|
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
So my wife has got stuck because of the victoria line being down. Just
how many "signal" failures per day are there? Would it not be possible to design something which doesn't fail quite so damn often and also design procedures so reversing trains doesn't take forever so at least the rest of the line can continue running some semblance of a service? B2003 |
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
wrote in message ... So my wife has got stuck because of the victoria line being down. Just how many "signal" failures per day are there? Would it not be possible to design something which doesn't fail quite so damn often and also design procedures so reversing trains doesn't take forever so at least the rest of the line can continue running some semblance of a service? B2003 I have often wondered why signalling systems are so prone to falling over all the time. Mind you they are installing a new system on the Victoria line so was it really a failure or may be due to the installation work. The DLR is the one that gets me. It was built in the 80's and plagued with problems since day one. Kevin |
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
On Feb 17, 8:23*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:06:08 -0800 (PST), wrote: So my wife has got stuck because of the victoria line being down. Just how many "signal" failures per day are there? Would it not be possible to design something which doesn't fail quite so damn often and also design procedures so reversing trains doesn't take forever so at least the rest of the line can continue running some semblance of a service? Not many at all on the Victoria Line in my experience over recent months. Considering work is still continuing I am surprised it's been as good as it has. *New conductor rail is now appearing on the north end of the line. This morning I was caught immediately behind the first train failure - the report was that a set of doors had been knocked off their track by a passenger. *I'm guessing that's because they barged their way into the train at the last second at Seven Sisters and when the train was entering Finsbury Park (downward slope and bend) that the door moved sufficiently for the brakes to apply. The train ended up half in, half out of F Park s/b platform. We eventually made it in but then got stuck while the failed train reversed at Highbury. *Needless to say that as we were the first train through for about 20 minutes the platforms were a bit busy! I see that there was then a subsequent signal failure at Victoria - don't know the cause yet. *That resulted in multiple partial line suspensions and then a full line suspension at the height of the peak. I would agree that signal failures are not acceptable but they can happen for all sorts of reasons. To effect quick turnarounds you need to roster in "stepping back" which is used at Brixton. However you can't just magic drivers out of nowhere to make it happen at Warren St or Highbury when there is a major disruption. *I know you'll say that's a typical useless LUL response but it's an honest one. When I tried to get on at Victoria this morning the information was that it was suspended between Brixton and Warren Street. I was surprised that they could turn round at Warren Street (if they really did). I suppose there is one crossover. |
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
On 18 Feb, 00:53, MIG wrote: On Feb 17, 8:23*pm, Paul Corfield wrote: On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:06:08 -0800 (PST), wrote: So my wife has got stuck because of the victoria line being down. Just how many "signal" failures per day are there? Would it not be possible to design something which doesn't fail quite so damn often and also design procedures so reversing trains doesn't take forever so at least the rest of the line can continue running some semblance of a service? Not many at all on the Victoria Line in my experience over recent months. Considering work is still continuing I am surprised it's been as good as it has. *New conductor rail is now appearing on the north end of the line. This morning I was caught immediately behind the first train failure - the report was that a set of doors had been knocked off their track by a passenger. *I'm guessing that's because they barged their way into the train at the last second at Seven Sisters and when the train was entering Finsbury Park (downward slope and bend) that the door moved sufficiently for the brakes to apply. The train ended up half in, half out of F Park s/b platform. We eventually made it in but then got stuck while the failed train reversed at Highbury. *Needless to say that as we were the first train through for about 20 minutes the platforms were a bit busy! I see that there was then a subsequent signal failure at Victoria - don't know the cause yet. *That resulted in multiple partial line suspensions and then a full line suspension at the height of the peak. I would agree that signal failures are not acceptable but they can happen for all sorts of reasons. To effect quick turnarounds you need to roster in "stepping back" which is used at Brixton. However you can't just magic drivers out of nowhere to make it happen at Warren St or Highbury when there is a major disruption. *I know you'll say that's a typical useless LUL response but it's an honest one. When I tried to get on at Victoria this morning the information was that it was suspended between Brixton and Warren Street. *I was surprised that they could turn round at Warren Street (if they really did). *I suppose there is one crossover. A little more info on a rather calamitous morning for the Vic line yesterday: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7894793.stm |
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 07:17:25PM -0000, Zen83237 wrote:
I have often wondered why signalling systems are so prone to falling over all the time. Because they're designed by paranoids to be hypochondriac and always call for a doctor when they've got a bit of a sniffle. -- David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence You may now start misinterpreting what I just wrote, and attacking that misinterpretation. |
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
On Feb 17, 8:23*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
