Jubilee Line ATO
 

On Jan 7, 12:07*am, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 6, 11:29*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, D7666 wrote:
then after that there is J6 which brings in a new working timetable
along with unscrewed traction packs.

That sounds like what they tried on the Central line back in 2003.

Still, worth taking a Chance(ry Lane) on.

(Sorry.)

Hang(er Lane) on there.

Jubilee Line ATO
 

On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 02:26:13 -0800 (PST)
StuartJ wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:24=A0pm, 1506 wrote:

A step forward indeed. =A0Does this mean that Met. and Jubilee trains
will no longer be able to use the other's track during an emergency?

The connections between the two lines at Finchley |Road were taken out
of use some time ago and have since been dismantled, so no.

The ****wittedness of LU never ceases to amaze. Do they not think
engineering trains might have a use for them? Or perhaps to tow trains
from one line on the other during the night in case of a blockage?
Is the scrap value of the track really that high?

B2003

Jubilee Line ATO
 

On Jan 7, 11:14*am, wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 02:26:13 -0800 (PST)

StuartJ wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:24=A0pm, 1506 wrote:

A step forward indeed. =A0Does this mean that Met. and Jubilee trains
will no longer be able to use the other's track during an emergency?

The connections between the two lines at Finchley |Road were taken out
of use some time ago and have since been dismantled, so no.

The ****wittedness of LU never ceases to amaze. Do they not think
engineering trains might have a use for them? Or perhaps to tow trains
from one line on the other during the night in case of a blockage?
Is the scrap value of the track really that high?

B2003

I think the utility of the link is reduced by the two signalling/
control systems. Met. trains would have to cope with ATO. Although I
suspect the facility might be some use to the Jubilee. And, as you
say engineering trains may find it useful.

Jubilee Line ATO
 

Graeme Wall wrote:

On 07/01/2011 00:07, Mizter T wrote:

On Jan 6, 11:29 pm, Tom wrote:

On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, D7666 wrote:
then after that there is J6 which brings in a new working timetable
along with unscrewed traction packs.

That sounds like what they tried on the Central line back in 2003.

Still, worth taking a Chance(ry Lane) on.


I wouldn't Bank on it working.

Not sure I can Stan-more of this.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632819.html
(33 002 at Fratton, 1985)

Jubilee Line ATO
 

wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 02:26:13 -0800 (PST)
StuartJ wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:24pm, 1506 wrote:

A step forward indeed. Does this mean that Met. and Jubilee trains
will no longer be able to use the other's track during an emergency?

The connections between the two lines at Finchley |Road were taken out
of use some time ago and have since been dismantled, so no.

The ****wittedness of LU never ceases to amaze. Do they not think
engineering trains might have a use for them? Or perhaps to tow trains
from one line on the other during the night in case of a blockage?
Is the scrap value of the track really that high?

Oh Boltar, why aren't you working in some sort of chief planning position
for LU? I'm sure your ability to jump to instant conclusions in absence of
most of the facts and ignorant of the multiple relevant considerations would
mean it'd all just operate like clockwork.

Jubilee Line ATO
 

In article ,
(Mizter T) wrote:

Oh Boltar, why aren't you working in some sort of chief planning
position for LU? I'm sure your ability to jump to instant
conclusions in absence of most of the facts and ignorant of the
multiple relevant considerations would mean it'd all just operate
like clockwork.

I think most of us had been hoping it had advanced to electric operation
some time ago!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Jubilee Line ATO
 

On 07/01/2011 10:37, Tim Fenton wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...

Still, worth taking a Chance(ry Lane) on.

I wouldn't Bank on it working.

It's what they Wanstead.


Well that's the Mile End of the conversation.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net

Jubilee Line ATO
 

On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 12:18:01 -0000
"Mizter T" wrote:
The ****wittedness of LU never ceases to amaze. Do they not think
engineering trains might have a use for them? Or perhaps to tow trains
from one line on the other during the night in case of a blockage?
Is the scrap value of the track really that high?

Oh Boltar, why aren't you working in some sort of chief planning position
for LU? I'm sure your ability to jump to instant conclusions in absence of
most of the facts and ignorant of the multiple relevant considerations would
mean it'd all just operate like clockwork.

It would be difficult to do any worse than the current incumbents.

So fill us in on how removing a set of points increases operational
flexibility then.

B2003

Jubilee Line ATO
 

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 07/01/2011 10:37, Tim Fenton wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...

Still, worth taking a Chance(ry Lane) on.

I wouldn't Bank on it working.

It's what they Wanstead.

Well that's the Mile End of the conversation.

That's not the Queensway of speaking.

--
Mike Bristow

Jubilee Line ATO
 

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.transport.london.]
In article ,
d wrote:
So fill us in on how removing a set of points increases operational
flexibility then.

It doesn't.

But the cost of that operational flexiblity is increased disruption
(points fail more often than plain track) and increased cost (points
need more maintenance then plain track).

How often were they used in the 12 months prior to their removal?

Cheers,
Mike

--
Mike Bristow