In message , at 09:25:43 on Wed, 17 Oct
2012, d remarked:
Surely getting up to line
speed as fast as possible would benefit everyone?

Not if that means you are travelling too fast (to stop) when the next
signal looms into view.

Thats down to driver training surely.

I thought you were the person who said driving tube trains was easy, and
didn't require much training?
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:31:49 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:25:43 on Wed, 17 Oct
2012, d remarked:
Surely getting up to line
speed as fast as possible would benefit everyone?

Not if that means you are travelling too fast (to stop) when the next
signal looms into view.

Thats down to driver training surely.

I thought you were the person who said driving tube trains was easy, and
didn't require much training?

Wow, hold on everyone while we rocket off on this tangent!

Unless the drivers are clairvoyent they'll still need to know where the
signals are beforehand.

B2003

In message , at 12:35:25 on Wed, 17 Oct
2012, d remarked:
Surely getting up to line
speed as fast as possible would benefit everyone?

Not if that means you are travelling too fast (to stop) when the next
signal looms into view.

Thats down to driver training surely.

I thought you were the person who said driving tube trains was easy, and
didn't require much training?

Wow, hold on everyone while we rocket off on this tangent!

Unless the drivers are clairvoyent they'll still need to know where the
signals are beforehand.

Oh, I thought you claimed it was easier than driving a bus.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:41:11 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
Unless the drivers are clairvoyent they'll still need to know where the
signals are beforehand.

Oh, I thought you claimed it was easier than driving a bus.

So bus drivers don't need route training?

B2003

In message , at 13:47:23 on Wed, 17 Oct
2012, d remarked:
Unless the drivers are clairvoyent they'll still need to know where the
signals are beforehand.

Oh, I thought you claimed it was easier than driving a bus.

So bus drivers don't need route training?

They don't need to memorise where the traffic lights are, largely
because their brakes are good enough to drive on sight.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:00:36 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:47:23 on Wed, 17 Oct
2012, d remarked:
Unless the drivers are clairvoyent they'll still need to know where the
signals are beforehand.

Oh, I thought you claimed it was easier than driving a bus.

So bus drivers don't need route training?

They don't need to memorise where the traffic lights are, largely
because their brakes are good enough to drive on sight.

That'll be a yes then.

I think most people given the choice of navigating a bus through crowded
streets, getting stuck in traffic jams and arguing with gobby passengers or
sitting in a train cab removed from all the fuss pushing a lever backwards
and forwards - I don't think they'd choose the bus. Do you?

B2003

In message , at 14:21:35 on Wed, 17 Oct
2012, d remarked:
I think most people given the choice of navigating a bus through crowded
streets, getting stuck in traffic jams and arguing with gobby passengers or
sitting in a train cab removed from all the fuss pushing a lever backwards
and forwards - I don't think they'd choose the bus. Do you?

That depends whether they need to memorise the position of all the
signals.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:03:24 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:21:35 on Wed, 17 Oct
2012, d remarked:
I think most people given the choice of navigating a bus through crowded
streets, getting stuck in traffic jams and arguing with gobby passengers or
sitting in a train cab removed from all the fuss pushing a lever backwards
and forwards - I don't think they'd choose the bus. Do you?

That depends whether they need to memorise the position of all the
signals.

Yes, I'm sure that would be really tough.

B2003

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:48:53 +0100
Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote:
In message , d
writes
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:47:54 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
There must be more to it than that. There's no reason they couldn't have
full
acceleration but with the top speed still limited. The signalling as an
excuse makes no sense to me , there is a fixed distance between signals and
its up to the drivers how they get between them. Surely getting up to line
speed as fast as possible would benefit everyone?

Not if that means you are travelling too fast (to stop) when the next
signal looms into view.

Thats down to driver training surely.

Not if the signalling system is designed for 59 stock and their braking
profiles.

Surely the braking on the 95 stock would be built to match their potential
performance so should be better than the 59 stock?

B2003