|
Post by t697 on Apr 30, 2020 8:14:33 GMT
I expect signal sighting rules were different when two person operated 1959TS ran on the Picc. Even allowing for the wider viewing cone from the 59TS driving position, there may have been station starter signals requiring some driver head movement to check. But of course the driver wasn't also checking the passengers and platform. Then there's 40 years or so of minor mods where the shorter 73TS was the prevailing train and the stopping position of the cab may have been further back. Now of course the the new trains' length and sightlines add to the issue. I'm only mildly surprised it's as many as 100 or so signals to amend. Track circuit replacement is always fun, I see a vote for no EBI200s and I expect others would vote no FS2550 from early Met experience. Perhaps a simple 125Hz conversion would do. I've no axe to grind nor enough detailed knowledge to apply on that.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Apr 28, 2020 22:26:41 GMT
I'm not directly involved but I think they will be no longer than the 7 car 1959TS the present fleet replaced. But I accept that doesn't necessarily eliminate some signalling change. If nothing else, the replacement of the last 33 1/3 Hz DEVs with something else.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Apr 28, 2020 16:17:41 GMT
Fair enough. LO or another operator altogether?
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Apr 28, 2020 16:12:41 GMT
I thought there was a plan years ago to put the 1995 stock on the Piccadilly line and build a new fleet for the Northern Line to allow better services and the Battersea extension. The idea of 6 car trains in a like for like basis would not have given sufficient capacity. I seem to recall various plans for trains of 1995TS style for the Picc, the actual 95TS or a new set. Basically that would be pretty much a functionally and size-wise like for like replacement of the 1973TS. New signalling would then provide the capacity increase through improved performance and train frequency. Latterly issues of Accessibility and other factors have militated against the 6 long(ish) car schemes. Hence the more radical style trains now on order. Those trains will also be longer than the existing ones increasing line capacity a bit which will be handy since new signalling now looks a long way off.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Apr 28, 2020 16:03:43 GMT
Not seen any 710 on the DC line for a while. I assume this is due to driver availability for those signed on the newer trains? 5 car 378 holds more people that's all..as we were running 2 trains an hour which I believe has now been upped to 3 trains an hour. So the plan is to replace the 378s on this route with smaller capacity trains. Can anyone remind me why that's a good idea or what's the plan for the 378s?
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Apr 22, 2020 11:20:28 GMT
West Acton?
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Apr 22, 2020 4:57:25 GMT
No train in picture B?
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Apr 17, 2020 5:17:45 GMT
D is not that far west (and remember the platforms are above street level) Putney Bridge?
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Apr 6, 2020 15:41:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Apr 4, 2020 15:59:07 GMT
I'm a little confused about what a Pickering is. According to my Ian Allen book from ~1965, at that time there were 30 battery locomotives, 3 built by Gloucester in 1937 (L41, 42, 43), 6 by Gloucester by in 1939 (L35, 36, 38, 39, 40), 3 by Hurst Nelson in 1951 (L55, 56, 57), 4 more by Hurst Nelson in 1952, (L58-61) 1 built by Acton Works (L76) and 13 being built by Metro Cammell from 1965. Also listed are 14 Ballast Motor Cars built in 1923, (L62-75) but there is no builder's name associated. So as these numbers tie up with the post above, I assume these are the Pickerings. As only L56-61 are listed above and these 7 are the lowest numbers of the 14, what happened to L62-75? Apart from this batch of 14, all the rest are listed as Battery Locomotives, but these are Ballast Motor Cars. Would I be right in assuming that the Battery Locomotives only ran on battery power, or could they run off track power as well, but the ballast motors only ran off track power? Here's some info about R Y Pickering; www.gracesguide.co.uk/R._Y._Pickering_and_CoI'm not sure whether they built those locos, but that's the name I seem to recall rather than Hurst Nelson. And on the power question, the LUL Battery Locos run on line supply most of the time. They use the battery when working within a worksite where the power is off. Also for some shunting operations.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Apr 3, 2020 17:37:33 GMT
Although externally similar (as all of the post-1936 locomotives were), that would not have been a Pickering example. I don’t have the dates to hand (I will keep looking), but I believe there were all withdrawn during the 1990s, leaving the fleet that still exists today, the oldest of which dates to the mid-1960s and was built by MetroCammell. Yes the remaining 29 locos were from 3 batches nominally 1964, 1969 and 1973. 64s and 69s from Met-Camm and the others from Crewe? So the youngest is not far off 47 years old. They all have traction motors that are pre-WW2 so there's a strong likelihood the motors will get to their centenaries! Not sure of scrapping dates of the older locos.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Apr 1, 2020 6:15:11 GMT
C - Ruislip Manor
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Feb 27, 2020 18:29:10 GMT
Once again this has absolutely nothing to do with station names. They are irrelevant. One of the adjacent stations has a physical characteristic the other does not. Greenford the only one with a non-LUL track - for the NR Shuttle service to Ealing?
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Feb 27, 2020 18:17:07 GMT
OK, so yes the S stock does in principle use more power overall than an A stock train. An S8 train weighs about 40 tonnes more than an A stock for the various reasons already elaborated in this thread, but part of this is so as to provide higher performance right through the accelerating range, but not a higher top speed. How much of that available performance actually gets used and hence how much power drawn under the new signalling and timetables remains to be seen. The trains do have regenerative braking on all cars so you get a fair bit back when there are plenty of trains running to use that regenerated power. Regenerative braking efficiency was also improved as a result of the upgrade because the low loss conductor rail is low loss irrespective of whether power is coming from the sub-station or another train in regen braking. Regen braking is best when the power goes to other trains with only minimal amounts lost in uselessly heating the conductor rails.
Taking the special example of Harrow Siding, the S stock is able to motor at low speeds using a lower current than an A stock because the AC inverter is efficient and not wasting power in starting resistors. Same is true of DC chopper schemes. Therefore the traction control fuse wouldn't trip and prevent a train being motored in the siding while the signal was against it. Conversely, the Heating or Air Conditioning peak load could trip the fuse. The HVAC is of course thermostatically controlled but the peak HVAC load together with other auxiliary loads could be present for example if the doors had been open for a while in the platform for detrainment just before the train moved to the siding.
It was convenient to get rid of the life expired traction control set up when S stock was introduced. I seem to recall it was found that the main contactor may have been reclaimed from Q stock... I seem to recall the trainstop was located or relocated close to the train berthed position so if it SPAD'd the shunt signal to exit, it would stop before it derailed on the catch points.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Feb 23, 2020 22:49:32 GMT
S stock does have autoclose after 45 seconds which reduces heet/'coolth' losses at terminal stations and when there is a long dwell time, but that leads to complaints from a different portion of the psssenger population who seem to have embedded in them "LU doesn't have autoclose, never has, never should" and then get caught by autoclosing doors despite the scheme being the same as all other modern trains in the UK. Can't please everyone...
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Feb 21, 2020 6:08:24 GMT
C - Hillingdon
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Feb 10, 2020 20:27:03 GMT
Rayners Lane?
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Feb 4, 2020 22:53:48 GMT
and how do they only get a bank of just 5 seats in the centre bay on the 1992 stock? the 1995 stock can fit 6 seats in the middle As well as the different doorway widths, don't forget that a 1995TS car is at least 1.5m longer than a 1992TS car.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Feb 4, 2020 22:14:10 GMT
I only noticed recently that the bridge to the west of the station appears to be built to accommodate another track that would route behind the westbound platform. Was that ever installed I wonder? The interesting link above doesn't show it in any photo, but maybe it was there at another time.
Perhaps it was the loco run round for the goods trains.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Feb 4, 2020 22:05:36 GMT
D - Goldhawk Road
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Jan 25, 2020 11:17:45 GMT
Least used station on each line concerned?
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Jan 24, 2020 18:33:40 GMT
Also maybe of interest, the OPO mirrors and monitors seem to be in place ready except at Uxbridge where no sign of them at all. Perhaps the Heritage negotiations took just as long then as more recently... Fun to hear the signal bell on this obviously two person operated train.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Jan 21, 2020 19:17:51 GMT
I wonder whether the IoW update could use the battery trains and dispense with conductor rails except at charging locations. Could make the update and maintenance cheaper perhaps, as well as reducing ground level electrification. Maybe only switch on the rail at the charging places when a train is detected present.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Jan 17, 2020 7:50:23 GMT
Door spacing looks a bit uneven for a metro train. The end car looks like loading and unloading will be slower than the others. What's the story there I wonder. Perhaps station dwell times are generous compared to LUL.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Dec 30, 2019 21:25:27 GMT
MS car in S stock jargon is Motor Shoegear, i.e. motor car with shoegear.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Dec 30, 2019 10:52:29 GMT
More advanced in some ways but in others less so, like the Motor Alternator for auxiliary supply and I seem to recall traditional thyristors in the propulsion equipment instead of the then new fangled GTO ones. Might be wrong on that one, anyone else recall? Hi i have lot of info on the units but to difficult to put up on here. AUX was not Motor Alternator was a Static convertors and had GTO Traction according to the info i have, i still say the BRL one was the best When at Northfields Depot That`s my opinion. I'm sure there was an MA but on further reflection it may have been for the traction motors' separately excited fields. The blue train was certainly kept usable for a lot longer and used for various tests usually on the South Ealing Test Track so must have had quite a bit going for it!
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Dec 30, 2019 10:47:30 GMT
At least with overhead pickup, with multiple interconnected pan's I'd expect the procedure would be to open the line breaker from the leading shoe/pan' so as to prevent as much arcing and the possibility of bridging a section gap. Not sure how well that would work for 3rd/4th rail pickups.
This was in 3rd rail territory, and the "bridge" was between the collector shoes at opposite ends end of one unit. In OHLE I don't think pantographs are electrically linked. Something like a Pendolino or IEP will only have one pantograph raised (usually the rear one, so that in the event of damage to the OHLE caused by problems with the raised pantograph the other one is already clear of the damaged area). In trains formed of several units (e.g. the 8-car formations of class 315s on TfL Rail), each unit has its own ac feed but there is only a low voltage control connection between them. But I'm now getting confused with how an S stock's electrical connections work. I understand that the compressors are on the DMs and can only take power from the shoegear on their respective DM. I understand that all cars on S stock are powered, but I don't think all cars have shoegear. How are the non-shoe fitted cars powered? A bit like 92TS. On S stock the DM cars and the MS cars have collector shoes and associated line protection. The M1 cars traction is fed from the adjacent DM car and the M2 car from the MS car. Train formations are DM- M1 - M2- MS - MS - M2 - M1 - DM for an S8 train. The S7 trains have only one M2 car, so one of the MS cars does not feed traction equipment on an adjacent car.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Dec 30, 2019 10:42:57 GMT
You are correct that S stock is not special in respect of gapping at both DM, but as the newest train on the network, it does have a number of features which improve on previous stocks e.g. being able to reset the tripcock BOTH ends from the cab the driver is currently in. In the event of a rear trip, no more shutting down, going back to the other cab, resetting the tripcock, returning to the driving end, and reopening up. It therefore leads me in my belief that making the S Stock and/or future stock gap proof would be a very desirable thing to do to minimise delays. Unfortunately in that respect they are a retrograde step from the previous D Stock, in that NO action was required if the rear trip was operated and no slow-speed operation was necessary. Progress ? Yes, but that mod to D78 stock wasn't standards compliant. I know why it was done and the S stock scheme is a standards compliant solution to the same specific issue, which need not be discussed in detail here.
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Dec 29, 2019 8:51:37 GMT
Out of the three the best one was the blue BRE one more advanced than the other two to say. More advanced in some ways but in others less so, like the Motor Alternator for auxiliary supply and I seem to recall traditional thyristors in the propulsion equipment instead of the then new fangled GTO ones. Might be wrong on that one, anyone else recall?
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Dec 29, 2019 8:45:53 GMT
I suspect that rather than any of these potential train modifications and reconfigurations it will be easier to adjust current rail gaps in the very few locations it's possible to come to a stand with all cars that feed air compressors gapped. As I pointed out earlier, S stock is not special in this respect.
|
|