Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2013 12:42:38 GMT
|
|
Ben
Box Boy
Posts: 65
|
Post by Ben on Mar 9, 2013 14:11:40 GMT
Reviewed by three people yet theres a grammatical error in the first sentence... :S
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Mar 9, 2013 15:06:45 GMT
I think it beholds us all to maintain standards
|
|
|
Post by bsosaka on Mar 10, 2013 2:53:36 GMT
It is a good read but I am slow to get through 86 pages. Here are my thoughts regarding pages 1-20
Firstly are members of LUL staff considered stakeholders? As the document says they should be informed at all stages.
Page 12 'Increased flexibility with staff deployment'. Much easier to write than to practice. If you swapped the supervisors at TCR and FYC they would not be able to do each others jobs immediately. Familiarisation of your station is important and a one hour walk around will not be enough to learn how to jump start an escalator or how to power up traction current in the s/b sidings.
Page 12 'minimising the number of labour intensive tasks'. A fancy way of saying job cuts.
Page 14 'reliable, comfortable'. It is always thought that if the trains run frequently and on time that comfort will somehow be improved. However from my experience that is not the case. A slight unreliability means that people do not plan there journeys so strictly. Reliability is a good thing but it is not directly linked to comfort.
Page 15 'Wider Cars' linked to EVO's. I am assuming that this is in places where tunnels would not have to be widened.
Page 15 'Remote controlled trains'. Will this mean that one person will be in charge of more than one train?
Page 17 '5.2.4 The Railway will have the capability to operate 24/7'. I wonder if this is for special occasions or the thinking is for Friday, Saturday nights where unattended trains will be carrying young, reckless drunk girls in high heels who only like to lean forward.
Page 17 '5.2.6 Detrainments'. This concerns me because there is already a reluctance to de-train people and it ends up with people sitting on a train for hours. Best/safest scenario is people to remain on the train but with heat and overcrowding it would be important to establish strict time limits for movement of passengers. Something LUL has regularly disrespected.
Page 20 '5.3.14 Get Me Home'. Good idea but I wonder if possible. I would assume some type of battery back up which increases weight of everyday running. The battery back ups of stations are about 30 minutes and they only really control lighting. To make sure of safety the batteries would have to made to top quality materials which would be costly and I would worry a compromise would take place.
|
|
|
Post by bsosaka on Mar 10, 2013 3:49:26 GMT
Pages 21-40
Page 26 '5.4.23 Depots, Sidings and in other selected locations'. This would be for operational purposes but what if a person decides to take a walk down the tunnel and just slowly strolls in front of a train. It would not run them over so the train would be forced to move slowly or stop. What size would be worthy of detection i.e. a small child or animal.
Page 26 '5.4.24 Where to stand'. It is a nice idea. I have a feeling that front line station staff will be hit with complaints by customers who expected a seat by standing in the right place to find out that the next carriage was less crowded. It would therefore need to be incredible accurate and probably need a sensor under every seat to gather appropriate information. It could also cause arguments between customers on the platforms so PTI is a concern.
Page 28 '5.4.37'. As far as I am aware the procedure for a driver when T/C suddenly goes off is to stop unless they might bridge a rail gap at which point coast fully into the next section. Would the trains use the 'get me home' power to do this? would they move backwards or forwards.
Page 32 '5.6.19 Station lighting is self cleaning'. How do they work? They would have to be very good to survive Highgate station.
Page 33 '5.7.1 TT wires'. This goes with my concern of detrainments. Drivers who have lost communication may de-train unauthorised and they would switch off current using the wires. As there are no drivers the assumption is that there is never going to be an occasion where current needs to switched off in tunnel sections or that old style communication is required.
Page 33 '5.7.2 and 5.7.3 and 5.7.4'. I still feel this will be very difficult to achieve without a large amount of expense. The document is mainly concerned with deep tunnel sections and I think that is possible but outside sections not as easy.
Page 39 '6.1.1 bi-directional movement'. Another nice idea on a maintenance aspect maybe quite labour intensive as for dealing with the confused general public. Plus signage issues on stations.
|
|
|
Post by bsosaka on Mar 10, 2013 4:57:07 GMT
Pages 41-60
As this part of the document is less specific here are just some thoughts.
'Sticky Door', at present if a trains doors do not shut properly the driver will open/close them again, a member of station staff might give them a kick, a customer might remove the coke can, the customer who attempted to board too late might remove there coat. If however there is no driver and more than likely no member of staff this kind of fault will take longer to resolve. A subsequent delay will occur especially if the fault is something like a coke can and none of the customers bother to move it. Or it is a coke can put deliberately there on an empty train consequently shutting down the service behind.
'short trip trains - minimum service targets'. Those people who live in branch lines are well aware that they get a second rate service at the moment. If a computer without any compassion is allowed to make decisions then minimum service could become normal service. Added to the fact that people do not really wanted to change trains because of short tripping. It has been known for some unlucky people to take a train at Charring cross and have to change at Camden, Archway, East Finchley and Finchley Cnetral. So that has to be incorporated into the programming to prevent the same costumers being turfed station after station.
'random dwell times'. It appears to create good headways that dwell times will also be changed this is important because if a customer is used to a train arriving and leaving quite quickly and then it does not they will become worried. If however they are used to it remaining on the platform and suddenly it quickly departs they will get themselves stuck in the doors. So dwell times should be controlled not to be too inconsistent.
'bi-direction confusion'. It is also possible for the system to decide a shuttle service as best solution for disruption. Hopefully this would take into account availability of staff and communicating this to people. It should also take into account mobility impaired people and station access.
'maintenance short trips'. If a train is meant to go to a depot and because of disruption it is out of place then the system will short trip the train. This is just another inconvenience for the travelling public.
'inaccuracy because of interchanges'. The system for determining train capacity does not take into account interchange of trains during a trip so it will always be inaccurate.
'BTP response times'. They are not existent and anyone who has worked for LUL and called the BTP for help knows that. The only really decent thing to do is remove BTP and use the Met directly.
'Interaction with bus services'. I have yet to read anything regarding disruption and the use of buses. It would make sense that a decision on how the service should be rectified would include the local bus services and time of day. An example would be a fault at Camden town where a good service could be provided to Golders Green and local buses to Finchley instead of reduced services on both branches. This also needs to take into account the location of buses and traffic on the road. The system would need to have the capacity to integrate other travel possibilities into its disruption plan.
|
|
|
Post by bsosaka on Mar 10, 2013 5:58:39 GMT
Finally pages 61-86 Once again just some observations. As a document it is very good and I understand it is just a work in progress more than any statement of intent or of full discussion. It disappoints me that it is purely a management process and they have not involved any front line staff or anyone who understands the reality of dealing with customers. It comes across as a document written by those who live in an office and only understand spreadsheets. However it is also obvious that the input of the maintenance part has been more of a practical standing. 'the urgency to board is reinforce by a count down clock'. Nice idea but when has anyone ever taken notice of such things. If it has a 1 on the clock they will still try. At level crossing people do not stop crossing because of the lights and bells they stop crossing when a physical barrier is put in place. At a countdown pedestrian crossing they stop the countdown at 10 secs to prevent pre-emptive strikes and countdown/up traffic lights get engines revving either to get through in time or be ready for a green. ' some stations outside of the central London area are unattended during selected hours'. What happens in reality with unattended stations is that local criminals take residence. Maybe ticket touts, graffiti artists, drug dealers and then when it is noticed that the response of police and staff is slow the muggers and rapist congregate. Having someone visible on a station is a great first strike against criminal behaviour. I used to take over a week of late turns from a very lazy old lady and might first of seven was always a troublesome get rid of the miscreants duty. It is much easier to prevent than resolve.
'6.2.11.3 Customer support – Physical Customer with mobility or sight related needs can be request assistance remotely and before entering a Deep Tube station. Contact can be made by phone or through the internet. Customers requiring physical support but who have not made prior arrangements are able to contact by phone or through a Help point on arrival at a station. The RCS directs and manages the deployment of the local or mobile resource that is best positioned to deliver the support that is needed.' This is essentially treating people with special needs as second class customers. Why should they need to ask for help in advance or wait for help when they turn up. 6.2.11.6 Managing Station Cleanliness and Hygiene. General and emergency cleaning at stations is contracted to external service providers. When a requirement for emergency cleaning is observed, reported or detected then the event is passed to the cleaning organisation. Detection may be by the RCS or by human observation: If by human observation then the Event Controller will record the event in the RCS. How will vomit on a train be detected? Will customers really report broken glass or a puddle on a platform? This has the potential of increasing accidents and need further investigation or responsibility. 'The Event Controller responsible with other personnel that are assigned to assist with the shut down, “sweep” the station using a combination of CCTV and physical checks. The integrity of secure areas is validated through the RCS and lights are dimmed remotely as each area of the station is confirmed clear. On completion of the sweep the gate line is shutdown and the Boswick gates closed to secure the station. The station is set as being closed on the RCS.'
