On 05/06/2010 18:19, CJB wrote:
Murad Qureshi calls for new signal box - 1928 equipment causing
commuter misery at Edgware Road Tube

Published: 4 June 2010 by JAMIE WELHAM IT has been described as the
“arm-pit” of the underground and is a perennial source of rage for
browbeaten Circle line commuters.

http://www.westendextra.com/news/201...y-edgware-road

"When there was only one line for the whole of London" What can that
refer to? Neither telephones nor rail lines makes much sense in this
context.

--
John Wright

Use your imagination Marvin!

Life's bad enough as it is - why invent any more of it.

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 15:58:44 +0100 someone who may be john wright
wrote this:-

"When there was only one line for the whole of London" What can that
refer to? Neither telephones nor rail lines makes much sense in this
context.

Indeed.

The whole sentence is "At its nerve centre is a signal box first
fitted in 1928 – a relic from the first days of the network when
there was only one line for the whole of London."

I suspect that it is just bad journalism, mixing up things the
journalist was told. As background the journalist may have been told
that at one time Edgware Road was on the only underground railway
line [1] not just in London but in the world. However, that was a
long time before 1928.

The photograph shows a miniature lever frame box typical of the era,
particularly in London and SE England. If it has been well
maintained the lever frame should work well, though if the
components on the track are of the same era some may be giving
rather more trouble, though fish tank relays tend to be pretty
indestructible.


[1] in the sense of a railway running under city streets for an
extended distance with intermediate stations. There were earlier
underground railways, including the Liverpool and Manchester Railway
tunnels in Liverpool
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/l/liverpool_edge_hill_cutting/index.shtml



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Jun 6, 7:11*pm, David Hansen
wrote:

The whole sentence is "At its nerve centre is a signal box first
fitted in 1928

The photograph shows a miniature lever frame box typical of the era,


Here it is :

http://www.wbsframe.mste.co.uk/publi...ware_Road.html

--
Nick

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, David Hansen wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 15:58:44 +0100 someone who may be john wright
wrote this:-

"When there was only one line for the whole of London" What can that
refer to? Neither telephones nor rail lines makes much sense in this
context.

Indeed.

The whole sentence is "At its nerve centre is a signal box first
fitted in 1928 ? a relic from the first days of the network when
there was only one line for the whole of London."

I suspect that it is just bad journalism, mixing up things the
journalist was told. As background the journalist may have been told
that at one time Edgware Road was on the only underground railway
line [1] not just in London but in the world. However, that was a
long time before 1928.

The photograph shows a miniature lever frame box typical of the era,
particularly in London and SE England.

Hang on, so that levery pipe-organ thing the guy in the photo is playing
is from 1928? I assumed the story meant the signal box was built in 1928,
not necessarily that all the equipment in it was still original. But i
know nothing of these things.

Hold on, i've just looked at the link Nick posted. It's not from 1928 -
it's from 1926! Yikes!

tom

--
I see large and small words on this page, arranged in long rows separated
by little dotty characters. Suspect written by little dotty characters,
too. -- RonJeffries

On Jun 6, 10:45*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

is from 1928? I assumed the story meant the signal box was built in 1928,
not necessarily that all the equipment in it was still original. But i
know nothing of these things.

Hold on, i've just looked at the link Nick posted. It's not from 1928 -
it's from 1926! Yikes!

Ther are others the saem

Hammersmith 1931

http://www.wbsframe.mste.co.uk/public/Hammersmith.html

and other cabins like Rayners Lane, Harrow on Hill still manned power
frames.

*Almost* the entire underground except Central line and east end of
Jubilee (JLE) is on V-style remote control frames.

--
Nick

On Jun 6, 11:40*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Jun 6, 10:45*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

is from 1928? I assumed the story meant the signal box was built in 1928,
not necessarily that all the equipment in it was still original. But i
know nothing of these things.

Hold on, i've just looked at the link Nick posted. It's not from 1928 -
it's from 1926! Yikes!

Ther are others the saem

Hammersmith 1931

http://www.wbsframe.mste.co.uk/public/Hammersmith.html

and other cabins like Rayners Lane, Harrow on Hill still manned power
frames.

*Almost* the entire underground except Central line and east end of
Jubilee (JLE) is on V-style remote control frames.

--
Nick

Hammersmith, Whitechapel, the Rickmansworth area or Rickmansworth
still have lever frames. Harrow has a push pull frame, with remote
IMRs. Rayners, the rest of Rickmansworth, Upminster, Barking, Amersham
are buttons that operate IMRs

Then of course most of the network still uses IMRs (Interlocking
Machine Rooms), remotely operated lever frames, except the Central,
new bits of the Jubilee and Terminal Five! Some of the frames are
ancient and have just been converted to IMR, even if it's operated
from a control room, by button or computer.
Then of course, there can't be train numbers with 8 or 9 on many lines!

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 22:45:02 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, David Hansen wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 15:58:44 +0100 someone who may be john wright
wrote this:-

"When there was only one line for the whole of London" What can that
refer to? Neither telephones nor rail lines makes much sense in this
context.

Indeed.

The whole sentence is "At its nerve centre is a signal box first
fitted in 1928 ? a relic from the first days of the network when
there was only one line for the whole of London."

I suspect that it is just bad journalism, mixing up things the
journalist was told. As background the journalist may have been told
that at one time Edgware Road was on the only underground railway
line [1] not just in London but in the world. However, that was a
long time before 1928.

The photograph shows a miniature lever frame box typical of the era,
particularly in London and SE England.

Hang on, so that levery pipe-organ thing the guy in the photo is playing
is from 1928? I assumed the story meant the signal box was built in 1928,
not necessarily that all the equipment in it was still original. But i
know nothing of these things.

Hold on, i've just looked at the link Nick posted. It's not from 1928 -
it's from 1926! Yikes!

The lever frame might be from the 1920s but there has been no
confirmation yet whether the faults lie in there or in the electrical
gubbins elsewhere into which it is plumbed and which could be of
rather more recent origin.

On Jun 7, 6:22*am, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 22:45:02 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:



On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, David Hansen wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 15:58:44 +0100 someone who may be john wright
wrote this:-

"When there was only one line for the whole of London" What can that
refer to? Neither telephones nor rail lines makes much sense in this
context.

Indeed.

The whole sentence is "At its nerve centre is a signal box first
fitted in 1928 ? a relic from the first days of the network when
there was only one line for the whole of London."

I suspect that it is just bad journalism, mixing up things the
journalist was told. As background the journalist may have been told
that at one time Edgware Road was on the only underground railway
line [1] not just in London but in the world. However, that was a
long time before 1928.

The photograph shows a miniature lever frame box typical of the era,
particularly in London and SE England.

Hang on, so that levery pipe-organ thing the guy in the photo is playing
is from 1928? I assumed the story meant the signal box was built in 1928,
not necessarily that all the equipment in it was still original. But i
know nothing of these things.

Hold on, i've just looked at the link Nick posted. It's not from 1928 -
it's from 1926! Yikes!

The lever frame might be from the 1920s but there has been no
confirmation yet whether the faults lie in there or in the electrical
gubbins elsewhere into which it is plumbed and which could be of
rather more recent origin.

The only other work that has been done is rewiring and the electrical
kit such as relays. Many of these are refurbished by LU REW. Then
there's things like speed control relays that were put in after
Moorgate crash (mostly), but I don't know of any big failures there/

What has failed a fair few times is the new electric points at Praed
Street!

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 02:29:14 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be dave
wrote this:-

What has failed a fair few times is the new electric points at Praed
Street!

Interesting to know. An earlier poster said that it may be new
equipment which is more prone to failure.

I am reminded of the axle counters around the Severn Tunnel which
couldn't cope with sunshine, leading to repeated failures and
eventually a crash which appears to have been caused by the axle
counters being reset without proper precautions (though this cannot
be concluded as the witch-hunt atmosphere of the time (lessened but
not totally gone these days I gather) meant that people are not
likely to admit to mistakes).

Obviously old signalling equipment could and can be affected by the
sun too, but rodding runs have ways of dealing with this and wire
adjusters are provided for signals.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On 07/06/2010 10:45, David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 02:29:14 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be dave
wrote this:-


What has failed a fair few times is the new electric points at Praed
Street!

Interesting to know. An earlier poster said that it may be new
equipment which is more prone to failure.

I am reminded of the axle counters around the Severn Tunnel which
couldn't cope with sunshine, leading to repeated failures and
eventually a crash which appears to have been caused by the axle
counters being reset without proper precautions (though this cannot
be concluded as the witch-hunt atmosphere of the time (lessened but
not totally gone these days I gather) meant that people are not
likely to admit to mistakes).

Obviously old signalling equipment could and can be affected by the
sun too, but rodding runs have ways of dealing with this and wire
adjusters are provided for signals.



New equipment may very well be more prone to failure because there tends
to be far more to go wrong. There was (in some places still is!) the
old Victorian technology of someone pulling levers connected to wires
connected to signals, also simple telegraph instruments and single
stroke bells to communicate. Compare this with the "black art" of the
modern electronic signalling systems with a maze of processors,
communication links and detection systems which can be the devil's own
game to "troubleshoot".

Add to this the likelihood that any problems may be less obvious to the
users - the old technology could largely be "seen". This is why many
people will go to things like the mechanical organ museum in Norfolk -
you can see the exhibits working and in many cases how they work. In
future years, who is going to go to a museum to watch a board of
integrated circuits sit there?

Don't get me wrong - technology is great and the job I do is so much
better now than with the antiquated kit we used to have to use. But
discretion is required - it is a general rule that the simplest solution
that does the job is also the best one.

New technology should not automatically replace the old - it should give
us more choice. Where the old way is reliable and does the job safely
and efficiently, why throw it away? I have often thought that some of
the older signalling technologies might actually serve the railway
better than going too far down the fancy computer systems road,
precisely because the modern stuff can be too complex and too vulnerable.

Axle counters are a very good example. They are replacing track
circuits because axle counters are allegedly more reliable. But when
someone has on overnight possession [for engineering work], the track
circuits are normally still working in the morning but the axle counters
invariably have to be re-set. This requires either the first train or
two being "talked past" signals to restore the settings, or the whole
system being reset which means nothing moves for a few minutes. And its
not just sunlight - track workers in the Bournemouth area were given
strict instructions not to use mobile phones near the new axle counter
heads because that also confused the signalling.

I'm all for progress - but progress means that the new kit must work
*better* than the old stuff did. If it is harder to use, more difficult
to fault find, breaks down more, and exhibits its own new ways of going
wrong, I'm afraid that's not "progress". I know of more than one modern
system which has been introduced mostly to save on (staff) costs, and if
it actually works better than before (in the case of Network Rail's new
timetable system, if it works at all!), that seems to be a bonus.

--
- Yokel -

Yokel posts via a spam-trap account which is not read