Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,348
|
Post by Colin on Feb 27, 2009 18:39:28 GMT
Easy - don't tell anyone!!  ;D ;D  ;D ;D As far as the general public are concerned, engineering works are engineering works - LU (or any other rail company come to that) never generally explains the exact work involved each and every time there is a line or station closure. Quite often things don't go to plan - sometimes it's very public with an engineering over run, and sometimes the work is de-scoped (less done than planned) to prevent an engineering over run. This happens on a very regular basis and when something is de-scoped, there'll be another closure later on to deal with the missed work - and all the while the general public is none the wiser. This laying incorrect cable thing is certainly a major cock up, but hey, we're all human and sometimes mistakes are made - at least it has been discovered sooner rather than later. EDIT: On the wider point of "how many more closures", etc, etc..... LU runs a train service for around 20 hours every day - leaving just 4 hours to do maintenance and install all the new stuff that will bring huge befits when finished. Obviously equipment has to be brought onto site and taken away again, otherwise trains can't run - that eats into the 4 hour window, and if the train service finishes late.......you have even less time. Engineers don't always work on the same site every night, so safety briefings are a mandatory requirement before any work is started - then there are procedures for booking on and off site with a safety window to allow protection to be put in place should work over run into "traffic hours" (when trains are due to start running). That's even more of your 4 hours gone. I (and my colleagues - including the engineers side) do appreciate the frustration of our customers with all the current disruption, but if you want a better & more reliable service, this work has got to done. You can't have you're cake and eat it I'm afraid. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2009 19:05:43 GMT
Would I be correct in saying that the reason LU and other TOCs do not explain the exact work is the same reason that we are not supposed to discuss stock movements, because of grafitti, vandalism, etc etc?
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,348
|
Post by Colin on Feb 27, 2009 19:23:25 GMT
I wouldn't say so, no.
Most people couldn't give a monkeys about the exact nature of any given work that is being carried out at any particular time, and the work planned to occur may even change at the last moment for one of a thousand technical or procedural reasons.
Also bear in mind we are pumping out a lot of information on alternative travel advice - to then add in detailed explanations of what's actually being done would be information overload.
As for stocks movements, they are absolutely never guaranteed to run as planned - so it's almost always pointless advertising them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ek583 on Mar 1, 2009 12:31:12 GMT
I was just wondering how come there have been a full service running this weekend from about 15:30 yesterday? Surely they could have gone on with their normal part suspensions, so that we have one less weekend closure later on?
EDIT: Probably answered my own question here. I realised afterwards it was to do with the Carling Cup final at the Wembley today (or technically yesterday). Which is probably why the Met was also running a full service, quite contrary to the last few weekends.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Mar 3, 2009 18:36:34 GMT
Just a heads up,the closure between Stanmore & London Bridge is cancelled this weekend,the closure will now be London Bridge to Neasden.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Mar 18, 2009 23:01:07 GMT
There are some alterations to the Easter shutdown.
Good Friday-no service Stratford-Neasden,Neasden-Stanmore shuttle.
Saturday-no service Stratford-Neasden till 15:00 then Stratford-Waterloo shuttle,Neasden-Stanmore shuttle all day.
Sunday-no service Stratford-Neasden,Neasden-Stanmore shuttle.
Monday-As Sunday.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Mar 21, 2009 19:44:40 GMT
The first full TBTC operation test train is running between Canary Wharf and Waterloo this weekend 086-085 units.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Mar 22, 2009 14:18:42 GMT
Colin, with the post at the top of the page, I think you slightly contradicted yourself  "and all the while the general public is none the wiser" "You can't have you're cake and eat it I'm afraid" Generally speaking, if the public have to have another closure, people ask 'why when we just had one last month?' If the answer is descoping of the original project, then the public are indeed very aware; the extra clousure is not something that can be hidden! As for the cock up, TTF has it that the cable was laid, but then the specification changed, so now it has to be replaced. Quite why the imminant change wasnt pointed out beforehand is a mystery. Is it usual in engineering for this sort of thing to happen? |
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Apr 17, 2009 19:21:11 GMT
Towerman - what's the current state of play with ATO? Is there a pencilled-in completion date yet? I was just listening to a tape of someone from the LU planning dept at a lecture last year who was optimistically saying 2009, but I'd guess it's significantly later now?
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Apr 18, 2009 1:00:58 GMT
It's supposed to be finished by late 2010,but the rumours are it's at least 12 months late and well over budget.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Apr 24, 2009 4:14:57 GMT
118-117 the original Highgate test track train is back in Jubilee Line service this morning.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on May 7, 2009 19:32:30 GMT
Just a heads up the entire Jubilee is shut on Saturday 16th May.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2009 20:41:14 GMT
It's supposed to be finished by late 2010,but the rumors are it's at least 12 months late and well over budget. Ok, so now I'm confused. The TFL propaganda machine still states Dec 2009. I understand that Tube Lines have b^lled up some of the caballing work. So do we actually have any clarity on a feasible 'live date' for ATO on the Jubilee? |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on May 12, 2009 17:42:45 GMT
Trial ops are pencilled in for weekend of 8th,9th August and training for the service controllers has started.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on May 20, 2009 12:23:09 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2009 18:58:40 GMT
www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/11760.aspx[/quote] Will I guess if it gets the job done on time and to budget, it's worth it.... As an aside, I wonder if when The Met's signalling comes to be upgraded, the Jubilee will close? What an irony if that should turn out to be the case!
|
|
|
|
Post by flippyff on May 20, 2009 19:03:29 GMT
Sorry if it's been covered before but will the two lines/systems be compatable?
Simon
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2009 21:54:30 GMT
Oh, for f***s sake!
And I bet that Tube Lies won't finish it in time anyway!
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Jun 6, 2009 0:45:47 GMT
The DFA(Dual Fit Area)was decommissioned last weekend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2009 9:53:35 GMT
Nice.
Out of interest, does anyone know what's the max number of trains that are run currently and what will be the max number after the ATO upgrade?
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Jun 6, 2009 19:17:18 GMT
24tph now,will be 30tph but in theory the system could cope with 36tph.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 7, 2009 13:35:25 GMT
Why is it that ATO is only thought capable of a max of around 35tph? Surely something more ambitious like 45tph should be the aspiration?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2009 14:05:21 GMT
Why is it that ATO is only thought capable of a max of around 35tph? Surely something more ambitious like 45tph should be the aspiration? But nigh on impossible - the time it takes for passengers to leave the train and the station capacity to take them away as well as comfortable acceleration and braking rates make it unheard of. |
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Jun 8, 2009 18:42:09 GMT
You'd also need some out-of-this world near conflict-free terminating facilites at both ends of the line, which the Jub doesn't really have.
I hope there isn't some confusion between the service level (i.e. tph - number of trains passing a given point on the line within an hour) and the acutal number of trains running in order to provide this level of service. They are two different things, albeit related.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 8, 2009 19:17:02 GMT
No, not atall. Its just 40tph's been done with conventional signalling. Seems like the boat needs pushing out further, was my point.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Jun 9, 2009 16:22:16 GMT
I see, yes. But I think something would need to give. Train speeds might need to be lower with pretty agressive acceleration and braking to allow such close running.
Major work might also be needed to terminate 40tph. It may or may not be possible at the eastern end depending on the turnaround capacity of Stratford & North Greenwich but it would be pretty impossible at the other end. You'd probably need two grade-separated branches capable of turning around 20tph each or some other form of conflict-free terminating. Unless there are plans to branch to HOTH I can't see how this could be achieved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2009 9:27:16 GMT
Why is it that ATO is only thought capable of a max of around 35tph? Surely something more ambitious like 45tph should be the aspiration? Headway = Dwell Time + Platform Re-occupation Time + Operating Margin When you add the above together, 45tph is not possible. Then you have to look at reversing capacity. The Jubilee will struggle to reverse more than 30tph unless tipping out rules are relaxed. Dead end termini at both ends of the line don't help either. |
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 10, 2009 19:31:35 GMT
Why is it that ATO is only thought capable of a max of around 35tph? Surely something more ambitious like 45tph should be the aspiration? Headway = Dwell Time + Platform Re-occupation Time + Operating Margin When you add the above together, 45tph is not possible. Then you have to look at reversing capacity. The Jubilee will struggle to reverse more than 30tph unless tipping out rules are relaxed. Dead end termini at both ends of the line don't help either. Provided 28 TPH is acheived, Seltrac need do no more to meet PPP. 30 TPH is actually a bonus. I shall have to look this up to get the decimal places exactly right, but the Jubilee line ''journey time capability'' - the calculation by which upgrades are measured - requires only (I think I remember ) 27.8 TPH - therefore rounding up is 28 TPH to meet PPP contractual issues. Stanmore 3rd platform, the 7-car project, and the traction upgrade all contribute. In fact, if TPH can be increased by further means [like uplifing the PSRs north of BAS] the resignalling direct impact would be less. There is no PPP requirement to resignal - if other means were possible to acheive the 22% capability uplift then that would be allowed - but it happened that resignalling was a chosen route. 24 TPH is reckoned to be the practical maximum the existing signalling can do. The throttle on higher TPH I am aware of is westbound SOU to WAT - there is no signal in section between A161 (SOU WB platform starter; although I am not sure if it is formally correct to refer to an Auto as a starter; anyone clarify that?) and TH8 (WAT WB platform starter). Before moving on I spent many moons in NSCC actually on control room engineering - and SOU-WAT is to the best of my knowledge the limiter. Obviously such a limit on one road impacts on both roads as you can only for shorts bursts run an asymetric service ... periods that are too short for either peak tidal flow. I have no idea what impact one section signal twixt SOU and WAT might have had ... presumbaly someone did work this out at some point. Don't forget the real impact of TBTC is not just the signalling itself allowing decreased headway. RORI (1) is reduced by the control system - 21 to 27 TPH I think is the base calculation - but is not the whole story. The new signalling optimises [moving] block lengths in turn allows the traction equipment to run at full potential both in traction and braking modes and significantly contribues to IRI (2) reduction. IRI is reduced 16.7% from all inputs including traction. There were really six steps in the route upgrade as originally planned - the first was the DFA (reported upthread as recently decommissioed - this was a test and training phase only); the four staged signalling steps from east to west (number of steps since reduced) and finally, after resignalling is complete, unlocking the ability to unscrew the 1996 stock traction pack limits. ITYF that last step is the one that gets it all to 30 TPH (theory). Most of the above gen is available in the public domain through IRSE technical papers - but I cannot post the one I'd like to. However, the Singapore branch of IRSE does have a public download area www.irse.org.sg/downloads/index.phpwith the two files '' Technical Talk 11/1/2007 Resignalling London's Jubilee, Northern & Piccadilly Lines Tom Godfrey'' being the ones to get. These do not have all the figures I quoted aboive, as I said, I can't post the paper I'd like to. I am sure we'd all like 36 TPH or more, but given that 28 TPH is AFAIK the PPP contracted value 30 TPH is 7% EXCESS capacity, with maybe possibly 36 TPH a future ''would like to have'' (but my guess is more trains would be needed for that). (1) Run Out Run In time - The minimum time for one train to follow the first into a platform [2] Inter-station Interval - The time to travel from one station to the next -- Nick |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jun 10, 2009 20:31:03 GMT
24 TPH is reckoned to be the practical maximum the existing signalling can do. The throttle on higher TPH I am aware of is westbound SOU to WAT - there is no signal in section between A161 (SOU WB platform starter; although I am not sure if it is formally correct to refer to an Auto as a starter; anyone clarify that?) and TH8 (WAT WB platform starter). Before moving on I spent many moons in NSCC actually on control room engineering - and SOU-WAT is to the best of my knowledge the limiter. Obviously such a limit on one road impacts on both roads as you can only for shorts bursts run an asymetric service ... periods that are too short for either peak tidal flow. I have no idea what impact one section signal twixt SOU and WAT might have had ... presumbaly someone did work this out at some point. Curious: that particular section should be seen as the limiter; there are signals with a longer excess overlap elsewhere on the Jubilee. Admittedly it is the only section (OTTOMH) that has no intermediate signal, although doesn't the line drop virtually continuously from Southwark to Waterloo? Any intermediate signal on that section would have an overlap ending in the middle of Waterloo platform - IIRC all are clear of platforms on the JLE apart from North Greenwich. A signal on the end of a platform is a (platform) starter - it can either be auto or semi-auto. |
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 10, 2009 21:20:42 GMT
24 TPH is reckoned to be the practical maximum the existing signalling can do. The throttle on higher TPH I am aware of is westbound SOU to WAT - there is no signal in section between A161 (SOU WB platform starter; although I am not sure if it is formally correct to refer to an Auto as a starter; anyone clarify that?) and TH8 (WAT WB platform starter). Curious: that particular section should be seen as the limiter; there are signals with a longer excess overlap elsewhere on the Jubilee. Admittedly it is the only section (OTTOMH) that has no intermediate signal, although doesn't the line drop virtually continuously from Southwark to Waterloo? Any intermediate signal on that section would have an overlap ending in the middle of Waterloo platform - IIRC all are clear of platforms on the JLE apart from North Greenwich. A signal on the end of a platform is a (platform) starter - it can either be auto or semi-auto. I am not a signaller or conventional signals engineer. I hear what you say - including the overlap bit - and I think from a signals engineers view you are probably theoretically right on all of it. Is it perhaps the proximity of SOU to WAT stations means always a low average speed - there is not much can be done about that. No doubt someone will be along soon to counter post, but SOU-WAT was what I was led to beleive, and from observing the engineers line overview and trackernet replays it did seem to be a throttle in evening peak when all else ran smoothly. But I'd welcome anyone with some true analytical data on it. -- Nick |
|
