SSR signalling contract to be relet

[Manchester77]

London Underground (LU) and Bombardier Transportation today announced that the signalling contract for the Circle, District, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines (Sub Surface lines) will be re-let by LU following discussions between the two companies

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/29299.aspx

Is t this now the second time the contracts been relet? And TfL still want it done by 2018!?

 

[Class377/5]

I'm not sure how they can make the 2018 deadline unless they are likely to use the same tech as Jubilee/Northern Line.

 

[swt_passenger]

London Reconnections have put out a good readable summary of the SSR plans for 2018, following this decision - it's worth a quick read:

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/subsurface-railway-big-plan/

 

[WatcherZero]

Bombardier have basically concluded their technology is incompatible with the four lines according to the Telegraph.

 

[DavyCrocket]

Bombardier have basically concluded their technology is incompatible with the four lines according to the Telegraph.

Which is balls.

They installed the same system in Madrid on old equipment.

The simple fact is that the system they had is not up the complexities of something more than an end to end line.

For some reason the same company that was part of the metronet consortium since 2000 claims not to know about LU signalling?

It's time LU actually stopped their fascination with ATO and put signals back in to increase capacity using the assets that still work, are reliable and have many decades left.

And what of the Chairman of TfL - the Mayor - he's getting no stick over this costly £80-85m shambles (money for an empty building - save some cardboard desks) and some signalling mods as part of enabling works and for the S stock! The director involved has just been given a CBE. That's a great example to set isn't it.

 

[simple simon]

Personally speaking I would be happy if the same system was used as on the Jubilee and Northern Lines, as it would enhance network compatibility.

I would also hope that the ability to use the 1938 stock heritage train and the 'steam on the met' trains is retained in the new arrangement.

Of course the system will need to be compatible with the Chiltern, SWT and Overground trains which operate over routes also used by the subsurface Underground network.

====================================================

Someone somewhere else who works in the transport industry has said that the most logical thing would be for LU to use a system which is ERTMS compatible.

I wonder whether LU would be so happy. After all, they see themselves as an urban metro - not part of a mainline railway system. But whether they like it or not the historical connections with other railways and consequential joint services mean that LU cannot fully isolate itself from the 'big' railway.

ERTMS compatibility would, I assume, make future life easier on all routes which are shared with mainline trains (Metropolitan, District and Bakerloo Lines), as it would mean that any new trains that are introduced in the future, plus any train that needs to use that route as a diversion would automatically be compatible with the signalling.

Simon

 

[edwin_m]

Crossrail are going for a non-ERTMS system on their central section and they have much more reason to be compatible as the western and eventually the eastern end of their route will be under ERTMS on Network Rail. So I think there are some fundamental issues with compatibility between ERTMS and intensively-used Metros and this is likely to mean it's a non-starter for LU.

 

[swt_passenger]

Crossrail are going for a non-ERTMS system on their central section and they have much more reason to be compatible as the western and eventually the eastern end of their route will be under ERTMS on Network Rail. So I think there are some fundamental issues with compatibility between ERTMS and intensively-used Metros and this is likely to mean it's a non-starter for LU.

I've never understood what the fundamental difference is between Thameslink and Crossrail, that means Crossrail has to be different?

As we've discussed in recent threads Thameslink's high capacity infrastructure section (i.e. the central core) is to use ERTMS based ATO to give 24 tph with up to 30 tph in short bursts following perturbation. Thameslink will have similar interfaces with the wider national network as Crossrail, surely?

'Not invented here' (in TfL) perhaps?

 

[Nym]

I'm not sure how they can make the 2018 deadline unless they are likely to use the same tech as Jubilee/Northern Line.

Thalys S40 / TBTC wouldn't work for the SSR ATC Project.

Long list of reasons available...

 

[Domh245]

Thalys S40 / TBTC wouldn't work for the SSR ATC Project.

Long list of reasons available...

1) Can't operate a train in a competent fashion? :roll: