|
|
Post by GentlemanJim on Dec 31, 2013 13:23:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by deansullivan on Dec 31, 2013 14:28:41 GMT
Theres a very interesting article in this months LURS magazine on the same subject. It implies that Westinghouse (UK)who had originally been contracted to deliver the new SSR signalling, were paid off handsomely (how much was not disclosed) when LUL decided to retender the contract based on cost.
With the exception of the Vic line, at least we knew that the principles of the signalling system were similar no matter where you were on the combine. Now of course you have a mix of signalling systems delivered by different contractors. None of which are compatible, and all of which need patches to enable 'foreign' trains to operate. I would imagine it would be a nightmare for engineers trains & stock like the TRT which need to operate across the network.
|
|
drico
Station Inspector
Thank you driver, off clips.
Posts: 202
|
Post by drico on Dec 31, 2013 15:09:08 GMT
The clowns at LUL have done it again, millions wasted on resignalling the SSL, Robert Dell must be spinning in his grave.
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Dec 31, 2013 15:27:55 GMT
Theres a very interesting article in this months LURS magazine on the same subject. It implies that Westinghouse (UK)who had originally been contracted to deliver the new SSR signalling, were paid off handsomely (how much was not disclosed) when LUL decided to retender the contract based on cost. With the exception of the Vic line, at least we knew that the principles of the signalling system were similar no matter where you were on the combine. Now of course you have a mix of signalling systems delivered by different contractors. None of which are compatible, and all of which need patches to enable 'foreign' trains to operate. I would imagine it would be a nightmare for engineers trains & stock like the TRT which need to operate across the network. As we know this is what happens when accountants are allowed to 'run' the network instead of engineers! Like the government TfL/LUL are very good at wasting £taxpayers millions, there are far too many chiefs and too many mini empires within the system which can hardly be regarded as even a 'combine' these days. The nice shiny corporate image is a facade hiding years of desecration of a once well oiled machine which used to have passenger service as its number one priority. Time and again we have seen good money thrown after bad and poor decision making as a result of under investment. As I see it the options for the future are (1) to break up the Underground into individual lines commensurate with the actions of separation that have been ongoing since the mid 1980s and allow them to succeed or fail on the basis of their own independent decisions; (2) to reintegrate the lines into a single managed organisation and to economise by eliminating duplication of function, standardising rolling stock, signalling and essential systems to standard components, re-introducing in house integrated engineering design and installation teams and appointing approved long term component suppliers and system manufacturers to deliver quality equipment in timely fashion; (3) start from scratch, waste no more money on the existing network and instead invest in a brand new purpose built and equipped network for the future slowly throttling the existing system to its inevitable demise but keeping it going by selling off property and assets as lines on the new system are inaugurated. Like many engineers, I suspect, I would love to see a completely new network built from scratch with no connection whatever to the existing system, except suitably placed temporary but long term interchange subways, predominantly eliminating the delays associated with major engineering updates to existing facilities. Highly desirable in my opinion and only affordable if politicians can agree to a national improvement plan and invest appropriately so most definitely well out of reach probably forever! My practicable preference would be the reintegration of lines into a proper network once again with a single management structure with standardisation of assets, services and performance but I do feel that many 'square pegs' would have to be replaced with real engineers and real railwaymen in key posts. Of course the alternative is to do little or nothing and that is pretty much what we have seen for the last two decades! |
|
