I was a teenager in London when the Victoria line opened, and I can
remember how disconcerting it was to see a train enter the station
with the "driver" sitting back and not touching any of the controls
(or turning and talking to his mate) - yes, they were all men then and
by memory there were often two of them in the drivers cab.

Peter

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:14:37 +0100
rail wrote:


In message
"Chris Read" wrote:

I've just watched the latest Video 125 drivers eye view, of the Victoria
line. Included as a bonus was some archive film covering the construction
and opening of the line. It appears that, from the outset, there were CCTV
screens at platform end, giving operators a view of the platform. However,
no mention was made of the purpose served by this facility.

So, was the Victoria line one person operated from the outset, or did the
screens serve some other purpose, and if so, what?

Yes it was. Train operation was completely automatic so the 'driver'
operated the doors and pressed a button to start the train and let it get on
with it.

Well not completely if the doors are manual. Examples of 100% ATO would be
the VAL systems in france and line 14 in paris, where there is no driver or
any staff whatsoever on board the train and everything is 100% automatic.
Not so bad not having staff on those systems because the tunnels are usually
double track so not so much of a sense of being trapped, but in single bore
tube tunnels it wouldn't be pleasent if the train broke down and no one was
on board to sort it out.

B2003

"Chris Read" wrote in message

Thanks all. I had thought that DOO on the tube was a 1980s phenomenon.

The Victoria stock uses a very simple 1960s system that's quite
different to that used in modern ATO trains. From memory, trains run at
either a standard restricted speed, or flat out, with no finer controls.

In message
"Recliner" wrote:

"Chris Read" wrote in message

Thanks all. I had thought that DOO on the tube was a 1980s phenomenon.

The Victoria stock uses a very simple 1960s system that's quite
different to that used in modern ATO trains. From memory, trains run at
either a standard restricted speed, or flat out, with no finer controls.



There were four control codes used:

420 ppm up to line speed
270 ppm up to 25mph
180 ppm coasting up to 25mph
120 ppm used in connection with signalling

for the 270 code there is a governor that regulated the speed between 21 and
23 mph. Over 25mph and the emergency brakes would come on automatically.

A seperate 15kHz signal indicated points where power could be shut off and
the train allowed to coast. As it approached the next station there were a
succession of command codes to slow the train down. Codes were calculated at
100Hz/mph so 35mph had a code of 3.5kHz. There were 3 rates of breaking
providied by mercury retarder switches down to 4mph at which pont a constant
pressure control took over to ease the braking to a smooth stop.

Very sophisticated for the time; remember, practical ICs were a decade or
more in the future.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:50:26 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:


"Chris Read" wrote in message

Thanks all. I had thought that DOO on the tube was a 1980s phenomenon.

The Victoria stock uses a very simple 1960s system that's quite
different to that used in modern ATO trains. From memory, trains run at
either a standard restricted speed, or flat out, with no finer controls.

Its not quite that crude I don't think. I'm sure theres some intermediate
speeds. However despite its age IMO it provides a much more pleasent ride
than the ATO on the central line whose internal logic seems to consist of
"i'm going too fast , must slow down ... I'm going too slow , must speed up,
slow down, speed up, slow down, speed up". The hopeless software even makes
it consistently brake coming into some platforms only to speed up again
10 metres further along just to slow down again - St Pauls springs to mind.
Never mind the wasted electricity it can't do the running gear or track any
favours.

B2003

"rail" wrote in message

In message
"Recliner" wrote:

"Chris Read" wrote in message

Thanks all. I had thought that DOO on the tube was a 1980s
phenomenon.

The Victoria stock uses a very simple 1960s system that's quite
different to that used in modern ATO trains. From memory, trains run
at either a standard restricted speed, or flat out, with no finer
controls.



There were four control codes used:

420 ppm up to line speed
270 ppm up to 25mph
180 ppm coasting up to 25mph
120 ppm used in connection with signalling

for the 270 code there is a governor that regulated the speed between
21 and 23 mph. Over 25mph and the emergency brakes would come on
automatically.

A seperate 15kHz signal indicated points where power could be shut
off and the train allowed to coast. As it approached the next
station there were a succession of command codes to slow the train
down. Codes were calculated at 100Hz/mph so 35mph had a code of
3.5kHz. There were 3 rates of breaking providied by mercury retarder
switches down to 4mph at which pont a constant pressure control took
over to ease the braking to a smooth stop.

Very sophisticated for the time; remember, practical ICs were a
decade or more in the future.

OK, that's a bit more sophisticated than I remembered. And, yes, I
agree that it's very impressive, and reliable, for mid 1960s technology.
Mid/late 1960s car or airliner designs would feel a lot more antiquated
compared to today's products than do those elderly 1967 stock trains.
And, unlike those trains, which remain in heavy daily use, such cars and
planes would almost all have been retired long ago.

On 2 Apr, 12:19, "Recliner" wrote:
"rail" wrote in message







In message
* * * * *"Recliner" wrote:

"Chris Read" wrote in message

Thanks all. I had thought that DOO on the tube was a 1980s
phenomenon.

The Victoria stock uses a very simple 1960s system that's quite
different to that used in modern ATO trains. From memory, trains run
at either a standard restricted speed, or flat out, with no finer
controls.

There were four control codes used:

420 ppm up to line speed
270 ppm up to 25mph
180 ppm coasting up to 25mph
120 ppm used in connection with signalling

for the 270 code there is a governor that regulated the speed between
21 and 23 mph. *Over 25mph and the emergency brakes would come on
automatically.

A seperate 15kHz signal indicated points where power could be shut
off and the train allowed to coast. *As it approached the next
station there were a succession of command codes to slow the train
down. *Codes were calculated at 100Hz/mph so 35mph had a code of
3.5kHz. *There were 3 rates of breaking providied by mercury retarder
switches down to 4mph at which pont a constant pressure control took
over to ease the braking to a smooth stop.

Very sophisticated for the time; remember, practical ICs were a
decade or more in the future.

OK, that's a bit more sophisticated than I remembered. *And, yes, I
agree that it's very impressive, and reliable, for mid 1960s technology.
Mid/late 1960s car or airliner designs would feel a lot more antiquated
compared to today's products than do those elderly 1967 stock trains.
And, unlike those trains, which remain in heavy daily use, such cars and
planes would almost all have been retired long ago.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We are now on the third generation "Auto driver" box as well.

Also to go to a further depth of nitpicking, it wasn't just "Shut the
Doors" and "Press two (sic) start buttons", the drivers window also
had to be fully closed (prevented beheadings at the tunnel headwalls!)

Cheers

Puffernutter

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 04:28:52 -0700 (PDT), puffernutter
wrote:



We are now on the third generation "Auto driver" box as well.

Also to go to a further depth of nitpicking, it wasn't just "Shut the
Doors" and "Press two (sic) start buttons", the drivers window also
had to be fully closed (prevented beheadings at the tunnel headwalls!)

Unusually for the time, there were no side doors to the drivers cabs
on 1967 TS, probably for similar reasons (press the buttons, train
starts moving, try to get out for some reason and wind up half inside
and half on the platform at Seven Sisters). ISTR that when 1960TS
units were fitted with ATO they had the side doors welded shut (or
otherwise securely locked).

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:03:13 +0100
Uncle Toby wrote:
Unusually for the time, there were no side doors to the drivers cabs
on 1967 TS, probably for similar reasons (press the buttons, train
starts moving, try to get out for some reason and wind up half inside
and half on the platform at Seven Sisters). ISTR that when 1960TS

Presumably they credit the current central line drivers with a bit more
self preservation instinct. Either that or the cab doors are interlocked
with the ATO.

B2003

On Apr 2, 1:36*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:03:13 +0100

Uncle Toby wrote:
Unusually for the time, there were no side doors to the drivers cabs
on 1967 TS, probably for similar reasons (press the buttons, train
starts moving, try to get out for some reason and wind up half inside
and half on the platform at Seven Sisters). ISTR that when 1960TS

Presumably they credit the current central line drivers with a bit more
self preservation instinct. Either that or the cab doors are interlocked
with the ATO.

B2003

Sliding cab doors came in with 1973 stock I think. Before that
(including 1960 stock) it was door handles and hinges, so nothing to
interlock.