In message
-septem
ber.org, at 22:14:48 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".

I said "public", you said "published" (tomato/potato)

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.

But the trains still have a schedule to keep to, and can just as easily
have to wait at a station for the recovery time to catch up.
--
Roland Perry

On 2015-01-12 09:04:22 +0000, d said:

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.

Could there be something about not overloading the power systems? I
believe the acceleration on the S-stock is artificially impeded for
that kind of reason (also to stop them catching up any remaining
classic stock) - they *could* take off like European U-/S-Bahn stock
often does, or like the 350s do here.

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

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:01:07 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
But the trains still have a schedule to keep to, and can just as easily
have to wait at a station for the recovery time to catch up.

And Circle line trains frequently do, as announced by the driver, at Aldgate.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:49:03 +0000, Neil Williams
wrote:

On 2015-01-12 09:04:22 +0000, d said:

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.

Could there be something about not overloading the power systems? I
believe the acceleration on the S-stock is artificially impeded for
that kind of reason (also to stop them catching up any remaining
classic stock) - they *could* take off like European U-/S-Bahn stock
often does, or like the 350s do here.

I think that when the A stock were still in service, that S stock
performance was restricted, but hopefully the S8s are no longer
limited. But it's very likely that they do draw more power than an
equivalent length 378 would, which might be a problem on the Watford
Junction DC line if they weren't planning to upgrade the power supply.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:49:03 +0000
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-01-12 09:04:22 +0000, d said:

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.

Could there be something about not overloading the power systems? I

I'd imagine the power systems on the northern part of the ELL are all brand
new so I wouldn't have thought so. But who knows these days, cost cutting seems
to be the #1 priority.

--
Spud

David Walters wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:01:07 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
But the trains still have a schedule to keep to, and can just as easily
have to wait at a station for the recovery time to catch up.

And Circle line trains frequently do, as announced by the driver, at Aldgate.

Yes, the Circle line is quite infrequent, so trains do need to be
regulated.

wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:49:03 +0000
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-01-12 09:04:22 +0000, d said:

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.

Could there be something about not overloading the power systems? I

I'd imagine the power systems on the northern part of the ELL are all brand
new so I wouldn't have thought so. But who knows these days, cost cutting seems
to be the #1 priority.

There wouldn't be an Overground service at all if that was the case.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I'd imagine the power systems on the northern part of the ELL are all brand
new so I wouldn't have thought so. But who knows these days, cost cutting
seems
to be the #1 priority.

There wouldn't be an Overground service at all if that was the case.

You've never heard the phrase "on the cheap" I take it? Because with the ELL
thats certainly what I have coming to mind in 10 foot high flashing neon lights.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I'd imagine the power systems on the northern part of the ELL are all brand
new so I wouldn't have thought so. But who knows these days, cost cutting
seems
to be the #1 priority.

There wouldn't be an Overground service at all if that was the case.

You've never heard the phrase "on the cheap" I take it? Because with the ELL
thats certainly what I have coming to mind in 10 foot high flashing neon lights.

Would you say Shoreditch High St was done "on the cheap"? But if you
really expected the LO to be engineered to your exacting standards, it
simply wouldn't have been built. We'd still have the old ELR with its
sparse service, which you'd never have used, and therefore never have
complained about.

I seem to recall that you've also criticised the original DLR for bing
built on the cheap, which it certainly was. But if you think anyone could
have found the budget back then to build something resembling today's much
extended DLR, you obviously would like to pay a lot more in taxes.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:03:06 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
;146304 Wrote:
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.

No closer than on many tube lines including the met but tube trains get up to
speed much quicker because they have appropriate gearing.

--
Spud