Obviously written by a person who has never closed a station on a normal day or in an emergency.
'unusual noise'. There is a lot written about automatic checking systems so I wonder if one of them will be unusual noise detection. As an example, when things started rattling and falling off central line trains. Eventually resulting in a derailment. Even with human interaction this occurred. In the past there was a permanent train maintainer at Euston. As an SA I would do half my station inspection and then sit for 20 minutes having a cup of tea with them. They would pop out for cigarettes and food whenever they felt and normally would never be around when required. The new system relies on people being available when something goes wrong but if there daily job is just to sit and do nothing then it will be the same. A daily routine of finding something to occupy themselves. I wonder how this can be combated. 'track fault equipment tester'. 30% of trains will have equipment to check for track faults. I wonder if there will be a part of track that is intentionally faulty to make sure the equipment is working properly. 'maintenance ability check'. I also wonder if there will be a record of the people who maintained the equipment to check which people are doing it right and which people fix the problem for it just to re-occur later. The common phrase is a train book would be 'no fault found' either because it was intermittent or that the person doing the check was too lazy or incompetent. With a fully automated system there would be no driver in the morning to look at the book and ask questions. END NOTES '7.8 The degree to which aspiration for a single “massively versatile” COTS Railway Control System interface device can be made available to remote agents outside of an office environment' I wonder if this is a subtle way of saying it can only happen when people outside of LUL management think it is a good idea because implementation would need the help of everyone involved for it to become successful.
'7.14 Cooling the Deep Tube: Conventional air conditioning, an alternative technology or a combination of the two.'
I wonder if this is a subtle way of saying until we can keep people trapped in tunnels for an hour and remain alive it can not be implemented.
Overall I do expect it to happen but 2020 might be a little optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by Nortube on Mar 10, 2013 10:28:46 GMT
A full and interesting breakdown and plenty of valid points. I've not read the document yet, so I must have a read through that and see what it says. I think you mentioned traction current on the first post. Normal procedure if traction current is lost is to coast as far as possible to get as close to the next station as possible. Actual circumstances might differ. E.g., if I had just departed a station and the juice came off, it would be better to stop the train there. However coast as far as possible is the rule. It's surprising how far a train can coast, especially when on the level or downhill. Previous runaways have shwn that (even if not always going in the right direction!). I don't know if it's the same procedure for ATO / TBTC train running.
|
|
Ben
Box Boy
Posts: 65
|
Post by Ben on Mar 11, 2013 2:16:52 GMT
It seems, at its core, to require an extremely powerful computer, that can not only analyse enormous amounts of data on the fly but also knows when to recall a strategy previously devised for similar conditions, and do it all near enough instantaneously. Which is all well and good if Moore's Law holds amongst other things, but can comms and the processing system be relied upon enough to work with a high degree reliability for as long as the network requires and under as arduous conditions as the system deals with? Further, can it do this economically, and is all this actually cheaper than the total remuneration and duty hiring a person costs?
Things have always become automated, so I suppose in principal it makes sense to create a high level document with an imagined future. But considering the past 30 years have been so turbulent on the tube wrt organisation and staff relations, this doesn’t exactly help foster trust. Also the idea that this could be done within 7 years is laughable. Even just a look at half the document seems to imply it requires total systems replacement, perhaps even to the level of gutting every tunnel and building of power, communications, data systems, surveillance, HVAC, etc.
railtechnician, what was the motto you once mentioned about LT, something like 'the impossible isn't a problem, but miracles will take a little while longer'? And that was with almost singular cohesion within the company.
