|
Post by alanbennett on Oct 23, 2009 15:48:31 GMT
Sorry, you're wrong there as prjb will explain later. The reason for TBC on the left is that the cab is designed for the long term. Which means TBTC (full auto). Which won't need the TBC. So it's put on the left so the rest of the driver controls (which WILL be needed in the future) lie handy to the driver's seating position. At least, that's the way prjb explained it at the viewing. (If they had been designed for purely manual driving the tBC WOULD have been on the right....)I'm right-handed and frequently drive 95 stock, and find the TBC arrangement comfortable. However I've never found the left-handed layout on other stocks to be uncomfortable - for me it's different, but it's not a problem at all. A lot of mainline trains have their TBC on the left side - class 170 and 375 I believe, definitely 365, and maybe the Desiros as well. These certainly weren't designed for ATO! Maybe it's partly because this was the traditional location for the brake handle. But on a lot of the NR trains the CTBC equivalent does not have to be held constantly.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Oct 23, 2009 16:15:10 GMT
Well said! That's what S reminds me of........... Yes, I agree - Well said. The 'C' Stock are the work horse of the SSR Fleet and do a fantasic job of moving large numbers of customers around and cater brilliantly for short hop/high density journeys (the one's the vast majority of our customers actual take) like no other LU stock ever has. Ooh I dunno about that Prjb; most of the old gaurd I've heard from say the F stock was better at that job by far then the C stock.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Oct 23, 2009 16:29:34 GMT
Ooh I dunno about that Prjb; most of the old gaurd I've heard from say the F stock was better at that job by far then the C stock. Funny you should say that; as I've been thinking for a while now that the S Stock has more than a passing resemblance to the tanks! Must be the mix of longitudinal and transverse seating, I suppose. F stock also went like the wind - so perhaps there is more in this comparison than you might think.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,735
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 23, 2009 16:56:00 GMT
I presume that one of them would be diverted to Amersham. ..therefore creating a large gap in the Chesham service. The most likely way that two Chesham trains will arrive at C+L within 10 minutes is that the first of them is running very late and the second is on time. You have trains 1, 2, 3, and 4, all Chesham services. Train 1 departs Chesham on time. Train 2 is running sufficiently late that the headway between it and train 3 (running on time) is less than 10 minutes. If you divert train 2 to Amersham and run train 3 to Chesham as planned, passengers at Chesham experience a cancellation of train 2 and trains 3 running on time. passengers for Chesham on train 2 have to wait at CL for less than 10 minutes. Train 2 runs to Amersham, has a quick turnaround and returns south less late than it was previously. passengers at Amersham get a bonus service. Service controllers have one train and driver running late (train 2). If you run train 2 to Chesham and divert train 3 to Amersham, passengers at Chesham experience a very late train 2 and cancellation of train 3 or (I'd guess mote likely) train 2 runs south in the path of train 3 so Chesham passengers effectively experience a cancellation of train 2 and train 3 running on time. Passengers arriving on train 2 are not affected. Passengers for Chesham on train 3 have to wait at CL for train 4 - a full standard service interval (greater than 10 minutes) behind. Passengers at Amersham get a bonus service, running south presumably as close to train 2s scheduled time from CL as possible. Service control have two trains and drivers running late and possibly out of order. I don't work in service control/signalling/any other relevant discipline and never have done, so these are all just guesses. Unless there are factors or options that I've not considered (highly likely) then the first option seems the nobrainer to me. I am of course assuming the following: *It takes longer than 10 minutes to run CL-Chesham-CL *CL-Amersham-CL running time is less than CL-Chesham-CL *Two S8 trains cannot be accommodated at Chesham *Trains cannot easily reverse north to south at CL
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 23, 2009 18:26:14 GMT
That's more or less it Chris M. Want a job ;D
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,191
|
Post by Tom on Oct 23, 2009 20:46:24 GMT
I find 'A' Stock seats to be awful as I like to stay in the seat I choose rather than be bounced accross into the seat next door. But with respect that's more down to the track quality than the seat design. At least the A stock seat has some springiness unike those found on other stocks (1992 particularly) As long as Bombardier's design team isn't using 92TS as their inspiration for the S stock seating we should be fine.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 23, 2009 20:49:08 GMT