I would agree that signal failures are not acceptable but they can happen for all sorts of reasons. To effect quick turnarounds you need to roster in "stepping back" which is used at Brixton. However you can't just magic drivers out of nowhere to make it happen at Warren St or Why would you have to magic up a driver? The train already has one and since he can't get to where he was going anyway why can't he just drive it back in the other direction? Highbury when there is a major disruption. *I know you'll say that's a typical useless LUL response but it's an honest one. All it shows is that LUL have little in the way of fall back procedures in place when things go pear shaped. A broken door or dodgy signal should not end up with 5 trains worth of people stuck in a tunnel for an hour. Broken signal? Fine , drive through it on caution and let everyone detrain. Whats the problem? Broken door? Reverse train back into platform , empty pax and take it away again. Sorted. Why do these simple procedures take LUL hours and hours to sort out? The odd occasion one can accept , but every single time theres some failure on a line this sort of thing occurs. I suspect it will take someone dying in a stuck train and the relatives suing LUL for a small fortune before someone pulls the corporate finger out however. B2003 |
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
On Feb 18, 1:50*pm, wrote:
On Feb 17, 8:23*pm, Paul Corfield wrote: I would agree that signal failures are not acceptable but they can happen for all sorts of reasons. To effect quick turnarounds you need to roster in "stepping back" which is used at Brixton. However you can't just magic drivers out of nowhere to make it happen at Warren St or Why would you have to magic up a driver? The train already has one and since he can't get to where he was going anyway why can't he just drive it back in the other direction? The driver can just walk to the other end and drive it back, but for the normal service, there will be a driver already in position at the rear who take take the train straight back out. It takes a driver longer to walk from one end of the train to the other than the time that the train would have to turn around at Warren Street whilst still maintaining a reasonable frequency. At Warren Street, you would be lucky to manage a train every 5 minutes without stepping back, especially as the platform will be crowded. Highbury when there is a major disruption. *I know you'll say that's a typical useless LUL response but it's an honest one. All it shows is that LUL have little in the way of fall back procedures in place when things go pear shaped. A broken door or dodgy signal should not end up with 5 trains worth of people stuck in a tunnel for an hour. Broken signal? Fine , drive through it on caution and let everyone detrain. Whats the problem? Broken door? Reverse train back into platform , empty pax and take it away again. Sorted. Why do these simple procedures take LUL hours and hours to sort out? The odd occasion one can accept , but every single time theres some failure on a line this sort of thing occurs. *I suspect it will take someone dying in a stuck train and the relatives suing LUL for a small fortune before someone pulls the corporate finger out however. There seem to be plenty of fall back plans, the problem is that the system has enough trouble coping with a 'normal' day due to the number of passengers. For example, "Broken signal? Fine , drive through it on caution and let everyone detrain." is a good plan, except that to drive through a signal at caution may take three times (for example) as long as a normal and so the line gets blocked up with a queue of trains and what do you do with all the people that you've decided to detrain? Reversing a train back into a platform assumes that the next train isn't already coming into the station. All these procedures take time to set up for the very good reason as they often involve doing something out of the ordinary, there have been accidents after 'stop and proceed' at a failed signal with trains running into the back of one another. |
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
On 18 Feb, 13:50, wrote: On Feb 17, 8:23*pm, Paul Corfield wrote: I would agree that signal failures are not acceptable but they can happen for all sorts of reasons. To effect quick turnarounds you need to roster in "stepping back" which is used at Brixton. However you can't just magic drivers out of nowhere to make it happen at Warren St or Why would you have to magic up a driver? The train already has one and since he can't get to where he was going anyway why can't he just drive it back in the other direction? Highbury when there is a major disruption. *I know you'll say that's a typical useless LUL response but it's an honest one. All it shows is that LUL have little in the way of fall back procedures in place when things go pear shaped. A broken door or dodgy signal should not end up with 5 trains worth of people stuck in a tunnel for an hour. Broken signal? Fine , drive through it on caution and let everyone detrain. Whats the problem? Broken door? Reverse train back into platform , empty pax and take it away again. Sorted. Why do these simple procedures take LUL hours and hours to sort out? The odd occasion one can accept , but every single time theres some failure on a line this sort of thing occurs. *I suspect it will take someone dying in a stuck train and the relatives suing LUL for a small fortune before someone pulls the corporate finger out however. The wider disruption on the Victoria line on Tuesday morning *was* caused by a signal failure - see... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7894793.stm ....specifically this bit... "The cause of the delay was signalling problems [...]". |
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
|
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
On Feb 18, 9:01*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
example. *Total time was an unacceptable 30 minutes but that is how long it was. Ok 30 mins , I was just going by what the bbc news report said. Even so , its still too long. Probably not an issue in winter but if it had been summer with a packed train and 40C temp? scotched and clipped or remotely secured (if that technology is in place) to ensure the points don't move under a moving train. *Whether Why would they? Do points often randomly move on their own when a signals fails to red or whatever the victoria line equivalent is? Can't they be controlled remotely from the control room or has that cutting edge technology not made it there yet? I disagree with the above statement because no one has died and Yet. I don't expect you to accept anything I've written but I have tried to give you a reasoned explanation. *If it is any consolation I get just as I'm sure everything you've written is accurate , but it also comes across as "well we've made a few changes but basically this is the way it is". B2003 |
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
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. B2003 |
Can't the tube just go one day ...
"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. -- Andrew "If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein |
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
|
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
Do points often randomly move on their own when a
signals fails to red or whatever the victoria line equivalent is? AIUI - its in the wiring of the said point/s and signal. The "green" proves to the driver that the points are both set and LOCKED (safe) However with a red signal the associated points *may* A) Be in the wrong position (being diff to the signalmans diagram) B) WONT be locked (unsafe) and for that reason those points "could" move as a train passes over them (remember its a failure and with no "green" there is no proof thay are locked). Or they may even simply be set for a wrong route. |
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
|
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
On Feb 19, 11:12*am, "John Rowland"
wrote: To effect quick turnarounds you need to roster in "stepping back" which is used at Brixton. However you can't just magic drivers out of nowhere Why would you have to magic up a driver? The train already has one and since he can't get to where he was going anyway why can't he just drive it back in the other direction? Can't Boltar just go one day without some major fsckup? Actually he inadvertently has a point here - aren't the new Thameslink trains being specced with CCTV in the driver's cab so s/he can back up without changing ends if required...? -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
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? B2003 |
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
wrote in message ... 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? B2003 Another thing is that the affected points are not always immediately in front of the driver and could be round a bend or 300 yds further up which he is unable to see, and one signal may be linked to a total of 3 "sets" of points before its able to turn green and any one of the three may be the problem. He wont know which ones are causing the problem. |
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
|
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
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. |
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
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 |
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
|
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
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 |
Can't the tube just go one day ...
"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) |
Can't the tube just go one day without some major fsckup?
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 |
Can't the tube just go one day ...
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 |
Can't the tube just go one day ...
"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 |
Can't the tube just go one day ...
"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. |
Can't the tube just go one day ...
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. |
Can't the tube just go one day ...
"Recliner" wrote
The Jubilee line's trains are not much over a decade old, not 20 years. Sure, but they replaced 1986 stock, retired at little over 10 years old. -- Andrew "If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein |
Can't the tube just go one day ...
On 24 Feb, 09:12, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
"Recliner" wrote The Jubilee line's trains are not much over a decade old, not 20 years. Sure, but they replaced 1986 stock, retired at little over 10 years old. 1983 stock, surely. I think 1986 stock was the three prototype units ordered for Central Line replacement. |
Can't the tube just go one day ...
"Recliner" wrote in message ... "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. And why would moving block not have been ready in time. Not as if it hadn't been done before on other railway syatems. Could they really not build a new railway and not put a modern, state of the art signally system on it. What are they putting on crossrail, semaphores? Kevin |
Can't the tube just go one day ...
|
Can't the tube just go one day ...
On Feb 24, 9:58*pm, wrote:
In article , (MIG) wrote: On 24 Feb, 09:12, "Andrew Heenan" wrote: "Recliner" wrote The Jubilee line's trains are not much over a decade old, not 20 years. Sure, but they replaced 1986 stock, retired at little over 10 years old. 1983 stock, surely. I think 1986 stock was the three prototype units ordered for Central Line replacement. The second 1983 stock batch was delivered in 1986 wasn't it? I wouldn't have been in London much at the time, but the first batch was probably barely in service by then, given the usual gap after the year of its name. |
Can't the tube just go one day ...
"Zen83237" wrote in message
"Recliner" wrote in message ... "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. And why would moving block not have been ready in time. Not as if it hadn't been done before on other railway syatems. Could they really not build a new railway and not put a modern, state of the art signally system on it. As I recall, the same man who demanded moving block signalling on the Jubilee went on to speciify the same on the WCML, with even worse consequences. |
Can't the tube just go one day ...
On Feb 24, 6:29*pm, "Zen83237" wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... "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. And why would moving block not have been ready in time. Not as if it hadn't been done before on other railway syatems. Could they really not build a new railway and not put a modern, state of the art signally system on it. What are they putting on crossrail, semaphores? Because the signalling system, as originally planned, would have covered the whole line and the new trains wouldn't have needed to run on a mixed system. As I understand it, the main problem was the deadline of having the line open by December 1999, to serve the Millenium Dome at North Greenwich. If TfL had had another year, it may have been possible to get it all working reliably. Some of the hardware was in place, but never got used in anger. The current fixed block signalling was then overlaid on this, it was only with the new signalling being installed that the original moving block hardware is being removed. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk