daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 28th, 2010, 02:30 AM   #3981
davidaiow
Registered User
 
davidaiow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London E14/Isle of Wight
Posts: 544
Likes (Received): 5

^Excellent answer! I've always wondered that myself, thanks!

Loving the idea of feeling 'naughty'. Sounds brilliant.
davidaiow no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 29th, 2010, 03:08 AM   #3982
ranieri
Registered User
 
ranieri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18
Likes (Received): 5

LU Propulsion

Been reading several publications regarding rolling stock. I am reading about the very oldest and first electrified units of underground and surface stock. Let's take my favorite for example, "F" stock. What type of power was attached to the axles to make them go? I have rarely seen any mention of the manufacturer or type of propulsion. Not just the "F"'s, but any of unit of the system. This is nothing more than curiosity as it interersts me greatly as to what was used. Some of the rolling stock of the olden days was stunning. Now, with the newest models coming on-line, they are beautifully done and I hope I get to London next year to try them out. I live close to MYC and their units are a bore. Thanks
ranieri no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2010, 08:33 PM   #3983
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

I guess traction motors have always had the same basic design, just with greater refinements and more compact technology with time. I'm not overly techhy when it comes to traction, but my understanding is that traction motors always used to sit atop the bogey and engage with teeth on the axles to turn them. The big shift in technology is with newer stocks, where traction motors have been designed so compact they envelop each axle, so each axle on a motor car is powered.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2010, 01:55 AM   #3984
ranieri
Registered User
 
ranieri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18
Likes (Received): 5

Driving those motors

I too am not a mechanic or tech. I have seen the bogies (trucks over here) at the trasnit museum. They are very intracate. What has amazed me about the history of NY's equipment, was the recycling that went on. Not sure if the still do. Back in the beginning of electrification, when models were upgraded, they would simply switch the bogies from one unit to another. The even did that with new carriages. The old propulsion units would be tranferred to the new cars and presto, time to rock and roll. They must have really been built to last. On a side note, my 2002 PTCruiser is beginning to sound like the old elevated trains from 80 years ago. The front end is whining something fierce. Out here, in what was much farm land as far as they eye could see, we have the most minuscule public transit. I poor bus line. I miss being able to ride a train anywhere in the city of my birth. It's a shame.
ranieri no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2010, 01:48 AM   #3985
iranair777
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 327
Likes (Received): 7

This is quite a odd question, but how on earth does London underground make money? I know its as simple as tickets and adverts, but surely they cannot cover all aspects of the railway with just these? I mean, 1400 or so S class carriages is quite a lot and thats just within one order not including the maintenance of the railway and everything else. If its not in profit, why arn't lines shut down, or is it because of the fact its govt. owned now?
iranair777 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2010, 02:20 AM   #3986
future.architect
Far East London
 
future.architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,800
Likes (Received): 2031

Quote:
Originally Posted by iranair777 View Post
This is quite a odd question, but how on earth does London underground make money? I know its as simple as tickets and adverts, but surely they cannot cover all aspects of the railway with just these? I mean, 1400 or so S class carriages is quite a lot and thats just within one order not including the maintenance of the railway and everything else. If its not in profit, why arn't lines shut down, or is it because of the fact its govt. owned now?
it recives about £1 billion a year in subsidies. most people in the UK agree that public transport should not have to make money and should be ran with the best interests of the passengers in mind. Saying that many public transport systems do make a profit but its been decided that £1 billion a year is worth it for the tube.

It is also worth mentioning Dr Beaching, he was made railway minister in the 1960's and was given the task of making the railways pay. The way he tried to do this was to close 1/3 of the network. This scheme was very unpopular at the time and the effects of it are still felt today in many isolated comunities which used to have a railway but now dont. Today, with the advent of modern technology and computerised ticketing so you can see the routes people are taking, many of the closures would have been unnesceray. since then about 200 miles of track has been re opened and ultimately his plan did not work, the railways will never make a profit if you want to cover most of the population.

Last edited by future.architect; April 8th, 2010 at 02:27 AM.
future.architect no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2010, 03:00 AM   #3987
iranair777
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 327
Likes (Received): 7

surely the cost of the new trains alone are more than £1billion

so basically the underground isnt making any profit and is just there to serve the public. Then how come the prices go up so much every year when they know they wont make any extra money?
iranair777 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2010, 09:35 AM   #3988
sweek
Registered User
 
sweek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London NW1
Posts: 1,636
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by iranair777 View Post
surely the cost of the new trains alone are more than £1billion

so basically the underground isnt making any profit and is just there to serve the public. Then how come the prices go up so much every year when they know they wont make any extra money?
Tickets and advertising pretty much cover running costs, not the cost of building new infrastructure or upgrading lines, which TfL will always have to go back to the government for.
sweek no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2010, 12:46 PM   #3989
ChrisH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 351
Likes (Received): 12

There are very few metro systems in the world that make a profit*. London Underground covers about 80% of its operating costs through tickets, advertising and rental of shops within stations. As you say, the costs for expansion are sought differently, and in effect come through the government, or through borrowing against future fare income. LU is in a financial mess at the moment because of the failed public-private partnership which was intended to fund the upgrade works currently going on.

* Hong Kong’s does make a profit because the government owns all the land, gives it to the MTR for free and lets the MTR keep all the rental income from the skyscrapers built on top of the stations. It’s also more modern so has less expensive maintenance. At the other end of the spectrum is/was Moscow. During the Soviet era it was effectively free to use, with the government swallowing all of the costs of maintaining it. Of course they were running a pretty different financial system!
ChrisH no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2010, 09:45 PM   #3990
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Yeah basically as Sweek says, we cover operating costs through fare and advertising revenue and as such pretty much break even.

What we haven't got a hope in hell of financing through fare receipts is investment in new rolling stock, signalling, track replacements etc. That's where the ill-fated experiment that was PPP came in; we got private capital in to pay for the upgrades in return for a guaranteed return over a prolonged period, ultimately it was essentially taxpayers' money, only rife for exploitation by dubious sub-contracts and sub-sub contracts and any fat was channelled off into dividends for the shareholders of the constituent private companies investing the money. The result was huge debts being run up through reckless awarding of contracts and sloppy working practices, such that when Metronet eventually folded it owed over a billion that LU were obliged to find when it re-absorbed the company. To add insult to injury we've just similarly had to pay Tubelines (who remain independent) 1/2 billion at the arbiter, which is admittedly better than the 3 billion they wanted us to pay for their over-spend on the Jubilee and Northern upgrades (they wanted 7 billion off us, we only wanted to give 4... arbiter said 4.5).

All this 1.5 billion that has been foisted upon us is having to be financed by operating efficiencies, hence we're cutting 800 operational staff in the next 10 months. Basically, jobs are being lost thanks to the greed and inefficiencies of the PPP companies... and ultimately John Prescott and Gordon Brown who imposed the whole sorry system on London Underground, despite the strong protestations from Ken Livingstone and Tim O'Toole.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2010, 12:03 AM   #3991
iranair777
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 327
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Yeah basically as Sweek says, we cover operating costs through fare and advertising revenue and as such pretty much break even.

What we haven't got a hope in hell of financing through fare receipts is investment in new rolling stock, signalling, track replacements etc. That's where the ill-fated experiment that was PPP came in; we got private capital in to pay for the upgrades in return for a guaranteed return over a prolonged period, ultimately it was essentially taxpayers' money, only rife for exploitation by dubious sub-contracts and sub-sub contracts and any fat was channelled off into dividends for the shareholders of the constituent private companies investing the money. The result was huge debts being run up through reckless awarding of contracts and sloppy working practices, such that when Metronet eventually folded it owed over a billion that LU were obliged to find when it re-absorbed the company. To add insult to injury we've just similarly had to pay Tubelines (who remain independent) 1/2 billion at the arbiter, which is admittedly better than the 3 billion they wanted us to pay for their over-spend on the Jubilee and Northern upgrades (they wanted 7 billion off us, we only wanted to give 4... arbiter said 4.5).

All this 1.5 billion that has been foisted upon us is having to be financed by operating efficiencies, hence we're cutting 800 operational staff in the next 10 months. Basically, jobs are being lost thanks to the greed and inefficiencies of the PPP companies... and ultimately John Prescott and Gordon Brown who imposed the whole sorry system on London Underground, despite the strong protestations from Ken Livingstone and Tim O'Toole.
Tis a shame really. if the underground was completely private owned it may of raised the standards of the lines and actually be in profit
iranair777 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2010, 12:34 AM   #3992
ajw373
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,249
Likes (Received): 48

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
All this 1.5 billion that has been foisted upon us is having to be financed by operating efficiencies, hence we're cutting 800 operational staff in the next 10 months. Basically, jobs are being lost thanks to the greed and inefficiencies of the PPP companies... and ultimately John Prescott and Gordon Brown who imposed the whole sorry system on London Underground, despite the strong protestations from Ken Livingstone and Tim O'Toole.
This is something I don't understand about the UK political system. Who actually owns TfL? Is it the National Government or the City of London government?
ajw373 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2010, 12:35 AM   #3993
future.architect
Far East London
 
future.architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,800
Likes (Received): 2031

Quote:
Originally Posted by iranair777 View Post
Tis a shame really. if the underground was completely private owned it may of raised the standards of the lines and actually be in profit
but that is the point. why should it make a profit? we dont expect schools or hospitals to make a profit? surely it is better being publicly owned and ran in the best interests of the passengers. remember private companies need to pay thier shareholders, that money could be going into improving the network, if the tube was privitesed expect 20% or more to be closed. the uk rail network was privitised in the late 1990's and that was a disaster, litteraly at least 70 people died because the private company in charge of maintaing the track was not doing its job properly.

Last edited by future.architect; April 9th, 2010 at 12:47 AM.
future.architect no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2010, 09:30 PM   #3994
Gag Halfrunt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 719
Likes (Received): 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajw373 View Post
This is something I don't understand about the UK political system. Who actually owns TfL? Is it the National Government or the City of London government?
Neither - Transport for London is part of the Greater London Authority.

Note that the City of London is not the same thing as Greater London:
Quote:
The City of London is a small area within Greater London, England. It is the historic core of London around which the modern conurbation grew and has held city status since time immemorial. The City’s boundaries have remained almost unchanged since the Middle Ages, and it is now only a tiny part of the metropolis of London, though remains a notable part of Central London. It is often referred to as the City or the Square Mile, as it is just over one square mile (1.12 sq mi/2.90 km2) in area. These terms are also often used as metonyms for the United Kingdom's financial services industry, which has historically been based here.

In the medieval period, the City was the full extent of London. The term London now refers to a much larger conurbation roughly corresponding to Greater London, a local government area which includes 32 London boroughs as well as the City of London, which is not one of the 32 London boroughs. The local authority for the City, the City of London Corporation, is unique in the United Kingdom, and has some unusual responsibilities for a local authority in Britain, such as being the police authority for the City. It also has responsibilities and ownerships beyond the City's boundaries. The Corporation is headed by the Lord Mayor of the City of London, a separate (and much older) office to the Mayor of London.
Gag Halfrunt no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2010, 10:04 PM   #3995
lightrail
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 205
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by future.architect View Post
it recives about £1 billion a year in subsidies. most people in the UK agree that public transport should not have to make money and should be ran with the best interests of the passengers in mind. Saying that many public transport systems do make a profit but its been decided that £1 billion a year is worth it for the tube.

It is also worth mentioning Dr Beaching, he was made railway minister in the 1960's and was given the task of making the railways pay. The way he tried to do this was to close 1/3 of the network. This scheme was very unpopular at the time and the effects of it are still felt today in many isolated comunities which used to have a railway but now dont. Today, with the advent of modern technology and computerised ticketing so you can see the routes people are taking, many of the closures would have been unnesceray. since then about 200 miles of track has been re opened and ultimately his plan did not work, the railways will never make a profit if you want to cover most of the population.
I'm not so sure it dodn't work. Many would argue that Beaching saved the railways. Before Beaching, many railways duplicated each other, making it expensive to operate. Also, before Beaching, railways were closing. The Beaching Report recommended a systematic closure of railways with profitability being the sole reason and through that public service.

Not all of Beaching's recommended closures occured. If the Beaching Report had been followed to the letter, with the exception of long distance trains between London and northern cities, there would have been no rail service north of London.

Beaching was drastic, no doubt. And today, with many lines reopening, it's easy to say Beaching was wrong. But at the time, it made sense.

I can't believe I'm defending Beaching - probably the most imfamous name in UK rail history.
lightrail no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2010, 11:13 PM   #3996
ajw373
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,249
Likes (Received): 48

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gag Halfrunt View Post
Neither - Transport for London is part of the Greater London Authority.

Note that the City of London is not the same thing as Greater London:
Yeah, knew there were two 'London' governments, was meaning the one with Borris as the Mayor. Though still doesn't quite help understanding why, if TfL is part of the Greater London Authority why Whitehall has so much 'influence'.
ajw373 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2010, 12:11 AM   #3997
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Hi Tubeman.

Do you know if the new S Stock for the Circle and H&C lines will be 7 cars long like on the District. If so, what are they going to do about the 6 car platforms on the western edge of the Circle? Also do you know if the S7s will have a more capacious seating layout compared to the S8s on the Metropolitan line?
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2010, 07:05 PM   #3998
Acemcbuller
Lifelong Londoner
 
Acemcbuller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London
Posts: 204
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajw373 View Post
why, if TfL is part of the Greater London Authority why Whitehall has so much 'influence'.
Because it chooses to !?!
I don't know any details but bear in mind that the GLA's money mainly comes from Whitehall. It only gets to raise a bit through Council Tax.
Acemcbuller no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2010, 11:09 PM   #3999
Damarr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 58
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by iranair777 View Post
Tis a shame really. if the underground was completely private owned it may of raised the standards of the lines and actually be in profit
I can't see why private companies would raise standards since they would have a monopoly on the lines. There would be no incentive.
Damarr no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2010, 12:29 PM   #4000
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Hi Tubeman.

Do you know if the new S Stock for the Circle and H&C lines will be 7 cars long like on the District. If so, what are they going to do about the 6 car platforms on the western edge of the Circle? Also do you know if the S7s will have a more capacious seating layout compared to the S8s on the Metropolitan line?
I think the plan is currently for 7 cars to replace C and D stocks, which will require platform lengthening and / or selective door opening at Notting Hill Gate, Bayswater, and Paddington (Praed Street). It has changed a couple of times so don't quote me on that... I was under the impression all S Stocks were going to be identical 7 car trains for flexibility?
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
london, railways, tube

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium