MIG wrote on 30 September 2009 17:44:19 ...
On 30 Sep, 17:20, "Richard J." wrote:
Barry Salter wrote on 30 September 2009
10:57:23 ...

Stephen O'Connell wrote:
Quarter minute times? You are joking me?!!
Nope. The journey time on the W&C is so short that regulating to the
quarter minute is about the only sane way of keeping the service going,
it seems.

The joke here is the absurdly casual approach to timekeeping that LU has
on the other lines. As far as I can see, drivers get no help at all to
keep to time apart from being issued with a working timetable (at a
resolution of ½ minute) and using their watch. OK, they get regulated
at certain stations, but that's *after* things have gone adrift. In
Paris, the timings are to the nearest 5 seconds, with a headwall display
at each station or a beep in the cab DLR-fashion to say it's time to go.

It's hard to see why the W & C needs a timetable at all. How far from
the schedule can a driver or train end up? I mean, a train six hours
late is still at a maximum of four minutes from where it ought to be.
As long as they are signalled out of each station at an appropriate
interval, what difference can it make?

It's the timetable that defines the "appropriate interval". Also, it's
useful for the drivers to know how much time they've got between
arriving at Bank or the depot at Waterloo and the start of their next
trip, which might not be on the same train. (The W&C used to do
"stepping back" at one or both ends of the journey -- I'm not sure if
they still do.)
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

MIG wrote:

It's hard to see why the W & C needs a timetable at all. How far from
the schedule can a driver or train end up? I mean, a train six hours
late is still at a maximum of four minutes from where it ought to be.
As long as they are signalled out of each station at an appropriate
interval, what difference can it make?

Quite a lot adrift if you've ever played "The Drain" on SimSig. All it
takes is an incident that would be relatively minor on other lines, and
the entire service falls apart.

Cheers,

Barry

No, I don't think so. In fact I've just closed my browser, clicked on
the link again and it has come up again (using Firefox). If you still
can't get it to work, see Richard J's post in a separate sub-thread
which shows how to find it. It's unfortunate that the OP didn't post
the link in the first place!

Not really, because your link has now expired and is useless to anyone.
Anyone would have to make a new TT if they wanted to see it.

On 30 Sep, 23:38, Barry Salter wrote:
MIG wrote:
It's hard to see why the W & C needs a timetable at all. *How far from
the schedule can a driver or train end up? *I mean, a train six hours
late is still at a maximum of four minutes from where it ought to be.
As long as they are signalled out of each station at an appropriate
interval, what difference can it make?

Quite a lot adrift if you've ever played "The Drain" on SimSig. All it
takes is an incident that would be relatively minor on other lines, and
the entire service falls apart.

Cheers,

Barry

But does a timetable prevent such an incident?

"Commuter" wrote
No, I don't think so. In fact I've just closed my browser, clicked on the
link again and it has come up again (using Firefox). If you still can't
get it to work, see Richard J's post in a separate sub-thread which shows
how to find it. It's unfortunate that the OP didn't post the link in
the first place!

Not really, because your link has now expired and is useless to anyone.
Anyone would have to make a new TT if they wanted to see it.


OK, point taken: I hadn't realised that was what was happening. I still
find it sort of bizarre that a new W&C timetable has to be created every
time someone wants one. Why don't LU or TfL create a permanent one?

"Richard J." wrote in message
. com...

(The W&C used to do "stepping back" at one or both ends of the journey --
I'm not sure if they still do.)

Yep still do at both ends. Only in the peaks though.

The TO who brings the unit in takes the next one out.

And as to Barry's comment;

Yes anything so very small breaks the entire drain quite often. For a line
with 6 units and 2 stations is has a very poor record.

Things have got a little better since they only usually use 1 platform at
Bank in the peaks rather than alternating between the 2 so less points
faults. However we now get held at the signal for the Southbound service to
depart.

But we;
Still have regular signal problems
Still have regular traction problems [1]
Still have the odd train fault which breaks the entire service


[1] - Those not caused by either lightning strikes at Waterloo/Vauxhall or
another fault on the NR side. (Power is still taken from top side for the
drain - a hangon from when it was NSE.

The driver has a Hazchem suit in the cab. Apparently there are some
VERY old puddles of Thames water festering in the tunnels.

Q ..@.. wrote on 02 October 2009 00:50:07 ...
"Richard J." wrote in message
. com...

(The W&C used to do "stepping back" at one or both ends of the journey --
I'm not sure if they still do.)

Yep still do at both ends. Only in the peaks though.

The TO who brings the unit in takes the next one out.

And as to Barry's comment;

Yes anything so very small breaks the entire drain quite often. For a line
with 6 units and 2 stations is has a very poor record.

Things have got a little better since they only usually use 1 platform at
Bank in the peaks rather than alternating between the 2 so less points
faults.

Why should those points fail more often than other intensively-used
junctions on the Tube, e.g. Camden Town, Leytonstone, North Acton?

However we now get held at the signal for the Southbound service to
depart.

- and half of those incidents would be avoided if they used both
platforms. So why don't they? Surely it can't be to save wear and tear
on those NEW points, can it?

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:17:38 GMT
"Richard J." wrote:
- and half of those incidents would be avoided if they used both
platforms. So why don't they? Surely it can't be to save wear and tear
on those NEW points, can it?

The obvious thing to do would be to make both tunnels bi-directional and
effectively have 2 seperate services running - one train goes up and down
1 tunnel, another train goes up and down the other. So if one service
dies you've still got the other one.

B2003

On 2 Oct, 10:29, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:17:38 GMT

"Richard J." wrote:
- and half of those incidents would be avoided if they used both
platforms. *So why don't they? *Surely it can't be to save wear and tear
on those NEW points, can it?

The obvious thing to do would be to make both tunnels bi-directional and
effectively have 2 seperate services running - one train goes up and down
1 tunnel, another train goes up and down the other. So if one service
dies you've still got the other one.


And this means that only have two trains can run at once rather than
the five you get, during the peak, at the moment. The W&C is a bit too
long to run as independent tunnels.