|
Jubilee Line ATO
On Jan 4, 8:26*pm, D7666 wrote:
Jubilee between Stratford and Dollis Hill ATO using Seltrac S40 TBTC was working today, the first full ''normal'' traffic day after xmas testing and decision to ''leave it on''. I had not realised this was going to take place : first I knew of it was this a.m. arriving by foot from Thameslink to Jubilee at West Hampstead and noted the conventional clockwork signals bagged over. 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? |
Jubilee Line ATO
I had my first journey on the automated Jubilee Line between Stratford
and Westminster today and it’s very difficult to notice that the train is being driven by a computer unlike on the sister Central and Victoria lines. All the signals have been sellotaped and bagged over, including the platform repeaters - I used to use the trio cluster of signal repeaters on the Jubilee concourse at Stratford to know if I should make a hasty run for the next departure or casually walk to the opposite platforms and travel on the next train. In comparison to the Central and Victoria line systems, the Jubilee ATO drives the train at a very humble and civilised pace, unlike on the other said lines which have the touch of an elephant and drive the trains as “fast as possible between stations” (the words of a Central Line manager who I once spoke with) and brake on a sixpence at the very last possible moment. From what I experienced today, the ATO accelerates to line speed then coasts and gradually notches back up should the speed fall, unlike on the Central line that I notice is driven by only using acceleration and braking without coasting in a constant power-brake-power-brake-power state. I believe that pre-ATO the 1996 stock (and Northern 1995s) were restricted to 60-70% power - now that ATO is in operation have they been let off their leashes? It was difficult to notice any significant acceleration/braking difference. One last question, I know that on the Central Line that the platform staff are informed that the train is ready to depart by ***MIND THE DOORS*** appearing on the dot matrix displays and on the Victoria the platform repeaters are still used but I couldn’t understand how the platform staff at Westminster knew when to announce that the train was ready to depart now that the signals have been obscured? |
Jubilee Line ATO
On Jan 6, 8:48*pm, G1206 wrote:
In comparison to the Central and Victoria line systems, the Jubilee ATO drives the train at a very humble and civilised pace, I believe that pre-ATO the 1996 stock (and Northern 1995s) were restricted to 60-70% power - now that ATO is in operation have they been let off their leashes? It was difficult to notice any significant acceleration/braking difference. You are correct. The stage in the program that has just been implemented is J4 (Jubilee line stage 4) although todays J4 is really made up of the original J2+J3+J4 added together. It means ATo between Stratford and Dollis HIll AFAIK. J5 completes ATO to Stanmore, then after that there is J6 which brings in a new working timetable along with unscrewed traction packs. At the moment the traction packs and dynamic braking effort is limited to the consraint of clockwork signalling. Once unscrewed the line will have greater acceleration and braking rates. -- Nick |
Jubilee Line ATO
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. tom -- curry in a sack |
Jubilee Line ATO
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.) |
Jubilee Line ATO
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. -- 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 Thu, 6 Jan 2011 12:48:27 -0800 (PST)
G1206 wrote: should the speed fall, unlike on the Central line that I notice is driven by only using acceleration and braking without coasting in a constant power-brake-power-brake-power state. Yes, the central line ATO is exceptionally crude. I'm amazed the software was signed off to be honest. B2003 |
Jubilee Line ATO
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:35:21 -0800 (PST)
D7666 wrote: On Jan 6, 8:48=A0pm, G1206 wrote: In comparison to the Central and Victoria line systems, the Jubilee ATO drives the train at a very humble and civilised pace, I believe that pre-ATO the 1996 stock (and Northern 1995s) were restricted to 60-70% power - now that ATO is in operation have they been let off their leashes? It was difficult to notice any significant acceleration/braking difference. You are correct. Have they done it on the northern yet? Last time I rode on it up to finchley I was wondering if it was going to even make it up the slope from highgate. If the braking is up to the job then why don't they just let them run on full power? B2003 |
Jubilee Line ATO
On Jan 5, 1:24*pm, 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. |
Jubilee Line ATO
On Jan 7, 10:26*am, StuartJ wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:24*pm, 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. Back in the day, I can recall that facilitie being utilized. It would have been in the 1970s. |
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
|
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
["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 |
Jubilee Line ATO
On Jan 7, 2:14*pm, Mike Bristow wrote:
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. What about St Pauls? |
Jubilee Line ATO
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:22:41 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote: ["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). If they're clipped out of use most of the time they can't fail short of a rail breaking. B2003 |
Jubilee Line ATO
On Jan 7, 2:49*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:22:41 +0000 Mike Bristow wrote: ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.transport.london.] In article , * 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). If they're clipped out of use most of the time they can't fail short of a rail breaking. Moreover, when they are needed, the returns in goodwill and convenience to passengers is enormous. If one of the two lines is not available on Monday morning after a weekend possession the ability to still move at least some passengers to work is great asset. |
Jubilee Line ATO
I got to have a quick chat with a Jubilee line driver at Stratford
yesterday night about the TBTC ATO system, I was curious to know how the trains implement a stop at Stratford Staff Halt if there is a request from staff at Market Depot. The driver told me that the line controller has to be informed and a request stop will be implemented in to the system once the train departs West Ham, once the train arrives at the Staff Halt the driver opens the cab door and that stops the train from restarting, once the cab door is closed the train can continue. |
Jubilee Line ATO
On 07/01/2011 16:17, 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. It's that Epping Graeme Wall, making a complete Hainault of himself. I see you East Acton that assumption. -- 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
Tim Fenton wrote:
"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote in message ... Still, worth taking a Chance(ry Lane) on. I wouldn't Bank on it working. Not sure I can Stan-more of this. Central Line access error ;-) Thread title... -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633104.html (56 072 hauling an oil train (surprise surprise!) into Helsby in 1985) |
Jubilee Line ATO
On Jan 7, 4:31*pm, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 07/01/2011 16:17, 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. It's that Epping Graeme Wall, making a complete Hainault of himself. I see you East Acton that assumption. -- 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 I hope this doesn't go on much lOngar Patrick |
Jubilee Line ATO
On Jan 7, 6:47*pm, D1039 wrote: On Jan 7, 4:31*pm, Graeme Wall wrote: On 07/01/2011 16:17, Tim Fenton wrote: [snip] It's that Epping Graeme Wall, making a complete Hainault of himself. I see you East Acton that assumption. I hope this doesn't go on much lOngar Yes, time to call a (Nort)holt to it all now. |
Jubilee Line ATO
On Jan 7, 10:47*am, D1039 wrote:
On Jan 7, 4:31*pm, Graeme Wall wrote: On 07/01/2011 16:17, 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. It's that Epping Graeme Wall, making a complete Hainault of himself. I see you East Acton that assumption. -- 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 I hope this doesn't go on much lOngar Can ruISlIP in another one? |
Jubilee Line ATO
On Jan 7, 7:21*pm, "Tim Fenton" wrote:
Not sure I can Stan-more of this. There's still Dollis Hill, mind ... Is that Doris More nee Hill who married Stan More ? -- Nick |
Jubilee Line ATO
On Jan 7, 3:12*pm, 1506 wrote:
On Jan 7, 2:49*pm, wrote: On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:22:41 +0000 Mike Bristow wrote: ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.transport.london.] In article , * 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). If they're clipped out of use most of the time they can't fail short of a rail breaking. Moreover, when they are needed, the returns in goodwill and convenience to passengers is enormous. *If one of the two lines is not available on Monday morning after a weekend possession the ability to still move at least some passengers to work is great asset. But you can still do that on whichever service is still running and you'll get more trains through the area that way than trying to run two 'special' services over one track with the problems in pathing over the pointwork at each end. |
Jubilee Line ATO
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, 1506 wrote:
On Jan 7, 2:14*pm, Mike Bristow wrote: 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. What about St Pauls? He probably isn't reading this thread - he prefers to take the bus down Oxford street. tom -- All London roads are part of MY London Cycle Network. I'd like to see some of them removed from the London Motor Network! -- Ben Jefferys |
Jubilee Line ATO
On Jan 7, 9:58*pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, 1506 wrote: 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. What about St Pauls? He probably isn't reading this thread - he prefers to take the bus down Oxford street. No need to get Arsenaly... |
Quote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/2477273...57624683003635 at Westminster there is one where they have the lights. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk