On Feb 19, 9:38*am, wrote:
On Feb 19, 8:44*am, Edward Cowling London UK

wrote:
Northern Line Information". Now it's being given a challenge by "This
train will be held here to be regulated".

I think they seem to think if they delay the train it'll somehow
magically be able to alleviate overcrowding further down the line when
theres a gap in the service. Trouble is , what the geniuses in the
control room don't seemed to have worked out is that a full train aint
gonna pick up any more people whether it leaves now or in 10 minutes
so they might just as well let it go on its way so at least the
passengers it already is carrying won't be delayed along with everyone
on the platforms.

I expect that there are appropriate and inappropriate situations.

This morning I was standing on the northbound Northern Line platform
at London Bridge, along with many others, looking at a very full train
that was being held for several minutes.

It certainly didn't help us or anyone arriving later to be able to
look at this full train that we couldn't get on.

And it certainly didn't help the high proportion of people on the
train who were likely to be intending to get off at Bank, one stop
away.

I suppose it might just have helped a few people arriving late at Bank
to enter the space vacated when those people finally got off, but the
doors are generally shut at Bank Northbound before everyone has got
off, let alone anyone has got on, so who knows.

On Feb 19, 1:27*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
So you think that when something has erroneously locked, a second lock might
help?

It would prevent any chance of the points moving under the train.

B2003

wrote:
On Feb 19, 1:27 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
So you think that when something has erroneously locked, a second
lock might help?

It would prevent any chance of the points moving under the train.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_(device)
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...G=Search&meta=

On Feb 19, 3:00*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
It would prevent any chance of the points moving under the train.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_(d...&btnG=Search&m...

The point was about the points possibly moving under the train because
the lock may have *failed* which is a bit more serious than the points
being stuck in position. Do try and keep up.

B2003

"Andrew Heenan" wrote in message
...
"Edward Cowling London UK" wrote ...
Why keep an already over full train stood at the platform ? People get
stressed, LU staff get stressed, and you could tell the driver was
getting stressed.
Pointless jobsworth regulation doesn't help the public and it doesn't do
much good for LU staff.

regulation really isn't pointless - though it is not always successful and
could probably be managed much better.

While your train may be packed - and on time - the train behind may be
even more packed, meaning longer loading/unloading and so falling more
behind, thus meeting more and more full platforms and falling even more
behind ... etc.

But it would probably be better to spot the problem before five minutes
'regulation' was needed; a quiet word to the driver to dawdle by 15
seconds at each station would be smoother and much less in-yer-face and
frustrating.

An even better solution would be to run more trains - but the Picc has
another ten years before that happens - not just the extra trains, but the
signalling to go with it.

The Picc used to run 27 tph in the peaks, and I've never seen a credible
explanation of why they decided it was too difficult. Now that 24 tph
doesn't cope with passenger demand, they decided to slow down the timetable
to cover the increased dwell times, rather than run more trains. Makes
their life easier, but doesn't do a lot to provide a service that matches
demand.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On 19 Feb, 11:56, wrote:
On Feb 19, 11:41*am, Mike Bristow wrote:

Often, the root cause of the signal failure is a failure of the
points locking mechanisim (or the magic that tells the signalling
system it is locked).

Fair enuff , I didn't know that. Perhaps it would be too expensive but
couldn't each set of points have a backup locking system?

Presumably that would reduce the chances of them failing to lock at
the expense of increasing the chances of them locking in the wrong
position.

Ganesh

On Feb 19, 10:29*pm, "Richard J." wrote:
The Picc used to run 27 tph in the peaks, and I've never seen a credible
explanation of why they decided it was too difficult. *Now that 24 tph

Things did improve with a new timetable about 3 or so years ago. Not
sure if that was the change to 24 tph but before that things were just
getting ridiculus. Trains would be backed up northbound all the way
from Arnos Grove to in some cases Finsbury Park. No doubt if they'd
introduced stepping back at arnos and the signallers had pulled their
fingers out it so trains could reverse back from there in a minute or
less then it would never have occured but in cant-be-arsed britain I
guess they had to find another solution.

B2003

"Richard J." wrote in message
...


"Andrew Heenan" wrote in message
...
"Edward Cowling London UK" wrote ...
Why keep an already over full train stood at the platform ? People get
stressed, LU staff get stressed, and you could tell the driver was
getting stressed.
Pointless jobsworth regulation doesn't help the public and it doesn't do
much good for LU staff.

regulation really isn't pointless - though it is not always successful
and could probably be managed much better.

While your train may be packed - and on time - the train behind may be
even more packed, meaning longer loading/unloading and so falling more
behind, thus meeting more and more full platforms and falling even more
behind ... etc.

But it would probably be better to spot the problem before five minutes
'regulation' was needed; a quiet word to the driver to dawdle by 15
seconds at each station would be smoother and much less in-yer-face and
frustrating.

An even better solution would be to run more trains - but the Picc has
another ten years before that happens - not just the extra trains, but
the signalling to go with it.

The Picc used to run 27 tph in the peaks, and I've never seen a credible
explanation of why they decided it was too difficult. Now that 24 tph
doesn't cope with passenger demand, they decided to slow down the
timetable to cover the increased dwell times, rather than run more trains.
Makes their life easier, but doesn't do a lot to provide a service that
matches demand.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

It seems a disgrace that of the Tubelines lines to get a new signalling
system first in the less than 10 year old Jubilee Line, that quite frankly
should have been built right in the first place. Well at least the extention
at least.
The Jubilee got completely new trains 20 odd years ago as well. Why does the
Jubilee get preferential treatment. Poor old Bakerloo line gets stuffed.
I accept with the Piccadilly line the new signally is not much use without
the new trains.

Kevin

"Zen83237" wrote in message

It seems a disgrace that of the Tubelines lines to get a new
signalling system first in the less than 10 year old Jubilee Line,
that quite frankly should have been built right in the first place.
Well at least the extention at least.
The Jubilee got completely new trains 20 odd years ago as well. Why
does the Jubilee get preferential treatment. Poor old Bakerloo line
gets stuffed. I accept with the Piccadilly line the new signally is
not much use
without the new trains.

The Jubilee line's trains are not much over a decade old, not 20 years.
But I'd much rather travel on the Picc's almost 35 year-old 1973 stock
trains, which are, arguably, still the nicest Tube trains on LU. But I
preferred their original transverse seating layout.

As for the Jubilee Line's signalling system, you probably remember that
the original intention to install moving block signalling was abandoned
when it became clear that it wouldn't be ready in time for the opening
of the Dome. A lower capacity conventional system was installed instead
as a stop-gap measure.

On Feb 23, 8:10*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
"Zen83237" wrote in message



It seems a disgrace that of the Tubelines lines to get a new
signalling system first in the less than 10 year old Jubilee Line,
that quite frankly should have been built right in the first place.
Well at least the extention at least.
The Jubilee got completely new trains 20 odd years ago as well. Why
does the Jubilee get preferential treatment. Poor old Bakerloo line
gets stuffed. I accept with the Piccadilly line the new signally is
not much use
without the new trains.

The Jubilee line's trains are not much over a decade old, not 20 years.
But I'd much rather travel on the Picc's almost 35 year-old 1973 stock
trains, which are, arguably, still the nicest Tube trains on LU. But I
preferred their original transverse seating layout.

As for the Jubilee Line's signalling system, you probably remember that
the original intention to install moving block signalling was abandoned
when it became clear that it wouldn't be ready in time for the opening
of the Dome. A lower capacity conventional system was installed instead
as a stop-gap measure.

The Jubilee did get new trains in the mid to late 1980s (designated
1983 stock), which is probably about 20 years ago. And then again for
the extension in about 1999.

Four coaches of 1983 stock are now on top of a building in Great
Eastern Street where the viaduct out of Broad Street used to go.