London Banter

London Banter (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/forum.php)
-   London Transport (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/london-transport/)
-   -   why are the new Victoria and trains so slow? (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/london-transport/12180-why-new-victoria-trains-so.html)

[email protected] August 9th 11 04:49 PM

why are the new Victoria and trains so slow?
 
In article , d ()
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 13:47:22 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:54:29 on Tue, 9 Aug
2011,
d remarked:
I understand one of the prerequisites for the introduction
of regenerative braking on the Central Line was a requirement to
replace older motors in escalators at stations. They share their supply
with the traction and needed to be able to handle the greater
variations in supply voltage.

Does that mean the escalators speed up slightly when a train brakes into
a station? :) Seems a good idea - get the passengers from the last train
out of the station quicker!


Hopefully they stay the same speed, but don't draw as much "external"
power for a few seconds.


Ah pity. I had images of a couple of particularly full trains pulling into
a station at the same time and people being flung off the top of the
escalator over the ticket barriers :)


Did anyone else here ever stand on the platform at Essex Road in Northern
City Line days? The platform lights were fed from the traction supply so
dimmed sharply when a train started away. Of course the platform was empty
at that point as the passengers had all got on the departing train but we
were changing directions there on the Underground trip in 1970.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Neil Williams August 9th 11 06:19 PM

why are the new Victoria and trains so slow?
 
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 13:46:11 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:
That's quite interesting. I've been at a couple of National Rail
stations (one SWT, one FCC) where the power had failed to the

station
itself, but remained in place for the trains. Neither had

escalators.

Unlike NR, LUL once had dedicated generating capacity, so it kind-of
makes sense.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

[email protected] August 9th 11 07:10 PM

why are the new Victoria and trains so slow?
 
I have a couple of questions about the external lights on the '09 stock.

A few weeks ago, I saw a disabled '09 train limp into a station. Just
above the right headlight (driver's side), there was a red light that
was flashing.

Anybody know what that light's for? I would assume that it is a newer
version of the handbrake light, but the fact that it was flashing makes
me wonder.

I also wanted to know something about the guard lights mounted on the
side of each railcar, which can display red and white in two different
lenses.

I know that red will indicate if a door is open. But what does the white
one indicate, that the alarm in that particular railcar was activated?

[email protected] August 9th 11 07:46 PM

why are the new Victoria and trains so slow?
 
In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 13:46:11 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:
That's quite interesting. I've been at a couple of National Rail
stations (one SWT, one FCC) where the power had failed to the station
itself, but remained in place for the trains. Neither had escalators.


Unlike NR, LUL once had dedicated generating capacity, so it kind-of
makes sense.


Even the present NR had generating capacity at one time. It was decided that
the National Grid would be better value. It's hard to see that they were
wrong.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Neil Williams August 9th 11 08:54 PM

why are the new Victoria and trains so slow?
 
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:46:19 -0500,
wrote:
Even the present NR had generating capacity at one time. It was

decided that
the National Grid would be better value. It's hard to see that they

were
wrong.


Perhaps the difference is that stations on the mainline had electric
lighting long before the wires went up, unlike the deep Tube.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

[email protected] August 9th 11 10:23 PM

why are the new Victoria and trains so slow?
 
In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:46:19 -0500,
wrote:
Even the present NR had generating capacity at one time. It was decided
that the National Grid would be better value. It's hard to see that they
were wrong.


Perhaps the difference is that stations on the mainline had electric
lighting long before the wires went up, unlike the deep Tube.


I wouldn't be so sure of that. I remember lots of stations with only oil or
gas lighting.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Richard J.[_3_] August 10th 11 08:50 AM

why are the new Victoria and trains so slow?
 
wrote on 09 August 2011 23:23:24 ...
In ual.net,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:46:19 -0500,
wrote:
Even the present NR had generating capacity at one time. It was decided
that the National Grid would be better value. It's hard to see that they
were wrong.


Perhaps the difference is that stations on the mainline had electric
lighting long before the wires went up, unlike the deep Tube.


I wouldn't be so sure of that. I remember lots of stations with only oil or
gas lighting.


Yes, I well remember in the 1950s waiting on the Catford down platform
for the 16:12 home from school and watching the porter walking up the
platform lighting each gas lamp. This was at least 25 years after the
line had been electrified, but such mod cons hadn't reached the stations.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Peter Campbell Smith[_5_] August 10th 11 03:45 PM

why are the new Victoria and trains so slow?
 
"Richard J." wrote in
:

Yes, I well remember in the 1950s waiting on the Catford down platform
for the 16:12 home from school and watching the porter walking up the
platform lighting each gas lamp. This was at least 25 years after the
line had been electrified, but such mod cons hadn't reached the
stations.


When I moved to Surrey in 1980 some of the trains (4-SUBs?) still had
paraffin tail lights, despite being electric trains running on a line that
had been electrified some 50 years earlier.

I guessed at the time it might have been because they shared track with
diesel (and earlier, steam) trains, and if the power failed the oil lamps
kept burning to warn non-electric trains they were there. Or was there
another reason?

Peter

--
|| Peter CS | Epsom | UK ||

[email protected] August 10th 11 06:27 PM

why are the new Victoria and trains so slow?
 
In article , (Peter
Campbell Smith) wrote:

"Richard J." wrote in
:

Yes, I well remember in the 1950s waiting on the Catford down platform
for the 16:12 home from school and watching the porter walking up the
platform lighting each gas lamp. This was at least 25 years after the
line had been electrified, but such mod cons hadn't reached the
stations.


When I moved to Surrey in 1980 some of the trains (4-SUBs?) still had
paraffin tail lights, despite being electric trains running on a line
that had been electrified some 50 years earlier.

I guessed at the time it might have been because they shared track
with diesel (and earlier, steam) trains, and if the power failed the
oil lamps kept burning to warn non-electric trains they were there.
Or was there another reason?


The whole of BR and LT had oil tail lamps until very recently. It was only
when battery technology improved to near to current standards that they went.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Clive D. W. Feather[_2_] August 12th 11 07:39 PM

why are the new Victoria and trains so slow?
 
In message , Richard J.
wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure of that. I remember lots of stations with only oil or
gas lighting.


Yes, I well remember in the 1950s waiting on the Catford down platform
for the 16:12 home from school and watching the porter walking up the
platform lighting each gas lamp. This was at least 25 years after the
line had been electrified, but such mod cons hadn't reached the stations.


Adrian Vaughan writes of the modernisation of Uffington signal box. The
new box had track circuits and an illuminated display, but the box had
no electric lighting, just a Tilley lamp. However, one of the signalmen
was the local union rep. and soon got that altered!

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk