• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

SSR resignalling

bluegoblin7

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2011
Messages
1,356
Location
JB/JP/JW
If the tripcock did lift it wouldn't be necessary to go to the effort and expense of pegging down all the redundant trainstops!

The tripcock relay 'switch' inhibits full speed trip operation, it doesn't affect the operation of the tripcock itself. The existing tripcock cut out switch can be operated in the event of a defective tripcock, with the train proceeding in RM to the nearest depot or sidings.

(The above is slightly simplified to make it accessible to all audiences, before someone gets pedantic with me)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
3,748
It is the same as TBTC on the Jub/Northern, i.e. the tripcocks remain in position and operative in the CBTC area. You can still be front tripped in the CBTC area and the train will EB regardless of driving mode. The latch relays simply relate to inhibition and enablement of tripcock driving mode, rather than the operability of the physical tripcocks.
This is correct, the one difference however when tripped in an ato section is that after re-setting the trip the train is then immediately able to proceed at line speed with no time delay.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
The tripcock does not lift on the s stock when changing from tripcock to CBTC. There is a tripcock relay switch that engergises and de-energises the tripcock. It will stay down all the time. This is because when a train enters the ATO area there a train stops placed at the migration boundary for safety.

Makes sense. It would be quite a risk if a tripcock was inoperative under ATC and then for whatever reason failed to come back operative outside the ATC area. Safer and earlier all round just to avoid this.

There will of course have to be a continued focus on keeping the infrastructure clear of obstructions. The Northern had issues with footballs around Brent Cross, which unfortunately coincided with a fast downhill stretch, so being tripped on a football would likely lead to a non-communicating train on a rainy day.
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
Signal failure this morning at Paddington this morning making me wish for SMA1 sooner rather than later!
 

londonboi198o5

On Moderation
Joined
28 Dec 2010
Messages
449
Signal failure this morning at Paddington this morning making me wish for SMA1 sooner rather than later!

Signal failures can happen any line no matter what system they use so CBTC is not going to get rid of problems. There are loads of things that can go wrong with CBTC that can cause just as much of a delay than your usual signal failure. Axel counter failure, point failure, Non communicating train, VCC failure, VOBC failure to name a few
 

Malcolmffc

Member
Joined
19 Mar 2017
Messages
300
Signal failures can happen any line no matter what system they use so CBTC is not going to get rid of problems. There are loads of things that can go wrong with CBTC that can cause just as much of a delay than your usual signal failure. Axel counter failure, point failure, Non communicating train, VCC failure, VOBC failure to name a few

But they will be rarer and/or have far less impact
 

londonboi198o5

On Moderation
Joined
28 Dec 2010
Messages
449
But they will be rarer and/or have far less impact
Less rare possibly can’t rule it out. Less impact nope. To make them less rare requires much more advanced equipment. What comes with more advanced equipment is more problematic when something goes wrong. So when it does go wrong it has a much larger impact. So you can expect rather longer delays when something goes wrong
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Less rare possibly can’t rule it out. Less impact nope. To make them less rare requires much more advanced equipment. What comes with more advanced equipment is more problematic when something goes wrong. So when it does go wrong it has a much larger impact. So you can expect rather longer delays when something goes wrong

If it’s anything like the lines resignalled to date, failures will be slightly rarer, but the centralised architecture of the Thales system means they can be more debilitating and far-reaching when they do happen. Likewise the design is such that the signalman’s workload can increase *very* considerably during even a quite small failure.

Remember too that not all failures are down to the signalling itself, points are a major source of failure for example. At least on the sub-surface lines there’s no inductive loop cables, these have been a source of failure when damaged.

Only a couple of weeks ago the Jubilee had a failure which lasted something like 12 hours. Naturally one thing led to another and when they tried to reverse a train somewhere else a points failure raised its head too. Sometimes bad luck just happens...

Old signalling can be made to work reliably too. Tube Lines turned round the reliability of the Northern Line signalling in the late 2000s. SSR must surely have been affected by planning blight, namely that the railway has been about to be resignalled for the best part of a decade, thus making is hard to justify major improvements to the old signalling. The Piccadilly Line has also found itself in that position, although with no full line upgrade now in sight pretty major “interim” changes are now happening, like moving the control room and replacing the signal control system.
 
Last edited:

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
Less rare possibly can’t rule it out. Less impact nope. To make them less rare requires much more advanced equipment. What comes with more advanced equipment is more problematic when something goes wrong. So when it does go wrong it has a much larger impact. So you can expect rather longer delays when something goes wrong

Of course modern tech fails as well, but comparing a 2019 Thales installation to a decades old coloured light setup is like comparing a Casio wristwatch to a Cuckoo clock.
 

bionic

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2013
Messages
883
Of course modern tech fails as well, but comparing a 2019 Thales installation to a decades old coloured light setup is like comparing a Casio wristwatch to a Cuckoo clock.

It was a modern Thales system that was responsible for the crash in Hong Kong the other day. I think that might have caused a bit more disruption to MTR than a track circuit failure at Paddington would to LU!
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
It was a modern Thales system that was responsible for the crash in Hong Kong the other day. I think that might have caused a bit more disruption to MTR than a track circuit failure at Paddington would to LU!

I think we should wait to hear why that happened before jumping to conclusions. Besides, as I said earlier in the thread, automatic systems don't need to be perfect - they ideally just need to have a lower accident rate than humans in the same situation. Same with autonomous cars and automatic pilots on planes.
 

bionic

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2013
Messages
883
Besides, as I said earlier in the thread, automatic systems don't need to be perfect - they ideally just need to have a lower accident rate than humans in the same situation.

Wow! That's a very extreme view. So you think it's ok for automatic signalling to kill people as long as it kills less people than human error might? That is a hardcore line to take and I sincerely hope that you don't work in a position of responsibility on the railway with that attitude. Safety must always be the number one priority. I can't believe you are seriously advocating the use of automatic signalling systems that are not failsafe and could cause accidents.

I think we should wait to hear why that happened before jumping to conclusions

According to this article, MTR are blaming Thales...
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong...r-corp-blames-french-software-supplier-thales

"Hong Kong’s rail giant has blamed the French supplier of its signalling system for failing to run a simulation that would have prevented a crash on Monday, according to a lawmaker and former rail boss."
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
Wow! That's a very extreme view. So you think it's ok for automatic signalling to kill people as long as it kills less people than human error might? That is a hardcore line to take and I sincerely hope that you don't work in a position of responsibility on the railway with that attitude. Safety must always be the number one priority. I can't believe you are seriously advocating the use of automatic signalling systems that are not failsafe and could cause accidents.

Of course, every effort should be made to make these systems tested in every conceivable scenario and every fail safe implemented. I didn't mean to imply that. However, you're never going to create perfect software - because software is only as good as its creators ability to envisage how it could go wrong.

What's important is to judge safety critical systems rationally when the software does fail, because even the best systems will fail, and safety critical systems will eventually have a failure that results in injuries or deaths, it's almost inevitable.

When this does happen, I think there is a tendency to knee-jerk and suggest the baby must be thrown out with the bath water and that no automated system will ever be good enough, and that's the narrow view, as it fails to take in to account the benefits they bring and the other accidents such systems prevent which aren't taken in to account, particularly as accidents of this nature are sensationally reported.

Though perhaps saying only "as good" as a human is the wrong thing to say, and I could have worded that better.
 

soz_p

New Member
Joined
15 Oct 2018
Messages
1
It was a modern Thales system that was responsible for the crash in Hong Kong the other day. I think that might have caused a bit more disruption to MTR than a track circuit failure at Paddington would to LU!
I don't think this is quite a fair comparison: it seems the MTR crash in Hong Kong was caused by someone not configuring the system correctly (thus allowing two conflicting routes), rather than a component degrading and breaking over time after heavy use. A more comparable case to the crash would be relays not being wired correctly in an interlocking - I wonder what kinds of disruption that can cause!
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I don't think this is quite a fair comparison: it seems the MTR crash in Hong Kong was caused by someone not configuring the system correctly (thus allowing two conflicting routes), rather than a component degrading and breaking over time after heavy use. A more comparable case to the crash would be relays not being wired correctly in an interlocking - I wonder what kinds of disruption that can cause!

A modern system is only as good as the way it has been designed and tested, and even with an extensive testing regime undesirable or unexpected things can happen - look at the incident with the TSRs going missing on the Cambrian for a good example of this. Having said that, one can debate whether numbers on posts is any more robust - but naturally much depends on the organisation behind the scenes in respect of things like management of notice cases and how operational matters are communicated out to drivers.
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,845
Location
St Neots
A more comparable case to the crash would be relays not being wired correctly in an interlocking - I wonder what kinds of disruption that can cause!

You don't have to wonder, it happened at Waterloo!
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
In terms of manual driving isn't it a requirement for drivers to keep up their competency in this respect? Isn't the Central Line timed for manual driving on Sundays due to fewer services in operation?
 

Dstock7080

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2010
Messages
2,741
Location
West London
On the SSR CBTC when Protected Manual is selected the acceleration rate will be lower, the braking rate will be relaxed and the maximum speed will be lower, which means the optimum operation is in ATC.
 

londonboi198o5

On Moderation
Joined
28 Dec 2010
Messages
449
Of course modern tech fails as well, but comparing a 2019 Thales installation to a decades old coloured light setup is like comparing a Casio wristwatch to a Cuckoo clock.

Yo clearly don’t work on the railways then do you.

2 weeks ago the jubilee line had a “signal failure” this took out most of the line for 12hours!!
And surprise surprise this line users a modern automatic signaling system.

Don’t bet your Casio watch or cuckoo clock just yet.

A modern signal system took a line out for over 12 hours yet a decade old signaling system can be up and running again very quickly sometimes in a matter of minutes.
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
Yo clearly don’t work on the railways then do you.

2 weeks ago the jubilee line had a “signal failure” this took out most of the line for 12hours!!
And surprise surprise this line users a modern automatic signaling system.

Don’t bet your Casio watch or cuckoo clock just yet.

A modern signal system took a line out for over 12 hours yet a decade old signaling system can be up and running again very quickly sometimes in a matter of minutes.

Actually I thought it was a pretty good analogy. If a Casio wristwatch stops working, you can't do much. Maybe you can replace the battery and reset it, but it that's about it. It's probably gonna be useless until you do.

With a Cuckoo clock there's more to go wrong, but if the cuckoo doesn't pop out any more, maybe you can get your hands dirty and fiddle with the gears until it does again. Plus, a problem with the bird probably won't stop the clock ticking...
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
On the SSR CBTC when Protected Manual is selected the acceleration rate will be lower, the braking rate will be relaxed and the maximum speed will be lower, which means the optimum operation is in ATC.

A myth went round on the JNUP lines suggesting that manual operation only allows 90% of the performance ATO allows. This was swiftly debunked! In fact I’ve even seen a download of a train doing a trip in ATO and then a trip in PM over the same line with a proficient driver - apart from the PM profile looking like it had been drawn by someone with shaking hands, when laid on top of each other the speed profile was identical. Indeed, for those drivers with good nerves it’s quite possible to hit a platform manually faster than ATO would with the speed held for virtually the whole platform length in the small window between target speed and maximum safe speed, especially if using trackside features as a marker to give a certain braking point (just watch out if the software gets changed without warning!).

If things are different on SSR it would be interesting to know why.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,263
London Reconnections have just published an article giving their latest view of the SSR resignalling:
...The plan was always to introduce a new, more frequent timetable once the entire route of both the Circle and Hammersmith & City lines was complete. This was planned for April 2021. This improvement has now been brought forward and it is now intended to introduce a new timetable prior to full completion of the Hammersmith & City line, but after the Circle line is complete. The date given by the latest Programmes & Investment committee documents is March 2020.

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2019/ssr-towards-the-proposed-march-2020-timetable/
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
I know they're speculating a little bit, but exciting to have the entire Circle operating under the new signals by the end of the year.

A post from the other place says there are now only 5 S8s (out of 58) and 21 S7s (out of 134) that have yet to have ATO gear fitting. They will likely be able to finish the S8s by the time SMA1/2 is commissioned so no problem there running any of the Met trains in/out of Aldgate. The S7s will take longer to finish but the ones not fitted can just be allocated to District Line diagrams until September (and those still not fitted can run the Wimblewares until the end of the year). <-- incorrect, see below (oops!)
 
Last edited:

Dstock7080

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2010
Messages
2,741
Location
West London
A post from the other place says there are now only 5 S8s (out of 58) and 21 S7s (out of 134) that have yet to have ATO gear fitting. They will likely be able to finish the S8s by the time SMA1/2 is commissioned so no problem there running any of the Met trains in/out of Aldgate. The S7s will take longer to finish but the ones not fitted can just be allocated to District Line diagrams until September (and those still not fitted can run the Wimblewares until the end of the year).
Currently the last S8 is at Derby to be converted, all others have returned converted.
4 S7s are currently away being converted, 8 S7s remain in London unconverted.

Paddington-Edgware Road is due to go CBTC at the end of July, so District S7s heading east from High Street Kensington must be CBTC fitted by then.
 
Last edited:

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
The full Circle Line is not expected to be finished by the end of this year.

Currently just 1 S8 remains in London unconverted, all others have returned converted.
6 S7s are currently away being converted 10 S7s remain in London unconverted.

Paddington-Edgware Road is due to go CBTC at the end of July, so District S7s heading east from High Street Kensington must be CBTC fitted by then.

Why would District line trains need to be CBTC fitted, as surely it's only the Paddington(H&C) - Edgware Rd section being fitted, not the Paddington (Praed St) - Edgware Road section?
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,382
Location
0035
Why would District line trains need to be CBTC fitted, as surely it's only the Paddington(H&C) - Edgware Rd section being fitted, not the Paddington (Praed St) - Edgware Road section?
It's the same track.
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
Paddington-Edgware Road is due to go CBTC at the end of July, so District S7s heading east from High Street Kensington must be CBTC fitted by then.

My mistake, eyes went squiffy looking at diagrams, evidently.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,263
My mistake, eyes went squiffy looking at diagrams, evidently.
Yes, the same point was made in the comments under the London Reconnections article. Might have aided the explanation to highlight Praed St Junction as a key location where 4 becomes 2...
 

Top