|
Lack of available trains
This wonderful phrase is currently being applied to the Circle,
District and H&C non-service. Does anyone know why? MaxB |
Lack of available trains
On 26 Sep, 19:40, MaxB wrote:
This wonderful phrase is currently being applied to the Circle, District and H&C non-service. Does anyone know why? At a guess, something trivially minor has happened to one of the C- stock trains that operates the Circle, H&C and relevant (Wimbleware) bits of the District line, and so the drivers have decided to give themselves an evening off by refusing to drive any C-stocks anywhere until Saint Bob has proclaimed them Officially Safe. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Lack of available trains
Alleged defective dead man's handles (able to be reset in a "motoring"
position after operation instead of "off & release"). Oh and it's an ASLEF initiative instead of RMT this time. No doubt LU will be happy for Metronet SSL to carry the can.... |
Lack of available trains
"MaxB" wrote in message ups.com... This wonderful phrase is currently being applied to the Circle, District and H&C non-service. Does anyone know why? Did they really say that? Surely it's a tautology. The trains are unavailable because there is a lack of them. tim |
Lack of available trains
tim..... wrote:
"MaxB" wrote in message ups.com... This wonderful phrase is currently being applied to the Circle, District and H&C non-service. Does anyone know why? Did they really say that? Surely it's a tautology. The trains are unavailable because there is a lack of them. I think you are confused. There is no lack of trains, but there is a severe lack of trains that are available for service. The trains are unavailable because of an alleged safety-related defect. "Lack of available trains" seems to me to be a perfectly clear non-tautological phrase. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Lack of available trains
"Richard J." wrote in message .uk... tim..... wrote: "MaxB" wrote in message ups.com... This wonderful phrase is currently being applied to the Circle, District and H&C non-service. Does anyone know why? Did they really say that? Surely it's a tautology. The trains are unavailable because there is a lack of them. I think you are confused. There is no lack of trains, but there is a severe lack of trains that are available for service. The trains are unavailable because of an alleged safety-related defect. "Lack of available trains" seems to me to be a perfectly clear non-tautological phrase. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) The best announcements I've heard whilst waiting for a Circle line train for some time at Edgware Rd were "we cannot find the driver" and "the driver hasn't finished his tea break" Full support for the finishing tea break driver I got so fed up I switched to getting the Bakerloo line to and from Paddington |
Lack of available trains
On Sep 26, 10:14 pm, wrote:
Alleged defective dead man's handles (able to be reset in a "motoring" position after operation instead of "off & release"). Oh and it's an ASLEF initiative instead of RMT this time. No doubt LU will be happy for Metronet SSL to carry the can.... From the BBC: "Safety fears halt Tube services" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/7015423.stm Just when I visit the place for the first time in several years... what surprises will today bring? Ian the Penguin |
Lack of available trains
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:13:52 -0700, wrote:
Just when I visit the place for the first time in several years... what surprises will today bring? No service at all on the Wimbleware, Circle or Hammersmith and ****ty, if the BBC is anything to go by. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Lack of available trains
On 26 Sep, 21:14, wrote:
Alleged defective dead man's handles (able to be reset in a "motoring" position after operation instead of "off & release"). Oh and it's an ASLEF initiative instead of RMT this time. No doubt LU will be happy for Metronet SSL to carry the can.... ....although RMT are also involved according to the BBC article, and St Bob is the rentaquote speaker. If, as it sounds, the defect in question doesn't prevent the DMH from operating (i.e. your asleep/dead driver will still let go of it and the train will still stop), how does this have even the pretence of a safety issue? -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Lack of available trains
Nicola Redwood wrote:
The best announcements I've heard whilst waiting for a Circle line train for some time at Edgware Rd were "we cannot find the driver" and "the driver hasn't finished his tea break" Full support for the finishing tea break driver I have heard exactly that too. When the driver arrived there was another announcement, first: "Driver, your train is on platform 3" (or whichever platform it was) and then something like "No, not that one driver, YOUR train is on platform 3". The train eventually left Edgware Road, as a Circle Line train with the text "Hammersmith" in the front... -- Olof Lagerkvist ICQ: 724451 Web: http://here.is/olof |
Lack of available trains
On 27 Sep, 06:31, (Neil Williams)
wrote: Just when I visit the place for the first time in several years... what surprises will today bring? No service at all on the Wimbleware, Circle or Hammersmith and ****ty, if the BBC is anything to go by. We know A-stock can get between Liverpool Street and Aldgate East (because that's how units get to and from the ELL) - so why can LUL not divert [some of] the Met service from Aldgate to join up with the District? Single-car D-stock is also allowed on the H&C west of Edgware Road, but that might be harder to arrange. And HSK - Edgware Road is pretty much f***ed no matter what... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Lack of available trains
In message , Nicola Redwood
writes I think you are confused. There is no lack of trains, but there is a severe lack of trains that are available for service. The trains are unavailable because of an alleged safety-related defect. "Lack of available trains" seems to me to be a perfectly clear non-tautological phrase. The best announcements I've heard whilst waiting for a Circle line train for some time at Edgware Rd were "we cannot find the driver" and "the driver hasn't finished his tea break" Full support for the finishing tea break driver The driver is perfectly entitled to his/her break. It's the part of the working day that you are not being paid by the company, so why shouldn't they take their half hour? It's also a legal requirement that the driver has at least a half hour break after 4.25 hours of continuous driving. When there are problems, it is common (at least on the Picc) to have a short/late meal break of the minimum allowed and go straight back out and drive some more. Just because the person managing the service has failed to handle this correctly doesn't put the driver at fault as was implied above. -- 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) |
Lack of available trains
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, John B wrote:
On 27 Sep, 06:31, (Neil Williams) wrote: Just when I visit the place for the first time in several years... what surprises will today bring? No service at all on the Wimbleware, Circle or Hammersmith and ****ty, if the BBC is anything to go by. We know A-stock can get between Liverpool Street and Aldgate East (because that's how units get to and from the ELL) - so why can LUL not divert [some of] the Met service from Aldgate to join up with the District? The usual panoply of reasons: - A stock drivers don't have route knowledge beyond Aldgate Junction (do they?) - Where would you reverse? A stock can get to Aldgate East, but there are apparently infringements at Whitechapel, 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. tom -- The future will accost us with boob-slapping ferocity. -- H. G. Wells |
Lack of available trains
On 27 Sep, 13:17, Tom Anderson wrote:
We know A-stock can get between Liverpool Street and Aldgate East (because that's how units get to and from the ELL) - so why can LUL not divert [some of] the Met service from Aldgate to join up with the District? The usual panoply of reasons: - A stock drivers don't have route knowledge beyond Aldgate Junction (do they?) Presumably some of them do, since there's pretty regular rotation of ELL trains (and indeed, ELL trains are maintained at Neasden). - Where would you reverse? A stock can get to Aldgate East, but there are apparently infringements at Whitechapel, 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... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Lack of available trains
In message . com, John
B writes We know A-stock can get between Liverpool Street and Aldgate East (because that's how units get to and from the ELL) - so why can LUL not divert [some of] the Met service from Aldgate to join up with the District? The usual panoply of reasons: - A stock drivers don't have route knowledge beyond Aldgate Junction (do they?) Presumably some of them do, since there's pretty regular rotation of ELL trains (and indeed, ELL trains are maintained at Neasden). Only ELL drivers know that bit (but there's not a lot of them), but not Met drivers. -- 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) |
Lack of available trains
On Sep 27, 1:17 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
- Where would you reverse? A stock can get to Aldgate East, but there are apparently infringements at Whitechapel, so they'd have to reverse using What sort of infringements? Are we talking scaring some pigeons in a nest as the train passed very close by or are we talking taking a large gouge out of a tunnel wall? B2003 |
Lack of available trains
On Sep 27, 1:29 pm, John B 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... Given the slothful speed tube trains generally move at I do sometimes wonder why route knowledge is so important. Obviously on an intercity train doing 100+ you could easily end up derailing on a high speed curve if you didn't know it was coming. But whats the worse that can happen on a tube train crawling along at 20mph thats got tripcocks anyway? You'd see any curves or points coming up a mile off. B2003 |
Lack of available trains
The tunnel wall would be fine, it's the side of the train that wouldn't,
there is also the issue of the various procedures in place on different lines that would make the running of Met Trains either east or west along the lower circle line, it's been 3 years since I defected from the District (the line of sorrows) to the Met and for the life of me I can't remember much about that whole different world Boltar wrote: On Sep 27, 1:17 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: - Where would you reverse? A stock can get to Aldgate East, but there are apparently infringements at Whitechapel, so they'd have to reverse using What sort of infringements? Are we talking scaring some pigeons in a nest as the train passed very close by or are we talking taking a large gouge out of a tunnel wall? B2003 |
Lack of available trains
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) |
Lack of available trains
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 |
Lack of available trains
"Steve Fitzgerald" ] wrote in message ... In message , Nicola Redwood writes I think you are confused. There is no lack of trains, but there is a severe lack of trains that are available for service. The trains are unavailable because of an alleged safety-related defect. "Lack of available trains" seems to me to be a perfectly clear non-tautological phrase. The best announcements I've heard whilst waiting for a Circle line train for some time at Edgware Rd were "we cannot find the driver" and "the driver hasn't finished his tea break" Full support for the finishing tea break driver The driver is perfectly entitled to his/her break. It's the part of the working day that you are not being paid by the company, so why shouldn't they take their half hour? It's also a legal requirement that the driver has at least a half hour break after 4.25 hours of continuous driving. When there are problems, it is common (at least on the Picc) to have a short/late meal break of the minimum allowed and go straight back out and drive some more. Just because the person managing the service has failed to handle this correctly doesn't put the driver at fault as was implied above. -- 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) That's exactly why I said full support for the driver in my earlier post and wasn't at all implying the driver was at fault. The same reason my management are at fault when I don't get to take my lunch break as has happened all this week |
Lack of available trains
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) |
Lack of available trains
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 |
Lack of available trains
|
Lack of available trains
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 |
Lack of available trains
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 |
Lack of available trains
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. |
Lack of available trains
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 |
Lack of available trains
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, John B wrote:
On 27 Sep, 13:17, Tom Anderson wrote: We know A-stock can get between Liverpool Street and Aldgate East (because that's how units get to and from the ELL) - so why can LUL not divert [some of] the Met service from Aldgate to join up with the District? - Where would you reverse? A stock can get to Aldgate East, but there are apparently infringements at Whitechapel, According to CULG, they're allowed on the District between Aldgate East Junction and Upminster. Also according to CULG, they're allowed on the H&C between Aldgate Junction and Edgware Road! Does that mean that only the Aldgate Junction to Aldgate East junction is banned (which contradicts the known use for ELL stock moves), or does that description just reflect the way Clive's divided the lines up? My source is Tubeprune: http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/SS...%20Upgrade.htm Who says "[A] stock is currently barred east of Aldgate because of infringements at St Marys, Whitechapel, near Bow Road, Barking and Dagenham". He also says in: http://www.geocities.com/tubeprune/unstories.htm "As there are some gauge infringements along the route, some work will be necessary to allow the A Stock to run out there and the platforms will have to be extended at Barking at least. The locations of OPO CCTV screens and mirrors will also require alteration at most stations between Aldgate East and Barking. Some signalling improvements will also be necessary." I don't know how much of this is still up to date. Clive also says of the District "the Richmond and Wimbledon branches are shared with NR trains" - Richmond, yes, but Wimbledon? tom -- Taking care of business |
Lack of available trains
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message .li... On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, John B wrote: On 27 Sep, 13:17, Tom Anderson wrote: We know A-stock can get between Liverpool Street and Aldgate East (because that's how units get to and from the ELL) - so why can LUL not divert [some of] the Met service from Aldgate to join up with the District? - Where would you reverse? A stock can get to Aldgate East, but there are apparently infringements at Whitechapel, According to CULG, they're allowed on the District between Aldgate East Junction and Upminster. Also according to CULG, they're allowed on the H&C between Aldgate Junction and Edgware Road! Does that mean that only the Aldgate Junction to Aldgate East junction is banned (which contradicts the known use for ELL stock moves), or does that description just reflect the way Clive's divided the lines up? My source is Tubeprune: http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/SS...