On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:09:17 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

"Roger" wrote in message
.. .

My point is that from an operational point of view dual voltage
is not required (unless they've put AC between Surrey Quays and
Queens Road Peckham). So why does Colin Rosenstiel think there
may be more dual voltage running down the ELL, unless that is
all that is available.

He isn't suggesting more 'dual voltage running', but more dual voltage
trains running in DC mode.

Misunderstanding on my part. I didn't know that there was
insufficient DC only stock.
--
Roger

"Roger" wrote in message
...

He isn't suggesting more 'dual voltage running', but more dual voltage
trains running in DC mode.

Misunderstanding on my part. I didn't know that there was
insufficient DC only stock.

I've checked the numbers and it looks like there are 25 diagrams required
for the ELL branches from the timetable change, so on the assumption that
they'll have 2 or 3 of the 20 DC units undergoing maintenance at any one
time, (85% typical utilisation?) you'd normally expect to see 7 or 8 dual
voltage units (out of the fleet of 37) in use on the ELL on a daily basis.

Paul S

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

I've checked the numbers and it looks like there are 25 diagrams required
for the ELL branches from the timetable change, so on the assumption that
they'll have 2 or 3 of the 20 DC units undergoing maintenance at any one
time, (85% typical utilisation?) you'd normally expect to see 7 or 8 dual
voltage units (out of the fleet of 37) in use on the ELL on a daily basis.

PS - I see in the District Dave forum's similar discussion someone's
posted:

"The ac/dc units only need show the NLL/WLL and Watford-Euston route, unless
there is a strong likelihood of units being hijacked for the ELL/SLL".

Anyone got a login there who could put him right?

Paul S