Worst line for reliability and best line for reliability?
 

Does anyone know the answer to the question mentioned in the above Subject.
In terms of London Underground lines and can include the DLR.

Worst line for reliability and best line for reliability?
 

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:25:58 GMT, wrote:

Does anyone know the answer to the question mentioned in the above Subject.
In terms of London Underground lines and can include the DLR.

The answer depends entirely on how you define and measure reliability.
Is it the number of breakdowns, type of breakdowns, total delays, mean
distance between failures (for trains) or mean cycles between failures
(for things like signals)?

You'll get different answers depending on the measure.

In very broad "how does it feel to the customer" terms I'd say DLR was
way ahead of LU but it has the advantage of being relatively new and
having had sustained investment as well as regular and properly planned
maintenance.

On LU lines like the East London tend to do not too badly but then they
are short and have few trains and not a lot of track. The Waterloo and
City seems to be a lot better since the mini upgrade to the track and
trains.

District Line fleet used to be reliable but has got worse of late. The
District is also suffering from track and signalling problems far more
than it used to do.

Piccadilly Line overall is doing very well in terms of its contractual
performance and as a regular commuter I have few problems with it on my
section. The part in West London run by Metronet has a disproportionate
impact. Jubilee has been improving but keeps having wobbles with its
signals every 3 months or so. There are also some track issues on the
northern section but this is less than it used to be. Northern Line is
one of the worst lines but it is slowly improving. Whether this can be
sustained for months and months is the acid test - especially as the
upgrade programme steps up.

The Met, Circle and H&C seem to be taking a nose dive of late. Fleet
reliability has become a real issue and track and signalling issues on
the Met Line have become more and more frequent.

In BCV land the Central Line has settled down again but it has been
through an awful patch over the last 3 months or so. Victoria Line is
not too bad but it is beginning to show signs of strain as the
relationship between keeping the line running and upgrading it is
becoming more evident. The Bakerloo line used to be not too bad on the
LU section but awful on the Network rail part. However it, too, has been
having a torrid time with fleet, signal and track problems day after day
over the last 6 weeks or so.

My categorisation (from memory and without the benefit of numbers in
front of me)

Excellent - DLR
Good - W&C, ELL, Central, Piccadilly and Jubilee
Middling - District, H&C, Circle, Bakerloo, Victoria
Awful - Northern, Metropolitan

The Northern is slowly improving so might get to middling. Many of the
"middling" lines are getting worse so there's a real challenge to stop
them becoming awful.

Note also that my terms relate to UK expectations of reliability. Only
DLR gets anywhere near to the levels of reliability delivered in Japan,
Singapore and Hong Kong. Regrettably I cannot see LU getting to the
standard of Asian metros for many years to come as it is a real step
change up from where the Tube is now or may even be post upgrade - note
this is my own opinion and not a LU company view (just in case someone
important is reading this ;-) )

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Worst line for reliability and best line for reliability?
 

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:25:58 GMT, wrote:

Does anyone know the answer to the question mentioned in the above
Subject. In terms of London Underground lines and can include the
DLR.
....
Note also that my terms relate to UK expectations of reliability.
Only DLR gets anywhere near to the levels of reliability delivered in
Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong. Regrettably I cannot see LU getting
to the standard of Asian metros for many years to come as it is a
real step change up from where the Tube is now or may even be post
upgrade - note this is my own opinion and not a LU company view (just
in case someone important is reading this ;-) )

I don't have detailed stats like Paul, but I had a couple of journeys
that were remarkable today for being perfect. My route involved Picc,
District and Jubilee trains, and on both the outbound and return
directions I didn't have to wait more than a minute for any of the six
trains. They did exactly what the TfL journey planner said they would.
They weren't over-crowded or dirty, there were no delays and no problems
(though one of the Jubilee Line drivers got irate on the PA when a
passenger apparently tried to interfere with the doors as we entered
Waterloo station). If only this perfect performance was the norm,
instead of the exception!

Worst line for reliability and best line for reliability?
 

Worst line for reliability and best line for reliability?
 

"Barry Salter" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Does anyone know the answer to the question mentioned in the above
Subject. In terms of London Underground lines and can include the DLR.
As Paul C says, it depends on how you quantify reliability. In terms of
public stats, for the period 7th January to 3rd February:

The District had the most incidents (54) that caused an initial delay of
15 minutes or more, with the East London and Waterloo & City having the
least (2 each).

The Waterloo & City had the most trains in service (100%) against the
planned timetable at 09:00 and 18:00, with the Circle having the least
(82.5%).

In terms of km operated, the East London achieved the highest (99.3%) and
the Circle and Hammersmith & City Lines (combined figure) achieved the
lowest (85.4%).

Cheers,

Barry

Thank you for all your comments they are all really interesting.

Worst line for reliability and best line for reliability?
 

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

My categorisation (from memory and without the benefit of numbers in
front of me)

Excellent - DLR
Good - W&C, ELL, Central, Piccadilly and Jubilee
Middling - District, H&C, Circle, Bakerloo, Victoria
Awful - Northern, Metropolitan

Interesting. I commute daily (District & DLR) and also travel around town
for work and leisure. My 'evidence' is therefore purely anecdotal.

DLR is great, and impressively the full timetable is on display at each
station. You can normally set your watch by it.

Central rarely lets me down. Full marks for frequency. If travelling from
the east of town to Paddington, I take the Central to Lancaster Gate then
walk - invariably quicker than the H&C/Circle.

Personally, I've always found the Victoria reliable, fast and frequent.

I've more or less given up on the Jubilee. Horrendous gaps between trains.
Extended dwell times at stations whilst they faff around with the PEDs and
various bleepers go off in the cab. Frequent total collapse of service on
the eastern stretch. Random unannounced 'short working' to North Greenwich.
I travel Canary Wharf - West End frequently, and have discovered that DLR to
Bank then Central is quicker and more reliable in the real world.

Another journey I undertake frequently is Canary Wharf - Finchley. DLR to
Bank is always fine. The Northern has been the cause of many 'apologies for
lateness', however. When something goes wrong, the High Barnet service seems
to thin alarmingly, and reversals at Finchley Central appear to be the norm.

The District, having been through a bad patch, seems to be on the up again.
The unrefurbished stock suffers from door problems, but this is now in the
minority. Some of the problems on the eastern stretch are 'passenger
related' - trespass; vandalism; people hurling themselves under trains etc.

The Circle is fine when it runs, but too often it doesn't. The whole north
side of the Circle/H&C can be a bit 'iffy' for those with tight deadlines.
However, I would say 'improving' here.

Chris

Worst line for reliability and best line for reliability?
 

Another journey I undertake frequently is Canary Wharf - Finchley. DLR to
Bank is always fine. The Northern has been the cause of many 'apologies for
lateness', however. When something goes wrong, the High Barnet service seems
to thin alarmingly, and reversals at Finchley Central appear to be the norm.

It is a problem that when there are service disruptions, one of the
key ways in which we recover normal service (i.e. get back to
timetable working) is to short-trip late-running trains. This does
mean that people travelling to the extreme ends of the line (thinking
particularly of both Edgware and High Barnet branches of the Northern
line) do get a raw deal. However if we don't do it the trains run
later and later, drivers go over their hours or end up in the wrong
places for their breaks (which has a further knock-on that they are
not available to drive again at the time and place they should be
after their break), and generally cause all sorts of knock-on
problems.

From the point of view of a passenger of course, I don't care if the
train is 1/2 hr late as long as there is a train when I want to catch
one. But from the point of view of keeping the service running for
the whole day, some short-term pain has to be inflicted. I don't half
hear about is too, as my partner works in High Barnet and it's
inevitably my fault that he had to wait 15 minutes for a train........