Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by gavin, 31 Aug 2018.
Does anyone know if there is any truth to the statement in the Independent on Friday.
They are ironing out bugs in the software that happens at transition points between two signalling systems and there are further bugs in the software that limit the capacity of the core tunnel currently. The software on the trains exists as they are running. It's just not mature enough to provide a service in the core or to heathrow
Never a truer word said. It is intentionally deceptive and often the root cause of over runs.
Royal Mail are releasing a set of stamps which include a Crossrail TBM: https://shop.royalmail.com/special-stamp-issues/british-engineering
I wonder when they will deliver letters stamped with one?
This is what I thought.
I presume there is a high priority to get the service to Heathrow running on the 345 trains. They already run on TPWS. ETCS is a standard thing offered by Bombardier. I read a long time ago that transitions in one direction were working, so it seems it must be a transition issue.
I do not understand the issues or why we need these systems
Going back to the 60 s when I was working in London the central line ran trains so close to each other you could see the next one in the tunnel, If you stood at the end of the platform at Chancery Lane you could see the next train loading passengers at Holborn If that conventional system worked 50 yrs ago why not use red and green lights now
Because Crossrail will be operating heavier, longer trains, at higher speeds, and has to comply with stricter safety regulations because it is a National Rail service, as opposed to a London Underground service. In addition the use of automatic train operation and in-cab signalling allows the service to recover much faster after delays.
Central line didn't have peds which rules out manual in service driving.
That didn't seem to be a problem when the Victoria Line opened
I would think that, if it turns out that the Queen is no longer with us when CrossRail opens, that will probably increase the enthusiasm amongst many people for naming it after her.
That's not correct. For the first several years of the Jubilee Line Extension the trains were driven manually and stopped perfectly at the platform edge doors.
Whilst personally I’d love to return to those days, it’s worth pointing out that today’s systems are a little safer. That closeness spoken of was possibly instrumental in a collision at Holborn in 1980. Unfortunately, we also demand 100% (not 99.9%) safety performance from drivers today, which in practice means trains are driven more defensively now than in the past. What may have been achievable in the past possibly isn’t now, certainly not to the degree of consistency today’s desired frequencies demand.
But in general I don’t disagree with the general point, things are a little complicated today.
I think this is the crux of it. That step from 99.9% to 100% is a big ask on drivers and infrastructure - trying to operate to the headways that may have existed once, but with all risks that can be eliminated, eliminated. It's a worthwhile goal, however - no-one should die or be injured on the railways through standard operating procedure. It was acceptable risk decades ago; it's not now.
True, naming it after a deceased monarch feels like a generous and appropriate tribute, naming it after a current monarch feels like obsequiousness!
I'd honestly be fairly surprised if they don't end up overlaying conventional signalling on top of the route for the initial opening. 12tph is no problem at all (Thameslink has done and does way more without ATO).
The signalling and train interface software is obviously beyond broken. Look how long it has taken Bombardier to get the class 710 (same train platform), in 4 car configuration, to work on a (by crossrail standards) trivial line at 4tph. Anyone that thinks that bombardier are going to be able to scale the *exact same train OS* in a complex ATO environment with 3 seperate signalling systems, at 24tph, this side of 2030 is kidding themselves.
Yes, I think that's exactly right. You've hit perfectly on the reason why I personally feel very uncomfortable with the name 'Elizabeth Line' - it feels obsequious to me. Hence why I still usually call it Crossrail in most of my posts. If on the other hand, the name had been chosen at some point in the future shortly after (or even some years after) the Queen had died, I'd probably be thinking more like, "Yeah, a great and fitting name!" (Although I might still be uncomfortable with it having an underground-style name that isn't really consistent with the rest of TfL's heavy-rail lines.)
Interesting bit of politics... Many of the reports l have seen suggest the problems mainly date from Boris' time and from his appointees.. ..
The BBC TV Series indicated that it was later when things started to go wrong. An article in the FT on December 20, 2018 (which is unfortunately behind a paywall) speaks very highly of Daniel Moylan, who was Boris's man on the crossrail project and deputy chair of TfL, says that things started to go wrong after Daniel Moylan was replaced.
The culture which caused the failure may be a different matter.
Adding another signalling system (that has had zero design yet) in now...and then ripping it out again for the full service is only going to add to the time, cost and testing demands and complexity, for limited actual benefit.
The crossrail core wasn't built for conventional signalling, constructing it in would take at least as long as getting the CBTC working. Additionally, the 345s use a modified electrostar OS as they have done since construction, whereas the issues encountered with the 710s stem from a ground up rewrite, and are not related.
And some of the 710 delays are due to Bombardier throwing everyone at sorting the Crossrail issues.
Everyone has followed up on my point. Are they going for the latest systems without considering if they are needed
It is like having the latest gaming computer for just doing e mails and reading rail forums
One of the contributors referred to speed, anyone know the working speeds on this line I understand on the tube the max working speed is about 35 mph ?
In the tunnels maximum speed is 60mph and outside the tunnels it can get up to 90mph.
No they did an assessment fairly early on that showed what level of performance was required and this was reflected in the tender.
For example ETCS would have met most of the requirements but was not sufficiently developed at the time to be certain of meeting all of them (e.g. stopping precision for PEDs). Hence the chosen route of a Metro CBTC system of which TfL had already procured 4 modern systems at the time.
The tender price of £50.6m from Siemens was an absolute bargain...
The core is all metric so 62.5mph (100km/h).
I was wondering if the transition to ETCS in the Heathrow Tunnels means that they are metric too. Anyone know?
At present (Pre-ETCS) - Heathrow Branch has distances in metric, speeds in imperial.
Thanks to ever one for their contributions to the points I made
So it will run at twice the tube speed, impressive
Not quite true I’m afraid, maximum speed on LU is 60 mph, although there’s not too many tunnel sections where that’s achieved. From memory the Jubilee is the only one, although the Northern and Victoria reach 50 mph.
The Met Line can reach 60 mph in some open sections, although that’s with good old signals (for the time being).
The Northern might be next to join the 60 mph club, technically the Northern is already 60 mph on paper, but with a speed cap applied at 50 mph as the paperwork for 60 mph has yet to be signed off, having run into issues. Not sure where things are with that at present.
It’s also worth a mention that the Central Line setup supports 60 mph (actually 100 kph) and has done for roughly two decades, but the trains are restricted to 85 kph due to their mechanical issues. These high speeds are only in open sections however, I don’t think there’s any tunnel sections on the Central which go above 65 kph.
As a final footnote, 60 mph wasn’t uncommon in the past. Indeed many years ago it was common practice to try to get the speedo needle “off the clock” on certain fast sections like High Barnet to Totteridge or Oakwood to Southgate, which would equate to 60 mph or more. This belies the point I made elsewhere that things are safer today, although as with many things in life it depends how much risk you’re/we’re prepared to tolerate.
A long time ago I had cab ride on A Stock from Amersham. Let's just say the speedo went a bit higher than 60 mph. Obviously slightly different times back then and usual caveat about speedometer accuracy.
And now back to Crossrail related things.
The FT is reporting that MTR Crossrail are seeking agreement from TfL for a two year extension to their concession contract. This is the extension permitted under the contract but is normally linked to demonstrated performance. This is because the construction delays have not allowed them to meet their obligations / demonstrate their ability to operate the service in the Core. The FT article is paywalled sadly - if you have a subscription or sign off then it is visible.
I've always assumed that the Victoria Line was the fastest line through central London. The other lines may have fast sections on the surface, but the Victoria being purpose built for a modernish age rattles along through the tunnels, especially as it has fewer stops.