On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:03:18 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
Forgive me, please, if I asked this question earlier, but what's the deal
at this point with re-extending the Bakerloo Line out to Watford
Junction? Or is that dead with the emphasis now on extending further
south from Elephant & Castle?

That's been dead for years, long before the southern extension of the
Bakerloo became an active proposal. And there's no chance if it now, with
the Met also going to Watford Junction.

Seems odd given its the cheapest line "extension" they could do. Just plonk
the 4th rail back on its insulators and bobs your uncle. The power supply
system is already in place.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:03:18 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
Forgive me, please, if I asked this question earlier, but what's the deal
at this point with re-extending the Bakerloo Line out to Watford
Junction? Or is that dead with the emphasis now on extending further
south from Elephant & Castle?

That's been dead for years, long before the southern extension of the
Bakerloo became an active proposal. And there's no chance if it now, with
the Met also going to Watford Junction.

Seems odd given its the cheapest line "extension" they could do. Just plonk
the 4th rail back on its insulators and bobs your uncle. The power supply
system is already in place.

There's not enough traffic to warrant it, and there won't be enough
platforms for Bakerloo trains to terminate and reverse at Watford Junction.

I always thought modern traction actually used less current during initial acceleration but continued to draw high currents giving them better acceleration at higher speeds.

378s are quite slow to accelerate on the Watford DC lines so I suspect the current draw is too mahoosive

On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 07:09:03 -0800 (PST)
David B wrote:
I always thought modern traction actually used less current during initial
acceleration but continued to draw high currents giving them better
acceleration at higher speeds.

378s are quite slow to accelerate on the Watford DC lines so I suspect the
current draw is too mahoosive

They're just slow full stop. They're completely the wrong sort of train for a
metro service. But no doubt the slight design mod of an existing outer suburban
train was the cheaper option.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 07:09:03 -0800 (PST)
David B wrote:
I always thought modern traction actually used less current during initial
acceleration but continued to draw high currents giving them better
acceleration at higher speeds.

378s are quite slow to accelerate on the Watford DC lines so I suspect the
current draw is too mahoosive

They're just slow full stop. They're completely the wrong sort of train for a
metro service. But no doubt the slight design mod of an existing outer suburban
train was the cheaper option.

I happened to have my GPS with me on an LO trip to Watford yesterday, and
found that the peak speed was about 45mph. Considering how closely spaced
the stations are, that's probably not bad, and hardly slower than an S
stock train would do it. S stock trains reach their higher speeds of about
60mph only on the longer non-stop sections, such as Finchley Rd to Wembley
Park.

But LO trains have very relaxed schedules, and often wait longer than
necessary at stops, thus helping achieve their very good punctuality. LU
trains, with their lack of published schedules, don't have to do this.

In message -
september.org, at 17:06:28 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015, Recliner
remarked:
But LO trains have very relaxed schedules, and often wait longer than
necessary at stops, thus helping achieve their very good punctuality. LU
trains, with their lack of published schedules, don't have to do this.

Actually, they do have a timetable, it's just that they don't make a song
and dance about it to the public.

eg: https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cm...tropolitan.pdf
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message -
september.org, at 17:06:28 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015, Recliner
remarked:
But LO trains have very relaxed schedules, and often wait longer than
necessary at stops, thus helping achieve their very good punctuality. LU
trains, with their lack of published schedules, don't have to do this.

Actually, they do have a timetable, it's just that they don't make a song
and dance about it to the public.

eg: https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cm...tropolitan.pdf

That's why I used the word "public". But the Amersham and Chesham branches
are infrequent enough that the scheduled times do matter; I doubt that many
people worry about the schedules on the Uxbridge and Watford branches,
except in the very early mornings and late at night.

In message
-septem
ber.org, Recliner wrote:
I happened to have my GPS with me on an LO trip to Watford yesterday, and
found that the peak speed was about 45mph. Considering how closely spaced
the stations are, that's probably not bad, and hardly slower than an S
stock train would do it.

It's possibly changed, but when I last checked the speed limit on that
line was 45 mph from South Hampstead to Bushey (with a few short bits
with a lower limit) and 35 from there to Watford. Trains without
tripcocks were restricted to 25 south of Harrow & Wealdstone. Goods
trains were restricted to 15 and 40 respectively.

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

On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 17:06:28 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 07:09:03 -0800 (PST)
David B wrote:
I always thought modern traction actually used less current during initial
acceleration but continued to draw high currents giving them better
acceleration at higher speeds.

378s are quite slow to accelerate on the Watford DC lines so I suspect the
current draw is too mahoosive

They're just slow full stop. They're completely the wrong sort of train for a
metro service. But no doubt the slight design mod of an existing outer
suburban
train was the cheaper option.

I happened to have my GPS with me on an LO trip to Watford yesterday, and
found that the peak speed was about 45mph. Considering how closely spaced
the stations are, that's probably not bad, and hardly slower than an S
stock train would do it. S stock trains reach their higher speeds of about
60mph only on the longer non-stop sections, such as Finchley Rd to Wembley
Park.

Their top speed isn't the issue - its 75mph according to wonkypedia. Its their
acceleration. On the ELL they're so slow off the mark they barely get up to any
decent speed before they have to slow down again for the next stop. I can only
assume the stations on the watford branch are further apart. Either that or we
enter conspiracy theory land and assume there's a deliberate policy on the ELL
to provide a slow service.

--
Spud

The stations on the ELL are very close together.