Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2009 18:40:33 GMT
Am I the only one who's puzzled at how each new set of stock seems limited to only operating on the line they are introduced on? Until recently, only the Victoria lines' 1967 stock had this issue - most other types of stock could be swapped around the system fairly easily. But the 1992, 1995 and 1996 stock are limited to their respective lines. This makes cascading of newer stock to other lines very unlikely and is, imo, rather short sighted and - in these days of recycling - utterly baffling.
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jul 15, 2009 18:45:24 GMT
I guess that the '67s and then '73s were the first to be specifically 'line' based?
(thinking TubE based!)
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Jul 15, 2009 18:47:01 GMT
I guess that the '67s and then '73s were the first to be specifically 'line' based? A60s and 62s?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2009 19:02:19 GMT
I guess that the '67s and then '73s were the first to be specifically 'line' based? (thinking TubE based!) Couldn't the 73ts have worked on other lines?
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 15, 2009 19:26:24 GMT
Before it was refurbed yes. It was just considered better suited to the pic because of its layout and heathrow. The fact its layout was copied on the 95/6ts makes that argument irrelevant though.
Appendix 11, err, well I was gonna quote it but its gone walkabout...
The 1989 amendment book shows in table Y1 that 1973 stock was in gauge for everywhere for normal pax service EXEPT:
the ELL (max 4 cars of any stock in normal service) the Northern Line (banned) the Vic line (ato suff, with permission any tube stock could run though) Putney Bridge - Wimbledon Turnham Green - Richmond White City - Liverpool Street (shoebeams & saftey brackets removed, special auth. req.) the Bakerloo line (banned).
So there you go!
If anyone could make that above into a web-table, I'd appreciate it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2009 19:27:16 GMT
Surely the economies of having the longer cars of the 73ts and 95ts, thus saving the need for the 7th car, are far in excess of the currently hypothetical problem of lack of stock standardisation.
Likewise, has the extra width of the A stock been worthwhile throughout its life? A definite yes, as the plans never envisaged a need for it to use the District.
The 95ts can be hauled along the Piccadilly line (as for delivery) - it is just that they haven't tested the AC traction motors etc for interference with the signalling and other systems as there hasn't been a need for the testing.
The new signalling systems on the Tubelines Lines would allow some interworking, with the 73ts replacement rumoured to be similar to the 95ts.
If anything the trains are becoming more compatible with the S stock coming!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 15, 2009 19:54:25 GMT
Without dragging this onto another S stock debate, I just want to point out that the current S stock plans don't see any change to the met lines running area. Its still gonna have a seperate fleet which wont be cleared to run anywhere else that isn't marroon already.
But by and large, things are becoming more standardised. The district, circle, H&C and met will share a common car body, if not train length; 'tubelines' will eventually share a common body if not train length or equipment. That leaves BCV, which will never be standardised now because of gauge differences. However, potentially the B&C could.
Between them the 59/62 and the 67/72 stocks could have run everything!
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,889
|
Post by towerman on Jul 15, 2009 20:46:29 GMT
96TS can only run under its' own power on the Northern Line,all transfers have to be done a unit at a time between battery locos,suspect this is due to signal interference issues.
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Jul 16, 2009 7:25:33 GMT
But why do we need intercompatibility these days? Each line is run as a separate entity, so gets its own stock, runs it till it collapses, then replaces it (with perhaps a refurb in the middle).
The last time the issue ever came close to arising was the transfer of 83ts to the Picc (apart from the odd 67ts car to the Bakerloo).
Notice above how INcompatible the 73ts actually are.
If all lines have the same stocks, they all wear out at once and no company wants that sort of cost (contradicting myself here).
But more importantly if stocks are replaced line by line then there's always something with recent technology so it progresses, rather than stagnate.
And the reason for all SSL getting S stock is that A and C are both near expiry so from a cost point of view compromises (like seating) are made to get the same stock all over the SSL. And there's a political dimension here too.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jul 16, 2009 8:03:31 GMT
But why do we need intercompatibility these days? Each line is run as a separate entity, so gets its own stock, runs it till it collapses, then replaces it (with perhaps a refurb in the middle). Very true; I've often pondered about the root causes of non-compatibility and I almost always end up at the conclusion that there has been some form of risk analysis between AC motors/jointless track circuits/DC motors. I think the risk analysis gives a (vanishingly) small potential of induced spikes - look at all the suppression work that needed to be done for the introduction of Eurostar services because of the AC traction motors IIRC; I think too that some of the work in the Farringdon/Moorgate area is suppression work. Perhaps it is far easier to say: 'No, although the risk is small; it is safer to put a blanket ban down so there will be no malfunctions at all'?
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Jul 16, 2009 12:56:56 GMT
Perhaps it is far easier to say: 'No, although the risk is small; it is safer to put a blanket ban down so there will be no malfunctions at all'? In the specific case of AC spikes on DC signalling I would have to agree for once. If any rail system needs to guarantee the fail-safe properties of its signalling, it's LU with the service frequencies etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2009 18:24:31 GMT
But why do we need intercompatibility these days? Each line is run as a separate entity Yes, but why should each line be run as a seperate entity (increasingly almost as a separate railway)? Where's the benefit of such a fragmented approach rather than a common one?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2009 18:34:05 GMT
But why do we need intercompatibility these days? Each line is run as a separate entity, so gets its own stock, runs it till it collapses, then replaces it (with perhaps a refurb in the middle). The last time the issue ever came close to arising was the transfer of 83ts to the Picc (apart from the odd 67ts car to the Bakerloo). Notice above how INcompatible the 73ts actually are. If all lines have the same stocks, they all wear out at once and no company wants that sort of cost (contradicting myself here). But more importantly if stocks are replaced line by line then there's always something with recent technology so it progresses, rather than stagnate. And the reason for all SSL getting S stock is that A and C are both near expiry so from a cost point of view compromises (like seating) are made to get the same stock all over the SSL. And there's a political dimension here too. The London Transport of old was always at the forefront of technology - a flagship for the transport industry in many ways. You only need to look at all the prototypes and new designs created over the years. It was more telling with the buses with the Routemaster starting to be designed in 1947 (and entered service in 1959!) even though the main production of the then current RT design wasn't even in full swing. A constant vision towards the future made sure that designs were thoroughly tested before entering service (the RM prototype emerged in 1956), though even with the RM there were many teething troubles. It's sad to see the poorly designed junk that you see on London's roads today (luckily not on the rails so much), with all the expertise lost at Chiswick. That's progress I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 17, 2009 19:02:23 GMT
Where's the benefit of such a fragmented approach rather than a common one? In the District Line of old, up to the Q stock in 1938 (and indeed the Southern Railway up to the mid fifties) everything was made backwards-compatible, which made technical advances difficult and why there was still slam door stock running south of the Thames less than ten years ago. The alternative is to optimise each batch of stock for the job it has to do. For example, the A stock (and incidentally the BR Class 165 Networker Turbos) were built up to the more generous GCR and GWR loading gauges, which limits them to the lines they were built for but is to the benefit of the people who use them.
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Jul 17, 2009 22:11:54 GMT
[pedant] Incompatibility? [/pedant]
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Jul 17, 2009 22:58:43 GMT
Yes, but why should each line be run as a seperate entity (increasingly almost as a separate railway)? Where's the benefit of such a fragmented approach rather than a common one? Now the answer to your questions very much depends on your viewpoint. From an LU operating perspective, running each line fragmented rather than commonly makes absolute complete sense. Each line has it's own unique points - the Piccadilly line has Heathrow, whilst the Waterloo & City is a short hop commuter only line, for example. The District line sees a lot more tourists than the Metropolitan line to give another. All those types of differences (I'm sure I could bore you to death if I went into great detail with each line) do dictate the different types of stock that suit each line. Of course loading gauge also plays a large part in the type of stock too. Now you can only train drivers on so many different routes & stocks, as they have to complete annual refreshers etc - and they have to be managed in a sensible manner, particularly once special working comes into play (engineering works to you) as well as in terms of line specific team talks, performance reviews, etc, etc. A balance has to be struck such that their usefulness (ie, time spent actually driving a train) is maximised & cost effective. Then there's the service control perspective. Yes plans are in place to merge all the sub surface lines (Circle, District, H&C and Met) into one control centre, but surely it is generally sensible that you have one control room per line? If you have one control room per line, the service control function can then work far more effectively towards the specific requirements that line has when compared with another. Having line specific grades then means there is an effective line based management structure, all geared to that lines specific requirements. It's all about local staff with local knowledge that are aware of local issues. There is a generic combine wide control centre, as indeed there are combine wide departments and management, but their job is to maintain the overall big picture. You can't have people doing both line based and combine wide work simultaneously as that just wouldn't work effectively.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 17, 2009 23:29:18 GMT
I've often wondered if the NYC subway is similar to the tube in this respect. Presumably motormen have their own clutch of lines there? But because of the far more integrated approach, there's only one control centre?
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jul 18, 2009 0:20:18 GMT
I've often wondered if the NYC subway is similar to the tube in this respect. Presumably motormen have their own clutch of lines there? But because of the far more integrated approach, there's only one control centre? Not sure of the present scenario, but there were certainly individual interlockings until quite late on, some may in vestigial form survive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2009 11:11:34 GMT
Yes, but why should each line be run as a seperate entity (increasingly almost as a separate railway)? Where's the benefit of such a fragmented approach rather than a common one? Now the answer to your questions very much depends on your viewpoint. From an LU operating perspective, running each line fragmented rather than commonly makes absolute complete sense. <snip> There is a generic combine wide control centre, as indeed there are combine wide departments and management, but their job is to maintain the overall big picture. You can't have people doing both line based and combine wide work simultaneously as that just wouldn't work effectively. A major issue in organising LU (like any large organisation) is getting the right balance between the limited focus of line (local) management and the broad overview of central control. To answer tubeflight, the thought is undoubtedly that a line will be run 'better' (whatever that might mean) if it is separately managed - the problem arises when what is advantageous for one line is disadvantageous for the system as a whole. And I do feel that currently the balance on LU has swung too far in favour of line management - there have been a number of issues raised in various threads suggesting this, that something won't happen because a different line would be involved. Getting back to the original subject - of stocks being incompatible with other lines - the great problem is that it precludes swapping stock between lines. Which isn't a problem if you get the order for new trains right in the first place - but will it still be right in 10/20/30 years time? And if it isn't, what then? In the past there seems to have been too much A stock (provided something for the ELL); but not enough '67 stock (relieved by moving some '72 stock). And insiders may be able to say whether other lines timetables have been constrained by the number of trains available. Is there enough slack in the Northern fleet to provide for the possible extension to Battersea (& Clapham Junction)? [Rhetorical question - answers should go to a new thread] (See londonreconnections.blogspot.com/2009/07/northern-line-battersea-extension.html)
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 18, 2009 11:20:49 GMT
Well on the subject of the sainted 'A's, a reasonable amount were provided for the initial timetable. Its just things went downhill rather rapidly. I did once hear a story from a motorman that enough A stock was ordered to cover the entire local route to Aylesbury, if it were ever needed. Who can say!
I suppose London has leeway in that a few lines are reasonably self contained. Northern, Central, W&C, Vic, Jubilee to an extent, so there is a decent choice between business unit and combine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2009 17:03:15 GMT
Thanks for all the interesting viewpoints on this (from both sides).
I have to say, though, I am far from convinced this increasing compartmentalisation of each line and it's stock is 'a good thing' in the long term. The fact that LU stock for many years was able to be redeployed from one line to the next - and that this arrangement seemed to work - still sways me in favour of a "common" approach, stock-wise, if not management-wise.
The fact that it did seem to work does beg the question as to why this state of affairs is now deemed in need of change. Remember the old "Standard Stock" for the deep-level lines? So called, I presume, because it was near-universally suitable for all the deep-level lines? Didn't that indicate that this was viewed as a sensible and logical approach to rolling stock at the time?
Oh, well. These things are usually cyclical. In 40 years time there'll probably be a trend towards common standardisation of stock, again ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2009 16:50:50 GMT
If all lines have the same stocks, they all wear out at once and no company wants that sort of cost (contradicting myself here). Yes, but that couldn't really happen as to replace every train on every line at the same time would take, I guess 20 years? So each 'franchised' line would pay for their trains when they got them, thus staggering the cost. If all the lines had the same stock - with body variations for line - I'm thinking rolling chassis here, so that the cab and train controls were universal, then that would make inter-line transfers of staff easier and a reduction in cost because you have the power of bulk-buying your consumables and spare parts.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jul 19, 2009 17:36:39 GMT
Thanks for all the interesting viewpoints on this (from both sides). I have to say, though, I am far from convinced this increasing compartmentalisation of each line and it's stock is 'a good thing' in the long term. The fact that LU stock for many years was able to be redeployed from one line to the next - and that this arrangement seemed to work - still sways me in favour of a "common" approach, stock-wise, if not management-wise. The fact that it did seem to work does beg the question as to why this state of affairs is now deemed in need of change. Remember the old "Standard Stock" for the deep-level lines? So called, I presume, because it was near-universally suitable for all the deep-level lines? Didn't that indicate that this was viewed as a sensible and logical approach to rolling stock at the time? Oh, well. These things are usually cyclical. In 40 years time there'll probably be a trend towards common standardisation of stock, again ... One of Frank Pick's aims was to have a standard train type on all lines. Those trains that were not lod enough or it wasn't possible to replace were modifed. The old CLR 1903 stock was one example. The Standard stock actually ran on all the lines at one stage or another.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jul 19, 2009 17:45:19 GMT
The Standard stock actually ran on all the lines at one stage or another. Has there been photographic evidence of Standard stock on the ELL? ISTR that it might have been cleared to run out as far as Little Ilford, but I can't remember where or how I read this?
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Jul 19, 2009 19:26:21 GMT
The Standard stock actually ran on all the lines at one stage or another. Has there been photographic evidence of Standard stock on the ELL? ISTR that it might have been cleared to run out as far as Little Ilford, but I can't remember where or how I read this? Would the Standard Stock not have run on the ELL (and Victoria Line) in Engineers Train format?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jul 19, 2009 20:13:15 GMT
I'm sure the Standard stock ran on the Victoria Line in the test stages - or did the 67ts run on the Northern City?
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 19, 2009 20:22:56 GMT
Standards on the Vic. The standards based at Drayton Park depot, I think? Someone mentioned once on here somewhere there were plans at one point to use the 67ts on the NC and on the Aldwych branch, both being converted to ATO.
|
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Jul 19, 2009 20:42:50 GMT
Has there been photographic evidence of Standard stock on the ELL? ISTR that it might have been cleared to run out as far as Little Ilford, but I can't remember where or how I read this? Would the Standard Stock not have run on the ELL (and Victoria Line) in Engineers Train format? I have in my hot little hand,a 1977 edition of "London Underground Rolling Stock" by Brian Hardy,and there,on p.79,is a picture of Ballast Motor L74 converted from a 1923 Standard Stock DM,at Northumberland Park. I suspect they went absolutely everywhere,in this format. The concept of a "Standard" stock makes most sense when you have a central overhaul depot serving all lines.Economies of scale result as the overhaul scheme moves seamlessly from one line's stock to the next. Now that it seems that lines maintain their own stock,this is less of a factor;instead the pressure is for each line to have its own stock,with little reference to what other lines are using.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jul 20, 2009 23:33:01 GMT
And insiders may be able to say whether other lines timetables have been constrained by the number of trains available. After idly browsing through the appropriate patent from Dell the other day; I wonder if the (rhetorical) question could be better phrased thus: 'Would the services have developed more if there had been more than 12 possible destinations for the train description?' <whisper> Yes, I know there were 15 in latter years, and no; I'm not thinking about programme machines! </whisper>This isn't quite as crazy as the idea about how all the lines timetables are/were [1] centred around big trains from Euston and Richmond. If the system had been a bit more flexible, then the services might have developed more, requiring extra stock. Extra stock would lead to greater inter-running, perpetuating the compatibility. A cohesive approach would have been applied to suppression and signalling. Ah. I'm in fantasy land. I'll stop right here. [1] first/last train connections.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2009 0:54:25 GMT
I guess that the '67s and then '73s were the first to be specifically 'line' based? A60s and 62s? 62s operated on the Central and Northern lines, so i'm guessing that this stock could operate during traffic hours on all lines, except the Victoria line.
|
|