|
|
Post by edwin on Jul 5, 2009 22:54:22 GMT
80km/h or 52mph I think. It's the same on the whole of the Central.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2009 23:20:18 GMT
Thanks.
Compared to other deep level lines it seems very fast.
|
|
|
|
Post by auxsetreq on Jul 6, 2009 8:57:17 GMT
80km/h or 52mph I think. It's the same on the whole of the Central. Depending on the distance of the train ahead and speed restrictions - Maximum line speed in tunnel sections is 65kph - In open sections 100kph with the train not exceeding 85kph in ATO |
|
|
|
Post by alstom1996 on Jul 6, 2009 12:00:33 GMT
Really I thought it was 70kph underground and 100kph on the surface.
|
|
|
|
Post by auxsetreq on Jul 6, 2009 16:20:02 GMT
Really I thought it was 70kph underground and 100kph on the surface. Well, sort of, the MSS is just a tad under 70, but the ATO will drive to the 65kph target speed, the extra MSS is to take into account slight overspeeds which would stop the train in ATO. The same again for open sections, just a tad over 100........... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2009 18:09:57 GMT
The 92ts are, indeed, dreadful IMO for most of the reasons others have said (in particular the seats - which are little more than poorly-padded, bolt-upright, L-shaped benches). What truly beggars belief is that so many aspects of this ghastly stock seem to have inspired the new Victoria Line 2009ts. Including horrible seats - which (on the mock-up at least) seem to be little more than poorly-padded, bolt-upright, L-shaped benches.  |
|
|
|
Post by edwin on Jul 7, 2009 16:23:04 GMT
Really I thought it was 70kph underground and 100kph on the surface. Well, sort of, the MSS is just a tad under 70, but the ATO will drive to the 65kph target speed, the extra MSS is to take into account slight overspeeds which would stop the train in ATO. The same again for open sections, just a tad over 100........... Who told you? A driver told me the whole thing is 80km/h. Why would there be any reason to go slower in straight sections of tunnels, versus outdoor sections in tunnels; The Victoria operates at 47mph between stations and that is wholly underground. |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Jul 7, 2009 17:40:32 GMT
They don't like wet weather do they?Was on one today when it was raining,stopped halfway down the platform on at least 3 occasions.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jul 7, 2009 21:33:13 GMT
The Victoria line has slightly larger tunnels, and no sharp curves, which allows the trains on that line to operate slightly faster.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jul 7, 2009 22:10:53 GMT
Well, sort of, the MSS is just a tad under 70, but the ATO will drive to the 65kph target speed, the extra MSS is to take into account slight overspeeds which would stop the train in ATO. The same again for open sections, just a tad over 100........... Who told you? A driver told me the whole thing is 80km/h. Why would there be any reason to go slower in straight sections of tunnels, versus outdoor sections in tunnels; The Victoria operates at 47mph between stations and that is wholly underground. The maximum line speed on the Central Line is 100km/h in the open sections, however in any tunnel section I believe the highest Maximum Safe Speed (MSS) ever displayed is 65km/h. The maximum speed for 92 stock is currently 85km/h, which is what the ATO drives to. In coded manual there's nothing to stop a train reaching 100km/h (it will overspeed at about 104-105km/h), however the Line Supplement is clear that 92 stock currently must not exceed 85km/h in any mode, therefore any T/Op exceeding this speed is technically speeding. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2009 8:47:09 GMT
Well, sort of, the MSS is just a tad under 70, but the ATO will drive to the 65kph target speed, the extra MSS is to take into account slight overspeeds which would stop the train in ATO. The same again for open sections, just a tad over 100........... Who told you? A driver told me the whole thing is 80km/h. Why would there be any reason to go slower in straight sections of tunnels, versus outdoor sections in tunnels; The Victoria operates at 47mph between stations and that is wholly underground. The Victoria line was built as an ATO line with gradients approaching and departing stations to aid with braking and accelerating and as previously mentioned, straight tunnels with minor curves, hence the higher speed the trains run at. An ATO train drives to MSS although a T/Op only sees the Target Speed and never really knows what the MSS for the section is. There are numerous locations on the line were target speed is displayed at 35kph but the train accelerates past this to 55kph (MSS) and remains at this speed. When it approaches a Block Marker Board or Colour light signal, the ATO Controller will brake the train to MSS (normally the same as target speed for any speed below 65kph) for that signaling section, and will obey MSS, unless the run data informs the ATO controller to brake for a station. In tunnels the train will not go faster than 65 kph and prior to the restriction, 102kph in the outside sections. If the speed of the train exceeded MSS, then it would be over speed tripped to bring the trains speed below MSS were the brakes would release. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Jul 9, 2009 11:40:39 GMT
Whilst going through Stratford on the NXEA line during the past few days (& with this thread in mind), I've been looking at the 92ts. Ignoring the gaffer-tape appearance of the cabs, I've been shocked by the amount of corrosion around the passenger windows. After a bit of research on the net I've identified that: yes the spelling mistakes are on the internet page I've taken the quote fromSome of the cars have worst examples that others, but regardless, they do give a very poor appearance and impression. I'm not anti the 92ts, I'm just of the opinion that they were poorly designed in places and after almost a decade and a half of use, they're showing these weaknesses. Its too late to redesign them, but they are in desperate need of refurbishment. Its just a shame that the Olympics will have come and gone and 2012 London visitors will not have had the best of impressions of LU should they use the Central Line. Will they last as long as the 67ts in regular service. If it was solely a question of design IMO definitely not, but as with all things the accountants pen may dictate otherwise |
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Jul 9, 2009 13:39:35 GMT
You've answered a question I've long wondered about as to how the C Stock appear to be 'rusting' around the windows. Funny how the A Stock aren't so affected it seems.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Jul 9, 2009 22:08:01 GMT
The A stock are probably everything in design and realisation that the 1992 stock aren't!
|
|
|
|
Post by johnb on Jul 10, 2009 11:11:59 GMT
Yup, they're slow, bumpy, dated, massively obsolete, smell pretty vile and don't have a sensible layout for transporting passengers ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jul 10, 2009 11:49:44 GMT
The A stock are probably everything in design and realisation that the 1992 stock aren't! Yep, A60 being outdated, obselete, and a bad layout for today. I say bad layout as I only ever use Met.line south of Finchley Road, and the whole thing is inappropriate to 21st century loadings. 92 stock is a dream compared to A60. -- Nick |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jul 10, 2009 12:21:49 GMT
The A stock are probably everything in design and realisation that the 1992 stock aren't! Yep, A60 being outdated, obselete, and a bad layout for today. I say bad layout as I only ever use Met.line south of Finchley Road, and the whole thing is inappropriate to 21st century loadings. 92 stock is a dream compared to A60. -- Nick I think that given they are a compromise between outer-suburban and inner-city, they have a very good layout. A decent amount of vestible space, lots of seats (also with room for luggage), and enough room for one row of standing passengers in the aisles. Yes on the section south of Finchley Road, on trains which run through to Aldgate, for an hour in the morning peak, they can sometimes get overcrowded. But even then I can't recall I've ever encountered an A stock that's been *so* crowded that I've been unable to board. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2009 14:04:57 GMT
Moderator Comment
Please remember that this is the Central Line board, so try and remain on topic to avoid this thread being locked.
Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2009 9:24:05 GMT
I really cannot see what people have got against the 1992 stock, whilst some are a bit grubby they are certainly fast which allows such an intensive service at peak times.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jul 15, 2009 12:44:07 GMT
I traveled in one yesterday. The wall between the cab and the saloon had cracked in half right from the top to the bottom by the seats. This was a random crack, not one that followed a join line. Can you guess how it was 'fixed'? Duct tape strikes again! Didn't matter that it had mostly riped along its length. They look absolutely aweful inside and from the front. I struggle to understand how anyone can consider them visibly to give a better impression then the average A stock, or most other tube stocks. They look what they are; cheap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2009 17:08:43 GMT
The only thing I really like about the 92 stock is it's superb acceleration. I have not yet found any other stock currently in use on the LU system that matches it, imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by dannyofelmpark on Aug 9, 2009 20:12:52 GMT
what you can say about the central line is that the service has improved, but the trains have not
for me, not being a train operator - and therefor no certainty of a seat what they need to do is push the seats back against the car body like they are on any other train
that how you get more standing room
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Aug 9, 2009 20:35:03 GMT
The 1992 stock are cheap! They look it and will probably not even reach the A stock's half life. It is a shame, as they do have great accelaration. Some money needs to be spent on them!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2009 21:42:55 GMT
what they need to do is push the seats back against the car body like they are on any other train that how you get more standing room The seats are pushed back into the walls and made small to give more standing room, I don't think anyone would want any smaller seats on these trains. |
|
|
|
Post by plasmid on Aug 10, 2009 0:31:33 GMT
I think the 1992 stock are great little trains. It's just a shame that they've worn out so quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesb on Aug 11, 2009 8:38:30 GMT
The 1992 stock aren't all that bad. They remind me a bit of the NHS! The only reason they haven't fallen apart is because of the people that work on them constantly patch them together. There is a sort of love-hate relationship.
I do think that they are a bit tacky - the biggest fault for me, is seeing water dripping down inside the cars when its raining. If something so visually obvious can occur, it makes you wonder whats going on with the bits you can't see.
The doors also seem a bit too easy to activate the sensor when a train is pulling out the station, jerking the train. Sometimes, the train seems to crawl along and the motors don't kick in. The driver lets it roll for a bit, hoping it will start moving, and then has to stop the train forcing it to jolt and start again... But I quite enjoy that ;D Its not often you feel the full force of the brakes.
|
|
|
|
Post by dannyofelmpark on Sept 28, 2009 13:19:36 GMT
The seats are pushed back into the walls and made small to give more standing room, I don't think anyone would want any smaller seats on these trains. Only the two seats in the middle of each bay of six are pushed back |
|
|
|
Post by alstom1996 on Sept 28, 2009 13:56:33 GMT
Yes for some reason The door pressure on the 1992's has been turned down, which causes the doors to crack open very easily. Apparently the doors were closing too fast, funny I thought the idea of the doors was to stop people boarding!
|
|
|
|
Post by plasmid on Sept 28, 2009 14:49:32 GMT
Yes they do crack open very easily, as we approached Mile End this morning from Stratford a woman removed her handbag from the door and the doors automatically closed by a gap of about 2 inches.
The sensors obviously didn't pick that one up as the traction motors wern't knocked out at any point when leaving Stratford or during the course of the journey.
I think the traction motors are wearing out now. Every time I leave Mile End we seem to get out-accelerated by District line trains. The last time I saw "a quick" 1992 stock was a month ago and that was the stock which had new bogies and a refit of all the equipment...sounded smooth too!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2009 18:57:23 GMT
How much life do the 92ts have before they need to either be replaced or given a thoroughgoing refit?
|
|
