changes there are to modify the mechanical locking and the control system, all the rest is utilising existing components (bar changing a tripcock tester and associated circuits).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2005 15:57:30 GMT
Now I understand - thanks for the info.
As for your comment about overcrowding at Covent Garden, that seems a bit unlikely - wouldn't it be simpler to turf the pax customers off at Leicester Square, reverse at PC and tip in 'on the south'?
Also, extrapolating from the monetary values you mentioned, would it really cost about three million to restore the crossover?
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by Tom on Aug 7, 2005 16:25:14 GMT
It would be simpler for tip-outs to be done at Leicester Square and probably pick back up at Leister Sq WB - because of the short distance between the two stations the delay tipping out at Covent Garden (which never recieved the P prefix to it's cabin code) would cause other trains to be held there anyway.
£3m? It's probably a good ballpark figure, if possibly a little on the low side.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2005 17:15:53 GMT
Normally, this money would have been wasted as there is no normal call to reverse at Covent Garden. Then, for four weeks in 2005, it could have been used to turn the western section of the Picc at Covent Garden instead of hyde Park Cnr. This probably would not greatly help the travelling punters, as there would still have been no service from Covent Garden to Arnos Grove. It's actually a fairly common occurence (pre 7th july) for the Picc to be suspended Hyde Park Corner - Arnos Grove due to security alert, signal failure etc. Then everyone has to squeeze onto the District At least running to Covent Garden would give connections at Picc Circus and Leicester Sq. But £3 million would be hard to justify. How about a reversing point somewhere between KX and Fisnbury Park so that the eastern end of the Picc would be connected to the Victoria rather than cut off?
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Aug 7, 2005 18:11:45 GMT
How about a reversing point somewhere between KX and Fisnbury Park so that the eastern end of the Picc would be connected to the Victoria rather than cut off? You could even call it York Road.......
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by Tom on Aug 7, 2005 19:22:56 GMT
How ironic that King's X crossover was commissioned to replace York Road...
|
|
|
Post by piccadillypilot on Aug 7, 2005 19:38:45 GMT
How ironic that King's X crossover was commissioned to replace York Road... Was it not installed at the same time as the connection to the C&SLR making York Road superfluous? Further to Tom's figures for reinstalling the Covent Garden crossover, I wonder how much it cost to remove?
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by Tom on Aug 7, 2005 19:54:30 GMT
Strange as it may seem, the crossover was only commissioned in 1956. Prior to then, trains from the northern had to go to York Road and reverse.
Even stranger is that after KX was commissioned York Road remained in commission until c.1964.
As for the cost of the removal of Covent Garden X-over, probably less than it would have cost to resignal it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2005 22:55:51 GMT
I wouldnt say that the central part of the picc is not very flexible. The reason not much of a service could nhave run is because where the incident of 7/7 was located, meaning the E-W crossover at KX couldnt not be used.
From Hammersmith, the abilty to reverse E-W & W-E & HPC, E-W & (W-E?) at KX, and E-W at Wood Green, I think this is more than than adeqaute for the distance we are looking at.
As i said, it was unfortuneate that the events of 7/7 were where they were, otherwise a better service could have been restored sooner.
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Aug 8, 2005 10:57:09 GMT
yes, but the line would be so much MORE flexible if passengers from the north could get to FP and onto the Vic. If that was done there would indeed be hardly any inconvenience to any Picc. passengers.
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Aug 8, 2005 13:24:25 GMT
It is not just the Piccadilly Line that could do with extra reversing points. The Jubilee Line is particularly poorly served by reversing points in the central area. For example a stalled train at West Hampstead in the northbound platform will result in the suspension of the Jubilee Line between Waterloo and Willesden Green. (Before anyone asks a train cannot leave Finchley Road on the northbound Jubilee if there is a train in the platform at West Hampstead. In this scenario this prevents the crossover at Finchley Road being used to reverse north to south)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2005 23:09:38 GMT
Strange as it may seem, the crossover was only commissioned in 1956. Prior to then, trains from the northern had to go to York Road and reverse. Even stranger is that after KX was commissioned York Road remained in commission until c.1964. As for the cost of the removal of Covent Garden X-over, probably less than it would have cost to resignal it. Thanks for posting that info Tom. Despite having been very interested in the history of the Piccadilly line since starting to work on it in 1971, I didn't realise that those changes had been made so recently in relation to the age of the line. With reference to Covent Garden, I'm thinking of the old X-over at North Ealing (controlled from a ground frame) that remained until the late 1960s. Would it be possible, in today's environment, to have a very 'basic' X-over (possibly secured by clips & scotches or similar during regular 'through' working) for emergency reversing? I'm thinking of trains being tipped-out at Leicester Sq or Holborn (allowing passengers to transfer to other lines) and reversing empty at Covent Garden.
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Aug 8, 2005 23:53:38 GMT
Tell me something. Howlong in car lengths is the platform at Aldwych?
|
|
solidbond
Staff Emeritus
'Give me 118 reasons for an Audible Warning on a C Stock'
Posts: 1,215
|
Post by solidbond on Aug 9, 2005 6:02:12 GMT
With reference to Covent Garden, I'm thinking of the old X-over at North Ealing (controlled from a ground frame) that remained until the late 1960s. Would it be possible, in today's environment, to have a very 'basic' X-over (possibly secured by clips & scotches or similar during regular 'through' working) for emergency reversing? I'm thinking of trains being tipped-out at Leicester Sq or Holborn (allowing passengers to transfer to other lines) and reversing empty at Covent Garden. I would think it possible, (although unlikely in a tunnel), as that is exactly what was used at Royal Oak to allow the H&C to run from Hammersmith to Paddington while Edgware Road was out of use. The only problem with that is that the X-over is hand-worked, hence the reason why it would be unlikely to be usable in a tunnel.
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Aug 9, 2005 7:39:00 GMT
Surely with rodding the levers could be placed in between the tunnel mouths. Although I must admit that after experienceing actually working the one that used to be at Surrey Docks it is hard work. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EDIT
Something has just come up from the depths of my memory. Many years ago (before you lot were pupped) the tramways used to have, at regular intervals. spring loaded reversing points.
A car travelling normally in the correct direction would open these points with it's wheels after which the spring would close them again. If the points were needed for one line working they could be held open with a lever whch locked them open.
Surely an adaptation could be made to that arrangement for tube use?
|
|
|
Post by rayb on Aug 9, 2005 9:51:45 GMT
Could a crossover/siding/ not be made available using some of the disused Picc space at Holborn?
Yes, there will be a cost. No, it might not get used that often, but it will build in some resiliance to the line. Future outages (be they the fault of LUL or outside influences) could be minimised and the number of stations affected reduced.
As at least one platform, track and signals are still there, would it really be that hard to do?
RayB
|
|
|
Post by piccadillypilot on Aug 9, 2005 9:54:16 GMT
Could a crossover/siding/ not be made available using some of the disused Picc space at Holborn? At Holborn the tunnels are one above the other.
|
|
|
Post by piccadillypilot on Aug 9, 2005 10:06:06 GMT
Tell me something. Howlong in car lengths is the platform at Aldwych? Present berth is 173.56 feet or three cars of 73 stock. However, the stopping point and the FRLs are short of the headwall.
|
|
|
Post by piccadillypilot on Aug 9, 2005 10:12:14 GMT
A tunnel section crossover could be worked as a groundframe using electro-pnuematic points with the frame in a cabin on the platform released from the controlling signal cabin/centre.
(Cue Tom to tell us how expensive this would be and how it's not justified etc etc. ;D )
|
|
|
Post by rayb on Aug 9, 2005 10:39:42 GMT
Could a crossover/siding/ not be made available using some of the disused Picc space at Holborn? At Holborn the tunnels are one above the other. Pardon my obvious ignorance, but there must be some link between the Aldwych branch and the main, how else were stock transfers made?
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri on Aug 9, 2005 11:05:04 GMT
there must be some link between the Aldwych branch and the main, how else were stock transfers made? I hope the following will be of help:
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by Tom on Aug 9, 2005 11:29:14 GMT
Many years ago (before you lot were pupped) the tramways used to have, at regular intervals. spring loaded reversing points. A car travelling normally in the correct direction would open these points with it's wheels after which the spring would close them again. If the points were needed for one line working they could be held open with a lever whch locked them open. Surely an adaptation could be made to that arrangement for tube use? 'Fraid not. The appropriate engineering standard states: "Unpowered points Spring toggle, spring and loose points (consisting only of switches and stretcher bars) shall not be used."
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by Tom on Aug 9, 2005 11:59:49 GMT
(Cue Tom to tell us how expensive this would be and how it's not justified etc etc. ;D ) I'd like to come back and reply that it's not permitted by LU's own engineering standards, but I can't find anything! However, my gut feel is that on a line controlled from a central control room there would be reluctance to install a new interlocking working in a ground frame style, and the requirement from the user would be that all the routes on a particular site are controllable from the central control room.
|
|