| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
October 17th 12, 09:33 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
Skyfall
In article , ] (Steve
Fitzgerald) wrote: In message , d writes On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:47:54 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: There must be more to it than that. There's no reason they couldn't have full acceleration but with the top speed still limited. The signalling as an excuse makes no sense to me , there is a fixed distance between signals and its up to the drivers how they get between them. Surely getting up to line speed as fast as possible would benefit everyone? Not if that means you are travelling too fast (to stop) when the next signal looms into view. Thats down to driver training surely. Not if the signalling system is designed for 59 stock and their braking profiles. 38 stock, surely? Was the signalling redesigned at all for the 59 and 72 stock? I understand the 95 traction package was designed to match the stock they used to share with. No doubt this will be changed once the signalling profiles are changed. And then there's the energy consumption. If that were a concern then all new trains on the system would be limited to a snails pace. But thats not the case. I don't think that's the issue. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Linear Mode
