This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.

The seat achieved compliance with London Underground’s customer satisfaction ratings and met or exceeded the performance of the existing seat design in every respect, whilst offering a cost reduction and improved whole life cost model over the existing design.

Although the original assumption was to keep the moquette and replace only the seat bases due to the tight timescales for completing this programme of works. However, at the end of 2011, the executive team authorised the replacement of the moquette and it was decided to fit ‘Landmark’ moquette to the seat bases, backs and the perch seats.

However a tolerance issue was identified during the fitment of the first train. Therefore the design was revised and the works to replace seat covers was completed ahead of schedule in July 2012. The team of 33 members were working mainly during days, on the same train as the doors completing the tasks between peaks. Drivers’ seats were also replaced, with new L17 seats replacing the existing L14 design.

Small wheels

A programme of replacement of small wheels has been running on the Jubilee line fleet for a number of years. This programme was necessary for a number of reasons. During the early life of the fleet there were less than perfect wheel turning regimes in place that needlessly turned wheels and as such reduced the fleet mean wheel size and a delay in commencement of the nine-year overhaul as originally planned. The fleet issued a concession to allow the minimum Motor Wheel Set size to reduce from 710.00 to 707.00 mm.

This programme had been in place for around two years when the Fleet Improvement Team took ownership and the programme had delivered just over 200 motor wheel sets into the fleet at an inconsistent rate of four wheel sets a week. In order to meet the predictor demand, and prevent multiple units from being stopped for small wheels prior to the Olympics or during the Olympic period, 300 wheel sets had to go through the small wheel programme between January 2012 and the start of the Olympics and in order to achieve that the weekly takt rate had to be increased from four to eight then 12, 16 and 20 for the final weeks before the Olympics.

When the fleet improvement team took this project, the following road blocks were preventing tark rate from even achieving the rate of four sets a week:

• Surety of supply for consumed materials, some of it with 50 weeks lead time. • Labour for removing and refitting the wheel

• Integration of the ‘lifting team’ with the pull forward team and membership increased from four to six with the teams from other pull forward activities supporting on an ad- hoc basis.

• Daily review with fleet planners, LH and overhaul team to ensure right trains were already with right wheel removed when they arrived from supplier. Any changes in plans were communicated on real time.

In addition to the above, the overhaul team was working very closely as a single team with operations and supporting it when required. Towards the end of the reliability programme the team supported the implementation of some of the reliability activities such as PEA covers, windscreen wiper replacement, headlight bulb replacement, under frame security checks and floor coving. During the Olympic period, the members of the team who were to be retained for the remainder of the overhaul and phase 2 of the doors became part of fleet operations to support the activities during the Olympic Games. This ensured there was continuity and the knowledge and experience gained during the Games was not lost.

Activities at REW

REW was the nominated supplier for the Jubilee line overhaul. Although the activities at REW had very limited impact on the performance of the fleet, they are worth mentioning due to the innovative approach taken to manage REW.

Cont Overleaf > rail technology magazine Dec/Jan 13 | 53

sets (depot activity).

• Capacity at LH Group Wheel Sets (the main contractor).

• Float of wheel sets (wheels available to support takt rate).

The above challenges were successfully overcome by:

• Tube Lines personnel seconded to LH to ensure close coordination with depot to ensure slick supply and return of components; this also allowed the removal of bottlenecks at processes at LH and improvements from the quality point of view.

• Required quantities of material were gathered by identifying and validating alternative suppliers, strong negotiation of lead times and approaching other rail companies who had material in stock for their usage borrowing it.

• Reverse engineering of some of the castings from rapid prototyping.

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92