At London Reconnections we don’t want to appear to always be bringing bad or disappointing news but events over the past year meant that we rarely have good things to write about. It makes a welcome change, therefore, to update readers with the success of the implementation of the first stage of Automatic Train Operation (ATO) of the Sub-surface Railway (SSR) and to look forward beyond it.
A much needed upgrade
New lines are always more exciting than upgrades to existing lines. On the Underground, the primary objective of any upgrade is nearly always to provide a capacity increase. This is certainly one of the main objectives of the SSR upgrade which is formally referred to as Four Lines Modernisation (4LM) and encompasses the Metropolitan, District, Hammersmith & City and Circle lines (also known as the Sub-surface Railway or SSR).
A major part of the upgrade of the Sub-surface Railway is the replacement of rolling stock. This phase has already been completed. Much needed as the new rolling stock
The signalling factor
Another objective of the upgrade is to replace the old, unreliable signalling. But it makes no sense these days to replace signalling on a like-for-like basis. Whilst you are replacing the signalling you might as well improve it, where there are quantifiable benefits in doing so.
To get the full benefit of the substantial increase in capacity on the SSR you really need automatic train operation. Normally there is the additional cost of the extra trains required but as the fleet size of the SSR stock (S Stock) was calculated assuming ATO would be introduced, there is no need to buy additional rolling stock in order to increase capacity. The stock is already there sitting in the depots.
No one said it was easy
ATO on the SSR is not easy. Although it has been applied to other lines, these have a limited number of junctions. Providing efficient, capacity-increasing ATO on a complex network with a central ring and many flat junctions off it (some in close proximity to each other) is a challenge. One for which there is probably no precedent anywhere in the world.
The implementation has also been made harder (but more beneficial) by using radio waves for all train-track communication. This dispenses with the additional wiring laid between the rails – as featured on the Northern and Jubilee lines.
A much delayed upgrade
The history of ATO on the SSR has not been good, as long term readers will recall. The original tender for ATO was issued under the government-mandated Public-Private Partnership (PPP) scheme. On this, London Underground had no say. The collapse of PPP led to London Underground cancelling it whilst they reassessed the situation and decided what they wanted from such a scheme.
The second ATO contract went to Bombardier to install what was believed to be a mature reliable product. It soon became apparent, as is often the case, that the conditions on the London Underground were more demanding than in many other apparently similar situations in the world. It then became apparent that it was going to be a struggle for Bombardier to get its product to work in London.
Frustrated, the TfL board cancelled the contract, but not before around £100 million had been spent on it – money that it turned out was largely wasted as the next supplier had to start from the beginning again.
It does seem that a lot of the problems with the Bombardier contract were down to an unfortunate period in Bombardier’s ATO development. At the time, Bombardier
Once the second contract was cancelled it was immediately obvious that there was a major problem. For all the bold talk from TfL about getting value for money with a competitive bid, one of only two potential contenders with a proven capability to deliver, Siemens, just wasn’t interested. Siemens
The third contract
So Thales
Although we are led to understand there was considerable frustration in London Underground at the reluctance of Thales to commit to an earlier date, it is likely that it was unreasonable to expect otherwise. Thales had a huge work commitment in both Singapore and Hong Kong and it probably just wasn’t possible to promise earlier completion dates for London Underground. Whilst competition on cost might have been nice, at the same time the lack of pressure on Thales likely meant that the timetable they proposed ended up being far more realistic – and achievable – than is sometimes the case with contracts on this scale. A subject to which we will shortly return.
It is also probably worth noting that both Singapore and Hong Kong had train crashes caused by ATO – the one in Singapore was when the trains involved were in passenger service. This serves as a sober reminder, if one were necessary, that ATO systems really do need to be comprehensively tested before they are implemented.
A further potential problem was the aforementioned belief that the failure of the second contract was partly down to the suppliers at Bombardier (a Canadian company) being out of touch with what was required in London. Although Thales is a French company, its train automation division was based in Toronto in … Canada. No doubt Thales realised that a lot of effort would have to be put in to ensure that the previously perceived problem didn’t bedevil the revised offering.
The New York factor
When you have only one supplier capable of doing the job, you are usually not in a good position. In this particular case, however, it seems to have worked out well for London Underground. In fact Thales really wanted the contract and was anxious to co-operate fully and do a good job. That is not to say they didn’t make sure this was a profitable contract for them but in reality, they could have demanded a lot more. To understand why they didn’t you have to look across the pond to New York.
New York currently only has two
Furthermore, for historical reasons dating back to the start of the 20th century when the Underground really developed, its power supply setup is almost identical to that of the New York Subway. So basically, if it works in London it will probably work in New York.
The New York Subway has many problems but the principal one is lack of capacity. In terms of asset status, the system is roughly equivalent to London Underground in the 1980s. As it was described in the pub at LR Drinks, imagine what could be achieved if you apply modern day ATO to a network akin to London Underground in the 1980s.
Another potentially attractive factor for Thales is New York is less than 600km away from Thales Rail Signalling Solutions at Toronto – practically on their doorstep by world standards.
Effectively, ATO on SSR in London is the shop window display to entice New York to provide a lot of work for Thales. In this particular instance, even more so than normal, the Underground and the Subway are truly sister systems. Something the current political leadership in New York would do well to note.
The stakes for Thales were already high but with the planned congestion charge to be introduced in New York “by 2021” the stakes have got higher still. One of the reasons for introducing the charge is to provide around $1 billion annually – most of it to be spent on the New York subway. For the first time ever, a realistic means of paying for ATO on the New York subway has been identified and looks like being implemented.
Thales – but really a triumvirate
Whilst Thales is the headline name, the task of implementing ATO on the SSR is really mainly down to three companies.
Most obviously, Thales itself. They have to provide and install the equipment on the track and in the central control office.
Less obvious, but also important, is Bombardier who originally supplied the trains (and lost that second contract). They have to modify the trains to work with the supplied Thales equipment. This is not a small task. It is not helped by the fact that one is limited by how many trains one can work on at one time – either due to factory capacity limitations or due to a certain number of trains being required to maintain the existing service level.
Also easily forgotten in the ATO upgrade is London Underground itself. Before Thales can install equipment on the Underground, London Underground has to make the space available and, sometimes, provide the buildings in which the equipment will be housed. They also have to re-write operating procedures, retrain staff such as drivers and controllers and also recruit and train the extra drivers needed to run a more intense service.
In addition to this, it is important to note that other organisations are also involved. These include the operators of the railway test track in Melton Mowbray, the railway regulator and even Crossrail, who must ensure the SSR upgrade does not affect Crossrail and vice versa.
The two challenges to Thales
For Thales the contract really boils down to two major tasks. One task is to physically install the equipment across the network. The other task is to get it working. Clearly the two are related. Equipment can’t work if it hasn’t been installed. But also, you don’t want to install equipment until you are confident it works – or at least the hardware works.
For Thales, or any signal automation supplier, there is clearly a balancing act to be found. The obvious thing to do is to install equipment on one part of the line and get it working, before continuing to the next stage. Unfortunately, if this was rigidly done, rollout would be very slow indeed. So there has to a vanguard phase on an implementation programme and a follow-up phase that subsequently implements ATO in separate sections of the SSR network.
Thales gets the 2018 curse
Along with many other railway projects in London, things didn’t quite go right for Thales in 2018. The first section of ATO was due to go live in May but was put back to June. This had to be called off at an early stage as trains were taking longer to travel through the migration area than expected. This was a considerable issue as, on leaving the migration area which was closed to passengers, the trains went into public service along the next section of track. With the weekend train service collapsing on the SSR, the planned introduction was aborted early on.
From then on, dates got planned and inevitably these planned dates leaked out to become known in railway circles. Then reports would come in that the planned implementation had been put back again. Various reasons were suggested for this. One of the plausible ones was that there was little point in rushing and, with not all the trains converted, there was a risk of disruption if a non-converted train was pathed over the ATO section of track. Another one was that weekend testing on future phases was still continuing and feedback from them could be used to increase the probability of a second attempt at introduction being successful.
Two decisions were made. An obvious one was that more testing was required before the first section could be cut over to ATO mode. The other big decision was that the pace of equipment installation would continue as planned, but that implementation section by section would be held back until all were satisfied the system was fully working.
Delaying actual implementation did have the advantage that it helped resolve the issue where one had to be careful only to send ATO-equipped trains into an ATO area. This would become even more critical early on as stage 2 (of a total of 14 stages for the complete SSR) required every single S8 (Metropolitan line) train to be ATO-fitted.
In fact, continuing to install the equipment had other potential advantages. A testing programme on the newly installed areas meant drivers still operated under ATO (but not in passenger service) which would help avoid having to retrain them through lack of continuing experience. It also meant that testing could continue ensuring that the future ATO areas could handle the capacity necessary for future plans.
