On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:28:48 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
AFAIK there are no plans for a new type of signalling on the sub surface lines
so they could easily have fixed what was there first then bought new trains.

There is a huge project in place to replace all of the sub surface
signalling. It was originally tied in with the fleet replacement but
was retendered after the collapse of Metronet.

I said new type of signalling. I thought it was just replacing what was
there with new equivalents. Maybe not.

Traction current supply and current rails for the more powerful trains

So the new trains are inefficient overweight lardbutts like the trains on the
3rd rail network? I can't believe aircon makes so much difference to the power
usage that they need to upgrade the supply.

Well the new Vic Line signalling was installed and patched behind the
existing system to allow a phase of new and old rolling stock running
together. As you know once enough of the new trains were in place a
phased switchover started from Walthamstow and has now reached
Brixton. I think the old system is now completely switched off.

I was thinking more of the problems with the trains themselves. Endless door
issues and random failures.

There are significant challenges in getting the SSL signalling in
place but getting the new trains into service does reduce the need to
fit ATO kit on old stock which would then have to be removed when the
old stock was withdrawn.

ATO on the Circle? That'll be interesting to see!

B2003

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:28:48 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:

Traction current supply and current rails for the more powerful trains

So the new trains are inefficient overweight lardbutts like the trains on
the
3rd rail network? I can't believe aircon makes so much difference to the
power
usage that they need to upgrade the supply.

Running a higher frequency also makes a difference though.

The Met main line peak service goes up from 22 to 28 tph, the top and bottom
of the circle from 28 to 32 tph.

Paul S

Patrickov wrote:

No offense, but I think that's what you get for having a pioneer. It
has its price, IMHO.

To some extent. I would rather the money spent on the S stock had gone
into infrastructure renewal, personally. There should really be no jointed
rail on the subsurface lines in 2012, and the signalling should work
properly.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

In article

, (Neil Williams) wrote:

Patrickov wrote:

No offense, but I think that's what you get for having a pioneer. It
has its price, IMHO.

To some extent. I would rather the money spent on the S stock had gone
into infrastructure renewal, personally. There should really be no
jointed rail on the subsurface lines in 2012, and the signalling should
work properly.

How much longer do you think LUL should have tried to keep 50-year-old
trains running?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

Oh, there is a train I know of that goes from Earls Court to Barking
via Edgware Road but it's about 05:30 off Earls Court if you really
have the need!

I'm sure Mr Rosenstiel will be waiting to use it ;-)

I don't think so. Today's return to Cambridge was Heathrow T123, departing
about 09:45, to Kings Cross St Pancras, straight through on the Piccadilly.
Just missed the 10:45 to Kings Lynn and got the 10:53 to Cambridge instead.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:

How much longer do you think LUL should have tried to keep 50-year-old
trains running?

As long as necessary. Hamburg were running 65 year old trains when I lived
over there.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

Paul Corfield wrote:

Really? Even if they were becoming disproportionately expensive to
maintain, had declining reliability and were not offering the
facilities that fare paying passengers would like?

Fair point. But yes, they were - I think they were 1937 stock. They were
only all withdrawn when the dispatch staff were removed from platforms and
monitors were installed. I suspect the last ones were the later 1950s
batch, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRG_Class_ET_171

You're normally pretty rational in your choices so I am surprised to
see a "run trains forever" comment from you.

It's more that I see the often poor state of the infrastructure and wonder
if that should really have been the first priority.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

On 4/26/2012 12:59 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
wrote:

How much longer do you think LUL should have tried to keep 50-year-old
trains running?

As long as necessary. Hamburg were running 65 year old trains when I lived
over there.

Neil


Fifty is the new 30, or hadn't you heard? ;-)