On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:25:59 -0800 (PST),
Mizter T wrote:

I do find it slightly hard to believe that are hordes of people
milling about on the Euston concourse, waiting for the first post-7pm
cheap train to take them home.

They probably wouldn't. Either they're going to be coming via the
underground, so they'll be starting their journey after 7pm from there,
or they'll be in walking distance (or cycling) in which case it's fairly
easy to time your journey to arrive at Euston.

I cycle from Moorgate, and baring appalling traffic I can almost
guarantee that if I leave my desk at least twenty minutes before my
train leaves Euston then I'll catch the train. (At 20 minutes I'll often
have to run through Euston as my "on the road" cycling time varies from
10 to 15 minutes with an average of about 12 minutes. The 10 minute run
requires no traffic holding me up and almost all the lights in my
favour)

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

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.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Jan 24, 9:03*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:26:45 -0800 (PST), Andy
wrote:

The other problem with the 19.04 is that it is only four coaches,
whilst near all the other services are eight coaches at this time of
day. If the train was lengthened, then it would be comfortable. I'd
hope that this will happen from the December 2008 timetable or when
all the class 321s have been replaced by Desiros as finding a spare
unit will be slightly easier.

Er, wha? *The 321s are, as I recall, the most reliable stock in the
UK, the Desiros rather less so. *As there will be the same amount of
Desiros as 321s, rather the opposite seems likely.


It will be easier finding a spare unit as the whole fleet will be
compatible, unlike at present where you'd need to diagram an extra 350
to lengthen the 19.04. The Desiros have 25 units diagrammed from 30
(=83% in service), the 321s have 29 units diagrammed from 37 (=78% in
service). The other point to consider is that the unit forming the
19.04 is diagramed with a partner in the morning peak, so a complete
rewrite of the diagrams would be necessary to convert to a pair of
321s at the moment.

My personal opinion is that Bletchley have an easy task (not that I
want to put down their being top of the table) with the 321s as they
are so lightly diagrammed and a large percentage of the fleet sit in
Camden sidings during the daytime. Remember at one point silverlink
that three units on loan (two to c2C and one to northern), so the
extra units are there, but can't be coupled to the 19.04. Also, the
350s are catching up the 321s in the reliability stakes (I don't have
this year's Golden Spanner stats to hand though to give the proper
numbers).

I had forgotten that train was 4-car, though, and it surprises me that
there isn't enough stock to make it 8. *Really, everything should be 8
or 12 except at the crack of dawn on a Sunday, as the loadings
certainly justify it.


See above, this is one of the delights of having a mixed fleet of
incompatible units.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

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.networkticketing.com/selector.html

or for a more detailed PDF of the above:
http://www.nexus.org.uk/ufs/shared/i...ne_Map_Col.pdf
(though the above PDF map omits some important zonal boundary lines in
the middle of the Tyne river).

Thankfully these don't come into play when you want a day ticket -
they're only relevant for the weekly, monthly or annual multi-
operator

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. 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). Note that the Tyne ferry has zone 38 all to itself.

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:03:56 -0800 (PST), Andy
wrote:

It will be easier finding a spare unit as the whole fleet will be
compatible, unlike at present where you'd need to diagram an extra 350
to lengthen the 19.04. The Desiros have 25 units diagrammed from 30
(=3D83% in service), the 321s have 29 units diagrammed from 37 (=3D78% in
service). The other point to consider is that the unit forming the
19.04 is diagramed with a partner in the morning peak, so a complete
rewrite of the diagrams would be necessary to convert to a pair of
321s at the moment.

Ah - so that one is a Desiro? I could have sworn it was a 321 when
I've seen it.

I had forgotten that train was 4-car, though, and it surprises me that
there isn't enough stock to make it 8. =A0Really, everything should be 8
or 12 except at the crack of dawn on a Sunday, as the loadings
certainly justify it.


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.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

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.

But how far apart do those stops have to be?

I presume trains don't use regenerative braking at all (ISTR some of
the underground trains are now starting to use this)

Tim.

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.


--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On Jan 25, 6:10*am, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:03:56 -0800 (PST), Andy
wrote:

I had forgotten that train was 4-car, though, and it surprises me that
there isn't enough stock to make it 8. =A0Really, everything should be 8
or 12 except at the crack of dawn on a Sunday, as the loadings
certainly justify it.

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.


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.

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)

Tim.

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.

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.

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.

Tim.