|
|
Post by igelkotten on Aug 26, 2005 12:29:08 GMT
In the Isle of Wight thread, Pete UXB posted a bit about the annual mileages of 38TS.
Does anyone have any more current fiugures about the annual mileage and MTBF:s for LU stock? Any NY figures from Zman would also be welcome!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2005 14:09:13 GMT
95ts has a facility to access the TMS level 2, via a small key in a switch on the Environment panel above the T/Ops head. On this, you could view the Mileage record for each car. And this is measured in Km.  . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2005 14:52:56 GMT
I'm sure I've read the figures somewhere, but I've had a look on the TfL website and can't see them now.
The only thing I found was "Every Tube train travels the distance from London to Sydney (10,500 miles) seven times a year." Which means that each train must travel approx 73,500 miles per year.
|
|
|
|
Post by igelkotten on Aug 26, 2005 15:32:53 GMT
And 73500 miles translates to roughly 118000 kilometres.
Which is quite close to the figures we see here in Stockholm -around 150000 km per year-, and I have seen similar figures reported from quite a few networks around the world.
I suppose that the very nature of a tube/metro/subway service, with it's relatively limited route length, urban character and operating hours makes this a sort of natural band for annual mileages to fall into. You simply end up in that area when you run on 70 km round trips, 16-20 hours per day, all year long. Dmitri, do you have any figures from Moscow? I suppose that they might be a bit higher.
Of course, main line trains can and do run quite a bit longer. The Swedish X2000 high speed train put away around 450-500000 km per year, and I have seen similar figures for other high-speed train services around the world. It is interesting to note that this means that some high speed trains run longer distances in a few years than a lot of steam locos did in their whole lifetimes. Which is, btw, one of the reasons that modern equipment doesn't last as long as some of the equipment of yesteryear -it is so much more heavily utilized.
|
|
|
|
Post by zman on Aug 27, 2005 2:41:57 GMT
In the Isle of Wight thread, Pete UXB posted a bit about the annual mileages of 38TS. Does anyone have any more current fiugures about the annual mileage and MTBF:s for LU stock? Any NY figures from Zman would also be welcome! Who am I to deny a request?!? ;D The 2003 MDBF (Mean Distance Between Failures: a measure commonly used within the industry to assess overall reliability of railcars) for all revenue equipment (passenger cars) in the NYC Subway was 145,644 miles. MDBF figures can be narrowed down to the type of equipment used upon request since the NYCTA uses 14 different types of passenger railcars. FYI, on the District, H&C and Circle lines, the MDBF is 13,500 miles. |
|
solidbond
Staff Emeritus
'Give me 118 reasons for an Audible Warning on a C Stock'
Posts: 1,215
|
Post by solidbond on Aug 27, 2005 9:48:57 GMT
In the Isle of Wight thread, Pete UXB posted a bit about the annual mileages of 38TS. Does anyone have any more current fiugures about the annual mileage and MTBF:s for LU stock? Any NY figures from Zman would also be welcome! Who am I to deny a request?!? ;D The 2003 MDBF (Mean Distance Between Failures: a measure commonly used within the industry to assess overall reliability of railcars) for all revenue equipment (passenger cars) in the NYC Subway was 145,644 miles. MDBF figures can be narrowed down to the type of equipment used upon request since the NYCTA uses 14 different types of passenger railcars. FYI, on the District, H&C and Circle lines, the MDBF is 13,500 miles. Actually the figures on LU vary quite dramatically between different stocks. For example, the C stock are at approx 9,000 to 10,000 km MDBF, although until about 2 years ago that figure was 3,500 km  The D stock however, is currently running at approx 25,000 km MDBF, although they were a lot higher a couple of years ago. The main reason for the reduction in the D stock reliability is the fact that they are now 25 years old, and have not had a major overhaul. Hopefully the refurbishment, although mainly cosmetic, will help to restore them to their previous reliability. |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Aug 27, 2005 9:58:22 GMT
I wonder what the MDBF was with some of the stuff we had in my time. Mind you some of the defects I saw would result in instant condemnation nowadays.
Holes infloors. Windows moving independently of their frames. Cars with half the lights out. Oh the list was endless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2005 10:03:46 GMT
Ha! Was once on a CEP unit ages ago going from Dover Priory. It was unit 1562. Station bloke had filled up the toilet water tank at Dover P. At Ashford, I was amazed to see water dripping through the ceiling panels. Told the Gaurd, the dripping got worse, and worse...until....Yep, around 250 gallons of water came down. Then theres the case of the gaurd on another Cep having to straddle a 2ft diameter hole right by the gaurds foor; he had to do the splits each time he looked out to give the Right Away!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri on Aug 27, 2005 18:53:18 GMT
I suppose that the very nature of a tube/metro/subway service, with it's relatively limited route length, urban character and operating hours makes this a sort of natural band for annual mileages to fall into. You simply end up in that area when you run on 70 km round trips, 16-20 hours per day, all year long. Interesting indeed  . That page gives average daily mileage of 517.7 km - 189 000 km per year. A retribution for the higher average speed? |
|
|
|
Post by igelkotten on Aug 29, 2005 11:23:32 GMT
That page gives average daily mileage of 517.7 km - 189 000 km per year. A retribution for the higher average speed? That was exactly what I was thinking about! Most ex-Soviet metros have higher average speeds and longer distances between the stations, so I suspected that they would end up running up a few more kilometres than their western counterparts. |
|
.
.
