|
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
I heard tonight at a meeting in Acton between local residents and
Network Rail/Tfl/LOROL representatives that Ian Brown (MD, London Rail, TfL) had announced in his report to the Mayor at the TfL Board meeting last week that the North London Line resignalling was to be postponed until after the Olympics. This was reported by someone in the audience tonight, and was clearly a complete bombshell to the people on the platform. They had previously claimed that the resignalling was the main reason for the continuing lack of Sunday services on the NLL. I've now found the relevant part of the webcast of the TfL Board meeting and have transcribed it (see below). I don't think Ian Brown has been "very clear", despite what he claimed. He makes it sound as if TfL are doing the "physical stuff", and then Network Rail will do the new signalling later. But surely all the 4-tracking work, new crossovers etc. will be done by Network Rail or their contractors? What about the signalling for the new or changed track? Will that be cobbled together à la Jubilee Line and then replaced post 2012 or what? Network Rail's agreement to this change of plan would be crucial, yet he makes no mention of that. Extraordinary. And can the 8tph timetable for 2012 be supported reliably by the existing signalling ? Can anyone throw any light on this "decision"? Transcript of Ian Brown's statement: "Bit of a dilemma on the North London Line infrastructure. I just want to be very clear on what we've done. This is a Network Rail 4-tracking scheme for our Overground, also for freight trains and for all the other stuff that runs on that line. Big scheme, £300+ million, and we've got all sorts of problems with signalling design with Network Rail. It's a general problem with Network Rail, as people know round the table, and the dilemma for me is to have that service running, and to make sure they guarantee to have the service well in time for the Olympics, of 8 trains an hour. What we're going ahead with [is] the blockade in February - 3 months' blockade from Gospel Oak to Stratford. We're going to do all the physical stuff, but we're going to keep the old signalling going, so we've actually done the work, then Network Rail have got to come back and do the signalling later. So we have actually secured our frequency, we've secured the Olympic frequency, we've not secured the corporate railway, and there's also some issues about freight trains, so the scheme's got to be done, but we've secured our bit by that decision, which was quite a difficult one." Source: TfL Board meeting, 3 Feb 2010 Webcast at http://www.london.gov.uk/webcast/feb...ard_030210.asx Excerpt above runs from 01:15:15 to 01:16:15 -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
On 9 Feb, 00:05, "Richard J." wrote:
I heard tonight at a meeting in Acton between local residents and Network Rail/Tfl/LOROL representatives that Ian Brown (MD, London Rail, TfL) had announced in his report to the Mayor at the TfL Board meeting last week that the North London Line resignalling was to be postponed until after the Olympics. *This was reported by someone in the audience tonight, and was clearly a complete bombshell to the people on the platform. *They had previously claimed that the resignalling was the main reason for the continuing lack of Sunday services on the NLL. I fear that, even before the start of the NLL 3 month blockade from 20th February, a future blockade is already being planned... Dominic |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
On 9 Feb, 00:05, "Richard J." wrote:
I don't think Ian Brown has been "very clear", despite what he claimed. * He makes it sound as if TfL are doing the "physical stuff", and then Network Rail will do the new signalling later. *But surely all the 4-tracking work, new crossovers etc. will be done by Network Rail or their contractors? *What about the signalling for the new or changed track? *Will that be cobbled together à la Jubilee Line and then replaced post 2012 or what? Network Rail's agreement to this change of plan would be crucial, yet he makes no mention of that. *Extraordinary. And can the 8tph timetable for 2012 be supported reliably by the existing signalling ? Can anyone throw any light on this "decision"? The original plan was for the resignalling of the whole line to happen after the Olympics in 2013, at the same time as the four tracking / freight loops were extended through Camden Road station. At some point, NR decided to bring the resignalling forward to coincide with the ELL works, but there would still have been further work to have been undertaken later. What is unclear to me is whether the postponing of the resignalling will lead to the loss of the freight loops to the east of Camden Road as well. It is these, together with extra signals to shorten the headway, that gave the necessary capacity increase to allow the 8 tph. |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
On 09.02.10 0:05, Richard J. wrote:
