"Richard J." wrote in message ...
A) It would have cost nothing to have kept Charing X on the line map
as a dotted special events connection so avoiding any confusion if
trains had to go there.

But creating massive confusion to thousands of tourists who won't
necessarily read the small print about "special events".

Who cares about tourists? They're a tiny minority compared to commuters
and they get lost anyway so what difference does it make? Come up with a
better argument than that please.

The District doesn't serve Charing Cross. Why would thousands of people
choose to change at Westminster to the District and have a long walk up
Villiers Street from Embankment, when they could have changed at Baker
Street to the Bakerloo, or other alternatives from Bond Street or Green Park
if starting there. Again, you are arguing on behalf of people who got on
the wrong line anyway!

Embankment is a short 2 min walk from charing X , which is a lot less time
that it takes to get from the victoria line at victoria to the district in
the rush hour. And yes , they could have changed onto the bakerloo line
and gone to charing -x but if the jubilee had run their in the first place
then they wouldn't have had to would they?


Is the tube there for the convenience of passengers or is it just a
giant train set for LU to run as easily as possible? Have a long
think about that because following your logic the entire circle line
(along with a lot of the H&C) could be closed as you can reach all
the stations via other lines. And I won't even mention the parallel
running on met/jubilee/chiltern , district/piccadilly lines.

Following logic isn't a strength of yours, is it?

Its a bit difficult when there isn't any to follow. Anyway , you're just
another of many LU apologists that frequent this group and refuse to admit
that anything LU do is wrong. Theres always some damn excuse as to why
they couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't or can't afford to do something and I get
so sick of it, having to put with the BS excuses day to day as a commuter and
on here from the Friends Of LU.

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
"Richard J." wrote in message
...
A) It would have cost nothing to have kept Charing X on the line map
as a dotted special events connection so avoiding any confusion if
trains had to go there.

But creating massive confusion to thousands of tourists who won't
necessarily read the small print about "special events".

Who cares about tourists? They're a tiny minority compared to commuters
and they get lost anyway so what difference does it make? Come up with a
better argument than that please.

The District doesn't serve Charing Cross. Why would thousands of people
choose to change at Westminster to the District and have a long walk up
Villiers Street from Embankment, when they could have changed at Baker
Street to the Bakerloo, or other alternatives from Bond Street or Green
Park
if starting there. Again, you are arguing on behalf of people who got
on
the wrong line anyway!

Embankment is a short 2 min walk from charing X , which is a lot less time
that it takes to get from the victoria line at victoria to the district in
the rush hour. And yes , they could have changed onto the bakerloo line
and gone to charing -x but if the jubilee had run their in the first place
then they wouldn't have had to would they?


Is the tube there for the convenience of passengers or is it just a
giant train set for LU to run as easily as possible? Have a long
think about that because following your logic the entire circle line
(along with a lot of the H&C) could be closed as you can reach all
the stations via other lines. And I won't even mention the parallel
running on met/jubilee/chiltern , district/piccadilly lines.

Following logic isn't a strength of yours, is it?

Its a bit difficult when there isn't any to follow. Anyway , you're just
another of many LU apologists that frequent this group and refuse to admit
that anything LU do is wrong. Theres always some damn excuse as to why
they couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't or can't afford to do something and I
get
so sick of it, having to put with the BS excuses day to day as a commuter
and
on here from the Friends Of LU.

Not quite Freidends of LU, more looking at if from both sides of the Story..
yes, they could have Left Charing Cross Station open, and yes all the
passengers could jump on the Jubilee line to get there. But they didnt..
simple.. so they have to take an alternative route..
No amount of arguing on his is gona change that is it... so why bother keep
bringing it back up..

B2003

Boltar wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
...

Anyway , you're just another of many LU apologists that frequent
this group and refuse to admit that anything LU do is wrong.

Not true. I was just pointing out that your argument for keeping Charing
Cross open for Jubilee diversions wasn't well founded.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

(Boltar) wrote the following in:
m

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
So rather than use Charing X as a reversing siding (which is what
happens now), you want passengers to be diverted to a station
which is not (normally) on their line, with all the confusion
that that would cause, extra staff required, etc. etc. All for
the sake of a few passengers who would like to get off at Charing
X even though they boarded a train that shouldn't have gone
there. Oh, and they could have changed at Baker Street and
caught a Bakerloo train to Charing X anyway.

Case dismissed.

Are you for real?

A) It would have cost nothing to have kept Charing X on the line
map as a
dotted special events connection so avoiding any confusion if
trains had to go there.

Keeping Charing Cross for emergencies and special workings was
considered, but decided against for several reasons. Charing Cross had
quite low passenger numbers on the Jubilee line. The escalators were
also pretty much at the end of their working life and so to keep the
station open or available on the Jubilee line would have required
escalator replacement which is very expensive, especially for a station
which would only be used for emergencies.

