Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t9atkk$2n7u$2@dont-email.me>, at 00:29:08 on Mon, 27 Jun
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>> So presumably there will have to be a period of parallel running when any
>>> trains that use the ECML have to be able to work with the older standard and
>>> with ECTS, as opposed to a sudden-death switchover of all trains on the day
>>> that the old signalling is changed to ECTS (the latter would be almost as
>>> horrendous a task as the GWR changing rail gauge!).
>>
>> The two systems will be overlaid for a long transition period before the
>> old colour light signals are first covered in black plastic bags, and
>> finally removed altogether. That will happen first on the GN Moorgate line,
>> where ETCS trial running has recently started.
>
> No black bags on the Cambrian Line yet?

Long gone. The line has been pure ETCS for years, with conventional signals
removed. Only the fitted 158s and ckass 97 locos can use the line.

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote in message
> news:t9brqh$1jtm$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:57:31 -0000 (UTC)
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> What it conveyed to me was a project whose workflow was drastically
>>>> dysfunctional, so if that's the image they want to convey...? Or was it
>>>> a cunning plot to try to place all the blame on big-bad-Siemens, and
>>>> whoever left that half inch gap at the top of the PEDs (why is that an
>>>> issue anyway, and no-one realised it before).
>>>
>>> The software is late because they are doing something that’s never been
>>> done before on that scale. Add to that the issue that they’ve had to
>>> delay
>>
>> Seemed to me the issue was the *automatic* switchover between signalling
>> systems. Given this happens as stations when the train is stopped I don't
>> understand why it couldn't simply be a manual process done by the driver.
>> A lot
>> simpler.
>
> Maybe the automatic switchover is required a) in case the driver forgets,
> and b) in case the train is not scheduled to stop at the boundary changeover
> station.

There are no boundary changeover stations. All three signalling boundaries
are between stations.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:10:27 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t9brqh$1jtm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:04:17 on Mon, 27 Jun
>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:57:31 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>> What it conveyed to me was a project whose workflow was drastically
>>>>> dysfunctional, so if that's the image they want to convey...? Or was it
>>>>> a cunning plot to try to place all the blame on big-bad-Siemens, and
>>>>> whoever left that half inch gap at the top of the PEDs (why is that an
>>>>> issue anyway, and no-one realised it before).
>>>>
>>>> The software is late because they are doing something that’s never
>> been
>>>> done before on that scale. Add to that the issue that they’ve had to
>> delay
>>>
>>> Seemed to me the issue was the *automatic* switchover between signalling
>>> systems. Given this happens as stations when the train is stopped I don't
>>> understand why it couldn't simply be a manual process done by the driver. A
>> lot
>>> simpler.
>>
>> As we've seen in the discussion of the reversing sidings, the switchover
>> is not at a station.
>
> That was their decision. Either way, CBTC wasn't required

It's so handy that we benefit from the knowledge of the world's leading
signalling engineer in this group!

> and probably cost
> hundreds of millions of extra taxpayers money for little benefit.
>
>

Am 27.06.2022 um 11:28 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:57:31 -0000 (UTC)
> Tweed<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Your point about "The software is late because they are doing something
>> that's never been done before on that scale" is very valid.

> And should never have been done on a civil project this expensive funded by the
> tax payer, it should have used tried and tested systems, not some over
> specified dogs dinner. If had been 100% privately funded then fine, do what
> they like, but when public money is on the line it was an irresponsible
> decision.

As always in software development, cross-system integration is the most
important driver of costs and of delays.
As soon as a "big bang" approach is not feasible (not possible or deemed
to dangerous) you run into integration issues, and I do not know one
major software project where cross-system integration did not overrun
time and costs significantly.

So public money should use the "best value-for-money" tried and tested
software rather than some old hacked-together bespoke solution.
Then you find the new project is not alone in the world, so it must
interface to the "old hacked-together bespoke solution", and you need a
"new hacked-together bespoke" mapping layer.

As the "old hacked-together bespoke solution" also only contains an "old
hacked together" interface documentation of questionable quality, you
find out that the mapping layer needs double as much testing as a "big
bang" greenfield approach would have needed.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:47:46 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t9bt1c$5rm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:25:00 on Mon, 27 Jun
>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:10:27 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t9brqh$1jtm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:04:17 on Mon, 27 Jun
>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:57:31 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> What it conveyed to me was a project whose workflow was drastically
>>>>>>> dysfunctional, so if that's the image they want to convey...? Or was it
>>>>>>> a cunning plot to try to place all the blame on big-bad-Siemens, and
>>>>>>> whoever left that half inch gap at the top of the PEDs (why is that an
>>>>>>> issue anyway, and no-one realised it before).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The software is late because they are doing something
>>>>>> that’s never been done before on that scale. Add to
>>>>>> that the issue that they’ve had to delay
>>>>>
>>>>> Seemed to me the issue was the *automatic* switchover between
>>>>> signalling systems. Given this happens as stations when the train is
>>>>> stopped I don't understand why it couldn't simply be a manual process
>>>>> done by the driver. A lot simpler.
>>>>
>>>> As we've seen in the discussion of the reversing sidings, the switchover
>>>> is not at a station.
>>>
>>> That was their decision.
>>
>> What, to have automatic reversing sidings, that the other technologies
>> couldn't deliver?

They do. Why don't you look at the map before posting your erudite
thoughts?

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:32:11 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote in message
>> news:t9brqh$1jtm$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:57:31 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> What it conveyed to me was a project whose workflow was drastically
>>>>> dysfunctional, so if that's the image they want to convey...? Or was it
>>>>> a cunning plot to try to place all the blame on big-bad-Siemens, and
>>>>> whoever left that half inch gap at the top of the PEDs (why is that an
>>>>> issue anyway, and no-one realised it before).
>>>>
>>>> The software is late because they are doing something that’s never
>been
>>>> done before on that scale. Add to that the issue that they’ve had
>to
>>>> delay
>>>
>>> Seemed to me the issue was the *automatic* switchover between signalling
>>> systems. Given this happens as stations when the train is stopped I don't
>>> understand why it couldn't simply be a manual process done by the driver.
>>> A lot
>>> simpler.
>>
>> Maybe the automatic switchover is required a) in case the driver forgets,
>> and b) in case the train is not scheduled to stop at the boundary changeover
>
>> station.
>
>There are no boundary changeover stations. All three signalling boundaries
>are between stations.

What a genius decision. Lets do a complex switchover on the fly! What could
possibly go wrong.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:32:12 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:10:27 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t9brqh$1jtm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:04:17 on Mon, 27 Jun
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:57:31 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> What it conveyed to me was a project whose workflow was drastically
>>>>>> dysfunctional, so if that's the image they want to convey...? Or was it
>>>>>> a cunning plot to try to place all the blame on big-bad-Siemens, and
>>>>>> whoever left that half inch gap at the top of the PEDs (why is that an
>>>>>> issue anyway, and no-one realised it before).
>>>>>
>>>>> The software is late because they are doing something that’s never
>>> been
>>>>> done before on that scale. Add to that the issue that they’ve had
>to
>>> delay
>>>>
>>>> Seemed to me the issue was the *automatic* switchover between signalling
>>>> systems. Given this happens as stations when the train is stopped I don't
>>>> understand why it couldn't simply be a manual process done by the driver. A
>
>>> lot
>>>> simpler.
>>>
>>> As we've seen in the discussion of the reversing sidings, the switchover
>>> is not at a station.
>>
>> That was their decision. Either way, CBTC wasn't required
>
>It's so handy that we benefit from the knowledge of the world's leading
>signalling engineer in this group!

Unlike yourself of course. What are your signalling qualifications again?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t99d8p$3su12$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:37 on Sun, 26 Jun
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>> One other comment: the train WiFi continues to work underground, but no
>> longer provides internet access.
>
> What *does* the wifi give access to. Some sort of intranet only?

