John B wrote:
On 27 Sep, 13:17, Tom Anderson wrote:


According to CULG, they're allowed on the District between Aldgate
East Junction and Upminster. But at this point you would run into
driver knowledge problems...

so they'd have to reverse using
the trailing crossover which apparently lies just east of Aldgate
East; i have no idea if it's signalled to make that easy, and even
if it is, that's a reverse on a running line.

- It might be enough additional time that you'd need more trains
and drivers, which might not be available.

- Er ...

- That's it.

Yup, that sounds like it.

In another forum, someone has suggested that double-manning would
solve the problem - it certainly would in a 'actual safety' sense,
but since there's no problem in an 'actual safety' sense I'm not
sure how relevant that is...

It's relevant because you could have a Met driver with A-stock knowledge
and an H&C driver with the route knowledge, but the problem remains
where to reverse.

The issue is then whether the platforms east of Aldgate will take 8
cars, including suitable reversing points such as Whitechapel or
Plaistow.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On 27 Sep, 17:47, "Richard J." wrote:
In another forum, someone has suggested that double-manning would
solve the problem - it certainly would in a 'actual safety' sense,
but since there's no problem in an 'actual safety' sense I'm not
sure how relevant that is...

It's relevant because you could have a Met driver with A-stock knowledge
and an H&C driver with the route knowledge, but the problem remains
where to reverse.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that double-manning *of C-stock* would
solve the "dysfunctional dead man's handle" problem. Double-manning A-
stock with H&C drivers would definitely still leave the "I don't know
how to work this train, and my mate over there doesn't know where he's
going" problem...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:
On 27 Sep, 17:47, "Richard J." wrote:
In another forum, someone has suggested that double-manning would
solve the problem - it certainly would in a 'actual safety' sense,
but since there's no problem in an 'actual safety' sense I'm not
sure how relevant that is...

It's relevant because you could have a Met driver with A-stock
knowledge and an H&C driver with the route knowledge, but the
problem remains where to reverse.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that double-manning *of C-stock*
would solve the "dysfunctional dead man's handle" problem.
Double-manning A- stock with H&C drivers would definitely still
leave the "I don't know how to work this train, and my mate over
there doesn't know where he's going" problem...

Why is that a problem? I thought that similar situations were allowed
on all railways, just as ships take on a pilot in unfamilar waters.

But you're right about double-manning of C-stock, which would have been
a simpler solution. They could have double-manned the H&C to
Whitechapel and also an Edgware Road - Parsons Green shuttle.

Anyway, it all seems back to almost normal now. Only the Circle has
"severe delays".

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On 27 Sep, 22:31, "Richard J." wrote:
Anyway, it all seems back to almost normal now. Only the Circle has
"severe delays".

That sounds *entirely* normal...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Sep 27, 6:20 pm, John B wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that double-manning *of C-stock* would
solve the "dysfunctional dead man's handle" problem. Double-manning A-
stock with H&C drivers would definitely still leave the "I don't know
how to work this train, and my mate over there doesn't know where he's
going" problem...

Surely by now it would be time to design a standard layout for train
controls? They all do the same thing after all. I don't have to have
48 hours training to get into a model of car I've never driven before
- theres the steering wheel, brake , pedals , sorted. Off I go. Even
in commercial aircraft which are a magnitude more complex to operate
than any train ever built Airbus have managed to produce controls that
are consistent between different models. Why on earth can't train
builders do the same thing??

B2003

On 28 Sep, 10:23, Boltar wrote:
Surely by now it would be time to design a standard layout for train
controls? They all do the same thing after all. I don't have to have
48 hours training to get into a model of car I've never driven before
- theres the steering wheel, brake , pedals , sorted. Off I go. Even
in commercial aircraft which are a magnitude more complex to operate
than any train ever built Airbus have managed to produce controls that
are consistent between different models. Why on earth can't train
builders do the same thing??

A commercial pilot still needs certification for every aircraft type
he flies, even if they are from the same family and have similar
controls. The same is true for trains - i.e. the controls are pretty
similar, the point is about knowing how the train performs under
emergency braking, what to do if it stops working, etc...

When it comes to cars, society is willing to accept a higher risk of
injury and death than other transport in exchange for the convenience
they provide. A fairer way of phrasing your question above would be
"why are motorists allowed to take control of completely different
types of cars without fully familiarising themselves with their
mechanical workings and emergency braking performance, when this would
be considered reckless in more or less every other mode of powered
transport?"

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Boltar wrote:
On Sep 27, 6:20 pm, John B wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that double-manning *of C-stock* would
solve the "dysfunctional dead man's handle" problem. Double-manning A-
stock with H&C drivers would definitely still leave the "I don't know
how to work this train, and my mate over there doesn't know where he's
going" problem...

Surely by now it would be time to design a standard layout for train
controls? They all do the same thing after all. I don't have to have
48 hours training to get into a model of car I've never driven before
- theres the steering wheel, brake , pedals , sorted. Off I go. Even
in commercial aircraft which are a magnitude more complex to operate
than any train ever built Airbus have managed to produce controls that
are consistent between different models. Why on earth can't train
builders do the same thing??

B2003



It's not the layout thats the problem, unlike driving a car though
drivers are supposed to know what to do when something goes wrong, there
is no AA or RAC, C Stock, D Stock and A Stock are very different, C and
A are probably the most similar, but there are massive differences
between them, the problem may be sorted by the introduction of the new
sub surface stock the S stock (make your own mind up what the s will
stand for)but the issue of route knowledge will remain, drivers are
supposed to drive all of their route once every 6 months.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, www.waspies.net wrote:

Boltar wrote:
On Sep 27, 6:20 pm, John B wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that double-manning *of C-stock* would
solve the "dysfunctional dead man's handle" problem. Double-manning A-
stock with H&C drivers would definitely still leave the "I don't know
how to work this train, and my mate over there doesn't know where he's
going" problem...

Surely by now it would be time to design a standard layout for train
controls?

It's not the layout thats the problem, unlike driving a car though
drivers are supposed to know what to do when something goes wrong, there
is no AA or RAC, C Stock, D Stock and A Stock are very different, C and
A are probably the most similar, but there are massive differences
between them, the problem may be sorted by the introduction of the new
sub surface stock the S stock (make your own mind up what the s will
stand for)but the issue of route knowledge will remain, drivers are
supposed to drive all of their route once every 6 months.

I didn't realise it was that infrequent. In that case, when the S stock
turns up, i hope LU will cross-train all SLL drivers on all those lines,
and possibly even have a single pool of drivers for them. That would allow
them to do this sort of emergency workaround pretty easily.

tom

--
Taking care of business

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

The issue is then whether the platforms east of Aldgate will take 8
cars, including suitable reversing points such as Whitechapel or
Plaistow.

They had better do. They used to take 8 car R stock trains. It has to be
admitted that A stock cars are about 1'11" longer, though.

--
Colin Rosenstiel