%20Upgrade.htm Who says "[A] stock is currently barred east of Aldgate because of infringements at St Marys, Whitechapel, near Bow Road, Barking and Dagenham". He also says in: http://www.geocities.com/tubeprune/unstories.htm "As there are some gauge infringements along the route, some work will be necessary to allow the A Stock to run out there and the platforms will have to be extended at Barking at least. The locations of OPO CCTV screens and mirrors will also require alteration at most stations between Aldgate East and Barking. Some signalling improvements will also be necessary." I don't know how much of this is still up to date. Clive also says of the District "the Richmond and Wimbledon branches are shared with NR trains" - Richmond, yes, but Wimbledon? I don't think SWT actually use the platforms at Wimbledon, but they definitely run empty stock off the Windsor lines via East Putney to Wimbledon Park depot, and there are crossovers from both LU lines onto the main line just before Wimbledon station. There are a couple of early and late trains that use the route in service, and of course it is available as required for engineering diversions. Paul |
Lack of available trains
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Paul Scott wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message .li... Clive also says of the District "the Richmond and Wimbledon branches are shared with NR trains" - Richmond, yes, but Wimbledon? I don't think SWT actually use the platforms at Wimbledon, but they definitely run empty stock off the Windsor lines via East Putney to Wimbledon Park depot, and there are crossovers from both LU lines onto the main line just before Wimbledon station. There are a couple of early and late trains that use the route in service, and of course it is available as required for engineering diversions. Okay. I knew about the use as a diversionary route, but i sort of read it as implying that there were NR passenger services that way. Here's what His Cliveness says: "The Richmond and Wimbledon branches are shared with NR trains, and so are restricted to C and D stock only" Which is slightly nonsensical on the face of it. If Silverlink withdrew NLL service from Richmond, would A stock suddenly be usable there? Presumably, what he means is that the branches use tracks built and/or maintained to NR structure gauge, and therefore A stock won't fit. Except that the reason the Putney branch isn't cleared for A stock is presumably nothing to do with sharing with NR, and everything to do with the complete lack of any current, historical or planned service there from the Metropolitan! Who owns the Putney metals, LU or NR? tom -- They entered the Vortex and the dreams became reality |
Lack of available trains
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message .li... Okay. I knew about the use as a diversionary route, but i sort of read it as implying that there were NR passenger services that way. Here's what His Cliveness says: "The Richmond and Wimbledon branches are shared with NR trains, and so are restricted to C and D stock only" Which is slightly nonsensical on the face of it. If Silverlink withdrew NLL service from Richmond, would A stock suddenly be usable there? Presumably, what he means is that the branches use tracks built and/or maintained to NR structure gauge, and therefore A stock won't fit. Except that the reason the Putney branch isn't cleared for A stock is presumably nothing to do with sharing with NR, and everything to do with the complete lack of any current, historical or planned service there from the Metropolitan! Who owns the Putney metals, LU or NR? LU since the early seventies I believe, although regular main line services had ceased in the 1940s IIRC. I remember the SR style platform signage in my teens... Paul |
Lack of available trains
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:40:15 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote: "Tom Anderson" wrote in message h.li... On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, John B wrote: On 27 Sep, 13:17, Tom Anderson wrote: We know A-stock can get between Liverpool Street and Aldgate East (because that's how units get to and from the ELL) - so why can LUL not divert [some of] the Met service from Aldgate to join up with the District? - Where would you reverse? A stock can get to Aldgate East, but there are apparently infringements at Whitechapel, According to CULG, they're allowed on the District between Aldgate East Junction and Upminster. Also according to CULG, they're allowed on the H&C between Aldgate Junction and Edgware Road! Does that mean that only the Aldgate Junction to Aldgate East junction is banned (which contradicts the known use for ELL stock moves), or does that description just reflect the way Clive's divided the lines up? My source is Tubeprune: http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/SS...%20Upgrade.htm Who says "[A] stock is currently barred east of Aldgate because of infringements at St Marys, Whitechapel, near Bow Road, Barking and Dagenham". He also says in: http://www.geocities.com/tubeprune/unstories.htm "As there are some gauge infringements along the route, some work will be necessary to allow the A Stock to run out there and the platforms will have to be extended at Barking at least. The locations of OPO CCTV screens and mirrors will also require alteration at most stations between Aldgate East and Barking. Some signalling improvements will also be necessary." I don't know how much of this is still up to date. Clive also says of the District "the Richmond and Wimbledon branches are shared with NR trains" - Richmond, yes, but Wimbledon? I don't think SWT actually use the platforms at Wimbledon, but they definitely run empty stock off the Windsor lines via East Putney to Wimbledon Park depot, and there are crossovers from both LU lines onto the main line just before Wimbledon station. There are a couple of early and late trains that use the route in service, and of course it is available as required for engineering diversions. According to the latest Modern Railways SWT will have to fit their trains with tripcocks and other LU devices if they wish to continue using the Wimbledon line. I find it surprising that LU can dictate this. -- Peter Lawrence |
Lack of available trains
"Peter Lawrence" wrote in message ... On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:40:15 +0100, "Paul Scott" wrote: "Tom Anderson" wrote in message th.li... On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, John B wrote: On 27 Sep, 13:17, Tom Anderson wrote: We know A-stock can get between Liverpool Street and Aldgate East (because that's how units get to and from the ELL) - so why can LUL not divert [some of] the Met service from Aldgate to join up with the District? - Where would you reverse? A stock can get to Aldgate East, but there are apparently infringements at Whitechapel, According to CULG, they're allowed on the District between Aldgate East Junction and Upminster. Also according to CULG, they're allowed on the H&C between Aldgate Junction and Edgware Road! Does that mean that only the Aldgate Junction to Aldgate East junction is banned (which contradicts the known use for ELL stock moves), or does that description just reflect the way Clive's divided the lines up? My source is Tubeprune: http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/SS...%20Upgrade.htm Who says "[A] stock is currently barred east of Aldgate because of infringements at St Marys, Whitechapel, near Bow Road, Barking and Dagenham". He also says in: http://www.geocities.com/tubeprune/unstories.htm "As there are some gauge infringements along the route, some work will be necessary to allow the A Stock to run out there and the platforms will have to be extended at Barking at least. The locations of OPO CCTV screens and mirrors will also require alteration at most stations between Aldgate East and Barking. Some signalling improvements will also be necessary." I don't know how much of this is still up to date. Clive also says of the District "the Richmond and Wimbledon branches are shared with NR trains" - Richmond, yes, but Wimbledon? I don't think SWT actually use the platforms at Wimbledon, but they definitely run empty stock off the Windsor lines via East Putney to Wimbledon Park depot, and there are crossovers from both LU lines onto the main line just before Wimbledon station. There are a couple of early and late trains that use the route in service, and of course it is available as required for engineering diversions. According to the latest Modern Railways SWT will have to fit their trains with tripcocks and other LU devices if they wish to continue using the Wimbledon line. I find it surprising that LU can dictate this. Is it because the line in question still has NR style signalling without tripcocks, rather than LU? (I haven't bought MR yet this month). Doesn't surprise me though - its often been pointed out as an oddity when people mention Chiltern Stock as having to have trip cocks. On a similar point, the Crossrail2 Chelsea/Hackney line 'safeguarding' notes that Wimbledon Park depot will be taken over from SWT for the line's use whenever it happens, so in the long term the SW franchisee probably won't be using the line for ECS moves anyway. Paul |
Lack of available trains
On 27 Sep, 09:18, John B wrote:
If, as it sounds, the defect in question doesn't prevent the DMH from operating (i.e. your asleep/dead driver will still let go of it and the train will still stop), how does this have even the pretence of a safety issue? Basically, there is no safety issue. These trains have been in service for nearly 40 years, so statistically the chance of an incident occurring is pretty minimal. If there were concerns, implement double manning until assurances could be made. Certainly any minute risk is easily outweighed by the risks associated with overcrowding. This issue is all about train operators asserting their authority, and IMO they should be ashamed of themselves for inconveniencing and potentially endangering passengers for no good reason. |
Lack of available trains
|
Lack of available trains
"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message ... In article , (Peter Lawrence) wrote: According to the latest Modern Railways SWT will have to fit their trains with tripcocks and other LU devices if they wish to continue using the Wimbledon line. I find it surprising that LU can dictate this. Are they planning to resignal it? The present signalling isn't that old. The SSL signalling is definitely being upgraded (theoretically as part of PPP), but this could consist of anything from 100% resignalling to controlling existing signals from new control rooms. What is interesting is that my understanding of the Putney Wimbledon transfer seems to have been wrong, because apparently the stations, track and signalling must have been dealt with as 3 different transfers, in the case of the signalling, yet to happen? Complicated aint it... Paul |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk