Monday’s Friday Reads – 24 February 2025

1. The “Battleship building” reminds me of BT’s Baynard House, just north of Blackfriars Pier. Same idea, a concrete ship. It’s just impossible to actually apricate it from any location.

   At least it’s by the Thames, I suppose.

2. The Penn station article reminds me of the previously shared Pedestrian Observations article about high project costs.

   The common theme is the inability of organisations to challenge and re-shape operating practices to improve efficiencies around the use of expensive infrastructure. I would observe this as a problem not just in transport, but in other industries with labour-intensive logistics and multi-organisation supply chains.

   The challenge is that the interfaces between different organisations/units and/or differently trained roles have been fixed within the logistics chain for a very long time, and such automation that exists is limited in scope to one job role or organisation in the chain, which becomes a silo. This ends up creating needless duplication and thus cost, because the different systems and practices adopted in each silo are incompatible. Automation can increase the scope of what can take place in each silo, but this generates complexity without additional value until the structures can be changed.

   And changing the structures has become next to impossible. Multiple rounds of outsourcing and offshoring initiatives, alongside complete supply chains fixed by government privatisation structures, mean that not only are multiple stakeholders intrinsically resistant to change, but no-one really understands how the myriad of organisational pieces fits together any more.

3. Paul,

   An excellent and simple explanation of a complex real world problem.

4. “There are no accidents”
   Almost true, but not quite.
   Every so often there is a truly unforseen occurrence which wikll kill or injure someon, no matter how deep the precautions, as the well-documented history of railway accidents & their subsequent investigations has shown.
   The classic, that I always remember is that just outside Hull Paragon station on 14th February 1927.
   Everything worked perfectly, but what had not been noticed was that, if all the singalling was worked really professionally & fast, there was, approximately a 1.2 second “gap” in the sequence of the point/signal interlocking & that – given the speed of point-operation, a movement taking about 0.7 seconds had to fit inside that slot.
   They found it & several people were killed.
   Most unusual, but that sort of problem is why people like RAIB are still around.

5. “High-Speed rail in France”
   Oh dear, & it couldn’t possibly work here & it’s a terrible waste of money – isn’t it?
   But spending vast sums on airports ( I’m looking at you, Heathrow ) is always worthwhile – isn’t it?
   Compare & contrast, as the exam questions say.

6. Manchester Exchange
   Well I remember it & the platform that changed number as it ran through to Victoria ……

7. Re the New York Penn Station article:

   Also, recovery time seems to be a bad idea for commuter/regional trains. Instead designate a station in NJ for trains from the NJ side, and similarly stations on the east/northeast of Penn Station for trains from that side, to be used for recover and preferably also for crew change. If a spare train is kept at each such station, the changeover crew can just drive the spare train in the time table slot for an on-time train, and when the late train arrives it can be taken out of service. These stations should be chosen so there are plenty of trains and other modes of transit (PATH subway from NJ, NYC subway for LIRR and so on) so even if there aren’t any suitable other train for passengers to continue on, they would still get to their destination. Note that this only applies for a single late train. If all trains are late on a line, just let the first train arriving use the first slot that is available for any of the late trains. I.E. say that the NJ and MTA trains from the non-NEC routes are late, while the NEC trains are on time, let the NEC trains run on schedule while the other trains just have to use whichever capacity is left.

   Re passengers exiting and entering the train: There is something really flawed with the US signalling system / FRA regulations if they can’t just keep the doors open during the dwell time. If the train doesn’t need to go to a yard (for for example emptying sewage, filling water, more throughout cleaning and whatnot) anyways, just let passengers enter the train.

   I’m a bit surprised that the article only suggest minor adjustments to the layout. I think it would be worth considering changing the layout so all or at least more trains are through running.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.