Northern Line - again!
 

Just what's wrong with the service on the Northern Line. I thought
things had really improved over the last few years, but things seem to
be slipping back to the old Misery Line days again.

This evening I tried to get a late Barnet branch train back from Old
Street. Never mind that the High Barnet train was corrected to an
Edgware before it turned up, I did the right thing and changed at
Camden Town. But at Camden I counted FIVE more Edgware trains while
nothing was indicated at all on the Barnet branch. Finally one
appeared - 13 minutes away.

I got the bus instead. This is no good - anyone else think it's
getting worse? Who can we complain to...?

Northern Line - again!
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 01:08:33 +0100 Bradley H. Davis
said...

I got the bus instead. This is no good - anyone else think it's
getting worse? Who can we complain to...?

Tonight's fiasco was caused by signals failing at King's Cross and then a
little bit later by a signal failure at Euston.

I am sorry you had a terrible journey,

At last, somebody who works for LUL has actually given us the facts and
the decency to make an public apology in this newsgroup when something
went wrong. Thank you!

--
Phil Richards
London, N4

Northern Line - again!
 

"Bradley H. Davis" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
om...
Just what's wrong with the service on the Northern Line. I thought
things had really improved over the last few years, but things seem to
be slipping back to the old Misery Line days again.

This evening I tried to get a late Barnet branch train back from Old
Street. Never mind that the High Barnet train was corrected to an
Edgware before it turned up, I did the right thing and changed at
Camden Town. But at Camden I counted FIVE more Edgware trains while
nothing was indicated at all on the Barnet branch. Finally one
appeared - 13 minutes away.

I got the bus instead. This is no good - anyone else think it's
getting worse? Who can we complain to...?

Tonight's fiasco was caused by signals failing at King's Cross and then a
little bit later by a signal failure at Euston.

I am sorry you had a terrible journey, and indeed you did the right thing
by
doing the Camden shuffle, however just to let you know that the train
describers are not picking up all the information it needs to indicate the
next three trains. Although the Camden describer on platform 3 showed 13
minutes, I wouldn't have been surprised if a train showed up within five
and
the the describer then flashed " CORRECTION " and displayed the correct
info. This is what was happening at Old Street. The train you saw
advertised
there as " 1 HIGH BARNET x mins" was probably
the
4th or 5th train, the preceding trains were not showing and the system
managed to correct it just as the next train pulled in. The train I was
driving from Tooting Broadway showed up as many weird and wonderful
destinations en route via The City. The only place it was correct was at
Old
Street and displayed the correct destination of Hampstead.

Not an excuse, just some information for you....

I wonder how complicated these signals are and why the same ones fail time
and time again after they have apparently been 'repaired'. For example, the
signals at Totteridge & Whetstone failed two days in a row recently.

I wonder if breaking the Northern line up into smaller sections would help
simplify things. For example just running the following services; Morden to
High Barnet via the City and Kennington to Edgware via Charing Cross (I
believe the trains can easily loop and Kennington on the Charing Cross
branch, correct me if I'm wrong).

Does anyone think this is a good idea?

Northern Line - again!
 

Thus spake "Ed Crowley"



I wonder if breaking the Northern line up into smaller sections would help
simplify things. For example just running the following services; Morden to
High Barnet via the City and Kennington to Edgware via Charing Cross (I
believe the trains can easily loop and Kennington on the Charing Cross
branch, correct me if I'm wrong).

Does anyone think this is a good idea?

No. Though things might appear simpler this way, people like me do not
like changing trains! I need a seat and almost always get one if
boarding at Burnt Oak. The chances of getting a seat are small if
changing at Camden Town.

Changing trains is a nuisance/deterrent for those with luggage, children
and disabilities, many of whom should be encouraged to use public
transport.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Northern Line - again!
 

In article ,
Ed Crowley wrote:
I wonder how complicated these signals are and why the same ones fail time
and time again after they have apparently been 'repaired'. For example, the
signals at Totteridge & Whetstone failed two days in a row recently.

"Signal failures" are usually "track circuit" failures.

The track circuit is the bit of the signalling system that detetects
the presence of a train; they get plumbed into the signal before
that section of track to turn the signal green [1]. They're designed
to fail-safe; ie if it's broke, the signal stays red even if it
could go green (this is considered better than the signal going
green when it should stay red, for obvious reasons).

I'd guess that repeated failures are due to a temporary fix failing
before the perminant fix can get done. Suppose that a track circuit
fails because a bit of wire has rotted. It might take a lot of
time and effort to replace that wire - it might be a couple of km
long! But you could patch the bit that's actually broke quite
quickly, so you do that and add "replace 2km of wire on the northern
line" to the List Of Things To Do Soon. The rest of the wire is
still in poor shape, so you may have more failures until you have
the time to replace it.

[1] For automatic signals, anyway.

I wonder if breaking the Northern line up into smaller sections would help
simplify things. For example just running the following services; Morden to
High Barnet via the City and Kennington to Edgware via Charing Cross (I
believe the trains can easily loop and Kennington on the Charing Cross
branch, correct me if I'm wrong).

These kind of patterns have been tried out in the past (particularly,
IIRC, during peak hours). I don't know how sucessful they've been.

Does anyone think this is a good idea?

No! I'd want High Barnet to somewhere via Charing Cross (because
if I go that far south from FC, it's to go into the west end.)

Northern Line - again!
 

Helen Deborah Vecht writes
I wonder if breaking the Northern line up into smaller sections would help
simplify things. For example just running the following services; Morden to
High Barnet via the City and Kennington to Edgware via Charing Cross (I
believe the trains can easily loop and Kennington on the Charing Cross
branch, correct me if I'm wrong).

Does anyone think this is a good idea?

No. Though things might appear simpler this way, people like me do not
like changing trains! I need a seat and almost always get one if
boarding at Burnt Oak. The chances of getting a seat are small if
changing at Camden Town.

Changing trains is a nuisance/deterrent for those with luggage,
children and disabilities, many of whom should be encouraged to use
public transport.

Although splitting the Northern line has been mooted on many occasions
in the past - I suppose it reduces the effect of knock-on delays.

I have a vague memory (10+ years ago) of an MP promising that the Tories
would split the Northern line into two.

--
Dave

Northern Line - again!
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:00:07 +0000 (UTC), Mike Bristow
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Crowley wrote:
I wonder how complicated these signals are and why the same ones fail time
and time again after they have apparently been 'repaired'. For example, the
signals at Totteridge & Whetstone failed two days in a row recently.

"Signal failures" are usually "track circuit" failures.

The track circuit is the bit of the signalling system that detetects
the presence of a train; they get plumbed into the signal before
that section of track to turn the signal green [1]. They're designed
to fail-safe; ie if it's broke, the signal stays red even if it
could go green (this is considered better than the signal going
green when it should stay red, for obvious reasons).

I'd guess that repeated failures are due to a temporary fix failing
before the perminant fix can get done. Suppose that a track circuit
fails because a bit of wire has rotted. It might take a lot of
time and effort to replace that wire - it might be a couple of km
long! But you could patch the bit that's actually broke quite
quickly, so you do that and add "replace 2km of wire on the northern
line" to the List Of Things To Do Soon. The rest of the wire is
still in poor shape, so you may have more failures until you have
the time to replace it.

AFAIR, the signalling equipment on the Northern Line north of Camden
Town dates back to the 1940s. At least the kit in the Machine Rooms
does.


You patch, it fails, you patch, it fails....

Get the idea?


Resignalling will cure the problem.

Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

Northern Line - again!
 

In article , Mike Bristow
writes
No! I'd want High Barnet to somewhere via Charing Cross (because
if I go that far south from FC, it's to go into the west end.)

I object. It's obvious to the meanest intelligence that the High Barnet
branch should be served from the Bank branch so that passengers can get
to FC from King's Cross.

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

Northern Line - again!
 

In article , Ed Crowley
writes
I wonder if breaking the Northern line up into smaller sections would help
simplify things. For example just running the following services; Morden to
High Barnet via the City and Kennington to Edgware via Charing Cross (I
believe the trains can easily loop and Kennington on the Charing Cross
branch, correct me if I'm wrong).

Yes, there's a loop on the Charing Cross branch, which is why you often
see K via CX trains but rarely K via Bank ones.

But if you split the line up like that then you'll get a *lot* of
passengers changing at Camden Town and Kennington. The stations probably
aren't up to handing the relevant passenger loads in the peak. It
*might* be possible to fix the former when they completely rebuild it,
but even so it'll be unpopular with the people who now have a change
added to their daily commute.

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

Northern Line - again!
 

Robert Woolley writes
AFAIR, the signalling equipment on the Northern Line north of Camden
Town dates back to the 1940s.

1935-40 New Works Programme? On the Barnet branch at least, everything
north of Archway was new build or converted from an LNER branch line -
so it would have had to been resignalled then.

Resignalling will cure the problem.

I wonder if the current Northern line trains were built to allow for a
future conversion to Central line style automatic train operation.

--
Dave

Northern Line - again!
 

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Crowley
writes
I wonder if breaking the Northern line up into smaller sections would
help
simplify things. For example just running the following services; Morden
to
High Barnet via the City and Kennington to Edgware via Charing Cross (I
believe the trains can easily loop and Kennington on the Charing Cross
branch, correct me if I'm wrong).

Yes, there's a loop on the Charing Cross branch, which is why you often
see K via CX trains but rarely K via Bank ones.

But if you split the line up like that then you'll get a *lot* of
passengers changing at Camden Town and Kennington. The stations probably
aren't up to handing the relevant passenger loads in the peak. It
*might* be possible to fix the former when they completely rebuild it,
but even so it'll be unpopular with the people who now have a change
added to their daily commute.

The main problem with the Northern line (from my POV) is that after having
one train every 1 or 2 minutes, you get a gap of 8 minutes which leads to
overcrowding. If splitting up the line could mean a train every 2 minutes
(not this 2-8 minutes nonsense), I think it would be popular.

Northern Line - again!
 

If you split into two lines then the obvious split is Edgware-Charing
X branch, Barnet-Bank Branch because that would mean there would be
no need for the trains to cross at Camden Town.

While some dislike changing trains, at least everyone will know which
Southbound platform to be on at Camden Town.

The driver did not answer why 5 consecutive trains ran through to
Edgware before one going through to the Barnet branch. This has also
often happened the other way.

Is there nobody there with intelligence who can re-direct one train
when that happens so you would have 2 to Edgware 1 to Barnet, 2 to
Edgware instead of 5 to Edgware.

How are the destinations decided and why does this "clumping" occur so
often?

Northern Line - again!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
nmtop40 writes
If you split into two lines then the obvious split is Edgware-Charing
X branch, Barnet-Bank Branch because that would mean there would be no
need for the trains to cross at Camden Town.

In fact, the Bank branch route actually runs to the *west* of the
Charing X route after leaving Camden Town - so following your logic, it
should be EdgwareBank and BarnetCharing X.

However, it's a moot point as the trains don't need to 'cross' at Camden
Town - at least not in the sense that I suspect you are thinking of.
There are non-conflicting routes available which means that trains do
not have to cross 'on the flat'.

Have a look at Tubeprune's diagram;
http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/Ca...wn-lct5-10.gif

Trains do have to 'cross' at present as both City and Charing X trains go to
Egdware and High Barnet/Mill Hill East. Splitting the line into Edgware via
City and High Barnet via Charing X would solve this problem.

Northern Line - again!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Rob writes
I wonder if the current Northern line trains were built to allow for a
future conversion to Central line style automatic train operation.

yes they are, all the buttons are there, not sure if atp/ato contorllers
have been installed.

Good news!

I wouldn't hold your breath, '73 stock (Piccadilly) were built with the
buttons to allow for Victoria like ATO. they were never used and were taken
out (those that hadn't already fallen out) when the stock got refurbed.
--
Cheers, Steve.
If The Good Lord had meant for us to be fiscally prudent, He would not have
given us the platinum credit card...
Change colour to PC Plod's lights to reply.

Northern Line - again!
 

Steve Dulieu writes
I wonder if the current Northern line trains were built to allow for a
future conversion to Central line style automatic train operation.

yes they are, all the buttons are there, not sure if atp/ato contorllers
have been installed.

Good news!

I wouldn't hold your breath, '73 stock (Piccadilly) were built with the
buttons to allow for Victoria like ATO. they were never used and were taken
out (those that hadn't already fallen out) when the stock got refurbed.

But if the Northern line is due for resignalling sometime soon, then it
increases the chances. Having new trains and new signalling within a
(relatively) short period of time - as with the Central line - means
that ATO can be considered.

But you're right - expecting improvement to PT in this country is
probably foolish. Assume the worst and occasionally be pleasantly
surprised!

--
Dave

Northern Line - again!
 

Steve Dulieu wrote:
"Dave" wrote in
message ...
Rob writes
I wonder if the current Northern line trains were built
to allow for a future conversion to Central line style
automatic train operation.

yes they are, all the buttons are there, not sure if
atp/ato contorllers have been installed.

Good news!

I wouldn't hold your breath, '73 stock (Piccadilly) were
built with the buttons to allow for Victoria like ATO. they
were never used and were taken out (those that hadn't
already fallen out) when the stock got refurbed.

The wiring etc for OPO operation was in place in 73s when first introduced
bt there were no buttons in the cab other than those for opening and closing
the doors.

Northern Line - again!
 

"Steve Dulieu" wrote in message
...

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Steve Dulieu wrote:
"Dave" wrote in
message ...
Rob writes
I wonder if the current Northern line trains were built
to allow for a future conversion to Central line style
automatic train operation.

yes they are, all the buttons are there, not sure if
atp/ato contorllers have been installed.

Good news!

I wouldn't hold your breath, '73 stock (Piccadilly) were
built with the buttons to allow for Victoria like ATO. they
were never used and were taken out (those that hadn't
already fallen out) when the stock got refurbed.

The wiring etc for OPO operation was in place in 73s when first
introduced
bt there were no buttons in the cab other than those for opening and
closing
the doors.

I must have been seeing things for those 10 years I was driving them for
then...

I was working them from 1976 til 1984, you?

Northern Line - again!
 

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

"Steve Dulieu" wrote in message
...

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Steve Dulieu wrote:
"Dave" wrote in
message ...
Rob writes
I wonder if the current Northern line trains were built
to allow for a future conversion to Central line style
automatic train operation.

yes they are, all the buttons are there, not sure if
atp/ato contorllers have been installed.

Good news!

I wouldn't hold your breath, '73 stock (Piccadilly) were
built with the buttons to allow for Victoria like ATO. they
were never used and were taken out (those that hadn't
already fallen out) when the stock got refurbed.

The wiring etc for OPO operation was in place in 73s when first
introduced
bt there were no buttons in the cab other than those for opening and
closing
the doors.

I must have been seeing things for those 10 years I was driving them for
then...

I was working them from 1976 til 1984, you?

'85 to '01 (I realise this is more than 10 years, I knocked some off for
being a guard, displaced by OPO, few years driving refurbs (may their
designer roast in hell)) on the back at first then on the front from about
'90 onwards. The driver's panel was covered by a large perspex panel secured
by 6 xhead screws, beneath which were the speedo, air gauge, a couple of
indicator lights, ISTR a red one and a blue one (de-icing fluid?) and below
and between the gauges two ATO buttons (more often than not, one or both
were missing leaving just the holes) which were gradually replaced by a pair
of blanking plates.
--
Cheers, Steve.
If The Good Lord had meant for us to be fiscally prudent, He would not have
given us the platinum credit card...
Change colour to PC Plod's lights to reply.

Northern Line - again!
 

Steve Dulieu wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

"Steve Dulieu" wrote in
message
...

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Steve Dulieu wrote:
"Dave" wrote in
message ...
Rob writes
I wonder if the current Northern line trains were
built
to allow for a future conversion to Central line
style
automatic train operation.

yes they are, all the buttons are there, not sure if
atp/ato contorllers have been installed.

Good news!

I wouldn't hold your breath, '73 stock (Piccadilly) were
built with the buttons to allow for Victoria like ATO.
they
were never used and were taken out (those that hadn't
already fallen out) when the stock got refurbed.

The wiring etc for OPO operation was in place in 73s
when first introduced bt there were no buttons in the
cab other than those for opening and closing the doors.

I must have been seeing things for those 10 years I was
driving them for then...

I was working them from 1976 til 1984, you?

'85 to '01 (I realise this is more than 10 years, I knocked
some off for being a guard, displaced by OPO, few years
driving refurbs (may their designer roast in hell)) on the
back at first then on the front from about '90 onwards.
The driver's panel was covered by a large perspex panel
secured by 6 xhead screws, beneath which were the speedo,
air gauge, a couple of indicator lights, ISTR a red one and
a blue one (de-icing fluid?) and below and between the
gauges two ATO buttons (more often than not, one or both
were missing leaving just the holes) which were gradually
replaced by a pair of blanking plates.

I recall the blanking plates and at the time I was on the Picc we were
always led to believe that 73s were wired and set up for OPO. The Drivers
Control Switch and Guards Position Switch only needing a bar to conect them
so they could be operated with a single key and all the wiring in place in
the desk for the buttons etc as you've indicated.

As introduced the .perspex panel wasn't there, that came later after it was
realised that tea/coffee and electrics don't mix, someone somewhere was
under the impression that traincrew didn't need to drink tea or coffee.

If you're interested I'll email you copies of the cab diagrams we were
supplied with during stock training.

Northern Line - again!
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:03:44 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , nmtop40
writes

snip

Is there nobody there with intelligence who can re-direct one train
when that happens so you would have 2 to Edgware 1 to Barnet, 2 to
Edgware instead of 5 to Edgware.

It's not that simple. You end up with trains in the wrong place for the
rest of the day's service, drivers unable to get to the right train, and
so on.

How are the destinations decided

There is a complete timetable for the line which shows exactly where
each train should be and when. All the destinations for a train for the
whole day are preplanned.

But presumably not with strings of four or five trains going to one
terminus and no service to the other for twenty minutes or more! That
and the dot-matrix displays -- currently about as good at predicting
the future as goat entrails -- are two of the more entertaining
aspects of the service at the mo'...

Would it not be possible to dynamically redo the timetable during the
day, to take account of changes occuring after the start of play? I
appreciate that this is non-trivial, and I expect there are a lot of
implications for rostering, but it's the sort of thing that might be
feasible with today's IT that wasn't just a few years back.

Perhaps some modern-day Mr Beck could thrash it out on his home PC
before demonstrating it to management?

R

Northern Line - again!
 

In message , Rupert Goodwins
writes

Would it not be possible to dynamically redo the timetable during the
day, to take account of changes occuring after the start of play? I
appreciate that this is non-trivial, and I expect there are a lot of
implications for rostering, but it's the sort of thing that might be
feasible with today's IT that wasn't just a few years back.
So you as a driver having just done 3 to five hour's in the cab is
approached at say Golders Green, and told that because of reprogramming
for the public good you can't have relief but have to carry on for a
further four hours for the public good. Right I understand putting the
public first, but isn't a driver also a member of the human race and
entitled to some time off?
--
Clive

Northern Line - again!
 

"Clive" wrote in message
...
In message , Rupert Goodwins
writes

Would it not be possible to dynamically redo the timetable during the
day, to take account of changes occuring after the start of play? I
appreciate that this is non-trivial, and I expect there are a lot of
implications for rostering, but it's the sort of thing that might be
feasible with today's IT that wasn't just a few years back.
So you as a driver having just done 3 to five hour's in the cab is
approached at say Golders Green, and told that because of reprogramming
for the public good you can't have relief but have to carry on for a
further four hours for the public good. Right I understand putting the
public first, but isn't a driver also a member of the human race and
entitled to some time off?

Another four hours? One end of the Northern line to the other takes roughly
70 minutes ...

Northern Line - again!
 

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:41:00 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message , Rupert Goodwins
writes

Would it not be possible to dynamically redo the timetable during the
day, to take account of changes occuring after the start of play? I
appreciate that this is non-trivial, and I expect there are a lot of
implications for rostering, but it's the sort of thing that might be
feasible with today's IT that wasn't just a few years back.
So you as a driver having just done 3 to five hour's in the cab is
approached at say Golders Green, and told that because of reprogramming
for the public good you can't have relief but have to carry on for a
further four hours for the public good. Right I understand putting the
public first, but isn't a driver also a member of the human race and
entitled to some time off?


Errr... didn't I say there might be implications for rostering?
(checks) Yes, I did! Look! Up there!

Perhaps I should spell it out more clearly: the needs of the drivers
would also be taken into account. True flexibility involves taking
account of all parties involved to find the best compromise.

I can't see why the ability to change the destination of trains after
the start of service should have to be bought at the cost of four
hours' extra work. After all, the Northern Line has to reconfigure
itself frequently because of signalling, stock or other problems: why
not accept that and add the ability to reconfigure it because it'll
make the service better for the rest of the day? It's doubtless harder
to do this while taking accounts of the needs and wishes of the
drivers, but I think that would nonetheless be an essential part of
the plan.

Why shouldn't it be better for everyone? We have the technology. Is
there a history of management messing with the system and to hell with
the staff? (hmmm.. wonder what the 'best before' date is on this can
of worms?)

R

Northern Line - again!
 

In message , Rupert Goodwins
writes

I can't see why the ability to change the destination of trains after
the start of service should have to be bought at the cost of four
hours' extra work. After all, the Northern Line has to reconfigure
itself frequently because of signalling, stock or other problems:

That will be service recovery though - slightly different as they are
trying to get the service back 'on book'.

The main problem I can foresee with your suggestion is that the trains
will end up far away from where they are scheduled to be, thus away from
the relieving driver. You would find more instances of a train having
no driver and having to be put away in a depot or sidings. This would
cause the service to deteriorate even more.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Northern Line - again!
 

Never mind human race 'n all that -

Drivers in all industries need refreshment breaks in order to sustain the
concentration required of them. It's mandatory for heavy goods vehicle
drivers (tachograph) in most places (oddly enough, not for intrastate
non-permit loads in my home State Western Australia), air crew and will be
covered by legislation and industrial agreements for rail and bus drivers
and other crew.

DW

"Clive" wrote in message
...
: In message , Rupert Goodwins
: writes
:
: Would it not be possible to dynamically redo the timetable during the
: day, to take account of changes occuring after the start of play? I
: appreciate that this is non-trivial, and I expect there are a lot of
: implications for rostering, but it's the sort of thing that might be
: feasible with today's IT that wasn't just a few years back.
: So you as a driver having just done 3 to five hour's in the cab is
: approached at say Golders Green, and told that because of reprogramming
: for the public good you can't have relief but have to carry on for a
: further four hours for the public good. Right I understand putting the
: public first, but isn't a driver also a member of the human race and
: entitled to some time off?
: --
: Clive

Northern Line - again!
 

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:37:30 +0100, Steve Fitzgerald
] wrote:

In message , Rupert Goodwins
writes

I can't see why the ability to change the destination of trains after
the start of service should have to be bought at the cost of four
hours' extra work. After all, the Northern Line has to reconfigure
itself frequently because of signalling, stock or other problems:

That will be service recovery though - slightly different as they are
trying to get the service back 'on book'.


Absolutely, but it must involve many of the same problems. As the
original poster noted, service recovery isn't particularly efficient
at the moment, so work here may have immediate benefits.

The main problem I can foresee with your suggestion is that the trains
will end up far away from where they are scheduled to be, thus away from
the relieving driver. You would find more instances of a train having
no driver and having to be put away in a depot or sidings. This would
cause the service to deteriorate even more.

So you don't let that happen.

Working out the correct combination of destination and driver changes
so that everyone is happy, is a very difficult -- classicly so --
mathematical problem (probably related to the travelling salesman, but
I haven't thought that through). You may well have to do a brute-force
search through the solution space, which is the sort of chess-game
approach that even five years ago would seem hopelessly time
consuming. But as we now have PCs that can do close on ten billion
calculations a second, I'd imagine that it's the sort of project one
motivated chap could sensibly attack. Even if it wasn't possible to
produce a working system in the first case, a partial simulation to
prove the concept would be tempting.

The Northern Line has a great advantage over mainline services in that
the passengers don't need to know the timetable. They need to know
first and last trains, and that at any particular time there will be a
train within x minutes going to their destination. Internally, of
course, there has to be a detailed timetable, but because that doesn't
need to be public the line managers have the huge potential advantage
of being able to make as many changes as they like during the day to
maintain that level of service, without involving the public.

They are constrained by the need to have all the trains back at the
right place at the end of play (although this also can be flexible, to
an extent), and of ensuring the drivers also end up where they need to
be when they need to be there.

Very hard. But the benefits to the efficiency of the service would be
considerable -- and it's not unreasonable to see that this level of
flexibility could be of great benefit to staff, as it would allow much
better handling of problems during the day and also allow a much more
flexible scheme of driver rostering in the first place.