The crucial test
So it was then that the date was fixed for implementation of the first section. Because it belatedly decided to phase-in the smallest length of line practical for the first phase, the originally-planned first phase got split in two, with the first section to go live given the title ‘Signal Migration Area 0.5’. This took place on the weekend of 16th/17th March 2019. Our report of this is online, but there are other reports available on the internet. All seem to agree it went well, but not perfectly, with a few little minor niggles to be fixed over the coming months.
There was probably a massive sigh of relief when everything worked. To be clear, it was expected to work and earlier, comprehensive testing had gone well a couple of weekends previously. N
Benefits sooner than originally planned
The plan was always to introduce a new, more frequent timetable once the entire route of both the Circle and Hammersmith & City lines was complete. This was planned for April 2021. This improvement has now been brought forward and it is now intended to introduce a new timetable prior to full completion of the Hammersmith & City line, but after the Circle line is complete. The date given by the latest Programmes & Investment committee documents is March 2020. The Hammersmith & City line will by then be largely complete, but trains between Stepney Green and Barking will still be operated manually.
Never trust …
We feel a need to issue a caveat here. Roger Ford of Modern Railways has famously said that you should never trust a date based on the seasons. At London Reconnections we should say never trust a date quoted in Programmes & Investment committee documentation unless independently verified. Dates are often hopelessly optimistic and we are led to understand that March 2020 is an aspiration not a committed date. The desire is to implement this new timetable as soon as possible with 2021 still the ‘official’ target and the date quoted in the most recent press release.
Why change the plan?
The obvious question to ask is: why the change? Of course, this would appear from a passenger perspective to be a good thing, but maybe it is not. The obvious reason to bring ATO forward is to increase capacity on the SSR to make up for the fact that Crossrail is not yet open. Crossrail was, of course, intended to relieve the lines as they are today. It is hard to imagine any other explanation. So, perhaps, in a
There is another potential benefit in opening early. All the stages that need to be covered have only limited exposure to the risk of 25kV interference from other nearby lines. For the next stage (Stepney Green – Barking) this is no longer true. So it makes a lot of sense to implement improvements prior to attempting to cut-over the first section of the SSR that runs parallel to a 25kV railway for a significant distance. That means that early benefits are no longer dependent on getting ATO working in an area with long stretches of 25kV overhead cables nearby.
The need to plan for more drivers now
Unfortunately, we were not privy to the proposed timetable. We presume it must be known, or at least the intended frequencies it contains are, as this will determine the number of drivers required. With the implementation due in less than a year, if it were of a substantial nature, London Underground
What could the March 2020 benefits have been?
As initially we did not know the exact details we speculated based on information provided in a TfL press release. We made two main assumptions. One is that the off-peak will be much as it is today. This seems to be sufficient to handle the current demand so why make things difficult?
The other main assumption, entirely wrong as it turns out, concerned peak frequency. We presumed a substantial uplift. The current service is roughly based on the 6tph Hammersmith & City and Circle line frequency. This could go up to 7tph but this is always messy. It would have been far more likely that it would go up to 7.5tph. This would then have meant that in sections where the original Circle line shares the line with other services, one could have expected 30tph in total. These sections are the Gloucester Road – Tower Hill section of the District line and the Baker Street – Liverpool St section of the Metropolitan line. This is only slightly short of the intended ultimate frequency of 32tph.
One unknown was how many trains could run between Aldgate East and Barking. We don’t know quite what the old (current) signalling can handle. Nor do we know if the power supply is sufficiently upgraded for 30tph. Under the scenario we speculated on, there may well have been some peak-hour District line trains that terminated at Tower Hill.
We then assumed 15tph on the District line beyond Barking to Upminster. In reality this is unlikely and it is probable that, as now, some would have terminated at Dagenham East to leave approximately 12tph going all the way to Upminster.
We also do not know how many trains would run north of Baker Street but we assumed that, in terms of frequencies, the Metropolitan line is basically unchanged although the press release did suggest there would be frequency improvements on all four lines.
It is was also assumed that there is not a problem implementing a slightly more frequent service between Gunnersbury and Richmond where the District line shares track with London Overground. As both services terminate at Richmond, it was presumed that any minor adjustments necessary could be easily made and achieved by varying the arrival and departure times at Richmond. It is our understanding that the National Rail timetable was adjusted between Richmond and Gunnersbury as long ago as May 2018 to take into account the need for flexibility and to
These assumptions lead to this expected level of service from March 2020.
Benefits
Had our assumptions been correct, in simple terms and in brief the benefits would have been
- Approximately 10% increase in capacity between Gloucester Road and Tower Hill and between Baker Street and Liverpool St as a result of a more frequent service
- Trains every four minutes instead of every five minutes on the Hammersmith branch, between High Street Kensington and Edgware Road and between Edgware Road and Baker Street
- A slight peak improvement from Ealing Broadway with 7.5tph (up from 6tph)
A possible slight disadvantage was that marginly more Wimbledon trains would go to Edgware Road instead of via Victoria in order to provide an even service to both routes.
The Unfortunate Reality
It turns out that, not for the first time, there is more hype than substance and the improvements planned are somewhat underwhelming. This disappointment is particularly so as TfL were quick to provide significant improvements to the Jubilee and Northern lines once signalling upgrade work had been completed.
It seems that the only improvements planned in terms of capacity are ‘Additional peak City trains’. It is not even clear if these are extended trains continuing from Baker Street to Aldgate or entirely new services. Given that the rest of the Metropolitan line has not yet been resignalled we strongly suspect the former. With the delay to Crossrail until at least September 2020, the much-needed increased provision of services between Farringdon and Moorgate is welcome but little more than a drop in the ocean.
Critical Future Dates
As far as can be ascertained, the critical dates are as follows
Stage 2: Latimer Road, Paddington (District and Circle) and Finchley Road to Euston Square.
This is a larger area than originally intended. There now seems little point in opening Latimer Road – Paddington separately,
Note that this stage takes in the first of many critical junctions. In this
The lookahead dates of planned closures on the Underground suggest that July 20th-21st is the most likely date but the sections of line closures don’t quite correspond with what would be expected
Stage 3: Euston Square – Stepney Green and Monument
This becomes a more challenging migration with the complex Aldgate triange being converted. This involves three flat junctions in close proximity to each other. It also involves platform 2 at Tower Hill becoming a through platform although normally, for operational purposes, it will be used in the same manner as today with trains arriving from the west and departing westwards.
This is rumoured to go live in early September which makes a lot of sense. It is not too soon after stage 2 and is before the Underground gets busier again as school term time returns and family no longer go on holiday.
Stage 4: Monument – Sloane Square
This is a relatively simple section of plain track with just a trailing crossover at Embankment to complicate things very slightly. It probably only exists as a separate stage because the two migration areas either side are already very large. It obviously has to take place after stage 3. Because TfL do not allow planned engineering work to close the Underground in December prior to Christmas we can be fairly certain this will be some time in late October or November.
Stage 5: Sloane Square, Fulham Broadway and Barons Court to Paddington (District and Circle).
This is another large area and challenging migration area with another triangle of flat junctions. It also includes the single line branch to Kensington Olympia. With the completion of this the Circle line will be entirely ATO signalled. This does not mean Circle line trains will only operate in ATO mode because they will still need to travel to depots located beyond the Circle line.
A statement in the latest Programmes and Investment Committee minutes states that:
We are targeting commissioning of the whole Circle line by the end of 2019 to support an early timetable uplift in March 2020.
Given the ban on engineering work prior to Christmas and the ‘end of 2019’ deadline it seems inevitable that this will be implemented between Christmas and the New Year. In fact one can go further as on New Year’s Eve there is always a shortage of train operators (drivers) during the day, as the day is relatively quiet and drivers are needed for the New Year’s Eve all-night service. So, all being well, this must take place between 26th and 30th December.
Hope for the future?
If all now goes to plan it looks like after a difficult gestation the Four Lines Modernisation is going to deliver its first actual improvement in frequency in little under a year from now. Let’s hope that this new timetable is delivered without the hiccups that seem to have plagued rail transport in 2018.
Thanks to ngh for background information on the signalling suppliers.
One task is to physically install the equipment across the network. The other task is to get it working. Clearly the two are related. Equipment can’t work if it hasn’t been installed. But also, you don’t want to install equipment until you are confident it works – or at least the hardware works.
Yes, well, Crossrail ….
I’m suprised that stage 3 ( Aldgate traingle ) even given the explanations in the article, is seen as more difficult than S2 with both the Edgware Rd reversals & the many different crossings-&-terminatings operating at Baker Street – have I missed something?