I don't think you've done the case for S stock much good at all really. C stock? A compliement? Well they are workhorses on lines they are designed for (H&C) but they are not the sort of workhorse for the Met Main! I'm not trying to make a case for 'S' Stock, the bespoke design (which was designed by experienced railway personnel in both engineering and operations as well as actual train drivers) will stand the test of time and cater for today's customer numbers as well as those going forward. I never said that the 'S' was an exact replica of a 'C' Stock, I merely pointed out that if you wanted to liken it to a 'C' then I would take that as a compliment based on the fact they do their job better than any other SSR train. Gosh, I forgot that the Met is so special that it must have special treatment (even though customers coming in from Upminster into the city travel for longer distances), if you're looking for special status for the Met from me then you had better look elsewhere and I'm not alone on this forum in not buying into that historical myth (give it up Metroland Man - it's all over). if they were on there now, everyone standing, a max speed of 40 mph and nasty rheo 'snatching' every time the brakes were used (apart from Westinghouse, but from I've seen noone seems to use it whenever I go on C stock trips, even where they're supposed to). The 40mph restriction is due to wheel/rail interface issues, but of course we'll just sweep over the fact that 'A' Stock are limited to 50mph due to the bogies falling apart. Mind you, even if we did up the speed limit it would still take them a 'month of Sundays' to get there. Not to mention the fact the nasty seats and substandard suspension would bounce people all over the car. reckon you're seriously blinkered if you see a new model of all SSL lines as a modern C stock. As said they are good for city work, but not for the outer stuff as the Met. Again I never said that, I merely pointed out I would take your attempt to be negative as a compliment based on the aforementioned reasons. I think that being blinkered is hanging on to the past and not accepting that change needs to happen. I think that being blinkered is ignoring the fact that customer numbers are on the rise and we need a train design that reflects that. I think that being blinkered is thinking that the Met line is in some way special and warrants different treatment regardless of the fact that the majority of the SSR customers travel in a completely different fashion. But thats just me of course. seems to be a reason for the left handed TBC which no drivers except for die hard C stock drivers actually wanted. Most people in this country are right handed, which makes D stock so popular. I must have missed you at the three years worth of design reviews I attended, where were you? Feel free to make it up as you go along but don't expect me to agree with you. Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh but I spent a large part of the design process on the placement of the TBC and involved ergonomic experts, train operators, and experienced railway engineers in the process until we got it correct. The placement of the TBC has nothing to do with being left or right handed, it's a fact. I am extremely right handed and drove a 'C' Stock for 8 years. By your rationale 'A' Stock drivers would have terrible trouble when braking. You do not need fine motor skills for operating a TBC. You do however need fine motor skills to operate buttons and controls when the train is in motion and as such it made sense (after 13 months of cab design and stalling the whole design process until we got it right) to place the TBC on the left. Furthermore the TBC and all it's associated equipment take up a lot of room, by placing it on the left we were able to place most of the equipment for the TBC in the 'A' Pillar, had it of been on the right it would have taken up a lot of room and would have restricted movement around the cab. In addition the majority of this trains life will be spent in ATO, so again it made sense to place the TBC in an area where it took up less space in an otherwise enormous cab. so glad that the new stock has been developed so impartially. I'm glad you are glad. Like I said earlier, I must have missed you at the design reviews where you formed this incorrect opinion of how the train was developed.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 23, 2009 20:51:06 GMT
I find 'A' Stock seats to be awful as I like to stay in the seat I choose rather than be bounced accross into the seat next door. But with respect that's more down to the track quality than the seat design. At least the A stock seat has some springiness unike those found on other stocks (1992 particularly) As long as Bombardier's design team isn't using 92TS as their inspiration for the S stock seating we should be fine. No, we are not using a 92ts design - I promise! I don't like 'A' Stock seats because they are springy, I don't like to move about on the seat base. I prefer a firmer seat, but accept that the issue of seating is subjective.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,191
|
Post by Tom on Oct 23, 2009 20:52:51 GMT
Well said! That's what S reminds me of........... Yes, I agree - Well said. The 'C' Stock are the work horse of the SSR Fleet and do a fantasic job of moving large numbers of customers around and cater brilliantly for short hop/high density journeys (the one's the vast majority of our customers actual take) like no other LU stock ever has. I think therein lies the problem (not you being a C stock fan PRJB... ;D) The C stock is a good high density train. However you wouldn't want to commute from Amersham to Aldgate on one, nor Ealing Broadway to Upminster. As much as anyhting else, the more door space, the more space to let heat out during the winter (will the air con be able to work as a heater too?). If the S stock design is intended to make light work of the short hop journeys it will obviously have been designed for that work. Hence those who do make long distance commutes are less likely to compare the new trains favourably alongside the old. Thus we're back to the original problem - it's a 'one size fits all' train being introduced on different services with varying characteristics that don't lend themselves to such designs. (This isn't intended as a criticism btw - merely an observation)
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 23, 2009 20:55:57 GMT
Yes, I agree - Well said. The 'C' Stock are the work horse of the SSR Fleet and do a fantasic job of moving large numbers of customers around and cater brilliantly for short hop/high density journeys (the one's the vast majority of our customers actual take) like no other LU stock ever has. Ooh I dunno about that Prjb; most of the old gaurd I've heard from say the F stock was better at that job by far then the C stock. I am willing to stand corrected there Ben, 'F' Stock was a little before my time!! ;D
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 23, 2009 21:01:03 GMT
Yes, I agree - Well said. The 'C' Stock are the work horse of the SSR Fleet and do a fantasic job of moving large numbers of customers around and cater brilliantly for short hop/high density journeys (the one's the vast majority of our customers actual take) like no other LU stock ever has. I think therein lies the problem (not you being a C stock fan PRJB... ;D) The C stock is a good high density train. However you wouldn't want to commute from Amersham to Aldgate on one, nor Ealing Broadway to Upminster. If the S stock design is intended to make light work of the short hop journeys it will obviously have been designed for that work. Hence those who do make long distance commutes are less likely to compare the new trains favourably alongside the old. Thus we're back to the original problem - it's a 'one size fits all' train being introduced on different services with varying characteristics that don't lend themselves to such designs. Again Tom, I never said we designed the 'S' to replicate a 'C' - I was just pointing out that I consider the attempt at negativity to be a compliment. S8's have a different seating layout to the S7 fleet based on the fact that Met commuters made their case quite strongly. We also tried very hard to come up with a 2+2 design (like an 'A' Stock) but it just didn't work on a train which has to be narrower than an 'A' Stock.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2009 21:04:26 GMT
The 40mph restriction is due to wheel/rail interface issues, but of course we'll just sweep over the fact that 'A' Stock are limited to 50mph due to the bogies falling apart. Mind you, even if we did up the speed limit it would still take them a 'month of Sundays' to get there. Not to mention the fact the nasty seats and substandard suspension would bounce people all over the car. I wouldn't say the A's are slow off the mark... I was regaled once with a tale by one driver, who told me he had them 'off the clock' many times on the old 'Ammy Fasts'... Stopping them from that speed must leave terrible flats on the wheels... No, we are not using a 92ts design - I promise! Oi! Whats wrong with the 92ts? ;D
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,191
|
Post by Tom on Oct 23, 2009 21:05:57 GMT
The seats have lost all their padding.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 23, 2009 22:13:03 GMT
I wouldn't say the A's are slow off the mark... I was regaled once with a tale by one driver, who told me he had them 'off the clock' many times on the old 'Ammy Fasts'... Stopping them from that speed must leave terrible flats on the wheels... The 'A' Stock is most definitely slow off the mark, they absolutely crawl around the city, they were designed for a high top end but the trade off is a 0 - 60 time which is calculated in calender years. Once upon a time they did have a very high top end (higher than the 'S' will have) but not any more, even if they removed the 50mph restriction. ! Whats wrong with the 92ts? ;D That is a whole new thread in a wholly different area of the forum.... ;D
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 23, 2009 22:21:39 GMT
Thanks carlovel1! Can anyone explain why this was so stop-start-slow? Was platform clearance checking being done at each station en route? Sorry, I missed this post first time around. As the operating official for the move over the LU network I liaised with the test crews beforehand and the decision was taken to walk the train through each platform. We stopped before the first 'S' Stock car reached the platform, got out, walked the train through the platform, stopped the train once the leadng 'S' Stock car was through and then reboarded the Class 20. I was checking (along with the Person In Charge of the Train) guaging between the platform and train, clearance of canopies, clearance of other railway infrastructure and platform furniture, as well as any other possible hazards. The move went with very few issues.
|
|
vato
Zone 6D - Special Fares Apply
Posts: 131
|
Post by vato on Oct 23, 2009 22:34:26 GMT
I was checking (along with the Person In Charge of the Train) guaging between the platform and train, clearance of canopies, clearance of other railway infrastructure and platform furniture, as well as any other possible hazards. So that was you in frame at 0m47s? Thanks for the answer - makes good sense for the first movement (says the commuter).
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,735
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 23, 2009 22:54:52 GMT
I find 'A' Stock seats to be awful as I like to stay in the seat I choose rather than be bounced accross into the seat next door. But with respect that's more down to the track quality than the seat design. I had an excellent demonstration of this recently, when I travelled on the Isle of Wight 38 stock trains a handful of days before travelling on the musuem 38 stock on the JLE. The track quality on the latter led to a vastly superior ride quality.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,419
|
Post by metman on Oct 23, 2009 23:05:31 GMT
The Upminster gang are so hard done by off course. They have a NR service that runs to the City (Fenchurch St.) in 20mins. The Amersham man can go to Marylebone- the @rse end of nowhere!
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,341
|
Post by Colin on Oct 23, 2009 23:10:42 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2009 0:45:41 GMT
The Upminster gang are so hard done by off course. They have a NR service that runs to the City (Fenchurch St.) in 20mins. The Amersham man can go to Marylebone- the @rse end of nowhere! The walk from Fenchurch Street to Tower Hill is virtually the same as Marylebone to Baker Street (I've done both) and Baker Street is a better station with a superior choice of trains to get you further into London.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Oct 24, 2009 3:24:26 GMT
Surely metman ment it in terms of how close to the city you are. From Fenchurch Street you have a 10min walk if that; from Marylebone you have to get another train or a bus.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,735
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 24, 2009 6:25:26 GMT
well if you want direct access to the city then you should either move house to somewhere that offers you that or, and here's a radical suggestion, take the Metropolitan Line you are so proud of. You have a much better deal than passengers from places like Epping
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Oct 24, 2009 12:21:40 GMT
Thats very true. Perhaps in time Chelney or Crossrail 2 will help alieviate this, but at the moment its probably the most painful journey to take.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,341
|
Post by Colin on Oct 24, 2009 14:17:10 GMT
Surely metman ment it in terms of how close to the city you are. From Fenchurch Street you have a 10min walk if that; from Marylebone you have to get another train or a bus. Baker Street isn't in "the city" either though!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2009 16:35:15 GMT
I wouldn't say the A's are slow off the mark... I was regaled once with a tale by one driver, who told me he had them 'off the clock' many times on the old 'Ammy Fasts'... Stopping them from that speed must leave terrible flats on the wheels... The 'A' Stock is most definitely slow off the mark, they absolutely crawl around the city, they were designed for a high top end but the trade off is a 0 - 60 time which is calculated in calender years. Once upon a time they did have a very high top end (higher than the 'S' will have) but not any more, even if they removed the 50mph restriction. ! Whats wrong with the 92ts? ;D That is a whole new thread in a wholly different area of the forum.... ;D While the A stock are slower off the mark than a C stock, the A's are always thought to be holding the road up because people think they go to slow. What gets forgotten is that they are longer than a C, so take longer to clear a signalling section and they require a greater breaking distance as they are heavier. An A stock T/Op should have the Weak Field Flag Switch down at Finchley Road on the South to give faster acceleration in the City. The flag switch is then put back in the Up position at Finchley Road on the North. As to the bogie problem, that is not a flaw in the A stock design, but a lack of investment over the years in the track replacement programme on the Met. As a result, the bogies have taken a hammering and have done well to have lasted so long. Re: the flatted wheels from going "off the clock", in leaf fall season an A stock T/Op would apply the brake a greater distance than normal from the station. If the wheels locked up, the brake would be released, the Master Controller set to series (to keep the wheels turning) and the brake slowly reapplied until almost at a stand, when the Master Controller would then be shut off. One thing you will notice in the winter, while the A stock T/Op is in his shirt sleeves in a nice warm cab, and the passengers are nice and comfortable, you can't help feeling sorry when you see the C stock T/Op with a woolly hat on his head and a big coat on. The passengers are also freezing in the saloon as the heaters are rubbish. The A stock may have its faults, but it's lasted 50 years and had it been properly maintained over the years, it would probably last 50 more!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2009 17:38:18 GMT
An A stock T/Op should have the Weak Field Flag Switch down at Finchley Road on the South to give faster acceleration in the City. The flag switch is then put back in the Up position at Finchley Road on the North. If I was trying to make time up I would start up with the flag down and put it up when I got to 20mph to get the acceleration and speed.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Oct 24, 2009 17:49:41 GMT
What will the S stock be like in 30 years time if investment in LUL ceases again, thats the question. The wheels are smaller to allow a lower car floor level, right? Was having a tube stock like arrangement considered; albeit with NR size large wheels?
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Oct 24, 2009 18:39:36 GMT
Which sort of re-inforces my remark earlier (here or in one of the other threads) that I doubt the S-stock will last 40 years.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,341
|
Post by Colin on Oct 24, 2009 20:22:13 GMT
The wheels are smaller to allow a lower car floor level, right? Was having a tube stock like arrangement considered; albeit with NR size large wheels? Don't forget that D stock has already set the precedence in terms of sub surface stock with 'tube size' wheels......
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 24, 2009 21:25:02 GMT
While the A stock are slower off the mark than a C stock, the A's are always thought to be holding the road up because people think they go to slow. What gets forgotten is that they are longer than a C, so take longer to clear a signalling section and they require a greater breaking distance as they are heavier. An A stock T/Op should have the Weak Field Flag Switch down at Finchley Road on the South to give faster acceleration in the City. The flag switch is then put back in the Up position at Finchley Road on the North. You are quite right, they are heavier and they are longer but the net effect is they are actually slower off the mark. A 'C' Stock is decidely rapid compared to an 'A' Stock in terms of pulling away from a stand. As an aside, whilst they are de-rated 'S' Stock will have a 'virtual' flag switch on the in-cab Signalling Information Display (SID). The flag will come on/off automatically at Finchley Road NB/SB. As to the bogie problem, that is not a flaw in the A stock design, but a lack of investment over the years in the track replacement programme on the Met. As a result, the bogies have taken a hammering and have done well to have lasted so long. In recent years, track replacement has been increased. That said though you are probably right, the state of the track must have had an impact on the state of the bogies. Ultimately though it doesn't matter if you love 'A' Stock or think they are awful, the stock is 50 years old and is time expired. Re: the flatted wheels from going "off the clock", in leaf fall season an A stock T/Op would apply the brake a greater distance than normal from the station. If the wheels locked up, the brake would be released, the Master Controller set to series (to keep the wheels turning) and the brake slowly reapplied until almost at a stand, when the Master Controller would then be shut off. 'S' Stock will be fitted with full Wheel Slide Prevention (WSP), as well as sanders which should help with this situation. One thing you will notice in the winter, while the A stock T/Op is in his shirt sleeves in a nice warm cab, and the passengers are nice and comfortable, you can't help feeling sorry when you see the C stock T/Op with a woolly hat on his head and a big coat on. The passengers are also freezing in the saloon as the heaters are rubbish. 'C' Stock cabs have always been quite draughty, before the refurb the air seals on the doors would hiss and let the cold air in and ater refurb there were holes all over the shop! The heaters in the saloon aren't actually that bad, the main problem is that 'C' Stock have four double doors per side and as the services they operate on are short hop the doors are open quite a lot of the time. My main gripe when I was a Duty Manager was that drivers never made use of the selective close facility when on long stands or at the terminus. The A stock may have its faults, but it's lasted 50 years and had it been properly maintained over the years, it would probably last 50 more! I do hope you are saying that in jest! The stock have done well, there is no doubt about that but even if they were in 'as new' condition today (which they are not) they would not be suitable for use over the next 50 years. They way our customers travel has and is changing and the numbers of customers travelling will increase and as a company we need to monitor and address this ssituation in the most economic and efficient way possible.
|
|