At this point, I run out of steam as I don't know how driver rostering
works, or many of the other requirements of running the NL! It would
be very interesting if this information was available somewhere, to
see whether such a flight of fantasy had legs. Or wheels, or whatever.

R

Northern Line - again!
 

In article , nmtop40
writes

There is a complete timetable for the line which shows exactly where
each train should be and when. All the destinations for a train for the
whole day are preplanned.



Strange how they regularly change the destination from that displayed on
the dot matrix indicator at Morden each morning. No courtesy
announcement to passengers of the change of course. To do so could be
considered helpful and we can't have that can we?

Clive

Northern Line - again!
 

"Ed Crowley" wrote in news:3f434833$0$46003$65c69314
@mercury.nildram.net:

"Clive" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Crowley
writes

"Clive" wrote in message
...
In message , Rupert
Goodwins
writes

Would it not be possible to dynamically redo the timetable during the
day, to take account of changes occuring after the start of play? I
appreciate that this is non-trivial, and I expect there are a lot of
implications for rostering, but it's the sort of thing that might be
feasible with today's IT that wasn't just a few years back.
So you as a driver having just done 3 to five hour's in the cab is
approached at say Golders Green, and told that because of reprogramming
for the public good you can't have relief but have to carry on for a
further four hours for the public good. Right I understand putting
the
public first, but isn't a driver also a member of the human race and
entitled to some time off?

Another four hours? One end of the Northern line to the other takes
roughly
70 minutes ...


But once you've buggered up change over please explain where the fantom
staff come from?

Probably best to have the whole thing using ATO with a member of staff on
every platform for door closing duties ...



LUL staff fought long and hard for the right never to be on the platforms.

Northern Line - again!
 

Clive wrote in
:

In message , Rupert Goodwins
writes

Errr... didn't I say there might be implications for rostering?
(checks) Yes, I did! Look! Up there!

Perhaps I should spell it out more clearly: the needs of the drivers
would also be taken into account. True flexibility involves taking
account of all parties involved to find the best compromise.

I can't see why the ability to change the destination of trains after
the start of service should have to be bought at the cost of four
hours' extra work. After all, the Northern Line has to reconfigure
itself frequently because of signalling, stock or other problems: why
not accept that and add the ability to reconfigure it because it'll
make the service better for the rest of the day? It's doubtless harder
to do this while taking accounts of the needs and wishes of the
drivers, but I think that would nonetheless be an essential part of the
plan.

Why shouldn't it be better for everyone? We have the technology. Is
there a history of management messing with the system and to hell with
the staff? (hmmm.. wonder what the 'best before' date is on this can of
worms?)
I've nothing against flexible rostering if you can show me how the
driver gets to keep his break and gets to leave his home station to go
home to his wife on time? If you can work this out for me in a
meaningful situation, I might agree with you.

I hope that was tongue in cheek although with LUL staff I am never sure.

I have nothing against LUL staff getting a rate of pay commensurate with
being 'professional' so long as 'professional' means something other than
clocking off "cause I finish now" despite the fact that the system they
work for is up s**t creek and could be brought back to normal should
'professionals' be willing to work another half an hour[1] just to take
that train to its destination.

[1] Often during disruption 'professionals' stop driving their trains
early, not because it is the end of their shift, but because if they
carried on they would have to end their shift and then travel back to their
depot on their own time - so don't give us bull about safety.

'professional' my arse.

Northern Line - again!
 

On 20 Aug 2003, you wrote in uk.transport.london:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:37:30 +0100, Steve Fitzgerald
] wrote:

In message , Rupert Goodwins
writes

I can't see why the ability to change the destination of trains after
the start of service should have to be bought at the cost of four
hours' extra work. After all, the Northern Line has to reconfigure
itself frequently because of signalling, stock or other problems:

That will be service recovery though - slightly different as they are
trying to get the service back 'on book'.


Absolutely, but it must involve many of the same problems. As the
original poster noted, service recovery isn't particularly efficient
at the moment, so work here may have immediate benefits.

The main problem I can foresee with your suggestion is that the trains
will end up far away from where they are scheduled to be, thus away from
the relieving driver. You would find more instances of a train having
no driver and having to be put away in a depot or sidings. This would
cause the service to deteriorate even more.