Pretty sure the NYC Subway 7 and L trains (neither of which share tracks with other services) are fully ATO.
Is Stage 1 really including the district/circle sections of Paddington and Edgware Rd? Seems odd, though I don’t know the track diagrams for that section.
Stage 2 does not just include Baker Street Junction but also Praed Street Junction (where the H&C joins the District east of Paddington). The diagram appears to show Paddington (District) as included in SMA2, not SMA5 as the text has it. It would be difficult to have one arm of this flat junction under ATP and the other under conventional signalling!
There are surely greater risks of including two complex junctions in Stage 2, but it looks like that was always the plan: SMA1 on the diagram looks like it ends at the Paddington H&C station, before the junction.
Excalabur: despite what the diagram indicates, there is actually only one pair of tracks from Paddington to Edgware Road. Praed Street Junction is where the tracks from Hammersmith (via Paddington H&C) join with those from Earl’s Court (via Paddington District), shortly before diverging for Edgware Road’s four platforms.
“Whilst you are replacing the signalling you might as improve it, where there are quantifiable benefits in doing so.” – perhaps a “well” missing here?
{Done. Thanks. PoP]
@Occasional traveller
“The diagram appears to show Paddington (District) as included in SMA2, not SMA5 as the text has it”
The text and diagram seem to show the limit of SMA2 as being Paddington (Praed Street aka D&C), so from the implementation of SMA2, until SMA5 is implemented, the interface between old and new systems will be at Paddington.
With regard to proximity with 25kv overhead line equipment on the east end of the District, is the City Widened Lines section between Kings Cross and Farringdon not envisaged to be an issue with regard to this? The section between Kings Cross and Moorgate was fitted with a different system to the conventional tunnel telephone wires used on the rest of LU, these were known as Hi-Low telephones and were used in place of the traditional tunnel telephone wire system specifically because of the proximity of the OLE on the Thameslink lines.
Doesn’t SMA1 run next to 25kv between Westbound Park and Paddington?
Greg Tingey,
I think the difference is that at Baker St and Edgware Road the timing seems to be less critical. I think this is because there is a deliberately extended dwell time added at Edgware Road and Baker St for through Circle and Hammersmith & City trains. The service between these stations is only 12tph currently.
In contrast, some of the junctions at the Aldgate triangle are very unforgiving with in excess of 24tph through the stations on the approach and very limited opportunity for trains to wait on each side of the triangle. The movements of all trains using the triangle need to be carefully co-ordinated in a way that is not necessary at Baker St/Edgware Road.
Not only the section identified by E&C, but Paddington-Westbourne Park is partly alongside (and partly under) an existing 25kV railway. Original SMA1 would have contained this section independent of the complicated section eastwards from Praed St junction.
To me it seems like the total number of trains on the common leg of the Praed Street Junction, the points at Edgware Road and Baker Street Junction are the same as the total number of trains on the common leg of Aldgate Junction, Aldgate East Junction and Minories Junction, except that on Aldgate East Junction and on Minories Junction the two legs have 22½ and 7½ tph each where the other mentioned junctions have 15 tph on each leg.
Would that really make SMA3 that more complicated than SMA2?
I get that the proximity of the junctions in the Aldgate area makes any hiccup more likely to be a larger problem than any equal hiccup at Baker Street or Praed Street Junctions (or the switches at Edgware Road), but still..
Roy,
I should have checked. Now reworded to take this into account.
E&C, timbeau,
My bad wording on 25kV. You are correct of course. But I did read in one of the technical journals that 25kV interference is a concern for SMAs 6 and 7. Presumably the limited exposure at locations you mention can be handled more easily than continuous exposure over a long distance. I have modified the wording.
@ Pedantic of Purley
“Stage 4 Monument-Sloane Square”
I remember Charing Cross subsurface station was renamed Embankment in 1976.
Timetable uplift March 2020 is only likely to see little benefit;
28tph north side of Circle in peak hour
27tph AM peak shoulders
Peak stepping back at Edgware Road (assumes District and Circle)
SMA 1-3 runtime savings.
” So there has to a vanguard phase on an implementation programme” to ‘be’ or not?
and “ensure the SSR upgrade does not affect Crossrail ” was not spelt out (to me). Is there potential radio interference between signalling systems or High Voltage interference. If OLE at Royal Oak would there not be more from running alongside and traversing under GWR, or is it that Xrail wires descend to track level at the portal?
Previous articles about Piccadilly line modernisation have mentioned a “PiccaDist” change where the Piccadilly line would take over the Ealing branch of the District line and these trains would be redeployed.
Are there more challenges supporting this on the SSR or will the upgraded signalling be able to handle further increases in service frequency?
I remember reading in some TFL literature that the new trains had faster acceleration than the old, that would result in faster journeys, but only when the entire fleet was replaced.
Has that already happened, or would that also require the new signalling – and hence this be another benefit?
Sorry if I’ve missed this (or perhaps even asked about it and forgot the answer), but:
What are the plans for track/line sharing between SSR stock and the Piccadilly trains and also the Chiltern DMUs?
Will the shared parts be fitted with track equipment for both the new system SSR system and whichever system the “other” trains have installed, or will Piccadilly and/or Chiltern trains be fitted with equipment for the new SSR system?
@Miam
Interworking arrangements are described in this article from 2015
https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2015/10/15/london-underground-sub-surface-re-signalling/
Kent Commuter…..S stock has considerably better acceleration and braking performance compared with the trains it replaced. For operation on the existing signalling, acceleration rates were set to correspond more or less to the performance of the old trains.. In principle, A stock north of Finchley Road and C stock elsewhere. This was dictated by signal layouts and, in the early days, power supply, although the latter is now largely fixed.
The CBTC system allows the full performance to be delivered, and also allows performance on the various sections to be adjusted remotely. This means that acceleration and braking rates can be turned down in poor conditions, such as autumn leaf fall where adhesion is compromised so as to avoid wheelspin and wheelslide, both of which can upset the trains geometry and cause emergency brake applications.
S stock, for the first time on LU, is fitted with automatic sanders that help improve adhesion is slide or spin is detected. That said, its effectiveness under ATO is yet to be proved as far as I am aware.
“There is another potential benefit in opening early. All the stages that need to be covered have only limited exposure to the risk of 25kV interference from other nearby lines. For the next stage (Stepney Green – Barking) this is no longer true. So it makes a lot of sense to implement improvements prior to attempting to cut-over the first section of the SSR that runs parallel to a 25kV railway for a significant distance. That means that early benefits are no longer dependent on getting ATO working in an area with long stretches of 25kV overhead cables nearby.”
What’s the likelyhood that they get the improved throughput on the central core and then neglect to finish the East London branch due to this? How high can X be?
The lack of significant improvement in the H&C line (which is often absurdly in-frequent right now) is annoying.
Finally, does anyone know if this will improve the displays at stations in terms of next expected train – often there’s no trains on the board at all – even though there’s often one in only a couple of minutes.
It seems that the real reason for the delay from 2018 to 2019 has been kept very secret.
You have no reason to believe me, but I’m a worker on the line with the signalling system and I’ve got the docs: in July last year a set of points cane unlocked in front of a train in Hammersmith Depot.
This happened using the software that had been due to go live in June. It was therefore extremely lucky that the service had gone so badly in June, otherwise it would’ve been running live with points that could’ve come unlocked.
This has happened 3 times now. Once only in the simulator (at Edgware Road) and twice at Hammersmith (once in the platform).
Even though Thales had lots of extra time, they were not operating using their testing and auditing procedures; the problems with points moving were a result of the design of the system.
It took a long time to sort out, and while doing so LU made Thales implement much more robust systems; they also allowed some other features to be dropped or bugs to remain unfixed because of time constraints. These will be worked around using “operating restrictions”.
There were other bugs discovered late in the process as well: if the Vehicle Control Computer rebooted it would lose details of all temporary speed restrictions, which could be disastrous if trains were due to run at 10kph over broken rails awaiting fixing.
Dstock7080,
Thanks for that, disappointing to read though it is. It then depends on whether this is just a case of sneaking in some extra trains in the high peak just to make things a little bit better (in which case hardly something to make a song and dance of) or running a 7tph service in the peak.
If I get a chance I will try and update and provide an alternative frequency diagram for the scenario where they manage 7tph .
LU staff member
Well that at least would be a rational explanation of why there was such a delay, otherwise unexplained. In a funny sort of way that is encouraging because it suggests that these problems have been fixed so there is nothing preventing them continuing apace with further progress.
And so much for the much-talked-about the new spirit of openness, Clearly this only applies to Crossrail and is not a culture change applying to all of TfL.
It is worth pointing out that not all OHLE systems (or rolling stock) are identical for interference issues especially earthing arrangements.
In the SSR case there are OHLE systems/installation that matter:
1. the Royal Oak- Paddington section is comparatively new and has also been /is being upgraded (all equipment post EMC directive).
2. The parallel running section to the east used was electrified to 6.25kV Bow to Barking and 25kV Barking Upminister in 1961 and the Bow – Barking upgraded to 25kV in 1984.
3. Barking Platform 1 as part of Goblin in 2018
The interference issues are all to do with the very small 3rd area covering part of Barking station (a combined symptom of OHLE design, Station building design, track layout (especially the points at the west end of P1/1a connecting the “Goblin” track to the eastbound SSR track), legacy signalling and cabling issues, earthing and new Rolling Stock (710s have a higher IGBT switching frequency than earlier stock), hence SMA1 and 6 are very different as regards OHLE issues.
NGH….curious to know, Does the class 710 have a higher IGBT switching frequency than S stock?
@NGH
There is also the parallel running section between Kings Cross and Farringdon, electrified at 25kV back in the early eighties. The Ealing Broadway area was electrified at 25kV at the same time as the Paddington area, about twenty years ago.
I assume that the locations where the Met passes over 25kV lines (South Hampstead, near West Hampstead, near Northwick Park), all electrified at 25kV in the mid sixties, are short enough not to be a problem?
@Timbeau at 1622
The Chiltern tracks visibly pass *over* the WCML at South Hampstead, but are you sure this is true of the Met tracks as well ? They are in tunnel to the east of the Chiltern tracks and cross the WCML just south of the disused Swiss Cottage Met station. I’ve wondered for years which line is deeper at this point.
@Jim R: Good question, but the WCML is in actual tunnel (like, tunnel tunnel) at that point, whereas the Met is, I assume, still cut and cover as usual. So it would surprise me if the Met is below the WCML.
@Muzer: that’s what I used to think, but Carto Metro, for example, shows the Met going under the WCML. And the WCML has only just entered its tunnel – immediately east of passing under the Chiltern line – so can’t be all that far under the street level, albeit that (from memory, which may be faulty) the ground rises fairly steeply around there. I assume the Jubilee is the deepest of the lot.
Met / WCML
I used to use this part of the Met many years ago so my memory may be wrong. I seem to remember an underground bridge where the Met sliced through the top of one(?) of the WCML tunnels.
Or perhaps I’m thinking of somewhere else.
Re 130,
Certainly higher than Electrostars or the 345s
Re Timbeau,
As regards the early phases – The Farringdon stretch was well and truly sorted as part of the Thameslink Programme recently
I think it is a false assumption to work on that the Met won’t have extra slots into the City.
The article states that the Circle keeps 6tph in the peak, it does not, this is increased on the existing timetable by the provision of extra trains in the peak, providing a Circle train every 8 minutes. Careful examination of the Circle Line timetable will show you there are inter-peak stablers on weekdays, and these are not all on the Hammersmith & City Line route.
asl,
You mention this point in an earlier article and I replied here.
In summary, you might have more trains in the peak but that does not necessarily amount to a more frequent service.
Specifically regarding the Circle line, a look at the working timetable shows Circle line departures from Hammersmith at a fairly consistent every 10 minutes give or take half a minute. The one exception I can find is at the following times 0739½, 0747 and 0756½. The working timetable in its summary even gives the Circle line frequency as a consistent 10 minutes throughout the day.
Various comments on District Dave’s forum suggest that this much vaunted timetable upgrade actually consists of little more than extra Metropolitan trains to Aldgate in the peak. If so, this is very disappointing and one wonders why such a big deal is made of this timetable. Also, if the idea was to increase the Metropolitan service to Aldgate it is hard to see why they are waiting for SMA5 to be completed as one would have thought this could be implemented after the introduction of SMA3.
@PEDANTIC OF PURLEY
is the “big deal” that they will need to the “step-back” system (like Brixton, etc) at Aldgate station to get the Met trains heading back north quickly?
Getting the Met trains to cross the eastbound H&C at the Baker Street junction is getting the SSR lines system to work: any problem here jams up the Praed Street junction.
The sequence of trains doing the Great Portland Street to Liverpool Street is utterly critical to getting all the rest of the SSR to work. The moment is gets wrong during peak just adds minutes to the dwell time at these stations for H&C/Circle line trains, amplifying the smallest problem.
Due to the (necessary) historic nature of the Liverpool Street and Baker Street H&C platforms, passengers flows are inefficient, by today’s standards.
Brian Butterworth,
They already step back at Aldgate.
Maybe I read too much into things but the quote in the article We are targeting commissioning of the whole Circle line by the end of 2019 to support an early timetable uplift in March 2020 suggests it is the Circle line that will have a timetable uplift rather than the Metropolitan line why is why I am a bit surprised by the suggestion on District Dave’s forum. At the same time, they tend to be ‘insiders’ so I am not dismissing it.
Given that SMA0. 5 was delayed there’s probably some risk to the successful completion of SMA5 this year. In this circumstance its probably wise to go for something less ambitious and deliver than potentially not deliver anything.
Further to my comment above (23 April 2019 at 22:08):
22 March 2020;
MET WTT 342 “Additional peak City trains. Faster run times Finchley Road-Aldgate”
Circle/H&C WTT36 “Faster run times Hammersmith-Whitechapel/Tower Hill”
District WTT151 “Modified service in consequence of C&H and PICC re-casts”
PICC WTT59 “Re-cast service due to run and dwell time review”.
Charing Cross reference above still uncorrected.
@DStock7080
Does that mean the Metropolitan Line will become faster than the Jubilee Line between Baker Street and Finchley Road? (At the moment I believe the Jubilee is slightly faster, despite having more stops).
Dstock7080,
Thank you very much for the updated information which I am sure is correct.
It totally contradicts the headline in a recent TfL press release which states
I also have an email from TfL press office confirming that this is the same upgrade referred to in the Programmes & Investment Committee agenda document which they hope to actually introduce in March 2020.
If I get time over the weekend, I will do substantial update/rewrite of the article to more truly reflect the actual planned proposal and not the one that TfL headlines.
I have also corrected the erroneous Charing Cross/Embankment reference.
I have finally got around to rewriting part of the article to reflect what we now know. This was the part that speculatively related to service provision of the new time table. Most of the changes relate to change to the conditional tense of what might have been.
I have also added two paragraphs under the new header ‘The Unfortunate Reality’.
I hope to get around to further updates relating this change to what went on before.
PoP
Thanks
Minor typo under “Benefits” … Had our assumptions are correct “been” perhaps? And “would be”, also? [Fixed. Thanks. PoP]
As you say, the whole thing seems ( at this stage anyway ) seriously underwhelming – all that time & money & effort. It is to be seriously hoped that, when full conversion is achieved, we actually do get an improved service.
It isn’t only about frequency! One of the key benefits of all the upgrades to date, including the SSR upgrade will be to take advantage of the improvement to run times that ATO allows. This is a very big factor in making the case for the investment and represents a significant component of the planned end state.
In addition to allowing faster acceleration and removing defensive braking, ATO enables the speed limit to be more finely tuned to the actual alignment and more varied on any given section that a Train Operator would be expected to follow.
Introducing these new run times across much of the central area will form part of this timetable and the improvements will be significant enough for passengers will notice the improvement. Faster run times in this timetable and later stages will also allow round trip time to come down and will contribute to the higher frequencies planned for later timetables in addition to the final higher utilisation level of the trains.
Plans were originally for the March 2020 timetable to take advantage of the new signalling on both sides of the Circle line. The final area of Circle line resignalling from Sloane Square to Paddington also includes the lines through Earls Court to Barons Court, Fulham Broadway, Olympia and Lillie Bridge sidings, maybe the most complex track layout of any migration area. This was planned for Christmas break, leaving plenty of time for any adjustments required before the new timetable was due. With programme slippage, this area may now have to wait until Easter 2020, next April. All that can be planned with some certainty for March 2020 is therefore a boost to services on the north side of the Circle line. This consists of 28tph with projection of some Metropolitan trains through from Baker Street to Aldgate, adding only 25,000km to annual scheduled mileage with no extra trains, and was only decided at the LUX meeting on 5 Feb 2019. Announcements prior to this meeting were based upon earlier more optimistic plans. The improvements on both sides of the Circle line to 30tph is now delayed to the December 2020 timetables.
Any comments on the “computer’s always right, except when it’s not” situation I encountered (mentioned in the comments section of 1st April post) with the apparently privileged knowledge that the amber “doors open” lights above the carriage doors switch to white ones just above them seconds before the doors shut?
Except when they don’t switch at all?
@JP
the ODIL Outside Door Indicator Light will show steady orange when the driver releases the doors, not necessarily open. The doors auto-close after 45seconds of being open, unless the driver overrides this setting at that station.
The steady white ‘ready to depart’ light will illuminate on every car 12seconds before the optimum time of departure. When the driver operates the doors-closed button, the white lights will immediately be extinguished irrespective of how long until departure, so that only the orange lights remain illuminated and can be viewed clearly.
Is there any way of telling at non-ATO stations (where the white lights are not used) whether the doors are closing because the train is about to go, or just to keep the heat in?
Timbeau. I recall that the door open buttons remain illuminated if they are auto-closing , but extinguished if the driver is closing the doors for departure.
Thank you. Every morning I see people jamming closing doors because they think the train is about to leave without them.
I read all the comments about challenges of the project and just wonder how they were solved long ago.
It’s apparently a huge issue running ATO next to 25Kv, yet the DLR has done this straightforwardly from Tower Hill to Limehouse for the last 30 years.
Likewise the DLR has managed the triangle complex around Poplar and Canary Wharf for the same length of time, with comparable frequencies.
Meanwhile, at the various complex triangle and other junctions around The Circle manual signalling has managed them for the last 100 years since electrification. The south side of the Circle had more frequent peak services 50 years ago than today. Is 21st century super technology really unable to beat what old school signalmen and drivers can achieve.
Mr Beckton:
The comparison with the DLR junctions around Poplar fails to take into account several factors.
1. DLR trains are shorter (max 84m) than SSL trains (117m/134m) so will clear junctions faster.
2. At peak times the junctions around Poplar are entirely grade separated, which significantly reduces the number of conflicts.
3. At off-peak times the east side of the triangle is grade separated, the City side only has 24tph, and the Canary Wharf has only 18tph, with multiple parallel tracks available. There’s probably also the option to skip West India Quay to avoid conflicts if the service is disrupted.
As for the comparison to 50 years ago – I don’t know any figures for those times, but there’s a mention in one of the ‘Uncircling the Circle’ articles of a 40tph rush-hour timetable in 1928 between Mansion House and South Kensington. Probably the main reason that this isn’t possible nowadays is that dwell times have increased – I expect this would be due to both an increase in passengers entering/leaving the train, and a change to automatic doors which cannot be opened until the train is stationary (or maybe fractionally before) and have to be closed more gently to avoid injuries. I think the trains are also (on average) longer than they used to be.
SMA 1/2 slight slippage back to weekend 10-11 August 2019.
SMA 3 still September
SMA 4 still November
SMA 5 now ‘mid-January 2020’
The latest information is that there will be no SSR closures in the central area over the Christmas / New Year period. The intended switch-on for SMA sections 4 and 5, which is required in order for the new working timetables to operate is now in 2020. This may, of course, change!
Operational Proving weekend 20-21 July for SMA 1+2, trains will run empty inside planned closure:
Metropolitan: Finchley Road-King’s Cross
H&C: Hammersmith-King’s Cross
District: Olympia-Edgware Road
For simplicity, migration areas end at plain-line stations with automatic signalling. The size of area involved in each SMA is restricted by the time required for staff to bag old signals and peg old train-stops. There may also be a requirement to unbag new signals and test new train-stops in inter-operable areas, and to instal new equipment that cannot be done earlier due to signal sighting problems, etc. At times it is also necessary to modify external control systems such as at the Jubilee, Metropolitan and Piccadilly line control centres.
All of this must also be reversed and tested at the end of each trial period until a “no reversion” decision is taken, when the legacy signalling can be decommissioned.
@GREG TINGEY:
I’m suprised that stage 3 ( Aldgate traingle ) even given the explanations in the article, is seen as more difficult than S2 with both the Edgware Rd reversals & the many different crossings-&-terminatings operating at Baker Street – have I missed something?
Yes, you have missed something, but it’s because it was not in the article.
The Aldgate Triangle contains something called an “alpha-gamma” point. Technically, that means a point where a train changes direction without stopping. That sounds impossible, but this happens if a train uses a turning loop (think Kennington loop on the Northern Line) or when passing through one leg of a wye (as is the case at Aldgate triangle).
If you think of the H&C Line as passes from Liverpool Street west of the triangle to Aldgate East to the east. The District Line passes Tower Hill to the west to Aldgate East to the east. Now consider what happens to a Circle Line train coming from Liverpool Street (to the west of the triangle) and goes on to Tower Hill (also to the west of the triangle) without ever changing physical direction. There is some point defined on the Aldgate-to-Tower Hill leg of the triangle where an eastbound train becomes a westbound train and vice versa.
This is not a huge complication, as it has been done before, but it will be the first time this feature will go live for the 4LM project.
By the way, in the CBTC system, instead of designating directions as east/west, north/south, up/down, or some other geographical notation, the terms “GD0” and “GD1” are used (Guideway Direction zero and one).
@MIAM
What are the plans for track/line sharing between SSR stock and the Piccadilly trains and also the Chiltern DMUs?
This area is one of a couple of inter-operable areas on the 4LM project. In this case, it is called an “Underlay” area. The 4LM signalling equipment will be responsible for all signalling, and will operate ATO trains as usual, but since the Chiltern trains are “alien” to the system, they will be tracked using fixed block methods, using axle counters instead of track circuits. As such, a non-ATO train will be protected in the fixed block it is in, plus an additional fixed block behind it. The signalling system will display coloured light signals to inform the Chiltern driver when to proceed or not, and SPAD protection will be maintained by trainstops for the Chiltern trains.
When an ATO train follows a Chiltern train, its movement authority will only extend to the entrance of the block that is behind the Chiltern train and will only advance once the Chiltern train has completely departed the block that it was in.
The fixed blocks do not matter when an ATO train is following another ATO train, as the CBTC system will maintain the necessary safety distance between the trains. Thus, more than one ATO train may occupy a fixed block defined by axle counters. However, since the entrance to fixed blocks are protected by a coloured light signal and trainstop, when the CBTC system extends the movement authority of an ATO train beyond a signal that would otherwise be displaying red due to fixed block occupancy, the system will change the signal to display a blue ATO indication and lower the trainstop (note: the S-stock trains will have tripcocks disabled once the entire system is under CBTC control).
There are a few other inter-operable areas. Where track and signalling falls under the responsibility of Network Rail, the CBTC system will be an overlay. This means that ATO trains will be operated using fixed block operation, and the movement authorities granted to trains will not extend past a red signal. The CBTC system has to have inputs from Network Rail’s signalling system to know the indications of the fixed block systems.
The other inter-operable area is around Neasden Depot, where Jubilee Line TBTC trains must share track with CBTC trains. The TBTC and CBTC systems must communicate with each other to coordinate train movements.
@ CBTC Trainer
Thanks for this description, very interesting. Does this mean that line capacity is reduced if an ‘alien’ (non-CBTC Chiltern) train is running because each train takes up 2 blocks (1 block in which it is in and the block behind it)? I assume however that given the current/planned timetable frequencies in the Underlay area, that capacity is not actually reduced, just theoretically if there was to ever be an increase in service frequency (e.g. once the initial phases of East-West Rail have bedded in) then the signalling may become a limiting factor?
Snowy.
I suspect that, by then whatever is running Chiltern services will be equipped with whatever software & detectors/transmitters are needed for the appropriate signal systems & the tripcocks will be disposed of.
Snowy,
Even if Chltern trains do reduce capacity it is probably not that significant. Chiltern trains are on their own route from Harrow-on-the-Hill to Marylebone. From Harrow-on-the-Hill to north of Moor Park there are four tracks and most of the Metropolitan trains use the slow lines whereas the Chiltern trains use the fast lines. North of Moor Park to Amersham the service is not as frequent as you might suppose – even in the peak period (4 tph to Amersham, 2ph to Chesham and 3tph Chiltern). Even that 3tph Chiltern is only in the peak direction with 2tph in the other direction.
@SNOWY
Does this mean that line capacity is reduced if an ‘alien’ (non-CBTC Chiltern) train is running because each train takes up 2 blocks (1 block in which it is in and the block behind it)?
Yes, compared to what capacity that a pure CBTC operation can provide. The simple reason is that the non-CBTC Chiltern trains have to move with fixed block protection, as they do now. Only now, ALL trains have to move with that protection and are limited to the capacity that it provides. With CBTC in place, a CBTC train can follow another closer when needed.
Compare this to driving a car. A rule of thumb for keeping a safe space between your vehicle and the one ahead of you is to leave a 2-second gap. At 100 km/h, that is 54 metres. Fixed block signalling has block lengths based on worst-case stopping distances (considering speed, braking adhesion, grade, etc).
When traffic is heavy and cannot move at 100 km/h, but slows down to 20 km/h, do you still keep 54 metres of space ahead for stopping? No, because 2 seconds at 20 km/h is only 10.8 metres, so you close-in on the vehicle ahead of you since you don’t need as much reaction and stopping distance. Unfortunately, with fixed block signalling, trains cannot close-in like this.
@GREG TINGEY
There are no plans in place (yet) to equip the Chiltern trains with CBTC. Given the schedules involved, it would be difficult to justify it at this time.
Snowy,
Further to CBTC trainer’s comment, the practical effect is that trains cannot follow as closely together. Again, on the outer reaches of the Metropolitan line it is really not that critical.
Northbound, you will terminate out in the country and should be able to make up time at the terminus.
Southbound, the trains will have to interlace with trains from other branches so running them close together won’t really achieve much. Unlike normally in this situation, you actually lose some of these trains (the Chiltern ones have their own track once they reach Harrow-on-the-Hill station) so any knock-on effect is even less pronounced.
Greg Tingey,
Surely the time to consider removing the tripcock is when the trains get replaced? I can see designers being reluctant to incorporate a tripcock (an early 20th century device) into a modern train.
However I cannot envisage the trains being replaced on Chiltern Railways for a very long time. They will surely be the last ones to go on the Chiltern lines. This is for many reasons but the primary one is commercial. There is very little money to be had by Chiltern Railways by upgrading the trains on the lines out to Aylesbury. Far better to concentrate on their main and generally profitable routes.
One day, Chiltern will be converted to ETCS. At that point the tripcock protection will be eliminated. I suspect this will be a long way off.
@PoP
Generally agree with your commercial argument.
However if capacity in / out of Marylebone were constrained ( as suggested in the recent WM+Chilterns Route Study ) then maybe new trains at the same time on the Aylesbury run might prove to be the most economical of the various options, to assist London terminal capacity access.
That is, aside from Met Line electrification options from the 1982 period which I trust are now beyond their sell-by date !
J
PoP, note one of the latest trains onto the network- class 717 is fitted with tripcock. Our heirs will be able to say whether my forecast of 2050 for the demise of tripcock/trainstop is correct!
TfL’s weekend closure email for 20 and 21 July says the closure around Baker Street and Edgware Road is “track improvement work”.
Yes, that’s the “Planned line closures” that TfL use for anything that causes sections of track to be taken out of use…
https://tfl.gov.uk/status-updates/planned-track-closures
A modern ‘native’ ETCS train should be able to emulate CBTC functionality in some ways, at least in fixed block mode. It might even be able to communicate with the SelTrac beacons using its standard balise reader. I think that’s when the trainstops might be removed, and the signals replaced by fixed block markers. Such new or modified Chiltern trains will still come equipped with trip cocks though, ‘just to cover the changeover period’!
There were some small issues with Operational Proving weekend 20-21 July; defective axle counter Baker Street pfm.4; some trains non-communicating; lack of Instructor Operators.
I completed four trips from Olympia-Edgware Road with no problems.
Due to some of these, also software issues and not enough Metropolitan Line drivers having received training, commissioning of SMA 1-2 now for weekend 31 August-1 September.
SMA 3 commissioning delayed to weekend 18-19 January 2020.
@ Dstock7080 26 July 2019 at 21:07
….. commissioning of SMA 1-2 now for weekend 31 August-1 September. SMA 3 commissioning delayed to weekend 18-19 January 2020.
Many thanks Dstock7080 for update. So to Euston Square delayed 3 weeks; these things happen. But Aldgate triangle delay almost 4 months! The last plan was to complete Circle line by then. So caution with new March timetable was well justified (see original article above). Article mentioned the extra time allowed in programme for Upminster branch, which may allow time to recover those planned dates in August 2020 onwards.
As the engineers practise as they go, it will get easier … or at least that’s what usually happens.
That’s why SMA 0.5 as a tiny “pilot project” was such a good idea.
As D-stock says, they’ve found a couple of minor wrinkles, which hopefully will be sorted.
Assuming that along as far as Euston/Kings Cross goes seamlessly, then I would anticipate that Aldgate, the triangle & “reversals” notwithstanding, should go very well.
The progressive approach seen here should be a lesson to CR1? Maybe?
Greg suggests that the progressive approach could be a lesson to Crossrail. Well maybe, but there is one rather significant difference. The SSR resignalling timetable is of little interest to the general public – only enthusiasts notice, or care particularly. (There may be a bit of general interest in any resulting speedups or frequency improvements, but nothing spectacular). Whereas the opening (or not-opening) of a completely new section of railway, with all the very visible changes to people’s journeys, is a very public matter, and deadlines (hit or missed) are really big news.
Greg Tingey, Malcolm,
A interesting comment from Greg that raises a lot of points.
The first thing I would mention is that the slowly, slowly, softly, softly approach of SSR resignalling, now being taken, was never the intention. Indeed, I clearly remember Mike Brown and Mark Wild telling the Programmes and Investment Committee how they were determined to keep on top of this and avoid further delay. Either they have more important things to deal with nowadays or they recognise the value of a careful, incremental approach. Whatever, Mike Brown seems in no hurry to force the pace although he does consistently seem to over-promise on this project and not allow for delays if pre-introduction test weekends do not work well. And what is the point in having these weekends if you are going to go ahead regardless?
The second thing is that whereas SSR resignalling can easily be shifted down a gear and a more thorough test regime introduced without any real consequences that is not the same with Crossrail. SSR resignalling is a ‘behind the scenes’ project that does not tend to interest the public. The public aren’t aware of the timescales and are over-bothered if they slip.
Greg then mentions the old chestnut of an incremental approach to Crossrail. As the project currently stands, this is just not possible. Basically you open from Abbey Wood to Paddington (not necessarily including all stations) or not at all. This has been examined many times and logistically an alternative would cause too much disruption – especially with so much construction work based at Plumstead and needing use of the tunnels.
It is too late now but possibly what should have been considered to a greater extent at the outset of Crossrail was the ability to have a more incremental approach. In Crossrail’s defence I would argue everyone thought that stage 1 (Liv St – Shenfield) and stage 2 (Paddington – Heathrow) provided this. In retrospect a third crossover to supplement Holborn (Fisher St) and Whitechapel would have provided for lots of options for using some of the tunnels whilst continuing to test and complete construction in another areas. Whether any beneficial use of this could be made is another issue. Regardless, no-one at the time foresaw the potential benefit of this and it had the disadvantage of adding cost, complexity and further potential points of failure.
Dstock7080,
Thanks for the update. As Taz suggests, the slight delay is no big deal.
I had meant to mention that London Underground Railway Society’s magazine a couple of months ago strongly suggested that the March timetable was originally intended to be much as originally described in the article but that concerns long ago about significant possible delays led to the greatly reduced plan being introduced with the big changes being pushed back to December.
PoP
…. an incremental approach to Crossrail. As the project currently stands, this is just not possible.
Perfectly correct & I was not expecting anything else, but, there’s that old saying: “If you want to get there, I wouldn’t start from here!” Which applies in Spades redoubled in this circs, I’m afraid.
Water under the bridge ( as long as it’s not Hammersmith of course 😁 ) – but one does wonder if just a little more careful thought & forward planning could have avoided the fiasco?
Someone should have looked at the historical parallels, said he, who does this all the time … I’ve mentioned it before, but the over-time-over-budget, ultimately successful & yet required a major management-&-control exercise that applies is probably the building of the London & Birmingham.
Yes/No?
I think I’m right to say that Transport For London operate a “Christmas Shopping Service Changes Moratorium” on changes to their networks during December of each year.
You can see it here for this year https://tfl.gov.uk/status-updates/planned-track-closures
This would mean any planned changes – to any rail project – that didn’t get done by the end of November would be bumped into the following year.
@Brian Butterworth
Certainly wasn’t in place in 2016 and 2017 when large parts of the District were closed.
Dstock7080,
It might not always happen but it is certainly the aim to avoid Underground closures in pre-Christmas December. Let us say that granting an exemption from this rule requires exceptional circumstances.
I can’t speak for previous District line closures but a quick look at the plans for this year shows two partial line closures on Sunday December 1st (one being the District line!) and nothing else. This is not normal. I suspect Sunday 1st was allowed as otherwise two days of weekend works would be lost and they really can’t afford further delays to the SSR resignalling.
Latest detail of March 2020 service changes: “The timetable will see one less train per hour reversing at Baker Street and extend to Aldgate. This achieves 28tph on the north side of the Circle during the peaks. Furthermore a circa 10% run time saving will be achieved between Hammersmith/Finchley Road and Aldgate.”
Taz
What does that 10% reduction equate to in actual minutes & seconds, I wonder?
“Jouirney Planner” says 23 mins Aldgate – Finchley Road, so 2 mins 15 seconds?
@GREG TINGEY
“What does that 10% reduction equate to in actual minutes & seconds, I wonder?”
I think that they will be able to, as they have on other lines, timetable in 15 second chunks, which means that both the station dwell times and the start-run-brake times will be more realistic.
This will mean that an overall shake-out improvement of about 10% will depend on what bit of the line you are on: Zone 1 is all dwell times, whereas in the outer reaches the improvements happen because there is enough distance for the trains to reach their top speed.
If an improvement of only one through train from the Met to the City seems small, get used to it. Any other extra Met trains will reverse at Baker Street when they start from December 2021 onward. Even the extra one is withdrawn from December 2020 until then to leave room for more locals from Edgware Road direction.
CBTC SMA 1/2 commissioned for passenger use from 1230 today, 1 September 2019.
Metropolitan must wait until tomorrow and that may encounter problems with lack of trained drivers.
SMA 3 go-live delayed to 22-23 February 2020.
@ DSTOCK7080 1 September 2019 at 13:27
SMA3 Aldgate delayed another month! Just in time for March timetable revision!
Does anyone understand what the software/programmers’ energy issue is that has prevented
Wembley Pk appearing on w/b Circle describers, despite complaints over a long period?
This is very confusing for non-locals, etc. arriving at King’s Cross for Wembley matches/concerts who see no train described as calling at Wembley Pk (the describers show stopping trains as calling at Finchley Rd, Preston Rd …… ).
@Brian Butterworth 28 July 2019 at 19:47
I think I’m right to say that Transport For London operate a “Christmas Shopping Service Changes Moratorium” on changes to their networks during December of each year.
@Pedantic of Purley 28 July 2019 at 21:37
Dstock7080,
It might not always happen but it is certainly the aim to avoid Underground closures in pre-Christmas December. Let us say that granting an exemption from this rule requires exceptional circumstances.
Closures December this year:
8/12
MET: No service between Baker Street and Aldgate before about 10.30
Circle: No service before 10.00. No Hammersmith & City Line service between Baker Street and Barking before about 10:30.
District: No service between Embankment and East Ham before about 10.30.
15/12
MET: No service between Baker Street and Aldgate before about 10.30
Circle: No service before 10.00. No Hammersmith & City Line service between Baker Street and Barking before about 10:30.
District: No service between Embankment and East Ham before about 10.30.
22/12
MET: No service between Baker Street and Aldgate before about 10.30
Circle: No service before 10.00. No Hammersmith & City Line service between Baker Street and Barking before about 10:30.
District: No service between Embankment and East Ham before about 10.30.
24/12
District: No service between Parsons Green and Wimbledon after 22.45 due to Network Rail Engineering work
26/12
Northern: No service Morden to Camden Town via Charing Cross and Kennington to Euston (City) via Bank due to Northern Line Extension works at Kennington.
Update for Circle WTT36, District WTT151, MET WTT342 changes 23 March 2020:
– Timetables to be in 15-sec increments.
– Stepping back of Circle and District trains at Edgware Road, by two trains in peak only.
train layover 2-3 min; T/Op layover 23 min.
Circle pfm.3 07.54-10.24 and 16.34-20.04
District pfm.2 07.59-10.18 and 16.43-20.08.
– MET City service to 28tph in peak.
– run time reductions:
Hammersmith-Liverpool Street EB -3½ min (peak)
Hammersmith-Liverpool Street EB -1¼ min (off-peak)
Liverpool Street-Hammersmith WB -2½ min (peak)
Liverpool Street-Hammersmith WB -1¾ min (off-peak)
Finchley Road-Aldgate SB -5 min (peak)
Finchley Road-Aldgate SB -2¾ min (off-peak)
Aldgate-Finchley Road NB -3½ min (peak)
Aldgate-Finchley Road NB 1½ min (off-peak)
– all H&C trains off-peak to stand on Aldgate north curve 2½ min.
– increased Circle Line recovery:
Hammersmith: off-peak 11½ min (reduces to 7½ min Sun) (now 11½ min); peak 7-8 min (now 12 min)
Barking sidings: off-peak 12 min (now 11 min); peak 12-15 min (now 12-15)
Edgware Road: off-peak 6¼ min (now 6½ min; peak 2½-3 min (now 6 min)
OR Circle stands: off-peak 5 min (now 3 min); peak 3 min (now 3 min)
IR Circle stands: off-peak 2¼ min (now 1½ min; peak 4 min (now 3 min)
– C&H to be 31 trains all day (-2 peak)
SMA3 commissioning delayed, timetable change postponed.
DStock
I take it that there are ongoing problems with the Finchley Rd / Baker St / Euston section?
Judging from the frequency with which “minor delays” ( or even severe ones ) are appearing on TfL’s web-site, that would appear to be the case, as seen from outside.
Do we have anything more specific?
There are also problems crossing the boundary from Paddington District & Circle to Edgware Road (into SMA2) . On 13th, 14th & 16th November due to a “faulty train at Paddington” there was “no service” High Street Kensington to Edgware Road followed by a period of “severe delays”.
What’s concerning is that these type boundary issues might continue until the re-signalling is complete. So when SMA4 goes live District & Circle trains also be faced with being “faulty” at South Kensington as they head east.
Looking forward to completion of the re-signalling, but sometimes the benefits tomorrow looks a very long way off, whereas the current disruptions are clearly evident
@PeterW Replying to my own post:
Browsing the always informative DistrictDaves forum http://districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/31022/faulty-trains?page=1&scrollTo=484641 I found that software fixes are underway https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/metropolitan-line-signalling .
Definitely a glass-half-full moment
This article started out referring to 30tph service on both sides of Circle line promised for March 2020, but then deferred to December 2020. Over a year out it looks like further deferral is likely. The last Underground News listing of projected SMA commissionings had over 10 months between SMA3 Aldgate and SMA6 Barking which completes Circle and H&City lines. Unless they pick up some of the delay, which we haven’t so far seen, then SMA6 will be too late to commit to new December timetable. They have already pulled back from updated March 2020 service four months before!
Aspiration that SMA3 will be commissioned on 23 February as planned with Operational Proving a few weekends before.
Timetable change postponed.
SMA4-5 boundary is at Sloane Square.
@Greg Tingly:
Train Technicians are to be based at Finchley Road and Euston Square (as originally intended!) to mitigate against the Tripcock Latch Relay problems mainly affecting S8 Stock. Paddington will still not have a Technician.
Additional lineside antenna will hopefully plug the radio black-spots around Baker Street.
New train software will be downloaded in late-November and in January.
New software will hopefully solve the platform DMi issues of stopping-patterns by end-November.
@DSTOCK7080 thanks for the informative updates.
[SMA4-5 boundary, OK, I wrongly assumed S Ken based on a hasty look at one of the maps of the migration areas ]
SMA 3 and associated Operational Proving weekends officially postponed, no alternative date yet.
SMA 3 commissioning now rescheduled for 25/26 July 2020, with Operational Proving weekends in May.
Because all projects including 4LM are now on hold, SMA 3 and associated Operational Proving weekends officially postponed, no alternative date yet.
Testing of SMA3 recommences in July/August.
Commissioning now likely March 2021, or Easter weekend April 2021.
SMA3 commissioning confirmed for 7 March 2021.
SMA4 2 May 2021
SMA5 11 July 2021
SMA6 10 October 2021
SMA7 5 December 2021.
SMAs 10/11/12 have been officially descoped and removed.
Farringdon City sidings have a one year deferment.
@Dstock7080 Is there an explanation of where each section is?
TFBtFO
There are diagrammatic maps, up the top of the article, but they don’t cover the whole scheme
SMA’s 6 & 7 are out towards Upminster.
I think 10 / 11 / 12 are onwards & outwards to Amersham.
However, descoping those might be a mistake as it means ( I think ) that Chiltern stock will then still have to be tripcock-fitted?
Someone pelese correct me if this is not the case.
There’s a diagram of SMAs at http://content.tfl.gov.uk/pic-20171013-agenda-item07.pdf: according to that, 10-12 are the western ends of the District Line: Ravenscourt Park-Chiswick Park/Richmond, Acton Town-Ealing Broadway, and Parsons Green-Wimbledon respectively.
Is this to do with joint running with National Rail to Wimbledon/Richmond, and possible transfer of Ealing Broadway to the Piccadilly?
Thanks for the correction.
Howver, abandoning the scheme for the W end of the “District” looks like a mistake to me, given the service intensities.
Or is is “simply” that TfL are running out of money … so a creaking system will have to stagger on, until it actually breaks ( Which will be much more expensive of course )
Followed by another round of infantile politicians of all parties blaming each other, of course.
The thinking behind descoping 10, 11, 14 is why solve the problem of Piccadilly inter-running now, why not wait until they are ready to re-signal after the new trains have arrived.
So it’s SMA14 Rayners Lane-Uxbridge rather than SMA12 Parsons Green-Wimbledon that’s been descoped?
According to the document I linked to earlier, the SMAs are (some boundaries are not that clear):
0.5 Hammersmith-Ladbroke Grove
1 Westbourne Park-Paddington (H&C)
2 Paddington (C&D)/Finchley Rd-Euston Sq
3 King’s X/Stepney Green-Monument
4 Cannon St-Sloane Sq
5 Bayswater/S Kensington-Barons Ct/Fulham Broadway
6 Mile End-Becontree
7 Dagenham Heathway-Upminster
8 Neasden-Wembley Park
9 Preston Park-Moor Park/W Harrow
10 Ravenscourt Park-Chiswick Park/Richmond (now removed)
11 Acton Town-Ealing Broadway (now removed)
12 Parsons Green-Wimbledon
13 Watford/Chesham/Amersham
14 Rayners Lane-Uxbridge (now removed)
@ BETTERBEE
for clarity SMAs 10 11 12 14 are currently descoped.
Boundaries are at one location, usually stations. So,
Latimer Rd
Paddington C&H
Finchley Rd
Paddington D&C
Euston Sq
Stepney Green
Monument
Sloane Sq
Barons Court
Fulham Bdwy
Becontree
Preston Rd
are the boundaries to be commissioned,
with Preston Rd, Fulham Bdwy, Barons Court likely time remain for some while.
next document issued few days later, now re-confirms SMA14 In-scope!
SMA 9 4 September 2022
boundaries Moor Pk, West Harrow
SMA 13 5 February 2023
Moor Pk-Amersham/Chesham/Watford
SMA 14 – April 2023
South Harrow/West Harrow-Uxbridge
The timetables referred to in the article are now due 16 May 2021, after commissioning of SMA 3 and SMA 4.
Operational Proving of SMA 3 to take place 9-10 January 2021.
Cable laying being undertaken at Watford for SMA 13.
@DSTOCK7080
Thanks for these update you keep doing, I for one find them very interesting.
This statement in your article is not correct:
“…one of only two potential contenders with a proven capability to deliver, Siemens, just wasn’t interested. Siemens were busy with other projects – ATO and ETCS on Thameslink and CBTC on Crossrail, for example. Realistically, this left only Thales. ”
Siemens was interested but the TfL team judged that Thales was a less risky option due to the work Thales was doing on the Northern Line. Siemens did a lot of work on the PQQ released rapidly after Bombardier was removed, because the company had invested hugely in the SSR bid – but was beaten on price by Bombardier, the company that could not deliver the project.
Operational Proving of SMA 3 successfully completed, only issue was on Saturday with a legacy signalling point failure at Embankment which delayed proving trains reversing there.
Reversion to legacy signalling now taking place.
Next move is commissioning 6/7 March 2021
Unfortunately at Tower Hill new 9A 9B and 10 points to the east of the station will not be commissioned with SMA 3. A problem with the foundation prevents their use.
Therefore S8 moves from Aldgate will not be possible.
4LM have formally asked for financial authority to extend SMA 10 boundary to Stamford Brook and SMA 12 boundary to East Putney. This would give the platform information system improvements as other CBTC areas.
Also a ‘radio island’ to detect non-communicating CBTC trains as they leave Ealing Common depot, which will be in a non-CBTC area.
@DSTOCK7080
Not quite sure what you mean “extend SMA 10 boundary to Stamford Brook and SMA 12 boundary to East Putney. ” as I thought that SMA10 was Barons Court to Richmond plus Chiswick Park and SMT12 Parsons Green to Wimbledon?
referring to my post of 8 August 2020 SMA 10 and 12 were officially descoped from the scheme, therefore the boundary would’ve been Barons Court and Fulham Broadway.
@DSTOCK7080
So… sorry for this.. SMA10 and SMA12 are still cancelled, but Stamford Brook (also Ravenscourt Park, Hammersmith D&C) and East Putney (and Putney Bridge, Parson Green) are now part of SMA5?
SMA 5 is scheduled to be commissioned 10-11 July and boundaries at Fulham Broadway, Barons Court and Paddington.
Perhaps it was clumsy wording on my part; they are seeking financial go-ahead to reactivate descoped SMA 10 and 12 but have the boundaries shortened to Stamford Brook and East Putney.
SMA 11 remains descoped.
@DSTOCK7080
Thank you.
the new Working Timetables, proposed in this article for March 2020, have been postponed from 16 May until September 2021
SMA 3 authorised for passenger use from 1330 today 6 March, has been running without passengers since 1045 yesterday.
SMA 4 commissioned for passenger use from 1315 today 24 April.
New working timetables 12 September 2021 running time adjustment:
MET:
Finchley Road-Aldgate: SB -2¼min, NB -1¾min
H&C:
Hammersmith-Whitechapel: EB -¾min, WB -1½min
Circle:
Edgware Rd-Liverpool St via Victoria: IR -¾min, OR +¼min
SMA 5 still on for 6/7 November 2021
SMA 5 now officially deferred until 6/7 January 2022.
SMA 5 now officially deferred to 9/10 April 2022.
Also, TFL should make ALL Eastbound District line trains terminate at Upminster Station and improve and increase the reversing capacity at Upminster Station. All Tower Hill, Barking and Dagenham East terminators should be scrapped and withdrawn. The bay platforms at Tower Hill, Plaistow and Dagenham East should cease to be used. closed, decommissioned and fenced off. The bay tracks at Tower Hill, Plaistow and Dagenham East should be lifted, removed and torn out. This will result in the loss of bay platforms. The reversing capacity at Upminster Station should be improved by either constructing a 4th platform for the District line at Upminster or by stepping back.
@Aronjit
What is the purpose of your suggestion? To save money? It would cost hundreds of millions to make the changes you suggest – are the operational savings worth it?
The purpose of this suggestion is to improve reversing capacity at Upminster and to increase operational flexibility. All Eastbound District line trains should terminate and reverse at Upminster Station. Currently, some District line trains terminate short at Tower Hill, Barking and Dagenham East rather than continuing to the end of the line at Upminster. This is because there are capacity problems at Upminster. The purpose of this is to increase operational flexibility and reversing capacity at Upminster Station and to withdraw all Tower Hill, Barking and Dagenham East terminators. Upminster Station should be rebuilt in order to be capable of terminating and reversing the full District line service. Stepping back at Upminster Station can also be done or constructing additional terminating platforms at Upminster for the District line. The bay platforms at Plaistow and Dagenham East are rarely used. By closing the bay platforms at Plaistow, Tower Hill and Dagenham East, this can improve operational flexibility at Upminster.
@Aronjit
By removing Tower Hill, Plaistow, Barking, Dagenham East bays you are removing operational flexibility if a point/signal failure outside Upminster station prevents trains accessing the expanded station.
Trains would sit in one long line unable to move.
Some Hammersmith & City trains reverse at Barking, so those points and platforms have to stay. I can’t see how Upminster Station could be widened to accommodate more lines and platforms.
SMA 5 rescheduled slightly earlier for 26/27 March 2022
Further dates released:
SMA 6 18/19 June 2022 (H&C complete)
SMA 7 January 2023
SMA 8 April 2023
SMA 9 July 2023
SMA 13 August 2023
SMA 24 January 2024.
@Dstock7080
SMA 24? I presume that’s a typo of fourteen?
SMA 5 authorised for passenger use from 0900 today 27 March, has been running without passengers since 1220 yesterday.
Dstock7080……..It’s been a long journey but it’s great that ATO is now enabled on the whole Circle line
SMA 6 officially deferred from June, a software issue has been occurring since SMA 5 went live at the VCC boundaries and Thales require extra time to solve the issue.
new proposed dates:
SMA 6 14-15 January 2023 (tbc)
SMA 7 April 2023
SMA 8 July 2023
SMA 9 October 2023
Given the pace of SMAs 1 to 5, this seems pretty ambitious. Fingers crossed.
SMA 6 confirmed for Saturday 14 January 2023, no District services until 11.00.
then 11.00-14.00 Richmond-Whitechapel, Wimbledon-Tower Hill.
After 14.00 trains operate through Richmond-Upminster but not in service Stepney Green-Becontree.
SMA 7 18 March 2023.
SMA 7 authorised for passenger use from 1400 today 19 March, has been running without passengers since 1400 yesterday.