On 4月16日, 下�10時05分, Neil Williams wrote:
On Apr 16, 3:51Â*pm, redcat wrote:

I lived in London through much of the 'seventies and anytime I needed to
go somewhere where the Circle or the District appeared to be the obvious
choices my heart sank.

Both lines remain the pits.

Why?

Knackered infrastructure, mainly.

But, unlike other countries, it does seem to be a LUL thing to run
nice new trains on knackered old infrastructure, rather than the
opposite as is more common (though usually maintaining the old trains
well so they aren't knackered).

Neil

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

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
Patrickov wrote:
But, unlike other countries, it does seem to be a LUL thing to run
nice new trains on knackered old infrastructure, rather than the
opposite as is more common (though usually maintaining the old trains
well so they aren't knackered).

Neil

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

Being the first doesn't prevent up upgrading the infrastructure on a timely
basis. When there are constant signal failures on a line the way to solve
it is not to buy new trains!

B2003

On 4月25日, 下�5時39分, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:17:30 -0700 (PDT)

Patrickov wrote:
But, unlike other countries, it does seem to be a LUL thing to run
nice new trains on knackered old infrastructure, rather than the
opposite as is more common (though usually maintaining the old trains
well so they aren't knackered).

Neil

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

Being the first doesn't prevent up upgrading the infrastructure on a timely
basis. When there are constant signal failures on a line the way to solve
it is not to buy new trains!

B2003

"Being the first doesn't prevent up upgrading the infrastructure on a
timely basis" -- I am afraid it does, especially with the complex
branching on the subsurface lines. Just wonder if the new trains are
capable for running on multiple signalling systems simultaneously. If
it's so then I think new trains are somewhat essential before you can
upgrade signalling. Otherwise it'd be closing down the whole line,
which can be very detrimental, especially if the line in concern is
the District.

On 4月25日, 下�5時43分, Patrickov wrote:
On 4月25日, 下�5時39分, wrote:









On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:17:30 -0700 (PDT)

Patrickov wrote:
But, unlike other countries, it does seem to be a LUL thing to run
nice new trains on knackered old infrastructure, rather than the
opposite as is more common (though usually maintaining the old trains
well so they aren't knackered).

Neil

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

Being the first doesn't prevent up upgrading the infrastructure on a timely
basis. When there are constant signal failures on a line the way to solve
it is not to buy new trains!

B2003

"Being the first doesn't prevent up upgrading the infrastructure on a
timely basis" -- I am afraid it does, especially with the complex
branching on the subsurface lines. Â*Just wonder if the new trains are
capable for running on multiple signalling systems simultaneously. Â*If
it's so then I think new trains are somewhat essential before you can
upgrade signalling. Â*Otherwise it'd be closing down the whole line,
which can be very detrimental, especially if the line in concern is
the District.

(By simultaneous, I mean capable of switching over several times in
one journey)

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
Patrickov wrote:
"Being the first doesn't prevent up upgrading the infrastructure on a
timely basis" -- I am afraid it does, especially with the complex
branching on the subsurface lines. Just wonder if the new trains are
capable for running on multiple signalling systems simultaneously. If

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.
The northern line got new trains 15 years ago but the service didn't improve
because the signalling was as unreliable as ever. So what exactly did that
achieve? Other than spending millions.

it's so then I think new trains are somewhat essential before you can
upgrade signalling. Otherwise it'd be closing down the whole line,

That never stopped them closing down the victoria line every other weekend
when they installed the new signalling for the new trains there. Which are
less reliable than the old ones. Another lot of money well spent.

B2003

wrote in message
...

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.

That's a completely wrong assumption though:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ive/20253.aspx

"Bombardier will install the CITYFLO 650 ATC system, a state-of-the-art
communication-based train control technology..."

So the new stock IS being brought in immediately prior to a full
resignalling of the SSR.

Paul S

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