In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

But does that mean that LU must use it? Couldn't it be moved to
London's Transport Museum? It may have been high-tech when it was
installed, and it's worth preserving somewhere for that reason,
but it doesn't meet customer expectations or requirements these
days.

This is not what matters to those people who list buildings or
features. It is deemed to be part of the buildings as far as I know and
therefore has to remain in situ.

But it is not immutable, as the other recent changes to Earl's Court
evidence. It's high time LUL took the bull by the horns and came up with
acceptable modern displays.

I would guess (I certainly don't know) that the listing provisions
are such that electronic displays are not permitted in the vicinity of
the old displays. Given that Earls Court platforms are quite "busy" in
terms of signs and buildings and stairways / lifts there may be
very few options in terms of where new displays could be positioned.

One thing that has set me wondering is that there are the new
mobility impaired lifts and walkways that can hardly be described as
"in keeping" with the remainder of the station so maybe the station is
not listed.

A listed building can be altered. A number of changes to the Cambridge
Guildhall (vintage 1938 and listed Grade 2) have been made to bring it
into line with modern safety legislation, for example.

Hmmm - I may make some enquiries to see if Metronet are planning to
put in new electronic displays as required under the contract or whether
there is a problem.

Time they got a move on. Whenever I've had an extended wait at Earl's
Court I don't recall any announcements.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Aosmosis wrote:
How reliable is the Richmond branch of the NNL and district line?

My limited experience of a week's use of the NLL (and observation of it
at Euston) suggested that reliability was a sick joke. A lot of it was
down to train failures; they'd do well to talk to Merseyrail to see how
they manage to avoid this being as much of an issue.

The NLL is a third-world disgrace to a capital city.

Neil

Neil Williams wrote:
How reliable is the Richmond branch of the NNL and district line?

My limited experience of a week's use of the NLL (and observation of it
at Euston) suggested that reliability was a sick joke. A lot of it was
down to train failures; they'd do well to talk to Merseyrail to see how
they manage to avoid this being as much of an issue.

I've not been on Merseyrail in years, but I suspect that running
DC-only trains on a DC-only line presents fewer complications than
running 1970s AC/DC (let there be rock!) trains with regular
changeovers. Certainly, the 313s tend to break down at Drayton Park on
the FCC GN route far more than they do anywhere else along the line...

The NLL is a third-world disgrace to a capital city.

Wouldn't disagree, although arguably train length and frequency are
even more of a problem than reliability.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:

I've not been on Merseyrail in years, but I suspect that running
DC-only trains on a DC-only line presents fewer complications than
running 1970s AC/DC (let there be rock!) trains with regular
changeovers. Certainly, the 313s tend to break down at Drayton Park on
the FCC GN route far more than they do anywhere else along the line...

Good point.

Would there, then, perhaps be some merit in doing a swap for some
diesel units that are running services under the wires in places like
Greater Manchester, one wonders, until reliability on changeover can be
increased?

Eurostars do the changeover daily at speed, so it isn't impossible with
10-year-old technology.

Neil

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On 10 Aug 2006 07:19:08 -0700, "Mizter T" wrote:

NewsPosting wrote:

The Underground ETA boards don't currently cover the District line, so
there is no way of getting this information. Obviously at Earls Court
you won't get an ETA display either, you just get the destination of
the next train (or the train at the platform) - information about
other
services comes at the whim of the station staff annoucing it over the
PA system.

Hmm, puzzling, I'm sure I saw the platform assistant at earls court
look at something that seemed to be indicating train positions on the
line. Unfortunately they didn't show it for long enough for me to see
what info it actually had.

Apols, I could've been clearer - there is no public access (via the
internet) to any District line running information of this sort. There
is of course an internal LU system to keep track of where the trains
are - so perhaps the platform assistant was indeed accessing this
through their PDA.

The system is called Trackernet. It takes its feed from the signalling
system. I believe it forms the basis of the ETA system that is available
via the web. However only a few lines offer full coverage and it is that
which has to be in place for the public ETA system. The system is
available to staff via the LU Intranet.

Trackernet is partially implemented on the sub surface network but there
are several sections that are not yet in place - particularly the
complex junction areas. The same applies with the Piccadilly Line - bits
of info are available but not yet the whole line. I don't know what the
programme dates are for all this being complete and available to the
public although I understand the intention is to provide network wide
coverage. However I would trust that the platform staff at Earls Court
are using their PDA provided information to provide announcements even
though they may only be able to see a part of the line and not all of
it.

Actually, most of the Picc is done now Paul. We're just missing Ravenscourt
to Acton & Acton to Rayners. Still can only get destinations not numbers
mind...
--
Cheers, Steve.
Change from jealous to sad to reply.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:41:25 GMT, "Steve Dulieu"
wrote:


"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
.. .

Trackernet is partially implemented on the sub surface network but there
are several sections that are not yet in place - particularly the
complex junction areas. The same applies with the Piccadilly Line - bits
of info are available but not yet the whole line. I don't know what the
programme dates are for all this being complete and available to the
public although I understand the intention is to provide network wide
coverage. However I would trust that the platform staff at Earls Court
are using their PDA provided information to provide announcements even
though they may only be able to see a part of the line and not all of
it.

Actually, most of the Picc is done now Paul. We're just missing Ravenscourt
to Acton & Acton to Rayners. Still can only get destinations not numbers
mind...

Oh they must have filled in the gaps in the middle then. Still you do
need the two sections you mentioned before the public can have access -
putting in a partially complete system would just generate complaints
from those who could not benefit from the system.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In article . com,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

John B wrote:

I've not been on Merseyrail in years, but I suspect that running
DC-only trains on a DC-only line presents fewer complications than
running 1970s AC/DC (let there be rock!) trains with regular
changeovers. Certainly, the 313s tend to break down at Drayton
Park on the FCC GN route far more than they do anywhere else along
the line...

Good point.

Would there, then, perhaps be some merit in doing a swap for some
diesel units that are running services under the wires in places
like Greater Manchester, one wonders, until reliability on changeover
can be increased?

Eurostars do the changeover daily at speed, so it isn't impossible
with 10-year-old technology.

The 313s are 35 year old technology. They were also designed for a
maximum speed of 30MPH on DC (series only motors).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

The 313s are 35 year old technology.

The units themselves are only about 30 years old though... (the 507s
and the 508s are the same age as me, 27).

They were also designed for a
maximum speed of 30MPH on DC (series only motors).

Really? Do they differ substantially from 507s and 508s? I always
assumed they were the same but with a 25kVAC-750VDC transformer on the
middle coach. The Merseyrail units are top speed 70mph, though I don't
know if they ever reach that, perhaps they do on the bit out to
Chester.

Neil

Neil Williams wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

The 313s are 35 year old technology.

The units themselves are only about 30 years old though... (the 507s
and the 508s are the same age as me, 27).

They were also designed for a
maximum speed of 30MPH on DC (series only motors).

Really? Do they differ substantially from 507s and 508s? I always
assumed they were the same but with a 25kVAC-750VDC transformer on the
middle coach. The Merseyrail units are top speed 70mph, though I don't
know if they ever reach that, perhaps they do on the bit out to
Chester.


There was a discussion about this in the past. I think the 30 mph
restriction only applied to the Moorgate line.

They were fitted with extra shoegear for the Silverlink routes,
presumably because of gap problems that didn't arise on the Moorgate
line.

I can't remember whether or not this had any bearing on the top speed.

In article . com,
(MIG) wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

The 313s are 35 year old technology.

The units themselves are only about 30 years old though... (the
507s and the 508s are the same age as me, 27).

But the design first appeared in the the PEPs, about 35 years ago.

They were also designed for a
maximum speed of 30MPH on DC (series only motors).

Really? Do they differ substantially from 507s and 508s? I
assumed they were the same but with a 25kVAC-750VDC transformer
on the middle coach. The Merseyrail units are top speed 70mph,
though I don't know if they ever reach that, perhaps they do on the
bit out to Chester.

There was a discussion about this in the past. I think the 30 mph
restriction only applied to the Moorgate line.

Indeed. But the only /designed/ DC use of the stock was on the Northern
City (Moorgate) line. The wider DC use came much later when it was
decided that some of the units were surplus on the GN.

I think the 313s maximum on AC is 75. But the point is that the design
was for series only operation on DC, presumably to simplify the control
gear.

They were fitted with extra shoegear for the Silverlink routes,
presumably because of gap problems that didn't arise on the Moorgate
line.

I can't remember whether or not this had any bearing on the top
speed.

Different top speeds on AC and DC occur on other stock. Look at the
Eurostars.

--
Colin Rosenstiel