| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Jan 25, 10:59 am, Andy wrote:
The Class 350s can regenerate, but I don't know if it is being used at the moment. The Pendolinos certainly do, as it is claimed to give a 17% reduction in energy use. The class 321s don't have regen, as far as I know. 17%! Wow! That's higher than I'd have guessed in ideal circumstances. I've not taken a GPS onto a pendolino but the 125 and 225s spend a couple of minutes accelerating, about 15-20 minutes at speed and then a few minutes slowing down again typically (at least as far as Newcastle) Regenerative braking must be an even better deal on local services that are stopping all the time. E.g. the 08:06 from Watford Junction stops at Bushey and H&W. 12 carriage train. One day I'll have to take the GPS on that and see how much of the time is actually accelerating/ braking and how much is cruising Tim. |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Jan 25, 11:58*am, "
wrote: On Jan 25, 10:59 am, Andy wrote: The Class 350s can regenerate, but I don't know if it is being used at the moment. The Pendolinos certainly do, as it is claimed to give a 17% reduction in energy use. The class 321s don't have regen, as far as I know. 17%! Wow! That's higher than I'd have guessed in ideal circumstances. My figures came from the Informed Sources column back in July's Issue of Modern Railways. There is a link to the archive here, look under the technology section: http://www.alycidon.com/ALYCIDON%20R...007%202007.htm I've not taken a GPS onto a pendolino but the 125 and 225s spend a couple of minutes accelerating, about 15-20 minutes at speed and then a few minutes slowing down again typically (at least as far as Newcastle) Regenerative braking must be an even better deal on local services that are stopping all the time. E.g. the 08:06 from Watford Junction stops at Bushey and H&W. 12 carriage train. One day I'll have to take the GPS on that and see how much of the time is actually accelerating/ braking and how much is cruising Indeed the article suggests that the Electrostars on c2c services save more like 21%. |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 9:45 am, Graeme Wall wrote: Which can be affected by the length of the train, think side winds. To a first approximation it shouldn't matter because the force will be perpendicular to the trains movement. It will have an effect but I'd expect it to be small relative to the energy required to accelerate and the energy required to push the train through the air. I'm not sure if modern wheel profiles would make a difference, but there is a record of the effect of side winds dating from 1962. A West Highland train emerged from the shelter of the Horse Shoe into a full westerly gale, and speed dropped from 35 mph to 15. At first the driver thought the cord had been pulled, but a glance at the vacuum gauge refuted this. What had happened was that the wind pushing on the side of the coaches was grinding the wheel flanges against the rails. Peter |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Jan 25, 12:21 pm, Andy wrote:
On Jan 25, 11:58 am, " wrote: On Jan 25, 10:59 am, Andy wrote: The Class 350s can regenerate, but I don't know if it is being used at the moment. The Pendolinos certainly do, as it is claimed to give a 17% reduction in energy use. The class 321s don't have regen, as far as I know. 17%! Wow! That's higher than I'd have guessed in ideal circumstances. My figures came from the Informed Sources column back in July's Issue of Modern Railways. There is a link to the archive here, look under the technology section: http://www.alycidon.com/ALYCIDON%20R...CES%20ARCHIVE/... Thank you for that. It makes me despair. The only thing stopping us using regenerative braking everywhere is that currently there isn't any technology that can store the amount of energy being generated at the sorts of rates that it is generated. Supercapacitors look like they might be an answer eventually but they're not there yet. But electric trains are nearly perfect for this technology. The biggest headache being making sure you can maintain braking if the circuit is broken. If a few people rode bicycles a bit more often then they'd learn why cyclists don't like stopping for red lights and why accelerating is such bloody hard work. I've read that a cyclist goes 20x as far at a constant 12mph as they do accelerating from 0 to 12mph for the same energy use Tim. |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 03:16:17 -0800 (PST), " wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to see a timetable alteration that moves this train earlier by 4 (or 5) minutes. (Of course, moving all the trains later by 10 minutes would also help because then there would be a 19:04 and a 19:14) However, you've been lucky if you've never had to stand. Those trains are always busy. It's quieter from about the 19:54 through to about 21:54 then it starts getting busy again. As to the timetable, I can't remember what happens