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Mar 11, 2013 2:58:57 GMT
Ben,
I've had a quick skim through the 86 pages, I don't need to read it all because I understand the concept and can see what's involved. I can tell you now that some of the remote control technology required for this to work has been around on the system for up to 20 or more years. So much was trialled over the original Storno train radio systems and other remote control tried again with the Central line resignalling. Also used in the 1980s were SCADA systems to remotely monitor lifts and escalators but with a view to remote control in the future. Power distribution and switching has been remotely controlled for just as long, then there's UTS which began with a couiple of hundred PDP 11 computers communicating via PCM data channels with backup on standby telephone lines which has long since moved on as the LUL intranet, fibre optic PCM transmission, new radio systems and so much much has been developed. CCTV and data systems, once daily bread and butter to me, have really come on from the beginning of the 1980s when we had fixed black and white cameras requiring 240v domestic mains supplies and cables to carry the beam switching and video back to a central equipment rack. Digital is now at the heart of everything and digital doesn't need cable from end to end anymore, multiplexing allows hundreds of thousands of signals to be sent 'through the ether' to quote a very old fashioned term.
A lot of the required trackside technology already exists and that which doesn't currently will arrive although 2020 does seem a little optomistic because I don't think the train technology is quite in the same league just yet. As for computer control, we are already seeing thousands of applications using multicore processors, the transputer concept having been around many years before any were available but these days anything seems possible.
The big issues in all this are going to be the use or otherwise of human resources, the changes to rules, regulations, procedures and working practices, rolling stock design although many of the required systems already exist and biggest of all the necessary changes to be made at stations.
My motto, that is the motto of my team of installers was always 'miracles I can do at once, the impossible takes a little longer'. I had a similar work ethic on maintenance but that was more the other way around i.e. 'the impossible I can do at once, miracles take a little longer'!
Yes it will take a lot of souls all singing from the same version of the hymm book and praying in unison but it can be done with a will and that perhaps is the biggest challenge of all, just getting everyone on side to achieve a common goal for the good of all, the company, the workforce, the taxpayer and the travelling public.
|
|
|
Post by bsosaka on Mar 11, 2013 7:46:09 GMT
There is a lot of technology already in place but it does have difficulty communicating with each other. The document was for discussion rather than implementation and nearly all the points I made could easily be resolved.
I think a computer system could easily cope with the information it is getting. You only have to look at online gaming sites to see the how far and fast computer systems have come. The big problem is not the technology but the data that is put into it and the assumptions the initial installers make. If they consider that there will never be a detainment in a tunnel the system will fail. If they do allow for such circumstances then it will succeed.
For example the problem of knowing if someone has vomited in a carriage is resolved by the fact that normally when it happens people leave the carriage to another one. Also people standing on a platform ready to get into the carriage move to the next one to go on. Camera's could pick up on this behaviour and then investigate why.
It would make sense to trial a driverless system on the Waterloo and City line as both stations would still need staffing because of other lines connected. I am sure once something is up and running it will highlight what works and what does not.
The two main stumbling blocks for a successful driver less system are being able to predict customer behaviour and Unions. Having read the document I would expect a creation of quite a few new jobs with the need for driver experience requirements. So if it was handled in a sensible way by both Union and Management there would be no redundancies, no movement of unwilling people and plenty of new and interesting jobs within the system.
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Mar 11, 2013 12:23:53 GMT
Proper programming of systems is key to getting a safe driverless railway. My choice for a trial system would have to be the Victoria line, say Seven Sisters to walthamstow Central, because it was built to be an automatic system and many of the issues that would apply to the others do not apply to the Victoria line. The Waterloo & City is too small for a proper trial and the 'depot' is rather compact too. In my time I walked the entire Victoria line including NP depot and did a detailed survey for future work from Euston to Walthamstow in the late 1980s. I also walked the W&C and surveyed it prior to LU taking it over, that took just 25 minutes from Waterloo return stopping in between at the tunnel pump room, there's little to see except at the 'depot' and at the time the quaint control room which has been upgraded somewhat since AFAIR. Passengers (yes they'll always be passengers to me rather than customers) are fickle and get up to all sorts. In any driverless system I would still expect humans to be monitoring on board CCTV because there are some things that only humans will be able to 'see'. Of course there are ways to make CCTV intelligent up to a point such as basic technology that has been in use since the late 1980s allowing human monitors to get a better view and for some behaviour patterns to be recognised and automatically highlighted. Behaviour is tricky because even humans are not 'programmed' to recognise and predict all events so systems will need to be self adapting to some extent to maintain safety. For more than 20 years electronic designers driven by computer have been designing circuitry automatically and so the seeds of self adaptability have been around a while. Such adaptability is already being seen in the latest artificial limbs which 'learn' to adapt to their host and in the digital world computers are not that many years away from a time when they will design and build systems too complex for the human brain to learn in detail as there won't be enough hours in a lifetime! The auto industry has been building cars for decades using computer controlled robots and the next generation will no doubt be developed to use 3D printing technology to create anything and everything from a whole host of materials including metals. Once that development has occurred divergence of technologies may well see trains driven from the front, not by humans but by robots which may or may not resemble men but which will certainly be more intelligent (safety wise) and dedicated to the task than humans, unions simply won't exist but I doubt that management, as we know it, will either. Ultimately the driverless train will be the death knell of the railwayman/woman but by then the trains may be quite different to those we are used to, only time will tell. Amongst the speculation there is one truth that cannot be ignored and that is that technology advances exponentially, forty years ago I could not envisage the power of the computers of today or the total digitisation of the telephone network, broadcast television and so many other engineering feats. Remember, I grew up in a house with no fridge or freezer, no TV, no computer and no telephone, no central heating, very few prepackaged foods, we had no car etc but it was the norm in the 1950s for the average family! Since its inception mobile technology has moved on apace in a very short time and the same is true in many fields and disciplines and that will only continue. Things advance so quickly now that I cannot predict what will happen next year let alone in five or ten years, one small event, invention or discovery these days can change so much so quickly that it is really difficult to 'see' the future!
|
|
|
Post by fitztightly on Mar 25, 2013 1:11:40 GMT
The railway was planned to be automatic from the early days of the LPTB in 1933.... Centralised control, automatic trains, all part of that utopian dream Railtech mentioned earlier on.... And it will happen. How? They are scratching their heads and churning out paperwork, but that will one day change to action and it will happen in my lifetime although I may not be working for the railway by that time (sacked or retired, hopefully the latter LOL) The unions will do well to choose their battles up to then - whatever good reasons they have to ballot loose the support of the travelling public when for instance strikes are called for Boxing Day and subsequent action is called off in January.... They are getting sick of the inconvenience and think we're all overpaid slackers, which we are not. Mainly. There is a huge groundswell of public opinion that cannot wait for Driverless trains. I think that's a shame. My personal opinion is that London's Underground was built too long ago, there is no safe egress between stations, the distances between some stations is too long and the trains are too long for one person to 'Captain' them from somewhere along it's length. The DLR and many other Underground railways have been purpose built for Driverless trains but ours was not and I think anything beyond ATO would be unsafe. But I still mourn the passing of the 38s and 59s and the fact that I can't do a Westinghouse any more. What do I know? ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Mar 26, 2013 0:27:14 GMT
But I still mourn the passing of the 38s and 59s and the fact that I can't do a Westinghouse any more. What do I know? ;-) Come and have a go on C stocks before its too late!!! I'm chuffed; I stopped on the mark with one tonight. It's a rare treat and no mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Nortube on Mar 26, 2013 1:18:34 GMT
Westinghouse livened up many a boring day. I would quite happily brake a train on Westinghouse for a whole trip, irrespective of whether I was in a controlled area or not if I was confident with the brake on that train. A lot 38 and 59 stock Westinghouse brakes were rubbish because of lack of maintenance (and lack of use by drivers - a vicious circle really). The most common fault being the piston in the triple valve. Blow off some air, nothing happens, or you get some brakes come on, then suddenly emergency application as the piston slams across. Or the small exhaust port is partially blocked or the equalising piston is slow, meaning that when you put the handle in application, you hear the air escaping from above the piston and train line drops on the gauge, but nothing much else happens! Then, of course there's the 'brakes hanging on' after every Westinghouse application, meaning a blow down and shut down each time. However, a properly working Westinghouse was a joy to use.
I don't count Westinghouse on a 72 stock because that just didn't have the same sort of feel to it.
I remember on my road test when passing out as Guard. It was inbetween stations in a tunnel section and the Area Manager said "try and stop before the next signal". As a driver on the road test, it was in a station and "try not to go past the stopping mark"!
|
|