|
|
Post by jardine01 on Apr 25, 2011 8:16:23 GMT
Does anybody know when the 92 stock was first introduced were the trains restricted in performance? Obviously, they are much faster now as most of the time they are in ATO. Thanks  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 9:01:36 GMT
There was some sort of performance upgrade, can't remember the name of it now. Trains had stickers on saying High Performance Operating or something similar to show they had been upgraded. Although most of these have peeled off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 10:01:44 GMT
AIUI they were restricted in a similar means to the S stock is now, to match up to the old stock and old signals.
Bearing in mind the speeds at signals and hence overlaps would have been for 62ts!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 13:27:11 GMT
The experts may correct me if I am wrong, but -
* The 1992 Stock was limited to the characteristics of the 1962 Stock until the latter had all gone.
* The max speed was then raised to 100kph (not sure when).
* The Chancery Lane derailment caused the max speed to be reduced to 85kph and I think still holds good .....
But please correct me if I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 25, 2011 13:51:08 GMT
The experts may correct me if I am wrong, but - * The 1992 Stock was limited to the characteristics of the 1962 Stock until the latter had all gone. * The max speed was then raised to 100kph (not sure when). * The Chancery Lane derailment caused the max speed to be reduced to 85kph and I think still holds good ..... But please correct me if I am wrong. Basically that's it. However, it is still possible to acheive 100kph in coded manual, as it still exists as a target speed in some locations. Howver, in ATO mode, the system restricts the speed to 85kph as you say. |
|
|
|
Post by causton on Apr 25, 2011 15:01:54 GMT
Are drivers allowed to go past 85kph in coded manual or is it just something that's not been disabled?
|
|
|
|
Post by underground2010 on Apr 25, 2011 15:49:19 GMT
Are drivers allowed to go past 85kph in coded manual or is it just something that's not been disabled? I suppose that would depend on the time of day and location. I'm sure it is occassionally done. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 25, 2011 16:01:09 GMT
Are drivers allowed to go past 85kph in coded manual or is it just something that's not been disabled? I'm pretty sure they're not supposed to exceed 85kph, otherwise why would they limit it to that speed in ATO? However, I have been on trains that have been doing 100kph since the limit was imposed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 16:45:23 GMT
It does look like they exceed 85kph when the Central Line trains are above ground though
|
|
|
|
Post by plasmid on Apr 25, 2011 18:34:25 GMT
Are drivers allowed to go past 85kph in coded manual or is it just something that's not been disabled? I'm pretty sure they're not supposed to exceed 85kph, otherwise why would they limit it to that speed in ATO? However, I have been on trains that have been doing 100kph since the limit was imposed. I thought the reason for the restriction in ATO only was because of the way in which it "slams" from full acceleration to full braking in a way that really isn't possible with manual driving. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 25, 2011 18:59:21 GMT
I'm pretty sure they're not supposed to exceed 85kph, otherwise why would they limit it to that speed in ATO? However, I have been on trains that have been doing 100kph since the limit was imposed. I thought the reason for the restriction in ATO only was because of the way in which it "slams" from full acceleration to full braking in a way that really isn't possible with manual driving. There is that, but I think it was also due to the excessive vibrations when travelling at 100kph. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 19:20:09 GMT
92s were restricted to 85kph after Chancery Lane, it’s to stop bits falling off. In ATO they don’t go above 85kph even when the Target Speed is above that, in Coded they can but if you get caught then you are in the deepest of deep doo doo and with the way they are handing out P45s these days I'm certainly keeping it at 85kph.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 25, 2011 19:39:13 GMT
92s were restricted to 85kph after Chancery Lane, it’s to stop bits falling off. In ATO they don’t go above 85kph even when the Target Speed is above that, in Coded they can but if you get caught then you are in the deepest of deep doo doo and with the way they are handing out P45s these days I'm certainly keeping it at 85kph. Maybe they'll restore the 100kph once all of the new bogies have been fitted? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 19:40:26 GMT
92s were restricted to 85kph after Chancery Lane, it’s to stop bits falling off. In ATO they don’t go above 85kph even when the Target Speed is above that, in Coded they can but if you get caught then you are in the deepest of deep doo doo and with the way they are handing out P45s these days I'm certainly keeping it at 85kph. Maybe they'll restore the 100kph once all of the new bogies have been fitted? AIUI the motors were being run over spec at 100kph and something to do with flashover on the commutators... ISTR that was posted on here somewhat recently. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 19:47:43 GMT
I’m only obeying orders……
They tell me I can bang it out to 100kph then woo hoo Theydon-Debden and let's see what this baby can do!
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 25, 2011 20:21:32 GMT
Maybe they'll restore the 100kph once all of the new bogies have been fitted? AIUI the motors were being run over spec at 100kph and something to do with flashover on the commutators... ISTR that was posted on here somewhat recently. Wasn't aware of that being a problem, but one of the Chancery Lane factors was that of excessive vibration causing the fittings holding the motors to work loose and thus fall off. If you've been on a 92TS at 100kph, you'll know what I mean! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 21:50:43 GMT
I remember pre accident 92ts. I thought the vibrations were the track!
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196 
|
Post by Tom on Apr 25, 2011 22:20:17 GMT
Bearing in mind the speeds at signals and hence overlaps would have been for 62ts! Sorry, but... hahahahaha! One of the reasons the Central Line managed its throughput with the old signalling was because a lot of the overlaps were deficient and a good number compromised. As for them being calculated for 1962TS, the signalling was so old the train performance data used for most of the Overlap Calculations was for standard stock! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2011 15:57:03 GMT
If they were compromised by 62ts then it would have been worse with a 92 for certain!
Why on earth were they left as such - seems more than dangerous. Would this be one of the reasons for the Holborn smackup?
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 26, 2011 18:20:40 GMT
If they were compromised by 62ts then it would have been worse with a 92 for certain! Why on earth were they left as such - seems more than dangerous. Would this be one of the reasons for the Holborn smackup? You are correct. |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Apr 26, 2011 21:40:43 GMT
I think you'll find they were deficient as soon as a new overlap formula was introduced. Every variation of the formula produces a longer overlap due to the additional factors taken into account.
Holborn was more due to an assumption that the driver would brake as if there was a timing section on the approach to the signal, rather than the way it was installed that the signal would clear with the track down and no reduction in speed.
|
|
|
|
Post by underground2010 on Apr 27, 2011 2:03:52 GMT
I read on a website somewhere, can't remember what site it was, but there were rumours floating that rather than replacing the boggies, they thought it would be cheaper to just replace the trains all together. I can't see that being true, does anybody know any info on this?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2011 5:58:06 GMT
I read on a website somewhere, can't remember what site it was, but there were rumours floating that rather than replacing the boggies, they thought it would be cheaper to just replace the trains all together. I can't see that being true, does anybody know any info on this? Whoever thought that knows the square root of sweet Fanny Adams. Every time I walk though the sheds at Hainault there are fresh batches of shiny bogies sitting around so I think it’s safe to say the replacement has been ongoing for a while. We're going to be stuck with the 92s for a little while longer. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2011 8:18:42 GMT
I read on a website somewhere, can't remember what site it was, but there were rumours floating that rather than replacing the boggies, they thought it would be cheaper to just replace the trains all together. I can't see that being true, does anybody know any info on this? Whoever thought that knows the square root of sweet Fanny Adams. Every time I walk though the sheds at Hainault there are fresh batches of shiny bogies sitting around so I think it’s safe to say the replacement has been ongoing for a while. We're going to be stuck with the 92s for a little while longer. He didn't say he heard the rumor yesterday, and yes clearly the boggies are well and truly being replaced. However it is correct that their WAS a rumor that in the long run it would have been better and more cost effective to replace the whole stock. Clearly that didn't happen. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2011 13:56:10 GMT
I read on a website somewhere, can't remember what site it was, but there were rumours floating that rather than replacing the boggies, they thought it would be cheaper to just replace the trains all together. I can't see that being true, does anybody know any info on this? The new trucks [bogies] ain't cheap!!! And nor are new trains.... Lets face it, the trains are approaching 20 years old, so have some useful life left in 'em! Just need a little TLC, which they're now getting! £2m for 8 cars back then... The best available then... well, for the money available they were! I forget where and what figures were quoted, but I did read some stress figures on the motor mounting bolts regarding 'Chancery Lane', and the forces applied to the bolts under full acceleration was quite frightening!! |
|
|
|
Post by underground2010 on Apr 27, 2011 17:24:07 GMT
Thanks guys for the info. I also remember reading a comment on a Youtube video from someone saying the 1992 stock was only expected to be used to 10 years, which I found quite idiotic. As said, a bit of TLC and the trains should have a much better run  |
|
|
|
Post by plasmid on Apr 27, 2011 21:11:04 GMT
Work this one out. Trains cost £250,000 per Car or £2million per Train Set x85 Trains.
New Siemens Bogies cost £150million.
In this day and age the bogies cost the same as a cheaply built train did back in the late eighties!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2011 22:19:31 GMT
8 cars, 2 trucks a car, 16 per train, 85 trains, 1360 trucks...
If you think about it, putting aside the 320 or so software mods since introduction, they are they last unrefurbed stock running!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,770
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 27, 2011 23:41:01 GMT
f you think about it, putting aside the 320 or so software mods since introduction, they are they last unrefurbed stock running! The 09s haven't been refurbed yet [/pedant] |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Apr 28, 2011 6:22:23 GMT
Nor the S Stock [/even more a pedant]
|
|