to the all-shacks trains, but the fasts and slows will be offset by about 15 minutes unlike the present situation where they leave at roughly the same time (e.g. 1823 fast, 1824 slow). Do these trains use the same tracks? If so, isn't that pattern of departures necessary so the fasts have a clear run ahead of them behind the preceding slow? This will mean the slows will become more attractive to MKC passengers, which might have an interesting and undesirable[1] effect. [1] The slows can't be longer than 8 cars southbound due to Bletchley's short platforms and the fact that none of the stock has SDO. They can be 12-car northbound (like the 1754 is) but you'd have a big problem arranging that without a lot of units building up at Northampton... You could make 12-car trains, and lock the rear 4 cars OOU on the southbound leg. You could even unlock them once you were past Bletchley and into 12-car land (if that's possible, and if it is indeed all 12-car-clear south of there). Alternatively, you run 50% more trains southbound than northbound, and never have more than one 4-car set sitting at Northampton. This would be a nightmare to do, though. tom -- I had no idea it was going to end in such tragedy |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Mizter T wrote:
On 24 Jan, 23:43, Arthur Figgis wrote: Chris Tolley wrote: Paul Scott wrote: much as it might seem straightforward to have a London centred zonal system spreading ever outwards, there will have to be a limit somewhere - and it might as well be the Greater London boundary as anywhere. Actually ... I rather like the idea of the zones spreading ever outwards. With Zone 43 including the great arc of Wrexham, Chester, Warrington, Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds and Hull, it looks like a one-zone ticket will be quite good value, though knowing the way that such boundaries are set, I expect a Chester to Manchester via Knutsford ticket would have to be a 2-zoner. ;-) Some countries do have a national zone model, where you pay for the zones you pass through. They use boxes or cells rather than concentric rings as the zones. This is how things are done in Tyne & Wear - see: http://www.nexus.org.uk/ufs/shared/i...ne_Map_Col.pdf The numbering logic behind the zones seems bizarre at first sight - the zone numbers ascend in a sort of diagonal sweep from the south west to the north east of the metropolitan county of T&W. Surely north west to south east? Oh, you mean like a raster? Yes, i see - the lines of the raster run SW-NE, and the raster progresses NW-SE. The diagonal is basically the axis parallel to the Tyne, isn't it? At least, the downstream reach. It's akin to Stanford's 'logical north'. However I think it may be designed this was to make it easy to issue and - crucially - verify the validity of tickets with zonal combinations that are in a row or in a ring (think of a busy bus driver checking tickets). Yes, and each line in the raster has its own leading digit, with the second digit increasing along it, so that the corresponding zones in each line are adjacent. Although 58-60 are special cases: they should be 65, 66 and 75, respectively. It'd be fun to do a version of that map coloured by the orthogonal elements of the zone numbers; say, number 0x in red to 5x in violet, and x3 in a pale shade to x9 in a dark one. Or with patterns of dots or stripes instead of shade, so you can see at a glance how the coordinate meanders across the map. Note that the Tyne ferry has zone 38 all to itself. 39. I wonder which zones it counts as being adjacent to? Any which have piers, i suppose. The '4 zones in a ring' option is described as 'any 3 zones in a ring plus one adjacent zone'; does that mean i could have three in a ring and one touching just one of them? 56, 58, 59 and 60, say? tom -- I had no idea it was going to end in such tragedy |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
|
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Andy wrote:
On Jan 25, 8:26*am, " wrote: I presume trains don't use regenerative braking at all (ISTR some of the underground trains are now starting to use this) The Class 350s can regenerate, Oh god, that means it's only a matter of time before they come back as Christopher Ecclestone, doesn't it? tom -- I had no idea it was going to end in such tragedy |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
In message
" wrote: On Jan 25, 9:45 am, Graeme Wall wrote: In message " wrote: On Jan 25, 6:10 am, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:03:56 -0800 (PST), Andy wrote: See above, this is one of the delights of having a mixed fleet of incompatible units. Not on a Sunday, when there are (I think) only 4 diagrams giving a half-hourly service, and most of them tend to be 4-car. This is lunacy given the actual demand. Does anyone know what proportion of the running costs of a train are power consumption and how that scales with length of train? Presumably for trains with few stops the power consumption is approximately constant regardless of the length of the train because the main loss will be air drag. Which can be affected by the length of the train, think side winds. To a first approximation it shouldn't matter because the force will be perpendicular to the trains movement. It will have an effect but I'd expect it to be small relative to the energy required to accelerate and the energy required to push the train through the air. It will increase the frictional losses as the train bears against the leeward rail, also it will create turbulence around the gaps between the coaches and around the bogies. If I'm wrong and it is a significant effect then I'd expect that to be due to turbulence of the air passing under the train and where the carriages join. But I'd assume that a train reasonably approximates a long straight bar. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
Tom Anderson wrote: On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Mizter T wrote: (snip) This is how things are done in Tyne & Wear - see: http://www.nexus.org.uk/ufs/shared/i...ne_Map_Col.pdf The numbering logic behind the zones seems bizarre at first sight - the zone numbers ascend in a sort of diagonal sweep from the south west to the north east of the metropolitan county of T&W. Surely north west to south east? Oh, you mean like a raster? Yes, i see - the lines of the raster run SW-NE, and the raster progresses NW-SE. The diagonal is basically the axis parallel to the Tyne, isn't it? At least, the downstream reach. It's akin to Stanford's 'logical north'. However I think it may be designed this was to make it easy to issue and - crucially - verify the validity of tickets with zonal combinations that are in a row or in a ring (think of a busy bus driver checking tickets). Yes, and each line in the raster has its own leading digit, with the second digit increasing along it, so that the corresponding zones in each line are adjacent. Although 58-60 are special cases: they should be 65, 66 and 75, respectively. You describe it a lot more eloquently than I could - but yes, that was what I was trying to express, each of the two digits have meaning. It'd be fun to do a version of that map coloured by the orthogonal elements of the zone numbers; say, number 0x in red to 5x in violet, and x3 in a pale shade to x9 in a dark one. Or with patterns of dots or stripes instead of shade, so you can see at a glance how the coordinate meanders across the map. Yes, indeed, though I'm not sure how useful that'd be to the average punter! My alternative would involve massively simplifying the whole system! But of course, that would need the agreement of all the bus companies involved, Note that the Tyne ferry has zone 38 all to itself. 39. I wonder which zones it counts as being adjacent to? Any which have piers, i suppose. 38, 39, it's all the same to me - so it's probably just as well I'm not a bus driver on Tyneside or Wearside, I'd be letting on people with all sorts of wrong zonal Traveltickets! (Though dare I suggest that I might get along ok in London, given the total disinterest that some drivers seem to have when it comes to checking tickets!) The Tyne ferry sails between North and South Shields, so the adjacent zones would be 29 and 38. The '4 zones in a ring' option is described as 'any 3 zones in a ring plus one adjacent zone'; does that mean i could have three in a ring and one touching just one of them? 56, 58, 59 and 60, say? From my reading of things, yes that looks like a legit combination. Incidentally you can buy Travelticket renewals online on the website of Nexus (the T&W PTE) - select the first option, "Network Travelticket", to be taken into the system... https://www.nexus.org.uk/wps/wcm/con...ickets+online/ ....and you will find something interesting - the online system is incapable of selling the "4 zones in a ring" combination! It seems that if you want such a ticket you'll have to go and deal with someone face to face. Casual travellers will be happy to note that the T&W Metro operates a far simpler concentric zone system, zones A, B and C... http://tinyurl.com/3acd76 ....though of course valid Network Traveltickets (i.e. those with the correct numbered zones) are accepted on the Me'ro. And just to prove that things can change for the better, the "Transfare" ticket scheme has recently been simplified - these are tickets that allow for through journeys from bus to Metro or vice- versa. However, perhaps just so as to ensure things don't get too simple the new Transfare scheme has introduced the new idea of concentric yellow, green, and grey zones - thankfully these do actually correspond with the Metro's concentric A, B and C zones, and they also share the same colours except for Metro zone C being a shade of violet whilst the outer Transfare zone is grey. I suppose the logic is that the Transfare grey zone covers much more ground than the Metro C zone. Anyhow, here is a page on the new Transfare ticket scheme... http://www.nexus.org.uk/wps/wcm/conn...etro+Transfare ....and this leaflet shows the new Transfare yellow/green/grey zones (PDF)... http://www.nexus.org.uk/wps/wcm/reso...fare%20map.pdf The world is complicated! |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Jan 25, 2:50 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, wrote: Presumably for trains with few stops the power consumption is approximately constant regardless of the length of the train because the main loss will be air drag. As long as the train never wants to climb a hill, perhaps. If it does, the old mgh term rears its head. And you get it back again on the downhills. If we assume a 1000kg car takes 10kW to maintain 25m/s (about 50mph) on the flat. On a 1 in 50 it will take 15kW to maintain that speed uphill but only 5kW to maintain that speed downhill. As the speed is constant the time is the same up and down so the total energy is the average, i.e. same as on the flat over the same distance. It's only if you are power limited on the climbs and descend faster that you lose out because your power requirements go up as cube of speed to overcome airdrag. This is typically the case for cyclists - going uphill the speed is low enough that airdrag is negligible and all the energy goes in mgh. A cyclist coasting down a 1 in 10 at 20m/s will be using 2kW to overcome the airdrag. (You also lose out if you have to use braking on the descent and it's non-regenerative. On a tandem where the power doubles but the drag is roughly the same the terminal velocity will be about 25% higher and the tandem will have to dissipate 2kW via the brakes to keep the speed at 20m/s - which is why tandems often have a hub brake as well as rim brakes or, nowadays, disk brakes) Do you think that drag is overwhelmingly greater than rolling resistance, losses in the bearings, etc? I'm not sure quite how many orders of magnitude it will differ by but yes. Beyond any doubt air drag dominates everything else at any sort of reasonable speed. Power to overcome airdrag goes up as cube of speed. Friction losses are linear. Tim. |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
"Mizter T" wrote in message ... And just to prove that things can change for the better, the "Transfare" ticket scheme has recently been simplified - these are tickets that allow for through journeys from bus to Metro or vice- versa. However, perhaps just so as to ensure things don't get too simple the new Transfare scheme has introduced the new idea of concentric yellow, green, and grey zones - thankfully these do actually correspond with the Metro's concentric A, B and C zones, and they also share the same colours except for Metro zone C being a shade of violet whilst the outer Transfare zone is grey. I suppose the logic is that the Transfare grey zone covers much more ground than the Metro C zone. Anyhow, here is a page on the new Transfare ticket scheme... http://www.nexus.org.uk/wps/wcm/conn...etro+Transfare ...and this leaflet shows the new Transfare yellow/green/grey zones (PDF)... http://www.nexus.org.uk/wps/wcm/reso...fare%20map.pdf The world is complicated! But it was definitely worth pointing out, if only to demonstrate how easy it will be to program a national Oyster payg... Paul S |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On 25 Jan, 16:31, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message (snip) And just to prove that things can change for the better, the "Transfare" ticket scheme has recently been simplified - these are tickets that allow for through journeys from bus to Metro or vice- versa. However, perhaps just so as to ensure things don't get too simple the new Transfare scheme has introduced the new idea of concentric yellow, green, and grey zones - thankfully these do actually correspond with the Metro's concentric A, B and C zones, and they also share the same colours except for Metro zone C being a shade of violet whilst the outer Transfare zone is grey. I suppose the logic is that the Transfare grey zone covers much more ground than the Metro C zone. Anyhow, here is a page on the new Transfare ticket scheme... http://www.nexus.org.uk/wps/wcm/conn...es+and+tickets... ...and this leaflet shows the new Transfare yellow/green/grey zones (PDF)... http://www.nexus.org.uk/wps/wcm/reso...e4fbc9c/Transf... The world is complicated! But it was definitely worth pointing out, if only to demonstrate how easy it will be to program a national Oyster payg... Paul S Perhaps my sarcasm detector isn't working, but I'll take your comment at face value! One issue with implementing this Transfare scheme with some kind of smartcard PAYG system would be the fact that neither bus fares nor Transfares are flat-rate - look at the leaflet's example of a journey where a passenger transfers from the Metro at Pelaw in the green zone and then takes a bus to Washington in the grey zone. The passenger would have to actively inform the driver of their final destination, and the driver would have to enter this into their ticket machine and then have the passenger scan the smartcard so as to ensure the correct fare was debited. The only other way of doing it would be to implement a touch-in and touch-out system on buses, which I think would be totally unworkable. In fact this has prompted me to start a new thread on utl to ask about whether Oyster could theoretically support a distance based, non-flat fare system - the thread is called "Oyster PAYG and differential bus fares". |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
|
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:45:20 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote: On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Mizter T wrote: This is how things are done in Tyne & Wear - see: http://www.nexus.org.uk/ufs/shared/i...ne_Map_Col.pdf The numbering logic behind the zones seems bizarre at first sight - the zone numbers ascend in a sort of diagonal sweep from the south west to the north east of the metropolitan county of T&W. I can understand why you say that but I got used to it quickly - zones 17 and 26 covered my regular journeys! Surely north west to south east? Oh, you mean like a raster? Yes, i see - the lines of the raster run SW-NE, and the raster progresses NW-SE. The diagonal is basically the axis parallel to the Tyne, isn't it? At least, the downstream reach. It's akin to Stanford's 'logical north'. Not seen it described like that before but you've made me go back and look at it afresh. However I think it may be designed this was to make it easy to issue and - crucially - verify the validity of tickets with zonal combinations that are in a row or in a ring (think of a busy bus driver checking tickets). I remember picking up the original leaflet for the zonal system before it was brought into use and being very confused by it. I'd never seen anything like it and yet it's simple when compared to some German fares systems. It settled down very quickly and the ease and simplicity of the Travelcard ticket was massively popular. It was certainly one aspect of the Tyne and Wear system that encouraged people to use public transport. Fares were cheap but the Travelcard - in both peak and off peak versions - offered very good value for money. Now it's undermined by everyone - including the Metro - having their own bewildering range of own operator tickets. The "updated" Transfare scheme is another mess - another zonal system imposed on top of another one. Dreadful and indicative of the worst aspects of deregulated practice. 39. I wonder which zones it counts as being adjacent to? Any which have piers, i suppose. Although the zone is very long the sole remaining ferry service runs between North Shields and South Shields. Therefore the valid and logical adjacent zones are zones 29 and 38. There is a bus link to the pier at North Shields as there is a very steep hill up to the town centre and Metro station. There's little height differential on the South side and a short walk up a ramp and some stairs brings you to the Market Place where many buses leave from and 5 minutes further on is the Metro station. The only other ferry I recall being in a local timetable book was from Wallsend to Hebburn and was timed for the shipyard shifts. It was never in the Travelcard scheme although zone 39 would cover it. The '4 zones in a ring' option is described as 'any 3 zones in a ring plus one adjacent zone'; does that mean i could have three in a ring and one touching just one of them? 56, 58, 59 and 60, say? As a former Tyne and Wear resident and extensive user of Metro, the original Transfare scheme and regular Travelcard purchaser then yes that combination is perfectly valid. -- Paul C |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:53:24 -0800 (PST), Andy
wrote: I certainly agree about the lengths of trains on Sundays. I thought (although I'm not absolutely sure) that PIXC (Passengers In eXcess of Capacity) standards were supposed to be met all the time. I.E. on Sundays as well as during the week. Sunday afternoon / evening seem to be far more crowded than most of the peak trains (except the 19.04!!) and like you say, it is not difficult to make all the trains 8 cars. I can't help but wonder if Sundays is a case of "take whatever is next in the line on the depot when you get there" for the drivers, with no coupling or uncoupling taking place, as it isn't unknown for one of the 4 diagrams (usually the wrong one) to be 8-car. Really, with only 4 diagrams, even if (as I suspect due to the lack of Desiros) Sundays are Bletchley only, with Northampton depot not in use, 8 car on everything is both practical and necessary. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:29:24 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote: Do these trains use the same tracks? If so, isn't that pattern of departures necessary so the fasts have a clear run ahead of them behind the preceding slow? No. The fasts leave Euston on the fast lines and don't cross to the slows until Ledburn (I think) while the slows leave on the slow lines and remain there throughout. I think the timings are purely to fit in between the VTs, which might be the reason for the forthcoming changes given the total recast of VT's timetable. You could make 12-car trains, and lock the rear 4 cars OOU on the southbound leg. You could even unlock them once you were past Bletchley and into 12-car land (if that's possible, and if it is indeed all 12-car-clear south of there). Is there a feasible way of locking 4 cars out of use on 321 formations, without having to open the above-door panels and lock each door out manually? The reason I ask is that there is an element of that takes place on the 0735ish which starts from Bletchley (with the rear 4 off the platform but unlocked, such that you can't get to them), and it seems surprising that they wouldn't think of it. That said, you don't see 12 cars on any of the Tring slows, and they probably load the heaviest - is there another short platform, e.g. Apsley/Kings Langley? I will be interested to find out if the new Desiros have SDO, as SWT's ones certainly appear to have some form of it to allow calling at short platforms on the Waterloo-Reading run. This might allow a recast fitting with the likely demand (i.e. removing the Leighton Buzzard stop from the fasts and inserting it into the slows[1] (then making both 12-car) which is where it was before the last recast when 12-car operation started). [1] The 1824 does not stop at Leighton Buzzard or Berkhamsted, which I always suspected to be a crowd control measure given that the xx24 and xx54 of other hours does. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:27:14 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote: One issue with implementing this Transfare scheme with some kind of smartcard PAYG system would be the fact that neither bus fares nor Transfares are flat-rate - look at the leaflet's example of a journey where a passenger transfers from the Metro at Pelaw in the green zone and then takes a bus to Washington in the grey zone. The passenger would have to actively inform the driver of their final destination, and the driver would have to enter this into their ticket machine and then have the passenger scan the smartcard so as to ensure the correct fare was debited. The only other way of doing it would be to implement a touch-in and touch-out system on buses, which I think would be totally unworkable. It is entirely workable in Singapore (yes, I know, different culture, but still...). If the method of operation was to charge the maximum fare for that bus on touch-in and refund the difference on touch-out, people would soon be motivated to touch in and out correctly, just as they seem to manage on, say, the DLR, and the Dutch are to introduce it with their system (which is, notably, going away from zones and towards market fares). It would need to be made obvious to start with, but that could be done by having, say, a green reader on the ticket machine for touch-in and a red one on the left hand side of the doors for touch-out. Indeed, it'd be simpler and more consistent than the London "remember to always touch in and out, unless it's a bus in which case only touch in, and unless it's a bendy bus and you have a season ticket then you don't need to at all", which is unnecessarily complicated. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
"Neil Williams" wrote in message ... Is there a feasible way of locking 4 cars out of use on 321 formations, without having to open the above-door panels and lock each door out manually? The reason I ask is that there is an element of that takes place on the 0735ish which starts from Bletchley (with the rear 4 off the platform but unlocked, such that you can't get to them), and it seems surprising that they wouldn't think of it. That said, you don't see 12 cars on any of the Tring slows, and they probably load the heaviest - is there another short platform, e.g. Apsley/Kings Langley? I will be interested to find out if the new Desiros have SDO, as SWT's ones certainly appear to have some form of it to allow calling at short platforms on the Waterloo-Reading run. SWT's Desiro SDO is done by switching out whole units, with the guard controlling it from the front cab of the rearmost unit - but only if he can get out onto the platform. This leads to the fairly unusual sight of only 4 cars of a 12 car train being opened at some '8 car' platforms e.g Fareham, because the 3rd unit's cab is alongside the platform ramp. IIRC the DfT are insisting on GPS controlled individual carriages as the way ahead, as is done by Southern, with their annoying 'this is carriage number n of m' type announcements. Paul |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:30 -0000, Paul Scott wrote:
SWT's Desiro SDO is done by switching out whole units, with the guard controlling it from the front cab of the rearmost unit - but only if he can get out onto the platform. This leads to the fairly unusual sight of only 4 cars of a 12 car train being opened at some '8 car' platforms e.g Fareham, because the 3rd unit's cab is alongside the platform ramp. IIRC the DfT are insisting on GPS controlled individual carriages as the way ahead, as is done by Southern, with their annoying 'this is carriage number n of m' type announcements. And the extended wait for the doors to open at Victoria while the driver manually overrides the GPS system. |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:30 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote: IIRC the DfT are insisting on GPS controlled individual carriages as the way ahead, as is done by Southern, with their annoying 'this is carriage number n of m' type announcements. I always thought they were mainly for the portion-worked services. Nonetheless I don't consider it a bad idea. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Jan 26, 3:14*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:53:24 -0800 (PST), Andy wrote: I certainly agree about the lengths of trains on Sundays. I thought (although I'm not absolutely sure) that PIXC (Passengers In eXcess of Capacity) standards were supposed to be met all the time. I.E. on Sundays as well as during the week. Sunday afternoon / evening seem to be far more crowded than most of the peak trains (except the 19.04!!) and like you say, it is not difficult to make all the trains 8 cars. I can't help but wonder if Sundays is a case of "take whatever is next in the line on the depot when you get there" for the drivers, with no coupling or uncoupling taking place, as it isn't unknown for one of the 4 diagrams (usually the wrong one) to be 8-car. *Really, with only 4 diagrams, even if (as I suspect due to the lack of Desiros) Sundays are Bletchley only, with Northampton depot not in use, 8 car on everything is both practical and necessary. There are more than 4 diagrams on a Sunday. Trains are every 30 mins most of the day and take 1 hour and 26-28 mins from Euston - Northampton, which makes at least 6 duties (and more diagrams). I don't have weekend diagrams but there is definately some uncoupling / coupling at Euston as there is usually an extra unit in the platforms later on in the day waiting for coupling. Why they don't just run 8 coaches on everything I don't know. Today, on my way into Euston (from Harrow), the guard apologised for there only being 4 coaches (train was more crowded than a weekday peak one!!), but said that the train will be lengthened next week. Maybe da management have actually looked and seen that the trains are getting overcrowded at weekends. |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
Neil Williams wrote:
It would need to be made obvious to start with, but that could be done by having, say, a green reader on the ticket machine for touch-in and a red one on the left hand side of the doors for touch-out. Indeed, it'd be simpler and more consistent than the London "remember to always touch in and out, unless it's a bus in which case only touch in, and unless it's a bendy bus and you have a season ticket then you don't need to at all", which is unnecessarily complicated. You've left out what a 15 year old who lives outside Greater London needs to do to exit Wimbledon station having arrived by tram ;-) -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:29:24 +0000, Tom Anderson wrote: You could make 12-car trains, and lock the rear 4 cars OOU on the southbound leg. You could even unlock them once you were past Bletchley and into 12-car land (if that's possible, and if it is indeed all 12-car-clear south of there). Is there a feasible way of locking 4 cars out of use on 321 formations, without having to open the above-door panels and lock each door out manually? The reason I ask is that there is an element of that takes place on the 0735ish which starts from Bletchley (with the rear 4 off the platform but unlocked, such that you can't get to them), and it seems surprising that they wouldn't think of it. That said, you don't see 12 cars on any of the Tring slows, and they probably load the heaviest Well, if hanging unlocked cars off the platform does the trick, then that would be a way of doing it all along the route, perhaps. - is there another short platform, e.g. Apsley/Kings Langley? According to Quail, Apsley's 10 cars long; King's Langley is 10 on the fasts, but 12 on the slows! Everywhere else has platforms suitable for 12 cars on the slows, apart from stations that don't matter, like Wembley Central (7 cars) and Queen's Park (8 cars). Apsley would surely be a doddle to extend, although obviously this rules out doing this right now. Also, Quail says Bletchley has a 9-car platform on the down slow too. tom -- made up languages, delusions, skin diseases and unaided human flight |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:34:58 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote: According to Quail, Apsley's 10 cars long; King's Langley is 10 on the fasts, but 12 on the slows! The fasts at Apsley and Kings Langley are only ever used during late evening/weekend engineering works, when 8 cars might be necessary but not 12. Everywhere else has platforms suitable for 12 cars on the slows, apart from stations that don't matter, like Wembley Central (7 cars) and Queen's Park (8 cars). Apsley would surely be a doddle to extend, although obviously this rules out doing this right now. I wonder why it wasn't extended when all the others were? Also, Quail says Bletchley has a 9-car platform on the down slow too. It does on the up slow and on the "down depot" (platform 5), because there is a crossover at both ends. It's possible that if Bletchley depot and sidings close completely in the future (as I believe is intended) it could be extended at the north end as the crossover will cease to be necessary. The down slow (platform 3) is 12-car. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:55:17 -0000, Mizter T wrote:
One question - has anyone bought a Railcard discounted Day Travelcard from an LU ticket office yet this year - and if so, does it include zones 7-9 as a 'free' extra? (i.e. Is the situation similar to how zones A-D used to be included for 'free'.) Yes. Bought one last week valid Zones 1-9 for £4.80 or whatever it is, forget now. Interestingly, it is cheaper than a daily cap on oyster with railcard which is £5.00 and has less validity. (i.e not valid on NR journeys that don't allow PAYG wich is the reason I had to buy one in the first place) -- Fig |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Jan 26, 3:21 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote: No. The fasts leave Euston on the fast lines and don't cross to the slows until Ledburn (I think) while the slows leave on the slow lines How fast is fast? Do fast LM trains that don't stop at LBZ (e.g. london-milton keynes-wolverton or london-bletchley-milton keynes) cross over there? The crossing for LBZ fasts is certainly between LBZ and Cheddington. [1] The 1824 does not stop at Leighton Buzzard or Berkhamsted, which I always suspected to be a crowd control measure given that the xx24 and xx54 of other hours does. The 1823 departure is fast to LBZ (then MKC, Wolverton and Northampton). The 1824 stops at Harrow, Watford and a few other places. I was on it once, having arrived at HRW to see a "northampton" train arriving at the platform, jumped on, then realised as we sped through LBZ that I was on the wrong train. Got to Bletchley and waited for a train back to LBZ, I guess technically I should have been Penalty fared. Twice. Between the 1824 and 1834 the big stations are covered. |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:13:17 -0800 (PST), Paul Weaver
wrote: How fast is fast? Do fast LM trains that don't stop at LBZ (e.g. london-milton keynes-wolverton or london-bletchley-milton keynes) cross over there? Those are the slow ones. The fasts are Euston-Leighton-MKC-(Wolverton)-Northampton. The one that doesn't stop (the 1824 only, I think, for capacity reasons) is on the slows all the way. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Jan 28, 10:13 pm, Paul Weaver wrote:
The 1823 departure is fast to LBZ (then MKC, Wolverton and Northampton). The 1824 stops at Harrow, Watford and a few other places. I was on it once, having arrived at HRW to see a "northampton" train arriving at the platform, jumped on, then realised as we sped through LBZ that I was on the wrong train. Got to Bletchley and waited for a train back to LBZ, I guess technically I should have been Penalty fared. Twice. Ha! I've done that too although I had to go all the way to MKC. Looking at the current timetable I think it must have been the 19:52. I got caught out because the train that didn't stop at WJ always went from platform 11 and the one that did went from platform 8. They seem to have reversed these four platforms (the DC line now comes in on the other platform too) The guard did check my ticket, before we'd even completely left Euston - he just smiled and said I'd got a long detour and that I should talk to the guard on the return train. When I did get on the return train the guard there said, "no problem, but thanks for being honest" and offered to remind me when we got back to Watford. Tim. |
National Rail and Zones 7-9
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:58:56 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: The guard did check my ticket, before we'd even completely left Euston - he just smiled and said I'd got a long detour and that I should talk to the guard on the return train. When I did get on the return train the guard there said, "no problem, but thanks for being honest" and offered to remind me when we got back to Watford. While ex-Silverlink does have penalty fares, I don't think I've ever seen one issued, and I don't know if the guards are PF trained. That said, commuter fare dodging does not appear to be rife on these services. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:08 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk