Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 18:07:13 GMT
I have noticed that on the Bakerloo Line, the trains tend to approach the stations at a faster speed than on other lines (e.g. the Northern). Why is this?
Is it due to the fact that the Bakerloo Line has a stricter timetable?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 18:07:55 GMT
More it's the only place they can really get any sort of real speed in!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 19:13:40 GMT
More it's the only place they can really get any sort of real speed in! So are you saying that there is very little distance between stations? Because compared to the northern parts of Central Line where you could between the stations in around the same time as tubing it, there's actually quite a gap. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 19:16:05 GMT
No, the line speed is a crawl.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 19:21:48 GMT
Oh right.
The problem with the Bakerloo Line is it's not very useful, I mean all of the central section (except Baker Street/Oxford Circus to Regent's Park) is fairly unnecessary and the Queen's Park to Harrow & Wealdstone bit, a substantial part of the line, follows the tracks of another line!
I think if TfL decide to scrap a line, it will either be this or the H & C to go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 19:22:55 GMT
Charing Cross to Oxford Circus is more than useful!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 19:25:00 GMT
Charing Cross to Oxford Circus is more than useful! Well it's only 1 extra stop to get from Oxford Circus / Piccadilly Circus to / from Charing Cross using other lines. Whereas if you didn't have the Central, it would be 3 extra stops to get from Mile End to Stratford |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 19:26:24 GMT
It means less changing and the extra capacity is useful.
If you were to scrap it the Northern would take a pounding there, already busy as it stands, coming from Waterloo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 19:28:44 GMT
It means less changing and the extra capacity is useful. If you were to scrap it the Northern would take a pounding there, already busy as it stands, coming from Waterloo. Not really, TfL are so determined to run an unco-ordinated, infrequent rabble on the Charing Cross branch at the moment to convert as many people as possible to the Bank one that less and less people are using it (the Charing Cross branch that is) |
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on May 27, 2011 19:36:06 GMT
Oh right. The problem with the Bakerloo Line is it's not very useful, To you maybe. But all those 7car trains packed in the peaks must be useful to somebody. -- Nick |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 19:38:36 GMT
martello - you can't really use the Bank branch to get to Goodge Street, or Tottenham Ct Road - the passenger loadings on the Northern are quite high on the Bank branch as it stands...
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on May 27, 2011 19:38:52 GMT
Oh right. The problem with the Bakerloo Line is it's not very useful, To you maybe. But all those 7car trains packed in the peaks must be useful to somebody. I don't find the Picadilly useful to me. I almost never use it, the only times I have used were to get to Heathrow for flights before HEX came in. And now I don't use Heathrow any more, well as little as possible. Think I've used it about 2.5 times in the past 10 years and 2 of those trips used HEX. But I don't consider the Picc to not be useful. -- Nick |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 19:49:01 GMT
Well the Bakerloo Line is certainly one of the most infrequent services, being beaten only by the Circle. Just 6tph run along its poor, almost disused tracks, 3tph of those not even making it to Harrow & Wealdstone.
And I think you may have misunderstood me here, I was just complaining about the poor service on the Charing Cross branch of the Northern Line, not suggesting that they do away with it as that in my opinion, is useful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 20:00:35 GMT
6tph through the central section? No way.
|
|
|
|
Post by jardine01 on May 27, 2011 20:51:58 GMT
At the moment the 1972 stock has more power than the 1995 stock when TBTC is introduced on the Northern it should be much faster. The other day on the Bakerloo line at oxford circus the train came whizzing in!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 20:55:07 GMT
Not so sure about that...
4/6 cars motored on 95 vs 4/7 on 72. Former is AC (far superior) latter DC. Even restricted they should at least match a 72 profile given 72s ran on the Northern
|
|
|
|
Post by causton on May 27, 2011 20:55:32 GMT
Definitely not the central section! Taken from TfL timetables (this is Mon-Fri, heading Northbound) from Elephant + Castle every 2-6 minutes (7am-8pm) from Queens Park at 08,13,19,29,34,40,49,52,58 past the hour (9tph) (10am-4pm) from Stonebridge Park every 9-12 minutes (around 6tph) (11am-7pm) So not that infrequent really, but it *definitely* feels like it if you've ever been on the northern section. Plus this is all what is supposed to happen, so if it works in practice...  PS: The Bakerloo timetables seem to always mess up when I look at them and have random errors like the one below: vvcap.net/db/hnObETjdATsyenBL6CTt.htpCan't find what's wrong? Select below On the Saturday (and Good Friday) timetable the 11pm-Midnight trains are marked "not Monday". Of course they're bloody not! (except, the last 3 actually *do* run on Mondays to the same times, so that's not even right... pah |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 21:33:45 GMT
Useful to know that various trains don't run on Mondays .... on a timetable that's for Saturdays (and Good Friday)! ;D
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on May 27, 2011 21:54:37 GMT
Not so sure about that... 4/6 cars motored on 95 vs 4/7 on 72. Former is AC (far superior) latter DC. Even restricted they should at least match a 72 profile given 72s ran on the Northern Train Operators on the Northern Line will tell you that a good 59 stock train was slightly faster than 95 stock currently is, with 72 stock much faster. No doubt the 95 stock will finally get to better this once they are derestricted. Given there are some parts of the Northern Line where 95 stock are simply unable to exceed 25 - 30 mph, I've always thought the 95 stock was too heavily restricted. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on May 27, 2011 21:59:45 GMT
At the moment the 1972 stock has more power than the 1995 stock when TBTC is introduced on the Northern it should be much faster. The other day on the Bakerloo line at oxford circus the train came whizzing in! Apart from on ATO trains, station approach speed is more down to the individual Train Operator rather than the type of rolling stock. On lines with 6 or 7 car trains, generally you are looking at 30 to 35 mph on average. 40 mph can only be achieved in a few favourable locations (on the Northern Line it's possible to hit the platform ramp at Brent Cross s/b at 40 mph with wet rails and still have braking capacity in reserve). However a lot of Train Operators choose to enter platforms at much slower speeds for a variety of reasons. In theory all trains of a given stock should brake in the same way, but in reality you have to consider a range of factors such as adhesion, gradient, loading of train, whether the brakes on a particular train are a little weak, will I lose the pilot light if I brake hard on this particular train? etc. A strange feature of the 95 stock is that the same train can also handle noticeable differently when driven from different ends. This has been put down to the design of the traction / brake controllers. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on May 28, 2011 1:32:03 GMT
Well the Bakerloo Line is certainly one of the most infrequent services, being beaten only by the Circle. Just 6tph run along its poor, almost disused tracks, 3tph of those not even making it to Harrow & Wealdstone. You've got your frequencies severely wrong. There are 6 tph to/from Harrow & Wealdstone plus an addition 3 tph to/from Stonebridge Park (with another 3tph north of Queen's Park being the LO service). The overall frequency Queen's Park - Stonebridge Park is very similar to other lines which run out into zone 5 (for example the Central line branches). The central London peak frequencies, for the Bakerloo, are actually higher than the Charing Cross branch of the Northern line. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2011 13:57:18 GMT
Buses can be restricted in power in the same way. In 1996 a G reg VC Volvo Citybus was slower than an ageing Metrobus in good condition.
|
|
|
|
Post by retep on May 28, 2011 22:40:13 GMT
Oh right. The problem with the Bakerloo Line is it's not very useful It's useful to me and lots of other ppl, it helps me get to college on time when i'm running late. Although it runs with the Watford DC line it's still useful in the northern part, the Watford DC line isn't frequent enough. |
|
|
|
Post by jardine01 on Jul 3, 2011 17:39:06 GMT
I still think the 1972 stock is much quicker off the mark than the 1995 stock. At Embankment the 1995 stock departed it was very slow at accelerating. The 1972 stock at Embankment was pritty quick off the mark. I can't really understand why the 1995's are slow off the mark? when the 1959 stock was quicker off the mark. I know the 1995 stock is restricted to about 60-65% power. All in all I would say currently the 1992 stock has the most traction and the 2009 and 1996 stock coming closely behind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2011 17:48:04 GMT
I still think the 1972 stock is much quicker off the mark than the 1995 stock. At Embankment the 1995 stock departed it was very slow at accelerating. The 1972 stock at Embankment was pritty quick off the mark. I can't really understand why the 1995's are slow off the mark? when the 1959 stock was quicker off the mark. I know the 1995 stock is restricted to about 60-65% power. All in all I would say currently the 1992 stock has the most traction and the 2009 and 1996 stock coming closely behind. What technical equipment are you using to arrive at these conclusions? |
|
|
|
Post by jardine01 on Jul 3, 2011 17:54:17 GMT
Well, just with my own Eyes! The 1972 stock did depart much quicker than the 1995 stock easy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2011 18:14:55 GMT
2009 stock are quicker off the mark by my observation than 1992 overall, despite having the same specification.
72s are noticeably quicker than 95s limited state, +1 to that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2011 18:17:52 GMT
Well, just with my own Eyes! The 1972 stock did depart much quicker than the 1995 stock easy! I think you have a few variables here, which means that as a scientific study any comparison is compromised. To be able to compare a 72 to a 95/96 with any degree of accuracy you'd need the same stock on the same line with the same systems and a proper means of acceleration analysis. I realise from your other posts that you're very interested in which stock is the fastest/best accelerator but you do have to have something better than what amounts to a gut feeling to establish the facts. |
|
|
|
Post by causton on Jul 3, 2011 20:13:53 GMT
Perhaps we need someone with a phone with a G-force meter/accelerometer (like me!) to test - using a phone held secure by something  |
|
|
|
Post by plasmid on Jul 3, 2011 20:22:08 GMT
In case you all forget the 95ts has better specifications than the 96ts and is horribly capped due to the tight twisty bends.
Regularity and Consistency are key words here and this will improve the train frequency, speeds probably won't improve so can we not get excited about speed jardine01? Yes on the straights then it will improve...
Back on topic...I have no comment as I've never used the...oh no wait I did once, it just felt like I was on the old Victoria line to be honest.
And in case you all forget again the 72ts had their gearboxes refurbished several years ago which is why they go a little quicker than the 67ts.
|
|
