Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2009 6:50:03 GMT
Not sure of the need for the train number on a display intended for the general public who have nothing to reference it to, and at one point I glanced up and the train said "Central" on the side; I thought someone had messed with the software and it was going to Ongar! The number was added to the leading cars bodyside dot matrix indicator in order for staff to be able to see the train number when stepping back without having to walk off the platform and peer around the front of the train. I know this because I was at the meeting in Derby when we decided to add this feature! Good to see LU thinking outside of the box!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2010 22:05:41 GMT
Got to ride a 2009 today on my way home. Was not impressed, the seats were awful, train felt too clinical, door chimes annoying. Was so glad to get on a battered and lived in 95 stock! If this is progress the future is going to be very bleak.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Feb 11, 2010 22:26:16 GMT
Oh, I really want to have a go on the 09 stock, but if it is worse than the 1995 stock (the stock I like the least!) I'm less excited.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2010 22:46:30 GMT
I was impressed with the acceleration, it's even faster than the 67 stock. surely with the new brighter headlamps the driver have less eye strain after a day at work. but I didn't really like it much personally, the interior looks a bit like a hosptial and the build quality dosent seem as nice as the 95/6 stock. Trains built by bombardier feel a bit cheap and inferior compared alstom in my opinion.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Feb 11, 2010 23:10:57 GMT
....then you're in luck as Bombardier have pulled their tender for the Piccadilly Line replacement stock.
Much as I'll be sad to see the 73s go, I really hope the designers pull all the stops out and make a really fantastic train. The last 15 years of tube stock design (and that includes the 09s) has been really lacking! Misha Black will be turning in his grave!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2010 23:45:16 GMT
I didn't find the acceleration and braking to be much different to the '67's.....was very disappointed. But yeah it is like a hospital, and it doesn't feel like a sturdy train, more like a long tin can with some seats (word used loosely) in.
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Feb 12, 2010 11:03:14 GMT
The worst thing about these is the upright, thinly padded seats which are just as bad as the class 378s.
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Feb 12, 2010 16:33:31 GMT
I didn't find the acceleration and braking to be much different to the '67's.....was very disappointed. But yeah it is like a hospital, and it doesn't feel like a sturdy train, more like a long tin can with some seats (word used loosely) in. I think that the control software has been set to emulate the 1967 stock characteristics until the complete changeover to '09 stock and to the new signalling system has occurred. Once this has happened, I would expect an improved performance compared to '67 stock.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Feb 12, 2010 21:57:10 GMT
The number was added to the leading cars bodyside dot matrix indicator in order for staff to be able to see the train number when stepping back without having to walk off the platform and peer around the front of the train. I know this because I was at the meeting in Derby when we decided to add this feature! Good to see LU thinking outside of the box! Sometimes Stephen, just sometimes!! ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2010 21:59:01 GMT
I didn't find the acceleration and braking to be much different to the '67's.....was very disappointed. But yeah it is like a hospital, and it doesn't feel like a sturdy train, more like a long tin can with some seats (word used loosely) in. I think that the control software has been set to emulate the 1967 stock characteristics until the complete changeover to '09 stock and to the new signalling system has occurred. Once this has happened, I would expect an improved performance compared to '67 stock. No, it isn't emulating the '67 Stock. They accelerate quite a bit quicker, yet braking is fairly similar. districtdave.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=victoria&action=display&thread=11339
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,105
|
Post by Tom on Feb 15, 2010 0:00:29 GMT
I think that the control software has been set to emulate the 1967 stock characteristics until the complete changeover to '09 stock and to the new signalling system has occurred. Once this has happened, I would expect an improved performance compared to '67 stock. No, it isn't emulating the '67 Stock. They accelerate quite a bit quicker, yet braking is fairly similar. Whilst acceleration may be faster, the overall train performance will be set to match the performance characteristics of the existing stock and existing signal overlaps until the line is resignalled.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2010 16:40:19 GMT
Tom, that has not yet been done. Interstation run-times for 09's are currently quite a bit quicker than 67TS. e.g. Oxford Circus to Green Park - 09TS = 77s and 67TS = 88s.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Feb 15, 2010 18:59:06 GMT
Can I ask - how many times have you done point-to-point with the 67TS on this particular run? 88s seems a lot slower than I remember, and I wouldn't be too shocked at sub-80s for a 67TS on that stage.
I will say that it has been a good few years since I did any ptp times on the Vic.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Feb 15, 2010 22:18:34 GMT
I've spent a little time thinking how best to say what follows; it's all a little complex.
the new train is NOT set to mimic the '67ts; it's faster. it's acceleration and braking rates are higher than for the '67ts and in some places it will reach higher speeds.
It does not have to be compatible with the existing signalling overlaps because it's operating on the new signalling system. Now clearly if there's some sort of over-run that infringes an existing overlap the new train must stop before the end of that overlap. However, with the new signalling system, the train knows where it is, and it knows how far it can go before it must stop (the Distance To Go). From this information it calculates when it must start braking to stop at the right place. If the train is going faster than a '67ts would, then it must start braking earlier.
The new trains are routinely catching up the train in front.
Please post back if the above is not clear; it's late and I'm tired!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Feb 15, 2010 23:01:59 GMT
You put it quite well I think, but it is late, and I am tired too!
The way I see it is the current system relies on fixed locations of stop points combined with other traffic.
The new system sees all trains running in their own little bubble which acts relatively with its surroundings!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2010 23:49:58 GMT
Very clear, and correct 100andthirty.
Metman, the DTG-R system has fixed locations of stopping points, and is indeed a fixed block system that same as the existing Victoria line. The difference is that the train carried equipment receives the status of the blocks ahead from the trackside radio (rather than receiving a track code), and the Limit of Movement Authority is then generated by the ATP on the train, taking into account the status of the blocks and overlaps ahead, and the trains current geographic location.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,105
|
Post by Tom on Feb 16, 2010 21:03:27 GMT
I've spent a little time thinking how best to say what follows; it's all a little complex. the new train is NOT set to mimic the '67ts; it's faster. it's acceleration and braking rates are higher than for the '67ts and in some places it will reach higher speeds. It does not have to be compatible with the existing signalling overlaps because it's operating on the new signalling system. Now clearly if there's some sort of over-run that infringes an existing overlap the new train must stop before the end of that overlap. However, with the new signalling system, the train knows where it is, and it knows how far it can go before it must stop (the Distance To Go). From this information it calculates when it must start braking to stop at the right place. If the train is going faster than a '67ts would, then it must start braking earlier. The new trains are routinely catching up the train in front. Please post back if the above is not clear; it's late and I'm tired! News to me - my understanding is that the most the new signalling is doing is monitoring the existing. The track circuits are most definately not in place and the Westrace merely acts a glorified lever operation board. In relation to the trains I was under the impression that they were working from the old signalling, so naturally one would expect their performance to be limited to that of the stock the existing signalling is designed for. Only once all 1967TS is abolished can asset replacement (i.e. the move to DTG-R) be achieved. So much so that Westinghouse haven't even finished designing all the kit yet! In terms of point to point run times we did a lot of work (the only bits of the IVLU that ever happened) in removing coasting control to improve run time - Oxford Circus to Green Park SB was one of those sites.It would be interesting to know if the 88sec times mentioned relate to pre or post 2005 when coasting control was removed.
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Feb 17, 2010 8:51:08 GMT
My understanding of the signalling changeover is that the existing track circuits will provide detection to the train control system as now for both types of train. The track circuits will not change until all the 67TS has gone. Only after that will the TCs be replaced and modified in length to get the best performance for the new system.
In the meantime, the 67TS gets its usual codes in the usual way while the 09TS gets its DTG messages from the Fixed Communications Unit (radio transmitter to leaky feeder aerial). On board route maps on the 09TS provide positioning data with updates from the balises on the track. This gives the train its limit of movement authority. The ATO works from updated data provided by PAC loops like the Central Line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2010 9:28:03 GMT
88s was measured latter half of last year. The DTG-R signalling is currently 'overlaid' on the existing system. It uses the old track circuits for detection via interface relays in the old IMR's. Apart from that, as tubeprune says, it is standalone from the existing system.
PAC loops are not used on VLU (they were removed from the design in about 05/06). All relevant control info for the ATO will pass over the DTG-R radio.
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Feb 17, 2010 12:44:18 GMT
In terms of point to point run times we did a lot of work (the only bits of the IVLU that ever happened) in removing coasting control to improve run time - Oxford Circus to Green Park SB was one of those sites.It would be interesting to know if the 88sec times mentioned relate to pre or post 2005 when coasting control was removed. My data from the original JTC testing showed a 92s run time for this section.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Feb 17, 2010 18:55:37 GMT
two things.....
1) since Tubeprune did his timings on the '67ts, new autodriver boxes have been fitted which have improved the braking performance of the existing trains and hence reduced the run times. I don't know whether that improvement was worth 4 second on the run mentioned.
2) The new trains get their data via the radio system and by interrogating Absolute Position Reference passive tags in the track. There are no PACs
|
|
|
Post by ratfink on Feb 19, 2010 9:41:20 GMT
two things..... 1) since Tubeprune did his timings on the '67ts, new autodriver boxes have been fitted which have improved the braking performance of the existing trains and hence reduced the run times. I don't know whether that improvement was worth 4 second on the run mentioned. 2) The new trains get their data via the radio system and by interrogating Absolute Position Reference passive tags in the track. There are no PACs Does the NADB (or new NADB? is there one? what's it called?) improve run times? I don't know why I thought it just increased stopping accuracy. Or does it see the first braking command spot and tell itself to wait before it starts braking (I take it they haven't moved the first command spot? did they add some in on platforms to improve accuracy?)
|
|
|
Post by ratfink on Feb 19, 2010 9:51:03 GMT
On subject of 09TS - the main benefit of the DTG-R is that you can run trains closer together, even though it is fixed block.
On the current vic line signalling you only have 2 track code (non zero) speeds, full speed and 25mph. When calcualting braking distances and hence overlaps etc you have to assume that the train is going at the maximum speed for that code.
With the DTG-R the distance required to stop, is caluclated based on your current speed, so if you are going slower (i.e. braking on the run in to a station, you can get closer to the train in front, because you recalculate you distance you need to stop all the time. (Smaller unmarked blocks in station areas support this)
You can see some of this benefit by having more track codes, stepping down in speed like on central line - but with the DTG-R you have a more flexible system, ATP failures are more likely to be train based, so affect only one train - rather than lineside affecting the whole fleet (although you could have lineside/radio failure)
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Feb 19, 2010 18:15:58 GMT
Does the NADB (or new NADB? is there one? what's it called?) improve run times? I don't know why I thought it just increased stopping accuracy. Or does it see the first braking command spot and tell itself to wait before it starts braking (I take it they haven't moved the first command spot? did they add some in on platforms to improve accuracy?) In the beginning there was the ADB. In the '80's it was replaced by the RADB, and in the '00's there is the NADB. NADB controls the brakes directly allowing finer control (not just low, nor and max). this has two benefits - better stopping accuracy and allowing a higher braking rate. Whilst the NADB was necessary due to inability to obtain obsolete components, the funding methods for Metronet, allowed them to be rewarded for the shorter run times enabled by higher brake rates. However, we're well off topic and so might get "told off" with a capital B by the admins!
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Feb 20, 2010 0:30:50 GMT
However, we're well off topic and so might get "told off" with a capital B by the admins! ooohh I dunno.........I think it's very interesting stuff and quite relevant in the grand scheme of things. If anyone thinks there's a lot more mileage in NADB's and the like, by all means start a new thread EDIT: I do believe NADB is short for New Auto Driver Box, in case anyone's wondering!! ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Feb 21, 2010 14:15:38 GMT
When is the next 09 stock delivery scheduled for? I'm assuming that at the moment, trains 1, 2 and 4 are still at Northumberland Park. Is train 3 the next one due?
|
|
|
Post by memorex on Feb 21, 2010 19:40:23 GMT
When is the next 09 stock delivery scheduled for? I'm assuming that at the moment, trains 1, 2 and 4 are still at Northumberland Park. Is train 3 the next one due? I visited North Park Depot on Wednesday and sat in on part of the 09 stock course for the drivers - I was told they had trains 2 3 and 4 there, and that 1 had been sent back up for modification..?
|
|
|
Post by plasmid on Feb 21, 2010 19:49:50 GMT
No surprise there, trains 1 and 2 are beta or pre-production (however you call it) trains.
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Feb 21, 2010 19:55:05 GMT
No surprise there, trains 1 and 2 are beta or pre-production (however you call it) trains. Yet the other day, it was mentioned that train 1 was going to be retained for tests and sent back once all the other 09 stock trains have been delivered.
|
|
|
Post by plasmid on Feb 21, 2010 20:00:47 GMT
They are forever changing their minds on everything they say, but nonetheless we knew they would be sent back at some point.
I might have missed this as I haven't read the entire thread but what differences are there in the production trains (3 and onwards) compared to the pre-production trains (1 and 2)? The only difference I know is that the internal air is sucked in from a different place underneath the train as the air system on the pre-production trains was sucking in warm air.
|
|