|
Post by dave1 on Apr 10, 2016 21:06:14 GMT
Now I thought that the SSL was going to have a lot of altered layouts but it seems that something is brewing on the Central line Museum siding and Queensway. Is it just for cost cutting as when there is a service suspension it will be a bigger area without a service.
|
|
|
Post by Nortube on Apr 11, 2016 9:51:13 GMT
I can understand if the there are changes because of incompatibility with new stock (such as longer stock) fitting into sidings etc., but I wonder just how much of the changes are being done purely for convenience (i.e. cheapness) rather than necessity.
Apparently, on the Northern line, when the new signalling was being discussed, one thing that was suggested was to leave out the facility to go direct to Golders Green depot from Hampstead because that would simplify things. Removing that option would have really screwed up the Northern line in times of disruption, or even when there is a defective NB train that has to go to GG depot or a long train. Luckily common sense prevailed and that facility still remains.
Assuming that that suggestion was correct, it showed that whoever was responsible had no idea of how the Northern line service ran, and I think this is the problem that occurs in many places. people who make the decisions are often those who have little experience in what they're making the decision on and don't know how things run in the real world.
The loss of a reversing position is usually always regretted afterwards. Whilst, on paper, a little-used crossover can be shown as costing £X to maintain and thus it could just be removed to save money, in practice, just one or two uses a year would probably (on paper*) more than justify the maintenance cost and, in practical terms, be priceless in the value it would have during disruption. engineering works, etc.
* - for some years, LU have had this thing (I forget the name for it) where everything can be broken down to the cost of delays, cancellations, etc. I can't remember any figures, but the cost always seemed ridiculously high. A delay of X minutes would be £Y, a SPAD of X minutes would be £Y etc., based on the knock-on effect of delays to passengers' journeys. However, this is a paper exercise and I've no idea of what real benefit it is because it is ignored when convenient. The removal of a reversing point being an example. The reversing point might cost £X to maintain, but it may save a far greater £Y if using the reversing point meant reduced delays or cancellations.
|
|
|
Post by Nortube on Apr 11, 2016 10:06:50 GMT
I can never see how removing a reversing facility near a terminus makes a service better. There are times when, for whatever reason, it is better to reverse a few trains short of the terminus. Colindale is a good example of this, albeit it is a siding, which is more convenient than just a crossover. when there has been blocking back from Edgware, some trains have been reversed at Colindale. If Colindale wasn't available, the nearest place would be Golders Green. The crossover at Hornchurch has recently been removed, meaning that the nearest reversing point to Upminster is now Dagenham East (unless they decide to remove that).
Totteridge had an emergency (hand-worked) crossover. There were many times when it would have been convenient to reverse at Totteridge, both due to blocking back at High Barnet and during engineering work, but because it was hand-worked, was never used during disruption and very rarely used during engineering work. In fact, for a long time, it couldn't be used because equipment was missing! There was talk about Totteridge being upgraded to a normal signalled reversing point under the new signalling, but in the end it was decided not to bother ("we never use it" was probably the excuse). Any problems, trains reverse at Finchley Central, meaning much longer delays for passengers to get home.
The end result is that, by LU saving a few pounds here and there, passengers get screwed!
|
|
|
Post by hellocontrol on Apr 11, 2016 17:33:06 GMT
Nortube you are right over the years I have seen things done and then some years later they regretted it but those at the top are just passing through as they say so they are not worried about those that follow taking the Central line as an example if they do take out museum siding and Queensway then when there is an issue at say Marble Arch the whole of the central area is without a service and I bet that Bethnal Green will bite the dust sooner or later. Many years ago they rationalised areas and took out a lot of points the excuse they used was it was to do with programme machines. Some of the SSL plans that will be implemented were spoken of years ago before the upgrade was born.
|
|