I heard tonight at a meeting in Acton between local residents and Network Rail/Tfl/LOROL representatives that Ian Brown (MD, London Rail, TfL) had announced in his report to the Mayor at the TfL Board meeting last week that the North London Line resignalling was to be postponed until after the Olympics. This was reported by someone in the audience tonight, and was clearly a complete bombshell to the people on the platform. They had previously claimed that the resignalling was the main reason for the continuing lack of Sunday services on the NLL. I've now found the relevant part of the webcast of the TfL Board meeting and have transcribed it (see below). I don't think Ian Brown has been "very clear", despite what he claimed. He makes it sound as if TfL are doing the "physical stuff", and then Network Rail will do the new signalling later. But surely all the 4-tracking work, new crossovers etc. will be done by Network Rail or their contractors? What about the signalling for the new or changed track? Will that be cobbled together à la Jubilee Line and then replaced post 2012 or what? Network Rail's agreement to this change of plan would be crucial, yet he makes no mention of that. Extraordinary. And can the 8tph timetable for 2012 be supported reliably by the existing signalling ? Can anyone throw any light on this "decision"? Transcript of Ian Brown's statement: "Bit of a dilemma on the North London Line infrastructure. I just want to be very clear on what we've done. This is a Network Rail 4-tracking scheme for our Overground, also for freight trains and for all the other stuff that runs on that line. Big scheme, £300+ million, and we've got all sorts of problems with signalling design with Network Rail. It's a general problem with Network Rail, as people know round the table, and the dilemma for me is to have that service running, and to make sure they guarantee to have the service well in time for the Olympics, of 8 trains an hour. What we're going ahead with [is] the blockade in February - 3 months' blockade from Gospel Oak to Stratford. We're going to do all the physical stuff, but we're going to keep the old signalling going, so we've actually done the work, then Network Rail have got to come back and do the signalling later. So we have actually secured our frequency, we've secured the Olympic frequency, we've not secured the corporate railway, and there's also some issues about freight trains, so the scheme's got to be done, but we've secured our bit by that decision, which was quite a difficult one." Source: TfL Board meeting, 3 Feb 2010 Webcast at http://www.london.gov.uk/webcast/feb...ard_030210.asx Excerpt above runs from 01:15:15 to 01:16:15 It is interesting that they are talking about resignalling the NLL, yet the signals on the ELLX are regular national rail signals. Would that line already have to be resignalled by 2012, considering that it would still be relatively new? |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
wrote in message ... It is interesting that they are talking about resignalling the NLL, yet the signals on the ELLX are regular national rail signals. Would that line already have to be resignalled by 2012, considering that it would still be relatively new? The stuff that you can see (ie LED signal heads) on the ELL is the same as the stuff being installed every where else on NR, why would it be changed? Resignalling doesn't necessarily mean a step change in technology, such as we are seeing on the LU lines. Also, the ELL is a separate signalling area, controlled from New Cross Gate SC. It is highly likely that the southern pair of tracks from Dalston Jn to Highbury will be part of the ELL for signalling purposes, with the transfer crossover being the signalled route between the two separate 'systems'. AIUI the NLL is only being resignalled for shorter headways, it will still be conventional NR signalling, but will all be controlled from Upminster, rather than a number of local signalboxes. Thinking about it, the whole question about what's happening on the NLL may be to do with the phased nature of the four tracking around Camden Town. Perhaps the final transfer to Upminster will only be done when the second phase of the work is complete, thinking back to discussions about the reducton of the scope because of the bridge repairs needed at Camden Town itself? Paul S |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
On 10.02.10 11:30, Paul Scott wrote:
wrote in message ... It is interesting that they are talking about resignalling the NLL, yet the signals on the ELLX are regular national rail signals. Would that line already have to be resignalled by 2012, considering that it would still be relatively new? The stuff that you can see (ie LED signal heads) on the ELL is the same as the stuff being installed every where else on NR, why would it be changed? Resignalling doesn't necessarily mean a step change in technology, such as we are seeing on the LU lines. Also, the ELL is a separate signalling area, controlled from New Cross Gate SC. It is highly likely that the southern pair of tracks from Dalston Jn to Highbury will be part of the ELL for signalling purposes, with the transfer crossover being the signalled route between the two separate 'systems'. AIUI the NLL is only being resignalled for shorter headways, it will still be conventional NR signalling, but will all be controlled from Upminster, rather than a number of local signalboxes. Thinking about it, the whole question about what's happening on the NLL may be to do with the phased nature of the four tracking around Camden Town. Perhaps the final transfer to Upminster will only be done when the second phase of the work is complete, thinking back to discussions about the reducton of the scope because of the bridge repairs needed at Camden Town itself? Paul S What's that about Upminster? |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
wrote in message ... On 10.02.10 11:30, Paul Scott wrote: Thinking about it, the whole question about what's happening on the NLL may be to do with the phased nature of the four tracking around Camden Town. Perhaps the final transfer to Upminster will only be done when the second phase of the work is complete, thinking back to discussions about the reducton of the scope because of the bridge repairs needed at Camden Town itself? What's that about Upminster? Upminster IECC (that's the NR signal centre there) eventually gets full signalling control of the NLL... Paul S |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
On 10 Feb, 21:24, "
wrote: On 10.02.10 11:30, Paul Scott wrote: *wrote in message ... It is interesting that they are talking about resignalling the NLL, yet the signals on the ELLX are regular national rail signals. Would that line already have to be resignalled by 2012, considering that it would still be relatively new? The stuff that you can see (ie LED signal heads) on the ELL is the same as the stuff being installed every where else on NR, why would it be changed? Resignalling doesn't necessarily mean a step change in technology, such as we are seeing on the LU lines. *Also, the ELL is a separate signalling area, controlled from New Cross Gate SC. *It is highly likely that the southern pair of tracks from Dalston Jn to Highbury will be part of the ELL for signalling purposes, with the transfer crossover being the signalled route between the two separate 'systems'. AIUI the NLL is only being resignalled for shorter headways, it will still be conventional NR signalling, but will all be controlled from Upminster, rather than a number of local signalboxes. Thinking about it, the whole question about what's happening on the NLL may be to do with the phased nature of the four tracking around Camden Town.. Perhaps the final transfer to Upminster will only be done when the second phase of the work is complete, thinking back to discussions about the reducton of the scope because of the bridge repairs needed at Camden Town itself? Paul S What's that about Upminster? Upminster is where the new signaling will be controlled from. |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Andy wrote:
On 10 Feb, 21:24, " wrote: On 10.02.10 11:30, Paul Scott wrote: AIUI the NLL is only being resignalled for shorter headways, it will still be conventional NR signalling, but will all be controlled from Upminster, rather than a number of local signalboxes. Thinking about it, the whole question about what's happening on the NLL may be to do with the phased nature of the four tracking around Camden Town. Perhaps the final transfer to Upminster will only be done when the second phase of the work is complete, thinking back to discussions about the reducton of the scope because of the bridge repairs needed at Camden Town itself? What's that about Upminster? Upminster is where the new signaling will be controlled from. On trains towards Dalston, anyway. Trains heading the other way will obviously be controlled from Downminster. tom -- As Emiliano Zapata supposedly said, "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees." And years after he died, Marlon Brando played him in a movie. So just think, if you unionize, Marlon Brando might play YOU in a movie. Even though he's dead. -- ChrisV82 |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
On 11.02.10 20:11, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Andy wrote: On 10 Feb, 21:24, " wrote: On 10.02.10 11:30, Paul Scott wrote: AIUI the NLL is only being resignalled for shorter headways, it will still be conventional NR signalling, but will all be controlled from Upminster, rather than a number of local signalboxes. Thinking about it, the whole question about what's happening on the NLL may be to do with the phased nature of the four tracking around Camden Town. Perhaps the final transfer to Upminster will only be done when the second phase of the work is complete, thinking back to discussions about the reducton of the scope because of the bridge repairs needed at Camden Town itself? What's that about Upminster? Upminster is where the new signaling will be controlled from. On trains towards Dalston, anyway. Trains heading the other way will obviously be controlled from Downminster. tom Cool. BTW, anybody who owns an iPhone and has the National Rail app will find that its latest update contains Dalston Junction, Haggerston, Hoxton and Shoreditch High Street. No schedule information is yet available from any of those stations, unfortunately. |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
|
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
Paul Corfield wrote on 09 February 2010 19:39:47 ...
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:05:58 GMT, "Richard J." wrote: I heard tonight at a meeting in Acton between local residents and Network Rail/Tfl/LOROL representatives that Ian Brown (MD, London Rail, TfL) had announced in his report to the Mayor at the TfL Board meeting last week that the North London Line resignalling was to be postponed until after the Olympics. This was reported by someone in the audience tonight, and was clearly a complete bombshell to the people on the platform. They had previously claimed that the resignalling was the main reason for the continuing lack of Sunday services on the NLL. I've now found the relevant part of the webcast of the TfL Board meeting and have transcribed it (see below). I don't think Ian Brown has been "very clear", despite what he claimed. He makes it sound as if TfL are doing the "physical stuff", and then Network Rail will do the new signalling later. But surely all the 4-tracking work, new crossovers etc. will be done by Network Rail or their contractors? What about the signalling for the new or changed track? Will that be cobbled together à la Jubilee Line and then replaced post 2012 or what? Network Rail's agreement to this change of plan would be crucial, yet he makes no mention of that. Extraordinary. And can the 8tph timetable for 2012 be supported reliably by the existing signalling ? Can anyone throw any light on this "decision"? Transcript of Ian Brown's statement: "Bit of a dilemma on the North London Line infrastructure. I just want to be very clear on what we've done. This is a Network Rail 4-tracking scheme for our Overground, also for freight trains and for all the other stuff that runs on that line. Big scheme, £300+ million, and we've got all sorts of problems with signalling design with Network Rail. It's a general problem with Network Rail, as people know round the table, and the dilemma for me is to have that service running, and to make sure they guarantee to have the service well in time for the Olympics, of 8 trains an hour. What we're going ahead with [is] the blockade in February - 3 months' blockade from Gospel Oak to Stratford. We're going to do all the physical stuff, but we're going to keep the old signalling going, so we've actually done the work, then Network Rail have got to come back and do the signalling later. So we have actually secured our frequency, we've secured the Olympic frequency, we've not secured the corporate railway, and there's also some issues about freight trains, so the scheme's got to be done, but we've secured our bit by that decision, which was quite a difficult one." Source: TfL Board meeting, 3 Feb 2010 Webcast at http://www.london.gov.uk/webcast/feb...ard_030210.asx Excerpt above runs from 01:15:15 to 01:16:15 I have to say that it is all rather confusing. There are no clear statements in the TfL Board papers or in the new papers for the Rail and Underground Panel that was held today (see TfL website for the papers). The only statement that has not changed in several months is that the NLL possession plan has been out for "industry consultation". Given that it starts in under 2 weeks one might have hoped that the consultation process would have stopped by now. I can't really understand the gist of what Ian Brown is actually saying in his statement. TfL London Rail are now saying that the resignalling has NOT been postponed until after the Olympics. It will be done later this year and in 2011, according to them. I've pointed out the inconsistencies between that and what Ian Brown said and have asked them to explain further. It seems to me that it's nonsense to say that the Olympic frequency is "secured" if Network Rail still have to do the resignalling pre-2012 and are known to be short of signalling design resources. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
On 15/02/2010 17:53, Richard J. wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote on 09 February 2010 19:39:47 ... On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:05:58 GMT, "Richard J." wrote: I heard tonight at a meeting in Acton between local residents and Network Rail/Tfl/LOROL representatives that Ian Brown (MD, London Rail, TfL) had announced in his report to the Mayor at the TfL Board meeting last week that the North London Line resignalling was to be postponed until after the Olympics. This was reported by someone in the audience tonight, and was clearly a complete bombshell to the people on the platform. They had previously claimed that the resignalling was the main reason for the continuing lack of Sunday services on the NLL. I've now found the relevant part of the webcast of the TfL Board meeting and have transcribed it (see below). I don't think Ian Brown has been "very clear", despite what he claimed. He makes it sound as if TfL are doing the "physical stuff", and then Network Rail will do the new signalling later. But surely all the 4-tracking work, new crossovers etc. will be done by Network Rail or their contractors? What about the signalling for the new or changed track? Will that be cobbled together à la Jubilee Line and then replaced post 2012 or what? Network Rail's agreement to this change of plan would be crucial, yet he makes no mention of that. Extraordinary. And can the 8tph timetable for 2012 be supported reliably by the existing signalling ? Can anyone throw any light on this "decision"? Transcript of Ian Brown's statement: "Bit of a dilemma on the North London Line infrastructure. I just want to be very clear on what we've done. This is a Network Rail 4-tracking scheme for our Overground, also for freight trains and for all the other stuff that runs on that line. Big scheme, £300+ million, and we've got all sorts of problems with signalling design with Network Rail. It's a general problem with Network Rail, as people know round the table, and the dilemma for me is to have that service running, and to make sure they guarantee to have the service well in time for the Olympics, of 8 trains an hour. What we're going ahead with [is] the blockade in February - 3 months' blockade from Gospel Oak to Stratford. We're going to do all the physical stuff, but we're going to keep the old signalling going, so we've actually done the work, then Network Rail have got to come back and do the signalling later. So we have actually secured our frequency, we've secured the Olympic frequency, we've not secured the corporate railway, and there's also some issues about freight trains, so the scheme's got to be done, but we've secured our bit by that decision, which was quite a difficult one." Source: TfL Board meeting, 3 Feb 2010 Webcast at http://www.london.gov.uk/webcast/feb...ard_030210.asx Excerpt above runs from 01:15:15 to 01:16:15 I have to say that it is all rather confusing. There are no clear statements in the TfL Board papers or in the new papers for the Rail and Underground Panel that was held today (see TfL website for the papers). The only statement that has not changed in several months is that the NLL possession plan has been out for "industry consultation". Given that it starts in under 2 weeks one might have hoped that the consultation process would have stopped by now. I can't really understand the gist of what Ian Brown is actually saying in his statement. TfL London Rail are now saying that the resignalling has NOT been postponed until after the Olympics. It will be done later this year and in 2011, according to them. I've pointed out the inconsistencies between that and what Ian Brown said and have asked them to explain further. It seems to me that it's nonsense to say that the Olympic frequency is "secured" if Network Rail still have to do the resignalling pre-2012 and are known to be short of signalling design resources. On a "talking to a friend of a friend down the pub" level, I've been told in the past by someone involved that the NR re-signalling has been going quite horribly wrong and something will have to give sooner or later. Could be rubbish, of course. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
On Feb 18, 7:20*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 15/02/2010 17:53, Richard J. wrote: TfL London Rail are now saying that the resignalling has NOT been postponed until after the Olympics. It will be done later this year and in 2011, according to them. I've pointed out the inconsistencies between that and what Ian Brown said and have asked them to explain further. It seems to me that it's nonsense to say that the Olympic frequency is "secured" if Network Rail still have to do the resignalling pre-2012 and are known to be short of signalling design resources. On a "talking to a friend of a friend down the pub" level, I've been told in the past by someone involved that the NR re-signalling has been going quite horribly wrong and something will have to give sooner or later. |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
I wonder if they considered new types of signalling on the NLL, such as
cab signals. Did they consider that at all on the ELLX? |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
Cab signalling would not work for NLL at the current time because the
route is used by so many trains which are not fitted. The costs of fitment would be very high. ELLX would have been a good route to try it on with all new trains, but I think they decided the technology was not mature enough when they had to let the contracts. In article , writes I wonder if they considered new types of signalling on the NLL, such as cab signals. Did they consider that at all on the ELLX? -- John Alexander, Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
John wrote:
Cab signalling would not work for NLL at the current time because the route is used by so many trains which are not fitted. The costs of fitment would be very high. ELLX would have been a good route to try it on with all new trains, but I think they decided the technology was not mature enough when they had to let the contracts. That could apply to the core route, but the extensions over NR routes would have then required dual fitted trains, for the same reasons as you point out for the NLL. Paul S |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
