On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 11:04:21 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote:
coming in house. The key decision will be how LUL decides to deal with
the Picc / Bakerloo and Central line upgrades and who wins that work.

I can't help thinking its a bit premature to think about upgrading the
central line. Surely the 92 stock isn't that knackered? And the ATO while
from a passengers point of view seems a bit lead boot larry with the throttle,
it does the job.

times and assets have different life spans. There is also a risk in
"putting all your signalling eggs in one basket". You cited concerns

Sure, but given how long it takes to do even one line all the problems should
be ironed out there and further installations should be essentially plug and
play.

operator. I also doubt the IPR would be released by manufacturers for
commercial reasons.

Depends how old it is. If it was really ancient they'd probably give it up
for a fee. Besides, in a lot of software contracts these days the code is
held in escrow for the client just in case the supplier goes belly up.

B2003

wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 11:04:21 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote:
coming in house. The key decision will be how LUL decides to deal with
the Picc / Bakerloo and Central line upgrades and who wins that work.

I can't help thinking its a bit premature to think about upgrading the
central line. Surely the 92 stock isn't that knackered? And the ATO while
from a passengers point of view seems a bit lead boot larry with the throttle,
it does the job.

Based on their age, the 72 and 73 tube stocks are due for replacement in
the next few years, but are in good condition for the moment. The 92 stock
hasn't weathered as well, and so will be worth replacing relatively earlier
in its life. If the new articulated, air-conditioned ts lives up to its
promise when delivered in perhaps a decade, it may be worth replacing the
92 ts as well (it'll be coming up to 30 years old, and perhaps not worth a
major refurbishment). It may be a fact of life that high tech, computerised
modern trains won't have the 40+ year life of simpler, older trains; the
electronics date too quickly and become obsolete.

With the extension of the Northern line, and its possible split into two
independent lines with a more intensive service, it will also need
additional stock, and would be a candidate for the new 21st century
standard tube stock.

On 1 Jan, 19:47, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:34:12 AM UTC, e27002 wrote:
On 31 Dec 2012, 20:30, wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:12:10 +0000

Paul Corfield wrote:

to the market to get a better value deal. I'm sure you would support a

more affordable solution rather than continuing with one which was

considered to be poor value for money.

I would if I didn't suspect it'll end up costing a lot more in the long run

trying to maintain umpteen different systems. What happens in 20 years time

when experts are needed for all of them and probably half the companies who

developed them have gone bust or been taken over and the new owners have

little incentive to spend money developing upgrades? At least with just one

system you could mitigate against that by creating your own in house team

but with 3 or 4? Unlikely.

applies to railways. It is perhaps why the EU have tried to push for

ERTMS which, in theory, offers a single system that is compatible

across borders and which can be supplied by a range of suppliers

without the "lock in" risk. Hasn't quite turned out like that though!!

Someone should have told them it involved non standard bananas. They'd have

had it all sorted in no time.

LOL!

If you think that ERTMS is "standard", then you will be sadly disappointed! At a recent signalling conference it was remarked that whilst there were many ERTMS schemes in Europe, there is German ERTMS, Dutch ERTMS, Spanish ERTMS, French ERTMS etc.!

Interoperable in theory, but not always in practice.....

I guess we needed plenty of standards so there are enough to go
around!

On 1 Jan, 21:46, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 11:04:21 +0000

Paul Corfield wrote:
coming in house. The key decision will be how LUL decides to deal with
the Picc / Bakerloo and Central line upgrades and who wins that work.

I can't help thinking its a bit premature to think about upgrading the
central line. Surely the 92 stock isn't that knackered? And the ATO while
from a passengers point of view seems a bit lead boot larry with the throttle,
it does the job.

times and assets have different life spans. There is also a risk in
"putting all your signalling eggs in one basket". You cited concerns

Sure, but given how long it takes to do even one line all the problems should
be ironed out there and further installations should be essentially plug and
play.

operator. I also doubt the IPR would be released by manufacturers for
commercial reasons.

Depends how old it is. If it was really ancient they'd probably give it up
for a fee. Besides, in a lot of software contracts these days the code is
held in escrow for the client just in case the supplier goes belly up.

The way TfL fritter taxpayer's money away on duplicate software, it is
hard to believe they have real problems with which to deal. The
inability of Leicester Square Station to handle the flow of passengers
would be a good example. But wait, they closed the Lisle Street
entrance/exit.

On 31 Dec 2012, 20:28, Philip wrote:
On 31/12/2012 20:00, wrote:





On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 04:28:48 -0800 (PST)
77002 wrote:
On 31 Dec, 11:05, wrote:
In this months Modern Railways it says the Met is going to get Citiflo 650
moving block signalling in the next few years which does away with lineside
signals. Which raises a couple of questions - why didn't they just use the
same system as on the jubilee line given that the 2 lines run side by side
for a long distance, and what will happen on the uxbridge branch which is
shared with the piccadilly? Will the latter be terminated at Rayners Lane?

My Modern Railways is still awaited. *This also raises the question of
the section, north of Harrow-on-the-Hill, utilized by Chiltern. *One
more reason to withdraw to Moor Park I guess.

The article says the S stock will be fitted with the ATP system used by
Chiltern.

No it doesn't:

"Wayside signals will, however, be retained on the stretch of the Met
south of Amersham that is used by Chiltern services. Included in the
contract [with Bombardier for the installation of Cityflo 650
signalling] is a requirement to make this section fit for the Selcab
Automatic Train Protection used on Chiltern DMUs. Selcab is the 20-year
old ATP system fitted as a trial on Chiltern in the wake of the 1988
Clapham accident; it has not been used on the Met infrastructure up
until now."

All trains will have ATP: On the S stock it will be provided by the
Cityflo 650 system. On Chiltern DMUs it will be provided by Selcab
equipment via some form of compatibility layer with the wider Cityflo
650 system.

Modern Railways has reached me. And, I have read the article. It is
very interesting, but why does TfL have to be so non-standard. Can
they not utilize a system compatible with the rest of the UK.

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 23:51:53 -0800 (PST)
e27002 wrote:
All trains will have ATP: On the S stock it will be provided by the
Cityflo 650 system. On Chiltern DMUs it will be provided by Selcab
equipment via some form of compatibility layer with the wider Cityflo
650 system.

Modern Railways has reached me. And, I have read the article. It is
very interesting, but why does TfL have to be so non-standard. Can
they not utilize a system compatible with the rest of the UK.

Don't be silly - they can't even utilise a system compatible with their
own ATO lines already in operation! TfL are the dictionary definition of
an organisation that has to constantly reinvent the wheel. And waste god
knows how many hundreds of millions in the process.

B2003

On 8 Jan, 12:01, Andy wrote:
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:51:53 AM UTC, e27002 wrote:

Modern Railways has reached me. *And, I have read the article. *It is

very interesting, but why does TfL have to be so non-standard. *Can

they not utilize a system compatible with the rest of the UK.

So, which ATO system is in use in the rest of the UK?

The UK is supposed to be moving towards ERTMS. Surely TfL could
utilize that as a baseline?

Not sure I invited sarcasm?

On 8 Jan, 09:58, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 23:51:53 -0800 (PST)

e27002 wrote:
All trains will have ATP: On the S stock it will be provided by the
Cityflo 650 system. On Chiltern DMUs it will be provided by Selcab
equipment via some form of compatibility layer with the wider Cityflo
650 system.

Modern Railways has reached me. *And, I have read the article. *It is
very interesting, but why does TfL have to be so non-standard. *Can
they not utilize a system compatible with the rest of the UK.

Don't be silly - they can't even utilise a system compatible with their
own ATO lines already in operation! TfL are the dictionary definition of
an organisation that has to constantly reinvent the wheel. And waste god
knows how many hundreds of millions in the process.

Doesn't that date from the failed PPP experiment?

On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 05:16:00 -0800 (PST)
e27002 wrote:
On 8 Jan, 09:58, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 23:51:53 -0800 (PST)

e27002 wrote:
All trains will have ATP: On the S stock it will be provided by the
Cityflo 650 system. On Chiltern DMUs it will be provided by Selcab
equipment via some form of compatibility layer with the wider Cityflo
650 system.

Modern Railways has reached me. =A0And, I have read the article. =A0It i=
s
very interesting, but why does TfL have to be so non-standard. =A0Can
they not utilize a system compatible with the rest of the UK.

Don't be silly - they can't even utilise a system compatible with their
own ATO lines already in operation! TfL are the dictionary definition of
an organisation that has to constantly reinvent the wheel. And waste god
knows how many hundreds of millions in the process.

Doesn't that date from the failed PPP experiment?

Does it matter? An ATO system is an ATO system. And they already have
different ones on the Victoria, Central, Jubilee and DLR. And they'll soon
be 5 different ones with the SSL. What a pathetic situation to have ended up
in. Though I read that the northern line is going to be equiped with the same
one that the jubilee line has. Clearly someone will need to be fired for making
such a sensible decision.

B2003

On 08/01/2013 13:13, e27002 wrote:
On 8 Jan, 12:01, Andy wrote:
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:51:53 AM UTC, e27002 wrote:

Modern Railways has reached me. And, I have read the article. It is

very interesting, but why does TfL have to be so non-standard. Can

they not utilize a system compatible with the rest of the UK.

So, which ATO system is in use in the rest of the UK?

The UK is supposed to be moving towards ERTMS. Surely TfL could
utilize that as a baseline?

Not sure I invited sarcasm?


The signalling systems on national rail networks and metros around the
world largely tend to differ, from what I have seen.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---