|
|
Post by 1018509 on Jun 10, 2012 16:08:14 GMT
The puzzle with the Berlin S-Bahn was how that was done on through stations unless they had several platform staff per coach who would spring into action. GH When I was in Berlin in the 80's I was on Freidrichstraße station (Is this part of the S-Bahn?) and a train arrived from East Germany. No trouble with platform staff there, an armed guard got off the end of each carriage and lined the platform before any passengers were allowed to get on or off. Purely (I suppose) to prevent us westerners polluting the fine communist ethic.  |
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 10, 2012 16:44:31 GMT
I was in fact referring to the 1880s! And all done with slam doors and steam traction! (I agree, Commie attitudes to customer handling can be characterised by the Moscow metro - shut the doors and go regardless. Also the lovely habit of the Petersburg metro where the stations are not only fitted with platform edge doors without windows but the gaps between the platform doors are blank, too. The stations there have no platform signage, so you stop seemingly in the tunnel, the doors open to reveal an anonymous lit space. You just have to count the stops and hope...)
GH
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2012 1:18:05 GMT
A couple (maybe 2 1/2) of points on the thread so far: - 12 car mainline suburban trains contain about 1450 people (that's, for example, what Bombardier were offering for Thameslink, and that required the odious 3+2 seating and assumed that trains were loaded to 115% of seats); that's probably about twice the crush load for a tube train (although I have seen figures approaching 1000 per 6 car for the sort of loads where the punters are carried past their stations unable to get off). In both cases, the maximum official load works out at about 7 punters per metre length; in the LU case, not many of them sit down, however. 12 car RER (and eg Zuerich S-Bahn) double-deckers can take up to about 1700 punters - not much of a gain because so much capacity is lost in the stair wells. - I always understood that the use of rubber tyres by RATP reflected the close stop spacing on line 1 and the need to accelerate/brake faster (and spread to those other lines where adhesion was a problem, plus line 6 which has some elevated sections close to housing, where noise is an issue). - In terms of headways, RATP say they rely on their countdown clocks at the platform ends to get down to 95 seconds (about 42/43 tph) with the drivers instructed to shut and go on the dot regardless (just love those train door edges). LU carried out an experiment some years ago on (I think) the Northern in which they achieved a similar result by throwing everything they could at it (stepping back, platform control etc) and with the then conventional signalling. Although they didn't think they could sustain this indefinitely, I see from my 1970 tube timetable that the Bakerloo offered a service interval of 1 1/2 - 2 minutes in the peaks which is presumably equivalent to something like 36-38tph. Pretty impressive. Graham H PS The Berlin S-Bahn claimed 60 tph with steam traction and conventional semaphores but how station dwell times were managed is anybody's guess as they were using slam door stock. The Moscow metro also claims 60 tph. Door control there is aggressive to put it mildly. But not a rubber tyre in sight... A few incorrect facts in your post. The highest timetabled frequency on the Paris Metro is Line 13 at 95sec headway (38tph). The highest timetabled frequency on the Moscow Metro is also 95sec headway (38tph). The (pre-Jubilee) Bakerloo according to many sources operated 34-36tph, which would have been quite a squeeze at Elephant & Castle. No surprise then that the never built Camberwell terminus would have had three tracks and a partially grade-separated crossover. 60tph on Berlin S-Bahn is impossible. Can you find the quote? Maybe the figure was for a quad tracked section, or frequency in both directions? |
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 11, 2012 8:32:31 GMT
@stephenk - yes, you are right, I had miscalculated 95 sec as 42 tph. The Moscow figure was based on observation rather than timetable (I have not seen a Moscow WTT - assume that such things are probably still state secrets). The 1970 Bakerloo t/t that I have is simply a summary of intervals, so 1 1/2-2 m headways covers a multitude of options [The 1977 WTT, ie after the introduction of the 1972 stock but before the Jubilee line, shows a consistent 2 minute peak interval in the central area].
The reference to the Berlin S-Bahn comes from Pierson's book "Dampfzuege auf Berlins Stadt-und Ringbahn" but he does not provide a supporting timetable. It is true that certain stretches of the S-Bahn are four track, and that may be the explanation, although even so 2 minutes per track with steam and slamdoor is till impressive.
The question as to whether 1 minute service intervals are impossible or not has been much debated recently in operating circles faced with Thameslink and CrossRail ( mainly in relation to Airport Junction ) issues - the general consensus has been that if station dwell times can be managed down - and that is a big if - the limiting factor is the speed with which a set of points can be moved after the previous train has cleared them and the signalling reset - something under 45 seconds may be achievable, followed by a delay while the next train starts and then clears the points. Although that suggests intervals close to 1 minute are theoretically possible, I can't imagine that anyone would want to offer a reliable service on that basis. Except - that a good many tram operations have had service intervals down to 30 seconds or less - the Embankment headway was 120 cars in each direction per hour and the 16/18 offered cars every minute - and it would interesting to know what was the critical factor here. Drive on sight? Slow speeds? (But then you'd think that would be a negative factor here). Manual movement of the points?
GH
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 11:08:10 GMT
@stephenk - yes, you are right, I had miscalculated 95 sec as 42 tph. The Moscow figure was based on observation rather than timetable (I have not seen a Moscow WTT - assume that such things are probably still state secrets). The 1970 Bakerloo t/t that I have is simply a summary of intervals, so 1 1/2-2 m headways covers a multitude of options [The 1977 WTT, ie after the introduction of the 1972 stock but before the Jubilee line, shows a consistent 2 minute peak interval in the central area]. The reference to the Berlin S-Bahn comes from Pierson's book "Dampfzuege auf Berlins Stadt-und Ringbahn" but he does not provide a supporting timetable. It is true that certain stretches of the S-Bahn are four track, and that may be the explanation, although even so 2 minutes per track with steam and slamdoor is till impressive. The question as to whether 1 minute service intervals are impossible or not has been much debated recently in operating circles faced with Thameslink and CrossRail ( mainly in relation to Airport Junction ) issues - the general consensus has been that if station dwell times can be managed down - and that is a big if - the limiting factor is the speed with which a set of points can be moved after the previous train has cleared them and the signalling reset - something under 45 seconds may be achievable, followed by a delay while the next train starts and then clears the points. Although that suggests intervals close to 1 minute are theoretically possible, I can't imagine that anyone would want to offer a reliable service on that basis. Except - that a good many tram operations have had service intervals down to 30 seconds or less - the Embankment headway was 120 cars in each direction per hour and the 16/18 offered cars every minute - and it would interesting to know what was the critical factor here. Drive on sight? Slow speeds? (But then you'd think that would be a negative factor here). Manual movement of the points? GH Moscow Metro frequency is not a state secret. This site may be of interest. www.mrl.ucsb.edu/~yopopov/transit/frequency.htmlHigh tram frequency is mainly due to line of sight driving, no block signalling, and multiple berthing at stations. As far as I'm aware, no tram operators currently manage better than around the high 40s tph. |
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Jun 13, 2012 11:22:18 GMT
RER is metro.
Crossrail is NR
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Jun 13, 2012 14:46:46 GMT
RER is metro. Crossrail is NR RER A&B are both SNCF & RATP, the other ones are exclusively SNCF... I don't think RER is part of the Métropolitain. |
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 13, 2012 15:20:55 GMT
chrisvandenkieboom - I believe that the mixed RER lines are staffed by RATP drivers for the relevant part of the trip, although I see from the trade press that that may change soon with drivers going right through. @stephenk - Thank you for the Moscow intervals. I see Ky'iv gets down - allegedly - to 90 secs, tho' whether it really does so i npractice, only returning footie fans can say. 40+ trams per hour today - there's a challenge! Maybe the Zuerich Bahnfofstrasse or Karlsruhe? Just off to poke around in paper mountain number 16A. GH
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri on Jun 14, 2012 7:25:18 GMT
The Moscow metro also claims 60 tph It never did . IIRC it is 48 tph using ATP. Door control there is aggressive to put it mildly Because delays accumulate very quickly, especially during peaks. But not a rubber tyre in sight... Train acceleration is limited by standing passengers' comfort at about 1.0-1.2 m/s 2. You don't need rubber tyres to achieve this  . The highest timetabled frequency on the Moscow Metro is also 95sec headway (38tph) AFAIK it is 39 tph on the busiest lines during peaks. I have not seen a Moscow WTT - assume that such things are probably still state secrets ;D It is something nobody cares about. More useful stuff like station open times and first train departure times are on the official site already. Problem with high frequency service is dwell time. Moscow went from 42 tph down to 40 tph and later to the 39 tph solely to improve reliability and decrease chances of late running. It is not a technical issue, it is problem with "wise men" holding doors, rubbish getting into them, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 14, 2012 18:46:19 GMT
DmitriSurprise! Moscow Metro's experience is the same as the rest of the world, and evildoers at the doors are present everywhere! I would add to your list, however, the time taken for one train to clear a junction , the points and signalling to be reset, and the time taken for the next train to clear the junction again. A propos rubber tyres, I believe the Paris Metro wanted to improve on the 1.2 m/s figure because of the close station spacing on line 1; I suspect that the other lines and systems with rubber tyres also have various sorts of adhesion problem. Some operators (including BR) were prepared to consider acceleration up to 1.5 m/s - above that figure and you decked the standing punters even if they were clinging on. Graham H
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 14, 2012 18:48:05 GMT
DmitriSurprise! Moscow Metro's experience is the same as the rest of the world, and evildoers at the doors are present everywhere! I would add to your list, however, the time taken for one train to clear a junction , the points and signalling to be reset, and the time taken for the next train to clear the junction again. A propos rubber tyres, I believe the Paris Metro wanted to improve on the 1.2 m/s figure because of the close station spacing on line 1; I suspect that the other lines and systems with rubber tyres also have various sorts of adhesion problem. Some operators (including BR) were prepared to consider acceleration up to 1.5 m/s - above that figure and you decked the standing punters even if they were clinging on. Graham H
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 19:14:11 GMT
Is this the beginning of London's RER?
I hope not. I have been visiting Paris on and off for twenty years and I have to say that the RER trains I went on during my last visit a couple of months ago were decidedly looking past their best.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 14, 2012 21:45:14 GMT
A propos rubber tyres, I believe the Paris Metro wanted to improve on the 1.2 m/s figure because of the close station spacing on line 1 I understand the original intention had been to convert each line in turn, but the programme was stopped after a few lines. Line 6 was a late addition as a special case - much of it is on viaduct and the "pneu" stock was provided for noise abatement reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 15, 2012 11:41:55 GMT
@dalesman I quite agree that the much-vaunted RER is looking decidedly tired these days in terms of finishes and decor. We will do better than that in London?!
GH
|
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Jun 15, 2012 15:10:39 GMT
The Underground somewhat like the Paris Metro and both are recognised quite rightly as metro systems. The Paris Metro does just happens to not go out as far as most big metro systems and the LU has more s-bahn features than most do.
Paris is not anywhere near as big area-wise as London - whether that's central area, inner area, urban area, metropolitan area or outer commuter area. The continuous built up area of Paris has a much higher density as the French don't go in for suburbs in the way we do.
As a regional network, Crossrail and Thameslink are similar to the RER, certainly much more so than to either the Underground or the Metro. Of course there is overlap. Just as the original Picc was similar to some Metro lines, so some RER lines are similar to the Met out of Baker Street, as is Crossrail. There were plans to send Hampstead tube trains to Luton and Met trains went to Verney Junction.
London's rail network was always much more intense and complicated and early on Underground extensions went to the outer suburbs which Paris doesn't really have, later on taking over mainline branches. This is not the same however as taking over routes far out. The Met could be considered an exception but then again a distinction has always been made between it and say southern or GE suburban services. Historically the only one to really blur the lines was the North London, and I would say the Overground is the successor to that format. The LO is certainly closer to Crossrail, Thameslink or an RER.
If you were to judge Crossrail/Thameslink/RER on the routes and trains irrespective of origin or other lines you would see the similarity. Ditto the Metro and Underground.
As for rubber tyres, I thought this was just Paris being different. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Jun 15, 2012 15:32:55 GMT
RER is metro. Crossrail is NR RER A&B are both SNCF & RATP, the other ones are exclusively SNCF... I don't think RER is part of the Métropolitain. I meant its a metro\rapid transit\underground\elevated trains\underground train\urban passenger transportation\subway\chute system |
|
|
|
Post by rapidtransitman on Jun 15, 2012 19:06:13 GMT
Montreal has a rubber tire metro system, all 3 lines so equiped, based on Parisian expertise in the 60s. I've heard that Montreal's metro cars are not nearly as efficient overall as steel wheel on steel rail subway/metro cars, which is worth noting in these times of higher energy prices. I believe Mexico city's metro started with a few rubber tire lines, but moved to all steel for the rest of their large system for such efficiency reasons.
The Montreal system, as does the Paris metro from what I recall, has a backup steel wheel & steel rail system in case of tire puncture, leading to further inefficiency due to extra bogie weight, not to mention the extra expense of a 2nd set of rail for the entire system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2012 12:09:24 GMT
You have to remember that in Paris, the Metro is concentrated on the city centre, with few lines extending past the traditional city walls, which is where the Boulevard Périphérique now sits. Beyond there is Paris' suburbs, which do not really have a very comprehensive network, as the RER leaves large swathes of unserved urban areas, which is partly the reason to blame for why they are so run down, as they have bad infastructure in terms of public transport links. London has a comprehensive network covering pretty much the entire metropolitan area, meaning in most places you are never too far from a railway or tube station. South of the River you have the metro services with South West Trains, Southern, Southeastern, Overground and soon CrossRail. North you have Greater Anglia, First Capital Connect, who provide metro style services. I'm not sure if c2c, Chiltern and FGW count, but I'd say something like Heathrow Connect does. It's just because it's run by lots of different companies, that people don't realise how much of London is covered by metro style rail services. Get a 'London Connections' map and see for yourself!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2012 4:35:06 GMT
You have to remember that in Paris, the Metro is concentrated on the city centre, with few lines extending past the traditional city walls, which is where the Boulevard Périphérique now sits. Beyond there is Paris' suburbs, which do not really have a very comprehensive network, as the RER leaves large swathes of unserved urban areas, which is partly the reason to blame for why they are so run down, as they have bad infastructure in terms of public transport links. London has a comprehensive network covering pretty much the entire metropolitan area, meaning in most places you are never too far from a railway or tube station. South of the River you have the metro services with South West Trains, Southern, Southeastern, Overground and soon CrossRail. North you have Greater Anglia, First Capital Connect, who provide metro style services. I'm not sure if c2c, Chiltern and FGW count, but I'd say something like Heathrow Connect does. It's just because it's run by lots of different companies, that people don't realise how much of London is covered by metro style rail services. Get a 'London Connections' map and see for yourself! Crossrail won't really be doing much for South of the river. The London Reconnections map has been replaced by the Rail and Tube Services map. Chiltern within London is a bit weak because it barely serves Sudbury Hill Harrow and Sudbury and Harrow Road. It's local services beyond, also suffer from being low frequency and being a pic'n'mix of which stations to call at. Something definitely needs quadding in that area. But yes, Londoners do not know how good they've got it sometimes. |
|
.
