Northern Line 1995 stock slow?

[Singing Rails]

Does anyone know why the current 1995 northern line trains accelerate so slowly, and also shudder whenever they start to move?

It seems unusual to me that these trains with newer AC traction than most of the LU fleet seems to have such poor performance when compared with them, can anyone shed some light?

 

[notadriver]

They are restricted due to power supply and signalling constraints.

 

[Pumbaa]

Travel on the High Barnet branch north of one of the various Finchleys now - it may change your mind

 

[Singing Rails]

Thanks for the replies, I went up to archway a short while ago, not quite far enough then?
I will try to go there if i can, currently it's my least favorite stock, maybe that will change if I see it at it's full potential so to speak.

 

[tom1649]

Never liked the 95ts, so bland and boring. My view may be skewed by the fact I used to be spoilt by the wonderful sounds and character of their 1959 predecessors.

I will have another go on them with the TBTC to see if they've becoming any more exciting. I'm prepared to give them another chance.

At least the 96ts on the Jubilee play a nice tune as they accelerate and brake.

 

[MCR247]

At least they aren't the 92ts

 

[Singing Rails]

At least they aren't the 92ts

I won't hear a bad word about the 92ts! they're the most comfortable and spacious deep level trains!

Anyway next week I'll be on the northern so i can check out the 'improved' part of the line.

 

[MCR247]

I won't hear a bad word about the 92ts! they're the most comfortable and spacious deep level trains!

Anyway next week I'll be on the northern so i can check out the 'improved' part of the line.

What?! The 92ts is easily the worst LU stock by far! Not even the c stock is that bad!!

 

[tom1649]

At least 92ts are quick off the mark. They were even quicker before they were toned down after a motor 'fell off' in service about 10 years ago. They probably have to use a stronger brand of masking tape to hold the motors in place these days.

 

[Nym]

There is a fundimental reason why the 92ts feels quicker than the 95ts or 09ts, look into the torque speed charicteristics for DC vs AC motors. You can also look into why using continuous or even short block intermittent ATO on DCs is a bad idea...

A better reply can come by PM or when I'm not on my way into work.

 

[tom1649]

Yes I've read about the ATO being very hard on the DC motors. That is of course when the ATO is working. I believe coded manual is used quite commonly on the Central, especially on the open sections of line.

One feature I do like on the 92ts is the nice big windows, something sadly not repeated on newer stocks.

 

[MCR247]

Yeah because it is expensive

 

[317666]

The 1995 Stock are quite boring, but saying that are fairly comfortable with their sprung seating. My favourite modern (post-1983) stock is the 1992 Stock though, with my least favourite being the 2009 Stock with its rock-hard seats and air vents which just get clogged with dirt and make the coach hotter!

 

[Nym]

To add in some more to the Continuous ATO + Brushed DC = Bad point, anything making use of non-stepped control systems that have a continuous power and braking curve will be bad for DC motors, you also have the age old issue that DC motors have all their torque at low speed and very little at high speed by comparison; where as AC motors tend to have lower starting torque, the issue comes where you think that trains don't want massive starting torque anyway, all it would do is result in spinning out the motored wheels...

 

[Mikey C]

Yes I've read about the ATO being very hard on the DC motors. That is of course when the ATO is working. I believe coded manual is used quite commonly on the Central, especially on the open sections of line.

One feature I do like on the 92ts is the nice big windows, something sadly not repeated on newer stocks.

Those big windows also mean the inhabitants of the greenhouse inside boil on the overground sections in summer!

Having such large windows has also made the seating very low and uncomfortable. I much prefer the 95s, as they have much nicer seating and general ambience inside!

 

[D365]

Yes I've read about the ATO being very hard on the DC motors. That is of course when the ATO is working. I believe coded manual is used quite commonly on the Central, especially on the open sections of line.

One feature I do like on the 92ts is the nice big windows, something sadly not repeated on newer stocks.

I heard the 96TS bodies were built to look visually similar to 83, as the two builds were planned to run together (even if the latter - last of the 'classic' line - had continued I suppose they would have been replaced in 2005 with the 7th carriages + 4 for ATO). 95ts shares the body with both types being Alstom (former Metro-Cammell). This is supposed to be one of the main factors in the difference to the 92 shell.

You don't really need windows on Victoria '09s

 

[90sWereBetter]

I actually like the 92 stock. Great character and they make a good noise when leaving stations, especially on the Epping branch.

 

[SteamontheMet]

Nothing Like at bit of 1959/62 Stock it ATO!