The trivial diagnosis is that the WiFi access point(s) on the train are
still operative - why would they not be? - but the uplink from the train to
the Internet has been broken. Presumably devices still (could) have access
to whatever services are provided on the train. It woulf be interesting to
know whether new users can join the WiFi network while the train is cut off
from the Internet.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:49:00 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t99d8p$3su12$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:37 on Sun, 26 Jun
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>> One other comment: the train WiFi continues to work underground, but no
>>> longer provides internet access.
>>
>> What *does* the wifi give access to. Some sort of intranet only?
>
>The trivial diagnosis is that the WiFi access point(s) on the train are
>still operative - why would they not be? - but the uplink from the train to
>the Internet has been broken. Presumably devices still (could) have access
>to whatever services are provided on the train. It woulf be interesting to
>know whether new users can join the WiFi network while the train is cut off
>from the Internet.

No reason why they couldn't, wifi connects to the access point. What happens
beyond that makes no difference.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t9ap4t$20ld$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:12:29 on Sun, 26 Jun
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 24/06/2022 23:59, Recliner wrote:
>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 24/06/2022 20:49, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, can the loading gauge within the EL core
>>>>>>> capacitate 315s? Is there any prospect of them operating in revenue
>>>>>>> service there?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Definitely not in passenger service, the core has platform edge doors and
>>>>>> the door spacing is all wrong for 315s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Definitely not ECS during normal working, the core has in-cab signalling,
>>>>>> which 315s don't have.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, I'm not quite certain why Crossrail decided to have three different
>>>>> signalling systems for the Liz.
>>>>
>>>> They didn't have a choice. It's what comes of not owning or having
>>>> exclusive use of most of the tracks the service runs on.
>>>>
>>>>> I understand that the Heathrow Branch is ETCS, whereas the core and
>>>>> Abbey Wood Branch are CBTC, while the outer ends are TPWS.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, though the TPWS will eventually be replaced by ETCS.
>>>>
>>>>> Would it not have been easier either to install ETCS in the core or to
>>>>> convert the Heathrow Branch to CBTC?
>>>>
>>>> No, CBTC was needed for the high frequency core, and Liz doesn't control
>>>> the Heathrow branch signalling.
>>>
>>> I know that, but I thought that ETCS would be able to handle a task.
>>
>> IIRC the EL core was originally planned to be ETCS, but at some point the
>> realisation occurred that there wasn't an approved version currently
>> capable of what was required, and the decision was made to switch to a
>> known, approved product which, crucially, was already in use doing a very
>> similar job on Thameslink.
>
> I didn't know Thameslink had the same core signalling (yes, we know it's
> new and had its own teething issues). But that must have proven
> transitions somewhere in the StPancras and Blackfriars areas, so why all
> the problems on the EL?

I hadn’t noticed the CBTC term before this discussion, and neither TL nor
EL are mentioned in the Wikipedia article on it, though the DLR and a
number of LUL lines are.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 27/06/2022 11:32, Recliner wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:10:27 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t9brqh$1jtm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:04:17 on Mon, 27 Jun
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:57:31 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> What it conveyed to me was a project whose workflow was drastically
>>>>>> dysfunctional, so if that's the image they want to convey...? Or was it
>>>>>> a cunning plot to try to place all the blame on big-bad-Siemens, and
>>>>>> whoever left that half inch gap at the top of the PEDs (why is that an
>>>>>> issue anyway, and no-one realised it before).
>>>>>
>>>>> The software is late because they are doing something that’s never
>>> been
>>>>> done before on that scale. Add to that the issue that they’ve had to
>>> delay
>>>>
>>>> Seemed to me the issue was the *automatic* switchover between signalling
>>>> systems. Given this happens as stations when the train is stopped I don't
>>>> understand why it couldn't simply be a manual process done by the driver. A
>>> lot
>>>> simpler.
>>>
>>> As we've seen in the discussion of the reversing sidings, the switchover
>>> is not at a station.
>>
>> That was their decision. Either way, CBTC wasn't required
>
> It's so handy that we benefit from the knowledge of the world's leading
> signalling engineer in this group!
>

What happened to Clive Feather BTW?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t9ap4t$20ld$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:12:29 on Sun, 26 Jun
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 24/06/2022 23:59, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/06/2022 20:49, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, can the loading gauge within the EL core
>>>>>>>> capacitate 315s? Is there any prospect of them operating in revenue
>>>>>>>> service there?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Definitely not in passenger service, the core has platform edge doors and
>>>>>>> the door spacing is all wrong for 315s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Definitely not ECS during normal working, the core has in-cab signalling,
>>>>>>> which 315s don't have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, I'm not quite certain why Crossrail decided to have three different
>>>>>> signalling systems for the Liz.
>>>>>
>>>>> They didn't have a choice. It's what comes of not owning or having
>>>>> exclusive use of most of the tracks the service runs on.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand that the Heathrow Branch is ETCS, whereas the core and
>>>>>> Abbey Wood Branch are CBTC, while the outer ends are TPWS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, though the TPWS will eventually be replaced by ETCS.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Would it not have been easier either to install ETCS in the core or to
>>>>>> convert the Heathrow Branch to CBTC?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, CBTC was needed for the high frequency core, and Liz doesn't control
>>>>> the Heathrow branch signalling.
>>>>
>>>> I know that, but I thought that ETCS would be able to handle a task.
>>>
>>> IIRC the EL core was originally planned to be ETCS, but at some point the
>>> realisation occurred that there wasn't an approved version currently
>>> capable of what was required, and the decision was made to switch to a
>>> known, approved product which, crucially, was already in use doing a very
>>> similar job on Thameslink.
>>
>> I didn't know Thameslink had the same core signalling (yes, we know it's
>> new and had its own teething issues). But that must have proven
>> transitions somewhere in the StPancras and Blackfriars areas, so why all
>> the problems on the EL?
>
> I hadn’t noticed the CBTC term before this discussion, and neither TL nor
> EL are mentioned in the Wikipedia article on it, though the DLR and a
> number of LUL lines are.
>

Yes, it appears that TL doesn't actually use CBTC, but ATO on ETCS:

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/main-line-ato-becomes-a-reality/

And why Crossrail uses CBTC:

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/crossrails-signalling-challenge/

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:t9apsp$22iu$2@dont-email.me...
>> So, we are destined to have several different eras of signalling
>> coexisting, overlapping and overlaid on each other, for many years to
>> come.
>> The ECML's agonisingly slow progression to full ETCS is a good example of
>> that; most of us won't live long enough to see its full implementation.
>> And
>> that's just one classic main line, not all the lines in the country.
>
> So presumably there will have to be a period of parallel running when any
> trains that use the ECML have to be able to work with the older standard and
> with ECTS, as opposed to a sudden-death switchover of all trains on the day
> that the old signalling is changed to ECTS (the latter would be almost as
> horrendous a task as the GWR changing rail gauge!).
>
>

The intermediate phase has both systems operating, like in Thameslink. The
same control system controls all the trains, and those which can only
respond to colour light signals just follow those; while those fitted with
ETCS can run more frequently (in the case of Thameslink) / faster (in the
case of the ECML).

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t99d8p$3su12$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:37 on Sun, 26 Jun
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>> One other comment: the train WiFi continues to work underground, but no
>> longer provides internet access.
>
> What *does* the wifi give access to. Some sort of intranet only?
>

Nothing, presumably. But perhaps it doesn't force-disconnect you, nor
switch itself off, when it loses connectivity.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t99bdf$3sofs$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:11:59 on Sun, 26 Jun
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t9981e$3se98$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:22 on Sun, 26 Jun
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <d8kebhtpfvodujch2ipj6bdsdacdnlvp4o@4ax.com>, at 19:20:11 on
>>>>> Sat, 25 Jun 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 13:12:31 +0100, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25/06/2022 11:01, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <t95fkb$unv$2@dont-email.me>, at 22:59:23 on Fri, 24 Jun
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally, I don't think the line uses Auto-reverse at
>>>>>>>>>> Paddington yet,
>>>>>>>>>> though we saw it being used during the trial running. I wonder
>>>>>>>>>> why not?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It as shown in the V documentary the other week (but that was likely
>>>>>>>>> trial running). When the ex-bus driver with three years experience on
>>>>>>>>> the EL was squealing about the hoax near-miss with the train coming the
>>>>>>>>> other way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was no near miss, hoax or otherwise. The driver was
>>>>>>> apparently alarmed
>>>>>>> at seeing a train coming the other way without a driver.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite possible for many people to be alarmed when the unusual movement
>>>>>> is recognised before the full circumstances are recognised. Most
>>>>>> drivers will do it often where an unusual road layout makes it look
>>>>>> initially like an approaching vehicle is on an improper course.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seemed odd for someone who had been driving test trains for three
>>>>> years along the same few miles of track.
>>>>
>>>> But not with Auto Reverse. It looked like she'd only just started using
>>>> that new software feature (which, as we know, is still in beta).
>>>>
>>>> And even that bit of track wouldn't have been available for the whole of
>>>> the three years. Through running from the core to the Westbourne Park
>>>> reversing sidings by the trial service has only been in use for a few
>>>> months,
>>>
>>> I don't want to get all Boltar-ish about how easy it is to drive trains,
>>> but how many dozen times would one expect it to take to become familiar
>>> with this particular aspect?
>>
>> Perhaps this occurred on her first day of using it, many months before the
>> opening?  She seemed unfamiliar with the commands to enable it.
>>
>>>
>>>> and perhaps only a small number of drivers supervised the Auto
>>>> Reverse feature when it was first tested?
>>>
>>> I don't recall how long after the first trials of the auto reverse that
>>> clip was depicting (given also that with almost a year's lead time to
>>> fix any bugs, you'd think they'd have started at least mid 2021. Maybe
>>> I'll watch it again.
>>
>> Given all the problems with the train software, it's very likely that the
>> Auto Reverse feature was very late to arrive, and perhaps it was too flakey
>> originally to be used in the trial running phase? If so, they'd have
>> needed a possession to test it, with a team of supervising software
>> engineers, and test drivers at both ends, with no other trains on the EL
>> tracks. Even now, it's apparently months away from deployment in full
>> service, so there must be known situations that confuse it. And, no, I
>> don't know what they are, or why something that sounds so simple, isn't in
>> the real world.
>>
>> I suppose one of the complications may be that the route to the sidings
>> probably uses a different signalling system (TPWS/AWS) to the core (CBTC),
>> so the train must automatically drive across the signalling boundary,
>> dealing with any glitches itself as it goes?
>>
>> https://www.railengineer.co.uk/crossrails-signalling-challenge/
>
> I'd have expected the reversing sidings to be part of "the core", and
> firewalled off from for example random GWR trains out of Paddington
> Mainline station.
>
> According to OpenStreetMap the sidings are entirely a bubble between the
> EL running lines. Where exactly is the signalling boundary, it looks
> like West of Westway would be both prudent and operationally achievable.
>

AFAIK, presently all five lines are available for reversing (three through
lines and two with buffers). I'll try to remember to check which lines are
being used when I'm passing.

According to my route maps, the changeover signage is basically underneath
Westway. I don't know the details of the changeover procedure or how long
it takes (time or distance).

<https://twitter.com/annanoyddryver/status/1541359400803246080>

The colour light signal for "Crossrail Westbound" on Gantry 5, I think, is
left in place (a) to maintain consistency for mainline drivers (still six
signals on every gantry) and (b) because when through running begins, that
line will eventually return to being NR Line 6; which is also why the
adjacent Turnback A is a through road (it will eventually become Crossrail
Westbound).

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t99dq5$3svuj$3@dont-email.me>, at 10:52:53 on Sun, 26 Jun
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <d8kebhtpfvodujch2ipj6bdsdacdnlvp4o@4ax.com>, at 19:20:11 on
>>> Sat, 25 Jun 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 13:12:31 +0100, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25/06/2022 11:01, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <t95fkb$unv$2@dont-email.me>, at 22:59:23 on Fri, 24 Jun
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Incidentally, I don't think the line uses Auto-reverse at
>>>>>>>> Paddington yet,
>>>>>>>> though we saw it being used during the trial running. I wonder why not?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It as shown in the V documentary the other week (but that was likely
>>>>>>> trial running). When the ex-bus driver with three years experience on
>>>>>>> the EL was squealing about the hoax near-miss with the train coming the
>>>>>>> other way.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was no near miss, hoax or otherwise. The driver was
>>>>> apparently alarmed
>>>>> at seeing a train coming the other way without a driver.
>>>>>
>>>> Quite possible for many people to be alarmed when the unusual movement
>>>> is recognised before the full circumstances are recognised. Most
>>>> drivers will do it often where an unusual road layout makes it look
>>>> initially like an approaching vehicle is on an improper course.
>>>
>>> It seemed odd for someone who had been driving test trains for three
>>> years along the same few miles of track.
>>
>> As has already been mentioned, there'd no mention of when that piece was
>> actually filmed; it may have been at the beginning of test running in the
>> core, when it would indeed have been a new thing. And the drivers involved
>> won't only have been driving the core test trains for three years, they
>> will have been driving the existing services using 345s (presumably at both
>> ends of the route).
>
> What happened to the drivers previously on Heathrow Connect and GA to
> Shenfield? I'm pretty sure the lady in question was described as having
> been specially recruited by Crossrail for testing in the core.

Don't forget gWr drivers on the Reading services too.

AFAIK nobody TUPEd to TfL, the EL drivers were all taken on by TfL to run
the service, I don't know whether any were existing drivers or all new.

The drivers on the GA, gWr and HConn services were all part of bigger pools
of drivers, and presumably now all just work the remaining services with
those companies.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:20:29 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:16:05 -0000 (UTC)
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I'd have expected the reversing sidings to be part of "the core", and
>>> firewalled off from for example random GWR trains out of Paddington
>>> Mainline station.
>>>
>>> According to OpenStreetMap the sidings are entirely a bubble between the
>>> EL running lines. Where exactly is the signalling boundary, it looks
>>> like West of Westway would be both prudent and operationally achievable.
>>
>>Yes, Anna has confirmed that the sidings are signalled with CBTC, like the
>>rest of the Paddington-Abbey Wood section.
>
>So in other words an automatically driven train is automatically reversing too.
>I'm pretty sure the French solved that in the 80s with the VAL system except
>it doesn't even need a driver.

Yes, it's hard to understand why it's apparently so problematic.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:56:11 +0100, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 23:39:00 +0100, NY wrote:
>
>> I wonder why British Rail or Railtrack or Network Rail, in
>> conjunction with London Transport, didn't at some point in the
>> past introduce (impose?) a common signalling system on the whole
>> rail (*) network. The faffing about getting Liz Line software to
>> switch seamlessly between signalling systems on the journey, as
>> described in the recent "Fifteen Billion Pound Railway"
>> programme, made me cringe.
>
>Not Invented Here syndrome.

No, the standard system that will eventually prevail had Not Been Invented Yet.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:49:00 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t99d8p$3su12$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:37 on Sun, 26 Jun
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> One other comment: the train WiFi continues to work underground, but no
>>>> longer provides internet access.
>>>
>>> What *does* the wifi give access to. Some sort of intranet only?
>>
>> The trivial diagnosis is that the WiFi access point(s) on the train are
>> still operative - why would they not be? - but the uplink from the train to
>> the Internet has been broken. Presumably devices still (could) have access
>> to whatever services are provided on the train. It woulf be interesting to
>> know whether new users can join the WiFi network while the train is cut off
>> from the Internet.
>
> No reason why they couldn't, wifi connects to the access point. What happens
> beyond that makes no difference.

No, joining the WiFi almost cetrtainly requires some kind of authorisation
and checking, at least of the “tick this box to accept the Ts&Cs” form, and
possibly checking some other credentials. That may or may not need access
to some central authorisation or authentication service.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <t97a5t$3it3g$3@dont-email.me>, at 15:38:37 on Sat, 25 Jun
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <id29bht7l50ldf8n2nrsvi4tobj05d4055@4ax.com>, at 16:42:26 on
>> Thu, 23 Jun 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 16:31:41 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <t91j8s$dh5$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:37:00 on Thu, 23 Jun
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t8ufdl$3j4$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:12:53 on Wed, 22 Jun
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> What I thought was bad was the lack of escalators from southbound
>>>>>>>>>> Thameslink. There is a lift, but for mass movement of passengers a
>>>>>>>>>> single lift is slow and of very limited capacity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's not intended for or capable of moving crowds. It's meant
>>>>>>>>> for people who can't manage stairs. I agree that there really ought
>>>>>>>>> either an escalator connection, or at least two lifts. My guess is
>>>>>>>>> that the former CWL trackbed to Barbican, now to be used for LU
>>>>>>>>> sidings, was in the way.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> AIUI the choice it's *two* lifts directly from TL southbound to
>>>>>>>> EL platform level
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, just one lift, Lift C:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/52154966938/in/album-721777202
>>>>>>> 99244348/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've given up trying to follow the earlier threads about the "secret
>>>>>> lift", because there was so much contradictory information. Awaiting a
>>>>>> road trip, which has now been scuppered because of the rail strikes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does this now confirm the lift goes directly from the Elizabeth Line
>>>>>> platform level, to the surface, and not via an intermediate/mezzanine
>>>>>> level?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which, if any, of lifts A, B & D is the sloping one?
>>>>>
>>>>> None of them. We're discussing the Farringdon exit, not the Barbican exit,
>>>>> which has two inclined lifts.
>>>>
>>>> One inclined lift to the street, and another to the Circle Line?
>>>
>>> No
>>
>> No to which? One or the other, or both?
>
>Both
>
>>
>>>> Or which exit does your "which" refer to?
>>>
>>> Read what I said.
>>
>> It's drafted ambiguously.
>>
>> But you seem determined not to re-draft it.
>
>It's perfectly clear ("We're discussing the Farringdon exit, not the
>Barbican exit, which has two inclined lifts"), as are the numerous photos
>I've posted, including of all three lifts at the Barbican exit.

Like I said the other day, too many photos.

The helpful answer (instead of all this bluster) would have been a
simple "both at the Barbican exit".

But if the Barbican exit has two sloped lifts, it will still leave some
people wondering if one of them is a sloping lift to the Circle Line.

>You just don't get the concept of double-ended stations.

Don't be silly.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t9c61c$fe6a$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:58:36 on Mon, 27 Jun
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>> It's so handy that we benefit from the knowledge of the world's
>>leading signalling engineer in this group!
>
>What happened to Clive Feather BTW?

Not seen much of him recently. By the way, rail signalling(etc) is his
hobby, the day job most of the time I've known him was a policy wonk in
the Internet industry.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t9c1us$ehi3$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:49:00 on Mon, 27 Jun
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t99d8p$3su12$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:37 on Sun, 26 Jun
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>> One other comment: the train WiFi continues to work underground, but no
>>> longer provides internet access.
>>
>> What *does* the wifi give access to. Some sort of intranet only?
>
>The trivial diagnosis is that the WiFi access point(s) on the train are
>still operative - why would they not be? - but the uplink from the train to
>the Internet has been broken. Presumably devices still (could) have access
>to whatever services are provided on the train. It woulf be interesting to
>know whether new users can join the WiFi network while the train is cut off
>from the Internet.

When I've tried that (on various railways) it usually fails, because the
authentication process requires access to a central server. They don't
cache the relevant information on each train.

Having said that, it's not going to a huge amount of data, so if they
wanted to, they might be able to facilitate it with a dedicated GSM data
link (if that's got coverage in the tunnels). But then there's probably
someone contrary saying "what's the point of that, if you are
authenticated to a deaf onward connection".

To which I would say "because it means it'll automatically come live the
moment[*] there is onward connectivity available, and you are already
authenticated".

[*] Also rather than having to guess when that might have happened.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t9c6tr$fq78$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:13:47 on Mon, 27 Jun
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t99d8p$3su12$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:37 on Sun, 26 Jun
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>> One other comment: the train WiFi continues to work underground, but no
>>> longer provides internet access.
>>
>> What *does* the wifi give access to. Some sort of intranet only?
>
>Nothing, presumably.

Not even an intranet server on the train with real time running
information for that train?

>But perhaps it doesn't force-disconnect you, nor
>switch itself off, when it loses connectivity.
>
>
>Anna Noyd-Dryver

--
Roland Perry

In message <t9c6tr$fq78$3@dont-email.me>, at 12:13:47 on Mon, 27 Jun
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>AFAIK, presently all five lines are available for reversing (three through
>lines and two with buffers). I'll try to remember to check which lines are
>being used when I'm passing.
>
>According to my route maps, the changeover signage is basically underneath
>Westway. I don't know the details of the changeover procedure or how long
>it takes (time or distance).
>
><https://twitter.com/annanoyddryver/status/1541359400803246080>

Thanks for the useful diagram. It annotates three turnbacks, btw (A, B,
C).
--
Roland Perry

In message <t9c6ts$fq78$4@dont-email.me>, at 12:13:48 on Mon, 27 Jun
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t99dq5$3svuj$3@dont-email.me>, at 10:52:53 on Sun, 26 Jun
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <d8kebhtpfvodujch2ipj6bdsdacdnlvp4o@4ax.com>, at 19:20:11 on
>>>> Sat, 25 Jun 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 13:12:31 +0100, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/06/2022 11:01, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <t95fkb$unv$2@dont-email.me>, at 22:59:23 on Fri, 24 Jun
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Incidentally, I don't think the line uses Auto-reverse at
>>>>>>>>> Paddington yet,
>>>>>>>>> though we saw it being used during the trial running. I wonder
>>>>>>>>>why not?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It as shown in the V documentary the other week (but that was likely
>>>>>>>> trial running). When the ex-bus driver with three years experience on
>>>>>>>> the EL was squealing about the hoax near-miss with the train coming the
>>>>>>>> other way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was no near miss, hoax or otherwise. The driver was
>>>>>> apparently alarmed
>>>>>> at seeing a train coming the other way without a driver.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Quite possible for many people to be alarmed when the unusual movement
>>>>> is recognised before the full circumstances are recognised. Most
>>>>> drivers will do it often where an unusual road layout makes it look
>>>>> initially like an approaching vehicle is on an improper course.
>>>>
>>>> It seemed odd for someone who had been driving test trains for three
>>>> years along the same few miles of track.
>>>
>>> As has already been mentioned, there'd no mention of when that piece was
>>> actually filmed; it may have been at the beginning of test running in the
>>> core, when it would indeed have been a new thing. And the drivers involved
>>> won't only have been driving the core test trains for three years, they
>>> will have been driving the existing services using 345s (presumably at both
>>> ends of the route).
>>
>> What happened to the drivers previously on Heathrow Connect and GA to
>> Shenfield? I'm pretty sure the lady in question was described as having
>> been specially recruited by Crossrail for testing in the core.
>
>Don't forget gWr drivers on the Reading services too.
>
>AFAIK nobody TUPEd to TfL, the EL drivers were all taken on by TfL to run
>the service, I don't know whether any were existing drivers or all new.
>
>The drivers on the GA, gWr and HConn services were all part of bigger pools
>of drivers, and presumably now all just work the remaining services with
>those companies.

Sounds good (and the squeaky drivers was recruited from the buses).
--
Roland Perry