|
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
An internal (LU) notice has stated that the first passenger service
journey of the new Victoria Line 09 stock took place last night just before midnight from Seven Sisters down to Brixton. More passenger service trips will build up over the coming months using trains 01 and 02. I thought people might be interested to know. -- Paul Corfield via Google |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
|
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
Stephen Furley wrote:
The Victoria Line stock was the first new stock that I remember being introduced. It seemed incredibly modern at the time http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...9/victrain.jpg |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On Jul 22, 1:08*pm, Stephen Furley wrote:
On 22/7/09 16:00, in article , "Paul Corfield" wrote: An internal (LU) notice has stated that the first passenger service journey of the new Victoria Line 09 stock took place last night just before midnight from Seven Sisters down to Brixton. More passenger service trips will build up over the coming months using trains 01 and 02. I thought people might be interested to know. -- Paul Corfield via Google The Victoria Line stock was the first new stock that I remember being introduced. *It seemed incredibly modern at the time compared to the CO and R stocks which I was used to on the Circle and District when going to the Science Museum, the first journey up into central London which I made on my own, and the 38 stock which I occasionally used on the Bakerloo or Northern; these were the only Underground lines which I'd used at that time. *It's odd to think that it's reached the end of its life, and due to be replaced. That is my memory of the London Subway also. In the Early 1960s the tubes were, by and large served by 1938, and earlier stock. The sub- surface lines were CO and R stock served. The Victoria Line trains and the A stock on the Met. seemed SO modern. |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On Jul 22, 9:21*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
I was wondering if this is the first time that automatic trains have been replaced by (and will co-exist for a while with) all-new automatic trains, using a different control system? *It's certainly the first time on LU, but has it happened anywhere else already? Original DLR trains replaced by newer DLR trains (someone will be along in a minute to write the stock types) ... and the original DLR ATO replaced by a new ATO. -- Nick |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On 22 July, 21:21, "Recliner" wrote:
"Stephen Furley" wrote in message On 22/7/09 16:00, in article , "Paul Corfield" wrote: An internal (LU) notice has stated that the first passenger service journey of the new Victoria Line 09 stock took place last night just before midnight from Seven Sisters down to Brixton. More passenger service trips will build up over the coming months using trains 01 and 02. I thought people might be interested to know. -- Paul Corfield via Google The Victoria Line stock was the first new stock that I remember being introduced. *It seemed incredibly modern at the time compared to the CO and R stocks which I was used to on the Circle and District when going to the Science Museum, the first journey up into central London which I made on my own, and the 38 stock which I occasionally used on the Bakerloo or Northern; these were the only Underground lines which I'd used at that time. *It's odd to think that it's reached the end of its life, and due to be replaced. I was wondering if this is the first time that automatic trains have been replaced by (and will co-exist for a while with) all-new automatic trains, using a different control system? *It's certainly the first time on LU, but has it happened anywhere else already? Dint it happen between Hainault and Woodford? Maybe not the coexistence. |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On Jul 22, 4:00*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
An internal (LU) notice has stated that the first passenger service journey of the new Victoria Line 09 stock took place last night just before midnight from Seven Sisters down to Brixton. More passenger service trips will build up over the coming months using trains 01 and 02. I thought people might be interested to know. So the 09s entered passenger service before the 378s? Didn't see that one coming... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
"1506" wrote in message
On Jul 22, 1:08 pm, Stephen Furley wrote: On 22/7/09 16:00, in article , "Paul Corfield" wrote: An internal (LU) notice has stated that the first passenger service journey of the new Victoria Line 09 stock took place last night just before midnight from Seven Sisters down to Brixton. More passenger service trips will build up over the coming months using trains 01 and 02. I thought people might be interested to know. -- Paul Corfield via Google The Victoria Line stock was the first new stock that I remember being introduced. It seemed incredibly modern at the time compared to the CO and R stocks which I was used to on the Circle and District when going to the Science Museum, the first journey up into central London which I made on my own, and the 38 stock which I occasionally used on the Bakerloo or Northern; these were the only Underground lines which I'd used at that time. It's odd to think that it's reached the end of its life, and due to be replaced. That is my memory of the London Subway also. In the Early 1960s the tubes were, by and large served by 1938, and earlier stock. The sub- surface lines were CO and R stock served. The Victoria Line trains and the A stock on the Met. seemed SO modern. Surely there were large numbers of 1959 and 1962 stock trains in service by then? Admittedly, their design was pretty similar to the 1938s, so they may not have seen much newer. |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
"D7666" wrote in message
On Jul 22, 9:21 pm, "Recliner" wrote: I was wondering if this is the first time that automatic trains have been replaced by (and will co-exist for a while with) all-new automatic trains, using a different control system? It's certainly the first time on LU, but has it happened anywhere else already? Original DLR trains replaced by newer DLR trains (someone will be along in a minute to write the stock types) ... and the original DLR ATO replaced by a new ATO. Is the new DLR ATO completely different to the original? |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
"Recliner" wrote Surely there were large numbers of 1959 and 1962 stock trains in service by then? Admittedly, their design was pretty similar to the 1938s, so they may not have seen much newer. They did, and the 1959 stock were the first 'silver' trains - but they did not run on the lines used by the previous poster at the time. Peter |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
"Peter Masson" wrote in message
"Recliner" wrote Surely there were large numbers of 1959 and 1962 stock trains in service by then? Admittedly, their design was pretty similar to the 1938s, so they may not have seen much newer. They did, and the 1959 stock were the first 'silver' trains - but they did not run on the lines used by the previous poster at the time. Weren't there silver R stock trains before then? |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
John B wrote:
On Jul 22, 4:00 pm, Paul Corfield wrote: An internal (LU) notice has stated that the first passenger service journey of the new Victoria Line 09 stock took place last night just before midnight from Seven Sisters down to Brixton. More passenger service trips will build up over the coming months using trains 01 and 02. I thought people might be interested to know. So the 09s entered passenger service before the 378s? Didn't see that one coming... And without Boris trumpeting them as meeting a manifesto commitment, to boot. If they'd only had aircon... Tom |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On 23 July, 09:48, John B wrote:
So the 09s entered passenger service before the 378s? Didn't see that one coming... Yes... but worth noting they're only testing one 2009ts train on an occasional basis for now, whereas the 378s have already completed testing and are in series production. When they finally sort whatever the current hold up is there will immediately be several 378s running on a full time basis, and hopefully they'll be quickly followed by the rest of the fleet. The same won't be true of the 2009ts for another 6 months. U |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
"Tom Barry" wrote And without Boris trumpeting them as meeting a manifesto commitment, to boot. If they'd only had aircon... Among the problems with aircon on the tube lines is - where do you dump the heat? Presumably on, say, the Central or Piccadilly lines it would be possible to devise a system whereby the heat was retained on the train until it got to the open air, and then dumped, but Victoria Line trains stay underground all the time they are in service. No use cooling the trains if you just heat the tunnels even more. Peter |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
"Peter Masson" wrote in message
"Tom Barry" wrote And without Boris trumpeting them as meeting a manifesto commitment, to boot. If they'd only had aircon... Among the problems with aircon on the tube lines is - where do you dump the heat? Presumably on, say, the Central or Piccadilly lines it would be possible to devise a system whereby the heat was retained on the train until it got to the open air, and then dumped, but Victoria Line trains stay underground all the time they are in service. No use cooling the trains if you just heat the tunnels even more. That's why the plan is to cool the stations, not the trains, but of course there's less to see with that approach. |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On 23 July, 16:17, "Recliner" wrote:
"Peter Masson" wrote in message "Tom Barry" wrote And without Boris trumpeting them as meeting a manifesto commitment, to boot. *If they'd only had aircon... Among the problems with aircon on the tube lines is - where do you dump the heat? Presumably on, say, the Central or Piccadilly lines it would be possible to devise a system whereby the heat was retained on the train until it got to the open air, and then dumped, but Victoria Line trains stay underground all the time they are in service. No use cooling the trains if you just heat the tunnels even more. That's why the plan is to cool the stations, not the trains, but of course there's less to see with that approach. And the regenerative braking on the new 2009 stock will also mean less heat released into the stations and tunnels in the first place. |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On Jul 23, 2:54*am, "Recliner" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message On Jul 22, 1:08 pm, Stephen Furley wrote: On 22/7/09 16:00, in article , "Paul Corfield" wrote: An internal (LU) notice has stated that the first passenger service journey of the new Victoria Line 09 stock took place last night just before midnight from Seven Sisters down to Brixton. More passenger service trips will build up over the coming months using trains 01 and 02. I thought people might be interested to know. -- Paul Corfield via Google The Victoria Line stock was the first new stock that I remember being introduced. It seemed incredibly modern at the time compared to the CO and R stocks which I was used to on the Circle and District when going to the Science Museum, the first journey up into central London which I made on my own, and the 38 stock which I occasionally used on the Bakerloo or Northern; these were the only Underground lines which I'd used at that time. It's odd to think that it's reached the end of its life, and due to be replaced. That is my memory of the London Subway also. *In the Early 1960s the tubes were, by and large served by 1938, and earlier stock. *The sub- surface lines were CO and R stock served. *The Victoria Line trains and the A stock on the Met. seemed SO modern. Surely there were large numbers of 1959 and 1962 stock trains in service by then? *Admittedly, their design was pretty similar to the 1938s, so they may not have seen much newer. You are correct. They were certainly on the Piccadilly Line. In those days I was a young teenager. My travels took me on mainly the Bakerloo. |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Peter Masson wrote:
"Tom Barry" wrote If they'd only had aircon... Among the problems with aircon on the tube lines is - where do you dump the heat? Presumably on, say, the Central or Piccadilly lines it would be possible to devise a system whereby the heat was retained on the train until it got to the open air, and then dumped, but Victoria Line trains stay underground all the time they are in service. No use cooling the trains if you just heat the tunnels even more. You'd have to install a fake open air. By which i mean some point on the line where trains could stop and offload their heat - some apparatus they sit inside which blows a gale of super-cooled damp air (or even water) into their heat exchangers, and sucks the warmed exhaust out again. You wouldn't want to do it in passenger service, but if you could build ten minutes into the schedule at one end, it could be done during turn-around. Admittedly, this would involve changing the Victoria operating principle quite a bit, but at least it's technically feasible. Ish. tom -- Oh, and sometimes in order to survive you have to drink the irradiated water from an old toilet. -- Jon, on Fallout |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
rth.li On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Peter Masson wrote: "Tom Barry" wrote If they'd only had aircon... Among the problems with aircon on the tube lines is - where do you dump the heat? Presumably on, say, the Central or Piccadilly lines it would be possible to devise a system whereby the heat was retained on the train until it got to the open air, and then dumped, but Victoria Line trains stay underground all the time they are in service. No use cooling the trains if you just heat the tunnels even more. You'd have to install a fake open air. By which i mean some point on the line where trains could stop and offload their heat - some apparatus they sit inside which blows a gale of super-cooled damp air (or even water) into their heat exchangers, and sucks the warmed exhaust out again. You wouldn't want to do it in passenger service, but if you could build ten minutes into the schedule at one end, it could be done during turn-around. Admittedly, this would involve changing the Victoria operating principle quite a bit, but at least it's technically feasible. Ish. I think it makes a lot more sense to just take more heat out of the stations and maybe the tunnels as well. That means more surface ventilation fans running (which is think is already happening) and some sort of additional cooling, such as the plan to use heat exchangers with the cold ground water being pumped out. That way, the passengers in the stations benefit as well, and you don't need to complicate the already cramped trains any more than they are already. |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:19:39 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote: "Peter Masson" wrote in message "Recliner" wrote Surely there were large numbers of 1959 and 1962 stock trains in service by then? Admittedly, their design was pretty similar to the 1938s, so they may not have seen much newer. They did, and the 1959 stock were the first 'silver' trains - but they did not run on the lines used by the previous poster at the time. Weren't there silver R stock trains before then? 1949 IIRC - apparently they dismantled one after they were withdrawn and the body was reckoned to still have a few more years left in it. |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
1506 wrote:
On Jul 22, 1:08 pm, Stephen Furley wrote: On 22/7/09 16:00, in article , "Paul Corfield" wrote: An internal (LU) notice has stated that the first passenger service journey of the new Victoria Line 09 stock took place last night just before midnight from Seven Sisters down to Brixton. More passenger service trips will build up over the coming months using trains 01 and 02. I thought people might be interested to know. -- Paul Corfield via Google The Victoria Line stock was the first new stock that I remember being introduced. It seemed incredibly modern at the time compared to the CO and R stocks which I was used to on the Circle and District when going to the Science Museum, the first journey up into central London which I made on my own, and the 38 stock which I occasionally used on the Bakerloo or Northern; these were the only Underground lines which I'd used at that time. It's odd to think that it's reached the end of its life, and due to be replaced. That is my memory of the London Subway also. In the Early 1960s the tubes were, by and large served by 1938, and earlier stock. The sub- surface lines were CO and R stock served. The Victoria Line trains and the A stock on the Met. seemed SO modern. God, your making me feel my age, I can remember the 'Q' stock on the District, the 'T' & 'F' stock on the Met & the pre-1938 on the Central & Pic. I can also remember the loco hauled stock on the Met. -- Tony Dragon |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Recliner wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message rth.li On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Peter Masson wrote: "Tom Barry" wrote If they'd only had aircon... Among the problems with aircon on the tube lines is - where do you dump the heat? Presumably on, say, the Central or Piccadilly lines it would be possible to devise a system whereby the heat was retained on the train until it got to the open air, and then dumped, but Victoria Line trains stay underground all the time they are in service. No use cooling the trains if you just heat the tunnels even more. You'd have to install a fake open air. By which i mean some point on the line where trains could stop and offload their heat - some apparatus they sit inside which blows a gale of super-cooled damp air (or even water) into their heat exchangers, and sucks the warmed exhaust out again. You wouldn't want to do it in passenger service, but if you could build ten minutes into the schedule at one end, it could be done during turn-around. Admittedly, this would involve changing the Victoria operating principle quite a bit, but at least it's technically feasible. Ish. I think it makes a lot more sense to just take more heat out of the stations and maybe the tunnels as well. That means more surface ventilation fans running (which is think is already happening) and some sort of additional cooling, such as the plan to use heat exchangers with the cold ground water being pumped out. That way, the passengers in the stations benefit as well, and you don't need to complicate the already cramped trains any more than they are already. But you don't cool the interiors of the trains as much as you would with on-board AC. I don't doubt that a station cooling approach gets a better degrees-per-pound ratio, averaged over the whole underground space at least, and so is a more sensible option. But i do wonder if there aren't workable ways to get the insides of the trains cooler than is achievable that way. tom -- When I see a man on a bicycle I have hope for the human race. -- H. G. Wells |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
Tom Anderson wrote:
-- When I see a man on a bicycle I have hope for the human race. -- H. G. Wells H.G - meet Doug. |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
th.li On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Recliner wrote: "Tom Anderson" wrote in message rth.li On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Peter Masson wrote: "Tom Barry" wrote If they'd only had aircon... Among the problems with aircon on the tube lines is - where do you dump the heat? Presumably on, say, the Central or Piccadilly lines it would be possible to devise a system whereby the heat was retained on the train until it got to the open air, and then dumped, but Victoria Line trains stay underground all the time they are in service. No use cooling the trains if you just heat the tunnels even more. You'd have to install a fake open air. By which i mean some point on the line where trains could stop and offload their heat - some apparatus they sit inside which blows a gale of super-cooled damp air (or even water) into their heat exchangers, and sucks the warmed exhaust out again. You wouldn't want to do it in passenger service, but if you could build ten minutes into the schedule at one end, it could be done during turn-around. Admittedly, this would involve changing the Victoria operating principle quite a bit, but at least it's technically feasible. Ish. I think it makes a lot more sense to just take more heat out of the stations and maybe the tunnels as well. That means more surface ventilation fans running (which is think is already happening) and some sort of additional cooling, such as the plan to use heat exchangers with the cold ground water being pumped out. That way, the passengers in the stations benefit as well, and you don't need to complicate the already cramped trains any more than they are already. But you don't cool the interiors of the trains as much as you would with on-board AC. I don't doubt that a station cooling approach gets a better degrees-per-pound ratio, averaged over the whole underground space at least, and so is a more sensible option. But i do wonder if there aren't workable ways to get the insides of the trains cooler than is achievable that way. I'd say that cooling the stations is a pre-requsite to air-conditioning the trains, given how hot the Victoria Line tunnels already are. It's less of an issue with the other Tube lines, as the trains pump a lot of fresh air in already at the portals. |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
Tim Fenton wrote:
"1506" wrote in message ... That is my memory of the London Subway also. That's going a long way back. Kingsway closed along with the rest of the tram network in 1952. There seems to be a Subway on every street, these days... -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On Jul 23, 4:57*pm, Andy wrote:
And the regenerative braking on the new 2009 stock will also mean less heat released into the stations and tunnels in the first place. Ummm thats not strictly true. Overall you might be generating less heat directly from braking, true, but the type of train, with AC motors, will itself create more heat to be released, including indirectly from braking. Go back to the NR southern third rail zone power upgrade for Mk.1 stock replacement. What was that all about. All the new trains coming in had AC motors, replacing DC motors under the Mk.1s. The big issue was heating effect. AC motor characterisitics are such that it draws a higher constant current - this means the heating effect in lineside traction equipment is much increased - because heat dissipated is I^2*R [I-squared-R]. When the trains are regenerating, the heating effect in lineside eqpt is still I^2*R, it still is still being heated, it does not cool because it is reversed, and it does not cool because t gets no respite (like it does when a friction brake train brakes). A non regen braked train using friction brakes disspates the heat transformed from mechanical energy at the brake shoes/pads - wheel rim/disc interface. A regen braked train convert mechanical energy to electrical, which while contributing a useful energy saving does nonetheless heats lineside gear in doing so. 1967 stock Crompton/Brush LT115 DC traction motors are 53 kW cont. rating. 2009 stock Bombardier Mitrac AC traction motors are 75 kW cont. rating. 1967 stock 8-car trains are MTTMMTTM - 16 motors per train = 16 x 53 kW = 848 kW per train 2009 stock 8-car train are MTMMMMTM - 24 motors per train = 24 x 75 kW = 1800 kW per train All those motrs and traction packs get hot. A 2009 stock train draws over twice the traction load of 1967 stock, and thats before you look at DC v. AC, and before you look at auxiliary loads. All this air-con draws a load that was not there with 1967. Thats never put back into regen braking. Further, the service frequency will be increased, and there are more trains in service at any one time. True they will all regenerate, but there are more of them to accelerate in the first place, and accelerating at a higher rate. It all adds up - I bet one would not be far wrong to say current draw on the whole line with full TPH with 2009 stock may well be 3 times that of 1967 stock at the same voltage. Offset this by increasing from 630 V to 750 V which is a 30% current drop, so overall load doubled. All that heat has to go somehwere. And Peter is quite right, there is nowhere to dump the air-con load. NR southern zone has trackside power distrbution cables everywhere, LU does not, so at east not heating tunels that way. There is a substantial uplift in heating effect from the new trains. Unless my sums are seriously flawed, there'd have to be some seriously hefty cooling gear to cool stations. Gear that itself draws power ... maybe more than the entire train regenerated power is taken up by air- con ? -- Nick |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
"D7666" wrote There is a substantial uplift in heating effect from the new trains. Unless my sums are seriously flawed, there'd have to be some seriously hefty cooling gear to cool stations. Gear that itself draws power ... maybe more than the entire train regenerated power is taken up by air- con ? Add to that the congestion relief works at Victoria and the more frequent service, there'll be more passengers pumping kilowatts into the system. Perhaps the Victoria Line needs to be extended into the open air, at least so the piston effect of trains can add ventilation into the tunnels, and ideally so that the next generation (49 stock) can have aircon that takes heat out of the system and dumps it in the open air. Take over Chingford from National Rail? Quadruple Northumberland Park to Cheshunt, with a extended Victoria Line running the local service? Peter |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On Jul 24, 6:19*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Jul 23, 4:57*pm, Andy wrote: And the regenerative braking on the new 2009 stock will also mean less heat released into the stations and tunnels in the first place. Ummm thats not strictly true. Overall you might be generating less heat directly from braking, true, but the type of train, with AC motors, will itself create more heat to be released, including indirectly from braking. Ok, so how much more heat would be generated if the trains were not regenerating? Go back to the NR southern third rail zone power upgrade for Mk.1 stock replacement. What was that all about. All the new trains coming in had AC motors, replacing DC motors under the Mk.1s. The big issue was heating effect. And how much of the extra power requirement came from the trains being heavier. AC motor characterisitics are such that it draws a higher constant current - this means the heating effect in lineside traction equipment is much increased - because heat dissipated is I^2*R [I-squared-R]. When the trains are regenerating, the heating effect in lineside eqpt is still I^2*R, it still is still being heated, it does not cool because it is reversed, and it does not cool because t gets no respite (like it does when a friction brake train brakes). A non regen braked train using friction brakes disspates the heat transformed from mechanical energy at the brake shoes/pads - wheel rim/disc interface. A regen braked train convert mechanical energy to electrical, which while contributing a useful energy saving does nonetheless heats lineside gear in doing so. But much of the regenerated energy should be going into powering other trains, sure you need hefty lineside kit in case everything all brakes at the same time, but the Victoria line should be ideal for reusing the energy. Also isn't the peak current draw less with AC than DC. The AC motors will be warming up fairly constantly during the whole of the acceleration (and deccelaration) phases and so their heat production will be spread out. The old DC motors will warm up much more quickly at the start as that is the point of peak current draw and, of course, this is will be in the stations. 1967 stock Crompton/Brush LT115 DC traction motors are 53 kW cont. rating. 2009 stock Bombardier Mitrac AC traction motors are 75 kW cont. rating. 1967 stock 8-car trains are MTTMMTTM - 16 motors per train = 16 x 53 kW = 848 kW per train 2009 stock 8-car train are MTMMMMTM - 24 motors per train = 24 x 75 kW = 1800 kW per train All those motrs and traction packs get hot. Piers Connor (in his series The Underground Electric Train in Underground News, June 2007) say the following: "In order to make use of the additional throughput capability of the new signalling, the 2009 Stock has a higher performance than the current stock. The existing 1967 Tube Stock draws about 2,700 amps maximum, while the 2009 Tube Stock will draw 3,500 and is capable of drawing up to 4,500 amps." This looks like well under double the peak current draw. A 2009 stock train draws over twice the traction load of 1967 stock, and thats before you look at DC v. AC, and before you look at auxiliary loads. All this air-con draws a load that was not there with 1967. Thats never put back into regen braking. Further, the service frequency will be increased, and there are more trains in service at any one time. True they will all regenerate, but there are more of them to accelerate in the first place, and accelerating at a higher rate. It all adds up - I bet one would not be far wrong to say current draw on the whole line with full TPH with 2009 stock may well be 3 times that of 1967 stock at the same voltage. Offset this by *increasing from 630 V to 750 V which is a 30% current drop, so overall load doubled. All that heat has to go somehwere. And Peter is quite right, there is nowhere to dump the air-con load. Lineside equipment will be MUCH easier to cool, as it is in fixed locations which should already be ventilated. NR southern zone has trackside power distrbution cables everywhere, LU does not, so at east not heating tunels that way. There is a substantial uplift in heating effect from the new trains. Unless my sums are seriously flawed, there'd have to be some seriously hefty cooling gear to cool stations. Gear that itself draws power ... maybe more than the entire train regenerated power is taken up by air- con ? Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing for air conditioning to be fitted, but I still think you are mis-estimating the effect of regeneration on the total energy consumption and heating for the new trains. The whole point of regeneration is to reuse the energy which used to be 'wasted' in resistor banks on the trains (with the original rheostatic train brakes). My understanding is that little of the recovered energy goes back to the lineside equipment, if the current rails are not receptive, then the spare energy goes to resistors, like in older stock. The extra big lineside equipment is purely because more current is needed in the first place. |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
Andy wrote:
Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing for air conditioning to be fitted, but I still think you are mis-estimating the effect of regeneration on the total energy consumption and heating for the new trains. The whole point of regeneration is to reuse the energy which used to be 'wasted' in resistor banks on the trains (with the original rheostatic train brakes). My understanding is that little of the recovered energy goes back to the lineside equipment, if the current rails are not receptive, then the spare energy goes to resistors, like in older stock. The extra big lineside equipment is purely because more current is needed in the first place. What happened to the test of trackside rotating cylinders designed to store the energy from regenerative braking? |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
Peter Masson wrote:
Perhaps the Victoria Line needs to be extended into the open air, at least so the piston effect of trains can add ventilation into the tunnels, and ideally so that the next generation (49 stock) can have aircon that takes heat out of the system and dumps it in the open air. Take over Chingford from National Rail? Quadruple Northumberland Park to Cheshunt, with a extended Victoria Line running the local service? A few years ago, a significant proportion of trains went to Northumberland Park anyway - is that still true? I always wondered why - maybe it is to cool the line. |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
|
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On Jul 24, 10:15*pm, Andy wrote:
"In order to make use of the additional throughput capability of the new signalling, the 2009 Stock has a higher performance than the current stock. The existing 1967 Tube Stock draws about 2,700 amps maximum, while the 2009 Tube Stock will draw 3,500 and is capable of drawing up to 4,500 amps." This looks like well under double the peak current draw. You've missed the whole point. Its not the PEAK current thats the issue. This has been explained in uk.railway several times before - and it seems to be a fundamental issue that headline writers can't get right. With DC motors the PEAK current is very large but drops off very quickly and gets ever smaller as the train accelerates. With AC motors it is a constant current, its not as high as the DC peak, but it never tapers off, it is flat, across the whole train speed. But at all times it is considerably higher than the DC motor train at speed. 3500 A constant is much much more heating effect than 2700 A that drops off rapidly. Thats how AC asynchronous and DC commutator motors work, full stop. It all amounts to much much more I^2*R heat to get rid of when trains are motoring than from a DC motor train. -- Nick |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:57:26 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote: With AC motors it is a constant current, its not as high as the DC peak, but it never tapers off, it is flat, across the whole train speed. But at all times it is considerably higher than the DC motor train at speed. Although there is also the issue of DC versus RMS current. When they developed the cross-channel cables that transfer electricity between ..uk and .fr they made a schoolboy error and forgot they were transferring DC, with results that as far as I can tell only electrical engineers find actually amusing. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On Jul 24, 11:00*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: With AC motors it is a constant current, its not as high as the DC peak, but it never tapers off, it is flat, across the whole train speed. But at all times it is considerably higher than the DC motor train at speed. Although there is also the issue of DC versus RMS current. * Yes ... that can be a source of confusion ..... but we are talking here of the current draw on the DC traction third rail in both cases i.e. for both the DC motor [1967] and AC motor [2009] trains. RMS does not come into this debate in the discussion as it is a tthe moment. -- Nick |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:19:39 +0100, "Recliner" wrote: "Peter Masson" wrote in message "Recliner" wrote Surely there were large numbers of 1959 and 1962 stock trains in service by then? Admittedly, their design was pretty similar to the 1938s, so they may not have seen much newer. They did, and the 1959 stock were the first 'silver' trains - but they did not run on the lines used by the previous poster at the time. Weren't there silver R stock trains before then? 1949 IIRC - apparently they dismantled one after they were withdrawn and the body was reckoned to still have a few more years left in it. Unlike the 1959 & 1962 TS which had steel underframes, the R49 (and R59) stock was all-aluminium. 6 DMs were included in the R49 stock which otherwise ran with steel R38 converted DMs, allowing the formation of two all-aluminium 8 car trains. One train was left unpainted from its introduction in 1953. The first "silver" tube stock was the three 1956 prototype trains introduced on the Piccadilly Line, precursors of the 1959 TS. I have a picture of the unique West-end unpainted R49 DM at Earls Court on my web site. See www.rosenstiel.co.uk/trains. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On Jul 24, 10:57*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Jul 24, 10:15*pm, Andy wrote: "In order to make use of the additional throughput capability of the new signalling, the 2009 Stock has a higher performance than the current stock. The existing 1967 Tube Stock draws about 2,700 amps maximum, while the 2009 Tube Stock will draw 3,500 and is capable of drawing up to 4,500 amps." This looks like well under double the peak current draw. You've missed the whole point. No I've not, you've missed mine. You were the one mentioning 3 times the current draw, when the numbers say less than twice the current draw. Its not the PEAK current thats the issue. This has been explained in uk.railway several times before - and it seems to be a fundamental issue that headline writers can't get right. With DC motors the PEAK current is very large but drops off very quickly and gets ever smaller as the train accelerates. With AC motors it is a constant current, its not as high as the DC peak, but it never tapers off, it is flat, across the whole train speed. But at all times it is considerably higher than the DC motor train at speed. 3500 A constant is much much more heating effect than 2700 A that drops off rapidly. Thats how AC asynchronous and DC commutator motors work, full stop. But only constant current whilst the train is actually motoring, it would be a very strange train which was drawing 3500A when stationary or decelerating. I understand the workings of the different sorts of motors, I was just trying to point out that your estimates seemed to be in error. It all amounts to much much more I^2*R heat to get rid of when trains are motoring than from a DC motor train. Yes and as the current is being drawn much more consistently, a large proportion of the regained energy from the regeneration will be going into powering other trains, rather than heating braking resistors as it does at present. The current 1967 stock braking system will be dumping a lot of heat straight into the stations, with 2009 stock regeneration, a lot of that energy will instead be used. |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On Jul 24, 11:44*pm, Andy wrote:
No I've not, you've missed mine. You were the one mentioning 3 times the current draw, when the numbers say less than twice the current draw. If the cont power rating of 2009 stock is 1800 kW and the cont power rating of 1967 sock is 848 kW and they are both drawing that power at 630 V DC then that alone, comparing one 8-car train with another draws 2.12 times as much current from traction DC. Or are you going to tell me now that the Laws of Ohm, Kirchoff, Newton, and anyone else with an established theorem of electricity or mechanics is wrong ? If not then read on. Making no changes to the service, across the whole line, its must then follow as 2.12 times as much current. But there are 37 trains (I think) in the present timetable. That [I think] goes to 41 with full 2009 stock service post VUl. That actually up ~10%. So its 2.33 times the current. Thats the base load, on cont ratings, before we even look at one hour or short term overloads. Those new trains in the full timetable will work harder - instead of [?] 28 TPH they work 33[??] TPH - so they will be pushed harder with the new ATO than the old ATO does with 1967 stock. (You only have to go on the Central Line to see how a more modern ATO system pushes trains - and that is a system that is very like the one going in on VUL, just a refined version of it.) But only constant current whilst the train is actually motoring, In the same way the 1967 stock don't draw current all the time only when motoring. The *relative* load proportion of 1967 and 2009 stock at continuous rating thus remains at around 2.33 times. So far I've only looked at traction motor load. Add air con etc - anyone want to esitimate or state what the aircon load of 2009 stock is ? It is around 1 MW on a Eurostar. I'm not seriously suggesting 2009 stock is the same load, but write it as its the only one I know off the top of my head to show how siginificant these loads are. That traction load goes on top the 2.33 ... in round figures with auxiliary load we approach 3x. -- Nick |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
D7666 wrote:
If the cont power rating of 2009 stock is 1800 kW and the cont power rating of 1967 sock is 848 kW and they are both drawing that power at 630 V DC then that alone, comparing one 8-car train with another draws 2.12 times as much current from traction DC. Or are you going to tell me now that the Laws of Ohm, Kirchoff, Newton, and anyone else with an established theorem of electricity or mechanics is wrong ? If not then read on. Making no changes to the service, across the whole line, its must then follow as 2.12 times as much current. But there are 37 trains (I think) in the present timetable. That [I think] goes to 41 with full 2009 stock service post VUl. That actually up ~10%. So its 2.33 times the current. Thats the base load, on cont ratings, before we even look at one hour or short term overloads. Those new trains in the full timetable will work harder - instead of [?] 28 TPH they work 33[??] TPH - so they will be pushed harder with the new ATO than the old ATO does with 1967 stock. (You only have to go on the Central Line to see how a more modern ATO system pushes trains - and that is a system that is very like the one going in on VUL, just a refined version of it.) But only constant current whilst the train is actually motoring, In the same way the 1967 stock don't draw current all the time only when motoring. The *relative* load proportion of 1967 and 2009 stock at continuous rating thus remains at around 2.33 times. So far I've only looked at traction motor load. Add air con etc - anyone want to esitimate or state what the aircon load of 2009 stock is ? It is around 1 MW on a Eurostar. I'm not seriously suggesting 2009 stock is the same load, but write it as its the only one I know off the top of my head to show how siginificant these loads are. That traction load goes on top the 2.33 ... in round figures with auxiliary load we approach 3x. I suspect the aircon would only be on when the trains were regeneratively braking, or when a significant chunk of the fleet was stationary in the tunnel and drawing no motor power - possibly also when the trains were coasting, but I see no need to have the aircon working when the trains are accelerating. |
First passenger service journey for LUL 09 stock
On Jul 25, 12:14*am, D7666 wrote:
On Jul 24, 11:44*pm, Andy wrote: No I've not, you've missed mine. You were the one mentioning 3 times the current draw, when the numbers say less than twice the current draw. If the cont power rating of 2009 stock is 1800 kW and the cont power rating of 1967 sock is 848 kW and they are both drawing that power at 630 V DC then that alone, comparing one 8-car train with another draws 2.12 times as much current from traction DC. Or are you going to tell me now that the Laws of Ohm, Kirchoff, Newton, and anyone else with an established theorem of electricity or mechanics is wrong ? Stop being so condescending. If not then read on. Making no changes to the service, across the whole line, its must then follow as *2.12 times as much current. But there are 37 trains (I think) in the present timetable. That [I think] goes to 41 with full 2009 stock service post VUl. That actually up ~10%. So its 2.33 times the current. Thats the base load, on cont ratings, before we even look at one hour or short term overloads. Those new trains in the full timetable will work harder - instead of [?] 28 TPH they work 33[??] TPH - so they will be pushed harder with the new ATO than the old ATO does with 1967 stock. (You only have to go on the Central Line to see how a more modern ATO system pushes trains - and that is *a system that is very like the one going in on VUL, just a refined version of it.) But only constant current whilst the train is actually motoring, In the same way the 1967 stock don't draw current all the time only when motoring. The *relative* load proportion of 1967 and 2009 stock at continuous rating thus remains at around 2.33 times. So far I've only looked at traction motor load. Add air con etc - anyone want to esitimate or state what the aircon load of 2009 stock is ? What Aircon? 2009 stock isn't fitted although the S Stock will be. The original point of the discussion was why it hasn't got the aircon. It is around 1 MW on a Eurostar. I'm not seriously suggesting 2009 stock is the same load, but write it as its the only one I know off the top of my head to show how siginificant these loads are. That traction load goes on top the 2.33 ... in round figures with auxiliary load we approach 3x. Ok, another question, since you seem to be disregarding my attempts to point you towards the energy saving of the regeneration. Why are you assuming that R is constant when the modern AC motors and their control systems are considerably more efficient than the DC systems being replaced. A more powerful modern traction system doesn't necessarily generate twice as much heat just because it has twice as much power at its disposal. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk