On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, wrote:

Mentioning Milan isn't it one of the very few places where at least
one line was electrified on a four rail system like London?don't know
if it still is or has been changed.

Correct. M1 (1964) is still like that. There should be a part of M1 with
overhead wire (I really do not usually look up) because originally M2
trains were hosted in the same depot used by M1 (between Precotto and
Villa SG), so they had to run Precotto to Pasteur and then through a
connecting tunnel to Caiazzo on M2 (now M2 has its own depot). M2 (1969)
did not use the four rail system, because a part of it runs in open air,
and I believe it is forbidden for safety reasons.

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 22:06:24 -0800, Aurora wrote:
That would be four tickets in one second, not four seconds to
deliver
one ticket. Which is about what the TVMs take in SWT territory. To
buy and print a return pair with a receipt takes a while. The
cheerful chappy at the window does much better. :-)

It would speed things up if they stopped issuing card receipts by
default. Most people just bin them these days. Could still be a
selectable option.

Neil

--
Neil Williams. Use neil before the at to reply.

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 21:19:10 +0000
"Richard J." wrote:
wrote on 05 December 2013 09:27:42 ...
Some drivers on LU seem to be rather slow to close the doors even when
there's no one left on the platform. They waste a good 5 - 10 seconds at
each stop which probably buggers up the timetable nicely by the time they've
got to the other end of the line.

If it's the Piccadilly line, that sort of thing will ensure they don't
run early against the leisurely timetable. I guess they think it's
better to waste a few seconds here and there instead of being held at a
station further down the line for a couple of minutes "to regulate the
service".

They do that anyway even if there hasn't been a train througn for 10 minutes.
I don't think I've ever been on another metro system that has to "regulate"
itself. The trains just run. If you have trains every 2 minutes why do you
need a timetable anyway? They just run up and down the line and stop at the
end of the day. The drivers obviously need a roster but what difference does
it make if they pick up train A, B, C or D? They're all the bloody same.

--
Spud

In message , at 16:16:07 on Fri, 6 Dec
2013, d remarked:
Some drivers on LU seem to be rather slow to close the doors even when
there's no one left on the platform. They waste a good 5 - 10 seconds at
each stop which probably buggers up the timetable nicely by the time they've
got to the other end of the line.

If it's the Piccadilly line, that sort of thing will ensure they don't
run early against the leisurely timetable. I guess they think it's
better to waste a few seconds here and there instead of being held at a
station further down the line for a couple of minutes "to regulate the
service".

They do that anyway even if there hasn't been a train througn for 10 minutes.
I don't think I've ever been on another metro system that has to "regulate"
itself. The trains just run. If you have trains every 2 minutes why do you
need a timetable anyway?

They are trying to avoid the "three buses come at once" scenario. It's
in the nature of public transport that the first to arrive picks up most
of the passengers, which slows it down. The one behind has fewer
passengers to pick up and gradually gains on the one in front.
Eventually they end up running in convoy.
--
Roland Perry

On 06/12/2013 09:11, Neil Williams wrote:
On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 22:06:24 -0800, Aurora wrote:
That would be four tickets in one second, not four seconds to
deliver
one ticket. Which is about what the TVMs take in SWT territory. To
buy and print a return pair with a receipt takes a while. The
cheerful chappy at the window does much better. :-)

It would speed things up if they stopped issuing card receipts by
default. Most people just bin them these days. Could still be a
selectable option.


May be a legal or commercial requirement.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 16:21:30 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:16:07 on Fri, 6 Dec
They do that anyway even if there hasn't been a train througn for 10 minutes.
I don't think I've ever been on another metro system that has to "regulate"
itself. The trains just run. If you have trains every 2 minutes why do you
need a timetable anyway?

They are trying to avoid the "three buses come at once" scenario. It's
in the nature of public transport that the first to arrive picks up most
of the passengers, which slows it down. The one behind has fewer
passengers to pick up and gradually gains on the one in front.
Eventually they end up running in convoy.

Thats true, but unlike buses which can come up right behind and pass each
other , with trains the signalling will keep them a certain distance apart
anyway. And since there's no other traffic unlike on the roads there's no
reason for any one train to have many more passengers than another if they
come at frequent regular intervals. The amount of people waiting at 8am is
going to be pretty much the same as at 8.05 since any people the train picks
up will be replace by those entering the station.

--
Spud

On 06/12/2013 16:16, d wrote:
On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 21:19:10 +0000
"Richard J." wrote:
d wrote on 05 December 2013 09:27:42 ...
Some drivers on LU seem to be rather slow to close the doors even when
there's no one left on the platform. They waste a good 5 - 10 seconds at
each stop which probably buggers up the timetable nicely by the time they've
got to the other end of the line.

If it's the Piccadilly line, that sort of thing will ensure they don't
run early against the leisurely timetable. I guess they think it's
better to waste a few seconds here and there instead of being held at a
station further down the line for a couple of minutes "to regulate the
service".

They do that anyway even if there hasn't been a train througn for 10 minutes.
I don't think I've ever been on another metro system that has to "regulate"
itself. The trains just run. If you have trains every 2 minutes why do you
need a timetable anyway? They just run up and down the line and stop at the
end of the day. The drivers obviously need a roster but what difference does
it make if they pick up train A, B, C or D? They're all the bloody same.


The diagrams are different, not all trains go right to the end of the
line, then you have all the different branches. Many metro systems are
just a collection of there and back lines which will be much simpler to
operate.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

In message , at 16:46:45 on Fri, 6 Dec
2013, d remarked:
They do that anyway even if there hasn't been a train througn for 10 minutes.
I don't think I've ever been on another metro system that has to "regulate"
itself. The trains just run. If you have trains every 2 minutes why do you
need a timetable anyway?

They are trying to avoid the "three buses come at once" scenario. It's
in the nature of public transport that the first to arrive picks up most
of the passengers, which slows it down. The one behind has fewer
passengers to pick up and gradually gains on the one in front.
Eventually they end up running in convoy.

Thats true, but unlike buses which can come up right behind and pass each
other , with trains the signalling will keep them a certain distance apart
anyway. And since there's no other traffic unlike on the roads there's no
reason for any one train to have many more passengers than another if they
come at frequent regular intervals. The amount of people waiting at 8am is
going to be pretty much the same as at 8.05 since any people the train picks
up will be replace by those entering the station.

The trains are further apart than the line capacity, and the situation
is inherently unstable, resulting in the "regulate" waits.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 16:44:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:
May be a legal or commercial requirement.

I did wonder, though my local Co-op asks if you want a card receipt
and doesn't print one if not. An option might be to add a cheap till
receipt printer.

Neil

--
Neil Williams. Use neil before the at to reply.

On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 16:54:26 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 16:46:45 on Fri, 6 Dec
2013, d remarked:
They do that anyway even if there hasn't been a train througn for 10 minutes.
I don't think I've ever been on another metro system that has to "regulate"
itself. The trains just run. If you have trains every 2 minutes why do you
need a timetable anyway?

They are trying to avoid the "three buses come at once" scenario. It's
in the nature of public transport that the first to arrive picks up most
of the passengers, which slows it down. The one behind has fewer
passengers to pick up and gradually gains on the one in front.
Eventually they end up running in convoy.

Thats true, but unlike buses which can come up right behind and pass each
other , with trains the signalling will keep them a certain distance apart
anyway. And since there's no other traffic unlike on the roads there's no
reason for any one train to have many more passengers than another if they
come at frequent regular intervals. The amount of people waiting at 8am is
going to be pretty much the same as at 8.05 since any people the train picks
up will be replace by those entering the station.

The trains are further apart than the line capacity, and the situation
is inherently unstable, resulting in the "regulate" waits.

Few of the Underground lines run a self-contained service thus
departing from the timetable will in most cases also mess up another
line's (or the same line in the other direction for the self-contained
lines) service if trains are allowed to run in a random manner. Even
where there isn't actual track sharing, bunching of trains will also
lead to a similar effect with passengers at various interchanges;
where there is track sharing (e.g. District + NLL, Bakerloo + DC
line), random running of LU services has IME been a long term cause of
screwing up the published timetables for the NR services.