--
message by Robin May, consumer of liquids
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Hacker is to computer as boy racer is to Ford Escort.

Robin May wrote in message ...

Keeping Charing Cross for emergencies and special workings was
considered, but decided against for several reasons. Charing Cross had
quite low passenger numbers on the Jubilee line. The escalators were
also pretty much at the end of their working life and so to keep the
station open or available on the Jubilee line would have required
escalator replacement which is very expensive, especially for a station
which would only be used for emergencies.

There are escalators still in use which are more than twice the age of
the Charing Cross (Jubilee) ones. If they have been used by 'quite
low passenger numbers' they might be expected to last longer than most
others. Were they under specified for their purpose?

Could passengers still be evacuated from a Jubilee train via Charing
Cross in the event of a real emergency, say a fire in a tunnel?

(Stephen Furley) wrote the following in:
m

Could passengers still be evacuated from a Jubilee train via
Charing Cross in the event of a real emergency, say a fire in a
tunnel?

I expect so, but it's probably not up to the necessary standard for
running a normal service.

--
message by Robin May, consumer of liquids
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Hacker is to computer as boy racer is to Ford Escort.

On 13 Oct 2003 10:03:20 -0700, (Stephen
Furley) wrote:

Robin May wrote in message ...

Keeping Charing Cross for emergencies and special workings was
considered, but decided against for several reasons. Charing Cross had
quite low passenger numbers on the Jubilee line. The escalators were
also pretty much at the end of their working life and so to keep the
station open or available on the Jubilee line would have required
escalator replacement which is very expensive, especially for a station
which would only be used for emergencies.

There are escalators still in use which are more than twice the age of
the Charing Cross (Jubilee) ones. If they have been used by 'quite
low passenger numbers' they might be expected to last longer than most
others. Were they under specified for their purpose?


I rather suspect the Charing X escalators were due for a mid-life
refurbishment, being 20 years old!


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

"Stephen Furley" wrote in message
m...
Robin May wrote in message
...

Keeping Charing Cross for emergencies and special workings was
considered, but decided against for several reasons. Charing Cross had
quite low passenger numbers on the Jubilee line. The escalators were
also pretty much at the end of their working life and so to keep the
station open or available on the Jubilee line would have required
escalator replacement which is very expensive, especially for a station
which would only be used for emergencies.

There are escalators still in use which are more than twice the age of
the Charing Cross (Jubilee) ones. If they have been used by 'quite
low passenger numbers' they might be expected to last longer than most
others. Were they under specified for their purpose?

Could passengers still be evacuated from a Jubilee train via Charing
Cross in the event of a real emergency, say a fire in a tunnel?

Yes, there is Exits from CharringX, and the platform still exists, so does
the Signaling system.
The station could not open, but if an emergancy occured, passengers could be
evacuated via the station.

I have now found out what happened at Greenpark also,

A Track Circuit Faled, due to low balast resitance, causing that section of
track to appear occupied. This is currently being sorted out now
"Darren Wiltshire" wrote in message
. ..
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Dulieu"
Newsgroups: uk.transport.london
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 11:22 PM
Subject: Jubilee line screwup



"Darren Wiltshire" wrote in message
. ..
No, the Jubilee Line does not use Full ATO, all Trains are driven by
Drivers. The JL does thogh use ATP, which will be affected by a signal
Failer.
Tha should be easy to understand
Should a signal Fail to a restrictive Aspect (Red/Off) the trainstops
will
rise, and prohibit the movements of trains past them.
LUL Trains have Air brakes, which are Held in the Off possition using Air
i
belive. on the Front right of the train, it a 'switch' for want of better
words, which is tripped by a bar raised from the floor.
This bar is only up if the signal is displaying a red (Not lit is assumed
red)
The Safe working of the signaling system is designed to bring things
to
a
safe situation in the event of a failere of any kind, most of which
can
be
fixed fairly quickly.
If the sigal failed, then the trainstop would rise, and any train passing
the signal would have its emergany brakes applied automaticaly.

As signal failer omn its own in unlikely to be the cause of a services
suspension, but i certainetly havent seen any reports of anythig major
with
the signalling/safety systems
It is more likely that there are other factore included (LUL dont
close
lines likely.. its bloody awfull trying to get trackside to do
anything!!)
It all depends on what definition of "Signal failer" you use:
-- Was it a Sole Signal failer, or multiple
-- Was it a Track Circuit Failer which resulted in a signal showing a
Red
-- Was it a signaliing system Comms Error
-- Was it an Error on the Signal Control Center
or any other of a wide range.

Any chance of that again but in English?
--
Cheers, Steve.
If The Good Lord had meant for us to be fiscally prudent, He would not
have
given us the platinum credit card...
Change colour to PC Plod's lights to reply.



Any better?
If not.. email me and i'll explain fully....

Darren Wiltshire