grahame
|
|
« Reply #585 on: December 29, 2014, 21:13:53 » |
|
There are certain places where it's easy to get alternative trains/buses but some where it's not...
I'm reminded of the Thameslink "Alternatives available if the trains aren't running" maps. http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/your-journey/planning/alt-maps-tl/and see attachment example on this post. Is there a similar map for the Thames Valley or for any other FGW▸ areas?
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
Timmer
|
|
« Reply #586 on: December 29, 2014, 21:39:57 » |
|
Isn't this what Network Rail wanted to do around Watford this year? And everyone got up in arms and said it wasn't right so they changed it to a much longer series of weekend possessions.
Yep. I think doing work in August is the way ahead for big engineering projects so long as good alternatives are provide be it diverted services or express coach services. We are going to see work taking place next July and August when Box Tunnel and Sydney Gardens in Bath is wired giving us a chance to see how well it works. The important thing is to give as much notice as possible along with details of a revised timetables, ticket easements etc.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #587 on: December 29, 2014, 22:02:58 » |
|
Graham in the case of the TLP London Bridge blockage alternatives this is easier south of the Thames the Victorians left a myriad of cross connecting routes, also TLP have been working away improving these divisions for the best part of 10 years, most of it was needed anyway.
TLP is a big and well established team as I said almost 10 years and I do mean team it is a very collaborative set up if you walk in the offices you would not at first glace identify NR» staff from the contractors staff, indeed normally rival contractors sit side by side.
The Reading blockades did have alternatives set up which worked well, it gets more difficult once you get east of Reading to do a full 4 track closure, reopen the Maidenhead - High Wycombe line? build the Windsor link? I have done the Maidenhead to London Waterloo a few times, an odd occasion is ok to do it every day for 2 weeks folks would loose the will to live
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
Super Guard
|
|
« Reply #588 on: December 30, 2014, 22:35:09 » |
|
Yes, more staff do want time off over Christmas - no surprises there (and for the record that doesn't impact on my belief you could easily get enough volunteers for a skeleton Boxing Day if you paid a descent amount!). The rostering should be robust enough to deal with that as there are only a certain number of drivers (or TM‡'s) allowed to be off on a given day. For example, just this week it looks like over 20 days of holiday requests have been declined at Oxford drivers depot alone!
But a huge backlog of route and traction knowledge amongst established staff, and a large number of vacancies still to be filled is causing even more problems than it would normally do. The fault for that lies squarely at FGW▸ 's door.
Sounds to me like 6 of one and half dozen of the other - to an extent the tail is wagging the dog, in most situations the starting point is "we need to have enough staff to maintain the service" before any A/L is considered, but if there are not enough staff with the necessary skills to start with without relying on people giving up rest days then that becomes tricky.......agreed though, money talks, but again it comes down to having the right people available, not just lots of bodies....both sides probably need to consider their positions to find a solution....suspect staff will cling onto their "right" to have Xmas day/Boxing day off as of right however that's not sustainable in the longer term if the politicians/public demand a Boxing Day service (which they already are) and Xmas engineering possessions become less of an issue........sometime around 2100 then? At each depot establishments are calculated by adding in the service that needs covering + spare coverage + standby coverage + annual leave requirement and then rounded up. Annual leave is a red herring, as a minimum number allowed off is agreed and built as part of the link (usually 15% at any one time). I don't know any service/catering/retail industry that would say "oh sorry we cannot cover xyz so your annual leave is cancelled". Extra leave will of course be granted but only if the service is covered. Of course if there are vacancies in the link and not enough overtime volunteers or training hasn't happened for route/traction then you start getting uncovered turns. Then add the fact that more people are sick this time of year (genuinely) and no doubt the odd extra case that may not be genuine (a problem that is faced by all service industries in the winter/xmas time), and you have problems. Apart from the odd case who may not be genuinely sick, those problems are not caused by operational staff, but the recruitment policies and higher management off them. You have drivers who are moving from West & LTV▸ depots to HSS▸ to allow a full service to run on HSS while IEP▸ training happens, and there is a massive recruitment programme going on across all depots and business areas for the long-term, but training drivers takes approximately a year if not longer, and whether you like or not, the current running of the railway means decisions will be made with money in mind from both a FGW (business/profit view) and a DfT» /taxpayer view (deficit reduction anyone?) Ultimately though, if depots were fully trained on traction/routes required and all vacancies fully filled then you wouldn't see this problem.
|
|
« Last Edit: December 31, 2014, 00:42:00 by Super Guard »
|
Logged
|
Any opinions made on this forum are purely personal and my own. I am in no way speaking for, or offering the views of First Great Western or First Group.
If my employer feels I have broken any aspect of the Social Media Policy, please PM me immediately, so I can rectify without delay.
|
|
|
TaplowGreen
|
|
« Reply #589 on: January 02, 2015, 14:16:05 » |
|
....someone just sent me this, made me chuckle! (perhaps each station could be equipped with one to pass the time!)
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #590 on: January 03, 2015, 07:59:22 » |
|
Afraid i'm not really into model buses but i like the idea.
On a more serious note has anyone seen the structure they've put up to hang signal S132 Down Relief at A4 Dumb Bell bridge Taplow. You'll only se it from the train if you on the Up Relief looking towards the main line.
However it's visable form teh A4 going West just before the bridge.
Over-Head Line Equipment (OHLE) compliant!
Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym
|
|
« Last Edit: May 05, 2021, 20:17:37 by VickiS »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #591 on: January 03, 2015, 08:35:24 » |
|
A few others were replaced between Maidenhead and West Drayton using the same design over the Christmas break. A different design, encompassing a 'proper' gantry, are being used on similar signals between Reading and Didcot.
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #592 on: January 03, 2015, 08:53:49 » |
|
On a more serious note has anyone seen the structure they've put up to hang signal S132 Down Relief at A4 Dumb Bell bridge Taplow. You'll only se it from the train if you on the Up Relief looking towards the main line.
However it's visable form teh A4 going West just before the bridge.
OHLE compliant!
Yes, one of the advantages of LED signal lamps they don't need the wick trimming of filling with paraffin seriously even over tungsten lamps LED's will last 10 years or more any maintenance can be done from MEWP▸ 's A few others were replaced between Maidenhead and West Drayton using the same design over the Christmas break. A different design, encompassing a 'proper' gantry, are being used on similar signals between Reading and Didcot.
The great dividing line between Crossrail and the rest of the Route The Crossrail route between Maidenhead and Paddington is having a ETCS▸ system with ATO▸ potential being developed by the Thameslink signalling team for introduction at the end of the decade. It is seen as the next step to increase line capacity, it could be all wayside signals between possibly Reading and Paddington could be abolished by 2025!
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
stuving
|
|
« Reply #593 on: January 03, 2015, 13:25:30 » |
|
The great dividing line between Crossrail and the rest of the Route The Crossrail route between Maidenhead and Paddington is having a ETCS▸ system with ATO▸ potential being developed by the Thameslink signalling team for introduction at the end of the decade. It is seen as the next step to increase line capacity, it could be all wayside signals between possibly Reading and Paddington could be abolished by 2025! ETCS is going further than that - the 2013 Route Plan said: ETCS on Western Route: CP5▸ strategy and implementation CP5 delivery of ETCS on Western Route comprises: Western key output 5: ETCS level 2 overlay Paddington to Heathrow by September 2017 Western key output 7: ETCS overlay Paddington to Bristol by July 2019 Western key output 8: all trains ETCS fitted/Lineside Signals removed ^ by December 2025 Unless that's slipped already ...
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #594 on: January 03, 2015, 15:31:27 » |
|
The great dividing line between Crossrail and the rest of the Route The Crossrail route between Maidenhead and Paddington is having a ETCS▸ system with ATO▸ potential being developed by the Thameslink signalling team for introduction at the end of the decade. It is seen as the next step to increase line capacity, it could be all wayside signals between possibly Reading and Paddington could be abolished by 2025! ETCS is going further than that - the 2013 Route Plan said: ETCS on Western Route: CP5▸ strategy and implementation CP5 delivery of ETCS on Western Route comprises: Western key output 5: ETCS level 2 overlay Paddington to Heathrow by September 2017 Western key output 7: ETCS overlay Paddington to Bristol by July 2019 Western key output 8: all trains ETCS fitted/Lineside Signals removed ^ by December 2025 Unless that's slipped already ... You are probably correct with the dates, I know the TLP ETCS development team are also doing development work for Crossrail on the Western. There is very little in the way of wayside or track equipment its all in the software and train mounted equipment
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
4064ReadingAbbey
|
|
« Reply #595 on: January 03, 2015, 17:05:49 » |
|
There is very little in the way of wayside or track equipment its all in the software and train mounted equipment
I don't wish to be a Luddite, but could it be that the increased complexity of the train-borne equipment will lead to lower train reliability? Will this cancel out the greater reliability of the reduced quantity of line-side equipment? And, as an aside, who will be responsible for looking after the train-borne equipment? The running maintenance depots or the signalling fraternity? The on-board ETCS▸ kit is a bit more complex than the AWS▸ / TPWS▸ kit and essentially means that significant parts of the signalling kit is moved from the lineside to the train. This seems to me to be a significant change - is there sufficient experience from the Cambrian trial to assist this changeover to be made smoothly?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ellendune
|
|
« Reply #596 on: January 03, 2015, 18:08:37 » |
|
Yes but a train goes to a depot for maintenance and while it is undergoing maintenance it is not stopping other trains running. If if does break in service then at least if all else fails it can be dragged out of the way.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #597 on: January 03, 2015, 18:35:51 » |
|
There is very little in the way of wayside or track equipment its all in the software and train mounted equipment
I don't wish to be a Luddite, but could it be that the increased complexity of the train-borne equipment will lead to lower train reliability? Will this cancel out the greater reliability of the reduced quantity of line-side equipment? And, as an aside, who will be responsible for looking after the train-borne equipment? The running maintenance depots or the signalling fraternity? The on-board ETCS▸ kit is a bit more complex than the AWS▸ / TPWS▸ kit and essentially means that significant parts of the signalling kit is moved from the lineside to the train. This seems to me to be a significant change - is there sufficient experience from the Cambrian trial to assist this changeover to be made smoothly? If a single traction unit has an ETCS failure then there are procedures to allow it to proceed under caution driver and signaller using GSM(R) (railway cell phone system) to communicate. Even with a complete ETCS system failure drivers and signallers fall back to the time old method of talking trains through using GSM(R) and use wayside markers.
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #598 on: January 03, 2015, 18:56:10 » |
|
I don't wish to be a Luddite, but could it be that the increased complexity of the train-borne equipment will lead to lower train reliability?
I was going to answer and comment that we've seen that already, with services cancelled due to failures such as speedometer and windscreen wipers, which many steam engines never had, I don't think. We also had a cancellation due to the failure of cab heater the other week - I was going to add that to my list of 'new failure opportunities', but then realised that if the kettle went off the boil on a steam engine, it was more of problem than just keeping warm. edit to sort out quoting
|
|
« Last Edit: January 03, 2015, 19:19:57 by grahame »
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #599 on: January 03, 2015, 19:53:12 » |
|
I don't wish to be a Luddite, but could it be that the increased complexity of the train-borne equipment will lead to lower train reliability?
I was going to answer and comment that we've seen that already, with services cancelled due to failures such as speedometer and windscreen wipers, which many steam engines never had, I don't think. We also had a cancellation due to the failure of cab heater the other week - I was going to add that to my list of 'new failure opportunities', but then realised that if the kettle went off the boil on a steam engine, it was more of problem than just keeping warm. edit to sort out quotingAh with the way DfT» contract the provision of rolling stock now the train manufactures / maintainer have to present a train ready for service to the TOC▸ if its not presented fit they don't get paid ............. what can possibly go wrong with this arrangement
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
|