On 8 Jan, 19:34, "
wrote:
On 08/01/2013 13:13, e27002 wrote:





On 8 Jan, 12:01, Andy wrote:
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:51:53 AM UTC, e27002 wrote:

Modern Railways has reached me. *And, I have read the article. *It is

very interesting, but why does TfL have to be so non-standard. *Can

they not utilize a system compatible with the rest of the UK.

So, which ATO system is in use in the rest of the UK?

The UK is supposed to be moving towards ERTMS. *Surely TfL could
utilize that as a baseline?

Not sure I invited sarcasm?

The signalling systems on national rail networks and metros around the
world largely tend to differ, from what I have seen.

Correct. But, a couple of points are pertinent. 1. There is not
point in having a standard if a major operator goes ahead and ignores
it. And, 2. Other Metro systems with which I am familiar (Marta, LA
Co Metro) are physically separate from external systems, save for
stock delivery sidings. TfL's system is not just inner city rapid
transit; it is also a suburban railway. As such it has numerous
shared routes with other operators.

On 8 Jan, 17:25, "Peter Masson"
wrote:
"Andy" *wrote



LU are implementing a metro style ATO system (whether they should have used
one of their existing implementations is a different argument).Given that
there is no working ATO system on the national system, why try and claim
that
there is? The system which they are implementing will at least talk to
trains
with the Chiltern ATP system.

When the SSL upgrade was being planned, was any thought given to handing the
Harrow - Moor Park fast lines, and the entire route and service to Amersham
and Chesham over to Network Rail and Chiltern? There would be disadvantages
(e.g. no through trains from Amersham to the City) but simplification should
give a more robust service.


If the Wycombe route ever becomes part of HS2, or Crossrail,
Transferring the Met. fast lines, north of Harrow-on-the-Hill, to
Chiltern, would seem to be the way to go. One cannot imagine Amersham
and Chesham commuters are thrilled with S8 stock. Moreover the
plethora of signalling systems is, almost, destined to induce failures.

On 09/01/2013 12:08, 77002 wrote:
On 8 Jan, 19:34, "
wrote:
On 08/01/2013 13:13, e27002 wrote:





On 8 Jan, 12:01, Andy wrote:
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:51:53 AM UTC, e27002 wrote:

Modern Railways has reached me. And, I have read the article. It is

very interesting, but why does TfL have to be so non-standard. Can

they not utilize a system compatible with the rest of the UK.

So, which ATO system is in use in the rest of the UK?

The UK is supposed to be moving towards ERTMS. Surely TfL could
utilize that as a baseline?

Not sure I invited sarcasm?

The signalling systems on national rail networks and metros around the
world largely tend to differ, from what I have seen.

Correct. But, a couple of points are pertinent. 1. There is not
point in having a standard if a major operator goes ahead and ignores
it. And, 2. Other Metro systems with which I am familiar (Marta, LA
Co Metro) are physically separate from external systems, save for
stock delivery sidings. TfL's system is not just inner city rapid
transit; it is also a suburban railway. As such it has numerous
shared routes with other operators.


This I know.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---