In article , Paul Scott
writes John wrote: Cab signalling would not work for NLL at the current time because the route is used by so many trains which are not fitted. The costs of fitment would be very high. ELLX would have been a good route to try it on with all new trains, but I think they decided the technology was not mature enough when they had to let the contracts. That could apply to the core route, but the extensions over NR routes would have then required dual fitted trains, for the same reasons as you point out for the NLL. Paul S But a cab equipped train can run over non cab equipped lines (look at Eurostar for an example). -- John Alexander, Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
On 20.02.10 21:28, John wrote:
Cab signalling would not work for NLL at the current time because the route is used by so many trains which are not fitted. The costs of fitment would be very high. ELLX would have been a good route to try it on with all new trains, but I think they decided the technology was not mature enough when they had to let the contracts. In , writes I wonder if they considered new types of signalling on the NLL, such as cab signals. Did they consider that at all on the ELLX? That technology has been around since the 1920s and is widely used in other nations. They could have started with the ELLX, since it won't really interact with the NLL. If it works out, then perhaps they could start considering the NLL in phases. I know that they plan to be rid of goods trains on the line, but trains can also be fitted with cab signals. They don't have to be built in when the units are being constructed. |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
On Feb 21, 8:47*am, " wrote: [snip comments re in-cab signalling] That technology has been around since the 1920s and is widely used in other nations. They could have started with the ELLX, since it won't really interact with the NLL. If it works out, then perhaps they could start considering the NLL in phases. I know that they plan to be rid of goods trains on the line, but trains can also be fitted with cab signals. They don't have to be*built in when the units are being constructed. Woah, there's no plan to get rid of goods trains on the NLL - there is however a plan/ aspiration to shift goods traffic onto the GOBLIN (Gospel Oak to Barking line) and off the busiest section of the NLL.If the GOBLIN was electrified, this would help matters somewhat. |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
On Feb 21, 8:47*am, "
wrote: On 20.02.10 21:28, John wrote: Cab signalling would not work for NLL at the current time because the route is used by so many trains which are not fitted. The costs of fitment would be very high. ELLX would have been a good route to try it on with all new trains, but I think they decided the technology was not mature enough when they had to let the contracts. In , *writes I wonder if they considered new types of signalling on the NLL, such as cab signals. Did they consider that at all on the ELLX? That technology has been around since the 1920s and is widely used in other nations. But not normally on tracks shared with other services. They could have started with the ELLX, since it won't really interact with the NLL. Whilst the extended ELL will be separate from the NLL, it will still be running over large stretches of shared track south of Surrey Quays. If it works out, then perhaps they could start considering the NLL in phases. I know that they plan to be rid of goods trains on the line, but trains can also be fitted with cab signals. They don't have to be *built in when the units are being constructed. There is no plans to remove freight traffic from the NLL, in fact much of the work to increase capacity between Camden Road and Stratford is purely for the freight, with long loops etc. being added. |
NLL resignalling postponed, says Ian Brown of TfL
John wrote:
In article , Paul Scott writes John wrote: Cab signalling would not work for NLL at the current time because the route is used by so many trains which are not fitted. The costs of fitment would be very high. ELLX would have been a good route to try it on with all new trains, but I think they decided the technology was not mature enough when they had to let the contracts. That could apply to the core route, but the extensions over NR routes would have then required dual fitted trains, for the same reasons as you point out for the NLL. Paul S But a cab equipped train can run over non cab equipped lines (look at Eurostar for an example). Course it can, but why bother? Surely it is just a waste of money to have cab signalling on a minority of the route. The interface between London Bridge and New Cross signalling centres would presumably be more complex as well - another expense with no benefit. Paul S |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk