|
|
Post by citysig on Apr 9, 2005 14:56:24 GMT
I'm not so sure about that, actually. Now, I am no expert on LU rolling stock allocation and maintenance procedures, but the various fleets must be allocated to a few home depots on their respective lines, mustn't they? After all, it makes no real sense to drive a train across the whole of London just to get it to a maintenance point or suitable starting location for the service pattern. Thus, units on one line would tend to be stuck on that line for practical reasons, except in exceptional circumstances. I can see what you are saying, and for todays railway this is more or less the way it works. However, most lines do not operate in the way the sub-surface lines can. Providing the current layout/depots are still much the same when the stock arrives, there will be numerous depots and sidings fully accessible to the whole fleet. I doubt train operators route knowledge will be extended to cover the entire SSL, so you won't have stock "in a different place" due to some Upminster-Amersham service. However, average service disruption could see any stock used to cover a service interval. There are many times when we have the staff but no available stock. Currently, a gap on the Circle Line cannot be filled by a Met train on it's way to Aldgate. But let's say in the future they have made the sensible move of putting drivers back at Baker Street. The Met arrives at Baker Street, gets picked-up by the Circle driver. The passengers already heading to Aldgate complete their journey as planned, and the gap on the Circle is filled. That's a basic example, and of course stock is then required to be found for the Met train's northbound trip, but it shows how generic stock could help. If we then have to take in an extra part of the equation - that the stock cannot be used as the seats are the wrong way around - then we are back to square one. The tube is meant to be "turn up and go" and in years to come, many more people may use us. We need carriage space, albeit standing room, to get these people around. The average journey is only a few stops. With better reliability this journey won't take as long, so you won't be standing as long. |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 9, 2005 23:56:16 GMT
If the clientele out in Bucks are so particular about seating arrangements why not have a compromise whereby the trailer cars either have two central bays of transverse seating a la D stock or transvers seats two abreast on one side of the car and longitudinal on the other with the motor cars all longitudinal. That might also suit some of the longer distance passengers on the District as well particulary if it goes back to Uxbridge. That way the stock could still be one-size-fits-all as is desired as the longer the train the more bum space for the out-of-towners
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri on Apr 10, 2005 18:02:25 GMT
Currently, a gap on the Circle Line cannot be filled by a Met train on it's way to Aldgate. But let's say in the future they have made the sensible move of putting drivers back at Baker Street. The Met arrives at Baker Street, gets picked-up by the Circle driver. The passengers already heading to Aldgate complete their journey as planned, and the gap on the Circle is filled. That's a basic example, and of course stock is then required to be found for the Met train's northbound trip, but it shows how generic stock could help. Wouldn't it mean more headaches for you? |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Apr 10, 2005 19:04:24 GMT
Yes and no. And no doubt my colleagues opinions would be divided pretty evently between them. The actual action of making a Met into a Circle on the system would be just a couple of extra key-strikes as cancelling a train. Besides, better train reliability, and hopefully by then, better infrastructure reliability may mean such actions become fewer and fewer. Hopefully not reliable enough to see us out of a job though  |
|
|
|
Post by setttt on Apr 24, 2005 16:33:52 GMT
Is it intended that the plastic D stock is still around when the new SSL trains enter service?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri on Apr 24, 2005 19:59:32 GMT
Is it intended that the plastic D stock is still around when the new SSL trains enter service? Yes, (almost) for sure, as LU can't replace all SSL stock at once. The first of SSL stock to be replaced is, of course, A - currently the oldest LU stock. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Apr 24, 2005 22:45:09 GMT
As I understand it, the new SSR stock will be compatible only as far as parts are concerned. Different lines have different platform lengths, so each line will require different train lengths. Therefore the arguments about seating layouts are really irrelevant!
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Apr 25, 2005 8:07:49 GMT
Prior to introduction, numerous works are due to take place (I have seen the "hints" of these works as early on as January 2007 - however these may disappear again as we are too far off for any "hint" to be that strong).
The entire SSL network isn't really that different from end to end. The C-Stock can virtually - with a couple of exceptions I know before anyone jumps - traverse the entire SSL area, and comfortably fit at platforms.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri on Apr 25, 2005 8:27:14 GMT
As I understand it, the new SSR stock will be compatible only as far as parts are concerned. Different lines have different platform lengths, so each line will require different train lengths. Easier to achieve than you think . |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Apr 25, 2005 13:00:13 GMT
Easier to achieve than you think . My point being, the shortest platforms are underground in tunnel sections, ie, Bayswater, Notting hill Gate, Paddington. |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 25, 2005 16:09:18 GMT
With all this to-ing and fro-ing about the new SSL stock the train lengths should be 5 (3+2) and 7 (3+4) cars long or equivalent. Service frequency, transit time, line speed are all due to be increased and headways reduced with ATO anyway so the lack of the extra car with probably be negated. The add advantage is that all trains will fit all platforms on the service they are running on at the time. Bum space on the train can be arrange according the type of unit. 4 car units with some transverse seats and 3 car units with all longitudinal.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Apr 26, 2005 10:12:56 GMT
The days of short trains are long over (except on the Chesham branch and ELL of course.) Regardless of how many trains we can pump down the hole, all trains will remain as long as possible.
Running 7 or 8 cars would be impractical. Running 6 and making minor modifications to certain stations will give you a standard comfortable length.
Odd numbers of formations such as 3 or 4 car units, give problems when used on such lines as the Circle (or indeed many services on SSL). Too much disruption on a particular day can lead to you having too many units the wrong way around. Therefore, if this route was pursued, double-end units would be desirable.
|
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 27, 2005 4:02:26 GMT
Too much disruption on a particular day can lead to you having too many units the wrong way around. Therefore, if this route was pursued, double-end units would be desirable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was given to understand that the new SSL stock will be walk through and therefore unidirectional. Also the centre car in any odd number formation could be a "Dum-dum" (Double UNDM) car to which you attach the 2 or 3 car unit desired at either end as desired.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri on Apr 27, 2005 12:34:57 GMT
The most flexible formation is, I think, that of xUSSR rolling stock - take 2 DMs, add some NDMs between them, and you have 40/60/80/100/120/140/160-metre trains at your disposal  . However I don't think LU management will welcome an idea of making each car an independent traction unit  . |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 27, 2005 16:15:28 GMT
However I don't think LU management will welcome an idea of making each car an independent traction unit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"R" stock was Dmitri, and the original proposal in 1938 was for the COP stock to be the same. But they discovered that a 6 car COP all-motor was working up to in excess of 70mph north of Finchley Road and above 50 in the tunnels so that went out the window. "R" stock when they came had 110hp motors one per asymetrical truck.
|
|
|
|
Post by piccadillypilot on Apr 27, 2005 17:17:41 GMT
(I always thought 'R' Stock was Met-Cammell, 'mazin' what you learn on this forum!!) ( ) |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 27, 2005 21:15:58 GMT
(I always thought 'R' Stock was Met-Cammell, 'mazin' what you learn on this forum!!) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ;D ;D ;D Oh very good!! I shall have to send you a dynamite donut and possibly a one way ticket to Antartica.  |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 27, 2005 21:46:00 GMT
.Running 6 and making minor modifications to certain stations will give you a standard comfortable length.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Mr C a good suggestion but surely that would mean 90 second headways to deal with the traffic in the central area. Mind you worked to 90 second headways in the 60's so I suppose it could be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Apr 28, 2005 15:10:09 GMT
Like short trains, large headways in the central area are also a thing of the past. Regardless of trains, the company is striving to achieve the real turn up and go service.
Trouble is, couple this to the many "compromised overlap" projects, lose a few signals to satisfy the criteria and lose your line capacity. So, like running up a greased ramp, as hard as we try, we find ourselves ever closer back at the bottom.
|
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 29, 2005 9:54:15 GMT
Like short trains, large headways in the central area are also a thing of the past. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Have you got the first five words round the right way Mr C  I would have thought it was long trains & short headways. I'm not trying to be pedantic just trying to clarify your meaning.  |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Apr 29, 2005 20:10:46 GMT
Read as "inglish" to me! To phrase it slightly differently then:
As are short trains a thing of the past, so are large headways (a thing of the past). Therefore, the way ahead is longer trains and shorter headways. Or, to put it another way, trains wiv lots of carriages and not long to wait for 'em!
Better? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 30, 2005 5:54:04 GMT
As are short trains a thing of the past, so are large headways (a thing of the past). Therefore, the way ahead is longer trains and shorter headways. Or, to put it another way, trains wiv lots of carriages and not long to wait for 'em! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Well that's exactly what I thought you meant on the off! It just didn't look right the way it was written at first. However if your statement that long trains and short headways are the future then surely your excellent idea of 6 car trains all round has gone out the window. Also more signals (or blocks with ATC) will have to be installed. I also assume that with ATC they will be moving blocks like the DLR? It seems to me that your job is going to be even more of a headache than it is now.  |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Apr 30, 2005 10:41:26 GMT
Moving block probably won't reach the Met until after I retire - and that is some years off yet (mind you a quick count up finds it's not as many as it used to be ;D )
As for the long trains bit. There has to be middle ground to make the new stock worthwhile. 4 Car Trains are far too short for todays railway. 7 Car trains are simply too long for many of the central area stations. 6 cars are perfect for everywhere.
The loss of the 2 cars on the Met will be made up for with improved frequency.
The compromised overlap project will, hopefully, approach such signals with a "speed control" cure rather than removing the signal altogether and creating a large loss in capacity.
Overall, moving block and the like would give the best capacity, but as said this is a long way off. The system's first all-singing all-dancing line that was planned to have everything like moving block and ATO is currently some 6 years behind and counting. I refer of course to the Jubilee. If we couldn't get it up and running on a brand new purpose built line, what hope do we really have. The engineers will tell you different, but I live in that realistic, if a bit cynical, world.
|
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 30, 2005 17:42:10 GMT
 Mr C are you advocating a return to the old speed control that existed? If you are would the new stock be capable of dealing with it? The old system was a godsend if you worked it right but a lot of the old boys didn't which is why they took it out. It also enabled a 34 TPH service in the central area too. Ok so we saw a lot of red signals and usually ran late in the peak but most times we kept moving albeit slowly. Reducing the number of signals therefore reduced line capacity as everybody is aware. If RATP can run a 75 second headway on some lines with a fixed block system then I can't see why LUL can't either. What is needed in my view is to put the advance starter back at the central area stations (south side circle) and make the home signals approach controlled which will enable trains to keep on the move at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on May 1, 2005 10:12:51 GMT
Whether it's speed control or just more signals, it will be interesting to see how they go about it. Currently we manage (just) 30-34tph peak on each road on the north side of the Circle. But we do it by having a few signals just slightly closer than current standards. I should point out that there's no safety risk in normal operation. Speed restrictions make the overlaps safe. However, as any driver who has driven between Baker Street and Liverpool Street will tell you, there are a few places where it seems a bit "tight."
No one has yet shown us the operators, what they intend. What we suggest and what they intend will probably be two different things.
|
|
. However I don't think LU management will welcome an idea of making each car an independent traction unit 
.