So you don't let that happen.

Working out the correct combination of destination and driver changes
so that everyone is happy, is a very difficult -- classicly so --
mathematical problem (probably related to the travelling salesman, but
I haven't thought that through). You may well have to do a brute-force
search through the solution space, which is the sort of chess-game
approach that even five years ago would seem hopelessly time
consuming. But as we now have PCs that can do close on ten billion
calculations a second, I'd imagine that it's the sort of project one
motivated chap could sensibly attack. Even if it wasn't possible to
produce a working system in the first case, a partial simulation to
prove the concept would be tempting.

The Northern Line has a great advantage over mainline services in that
the passengers don't need to know the timetable. They need to know
first and last trains, and that at any particular time there will be a
train within x minutes going to their destination. Internally, of
course, there has to be a detailed timetable, but because that doesn't
need to be public the line managers have the huge potential advantage
of being able to make as many changes as they like during the day to
maintain that level of service, without involving the public.

They are constrained by the need to have all the trains back at the
right place at the end of play (although this also can be flexible, to
an extent), and of ensuring the drivers also end up where they need to
be when they need to be there.

Very hard. But the benefits to the efficiency of the service would be
considerable -- and it's not unreasonable to see that this level of
flexibility could be of great benefit to staff, as it would allow much
better handling of problems during the day and also allow a much more
flexible scheme of driver rostering in the first place.

You are assuming they give a ****. Say a NL driver is due to finish at 10am
and clocks off at Easy Finchley, if they are on a train at 9:30, they will
stop driving before they are within 30mins of EF, they will not go that
extra despite that fact nobody is asking them to 'drive' beyond 10:00. This
is why disruption lasts so long, they will not do the extra. The culture is
a rotten "nothing to do with me guv, I am not helping out". ATO can not
come any sooner.

Northern Line - again!
 

"Steve" wrote in message
...
"Ed Crowley" wrote in
news:3f434833$0$46003$65c69314
@mercury.nildram.net:

"Clive" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Crowley
writes

"Clive" wrote in message
...
In message , Rupert
Goodwins
writes

Would it not be possible to dynamically redo the timetable during
the
day, to take account of changes occuring after the start of play? I
appreciate that this is non-trivial, and I expect there are a lot
of
implications for rostering, but it's the sort of thing that might
be
feasible with today's IT that wasn't just a few years back.
So you as a driver having just done 3 to five hour's in the cab is
approached at say Golders Green, and told that because of
reprogramming
for the public good you can't have relief but have to carry on for a
further four hours for the public good. Right I understand putting
the
public first, but isn't a driver also a member of the human race and
entitled to some time off?

Another four hours? One end of the Northern line to the other takes
roughly
70 minutes ...


But once you've buggered up change over please explain where the fantom
staff come from?

Probably best to have the whole thing using ATO with a member of staff
on
every platform for door closing duties ...



LUL staff fought long and hard for the right never to be on the platforms.

I just think it would be the perfect solution. Driverless trains that can
travel closer together more safely and staff on every platform with a button
to signal to the train that it's safe to close the doors. You probably
wouldn't need to hire or fire anyone either, although the drivers reassigned
to platform duties may need a small pay 'adjustment'.

Northern Line - again!
 

In message , Clive Carmock
writes

Strange how they regularly change the destination from that displayed
on the dot matrix indicator at Morden each morning. No courtesy
announcement to passengers of the change of course. To do so could be
considered helpful and we can't have that can we?

Clive
O.K. So you've now demonstrated that you've never worked on the system.
--
Clive

Northern Line - again!
 

In message , Clive
writes
O.K. So you've now demonstrated that you've never worked on the system.

Correct, but have used it for many years as a customer getting less and
less patient as time goes on.

Sorry if I sound cynical, but at a terminal station where platform
alterations are likely it would be good customer service to actually
inform customers of a change.

Of course if this was a rare occurrence I wouldn't think twice about it,
but it is in fact a very regular occurrence. Regularly passengers here
grumble about the same thing.

Maybe there are very valid reasons why something as simple as a PA
announcement cannot be given. If you are able to enlighten us all maybe
you would care to do so?

--
Clive